West Anglia Mainline - the future

[Falcon1200]

The big changes were in the 1990s: Kings Cross became the main route for Cambridge trains and the Stansted Express became the most important service on the West Anglia Main Line.

Indeed, It is interesting how the Cambridge/London service has changed over the years; From the effective downgrading of the Kings X route with electrification to Royston and loss of the Buffet Expresses, to a complete reversal now where Liverpool Street is very much the secondary route.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would envisage a double track slow running lines to the east of the current layout extending what has been done to Meridian Water albeit this would involve some demolition.

The plan was CR2 would use the existing lines and stations, with new fast lines built to the east (and no platforms, except Tottenham Hale, Cheshunt and Broxbourne).

 

[321362]

I think CR2 should use the existing line between Hackney Downs and Cheshunt, and the Greater Anglia services south of Tottenham Hale should all be diverted via Stratford. Although it would add a few minutes onto the journey time, Stratford is a major hub that deserves better connections north. If the Stansted Express called there you would likely attract passengers who would otherwise travel by coach to Stansted.

Chingford services:
1. A part of CR2
2. Reinstate the curve at Coppermill/Clapton Junctions and send them to Stratford
3. Running as is, meaning that CR2 would probably skip Clapton

 

[JonathanH]

If the Stansted Express called there you would likely attract passengers who would otherwise travel by coach to Stansted.

Is that important?

Is there a need to disrupt the coach market? The coaches only leave from Stratford because of easy access to the A12, not because that is where the demand necessarily originates.

 

[William3000]

I think CR2 should use the existing line between Hackney Downs and Cheshunt, and the Greater Anglia services south of Tottenham Hale should all be diverted via Stratford. Although it would add a few minutes onto the journey time, Stratford is a major hub that deserves better connections north. If the Stansted Express called there you would likely attract passengers who would otherwise travel by coach to Stansted.

Chingford services:
1. A part of CR2
2. Reinstate the curve at Coppermill/Clapton Junctions and send them to Stratford
3. Running as is, meaning that CR2 would probably skip Clapton

It could be compensated by increasing speeds on the new lines to 100mph

 

[Instinct04]

I think CR2 should use the existing line between Hackney Downs and Cheshunt, and the Greater Anglia services south of Tottenham Hale should all be diverted via Stratford. Although it would add a few minutes onto the journey time, Stratford is a major hub that deserves better connections north. If the Stansted Express called there you would likely attract passengers who would otherwise travel by coach to Stansted.

Chingford services:
1. A part of CR2
2. Reinstate the curve at Coppermill/Clapton Junctions and send them to Stratford
3. Running as is, meaning that CR2 would probably skip Clapton

1. Diverting all GA trains on the WAML via Stratford is not a good idea. The junctions near Bow are single lead aren’t they? This isn’t ideal for all day trains crossing between the GEML fasts and WA lines at Stratford.

It would also cause conflict with the GEML fast services too. They would need to cross onto the slows and a suitable junction hasn’t been built yet (I think).

Not to mention the increased journey times from the likes of Cambridge, Stortford, Harlow and Hertford to London. This would not be popular.

Stratford should be served more on the WAML routes, don’t get me wrong, but diverting all the trains via there is not the way to do it.

CR2 going into tunnel south of Tottenham Hale and running on seperate slow lines north of there allows for GA fast services to be separated. This IMO would allow for more trains on the WAML, of which some could serve Stratford.

Going via Hackney on the existing lines would create conflicts and congest further an already constrained route.

2. The coppermill curve should be reinstated, but IMO I would create a new 2tph (maybe even 4 as the trains would be well used) service from Chingford to Stratford. Leave the current 4tph as it is. Residents of Chingford and Walthamstow would not want to lose their direct services into the City of London.

A new bay would need to be constructed at Stratford, including a new bridge over HS1. How much this would cost, I’m not sure.

I like this idea though!

3. CR2 services, if they were to run to Liverpool Street (which they should not) would obviously stop at Clapton. This would be to reintroduce links from East to North London which were lost many years ago with the withdrawl of the Hertford trains stopping there.

———

Finally, if CR2 were to go via the current lines through Hackney Downs, where on earth would the portal go? That whole line is on a viaduct.

To do it you would need to create a junction from one of the pair of tracks, and make a tunnel beside the viaduct. (Where there was space, which there is not)

All of the construction, planning permission, compulsory purchases would be too much.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think CR2 should use the existing line between Hackney Downs and Cheshunt, and the Greater Anglia services south of Tottenham Hale should all be diverted via Stratford. Although it would add a few minutes onto the journey time, Stratford is a major hub that deserves better connections north. If the Stansted Express called there you would likely attract passengers who would otherwise travel by coach to Stansted.

Chingford services:
1. A part of CR2
2. Reinstate the curve at Coppermill/Clapton Junctions and send them to Stratford
3. Running as is, meaning that CR2 would probably skip Clapton

There is nowhere at Hackney for the Portal. And neither is there capacity on the GEML for the trains from the WAML. Other than that…

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2025 ==

It could be compensated by increasing speeds on the new lines to 100mph

IIRC it was going to be 110.

 

[Instinct04]

IIRC it was going to be 110.

Would the 720s and 745s be upgraded for 110mph?

I heard that this was looked at on the GEML somewhere near Chelmsford, but it was discarded as being too expensive for too little benefit.

 

[321362]

Would the 720s and 745s be upgraded for 110mph?

I heard that this was looked at on the GEML somewhere near Chelmsford, but it was discarded as being too expensive for too little benefit.

I think the 745s can theoretically do 110 (125?) but they never have, as there's pretty much nowhere that they'd be able to hit top speed.

Not sure about the 720s

 

[dk1]

Would the 720s and 745s be upgraded for 110mph?

I heard that this was looked at on the GEML somewhere near Chelmsford, but it was discarded as being too expensive for too little benefit.

Yes absolutely no gain to be had without massive expense. The entire route north of Chelmsford was looked at but very poor value for money.

 

[Instinct04]

Can someone tell me why the WAML top speed is NOT 100mph?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would the 720s and 745s be upgraded for 110mph?

The Crossrail2 plans predated the ordering of the 720s / 745s.

I heard that this was looked at on the GEML somewhere near Chelmsford, but it was discarded as being too expensive for too little benefit.

It was a cursory investigation, for everywhere east of Shenfield on the main line, but the benefits were minimal. Essentially the higher speed just meant that the quick trains caught the stoppers earlier west of Ipswich. The answer from that study (and again this was before the 720s and 745s were ordered) was to buy trains with better acceleration, as that was by far the best value way of reducing journey times. And so it proved.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

The Crossrail2 plans predated the ordering of the 720s / 745s.




It was a cursory investigation, for everywhere east of Shenfield on the main line, but the benefits were minimal. Essentially the higher speed just meant that the quick trains caught the stoppers earlier west of Ipswich. The answer from that study (and again this was before the 720s and 745s were ordered) was to buy trains with better acceleartion, as that was by far the best value way of reducing journey times. And so it proved.

Reality is that the 745s don't really travel 100mph between Shenfield and Colchester that often because they just catch the train in front. The 745s on clear tracks could probably Norwich in 90 as a normal timing even with existing stopping patterns.

 

[Instinct04]

Would connecting the Meridian Water shuttle track to the mainline help slow services overtake fast ones? Also maybe a connection from the shuttle line to the mainlines at Tottenham Hale too? This would enable looping to be done during times of disruption etc.

 

[Magdalia]

Would connecting the Meridian Water shuttle track to the mainline help slow services overtake fast ones?

Speculative discussion has some extreme ideas but I think this is the first time that I have seen a proposal where the purpose is to allow slow trains to overtake fast trains.

Also maybe a connection from the shuttle line to the mainlines at Tottenham Hale too?

There is a lot of cost here, for new track and new signalling. The benefits are very hard to see, given that Copper Mill to Meridian Water is less than 3 miles, and Tottenham Hale, where everything stops, is in between.

This would enable looping to be done during times of disruption etc.

It is much more cost effective to manage the risk of disruption than to build a lot of expensive infrastructure that only gets used when disruption happens.

 

[Instinct04]

Speculative discussion has some extreme ideas but I think this is the first time that I have seen a proposal where the purpose is to allow slow trains to overtake fast trains.

Sorry! I meant to allow FAST services to overtake slower ones!

 

[Farnborough]

It's a VERY small issue but why is it that the XX:13/XX:23 Meridian Water - Stratford services don't connect with the XX:14/XX:44 Hertford East - Liverpool Street services?

How feasible is it to add three minutes dwell time to both trains?

Otherwise you end up with the MW-Str pulling in as the HFE-LLS departs

 

[Instinct04]

How feasible is it to add three minutes dwell time to both trains?

I now understand why the MW - Stratford trains can't connect with the HE - LST trains. But what I meant was if they could be scheduled to leave Tottenham Hale at the same time? Like if the Stratford service left at xx:14, xx:44 like the Liverpool Street trains.

Of course, any delays on the mainlines would destroy this connection, and then again would only be possible for able-bodied people in the front coaches of the train anyway. (It would be impossible for someone in a wheelchair, or someone using a walking stick/frame in coach 10)

Otherwise you end up with the MW-Str pulling in as the HFE-LLS departs

My original rant was about people from the likes of Brimsdown/Ponders End wanting to go to Stratford and just missing the shuttle train at Tottenham Hale. They would then have to wait 12 minutes for a train to Stratford coming from Bishops Stortford (these don't stop at either Brimsdown or Ponders End)

MW to LST passengers only have a 4-minute wait for the next train to Liverpool Street (which is a Stansted Express, direct without stops.) It wouldn't be too much of an issue as it only gets to LST about 3 minutes after the Hertford service anyway...

 

[Farnborough]

They would then have to wait 12 minutes for a train...

I trust you will forgive my lack of sympathy for a 12 minute wait, compared to my 1tph from FNN, and 2tph (plus an occasionally Pompy stopper) from FNM

 

[Instinct04]

I trust you will forgive my lack of sympathy for a 12 minute wait, compared to my 1tph from FNN, and 2tph (plus an occasionally Pompy stopper) from FNM

I know. It’s such a London thing really. I was at Tottenham Hale earlier this week, and the Stratford train on platform 2 pulled away just as the ex Hertford arrived. Many annoyed passengers.

Waiting 12 minutes is fine, it’s the *just missing it* part that seems to annoy people. If only it left Tottenham Hale at XX:41/42 so it wasn’t even there when the ex Hertford pulled in

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2025 ==

I dug out an old book with the electrification around 1960, and there was apparently provision for lot more 4 tracking as the new towns (those post WW2 overspill developments) were expected to grow much bigger at the time. These locations are generally fairly obvious even today from the lattice masts that spanned the potential extra tracks (although some have been replaced)

Wasn't complete 4 tracking, but was 4 tracks between (and including) pairs of stations. The idea being fast train could overtake whilst slower one was between the two stations that it was stopping at.

Of course these days electric trains accelerate much faster, so possibly couldn't overtake a stopper calling at two stations, and the fast train be sufficiently far ahead not to delay the stopper.

What stations would have 4 tracks running through/between them?

If this went ahead all those years ago, what would the benefits have been? (Both then and now) ?