Future expansion of Stansted Airport Transport

[Trainfan344]

As Stansted looks to expand and rail demand increases, what could be done for the expansion of services?

The current set up has limited expansion room, would it be possible to relocate the site and use the current tunnel and station for a rapid transport system?

Is there anything planned?

 

[AlastairFraser]

As Stansted looks to expand and rail demand increases, what could be done for the expansion of services?

The current set up has limited expansion room, would it be possible to relocate the site and use the current tunnel and station for a rapid transport system?

Is there anything planned?

I don't know of anything planned, but an extension over the old railway trackbed from Braintree to Stansted, with a deviation from east of Great Dunmow to the airport, would help alleviate issues with platform capacity/capacity in the tunnel by enabling services to continue to Liverpool St via Braintree.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't know of anything planned, but an extension over the old railway trackbed from Braintree to Stansted, with a deviation from east of Great Dunmow to the airport, would help alleviate issues with platform capacity/capacity in the tunnel by enabling services to continue to Liverpool St via Braintree.

Except it wouldn’t - as the tunnel capacity is maxed out regardless of where the trains go east of it, and there’s no space on the GEML for these services.

The only answer to increase capacity at Stansted is a second tunnel or a new line in from Spellbrook. Even then the limiting factors are further south, ie capacity south of Broxbourne and London terminal capacity (hence Crossrail 2).

Having said all that, with 12 car 745s running around, it will be a while before capacity is an issue.

 

[Magdalia]

The current set up has limited expansion room, would it be possible to relocate the site and use the current tunnel and station for a rapid transport system?

Where is the other end of your proposed rapid transport system? What purpose would it serve?

I don't know of anything planned, but an extension over the old railway trackbed from Braintree to Stansted, with a deviation from east of Great Dunmow to the airport, would help alleviate issues with platform capacity/capacity in the tunnel by enabling services to continue to Liverpool St via Braintree.

Getting a rail route from Stansted Airport to Braintree on the old trackbed isn't going to happen. First it is necessary to get out of the existing Stansted Airport station and onto the old trackbed crossing both the new and old versions of the A120. Then it is necessary to get through or round Dunmow where the trackbed has disappeared. In particular the substantial viaduct over the River Chelmer, just east of Dunmow, was demolished many years ago. And virtually all of the trackbed that survived has been repurposed as a cycleway.

The only answer to increase capacity at Stansted is a second tunnel or a new line in from Spellbrook.

I can't see a line from Spelbrook (Great Eastern Railway spelling as it appeared on the signal box!) ever happening either, unless it also involved a second tunnel. There is now a very tangled spaghetti of roads to negotiate between the Birchanger Junction on the M11 and the Airport, and such a new line would also need to avoid the grounds of Hatfield House.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't see a line from Spelbrook (Great Eastern Railway spelling as it appeared on the signal box!) ever happening either, unless it also involved a second tunnel. There is now a very tangled spaghetti of roads to negotiate between the Birchanger Junction on the M11 and the Airport, and such a new line would also need to avoid the grounds of Hatfield House.

It would only happen if the airport paid. Agreed it needs a tunnel or a longish viaduct with a rollercoaster profile.

It would knock about 8 minutes off the London - airport time. Stortford residents would be somewhat annoyed, however.

 

[RailWonderer]

Except it wouldn’t - as the tunnel capacity is maxed out regardless of where the trains go east of it, and there’s no space on the GEML for these services.

There is, pre 2004 there was a fast Ipswich off peak which is a path extra than there is now. Plus you would only extend the off peak Braintree to Stansted but for the obvious reasons pointed out it won't happen. The WA though is full to capacity and the line is intensively used already.

 

[Meerkat]

How was the current tunnel built - bored or cut and cover - i assume the latter would now be impossible for a second tunnel in terms of runway closure?
Am I right in thinking the station was built with Passive provision to become a through station? Beyond that seems to be a long thin short stay car park keeping the route clear.
My crayons don’t fancy Braintree but heading round the end of the runway to join the WAML north of Elsenham.
Not even sure it needs to be a through station or just new end on terminal platforms for all trains coming from the north - XC and Norwich etc

 

[Bald Rick]

There is, pre 2004 there was a fast Ipswich off peak which is a path extra than there is now. Plus you would only extend the off peak Braintree to Stansted but for the obvious reasons pointed out it won't happen. The WA though is full to capacity and the line is intensively used already.

That path has gone now.

How was the current tunnel built - bored or cut and cover - i assume the latter would now be impossible for a second tunnel in terms of runway closure?
Am I right in thinking the station was built with Passive provision to become a through station? Beyond that seems to be a long thin short stay car park keeping the route clear.
My crayons don’t fancy Braintree but heading round the end of the runway to join the WAML north of Elsenham.
Not even sure it needs to be a through station or just new end on terminal platforms for all trains coming from the north - XC and Norwich etc

Bored.

Yes the route was kept clear there.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Stansted, like Manchester is on an unfortunate branch line meaning it doesn't connect well with the rest of the region.

As mentioned, I'd like to see Stansted linked up to the GEML and maybe a new triangle at Shenfield to serve Southend.

Re. capacity on the GEML. There was once a transport campaigner in South west London by the name of Stephen Colbourne, wrote an interesting blog of his ideas in the early '10s and saw him at a couple of Crossrail 2 consultation meetings around South London. He had an interesting idea for an Anglia relief line from London along the M11 to the Stansted area with branches via I think, the Epping/Ongar branch (extended to Chelmsford) and the Stansted to Braintree branch. Given the freight along the Great Eastern trackage a relief line would be welcome.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Except it wouldn’t - as the tunnel capacity is maxed out regardless of where the trains go east of it, and there’s no space on the GEML for these services.

The only answer to increase capacity at Stansted is a second tunnel or a new line in from Spellbrook. Even then the limiting factors are further south, ie capacity south of Broxbourne and London terminal capacity (hence Crossrail 2).

Having said all that, with 12 car 745s running around, it will be a while before capacity is an issue.

I wasn't suggesting new GEML services, I was suggesting extending towards Braintree to run in the path of the existing GEML Braintree services. This would mean better links from the airport to Chelmsford/Colchester too.

As you said, no capacity further south - although I'd say @Meerkat's idea of building terminus platforms at the other end with a branch from south of Elsenham wouldn't be a bad idea - especially given the connections from the north are generally poorer for public transport than to the south. That idea still allows a rebuild towards Braintree in future, if wanted.

Something like this, for example -

Getting a rail route from Stansted Airport to Braintree on the old trackbed isn't going to happen. First it is necessary to get out of the existing Stansted Airport station and onto the old trackbed crossing both the new and old versions of the A120. Then it is necessary to get through or round Dunmow where the trackbed has disappeared. In particular the substantial viaduct over the River Chelmer, just east of Dunmow, was demolished many years ago. And virtually all of the trackbed that survived has been repurposed as a cycleway.

Yes, you'd need about 6.75 miles of new alignment to build towards the Flitch way trackbed, with about 1.5 miles of that in tunnel (first section of tunnel to proceed out of the airport property, second section to tunnel under the western A120 Great Dunmow junction - to the immediate west of that tunnel, you'd place a parkway station).
For example, see below for a potential alignment:

And you'd then need to reuse the Flitch Way, which is broadly unobstructed the whole way to Braintree.
While you'd lose the amenity of the cycle path, the railway's connections make it much more valuable to Essex.
If you really wanted another rail trail, you could convert the nearby former railway alignment from Halstead to Haverhill.

Re. capacity on the GEML. There was once a transport campaigner in South west London by the name of Stephen Colbourne, wrote an interesting blog of his ideas in the early '10s and saw him at a couple of Crossrail 2 consultation meetings around South London. He had an interesting idea for an Anglia relief line from London along the M11 to the Stansted area with branches via I think, the Epping/Ongar branch (extended to Chelmsford) and the Stansted to Braintree branch. Given the freight along the Great Eastern trackage a relief line would be welcome.

Hmmm. If you were to do this scale of project, it would be easier to grade separate the WAML junction just before Cheshunt station, tunnel under the Lea valley to Holyfield (approx. halfway between Waltham Abbey and Nazeing), continue on a surface alignment from there to the M11 and then finally an alignment parallel towards Stansted.

Even in tunnel, his idea of London-Stansted via the M11 is going to be very,very messy south of Debden.

 

[PTR 444]

What about a new high speed line that relieves the southern portions of the GEML, WAML and ECML all at once? My idea would be to route it from Kings Cross to a point north of Huntingdon via the M11 and A14 corridors, with an intermediate through station at Stansted Airport and chord onto the classic line at Cambridge. Could form part of a future eastern high speed line, you never know…

If this was realised, you could divert all ECML Intercity trains via this new line, as well as London - Kings Lynn and even London - Norwich if it becomes faster than going via Ipswich.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wasn't suggesting new GEML services, I was suggesting extending towards Braintree to run in the path of the existing GEML Braintree services. This would mean better links from the airport to Chelmsford/Colchester too.

But then that isn’t additional capacity to Stansted, except for those from Shenfield and Chelmsford (at one train an hour).

 

[Royston Vasey]

As Stansted looks to expand and rail demand increases, what could be done for the expansion of services?

The current set up has limited expansion room, would it be possible to relocate the site and use the current tunnel and station for a rapid transport system?

Is there anything planned?

12 coaches of mostly fresh air four times an hour is more than enough to London. The question becomes where additionally you'd want to connect Stansted to, and whether you'd divert or replace a Liverpool Street service to do so. A 720 from Stansted to Stratford and deep into Essex? Perhaps, but I can't see too much demand for that.

Expanding Stansted to Cambridge and beyond could be worth considering. There is currently an hourly 755/4 to Norwich and an hourly 170 to Birmingham on this route.

The XC 170 dwells in the short platform 2 for almost 45 minutes most hours, with nowhere to shunt to, so although you could lengthen P2 a bit, maybe enough for a 755/4, there wouldn't be much point as you couldn't use it. The XCs never fill to Cambridge anyway so they themselves needn't be any longer.

The hourly Norwich 755s fit neatly in the "a" platforms behind a 745 and are released by the Stansted Express reliably enough to keep time. These services were an innovation by Abellio (initially 317s to Cambridge only before the 755s could create a through service by combining with the formerly 170 worked Norwich-Cambridge service).

I would suggest an achievable expansion to service would be adding a second 755 in the hour from the "a" platforms, either to make the Norwich service half hourly, or potentially extend instead to Peterborough or King's Lynn (for both of whom STN is very much still the local airport).

There is already an Ipswich to Peterborough via Ely 755/3; I would suggest a Stansted to Peterborough 755/4 via Cambridge and Ely, with most or all stops served between Cambridge and Peterborough. It would be an interesting supplement to the faster but often crowded and limited stop Birmingham service.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would suggest an achievable expansion to service would be adding a second 755 in the hour from the "a" platforms, either to make the Norwich service half hourly, or potentially extend instead to Peterborough or King's Lynn (for both of whom STN is very much still the local airport).

Which of the existing services would you drop to fit that in?

 

[Royston Vasey]

Which of the existing services would you drop to fit that in?

Is there not room between the Norwiches and Birminghams between Stansted North Junction and Cambridge? Where are the constraints? Genuine question.

Stansted Express does not need to be every 15 minutes, three times an hour would be enough, but I can see that making a clockface 20 minute service would throw the entire timetable out, but it is a speculative thread, after all.

Beyond rebuilding or replacing SSD station there's not much you can do.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there not room between the Norwiches and Birminghams between Stansted North Junction and Cambridge? Where are the constraints? Genuine question.

Stansted Tunnel. As mentioned above. 6 an hour each way is the limit (and hell we’ve tried!)

 

[Royston Vasey]

Stansted Tunnel. As mentioned above. 6 an hour each way is the limit (and hell we’ve tried!)

And the flat junctions I suppose. Boring another tunnel or adding a flyover might be overkill for an extra 755 an hour!

 

[Magdalia]

12 coaches of mostly fresh air four times an hour is more than enough to London.

The statistics do not support that assertion. The ORR data for 2022/23 showed that Liverpool Street-Stansted was top of the table of flows including a station outside London, with over 5 million journeys. See figure 3.2 here:

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/axnd1tyj/station-usage-2022-23-statistical-release.pdf

Figure 3.2 The busiest flows including at least one station outside of London are all taking passengers to or from the capital Ten busiest flows where at least one station is outside of London, April 2022 to March 2023

I would suggest a Stansted to Peterborough 755/4 via Cambridge and Ely

I would support this, but as a replacement for the Birmingham trains. The Birminghams are very full north of Cambridge, and the paths need to be used by trains with sufficient capacity to call at Cambridge North, and Cambridge South once it opens. I'm guessing that this would require an extension to platform 2 at Stansted Airport.

s there not room between the Norwiches and Birminghams between Stansted North Junction and Cambridge? Where are the constraints? Genuine question.

Stansted Tunnel. As mentioned above. 6 an hour each way is the limit (and hell we’ve tried!)

And even if Stansted Tunnel could take more than 6tph, there are other constraints at Shepreth Branch Junction, Cambridge, Ely and Ely North Junction.

2tph Stansted-Cambridge-Ely is enough if the trains are long enough. Longer trains should be considered before new capacity.

 

[Royston Vasey]

The statistics do not support that assertion. The ORR data for 2022/23 showed that Liverpool Street-Stansted was top of the table of flows including a station outside London, with over 5 million journeys. See figure 3.2 here:

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/axnd1tyj/station-usage-2022-23-statistical-release.pdf

I would support this, but as a replacement for the Birmingham trains. The Birminghams are very full north of Cambridge, and the paths need to be used by trains with sufficient capacity to call at Cambridge North, and Cambridge South once it opens. I'm guessing that this would require an extension to platform 2 at Stansted Airport.




And even if Stansted Tunnel could take more than 6tph, there are other constraints at Shepreth Branch Junction, Cambridge, Ely and Ely North Junction.

2tph Stansted-Cambridge-Ely is enough if the trains are long enough. Longer trains should be considered before new capacity.

I would also consider terminating the Birmingham services at Cambridge and using a new 755 service as regional connectivity. There is space to extend P2 but it might need a touch of structural work.

I've never been on a Stansted Express train that was truly full and a big part of this is local flow to Harlow and Bishop's Stortford. 5 million sounds a lot but 12 cars every 15 minutes provides almost 3,000 seats per hour.

If we could start again with the crayons, I'd start with a 3 tph Stansted Express and then build everything else out from there... but even that wouldn't buy much unless you rebuild the station and the whole triangle.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm guessing that this would require an extension to platform 2 at Stansted Airport.

There is space to extend P2 but it might need a touch of structural work.

There isn’t. I‘ve seen the reports.

The statistics do not support that assertion. The ORR data for 2022/23 showed that Liverpool Street-Stansted was top of the table of flows including a station outside London, with over 5 million journeys. See figure 3.2 here:

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/axnd1tyj/station-usage-2022-23-statistical-release.pdf

You have to be careful with that table. There‘s plenty of other busier flows on trains, but where there are multiple stops in London. Local to me, AIUI St Albans to London is about as busy as Stansted to Liverpool St, but because the London end is spread over 5 stations it doesn’t make the table.

As has been said, there’s almost 3000 seats an hour between London and Stansted each way, which is getting on for double what was available pre Covid. It means there are well over 30 million seats pa available. In that context, 5 million journeys isnt much.

 

[Royston Vasey]

There isn’t. I‘ve seen the reports

Shame. You'd only need an extra 10m for a 755/4. A 755/3 is shorter than a 170 and would fit as-is.

I'm sure half the reason the Birmingham service ever went to Stansted was for somewhere to put it once it got to Cambridge. That was when Cambridge was a six platform station and the Norwich terminator needed one of the northern bays. Now that doesn't terminate any more most hours and there are two more platforms, there is frequently a 170 stabled in P6 anyway while the Ipswich uses P5.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But then that isn’t additional capacity to Stansted, except for those from Shenfield and Chelmsford (at one train an hour).

Another 12 car an hour is quite a chunk of extra capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Another 12 car an hour is quite a chunk of extra capacity.

It would be if
i) the Braintree trains were running around empty
ii) journey times from Stansted to London via Braintree were comparable.

Neither of those things is true.


Stansted doesn’t need extra capacity. It has plenty.

I'm sure half the reason the Birmingham service ever went to Stansted was for somewhere to put it once it got to Cambridge.

Nope, it was sent to Stansted for commercial reasons. After initially going there in the early 90s, it was stopped back at Cambridge for a while as there was little use of it.

 

[A S Leib]

Even if the point of the existing 4 tph being full is reached, are tunnel capacity and maybe needing an extra train or two the only things preventing Stratford – Bishops Stortford services from being extended to Stansted, or would there be inadequate or undesireably short turnaround times with 6 tph from Harlow?

 

[Magdalia]

I'm sure half the reason the Birmingham service ever went to Stansted was for somewhere to put it once it got to Cambridge. That was when Cambridge was a six platform station and the Norwich terminator needed one of the northern bays. Now that doesn't terminate any more most hours and there are two more platforms, there is frequently a 170 stabled in P6 anyway while the Ipswich uses P5.

Nope, it was sent to Stansted for commercial reasons. After initially going there in the early 90s, it was stopped back at Cambridge for a while as there was little use of it.

For most of the 1990s there was just one Cambridge-Stansted round trip, in the evening, effectively a parliamentary service to keep the Stansted north curve open.

I agree that running the Birmingham trains through to Stansted is commercially driven, but I'm sceptical that there is lots of traffic to/from places beyond Peterborough. The commercial requirement would still be (mostly) delivered by a service that only ran between Stansted and Peterborough. In terms of having direct trains to and from Stansted Airport, what makes Birmingham and Leicester any different from Nottingham, Sheffield or Leeds, all of which have to change trains at Peterborough? Birmingham has its own airport, and Leicester is close to East Midlands, so not many people from Birmingham and Leicester will be going through to/from Stansted.

The Cambridge-Stansted shuttle, the precursor of the Norwich trains, started in 2014. This was after platforms 7 and 8 at Cambridge came into operation

 

[A S Leib]

For most of the 1990s there was just one Cambridge-Stansted round trip, in the evening, effectively a parliamentary service to keep the Stansted north curve open.

I agree that running the Birmingham trains through to Stansted is commercially driven, but I'm sceptical that there is lots of traffic to/from places beyond Peterborough. The commercial requirement would still be (mostly) delivered by a service that only ran between Stansted and Peterborough. In terms of having direct trains to and from Stansted Airport, what makes Birmingham and Leicester any different from Nottingham, Sheffield or Leeds, all of which have to change trains at Peterborough? Birmingham has its own airport, and Leicester is close to East Midlands, so not many people from Birmingham and Leicester will be going through to/from Stansted.

The Cambridge-Stansted shuttle, the precursor of the Norwich trains, started in 2014. This was after platforms 7 and 8 at Cambridge came into operation

5277 passengers per year between Stansted and Birmingham, or 14 per day; not massively more than to / from Nottingham (3573).

 

[Bald Rick]

Even if the point of the existing 4 tph being full is reached, are tunnel capacity and maybe needing an extra train or two the only things preventing Stratford – Bishops Stortford services from being extended to Stansted, or would there be inadequate or undesireably short turnaround times with 6 tph from Harlow?

Tunnel capacity, and perhaps an extra platform at the airport (which was looked at).

For most of the 1990s there was just one Cambridge-Stansted round trip, in the evening, effectively a parliamentary service to keep the Stansted north curve open.

I agree that running the Birmingham trains through to Stansted is commercially driven, but I'm sceptical that there is lots of traffic to/from places beyond Peterborough. The commercial requirement would still be (mostly) delivered by a service that only ran between Stansted and Peterborough. In terms of having direct trains to and from Stansted Airport, what makes Birmingham and Leicester any different from Nottingham, Sheffield or Leeds, all of which have to change trains at Peterborough? Birmingham has its own airport, and Leicester is close to East Midlands, so not many people from Birmingham and Leicester will be going through to/from Stansted.

The Cambridge-Stansted shuttle, the precursor of the Norwich trains, started in 2014. This was after platforms 7 and 8 at Cambridge came into operation

Agreed a Peterboro’ Stansted service woould fulfill the commercial requirement. But there is also a Commercial requireemnt for Cambridge / Ely to Leicester / Birmingham. And there’s not space through Ely, or along the line to Peterboro’, for both.

 

[Magdalia]

Agreed a Peterboro’ Stansted service woould fulfill the commercial requirement. But there is also a Commercial requireemnt for Cambridge / Ely to Leicester / Birmingham. And there’s not space through Ely, or along the line to Peterboro’, for both.

I know! But I would run the Birmingham trains through to/from Norwich.

Between Ely and Peterborough the service that I would junk is the trains to/from Liverpool. Most of these are only 2 cars, a profligate use of what are supposed to be scarce train paths. The Liverpool trains are the weakest link.

 

[Bald Rick]

Between Ely and Peterborough the service that I would junk is the trains to/from Liverpool. Most of these are only 2 cars, a profligate use of what are supposed to be scarce train paths. The Liverpool trains are the weakest link.

They have more revenue than anything else on that corridor.

 

[Magdalia]

Of course it would. Norwich is a lot further away from Ely than Cambridge so the fares are higher. That doesn't prove anything.

Those trains have the highest revenue because they run to/from Norwich, not because they run to/from Liverpool. A Norwich-Birmingham service might have even more revenue.