Why was 25kv Electrification done in East Anglia?

"Michael Bell" <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9556f6d64f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co. uk...
> It has always puzzled me why the London -> East Anglia routes were
> electrified. There are few major centres of population or industry
> there.
>
Liverpool Street to Shenfield was a pre-WW2 scheme (though not implemented
until afterwards) based on very heavy commuter traffic. It was originally
1500V DC OHLE which was the standard at the time.

Liverpool Street to Hertford East/Bishops Stortford/ Enfield/Chingford;
Shenfield-Southend V/Clacton/ Walton and Fenchurch Street -
Tilbury/Shoeburyness were Modernisation Plan schemes, though justified
(although beyond Colchester was marginal) also on heavy commuter traffic.

Colchester - Norwich/Harwich, Bishops Stortford - Cambridge - Kings Lynn,
Stratford - North Woolwich, Romford - Upminster, Wickford - Southminster,
and Witham - Braintree were BR schemes, largely to eliminate pockets of
diesel working (or in the case of Norwich and Cambridge, to reduce the
amount of diesel working under the wires).

Liverpool Street to Bethnal Green is an extremely busy railway, with over 70
trains each way in the peak hour (over 6 tracks). Ill refrain from a gibe at
comparing the railway through Middlesbrough.

Peter

Peter

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:50:45 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In message <9556f6d64f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk >, at
>13:40:46 on Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>It has always puzzled me why the London -> East Anglia routes were
>>electrified. There are few major centres of population or industry
>>there.
>
>The Gidea Park/Shenfield/Chelmsford line has been the busiest in the
>country for a generation. There comes a point when it's better to
>electrify it to the various distant terminus, rather than run diesels
>under the wires (which I still remember on that line).
>
>I have never fully understood why they electrified past Cambridge,
>though; despite it being done enormously 'on the cheap'. (No locos
>allowed north of Cambridge, and only a handful of EMUs).

Well, you've answered your own question by pointing out that it was
done to avoid having to run diesels under the wires. More generally,
it was so that trains from stations north of Cambridge could run to
Kings Cross. Prior to electrification, stations north of Cambridge
were served by loco-hauled trains that terminated at Liverpool Street.
Electrifying the line from Hitchin through Baldock to Cambridge, and
then north to Kings Lynn, allowed that section to be served by
suburban EMUs terminating at Kings Cross and benefiting from the
quadruple track south of Hitchin to give a more frequent service. And,
with the longer-distance trains no longer using the busy Liverpool
Street line, paths were freed up for commuter services.

Mark

> Local trains ran between Cambridge and Bishop's Stortford (only) every two
> hours. Local stations on the King's Cross line were very poorly served;
> taking one at random (well not exactly random!) Meldreth and Melbourne
> seems to have had a gap of over four hours in its service in each
> direction in the early afternoon according to my 1964-65 Eastern Region
> timetable (the last old-style "British Railways" one).

Sorry, delete one e: it's Melbourn.

In article <Esqdnd-WVehuAyTVnZ2dnUVZ8svinZ2d@bt.com>, John Salmon
<john.e.salmon@gensheet.com> scribeth thus
>> Local trains ran between Cambridge and Bishop's Stortford (only) every two
>> hours. Local stations on the King's Cross line were very poorly served;
>> taking one at random (well not exactly random!) Meldreth and Melbourne
>> seems to have had a gap of over four hours in its service in each
>> direction in the early afternoon according to my 1964-65 Eastern Region
>> timetable (the last old-style "British Railways" one).
>
>Sorry, delete one e: it's Melbourn.
>

Melbourn/e hasn't got a station;)...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <Esqdnd-WVehuAyTVnZ2dnUVZ8svinZ2d@bt.com>, John Salmon
> <john.e.salmon@gensheet.com> scribeth thus
>>> Local trains ran between Cambridge and Bishop's Stortford (only) every two
>>> hours. Local stations on the King's Cross line were very poorly served;
>>> taking one at random (well not exactly random!) Meldreth and Melbourne
>>> seems to have had a gap of over four hours in its service in each
>>> direction in the early afternoon according to my 1964-65 Eastern Region
>>> timetable (the last old-style "British Railways" one).
>> Sorry, delete one e: it's Melbourn.
>>
>
> Melbourn/e hasn't got a station;)...

I'm guessing that perhaps what is now Meldreth station used to be called
Meldreth and Melbourn station? It's at the Melbourn end of Meldreth so
it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable...

-roy

"Roy Badami" <roy@gnomon.org.uk> wrote
>
> I'm guessing that perhaps what is now Meldreth station used to be called
> Meldreth and Melbourn station?

It was. But it lost the '& Melbourn' bit some time before 1960.

Melbourne station (in Derbyshire) closed some time before 1938.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote
>
> "Roy Badami" <roy@gnomon.org.uk> wrote
>>
>> I'm guessing that perhaps what is now Meldreth station used to be called
>> Meldreth and Melbourn station?
>
> It was. But it lost the '& Melbourn' bit some time before 1960.

Not so, according to the 1964-65 timetable from which I was quoting. It's
definitely M&M in there - I've just re-checked.

"John Salmon" wrote in
> "Peter Masson" wrote
>>
>> "Roy Badami" <roy@gnomon.org.uk> wrote
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that perhaps what is now Meldreth station used to be called
>>> Meldreth and Melbourn station?
>>
>> It was. But it lost the '& Melbourn' bit some time before 1960.
>
> Not so, according to the 1964-65 timetable from which I was quoting. It's
> definitely M&M in there - I've just re-checked.

Here'a a more definite answer, from "British Rail Eastern Passenger
Timetable: London suburban services - King's Cross & the City":

3 May 1971 to 30 April 1972: Meldreth & Melbourn
1 May 1972 to 6 May 1973: Meldreth

"John Salmon" <john.e.salmon@gensheet.com> wrote
> >
> > Not so, according to the 1964-65 timetable from which I was quoting.
It's
> > definitely M&M in there - I've just re-checked.
>
> Here'a a more definite answer, from "British Rail Eastern Passenger
> Timetable: London suburban services - King's Cross & the City":
>
> 3 May 1971 to 30 April 1972: Meldreth & Melbourn
> 1 May 1972 to 6 May 1973: Meldreth
>
Thanks. I was going by 1960 and 1962 ABCs which have it as plain Meldreth.

Peter

In article <a8a084d74f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk >, Michael
Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In message <b6107ad74f%Rail@greywall.>
> Graeme Wall <Rail@greywall.> wrote:
>
>> In message <147d74d74f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk >
>> Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> In message <fdae69d74f%Rail@greywall.>
>>> Graeme Wall <Rail@greywall.> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <9556f6d64f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk >
>>>> Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It has always puzzled me why the London -> East Anglia routes were
>>>>> electrified. There are few major centres of population or industry
>>>>> there.
>>>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> It's very simple, the commuter services out of Liverpool street were on a
>>>> par with the major Southern flows and were a prime candidate for
>>>> electrification, google the 'Jazz Service'. It was logical to extend the
>>>> electrification so that the longer distance services had the same
>>>> performance characteristics as the commuter trains so that the conflicts
>>>> on the confined approaches to London were minimised.
>>>
>>> So it was extension of busy in-London commuter services to the surrounding
>>> countryside, exactly has happened in South London. Nothing unexpected or
>>> wrong about that.
>>>
>
>> So why were you puzzled?
>
>Because there are no major centres of population and industry in East
>Anglia

Well the trains seem mighty crowded at rush hours;!..

At Cambridge anyway....


>and I didn't know that there had been such heavy commuter
>traffic in north-east London to start it off. The 3rd rail
>electification North-Westwards from Euston has not started off a
>similar outgrowth. I suppose the East Anglia electrification has lead
>to electrified lines with only 2 trains/hour as it has in Kent. You
>can see why the treasury doesn't want things to get started which it
>afterwards won't be able to stop.
>
>Michael Bell
>
>
>

--
Tony Sayer