Future of the St Albans Abbey line

[CdBrux]

This may well have been discussed here before, however it seems that some more serious thinking is going on:

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/council-considers-ripping-up-abbey-line

The first half dozen paragraphs:

The Abbey Line between St Albans and Watford could be ripped up and converted into a busway under plans proposed by Hertfordshire County Council.

The authority’s draft rail strategy suggests that the line is under-used and offers a poor service and explores alternatives to heavy rail that prove more suitable.

The report said the line provides a chance to develop a "radical solution" that operates at lower costs and attracts more users.

One such scheme is a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, which would see the railway line ripped up and replaced with concrete busways.

It also suggests that light rail could be an alternative solution, which then could be lead to the development of further such projects in the county if successful.

There have been previous calls for the Abbey Line to be transferred to the ownership of Hertfordshire County Council and run as a light rail concession, with the authority and DfT exploring the idea.........

 

[TheKnightWho]

The best solution would be running the line into the mainline station, which should really increase usage.

 

[gordonthemoron]

and/or extending it from Watford to Euston

 

[causton]

and/or extending it from Watford to Euston

Can't see it happening to be honest. If it is at peak time I can't see them wanting to send a 4 car into Euston, I can't see them adding extra carriages at Watford either, or sending locked out carriages up the Abbey line!

 

[MarkyT]

and/or extending it from Watford to Euston

Or linking it under the WCML to the Overground/Underground network through High Street station then via the Croxley link to Rickmansworth and (perhaps) beyond.

Most importantly of all some measure must be instituted to allow a clock-face service to operate with regular minutes past the hour departures at less than hourly frequency. The current 45 minute interval is utterly unmemorable, and whilst that's ok for regular work and school commutes where passengers always catch the same train or the next one, times of which they can remember, the current timetable is actively hostile to any form of on spec casual leisure use, and such a timetable even discourages first time use by a potential commuter customer who will probably seek out other more understandable and convenient alternatives.

The ridiculous 45 minute interval timetable was also the Achilles heal of the very poorly patronised West Croydon-Wimbledon branch shuttle in the last years of its heavy rail operation. When the new second tram platform is available at Wimbledon, the very same 'unexpectedly popular' Tramlink branch is planned to offer a 12tph service to keep up with demand!

 

[Saint66]

I imagine things will stay as they are... The line wont be improved in the near future sadly, and ideas such as a bus route will not come to fruition, much like the previous plan for a tram line.

 

[causton]

The ridiculous 45 minute interval timetable was also the Achilles heal of the very poorly patronised West Croydon-Wimbledon branch shuttle in the last years of its heavy rail operation. When the new second tram platform is available at Wimbledon, the very same 'unexpectedly popular' Tramlink branch is planned to offer a 12tph service to keep up with demand!

Have you seen the intermediate stations on the Abbey line, a bit different to Croydon to Wimbledon - How Wood's not going to have a bustling platform

In all seriousness though, perhaps if it went closer to the city centre or City station, had a 30 minute or better timetable, etc... perhaps it could grow. I think turning it into a guided busway would be good personally, but a lot of people "don't do buses". Just look at the many tourists who would rather spend 2 hours lugging suitcases round the Underground and National Rail than a 45 minute bus ride to Heathrow from Watford...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just look at the many tourists who would rather spend 2 hours lugging suitcases round the Underground and National Rail than a 45 minute bus ride to Heathrow from Watford...

Unless *very* off peak, the M25 is just too unpredictable for me to choose that when I could go via London instead and have a more predictable journey time by train. No prejudice against buses, just against motorways when you have an absolute deadline to arrive.

For St Albans I'd go for light rail if it isn't possible to rejig WFJ to allow it to run through to Euston.

 

[gordonthemoron]

what about tram train and extending to St Albans City that way?

 

[Saint66]

what about tram train and extending to St Albans City that way?

That was the plan quite a few years ago, but the hilly nature of St Albans, and Hollywell Hill itself which you would need to tackle if you wanted to get a tram between the two, I think it's an optimistic plan, which is unlikely to come to fruition right now.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That was the plan quite a few years ago, but the hilly nature of St Albans, and Hollywell Hill itself which you would need to tackle if you wanted to get a tram between the two, I think it's an optimistic plan, which is unlikely to come to fruition right now.

A trip to Sheffield will demonstrate that gradients needn't be a problem for trams... I've never visited St. Albans but I'd be surprised if there are any hills steeper than the steepest sections on the Sheffield tramway.

I agree it is optimistic, but not because of the topography!

 

[mr_jrt]

Much the same sentiment as most, I think any busway suggestion is madness.

The line serves a more built-up/denser catchment area than the end of the Met line - the problem isn't the technology (it's only 16 minutes end to end - much, much faster than the comparable roads and buses!) - it's that bloody 45 minute timetable. The solution has been done to death before - it needs the passing loop and a second train to get a 30 minute service interval. I'd put money on usage shooting up once that was achieved. Restore platform 2 at St Albans Abbey and build another at Watford and you could probably get it down to a 20 minute interval if you so chose (as a train would be able to leave from one platform whilst the arrived one had its layover).

...and of course, the much longer-term goal of a diveunder linking it under the WCML to the DC lines.

Hell, as I've mentioned before, given the railfreight depot being built at Radlett it strikes me as a shoe-in to restore the MML construction branch and link the depot to the WCML via the Abbey line as well. Unless they plan guided lorries using the busway, of course :/

 

[jon0844]

Do the passing loop and get an extra train, then do more proactive revenue protection. Sounds (rather too) simple in my own head at least!

 

[Trog]

The journey time for the branch is 16 minutes end to end. Would it be possible to do two return trips an hour, by making some of the stops by request and having say a three man train crew with a driver each end to speed up the reversals? This would cost more in day to day running but might allow the denser service to up the numbers enough to justify the loop that would allow the higher level of service with more normal operating methods, for the long term. Bearing in mind that the loop, second platform, with signals and foot bridge suitable for the disabled at Bricket Wood would cost millions.

As for a tunnel to connect the Abbey line to the DC that is fantasy as you would have to go deep enough to go under Orphanage Road, and would then have to stay deep to get under the next road south, then there are houses both sides of the line, so the other end of the tunnel ends up nearly at Watford High Street. It would be cheaper to send every passenger a helicopter.

 

[mr_jrt]

As for a tunnel to connect the Abbey line to the DC that is fantasy as you would have to go deep enough to go under Orphanage Road, and would then have to stay deep to get under the next road south, then there are houses both sides of the line, so the other end of the tunnel ends up nearly at Watford High Street. It would be cheaper to send every passenger a helicopter.

I disagree - you don't really need a tunnel at all. You just need to get below grade from being at grade at Orphanage Road, then you simply put in place bridges for the WCML lines above.

If you start dropping immediately after Orphanage Road and have some slight land take from the BT car park you can get the angle you need to run under the main lines with minimum span lengths required, then start rising up with the majority of the gradient using part of the DC sidings to the south so you're back at grade by Radlett Road. Quite doable. This is a tunnel for modern EMUs, not steam freight trains, so the gradients can be steeper than normal.

 

[bluenoxid]

What would the capability be for linking the branch to the MML where Thameslink serves Watford? Potentially build a decent park and ride off A414 near Napsbury. Connect to St Albans using some form of bus shuttle

 

[MarkyT]

The journey time for the branch is 16 minutes end to end. Would it be possible to do two return trips an hour, by making some of the stops by request and having say a three man train crew with a driver each end to speed up the reversals? This would cost more in day to day running but might allow the denser service to up the numbers enough to justify the loop that would allow the higher level of service with more normal operating methods, for the long term. Bearing in mind that the loop, second platform, with signals and foot bridge suitable for the disabled at Bricket Wood would cost millions.

As for a tunnel to connect the Abbey line to the DC that is fantasy as you would have to go deep enough to go under Orphanage Road, and would then have to stay deep to get under the next road south, then there are houses both sides of the line, so the other end of the tunnel ends up nearly at Watford High Street. It would be cheaper to send every passenger a helicopter.

Another way to shorten the journey time might be to close a couple of the intermediate stations, but that would be very difficult politically. The problem with your request stops is that on the occasions they were used, stopping would cause late running that, with the very short turnarounds, would be impossible to recover from. The train could get progressively later throughout the day. Better low-speed acceleration could help. A 'lower geared' light metro type vehicle might shave a little off the timings compared to today's 100MPH main line units.

As to a loop at Bricket Wood, a Penryn (Falmouth branch) style arrangement with the loop turnout half way along a lengthened single platform would be cheaper, avoiding a separate second platform on the other side of the formation and a footbridge with long ramps. With light rail standards, pedestrian crossings over the track on the level to the other platform would be acceptable.

At Watford, a link line crossing the WCML to High Street could go under the existing Stephenson Way viaduct. Particularly for a light rail standard link with sub 100m radius curves, that might be an affordable option, built across open ground with little or no demolition required.

http://www.townend.me/files/watford.pdf

I did a small timetable exercise for what might be possible with a loop at Bricket Wood. As well as proving the principle of a regular 30 minute interval service, the exercise showed such a configuration could also support a 20 minute interval service with no more trains than the 30 minute example.

http://www.townend.me/files/abbeyflyer.pdf

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Would a refurbished 313 offer better acceleration at low speeds than the current 321? Back in Silverlink days 313s were the norm on this line- and if a loop was added, 2x 3-car units would be less wasteful than 2x4. That does create an issue with a micro-fleet though, which obviously wasn't an issue when 313s were used on the DC lines too.

 

[The Planner]

Fantasy expecting this to go anywhere over or under or across the WCML at Watford.

 

[Nym]

I can see a few options for if the curve where to be constructed in heavy rail, if one where to use dual voltage units.

If LOROL does indeed move to a 4tph timetable and the Bakerloo is kept back at Harrow and Wealdstone, 2tph of LOROL can terminate at Watford Junction, with 2tph continuing up to St Albans Abbey, a 2nd platform by Platform 11 would help this by providing some timetable padding at Watford Jcn, it would also mean a spare train could be housed at Watford Junction.
In order to realise full capability, it would be desirable to provide trailing crossovers on both branches North of Watford High St to allow a reversal at High St to get trains on and off the branch.

Another option would be to use dual / tri voltage EMUs or EDMUs to run a service from St Albans Abbey to Ammersham.

Realistically, a passing loop at Bricket Wood using a long platform is much more likely, and could even be remotely locked on Watford North interlocking, or a local box provided, two platforms at Watford Junction for the branch would also be advantageous, and one could tag onto the works, another platform (the old Platform 11) for WCML services more in terms of network resilience than day to day use.

Alternatively, Crossrail could do some proper work on the WCML slows and throw all this up in the air again.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The real problem here is HCC. Their bus orientated public transport unit are fixated that the existing line is an issue. It isn't. It just needs a loop at Bricket Wood and someone to pay for the second unit and crew.

After the mad tramway up Holywell Hill scheme was booted into oblivion there was a real push to get the loop in. But the SRA wouldn't pay for the extra unit despite there being money there for the infrastructure.

HCC had to be told time and time again that the more recent light rail conversion scheme would not be cheap and the Opex would fall on their already stretched budget. When the reality dawned, the politicians wanted a promise of full transfer of funds from the DfT budget, which was never going to happen.

The various join up the DC to the Abbey line proposals have all been looked at but the transitions don't work in the land available and the "take" needed for street running of trams in Watford would mean the roads grinding to a halt as the residual space wouldn't be sufficient.

 

[delt1c]

Reinstate the line to Hatfield and have a semi circular service Kings Cross or Moorgate to Euston, opens up more possibilities or even divert via Highbury and Isslington onto the North London line to give links to East London and Docklands, this would take pressure of the central london tube lines. Politicians keep talking about the overcrowding and transport problems in central london, yet ignore the fact that by diverting existing services from their historic destinations solutions can be found. An example was the Stanstead to Stratford service.
I know this will never happen but a nice dream

 

[MarkyT]

The various join up the DC to the Abbey line proposals have all been looked at but the transitions don't work in the land available and the "take" needed for street running of trams in Watford would mean the roads grinding to a halt as the residual space wouldn't be sufficient.

I can understand the transitions for the curves shown on my drawing would be very difficult for the heavy rail option as the curvature is already close to the tightest possible. The transitions should work better for a light rail option however. I would suggest a high floor Tyne & Wear style light rail vehicle that could run under the catenary on the branch converted to DC, and use the 3/4 rail power system through High Street on to Croxley and Rickmansworth, serving the other two new Watford stations as well en-route and interrunning with Metropolitan and Overground rolling stock. At the St Albans end of the line, light rail standards could allow a tightly curved link to City station as shown here:

http://www.townend.me/files/stalbans.pdf

A city centre extension could be considered as shown dashed, but clearly then the light rail vehicles would have to be 'street legal' as well (which they might have to be anyway if any new level crossings were proposed on the Watford-St Albans stretch (e.g. pedestrian track crossings at the rebuilt loop station at Bricket Wood.

 

[John Webb]

....... At the St Albans end of the line, light rail standards could allow a tightly curved link to City station as shown here:

http://www.townend.me/files/stalbans.pdf

A city centre extension could be considered as shown dashed, but clearly then the light rail vehicles would have to be 'street legal' as well (which they might have to be anyway if any new level crossings were proposed on the Watford-St Albans stretch (e.g. pedestrian track crossings at the rebuilt loop station at Bricket Wood.

I respectfully point out that your 'Independent line' would require the removal of the Grade 2 listed St Albans South Signal Box.......

 

[The Planner]

Realistically, a passing loop at Bricket Wood using a long platform is much more likely, and could even be remotely locked on Watford North interlocking, or a local box provided, two platforms at Watford Junction for the branch would also be advantageous, and one could tag onto the works, another platform (the old Platform 11) for WCML services more in terms of network resilience than day to day use.

Not a chance of getting a local box, it would all end up in Rugby ROC. Watford resignalling got rid of the issues of the branch being locked in by removing the ground frame, I can't see anyone advocating going back on that.

Alternatively, Crossrail could do some proper work on the WCML slows and throw all this up in the air again.

Good luck with that one too, Tfl will just want their trains to run on the WCML, they won't be interested in the branch either.

 

[Nym]

Not a chance of getting a local box, it would all end up in Rugby ROC. Watford resignalling got rid of the issues of the branch being locked in by removing the ground frame, I can't see anyone advocating going back on that.



Good luck with that one too, Tfl will just want their trains to run on the WCML, they won't be interested in the branch either.

Wasn't on about Crossrail on the branch, just that from Platform 9 upwards at Watford Jcn, the whole layout may well be changed.

 

[dviner]

I disagree - you don't really need a tunnel at all. You just need to get below grade from being at grade at Orphanage Road, then you simply put in place bridges for the WCML lines above.

If you start dropping immediately after Orphanage Road and have some slight land take from the BT car park you can get the angle you need to run under the main lines with minimum span lengths required, then start rising up with the majority of the gradient using part of the DC sidings to the south so you're back at grade by Radlett Road. Quite doable. This is a tunnel for modern EMUs, not steam freight trains, so the gradients can be steeper than normal.

We'll just skip over the compulsory purchase and demolition of about a dozen houses down Trinity Hall Close and Pankhurst Place, plus lopping off a great chunk of the Radlett Road playing fields, then...

 

[Bald Rick]

The real problem here is HCC.

I respectfully disagree.

The real problem is that very few people in St Albans want or need to go to places in Watford that are near Watford stations.

I know maybe 400 people in St Albans, and not one of them works or shops in Watford. And it's not because the Abbey line has a low frequency, or that the traffic is bad (it's not that bad though) it's just that there are better working / shopping options elsewhere.

Of course that's only one side of the story.

 

[MarkyT]

I respectfully point out that your 'Independent line' would require the removal of the Grade 2 listed St Albans South Signal Box.......

Heaven forbid! I have amended the design accordingly See the additional Terminus Detail page:

http://www.townend.me/files/stalbans.pdf

 

[Busaholic]

This was the very first line to be mentioned in official circles as possibly suitable for tram/train operation, with tram incursion certainly into the centre of Watford: at St Albans I believe the necessity was to ensure access to the 'other' station and its frequent services to St Pancras, Farringdon and beyond.
Concrete busways do not have a great history in England: the Cambridgeshire one, eventually completed years late and over budget by hundreds of per cent, is already breaking up and yet more expensive litigation awaits. Luton-Dunstable has had a poor take-up, both by operators and passengers (I guess one leads to the other). With the Met now about to go into Watford Junction, that might seem to offer some sort of salvation to a rail project, if only the Greater London boundary could shift northwards. An Epping situation could be created, as when trains from there to Ongar were under LT control, with through working possible but perhaps never provided to the public. NR and Herts CC would certainly have to play ball and meet the vast majority of costs, but maybe not for the trains themselves.