Future of the St Albans Abbey line

[The Planner]

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

Again, I doubt that too, all that is likely to change in the near/medium future is that platform 10 will get extended which the resignalling has put passive in for. Tfl again wont want to pay for anything to allow Crossrail to run apart from the link from OOC they will probably just decide to run as much as they can to Tring.

 

[westcoaster]

If you look on google maps just north of how wood station you can see a line of trees that branch of to the right, no pun intended

 

[edwin_m]

If you look on google maps just north of how wood station you can see a line of trees that branch of to the right, no pun intended

 

[westcoaster]

Nice thought but you land up on the fast side of the very busy MML, so it would need a flyover and probably the MML Up Slow (easternmost track) splaying out to give a full grade-separated junction to the Slow lines. That might not be possible without demolishing some of the houses at North Cottages. It would also run into the tens or possibly hundreds of millions.

Just attached a pic above .

 

[edwin_m]

Just attached a pic above .

Unfortunately the radius of the curve you have drawn at the MML end is about 100 metres, so too tight for heavy rail. A much larger curve would be needed, which would almost certainly affect nearby houses.

 

[mr_jrt]

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...

They weren't skipped over, the line would already be under the WCML by that point - it wouldn't go anywhere near them.. ...and how on earth can you see any option that would so much as touch the Radlett Road playing fields?!?!? That's just being silly.

Draw a straight line from the DC lines where they cross over Radlett Road on the current alignment. As soon as you clear the WCML, curve that line westwards until you reach Orphanage road. It's a tight curve on a gradient, but it should be doable and the land take is purely the BT car park - you never come close to Trinity Hall Close etc.

 

[dviner]

They weren't skipped over, the line would already be under the WCML by that point - it wouldn't go anywhere near them.. ...and how on earth can you see any option that would so much as touch the Radlett Road playing fields?!?!? That's just being silly.

Easy when you read back and forwards through the thread a couple of times and get your post mixed with MarkyT's diagrams.

Draw a straight line from the DC lines where they cross over Radlett Road on the current alignment. As soon as you clear the WCML, curve that line westwards until you reach Orphanage road. It's a tight curve on a gradient, but it should be doable and the land take is purely the BT car park - you never come close to Trinity Hall Close etc.

Very tight - the new Orphanage Road underbridge would be significant pinch point, so you would probably need to bear right slightly at Radlett Road rather than keep straight on, before diving under the WCML and getting back to grade for the bridge.

Be better to dive under and come up after Orphanage road.

 

[mr_jrt]

Easy when you read back and forwards through the thread a couple of times and get your post mixed with MarkyT's diagrams.

Fair enough.

Very tight - the new Orphanage Road underbridge would be significant pinch point, so you would probably need to bear right slightly at Radlett Road rather than keep straight on, before diving under the WCML and getting back to grade for the bridge.

Be better to dive under and come up after Orphanage road.

Indeed, this is how I originally envisioned it, with underground platforms at Watford Junction below the level of the existing subway (with steps down from it), as this would then free up the entirety of the former yard as you conceivably wouldn't need any surface rail near the platforms (in a similar manner how the abandonment of platforms 9 & 10 by the Abbey Line enabled the car park to be expanded). Easy enough to construct - build a simple cut and cover box and raft over it for the car park/new developments on the former yard.

...but to reduce costs I looked into a surface option and concluded that it was possibly just about feasible with some land take from the BT car park to handle the curvature required to point towards the DC lines.

 

[The Planner]

Who is paying for all this massive infrastructure for what is effectively an extra train?

 

[dviner]

Who is paying for all this massive infrastructure for what is effectively an extra train?

You have a point.

OK, no tunnels, dive-unders, viaducts or land-grabs.

Flat crossing across Up & Down Fasts & Slows - just make sure that the units doing it have plenty of acceleration and don't break down at the wrong moment...

 

[ChiefPlanner]

You have a point.

OK, no tunnels, dive-unders, viaducts or land-grabs.

Flat crossing across Up & Down Fasts & Slows - just make sure that the units doing it have plenty of acceleration and don't break down at the wrong moment...

And the driver looks right / left / right again ....think Pendo , think 350 , think Freight .....

 

[mr_jrt]

Who is paying for all this massive infrastructure for what is effectively an extra train?

A fair point, but we seem to be forgetting what I said in my inital post:

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

This isn't for an extra train. That's the passing loop.

This is after you've done the easy bits, grown the usage and the line's at a healthy 3tph or so. Then creating through journeys will be beneficial for further growth. It becomes especially useful if capacity in platforms 1-4 becomes too constrained (i.e. say a Chiltern service takes off well and goes to 2tph, on top of a 4tph+ DC service, on top of a 6tph Met service.)

It also has the added benefit of reducing stock requirements if you can operate a single service from the DC lines - you don't need to tie up dedicated units on the branch.

 

[Nym]

But you're still using just as many units to achieve the same level of service.

 

[The Planner]

Still fantasy, the best anyone can hope for in the next 10-15 years is a passing loop and that is where it will stop.

 

[mr_jrt]

But you're still using just as many units to achieve the same level of service.

Would you though? If you combine the two services you don't need layovers at Watford Junction - just at St Albans Abbey. The stock sitting at WFJ platforms 1-4 could continue on to the Abbey line, and sure you'd probably need an additional unit or so, but beyond that you'd probably be fine given the length of the branch.

 

[AM9]

Would you though? If you combine the two services you don't need layovers at Watford Junction - just at St Albans Abbey. The stock sitting at WFJ platforms 1-4 could continue on to the Abbey line, and sure you'd probably need an additional unit or so, but beyond that you'd probably be fine given the length of the branch.

But you would still have a 45min service unless a passing loop as The Planner says. The line can only survive if patronage rises. A loop at Bricket Wood (think Penrhyn style) looks like the best solution, would allow a 30 min service, (possible squeezing it down to a 20 min service in the peak. If the passengers cvome, then maybe the other things could follow. As it is the line will just drift on like a longer version of the Romford-Upminster operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you would still have a 45min service unless a passing loop as The Planner says. The line can only survive if patronage rises. A loop at Bricket Wood (think Penrhyn style) looks like the best solution, would allow a 30 min service, (possible squeezing it down to a 20 min service in the peak. If the passengers cvome, then maybe the other things could follow.

If stock was available and it was possible to rejig WFJ to allow it (though it would require a loss of car parking capacity I think), I would suggest that a half hourly service (8 car off peak, 12 car peak, leaving 4/8 behind at Watford to run 4 forward to St Albans) Euston-Harrow-Bushey-Watford would be a good idea. You could then withdraw all stops south of Watford on the other LMs, and the Bushey commuters could stop whining as they'd get seats

 

[Bald Rick]

There's a tenner wagered here that no loop will happen before I retire (15 years away). Let alone flyovers etc.

 

[Nym]

I'd in turn wager that if a better timetable where to come about, it would be from increased performance of rolling stock rather than significant changes to infrastructure (increasing of PSRs not included there).

 

[AM9]

I'd in turn wager that if a better timetable where to come about, it would be from increased performance of rolling stock rather than significant changes to infrastructure (increasing of PSRs not included there).

So would a 350 be able to do the return trip in less than 30 mins including two turnrounds?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

So would a 350 be able to do the return trip in less than 30 mins including two turnrounds?

Looked at in the past - and answer is "no" - unless one trip was "express" - line speed of 50 maximum , terminal slow approach and a 20 at the Watford end due to curvature.

Answer has to be (a) retain as now (b) cough up for a loop and more than double the operating costs (c) something else which costs less than option b.

About 400,000 passengers a year - too much free riding - (especially as the unscrupulous "touch in" at WFJ for a reduced price trip to Euston - and a free branch line ride)

Any real answer costs CAPEX and OPEX - and despite the richness of Herts generally - if they cannot fund buses after 7pm and on Sundays - they are not going to fund the "free at point of use" local branch line.

 

[The Planner]

There's a tenner wagered here that no loop will happen before I retire (15 years away). Let alone flyovers etc.

Tsk, too conservative, I'll double that!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Answer has to be (a) retain as now (b) cough up for a loop and more than double the operating costs (c) something else which costs less than option b.

DOO and penalty fares (that are actually enforced) might be a valid option C, after all the line was (I think) DOO until the end of Silverlink.

 

[Bald Rick]

Tsk, too conservative, I'll double that!

Well I already have a rather larger outstanding wager that Skipton-Colne won't open in the same timescale, so have to be responsible with gambling! Although backing a dead cert isn't really gambling.

 

[causton]

So would a 350 be able to do the return trip in less than 30 mins including two turnrounds?

350s are a lot slower with door release and closing, so nope! By the time a 321 has completed the station stop the 350 has released its doors

 

[yorksrob]

If we can't manage a single passing loop, I don't hold out much hope for the future of the railway.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

DOO and penalty fares (that are actually enforced) might be a valid option C, after all the line was (I think) DOO until the end of Silverlink.

Indeed. If, as seems to be being suggested, fare evasion is thought to be a significant factor depressing passenger revenues, then the solution ought to be blindingly obvious
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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:

Pretty silly IMO. If Hertfordshire CC can find the money to rip up the rails and build a bus road, then using the money to provide a passing loop so the line can have a clockface half-hourly frequency, which would undoubtedly attract significantly higher passenger numbers, would seem to make rather more sense.

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

Totally agree with that. Yes, it's very expensive solution and is not on any political horizons at the moment, but the benefits would be massive. You'd be able to run direct Bedford-Luton-Watford trains, opening up a whole new commuter path to rail, along a corridor that, IIRC, has massive traffic congestion on the roads at the Watford end. And the connections at WFJ will become even more significant once HS2 arrives, assuming (as seems very plausible) that after HS2, many more WCML trains will call at Watford Junction. WFJ itself isn't in an ideal location for commuting to Watford, but once the Croxley link is built, it'll have much more frequent connections to Watford High Street.

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.

I'm somewhat more sceptical of this. You're proposing a massive rebuild (and from the layout of the lines, it'd be a very complex rebuild) basically to save people from changing trains. Yes, it'd be very nice to have through trains, but I'm sure the money could get better returns elsewhere.

I wonder whether it'd be better to think more imaginatively on a smaller scale. Move the platform at Watford a bit further down the track so it's closer to the rest of the station, making changing trains easier?

Also, I wonder how many new passengers could be attracted if access to and the environment at stations was improved? (That's a genuine question - I haven't used the line recently, so I don't know the current situation). I do however seem to recall St. Albans Abbey station being roughly sandwiched between a Sainsburies superstore and significant amounts of housing, yet apparently having no direct pedestrian access to either. Is my memory correct? If so, isn't that the kind of thing that ought to be addressed in the first instance? Maybe, that kind of thing would improve passenger numbers to the point where more expensive improvements might become politically worth looking at?

 

[jon0844]

Yes, it does appear to be fairly cut off and perhaps another reason why patronage is low.

I'd certainly start with revenue protection though. Seems a no-brainer, unless of course the plan is to let the passenger numbers 'fall' to justify drastic action.

 

[The Planner]

If we can't manage a single passing loop, I don't hold out much hope for the future of the railway.

We can, it is just that a) no one wants to pay for it, if HCC were that desperate for it why haven't they coughed up at least in part, and b) no one thinks it is value for money or worth it.

 

[AM9]

Also, I wonder how many new passengers could be attracted if access to and the environment at stations was improved? (That's a genuine question - I haven't used the line recently, so I don't know the current situation). I do however seem to recall St. Albans Abbey station being roughly sandwiched between a Sainsburies superstore and significant amounts of housing, yet apparently having no direct pedestrian access to either. Is my memory correct? If so, isn't that the kind of thing that ought to be addressed in the first instance? Maybe, that kind of thing would improve passenger numbers to the point where more expensive improvements might become politically worth looking at?

The problem with access to Sainsbury is that the platform is on the northern side of the line and the southern side is occupied by a large'ish office complex, so it would require a new footbridge or for passengers to walk 50m to Hollywell Hill and then through the office complex as at present.
To provide a 'short'cut to Prospect Road would require about 140m of pathway alongside the track from the unused end of the platform to the end of St Julians Road cul-de-sac. Not the sort of access favoured today although Sainsbury could help fund that with a footbridge as it would provide access into their car park. Were that to be the case, then there would be a need to prevent Sainsbury's becoming a free commuter car park.
Access to buses out of town is good however as local, Watford and Green Line buses all serve the adjacent stop in Holywell Hill. It is not so convenient to catch buses northwards into town, more than 200m away, crossing Holywell Hill by pelican crossing as well as two side road entrances.