• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The St. Albans Abbey branch: low passenger usage

Status
Not open for further replies.

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,922
Location
UK
It's a shame we couldn't have a tram from Watford right through to Welwyn Garden City, or even over to Hertford.. as a connection for 4 mainlines.

But for a load of reasons, this is never going to happen. Apart from the cost of buying land and having to knock some buildings down, there would need to be a desire to do something so bold - and obviously to justify a business case.

Given the county council would simply think buses on exiting roads will suffice (even if they won't fund any in the future, so buses will likely not run very early/late or weekends) I can see why a tram idea is not going to ever get anywhere.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
I thought you could run a train into Euston off the Abbey Branch since Watford Junction was remodeled.

Those wanting trams should remember that this would probably require the relaying of all the remaining jointed track on the branch. The Councils accountants would just love being asked to find the money for that.
 

SAPhil

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2011
Messages
305
(On the subject of driving between St Albans ans Watford...



I know - but a lot of people can. St Albans is hardly a poor place and a lot of people have access to a car. For the line to be viable it needs to be more attractive than alternate options (driving, bus, travel via London, not travelling at all). At the moment it isn't.

So given my hypothesis that not many people need to make this journey anyway, and of those that do a significant proportion will have access to a car, it is really not much of a surprise that demand is low. Especially when you add in the inconvenient station location in St Albans, the timetable constraints and the unreliability.

There are also 3 bus routes (I think) that run between the two towns, so I would further hypothesise that the people who don't have cars are more likely to live near one of the bus routes than the Abbey Station, and once you're on the bus it isn't really worth changing to the train as it would cost more and not make any material time saving.

Finally... one of the times I did use the Abbey line was to go to an event at Wembly (changing at Watford Junction). It was fine as a way of getting there but was no good as a way of coming back as the last train is too early (about 10:30pm from memory). Despite having lived in St Albans for much longer than me, the friend who I was travelling with was surprised by my choice of route as his default would have been Thameslink into London and LO/LM back out from Euston.

I live in St Albans, I don't drive a car - thanks a lot :).
I used to take the Abbey line to get to Watford for shopping purposes (especially at this time of year) in preference to the buses which quite often take ages in traffic. I don't any more, mainly because the quality of the shops in Watford has decined over the years.
Your last paragraph regarding the last train is extremely valid!
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,587
Location
Torbay
I think geography and developments mean it would be virtually impossible to run the trains to the city station. I think this was proposed as part of the conversion to light rail consultation a few years ago but was found to be uneconomical.

I'm sure it would be possible though:

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

Wasn't the collapse of the tram scheme more down to the inability of Hertfordshire CC to manage and finance the infrastructure project and then run the service, and difficulties with DfT and TOCs over subsidies etc.

It is also quite a hike from Watford Junction to the shopping centre. Would be better to terminate at Watford High Street or go down the new metropolitan line. Not likely to happen as need to cross the wcml.

A light rail alignment under the WCML might be possible through the arches of the Stephenson Way viaduct:

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

In the previous thread, the heavy rail (yellow) variant shown was claimed impractical due to curve and gradient transition constraints, but for light rail, tighter curves and steeper gradients would be more achievable.

Something very similar to a Tyne & Wear Metrocar could be suitable to operate the service. High platform compatible and wide enough to reach the edges, these vehicles, being based on tram designs, were specified able to negotiate curves down to 50m radius, although there are no turns so tight on the T&W network. A 750V Herts Metro version could use converted OHLE on the branch and include LU conductor rail power shoes for the run through High Street to Rickmansworth, strengthening the Metropolitan frequency through Watford and maybe venturing further afield to Amersham on some journeys.
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,779
Location
St Albans
I would think it would be possible to divert the Abbey Branch to St Albans City by reusing the How Wood to Napsbury Link, then running a fifth track along side the MML DF to a bay platform just north of the old St Albans South signal box. That would avoid the cost of a grade separated junction at Napsbury, and the loss of capacity caused by the local taking up slow line paths for such a short run. But the benefit would never be worth the expense.

Or you could re-open Napsbury station with an island platform between the slows and a platform on the DF only with the branch train terminating on the rear side of the DF platform. The two platforms being connected only by a footbridge. Would give a service Watford to St Albans city but with a change. The other problem would be that getting a modern length platform in at Napsbury on the available land might be tricky. But again the level of use would not make the investment worthwhile.
The old construction link runs right across where the rail freight terminal is proposed to be built - if it ever is. But if somehow the rail connections to this terminal could be rearranged to allow Abbey line trains to transit to the MML.....

Reopening a Napsbury station would be a popular move - London Colney has virtually doubled in size over the last 40 years (and that's not because I moved there around then!) and people have to go to either St Albans or Radlett to catch trains.

As for running a line parallel to the MML Down Fast to reach the City station, you would need to widen several bridges to take the extra track, the current plans to erect a new station building on the West side would scupper building a bay platform on that side, and last (but not least?:() you'd have to move the preserved South signal box out of the way!
Re the files cited by Marky T - I'm pleased to see he at least plans to keep the box preserved (Thanks!) but again the current proposals to put a new station building using a significant part of the car park on that side of the station would also scupper that light rail proposal.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,611
Location
Isle of Man
It would be a good alternative to allow through running to London and basically connect it to the Watford shuttles, but that would require big infrastructure changes at WFJ.

The infrastructure changes to the signalling were made a few years ago, taking the ground frame out allows easy through running. The only issue is the fact it can only be 4-car unless you use the SDO on the 350s. Off-peak that's not an issue, and sending a Tring short up the branch (replacing it north of Watford with the MK short) would be easily achievable.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,672
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The infrastructure changes to the signalling were made a few years ago, taking the ground frame out allows easy through running. The only issue is the fact it can only be 4-car unless you use the SDO on the 350s. Off-peak that's not an issue, and sending a Tring short up the branch (replacing it north of Watford with the MK short) would be easily achievable.

Interesting. Would the signalling allow it to leave 4 at WFJ and come back for them later before proceeding to Euston?

In the peak, it could surely use the Watford shuttle paths?
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
8,333
Location
Herts
The infrastructure changes to the signalling were made a few years ago, taking the ground frame out allows easy through running. The only issue is the fact it can only be 4-car unless you use the SDO on the 350s. Off-peak that's not an issue, and sending a Tring short up the branch (replacing it north of Watford with the MK short) would be easily achievable.

The issue is - until HS2 ,is capacity south of Watford on the slow lines for a 4 car set , - when there is so much pressure -(remember you may have a Blackpool open access reversing at Queens Park)

I did run through trains in my day - a Clacton excursion and a special to Euston for the 140th anniversary - but we had to clip and scotch the points and flag them !
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,672
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I doubt it will be *reversing* at Queens Park. If it doesn't get to Euston (recent suggestion is that it will), I assume it will proceed south to Camden Bank to lay over, and reverse there.
 

PeterY

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2013
Messages
1,363
I used to use the Abbey line quite a lot when I lived in the Watford area. Travelling from Garston to St Albans was generally free. The machine at St Albans only accepted cards and I had cash.

The 319's were a backward step from the 321's.

If I ever did a "main" line trip I always went to Watford Junction. The abbey line was too unreliable.

The timetable was awful to remember. It was also a pain to rush back from friends to catch the last train about 21.50-ish.

I often cycle the St Albans to Hatfield cycle path. I'd miss that if it were converted (extremely unlikely) into a tram way.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,715
Location
Scotland
I doubt it will be *reversing* at Queens Park. If it doesn't get to Euston (recent suggestion is that it will), I assume it will proceed south to Camden Bank to lay over, and reverse there.
I thought they were reversing at Queens Park to go to Wembley?
 

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
As for running a line parallel to the MML Down Fast to reach the City station, ................, and last (but not least?:() you'd have to move the preserved South signal box out of the way!


There was a siding between the box and the DF, so there should be room for a fifth line without moving the signal box, although it would make maintenance of that face of the box more difficult. But as I said it would cost too much for the benefit, so it will never happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I did run through trains in my day - a Clacton excursion and a special to Euston for the 140th anniversary - but we had to clip and scotch the points and flag them !

Think yourself lucky the local Relaying Supervisor and myself once had to bend one of the switches in the yard king points to remove a cripple. We put a wooden bullhead key behind the switch where it was crippled and then used Duff jacks either side to bend the switch. When we released the jacks they jumped about six feet in the air, and Duff jacks are rather hefty bits of kit.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,672
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I thought they were reversing at Queens Park to go to Wembley?

Two reversals per service? Crikey, that'll be a path eater.

Anyone want to bet on them terminating short at MKC or WFJ when someone breathes on the WCML and things get tight?

(More likely they'll get to Euston, though)
 

Andrew1395

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2014
Messages
666
Location
Bushey
Best way to be increase usage would be to transfer the line to London Overground and introduce Oyster fares on the branch
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,059
Location
Reston City Centre
I'm not from the area, so forgive me if this looks like big dumb questions from an outsider...

...but...

...rather than needing a passing loop/ a tram line/ a second train in operation/ some complicated link to the MML etc (or downgrading it to just an hourly service) - what is stopping the route becoming a half hourly service?

It's 6m30ch (according to realtimetrains), so a half hourly service would only require the unit to travel around twenty six miles in an hour. There are five intermediate stops, but is the infrastructure really so poor that it couldn't cope with something faster than a unit taking around twenty minutes to cover around six miles? Needing a second train/ passing loop/ trams seems quite extreme when you consider how lax the timetable appears to be.

Maybe there are well known reasons why it'd be impossible to get much above an average speed of around twenty miles per hour, but it seems a bit "tame"!

A self contained branch line requiring a fast accelerating unit that can cover around twenty five miles in an hour... I'd even consider running 230s under the wires!

Also, re the "St Albans via Watford" plans... I can see the attraction (of a through service) for the first couple of stations beyond Watford but any service all the way to St Albans is going to be very slow.

You can do St Pancras to St Albans in around twenty minutes (four times an hour, plus four stoppers that take a little longer). That's as long as it takes the Tring services to get from Euston to Watford (there are faster services ex Euston, but realistically the Tring ones are the only ones that you'd have a hope of extending - unless the stoppers via Watford High Street could somehow be extended - but they take twice as long to get to Watford).

So any direct service is going to take around twice as long as the frequent St Pancras to St Albans service, which is going to make it horribly unattractive for any "end to end" passengers.

As I say, it could be of use to Garston/ Bricket Wood, but I don't know that these are significant enough destinations (compared to using any spare WCML paths for Milton Keynes/ Northampton etc).
 

Verulamius

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2014
Messages
327
My thoughts on an improved service would be to have one slow and one non stop service an hour. I think that you could just it it in using the current infrastructure. Where do most of the passengers come from, is it St Albans Abbey to Watford Junction or is there significant custom from intervening stations?
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,531
Location
LBK
My thoughts on an improved service would be to have one slow and one non stop service an hour. I think that you could just it it in using the current infrastructure. Where do most of the passengers come from, is it St Albans Abbey to Watford Junction or is there significant custom from intervening stations?

The line can't support half hourly frequency. If it could it would already be happening.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
...rather than needing a passing loop/ a tram line/ a second train in operation/ some complicated link to the MML etc (or downgrading it to just an hourly service) - what is stopping the route becoming a half hourly service?

It's 6m30ch (according to realtimetrains), so a half hourly service would only require the unit to travel around twenty six miles in an hour. There are five intermediate stops, but is the infrastructure really so poor that it couldn't cope with something faster than a unit taking around twenty minutes to cover around six miles? Needing a second train/ passing loop/ trams seems quite extreme when you consider how lax the timetable appears to be.

Maybe there are well known reasons why it'd be impossible to get much above an average speed of around twenty miles per hour, but it seems a bit "tame"!

How long a turnaround do you want at each end? I'd guess for a reliable service you'd want about 5 minutes. That means the train has to go end-to-end calling at the 5 intermediate stops in 10 minutes flat. You'd have to accelerate and go very fast between the stops to achieve that.

Maybe you could put up with a 3 minute turnaround? That gives you 12 minutes to do the route. A bit better but still sounds iffy to me - and allowing for the driver to change ends, I suspect that would be too small a turnaround for a reliable service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As it is, I don't see a compelling reason for retaining the branch as heavy rail. Customers are disincentivised from travelling to London with the change required (and as you mention, the immemorable timetable). Very few Virgin services stop at Watford Junction either, so northbound journeys are inconvenient and you need at least two changes from St Albans to reach most northern cities on the WCML.

I would expect that once HS2 is built, Watford Junction would see many more stopping services to the North, which may make it more attractive as an interchange (especially once the Met extension is running there).

Running through trains to London from the Abbey line hits the twin problems of conflicting moves at Watford Junction and lack of spare paths to Euston, so I can't see that being viable at the moment. Maybe if the suggested link from CrossRail to Tring happens, that might relieve the pressure to Euston a little and make through running more viable.

The other problem is - as others have pointed out - getting to Watford High Street, where the shops are, isn't that easy. What would really help there is a turn-up-and-go frequency Junction-High St service. The Met line extension will help that somewhat - but only to a limited extent because of the mismatch between that 20 min Euston-Watford frequency and the planned 15 minute Met frequency. If TfL saw fit to make the WFJ-Euston services every 15 minutes so they interleaved well with the Met service, I imagine that would help massively (and it would be consistent with TfL's aim to provide turn-up-and-go frequencies in more places in London).
 
Last edited:

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,715
I doubt it will be *reversing* at Queens Park. If it doesn't get to Euston (recent suggestion is that it will), I assume it will proceed south to Camden Bank to lay over, and reverse there.

It has no firm rights to Euston. It will reverse in the Up and Down Kilburn Loop.
 

Verulamius

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2014
Messages
327
The line can't support half hourly frequency. If it could it would already be happening.

I am not suggesting a 30 min frequency. But something like:
Watford Junction :00 slow
St Albans Abbey : 20 fast
Watford Junction: 30 fast
St Albans Abbey: 40 slow

I'm not sure whether the timings would work?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,715
No they wouldnt, as mentioned you cannot get a half hourly frequency to work.
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,779
Location
St Albans
There was a siding between the box and the DF, so there should be room for a fifth line without moving the signal box, although it would make maintenance of that face of the box more difficult. But as I said it would cost too much for the benefit, so it will never happen.
Just for information, the line of the fence separating the St Albans South box grounds from the MML is roughly along the line of the siding rail nearest the box - a new line in front of the box not only would make maintenance difficult, it would also severely impede public access as there is no alternative route round the rear of the box due to the close proximity of a retaining wall, which in turn prevents the box being moved back.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
I am not suggesting a 30 min frequency. But something like:
Watford Junction :00 slow
St Albans Abbey : 20 fast
Watford Junction: 30 fast
St Albans Abbey: 40 slow

I'm not sure whether the timings would work?

At the moment it takes 16 minutes one way, with 13 minutes total turnaround (usually, 5 mins at St Albans, 8 mins at Watford). If you reduced it to a 4 minute turnaround at each end (somewhat risky but perhaps doable on a line that has no interactions with any other services), then you'd have 6 minutes left to make the non-stop journey, if that timetable was to work. What are linespeeds like? If you could get minimum 60mph everywhere, including through the stations, perhaps it's just doable.

Also, what is usage at St. Albans? I've not used the line many times, but when I have, there have been very few passengers at St. Albans abbey, which makes me suspect most passengers come from intermediate stations.

Here's another idea: Run an hourly service all stops to St Albans - 16 minutes one way. And combine that with an hourly Watford-Garston shuttle (current journey time 5 minutes). That leaves you an average of 4.5 minutes turnaround at each end to make a clockface timetable work. Offhand I can't see any reason why that shouldn't be doable with the current infrastructure. And it provides 2tph to Watford North and Garston - arguably the two stations that have the most people living near them.
 
Last edited:

Mordac

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2016
Messages
2,386
Location
Birmingham
At the moment it takes 16 minutes one way, with 13 minutes total turnaround (usually, 5 mins at St Albans, 8 mins at Watford). If you reduced it to a 4 minute turnaround at each end (somewhat risky but perhaps doable on a line that has no interactions with any other services), then you'd have 6 minutes left to make the non-stop journey, if that timetable was to work. What are linespeeds like? If you could get minimum 60mph everywhere, including through the stations, perhaps it's just doable.
It's 50mph after Watford North, and 20 between Watford North and Watford Junction. So nowhere close.

Also, what is usage at St. Albans? I've not used the line many times, but when I have, there have been very few passengers at St. Albans abbey, which makes me suspect most passengers come from intermediate stations.
St. Albans is by far the station with the highest numbers, with 165k. Only Watford North comes close with 103k, although from what people say here, some of these might actually be from intermediate stations.

EDIT: Here's the usage numbers for 2015-16:
Watford North 103,412
Garston 71,984
Bricket Wood 28,942
How Wood 27,804
Park Street 20,646
St Albans Abbey 165,000
 
Last edited:

Andrew1395

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2014
Messages
666
Location
Bushey
If it were to cease to be a heavy rail line, perhaps conversion to become a trolley bus route. You would need to spend £millions removing the rails, creating a roadway and conversion of the overheads to DC. But it would be more practical to have a road running trolleybus to both St Albans city and say Watford General hospital via the town centre. It could be a demonstrator project, providing electric powered alternative to trams for cities which cannot justify the tram approach. You could get second hand trolleybusesfrom europe. The branch could also have its rail alignment at the Watford end incorporated in the Redevelopment of the stations land at the Junction. This will provide 3,000 new flats and lots of offices. So potentially developer contributions? Either way after the basic railway was electrified 30 years ago you can't say heavy rail has not had a chance and is the only option for the future
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
8,333
Location
Herts
If it were to cease to be a heavy rail line, perhaps conversion to become a trolley bus route. You would need to spend £millions removing the rails, creating a roadway and conversion of the overheads to DC. But it would be more practical to have a road running trolleybus to both St Albans city and say Watford General hospital via the town centre. It could be a demonstrator project, providing electric powered alternative to trams for cities which cannot justify the tram approach. You could get second hand trolleybusesfrom europe. The branch could also have its rail alignment at the Watford end incorporated in the Redevelopment of the stations land at the Junction. This will provide 3,000 new flats and lots of offices. So potentially developer contributions? Either way after the basic railway was electrified 30 years ago you can't say heavy rail has not had a chance and is the only option for the future

Considering that might be just a waste of all the track relaying that has gone on the branch over the last decade ! , one thing that is bad news is losing the right of way of a rail route into urban areas. How do you propose this trolkey bus service ,at greater frequencies , might pass each other on a single line formation ? -the answer has to be sensibly light or heavy rail - with an intermediate , economically signaled passing loop, Ideally with some better penetration of St Albans and Watford , using some of the ideas other folk here have illustrated. If Charleroi ( a depressed post industrial city can fund light rail ,let alone many others in Europe , then wealthy Herts - if they could get their act together , ought to be able to as well).

The region depends on good access to work and other opportunities , so they might one day really consider the non sustainability of "King Auto" and come up with a funded option for Watford - St Albans - Hatfield and beyond.
 

PeterY

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2013
Messages
1,363
St. Albans is by far the station with the highest numbers, with 165k. Only Watford North comes close with 103k, although from what people say here, some of these might actually be from intermediate stations.

EDIT: Here's the usage numbers for 2015-16:
Watford North 103,412
Garston 71,984
Bricket Wood 28,942
How Wood 27,804
Park Street 20,646
St Albans Abbey 165,000

And that's the people that pay. Travel anywhere between North Watford and St Albans Abbey, the likelihood is you'll have a free ride.
 

Andrew1395

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2014
Messages
666
Location
Bushey
Considering that might be just a waste of all the track relaying that has gone on the branch over the last decade ! , one thing that is bad news is losing the right of way of a rail route into urban areas. How do you propose this trolkey bus service ,at greater frequencies , might pass each other on a single line formation ? -the answer has to be sensibly light or heavy rail - with an intermediate , economically signaled passing loop, Ideally with some better penetration of St Albans and Watford , using some of the ideas other folk here have illustrated. If Charleroi ( a depressed post industrial city can fund light rail ,let alone many others in Europe , then wealthy Herts - if they could get their act together , ought to be able to as well).

The region depends on good access to work and other opportunities , so they might one day really consider the non sustainability of "King Auto" and come up with a funded option for Watford - St Albans - Hatfield and beyond.

I suppose there would be enough room to pass where the formation used to have more than one track before all the freight sidings were removed and the passing loop. Herts County Council are proposing a compulsory purchase of the branch to convert it into a diesel powered guided bus. Once the new West Midlands franchise has responsibility for the track I don't expect they will mind that. At the end of the day the tram plan was driven by the need to release a mainline unit from the branch. It all collapsed because there is no rail revenue, as the majority of tickets sold are on flows that London Midland get all the money like to Euston and Travelcards. With basically no income for contained branch trips you have to get beyond its current constraints at either end to find any income. As you say what ever the mode or state of the civils you have to spend money maintaining them. Whatever might be the best solution on paper, it's the example of the Dunstable branch that is the most likely outcome
 
Last edited:

causton

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
5,504
Location
Somewhere between WY372 and MV7
The numbers at Watford North will be heavily skewed as:

a) Everyone say they get on there (fun when a member of staff tips us off as to who has and who hasn't!)
b) Lots of people ask for tickets from Watford North as opposed to Watford Junction, or Bushey, etc., to London stations. In fact, the TVM at Watford North has Wembley Central as one of the top "popular destinations" due to the amount of WFN - WMB CDRs sold as opposed to WFJ - WMB SDRs (no CDRs as they want everyone to use Oyster... oh wait, there's nowhere to buy an Oyster card at Watford Junction! ;) ) so if you buy 3 returns from the TVM at the Junction, it's £12.80 each, and if you buy 3 returns from the window, with Groupsave it's £12 for all three!

I wish there was some way for one fast/one slow to work on the branch, but as pointed out, the timings just don't work. Something needs to be done, before the reliability problems drive everyone off there apart from the local bored youths!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,672
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If a 45 minute frequency is unreliable as well as unmemorable, all the more reason to go to clockface hourly. Sure, it's a cut, but a reliable, memorable service is better than a slightly more frequent one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top