ideas for the 'DC' lines between Euston and Watford Junction

[Bletchleyite]

Terminus boarding is only poor use of stock if you consider it appropriate to lop out the layovers. It isn't, that causes unreliability, you need the SAME layovers but concentrated onto the outer ends.

So using a simplified hypothetical example, if you have B as a terminus, and have a route A-B with 15 minutes layover at A and B, and a route B-C with a 15 minute layover at each of B and C, if you turn that into a through service A-B-C you still need 60 minutes total layover, it just has to change into being 30 minutes at each end (or 15 and 45, or whatever).

(Well, you might be able to lop out about 2-3 minutes for the driver and guard walking to opposite ends of the unit, but that's rather de-minimis and so not really relevant)

You cannot seriously be arguing that doing otherwise - reducing the layover - is sensible. Look at where that got LNR and their appallingly unreliable long-distance through services, and Northern's similar issues too.

Regarding platforms, if HS2 goes ahead that gets its own, if HS2 doesn't go ahead there's no line capacity for any more than one more TPH of IC services from Euston - so it can't get worse in that sense (and we'd likely get P17 and 18 back).

And with regard to existing passengers getting priority - yes us - we don't want it, interchange or no! Euston is already well connected and services into it are popular. The Southern service is useful, of course, but it is for through journeys beyond London primarily, it isn't there for people going to London other than a small part of west London and a big shopping arcade.

I'd suggest actually using these services and discussing the use cases and views of passengers who do actually use them; otherwise you're doing little more than being a typical "crayonista" - and from reading your posts in the past you are really rather better than just doing that.

 

[MarkyT]

Terminus boarding is only poor use of stock if you consider it appropriate to lop out the layovers. It isn't, that causes unreliability, you need the SAME layovers but concentrated onto the outer ends.

So using a simplified hypothetical example, if you have B as a terminus, and have a route A-B with 15 minutes layover at A and B, and a route B-C with a 15 minute layover at each of B and C, if you turn that into a through service A-B-C you still need 60 minutes total layover, it just has to change into being 30 minutes at each end (or 15 and 45, or whatever).

You cannot seriously be arguing that doing otherwise - reducing the layover - is sensible. Look at where that got LNR and their appallingly unreliable long-distance through services.

Regarding platforms, if HS2 goes ahead that gets its own, if HS2 doesn't go ahead there's no capacity for any more than one more TPH of IC services from Euston - so it can't get worse in that sense (and we'd likely get P17 and 18 back).

I'm certainly not arguing for reduced layover 'per event' at termini, which is often fairly short anyway for suburban services compared to longer distance Intercity, but I disagree you need to keep the same total cycle layover if you remove terminal calls when combining two routes into a new cross London service. For example, if you tried to accomodate near thirty minute layovers for Crossrail at Reading to compensate for 'lost' layover at Paddington for former local stopping services, you'd find that would require at least two of the relief line platforms pretty much permanently occupied by TfL trains with little room left for semi-fasts to Oxford, and Heathrow western access, additional or longer XCs, freight etc!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree you need to keep the same total cycle layover if you remove terminal calls when combining two routes into a new cross London service. For example, if you tried to accomodate near thirty minute layovers for Crossrail at Reading to compensate for 'lost' layover at Paddington for former local stopping services, you'd find that would require at least two of the relief line platforms pretty much permanently occupied by TfL trains with little room left for semi-fasts to Oxford, and Heathrow western access, additional or longer XCs, freight etc!

Well, that shows a design issue if enough terminal platforms aren't provided at the outer ends to do that, doesn't it?

Why do you not think the same layover (give or take time to walk from one end of the unit to the other for the turnaround) needs to apply? I think it absolutely does. Indeed, I would typically, for an average route, suggest it is a percentage of running time that is needed - 10 minutes in the hour as a bare minimum to keep a relatively simple route with few interactions with other things punctual, plus the time needed to walk from one end to the other where this happens.

 

[MarkyT]

Well, that shows a design issue if enough terminal platforms aren't provided at the outer ends to do that, doesn't it?

They already more than doubled the number of full length through platforms! Crossrails could plausibly draw forward into the carriage sidings to reverse although clearly those movements would take time and carry their own risks. If an incoming arrived very late it might avoid the shunt to save time and depart on time.

Why do you not think the same layover (give or take time to walk from one end of the unit to the other for the turnaround) needs to apply? I think it absolutely does. Indeed, I would typically, for an average route, suggest it is a percentage of running time that is needed - 10 minutes in the hour as a bare minimum to keep a relatively simple route with few interactions with other things punctual, plus the time needed to walk from one end to the other where this happens.

I think terminal layovers should be decided more scientifically based on the real risk of delay being propogated into future services of the route concerned and other routes. That should be based on the characteristics of the route, the length, amount of conflict encountered etc, but that doesn't simply mean you add up all the former layover at termini of formerly separate services combined. Some serveces at termini have significantly longer turnrounds than others. This is often because of historical departure times customers like or require etc, or the slots available in a larger timetable. Combining into a longer route can sometimes allow such inefficiencies to be removed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think terminal layovers should be decided more scientifically based on the real risk of delay being propogated into future services of the route concerned and other routes.

I don't disagree with that per-se, but if you combine two routes with little changed about both halves and lop the terminus layovers, this simply does not work. You only have to use any London Northwestern Railway service for this to be abundantly clear.

Therefore, putting the Tring stopping services onto Crossrail would not make more efficient use of rolling stock. It would release platforms at Euston, but those platforms are not really needed for anything as the south WCML is full anyway so there is little scope to add things to it.

Back to topic on the DC line, removing that from Euston would free up platforms 9 and 10 for a few minutes in the hour, but would provide precious few other benefits, and the effects of calling LNR services at South Hampstead and Kilburn High Road would be highly negative.

As for the platform heights, chucking an order to Stadler for low-floor third-rail FLIRTs and piling the ballast up at Euston P9 would be a better idea.

 

[HSTEd]

Therefore, putting the Tring stopping services onto Crossrail would not make more efficient use of rolling stock. It would release platforms at Euston, but those platforms are not really needed for anything as the south WCML is full anyway so there is little scope to add things to it.

Platforms are still building space.... in central London.
It would be considerably better economically to build more platforms at the outlying termini and minimise the size of stations in central London

 

[Bletchleyite]

Platforms are still building space.... in central London.

So shove a concrete raft over the top (like Euston already has after a fashion) and build on that.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The genesis of the North Western Electric over a century ago , was to develop suburbia and provide 3 service patterns - to Euston , to the West End via the Bakerloo and to the City - via Dalston and to Broad Street.

The world has admittedly changed a lot , but the connections into Euston are much valued ( a brisk walk to a lot of places) , and the Bakerloo service from Harrow inwards is much valued. No market now for Broad Street !

What the issues are really is the sub-standard signal headways of the line from Queens Park northwards , and critically north of Harrow. In the latter case you have literally 2 signals per station section. Absolute minimum and a tricky 3d rail power supply. (for a long time , 6 car trains could run only with special dispensation as there was a feeder "missing")

I personally would go for full modern resignalling and a hefty power upgrade - maybe some line speed enhancements north of Hatch End+ where there are longer station gaps. Station staffing and so on have made the line much safer than it was in the bad days when I operated it (!) - and without doubt do 4 tph north of Harrow - thinning a few Bakerloo's to allow it.

Job done -

(+mindful of the tight curves around Watford High Street of course...)

 

[ijmad]

As for the platform heights, chucking an order to Stadler for low-floor third-rail FLIRTs and piling the ballast up at Euston P9 would be a better idea.

Alternatively you could run the DC service in to Euston using NTfL trains, fourth rails and CBTC, effectively annexing it to the Bakerloo as stub but keeping the route people like.

Platform 9 and 10 are both long enough to take a full tube train.

Is the service is entirely segregated on its own lines in Euston's throat? I don't have the atlas on me.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Alternatively you could run the service in to Euston using NTfL trains, effectively annexing it to the Bakerloo as stub.

Platform 9 and 10 are both long enough to take a full tube train.

They could take it , fair point , but there are times when you need to re-platform for engineering works etc , as well as having dual voltage requirements for using differing access lines in from Camden (Jct) ..frankly - keep it simple as now , and enhance as I commented on above. 4 tph north of Harrow is ideal for the traffic offered. "Big trains" better than tube stock also.

Still think the link via Croxley ought to be considered , if not implemented. Personal views of course.

 

[ijmad]

Still think the link via Croxley ought to be considered , if not implemented. Personal views of course.

It would be great if Croxley went ahead one day, agreed there! Though it doesn't seem like there are plenty of platforms to separately terminate both services with different platform heights. You can easily terminate 16tph in two platforms with CBTC and neither the Metropolitan Line or even an extended Bakerloo line will likely never send that number of trains to Watford, at least not until some hypothetical future when London's population hits 20 million and Kent is under the sea.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It would be great if Croxley went ahead one day, agreed there! Though it doesn't seem like there are plenty of platforms to separately terminate both services with different platform heights. You can easily terminate 16tph in two platforms with CBTC and neither the Metropolitan Line or even an extended Bakerloo line will likely never send that number of trains to Watford, at least not until some hypothetical future when London's population hits 20 million and Kent is under the sea.

Nice comment - I guess all day 4 tph down the DC and a sensible 6 tph on a new Croxley link would be well within the capacity of a properly resignalled DC lines to and from Watford Junction to Colne Junction / Harrow section and Wealdstone. There is a dead platform face at WFJ anyway.

4 aspect signalling down there would be a drivers's dream - even 3 aspect - I used to have banter with the Watford crews that a green aspect south of Harrow was so rare - they almost considered it a signal irregularity when they were chasing a Bakerloo ahead of them !

 

[ijmad]

Nice comment - I guess all day 4 tph down the DC and a sensible 6 tph on a new Croxley link would be well within the capacity of a properly resignalled DC lines to and from Watford Junction to Colne Junction / Harrow section and Wealdstone. There is a dead platform face at WFJ anyway.

4 aspect signalling down there would be a drivers's dream - even 3 aspect - I used to have banter with the Watford crews that a green aspect south of Harrow was so rare - they almost considered it a signal irregularity when they were chasing a Bakerloo ahead of them !

Hah well, yes. I assume the Croxley link would be signalled with Seltrac just as the rest of the Metropolitan Line will be, and the Bakerloo resignalled too in good time too with something similar, although it may be an 'overlay' on the DC.

 

[mmh]

I don't disagree with that per-se, but if you combine two routes with little changed about both halves and lop the terminus layovers, this simply does not work. You only have to use any London Northwestern Railway service for this to be abundantly clear.

Why does this work south of London but cannot north of it?

Therefore, putting the Tring stopping services onto Crossrail would not make more efficient use of rolling stock. It would release platforms at Euston, but those platforms are not really needed for anything as the south WCML is full anyway so there is little scope to add things to it.

Ah yes, the WCML is full. If it really was the afternoon train I was on from Chester to Euston yesterday would have passed far more local trains than it did.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the service is entirely segregated on its own lines in Euston's throat? I don't have the atlas on me.

No (which is a kick in the proverbials for those who say third rail and OHLE on the same section of line is impossible). Nor is platform usage - LNR use 10 and very occasionally 9. Without some heavy building work it couldn't really be - it has to get from one side of the formation to the middle (though there are some flyovers on the Euston approach).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah yes, the WCML is full. If it really was the afternoon train I was on from Chester to Euston yesterday would have passed far more local trains than it did.

I guess you don't use south WCML services and see just how volatile they are?

You could pack in more trains by running everything all stations on 2 minute headways, but a Euston-Northampton time of something like 2 hours is not going to be popular.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why does this work south of London but cannot north of it?

To which services do you refer? If you refer to Thameslink, they have quite long layovers at both outer ends (and are not, despite this, known for watch-setting punctuality).

I was simply countering the point that joining two services across a big city allows a significant reduction in layovers (the implication was that you could pretty much just lop out the inner-end layovers from both services) - it doesn't, or at least not if you want the resulting service to be in any way punctual.

 

[Kite159]

No (which is a kick in the proverbials for those who say third rail and OHLE on the same section of line is impossible). Nor is platform usage - LNR use 10 and very occasionally 9. Without some heavy building work it couldn't really be - it has to get from one side of the formation to the middle (though there are some flyovers on the Euston approach).

I wonder if the idea of ripping out the 3rd rail south of South Hampstead so the units change to AC in the station to remove having the third rail running into Euston. #crayonist

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder if the idea of ripping out the 3rd rail south of South Hampstead so the units change to AC in the station to remove having the third rail running into Euston. #crayonist

The third rail has been there under the OHLE since the OHLE went up in the 60s (I think). It hasn't caused problems since then. Why on earth would you want to do that, other than perhaps to allow LO the option of using other platforms?

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s not impossible, and never has been.

It does, however, get more difficult with higher levels of traffic on DC. 4 short trains an hour is relatively easy. 24 long trains an hour is definitely not. The boundary between easy and difficult is much closer to the former.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I wonder if the idea of ripping out the 3rd rail south of South Hampstead so the units change to AC in the station to remove having the third rail running into Euston. #crayonist

There might be clearance issues on the single bore (1917 era) tunnels.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

To which services do you refer? If you refer to Thameslink, they have quite long layovers at both outer ends (and are not, despite this, known for watch-setting punctuality).

I was simply countering the point that joining two services across a big city allows a significant reduction in layovers (the implication was that you could pretty much just lop out the inner-end layovers from both services) - it doesn't, or at least not if you want the resulting service to be in any way punctual.

For terminating services maybe - but the Luton , St Albans to Sutton services have just a short stand time at the latter, before continuing their circular services clockwise or anti-clockwise.

 

[mmh]

I guess you don't use south WCML services and see just how volatile they are?

You could pack in more trains by running everything all stations on 2 minute headways, but a Euston-Northampton time of something like 2 hours is not going to be popular.

Euston to Northampton stopping everywhere north of Watford except Kings Langley and Apsley is 90 minutes, so it's considerably less than 2 hours. But you've hit the nail on the head. The "problem" is multiple places wanting a fast service and the stopping patterns to accommodate that, not that the lines are full.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Euston to Northampton stopping everywhere north of Watford except Kings Langley and Apsley is 90 minutes, so it's considerably less than 2 hours. But you've hit the nail on the head. The "problem" is multiple places wanting a fast service and the stopping patterns to accommodate that, not that the lines are full.

The "subtle" patterns of the WCML "suburban" services do not just include decent journey times to that there London from Northampton , Wolverton and key stations such as Leighton Buzzard (a sensitive one) - but also such finesses as the need to provide cross Watford slow services - catering for Harrow towards Milton Keynes. Not to mention Bushey which up the late 1990's had just 3 AC services a day.

As one with just a little experience of operating and planning said services.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The genesis of the North Western Electric over a century ago , was to develop suburbia and provide 3 service patterns - to Euston , to the West End via the Bakerloo and to the City - via Dalston and to Broad Street.

The world has admittedly changed a lot , but the connections into Euston are much valued ( a brisk walk to a lot of places) , and the Bakerloo service from Harrow inwards is much valued. No market now for Broad Street !

There is a market for Broad Street . . . just no means of providing the service!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There is a market for Broad Street . . . just no means of providing the service!

Very fair point - and Broad Street died to fund the rebuilt Liverpool Street - with the services redirected to Stratford and beyond.

We did look at Tring to Liverpool St via the Navarino Road curve in 1996 - 1997 , but it proved too difficult as it would have split the AC London market.

 

[PeterC]

There is a market for Broad Street . . . just no means of providing the service!

There are all sorts of routes that seemed to be dead in the water in 1986 when Broad Street was closed which are very popular now. So much so that the once failing North London Line is also full ruling out any sensible through running from the DC lines.

 

[Tobbes]

There are all sorts of routes that seemed to be dead in the water in 1986 when Broad Street was closed which are very popular now. So much so that the once failing North London Line is also full ruling out any sensible through running from the DC lines.

How much capacity would be released by re-routing non-London freightliners from NLL? Some, presumably, but also not in the peaks when you'd want it, I'd guess.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Re-model the Camden Road area to enable 'through running' of services from South Hampstead.

No more trains into Euston.

Quarter-hourly frequency from Harrow & Wealdstone (Bakerloo line to be quarter-hourly north of there, or more in peak), with some additional trains to Stonebridge Park.

South Hampstead > Central London passengers to use Swiss Cottage
Kilburn High Road > Central London passengers to use Kilburn Park
Primrose Hill to be used interchangeably with Chalk Farm

In theory, with 6-minutely frequency from Willesden Junction to Stratford some capacity would exist for the quarter-hourly service from Harrow & Wealdstone to Stratford (Platform 11/12). These trains could even be extended north to Meridian Water as a through London Crosslink-type routine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But nobody wants that. It was mooted as a trial during engineering work a while ago and the complaints were massive.

It's crayonism of the highest order not taking into account what passengers actually want.