Abbey line departure boards and signalling diagram

[RailEnable]

The Abbey Line Passenger Association (ALPA) has recently been created for the Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey line, website https://alpa.org.uk/
Co-ordination is with the Hertsrail project https://hertsrail.org.uk
Hertsrail is the alternative to Hertfordshire Essex Rapid Transit (HERT).

The purpose of this thread is to request technical assistance concerning the departure boards and signalling diagram for the Abbey line.
With reference to opentraintimes.com signalling diagram https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/lec2#T_WATFDJ
"Movements on the St Albans Abbey line will appear only when a suitably fitted train is running on the line"

The departure boards appear to function however the signalling diagram does not. What is missing ? Is class 350 appropriate for the line ?

 

[AM9]

The Abbey Line Passenger Association (ALPA) has recently been created for the Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey line, website https://alpa.org.uk/
Co-ordination is with the Hertsrail project https://hertsrail.org.uk
Hertsrail is the alternative to Hertfordshire Essex Rapid Transit (HERT).

The purpose of this thread is to request technical assistance concerning the departure boards and signalling diagram for the Abbey line.
With reference to opentraintimes.com signalling diagram https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/lec2#T_WATFDJ
"Movements on the St Albans Abbey line will appear only when a suitably fitted train is running on the line"

The departure boards appear to function however the signalling diagram does not. What is missing ? Is class 350 appropriate for the line ?

Not sure what you are expecting but there is no signalling on the line apart from entering from and leaving to the mainline at Watford Junction. Once the train (and there is only ever one train at a time) enters the line, it runs without any external authorisation. The only piece of signalling equipment is the auto level crossing barriers at North Watford station, which lowers them when a the train approaches from either direction.

 

[IanXC]

The Abbey Line Passenger Association (ALPA) has recently been created for the Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey line, website https://alpa.org.uk/
Co-ordination is with the Hertsrail project https://hertsrail.org.uk
Hertsrail is the alternative to Hertfordshire Essex Rapid Transit (HERT).

The purpose of this thread is to request technical assistance concerning the departure boards and signalling diagram for the Abbey line.
With reference to opentraintimes.com signalling diagram https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/lec2#T_WATFDJ
"Movements on the St Albans Abbey line will appear only when a suitably fitted train is running on the line"

The departure boards appear to function however the signalling diagram does not. What is missing ? Is class 350 appropriate for the line ?

This will mean that some stock, but not all, that operates on the line has GPS equipment which reports times, thus giving data to populate the map. As has been mentioned there's very little signalling equipment on the branch.

The departure boards would be fed by the GPS information if available, however if it isn't available, the departure board feeds will assume the train is on time unless it has information that it is late.

 

[Ibex]

The departure boards are also fed by mass detectors on the platform at Watford Junction, Bricket Wood and St Albans Abbey. They do nothing more than detect that there was a train there and matches it to closest service, then shows a live expected time.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is a little odd, ie what is behind the question.

1) there is already a well established Community Rail Partnership for the line

2) There is already a proposal for a passing loop on the Abbey Line, at Bricket wood.

3) the St Albans - Hatfield line didn’t go anywhere near London Colney

 

[Woods]

The Abbey Line Passenger Association (ALPA) has recently been created for the Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey line, website https://alpa.org.uk/
Co-ordination is with the Hertsrail project https://hertsrail.org.uk
Hertsrail is the alternative to Hertfordshire Essex Rapid Transit (HERT).

The purpose of this thread is to request technical assistance concerning the departure boards and signalling diagram for the Abbey line.
With reference to opentraintimes.com signalling diagram https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/lec2#T_WATFDJ
"Movements on the St Albans Abbey line will appear only when a suitably fitted train is running on the line"

The departure boards appear to function however the signalling diagram does not. What is missing ? Is class 350 appropriate for the line ?

Don’t be fooled. ‘ALPA’ isn’t really an organisation with members and ‘Hertsrail’ isn’t really a project. In reality both are innocent pie-in-the-sky ramblings of a single individual with website skills who is known in the locality. Although there are some interesting ideas in there, none of this is going to happen. Moreover, there is in fact a long-established user group known already, they are known as ‘ABFLY’: https://www.abfly.org.uk/

There is also a Community Rail Partnership that has been established for 17 years, of which ABFLY are a member: https://abbeylinecommunityrail.org.uk/

The originator of so-called ‘ALPA’ and ‘Hertsrail’ was granted an audience with the ABFLY committee some months ago, whereupon he proceeded to lecture them on everything they were doing wrong until the meeting ended. Very conspiratorial and not exactly a collaborative approach to life that will win friends and influence people. On the other hand, ABFLY have been campaigning for years (since 1995) and in recent years have achieved some modest successes by way of service improvements.

If you want to know what’s going on with the Abbey Line, the long-running passing loop discussions, or anything else, contact ABFLY.

 

[skyhigh]

Don’t be fooled. ‘ALPA’ isn’t really an organisation with members and ‘Hertsrail’ isn’t really a project. In reality both are innocent pie-in-the-sky ramblings of a single individual with website skills who is known in the locality.

The same person also runs 'RailEnable' also known as 'RailAble' who list their current 'projects' as:

We have five current projects :

Firstly, concerning travel in the Oxford to Cambridge arc, there seems to be a good business case for a railway line between St Albans and Hatfield.

Secondly, concerning the East Coast Main Line (ECML), we discuss the possibility of Crossrail services via the West Anglia Main Line (WAML) on to the ECML, these services bypassing the ECML bottleneck at Welwyn.

Thirdly, a station stop on High Speed 2 in the vicinity of Aylesbury.

Fourthly, a direct London commuter service via Camberley.

Fifthly, a Crossrail, or Crossrail 2, circular service via Reading.

Welcome to RailEnable

This is a little odd, ie what is behind the question.

1) there is already a well established Community Rail Partnership for the line

I think it's quite clear this individual thinks they know better...

 

[swt_passenger]

This will mean that some stock, but not all, that operates on the line has GPS equipment which reports times, thus giving data to populate the map. As has been mentioned there's very little signalling equipment on the branch.

The departure boards would be fed by the GPS information if available, however if it isn't available, the departure board feeds will assume the train is on time unless it has information that it is late.

Is it just a generic Open Train Times explanation? I know there are places elsewhere where the trains derive their position using GPS and report it back, but it doesn't necessarily mean it happens here yet, whatever the stock. The first post implies the 350s are preventing it, but did any stock used here do it previously?

 

[Woods]

The same person also runs 'RailEnable' also known as 'RailAble' who list their current 'projects' as:

Welcome to RailEnable

I think it's quite clear this individual thinks they know better...

Yep, classic draw lines on a map approach bedroom-based transport planning! DfT take note.....

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh, I see.

 

[The Planner]

Oh my word, there are some crackers on that website.

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh my word, there are some crackers on that website.

My eyes were burning. I can’t unsee it now.

 

[RailEnable]

RailEnable https://railenable.com/ is a rail research website. Hertsrail https://hertsrail.org.uk is a RailEnable project, as is clearly indicated on the website. The Abbey Line Passenger Association (ALPA) https://alpa.org.uk/ is provided by RailEnable, as is clearly indicated on the website.

My father David, no longer a young man, and my late mother Audrey campaigned for 20 years to secure the future of the Abbey line. Not mentioned in an earlier post, they also created and ran rail user group Abfly.

Proposals to secure the future of the Abbey line have been the subject of ongoing research published at RailEnable.com for some years. It was inevitable that, at some point, rail user group Abfly would be invited to adopt the suggested outcomes. Protracted negotiations over several years failed : let us hope agents on behalf of Whitehall did not facilitate that. As a result, the creation of ALPA, albeit this month, would seem to be the only option.

I am unable to relate to the account given of a meeting, nor are we told where the information came from.

Unusually, the account of the campaign to secure the future of the line is available in a book, the Watford to St Albans Branch
https://stenlake.co.uk/book_publishing/?page_id=131&ref=1027&section=Oakwood
Second edition, brown cover. May be available from other sellers. For those who want to know where I am coming from, I am attempting to follow in the footsteps of my parents as documented in this book.

No one campaigns accurately for the future of the line without recognising underhand tactics by DfT. A notable example was the British Railways Board applying for planning permission in 1989 to redevelop the site of the Abbey station without informing the users of the train service. There have been other examples.

Hertfordshire Essex Rapid Transit (HERT) is a proposal to close the Abbey line and convert it into a busway. There was a public engagement (consultation) Nov 2021 - Jan 2022.

In the September 2021 issue of Modern Railways, Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) was interviewed and a glossy picture of the future of the line was painted. Unfortunately, no mention was made of the HERT proposal to convert it into a busway, nor of the impending public engagement. Therefore readers of the magazine would not have, in general, responded to it.

A passing loop at Bricket Wood, approximately at the mid-point on the line, was first suggested perhaps 20 years ago. I confess I had doubts. Subsequent to the publication of the above book in 2008, DfT rejected the proposal stating no business case.

Before the HERT engagement, HCC submitted a bid to Whitehall for a passing loop at Bricket Wood, more or less a repeat of the bid that had failed years previously. I predicted that the bid would fail subsequent to the engagement. Whitehall has indeed announced in recent weeks that the bid has failed. It is suggested that the bid was a deliberate decoy, an arrangement in advance to ensure the ground moved under people's feet subsequent to responding to the engagement. In other words, had the bid failed prior to the engagement, there would have been a clearer understanding of what was really happening. We have been taken for a ride.

It is anticipated that HCC/DfT may announce in September a consultation on closing the Abbey line. To enable this, the authorities have no choice but to adopt the position that the Hertsrail proposal does not exist.

For those who are interested, the published research at RailEnable.com is mathematically-based and detailed. Others have contributed. However I do not claim to be a professional.

At the end of what is clearly going to be an emotional debate, will there be anyone left who wants to save the Abbey line ? If there are one or two folks, there are some facts to face.

Some notes for those who wish to save the Abbey line.

There is no one providing constructive leadership to secure the future of the line.

By reading this, we know that any publicity for any proposal to save the line will be followed by heavy criticism. Could it be that Whitehall is using every trick in the book and some that aren't ? Obviously there are also others who jump on the bandwagon.

Now for a fact that some people may find uncomfortable. To secure the future of the line, Hertsrail is the only game in town. The bid for a passing loop at Bricket Wood having failed, there is no other. Those who want to secure the future of the line are invited to sign up to the Hertsrail newsletter.

Let us return to the technical discussion. I believe that the signalling diagram used to function, however that is by recollection. Would it make sense to use a smartphone application to test the strength of the GPS signal at intermediate stations ? If the signal is of sufficient strength, presumably a train that derives its position using GPS and reports back would provide customers with reliable information ? Would a class 350 be suitable for that ?

 

[The Planner]

What are you saving the line from?

 

[steeevooo]

What are you saving the line from?

A hypothetical closure for which only the OPs hypothetical solution can save the day, so it would seem.

 

[Clarence Yard]

“Underhand tactics”, “deliberate decoy”, “taken for a ride”, “using every trick in the book”, it’s obviously a massive conspiracy!

No, just massive assumptions, feeding an agenda. What saves the Abbey Line from the daft schemes that HCC’s infamous passenger transport unit keep thinking up are the local politicians in Watford and St.Albans and now that both constituencies on the route could changes hands at the next GE, I would wager that any thought of converting the line into a guided busway, or similar, will be quietly forgotten, on ministerial direction.

In the mid 2000’s the money to do the loop was there but, in true Whitehall fashion, the money for the extra unit and crew wasn’t!

If HCC could concentrate on running decent bus services within the County (which they struggle to do, because of lack of funds) rather than waste money on ridiculous plans that get people excited, that would be a start!

 

[Richardr]

now that both constituencies on the route could changes hands at the next GE

Off topic, but I would say very unlikely on the St Albans side.

 

[skyhigh]

By reading this, we know that any publicity for any proposal to save the line will be followed by heavy criticism.

It would...?

 

[Bald Rick]

A passing loop at Bricket Wood, approximately at the mid-point on the line, was first suggested perhaps 20 years ago. I confess I had doubts.

The doubts are well founded, as the business case is appalling.

In what way would a business case for a loop at How Wood, as you seem to propose, be different?

It is suggested that the bid was a deliberate decoy

Suggested by whom?

It is anticipated that HCC/DfT may announce in September a consultation on closing the Abbey line

Anticipated by whom? I’ll bet them anything they like that DfT won’t do that.

To enable this, the authorities have no choice but to adopt the position that the Hertsrail proposal does not exist.

That depends on your definition of a proposal existing. By tomorrow morning I could have a proposal for a completely new line from Watford to Harlow via St Albans, Welwyn and Hertford; would that then exist?

To secure the future of the line, Hertsrail is the only game in town

If the route to securing the future of the line is to spend hundreds of millions on extending it, it’s time to get the dark suit and black tie out.

Alternatively, perhaps the status quo?

In the mid 2000’s the money to do the loop was there but, in true Whitehall fashion, the money for the extra unit and crew wasn’t!

That’s not the case. The money for the loop wasn’t there. Having said that, the money for the extra unit and crews (a half hourly service needs another 4 sets of crew) is non-trivial And you’re right, that wasn’t there either. And still isn’t.

If HCC could concentrate on running decent bus services within the County (which they struggle to do, because of lack of funds) rather than waste money on ridiculous plans that get people excited, that would be a start!

That I agree with.

now that both constituencies on the route could changes hands at the next GE

absolutely no chance of St Albans changing hands at the next GE, short of a personal scandal involving the incumbent. (Very unlikely, knowing her).

 

[Clarence Yard]

That’s not the case. The money for the loop wasn’t there. Having said that, the money for the extra unit and crews (a half hourly service needs another 4 sets of crew) is non-trivial And you’re right, that wasn’t there either.

absolutely no chance of St Albans changing hands at the next GE, short of a personal scandal involving the incumbent. (Very unlikely, knowing her).

It absolutely was there. I had NR and the SRA sorted on the loop money (and sourcing an extra unit!) but not the op-ex - the Franchise Management team were not keen and without the increased op-ex, it fell. What amused me was that HCC were telling me what couldn’t be done and I said, “Well, I’ve been talking to X (very senior person) at NR and he is promising me Y and it can be done by Z! Who on earth are you talking to?!” I think having the Watford Cabinet Member for Transport being a senior rail manager was some at HCC’s worst nightmare - they couldn’t play their usual games.

The current St Albans MP is very good (and I would say that, given my political inclinations but she really is) but any increase in the Labour vote there at the expense of hers could cause her issues. The Conservatives would be mad to gift her any issue to campaign on.

The real threat to the line is service reliability. It needs to run like clockwork, not be binned off when resources are short.

 

[Bald Rick]

It absolutely was there.

Ok, our recollections differ!

 

[RailEnable]

Anyone who wishes to publish an alternative to the Hertsrail proposal can of course do so. In the meantime, there is no published alternative to Hertfordshire Essex Rapid Transit (HERT) other than Hertsrail https://hertsrail.org.uk
Hertsrail has 4 steps.
I would like to thank those who have contributed on the matter of signalling diagram and departure boards, being the original subject of discussion.

 

[The Planner]

Still dont get what it is you are suggesting is going to happen to the branch.

 

[Bald Rick]

In the meantime, there is no published alternative to Hertfordshire Essex Rapid Transit (HERT) other than Hertsrail https://hertsrail.org.uk
Hertsrail has 4 steps.

There is a published alternative, and it’s called ‘keep with what we have’.

it seems to have worked reasonably well for the last 30 years or so.

 

[zwk500]

The real threat to the line is service reliability. It needs to run like clockwork, not be binned off when resources are short.

If the biggest threat to the line is reliability, and there's no money to do anything, isn't the best way of serving the most journeys to reduce service to an even hourly interval, timed to connect with the xx.58 to Euston and the xx.03 to Birmingham New Street via Northampton? You'd have longer turnrounds to protect journey time, and you'd have decent connections to Euston, MK, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry and Birmingham. DC line services are frequent enough that there will usually be a good connection into them as well. A further benefit is that the trains are now a clock-face pattern, making it easier for passengers to plan journeys and estimate travel times.

At the moment the journey time is 16 minutes, so connections would be one way only. But potentially a xx.34 from SAC arrives Watford xx.50, with a departure back at xx.10 for xx.26 back at SAC. Gives roomy turnrounds and secure connections into those two trains, although return journeys from MKC and points north would have a longish wait.

The Up train from New Street is the problem one as it arrives xx.15, pushing turnround at St Albans down. With modest linespeed improvements, perhaps the journey time could be brought down by 1 or 2 minutes? Potentially a service that departs Watford at xx.20, arrives SAA xx.34, departs back at xx.39 for a xx.53 arrival at Watford gives a 5 minute connection into Euston, 8 minute into the Birmingham, with 5 minutes for passengers towards St Albans to get the branch train. Yes it's only a 5 minute turnround at SAC but the 27 minutes at Watford gives a fire break.

Both options are not very efficient for Crew and Unit usage, but short of major investment in Stock and/or Infrastructure to get a 30-minute frequency it's a compromise worth making to give passengers predictable and useful journeys.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the biggest threat to the line is reliability, and there's no money to do anything, isn't the best way of serving the most journeys to reduce service to an even hourly interval, timed to connect with the xx.58 to Euston and the xx.03 to Birmingham New Street via Northampton? You'd have longer turnrounds to protect journey time, and you'd have decent connections to Euston, MK, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry and Birmingham. DC line services are frequent enough that there will usually be a good connection into them as well. A further benefit is that the trains are now a clock-face pattern, making it easier for passengers to plan journeys and estimate travel times.

At the moment the journey time is 16 minutes, so connections would be one way only. But potentially a xx.34 from SAC arrives Watford xx.50, with a departure back at xx.10 for xx.26 back at SAC. Gives roomy turnrounds and secure connections into those two trains, although return journeys from MKC and points north would have a longish wait.

The Up train from New Street is the problem one as it arrives xx.15, pushing turnround at St Albans down. With modest linespeed improvements, perhaps the journey time could be brought down by 1 or 2 minutes? Potentially a service that departs Watford at xx.20, arrives SAA xx.34, departs back at xx.39 for a xx.53 arrival at Watford gives a 5 minute connection into Euston, 8 minute into the Birmingham, with 5 minutes for passengers towards St Albans to get the branch train. Yes it's only a 5 minute turnround at SAC but the 27 minutes at Watford gives a fire break.

Both options are not very efficient for Crew and Unit usage, but short of major investment in Stock and/or Infrastructure to get a 30-minute frequency it's a compromise worth making to give passengers predictable and useful journeys.

Linespeed improvement would do very little on the line, as the stops are so frequent.

By far the easiest way to save a couple of minutes (dons tin hat) is to make the service DCO. That would also free up the conductor to actually check tickets / take fares which in my experience they are reluctant to do (I’ve not had my ticket checked on the line for months). Another minute and a half could be achieved by not calling alternate services at Park St / How Wood which between them contribute fewer than 4 passengers a train. Sort the TSR out at Cotton Mill crossing, and it’s getting enough to be able to run a 30 minute frequency.

Having said all that, a significant majority of passengers on the line are not making connections, even in the peaks. Hence the regular, if not clockface timetable, as there is more revenue from a more frequent service than the extremely marginal extra cost of running it. Even though that is frustrating for the very few of us who do want to make connections!

 

[zwk500]

Linespeed improvement would do very little on the line, as the stops are so frequent.

Fair enough, as expected

By far the easiest way to save a couple of minutes (dons tin hat) is to make the service DCO. That would also free up the conductor to actually check tickets / take fares which in my experience they are reluctant to do (I’ve not had my ticket checked on the line for months). Another minute and a half could be achieved by not calling alternate services at Park St / How Wood which between them contribute fewer than 4 passengers a train. Sort the TSR out at Cotton Mill crossing, and it’s getting enough to be able to run a 30 minute frequency.

So close, and yet so far!

Having said all that, a significant majority of passengers on the line are not making connections, even in the peaks. Hence the regular, if not clockface timetable, as there is more revenue from a more frequent service than the extremely marginal extra cost of running it. Even though that is frustrating for the very few of us who do want to make connections!

This is interesting. I'm not surprised most passengers for London would not be connecting at Watford but would have thought connections to MK and Birmingham would be popular. As you say, a marginal cost to keep the unit running a few more times so may as well pick up the revenue.

 

[AM9]

As you say, a marginal cost to keep the unit running a few more times so may as well pick up the revenue.

Actually the additional revenue from SAA to WFJ for journeys going northwards is minimal, - about £3 more than the fare from Watford. What it does do though is give St Albans passengers easier parking or even the opportunity to walk to the station. For most, the train, despite its leisurely pace is a better option than the route 321bus, which takes 25 -40 minutes or longer if there are traffic issues.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fair enough, as expected

So close, and yet so far!

This is interesting. I'm not surprised most passengers for London would not be connecting at Watford but would have thought connections to MK and Birmingham would be popular. As you say, a marginal cost to keep the unit running a few more times so may as well pick up the revenue.

of the people connecting, almost all of them are going to London. There’s a reasonable connection to MK in the morning peak, and I reckon about 3 people do that each day. At least one of them is staff and probably not paying…

for what it’s worth I do think a half hourly clockface service would generate a decent uplift in patronage (c30-50%), but it would only have a case if it could be done with the same resources (unit and crew) and no significant infrastructure works. As above, I reckon there is a way of doing this, but it will upset some of my friends in Park St.

 

[Richardr]

What will reducing the frequency of the service achieve?

I am an infrequent user, but the train is very rarely if ever late in my experience. If there is an issue the whole service seems to get binned.

Reducing the frequency will just reduce even further the usage for what gain?