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

[Skimpot flyer]

I’ve often wondered whether the DC lines would be better served with the Bakerloo cut back to Queens Park, and maybe 4tph from Euston to Watford Junction, supplemented by additional shuttle Overground services running between Queens Park and Watford Junction? I realise this would need additional units, of course.
Or is there a capacity constraint north of Harrow & Wealdstone preventing more than 4tph?
The stock on the Bakerloo is antiquated and extremely hot, even outside the summer months!

 

[Class 170101]

I’ve often wondered whether the DC lines would be better served with the Bakerloo cut back to Queens Park, and maybe 4tph from Euston to Watford Junction, supplemented by additional shuttle Overground services running between Queens Park and Watford Junction? I realise this would need additional units, of course.
Or is there a capacity constraint north of Harrow & Wealdstone preventing more than 4tph?
The stock on the Bakerloo is antiquated and extremely hot, even outside the summer months!

The Bakerloo would still need to run to Stonebridge Park as thats where the maintenance depot is.

However at some point it will get new trains so that issue should go away.

 

[hwl]

The Bakerloo would still need to run to Stonebridge Park as thats where the maintenance depot is.

However at some point it will get new trains so that issue should go away.

The power supply is a big limitation on running any more than currently.

 

[samuelmorris]

The power supply is a big limitation on running any more than currently.

They will probably need to run a power supply upgrade for the new trains, but they aren't due for almost 15 years so plenty of time to get that in place.

 

[hwl]

They will probably need to run a power supply upgrade for the new trains, but they aren't due for almost 15 years so plenty of time to get that in place.

Some of the work has already been done thanks to HS2 at Euston (new feed and switch gear), just the individual substations when needed.

 

[reddragon]

much easier as per NLL to change the 4 rail system to OLE and remove the DC north of Stonebridge

 

[ijmad]

much easier as per NLL to change the 4 rail system to OLE and remove the DC north of Stonebridge

But then you'd have to rename the line to 'Watford AC'...

 

[charley_17/7]

But then you'd have to rename the line to 'Watford AC'...

Or why not back to the 'Harlequin Line' as it was known in NSE days?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I’ve often wondered whether the DC lines would be better served with the Bakerloo cut back to Queens Park, and maybe 4tph from Euston to Watford Junction, supplemented by additional shuttle Overground services running between Queens Park and Watford Junction? I realise this would need additional units, of course.
Or is there a capacity constraint north of Harrow & Wealdstone preventing more than 4tph?
The stock on the Bakerloo is antiquated and extremely hot, even outside the summer months!

I imagine that would not be popular with the majority of travelers as the Bakerloo line services take them (or connect) to more destinations in central London than just Euston. Infact I wonder if it would be more likely that the DC service into Euston would be removed altogether in favour of more trains going down the tube into and across central London ?.

I still dream of the Bakerloo line taking over the Hayes (Kent) branch thus relieving pressure on the aproaches to Charing Cross.

Oops topic drift alert. Well then the freed up 710s and 378s could get used on the GospelOak-Barking and NLL respectively then. (phew ).

 

[Railperf]

much easier as per NLL to change the 4 rail system to OLE and remove the DC north of Stonebridge

It's 3rd rail north of Harrow and Wealdstone - although it was formerly 4-rail. It looks like the 4th rail was removed off its insulators and disconnected from any DC supply and lays in the centre of the running rails bonded to one of the running rails? Didn't the 4th rail run right into Euston at one point?
The 378's and 710's have much better acceleration than the 72 tube stock, but lose out on dwell times.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I imagine that would not be popular with the majority of travelers as the Bakerloo line services take them (or connect) to more destinations in central London than just Euston. Infact I wonder if it would be more likely that the DC service into Euston would be removed altogether in favour of more trains going down the tube into and across central London ?.

I still dream of the Bakerloo line taking over the Hayes (Kent) branch thus relieving pressure on the aproaches to Charing Cross.

Oops topic drift alert. Well then the freed up 710s and 378s could get used on the GospelOak-Barking and NLL respectively then. (phew ).

I think you misunderstood my post? I was arguing that the Bakerloo could run from Elephant & Castle to Queens Park, and not north thereof. So passengers from stations north of Queens Park could still swap to the Bakerloo, but travel in air-conditioned comfort more of the time

 

[MatthewRead]

I think you misunderstood my post? I was arguing that the Bakerloo could run from Elephant & Castle to Queens Park, and not north thereof. So passengers from stations north of Queens Park could still swap to the Bakerloo, but travel in air-conditioned comfort more of the time

What about Stonebridge Park that's where the lines main base is.

 

[transmanche]

Didn't the 4th rail run right into Euston at one point?

Yes, in the original electrification all trains operated using the fourth-rail system. (The same applied to the North London line.) The class 501s operating the service were converted from fourth-rail to third-rail operation in 1970.

 

[reddragon]

Yes, in the original electrification all trains operated using the fourth-rail system. (The same applied to the North London line.) The class 501s operating the service were converted from fourth-rail to third-rail operation in 1970.

Unfortunately the conversion from 4 rail to 3 rail was a bit of a bodge job. Simply the 4th rail that earthed to the running rails, without suitable earth bonding in place so a lot of power leaks.

I remember being on a 313 when they replaced the 416s. When it rained and current was leaking badly, the lights went out and they stalled due to brown outs!

 

[MatthewRead]

Yes, in the original electrification all trains operated using the fourth-rail system. (The same applied to the North London line.) The class 501s operating the service were converted from fourth-rail to third-rail operation in 1970.

The 501's were converted from 4th rail to 3rd rail in 1971.

 

[Elshad]

It's 3rd rail north of Harrow and Wealdstone - although it was formerly 4-rail. It looks like the 4th rail was removed off its insulators and disconnected from any DC supply and lays in the centre of the running rails bonded to one of the running rails? Didn't the 4th rail run right into Euston at one point?
The 378's and 710's have much better acceleration than the 72 tube stock, but lose out on dwell times.

But on the other hand 72 Stock seems to approach stations much faster, with braking much later on. Compared to the 378s which enter stations very leisurely. Maybe due to driver technique etc.

 

[Val3ntine]

But on the other hand 72 Stock seems to approach stations much faster, with braking much later on. Compared to the 378s which enter stations very leisurely. Maybe due to driver technique etc.

Probably totally different operating procedures between national rail and the underground

 

[Railperf]

But on the other hand 72 Stock seems to approach stations much faster, with braking much later on. Compared to the 378s which enter stations very leisurely. Maybe due to driver technique etc.

Isn't that down to the good old fashioned westinghouse brake!!

 

[mr_jrt]

Everything old is new again. When the Bakerloo service was cut back from Watford Junction in 1982 it was terminated at Queens Park, and only progressed north again to H&W in 1984.

https://www.davros.org/rail/culg/bakerloo.html

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think you misunderstood my post? I was arguing that the Bakerloo could run from Elephant & Castle to Queens Park, and not north thereof. So passengers from stations north of Queens Park could still swap to the Bakerloo, but travel in air-conditioned comfort more of the time

I wonder what proportion of travellers would value one less change of train. I always favoured slightly longer commutes if it meant fewer changes. That is because I then had a more reliable journey and it allowed me to settle down and sleep/read.

 

[samuelmorris]

But on the other hand 72 Stock seems to approach stations much faster, with braking much later on. Compared to the 378s which enter stations very leisurely. Maybe due to driver technique etc.

378s are driven extremely casually on the ELL even compared to other NR stock.

 

[Elshad]

378s are driven extremely casually on the ELL even compared to other NR stock.

Yea it's a real shame. They are very boring to travel on.

 

[samuelmorris]

Yea it's a real shame. They are very boring to travel on.

Boring doesn't really bother me, but I feel they'd be a more compelling mode of transport compared to the other routes in their respective areas if they were even driven like regular NR stock, let alone like LU's ATO controlled stock. There's probably double digit % performance improvements to be had. I've never really found out why they're driven so slowly.

 

[ijmad]

I think you misunderstood my post? I was arguing that the Bakerloo could run from Elephant & Castle to Queens Park, and not north thereof. So passengers from stations north of Queens Park could still swap to the Bakerloo, but travel in air-conditioned comfort more of the time

NTfL will have air conditioning though, although I know it's quite a way away.

 

[Goldfish62]

Isn't that down to the good old fashioned westinghouse brake!!

LU driving technique. Unlike on NR use of full service braking is normal. Of course ATO takes this to its fullest extent.

 

[ijmad]

Since these posts have now been moved to speculative ideas, I think by far the most reasonable approach to the Watford DC will be to extend the Bakerloo out there again when the New Tube for London arrives, perhaps at the same time it's extended South. The Bakerloo upgrade will bring far in excess of 4tph equivalent extra capacity if it's needed - 27tph to 36tph should be possible with CBTC and NTfL brings 30% more capacity supposedly. I'm sure not all of them will run to Watford but this is far in excess of anything the Overground could offer.

You can then alter platform/trackbed height for level access for pushchairs, wheelchairs and people with other mobility impairments.

The Overground service to/from Euston simply goes away.

Let NR use the paths and platforms at Euston for more services to Milton Keynes and beyond, around 4tph of which will stop at Kilburn and South Hampstead before crossing back on to the WCML slows just before Queens Park.

 

[swt_passenger]

Without the “DC line” the Bakerloo core section highest frequency would still be able to gradually taper off with reversals at any of Queens Park, Willesden Jn Bay, Harrow and Wealdstone etc. Similar to what they do with the western end of the Jubilee line, I think.

Not sure what they’d do with the Southern Bakerloo extension frequency but that’s probably for a different discussion...

 

[MarkyT]

Since these posts have now been moved to speculative ideas, I think by far the most reasonable approach to the Watford DC will be to extend the Bakerloo out there again when the New Tube for London arrives, perhaps at the same time it's extended South. The Bakerloo upgrade will bring far in excess of 4tph equivalent extra capacity if it's needed - 27tph to 36tph should be possible with CBTC and NTfL brings 30% more capacity supposedly. I'm sure not all of them will run to Watford but this is far in excess of anything the Overground could offer.

You can then alter platform/trackbed height for level access for pushchairs, wheelchairs and people with other mobility impairments.

The Overground service to/from Euston simply goes away.

Let NR use the paths and platforms at Euston for more services to Milton Keynes and beyond, around 4tph of which will stop at Kilburn and South Hampstead before crossing back on to the WCML slows just before Queens Park.

This does make more sense now the Met extension to Watford Junction has been abandoned, as the platforms heights throughout could be adjusted for tube stock level boarding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This does make more sense now the Met extension to Watford Junction has been abandoned, as the platforms heights throughout could be adjusted for tube stock level boarding.

The DC line is actually very popular as it is, and while I can see the benefit of this, last time there was any proposal not to operate into Euston (the thought at the time was to send it to Stratford via Primrose Hill instead, which was done for engineering works but was also considered somewhat of a trial) there was utter uproar and the whole thing was dropped.

I think if you wanted to standardise platform heights to deliver level boarding, you'd actually get a lot less objection if you lopped the Bakerloo back to Queen's Park and had dedicated platforms for each.

People do value the civility of boarding a train at a terminus with excellent facilities. I certainly do, as do many other south WCML users - the idea of moving Tring/MKC stoppers onto Crossrail (which is sort of a bit comparable) was really not popular, and certainly I am personally glad that that got kicked firmly into the long grass.

 

[MarkyT]

The DC line is actually very popular as it is, and while I can see the benefit of this, last time there was any proposal not to operate into Euston (the thought at the time was to send it to Stratford via Primrose Hill instead, which was done for engineering works but was also considered somewhat of a trial) there was utter uproar and the whole thing was dropped.

I think if you wanted to standardise platform heights to deliver level boarding, you'd actually get a lot less objection if you lopped the Bakerloo back to Queen's Park and had dedicated platforms for each.

People do value the civility of boarding a train at a terminus with excellent facilities. I certainly do, as do many other south WCML users - the idea of moving Tring/MKC stoppers onto Crossrail (which is sort of a bit comparable) was really not popular.

But at least, while slow, the Bakerloo route does go right into London with a number of central stations as well as myriad tube and main line interchanges. While the NL to Stratford provides many connections for diverted DCs, it is by no stretch of the imagination the city centre. Trings to Crossrail made a lot of sense, coupling WC suburban to Thames valley and Heathrow connections, and providing many new direct journey opportunities. I have never routinely used WC suburban services but I don't think any suburban customer can bank forever on the continued 'civility' of terminus boarding which might otherwise be characterised as poor utilisation of stock and scarce London terminal platform capacity (that might be better utilsed for longer distance services), and non provision of the wide range of additional interchange possibilities that a cross London line could offer. Unfortunately the views of potential new customers attracted to rail can never get as much consideration as those of existing passengers.