The St. Albans Abbey branch: low passenger usage

[Mordac]

I've just been looking at usage statistics on this line, with a view to updating the Wikipedia pages, and I'm struck by how terribly low the usage on it is, especially given its proximity to London, where you'd expect it'd partake of the massive growth everything surrounding London has.

On the contrary, it's seen huge declines, especially in the last year for which stats are available (2014/15). I'm guessing there must be some issues with service quality. Certainly a look at the timetables doesn't leave me impressed, and Hertfordshire council's seemingly unstoppable desire to turn it into a bus lane leaves me less than confident, but still you'd expect to see at least modest growth. Can someone who knows the area (I've never been) shed some light on this?

 

[J-2739]

It's not that attractive of a service, with an hourly frequency. It's limited by being single track.

 

[The Planner]

High fare evasion Id bet and it doesnt take much for LM to knock it in the head when things go wrong.

 

[TonyMitchell]

Many years ago, there used to be a passing loop at Bricket Wood. Lifting it was the nail in the coffin as far as being able to increase frequency of service.

There's a recent article in the local rag about some horrible plans to convert it into a bus route...
http://www.borehamwoodtimes.co.uk/n...ted_into_busway/?ref=mrb&lp=5#comments-anchor

 

[DelayRepay]

The question is what purpose does it really serve? Why do people from St Albans need to go to Watford? I guess a few work there but you wouldn't use it as a way of getting into London as the Thameslink services are much quicker. If I ever need to go to Watford I drive.

I did have a period when I needed to go to Manchester on a regular basis but I found it was quicker to go into London and get a service from Euston.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Non-pay train for much of the time , i.e no revenue collected ......

Plus a number ride free on the branch and swipe in Oyster on arrival at Watford ....particularly noticeable at peak hours.

 

[eriks]

High fare evasion Id bet and it doesnt take much for LM to knock it in the head when things go wrong.

This.
Often not fare evasion as such. Machines not working and the guard doesn't collect fares on many trips.

Despite the fact it's a single train on its own section there's often no crew, the crap 319 train broken, leaves on the line etc.....

 

[John Webb]

As a resident of St Albans, I can confirm that the statistics on use are unreliable, as there is little check on tickets (or lack of them) held by passengers.

There have been various proposals to reinstate the loop at Bricket Wood - a 'heavy-rail' loop was ruled out on cost grounds, then conversion to a 'tramway' system with a shorter and cheaper loop was ruled out by the desire to maintain a connection to the Euston mainline. I am not clear why, or if, a loop of the type installed at Penryn on the Falmouth branch has ever been considered.

The main argument for the bus conversion is the ability for buses, particularly at the St Albans end, to access the city centre and the City station. The main argument against is the cost of conversion and also the experience of a lack of takeup on the similar scheme between Luton and Dunstable brought into use a couple of years ago.

There is a previous, and lengthy thread, on the branch from a couple of years back lurking on this Forum - you may wish to use the search function to find it.

 

[MK Tom]

It's not that attractive of a service, with an hourly frequency. It's limited by being single track.

It's not hourly, it's 45 minutely, which makes for an impossible to remember timetable which probably isn't helping attractiveness to users.

Reliability suffered badly in late 2015 due to teething issues with the 319s.

There were proposals for a passing loop at Bricket Wood to raise the service frequency but I don't know what's happened there.

Would running a through service to Harrow and Euston boost loadings perhaps?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I genuinely think reducing the frequency to hourly, giving a memorable departure time from each station, would increase usage (as well as reducing costs).

 

[AM9]

I genuinely think reducing the frequency to hourly, giving a memorable departure time from each station, would increase usage (as well as reducing costs).

Unless the train ran through to beyond Watford Junction, how would an hourly service cost (significantly) less? It would satill need one train with one crew.

 

[ItchyRsole]

Been on there quite a few times and always had my ticket checked, either on the train or at the barriers at WFJ.

Also found it a very handy service. Would not like to see it go.

 

[yorkie]

It would be much more useful if it terminated at a more convenient location at St Albans.

Increasing the frequency to half-hourly is also a must to increase usage.

If you want the stats to improve, someone needs to come round checking tickets. This seems to be very rare at present.

There are some sensible posts in this thread but I can't let this one remain unchallenged...

The question is what purpose does it really serve? Why do people from St Albans need to go to Watford? I guess a few work there but you wouldn't use it as a way of getting into London as the Thameslink services are much quicker. If I ever need to go to Watford I drive

...not everyone can do this!

 

[DelayRepay]

(On the subject of driving between St Albans ans Watford...

...not everyone can do this!

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.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

It would be much more useful if it terminated at a more convenient location at St Albans.

Increasing the frequency to half-hourly is also a must to increase usage.

If you want the stats to improve, someone needs to come round checking tickets. This seems to be very rare at present.

There are some sensible posts in this thread but I can't let this one remain unchallenged...

...not everyone can do this!

Did the line always terminate at St. Albans Abbey or did it continue else where beyond St. Albans, could it go into the main station at St. Albans?

 

[Oliver]

Did the line always terminate at St. Albans Abbey or did it continue else where beyond St. Albans, could it go into the main station at St. Albans?

There was a line to Hatfield. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_and_St_Albans_Railway

 

[DelayRepay]

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.

In the past there used to be a link from the Abbey station to Hatfield but that was closed a long time ago and is now a cycle way.

There is some history here: http://www.abfly.org.uk/history/

 

[AM9]

Did the line always terminate at St. Albans Abbey or did it continue else where beyond St. Albans, could it go into the main station at St. Albans?

The line was built in 1858 to provide St Albans with its first link to London, (via Watford Junction and the LNWR). The northern terminus is not facing the MML nor is there any practical means of making it do so (land prices here are not exactly cheap). The St Albans Abbey station from 1865 also became the terminus western for the Hatfield to St Albans railway, - the second line to the city that the GNR hoped to reclaim some of the traffic lost to the LNWR. The opening of the MML direct to London killed that ambition in 1868. That line closed completely in 1968. It is now a well-used cycle/footpath along its entire length and an important part of the NCN.

There has been sporadic talk of linking the Abbey line to the MML bypassing the Abbey station but it woul be a major project, - the MML is some 15 metres higher than the line and the slow tracks are on the eastern side of the line. Then there is also the astronomical cost of land acquisition to make a link.

 

[jfisher21]

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.

 

[edwin_m]

There was a connection from the Abbey branch south of St Albans used to access the MML while it was being constructed. You can see it diverging north of How Wood station on the link below. In theory this could provide a connection to the MML and thence to the City station, but it would be hugely expensive including providing a flying junction to get to the MML slow lines on the east side.

https://binged.it/2h4NRXn

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless the train ran through to beyond Watford Junction, how would an hourly service cost (significantly) less? It would satill need one train with one crew.

It would cost slightly less due to less electricity used. It wouldn't be a huge saving.

OTOH, a memorable hourly frequency would be much more use than an odd slightly-better-but-not-much-better-than-hourly one. I would say that generally applies to any service that is hourly or more frequent - there's little point in going better than hourly unless you can go clockface half-hourly. Below hourly I think frequency wins out over consistency.

 

[lejog]

There was a connection from the Abbey branch south of St Albans used to access the MML while it was being constructed. You can see it diverging north of How Wood station on the link below. In theory this could provide a connection to the MML and thence to the City station, but it would be hugely expensive including providing a flying junction to get to the MML slow lines on the east side.

https://binged.it/2h4NRXn

IIRC, the blank area east of Frogmore on this map became part of Radlett Airfield after the railway closed, when this in turn closed it became a gravel pit to service the construction of the nearby M25. But from satellite photos the quarry seems seems now been filled in and regrassed, so it seems that the land to restore the link to St Albans City may be available again. A pipedream of course.

Edit: I see the site is the subject of some local controversy, with planning permission granted to build a rail freight terminal there, but the local council not minded to sell the land.

 

[Trog]

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.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

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.

Just a thought - and in the context of the rejected planning strategy for the area , aligned with a little controversy over the so called "Railfreight" terminal at the old airfield , not to mention great pressure on Green Belt development for more housing - a spendid compromise might be to redevelop the "airfield" for housing , aligned with a new Napsbury station and safequarding a diversion of the Abbey line to this point - using some of the long redundant 1866 or so route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does it *need* to be diverted? Or is it useful as it is by providing a service to London (via Watford) that's walkable from a different part of St Albans?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Does it *need* to be diverted? Or is it useful as it is by providing a service to London (via Watford) that's walkable from a different part of St Albans?

Therein lies the question ....tricky one , as the present location is "all right" but under performs - certainly a link into SAC would be transformational (giving such flows as Luton - Watford with one change) - but horribly expensive to achieve ......

My assesment of flows is that there is a small end to end flow from SAA to Watofrd and beyond , along with stronger flows towards Watford from the branch intermediate stations - smaller flows the other way. Oddly enough - very little traffic from say Garston towards SAA !

For all the issues on the GTR services - the quick journey to London and the interchange possibilities therein make this option vastly superior.

 

[jon0844]

What's clear is HCC is never going to do anything but push it back in its reviews of transport in the future. It speaks of reducing car usage and that it is not hitting its own targets, then it makes further cuts to public transport and won't invest in getting real time info working proper, proper mobile ticketing or CPC acceptance etc.

HCC is definitely the weak link on getting anything done, and it's a shame as any routes that save trips into and out of London have to be a good thing and worth saving.

The lack of revenue protection, ticketing facilities (the TVM at Abbey being so slow that you actually see people who did queue and intend to pay just leaping on the train instead) and the ability to avoid a penalty at Watford Junction means there's a lot of money lost.

Maybe that's intentional to run the service and justify cuts rather than investment.

 

[AlterEgo]

It would cost slightly less due to less electricity used. It wouldn't be a huge saving.

OTOH, a memorable hourly frequency would be much more use than an odd slightly-better-but-not-much-better-than-hourly one. I would say that generally applies to any service that is hourly or more frequent - there's little point in going better than hourly unless you can go clockface half-hourly. Below hourly I think frequency wins out over consistency.

There's also the reduced wear on the infrastructure.

Re: the tram proposal which was rebuffed, what's the operational need for a connection to the mainline at WFJ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not entirely sure, to be honest, and I think the light rail proposal (DOO, added passing loop, Penalty Fares, with the possibility of street running being added later) was a good idea. And there were second hand high floor trams available cheap, too - ex-Manchester T68s.

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.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not entirely sure, to be honest, and I think the light rail proposal (DOO, added passing loop, Penalty Fares, with the possibility of street running being added later) was a good idea. And there were second hand high floor trams available cheap, too - ex-Manchester T68s.

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.

Yes it would. A through train to EUS might reinvigorate the Abbey Line.

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.

It's a shame the tram suggestion hasn't gained more traction (pardon the pun).