London North Orbital Railway

[Bald Rick]

Agreed the tram can - I was referring more to it being reopened as a rail link.

I think the problem with a tramlink will be two fold:

1 - the hills. I don't know how a tram will fare on Holywell Hill......

2 - where you'd route the line given the roads aren't particularly wide at present (in fact St Peter's St is quite narrow thanks to all the "traffiic improvements" the planners have put in over the last 10 years.

St Albans never had trams in a former time, so there's not even a precedent for where they could run.

1) pretty well for at least 50% of the journeys.
2) where buses can go, so can trams

Anyway it's all irrelevant, I've had 'the chat' with Herts CC at top level and the tram won't be coming past SAA for the forseeable.

 

[A0]

1) pretty well for at least 50% of the journeys.
2) where buses can go, so can trams

Anyway it's all irrelevant, I've had 'the chat' with Herts CC at top level and the tram won't be coming past SAA for the forseeable.

Yes, but as Manchester proved, you're average tram takes up more road space than your average bus and is far less manouverable...... and Manchester has much wider streets than SA.

 

[jon0844]

Although some land would need to be purchased, and some bridges reinstated, I wonder if a tram* from St Albans Abbey to Hatfield would be viable along the Alban Way?

My guess is that it would need to be single track though, with passing points, and I am not sure if that would be 'allowed' as it would limit capacity - but be cheaper and more practical.

A branch could then go off to St Albans City ideally, or the town centre, which could have benefits for Hatfield town centre which is currently totally dead and unlikely to ever become anything. The same tram route would also take in the Galleria, so I am sure it would be well used - including by students at night.

If it became a tram, presumably the route could remain open to cyclists and pedestrians alongside too?

I'd prefer proper rail, but doubt this would ever be financially viable.

* A proper tram, not some stupid guided bus way.

 

[LE Greys]

The "old" route through Hatfield is a no-no, all gone under the Galleria and various other bits of development.

I can't see too many people agreeing to a line running round the south of Hatfield either - too close to existing residential areas and no clear path to the ECML.

I'd prefer it if the focus was on re-using existing infrastructure which may be subject to upgrade as part of other plans. Specifically Bedford - Kettering - Corby - Stamford - Peterborough, which would allow an Oxford - ECML link.

What would be needed:

4 tracking of MML, Bedford - Kettering (some has been done, but it would all need to be done)

Speed upgrades - which are planned for the MML in any case.

Capacity upgrade Kettering - Corby.

New southern curve at Manton Jnc.

All of these would cost a fraction of either building new routes or trying to revive long-closed routes where the formations have been lost.

Does that really provide enough capacity to take all the NLL freight? The NLL will be unavailable to freight pretty soon, because of the density of passenger service, even more when the ELL extends onto it. Braintree-Stansted will give an extra route parallel with the Bury St Edmunds line, but that still throws a lot of capacity problems on to Ely specifically, with large numbers of conflicting movements at the junction. Running straight through Cambridge and Foxton onto another line would be very helpful. The St Ives route is now unusable without yet another massive rebuild, so now what? Avoiding line at Ely? Flying junctions?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although some land would need to be purchased, and some bridges reinstated, I wonder if a tram* from St Albans Abbey to Hatfield would be viable along the Alban Way?

My guess is that it would need to be single track though, with passing points, and I am not sure if that would be 'allowed' as it would limit capacity - but be cheaper and more practical.

A branch could then go off to St Albans City ideally, or the town centre, which could have benefits for Hatfield town centre which is currently totally dead and unlikely to ever become anything. The same tram route would also take in the Galleria, so I am sure it would be well used - including by students at night.

If it became a tram, presumably the route could remain open to cyclists and pedestrians alongside too?

I'd prefer proper rail, but doubt this would ever be financially viable.

* A proper tram, not some stupid guided bus way.

Nice idea, but where does the freight go?

 

[jon0844]

Ask the passengers nicely to carry some packages with them?

My plan doesn't include freight, but a means of connecting up different towns (and rail lines) with a more feasible scheme. Cheaper than rail and far better than buses using rather congested sections of road.. mostly due to the road design and bad parking almost 24 hours a day.

To be honest, if the Alban Way was ever reinstated and could be used to haul freight (a good idea, for sure), I am sure it would meet loads of resistance from people living around the former line - as trains could (and should) run through the night.

I doubt anyone would spend the necessary time and money to get the project approved with such resistance on a scheme that is hardly like HS2 or Crossrail.

There's certainly no reason not to continue with the rail idea, but not on this particular route.

 

[j0hn0]

Don't tar us all with the same brush dear boy. Old maybe, posh - not quite, but stuck in ways?? As someone who lives within 2 minutes of the old line, I would welcome it reopening even if it did require a diversion of my Sunday morning run. Most people round here would say the same, unless you happen to back on to the line itself. At a stroke it would reduce traffic into St Albans from the east considerably, not least by reducing the incessant flow of half empty Uno buses.

However, with the Abbey line going over to trams in the next couple of years, it is much more likely as a tram route. All the stuff about bridges, the A414, A1(M) etc becomes irrelevant as it could just follow the road where required. This has the distinct advantage of then being routed where us Albanistas actually want to get to, i.e. St Albans City station, St Albans City centre, Hatfield Poly (or whatever it is these days), Asda*, Hatfield station... A far better use of my taxes than the Croxley link. Probably.

Finally, the suggestion of Morrissons (St Albans) having to give up land and find more car parking is likely to meet a little local resistance - the only land adjoining that isn't a road or former railway is Fleetville primary school or the HQ of CAMRA. I'm not sure which group would be more fun to upset.

* of course people of St Albans don't really want to go to Asda. We just want to know that we can get there in an emergency, i.e. when Waitrose is closed.

Apologies if I offended, it was just for emphasis. I feel strongly that there would be too much local opposition to route the orbital line through st albans. Trams, now thats different entirely. I would assume that there is a good case for that because the whole town would benefit from lots of little stations, rather than a one station through line with no connections to MML.

 

[asylumxl]

Apologies if I offended, it was just for emphasis. I feel strongly that there would be too much local opposition to route the orbital line through st albans. Trams, now thats different entirely. I would assume that there is a good case for that because the whole town would benefit from lots of little stations, rather than a one station through line with no connections to MML.

I'm not sure of the authenticity of this information, but I've heard that HCC was considering allowing NR to continue being in charge of the maintenance etc. This would increase the cost of the line and negate any savings made by the conversion to a tram line.

 

[Bonemaster]

IIRC, the proposal was indeed to turn Cambridge Junction into a (fairly wide) triangle.

May well be a proposal but let us not forget that the current proposal was raised as long ago as 1995, and still we have no sign of any services along the "easy" part of the route let alone bridging the gap, whilst Oxford - Milton Keynes / Bedford may be viable within the next 10 years I believe I am more likely to see a rocking horse defecate than see trains on the East West Rail link east of Bedford. The political will just is not there at either local level (look at the rowing lake planning permission despite the council alliance) or at national level and nor is the private money that the scheme needs to get off the ground forthcoming and if after more than 15 years it has still not got off the ground with the part of the link that still has both trackbed and track.

The pessimist in me says that in another 15 years the same proposal will still be being talked about, with any of the long diversions that are being suggested over the missing link and the diversion of the Cambridge section via Hitchin, and possibly Luton and Stevenage along with good bus and road links between Cambridge, Bedford and further west, rail just would not be able to compete in terms of cost or time for passenger traffic, which would make any business case for a mixed passenger and freight line non cost beneficial.

The western section just makes me despair as the expensive and controversial bits to put in place are all there yet unlike projects in Scotland and Wales, its just got getting off of the ground.

 

[LE Greys]

May well be a proposal but let us not forget that the current proposal was raised as long ago as 1995, and still we have no sign of any services along the "easy" part of the route let alone bridging the gap, whilst Oxford - Milton Keynes / Bedford may be viable within the next 10 years I believe I am more likely to see a rocking horse defecate than see trains on the East West Rail link east of Bedford. The political will just is not there at either local level (look at the rowing lake planning permission despite the council alliance) or at national level and nor is the private money that the scheme needs to get off the ground forthcoming and if after more than 15 years it has still not got off the ground with the part of the link that still has both trackbed and track.

The pessimist in me says that in another 15 years the same proposal will still be being talked about, with any of the long diversions that are being suggested over the missing link and the diversion of the Cambridge section via Hitchin, and possibly Luton and Stevenage along with good bus and road links between Cambridge, Bedford and further west, rail just would not be able to compete in terms of cost or time for passenger traffic, which would make any business case for a mixed passenger and freight line non cost beneficial.

The western section just makes me despair as the expensive and controversial bits to put in place are all there yet unlike projects in Scotland and Wales, its just got getting off of the ground.

I suspect you're right. If so, this might cause serious problems for Felixstowe and certainly Tilbury in a few years. As well as the NLL, Crossrail is going to choke up the GE slow lines west of Shenfield. This might result in a lot more lorries on the A12 and A14, higher costs for the ports and a gradual loss of traffic to Southampton and Immingham.

 

[John Webb]

Just picked up on this after getting back from holiday.

When the conversion of the 'Abbey Flyer' line was first agreed much similar discussion took place on this Forum about extending the flyer line to the city centre, the City station etc. As a resident of St Albans for over 30 years I am sympathetic to the suggestion but I think it is a 'no-no' purely due to the narrow streets that exist in St Albans. A link via the Alban way to the City station might be just possible but recent developments on the old engine shed - carpark site could be in the way.

 

[The Planner]

Does that really provide enough capacity to take all the NLL freight? The NLL will be unavailable to freight pretty soon, because of the density of passenger service, even more when the ELL extends onto it.
Nice idea, but where does the freight go?

The general idea is to send a lot across to Peterborough, Leicester and Nuneaton and use the planned North chord.

 

[swt_passenger]

...The NLL will be unavailable to freight pretty soon, because of the density of passenger service, even more when the ELL extends onto it.

There are no plans to extend the ELL beyond its current terminus. The single track link (when it's commissioned) is to allow for maintenance movements to/from NXG depot.

 

[LE Greys]

The general idea is to send a lot across to Peterborough, Leicester and Nuneaton and use the planned North chord.

Which puts all the pressure on Ely. This already has 2 tph XC, 2 tph LM, 2 tph FCC, 2/4 tph NXEA plus all the freight, almost all on conflicting paths over a flat junction. It can probably cope with one or two extra freights per hour, but if we're talking about everything that uses the NLL, Ely is going to run out of capacity. Doubling the reverse curve, even putting a chord directly between the Norwich and Peterborough lines, will not make the blindest bit of difference to a train running from Soham to Peterborough. The only thing that might is an extra running line on the east side, although that is difficult with the level crossing. Ultimately, it's going to need a massive (unsightly and unpopular) flyover.

Even if you sort out Ely, it just shifts the problem to Peterborough. That's probably manageable, for now, but might end up requiring a new through platform west of the station, with potential for two running lines, and replacement of the down slow from there to Helpston. Not to mention the need for signalling modernisation on most of the lines in question.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are no plans to extend the ELL beyond its current terminus. The single track link (when it's commissioned) is to allow for maintenance movements to/from NXG depot.

I thought the whole point of the link was to get trains to Highbury and Islington, with consideration for extending the service to Watford Junction.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought the whole point of the link was to get trains to Highbury and Islington, with consideration for extending the service to Watford Junction.

They did reach Highbury and Islington at the end of February, when the service commenced. The 'link' I referred to is that between the ELL and NLL west of Highbury and Islington - that is not yet in use. But there are no longer any TFL plans to extend west towards Watford Junction, or anywhere else, and the finalised design of the NLL does not allow for it.

I'll give you the fact there have been any number of internet suggestions that it should be extended, but there's no longer anything official.

 

[A0]

They did reach Highbury and Islington at the end of February, when the service commenced. The 'link' I referred to is that between the ELL and NLL west of Highbury and Islington - that is not yet in use. But there are no longer any TFL plans to extend west towards Watford Junction, or anywhere else, and the finalised design of the NLL does not allow for it.

I'll give you the fact there have been any number of internet suggestions that it should be extended, but there's no longer anything official.

I thought there were two proposals - neither of which featured using the ELL.

1- extend the Bakerloo line back to Watford Junc and withdraw all of the LO services on the DC lines.

2 - extend the Watford services via Primrose Hill to Stratford.

I've not seen anything about extending the ELL services to Watford. Equally it's worth noting the ELL Capitalstars are DC only, so they'll have a bit of a problem running round bits of the NLL now.....

 

[Bald Rick]

A few facts to dispel some myths.

1) The NLL will not be unavailable for freight anytime soon, indeed quite the opposite. Following the recent resignalling, there are now more freight paths across the NLL (and GOB) than ever before, in addition to the additional passenger paths.

2) About half the freight on the NLL uses it out of necessity - sending a Bow - Acton aggregates train or Dollands Moor - Dagenham produce train via Ipswich, Ely and Peterborough would be a mighty diversion. And the tomatoes would go off.

3) The purpose of the Felixstowe - Nuneaton freight upgrade is not to take freight off the GEML / NLL, it is to a) provide an alterative W10 gauge cleared route (done) and b) to provide additional capacity over and above that already provided for freight from the Haven ports.

4) Ely North Jn Junction isn't a problem for flows to from Peterborough. The capacity constraints on the Felixstowe - Nuneaton line are being resolved as part of the capacity upgrade: Ipswich chord (2014), shortening the single line Soham - Ely (2013), reducing signalling headways between Bury St Edmunds and Kennett (November), Nuneaton North Chord (2013), Leicester resignalling (eventually), and doubling part of the Felixstowe branch (paid for by the port, so possibly never). Ely only becomes a problem above an additional 40 or so trains a day each way, and given that Felixstowe currently pumps out 30 a day (and is at capacity) this is a long, long way off.

5) Crossrail is not going to choke the Electric lines on the GEML, at least not as far as freight is concerned. Most freight already uses the Mains anyway, and the Electrics will still have capacity for freight off peak, just like today.

6) East West Rail will not get east of Bedford; no one will pay for it. The people paying for the Aylesbury / Bicester - Bletchley part, if it happens, will effectively be the developers of the 200,000 new houses in the areas served by the (already extant) route.

j0hn0: I'm un-offend-able, so no worries!

 

[Metrailway]

I believe the plan for the HS2 depot at Calvert actually assumes that the Varsity line would be open by the time the depot opened and that there would be a link to it, to allow trains to access the depot from the classical network without using HS2.

 

[LE Greys]

They did reach Highbury and Islington at the end of February, when the service commenced. The 'link' I referred to is that between the ELL and NLL west of Highbury and Islington - that is not yet in use. But there are no longer any TFL plans to extend west towards Watford Junction, or anywhere else, and the finalised design of the NLL does not allow for it.

I'll give you the fact there have been any number of internet suggestions that it should be extended, but there's no longer anything official.

My fault for going on out-of-date information.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A few facts to dispel some myths.

1) The NLL will not be unavailable for freight anytime soon, indeed quite the opposite. Following the recent resignalling, there are now more freight paths across the NLL (and GOB) than ever before, in addition to the additional passenger paths.

2) About half the freight on the NLL uses it out of necessity - sending a Bow - Acton aggregates train or Dollands Moor - Dagenham produce train via Ipswich, Ely and Peterborough would be a mighty diversion. And the tomatoes would go off.

3) The purpose of the Felixstowe - Nuneaton freight upgrade is not to take freight off the GEML / NLL, it is to a) provide an alterative W10 gauge cleared route (done) and b) to provide additional capacity over and above that already provided for freight from the Haven ports.

4) Ely North Jn Junction isn't a problem for flows to from Peterborough. The capacity constraints on the Felixstowe - Nuneaton line are being resolved as part of the capacity upgrade: Ipswich chord (2014), shortening the single line Soham - Ely (2013), reducing signalling headways between Bury St Edmunds and Kennett (November), Nuneaton North Chord (2013), Leicester resignalling (eventually), and doubling part of the Felixstowe branch (paid for by the port, so possibly never). Ely only becomes a problem above an additional 40 or so trains a day each way, and given that Felixstowe currently pumps out 30 a day (and is at capacity) this is a long, long way off.

5) Crossrail is not going to choke the Electric lines on the GEML, at least not as far as freight is concerned. Most freight already uses the Mains anyway, and the Electrics will still have capacity for freight off peak, just like today.

6) East West Rail will not get east of Bedford; no one will pay for it. The people paying for the Aylesbury / Bicester - Bletchley part, if it happens, will effectively be the developers of the 200,000 new houses in the areas served by the (already extant) route.

j0hn0: I'm un-offend-able, so no worries!

Interesting. I was under the impression that Camden Road-Highbury & Islington was going to be tube-interval within a ten years - mostly because I assumed that all NLL services would go straight through to Watford. Does that double-track section at Camden Road still exist? I haven't been there since it was in the hands of Silverlink, so honestly have no idea. With regards to Shenfield-Stratford, that was more a supposition.

As for Felixstowe, I always thought it was far higher than that. Maybe I read 30 as 300. :?

 

[mr_jrt]

As a resident of Watford who until recently used to travel to work in Cambridge, I've put a fair bit of thought over the years to orbital rail routes in this neck of the woods.

Here's things sketched out. (I know there are some very tenuous bits in there...there was a lot of musing involved).

The London Orbital's easy bits would be, roughly, Uxbridge High Street-Rickmansworth (very easy), a widened Rickmansworth is viable, then along the Croxley link to Watford Junction, to a new dive under (and perhaps underground platforms so the line can run under the car park), and along the (doubled where required) line to St Albans. Now, I'm suggesting that both the cramped abbey and city stations are closed, and a new proper interchange built on London Road, giving decent road access to the station. Perhaps a new station in north St. Albans would then be viable on the MML. Anyway, a chord up the MML for good measure is followed by the line to Hatfield, where, despite protestations otherwise, is still viable. Major works needed to bridge the A1, but a station at the traffic-generating Galleria is the reward. Line down to Hatfield station, then curving through open countryside to Hertford, then along to the branch to Broxbourne. This line effectively is the boundary of the zones, and in that regard, is the logical route. Major tunnelling would be required to reach the GWML and Heathrow from Uxbridge now...but I think this would be a worthwhile later phase.

I think the EWR route is great, but the missing section for me would be all new-build heading north from Bedford, skirting the edge of the town, then up to St. Neots, then cross country to the outskirts of Cambridge (serving as many of the villages as possible, notably Camborne), then finally re-acquiring the former line route from the Histon Road (the MGBs can run on roads right?...it'll be fine!) and down into Cambridge station.

A lot more new-build, but I think there would be a fair benefit of developing a route from Princes Riseborough up to Aylesbury (station moved slightly south), then along the former branch to Cheddington(Tring locals extended 1 stop to here, and potential for massive housing developments), then new build to the former line through Dunstable. Take that route down to Luton, then new build under the airport (obviously serving it), then up to Hitchin and taking over the branch to Cambridge. Again, the line could reach the GWML...(via Bourne End), but I've never quite managed to work out where the line south of Princes Risborough used to run through High Wycombe.

...and as for the LO services...

My preference would be for the 20m or so bottleneck west of Camden Road to be widened to four tracks, then the ELL extended up to Watford from H&I. It effectively gives you a fully-segregated (from Surrey Quays, anyway) 3rd rail line, with no need for the extensive works a Bakerloo extension would require (restoration of the 4th rail, etc). My main issue with a Bakerloo extension is that it effectively dooms Kilburn HS and South Hampstead once LO is evicted from Euston. My other issue is that IMHO NR-sized stock is more comfortable than tube stock, so if you can run it, do so! What's the point of running tube trains for miles on surface tracks...

...anyway...brain dump finished

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting. I was under the impression that Camden Road-Highbury & Islington was going to be tube-interval within a ten years - mostly because I assumed that all NLL services would go straight through to Watford. Does that double-track section at Camden Road still exist? I haven't been there since it was in the hands of Silverlink, so honestly have no idea. With regards to Shenfield-Stratford, that was more a supposition.

The two track section immediately west of Camden Rd does still exist, and there are no plans to change it, so that's the main bottleneck.

There is/was a plan on the back burner to reopen a third platform at Camden Rd, and this was to allow a Stratford to Camden Rd shuttle to run - but the actual timetable in use today has almost certainly overtaken that idea, because they are running an all day 6 tph service between Stratford and Willesden Jn (4 to Richmond and 2 to Clapham Jn) now anyway, with 8 tph (4 each to Richmond and Clapham Jn) in the peaks. I believe that there is no spare stock for any additional shuttle services terminating at Camden Rd from the east. I'd also emphasise that the NLL peak service running today is a better service than that applied for originally and shown on the ORR's website.

I have never heard of a suggestion to run 'tube style' frequencies - all they have ever promised was 'walk up metro frequencies' of at least 4 tph - which they have now achieved.
(Apart from the DC lines, and much of that is shared with the Bakerloo anyway, except the extremities.)

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...and as for the LO services...

My preference would be for the 20m or so bottleneck west of Camden Road to be widened to four tracks, then the ELL extended up to Watford from H&I. It effectively gives you a fully-segregated (from Surrey Quays, anyway) 3rd rail line...

But as pointed out every time this is proposed, you cannot have two fully segregated routes along there until such time as freight trains no longer need to get from the NLL onto the WCML via Primrose Hill.

 

[Aictos]

Which puts all the pressure on Ely. This already has 2 tph XC, 2 tph LM, 2 tph FCC, 2/4 tph NXEA plus all the freight, almost all on conflicting paths over a flat junction.

London Midland don't serve Ely, Ely is only served by Cross Country, First Capital Connect, National Express East Anglia and East Midland Trains.

Plus the freight which comes though as well.

 

[mr_jrt]

The two track section immediately west of Camden Rd does still exist, and there are no plans to change it, so that's the main bottleneck.

Actually, HS2 are proposing widenign it as part of their works to run their HS2-HS1 connectiosn that way.

But as pointed out every time this is proposed, you cannot have two fully segregated routes along there until such time as freight trains no longer need to get from the NLL onto the WCML via Primrose Hill.

If they're already on the NLL, then what difference does it make if they continue on the NLL through the newly-enlarged Hampstead Tunnel and join the WCML at Willesden using the City Lines? (think that's the right name for them)

 

[swt_passenger]

Actually, HS2 are proposing widenign it as part of their works to run their HS2-HS1 connectiosn that way.

Well yes, but even if built that doesn't actually allow any improvements to NLL traffic, as it will lead to a separate tunnel portal and a route over towards Old Oak Common.

If they're already on the NLL, then what difference does it make if they continue on the NLL through the newly-enlarged Hampstead Tunnel and join the WCML at Willesden using the City Lines? (think that's the right name for them)

If it was that easy, wouldn't they run that way already? I expect it's to keep out of the way of the freight that comes round via the Goblin - but I don't know the relative numbers.

 

[A0]

As a resident of Watford who until recently used to travel to work in Cambridge, I've put a fair bit of thought over the years to orbital rail routes in this neck of the woods.

Here's things sketched out. (I know there are some very tenuous bits in there...there was a lot of musing involved).

The London Orbital's easy bits would be, roughly, Uxbridge High Street-Rickmansworth (very easy), a widened Rickmansworth is viable, then along the Croxley link to Watford Junction, to a new dive under (and perhaps underground platforms so the line can run under the car park), and along the (doubled where required) line to St Albans. Now, I'm suggesting that both the cramped abbey and city stations are closed, and a new proper interchange built on London Road, giving decent road access to the station. Perhaps a new station in north St. Albans would then be viable on the MML. Anyway, a chord up the MML for good measure is followed by the line to Hatfield, where, despite protestations otherwise, is still viable. Major works needed to bridge the A1, but a station at the traffic-generating Galleria is the reward. Line down to Hatfield station, then curving through open countryside to Hertford, then along to the branch to Broxbourne. This line effectively is the boundary of the zones, and in that regard, is the logical route. Major tunnelling would be required to reach the GWML and Heathrow from Uxbridge now...but I think this would be a worthwhile later phase.


...anyway...brain dump finished

Quite apart from the general lack of demand for this particular route.....

You're way off the mark on both the St Albans and Hatfield bits.

There isn't a clear path that could be used to divert the Abbey line to the MML at London Road.

Secondly, there's no available site large enough to build a new station for St Albans anywhere around London Road.

You'd also massively screw up every other form of public transport in the area since all the main bus routes run via the City station at St Albans. Services running from Hatfield to Watford or Hemel would have a massive diversion to take in a new station on London Road.

Turning to Hatfield, yes the formation of the old line is in place to the A1M, but then where?

Aside from the complexities of the bridge over the A1, if you look on Google earth, the old formation ran along the east of what is now the Galleria and on through Hatfield town centre. That's lost to development in parts. Also it approaches Hatfield station from the north, so you'd need a reversal at Hatfield - not practical.

Alternatives? Well if you get to the Galleria, there aren't any. You've got extensive established residential areas on all 'as the crow flies' routes to Hatfield station.

Hatfield - Hertford through open countryside (Green Belt remember) isn't going to be viable either and since it doesn't take in anywhere en-route it won't attract passengers.

It's all well and good saying "there should be a route from 'x' to 'y', but you need to look at the practicalities and ask is it viable? This one, beyond the Rickmansworth - Watford piece which TFL want to do anyway, really isn't.

 

[mr_jrt]

Well yes, but even if built that doesn't actually allow any improvements to NLL traffic, as it will lead to a separate tunnel portal and a route over towards Old Oak Common.

Indeed. I'm not actually in favour of it and would prefer a full tunnel to the St. Pancras triangle (funnily enough, I prefer my own ideas...fancy that ), but it does show that the widening is feasible.

If it was that easy, wouldn't they run that way already? I expect it's to keep out of the way of the freight that comes round via the Goblin - but I don't know the relative numbers.

Perhaps. The freight all ends up running on the same lines west of Willesden Junction though, so there's clearly line capacity for it. I kinda envisioned the freight using paths vacated by ELL trains terminating in the bay(s) at Willesden.

Ideally, with reinstated quad track up the WAML from the Stratford area to get the freight to Broxbourne, the London Orbital route would have much more spare capacity for distributing freight than the NLL does. It's proximity to the M25 would also be a boon...and multiple freight hubs like Radlett would be more attractive. In that grand scheme map I posted, I threw in a somewhat tenuous (mostly tunnelled) route from west of Romford (...and Upminster, and Grays, etc) up to Broxbourne via Epping, which would see the freight run over very little of the GEML at all...

Quite apart from the general lack of demand for this particular route.....

Thanks for commenting. I love constructive criticism, as it helps me develop my ideas further. Now, if you say so...but given the traffic between Watford, St. Albans, Hatfield et al. despite the M25 being as bad as it is, I'd say there's a fair few people who want to travel between these huge population centres.

You're way off the mark on both the St Albans and Hatfield bits.

There isn't a clear path that could be used to divert the Abbey line to the MML at London Road.

There is, and it's a combination of the cycle path on the old trackbed and the golf course immediately south of the old London Road station.

Secondly, there's no available site large enough to build a new station for St Albans anywhere around London Road.

I think you'll find there is. This is something I put together a few years back to illustrate kind of what I propose.

The platforms for the "orbital" line are on the golf course's car park, and the relocated mainline station are on the widened spot of greenery north of London Road. Looking at the imagery now, in the intervening years it seems a new construction is happening on the site of the old huge car park that used to be there. This slightly impinges the chord I put in, but nothing insurmountable.

You'd also massively screw up every other form of public transport in the area since all the main bus routes run via the City station at St Albans. Services running from Hatfield to Watford or Hemel would have a massive diversion to take in a new station on London Road.

Hmm. Interesting. I don't see it as too much of an issue, after all, no-one uses the bus if they need a speedy journey, but a valid point nonetheless. Perhaps a new road over the railway branching off Colindale Avenue, over the railway, and through the low-density industrial land to join Shirley Road would prevent the need for a diversion, but then you'd still be avoiding the town centre, which, to be fair, the existing station also does pretty well.

Turning to Hatfield, yes the formation of the old line is in place to the A1M, but then where?

Aside from the complexities of the bridge over the A1, if you look on Google earth, the old formation ran along the east of what is now the Galleria and on through Hatfield town centre. That's lost to development in parts. Also it approaches Hatfield station from the north, so you'd need a reversal at Hatfield - not practical.

The route looks clear enough still to be viable. Certainly no worse than some other reopening proposals over the years.

I suspect you haven't looked at my map, as you'd see I don't propose a reversal at Hatfield at all. I propose running alongside the ECML into Hatfield station on the derelict land to the west of the station, then diving down and passing beneath before running cross-country to eventually rejoin the old alignment to Hertford.

Alternatives? Well if you get to the Galleria, there aren't any. You've got extensive established residential areas on all 'as the crow flies' routes to Hatfield station.

I'm intrigued by your statements...I see the old route quite clearly on the map imagery, with a path running along most of it.

Hatfield - Hertford through open countryside (Green Belt remember) isn't going to be viable either and since it doesn't take in anywhere en-route it won't attract passengers.

Indeed, it's a bit of a gap...but that just means it'll be quick. The patronage would come from linking Hatfield and Hertford, not to mention longer-distance traffic (such as the freight I mentioned in other posts). ...it's also why I don't like the idea of trams on this route...there is a distinct need for long-duration top speed running, which trams really aren't suited for, but trains are.

It's all well and good saying "there should be a route from 'x' to 'y', but you need to look at the practicalities and ask is it viable? This one, beyond the Rickmansworth - Watford piece which TFL want to do anyway, really isn't.

In your eyes, perhaps. I see lots of congestion and traffic, and believe a decent quick rail service would be an order of magnitude quicker than the alternatives (bus or rail via London zone 1).

I even worked out rough timetables once, based upon the services on the TfL Watford and NR St. Albans Abbey branches, and it was really quite competitive (IIRC, it saved a few minutes from the the bus Ricky-Watford, about 10-15 minutes to St. Albans, and at least 10-15 minutes for each section thereafter. Rickmansworth to Broxbourne came out at about an hour quicker, IIRC (it was quite some time ago).

(Basic premise is that it's about 15 minutes between each of the mainlines, and you want stations about 3-4 minutes apart - Work out the best station locations, then the times between them, then compare against journey planner suggestions for the same by bus.)

 

[jon0844]

The Alban Way would need some compulsory purchasing, but is mostly intact. It would either encroach into some back gardens (I know someone who lives there who would be affected) or narrow the road around the side of the Galleria.

Beyond that (going towards Hatfield), it just needs the reinstating of bridges, but it certainly does - if followed completely - go to the wrong end of Hatfield. You'd be better off joining up to the ECML and up to WGC if you did it. There are also issues nearer St Albans to deal with - but it's not THAT significant. There's also an old railway line, now open for cyclists and walkers, from WGC to Hertford.

It would be costly and a lot of people would no doubt get upset (think HS2), so I agree it probably can't happen.

This is why I think a more practical alternative is a tram route, which could be diverted off the Alban Way once it gets to the Galleria somehow. It would be more likely to be viable if it remained single track in the narrow places, as it might allow you to continue to walk/cycle alongside.

Clearly if there was the will do build a proper railway line, you could do it - like you could do anything if money and time was not an issue.

 

[Firestarter]

@mr_jrt how many platforms would a new St Albans have in your plans?

 

[LE Greys]

London Midland don't serve Ely, Ely is only served by Cross Country, First Capital Connect, National Express East Anglia and East Midland Trains.

Plus the freight which comes though as well.

<smacks forehead> As ever, that's confusing. The Midland is served by East Midland, while what calls itself "London Midland" serves the London and North Western. The companies were bitter rivals as well, so I imagine that some LNWR employees would turn in their graves if they knew that a company called London Midland operated out of Euston.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed. I'm not actually in favour of it and would prefer a full tunnel to the St. Pancras triangle (funnily enough, I prefer my own ideas...fancy that ), but it does show that the widening is feasible.

I tend to agree. We will need to go under the WCML anyway, so why not link the two together with a tunnel? The canal might present some problems, but it saves the need to squeeze yet more traffic onto the NLL.

Perhaps. The freight all ends up running on the same lines west of Willesden Junction though, so there's clearly line capacity for it. I kinda envisioned the freight using paths vacated by ELL trains terminating in the bay(s) at Willesden.

Ideally, with reinstated quad track up the WAML from the Stratford area to get the freight to Broxbourne, the London Orbital route would have much more spare capacity for distributing freight than the NLL does. It's proximity to the M25 would also be a boon...and multiple freight hubs like Radlett would be more attractive. In that grand scheme map I posted, I threw in a somewhat tenuous (mostly tunnelled) route from west of Romford (...and Upminster, and Grays, etc) up to Broxbourne via Epping, which would see the freight run over very little of the GEML at all...

Thanks for commenting. I love constructive criticism, as it helps me develop my ideas further. Now, if you say so...but given the traffic between Watford, St. Albans, Hatfield et al. despite the M25 being as bad as it is, I'd say there's a fair few people who want to travel between these huge population centres.

There is, and it's a combination of the cycle path on the old trackbed and the golf course immediately south of the old London Road station.

I think you'll find there is. This is something I put together a few years back to illustrate kind of what I propose.

Can anyone tell me what the structure is just west of Morrison's? I'd be looking at a slice of the car parks there to build St Albans East, with a second deck on top of the car park to make up capacity. The site is on Hatfield Road. The one major problem is that it does not provide an interchange with Thameslink. Your idea of a new station on what would presumably be the junction is much better.

The platforms for the "orbital" line are on the golf course's car park, and the relocated mainline station are on the widened spot of greenery north of London Road. Looking at the imagery now, in the intervening years it seems a new construction is happening on the site of the old huge car park that used to be there. This slightly impinges the chord I put in, but nothing insurmountable.

The LMS-era link is visible on overhead imagery here. From the looks of things, it is still clear enough to use, but would connect to the fast line side of the MML. I'm also not sure if there is enough space to sextuple the MML from there northwards, so it might need a flyover to the slow lines, which would mean cramming more traffic onto the slows.

<snip>
Indeed, it's a bit of a gap...but that just means it'll be quick. The patronage would come from linking Hatfield and Hertford, not to mention longer-distance traffic (such as the freight I mentioned in other posts). ...it's also why I don't like the idea of trams on this route...there is a distinct need for long-duration top speed running, which trams really aren't suited for, but trains are.

And the fact that using trams cuts down on the options for through trains. The number of times I have seen people suggest reopening the Snow Hill-Wolves LL line, which is impossible because of the tramway on top of it (although I reckon there is just room for a double-track line alongside). The same for getting railtours to Bury for the ELR, impossible because of Manchester Metrolink.

In your eyes, perhaps. I see lots of congestion and traffic, and believe a decent quick rail service would be an order of magnitude quicker than the alternatives (bus or rail via London zone 1).

I even worked out rough timetables once, based upon the services on the TfL Watford and NR St. Albans Abbey branches, and it was really quite competitive (IIRC, it saved a few minutes from the the bus Ricky-Watford, about 10-15 minutes to St. Albans, and at least 10-15 minutes for each section thereafter. Rickmansworth to Broxbourne came out at about an hour quicker, IIRC (it was quite some time ago).

(Basic premise is that it's about 15 minutes between each of the mainlines, and you want stations about 3-4 minutes apart - Work out the best station locations, then the times between them, then compare against journey planner suggestions for the same by bus.)

That's roughly my thinking, added to the fact that a cross-London journey involves a premium fare, and the Circle Line, which would be the main one being relieved here, can get very busy. This might also be a chance to knock the Watford Junction-Heathrow coach link on the head, using the Vine Street branch to reach Terminal 5.

 

[A0]

Indeed. I'm not actually in favour of it and would prefer a full tunnel to the St. Pancras triangle (funnily enough, I prefer my own ideas...fancy that ), but it does show that the widening is feasible.



Perhaps. The freight all ends up running on the same lines west of Willesden Junction though, so there's clearly line capacity for it. I kinda envisioned the freight using paths vacated by ELL trains terminating in the bay(s) at Willesden.

Ideally, with reinstated quad track up the WAML from the Stratford area to get the freight to Broxbourne, the London Orbital route would have much more spare capacity for distributing freight than the NLL does. It's proximity to the M25 would also be a boon...and multiple freight hubs like Radlett would be more attractive. In that grand scheme map I posted, I threw in a somewhat tenuous (mostly tunnelled) route from west of Romford (...and Upminster, and Grays, etc) up to Broxbourne via Epping, which would see the freight run over very little of the GEML at all...

Thanks for commenting. I love constructive criticism, as it helps me develop my ideas further. Now, if you say so...but given the traffic between Watford, St. Albans, Hatfield et al. despite the M25 being as bad as it is, I'd say there's a fair few people who want to travel between these huge population centres.

There is, and it's a combination of the cycle path on the old trackbed and the golf course immediately south of the old London Road station.

I think you'll find there is. This is something I put together a few years back to illustrate kind of what I propose.

The platforms for the "orbital" line are on the golf course's car park, and the relocated mainline station are on the widened spot of greenery north of London Road. Looking at the imagery now, in the intervening years it seems a new construction is happening on the site of the old huge car park that used to be there. This slightly impinges the chord I put in, but nothing insurmountable.

Hmm. Interesting. I don't see it as too much of an issue, after all, no-one uses the bus if they need a speedy journey, but a valid point nonetheless. Perhaps a new road over the railway branching off Colindale Avenue, over the railway, and through the low-density industrial land to join Shirley Road would prevent the need for a diversion, but then you'd still be avoiding the town centre, which, to be fair, the existing station also does pretty well.

The route looks clear enough still to be viable. Certainly no worse than some other reopening proposals over the years.

I suspect you haven't looked at my map, as you'd see I don't propose a reversal at Hatfield at all. I propose running alongside the ECML into Hatfield station on the derelict land to the west of the station, then diving down and passing beneath before running cross-country to eventually rejoin the old alignment to Hertford.

I'm intrigued by your statements...I see the old route quite clearly on the map imagery, with a path running along most of it.

Indeed, it's a bit of a gap...but that just means it'll be quick. The patronage would come from linking Hatfield and Hertford, not to mention longer-distance traffic (such as the freight I mentioned in other posts). ...it's also why I don't like the idea of trams on this route...there is a distinct need for long-duration top speed running, which trams really aren't suited for, but trains are.

In your eyes, perhaps. I see lots of congestion and traffic, and believe a decent quick rail service would be an order of magnitude quicker than the alternatives (bus or rail via London zone 1).

I even worked out rough timetables once, based upon the services on the TfL Watford and NR St. Albans Abbey branches, and it was really quite competitive (IIRC, it saved a few minutes from the the bus Ricky-Watford, about 10-15 minutes to St. Albans, and at least 10-15 minutes for each section thereafter. Rickmansworth to Broxbourne came out at about an hour quicker, IIRC (it was quite some time ago).

(Basic premise is that it's about 15 minutes between each of the mainlines, and you want stations about 3-4 minutes apart - Work out the best station locations, then the times between them, then compare against journey planner suggestions for the same by bus.)

You're quite correct - I didn't look at a map.

I did, however live in the local area for over 20 years and still regularly go back for various reasons.

There is no space alongside the Galleria - Google earth shows you that, it's one of the service roads for the Galleria.

At St Albans Road West you've got housing over the formation - again Google earth shows this.

At Lemsford Road you've got the long-established Fiddlebridge Industrial Est all over the formation.

The "derelict land" you refer to to the west of Hatfield station is completely inaccessible - again take a look at Google earth.

Quite where you'd put a single track, presumably 75mph or 100mph railway I don't know. It's also very close to alot of long established residential areas.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Alban Way would need some compulsory purchasing, but is mostly intact. It would either encroach into some back gardens (I know someone who lives there who would be affected) or narrow the road around the side of the Galleria.

Beyond that (going towards Hatfield), it just needs the reinstating of bridges, but it certainly does - if followed completely - go to the wrong end of Hatfield. You'd be better off joining up to the ECML and up to WGC if you did it. There are also issues nearer St Albans to deal with - but it's not THAT significant. There's also an old railway line, now open for cyclists and walkers, from WGC to Hertford.

It would be costly and a lot of people would no doubt get upset (think HS2), so I agree it probably can't happen.

This is why I think a more practical alternative is a tram route, which could be diverted off the Alban Way once it gets to the Galleria somehow. It would be more likely to be viable if it remained single track in the narrow places, as it might allow you to continue to walk/cycle alongside.

Clearly if there was the will do build a proper railway line, you could do it - like you could do anything if money and time was not an issue.

And the WGC - Hertford line no longer has the space to put a railway line back in.

Ridgeway in WGC has seen development over the formation.

And around Black Fan Road you've got housing all over the formation.

So that one's got no chance of ever being restored.

I tend to agree that a tram makes more sense if the Hatfield - St Albans corridor was to have rail as you could do road-running from the Galleria to Hatfield Town Centre, whereas the suggestions about reinstating the railway line through Hatfield are frankly in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps. The freight all ends up running on the same lines west of Willesden Junction though, so there's clearly line capacity for it.

No it doesn't. About a third of it heads south of the river or to Acton and the Western. That is why the container trains generally head direct via Primrose Hill, and the aggregates trains go via Gospel Oak, where they are joined by more aggregates and container trains from Thameside.

Now, if you say so...but given the traffic between Watford, St. Albans, Hatfield et al. despite the M25 being as bad as it is, I'd say there's a fair few people who want to travel between these huge population centres.

Birmingham is huge. Glasgow is huge. Watford is not. Hatfield doesn't even have a centre. Besides, most people don't want to travel between the centres; the start and end of most journeys is out of town in a housing / retail / industrial estate. This is the modern car based economy, like it or not.

Looking at the imagery now, in the intervening years it seems a new construction is happening on the site of the old huge car park that used to be there. This slightly impinges the chord I put in, but nothing insurmountable.

Ah, imagery. That's 400 new apartments, at £250k a pop minimum, that are mostly built now on land that cost Linden Homes £23m. That's over £100m insurmountable.

The route looks clear enough still to be viable. Certainly no worse than some other reopening proposals over the years.

*chuckles* It's a bike track, not even wide enough for two bikes. Almost every reopening that has actually happened in the past two decades has had railway lines on it already.

Leaving aside the fact that moving St Albans City station south and away from the city centre would annoy just about everyone except those who live on the south east side (*raises arm*), the land costs would be PHENOMENAL, the MML would have to be realigned and slowed down considerably, the new curve on the Abbey line would be about 5mph, and the lot would cost upwards of half a billion, I can see this has a lot going for it.

Can anyone tell me what the structure is just west of Morrison's?

1) Morrisons petrol station
2) Fleetville Junior School
3) UK HQ of CAMRA