Improving rail links to Watford

[Bald Rick]

Also I'm not sure whether Euston can handle the extra trains or whether work would be needed there.

Getting more up the slow lines into Euston is not straightforward until the new tracks are added in a few years.

 

[AF91]

If it were down to me I'd add another bay platform next to platform 10 as there is already an old platform face there. I'd use the new bay as the terminating point for the southern service and would use platform 10 for a Watford to Euston service (2tph ideally but 1tph would be useful if that was all that could be resourced). Watford to Euston shuttles existed pre covid and were a great way of soaking up some of the Watford customers to free up capacity on other services. I even remember a few times getting a service that just ran Euston to Watford Junction non stop.

 

[mr_jrt]

But there isnt enough time to get the train to the Abbey and back to meet the return path.

And let’s be clear, we don’t want s train stood at Watford South blocking the Down Slow waiting for the previous late running one off the branch.

Easily solved by having two platforms at Watford as the abbey line originally had? The northbound service then can wait clear of Watford South for the southbound branch train to clear the branch.

Doesn't help get things fast enough to meet the half hourly path, but you said upthread with a bit of skip stopping and maybe a targetted intervention or two, you could get things down to 30 minutes there and back?

 

[cle]

Well do you think 15 minutes would be enough time for the Clapham train to run between Watford and Harrow & Wealdstone with only a call at Bushey?

The Southern doesn't call at Bushey - likely to keep it nippy enough with the faster services and paths. I am assuming an LO Clapham service would also miss Bushey (the Wembley call is much more valuable, and the trundle on own lines just prior helps with regulation)

Bushey having regular Euston fast services is much more valuable for there.

If it were down to me I'd add another bay platform next to platform 10 as there is already an old platform face there. I'd use the new bay as the terminating point for the southern service and would use platform 10 for a Watford to Euston service (2tph ideally but 1tph would be useful if that was all that could be resourced). Watford to Euston shuttles existed pre covid and were a great way of soaking up some of the Watford customers to free up capacity on other services. I even remember a few times getting a service that just ran Euston to Watford Junction non stop.

If the space was allowed, having two platforms (one needs to be through for the Abbey line) and another for Southern/LO dedicated (if Southern, might need 8 cars? LO up to 5?) - would be helpful. And the Flyer being 378 / interworked / depot etc if needed, might be good to have a standard fleet - even if that isn't bit branded as London Overground, being fully Herts!

 

[AF91]

If the space was allowed, having two platforms (one needs to be through for the Abbey line) and another for Southern/LO dedicated (if Southern, might need 8 cars? LO up to 5?) - would be helpful. And the Flyer being 378 / interworked / depot etc if needed, might be good to have a standard fleet - even if that isn't bit branded as London Overground, being fully Herts!

I'd keep the Abbey Flyer as a self contained branch in its current platform location, albeit potentially renumbered to P12 to account for the additional bay.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The status quo. Which is of course what will happen.

If rail can't solve it, the pressure to build more roads will be immense.

 

[Bald Rick]

If rail can't solve it, the pressure to build more roads will be immense.

It won‘t. Status Quo applies there too.

 

[Flinn Reed]

Some thoughts on this topic:

Firstly, I don't think the Croxley Rail Link ever had that much potential. The Metropolitan line would have taken quite an indirect route from Watford Junction/High Street towards London - I doubt many passengers would switch from LNR or Lioness services. It would only really benefit passengers making shorter journeys from stations north of Harrow to reach Watford Town Centre or Junction, and therefore doesn't really justify the cost of the project.

In terms of improving more local journeys around Watford, buses will more likely be the solution. The bus network has been significantly reduced over recent years, with several routes (particularly those run by Arriva) far less frequent than they used to be, or even withdrawn completely. Reversing this would definitely help, as well as considering where new bus links might be useful. For a town the size of Watford, a Park & Ride scheme could also help reduce traffic congestion into the town centre. Could consider creating parking sites near the Business Parks, Leavesden Studios or the M1 junction - also potentially serving the Warner Studio Tour, Watford Junction or the Stadium/Hospital. And with the most of the trackbed of the old Croxley Branch Line still there, could this even be converted into some kind of busway?

Regarding the Abbey Line, I agree with some other comments that a passing loop is needed to realise the potential of that line, and ideally also introducing regular through services into Euston. This would benefit passengers commuting into London from areas around Garston, Bricket Wood and the housing to the south/west of St Albans - and also offering a more frequent fast service at Bushey. The fast Euston-Tring services could then skip Harrow & Wealdstone again. There is the issue of shorter platforms on the Abbey Line - however 4-5 cars may be adequate off-peak, and could attach to another 4-5 cars at Watford Junction during the peaks (replacing the Euston-Watford extras that used to run).

A few new stations on the WCML could also help improve connectivity. Perhaps a new station could work between Watford Junction and Kings Langley, immediately after exiting the tunnel north of Watford Junction? This would serve new housing developments next to the Warner Studios, as well as Leavesden, Hunton Bridge and Abbots Langley.

Further south, building new platforms at Willesden Junction on the semi-fast lines could be very beneficial. This would allow passengers from the Watford direction to get to a wider variety of destinations around London without going into Euston or using the slow Lioness line. Connecting to Overground services towards Clapham/Richmond/Stratford, as well as a faster interchange to the Bakerloo for stations via Paddington. This could also replace the Southern service to Watford, which currently is an odd mixture of service types, and too infrequent to be more useful. Instead could have at least 4tph from Euston to Watford and beyond, with interchange to frequent Overground services via Shepherds Bush. Ideally also re-introducing some faster stops at Wembley Central.

Increasing the frequency of the Lioness Line to every 10-12 minutes could also help, but there may not be the platform capacity at Euston. Would it be possible for trains to quickly turn around Euston, and fully utilise the 4 terminating platforms at Watford instead? I also think it would be helpful to less regular passengers to rename Watford Station (Met Line) to avoid confusion, to something like West Watford or Cassiobury. And perhaps improve publicity of the out of station interchange between Kenton and Northwick Park.

 

[Bevan Price]

Has that been revived again? I thought that was abandoned years ago


There was a link from Park Street to the MML which you can still see on aerial maps. Rebuilding that would be relatively easy, unless the new freight terminal is being built over it. It would need a flyover at the MML end but would still be a lot cheaper than anything involving tunneling

That was actually the GNR route from St. Albans Abbey to Hatfield, which ran beneath the MML. If there was any connection to the MML, I think it was only via sidings.

 

[mr_jrt]

That was actually the GNR route from St. Albans Abbey to Hatfield, which ran beneath the MML. If there was any connection to the MML, I think it was only via sidings.

I believe that you are mistaken - the Park St. (though How Wood would seem a more appropriate name) link between the Abbey line at Park St. and the MML south of Napsbury was a construction link used during the Midland's extension from Bedford to St Pancras, and I believe, abandoned not long after construction was completed?

 

[Bevan Price]

I believe that you are mistaken - the Park St. (though How Wood would seem a more appropriate name) link between the Abbey line at Park St. and the MML south of Napsbury was a construction link used during the Midland's extension from Bedford to St Pancras, and I believe, abandoned not long after construction was completed?

You are right - found it on very old maps - I never knew that such a line had existed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Some thoughts on this topic:

Firstly, I don't think the Croxley Rail Link ever had that much potential. The Metropolitan line would have taken quite an indirect route from Watford Junction/High Street towards London - I doubt many passengers would switch from LNR or Lioness services. It would only really benefit passengers making shorter journeys from stations north of Harrow to reach Watford Town Centre or Junction, and therefore doesn't really justify the cost of the project.

Yes, I think journeys to intermediate destinations was the main point of the Croxley link. No-one was thinking vast numbers of people would use it to go end-to-end Watford Junction to Central London when LNWR is much quicker. However, there are a LOT of destinations on the Metropolitan line, including Harrow on the Hill which in recent years has typically had between 11 and 12 million entry/exits per year, making it much busier even than Watford Junction. Rerouting the Met to Watford Junction would enable easy through journeys from there not just to/from Watford but also to destinations further North along the WCML. It would also provide rail access to Watford General Hospital, which I gather is currently a major source of traffic congestion in Watford, so I wouldn't write off the idea. One fundamental problem it had with financing last time was that the Government were expecting TfL to fund a lot of it, even though it wasn't in London, and Hertfordshire County Council had no (or were not willing to provide) significant funds to help.

I agree with much of the rest of your suggestions, although I still think the works required to make the Abbey Line run to Euston would be too difficult.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It won‘t. Status Quo applies there too.

Tell the people spending billions on the Lower Thames Crossing (to name one project relieving the M25)!

 

[Mgameing123]

Some thoughts on this topic:

Firstly, I don't think the Croxley Rail Link ever had that much potential. The Metropolitan line would have taken quite an indirect route from Watford Junction/High Street towards London - I doubt many passengers would switch from LNR or Lioness services. It would only really benefit passengers making shorter journeys from stations north of Harrow to reach Watford Town Centre or Junction, and therefore doesn't really justify the cost of the project.

In terms of improving more local journeys around Watford, buses will more likely be the solution. The bus network has been significantly reduced over recent years, with several routes (particularly those run by Arriva) far less frequent than they used to be, or even withdrawn completely. Reversing this would definitely help, as well as considering where new bus links might be useful. For a town the size of Watford, a Park & Ride scheme could also help reduce traffic congestion into the town centre. Could consider creating parking sites near the Business Parks, Leavesden Studios or the M1 junction - also potentially serving the Warner Studio Tour, Watford Junction or the Stadium/Hospital. And with the most of the trackbed of the old Croxley Branch Line still there, could this even be converted into some kind of busway?

Regarding the Abbey Line, I agree with some other comments that a passing loop is needed to realise the potential of that line, and ideally also introducing regular through services into Euston. This would benefit passengers commuting into London from areas around Garston, Bricket Wood and the housing to the south/west of St Albans - and also offering a more frequent fast service at Bushey. The fast Euston-Tring services could then skip Harrow & Wealdstone again. There is the issue of shorter platforms on the Abbey Line - however 4-5 cars may be adequate off-peak, and could attach to another 4-5 cars at Watford Junction during the peaks (replacing the Euston-Watford extras that used to run).

A few new stations on the WCML could also help improve connectivity. Perhaps a new station could work between Watford Junction and Kings Langley, immediately after exiting the tunnel north of Watford Junction? This would serve new housing developments next to the Warner Studios, as well as Leavesden, Hunton Bridge and Abbots Langley.

Further south, building new platforms at Willesden Junction on the semi-fast lines could be very beneficial. This would allow passengers from the Watford direction to get to a wider variety of destinations around London without going into Euston or using the slow Lioness line. Connecting to Overground services towards Clapham/Richmond/Stratford, as well as a faster interchange to the Bakerloo for stations via Paddington. This could also replace the Southern service to Watford, which currently is an odd mixture of service types, and too infrequent to be more useful. Instead could have at least 4tph from Euston to Watford and beyond, with interchange to frequent Overground services via Shepherds Bush. Ideally also re-introducing some faster stops at Wembley Central.

Increasing the frequency of the Lioness Line to every 10-12 minutes could also help, but there may not be the platform capacity at Euston. Would it be possible for trains to quickly turn around Euston, and fully utilise the 4 terminating platforms at Watford instead? I also think it would be helpful to less regular passengers to rename Watford Station (Met Line) to avoid confusion, to something like West Watford or Cassiobury. And perhaps improve publicity of the out of station interchange between Kenton and Northwick Park.

A. The Croxley Rail Link was never about people travelling to London, it's more for people who live in Harrow or Buckinghamshire and to connect the Metropolitan Line to a major railhead. The current day Watford Met is in a silly location with only a few houses around. It would be much better to divert it to Watford Junction considering the rail alignment is already there and then additionally provide some direct Chiltern trains from Aylesbury to Watford Junction.

B. I agree with through trains on the Abbey Line again and the passing loop.

C. Is it even worth building a new station considering the tunnel?

D. A fast line stop at Wembley Central, Willesden Junction & Queens Park would be very beneficial to provide better connections.

E. I doubt there is even demand off peak for additional Watford DC trains.

Yes, I think journeys to intermediate destinations was the main point of the Croxley link. No-one was thinking vast numbers of people would use it to go end-to-end Watford Junction to Central London when LNWR is much quicker. However, there are a LOT of destinations on the Metropolitan line, including Harrow on the Hill which in recent years has typically had between 11 and 12 million entry/exits per year, making it much busier even than Watford Junction. Rerouting the Met to Watford Junction would enable easy through journeys from there not just to/from Watford but also to destinations further North along the WCML. It would also provide rail access to Watford General Hospital, which I gather is currently a major source of traffic congestion in Watford, so I wouldn't write off the idea. One fundamental problem it had with financing last time was that the Government were expecting TfL to fund a lot of it, even though it wasn't in London, and Hertfordshire County Council had no (or were not willing to provide) significant funds to help.

I agree with much of the rest of your suggestions, although I still think the works required to make the Abbey Line run to Euston would be too difficult.

I think it can work if the Abbey line gets 2 platforms at Watford Junction. That way it can use the tactic of waiting for a path on the WCML.

 

[Mark J]

Reopen Watford High St to Croxley Green.

 

[AlastairFraser]

A. The Croxley Rail Link was never about people travelling to London, it's more for people who live in Harrow or Buckinghamshire and to connect the Metropolitan Line to a major railhead. The current day Watford Met is in a silly location with only a few houses around. It would be much better to divert it to Watford Junction considering the rail alignment is already there and then additionally provide some direct Chiltern trains from Aylesbury to Watford Junction.

If the Croxley Link is still off the table, maybe a decent idea would be a tunnel from just south of the current Watford Met to Watford Junction with an intermediate station near West Herts College on Hempsted Road.

You'd then sell Watford Met's station house as a private residence, with a new underground station just after the entrance to the tunnel, and a low rise apartment block on top of most of the rest of the old station site. It wouldn't make much of a dent in helping fund the scheme, but it would help boost passenger numbers.

With the new underground stations at Hempsted Rd and Watford Junction, you could then extend the existing services from Watford Met (you'd rename that Cassiobury Park probably) and run a new Watford to Amersham service twice an hour to connect Watford + Three Rivers/Bucks better.

If battery EMUs improve, you could even consider a hybrid 4th rail/battery S Stock add on order (instead of just 4th rail) to extend as far as Aylesbury Vale Parkway perhaps.

In the interim, turn the Croxley Green branch trackbed into a shared use cycle path for the moment, and await funding for that (you could well divert 1tph of a Watford to Amersham service and 2tph of the Baker St to Watford services that way if it opens), but I don't see it happening any time soon without a lot of central govt. funding.

 

[cle]

Getting more up the slow lines into Euston is not straightforward until the new tracks are added in a few years.

What are these new tracks? And what's planned for them?

A. The Croxley Rail Link was never about people travelling to London, it's more for people who live in Harrow or Buckinghamshire and to connect the Metropolitan Line to a major railhead. The current day Watford Met is in a silly location with only a few houses around. It would be much better to divert it to Watford Junction considering the rail alignment is already there and then additionally provide some direct Chiltern trains from Aylesbury to Watford Junction.

I agree. I think CRL was worth doing (still do) - and the current Watford branch is nothing more than a turnback with two backwater stations as is... whereas with the link, you'd connect the largest local employment centre, shops, rail hub... etc etc - and I agree on Chiltern, or Met to Chesham. And send more London services via Amersham.

But maybe, as i mentioned prior, they could settle on a single intermediate, double-ended station for Hospital, Vicarage Road and the RIP Ascot Road catchment too? Stations add all the cost - and a little time. Or is there value in another exit at High St?

And intermediate journeys are not to be sniffed at - this translates to cars and carbon/congestion reduction, ostensibly. Actual Watford-London commuters are not driving.

 

[Mgameing123]

What are these new tracks? And what's planned for them?


I agree. I think CRL was worth doing (still do) - and the current Watford branch is nothing more than a turnback with two backwater stations as is... whereas with the link, you'd connect the largest local employment centre, shops, rail hub... etc etc - and I agree on Chiltern, or Met to Chesham. And send more London services via Amersham.

But maybe, as i mentioned prior, they could settle on a single intermediate, double-ended station for Hospital, Vicarage Road and the RIP Ascot Road catchment too? Stations add all the cost - and a little time. Or is there value in another exit at High St?

And intermediate journeys are not to be sniffed at - this translates to cars and carbon/congestion reduction, ostensibly. Actual Watford-London commuters are not driving.

I think we should keep the new stations as they are.

What are these new tracks? And what's planned for them?


I agree. I think CRL was worth doing (still do) - and the current Watford branch is nothing more than a turnback with two backwater stations as is... whereas with the link, you'd connect the largest local employment centre, shops, rail hub... etc etc - and I agree on Chiltern, or Met to Chesham. And send more London services via Amersham.

But maybe, as i mentioned prior, they could settle on a single intermediate, double-ended station for Hospital, Vicarage Road and the RIP Ascot Road catchment too? Stations add all the cost - and a little time. Or is there value in another exit at High St?

And intermediate journeys are not to be sniffed at - this translates to cars and carbon/congestion reduction, ostensibly. Actual Watford-London commuters are not driving.

A direct Chesham to Watford train won’t be possible without sacrificing the direct train from Chesham to London.

 

[stuu]

What are these new tracks? And what's planned for them?

Hs2

 

[Mark J]

I went to Watford proper (for the first time) last year, I went there on London Overground.

Whilst I was there:

1) I passed over/under the old Watford High St to Croxley Branch a few times. Notable a location where two bridges still stood side by side, over a river. Also walked over the bridge where Watford West Station was, and near the end of the line at Croxley Green.
2) Walked part of the old line to Rickmansworth.
3) Visited the Wetherspoons in the High St that was originally going to be Watford's Metropolitan line terminus station.

What did get me is how far away from the town centre the Underground Station is. It really isn't a great location to terminate at, if you plan on visiting the town centre.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

In the present / recent past economic circumstances where a fairly simple Croxley Link is both politically and economically a non-starter - any idea of brand new rail tunnels in West Watford is a complete flight of fancy. ! - not sold either on linking Chesham to Watford via the North Curve as previous demand studies have shown it poor value for money (plus - the curve has no intermediate signals , so once a route is set , you are commited - no problem for a couple of dead early / dead late services or the odd empty stock - but harder for say 4 movements per hour , all day long.

Experience has shown the Met branch to Watford has really been an underperformer since the 1920's - which is now a century ago.

We all admit that the present station is very subobtimal - but we are , where we area. I seem to recall a probably never published review by the then LT is the 1980's that anything north of Harrow on the Hill was "uneconomic" !!!!! (as well as other lines in the combine !)

 

[Mgameing123]

In the present / recent past economic circumstances where a fairly simple Croxley Link is both politically and economically a non-starter - any idea of brand new rail tunnels in West Watford is a complete flight of fancy. ! - not sold either on linking Chesham to Watford via the North Curve as previous demand studies have shown it poor value for money (plus - the curve has no intermediate signals , so once a route is set , you are commited - no problem for a couple of dead early / dead late services or the odd empty stock - but harder for say 4 movements per hour , all day long.

Experience has shown the Met branch to Watford has really been an underperformer since the 1920's - which is now a century ago.

We all admit that the present station is very subobtimal - but we are , where we area. I seem to recall a probably never published review by the then LT is the 1980's that anything north of Harrow on the Hill was "uneconomic" !!!!! (as well as other lines in the combine !)

Thats why the original proposal was Aylesbury/Amersham to Watford Junction with Chiltern trains though if its just from Amersham it would be better with Metropolitan line trains. Aylesbury currently doesn't have a direct rail link to Watford, all they have is bus service on Sundays only ever since the 500 got split at Hemel Hempstead.

An Aylesbury to Watford Junction service would better connect the Chilterns will the railhead at Watford Junction where you can catch a fast train up north, a train to St. Albans, a Overground train to the intermediate stations etc.

And honestly I can see why the Met north of Harrow on the Hill is uneconomical. The section isn't well used off peak as most people take the Chiltern train and Watford Met is in a terrible location so your better off catching the bus.

 

[PeterC]

Thats why the original proposal was Aylesbury/Amersham to Watford Junction with Chiltern trains though if its just from Amersham it would be better with Metropolitan line trains. Aylesbury currently doesn't have a direct rail link to Watford, all they have is bus service on Sundays only ever since the 500 got split at Hemel Hempstead.

An Aylesbury to Watford Junction service would better connect the Chilterns will the railhead at Watford Junction where you can catch a fast train up north, a train to St. Albans, a Overground train to the intermediate stations etc.

And honestly I can see why the Met north of Harrow on the Hill is uneconomical. The section isn't well used off peak as most people take the Chiltern train and Watford Met is in a terrible location so your better off catching the bus.

While Amersham looks attractive on the map, and would be convenient for me, the route couldn't support a commercial hourly bus service.

 

[Mgameing123]

While Amersham looks attractive on the map, and would be convenient for me, the route couldn't support a commercial hourly bus service.

As someone who used to frequently use this bus route I will say this. There was a good amount of customers but the issue was simply that Watford is far out of Carousel Buses area and when Arriva took over with 5 buses a day it killed all demand for the buses.

It was wrong for Buckinghamshire to not step in and provide funding for their part of the route as it was an important link.

Amersham in itself won't be able to justify the rail service but with Aylesbury, Amersham, Chorleywood and especially Rickmansworth combined then the case might just about be justifiable.

 

[Bald Rick]

Tell the people spending billions on the Lower Thames Crossing (to name one project relieving the M25)!

Last time I looked the Lower Thames Crossing wasn’t near Watford. There are no proposals for major road improvements in or around Watford that I’m aware of.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Last time I looked the Lower Thames Crossing wasn’t near Watford. There are no proposals for major road improvements in or around Watford that I’m aware of.

It's not near Watford, but less traffic on the M25 means less demand for additions to the road network.

 

[cle]

Rail is not the same demand as crunchy green regional buses. You can't say that because people won't take a 2 hourly bus which takes 2 hours to go 10 miles, they won't take a train. This is refuted constantly.

Noted on HS2 tracks for the new ones, I thought that might be it, but thought maybe there were some other Euston (legacy) works I wasn't aware of for capacity. Yes, after HS2, tons more services can call at Watford Junction and hopefully attract more employment, commuting etc.

North Curve - could definitely be Chiltern too. Even to MKC one day (can already see the stories!) - but thought Met might be tidier, re interworking. Chesham would indeed be to replace the London service.

 

[PeterC]

North Curve - could definitely be Chiltern too. Even to MKC one day (can already see the stories!) - but thought Met might be tidier, re interworking. Chesham would indeed be to replace the London service.

Chesham rail users might accept a return of the shuttle* for the sake of improved resilience but replacing London trains with Watford ones would be the worst of both worlds. Chiltern* on the North curve would be another matter.

* I know the rolling stock issues regarding both options.

 

[Mgameing123]

Chesham rail users might accept a return of the shuttle* for the sake of improved resilience but replacing London trains with Watford ones would be the worst of both worlds. Chiltern* on the North curve would be another matter.

* I know the rolling stock issues regarding both options.

Chiltern can easily purchase additional rolling stock. It’s more the Underground that can’t.

 

[The Planner]

Chiltern can easily purchase additional rolling stock. It’s more the Underground that can’t.

Not unless the DfT tells them they can. They still don't have a replacement for what they have got, let alone anything additional.