St Albans Abbey to London Euston - Why no direct services? [IDEA]

[class387]

Have been wanting to make this thread for a while (I've mentioned the idea in previous threads) and now we have the perfect place to put it.

Would it be viable if direct services ran from St Albans Abbey to Euston? I think it is now possible as the branch is connected to the WCML at Watford, something it wasn't in the past. However, would there be enough passengers to justify it, and would it have any consequences on other services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I think this is a good idea.

The best way to do it would, to me, be to operate a half hourly Euston-Watford shuttle all day rather than just in the peaks (potentially reduced to hourly after 8pm ish), using pairs of Standard only Class 319s. These would all call at Harrow and Wealdstone and Bushey, and allow those stops to be removed from all other LNR services. An hourly service (a reduction from the present service, but with potentially vastly increased utility both in terms of the through service and in terms of it being clockface so memorable) would continue to St Albans from the front 4 coaches, the rear 4 remaining in the platform until the service returns from St Albans. The other half hour would use the terminus bay platform to reverse and remain as a full 8-car set.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Surely it's always been connected to the WCML and didn't services run through in the past? Would crossing on the flat at Watford be a problem?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely it's always been connected to the WCML and didn't services run through in the past? Would crossing on the flat at Watford be a problem?

I believe the connection was (I thought it still was, but clearly I'm wrong) a manually operated ground frame not certified for passenger use.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I believe the connection was (I thought it still was, but clearly I'm wrong) a manually operated ground frame not certified for passenger use.

is that how the trains get there from Bletchley?

 

[Bletchleyite]

is that how the trains get there from Bletchley?

I believe so.

 

[class387]

I believe the connection was (I thought it still was, but clearly I'm wrong) a manually operated ground frame not certified for passenger use.

I don't actually know whether or not it is certified for passenger use so you are probably right. Wasn't Platform 11 at WFJ a dead end before, requiring a shunting manoeuvre in the yard to get to the WCML (I might just be imagining things)?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I don't actually know whether or not it is certified for passenger use so you are probably right. Wasn't Platform 11 at WFJ a dead end before, requiring a shunting manoeuvre in the yard to get to the WCML (I might just be imagining things)?

You used to have a ground frame release (worked by station staff) , and only permissible for empty stock movements. I did run a special to Claction (school trip) and a Euston (140th anniversary of the branch with the Mayoress on board !) , to Euston - but we had to clip and scotch the points.

Journey time not competitive with TLK , serves the city but has no real parking let alone space for the massive bike parks at the City - critical thing is the poor use of capacity for a slow line path.

 

[Bald Rick]

A few issues with this.

1) the branch currently operates on a one train working principle, on minimum turnarounds for most of the day. The timetable isn’t compatible with the standard hour on the WCML slow lines, so it would have to reduce in frequency to hourly, or double to half hourly (with resultant infrastructure cost to enable, ie sloop at Bricker Wood, which means the line needs signalling and train detection throughout).

2) the WCML slow lines are just about at capacity. Which existing services would be transferred across to the branch, and who loses out as a result?

3) platform lengths on the branch are generally 4 car. Not a good idea to run 4 car trains on the WCML at peak times. The platforms would all need lengthening. Not easy in some cases.

4) when this was looked at before (twice) the most significant operational issue was the single line on the branch. If one is more than about 10 minutes late off the branch, the next one due on will be sat on the WCML Down Slow waiting the single line. Not a great idea. So an extra platform is needed at Watford Jn to provide the operational ’firebreak’.


So yes it is possible, but it would need some fairly chunky infrastructure, and would cause some existing users of the WCML north of Watford to lose out. In my opinion, the money would be better spent on making this a tram route, with much better frequency, far lower operating costs, and potential for some small scale extensions either end (to get people where they want to go, and therefore make the line more attractive).

 

[Bletchleyite]

2) the WCML slow lines are just about at capacity. Which existing services would be transferred across to the branch, and who loses out as a result?

The Watford shuttle, and nobody

It's peak only at present, but if it fits in the peak I see no reason it wouldn't fit off peak too. And I think hourly would be better than the present odd 45 minute frequency as it is more memorable. As for 8 cars, split at WFJ and leave 4 in the platform.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The line is , in any case , a classic BR era electrification - fed simply from Watford , and I suspect to minimum standards. (if the branch trips out , so does the WCML until switched) , I doubt it could really handle an 8 car working to be honest , having been frugally specified for a sole 313. Simple OLE to say the least.

The answer is not through working , or (Heaven forbid) coupling and uncoupling at WFJ

My idea of course.

 

[Ianno87]

The Watford shuttle, and nobody

It's peak only at present, but if it fits in the peak I see no reason it wouldn't fit off peak too. And I think hourly would be better than the present odd 45 minute frequency as it is more memorable. As for 8 cars, split at WFJ and leave 4 in the platform.

There's a darn sight more freight off-peak. (E.g. the whole Up morning peak I believe sees a solitary shoulder peak freight path).

 

[Bletchleyite]

(Heaven forbid) coupling and uncoupling at WFJ

Works well enough at Northampton.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There's a darn sight more freight off-peak. (E.g. the whole Up morning peak I believe sees a solitary shoulder peak freight path).

Planned that way.

Tonight - BTW - with no down fast - reaction a TCF at Hatch End - virtually the whole service , including a good number of freights and at least the down mail - went on the slow lines to Bourne End. Delays certainly and some skip stopping. Detail I know , but a factor for consideration. (as we used to say in enquiries)

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Works well enough at Northampton.

Just a bit of a difference there, if you pardon my experience in managing the route ......

 

[Flinn Reed]

Create a passing loop on the Abbey Line, along with relevant signalling, allowing a half hourly service.

Introduce
- 2tph Euston to St Albans Abbey, stopping at Harrow & Wealdstone and Bushey (plus 1tph all day to Wembley Central).
- 2tph Euston to Milton Keynes Central, fast to Watford Junction then all stops.
- Slower services to Northampton / Birmingham reduced if necessary, and with fewer stops between Watford Junction and Milton Keynes Central.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Create a passing loop on the Abbey Line, along with relevant signalling, allowing a half hourly service.

Introduce
- 2tph Euston to St Albans Abbey, stopping at Harrow & Wealdstone and Bushey (plus 1tph all day to Wembley Central).
- 2tph Euston to Milton Keynes Central, fast to Watford Junction then all stops.
- Slower services to Northampton / Birmingham reduced if necessary, and with fewer stops between Watford Junction and Milton Keynes Central.

I do not think anyone would query a passing loop on the branch - but the cost is the issue - there is absolute minimum signalling - (and mostly to protect Watford North crossing) , - but best kept as a shuttle IMHO - the spreading of delays to and from the branch would clearly impact badly on the main line.

Think Bromley North - the answer was / is to sweat the branch , not "mix it".

In any case , a lot of the business (for what it is) - 800 passengers a day I reckon , down from what it was - is surprisingly non London. TLK with a very frequent service - for all of the issues - is the prime mover from the end of the branch.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Watford shuttle, and nobody

It's peak only at present, but if it fits in the peak I see no reason it wouldn't fit off peak too. And I think hourly would be better than the present odd 45 minute frequency as it is more memorable. As for 8 cars, split at WFJ and leave 4 in the platform.

The Watford Shuttle is two up trans in the morning, 20 minutes apart, and one in the evening. I’m afraid that doesn’t work. As @Ianno87 says, off peak the slows are full of freight, which makes it a bit complicated...

 

[Bedpan]

Bearing in mind it is and probably always will be a stand alone branch (unless converted to tram or, heaven forbid, guided busway) I have never been able to understand the logic in electrifying it. They would have been better off spending the money on a passing loop at Bricket Wood.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Bearing in mind it is and probably always will be a stand alone branch (unless converted to tram or, heaven forbid, guided busway) I have never been able to understand the logic in electrifying it. They would have been better off spending the money on a passing loop at Bricket Wood.

The Bletchley based DMU fleet was ailing (a rare mix of duff units) , and the transfer each night to and from Watford Yard was a constant liability , plus BR had the ability to carry out very cost sensitive electrification - in the case here done midday between the peak hours (and a bit on Sunday) - there were also spare 313 sets as the GN route then had a surplus.

Was policy to get rid of awkward branch line diesel workings - think Romford - Upminster , Witham - Braintree and Wickford - Southminster. The last 3 relied on similar awkward transfers to and from Stratford.

The present existing Watford - Euston AC services were (and are) peakbusters - getting a second trip out an otherwise "peak" unit which would have otherwise stabled a bit early.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Best implementation for me is a dynamic loop between Garston and How Wood; with a half-hourly service off Euston to St Albans Abbey. A few stops at Queens Park, Harrow & Wealdstone, Bushey and Watford (before all stops down to St Albans); and that would replace the Tring service.

The Milton Keynes / Northampton would be Euston, Watford, Kings Langley, Apsley, Hemel, Berko, Cheddington, Bletchley, Milton Keynes Central, Wolverton and Northampton every 30 minutes; and Southern operating every 30 minutes from Croydon to Milton Keynes vice hourly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Best implementation for me is a dynamic loop between Garston and How Wood; with a half-hourly service off Euston to St Albans Abbey. A few stops at Queens Park, Harrow & Wealdstone, Bushey and Watford (before all stops down to St Albans); and that would replace the Tring service.

The Milton Keynes / Northampton would be Euston, Watford, Kings Langley, Apsley, Hemel, Berko, Cheddington, Bletchley, Milton Keynes Central, Wolverton and Northampton every 30 minutes; and Southern operating every 30 minutes from Croydon to Milton Keynes vice hourly.

Years ago the Tring stoppers used to run to MKC or Bletchley - a huge amount of work was done at Tring to allow them to be cut back for line capacity reasons, wasn't it?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Years ago the Tring stoppers used to run to MKC or Bletchley - a huge amount of work was done at Tring to allow them to be cut back for line capacity reasons, wasn't it?

Done to provide 2 x 75 mph and 1 x 60 mph freight paths in off peak hours.

Result of fall out of PUG2 "aspirations" , which put - or would have put - anything non Virgin on the slow lines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Done to provide 2 x 75 mph and 1 x 60 mph freight paths in off peak hours.

Result of fall out of PUG2 "aspirations" , which put - or would have put - anything non Virgin on the slow lines.

Does that mean they could be extended back now (as some are in the peaks, e.g. the ones that come off Bletchley CS) as some LNR trains are on the fasts?

 

[Bald Rick]

Does that mean they could be extended back now (as some are in the peaks, e.g. the ones that come off Bletchley CS) as some LNR trains are on the fasts?

Nope.

PUG2 Fast line proposal was in each hour 4x Birmingham, 3x Manchester, one each to Liverpool, Preston/Scotland and Chester, plus a spare. Pretty much what you have now, albeit one of the Birminghams and the ‘spare’ are LNW.