Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, MIG wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Simon Wren wrote:

Paul Scott wrote:
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=187553&NewsAreaID=2&Navig atedFromDepartment=False

The new concessionaire will have to release stock for two routes not
being transferred - what are these?

And to see TFL's positive plans for these valuable routes:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=690

This sounds like great news.

So does this all mean that TfL simply takes over the existing franchise,
with 313s and 508s still going Euston to Watford and Bakerloo still
going from Queens Park to Harrow?

That's not quite in line with previous discussion of the Bakerloo taking
over the Watford service.

Was there ever any evidence for that? We went over this about six months
ago, and someone (Dave A?) brought up the fact that the Bakerloo was cut
back from Watford to Harrow because everybody travelling from north of
there (and most people from south of there, i think) wanted to go to
Euston, not the West End. That was a long time ago, but i suspect it's
still true, which would mean that replacing the Euston service with the
Bakerloo would be a retrograde step.

I had visions of maybe relaying the fourth rail to Watford, and (less
likely) keeping a service to South Hampsted and Kilburn High Road by
installing a connection east of Queens Park, allowing trains from Euston
to call at those stations, then use the unused platforms at Queens Park
to allow for interchange, and then proceed semifast to Watford or
beyond.

I don't really see the point of that service pattern. The 'semifast to
Watford or beyond' bit makes this a duplication of the County service, but
the Queens Park / KHR / South Hampstead bit would make it slower. Who
would this be useful for? The only journey that gets quicker is Watford to
KHR or South Hampstead, which is probably not a hugely popular one!


I can't necessarily see the point of it. It's just that I thought that
the takover by the Bakerloo was what had been proposed, eg Modern
Railways, December 2005, "All Change at Silverlink Metro".

I thought it might well disadvantage people, and possibly result in a
very poor service from, or closure of, the stations between Queens Park
and Euston. If there's a need for a more frequent service to Watford,
I don't see why Silverlink can't provide it anyway. The logic seemed
to be that the Underground is intrinsically more frequent than National
Rail; therefore the only way to provide a more frequent service is to
extend the Underground.

But the service I was imagining would give a much better connection to
Watford than anyone arriving on the Bakerloo currently gets. I don't
really understand why Silverlink County doesn't throw in some stops at
Queens Park anyway, given that the platforms are there, allowing a
fastish journey south of Watford and interchange to the Bakerloo.