On 13 July, 21:52, Andy wrote:
Provision of the passing loop at Bricket Wood would have had nothing
to do with the costs of the units needed to run the service. The class
350s, used by LM, cost a similar amount to the new LO class 378 units,
although it is hard to compare the costs to the train operating
company, as the rental cost of units seems to be much harder to find.
What would be cheaper is for LM to run the branch with the class 321s
that they are retaining, rather than switching to any form of new
unit.

I was led to believe that the point of the loop would be that you
could have two trains on the line at once, and due to them needing to
be 377s (or as you suggest 350s - like I say, I don't really care
about the trains themselves!), the economics didn't add up. More
juice, heavier, higher leasing...can't say I remember or indeed ever
knew the details.

On 13 July, 21:59, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:25:23 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson

wrote:
Yup, but one of the main reasons the passing loop got deferred is
because one of the franchise commitments that came in when LM took
over was to harmonise their fleet or some such, meaning that the line
can only be worked by a hugely excessive new 377, when a much smaller/
cheaper non-standard unit would suffice ( I believe a Silverlink Metro
unit used to operate the line before the franchise change).

It was a 313[1]. *But IMO it makes no sense to add it to the
incredibly slow DC lines. *Better use of the loop, if built, would be
to attach it to a self-contained AC Euston-Harrow-Bushey-Watford
shuttle, with most stops south of Watford being removed from existing
LM services. *This would make better use of units, as there are quite
a few LM trains that are quite quiet north of Watford but full and
standing south of either there or Harrow.

The problem is that for services north of Watford to run fast to
Euston, they need clear lines, which they won't have if St Albans
services are sitting in the platforms at Bushey, H&W, Wembley, etc.
You might have something if you were to stick a loop or two at those
stations, but that's even more unlikely than my dodgy flyover/under. I
did think about them once though, Bushey has nasty drainage issues in
the subway, so if you took advantage of a rebuild to move the
platforms further south (also enabling you to provide disabled access
via ramps a-la Carpenters Park), then you may have room for a loop or
two before the Bushey arches. At Harrow one loop would be easy by
reusing the old Belmont platform, though you'd need to fit a lift from
the eastern ticket office to the overbridge if you wanted to maintain
the existing disabled access. Two would require quite a rebuild of
most of the platform area to shuffle things around (probably
sacrificing fast line platforms in the process, not to mention that
the proximity of the road bridge's supports would limit your options).
At Wembley there's no chance. If anything were to happen I'd imagine
it'd be easiest to knock through the parcels platforms...but well.
Hmm. Adding platforms at Willesden Junction with loops from the outset
would by comparison be easy

....which is why something extending every other slow DC service on a
40 minute timetable (shame they won't up the DC frequency to 4tph,
that would give a handy 30 minute every-other option) and letting
people connect to the existing AC services makes more sense for me.
That way you get less stopping at H&W/Bushey/etc. leaving more line
capacity for outer AC services.

This kind of thing has already started with some peak services, and is
likely to expand. *Ideal stock for it is to use LM's retained 321s.
If the branch platforms are too short for 8 cars (as I think they
are), one set could be left at Watford while the other one does the
branch - if it can work at Northampton it can work there.

I was under the impression that all the 321s would eventually be on
their way elsewhere.