On Nov 3, 10:51*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

It seems they can use an SI to exempt themselves from the requirements of
the 2005 Act's procedures,


Aha ...

.... which does mean they would have to have gone through formal
closure procedings had it not been for the SI.




--
Nick

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
burkey wrote:
The report answers numerous questions posed by potential service users
and describes a clear time-line for the project, which will allow the
running of two trams at half-hourly intervals, instead the current one
every 45 minutes.

Heres an idea - why don't they just run trains at half hourly intervals and
same the millions on conversion and buying trams?

Or am I missing something?

B2003

wrote:

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
burkey wrote:
The report answers numerous questions posed by potential service users
and describes a clear time-line for the project, which will allow the
running of two trams at half-hourly intervals, instead the current one
every 45 minutes.

Heres an idea - why don't they just run trains at half hourly intervals and
same the millions on conversion and buying trams?

Because if they did that, Herts County Council wouldn't get nice
little toy of their very own to play with as a sort of apology for not
getting the far more useful Croxley Rail Link.


Or am I missing something?


You're missing a politician's cynical worldview. But in this day and
age, your naive innocence is rather sweet and touching. Don't lose
it.

Heres an idea - why don't they just run trains at half hourly intervals and
same the millions on conversion and buying trams?

Or am I missing something?


The trams like the trains will not go where most of the passengers
want to go, which is central London, because we are in the heart of
commuter land after all.

Why not spend some money to allow the branch service to run through to
Euston.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
allantracy wrote:
The trams like the trains will not go where most of the passengers
want to go, which is central London, because we are in the heart of
commuter land after all.

Why not spend some money to allow the branch service to run through to
Euston.

Shame on you for coming up with a sensible suggestion. You'd never get a
job in a council!

B2003

On Nov 5, 10:48*am, wrote:

Why not spend some money to allow the branch service to run through to
Euston.

Shame on you for coming up with a sensible suggestion. You'd never get a
job in a council!

Here's a thought - would an hourly service through to/from Euston be
more useful than a more frequent service on the branch? Could the
money thus be spent on connecting it to the mainline instead?

How much would it cost to bring the connection up to passenger
standards?

Neil

On Nov 5, 9:56*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:48*am, wrote:

Why not spend some money to allow the branch service to run through to
Euston.

Shame on you for coming up with a sensible suggestion. You'd never get a
job in a council!

Here's a thought - would an hourly service through to/from Euston be
more useful than a more frequent service on the branch? *Could the
money thus be spent on connecting it to the mainline instead?


The line has a mixture of uses. During the peak there is a high
percentage of commuters who travel onto Euston whilst off-peak there
is currently little demand for through journeys. An hourly service
would not be good for the peak commuters, as there is currently a
42-43 min frequency until 10am.

How much would it cost to bring the connection up to passenger
standards?


As the connection is currently via the headshunt from the line which
runs through the yard to platform 11, it would probably be quite
expensive as a stand alone project. Either the old connection to
platform 10 would need to be reinstated, cutting the car park in two,
or the junction with mainline upgraded. There would also probably have
to be facilities for coupling / uncoupling units as running a four car
train from Watford Junction - Euston in the peak would not be a good
idea.

If the line hadn't have been severed from the main station (the
current platform 10 and the adjacent unused platform) in the 1960s, I
imagine that we would already have a through service and the argument
would just be about the addition of Bricket Wood loop to increase
frequencies. For a time in the 1980s, the peak Euston - Watford
mainline service was timetabled as though it could run through to St.
Albans (arrival/departure of the mainline train and the branch train
were close together) and there was certain a plan for this to happen
on the last occasion that the track layout at Watford Junction was
remodelled.

In message
, at
02:56:19 on Fri, 5 Nov 2010, Neil Williams
remarked:
Here's a thought - would an hourly service through to/from Euston be
more useful than a more frequent service on the branch? Could the
money thus be spent on connecting it to the mainline instead?

What sort of train could be run - seems to be a waste of a path on the
main line if it was a short one, but an unnecessary expense to run a
long train on the branch (would the platforms have to be extended)?
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 4, 10:48*am, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT)

burkey wrote:
The report answers numerous questions posed by potential service users
and describes a clear time-line for the project, which will allow the
running of two trams at half-hourly intervals, instead the current one
every 45 minutes.

Heres an idea - why don't they just run trains at half hourly intervals and
same the millions on conversion and buying trams?

What I don't know is whether the consultants examined the option of
lightweight vehicles being able to complete the journey in 12 minutes,
through rapid acceleration, late braking, easing of PSRs at each end
and full automation of the level crossing at Watford North for
northbound services. *If* this were feasible [1], 3-min turnarounds
with short units on a self-contained service free of imported delays
shouldn't be impossible [2]. That would mean half-hourly services
could run, but without a loop.

However, it's clearly better to reinstate the loop to maximise
reliability, as well as building in an element of future-proofing e.g.
if new stations extend end to end journey times.

[1] A dusty bin with a good driver can do it in 15 mins southbound.
[2] The Stourbridge branch provides a real-life example.

On Nov 5, 1:12*pm, EE507 wrote:

However, it's clearly better to reinstate the loop to maximise
reliability, as well as building in an element of future-proofing e.g.
if new stations extend end to end journey times.

Or I suppose if the idea of half hourly clockface increased passenger
numbers to the point that an increase in frequency was desired.

Neil