|
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
From eWatford Observer - 8:40am Thursday 9th July 2009
Shops could be bulldozed for new road By John Harrison » Shops in St Albans Road could be bulldozed to make way for a new road linking Watford Junction with the M1 motorway. On Monday, county councillors will discuss proposals to build a new link road, connecting Colonial Way with St Albans Road and a newly renovated station. They will also consider plans for the compulsory purchase of large amounts of prime retail space. Plans to improve road connections with the station were revealed by the Watford Observer last February. At present, all traffic between the M1 and Watford Junction either has to navigate the ring-road or travel along the frequently congested A41 and St Albans Road. Hertfordshire County Council officers say the new road would offer a “more direct connection to the motorway system” and “alleviate existing traffic congestion”. However, the proposal could see seven separate landowners forced to sell up to make way for the new road. The affected land is currently occupied by Homebase, T K Maxx and Staples, among others. One option under consideration would see the proposed road built as an extension to Colonial Way, passing over the railway track and through the Homebase car park. The second option, however, would see the new road built directly on top of a unit currently containing T K Maxx. The road will also connect to a new multi-storey car park and “interchange” to be built next to Watford Junction. A county council report read: “Endeavours will be made, wherever possible, to acquire the land required by negotiation. “However, all the landowners, including those active within the master plan will act in their best commercial interest – which may not be consistent over time, given the current economic climate. “It is, therefore, recommended that negotiations are supported by the knowledge that compulsory purchase powers could be used for either route alignment as an option to fall back on, if necessary.” The £32.5 million project will be paid for by the Department for Transport and Network Rail. Watford Junction, which has been identified as a “key transport interchange in South West Hertfordshire”, is also set to undergo a substantial programme of refurbishments. Plans to improve the platforms, the ticket office and forecourt are set to be completed by late next year. County Councillor are expected to vote in favour of a possible compulsory purchase order. They are, however, expected to ask County Hall officers to preferably seek to acquire the land through negotiation. The matter will be discussed at a meeting inside County Hall on Monday afternoon. ……………………………….............. ……………………….………............. John Burke WRUG |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
burkey wrote:
From eWatford Observer - 8:40am Thursday 9th July 2009 Shops could be bulldozed for new road By John Harrison » Shops in St Albans Road could be bulldozed to make way for a new road linking Watford Junction with the M1 motorway. On Monday, county councillors will discuss proposals to build a new link road, connecting Colonial Way with St Albans Road and a newly renovated station. They will also consider plans for the compulsory purchase of large amounts of prime retail space. Plans to improve road connections with the station were revealed by the Watford Observer last February. At present, all traffic between the M1 and Watford Junction either has to navigate the ring-road or travel along the frequently congested A41 and St Albans Road. Hertfordshire County Council officers say the new road would offer a “more direct connection to the motorway system” and “alleviate existing traffic congestion”. However, the proposal could see seven separate landowners forced to sell up to make way for the new road. The affected land is currently occupied by Homebase, T K Maxx and Staples, among others. One option under consideration would see the proposed road built as an extension to Colonial Way, passing over the railway track and through the Homebase car park. The second option, however, would see the new road built directly on top of a unit currently containing T K Maxx. The road will also connect to a new multi-storey car park and “interchange” to be built next to Watford Junction. A county council report read: “Endeavours will be made, wherever possible, to acquire the land required by negotiation. “However, all the landowners, including those active within the master plan will act in their best commercial interest – which may not be consistent over time, given the current economic climate. “It is, therefore, recommended that negotiations are supported by the knowledge that compulsory purchase powers could be used for either route alignment as an option to fall back on, if necessary.” The £32.5 million project will be paid for by the Department for Transport and Network Rail. Watford Junction, which has been identified as a “key transport interchange in South West Hertfordshire”, is also set to undergo a substantial programme of refurbishments. Plans to improve the platforms, the ticket office and forecourt are set to be completed by late next year. County Councillor are expected to vote in favour of a possible compulsory purchase order. They are, however, expected to ask County Hall officers to preferably seek to acquire the land through negotiation. The matter will be discussed at a meeting inside County Hall on Monday afternoon. John Burke WRUG Thanks for posting this, John. It is a bit emotive for the reporter to say "shops will be bulldozed" as these are low rent retail sheds that could easily be relocated to other equally or more suitable sites in the borough. We are certainly not talking about prime retail space here, or even secondary retail! A refurbishment of the station would be very welcome, as it is getting very tired and tatty now. The provision of a modern, clean, secure and well- lit multi-storey car park and, hopefully, a much better bus interchange, will not only enhance this part of Watford, but give people travelling to London by car a real park-and-ride option that will be easily accessible from the M1 and M25. It will also enable people in the catchment area to get to the station easily, and park their cars more securely, for journeys to points north west on the West Coast main line. By the time people have driven to Milton Keynes, the next park-and-ride access point to the north, they might as well stay in their cars for the whole journey. This will keep their car journeys short and encourage rail use. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
Tony Polson gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying: However, the proposal could see seven separate landowners forced to sell up to make way for the new road. The affected land is currently occupied by Homebase, T K Maxx and Staples, among others. It is a bit emotive for the reporter to say "shops will be bulldozed" as these are low rent retail sheds that could easily be relocated to other equally or more suitable sites in the borough. We are certainly not talking about prime retail space here, or even secondary retail! Hmm. If the perceived quality of the retail space is a factor, then there's a significant portion of Watford outside of the Harlequin Centre which should consider itself at high risk... That's a reasonably decent sized stretch of large "shed"-style retail. It's not going to be easy to find a similar area of land to repurpose to a similar retail park. Removal of those stores won't exactly be a great loss to the denizens of Watford - there's a TKMaxx in St Albans or Hatfield, there's a Homebase and Staples at Apsley, or alternatives within the big Bushey retail park, but they're all a drive away from North Watford. As for Park-and-Ride to London, you seem to forget Luton. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
Adrian wrote:
Tony Polson gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: However, the proposal could see seven separate landowners forced to sell up to make way for the new road. The affected land is currently occupied by Homebase, T K Maxx and Staples, among others. It is a bit emotive for the reporter to say "shops will be bulldozed" as these are low rent retail sheds that could easily be relocated to other equally or more suitable sites in the borough. We are certainly not talking about prime retail space here, or even secondary retail! Hmm. If the perceived quality of the retail space is a factor, then there's a significant portion of Watford outside of the Harlequin Centre which should consider itself at high risk... Indeed. ;-) That's a reasonably decent sized stretch of large "shed"-style retail. It's not going to be easy to find a similar area of land to repurpose to a similar retail park. Perhaps not all in one place, I agree. As for Park-and-Ride to London, you seem to forget Luton. No, I didn't forget it. It is about as difficult to reach from the M1 as Watford Junction is now. When Watford Junction gets a link road right into the station and a multi-storey car park, it will be a far superior choice. As for park and ride for rail trips to the north west, Luton is no use. It's OK for Derby, Sheffield and Nottingham but the same consideration applies as for Milton Keynes - once you have driven as far as Luton or MK and faced the problems of getting to the car park and finding a space, you might as well do the whole journey by car. I have often used Bedford as a park and ride for rail journeys to Derby, Sheffield and even Leeds, but the problems getting to Bedford on the A421 (due to major road works) on top of the usual congestion in Bedford mean that I now choose to drive all the way. For Leeds I have also used Oxford and travelled on Cross Country. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
In uk.transport.london Adrian wrote:
That's a reasonably decent sized stretch of large "shed"-style retail. It's not going to be easy to find a similar area of land to repurpose to a similar retail park. Removal of those stores won't exactly be a great loss to the denizens of Watford - there's a TKMaxx in St Albans or Hatfield, there's a Homebase and Staples at Apsley, or alternatives within the big Bushey retail park, but they're all a drive away from North Watford. If they're building 'over the top' of TKMaxx on a flyover, perhaps they could keep TKMaxx underneath? Businesses in railway arches are a fairly common phenomenon, so how about some road arches? Noise could be a problem, but perhaps not if well designed. Or, as they do in Asda, just play loud music to give the customers and staff a headache and distract them from the road noise. Theo |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing
flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message
Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. But it's well outside London. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message ... Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. It's single track with, AIUI, no crossing loop. So without double track, or at least a crossing loop, you can't increase the frequency (end-to-end journey time of 16 minutes, and a round trip generally every 45 minutes}. Peter |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
"Recliner" wrote:
"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. But it's well outside London. It's typical uk.railway: if a service is sparsely used, costing the taxpayer a lot of money per passenger-journey or passenger-km (take your pick!) the trainspotters' answer is always the same: "Let's throw good money after bad, build a hugely expensive flyover/flyunder, lease some more very expensive rolling stock and pay even more in track access charges and staff costs!" All this for a very small number of passengers. The result? A marginal increase in ridership (at best) and a further huge increase in the already very high subsidy. As usual, a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money. The reason the line is very little used is that the vast majority of demand for rail services from St Albans is to/from London. That demand is already being satisfied by Thameslink, and Thameslink capacity is getting a huge boost for the future because that is where people actually want to travel. The St Albans Abbey to Watford Junction branch could more usefully be replaced by a bus service which would better serve intermediate communities between St Albans and Watford Town Centre and also serve Watford town centre rather than Watford Junction, which is very poorly situated relative to the centre of Watford. Yes, you can change trains to the DC lines at Watford Junction and go to Watford High Street instead, but that makes for a significant increase in average journey time. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
Tony Polson wrote:
"Recliner" wrote: "Jamie Thompson" wrote in message Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. But it's well outside London. It's typical uk.railway: if a service is sparsely used, costing the taxpayer a lot of money per passenger-journey or passenger-km (take your pick!) the trainspotters' answer is always the same: Well, yes. Trainspotters want more trains. If they wanted buses or guided hovercraft, they wouldn't be trainspotters. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:28:33 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote: "Jamie Thompson" wrote in message Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. But it's well outside London. The hole/bridge involved would also be rather expensive, which ISTR takes us back to previous suggestions that a SA via WJ to somewhere on the Met would be better value for money as it would allow street-running to get from one side of WJ to the other. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
Arthur Figgis wrote:
Tony Polson wrote: "Recliner" wrote: "Jamie Thompson" wrote in message Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. But it's well outside London. It's typical uk.railway: if a service is sparsely used, costing the taxpayer a lot of money per passenger-journey or passenger-km (take your pick!) the trainspotters' answer is always the same: Well, yes. Trainspotters want more trains. If they wanted buses or guided hovercraft, they wouldn't be trainspotters. Thank God the DfT isn't run by a trainspotter ... Er, hang on a minute, IT IS!!! ;-) |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
"Peter Masson" wrote:
"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message ... Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. It's single track with, AIUI, no crossing loop. So without double track, or at least a crossing loop, you can't increase the frequency (end-to-end journey time of 16 minutes, and a round trip generally every 45 minutes}. So let's spend endless £ millions on a new loop, and signalling, and why don't we double all the track at the same time, all to run even more expensive trains full of fresh air. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:36:54 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote: On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:28:33 +0100, "Recliner" wrote: "Jamie Thompson" wrote in message Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. But it's well outside London. The hole/bridge involved would also be rather expensive, which ISTR takes us back to previous suggestions that a SA via WJ to somewhere on the Met would be better value for money as it would allow ^tramway damn! street-running to get from one side of WJ to the other. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On 9 July, 22:27, Tony Polson wrote:
"Recliner" wrote: "Jamie Thompson" wrote in message Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. But it's well outside London. It's typical uk.railway: *if a service is sparsely used, costing the taxpayer a lot of money per passenger-journey or passenger-km (take your pick!) the trainspotters' answer is always the same: "Let's throw good money after bad, build a hugely expensive flyover/flyunder, lease some more very expensive rolling stock and pay even more in track access charges and staff costs!" * I agree that linking the line to the DC is a complete waste of money. Linking into the WCML is more favourable, especially with the Watford Junction - Euston service planned (only one train morning peak at the moment) All this for a very small number of passengers. *The result? *A marginal increase in ridership (at best) and a further huge increase in the already very high subsidy. *As usual, a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money. The line is certainly not empty during the peak, the 4 car trains are full upon arrival / departure at Watford Junction. If you need the resources to run the peak hour service, then the extra cost of running off-peak is minimal. The reason the line is very little used is that the vast majority of demand for rail services from St Albans is to/from London. *That demand is already being satisfied by Thameslink, and Thameslink capacity is getting a huge boost for the future because that is where people actually want to travel. There is actually a sizeable band of commuters into Watford on the line and you are falling into the classic trap of thinking of the line from only the end-to-end journeys. From the station usage stats at http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/xls/station_usage_0708.xls, St. Albans Abbey had 222,482 entries and exits with the other stations on the line between 32,000 and 98,000, not huge numbers, but certainly comparable is many stations with more frequent services in the commuter belt. The St Albans Abbey to Watford Junction branch could more usefully be replaced by a bus service which would better serve intermediate communities between St Albans and Watford Town Centre and also serve Watford town centre rather than Watford Junction, which is very poorly situated relative to the centre of Watford. *Yes, you can change trains to the DC lines at Watford Junction and go to Watford High Street instead, but that makes for a significant increase in average journey time. But there are already several bus routes serving areas on the line, and the timings are slow. For example the 321 bus takes about 30 mins Watford Junction - St. Alban's Abbey station and runs along a road between 5 and 10 minutes walk from the stations. How many buses are you going to run to take the peak load on the branch? Or are you comtemplating conversion to a busway which will not come cheap. I do agree that it is a waste of time changing to the DC lines , as it is only a ten minute walk / 2 min bus ride from Watford Junction to the main shopping areas. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
From eWatford Observer - 5:50pm Monday 13th July 2009
Road plans get County Hall backing By John Harrison » Councillors have approved plans that could see seven landowners forced to sell prime retail land in central Watford. Members on Hertfordshire County Council today voted in favour of a policy that could impose compulsory purchase orders on seven companies along St Albans Road. The proposal is part of plans to build a new link road between the M1 motorway and Watford Junction. The road will link Colonial Way with St Albans Road, as well as the busy station, and is intended to cross the main railway line to link east and west Watford. The land earmarked for construction is currently occupied by TK Maxx, Staples and Homebase superstores. At a meeting, held inside County Hall, in Hertford, this afternoon, councillors agree to first seek to acquire the land through negotiation. However, they voted to follow a police of compulsory purchase is necessary. The executive member for transport, County Councillor Stuart Pile, told fellow councillors the new road would ease congestion and a new station “hub” would provide additional parking. Hertfordshire County Council officers say the new road would offer a “more direct connection to the motorway system” and “alleviate existing traffic congestion”. One option under consideration would see the proposed road built as an extension to Colonial Way, passing over the railway track and through the Homebase car park. The second option, however, would see the new road built directly on top of a unit currently containing T K Maxx. ………………………………......... ………………………………......... John Burke WRUG |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
In message
, at 11:56:03 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, burkey remarked: Councillors have approved plans that could see seven landowners forced to sell prime retail land in central Watford. .... The second option, however, would see the new road built directly on top of a unit currently containing T K Maxx. In another thread we were discussing why new railways (and by analogy, new roads) cost so much here compared with other countries. The scheme elsewhere would likely be to offer T K Maxx a reasonable price for their unit, and if they refused, to build the road anyway. Once landowners get the message, they accept the first offer "gratefully". -- Roland Perry |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On 9 July, 21:28, "Recliner" wrote:
"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. But it's well outside London. 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). Additionally, I'd imagine timings could be improved by using one or two of the new metro-class stock built for LO (rapid acceleration and lower top-speeds than the 377s - built to be able to handle the fast lines without stealing too much capacity from Lord Beardie's trains as well as run stopping services all the way from from Birmingham) - hence the reason I suggest LO as a suitable operator, as they have a suitable set of units already, so you wouldn't need specialist stock or additional stabling. Having a flyover/under would let the service act as an extension of the current Watford terminating one, giving the future option of not only LO services (switching to AC at WJ to utilise the existing infrastructure), but Chiltern services (or even Met/Bakerloo, if they decided to install DC rails). Not having to endure a decidedly dodgy connection at WJ might also attract more local usage from north Watford for places south. Anyone heading to central London would be using Thameslink or changing at WJ anyway. Going off piste a bit - The ideal situation for the line is to be able to run into St Albans station rather than the Abbey Station - that would build up contraflow usage, making the line more sustainable. Moving the Thameslink station south to London Road and building a proper interchange would make this easier and leave open the option of extending to Hatfield whilst maintaining a really good interchange. I suspect the golf club might object though :) If you could pull off Hatfield and get FCC to stop their semi-fast there, you'd eventually build up a significant chunk of interchanging commuter use as people would be able to get between the WCML, MML, and ECML a) without going near central London or b) out to Birmingham/Leicester or c) going out as far as the proposed EWR route, and especially d) very quickly as the distances aren't that great between them. I know a *large* number of people who have to drive because the train isn't viable as they'd need travel orbitally. Now I know I should probably ignore king troll, but could you please come up with something more original than 'trainspotter'? - It's really quite tiresome after all this time. I'm not btw, I couldn't care less about the trains themselves - I'm only interested in building up public transport infrastructure, and the train is far quicker over the distances in question than any bus would be. Decent local bus interchange at each end would also be very much on my agenda, but you need a worthwhile service for them to connect to first. Who in their right mind would get out of their car, suffering the inconvenience penalty of public transport on a bus caught in the same traffic that their car was? |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On Jul 13, 9:25*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On 9 July, 21:28, "Recliner" wrote: "Jamie Thompson" wrote in message Shame they're missing the opportunity to add the sorely-missing flyover/under to link the DC lines with the St. Albans Abbey branch. Handing that line over to LO would do wonders for the service, which would then get more people actually using it. But it's well outside London. 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). Additionally, I'd imagine timings could be improved by using one or two of the new metro-class stock built for LO (rapid acceleration and lower top-speeds than the 377s - built to be able to handle the fast lines without stealing too much capacity from Lord Beardie's trains as well as run stopping services all the way from from Birmingham) - hence the reason I suggest LO as a suitable operator, as they have a suitable set of units already, so you wouldn't need specialist stock or additional stabling. 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. Having a flyover/under would let the service act as an extension of the current Watford terminating one, giving the future option of not only LO services (switching to AC at WJ to utilise the existing infrastructure), but Chiltern services (or even Met/Bakerloo, if they decided to install DC rails). Not having to endure a decidedly dodgy connection at WJ might also attract more local usage from north Watford for places south. Anyone heading to central London would be using Thameslink or changing at WJ anyway. But the cost of the flyover would probably pay for the passing loop at Bricket Wood and lease costs of an additional unit to run the service for 25 (or 50 or 100) years. Far better to make provision, when Watford Junction gets resignalled, to run services through to Euston from the branch, linking the planned peak Watford Junction, Bushey, Harrow, Euston 'bounce back' service to the branch shuttle. For several years in the 90s, the St. Albans trains connected with the Watford - Euston trains which left from platform 10 at the Junction, this was lost when the Southern service used the platform during the WCML rebuilt, but the Watford-Euston services are making a comeback, with one train already running at 08.03 from Watford (a bit of a tight connection from the 07.44 from St. Albans) and more planned by December. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
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. 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. [1] These days it's a 321, which isn't exactly a super-high-tech unit, though is newer and more pleasant than a nasty unrefurbed graffitied Silverlink 313. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
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. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On Jul 13, 9:59*pm, (Neil Williams) wrote: [snip] [1] These days it's a 321, which isn't exactly a super-high-tech unit, though is newer and more pleasant than a nasty unrefurbed graffitied Silverlink 313. The 313's are actually a lot cleaner these days under LO's care. The even clean the previously filthy seat covers! Of course they haven't done any refurbishment as such (ala Merseyrail), just removed some of the seats, but the trains do at least now look as though someone actually cares about them. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On Jul 13, 11:41*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
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. Indeed, the loop would allow two trains at once, but there is really no way to increase the frequency to every 30 mins without a loop. The old timetable (in immediate post-electrification days) had a train every 40 mins during the peak, but the time keeping fell off a bit towards the end of the rush hour and there was a gap in service to allow for this. Current frequency is a train every 42 mins at the start of service, then 45 mins for most of the day but 45-50 mins in the evening peak. The journey takes 16 mins end-to-end which doesn't leave sufficient turn around times to run a reliable service every 40 mins (this would only allow 4 mins at each end). 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 ;) But there is actually plenty of capacity off-peak to do this and London Midland are planning have these relief services running from Watford Junction anyway during the peaks anyway. If you look between 17.00 and 18.00 or between 18.00 and 19.00 there are currently 6 trains leaving Euston on the slow lines, add in the Southern service and there are 7 passenger trains per peak hour leaving London. The time penalty for the current Harrow / Bushey stoppers is 4 mins to Watford Junction at non-peak times although often less during the peak as many trains are Harrow or Bushey not both. For an easy example, removing the Harrow and Bushey stops from the xx.04 and xx.34 off-peak services would allow xx.10 and xx.40 services calling at Queens Park, Wembley (ok the first two are 'extras'), Harrow, Bushey and Watford Junction to run without impacting on the following service which uses the slow lines (xx.24 and xx.54). Compared to many other routes out of London, the WCML slow lines are not at capacity, even allowing for the freight which runs during the peak. Platform loops don't really add capacity whilst allowing for a reliable timetable, as there is a very narrow slot for the fast train to run through whilst the slow is stopped in the loop. ...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. But you'll have the same stopping at Harrow and Bushey whatever train run on the AC lines, as the existing service will have to retain their calls. Currently the DC services have a 16 min turnaround at Watford Junction which allows plenty of recovery time (and this is often used). You would turn this into 4 mins at St. Albans for every other train, with maybe a couple of mins stand at Watford Junction in each direction to adsorb late running / power switch over when coming onto or off the DC lines. 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. Current plans see 7 x class 321 units retained by LM (unit 411 and 412 have already been repainted in LM livery) and originally it was to be 10. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson
wrote: 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. This can't be a problem, because LM are already doing it in the height of the peak. They're just terminating at Watford. I was under the impression that all the 321s would eventually be on their way elsewhere. They will, but not for some time. LM are keeping either 7 or 9 (I forget) for the foreseeable future. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson
wrote: 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. If the economics of a loop and new rolling stick "don't add up", let's see you try to justify the cost of constructing a flyover/flyunder, which would be orders of magnitude higher! Should be quite a laugh. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On 14 July, 12:44, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson wrote: 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. If the economics of a loop and new rolling stick "don't add up", let's see you try to justify the cost of constructing a flyover/flyunder, which would be orders of magnitude higher! Should be quite a laugh. I didn't say I could justify it, just that it'd be a useful thing to have as an investment for the future. Sorry if that's not quite the laugh you envisioned. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On 14 July, 01:09, Andy wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:41*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote: Indeed, the loop would allow two trains at once, but there is really no way to increase the frequency to every 30 mins without a loop. The old timetable (in immediate post-electrification days) had a train every 40 mins during the peak, but the time keeping fell off a bit towards the end of the rush hour and there was a gap in service to allow for this. Current frequency is a train every 42 mins at the start of service, then 45 mins for most of the day but 45-50 mins in the evening peak. The journey takes 16 mins end-to-end which doesn't leave sufficient turn around times to run a reliable service every 40 mins (this would only allow 4 mins at each end). Fair enough. The mighty wikipedia says the line speed varies between 40-75mph. Could raising this slightly not give the required layover time...expensive I know, but we're already well off into fantasyville here anyway. For the record, I think the loop's a great idea. I wonder, would having 3 or 4 trains on the branch (you'd need both termini to have dual platforms or at the very least pre-platform loops) not work too? Two in motion, and one or two waiting at the terminus/i for the next to arrive. Plenty of layover time. ;) But there is actually plenty of capacity off-peak to do this and London Midland are planning have these relief services running from Watford Junction anyway during the peaks anyway. If you look between 17.00 and 18.00 or between 18.00 and 19.00 there are currently 6 trains leaving Euston on the slow lines, add in the Southern service and there are 7 passenger trains per peak hour leaving London. The time penalty for the current Harrow / Bushey stoppers is 4 mins to Watford Junction at non-peak times although often less during the peak as many trains are Harrow or Bushey not both. For an easy example, removing the Harrow and Bushey stops from the xx.04 and xx.34 off-peak services would allow xx.10 and xx.40 services calling at Queens Park, Wembley (ok the first two are 'extras'), Harrow, Bushey and Watford Junction to run without impacting on the following service which uses the slow lines (xx.24 and xx.54). Compared to many other routes out of London, the WCML slow lines are not at capacity, even allowing for the freight which runs during the peak. Platform loops don't really add capacity whilst allowing for a reliable timetable, as there is a very narrow slot for the fast train to run through whilst the slow is stopped in the loop. Is it really that hard to hold them to timetable? My main concern would be the acceleration reducing capacity, but that could be countered by making the loops longer. The Reason I first thought of these loops was my experience of standing at Harrow & Wealdstone during the peak with the platform being crush loaded and trying to force my way back behind the yellow line when a ex-Bushey non-stopper shot past. Incredibly dangerous, especially when you don't get the warnings until the trains already shooting through - if indeed you can hear them at all due to the crappy PA system. Strikes me that if you put the platforms on loops the air shockwave would be non-existent and you'd have less change of having your face ground against the side of a 90mph train if someone happened to bump you by accident. Also, it does seem that there is spare capacity, but then I wonder about several peak gaps in service of half an hour or so (ok, 15 really, but it's 30 if you want to go to Euston rather than Clapham), which made me wonder if I was missing something. But you'll have the same stopping at Harrow and Bushey whatever train run on the AC lines, as the existing service will have to retain their calls. Currently the DC services have a 16 min turnaround at Watford Junction which allows plenty of recovery time (and this is often used). You would turn this into 4 mins at St. Albans for every other train, with maybe a couple of mins stand at Watford Junction in each direction to adsorb late running / power switch over when coming onto or off the DC lines. Sorry, I thought we were proposing additional calls? - My bad. Current plans see 7 x class 321 units retained by LM (unit 411 and 412 have already been repainted in LM livery) and originally it was to be 10. I stand informed and corrected :) Another random thought, given the ample capacity on the DC lines, and with a flyunder and a link to the MML/proposed Radlett freight terminal, you could increase freight capacity to Wembley yard whilst (depending on the location of said flyunder), possibly even moving some freight off the slow lines between Watford and Wembley. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:08:46 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson
wrote: On 14 July, 12:44, Bruce wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson wrote: 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. If the economics of a loop and new rolling stick "don't add up", let's see you try to justify the cost of constructing a flyover/flyunder, which would be orders of magnitude higher! Should be quite a laugh. I didn't say I could justify it, just that it'd be a useful thing to have as an investment for the future. Sorry if that's not quite the laugh you envisioned. On the contrary, it was hilarious! You appear to have quite a bizarre (mis)understanding of the term "investment". ;-) |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson
wrote: Fair enough. The mighty wikipedia says the line speed varies between 40-75mph. Could raising this slightly not give the required layover time...expensive I know, but we're already well off into fantasyville here anyway. Well you might be, but most others here have the sense to see that you are well and truly in fantasy land. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On 14 July, 14:18, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson wrote: Fair enough. The mighty wikipedia says the line speed varies between 40-75mph. Could raising this slightly not give the required layover time...expensive I know, but we're already well off into fantasyville here anyway. Well you might be, but most others here have the sense to see that you are well and truly in fantasy land. Umm...trolling by repeating what I just said doesn't make any sense... |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On 14 July, 13:30, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On 14 July, 01:09, Andy wrote: On Jul 13, 11:41*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote: Indeed, the loop would allow two trains at once, but there is really no way to increase the frequency to every 30 mins without a loop. The old timetable (in immediate post-electrification days) had a train every 40 mins during the peak, but the time keeping fell off a bit towards the end of the rush hour and there was a gap in service to allow for this. Current frequency is a train every 42 mins at the start of service, then 45 mins for most of the day but 45-50 mins in the evening peak. The journey takes 16 mins end-to-end which doesn't leave sufficient turn around times to run a reliable service every 40 mins (this would only allow 4 mins at each end). Fair enough. The mighty wikipedia says the line speed varies between 40-75mph. Could raising this slightly not give the required layover time...expensive I know, but we're already well off into fantasyville here anyway. For the record, I think the loop's a great idea. I wonder, would having 3 or 4 trains on the branch (you'd need both termini to have dual platforms or at the very least pre-platform loops) not work too? Two in motion, and one or two waiting at the terminus/i for the next to arrive. Plenty of layover time. ;) Speed isn't a problem on the line, as the stations are so close together that you'd never get to anything like 75 mph and I think would be hard pushed to get to 40 between stops. On way of speeding the service up would be to remove the level crossing at Watford North, as St. Albans bound trains often has to wait for the crossing cycle to complete before that can leave the station. Reinstating the second platform at St. Albans would certainly help as well and if a long enough two track section was built would mean that the loop at Bricket Wood wouldn't be needed so much, cheaper to have a single set of points serving two platform tracks than a passing loop. But there is actually plenty of capacity off-peak to do this and London Midland are planning have these relief services running from Watford Junction anyway during the peaks anyway. If you look between 17.00 and 18.00 or between 18.00 and 19.00 there are currently 6 trains leaving Euston on the slow lines, add in the Southern service and there are 7 passenger trains per peak hour leaving London. The time penalty for the current Harrow / Bushey stoppers is 4 mins to Watford Junction at non-peak times although often less during the peak as many trains are Harrow or Bushey not both. For an easy example, removing the Harrow and Bushey stops from the xx.04 and xx.34 off-peak services would allow xx.10 and xx.40 services calling at Queens Park, Wembley (ok the first two are 'extras'), Harrow, Bushey and Watford Junction to run without impacting on the following service which uses the slow lines (xx.24 and xx.54). Compared to many other routes out of London, the WCML slow lines are not at capacity, even allowing for the freight which runs during the peak. Platform loops don't really add capacity whilst allowing for a reliable timetable, as there is a very narrow slot for the fast train to run through whilst the slow is stopped in the loop. Is it really that hard to hold them to timetable? My main concern would be the acceleration reducing capacity, but that could be countered by making the loops longer. The Reason I first thought of these loops was my experience of standing at Harrow & Wealdstone during the peak with the platform being crush loaded and trying to force my way back behind the yellow line when a ex-Bushey non-stopper shot past. Incredibly dangerous, especially when you don't get the warnings until the trains already shooting through - if indeed you can hear them at all due to the crappy PA system. Strikes me that if you put the platforms on loops the air shockwave would be non-existent and you'd have less change of having your face ground against the side *of a 90mph train if someone happened to bump you by accident. LM trains on the slow lines are rarely exactly on time, either north or southbound between Watford Junction and Euston. This is mainly due to the number of passengers getting on or off. Was your experience at Harrow before the platforms were lengthened? I've never seen platform 6 here dangerously overcrowded, even in the height of the peak with cancelled trains. It is the actual station dwell times eat up the capacity more than the acceleration, the 350s seem to get upto line speed more rapidly than the 321s, maybe an advantage of having two motor coaches to the 321s' one. Also, it does seem that there is spare capacity, but then I wonder about several peak gaps in service of half an hour or so (ok, 15 really, but it's 30 if you want to go to Euston rather than Clapham), which made me wonder if I was missing something. Southbound the service is more irregular due to different origin points of the trains and by LM splitting the Bushey and Harrow stops between different services (which makes sense for making best use of the space in each train). There are also a couple of freights which run during the peaks, also eating into capacity. There is one timetabled between the 08.31 and 08.41 ex Harrow. But you'll have the same stopping at Harrow and Bushey whatever train run on the AC lines, as the existing service will have to retain their calls. Currently the DC services have a 16 min turnaround at Watford Junction which allows plenty of recovery time (and this is often used). You would turn this into 4 mins at St. Albans for every other train, with maybe a couple of mins stand at Watford Junction in each direction to adsorb late running / power switch over when coming onto or off the DC lines. Sorry, I thought we were proposing additional calls? - My bad. The LM plan is for the Watford - Euston shuttles to replace some of the calls at Bushey and Harrow made by services which run further north. Current plans see 7 x class 321 units retained by LM (unit 411 and 412 have already been repainted in LM livery) and originally it was to be 10. I stand informed and corrected :) Another random thought, given the ample capacity on the DC lines, and with a flyunder and a link to the MML/proposed Radlett freight terminal, you could increase freight capacity to Wembley yard whilst (depending on the location of said flyunder), possibly even moving some freight off the slow lines between Watford and Wembley. I'd personally say that the DC lines are more crowded than the AC. The mix of Bakerloo trains (1 every 10 mins to Harrow and the Stonebridge Park terminators as well) plus the LO service mean that there isn't much space for additional trains. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:05:44 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson
wrote: On 14 July, 14:18, Bruce wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson wrote: Fair enough. The mighty wikipedia says the line speed varies between 40-75mph. Could raising this slightly not give the required layover time...expensive I know, but we're already well off into fantasyville here anyway. Well you might be, but most others here have the sense to see that you are well and truly in fantasy land. Umm...trolling by repeating what I just said doesn't make any sense... I quoted it to prove the point. Nothing you say makes any sense. |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
Umm...trolling by repeating what I just said doesn't make any sense...
I quoted it to prove the point. Nothing you say makes any sense. * ***yawn*** Really, what's the point of posting unless you have something constructive to say? Is your life so empty and meaningless that you get a kick out of anonymously trolling an internet forum? Go out, make some friends, get a life. You'll feel so much better for it :) |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On 14 July, 17:11, Andy wrote:
Was your experience at Harrow before the platforms were lengthened? I've never seen platform 6 here dangerously overcrowded, even in the height of the peak with cancelled trains. It is the actual station dwell times eat up the capacity more than the acceleration, the 350s seem to get upto line speed more rapidly than the 321s, maybe an advantage of having two motor coaches to the 321s' one. No, I believe that the extensions were already in place by the time I started using H&W. I do have a photo or two to prove the overcrowding, actually ;) - Took them to prov |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
....that should have ended "Took them to prove to my boss why I was
late and how bad things were" |
Watford Junction - Shops could be bulldozed for new road
On 9 July, 10:00, burkey wrote:
From eWatford Observer - 8:40am Thursday 9th July 2009 Shops could be bulldozed for new road By John Harrison » Shops in St Albans Road could be bulldozed to make way for a new road linking Watford Junction with the M1 motorway. .... .... The affected land is currently occupied by Homebase, T K Maxx and Staples That gets support from me. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk