Watford junction question!

The idea was equally about north of Harrow getting a better service, and south of it being reduced to a more reasoned level.

Between the Bakerloo taking the DC service, and XR taking the WCML slows, Euston gains a lot of breathing room for HS2 works aswell, as noted above. However, it must be remembered that even before HS2 was announced, Euston had been earmarked for massive redevelopment.

BR started withdrawing Class 501's in 1971 with the first 2 units going to the Southern for bogie trials in connection with the PEP project. Services on the DC lines started being reduced from the early 1960's and despite London Overgrounds resurgence the service is still a shadow of it's former self with the longest train on the LO being a 4 car unit albeit sub cattle truck class with minimalist seats!

Xerces Fobe

It is worth re-instating. LO trains up there were pretty full when I went there off-peak yesterday.

If the Croxley Link gets the green light it will only require the 4th rail to be reinstated between Harrow & Wealdstone and the Watford High Street junction.

Xerces Fobe

Are the DC rails still available to link the two lines?

An alternative solution might be to reinstate the 'main-line' platforms at Hatch End (at least for the 'slow lines'), reconfigure the yard at Watford Junction, and then run a St. Albans Abbey - all stations to Watford Junction - Bushey - Hatch End - Harrow & Wealdstone - Wembley Central - Queen's Park - Euston service.

There's quite a bit of countryside ('green belt') north of Harrow & Wealdstone (well, certainly north of Headstone Lane) so, unless there are some major housing developments on a lot of the 'green belt' land, I can't see a greatly enhanced DC (or Bakerloo) line service north of Harrow generating much additional traffic at all.

I read somewhere that the B'Loo and LO have a H&S dispensation to run trains with a mismatched train to platform height - so I assume to extend the mismatch to Watford would be frowned upon ( or the extra expense of dual height platforms ) . I would go the other way and terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park (or Stonebridge if thats easier operationally ). Increase the LO frequency to 4tph throughout the day . London Midland would then be required to add Queens Park as a stop to the Tring and MK trains (and drop Bushey in return - whats the point ! ). This would also work if LO stopped going to Euston and Watford-Stratford /Croydon etc ever came about .

The Bakerloo / LO trains are busy between Harrow and London pretty much all day, although not so much at Harrow itself due to the fast alternatives.

Current service is 3tph Overground, 6 tph Bakerloo to/from Harrow and 3 tph Bakerloo to/from Stonebridge Park. Swapping the 3 Stonebridge Park trains for LO trains (even if 6 car class 378s), won't actually make much different to total capacity until they get north of Harrow.

There won't be any capacity on the slow lines to do this, at least until HS2 takes some trains away.



There isn't really, there is housing either side of the line all the way to Hatch End (which has more housing nearby than Northwood Hills, for example). Carpenters Park does have a bit of unbuilt on the land away from the immediate station, but the final section Bushey to Watford has plenty of housing and shops for demand.

Clapham Jct. Platforms 16 and 17 for instance...

I think it was more due to the Voyagers being too long to fit into Platform 17 (the rear of a Voyager would be off the platform due to the longer coaches). After all, the class 377/2 wouldn't have had "grandfather" rights either but they still stop despite the large gap and step down.



Indeed.

As I have stated before on this Forum I am a great advocate of Light Rail Systems and Tramways and really like the SF MUNI and Boston T Green Line.

The St Albans scheme was founded because no money could be found to finance the installation of a loop at Bricket Wood station.

The LRT will remove any chance of a through services to London via Watford Junction! Extensions at the St Albans end of the line will be restricted due to the narrow streets, steep hills and a lot of historic buildings. An extension to Hatfield would be a good idea but why not use heavy rail instead as there would be then many potential uses for the line.

An extension beyond Watford Junction running to Watford High down the DC lines was one of the more loony ideas that were proposed. To get to the centre of Watford lot of investment would be required in order to build a bridge/subway to cross the WCML and then along the streets to Watford; all this when there was no enough finance for a loop at Bricket Wood.

Assuming the Croxley Link gets the go ahead then extend it to cross the WCML and run to St Albans & Hatfield. This trains would be new S Stock not German trams rescued on the trip to the scrap yard; yet another one of the loony ideas!

Xerces Fobe

Poor Bakerloo! I'm still reeling from Glom's damning verdict in the RIPaS section:



Perhaps the time has come for the powers that be to re-vamp the Bakerloo beyond faithful station restorations? Aside from the long-proposed-long-unrealised extension into southeast London, the desire to re-work Euston does present an opportunity to raise the line's profile. At the northern end, the line could and should be re-extended to Watford Jn to co-incide roughly with new signalling and stock and, ideally a southern extension to say, Lewisham. Displaced LO stock can be used elsewhere and Euston will gain a bit of space for other services.

Finally I do find the service imbalances across undergound lines rather interesting. On one hand there is the District, the central section of which needs to be relieved of the traffic from some of its western branches. On the other hand we have the Bakerloo which requires trains to turn well short of H&W because of insufficient traffic levels. Is this a function of the over-concentration of LU lines in the NW london area (Piccadilly, Central, Metropolitan, Bakerloo, Jubilee and Northern branches all serve the area) or failure to evenly allocate branches to these lines at an earlier stage?

The Croxley link wouldn't require 4th rail from Harrow...it'd only require it from Watford High St. Junction, surely?

I agree the Bakerloo plus an improved LO would be an over-provision, the solution to which is to cut the Bakerloo back to Willesden Junction. The problem there is that it would still have to share track to Queens Park, so you either cut the service back to Queens Park, or extend the tunnels from Queens Park to Willesden Junction. It's simpler if you accept some shared running though, as stated elsewhere...swapping Bakerloo trains for LO trains would be like for like capacity-wise. My preference would be to extend from Willesden Junction either up to Finchley Central via Brent Cross then taking over a branch, or to extend south west and either take over the Ealing Broadway branch of the Central, or to add to the proposed Park Royal interchange (Bakerloo, Central, Piccadilly) thence continuing down that way.

You couldn't cut the Bushey stops...it's essentially Watford South Station, and the amount of congestion through Watford town centre you'd add by forcing passengers to use Watford Junction would not go down well at all (not to mention the increased ticket costs!). Given that everything bar freight on the slow lines stops at Watford Junction, then an additional stop at Bushey costs little, versus Harrow, where trains are running at line speed by that point.

Indeed. In an ideal world, we'd rearrange the tracks so the DC and Slow lines were adjacent and paired by direction so trains could run 6 or so stops then run fast to Euston (say, Tring-Watford, then fast, and Watford-Harrow then fast, Harrow-Willesden then fast, Willesden-Camden Road slow). Essentially, my model is the Met line, with the Jubilee filling the role of the LO services.

Yup. That freight needs to go elsewhere, even if that somewhere is continuing on the NLL through Hampstead. It already has the path on the NLL...it'd only impinge through services from the Goblin, which whilst an important goal to strive from, are lower priority than services (marginally) closer to central London.

Don't get me started on that...I'd much prefer a Willesden-Euston-TCR-Waterloo-Clapham scheme than a Crossrail branch that should by all rights be taking over the Chiltern service to Aylesbury via Princes Risborough.

...but of course, there are the two missing lines directly above them that will be restored in the mid-term. That gives you Willesden-Gospel Oak-Camden Road-Stratford on AC, and Willesden-Primrose Hill-Camden Road-Dalston on DC.

It is a crazy scheme as Xerces says. For the sake of a primitive signalling token (seriously, how expensive could a track circuit that only shows a green signal when a train is in the other loop be?)

Any money spent on tram extensions through Watford Town centre would be far better spent on diving under the WCML so the LO can operate a through service. Met trains would require DC installed, but LO trains already have pantographs available. When you think of trams to Watford town centre you realise how backwards we have come from the Met's plans to extend from their current station into Watford Town centre then under Clarendon Road up to Watford Junction then up the branch to St. Albans!