|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 2, 2011 12:12:06 GMT
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. The Croxley link wouldn't require 4th rail from Harrow...it'd only require it from Watford High St. Junction, surely? I think the point is that if the Croxley link gets built, then only Watford High Street - Harrow needs the 4th rail reinstating for the Bakerloo to run. The four tracks are already in place, except in the area of Camden Road and they are paired by direction (more or less) not by route. So to re-electrify with DC would need rearranging of the loops designed to get freight out of the way of the NLL and rebuilding of Caledonian Road and Barnesbury (again). Very expensive when you look at the different track requirements for a loop needed for a 4 car EMU or a shorter light rail vehicle along with having to take account of the length of platform needed at Bricket Wood. You also need to consider the complexity of dealing with times when the frequency is reduced or a train needs rescuing. Signalling a line for two trains with a passing loop ends up much more expensive than the current 'one engine in steam' type of operation used on the line. As a user of the branch in the past, I would much prefer a 20 min light rail shuttle, connecting at Watford Junction than the present 45 min service, which at most would be every 30 mins if running as a heavy rail through trains. But a light rail vehicle route could dive under the WCML using the existing car park access tunnel (due for replacement with a new road bridge passing over the site from Colonial Way to St. Albans Road), you don't need expensive bridge with the shallower gradients needed for a normal rail route. Connecting the existing heavy rail lines gives little improvement in access to Watford Town centre, compared to the existing setup, for a lot of money. You would also have the problem of connecting a busy double track line into a single track line, (even with passing loop), which would give little recovery time. |
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Sept 2, 2011 12:38:52 GMT
When did they stop the service to Watford Junction? Must have been in the 70's as I'm sure it went there when I was a youngster....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2011 14:12:17 GMT
1982 I Believe. Even then it was a very limited service. Don't think I ever went on it I would have been 7 at the time.
|
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Sept 2, 2011 15:08:02 GMT
Yes, it was restricted to peak hours IIRC, and then it sort of vanished off the maps. 82 would fit, I moved here in 83.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 2, 2011 15:44:06 GMT
Yes, it was restricted to peak hours IIRC, and then it sort of vanished off the maps. 82 would fit, I moved here in 83. From memory, they finished around the same time that Croxley Depot shut, as the four peak hour trains stabled there. CULG gives the data of the withdrawl of the Watford Junction service as 24th September 1982. |
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Sept 2, 2011 17:24:20 GMT
Yes, it was restricted to peak hours IIRC, and then it sort of vanished off the maps. 82 would fit, I moved here in 83. From memory, they finished around the same time that Croxley Depot shut, as the four peak hour trains stabled there.  Of course! That never crossed my mind. Somewhere out there, there's a site that lists and displays maps from the past - I'll try and dig that out, it ought to show the peak services from the 70's, and presumably the demise of the section. BINGO!! This is the map from 74 showing peak services. Then this from 86 showing peak only to H&W, and interestingly peak hours on the Piccadilly to Uxbridge which I don't ever remember - Presumably Rayners to Uxbridge Met had a better service than today. In fact this site is excellent, it goes right back to 1889, and although there are some gaps, it's a very good history. I've now bookmarked it for future reference. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Sept 2, 2011 17:43:05 GMT
Max Roberts has a page with good maps for collectors. It has a few from the 80's not seen elsewhere on the net.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 2, 2011 19:10:05 GMT
I think the point is that if the Croxley link gets built, then only Watford High Street - Harrow needs the 4th rail reinstating for the Bakerloo to run.  How right you are. Misread it... The four tracks are already in place, except in the area of Camden Road and they are paired by direction (more or less) not by route. So to re-electrify with DC would need rearranging of the loops designed to get freight out of the way of the NLL and rebuilding of Caledonian Road and Barnesbury (again). The four tracks through Camden aren't in place - these are the ones that were at risk of being de-scoped due to the 3 bridges that need major work. It's back on now, but not until after the Olympics I believe. Yes, the arrangements are paired by direction (which funnily enough, I usually favour!), but converting these to paired by use would be a major simplification - it'd all just be converted to plain line. The signalling would obviously be the major component of the work. The loss of the freight loops hopefully wouldn't be so bad as the trains have to have paths to get to the loops, so must have paths on the NLL running lines that they can use to get all the way to Willesden. As for CR&B - It wouldn't need to be completely rebuilt...all you're doing is restoring the other side platform? Very expensive when you look at the different track requirements for a loop needed for a 4 car EMU or a shorter light rail vehicle along with having to take account of the length of platform needed at Bricket Wood. You also need to consider the complexity of dealing with times when the frequency is reduced or a train needs rescuing. Signalling a line for two trains with a passing loop ends up much more expensive than the current 'one engine in steam' type of operation used on the line. As a user of the branch in the past, I would much prefer a 20 min light rail shuttle, connecting at Watford Junction than the present 45 min service, which at most would be every 30 mins if running as a heavy rail through trains. The lengths of loop required wouldn't be so great...the trains will be stopping so will be travelling very slowly. The length of platform is also irrelevant. Had you mentioned the need for a second platform and bridge, then you might have had something though. How you think the light rail solution would be any more frequent is also beyond me...unless they install 3 or more loops of course, but that's not what's being proposed. Lets also not forget that apparently they can afford a entire tram depot as well as the changes AND light rail rolling stock....I strongly suspect that there's an agenda at work here. You'd still need extensive works to fit the overhead into that tunnel...I suspect you'd have to lower it substantially for a start. Trams are essentially as slow as buses as they have to share the road with the existing traffic. You'd get a lot more benefit from the Met's original plans down to the High Street, but LO to Watford High Street station is a decent substitute. I would imagine a turnback siding at Watford Junction anyway, so double to single is no great issue, and you could still simply run them up to platforms 1-4 (or 5...). Moving LO out of platforms 1-4 frees them up for Met services too. I can easily see something like 2 for the Met, 2 for LO, and 1 for Chiltern. Chiltern could conceivably run it's diesel trains on to St. Albans with a rail tunnel, but I suspect they'd terminate at Watford Junction. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 2, 2011 20:43:04 GMT
I think the point is that if the Croxley link gets built, then only Watford High Street - Harrow needs the 4th rail reinstating for the Bakerloo to run. How right you are. Misread it... The four tracks through Camden aren't in place - these are the ones that were at risk of being de-scoped due to the 3 bridges that need major work. It's back on now, but not until after the Olympics I believe. Yes, the arrangements are paired by direction (which funnily enough, I usually favour!), but converting these to paired by use would be a major simplification - it'd all just be converted to plain line. The signalling would obviously be the major component of the work. The loss of the freight loops hopefully wouldn't be so bad as the trains have to have paths to get to the loops, so must have paths on the NLL running lines that they can use to get all the way to Willesden. As for CR&B - It wouldn't need to be completely rebuilt...all you're doing is restoring the other side platform? But the important point is that the H&I to Camden Road East Junction section is already four tracked and signaled accordingly. Remember that these loops are the only ones between the West Coast Mainline (or the South West Mainline) and both the East Coast and Great Eastern Route. Extension of the ELL services westwards will still need a crossing of the eastbound NLL, which would prove expensive without introducing extra conflicts into an already busy route. An 80 meter platform plus 90 plus loop will be more than twice the cost of the 50 meter loop (including platform) with tighter sharper pointwork. Light Rail vehicles, by their nature, can accelerate fast than the current EMUs and it will be possible to run end to end in sufficient time to provide a 20 minute frequency with just one loop. Currently the EMUs are timetabled for 16 minutes end to end, so you can't run a 20 minute service without more than two units and more than one loop. A light rail vehicle will be able to run end to end in a couple of minutes less, so a 20 minute frequency will be possible with a single loop and tight turnarounds at both Watford and St. Albans. You need little clearance for a 750V overhead in a tunnel (and lowering the road surface, if needed, would still be an order of magnitude cheaper than building a rail bridge) and being as slow as a bus is still quicker than the current 10-15 minutes walk into town. The Met's original plan was fine, but would be horrendously expensive in this day and age, especially as the station site on the high street has long gone. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 2, 2011 22:14:05 GMT
Light rail vehicles typically sit lower down anyway (as they need to be accessible from near the ground on when street running) . This may provide enough headroom for the overhead.
Further upthread was a suggestion the Bloo be diverted to Ealing Broadway, replacing the Central. Would that actually be very useful? I can't see the good people of Ealing and West Acton relishing the prospect of a direct service to Willesden and Queens Park replacing one to Shepherds Bush (Westfield). Yes, it will go to Paddington, but they have the GWML for that. And the Bakerloo is so twisty-turny in the Paddington area that it takes a long time to go not very far - it describes almost a complete semicircle between marylebone and Maida Vale.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 3, 2011 12:08:02 GMT
But the important point is that the H&I to Camden Road East Junction section is already four tracked and signaled accordingly. Remember that these loops are the only ones between the West Coast Mainline (or the South West Mainline) and both the East Coast and Great Eastern Route. Extension of the ELL services westwards will still need a crossing of the eastbound NLL, which would prove expensive without introducing extra conflicts into an already busy route. ...and I was saying that how it is currently is irrelevant as I explicitly suggested plain lining it and resignalling accordingly...there would be no crossings at all! In another play-through of this conversation room for replacement loops was found at Queens Park by demolishing the builders yard and Bakerloo sheds (with the Bakerloo continuing to Willesden Junction in tunnel). Though, that would still necessitate a crossing of the ELL west of Camden Road. Lets not forget that Willesden/Wembley yard has ample room for regulating freight moving between the GEML and the WCML. An 80 meter platform plus 90 plus loop will be more than twice the cost of the 50 meter loop (including platform) with tighter sharper pointwork. Light Rail vehicles, by their nature, can accelerate fast than the current EMUs and it will be possible to run end to end in sufficient time to provide a 20 minute frequency with just one loop. Currently the EMUs are timetabled for 16 minutes end to end, so you can't run a 20 minute service without more than two units and more than one loop. A light rail vehicle will be able to run end to end in a couple of minutes less, so a 20 minute frequency will be possible with a single loop and tight turnarounds at both Watford and St. Albans. ...my point being that there's already an 80m platform in place? I think you're assuming far too much by the acceleration - modern electric trains accelerate very well, but have a dramatically lower top speed. The old 313 stock that used to run this line has a top speed of 75mph...the Croydon trams by comparison have a top speed of 50mph. In an ideal world metro stock would be operating the line as in Silverlink days (a phrase that doesn't get used much!), I think a 378 would be ideal. I've seen it stated that more than a 30 minute service would require two loops at OTHER points on the line light rail or not. You need little clearance for a 750V overhead in a tunnel (and lowering the road surface, if needed, would still be an order of magnitude cheaper than building a rail bridge) and being as slow as a bus is still quicker than the current 10-15 minutes walk into town. The Met's original plan was fine, but would be horrendously expensive in this day and age, especially as the station site on the high street has long gone. The station is still there...it's just a pub now instead. A very nice one  You also have one other slight problem - the roads through the town centre are one-way. There's no way for the tram route to get back to the station...unless you somehow manage a VERY, VERY, tight curve from Market Street to Exchange road then over the bridge... |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Sept 4, 2011 11:11:19 GMT
The District (and thus the LERs) had London domination as their goal, whereas the Met had grander ambitions further north. You could speculate that Londons position in the South of England also helped indirectly, as the railways going north were after long distance traffic primarily, whereas the Southern was far more interested in commuter traffic. The Southern was thus composed of a tangle of lines from its constituants, whereas railways the other side of the river were more corridors. Good points. Nearly every line has trains which stop short once outside the central area. Of the lines that you mention, the Northern is probably the only exception (and even here there are two northern branches to service excluding the Mill Hill East Shuttle). The Jubilee stop short at Wembley Park (and occasionally Willesden Green and West Hampstead), the Central stop short at White City and Newbury Park (amongst others), the Piccadilly at Northfields and Arnos Grove, etc. Granted, but proportionally more Bakerloo trains terminate early both off-peak and peak than other lines. In any event my comments were more about how tube branches were planned, essentially the New Works Programme. I appreciate that a number of factors were different then but lets take the Stanmore branch (1939-1979) as an example. Baker St was arguably too central a point to branch at, and the traffic on that section became too much to cope with. Branching further out at Willesden Jn and running to West Ruislip/Denham (rather than the Central line branch which opened 1947/48) might have been a better match. The Central line might then have reached Richmond, giving the District one less branch to worry about. But I digress...just thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 4, 2011 11:58:55 GMT
I did read of a proposal to extend the CSLR from Euston to Finchley Road to relieve the Met. Arguably this would have been a better option than the Bakerloo extension we actually got, as having Paddington served by only one branch gave it a relatively poor service. I think the proposal died a death when the CSLR fell into the Combine's clutches, after which co-operation with the Met was much less likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 4, 2011 13:17:02 GMT
But the important point is that the H&I to Camden Road East Junction section is already four tracked and signaled accordingly. Remember that these loops are the only ones between the West Coast Mainline (or the South West Mainline) and both the East Coast and Great Eastern Route. Extension of the ELL services westwards will still need a crossing of the eastbound NLL, which would prove expensive without introducing extra conflicts into an already busy route. ...and I was saying that how it is currently is irrelevant as I explicitly suggested plain lining it and resignalling accordingly...there would be no crossings at all! In another play-through of this conversation room for replacement loops was found at Queens Park by demolishing the builders yard and Bakerloo sheds (with the Bakerloo continuing to Willesden Junction in tunnel). Though, that would still necessitate a crossing of the ELL west of Camden Road. Lets not forget that Willesden/Wembley yard has ample room for regulating freight moving between the GEML and the WCML. But loops are not needed in the Queens Park area, there already is one used for freight (mainly for trains heading towards the NLL). The loops at Camden are NEEDED to recess freight trains waiting for their path across Camden West Junction. Regulatation at Wembley / Willesden is too far away for responding to newly developing delays. Remember that it is a lot more challenging to path freight over the NLL, running between frequent, all stations, passenger trains than it is to path the trains over the WCML Camden and Willesden. Unless you are going to remodel the Camden Road area, there are going to be conflicts between existing westbound NLL trains and your extra eastbound services heading for the ELL. There is already one 80m platform, but you will need a second one for the other side of the loop, this being the expensive bit. For light rail, this second platform (and the loop) don't need to be so long. On the branch top speed is irrelevant, maximal acceleration is important, especially with a maximum distance between stations of only one and a half miles. Prior to privatisation, the branch normally had a forty minute frequency throughout the day (using class 313s and despite the opening of How Wood station which increased the end-to-end time). But when the class 321 took over, the frequency was reduced to every 45 minutes, because the units couldn't accelerate quickly enough between stops. So, it a 40 minute frequency was possible in the past, a 20 minute frequency should be possible with a single loop, providing whatever runs it can keep to a 14-15 minute end-to-end journey time (current time is 16 minutes) and be able to turned around quickly at either end. Class 378s are considerably heavier per car than the class 313s and an articulated light rail vehicle generally weighs about the same (DLR units 37t, Croydon trains 36.3t) as a single EMU vehicle (class 313 31.0-37.5t, class 321 29.7-51.5t, class 378 34.3-43.5t [all per vehicle]). Heavier vehicles are harder to accelerate. Why would trains need to be using the ring road? Clarendon Road is two way to the junction with the High Street and the High Street is certainly wide enough to have two way tram and bus operation down to the Harlequin (it used to in the past and road layout in the central part of town seem to get swapped around frequently). You could also consider a loop route going Clarendon Road, High Street and Queens Road back to the station. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 4, 2011 16:36:11 GMT
But loops are not needed in the Queens Park area, there already is one used for freight (mainly for trains heading towards the NLL). The loops at Camden are NEEDED to recess freight trains waiting for their path across Camden West Junction. Regulatation at Wembley / Willesden is too far away for responding to newly developing delays. Remember that it is a lot more challenging to path freight over the NLL, running between frequent, all stations, passenger trains than it is to path the trains over the WCML Camden and Willesden. Unless you are going to remodel the Camden Road area, there are going to be conflicts between existing westbound NLL trains and your extra eastbound services heading for the ELL. My point was that there would be no movements from the NLL to Primrose Hill - everything would run via the Hampstead tunnel. I think you could also fit loops on a fair bit of the two-track section between the WCML and NLL - e.g. shift the Primrose Hill platform south and have an island with two tracks on each side, with the outer tracks acting as loops or bypass lines....and yes of course, this is all predicated on widening the 25m or so of viaduct west of Camden Road to 4 track width. Fitting in between metro services isn't the problem per-se - it's holding them up. The freight doesn't have great acceleration, so stopping and starting isn't great and it'll take multiple paths. This should all be very easy to manage though (just not ideal for capacity) as it'd just be a two-track route form Stratford to Willesden Junction. Improvements would be achievable by building a new ramp on the GEML to enable all the freight to go over the Goblin - not just the traffic from Tilbury. There is already one 80m platform, but you will need a second one for the other side of the loop, this being the expensive bit. For light rail, this second platform (and the loop) don't need to be so long. A lump of concrete platform is cheap, and the costs of a longer loop are marginal in the overall cost of the project. It's the same number of points, all you'd be doing is increasing the amount of plain line in each loop. On the branch top speed is irrelevant, maximal acceleration is important, especially with a maximum distance between stations of only one and a half miles. Prior to privatisation, the branch normally had a forty minute frequency throughout the day (using class 313s and despite the opening of How Wood station which increased the end-to-end time). But when the class 321 took over, the frequency was reduced to every 45 minutes, because the units couldn't accelerate quickly enough between stops. So, it a 40 minute frequency was possible in the past, a 20 minute frequency should be possible with a single loop, providing whatever runs it can keep to a 14-15 minute end-to-end journey time (current time is 16 minutes) and be able to turned around quickly at either end. Class 378s are considerably heavier per car than the class 313s and an articulated light rail vehicle generally weighs about the same (DLR units 37t, Croydon trains 36.3t) as a single EMU vehicle (class 313 31.0-37.5t, class 321 29.7-51.5t, class 378 34.3-43.5t [all per vehicle]). Heavier vehicles are harder to accelerate. The 378s are designed for metro services exactly like this. I suspect that whilst they might be heavier their traction package is designed to provide great acceleration, just like tube stock with similar profiles. Why would trains need to be using the ring road? Clarendon Road is two way to the junction with the High Street and the High Street is certainly wide enough to have two way tram and bus operation down to the Harlequin (it used to in the past and road layout in the central part of town seem to get swapped around frequently). You could also consider a loop route going Clarendon Road, High Street and Queens Road back to the station. The entire high street is one way from both directions leading out to Market Street, as is the ring road. It hasn't been two way for as long as I can remember (and I suspect since the ring road was built) - and I live there! The only way it could possibly work (if you can't manage the tight turn I previously mentioned from Market Street to the ring road would be to miss the High Street and go all the way around the ring road, at which point you'll be passing Watford High Street Station, somewhat making my point. Not a bad loop, but fairly pointless as you're just duplicating existing Bus routes - which again makes my point about the tram idea. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 4, 2011 17:42:41 GMT
From memory, they finished around the same time that Croxley Depot shut, as the four peak hour trains stabled there. Of course! That never crossed my mind. Somewhere out there, there's a site that lists and displays maps from the past - I'll try and dig that out, it ought to show the peak services from the 70's, and presumably the demise of the section. BINGO!! This is the map from 74 showing peak services. Then this from 86 showing peak only to H&W, and interestingly peak hours on the Piccadilly to Uxbridge which I don't ever remember - Presumably Rayners to Uxbridge Met had a better service than today. In fact this site is excellent, it goes right back to 1889, and although there are some gaps, it's a very good history. I've now bookmarked it for future reference. September 82 saw the end of the Watford Bakerloo trains. Also, the Piccadilly line from Rayners Lane to Uxbridge was peak hours only for many years. In fact, the Met line service during most of that period was 4tph off peak, so actually worse than today! |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Sept 4, 2011 20:48:43 GMT
I did read of a proposal to extend the CSLR from Euston to Finchley Road to relieve the Met. Arguably this would have been a better option than the Bakerloo extension we actually got, as having Paddington served by only one branch gave it a relatively poor service. I think the proposal died a death when the CSLR fell into the Combine's clutches, after which co-operation with the Met was much less likely. That's interesting. Why was co-operation much less likely norbitonflyer? I realised that my plan for the Bakerloo would still have left the Met heavily congested and your post helpfully solved that problem. If the CSLR had run Baker St-Wembley Pk and beyond we would consequently have needed a new route for the Northern's branches. High Barnet trains could have run into the Northern City line but this would leave issues for the GN local routes. The New Works did a lot for extending the tubes out to the suburbs but routes through central London also needed addressing. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 4, 2011 21:08:36 GMT
My point was that there would be no movements from the NLL to Primrose Hill - everything would run via the Hampstead tunnel. I think you could also fit loops on a fair bit of the two-track section between the WCML and NLL - e.g. shift the Primrose Hill platform south and have an island with two tracks on each side, with the outer tracks acting as loops or bypass lines....and yes of course, this is all predicated on widening the 25m or so of viaduct west of Camden Road to 4 track width. Fitting in between metro services isn't the problem per-se - it's holding them up. The freight doesn't have great acceleration, so stopping and starting isn't great and it'll take multiple paths. Which is why sending via Hampstead is not the solution, the southern part of the WCML is much more suited for freight trains going via Primrose Hill because there are no stopping trains to catch up. A lower speed freight path actually fits in quite nicely behind the WCML all stations services at the moment. Why all the talk of extra loops in the Queens Park area, this there are not going to be any extra freight trains running that way? And so stopping any enhancements in passenger service over this route? But how marginal? Heavy rail and a longer loop needs more ground preparation than Light rail track, especially as the rail itself isn't so heavy in the light rail case. Similarly, lightrail pointwork is cheaper, because sharper geometries can be used for the shorter vehicles used. I don't think I've ever been on an EMU which has nearly jerked me off my feet during initial acceleration, but the same can't be said of light rail vehicles (like the DLR experienced today). Modern EMUs designed to accelerate well to their top speed, which means that they are no so quite off the mark at lower speeds. You can actually see this quite well with departures from Euston, where a LM and Virgin train leaving simultaneously will see the LM class 350 out accelerating the Virgin Pendolino to the other side of the Primrose Hill tunnels where the Pendolino starts to catch up and overtake. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you lived there? I was bought up in Watford in the 1970s-1980s and there have been many changes to the road layout through the central section. The lower High Street, between King Street and the current junction with Market street, didn't used to have access to Market street, but was closed off outside the NatWest. The whole of the section of the High Street in question is now a pedestrian zone, with access allowed for buses, taxis, cycles (including a counter flow cycle lane) and disabled badge holders and there is plenty of width for tram route through here without needing to access the ring road. The one-way system isn't set in stone and, as I said, the layout has been modified several times in the last forty years. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 4, 2011 22:06:31 GMT
Been living here about 25 years. Just about remember a few visits to town before the Harlequin centre was built.
On a side note, I appreciate what you say, there was talk of altering the ring road by reversing the direction and enlarging it to use the roads past the top of town (i.e. abandoning the bridge), but I just don't see the central section being made two-way again. Besides, all the bus interchanges are on the ring road, so it'd be pointless terminating the tram on the high street.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 4, 2011 22:52:51 GMT
Been living here about 25 years. Just about remember a few visits to town before the Harlequin centre was built. On a side note, I appreciate what you say, there was talk of altering the ring road by reversing the direction and enlarging it to use the roads past the top of town (i.e. abandoning the bridge), but I just don't see the central section being made two-way again. Besides, all the bus interchanges are on the ring road, so it'd be pointless terminating the tram on the high street. I remember that scheme, it was part of the measures looked at for to get people back to the northern end of the high street, after the Harlequin was finished and shops were closing. Most of the buses actually go through the town centre and / or stop at Watford Junction, if people wish to change onto them. |
|
|
|
Post by causton on Sept 5, 2011 17:48:16 GMT
I think the only ones that don't go through the high street are the TfL buses - the trams could use a little bit of what is now the market space and stop at Beechen Grove, about a 1 minute walk from the High Street past Argos!
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 5, 2011 23:21:57 GMT
That's interesting. Why was co-operation much less likely after the CSLR became part of the Combine)? There was no love lost between the Combine and the Met before they both became part of London Transport in 1933. As we know, the CSLR instead linked up with the Hampstead Tube I think I read it in "London's Lost Tube Lines", but I've mislaid my copy so I can't check at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 6, 2011 7:14:55 GMT
I think that the westward extension of the C&SLR from Euston was opposed by the Met, which saw it as a threat to its traffic running parallel. There was opposition to a proposed extension of the Bakerloo from Regent's Park to Euston on similar grounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Sept 7, 2011 20:52:08 GMT
Ah, I see. I'm always interested in the interests and squabbles that shaped the railways. There must be so many stories to explain why various lines take particular routes.
I've located "London's Lost Railways" but not "...Tube Lines". Are they the same? Where can I get more of this kind of background?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Sept 7, 2011 21:39:36 GMT
London's Lost Tube Schemes (Badsey-Ellis), did you mean Norb?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 19:19:39 GMT
Who said forget LM calling at Bushey ! (what's the point !)
I put those 30 min calls in as a manager , and the response was excellent with well over a 1000 new passengers a day taking the 17 min journey - no one in their right minds would sit on the DC (especially through what was then bandit country) to get to Bushey.
Calling main line services at 30 min intervals at Queens Park was hopeless from a capacity point of view - waste of line capacity and minimal usage. Different markets - outer suburban Bushey thrived on the new opportunities. QP has a very frequent West End service.
Planners (and operators) - need to know their markets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 22:57:14 GMT
I always thought the point of stopping main line services at QP would be for interchange onto the Bakerloo into Central London..
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 9, 2011 0:30:58 GMT
...which I maintain you'd get much better (read: a practical) bang-per-buck) on reinstated platforms at Willesden Junction. Rather than just having the Bakerloo and DC lines as interchange, you gain the LO services to Richmond, Clapham Junction, Gospel Oak (and thus Barking and Stratford).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2011 3:42:14 GMT
Since my first post, this has become a very convoluted discussion!
1) Service on the DC Lines to WJ Overground; 4tph or Bakerloo?
2) St Albans Branch; Heavy rail or LRT?
3) Croxley Link 15 years gathering dust but a very useful scheme, but costs inflated 10-fold since early 90s (yes it was quoted at £15m 1994ish!) If and when?
4) What role should LM services have for WJ passengers and intermediate stops?
5) Should any other main line stops be considered for LM or Southern services and what is the impact on slow lines capacity?
6) Is there a case for restoring slow line platforms at Willesden Jct? What is the impact on line capacity -v- interchange hub benefits. Discuss!
I wonder how many contributors actually live near to the line
or are regular users? If so do you go to the quarterly Watford RUG meetings? If a regular Overground user, could you make a useful contribution to LOROL's passenger stakeholder group. (If interested in the latter send me a personal message in confidence and I'll pass your name on.)
The Watford RUG meeting on 5/9 was useful as changes are in hand. LM services are regularly stopping at Bushey and one OOU main line platform, down line, is to be equipped for contingency use to set down from late trains.
However despite Southern trains needing 8-car capacity at Wembley Central, LM are not planning any regular services to stop. LM trains are heavily loaded hence 3 times as many off-peak trains compared with original a/c services post '68. (I once did B'ham - London on a 304! A rough ride!)
LO is not planning to increase Watford DC services above 3tph in the current concession. Signalling capacity, now controlled from a panel at Wembley, instead of it's own panel at Willesden Jct, is the problem. BR / Railtrack policy provided the 'minimum necessary' signalling; means limited scope for expansion. (Same problem at Upminster with LTS, hence work for Olympics at West Ham)
So in the next few years TfL wants the NLL/WLL/DC services expanded to 5-cars, replicating a 376 into a 378. NR's LSE RUS II says 6 cars, but platform extensions to 130m start getting expensive, whereas many platforms were 105m for 2 x 501s or 7-car Bakerloo stock. Minimal works on DC line, some on NLL, correcting Railtrack's frugal station rebuilds in 1996 for only 3 car units! Such forward planning was truly commendable!
As for trackworks, starting with Camden Road 4-tracking, this is still scheduled for 2013-14, with money nominally allocated for this work primarily for freight. Enlarging Camden Rd W Junction would be expensive, as it needs some additional bridge / viaduct works over Kentish Town Rd and probably Castlehaven Rd. Fortunately property demolition is minimal, 2 houses at the most, one is a commercial premises.
But, this is all in the melting pot with HS2 links, etc., etc. I think we will get the Camden East works and the bridges done, freight and LO growth will see to that, but whether we will get Stratford - Camden - Primrose Hill - Queens Park - stations to Watford is unlikely, according to LOROL and TfL people, even though benefits are clear. It's a case of Watford - Euston versus Watford - NLL. The final track layout west of H&I to CR makes any ELL extension west very unlikely. More's the pity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2011 7:58:30 GMT
The Croxley Link has been mooted for much longer than 15 years . In the late 1980's the Colne Valley Transit plan was mooted - Chesham - St Albans utilising Light Rail which was IMO a credible and useful idea.
Now after years of pondering, indecision and money spent on endless reports, we have 2 disjointed projects and nothing much else to show for all this.
I sincerely hope that the Croxley Link does get the green light and the St Alban's LRT folly is dropped or has to endure at least a further 20 years of procrastination!
Xerces Fobe
|
|
How right you are. Misread it...
You also have one other slight problem - the roads through the town centre are one-way. There's no way for the tram route to get back to the station...unless you somehow manage a VERY, VERY, tight curve from Market Street to Exchange road then over the bridge...
