St Albans light rail conversion plan dropped

Equally, as currently operated the Abbey branch is sub-optimal.

On the RIPAS Board, several Members exchanged a range of ideas for attending to railway facilities in and for St Albans. Could I ask you to follow up those threads, and then post your thoughts (possibly on RIPAS) as to how the present limitations should be overcome?

We should not forget that light rail/tram conversion could simply mean use of tram-train vehicles with much tighter turning radius capability, track brakes and tram-like hill climbing - but able to use existing 25kV electrification, track (ie railway profile wheels) and platforms. Such an arrangement would in no way preclude regular rail operations on the branch.

On-street running was dismissed by the Members in the discussion as being impractical in the light of road widths and traffic levels in St Albans.

This is the first I've ever heard of this scheme but having been a very regular visitor to St Albans until recently I really can't see how a train/tram-type vehicle would ever be able to get up Holywell Hill, both from the gradient point of view and the width of the road, which is always heaving with traffic anyway.

This is from StreetView and, to be honest, the gradient is probably steeper than the picture shows.

I would imagine its perfectly possible to connect the St Albans Abbey line with the Thameslink. Just southwest of Park Street is remnants of a spur branch which used to link the two lines. I understand the spur was used during construction of one or other of the lines, but never carried passenger trains.

The alignment is clear on Google Earth. It crosses over the former Radlet air field site which is earmarked for redevelopment. Linking these two lines at that location would of course lose Park Street Station (but the point where the line crosses Watling Street is probably better than the current site). It would also provide new links, add a transport link to the new development on the old airfield site and perhaps achieve the long term ambition of a station at the back of London Colney.

@ xercesfobe

+ 1

"planners" should be barred from any decision making process (1) if they do not have local knowledge, and (2) if they have consumed any alcohol within the previous 48 hours

To be quite frank, I doubt that we will ever see a passing loop, without a light rail scheme also being introduced. A heavy rail passing loop will be expensive, needing 'proper' signaling and an extra EMU to run the service. The costs of a short light rail loop and shorter second platform at Bricket Wood would be considerably less with the light rail option. The Paris tramway line 4 (from Bondy - Aulnay) should what can be done with the introduction of 25kV light rail vehicles on an existing heavy rail line, due partly to their better acceleration from stops.

Peak time is the one time when running a through service to London is unlikely, due to the lack of capacity which a four car train would give and the lack of space on the mainline. If you are going to spend lots of money at Watford Junction, to run through trains, which current mainline services in the morning peak are you going to divert to St. Albans? The two Watford Junction starters in the peak are there to relieve other services from the passengers at Bushey and Harrow.

Dean - I'm a little at a loss as to what point the Abbey branch would have if both its St Albans stations were cut off? That's why the previous discussion looked at keeping both and making the connection at the point where the Hatfield line crossed (ie the Viaduct at London Rd). We certainly noted the old link in the course of the discussion.

Chatting to the people who drew up the NR "Innovations" RUS, which covered amongst many other things, the tram train concept, they remarked that the killer for many potential schemes including this one was the scission of the line from the national fares and ticketing agreement, which would occur with a transfer to a local authority sponsored operator, would lead to the loss of all through ticketing revenue and any allocation of revenue support via a franchise agreement. I didn't see any numbers but the process sounds plausible.

GH

Probably a lot larger than the 2 units required for a simple 3-point shuttle, or the 5 or 6 units needed if street running at Watford and a loop were also included. However, as there are already some tram-train set ups - the rolling stock could be beneficially acquired as a joint purchase by several parties. Maintenance is quite another issue.

My personal position: run a 3-point shuttle with two 3-car AC units; then add the crossing loop and another 3-car unit. Class 313 or 314 would do.

Then, look at the question of a Watford tram loop as a separate matter. If it gets up, then it makes sense at that point to combine the two systems as a tram-train network.

@ xercesfobe

Again, + 1

The only slow four car units would be the Southern ones... which is a good idea maybe?!?... With a half an hourly South Croydon - Watford service with 1tph going to Milton Keynes and the other going to St Albans Abbey!

I stand by my comment as academics are very rarely practical people and live in a hypothetical world most of the time. Just look at the mess that the rail franchise process is a academics dream and an expensive nightmare for the real world!

XF

Sadly Gentlemen, t'aint necessarily so. I have a MSc in Transport Studies, but that doesn't open any doors for me.

[I discovered late in life that I have Asperger's Syndrome. If I hadn't been colour-blind, I could have happily worked for the railways, ....  but .... It also means that I suffer "social blindness" and haven't had the sort of career you might be thinking of.]

I watch with amazement that when three or four Professors of the same subject are interviewed, they all come up with different and often conflicting answers. My faith in academia is as jaundiced as your's. The ones to watch are the so-called "senior public servants." They, and the power-brokers in lobby groups and political parties, tend to be the ones pushing the angles. The academic is brought in to "sanitise" their view and decision.

So whether it's a crossing loop on the Branch, a light rail town loop for Watford, diversion from St Albans Abbey to City or an alternative new St Albans interchange station, or light rail from Rickmansworth High St - Hatfield via Watford and St Albans - at the end of the day, it's ACCOUNTANTS who will work out the money sums and send their results to DafT and Treasury. It's the ACCOUNTANTS you've got to get past. So your numbers must add up. And it's accountants who will adapt the figures to suit the outcome. Because forecasting is also needed, the accountants rely on Economists to produce estimates of future outcomes - Accountants can't do forecasting, they work with hard numbers - hence Graham Hewett's reference on LR to Treasury's use of cash accounting. Accountants do calculations like Rate of Return from Economists' forecasts. Many of the people involved have degrees which include both Accounting and Economics. My first degree did, along with business management and commercial law. My maths was not the strongest, and I had to repeat by doing maths for social sciences rather than maths for science which I failed.

That gives you some idea, I hope. The Accountants do a good job, in that anyone with a finger in the till will usually get spotted. And the Board knows if they're trading legally or their tail feathers are on the line. Economists are as good as their ceteris paribus, which never behaves itself, and their list of assumptions, all of which will be wrong but not so wrong that the estimate is utterly useless - just not real sharp.

BTW, this misbehaving ceteris paribus means "all things being equal" = all things other than the one variable being tested remain constant. The real world isn't like that, and every economist knows it. And so do you.

All very well, but there are NO Southern services in the morning peak between the 07.01 from Milton Keynes (07.38 Watford Junction) and the 08.13 from Milton Keynes (08.51 Watford Junction) and not really more paths for extras at the moment. The Southern services should be being increased to 5-cars, once the class 377/7 units are delivered. Indeed, there are plans for 8 car trains, once the class 377/5s are released from FCC, as the Southern services get very overcrowded between Watford and Clapham Junction.

a) There was indeed.
b) There was indeed.
c) Haven't checked lately.
d) Joining and dividing of trains runs against the grain of policy, is only pursued where there is a long-standing history (eg on Southern) and would require substantial reconfiguration of WJ. Because the procedure consumes paths, it's only really valid ON a less busy branch line, which further branches - e.g. Lewes.