St Albans light rail conversion plan dropped

As mentioned elsewhere...I still fail to see why a heavy-rail loop would be more expensive than conversion to light rail...you do not need full signalling - this is a myth!

Ingredients:
A pair of spring-loaded points,
Some plain line for the second platform road,
A pair of physical tokens,
A second lump of concrete - aka. Platform 2,
A method of accessing platform 2 - be it a footbridge, a second entrance, or a foot-level manual crossing,
...and of course, a second train!

With the line divided into two sections a driver only has authority to enter a section when they possess the token for said section, these tokens are exchanged at Bricket Wood. Job done.

When only a single train is in operation (i.e. off-peak), driver has both tokens. Job done.

I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed, given that it's just a physical version of the RETB/ETRMS tokens used on rural lines in Scotland and Wales and physical tokens have over a century of proven safe use. Actually, how much work (and money) would it be to install an electronic token system on a short line like this? Obviously it would impose a restriction that only fitted units were permitted on the branch.

To the best of my knowledge the only place the electronic tablet system is still used is up in Scotland somewhere, everywhere else it's been replaced and I think it's very unlikely Network Rail are going to re-introduce an out-dated system.

Most changes to signalling systems and working practices have been introduced after an accident, you might call it Health and Stupidity, I'd call it staying alive and in one piece.

Isn't ETRMS just an updated version of RETB?

Token exchange is not a quick process, with a modern EMU, so some of the gains of installing the loop will be lost from the time taken. Token machines would be needed, otherwise the first train of the day would have both tokens and there would be no way for a second train to pick up the Watford - Bricket Wood token. Use of tokens is normally linked with signaling, the token needs to be taken out of the machine before the signal controlling entry to the single track section is cleared, I don't know of any Network Rail token operated lines which don't have signaling. Tokenless block would almost certainly be cheaper and certainly quicker to operate as well as being more flexible.

Also the light rail solution might not need a second platform, as the Penryn solution (actually a good idea which saved a lot of money and doubled the frequency of a busy branch) could be used given that the trains would be shorter.

Given that their is a University near by where there could be the potential for longer trains occasionally so it makes no sense at all to fence off over a third of the platform face. What is the fences purpose and what if anything are they tying to protect or is the Jubilee going to extended to Cornwall?

XF

Maybe we should change the well known "Mind The Doors" warning to "Mind The Lawyers"!

XF

Having a short platform face still doesn't stop then running longer trains. If said longer train had to pass another at the station, then it would be limited to 3 cars of platform anyway, so the section of platform by the points is of little use. The fence seems to be there to stop people waiting in the wrong place for their train, on the unrefurbished part of the original platform.