Watford Junction Blockade 8-25 August 2014

[LNW-GW Joint]

Network Rail has now publicised the dates for the Watford WCML resignalling: http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...the-West-Coast-Main-Line-at-Watford-1e18.aspx

To enable the work to be completed, trains will be unable to run on the West Coast Main Line through Watford on the following dates from May 2014:
3-5 May 2014
8-25 August 2014
25-29 December 2014
14-22 February 2015
3-6 April 2015

Apparently the 18-day blockade saves us 54 disrupted weekends. :cry:
The Virgin comment suggests there will not be a rail alternative during the long blockade (ie blockade-busters).
The wording also suggests that 125mph through Watford is not yet a given.

Alongside this project, Network Rail intends to increase the line speed of the fast lines through Watford to 125mph, from the current 80mph, and is investigating the feasibility of this

And this important message from a national PR machine ends with a butcher's apostrophe:

London Overground services between Watford Junction and London Euston will continue to run throughout the closure’s listed above

I suppose this is the "last act" of the original WCRM plan.

 

[cle]

Interesting. I didn't realise speeds were as low as 80mph - certainly northbound feels quicker.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Virgin want it doing so I hope they don't complain...
Surely though we do have alternatives for Virgin to run down.
Project Rio repeat for Manchester, maybe even from Liverpool. Some diverts via Chiltern? Glasgow, extend a few EC services.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Interesting. I didn't realise speeds were as low as 80mph - certainly northbound feels quicker.

The 2012 Sectional Appendix has 110mph (no EPS) from (Down) mp 15.20 to mp 18.31 (inside Watford Tunnel) and (Up) from mp 19.73 to mp 16.20.
Maybe the current 80mph is a recent TSR until the work is completed.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The 2012 Sectional Appendix has 110mph (no EPS) from (Down) mp 15.20 to mp 18.31 (inside Watford Tunnel) and (Up) from mp 19.73 to mp 16.20.
Maybe the current 80mph is a recent TSR until the work is completed.

Yep, Network Rail wanted it at 50 but Virgin basically said we don't care how much it costs we want it at 80. (reference Modern Railways Early 2013 (cant remember exact month))

 

[joeykins82]

So presumably most VT services will be curtailed at MKC and LM will only go as far south as Hemel Hempstead. Then buses between Northampton-Wellingborough, Milton Keynes-Bedford, Hemel Hempstead-St Albans for the commuter horde? I'm sure the EMT and FCC pax will be just as thrilled as the LM ones!

 

[AlexS]

Virgin want it doing so I hope they don't complain...
Surely though we do have alternatives for Virgin to run down.
Project Rio repeat for Manchester, maybe even from Liverpool. Some diverts via Chiltern? Glasgow, extend a few EC services.

Unlike the original Project Rio, regrettably you no longer have the oversized St Pancras (the original station following the loss of the Bed Pan service) and a massive fleet of spare HSTs ex Cross Country to accommodate this.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Unlike the original Project Rio, regrettably you no longer have the oversized St Pancras (the original station following the loss of the Bed Pan service) and a massive fleet of spare HSTs ex Cross Country to accommodate this.

Good point. Well they are scuppered then.

 

[Eagle]

Some diverts via Chiltern?

I'm not sure what the reason for there being no Chiltern diverts (as there normally would), but it suggests there's going to be some problem on the normal Ruislip–Greenford–Ealing–Willesden–Euston route that they take.

And obviously there won't be enough capacity to host the blockade busters at Marylebone.

 

[swt_passenger]

The blockade busters run over the last few years have generally been superimposed on weekend timetables haven't they?

If everything else is running at line capacity, whether its on the MML, Chiltern, or GW routes, then there'll be no room for extra trains, or even longer trains because of terminal capacity limits.

 

[Boodiggy]

Yep, Network Rail wanted it at 50 but Virgin basically said we don't care how much it costs we want it at 80. (reference Modern Railways Early 2013 (cant remember exact month))

The 80 refers to a TSR on the UF. The PS on the UF is 110 from north of the Tunnel until south of the south Junction. There is no EPS speed through this section. The DF is 110 from north of Carpenders Park Stn to Watford Tunnel. Again no EPS for this section. Through the tunnel on the DF there is a 115 EPS speed that raises to 125 north of the tunnel.

 

[A0wen]

So presumably most VT services will be curtailed at MKC and LM will only go as far south as Hemel Hempstead. Then buses between Northampton-Wellingborough, Milton Keynes-Bedford, Hemel Hempstead-St Albans for the commuter horde? I'm sure the EMT and FCC pax will be just as thrilled as the LM ones!

I'd also expect Hemel - Watford buses to connect with LO services.

Given this is also during Mon - Fri, they might choose to run some coaches fast from MK to either Watford or Euston as well given how congested the other routes are.

 

[Qwerty133]

Unlike the original Project Rio, regrettably you no longer have the oversized St Pancras (the original station following the loss of the Bed Pan service) and a massive fleet of spare HSTs ex Cross Country to accommodate this.

Could they cancel the Corby services and use the stock on the fast Nottinghams in sequence releasing HSTs to supplement the 7 car meridians to extend the Fast Sheffields to Manchester. Corby services could be replaced with a (mini)bus shuttle to Kettering or LM providing a 153 to do the shuttle!

 

[plastictaffy]

The theory that some of us came up with at the depot this afternoon, (and a contingency plan that has been used before, apparently) is that LM will terminate some at Hemel, (using the quite rarely used turnback there) and others at Tringternational. Virgin Services will terminate at MKC, with, presumably, some also terminating at Rugby. (Makes sense, especially with the amount of sidings there.)
I would imagine it would be buses to somewhere like Harrow, with the Looroll running shuttles from there.
Here's an idea I just came up with, seeing as how all four lines will be closed, perhaps LM could run a 2-4tph service from Euston-Bushey, utilising both fast and slow lines, with buses from there to Tring and Hemel for normal(ish) services from there north.
However, it's all to do with Watford powerbox coming out - and as some of you may know, the DC lines use a different signal system, so it's possible they (and the Underground from Harrow) could run as booked.
Whatever happens, it promises to be a headache diagramming all the amended turns that will be required.

 

[Nym]

It's also possible that additional LM and/or SN services could run on the DC lines into Euston, or as far as Harrow (perhaps one could add in a bit of pointwork just North of Harrow for this to work properly?)

Still, the signalling equipment doesn't support many tph on the DC lines; nor do I expect the power equipment would be able to take many trains.

 

[sammyg901]

I have vague recollections of Chiltern running all services non-stop from Great Missenden/Amersham to increase capacity on the Aylesbury Met line and then accepting LM tickets/car park passes during a closure a few years ago.

What would be ideal is if 10 car Voyagers could operate into Marylebone. Then a revised timetable to free up some paths could be put in place with less Chiltern services but longer - maybe even borrow a couple of units from FGW again (they can run sandwiched between two Chiltern units)

If Marylebone couldn't accommodate what about diverting something into Paddington?

Presumably Watford met line could operate some of their services 'fast' to shift some Watford commuters

Bussing passengers into London at peak times or using LOROL in their current all-stations format will just not be practical, the increased journey time would be ridiculous

 

[Zoe]

Presumably Watford met line could operate some of their services 'fast' to shift some Watford commuters

The Watford branch can only be accessed from the local lines and so all trains for Watford must use these lines north of Harrow.

 

[causton]

If there can be something done about the Bakerloo line perhaps LO can run every 10 minutes or so Harrow - Watford, one calling all stations the other calling at Bushey only? Using the crossover south of Harrow... would get in the way of the Bakerloo line though, so maybe they could be turned back short, but then you would need to extend the LO to cover and I'm sure there can't be many spare units at all! (377s? )

 

[mr_jrt]

This is a wasted opportunity, now would be the ideal time for a Reading-style rebuild in anticipation for future service patterns.

Ideally platform 5 would be restored, creating a fast northbound island platform, permitting more services to stop without harming capacity. Platforms 7 & 8 would be converted into a fast southbound island, again, permitting more southbound fast services to stop there without hampering line capacity. Convert platforms 9 & 10 into a slow northbound island, then build a new slow southbound island for 11 & 12 next to it, and you end up with the equivalent of the bay but infinitely more useful as not only does it have no conflicting movements, but you'd be able to do so from the north as well, as well as overtake.

Start with the new 11&12 island and it's not even that disruptive - build it, reroute the existing slow lines into it whilst you rebuild 9&10 and then you're just fiddling with track work for the fast line changes with the exception of the work needed for platform 5, which could be done at any point in the future when the monstrosity built over the station can come down.

 

[plastictaffy]

It's also possible that additional LM and/or SN services could run on the DC lines into Euston, or as far as Harrow

Nope, LM's mark 1 350's don't have collection shoes, and I can't see the good fellas up at King's Heath being too happy about putting them back on just for a fortnight!!! The Southern service does, though.

 

[Eagle]

I thought they did still have the shoes, but they're just disabled?

 

[Trog]

It's also possible that additional LM and/or SN services could run on the DC lines into Euston, or as far as Harrow (perhaps one could add in a bit of pointwork just North of Harrow for this to work properly?)

What have you got against the existing turnback crossover at Harrow?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is a wasted opportunity, now would be the ideal time for a Reading-style rebuild in anticipation for future service patterns.

Ideally platform 5 would be restored, creating a fast northbound island platform, permitting more services to stop without harming capacity.

Platform 5 although once much longer did not I think connect with the mainline. Putting it back to its original length would require the demolition of the station building and the tower block above it as they are partly built on the platform 5 formation. Even if you did this you would only create a slow northbound platform as there is not enough room between the station and Bushey Bank to fit in the required S&C and a length of loop to slow down on. (Think of the size of the similar facility at Milton Keynes.)

Platforms 7 & 8 would be converted into a fast southbound island, again, permitting more southbound fast services to stop there without hampering line capacity. Convert platforms 9 & 10 into a slow northbound island, then build a new slow southbound island for 11 & 12 next to it, and you end up with the equivalent of the bay but infinitely more useful as not only does it have no conflicting movements, but you'd be able to do so from the north as well, as well as overtake.

Start with the new 11&12 island and it's not even that disruptive - build it, reroute the existing slow lines into it whilst you rebuild 9&10 and then you're just fiddling with track work for the fast line changes with the exception of the work needed for platform 5, which could be done at any point in the future when the monstrosity built over the station can come down.

New 11 and 12 island not disruptive

That would be so far out to the side of the existing lines, that you would have to build a new over bridge for the St Albans road one of the main roads out of Watford leading from the town to the M1.

On the railway construction side you would need a new cutting from the station just about straight towards the slow line tunnels, to give a decent alignment and room the for the S&C needed to serve all those platforms. Demolishing houses as you went, all the spoil from this cutting would need getting rid of. South of Watford extra width would be needed until all the platform lines could be fed back in, that would mean moving Watford South Junction further south. But the curve at Bushey prevents that.

Not going to happen.

 

[Nym]

If there can be something done about the Bakerloo line perhaps LO can run every 10 minutes or so Harrow - Watford, one calling all stations the other calling at Bushey only? Using the crossover south of Harrow... would get in the way of the Bakerloo line though, so maybe they could be turned back short, but then you would need to extend the LO to cover and I'm sure there can't be many spare units at all! (377s? )

SN would proberbly be best placed to provide services, or LOROL using 6 car units if they could do it.

But the chances are we will proberbly see LOROL step up to 6tph Euston - Watford, possibly turning back at Queens Park if there isn't capacity (there is without the stoppers) with skip stopping it could be the way to go.

Remember, the Bakerloo Line is only 6tph off peak north of Stonebridge Park and only 3/6tph extended there, there is ample capacity available provided you're turning back at Queens Park or Euston, Harrow would be a pain but not impossible. Queens Park would be the best if not continuing to Euston.

Nope, LM's mark 1 350's don't have collection shoes, and I can't see the good fellas up at King's Heath being too happy about putting them back on just for a fortnight!!! The Southern service does, though.

All they've done is tie wrap up the shoegear mount and take off the collection plate, it's a 30min job to put it back(!)

 

[mr_jrt]

Platform 5 although once much longer did not I think connect with the mainline. Putting it back to its original length would require the demolition of the station building and the tower block above it as they are partly built on the platform 5 formation. Even if you did this you would only create a slow northbound platform as there is not enough room between the station and Bushey Bank to fit in the required S&C and a length of loop to slow down on. (Think of the size of the similar facility at Milton Keynes.)

I'm aware of the issues with platform 5, which is why I mentioned doing it last, (and when the opportunity came to take down the office block). As for the loop, point taken. Though, am I right in assuming the line speed through MK is 125mph? I suspect it's lower through Watford due to the embankment curvature (just checked, 125 though MK, 110 through Watford - not as dramatic a drop as I thought it'd be!), so this would shorten the loop requirements a bit. Also, I'm proposing almost everything stops at Watford post-HS2, so everything would be slowing down so the loops are mainly for dwell management. The point stands though...I'll have to go have a look at Reading's loops for comparison.

New 11 and 12 island not disruptive

That would be so far out to the side of the existing lines, that you would have to build a new over bridge for the St Albans road one of the main roads out of Watford leading from the town to the M1.

I'm from Watford - I know the roads full well, thanks You're probably right, but it's quite doable. I saw first hand similar work in Cambridge on the Hills Road bridge when the busway was punched through, and there's always the temporary solution of converting the car parking access roads into a temporary low-speed though route for a few weeks whilst the work is done. That said, Again, if everything is going to be stopping at Watford, then slower geometry can be used that might fit. Without the need for the bay pointwork where it is then the platforms can be shuffled south quite easily.

On the railway construction side you would need a new cutting from the station just about straight towards the slow line tunnels, to give a decent alignment and room the for the S&C needed to serve all those platforms. Demolishing houses as you went, all the spoil from this cutting would need getting rid of. South of Watford extra width would be needed until all the platform lines could be fed back in, that would mean moving Watford South Junction further south. But the curve at Bushey prevents that.

Not going to happen.

Who says Watford South Junction needs to be there at all? If everything's going to be stopping and/or have the opportunity to overtake, then perhaps it could be moved elsewhere.

As for the cutting, looks pretty green alongside the line to me...not sure I see a problem?

 

[Eagle]

But the chances are we will proberbly see LOROL step up to 6tph Euston - Watford, possibly turning back at Queens Park if there isn't capacity (there is without the stoppers) with skip stopping it could be the way to go.

Would they have enough units to do that? It would probably mean nicking some from the ELL or NLL.

 

[causton]

Would they have enough units to do that? It would probably mean nicking some from the ELL or NLL.

Could always do something like have Southern 377s providing service south of New Cross Gate or such, have them run to West Croydon/Crystal Palace as a shuttle or something!

 

[IanXC]

My geography isn't what it might be on the southern WCML - what potential options are there for the ScotRail sleeper during this blockade?

 

[causton]

My geography isn't what it might be on the southern WCML - what potential options are there for the ScotRail sleeper during this blockade?

Guessing the standard ECML diversion via Willesden Yard, up to Kensal Rise then along to Camden Road, round to Finsbury Park then straight up to Edinburgh I'm guessing!

 

[Eagle]

Yeah, the usual ECML diversion will work fine.

 

[Trog]

Again, if everything is going to be stopping at Watford, then slower geometry can be used that might fit.

If everything is stopping at Watford then you do not need loop platforms in the first place so the whole problem of how to fit them in does not arise. The whole point of loop platforms being, that they allow some trains to stop without delaying those following.