Watford Junction Blockade 8-25 August 2014

HowardGWR · 3 Dec 2013

YorkshireBear said:
Interesting to see Virgin suggesting in Modern Railways that they will lend voyagers to XC to boost their services to Reading for connections. The loco hauled set to Chiltern allowing them to boost service lengths and even lending Pendilinos to East Coast to allow them to run more services too.

Only problem now is we need more stock for TPE....

Well the offer of 6023 and 6024 taking 15 on, to Snow Hill, still stands.

Just like in 1962.

RailUK Forums

Eagle · 3 Dec 2013

How long before someone suggests that they should instead be lending Voyagers to Northern for Todmorden curve services...

RPM · 3 Dec 2013

causton said:
According to Wikipedia for the class 66s...

"While working on the network, they are restricted to a maximum speed of 15 mph (24 km/h), since they are not fitted with tripcocks"

Don't know if the class 20s do either though!

The DBS 66s that work the Chiltern RHTT are fitted with tripcocks. I think the above quotation refers to the GBRf 66s used on infrastructure trains.

vss1x · 19 Jan 2014

Was told late last week that the 17 day August blockade is now highly likely to be cancelled, with an alternative possession strategy to be used to undertake the work.

The Planner · 19 Jan 2014

Rumour that the new strategy is discussed with the TOCs this week.

vss1x · 19 Jan 2014

Tomorrow apparently

YorkshireBear · 19 Jan 2014

Interesting, i thought long blockades were the new thing is that being changed again i wonder back to loads of weekends?

vss1x · 19 Jan 2014

Big objections from the freight operators due to the severely limited paths they'd end up with for the duration. I presume if some of their customers had to use road transport for 2.5 weeks, they might not all return to rail?

zn1 · 19 Jan 2014

I know its a long way round to get to daventry - but from willesden could dirft customers path along the west london, hop on the to western at acton wells, down to coventry, run round and go back on the up back to the northampton loop via rugby. abit of a train crew and pathing nightmare, but if its concentrated all on evening pathing, shouldnt be an issue...but im sure freightliner, dbs, drs & GBRF have some front seaters who can do these jobs that way ??

Of course when the oxford branch is reopened back to bletchley - there will be another escape route, diversion south from the wcml

The Planner · 19 Jan 2014

Where you going to run round?

Eagle · 19 Jan 2014

The Planner said:
Where you going to run round?

Coventry Yard, perhaps; not sure if a rake of containers would actually fit in there though. And crossing the mainline from the Kenilworth line to the yard could be awkward.

Of course, I agree that going via Coventry would be a huge faff and the FOCs would really want to avoid doing that.

harz99 · 21 Jan 2014

The Planner said:
Rumour that the new strategy is discussed with the TOCs this week.

Any news on this yet, please?

The Planner · 21 Jan 2014

The new proposals have been communicated to the TOCs but nothing has been agreed yet. The big blockade is 99% gone though from what I hear.

ChiefPlanner · 21 Jan 2014

Getting commuters to London would be a tad challenging via Thameslink - ......

LNW-GW Joint · 22 Jan 2014

The Planner said:
The new proposals have been communicated to the TOCs but nothing has been agreed yet. The big blockade is 99% gone though from what I hear.

Maybe it has dawned on somebody that when Oxford-Bletchley is rebuilt during CP5 it will provide a diversionary route from Bletchley to Willesden.
If the Watford signalling can soldier on for a few more years there would not be the same need for a total blockade of WCML South.

vss1x · 22 Jan 2014

I was told today it looks like there may well be 'lots' of weekend blocks to get the work done. Whether that's what actually happens, only time will tell.

YorkshireBear · 22 Jan 2014

LNW-GW Joint said:
Maybe it has dawned on somebody that when Oxford-Bletchley is rebuilt during CP5 it will provide a diversionary route from Bletchley to Willesden.
If the Watford signalling can soldier on for a few more years there would not be the same need for a total blockade of WCML South.

I think they are struggling to keep it at 80 now, it would have to go down to 50 most likely, i am not sure NR want to wait 5 years. Infact i am not sure it can last five years....

Nym · 22 Jan 2014

LNW-GW Joint said:
Maybe it has dawned on somebody that when Oxford-Bletchley is rebuilt during CP5 it will provide a diversionary route from Bletchley to Willesden.
If the Watford signalling can soldier on for a few more years there would not be the same need for a total blockade of WCML South.

And perhaps wait until Croxley comes online in a couple of weeks so that pax can be shoveled onto the Met at anything up to 6tph, possibly 9tph at a push... (Maybe even have the DCs ready for 6tph at the same time) so that pax can be bustituted into Watford Junction and/or Moor Park and use LU from there.

vss1x · 22 Jan 2014

At a meeting I attended, we were told that the signalling at Watford was so old and unreliable it was basically on 'life support' to keep it going.

The Planner · 22 Jan 2014

LNW-GW Joint said:
Maybe it has dawned on somebody that when Oxford-Bletchley is rebuilt during CP5 it will provide a diversionary route from Bletchley to Willesden.
If the Watford signalling can soldier on for a few more years there would not be the same need for a total blockade of WCML South.

No chance, it is on its last legs now and has a dedicated pway team that goes in every night to lift and pack the lines. It will be long weekend and bank holiday blocks now.

YorkshireBear · 22 Jan 2014

Why has it suddenly been decided that is the best way?

The Planner · 22 Jan 2014

Schedule 4 disruption payments were so huge it threatened the viability of it from what I hear.

YorkshireBear · 22 Jan 2014

The Planner said:
Schedule 4 disruption payments were so huge it threatened the viability of it from what I hear.

Ah, interesting, i would be interested to know if total number of days increases due to this.

Nym · 22 Jan 2014

YorkshireBear said:
Ah, interesting, i would be interested to know if total number of days increases due to this.

Of course it will, you have setup and teardown time for every weekend rather than one posession...

YorkshireBear · 22 Jan 2014

Sorry i worded it wrong, i knew that Nym i meant how many extra days. Was distracted when i typed.

Starmill · 23 Jan 2014

This looks somewhat like a comedown to save face and Virgin's hide, and it brings with it a decrease in overall efficiency, and possibly an increase in cost.

Why can we never look at the bigger picture in this country?

Nym · 23 Jan 2014

YorkshireBear said:
Sorry i worded it wrong, i knew that Nym i meant how many extra days. Was distracted when i typed.

Well, rule of thumb is about 4 hours setup and 4 hours handover for each weekend posession for the jobs I've been involved in (on open sections, not in tunnels)...

Handover at 10pm on Friday, start work 2pm Saturday then in order to re-open at 6am on Monday start handing back at 2am on Monday so it gives you 48hrs per weekend where you'd normally have 56 hours work time. Then theres the time you spend putting the railway in a workable state for each handover, that can be anything up to another 4 - 6 hours extra work, longer on ballast track replacement or signalling jobs, so we can take around 8 hours off being optimistic, 16 hours for some parts of the job. Meaning you get 30 - 40 hours work done in a 56 hour posession...

17 days would give you around 400 hours, so working up on that if we say 40 hours from the previous paragraph that's going from 400 hours to 560 hours, that's an extra four weekends of posession, or 8 public days. Being pecimisic that works out closer to 780 hours rather than 400, or 13 additional 'public' days.

If you're in a tunnel, it has been quoted that a 1.2 week closure (Friday to a week on Monday) removed the requirement for ~20 weekend closures for a ballast track renewal in a cut and cover section. (For Ballast & Track Renewal including drainage, similar to what I understand is being done in terms of pway at Watford). Signalling wise it's rather more complex.

DynamicSpirit · 23 Jan 2014

YorkshireBear said:
Sorry i worded it wrong, i knew that Nym i meant how many extra days. Was distracted when i typed.

The link given in the very first post of this thread contains this text:

NetworkRail said:
The work at Watford would have required 54 complete weekend closures of the line, disrupting passengers for well over a year. By carrying out the work in five longer closures, engineers expect to be able to install the new signalling, replace track and junctions earlier and avoid disrupting rail travel plans for a large number of weekends throughout 2014 and 2015.

Not sure if it directly answers your question - because the numbers it gives are the overall totals, not the portion of the work from the August blockade, but I guess it gives some idea.

The Planner · 23 Jan 2014

starmill said:
This looks somewhat like a comedown to save face and Virgin's hide, and it brings with it a decrease in overall efficiency, and possibly an increase in cost.

Why can we never look at the bigger picture in this country?

Any increase in cost would be severely outweighed by the saving in schedule 4 costs.

Starmill · 23 Jan 2014

The Planner said:
Any increase in cost would be severely outweighed by the saving in schedule 4 costs.

Indeed. I was talking about 'cost' in the economic sense the sum of the value of the next best use of the resources that have been used up, rather than the money cost as it appears on Network Rail's books, which is just an internal transfer. Which leads my to hypothesise this will be less efficient, so there are some misaligned incentives on Network Rail. It's still equally likely to confound a certain group of customers too: those who travel at the weekend!

Watford Junction Blockade 8-25 August 2014

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member