Abbey line (St. Albans) no longer to be converted to light rail

[Trog]

Its a shame a tunnel under the WCML can't be built, and this branch line converted to Metropolitan line.

Would cost the earth to change the OHLE to 4th rail electrification, and replace all the new steel sleepers on the branch with concrete.

Also how many people would want to go from St Albans to the Met. when they already have a choice between the Midland and West Coast main lines?

 

[bronzeonion]

Like others i'm also glad that the idea has been scrapped! Also like others have said how hard would it be to put a passing loop in?

 

[Nym]

Like others i'm also glad that the idea has been scrapped! Also like others have said how hard would it be to put a passing loop in?

I can actually see the upgrade of this line coming with ERTMS / ETCS Level 3, as to avoid any additional fixed infastructure. All would be needed is a DNO supply at the points / passing loop, possibly with a UPS in place just in case.

NR is no stranger to making use of DNO supplies on this line, and there is a type of pointwork in existance that makes use of local batteries and can be trickle fed at 110V RLV, 230V or 24V SELV.

Communications throughout would be able to be provided using GSM-R on the network over the ETCS protocolls.

So anyway, ERTMS can bring improvments, but it isn't likely to be for a while.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The implication from the document seems to be no funding for improvements on the line will be forthcoming for a long time now this schemes been abandoned. Heavy rail investment wont produce a justifable return for a new TOC who may decide its better to make it a parliamentary service (NR abandoned plans in 2007 for 2.6km of track renewals as not producing a suitable return on the investment and decided to maintain the line on an ad hoc basis, which is what prompted this scheme in the first place, I believe the signalling is also approaching end of life?).

What signalling?

 

[Tomnick]

What signalling?

The staff must have been dropped too many times .

 

[bluenoxid]

Like others i'm also glad that the idea has been scrapped! Also like others have said how hard would it be to put a passing loop in?

What upgrades would be required to the power supply for a passing loop?

What kind of stock would have to be selected to ensure that the service on the line can be maintained?

How much energy would have to be expended to accelerate up to 140 tonnes every 30 minutes?

I am concerned that this is another section of infrastructure with an inertia problem. The rest of the network has moved on and this line has been left parked. Sadly, it cannot be left forever (because eventually the line will need to be maintained (even if it is Adhoc). Would a busway be the best way? How would it fit in the existing bus network?

I understand that there is an attachment to heavy rail...

 

[Trog]

I am concerned that this is another section of infrastructure with an inertia problem. The rest of the network has moved on and this line has been left parked. Sadly, it cannot be left forever (because eventually the line will need to be maintained (even if it is Adhoc). Would a busway be the best way? How would it fit in the existing bus network?

Inertia is not a problem for infrastructure, you want it to stay where it is.

Left parked? stabled surely.

But even that is not true as about half the track has been relayed in CWR over the last ten years. For the traffic level on the Abbey Branch there is no reason given a bit of effort, that the rest of the track can not be kept fit to use almost indefinitely by simply replacing components as they wear out.

 

[jon0844]

East-west public transport links in Hertfordshire mostly rely on buses and I should imagine suffer greatly from road congestion.

There are plenty of buses from St Albans to Hatfield, from very early to late (but some take ages due to University stops and detours for them) but there really aren't many buses towards Hertford, which then allows you to go further east, or north or south from Hertford.

 

[HSTEd]

I can actually see the upgrade of this line coming with ERTMS / ETCS Level 3, as to avoid any additional fixed infastructure.?

Surely some form of ETRMS Regional with passive track balises would be cheaper?

You wouldn't even need motorised points, just use spring loaded ones and have the rolling stock always use the same side of the passing loop for a certain direction.

If you have to do wrong direction moves on the loop for any reason you can just clip the points.

 

[Bedpan]

And most of them have either a severely reduced service or no service at all after 6pm ish ie when you get home from work and might want to use them. I meets some ex colleagues in Hertford from time to time and the only real alternatives are to take the car and not have a drink, 724 to St Albans and then to Harpenden, but for this I have to be at Hertford bus station to catch the last bus at 20.00 (earlier on a Saturday) - God forbid that I might turn into a pumpkin if I am out after 21.30! - or Train all the way via London, or get a cab at substantial cost. Of those, the only option for a reasonable night in the pub is to travel home via London.

Incidentally, does anybody know the reason for the reduction in frequency to hourly during the mornings on the Abbey Flyer after 20th October? Is this due to work being carried out somewhere, or is it a permanenbt recasting of the timetable?

 

[jon0844]

To annoy people, who stop using it, which then justifies winding it down because nobody uses it?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_by_stealth

 

[tom1649]

The line could really do with a user's group to represent its best interests. Community rail partnership perhaps? They seemed to have worked wonders on my local line (Matlock branch).

 

[Poggs]

Its a shame a tunnel under the WCML can't be built, and this branch line converted to Metropolitan line.

Having lived near and used the line almost daily for over a decade, one of the better things that could be done to upgrade the line would be to reinstate through trains to London. This isn't possible with the signalling in its present state - to get trains off and on the line requires manual operation of a ground-frame and a shunt signal for a move on to the main line. (To the best of my knowledge, there have only been two trains that have done the move - a 321 back in the Silverlink days, and a charter from Waterloo to Ealing Broadway)

 

[OxtedL]

The line could really do with a user's group to represent its best interests. Community rail partnership perhaps? They seemed to have worked wonders on my local line (Matlock branch).

http://www.abfly.org.uk/

The Abbey Flyer Users' Group (better known as 'ABFLY') was created in 1995 with the overall aim of 'securing a better future' for the Watford to St Albans branch line in Hertfordshire. Our two keys aims are:

• to watch for, and challenge, any lowering of standards
• to keep the branch line alive and thriving as an increasingly useful part of the public transport network in South West Hertfordshire.

http://www.abbeyline.org.uk/

Since 2005, the Abbey Line Community Rail Partnership (CRP) has brought together local government, businesses and volunteer organisations, along with the train operator and infrastructure owner, in the pursuit of a common cause - namely, to promote and improve services on the Abbey Line.

 

[tom1649]

I really should have checked first. Thank you.

 

[MarkyT]

I have a proposal for the line that would see operation by high floor LRT vehicles, and extension from Watford to Rickmansworth and possibly Chesham as a tram-train operation via a new connection under the WCML.

http://www.townend.me/files/hertsmetro4.pdf

The first phase would incorporate a Penryn style passing loop at Bricket Wood. At the eastern end a Hatfield extension would largely follow the old line with MML interchange via a relocated main line station near London Road.

http://www.townend.me/files/st-albans-south.pdf


At Hatfield short diversions would avoid obstacles on the old route, with new stations directly serving the University of Hertfordshire and the former De Havilland aviation site.

 

[jon0844]

I really should have checked first. Thank you.

Looking at both sites, I'd say that neither seem to be making it very clear of any issues that would make you or I want to get involved.

I couldn't find any 'news' that said about any proposed changes, any planned changes that are no longer happening, any changes to timetables etc..

 

[edwin_m]

Looking at the links kindly provided by OxtedL, there does seem to be a shortage of detail. However it was down to the bidders to define a lot of the detailed issues and since the bidding process doesn't seem to have got beyond a shortlist then a lot of their ideas will be confidential.

I'm not sure why a Penryn-type passing loop seems to be assumed for Bricket Wood under tramway operation. A traditional loop with two platforms is more flexible, particularly as tramway operation removes the heavy rail restriction on two services arriving simultaneously. Also no footbridge would be required under tramway operation, which would be a big cost for a heavy rail option and could be unacceptable due to giving a view into local bedrooms and gardens.

Searching old photos on the net shows that Bricket Wood once had two tracks with two platforms of generous width. So, unless some land has been sold off making this impossible, I would have thought something similar was the best arrangement for a tramway passing place.

 

[John Webb]

......The first phase would incorporate a Penryn style passing loop at Bricket Wood. At the eastern end a Hatfield extension would largely follow the old line with MML interchange via a relocated main line station near London Road.

http://www.townend.me/files/st-albans-south.pdf......

To be honest I just don't think there is the room there to build a new station, particularly bearing in mind the height of the MML in the area you suggest. There has also been heavy investment in the present site of St Albans City station - the footbridge is currently undergoing overhaul, for example - which would deter NR and associates from the enormous investment required.

You would probably also find London Road too narrow at that point to cope with the additional traffic without widening - and that would mean new railway bridge(s). Not impossible, but very expensive!

 

[tbtc]

Other than the two 139s required for the Stourbridge shuttle, what's the lowest number of dedicated "light rail" units on any UK system?

Whilst I'm certainly not in the "it must be heavy rail at all costs" camp (there's merit to heavy rail on some routes, just as there's merit to guided busways, trams and other options, depending on the route in question - never black and white), it does seem overly complicated/ expensive to set up a handful of dedicated trains for such a small operation as this - unless anyone was planning on "converting" other lines in the area?

At the moment, I'm falling into the camp of accepting that a four coach 321 is the "least bad" solution - a bit like the 158 on the Lymington shuttle, it'd be more hassle to convert it to something else.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Incidentally, does anybody know the reason for the reduction in frequency to hourly during the mornings on the Abbey Flyer after 20th October? Is this due to work being carried out somewhere, or is it a permanenbt recasting of the timetable?

It's for the autumn leaf fall isn't it? It happens every year as far as I know, and needs a reduction in service frequency because of the longer journey times created by the need to go slower because of leaf fall.

 

[WatcherZero]

Terry Douris, Cabinet member for highways at Hertfordshire County Council says because the idea of leasing the line didnt work out within the existing budget funding envelope they are now looking at applying for Dft funding for more radical total segregation from the national rail network and conversion to light rail which avoids the issue of arguments over whose responsible for maintaining structures.

Their working on plan C after plan A (conversion to light rail leasing from Network Rail) and plan B (Getting London Midland to fund expansion of heavy rail) both failed.

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/10447064._/

 

[yorksrob]

Terry Douris, Cabinet member for highways at Hertfordshire County Council says because the idea of leasing the line didnt work out within the existing budget funding envelope they are now looking at applying for Dft funding for more radical total segregation from the national rail network and conversion to light rail which avoids the issue of arguments over whose responsible for maintaining structures.

Their working on plan C after plan A (conversion to light rail leasing from Network Rail) and plan B (Getting London Midland to fund expansion of heavy rail) both failed.

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/10447064._/

Definately bad news in my book then. Would prefer plan B by a long margin.

Perhaps they should find out how the Falmouth branch managed to do it.

I am curious as to how the railway fits into the "Highways and Waste Management" portfolio.

 

[Eagle]

I am curious as to how the railway fits into the "Highways and Waste Management" portfolio.

Because working out what to do with this branch is one long exercise in waste management.

Jeeves, my coat if you please.

 

[A0]

And most of them have either a severely reduced service or no service at all after 6pm ish ie when you get home from work and might want to use them. I meets some ex colleagues in Hertford from time to time and the only real alternatives are to take the car and not have a drink, 724 to St Albans and then to Harpenden, but for this I have to be at Hertford bus station to catch the last bus at 20.00 (earlier on a Saturday) - God forbid that I might turn into a pumpkin if I am out after 21.30! - or Train all the way via London, or get a cab at substantial cost. Of those, the only option for a reasonable night in the pub is to travel home via London.

Incidentally, does anybody know the reason for the reduction in frequency to hourly during the mornings on the Abbey Flyer after 20th October? Is this due to work being carried out somewhere, or is it a permanenbt recasting of the timetable?

There is another option which would allow you to leave Hertford later than 20.00:

Nat Express 767 leaves Hertford at 22.25 - gets to Luton station at 23.25 and you could get the train 1 stop down.

Probably quicker and cheaper than train via London, but still reasonably early.

Problem is that Hertford has never been a major destination - it's a small market town and does have transport links to a number of destinations quite late e.g. Stevenage, London, Cheshunt.

There simply isn't the demand for late services from Hertford back to Hatfield / St Albans - there haven't been late services i.e. after 10pm along that area for very many years - it's not a recent phenomenon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have a proposal for the line that would see operation by high floor LRT vehicles, and extension from Watford to Rickmansworth and possibly Chesham as a tram-train operation via a new connection under the WCML.

http://www.townend.me/files/hertsmetro4.pdf

The first phase would incorporate a Penryn style passing loop at Bricket Wood. At the eastern end a Hatfield extension would largely follow the old line with MML interchange via a relocated main line station near London Road.

http://www.townend.me/files/st-albans-south.pdf


At Hatfield short diversions would avoid obstacles on the old route, with new stations directly serving the University of Hertfordshire and the former De Havilland aviation site.

No - at Hatfield pretty major diversions would be needed - after Ellenbroook the old route has disappeared under the A1 tunnel / Galleria. Either you'd have to divert before Ellenbrook to head across to the old BAe site or after - where there's no room i.e. Comet Hotel roundabout.

Add to that to then get back into Hatfield town centre or onto Hatfield railway station would need another huge amount of work with no obvious route through.

 

[Bedpan]

It's for the autumn leaf fall isn't it? It happens every year as far as I know, and needs a reduction in service frequency because of the longer journey times created by the need to go slower because of leaf fall.

Certainly the journey times after 20th October are extended by a couple of minutes to take account of leaf fall, and the first train leaves 10 or so minutes earlier to compensate, but the number of trains during the morning peak stays the same, as does the number between 13.25 and end of surface. Its just the morning frequency, from 10.25 to 13.25 (from Watford Junction), which has been reduced to hourly - so I don't think that leaf fall can be the reason for this.

It crossed my mind that it might be an experiment to see if more people used the trains if there was a clock face timetable and they knew when it was going to call at their station, but this can't be the case as whilst a resident of Garston might know that the trains to St Albans Abbey leave at XX.30 during the morning, they'd still have the same problem as before when it came to remembering train times back from the Abbey in the afternoon.

 

[MarkyT]

T - after Ellenbroook the old route has disappeared under the A1 tunnel / Galleria. Either you'd have to divert before Ellenbrook to head across to the old BAe site or after - where there's no room i.e. Comet Hotel roundabout.

Add to that to then get back into Hatfield town centre or onto Hatfield railway station would need another huge amount of work with no obvious route through.

Here is my proposed route in more detail:
http://www.townend.me/files/hatfield1.jpg

A close up near Galleria:
http://www.townend.me/files/hatfield2.jpg

Remember I'm proposing LRVs, so sharp curves (50m radius), level crossings and short street running sections permitted (although minimised as much as possible for performance)

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Having lived near and used the line almost daily for over a decade, one of the better things that could be done to upgrade the line would be to reinstate through trains to London. This isn't possible with the signalling in its present state - to get trains off and on the line requires manual operation of a ground-frame and a shunt signal for a move on to the main line. (To the best of my knowledge, there have only been two trains that have done the move - a 321 back in the Silverlink days, and a charter from Waterloo to Ealing Broadway)

Well , I certainly arranged as Ops Manager 2 special workings - St Albans to Euston with the Mayoress and a number of local schoolchildren on the 140th anniversary , and in 1997 a St Albans to Clacton as a school excursion - ironically using a GE 321 which was hired in post the Watford crash.

In both cases - the "specials" were in ordinary service on the branch _ causing some crowding - and the points at Watford had to be secured and the trains specially authorised by Railtrack. In both cases the normal 313 had to be taken off / on.

The line carries around 900 a day - the morning peak workings tended to be the busiest with around 140 per train - respectable loads. At best it loses money now - so cost of infrastructure + trains + staffing = more subsidy.

 

[yorksrob]

Because working out what to do with this branch is one long exercise in waste management.

Jeeves, my coat if you please.

The route certainly seems to generate a lot of the sort of flim-flam that would get McNulty excited.

Bearing in mind NSE managed to electrify the route on its shoestring budget, there‘s really no excuse why a passing loop can‘t be installed.

 

[A0]

Here is my proposed route in more detail:
http://www.townend.me/files/hatfield1.jpg

A close up near Galleria:
http://www.townend.me/files/hatfield2.jpg

Remember I'm proposing LRVs, so sharp curves (50m radius), level crossings and short street running sections permitted (although minimised as much as possible for performance)

I have to ask, do you actually know the area or have you simply mapped a route over a Google Earth map?

The problems with it are:

The junction of the A414 / A1M is incredibly busy - there's nowhere to put a tram line and street running is completely out of the question there.

The route around the Galleria is probably not viable or would be incredibly disruptive to the Galleria itself.

There's no room around Fiddlebridge Industrial Area - you'd have to obliterate that to fit the lines through.

The 'Hatfield Centre' stop is a good 5 - 10 minute walk away from the main shopping area.

There's no space on the approach to Hatfield station to fit a further line in - with development having covered the old rail formation on Great North Road and between Beaconsfield Road and the station.

It's worth remembering that the Hatfield - St Albans line was closed before Beeching - with passenger services being withdrawn as far back as 1951, as were the Welwyn - Hertford services.

The majority of re-instatements have been of Beeching closures - I can't think of any pre-Beeching closures which have been re-opened (although I'm sure I'm about to be corrected).

The reality is the likely cost of a Light Rail scheme from St Albans to Hatfield is never likely to be viable - particularly given how well served that corridor is by the multitude of bus services which run along it.