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

[jon0844]

I think we're almost at a point of needing a separate thread as there's a valid argument about better connections between towns, and linking up mainline railway lines to improve travel, not only in Hertfordshire but also for people wanting to go north (for anywhere south, you'd likely just go into London and connect there, and most parts of Hertfordshire are well covered to go into London).

I think I've come to the conclusion, like some others, that any links will be best served by buses and the old railway lines that have become footpaths/cycle routes will remain so. The Abbey Line won't ever be extended, or not in the foreseeable future anyway. There are conflicting needs here, from a possible light rail/tram system that would serve local people for a few stops, or perhaps St Albans to Hatfield, against a need for better connections over a longer distance - where a tram would be no better than a bus that could start 56 days from now, not 5-10 years and at a cost of many millions of pounds.

Hertford is a nice place, but I can only ever see myself driving there or using a taxi. The nearest bus for me doesn't even run on Saturday anymore, and the 724 means changing buses (which, thanks to different operators and no through ticketing, means a really expensive fare).

 

[A0]

The other thing to remember is okay Hertford might not as popular as Stevenage or St Albans for days out BUT it's a catch 22, what about these who live in the Hertford area who actually like to go out to Stevenage or St Albans for the day who have to rely on a hourly train, drive in or get a hourly bus - if you live in Hertford but wanted a night out in St Albans you either pay for a taxi or have to do a round trip into London on the trains.

Not everything is Hertfordcentric but people here ought to look at the bigger picture and realise that maybe just maybe there is a 2 way flow of passengers more in one direction then the other granted :roll:

Paradoxically, I think Hertford does quite well out of the deal.

The last train back from Stevenage is 23.30.

The last 724 from St Albans is nearly midnight.

And an hourly frequency isn't really a problem at that time of night - it's perfectly reasonable given the usage levels.

I suspect most people in Hertford head down the A10 corridor to Cheshunt, Enfield or London for a night out - which gives a late train back.

 

[Aictos]

Paradoxically, I think Hertford does quite well out of the deal.

The last train back from Stevenage is 23.30.

The last 724 from St Albans is nearly midnight.

And an hourly frequency isn't really a problem at that time of night - it's perfectly reasonable given the usage levels.

I suspect most people in Hertford head down the A10 corridor to Cheshunt, Enfield or London for a night out - which gives a late train back.

The last St Albans bound 724 service is 20:00 yet the last Hertford bound 724 service is 23:42....

You also forget about weekends when the train between Hertford and Stevenage isn't as attractive as it could be being only a hourly service and subjected to rail replacement on Sundays, there's a hourly Hertford terminator on Saturdays which could quite easily be extended to Stevenage as the capacity is there to cater for a extra service.

 

[biggus]

It isn't always the case. The bus service between Llantwit Major and Bridgend carried a reported average of three passengers. Since the line reopened to passengers, the train carries, on average, about thirty.

Good point.

I sincerely doubt there has ever been evidence to justify the officially endorsed supposition that the level of demand for bus travel is a useful predictor of the upper bound on suppressed or potential demand for heavy rail travel.

They are afterall practically incomparable services in most cases.

 

[A0]

The last St Albans bound 724 service is 20:00 yet the last Hertford bound 724 service is 23:42.....

So what? To use an example at a local railway station to me, the last EMT from Wellingborough to London is at 22.31, but the last northbound from London is at 01.35 - both buses and trains have to get back to their base depots which inevitably means one way may be much later than the other.

You also forget about weekends when the train between Hertford and Stevenage isn't as attractive as it could be being only a hourly service

Same as the off-peak Mon - Fri then. I don't personally believe that an hourly service is a deterrent to people using it - particularly late at night. People expect lower frequencies at that time.

and subjected to rail replacement on Sundays,

along with many, many other routes - because it is the most convenient time. When would you suggest they do engineering then ? During the rush hour? :roll:

there's a hourly Hertford terminator on Saturdays which could quite easily be extended to Stevenage as the capacity is there to cater for a extra service.

I suspect FCC have looked at this, but decided there isn't the demand. It isn't attractive to people travelling from Stevenage - London as it is much slower than the semi-fasts which head up the main-line. So it would only be for whatever custom the intermediate stations from Bowes Park - Hertford Nth would attract heading to Stevenage - and I suspect it would be possible to count the number of passengers on the additional services on the fingers of one hand.

 

[HSTEd]

Smart cards are areally the key to increasing bus use.
It also drastically simplifies operational issues with regards to slashing dwell times.

 

[A0]

Smart cards are areally the key to increasing bus use.
It also drastically simplifies operational issues with regards to slashing dwell times.

In some respects, but in others it can cause problems, namely they always have to have the appropriate level of credit etc.

Whilst Oyster has proved to be very successful in London, where there are no shortage of places to top up, in rural Norfolk or Lincolnshire, where you have a very different socio-economic group of users and nothing like the infrastructure to support the sale and top up of such ideas, it's probably less viable.

 

[CMS]

My spin on it, and I suppose to put the thread back on track, is that the Abbey Flyer's primary purpose is to take local passengers from the villages in between them, to the heart of St Albans and Watford, as well as linking the two towns quickly. At the moment, the single-track line manages to do this but its awkward 45-min timings mean that it is often seen as unattractive. Were the passing loop to be reinstated and the line updated, with a 20 or 30 min frequency, I think patronage would rise as locals would be less perturbed by a clockface, frequent service.

A couple of things to consider, I believe are that:
a - There is virtually no room for expansion, The Alban Way is an important cycle route which is well frequented by walkers and school/work 'commuters', which throws Hatfield out of the question and as for an extension to Rickmansworth, the cost wouldn't be justified by the minute time savings, considering buses run frequently across Watford from Garston (320, 724) and Bricket Wood (724) in to Croxley and Rickmansworth. You don't need trams on a route unable to expand.
b - The branch line should be seen as that. It is not in competition with St Albans Thameslink, because the cost of fares to London is not that much of a saving, considering that the 18 min journey to St Pancras is unbeatable. All other London-St Albans routes have virtually died out, with the former Greenline coach service reduced to 2/3 return journeys on a Uno Citaro. If the line really was to be a real alternative to FCC, it would probably need Oyster PAYG, speedier journey times (closer connections at WFJ) to London etc.
c - The route's main competition is the 321 bus service that runs every 15 mins parallel to most of the route, with healthy loadings, the 621 which used to parallel the whole route (formerly the 320), on the other hand has been gradually cut back over the past 3 years, to every 45 mins - 2.5 hrs (normally every 1/2 hrs), carrying pretty much seniors who cannot manage Holywell Hill. This would seem to imply that frequency is what will 'win' over passengers on this corridor, and the only way that could only be provided is via part double-tracking and an additional train, so that is the way forward!

 

[Muzer]

Smart cards are areally the key to increasing bus use.
It also drastically simplifies operational issues with regards to slashing dwell times.

Also, the guards have to actually be issued with machines that can read them, as SWT still don't seem to have realised

 

[biggus]

Does the mainline need relief south of St Albans, and if so how badly?

If the need is great enough to warrant the $$$, a look at the map suggests you could build a new bit of line to link the North end of the Abbey line (before it curves West) into the mainline and thus into St Albans Station.

Not sure what the terrain is like, or the differences in elevation, but it looks like the land might be there to do it.

 

[edwin_m]

I think what you are describing is similar to the contractor's line that was built from the Abbey line to the Midland main line (MML) during the construction of the latter. Part of it can be seen on the OS map:

http://binged.it/1bNtJPI

Closer to St Albans a valley opens up in between the two lines, and the MML is quite a bit higher.

However as the WCML from Watford is busier than the MML from St Albans into London, I can't see that this connection would be of much use. You could run the Abbey line into the main station but would probably have to build an extra track to the west (over several bridges and demolishing the heritage signal box), or have each Watford train cross the MML fast lines.

 

[biggus]

However as the WCML from Watford is busier than the MML from St Albans into London, I can't see that this connection would be of much use.

Thanks Edwin for an interesting answer. Point taken about the traffic on the lines to the south.

Thanks for the info on the contractor's line- very interesting too!

 

[mr_jrt]

Thanks Edwin for an interesting answer. Point taken about the traffic on the lines to the south.

Thanks for the info on the contractor's line- very interesting too!

IMHO, that contractor's line should also be brought back into use for linking up the freight terminal to the WCML. It's at almost exactly the right location to continue across the site to join the siding off the MML. By creating a triangular junction on this line down to sidings down the middle of the site you get the best of both worlds.

 

[Trog]

The Abbey Branch is worked 'one engine in steam' by a unit that stays on the branch all day, with the only access to the WCML being a ground frame controlled siding. So not much scope for running extra freight trains that way without a major re-signal that would cost millions.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

IMHO, that contractor's line should also be brought back into use for linking up the freight terminal to the WCML. It's at almost exactly the right location to continue across the site to join the siding off the MML. By creating a triangular junction on this line down to sidings down the middle of the site you get the best of both worlds.

Looked at in very broad terms and discounted ......row still going on about this "rail served terminal" .....

 

[mr_jrt]

The Abbey Branch is worked 'one engine in steam' by a unit that stays on the branch all day, with the only access to the WCML being a ground frame controlled siding. So not much scope for running extra freight trains that way without a major re-signal that would cost millions.

There are ways and means.

I also argue that getting the 30-minute timetable is quite feasible with heavy rail by just building a 2nd platform (and associated access), laying the track into the platforms, and connecting them up with sprung-loaded points. A simple mechanical token held by the driver would suffice for taking possession of each single line section. The only problem is the cost of leasing stock due to the bloody stupid privatisation meaning we have to pay full whack for rolling stock that worked off its construction costs 20-odd years ago from a ROSCO.

To a similar end, extending a freight-only line from this loop by laying a second track to the junction at How Wood (which would effectively move it to Bricket Wood instead) would enable freight traffic to reach Bricket Wood to claim the token for the line to Watford as normal.

 

[Tomnick]

A simple mechanical token held by the driver would suffice for taking possession of each single line section.

Go on then. Once the first unit for the branch service has reached the loop (and is in possession of the token) from Watford at the start of the day's service, how does the second one get onto the branch?

To a similar end, extending a freight-only line from this loop by laying a second track to the junction at How Wood (which would effectively move it to Bricket Wood instead) would enable freight traffic to reach Bricket Wood to claim the token for the line to Watford as normal.

What, on top of a half-hourly passenger service?!

 

[mr_jrt]

Go on then. Once the first unit for the branch service has reached the loop (and is in possession of the token) from Watford at the start of the day's service, how does the second one get onto the branch?

It's a solved problem in common use all over the place. IIRC, on some single lines the line can be divided into multiple sections, each with their own token, so there's clearly procedure for it.

Off the top of my head, at the start of the day the line is secured. It is opened up, the first unit proceeds onto it as single unit in steam working with the St Albans token, and then heads for St Albans. The second unit is held at Watford until the first reaches St Albans, whereby a phone call is made and the unit at Watford is given the Watford token. They then both proceed to Bricket Wood in normal operation, swapping tokens at Bricket Wood.

See? That wasn't hard now, was it?

What, on top of a half-hourly passenger service?!

Perhaps. It takes 7-odd minutes to get from Bricket Wood to Watford Junction for a passenger train. Slotting in a few freight trains a day shouldn't be too hard by holding a unit at St Albans or Watford.

 

[Tomnick]

A little understanding goes a long way. The trouble with trying to pass traffic over a double-ended single line section with just one token - a staff, if you will - is that a second or subsequent train in the same direction will find the staff at the wrong end of the section. 'Staff and ticket' - where trains are shown the staff and issued with a ticket as authority to run through the section (the staff travelling with the last move in each direction) overcomes that problem - but requires someone to handle the staff and issue tickets at both ends of each section.

Where tokens are used nowadays, both on the national network and heritage railways, its usual for something more complicated to be employed - a number of tokens for each section, contained within instruments at either end with controls to prevent more than one token being released at any one time. This is more like what you'd need. It's possible for this to be supervised remotely by one Signalman, with each Driver obtaining his own token and restoring it to the appropriate instrument himself. If you have a typical two-platform layout at the passing loop, with a pair of instruments on each platform, you'll quickly find that the 'arrival side' instrument is filling up whilst the 'departure side' instrument is emptying - so someone will have to come out, probably twice a day with that level of service, to transfer the tokens from one to the other.

Not so simple after all!

Perhaps. It takes 7-odd minutes to get from Bricket Wood to Watford Junction for a passenger train. Slotting in a few freight trains a day shouldn't be too hard by holding a unit at St Albans or Watford.

Seven minutes each way is fourteen in total. Add three minutes at Brickett Wood for the exchange of tokens, and you're up to seventeen. The unit's going to have to be shunted clear of the single line to allow the token to be surrendered for the freight - which is going to take a good four or five minutes in total including time to detrain. That leaves nine minutes at most to run your freight through the section, including the time to obtain and surrender the token at the ends of the section, and assuming that one on the Up can get straight off the single line and onto the Up Slow at Watford.

 

[mr_jrt]

A little understanding goes a long way. The trouble with trying to pass traffic over a double-ended single line section with just one token - a staff, if you will - is that a second or subsequent train in the same direction will find the staff at the wrong end of the section. 'Staff and ticket' - where trains are shown the staff and issued with a ticket as authority to run through the section (the staff travelling with the last move in each direction) overcomes that problem - but requires someone to handle the staff and issue tickets at both ends of each section.

Thanks for the insight. Surely you could just build the platforms staggered though so the cabs are adjacent to each other. You just pass the tokens from window to window or via something mounted between the lines.

Where tokens are used nowadays, both on the national network and heritage railways, its usual for something more complicated to be employed - a number of tokens for each section, contained within instruments at either end with controls to prevent more than one token being released at any one time. This is more like what you'd need. It's possible for this to be supervised remotely by one Signalman, with each Driver obtaining his own token and restoring it to the appropriate instrument himself. If you have a typical two-platform layout at the passing loop, with a pair of instruments on each platform, you'll quickly find that the 'arrival side' instrument is filling up whilst the 'departure side' instrument is emptying - so someone will have to come out, probably twice a day with that level of service, to transfer the tokens from one to the other.

Not so simple after all!

TBH, that all still sounds quite simple to me!

Seven minutes each way is fourteen in total. Add three minutes at Brickett Wood for the exchange of tokens, and you're up to seventeen. The unit's going to have to be shunted clear of the single line to allow the token to be surrendered for the freight - which is going to take a good four or five minutes in total including time to detrain. That leaves nine minutes at most to run your freight through the section, including the time to obtain and surrender the token at the ends of the section, and assuming that one on the Up can get straight off the single line and onto the Up Slow at Watford.

I'd imagine it would be timetabled as a freight taking a path from the Watford section, perhaps with the Watford unit held in the loop at Bricket Wood so the section is clear, though there would still be the issue of getting the token back from Watford. Locking the Watford unit on a platform loop at Watford to give a clear run from Bricket Wood to a goods loop (which also then lets the train await a path on the slow lines) would be a good option, but you would still need to ensure the Watford unit is secured and would need some way of getting the token to the freight (or being satisfied the Watford unit was secured so the freight could operate as one unit in steam) - things do indeed get more complicated when you introduce the 2nd and subsequent loops. Nothing insurmountable though.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks for the insight. Surely you could just build the platforms staggered though so the cabs are adjacent to each other. You just pass the tokens from window to window or via something mounted between the lines.

That's ok - signalling's a much misunderstood subject, so I'm more than happy to take the time to explain things! It's all evolved over a couple of hundred years' experience of accidents and other unfortunate happenings - which is why tokens arent (usually) passed directly from one Driver to another. At the very least, you'd probably have to pass it through an instrument to 'disarm' the TPWS that would almost certainly be required nowadays. My main point was that, as far as I'm aware, there's no national network precedent for a staff and ticket section to be supervised remotely - I'm not sure that drivers issuing tickets to themselves would prove to be an adequate method of working!

TBH, that all still sounds quite simple to me!

The actual method of working is relatively straightforward (until it goes wrong), but there's already a bit more infrastructure required in terms of token instrument, the comms between the instruments, TPWS and so on).

I'd imagine it would be timetabled as a freight taking a path from the Watford section, perhaps with the Watford unit held in the loop at Bricket Wood so the section is clear, though there would still be the issue of getting the token back from Watford. Locking the Watford unit on a platform loop at Watford to give a clear run from Bricket Wood to a goods loop (which also then lets the train await a path on the slow lines) would be a good option, but you would still need to ensure the Watford unit is secured and would need some way of getting the token to the freight (or being satisfied the Watford unit was secured so the freight could operate as one unit in steam) - things do indeed get more complicated when you introduce the 2nd and subsequent loops. Nothing insurmountable though.

I'm puzzled by these references to 'one unit in steam' - one train working (the modern term for 'one engine in steam') is only really relevant to a dead-end section with no shut-inside facilities at the dead end (so, for example, your proposed Brickett Wood - St Albans section, or the whole branch at present). Either way, I'd suggest that full signalling (TCB from Rugby?) would be necessary to allow this level of traffic. Regulating the freight traffic, and controlling movements around the junction at Brickett Wood (how would that be operated anyway?!), would be a nightmare if you were relying on verbal comms and remote token instruments!

 

[Trog]

There are ways and means.

I also argue that getting the 30-minute timetable is quite feasible with heavy rail by just building a 2nd platform (and associated access), laying the track into the platforms, and connecting them up with sprung-loaded points. A simple mechanical token held by the driver would suffice for taking possession of each single line section. The only problem is the cost of leasing stock due to the bloody stupid privatisation meaning we have to pay full whack for rolling stock that worked off its construction costs 20-odd years ago from a ROSCO.

To a similar end, extending a freight-only line from this loop by laying a second track to the junction at How Wood (which would effectively move it to Bricket Wood instead) would enable freight traffic to reach Brickett Wood to claim the token for the line to Watford as normal.

A loop at Brickett Wood including track, signalling, platform with huge great footbridge for disabled people and skate boarders would cost millions. Your goods line to How Wood would need a bridge over the M25, more millions.

There is just not the traffic to pay for that sort of spending.

 

[Nym]

Signalling wise if you're using spring return points, why not just put in ATP in the form of ETCS Level 3?

 

[biggus]

Bearing in mind that the proposed Radlett scheme is to cost 300-400 million, an incremental cost of say 40 million to get a WCML connection via the contractor's line, with new signalling etc, wouldn't seem so bad...

http://www.parklogistics.co.uk/69851/go-ahead-for-radlett-rail-freight-terminal
http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/planning/rail_freight_interchange.aspx

So why was that option ruled out?

Anyone got any good sources on this?

• Would it cost very much more than the low 10s of millions?
  
• Is it because you couldn't get southbound freight to Abbey off the WCML without a big and expensive triangular junction at Watford by the look of it, or provision for some kind of reversing, running round and crossing malarkey?
  
• Without southbound traffic, is there no demand for a rail freight terminal serving that stretch of the WCML?
  
• Or is there no capacity for more freight on that stretch of the WCML at present anyway?
  
• Or was it politically sensitive for some reason?

And given the supposed increase in future WCML freight capacity when HS2 arrives, has the Contractor's line been protected for future use?

Had the Abbey Branch gone light rail, that would have been a real obstacle to future freight use... was that objection raised in opposition?

 

[Bald Rick]

Bearing in mind that the proposed Radlett scheme is to cost 300-400 million, an incremental cost of say 40 million to get a WCML connection via the contractor's line, with new signalling etc, wouldn't seem so bad...

http://www.parklogistics.co.uk/69851/go-ahead-for-radlett-rail-freight-terminal
http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/planning/rail_freight_interchange.aspx

So why was that option ruled out?

Anyone got any good sources on this?

• Would it cost very much more than the low 10s of millions?
  
• Is it because you couldn't get southbound freight to Abbey off the WCML without a big and expensive triangular junction at Watford by the look of it, or provision for some kind of reversing, running round and crossing malarkey?
  
• Without southbound traffic, is there no demand for a rail freight terminal serving that stretch of the WCML?
  
• Or is there no capacity for more freight on that stretch of the WCML at present anyway?
  
• Or was it politically sensitive for some reason?

And given the supposed increase in future WCML freight capacity when HS2 arrives, has the Contractor's line been protected for future use?

Had the Abbey Branch gone light rail, that would have been a real obstacle to future freight use... was that objection raised in opposition?

Someone who has been involved in this will be along shortly, but AIUI:

Yes, Yes, not much, not much, no, no, not sure.

Personal view: The principle of the rail terminal at Radlett is a bit of a con anyway, unlikely to be much rail traffic using it, the numbers don't stack up.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Quite - what makes anyone think a warehouse developer (road served - an easy 90 mins from Thamesport by M25) - might conceivably (in their wildest dreams) , consider spending money on a rail connection for Radlett..? (let alone clearing the MML for W10 containers).

Most rail loading facilities at our ports are fully committed in any case - so running a 70 mile or so rail haul economics do not stack up. (previous threads refer) ...

Let us be practical please , and not get carried away - the railway does many good things - but container haulage from Soton , Felixstowe . Grain , Tilbury is not economic to the M25 belt.

Unless anyone knows a port somewhere else which can underwrite a 200 mile rail haul to Radlett. Isle of Sodor perhaps ?

 

[Bald Rick]

^^^ Thanks Guv.

 

[HSTEd]

Well there is always Europoort

 

[MarkyT]

In general, there are no significant savings to be made any longer in signalling by implementing new facilities using old fashioned physical tokens and related techniques. The equipment involved is also practically impossible to obtain now in any quantity. For example the self normalising hydropneumatic point actuator used for older remote passing loops is obsolete, being replaced at existing sites by conventional point machines controlled by fairly complex new control cabinets complete with track circuits, full size signals for points indicators and incorporating TPWS loop controls at the stop boards. Secondary lines today are much better re-equipped using the latest 'modular signalling' products and axle counters for train detection. These are designed to offer good value whilst retaining the familiar operation and appearance of standard colour light signalling, and also avoid the time consuming procedure of token exchange.

 

[mr_jrt]

In general, there are no significant savings to be made any longer in signalling by implementing new facilities using old fashioned physical tokens and related techniques. The equipment involved is also practically impossible to obtain now in any quantity. For example the self normalising hydropneumatic point actuator used for older remote passing loops is obsolete, being replaced at existing sites by conventional point machines controlled by fairly complex new control cabinets complete with track circuits, full size signals for points indicators and incorporating TPWS loop controls at the stop boards. Secondary lines today are much better re-equipped using the latest 'modular signalling' products and axle counters for train detection. These are designed to offer good value whilst retaining the familiar operation and appearance of standard colour light signalling, and also avoid the time consuming procedure of token exchange.

No wonder costs have exploded then! I can't see how that's progress...that's just gold-plating something needlessly.