Digswell Viaduct build a bypass tunnel?

[Bald Rick]

Does Welwyn North not have 4tph stopping in the peak-flow direction? Or at least, it did!

Possibly, in which case my numbers are wrong! The morning peak is less of an issue as the long distance service hasn’t warmed up by then. Evening peak is tricky.

There’s about 400 houses in the area immediately surrounding the station, including, it must be said, some absolute palaces. You could give each of them a £100k ‘disturbance’ payment for closing the station and that would cost rather less than half the cost of just designing the extra Viaduct / tunnels. Whilst this will clearly never be an option, I often think this type of hard nosed commercial option should be on the table - particularly for closing little used highway level crossings. (If we can close this crossing we’ll build you a community centre, that sort of thing).

 

[bramling]

Possibly, in which case my numbers are wrong! The morning peak is less of an issue as the long distance service hasn’t warmed up by then. Evening peak is tricky.

There’s about 400 houses in the area immediately surrounding the station, including, it must be said, some absolute palaces. You could give each of them a £100k ‘disturbance’ payment for closing the station and that would cost rather less than half the cost of just designing the extra Viaduct / tunnels. Whilst this will clearly never be an option, I often think this type of hard nosed commercial option should be on the table - particularly for closing little used highway level crossings. (If we can close this crossing we’ll build you a community centre, that sort of thing).

I have a feeling Welwyn North only ended up with 4tph by default. In early 1990s timetables it seemed to be the 2tph stopping service which is today’s 2Cxx. At some point it gained extra services which called at likes of New Barnet (etc), these are today’s 2Yxx services, which at the time allowed then 2Cxx services to run fast inwards of Welwyn. The extra 2tph were mainly 313s, and ran through to Letchworth - indeed at one point Royston IIRC.

When the FCC “seats for you” timetable came in, the slower services were curtailed at Welwyn, and the paths north were given to the new peak KX to Royston services. I think each hour one called at Knebworth and the other Welwyn North, giving each of these 3tph, and a fast service from/to London. I guess a non-stop service to London was suitable compensation for a reduction to 3tph.

Come May 2018 and standard pattern timetables it seems to have been viable to fit Welwyn North calls in both hourly Baldock services. Whether they’re really needed is a matter for debate, as with 4tph of 8-car services inwards from Welwyn this would seem to be sufficient capacity. A bit more could be squeezed out by making the 2Cxx services up to 12-car. I guess this would require platform lengthening at Cambridge, stabling alterations, extra class 700 vehicles, and anything required south of the river if it ever becomes Cambridge to Maidstone.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that it would be logistically viable to reduce Welwyn North from 4tph to 2tph. To what extent this might actually create extra paths I’m less sure. No doubt there would be a political backlash, but less of a backlash than closing it altogether.

 

[ABB125]

Possibly, in which case my numbers are wrong! The morning peak is less of an issue as the long distance service hasn’t warmed up by then. Evening peak is tricky.

There’s about 400 houses in the area immediately surrounding the station, including, it must be said, some absolute palaces. You could give each of them a £100k ‘disturbance’ payment for closing the station and that would cost rather less than half the cost of just designing the extra Viaduct / tunnels. Whilst this will clearly never be an option, I often think this type of hard nosed commercial option should be on the table - particularly for closing little used highway level crossings. (If we can close this crossing we’ll build you a community centre, that sort of thing).

400*100 000=£40 million --> design costs ~ £100 million. That seems an awful lot of money for just design work. What are the main costs for such work/why is it so much?

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Other option would be to resignal the ECML to have a 2 minute fast headway, not sure that would actually increase the amount of paths through Welwyn North unless you did a London Bridge style 2 minute stopping headway with 1 and a half minute platform reoccupation.

Definteley not going to happen, and I don't even want to know how expensive it would be.

 

[Bald Rick]

400*100 000=£40 million --> design costs ~ £100 million. That seems an awful lot of money for just design work. What are the main costs for such work/why is it so much?

Design, which includes consents and other ‘pre construction’ work, is typically in the range of 8-15% for railway construction.

Hence why HS2 had spent £7bn before digging anything.

There’s an awful lot to do - full surveys including extensive ground condition reports, consultation, environmental reports, land referencing, all the consents process, and the technical stuff.

 

[ABB125]

Design, which includes consents and other ‘pre construction’ work, is typically in the range of 8-15% for railway construction.

Hence why HS2 had spent £7bn before digging anything.

There’s an awful lot to do - full surveys including extensive ground condition reports, consultation, environmental reports, land referencing, all the consents process, and the technical stuff.

Is there any scope (generally) for such costs to be reduced? eg: doing more work in-house rather than £many per day consultants (especially if the work being done by said consultants is needed on every project, so there would be enough demand from within an organisation such as Network Rail to justify a person(s) dedicated to that task; or is this done already?).

How much does the consent process cost? Is it something along the lines of "£x per DCO application"?

Sorry about all the questions, I'm just curious (and might work in this sort of area in the future)!

 

[zwk500]

Is there any scope (generally) for such costs to be reduced? eg: doing more work in-house rather than £many per day consultants (especially if the work being done by said consultants is needed on every project, so there would be enough demand from within an organisation such as Network Rail to justify a person(s) dedicated to that task; or is this done already?).

A lot of this design work is already done in house. It's a balance between the short-term extra cost of paying consultants or the long-term cost of employing full-time staff (even if employed on fixed-length contracts, it almost always costs more to hire somebody into a company than it does to contract an external company to do the work).

 

[Mag_seven]

I would imagine potential solutions for the "Welwyn Bottleneck" have been done to death over the years. I just can't see anything happening - we are basically stuck with it and that's it!

 

[bramling]

I would imagine potential solutions for the "Welwyn Bottleneck" have been done to death over the years. I just can't see anything happening - we are basically stuck with it and that's it!

Agreed. I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime, especially with HS2 now on the scene.

It’s also not quite as much of an issue as it seems. All the inner-suburban services terminate at Welwyn, so it’s only the 2tph Cambridge stopping service which is really the issue, plus freight (some of which goes via Hertford anyway).

From a purely rational viewpoint closing Welwyn North and expectation-managing its users does seem a more logical solution if one is really needed.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that I love to provide silly plans that technically meet our objectives..... what happens if we just stop every single train at Welwyn North?

Post HS2 and all. Once ETS is in place we might be able to get more than 18 trains per hour!

 

[Ianno87]

I have a feeling Welwyn North only ended up with 4tph by default. In early 1990s timetables it seemed to be the 2tph stopping service which is today’s 2Cxx. At some point it gained extra services which called at likes of New Barnet (etc), these are today’s 2Yxx services, which at the time allowed then 2Cxx services to run fast inwards of Welwyn. The extra 2tph were mainly 313s, and ran through to Letchworth - indeed at one point Royston IIRC.

When the FCC “seats for you” timetable came in, the slower services were curtailed at Welwyn, and the paths north were given to the new peak KX to Royston services. I think each hour one called at Knebworth and the other Welwyn North, giving each of these 3tph, and a fast service from/to London. I guess a non-stop service to London was suitable compensation for a reduction to 3tph.

Come May 2018 and standard pattern timetables it seems to have been viable to fit Welwyn North calls in both hourly Baldock services. Whether they’re really needed is a matter for debate, as with 4tph of 8-car services inwards from Welwyn this would seem to be sufficient capacity. A bit more could be squeezed out by making the 2Cxx services up to 12-car. I guess this would require platform lengthening at Cambridge, stabling alterations, extra class 700 vehicles, and anything required south of the river if it ever becomes Cambridge to Maidstone.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that it would be logistically viable to reduce Welwyn North from 4tph to 2tph. To what extent this might actually create extra paths I’m less sure. No doubt there would be a political backlash, but less of a backlash than closing it altogether.

Welwyn North was one of the beneficiaries of the pre-May 2018 that (particularly in the morning peak) didn't follow a particularly repeating structure, so you could have a bespoke pattern of trains so lots of stations got one or two fast trains in the morning peak. Same applied in the evening peak; in latter days I did enjoy the novelty of the 1823 Cambridge semi-fast- first stop Welwyn North then Hitchin!

Once May 2018 standardised everything into a more repeating structure, you end up with situations where the fasts can still be provided, but arguably over-provided as if you do something once it needs to be done twice per hour to 'fit', or the fasts need to go as 'odd' calls no longer can be accommodated. But in Welwyn North's case that is quite a journey time difference compared to stopping Welwyn GC, Hatfield, Potters Bar etc, so would have been polotically unpopular. Covid has, of course, thrown expectations of such services completely up in the air.

Another example was Ashwell & Morden's brief foray into being the first/last stop on peak King's Lynn services!

Given that I love to provide silly plans that technically meet our objectives..... what happens if we just stop every single train at Welwyn North?

Post HS2 and all. Once ETS is in place we might be able to get more than 18 trains per hour!

You really will kill capacity; maybe 12tph tops. Perhaps more if you ran 700s on everything...which I'm not sure Newark/Retford commuters would take kindly to!

 

[HST43257]

Does Welwyn North not have 4tph stopping in the peak-flow direction? Or at least, it did!

I agree Welwyn North is politically very difficult to close. It serves a completely different catchment area to Welwyn GC, with some of the villages being rather well-to-do. Having said that, the residents of these villages could just as easily drive or be dropped off at Knebworth or Hertford North, albeit that parking is an issue at both of these. This just leaves the housing immediately surrounding Welwyn North station itself.

Pre covid, it had the 2tph London to Cambridge stopper all day and the 2tph London to Baldock peak service, going non stop to Welwyn North. I doubt that the residents would take kindly to a transfer to a different station, but it may be the solution.

 

[Ianno87]

Pre covid, it had the 2tph London to Cambridge stopper all day and the 2tph London to Baldock peak service, going non stop to Welwyn North. I doubt that the residents would take kindly to a transfer to a different station, but it may be the solution.

Classic case of "should the convenience of a relatively small number of users at Welwyn North outweigh the potential benefits to a much larger number of passengers when the solution to please both is a very substantial taxpayer expense?" (So one would argue that the benefit of 4 tracking Welwyn is only for the maintenance of service at Welwyn North which doesn't stack up well when you divide the cost of the intervention against the usage of Welwyn North).

 

[HST43257]

Classic case of "should the convenience of a relatively small number of users at Welwyn North outweigh the potential benefits to a much larger number of passengers when the solution to please both is a very substantial taxpayer expense?" (So one would argue that the benefit of 4 tracking Welwyn is only for the maintenance of service at Welwyn North which doesn't stack up well when you divide the cost of the intervention against the usage of Welwyn North).

Agreed. At the end of the day, it does seem like Welwyn North customers won’t receive their ideal service.

 

[bramling]

Classic case of "should the convenience of a relatively small number of users at Welwyn North outweigh the potential benefits to a much larger number of passengers when the solution to please both is a very substantial taxpayer expense?" (So one would argue that the benefit of 4 tracking Welwyn is only for the maintenance of service at Welwyn North which doesn't stack up well when you divide the cost of the intervention against the usage of Welwyn North).

I’d say Welwyn North was *very* lucky to get both 4tph and two non-stop per hour services to London, when much busier stations like Hitchin don’t get non-stop services - indeed Hitchin lost the ones they had in May 18.

Welwyn North isn’t that important, and a 2tph service making three stops between there and London is still very respectable. Indeed it compares well to what Hertford North, a similar distance from London, and serving a much larger place, gets.

The only logistical benefit is that the non-stop services would scoop up some punters who would otherwise be on the slower service, freeing up some capacity/seats for people at places like Hatfield. But (IME) the numbers boarding the fast services at Welwyn North in the morning was fairly small - by the time one takes away the fact that Welwyn North isn’t that busy in the first place, and that they would be unlikely to get a seat on these services.

 

[HST43257]

I’d say Welwyn North was *very* lucky to get both 4tph and two non-stop per hour services to London, when much busier stations like Hitchin don’t get non-stop services - indeed Hitchin lost the ones they had in May 18.

Welwyn North isn’t that important, and a 2tph service making three stops between there and London is still very respectable. Indeed it compares well to what Hertford North, a similar distance from London, and serving a much larger place, gets.

The only logistical benefit is that the non-stop services would scoop up some punters who would otherwise be on the slower service, freeing up some capacity/seats for people at places like Hatfield. But (IME) the numbers boarding the fast services at Welwyn North in the morning was fairly small - by the time one takes away the fact that Welwyn North isn’t that busy in the first place, and that they would be unlikely to get a seat on these services.

Colid they lose the Baldocks? That’d mean xx57s out of KGX in the peaks, meaning more room for intercity services.

 

[JKF]

Is there a suitable non marshy area for a south portal in a longer tunnel?

Kings Cross? That would solve a lot of other problems too.

 

[bramling]

Colid they lose the Baldocks? That’d mean xx57s out of KGX in the peaks, meaning more room for intercity services.

I’d certainly say the Baldocks could be fast to Knebworth, or even Hitchin. There would likely be some pushback however.

Thinking about it, allegedly the Baldocks aren’t cemented in place, as there was a suggestion at some point these paths are not guaranteed for GTR. On that score events could overtake and the Welwyn North calls might have to disappear anyway. If the Baldocks are to remain a long-term feature then ideally they should be lengthened to 12-car and a centre siding be built to avoid what is currently a disruptive turnback. 12 cars would mean stabling changes however, not sure if Hitchin up yard could be used to stable 3x 12 cars as a solution to that.

 

[HST43257]

I’d certainly say the Baldocks could be fast to Knebworth, or even Hitchin. There would likely be some pushback however.

I reckon the support from Knebworth could (in a way) fight back the anger from Welwyn North.

Thinking about it, allegedly the Baldocks aren’t cemented in place, as there was a suggestion at some point these paths are not guaranteed for GTR. On that score events could overtake and the Welwyn North calls might have to disappear anyway.

So is the entire Baldock not necessarily required or is it just not needing to call at Welwyn North? Either way, if it frees up paths for intercity working, I’m in support of it.

If the Baldocks are to remain a long-term feature then ideally they should be lengthened to 12-car and a centre siding be built to avoid what is currently a disruptive turnback. 12 cars would mean stabling changes however, not sure if Hitchin up yard could be used to stable 3x 12 cars as a solution to that.

I believe they plan to replace the 3 8 car platforms at KGX (9, 10 & 11) with 2 12 car ones. This will facilitate such a change at that end.

 

[bramling]

I reckon the support from Knebworth could (in a way) fight back the anger from Welwyn North.


So is the entire Baldock not necessarily required or is it just not needing to call at Welwyn North? Either way, if it frees up paths for intercity working, I’m in support of it.


I believe they plan to replace the 3 8 car platforms at KGX (9, 10 & 11) with 2 12 car ones. This will facilitate such a change at that end.

The Baldocks have already been tending to use the longer platforms at KX, so up until now that hasn’t been a limiting factor, though of course with more Intercity services that might not have been the case forever.

Certainly pre-Covid I’d say the Baldocks were pretty necessary. Whilst the ones later into the evening (2054 and 2154) were variably loaded, the peak ones were busy - all seats on a 2x365 taken with some standing at the London end of the train. With housing development to come in the area they would only have got busier. The Baldocks existed primarily for Hitchin and Letchworth. Whilst Hitchin isn’t on a par with St Albans on the midland side, pre-Covid at least it was an extremely busy commuter station. Same with Letchworth, though that has the benefit of some 387 calls which locals seem to like.

The Peterborough route is out of the equation going forward as there’s mega housing development either happened, in progress or planned at pretty much every one of the string of new towns from Hitchin (exclusive) to Peterborough.

 

[Starmill]

The key issue as I see it is that Welwyn North mainly just serves Digswell and its immediate surroundings. Knebworth has its own station. Anyone driving is overwhelmingly likely to go to Welwyn Garden City for the improved service and parking options, or to just park at their destinations. Are you likely to be using Welwyn North is you live in Oaklands, Welwyn or Codicote? It's awkwardly located.

Imagine instead there's a Bus Rapid Transit system running broadly between St Albans and Stevenage, with stops including St Albans City, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield station, Welwyn Garden City station, Digswell, Oaklands, Knebworth, Broadwater and Stevenage station. It could continue to the industrial estate in Pin Green. You could also close the Abbey line, and run it along there and through Watford. If you wanted to go really mad you could close the Watford Met branch and run along there through to a terminal at Rickmansworth LU. Think of the benefits that would offer? Linking a huge built up area with a fast frequent service connected to existing roads and rail infrastructure. Four large important regional centres across Hertfordshire would become easily accessible to one another. The operational costs associated with the Abbey line and the Watford Met branch would leave the railway. Welwyn North could be permanently closed. A reliable service operated by the TSGN franchise would be opened up to housing estates that currently suffer from weakly integrated, unreliable Uno and Arriva bus services.

A rather superior use of £1.5 billion if you ask me. Alas it will never happen because in order to be reliable it would need a good 80 - 90 % running along a fully reserved way with junction priorities, and obviously railways and motorways would require grade separation with it. This would cut roadspace available to private cars significantly, and this would be near impossible to stakeholder-manage in some of these areas. It would be very difficult to build suitable Interchanges at the front of some of these stations as there's too much established development nearby. There would be enormous disruption across all of these town centres to get the guideway built, and it would be tricky to protect existing privately run bus routes if you couldn't force them to use the guideway for part of their journey. You'd have to find a new route across open countryside between Digswell and Oaklands somehow.

A nice pipe dream one way or another.

 

[JKF]

I was going to ask how practical it might be to create a double-deck railway across Digswell viaduct, with the upper level perhaps supported by cable stays from towers at either end (or ones that straddle the width of the bridge), however the overall span might make this impractical/too expensive, and its Grade 2* listed which might be an issue...

 

[zwk500]

I was going to ask how practical it might be to create a double-deck railway across Digswell viaduct, with the upper level perhaps supported by cable stays from towers at either end (or ones that straddle the width of the bridge), however the overall span might make this impractical/too expensive, and its Grade 2* listed which might be an issue...

There's a reason very few cable-stayed rail bridges exist. The deck in the middle will flex, which is not ideal for high-speed trains. Not to mention the practicalities at the northern end of getting the upper deck far enough away (in any of 3 dimensions) from the existing tunnel bores. The listing is probably the lesser problem to face.

 

[malc-c]

Doing some googling and stumbled across a local site that included a letter dated 8th November 1999 from Railtrack to residents in the area outlining the plans to widen the viaduct, bore two new tunnels and remodel the second viaduct

08 November 1999

Dear Householder

Please find enclosed our first East Coast Main Line leaflet. which covers activity planned to take place in the Welwyn Area.

Increasing the number of tracks at Welwyn is critical to the growth of the route and the future of rail nationally. We are keen to work closely with local communities in taking this forward but we understand that some people will be unhappy with our plans. That is why it is vital that we keep you full informed.

I hope that you find the leaflet informative and that you are able to join my team to discuss our proposals at the exhibition which is die to commence at the end of November.

Yours faithfully

The exhibition took place in Welwyn (presumably at the civic centre)

In February 2000 work apparently got underway and the embankments were cleared (much in the same way the Stevenage Turnback looked at the start) at Woolmer Green

Between February and March work also was undertaken reworking the track between Woolmer Green & Knebworth (mainly at Woolmer Green with what looks like reworking the points that split the two lines into 4)

However it would seem to of ground to a halt following several public meetings, and example of the points documented is

DIGSWELL’S fight against Railtrack commenced when a meeting was called by district and parish councils John Burnell Peter Neville David Elsdon.

It was to inform residents of the preferred option proposed by Railtrack, regarding the widening of the Fast Coast Main line that runs through the village.

Railtrack’s preferred opinion is to build a new double-track railway on the east side of the current one between Digswell Junction, north of WGC, to Woolmer Green This is presently a two- track section.

This new line will devastate houses in Honeymead, St Ives Close, Harmer Green Lane and Sharmans Close. More than 140 people attended the meeting to fill the village hall to capacity, to consider the proposal and to suggest how best to stop the building of a new viaduct, two new tunnels and a new station.

The present building is the only station still in its original Great Northern guise on the ECML Following a heated letting off steam session the meeting settled down to seriously consider the best way to stop this project destroying the environment.

So it would seem that any resurrecting of this project would probably be opposed under the same basis let alone the financial aspect at today's costs

Credit:

The East Coast Main Line Bottleneck Project

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there any scope (generally) for such costs to be reduced? eg: doing more work in-house rather than £many per day consultants (especially if the work being done by said consultants is needed on every project, so there would be enough demand from within an organisation such as Network Rail to justify a person(s) dedicated to that task; or is this done already?).

How much does the consent process cost? Is it something along the lines of "£x per DCO application"?

Sorry about all the questions, I'm just curious (and might work in this sort of area in the future)!

The work involved is substantial. Much of the work is done in house, but some elements are very specialist - the consultants involved may be working on your project for a few months, then be working on the Dubai Metro next, then a high speed line in France, Etc Etc. This would be the case here - NR very rarely has to design tunnels or viaducts for example.

For the consents process, the cost is roughly proportionate to the scale of the scheme, and the number of people you have the potential to annoy. You have to demonstrate that you have properly considered all reasonable options for the delivery of your project objective, and also considered all reasonable mitigations to any ‘harm’ or loss of amenity that anyone directly affected may experience. This can be incredibly detailed. To put it into context - the team designing the Borders railway had comparatively few parties directly affected (a few dozen), but there was a small team who was in contact with every one of them regularly, and preparing designs / mitigations specifically to cover their concerns.

it is imperative that you have independent professional expert advice (‘consultants’) to demonstrate that the studies you have done have been independently assessed, proven to be the right solution, and therefore not just some monolithic corporation stamping over your back yard. You wouldn’t want to turn up to the public inquiry to find that an objector proves some of your info wrong, and bring down the whole project.

One very specific example - noise assessments. There’s plenty of people out there who can write you a report on noise assessments. But there is one, and only one, true expert on the subject. He has represented the promoters of HS2, Crossrail, HS1 (CTRL) and the Jubilee Line extension amongst others. I forget his daily rate but it is eye watering. But if you don’t get him, someone else will, and you will most likely lose the application. I use this as an example - there’s many other subjects that have to be considered in the same vein.

Given that I love to provide silly plans that technically meet our objectives..... what happens if we just stop every single train at Welwyn North?

Post HS2 and all. Once ETS is in place we might be able to get more than 18 trains per hour!

If the platforms were long enough for every train, and there was ETCS with ATO, and you were willing to stop the long distance services (at a cost of 5-6 minutes each), and didn’t want any more long distance services (unlikely) ... with the dwell times of the Class 800s you might just get 20tph in.

 

[quantinghome]

It's not as if most consultants are raking it in either. Perhaps if you have very particularly expertise like the noise expert, but most technical engineering consultants are on pretty standard professional white collar pay levels. And the companies aren't making huge profits once overheads are factored in - 8% is the high end.

What does cost projects is ineffective use of consultants, and lack of expertise within NR and other client organisations to do technical assurance. For example, when the designs for GWML electrification were submitted proposing 15m deep piles, someone in NR should have had the technical experience to know that something was very wrong. Then there's the lack of engineering skills which means projects like HS2 had to rely on general management consultants for a lot of the initial work, which had consequences.

Finally, you get what you pay for. You can save enormous amounts of money in construction if you use more advanced analysis in the design. This pushes up the design fee but reduces overall cost.

 

[adamedwards]

I've always thought a simpler way to help with Welwyn North would be to build a single platform station at Welwyn Bessemer Road.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.8159946,-0.1962305,451m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

On the approach to the Viaduct the down slow joins the down fast quite a way back from the viaduct, so my plan is to extend the down slow to a buffer stop as close as possible to the viaduct alongside the through lines with pedestrian access from Sewells and Bessemer Road (so similar to the Stevenage platform 5 scheme). Ramps down from the platform to the footpath west of the railway rather than lifts would keep construction costs under control. A drop off only lay by (and bus stop) on Bessemer Road would also be needed plus a safe crossing to Digswell Lane as a walking route from Welwyn North. This station would also put a large number of people in the north of Welwyn Garden City within walking distance of a station rather than a bus or car ride.

The single platform line would need reverisble signalling south to Welwyn Garden City station where the route is then reversible over the flyover used by the Moorgates.

The service would work like this:

• Morning peak trains would start from Welwyn Bessemer Road (WBR) using the flyover to get over to the up lines to London. These could be a mix of Moorgates and semi fast trains (Future Thameslink WBR to Maidstone East anyone?), to provide 4 trains per hour. If anyone needs to change trains they can do so on the same platform at Hatfield going south.
• Morning peak trains southbound would cease to call at Welwyn North, but northbound trains would continue to do so (as less pressure) This removes the two paths blockers and so increases capacity over the viaduct in the peak flow direction.
• Evening peak: Some trains from Kings Cross and Moorgate are extended north to WBR.
• Evening peak trains northbound would not call at Welwyn North, but southbound trains would do so (the reverse of the morning pattern).

The disadvantage is anyone travelling to Welwyn North from the north am and returning in the evening, but I would expect those to be few in number. A free taxi for anyone holding such a ticket might be a solution or people could double back via WGC. This pattern would only apply in the 2-3 hours peak am and pm. The rest of the time a Moorgate extension every 30 mins would be ample.

Of course if everyone in WGC is working by Zoom, this may not be needed, but that's a different thread.

 

[Bald Rick]

Now that is out of the box thinking. I quite like the idea.

The issues would be

a) building what would be a substantial widening of the embankment to get the line and platform in - it is likely it would be at a lower level than the existing lines due to gradients, and therefore need a wider Tina normal separation from the down fast

b) occupation of the reversible down slow with an up direction movement - it would need the route clear for 5-7 minutes for a train to complete station duties, proceed along the down slow in the up direction, call WGC, then up on to the flyover and thus clear of the DS. That’s a long time for the DS line to be occupied, 4 times an hour, on top of everything else that is using it.

c) the awkwardness for Welwyn North passengers, ie not having a service when it is most useful

d) selling to the residents near the new station thst their service is peak only and southbound only.

 

[Aictos]

The key issue as I see it is that Welwyn North mainly just serves Digswell and its immediate surroundings. Knebworth has its own station. Anyone driving is overwhelmingly likely to go to Welwyn Garden City for the improved service and parking options, or to just park at their destinations. Are you likely to be using Welwyn North is you live in Oaklands, Welwyn or Codicote? It's awkwardly located.

Imagine instead there's a Bus Rapid Transit system running broadly between St Albans and Stevenage, with stops including St Albans City, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield station, Welwyn Garden City station, Digswell, Oaklands, Knebworth, Broadwater and Stevenage station. It could continue to the industrial estate in Pin Green. You could also close the Abbey line, and run it along there and through Watford. If you wanted to go really mad you could close the Watford Met branch and run along there through to a terminal at Rickmansworth LU. Think of the benefits that would offer? Linking a huge built up area with a fast frequent service connected to existing roads and rail infrastructure. Four large important regional centres across Hertfordshire would become easily accessible to one another. The operational costs associated with the Abbey line and the Watford Met branch would leave the railway. Welwyn North could be permanently closed. A reliable service operated by the TSGN franchise would be opened up to housing estates that currently suffer from weakly integrated, unreliable Uno and Arriva bus services.

A rather superior use of £1.5 billion if you ask me. Alas it will never happen because in order to be reliable it would need a good 80 - 90 % running along a fully reserved way with junction priorities, and obviously railways and motorways would require grade separation with it. This would cut roadspace available to private cars significantly, and this would be near impossible to stakeholder-manage in some of these areas. It would be very difficult to build suitable Interchanges at the front of some of these stations as there's too much established development nearby. There would be enormous disruption across all of these town centres to get the guideway built, and it would be tricky to protect existing privately run bus routes if you couldn't force them to use the guideway for part of their journey. You'd have to find a new route across open countryside between Digswell and Oaklands somehow.

A nice pipe dream one way or another.

So basically a Busway like the Dunstable o Luton Busway or the Cambridge Busway etc?

Of course you could always improve the Arriva Greenline 724 service by making it half hourly 7 days a week 24 hours a day in the peak and hourly off peak including a Sunday service as it serves Harlow, Hertford, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, St Alban's, Watford, London and Heathrow which would be far cheaper then the proposal above.

Anyway, with HS2 is there going to be need for Welwyn to be fixed?

 

[Bald Rick]

Anyway, with HS2 is there going to be need for Welwyn to be fixed?

No, and there’s not a desperate need for it to be fixed without HS2 either.