Proposal to convert the Abbey Line to a busway

[gallafent]

I don't understand what the attraction of a guided busway is. Taking the Cambridgeshire one as an example, there were massive cost and time over runs due to problems with the construction.

The Luton to Dunstable one also overran cost and time:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-22453324 (May 2013)
“A guided busway in Bedfordshire will be over budget and open about five months late, it has been confirmed.
“The Conservatives said the overspend could reach £9m for the mainly guided route along a stretch of old railway line from Luton to Dunstable .
“Its backers claim the eight-mile (13.4km) route will become the world's largest urban busway.”
[…]

Why not just build it as a conventional road, access controlled so only buses can use it (the busway has "car catchers" installed in any case).
What real benefit does a guideway provide over a dedicated road, which must surely be cheaper and quicker to construct?

It means the human driver doesn't have to steer, and that's about it I think. Having a bus steer itself without mechanical guidance, and indeed control its speed, is in fact already done, as of this year (see links below for examples in three countries), … and these are all running in a less controlled environment than a dedicated busway. This tech will continue to improve rapidly, too. I can't see there being any point continuing to develop mechanically guided buses with dedicated mechanical guideways.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44713298 (July 2018, China)
“One of China's biggest technology companies has declared it has begun mass production of a self-driving bus.
“Baidu made the announcement after building its 100th Apolong vehicle at its factory in the country's south-eastern Fujian province.
“It said the vehicles would initially be put to commercial use within Chinese cities but added it was also targeting foreign markets.”
[…]

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/27/...-electric-bus-switzerland-spt-intl/index.html (June 2018, Switzerland)
“Should you find yourself walking through the quiet cobbled streets of Neuhausen Rheinfall, you might just stumble across the future of public transportation.
“That's because this year the small Swiss town has embraced an all-electric self-driving bus that's the first of its kind anywhere in the world.”
[…]

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...s-trial-to-uk-first-full-sized-driverless-bus (July 2018, UK)
“A full-sized driverless bus will be given a trial for the first time in the UK by one of Britain’s biggest transport operators later this year.
“Stagecoach said the single-decker bus will run autonomously only in its depots until laws change to allow it to carry passengers.”
[…]

 

[MarkyT]

My suggestion is a segregated tram-train scheme, with an extension to the MML St Albans City station using tight 'light rail curves':
http://www.townend.me/files/stalbans.pdf
At the Watford end, a link under the WCML via Stephenson Way viaduct to High Street station (high platforms shared with LO trains):
http://www.townend.me/files/watford.pdf
Then a new junction to light rail along the Croxley link alignment, possibly diverging along the former LSWR Rickmansworth Church Street branch, with a new connection once having passed under the Metropolitan main line to run alongside LUL/Chiltern services as far as a new bay on the west side of Rickmansworth station. The Rickmansworth to Watford High Street part of the route could be engineered to heavy rail standards to allow heavy rail DMU services from Aylesbury and beyond to reach Watford Junction if desired. Much of the same could be possible with a busway, but clearly sharing track with LO trains through High Street station would be impossible so an alternative route on street would have to be found through that area.

 

[tbtc]

I don't understand what the attraction of a guided busway is. Taking the Cambridgeshire one as an example, there were massive cost and time over runs due to problems with the construction.
Why not just build it as a conventional road, access controlled so only buses can use it (the busway has "car catchers" installed in any case).
What real benefit does a guideway provide over a dedicated road, which must surely be cheaper and quicker to construct?

Almost every heavy rail and light rail scheme in recent times has been delayed and/or gone over budget though - the fact that the contractor on the Cambridgeshire scheme (BAM Nuttall?) tried to cut corners doesn't mean that the busway was a bad idea or that the busway isn't a massive success - or should we ignore any successful rail schemes if there were cost/time over-runs?

A busway enables vehicles to travel faster than a conventional road on infrastructure that takes up less space than a conventional road (which can leave space for an adjacent segregated bike path, like in Cambridgeshire.

It's not the answer to everything - there are places for heavy rail/ light rail/ conventional buses etc - but it might be the most appropriate solution for the Abbey Line (which doesn't penetrate the town/city centres particularly well, doesn't integrate with St Albans City, is non-standard (doesn't fit into the London Overground world but a suburban line at Watford doesn't really fit with LNW either), cannot accommodate a frequency increase without costing a lot of money (given Network Rail costs, the cost of building a passing loop on the existing line may cost a significant proportion of converting the whole line to guided busway)...

...otherwise, what's the future? Will LNW keep a five coach 730 on the branch (since that's the only kind of train they'll be running at Watford in a few years)? Or do you give it a bespoke solution like an electric 139 - creating another non-standard branch? Or just get the crayons out...

 

[Bletchleyite]

...otherwise, what's the future? Will LNW keep a five coach 730 on the branch (since that's the only kind of train they'll be running at Watford in a few years)?

There will also be 350/1, /3 and /4.

 

[trebor79]

Don't know the line in question so can't comment on that. I just don't understand the obsession with guided busways. The Cambs one operates at 50mph, which is actually slower than a bus can legally be driven at on a suitable road.

 

[MarkyT]

Don't know the line in question so can't comment on that. I just don't understand the obsession with guided busways. The Cambs one operates at 50mph, which is actually slower than a bus can legally be driven at on a suitable road.

I think that's because the generic and no doubt free to use mechanical guidance technology is frankly rubbish. It won't even allow a vehicle to be reversed out of trouble on the guideway. The Translohr centre single rail system would be better, but it's a patented single supplier lock-in and authorities try and avoid such a restriction if they can. I'm not against rubber tyres or the principle of guided bus like vehicles on underused ex rail infrastructure, but a better contactless guidance method based on autonomous vehicle technology is desperately needed. Full reversibility at line speed, with a cab at each end of an articulated bendy would be high on my list of essential features for scheduled and emergency reversing in tight spots, where a turning circle or wye doesn't exist or can't be accommodated. Some level of Autonomy would be another desirable, perhaps only on the fully segregated parts of a route at first, with a conductor pressing the go button after stops. All that said, I think a rail-based solution would be better for the Watford area, albeit engineered for tram trains that can share some infrastructure with other trains, through High Street station for example, while taking advantage of the tighter turning and steeper climbing abilities of tram-derived vehicles to reduce costs of new sections of infrastructure elsewhere on the route and allow some street or street side running where expedient.

 

[Aictos]

Have you ever used the Leigh Guided Busway in Greater Manchester that has modern double-deck buses? The passenger usage on there since inception has lived well up to expectations.

As has the Luton to Dunstable busway which seems to be well used when I was using it regularly last year.

Although I would have much rather have seen it retained as either a branch line between Dunstable and Luton or convert it to tram operation, I think the busway was the better idea in the end as it gives better local connections then either of the two above would have done.

Why on earth would you want to close it?

Clearly an extension to the respective town centres at each end would be beneficial and this can only be achieved by conversion to light rail or a busway.

Indeed conversion to light rail would be better because the issue with a busway apart from the expensive cost of clearing the infrastructure needed is having the buses from the busway getting stuck in traffic once it leaves the busway.

Any undermining of the Alban Way's current status would get very stiff resistance. Far more cost effective to improve the routes 300/1, 320, 724, 341/641, 610 etc., with appropriate priority established at junctions. Maybe make some more services (additional to the 724), express.

Indeed as to the 724, the main issue with it is the fact that the timetable isn't attractive for what is a cross regional service with a few examples below:

St Albans to Heathrow Airport via Watford

04:29
05:16
05:55
06:41
07:45
09:09
10:14
11:14
12:14
13:14
14:14
15:14
16:18
17:23
18:39
19:39
20:43

As you can see the only clockface timetable that exists is between the 10:14 and the 15:14 services, the rest of the time you have irregular gaps in service that shouldn't exist.

What would help this service in particular would be to re-structure the timetable so it has a clockface timetable at Harlow, Hertford, Hatfield, St Albans, Watford Junction, Rickmansworth railway stations and at Heathrow itself even a hourly service would be better 7 days a week.

That is only one bus route but one I feel ought to be looked at as it's the main one connecting all the major population locations in Hertfordshire.

Furthermore, the ride quality on the guided busway bit was absolutely abysmal, far worse than in the same bus on the normal road sections.

I don't agree, when I was using it on a regular basis last year I never had a issue with the ride quality indeed I tried my best to ensure I used the busway as otherwise I faced being stuck in traffic and moving at a snails pace coming in or out of Luton which isn't fun!

If the right quality was so bad then I wouldn't have bothered using it.

 

[A0wen]

My suggestion is a segregated tram-train scheme, with an extension to the MML St Albans City station using tight 'light rail curves':
http://www.townend.me/files/stalbans.pdf
At the Watford end, a link under the WCML via Stephenson Way viaduct to High Street station (high platforms shared with LO trains):
http://www.townend.me/files/watford.pdf
Then a new junction to light rail along the Croxley link alignment, possibly diverging along the former LSWR Rickmansworth Church Street branch, with a new connection once having passed under the Metropolitan main line to run alongside LUL/Chiltern services as far as a new bay on the west side of Rickmansworth station. The Rickmansworth to Watford High Street part of the route could be engineered to heavy rail standards to allow heavy rail DMU services from Aylesbury and beyond to reach Watford Junction if desired. Much of the same could be possible with a busway, but clearly sharing track with LO trains through High Street station would be impossible so an alternative route on street would have to be found through that area.

Biggest problem with running ANY tram into St Albans city centre from either Abbey or Midland station is the gradient needed to get into the city centre. That's quite a gradient from either station.

The Aylesbury - Watford thing has been touted many times - the problem is there isn't the demand. People from Aylesbury will mostly want to go to London - and the only way you'd run such a Watford service would be lose a London one as there's a lack of capacity south of Amersham.

It would be easier and better if the Watford Met was extended to Watford Junction and then anyone wishing to make a Watford - Aylesbury journey would have a single change at Rickmansworth.

 

[A0wen]

Indeed as to the 724, the main issue with it is the fact that the timetable isn't attractive for what is a cross regional service with a few examples below:

St Albans to Heathrow Airport via Watford

04:29
05:16
05:55
06:41
07:45
09:09
10:14
11:14
12:14
13:14
14:14
15:14
16:18
17:23
18:39
19:39
20:43

As you can see the only clockface timetable that exists is between the 10:14 and the 15:14 services, the rest of the time you have irregular gaps in service that shouldn't exist.

What would help this service in particular would be to re-structure the timetable so it has a clockface timetable at Harlow, Hertford, Hatfield, St Albans, Watford Junction, Rickmansworth railway stations and at Heathrow itself even a hourly service would be better 7 days a week.

That is only one bus route but one I feel ought to be looked at as it's the main one connecting all the major population locations in Hertfordshire.

But between St Albans and Watford you have the half hourly 321 - so the 724's incidental in that respect, similarly between St Albans and Hatfield / Welwyn you have the 300 / 301 running with a combined 15 min frequency - that's before you add in the multitude of Uno services covering that ground.

The 724 is useful if you're going beyond Watford - but otherwise it's just another service. And if you're heading to Heathrow it's a very, very slow way to get there i.e from WGC it's about 2.5 hours.

 

[Esker-pades]

Surely the cheapest option would be to build a loop so that services could run every half hour? Then one could easily extend trains into London Euston (using spare paths in the off-peak hours and extending the Watford shuttles in the peaks).

 

[Ianno87]

As has the Luton to Dunstable busway which seems to be well used when I was using it regularly last year.

Although I would have much rather have seen it retained as either a branch line between Dunstable and Luton or convert it to tram operation, I think the busway was the better idea in the end as it gives better local connections then either of the two above would have done.



Indeed conversion to light rail would be better because the issue with a busway apart from the expensive cost of clearing the infrastructure needed is having the buses from the busway getting stuck in traffic once it leaves the busway.



Indeed as to the 724, the main issue with it is the fact that the timetable isn't attractive for what is a cross regional service with a few examples below:

St Albans to Heathrow Airport via Watford

04:29
05:16
05:55
06:41
07:45
09:09
10:14
11:14
12:14
13:14
14:14
15:14
16:18
17:23
18:39
19:39
20:43

As you can see the only clockface timetable that exists is between the 10:14 and the 15:14 services, the rest of the time you have irregular gaps in service that shouldn't exist.

What would help this service in particular would be to re-structure the timetable so it has a clockface timetable at Harlow, Hertford, Hatfield, St Albans, Watford Junction, Rickmansworth railway stations and at Heathrow itself even a hourly service would be better 7 days a week.

That is only one bus route but one I feel ought to be looked at as it's the main one connecting all the major population locations in Hertfordshire.



I don't agree, when I was using it on a regular basis last year I never had a issue with the ride quality indeed I tried my best to ensure I used the busway as otherwise I faced being stuck in traffic and moving at a snails pace coming in or out of Luton which isn't fun!

If the right quality was so bad then I wouldn't have bothered using it.

I presume the lack of hourly service in the peaks is extended running times in some journeys, so they're probably roughly hourly on arrival at Heathrow in the morning, but have various longer running times to get there due to traffic congestion.

Similarly they leave Harlow hourly, but evening journeys get screwed up by traffic, creating evening peak gaps.

 

[gallafent]

If the right quality was so bad then I wouldn't have bothered using it.

Fair enough It was a few years ago now that I used it, and I do remember there was talk of remedial work to improve the situation (I just remember a constant crashing at every joint between the concrete slabs!) … so I guess that's probably taken place, which is good if so! … but it doesn't alter the congestion problem off the ends, and so I would still miss my train …

 

[A0wen]

Surely the cheapest option would be to build a loop so that services could run every half hour? Then one could easily extend trains into London Euston (using spare paths in the off-peak hours and extending the Watford shuttles in the peaks).

I suspect platform lengths are also a problem as LNWR are trying to move away from 4 car sets running into and out of Euston. I'm not sure the platforms on the Abbey line are long enough for 8 cars? That and you'd be carting fresh air around between St Albans and Watford on 8 car trains....

 

[MarkyT]

Biggest problem with running ANY tram into St Albans city centre from either Abbey or Midland station is the gradient needed to get into the city centre. That's quite a gradient from either station.

The Aylesbury - Watford thing has been touted many times - the problem is there isn't the demand. People from Aylesbury will mostly want to go to London - and the only way you'd run such a Watford service would be lose a London one as there's a lack of capacity south of Amersham.

It would be easier and better if the Watford Met was extended to Watford Junction and then anyone wishing to make a Watford - Aylesbury journey would have a single change at Rickmansworth.

That would still require the expensive Croxley Link infrastructure or some other means of linking the lines together.

It is also the thrust of my initial idea to create a St Albans City - Rickmansworth tram-train via Watford Junction and High Street. I merely noted the opportunity to make the High Street - Rickmansworth section also heavy rail compatible for such Aylesbury - Watford services. The link need not be heavy rail compatible if there was no identifiable demand for such extended service or excessive cost involved.

In St Albans, the basic tram-train configuration only goes to a terminus at City with a 'possibility' of street extension closer to the centre. It is using tram-derived vehicles predominantly to allow negotiation of tighter curves and steeper gradients rather than to allow much, or indeed any, street running, although of course exploitation of tramway legislation would allow additional level crossings, especially for cost effective level passenger access at stations new where new double track is provided or passing loops are added.

 

[Aictos]

But between St Albans and Watford you have the half hourly 321 - so the 724's incidental in that respect, similarly between St Albans and Hatfield / Welwyn you have the 300 / 301 running with a combined 15 min frequency - that's before you add in the multitude of Uno services covering that ground.

The 724 is useful if you're going beyond Watford - but otherwise it's just another service. And if you're heading to Heathrow it's a very, very slow way to get there i.e from WGC it's about 2.5 hours.

The thing with the 724 is it really ought to be a express service calling at the main points between Harlow and Heathrow not at every local stop en route.

Think Stagecoach's X5 service between Cambridge and Oxford etc....

Surely the cheapest option would be to build a loop so that services could run every half hour? Then one could easily extend trains into London Euston (using spare paths in the off-peak hours and extending the Watford shuttles in the peaks).

Yes and No by that I mean the cheapest and best option would be to have a passing loop on the line then have a half hourly service as a result which ought to build up custom having a more reliable and frequent service.

No, I don't believe in extending trains to London Euston saying that if money was no object and the passing loop was in place then maybe just maybe there could be the option of cutting back the East Croydon to Milton Keynes service to Watford Junction and diverting to serve St Albans with the Tring stoppers being extended to Milton Keynes to cover the removed SN service especially with the signalling that got upgraded a few years ago at Watford Junction.

I'm sure @Bald Rick, @The Planner or @ChiefPlanner will be along to correct me...

Fair enough It was a few years ago now that I used it, and I do remember there was talk of remedial work to improve the situation (I just remember a constant crashing at every joint between the concrete slabs!) … so I guess that's probably taken place, which is good if so! … but it doesn't alter the congestion problem off the ends, and so I would still miss my train …

I don't know anything about any remedial work but you're right about the congestion issues especially in Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard.

I suspect platform lengths are also a problem as LNWR are trying to move away from 4 car sets running into and out of Euston. I'm not sure the platforms on the Abbey line are long enough for 8 cars? That and you'd be carting fresh air around between St Albans and Watford on 8 car trains....

As far as I am aware the platforms are only long enough for 4 cars which is why they use 4 car trains as to running 4 car trains into London Euston, that to me is a big no no as they ought to be 8 cars or 12 cars especially with the limited paths available on the very busy WCML.

 

[Bevan Price]

The Leigh Guided Busway as such was built on the line of the railway from Leigh to Ellenbrook (both station areas on the now-defunct Tyldesley loop line) but from Ellenbrook it uses the major East Lancashire Road (where a large Park and Ride facility was installed at the M60 link) and from there, long road stretches now have special bus lanes to aid the service provision. Now that the Manchester terminus is extended to the very large multi-million pound Manchester Royal Infirmary complex, these buses serve both the large university campus sites of both Salford University and Manchester University as well as city core areas of Manchester.

I find two problems with the Leigh misguided bus service.
1. Silly Salford council put a 40 mph limit on the entire length of the A580 in their area - a road with at least 4 lanes, and some shorter sections with 6 lanes - for a distance of several miles - often with no housing on either side of the road.

2. Although the bus journey is quite quick from Leigh as far as Salford University, it becomes painfully slow through the city centres of Salford / Manchester, so the time between Leigh & Manchester city centre is probably at least 20 minutes slower than would have been possible by train. And even longer for me recently when the bus was stuck in one road for over 30 minutes because some silly demonstration was blocking Deansgate in Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing with the 724 is it really ought to be a express service calling at the main points between Harlow and Heathrow not at every local stop en route.

Think Stagecoach's X5 service between Cambridge and Oxford etc....

Which serves all stops between Bedford and Cambridge due to the withdrawal of the former "stopping service"

No, I don't believe in extending trains to London Euston saying that if money was no object and the passing loop was in place then maybe just maybe there could be the option of cutting back the East Croydon to Milton Keynes service to Watford Junction and diverting to serve St Albans with the Tring stoppers being extended to Milton Keynes to cover the removed SN service especially with the signalling that got upgraded a few years ago at Watford Junction.

What on earth would be the point in that? St Albans already has a service across London, whereas us a bit further north like ours (when SN can be bothered to run it).

As far as I am aware the platforms are only long enough for 4 cars which is why they use 4 car trains as to running 4 car trains into London Euston, that to me is a big no no as they ought to be 8 cars or 12 cars especially with the limited paths available on the very busy WCML.

I suppose 4 could be left at Watford and picked up on the return.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The practical solution , which could have been done for much less than the pointless Sundon Loop on MML ,(a favourite of mine , let alone the Rotherham tram scheme) - would be to clearly out the Bricket Wood loop back in and run at least a 30 min frequency service (maybe 20 min in the "peak") ...there are enough surplus EMU's around to get a fair price for one or two extra sets. Forget about extending for now , to exotic places like Aylesbury or Welwyn - and certainly Euston - as WCML slow line paths are too valuable) - for all users. Including and especially freight. The Southern service is a huge asset. Needs to be kept and developed.

A glimmer of hope is the ongoing debate about the site of the so-called Radlett Railfreight terminal (expect to be shot down in flames over this) , which local views are to build a decent mixed development Garden suburb on the site (thus saving the Green Belt elsewhere and squadrons of unwanted HGV's) , which could have an extra station on the Abbey Line , served by a new , well located station beyond Park Street with all sorts of bike and walking routes etc.

The clincher is - and mentioned before , is that you wound need extension of the present basic signalling system , which ends at Garston to B/Wood - and probably a minor interlocking to control the loop. Not rocket science but should be easily enough done - along with "Oysterisation" and better ticket checking on board - does not need to be a conductor - but what we used to call an "ATI" (Assistant Ticket Inspector" - akin to Sheffield say.

 

[AndrewE]

Biggest problem with running ANY tram into St Albans city centre from either Abbey or Midland station is the gradient needed to get into the city centre. That's quite a gradient from either station.

Trams are (surprisingly) quite good at coping with gradients, I think.
I would suggest that the biggest problem with installing a tram system in the UK nowadays is our utter institutional incompetence. We don't know where the [neglected and rotting] services are in the roads, we have no experienced designers or contractors, consultants are so determined to make everything bomb-proof that they a) spend a fortune on scoping studies etc. and then b) so over-design everything that it ceases to be cost-effective. And that's before you start tendering for a contractor to run it for you!
I give up!

 

[Antman]

Trams are (surprisingly) quite good at coping with gradients, I think.
I would suggest that the biggest problem with installing a tram system in the UK nowadays is our utter institutional incompetence. We don't know where the services are in the roads, we have no experienced designers or contractors, consultants are so determined to make everything bomb-proof that they a) spend a fortune on scoping studies etc. and then b) so over-design everything that it ceases to be cost-effective. And that's before you start tendering for a contractor to run it for you!
I give up!

I was going to make the same point, there are some steep gradients on Croydon Tramlink.

 

[Ianno87]

Trams are (surprisingly) quite good at coping with gradients, I think.
I would suggest that the biggest problem with installing a tram system in the UK nowadays is our utter institutional incompetence. We don't know where the services are in the roads, we have no experienced designers or contractors, consultants are so determined to make everything bomb-proof that they a) spend a fortune on scoping studies etc. and then b) so over-design everything that it ceases to be cost-effective. And that's before you start tendering for a contractor to run it for you!
I give up!

Could swear that there'd been oodles of successful Manchester Metrolink extensions over the past decade, with many sections of street running involved...

 

[AndrewE]

Could swear that there'd been oodles of successful Manchester Metrolink extensions over the past decade, with many sections of street running involved...

My memory is that Sheffield didn't have a particularly easy birth, Manchester and Croydon stole most of their right-of-way from the real railway, and Edinburgh was a disaster. Rotherham hasn't really delivered yet... any others? Blackpool is the only success: underwritten by the town council, its success is no doubt the consequence of holding on to their expertise.

 

[The Planner]

No, I don't believe in extending trains to London Euston saying that if money was no object and the passing loop was in place then maybe just maybe there could be the option of cutting back the East Croydon to Milton Keynes service to Watford Junction and diverting to serve St Albans with the Tring stoppers being extended to Milton Keynes to cover the removed SN service especially with the signalling that got upgraded a few years ago at Watford Junction.

Not sure, bearing in mind the Trings are the first to go if it all goes pear shaped so you would lose a stopping MK service and it would make the infrastructure at Tring a bit redundant.

 

[Ianno87]

My memory is that Sheffield didn't have a particularly easy birth, Manchester and Croydon stole most of their right-of-way from the real railway, and Edinburgh was a disaster. Rotherham hasn't really delivered yet... any others? Blackpool is the only success: underwritten by the town council, its success is no doubt the consequence of holding on to their expertise.

Your statement on Manchester is true...

If you ignore the city centre, the entirety of the Eccles, Ashton and Airport lines, the future Trafford Park Line, and Oldham/Rochdale Town Centres...

 

[John Webb]

Trams are (surprisingly) quite good at coping with gradients, I think.
I would suggest that the biggest problem with installing a tram system in the UK nowadays is our utter institutional incompetence. We don't know where the [neglected and rotting] services are in the roads, we have no experienced designers or contractors, consultants are so determined to make everything bomb-proof that they a) spend a fortune on scoping studies etc. and then b) so over-design everything that it ceases to be cost-effective. And that's before you start tendering for a contractor to run it for you!
I give up!

AndrewE - there was a lengthy discussion about a tram link between the two St Albans Stations two or three years back. I'd agree that trams probably would cope with the gradients, but the principal problem in St Albans is the narrow streets on about half the route, part of the medieval layout of the town centre that they would have to traverse. There is little room now for the present vehicular traffic and large numbers of pedestrians; I just can't visualise how trams would be able to be accommodated as well and give a reliable regular service to the extent that they could help to reduce traffic. And to be honest I am uncertain just how many (or few) people need to go between the two stations - would it be enough to make a tram system viable?

 

[Busaholic]

Indeed as to the 724, the main issue with it is the fact that the timetable isn't attractive for what is a cross regional service with a few examples below:

St Albans to Heathrow Airport via Watford

04:29
05:16
05:55
06:41
07:45
09:09
10:14
11:14
12:14
13:14
14:14
15:14
16:18
17:23
18:39
19:39
20:43

As you can see the only clockface timetable that exists is between the 10:14 and the 15:14 services, the rest of the time you have irregular gaps in service that shouldn't exist.

What would help this service in particular would be to re-structure the timetable so it has a clockface timetable at Harlow, Hertford, Hatfield, St Albans, Watford Junction, Rickmansworth railway stations and at Heathrow itself even a hourly service would be better 7 days a week.

That is only one bus route but one I feel ought to be looked at as it's the main one connecting all the major population locations in Hertfordshire.



I don't agree, when I was using it on a regular basis last year I never had a issue with the ride quality indeed I tried my best to ensure I used the busway as otherwise I faced being stuck in traffic and moving at a snails pace coming in or out of Luton which isn't fun!

If the right quality was so bad then I wouldn't have bothered using it.

Although it might be desirable to offer a clockface hourly service, it would cost an extra bus/coach and driver in each peak, with extended non-productive layovers at each end on occasions when timings weren't up the creek. That extra bus/coach could well be enough to make the service unviable. An alternative scenario, which some operators will cling to at all costs until brought to book, is to keep the same number of buses as now and pretend to offer an hourly service, even though it might be impossible to maintain under normal circumstances. Personally, I'd go down the route they're using now and hope (a) that intending passengers have a copy of the timetable and (b) that regular passengers understand the constraints under which the route runs.

 

[AndrewE]

AndrewE - there was a lengthy discussion about a tram link between the two St Albans Stations two or three years back. I'd agree that trams probably would cope with the gradients, but the principal problem in St Albans is the narrow streets on about half the route, part of the medieval layout of the town centre that they would have to traverse. There is little room now for the present vehicular traffic and large numbers of pedestrians; I just can't visualise how trams would be able to be accommodated as well and give a reliable regular service to the extent that they could help to reduce traffic. And to be honest I am uncertain just how many (or few) people need to go between the two stations - would it be enough to make a tram system viable?

I was really just arguing the point about whether trams could cope with gradients - and then whether it is even worth trying to introduce trams in today's UK. I would prefer to see heavy rail maintained and joined up wherever practicable, whether it be St Albans - or Colne to Skipton. To my mind a branch line without a main line connection at each end is a railway line wasted.
If there isn't room in St Albans for trams (and buses), pedestrians and and cars then I would say the answer is obvious: ban the cars. It works very well in medieval cities abroad, and it would protect the people using their own energy (legs) from the pollution generated by the people who insist on driving.

 

[Bald Rick]

My suggestion is a segregated tram-train scheme, with an extension to the MML St Albans City station using tight 'light rail curves':
http://www.townend.me/files/stalbans.pdf

I’m reasonably sure the topography doesn’t work for that, not least getting across London
Road. It would need some residential demolition, and it gets awfully close to the 125 new flats at Ziggurat.

Yes and No by that I mean the cheapest and best option would be to have a passing loop on the line then have a half hourly service as a result which ought to build up custom having a more reliable and frequent service.

No, I don't believe in extending trains to London Euston saying that if money was no object and the passing loop was in place then maybe just maybe there could be the option of cutting back the East Croydon to Milton Keynes service to Watford Junction and diverting to serve St Albans with the Tring stoppers being extended to Milton Keynes to cover the removed SN service especially with the signalling that got upgraded a few years ago at Watford Junction.

I'm sure @Bald Rick, @The Planner or @ChiefPlanner will be along to correct me...

As mentioned last time we had this discussion, any extension of paths down the WCML is a waste of paths (most of which don’t exist) and has the potential to screw up the slow lines whenever a branch train is late off, meaning the next down branch train can’t get on. Unless you build two loops, one of which at Watford on the branch (with two platforms).

I was really just arguing the point about whether trams could cope with gradients - and then whether it is even worth trying to introduce trams in today's UK. I would prefer to see heavy rail maintained and joined up wherever practicable, whether it be St Albans - or Colne to Skipton. To my mind a branch line without a main line connection at each end is a railway line wasted.
If there isn't room in St Albans for trams (and buses), pedestrians and and cars then I would say the answer is obvious: ban the cars. It works very well in medieval cities abroad, and it would protect the people using their own energy (legs) from the pollution generated by the people who insist on driving.

The issue is that Holywell Hill is a main residential street, and is also the main access route both for people living in several houses immediately off it, and for a whole swathe of people who access the town from the south west direction. Banning cars will make life very difficult for several thousand people for whom that road is the main, and in some cases only, access their property.

However, having driven up it 20 minutes ago, (as I do about 3 times a week) I can say there definitely is room for all types of vehicle, including trams (which would be rather less frequent than buses on the road). What is needed is a ban on parking on the road itself. The gradient is about 10% according to my legs when cycling it, I genuinely don’t know if that is within tram capability.

A tram would certainly be able to offer a quicker, more frequent, extendable, and cheaper to upgrade service. However the economies of scale don’t help, you’d only need 3 trams for a 15 minute service, but still need a maintenance facility etc.

Anyway, a busway isn’t practical. The route is single track with single track bridges.

 

[Bedpan]

But between St Albans and Watford you have the half hourly 321 - so the 724's incidental in that respect, similarly between St Albans and Hatfield / Welwyn you have the 300 / 301 running with a combined 15 min frequency - that's before you add in the multitude of Uno services covering that ground.

The 724 is useful if you're going beyond Watford - but otherwise it's just another service. And if you're heading to Heathrow it's a very, very slow way to get there i.e from WGC it's about 2.5 hours.

There's not much else from MML land to Hertford other than the 724 though. What they could do (I say this with my tongue in cheek) is make it a truly limited stop service and run it along a bus way from Watford to St Albans Abbey, up Holywell Hill to the City Centre, and then down London Road to join a second busway to the A1(M) bridge just outside Hatfield, then down conventional roads to Welwyn Garden City, and then along a third busway from Welwyn GC to Hertford. Not sure that Sustrans/walkers/cyclists would be too happy, mind. BTW the 321 frequency is every 20 minutes.

 

[Aictos]

My memory is that Sheffield didn't have a particularly easy birth, Manchester and Croydon stole most of their right-of-way from the real railway, and Edinburgh was a disaster. Rotherham hasn't really delivered yet... any others? Blackpool is the only success: underwritten by the town council, its success is no doubt the consequence of holding on to their expertise.

I disagree to a point:

Sheffield

Yes you were right that the early operations were certainly hindered by a complex ticketing system and the initially small coverage area, contributing to disappointing ridership figures during its first years.

However in 1997 when Stagecoach took over operations and following management and operational changes, as well as further expansion of the system, ridership numbers have risen considerably.

Also you forgot that Rotherham is just a extension of the Sheffield network, they don't have their own network.

Edinburgh

I can't see how you can count Edinburgh as a disaster apart from the various disputes between Edinburgh Council and the Tram Contractors especially considering the following facts:

Edinburgh Trams in its first year of operation had 4.92 million passengers travelling on the system which increased to 5.38 million in its second year of operation.

This basically means that this is 6.7% greater than the target set before the system's launch.

Also note that Edinburgh Trams had achieved profitability two years ahead of schedule.

See here

Now that doesn't sound much like a disaster to me!

Manchester

You seem to forget about the Second City Crossing, Eccles Line, East Manchester Line and the Trafford Park line none of which are using former rail alignments.

The South Manchester Line does use a former rail alignment but one that was taken out of service with track lifted between 1970 and 1989 so is actually being of more use these days.

The practical solution would be to clearly out the Bricket Wood loop back in and run at least a 30 min frequency service (maybe 20 min in the "peak") ...there are enough surplus EMU's around to get a fair price for one or two extra sets.

The clincher is - and mentioned before , is that you wound need extension of the present basic signalling system , which ends at Garston to B/Wood - and probably a minor interlocking to control the loop. Not rocket science but should be easily enough done - along with "Oysterisation" and better ticket checking on board - does not need to be a conductor - but what we used to call an "ATI" (Assistant Ticket Inspector" - akin to Sheffield say.

For one a passing loop at Bricket Wood would easily increase passenger numbers with a much improved service like you say being every 30 mins or maybe 20 mins in the peak like the old saying goes Build it and they will come...

Also Oysterisation will come especially as it's been announced that Oyster will come to more Home Counties stations including St Albans City so makes sense to include the Abbey Line in that roll out by December 2019.

Article here on the expansion announcement as to better ticket checking I agree as it comes across as a free ride at the moment.

The Southern service is a huge asset. Needs to be kept and developed.

So as it's a huge asset (your words) what ought to be done to develop it further apart from operating it as a half hourly service?

Not sure, bearing in mind the Trings are the first to go if it all goes pear shaped so you would lose a stopping MK service and it would make the infrastructure at Tring a bit redundant.

I'm not familiar with the Trings so didn't know they were the first to go if it all goes a tad Pete Tong, maybe extending the Trings to Milton Keynes and having the SN services terminate at Tring instead?