Proposal to convert the Abbey Line to a busway

[Bletchleyite]

Why are you obsessed with destroying a very useful and popular service?

 

[AndrewE]

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.

Wikipedia says

The early years of the Supertram were not straightforward; in the eyes of some officials, the scheme was reportedly viewed as having been a failure. Running in direct competition with cheaper and more frequent buses, far greater numbers of passengers chose to continue commuting by means other than the fledgling tram network; retailers also frequently complained due to the disruption caused by the lengthy construction works performed while establishing the Supertram network.[9] The complex ticketing system originally adopted has also been attributed as having being a source of irritance and confusion to would-be passengers.[2] Within the first two years of operations, it became clear that the projections for passenger numbers had been overly optimistic, while there was concern that the system represented poor value for money and did not seem to be gaining traction.[9] Thus, the issue of what party should bear the cost became a politicised matter. Allegedly, by 1996, the councils backing the Supertram had recognised that the operation had both operational and managerial problems which required addressing, thus consultants were asked to draw up options for the system's reorganisation into a more commercially-viable venture, including the franchising of Supertram and its wholesale selling-off

I remember horrendous cost and time over-runs when it was being built because (as in Edinburgh) all the services buried in the streets had to be found then moved at the tram's expense.

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

except that it was almost so catastrophically late and over-budget that it has probably wrecked the chances of any other tram re-introductions in the UK.

Of course if we recognised that most of our inner-city infrastructure is actually pre-war and long overdue for renewal (one example: water mains leakage, which hasn't really been sorted whatever the propaganda says) and allowed public sector infrastructure companies to work together on joint renovation schemes we could sort it all out. The water mains, sewerage systems, power distribution networks and trams were mostly put in by councils using public money because they couldn't afford not to.
It was the only way to deal with the various crises afflicting the population at the time, and we have got to the stage where we need need joined up renovations now. Not half a dozen "utility companies" and all their subcontractors all wringing the last drip of blood out of different schemes, getting in each others' way and charging for repeatedly re-doing work

 

[tbtc]

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 don't think there's any "obsession" with guided busways - they aren't the solution for everything - they aren't suggested as the solution for everything on this Forum - but they are one flexible tool that could be suited to some routes - the Abbey line feels like one of them.

As for "only" 50mph - that's pretty fast for a bus - lots of train services have average speeds significantly slower than that.

Trams are (surprisingly) quite good at coping with gradients, I think!

Yup - anyone coming to Sheffield should try Supertram from Shalesmoor up Netherthorpe Road to the University - they can reach places that heavy rail would never manage.

My memory is that Sheffield didn't have a particularly easy birth,

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

Most other tram lines in the UK are directly replacing trains or running along former railway alignment. However, in Sheffield, we had no suburban train services and the trams were in direct competition to existing bus services.

If they'd introduced the trams in the 1980s then the council bus operator (SYT) would have integrated the two, like Lothian Buses have in Edinburgh (with through fares, advertising other services on leaflets, removing some bus services and downgrading others to compliment the tram) then we'd have had a much better "birth" for Supertram.

Instead, the main private bus operator (Mainline) were in a dogfight with various "independents" (some owned by Yorkshire Traction, under different names) and were in a mood to defend their territory against the trams - a lot of the tram corridors were on routes where there were already at least a couple of competing commercial bus services (e.g. the 10/11/70/71/711 in Norfolk Park, the 41/120/X55 at Crystal Peaks, various services up to the University, the 46/47/48 in Gleadless Valley, the 93/94/501/502 to Meadowhall, lots of routes through Hillsborough) so the tram came along at a period of competitive bus fares (this was the era when Sheffield Omnibus were doing £2 weekly tickets and running duplicates on busy routes) - not an easy birth.

It was only when Stagecoach took over the trams that they gained the commercial attitude to fight back against buses and to make a degree of 'peace". A few years later, when Stagecoach took over Yorkshire Traction (and therefore the local services in Sheffield) they were able to offer things like the Supertram Link services to Stocksbridge/ Stannington/ Killamarsh that would have been unthinkable for the council-operated trams to run commercially.

The ticketing was certainly a problem too - buying a ticket at the tram stop but then "validating" it before you boarded (but no guarantee of a conductor on board so plenty of fare evasion) - Stagecoach were quick to introduce conductors on every service and Stagecoach seem very good at revenue protection - the conductors are significantly more "visible" than guards on local trains around here.

Wikipedia says I remember horrendous cost and time over-runs when it was being built because (as in Edinburgh) all the services buried in the streets had to be found then moved at the tram's expense.

except that it was almost so catastrophically late and over-budget that it has probably wrecked the chances of any other tram re-introductions in the UK

Presumably you are against any heavy rail infrastructure improvements because they have an awkward tendency to go over-budget and be delayed? Has the GWML electrification wrecked the chances of any other electrification in the UK?

 

[Aictos]

Why are you obsessed with destroying a very useful and popular service?

Not obsessed just wondering on ways to increase the service frequency that's all.

 

[hooverboy]

Not obsessed just wondering on ways to increase the service frequency that's all.

should be looking at ways to increase footfall.......a link between watford junction and st albans city would do it.....any short cut avoiding london and saving time would.

same old question about "hub connectivity" isn't it?
...same with regard to bedford-bletchley not going to MKC

watford junction=intercity hub..st albans city= potential EMT hub to the north/corby,st albans abbey = not
MKC= Intercity hub...bedford=intercity hub,bletchley= not.

people don't want to be waiting an extra 20 minutes for a connection to the next fast hub, they want to be there directly...hence lack of footfall.

 

[Bevan Price]

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.



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).



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.

.

Gradients no serious problems for trams - there are some equally steep gradients on the Sheffield system. On the few occasions I have visited St. Albans, the worst problem was traffic jams that would also affect any trams. Any tram system ought to serve both stations in St. Albans, but I think the main traffic for each station would be to/from the city centre area, rather than people crossing between the two stations.

 

[AndrewE]

Presumably you are against any heavy rail infrastructure improvements because they have an awkward tendency to go over-budget and be delayed?

Absolutely not, I was just recognising that a installing a tram line means dealing with all sorts of other rotting services, which if costed against the tram will scupper it, and really ought to be dealt with as part of a work- and quality-generating and energy-saving initiative. I would happily accept trolley buses as a second-best, but we keep being told that batteries and special non-polluting internal combustion engines will render them obsolete anyway...

Has the GWML electrification wrecked the chances of any other electrification in the UK?

I'm very much afraid so: There seem to be lots of excuses around for not getting on with Manchester to Leeds. When will Swansea be done? Or the other obvious lines in the west of England... Anyone want to join in a sweepstake for the date that Bristol Parkway (Westerleigh Jn) to Bromsgrove gets done?

 

[Bald Rick]

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?

The Trings provide the only Euston service for Kings Langley and Apsley for most of the day.

 

[Bald Rick]

Gradients no serious problems for trams - there are some equally steep gradients on the Sheffield system. On the few occasions I have visited St. Albans, the worst problem was traffic jams that would also affect any trams. Any tram system ought to serve both stations in St. Albans, but I think the main traffic for each station would be to/from the city centre area, rather than people crossing between the two stations.

There is next to zero demand between the two stations. The council subsidised a shuttle bus between the two, which was quietly dropped as the average number of people on the bus, including driver, was less than 2. (By my observation).

There are also very few people who catch the bus between either station and the city centre, in my experience. It’s only a 5-8 minute walk.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The Trings provide the only Euston service for Kings Langley and Apsley for most of the day.

As well as providing (thanks to good parking provision) - a park and ride station for the A41 corridor - much quicker than via Amersham with an 8 car train vice a 2 or 4 car DMU. Especially when you can choose a seat on departure. The Tring starters also give good capacity for the busy stations further in ..all part of the plan when they were put in.

Re the question on the Southern services - yes - half hourly and a bit more capacity on the most challenged trains (which has been done) ....one easier than the other.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not obsessed just wondering on ways to increase the service frequency that's all.

The best way is probably a second train per hour as a Clapham Junction to Watford Junction short working. No need to cut the longer one.

 

[Aictos]

The best way is probably a second train per hour as a Clapham Junction to Watford Junction short working. No need to cut the longer one.

Which was the other idea I was thinking of, I can't see a second service being extended to St Albans for 2 reasons:

1. Abbey Line platforms are 4 cars long I think?

2. These services are now 8 or 10 car long now?

But you're right, having 2tph between WFJ and CLJ would improve cross London links.

 

[A0wen]

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.

Something to do with lack of demand - have you visited Hertford? It's a tiny place relatively speaking yet has 2 decent train services to London - which is why people move there. There isn't (and hasn't for very many years) been the demand for travel between Welwyn / Hatfield and St Albans back towards Hertford and Ware.

The basic bus service pattern from St Albans / Hatfield / Welwyn to Hertford is broadly unchanged since the 1980s i.e.

341 running roughly hourly from Hatfield via Essendon to Hertford.
724 running roughly hourly from St Albans to Hatfield, WGC and Hertford.

The only change was the withdrawl of the 388 which used to run 3 / 4 times a day from WGC to Hertford via Digswell, Tewin - and that service had been an HCC contract since the first round of deregulation back in the mid 80s.

If there was this mysterious pent up demand for such journeys the current services would be full and standing most of the time - but they're not.

As for a "busway" between Welwyn GC and Hertford - can I ask what you've been drinking or smoking?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which was the other idea I was thinking of, I can't see a second service being extended to St Albans for 2 reasons:

1. Abbey Line platforms are 4 cars long I think?

2. These services are now 8 or 10 car long now?

But you're right, having 2tph between WFJ and CLJ would improve cross London links.

I don't see sending it to St Albans as having any benefit at all as, as I said, they already have a cross-London service in the form of Thameslink.

If St Albans was to get a through service, connecting it to a Watford shuttle (half hourly all day) would make most sense.

 

[A0wen]

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.

The 724 doesn't serve every stop en route - as a quick look at the timetable here shows: https://www.intalink.org.uk/timetab...hValue=724&searchTerm=Service:+724&frm=search

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

I think the X5's stopping pattern is similar.

 

[AM9]

I don't see sending it to St Albans as having any benefit at all as, as I said, they already have a cross-London service in the form of Thameslink.

If St Albans was to get a through service, connecting it to a Watford shuttle (half hourly all day) would make most sense.

Rather that suggesting whether a through service is even practicable (let alone viable in passenger terms) I prefer to think that a two train service on the branch could be timed to provide a valuable alternative route not only to London, but also northwards up the WCML. Most of the VT and LNR services are clockface timetabled so the complete independence of the branch can be optimised to provide effective interchanges. In the morning peak, the few Watford starters could be served better and even in the evening, a Watford to Clapham/East Croydon shuttle could align with Abbey line departures.
It's for those reasons that I think the Abfly, (Abbey line users group), proposal for enabling a 30 minute service along the line should be considered seriously. For those that haven't seen it the document can be read here:
http://www.abfly.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Abfly-Feasibility-Study-Construction-Costs.pdf
I might add that I have no involvement in the line other than a very occasional passenger, but the document makes interesting reading, - particularly options D & E which propose a low cost signalling solution. The capital cost outlined doesn't include all likely charges but probably stands up well compared with replacing all of the rail infrastructure and replacing it with concrete (on a substantial substrate to avoid some of the issues experienced on other busways). A busway would itself require some signalling system as the line is single track throughout and a one bus on the busway at a time would be totally inadequate. Flighting several buses at a time would be pointless.
Even with there current arrangement, there are several buses passing the stations at both ends of the line and if there was a push to increase usage, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the use of those services to the respective town centre only to be included in the standard ticket price.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do support half hourly on the branch. But having said that, I actually think a reasonable second choice would be a frequency reduction. The present bitty 45 minute service is not memorable. Reduce it to hourly clockface timed to connect with specific trains to London and northbound and to arrive in Watford in time for starting work at 9 and the more memorable service will actually make it more useful.

 

[AM9]

I do support half hourly on the branch. But having said that, I actually think a reasonable second choice would be a frequency reduction. The present bitty 45 minute service is not memorable. Reduce it to hourly clockface timed to connect with specific trains to London and northbound and to arrive in Watford in time for starting work at 9 and the more memorable service will actually make it more useful.

I did think that you supported it but your post was really the latest one on which to post a return to the original topic. I've pondered of giving the line the simplest of clockface working (1 per hour) but the issues would be:
a) the existing clientele has probably got used to the current timetables and despite getting a regular set of departures, here would be some who objected to their lives being disrupted.
b) a 1 per hour service would still require a driver and guard to be available for the same duration* so once the objectors, as in a) above, chimed in the local and social media would chime in and it would rapidly degenerate into a conspiracy theory that it was a prelude to total withdrawl of services.
* It's a fact that two trains would give the same amount of unused time to each driver, but the additional cost would be in aid of developing the service.

 

[Aictos]

Something to do with lack of demand - have you visited Hertford? It's a tiny place relatively speaking yet has 2 decent train services to London - which is why people move there. There isn't (and hasn't for very many years) been the demand for travel between Welwyn / Hatfield and St Albans back towards Hertford and Ware.

The basic bus service pattern from St Albans / Hatfield / Welwyn to Hertford is broadly unchanged since the 1980s i.e.

341 running roughly hourly from Hatfield via Essendon to Hertford.
724 running roughly hourly from St Albans to Hatfield, WGC and Hertford.

The only change was the withdrawl of the 388 which used to run 3 / 4 times a day from WGC to Hertford via Digswell, Tewin - and that service had been an HCC contract since the first round of deregulation back in the mid 80s.

If there was this mysterious pent up demand for such journeys the current services would be full and standing most of the time - but they're not.

As for a "busway" between Welwyn GC and Hertford - can I ask what you've been drinking or smoking?

Okay but the 341/641 could be better managed for example operate them as one service say as the 341 or the 641 and run them on a hourly service all week including Sundays ensuring they call at both Hatfield and Hertford Railway Stations as both Hatfield and Hertford are only 30 mins by bus which must be easier then relying on the hourly train service from Hertford to Stevenage then getting the train service from there to Hatfield.

As to the belief that current services would be full and standing with this mysterious demand, I think that's being slightly creative as I don't believe they would be full and standing but they would serve a useful connection between the two towns and would be popular once they got well marketed and known.

But this is meant to be about the St Albans branch line not local bus services so the best thing for the branch apart from having a Class 230 trundle up and down all day is to get that passing loop in and restructure the timetable so it operates to a 30 minute service all day and timetabled to meet connections at either end.

 

[AM9]

... But this is meant to be about the St Albans branch line not local bus services so the best thing for the branch apart from having a Class 230 trundle up and down all day is to get that passing loop in and restructure the timetable so it operates to a 30 minute service all day and timetabled to meet connections at either end.

Er... - putting a diesel on a line already equipped with 25kV OLE is never in a list of "best things". St Albans, and Watford has enough diesel pollution of it's own (including class 22x smoke generators). As the wires are there, use them, and there is no shortage of trains to do that with.

 

[A0wen]

Okay but the 341/641 could be better managed for example operate them as one service say as the 341 or the 641 and run them on a hourly service all week including Sundays ensuring they call at both Hatfield and Hertford Railway Stations as both Hatfield and Hertford are only 30 mins by bus which must be easier then relying on the hourly train service from Hertford to Stevenage then getting the train service from there to Hatfield.

The reason why they are numbered differently is they take a slightly different route - one via Essendon the other via Birch Green. A quick look at a map of Hertford makes it clear why only one of them serves Hertford North station - because it would be an unnecessary diversion for the Essendon one to do that.

I'm not sure what purpose is achieved by linking Hatfield and Hertford stations? The only station between Hertford N and Stevenage is Watton at Stone - I'm willing to bet alot that the number of tickets sold in a year between Hatfield and Watton is in single figures.

That leaves the stations south of Hertford North - where on the whole it would be quicker to travel to Alexandra Palace and double back.

The combined service operates hourly, there isn't the demand for more than that. And there hasn't been a Sunday service on the Hatfield - Hertford 341 for over 30 years - suggesting there isn't the demand. And any demand there is to travel between Hatfield and Hertford on a Sunday is more than covered by the 724.

As to the belief that current services would be full and standing with this mysterious demand, I think that's being slightly creative as I don't believe they would be full and standing but they would serve a useful connection between the two towns and would be popular once they got well marketed and known.

But the existing connections have been in place for many years - the 724 is over 40 years old as a service - yet that hasn't promoted a huge traffic flow between Hatfield & Hertford.

The biggest flow there used to be by students travelling between the Hatfield & Hertford campuses of Hatfield Poly - now the UoH. Even then, UNO haven't seen sufficient demand from the students to introduce a Sunday service on that route.

But this is meant to be about the St Albans branch line not local bus services so the best thing for the branch apart from having a Class 230 trundle up and down all day is to get that passing loop in and restructure the timetable so it operates to a 30 minute service all day and timetabled to meet connections at either end.

Doesn't need a 230 - there are no shortage of suitable EMUs around and I doubt the 25kv equipment is life expired. There *might* be a case for a battery powered unit in the future charged at either end.

A 30 min timetable will need infrastructure changes, the cost of which will never be recouped even with a 30 min service pattern. So the money could be used to much better effect elsewhere on the network.

 

[cle]

Aren't 319s in excess supply and maybe headed for the WCML? Two units running back and forth could easily be enough capacity.

 

[MarkyT]

So the money could be used to much better effect elsewhere on the network.

So what would you do with the line if you were Hertfordshire Council?

 

[Aictos]

So what would you do with the line if you were Hertfordshire Council?

I'm not too familiar with the council in question but I would say a safe bet is they would do bugger all to the line and leave it be with no improvements at all after all they've (with Network Rail) had years to get that passing loop in place at Bricket Wood and until that gets done I can't see any improvements to the line apart from Oyster being accepted.

 

[A0wen]

So what would you do with the line if you were Hertfordshire Council?

HCC won't be able to fund the upgrades - that's going to be a Network Rail thing, which is what I mean when I say the budget could be better used elsewhere.

If HCC were looking at funding something, I'd plump either for improving the A1 or the Croxley Rail link, both of which I suspect would offer a better benefits case.

The Abbey Line I'd leave as is to be honest - it's not going to suddenly see a massive patronage increase because most of the St Albans traffic uses City for London and the intermediate stations are all serving pretty minor places.

 

[AM9]

... If HCC were looking at funding something, I'd plump either for improving the A1 or the Croxley Rail link, both of which I suspect would offer a better benefits case. ...

Wouldn't an A1 upgrade be a DfT budget matter?

 

[AM9]

... The Abbey Line I'd leave as is to be honest - it's not going to suddenly see a massive patronage increase because most of the St Albans traffic uses City for London and the intermediate stations are all serving pretty minor places.

The A405/412 route carries quite a lot of St Albans traffic and it can only get worse. One day it may need something doing that doesn't encourage yet more road traffic.

 

[Mark J]

I surely can't be the only person who is fed up with seeing existing and disused alignments being used for guided busways. Thanks to the guided busway in Cambridge, East-West rail now faces a huge problem of how to get a connection into Cambridge in the future.

As for the Abbey Line, re-instate the passing loop and re-open it to Hatfield. The latter would eliminate the need to go into London and back out again, for what should be a simple journey between neighbouring areas.

 

[philthetube]

The best way is probably a second train per hour as a Clapham Junction to Watford Junction short working. No need to cut the longer one.

The issue there is finding paths for it to cross the main line at Watford junction, I suspect that is a large part of why the current service continues north.

This would also be an issue with running Abbey line trains through to London, as well as the 4 car platforms

 

[John Webb]

I surely can't be the only person who is fed up with seeing existing and disused alignments being used for guided busways. Thanks to the guided busway in Cambridge, East-West rail now faces a huge problem of how to get a connection into Cambridge in the future.

As for the Abbey Line, re-instate the passing loop and re-open it to Hatfield. The latter would eliminate the need to go into London and back out again, for what should be a simple journey between neighbouring areas.

Reinstating the Hatfield connection would be very problematic. Firstly the route is severely severed at the Hatfield end by the building of the A1 road tunnel and other developments beyond the tunnel and up to Hatfield station, and at least one new estate across the route at St Albans. Secondly the "Alban Way" pedestrian and cycling route along the old trackbed has become very popular as a traffic-free route and any change to it would be, I suspect, be strongly resisted by many. Thirdly, the route would require a reversal at St Albans Abbey station each time - or of course drop the Abbey station and reinstate London Road station with a significantly shorter walking route to the City station......