Proposal to convert the Abbey Line to a busway

[A0wen]

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......

You can add to that the problems it would cause at Hatfield station - the junction was to the north of the station and faced south. As other posters have pointed out the ECML at the south end is close to capacity - the slows have already 6 tph just with the 4 x inners and 2 x outers.

 

[A0wen]

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.

.

I'd have said the Mullard Radio Observatory was a bigger issue than the couple of miles of trackbed that have gone to the busway at Trumpington.

 

[MarkyT]

You can add to that the problems it would cause at Hatfield station - the junction was to the north of the station and faced south. As other posters have pointed out the ECML at the south end is close to capacity - the slows have already 6 tph just with the 4 x inners and 2 x outers.

I'm not saying a Hatfield line is at all likely, but if one was developed there is probably adequate space for an independent track to run from the former junction to a dedicated terminal platform at the ECML station if desired.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

It is a simple journey today, with at least four buses an hour doing it. And the best thing is, not only do they serve both Hatfield and St Albans stations, they also go to the relevant shopping areas and residential areas where people actually want to get to and from.

 

[A0wen]

I'm not saying a Hatfield line is at all likely, but if one was developed there is probably adequate space for an independent track to run from the former junction to a dedicated terminal platform at the ECML station if desired.

I think you need to look again - I'm pretty sure you'd need to move all the OHLE from where the junction was, I can't remember if there's space under the bridge on St Albans Rd East, and there's definitely no space in the Hatfield station area - that much is obvious from Google earth.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think you need to look again - I'm pretty sure you'd need to move all the OHLE from where the junction was, I can't remember if there's space under the bridge on St Albans Rd East, and there's definitely no space in the Hatfield station area - that much is obvious from Google earth.

Not to mention all the properties in the way at North Drive on the solum of the old line next to the junction, plus the commercial properties next to the down slow.

 

[MarkyT]

I think you need to look again - I'm pretty sure you'd need to move all the OHLE from where the junction was, I can't remember if there's space under the bridge on St Albans Rd East, and there's definitely no space in the Hatfield station area - that much is obvious from Google earth.

There would undoubtedly be some commercial land take I agree, but perhaps no actual demolition for a single track and terminal platform located here:

Not to mention all the properties in the way at North Drive on the solum of the old line next to the junction...

Agreed. Then there's more buildings at Fiddlebridge Industrial estate, and a low rise residential block just beyond going west.

 

[Bald Rick]

There would undoubtedly be some commercial land take I agree, but perhaps no actual demolition for a single track and terminal platform located here:

Agreed. Then there's more buildings at Fiddlebridge Industrial estate, and a low rise residential block just beyond going west.

There is often a misconception that avoiding property demolition is the way to avoid property cost and compensation. It doesn’t work like that.

In this example, the owner of the commercial premises affected (taking a slice of the car park / stock yard) might claim that the business becomes unviable with the permanent removal of that piece of the property. If this is found to be reasonable (in the view of the inquiry inspector), then, under CPO, the project promoter is usually obliged to buy the whole property, and provide additional compensation for ‘business dislocation’. In practice, to avoid literally hundreds of such objections, and thus extending public inquiries interminably, the promoter will usually bite the bullet and buy them out by negotiation first.

 

[MarkyT]

There is often a misconception that avoiding property demolition is the way to avoid property cost and compensation. It doesn’t work like that.

In this example, the owner of the commercial premises affected (taking a slice of the car park / stock yard) might claim that the business becomes unviable with the permanent removal of that piece of the property. If this is found to be reasonable (in the view of the inquiry inspector), then, under CPO, the project promoter is usually obliged to buy the whole property, and provide additional compensation for ‘business dislocation’. In practice, to avoid literally hundreds of such objections, and thus extending public inquiries interminably, the promoter will usually bite the bullet and buy them out by negotiation first.

Understood, and it also could be an opportunity for the system developer to increase the value of the remaining land by re-purposing say from low rise commercial to taller residential perhaps, and the existing owner would undoubtedly want a cut of that in any deal.

 

[OldGreyWhistle]

So how much will clearing existing infrastructure and laying 6 miles of concrete cost compared to a Penryn style passing loop at Bricket Wood cost?

The Luton-Dunstable guided busway (which is about the same length as the Abbey Line) cost in excess of £100 million. The cost of a passing loop (whether Penryn style just using one platform at Bricket Wood or with the reinstatement of a second platform) has now been reliably estimated at less than £10 million - including a considerable amount for "optimism" bias!
Also bear in mind that the Abbey Line now, since the recent Watford Area Resignalling, has a direct link with the West Coast main line thus making through running possible. Most users of the Abbey Line don't want to go into Watford but continue their journey into London

 

[Bald Rick]

Understood, and it also could be an opportunity for the system developer to increase the value of the remaining land by re-purposing say from low rise commercial to taller residential perhaps, and the existing owner would undoubtedly want a cut of that in any deal.

Correct on count one, but not on count two.

Yes the proposer would want the opportunity to develop the land. However that counts as a benefit to the scheme, and not as an offset to the cost. So while the business case may get better, the total cost goes up. And affordability (how much it costs) is a key decision point.

The existing landowner may of course want a slice of the action, but under CPO they are not normally entitled to any share of future land gain as a result of the proposal. Their compensation is related to the value of the land in a ‘no scheme’ world.

 

[A0wen]

The Luton-Dunstable guided busway (which is about the same length as the Abbey Line) cost in excess of £100 million. The cost of a passing loop (whether Penryn style just using one platform at Bricket Wood or with the reinstatement of a second platform) has now been reliably estimated at less than £10 million - including a considerable amount for "optimism" bias!

It's fair to say that keeping the Dunstable line as a railway wouldn't have been cheap - it had been neglected for very many years and had lost its connection to the mainline at Luton. To have reinstated it and have made it a "new" railway (even single track) would have effectively meant building a new railway.

Using Borders Railway as the example (circa £ 10m / mile) - and the length of about 8 miles, you'd have been well on the way to spending £ 80m as a rail reinstatement there.

Incidentally - the figure isn't over £ 100m for the busway - "After 20 years of planning, the Busway took three years to construct, at a cost of £91 million. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton_to_Dunstable_Busway

Also bear in mind that the Abbey Line now, since the recent Watford Area Resignalling, has a direct link with the West Coast main line thus making through running possible. Most users of the Abbey Line don't want to go into Watford but continue their journey into London

The problem - as has been repeated several times, is the lack of capacity between Watford and Euston - this would use a path which could conceivably be more useful serving stations further up the WCML rather than giving Bricket Wood and Park Street a direct London train which won't attract that many people. It's a better use of stock and capacity for Abbey Line passengers to change at Watford.

Add in the platform lengths are short - where LNW want to run longer trains into / out of Euston - and that would impact the "Penryn" style loop idea at Bricket Wood.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem - as has been repeated several times, is the lack of capacity between Watford and Euston - this would use a path which could conceivably be more useful serving stations further up the WCML rather than giving Bricket Wood and Park Street a direct London train which won't attract that many people. It's a better use of stock and capacity for Abbey Line passengers to change at Watford.

But a "Watford shuttle" (and removing the stops south of Watford from other services) does have benefits, and this is just a case of extending that.

 

[A0wen]

But a "Watford shuttle" (and removing the stops south of Watford from other services) does have benefits, and this is just a case of extending that.

The only LNW service which has stops south of Watford are the Trings - and even then it's only 3 stops - the time penalty of these 3 stops is 5 minutes, so no great gain by losing these stops.

The fact still remains running 4 cars into / out of Euston causes problems - the Abbey line simply doesn't justify expansion to longer trains and doesn't justify taking up a path into / out of Euston. Arguably if the Watfords were to be extended it would surely be better to run them onto Tring?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact still remains running 4 cars into / out of Euston causes problems - the Abbey line simply doesn't justify expansion to longer trains and doesn't justify taking up a path into / out of Euston. Arguably if the Watfords were to be extended it would surely be better to run them onto Tring?

What about my proposal to leave 4 at Watford, to be coupled to the next one back through?

 

[A0wen]

What about my proposal to leave 4 at Watford, to be coupled to the next one back through?

Current usage figures for the Abbey Line stations combined is about 400k / year - Tring alone is 800k - and that's before you count Berkhamsted, Hemel, Apsley and Kings Langley.

If extending the Watford terminators was to happen, Tring would make more sense and be more useful to more people.

 

[Bald Rick]

But a "Watford shuttle" (and removing the stops south of Watford from other services) does have benefits, and this is just a case of extending that.

But, as stated previously, there aren’t the paths on the WCML for it.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

What about my proposal to leave 4 at Watford, to be coupled to the next one back through?

Impractical in reliability terms , not to mention train crew working. There are no Abbey line drivers at Watford Junction anymore (they used to mix the work between the DC lines and the Branch) , there are , I think a handful of conductors based locally.

Re shuttles - there is a built in conflict with the up slow line - which has to be crossed to terminate in the bay , and a further snag (unless it was designed out in the resignalling) , that a train out of the bay -or off the branch - releases the up slow when almost at Bushey! ...(so any following train will be brought to a stand clear of the site of Watford North Junction)......

 

[Bletchleyite]

Impractical in reliability terms

Why? LNR manage to operate portion working at Northampton very effectively.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Current usage figures for the Abbey Line stations combined is about 400k / year

As things are now. With a half-hourly direct London service things might well change.

 

[Bald Rick]

As things are now. With a half-hourly direct London service things might well change.

They would, but not much. That is easily modelled (and I believe has been), and an increase in frequency would be much more generative.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Why? LNR manage to operate portion working at Northampton very effectively.

I just explained the signalling constraints AND the traincrew issues. Northampton is a different ball game with a benign island platform , stabling sidings and train crew and depot facilities.

Like other branch lines - the Abbey is best left as a stand alone operation , much like the present modus operandii on the Grove Park - Bromley North (and no doubt others)

 

[Bald Rick]

Like other branch lines - the Abbey is best left as a stand alone operation , much like the present modus operandii on the Grove Park - Bromley North (and no doubt others)

Marlow, Henley, Windsor and Romford-Upminster spring immediately to mind.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Marlow, Henley, Windsor and Romford-Upminster spring immediately to mind.

All of which - once - had direct services to other lines ...even Romford went through to Grays in sort of living memory)

Dare I mention Greenford - West Ealing - Paddington - about the worst use of a path into a London terminal ever.....!

 

[Bald Rick]

All of which - once - had direct services to other lines ...even Romford went through to Grays in sort of living memory)

Dare I mention Greenford - West Ealing - Paddington - about the worst use of a path into a London terminal ever.....!

Windsor had direct trains to Farringdon Street, of course!

I didn’t dare mention your last example. Thought it too controversial.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect the only reason Windsor and Eton Central doesn't have direct Paddington trains is that it would be necessary to cross the fasts to get to the slows. If the tracks were the other way round I reckon there would be - the demand is significant and almost all from London - almost nobody is going to Slough.

 

[Bald Rick]

I suspect the only reason Windsor and Eton Central doesn't have direct Paddington trains is that it would be necessary to cross the fasts to get to the slows. If the tracks were the other way round I reckon there would be - the demand is significant and almost all from London - almost nobody is going to Slough.

Maybe. Maybe not. We’ll never know.

 

[deltic08]

There is often a misconception that avoiding property demolition is the way to avoid property cost and compensation. It doesn’t work like that.

In this example, the owner of the commercial premises affected (taking a slice of the car park / stock yard) might claim that the business becomes unviable with the permanent removal of that piece of the property. If this is found to be reasonable (in the view of the inquiry inspector), then, under CPO, the project promoter is usually obliged to buy the whole property, and provide additional compensation for ‘business dislocation’. In practice, to avoid literally hundreds of such objections, and thus extending public inquiries interminably, the promoter will usually bite the bullet and buy them out by negotiation first.

There would be no hesitation if it was a road widening scheme.

 

[Aictos]

There would be no hesitation if it was a road widening scheme.

I disagree, the rules are there for a reason and be it a road scheme, a rail scheme, a tramway whatever the people responsible HAVE to go by them and not bend the rules as you assumed.

All planning applications have to go though the same process regardless so no I don't agree that there would be no hesitation if it was a road widening scheme.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Windsor had direct trains to Farringdon Street, of course!

I didn’t dare mention your last example. Thought it too controversial.

As did Uxbridge (Vine Street) - West Ealing was laid out for the bay and the berthing sidings as part of the Paddington resignalling in the early 1990's , in anticipation of Crossrail (1) ...so cutting the branch through service was made clear that far back. Not controversial IMHO.