Should London overground take over the Clapham Junction to Watford Junction service instead of Southern?

[Benjaminmorgan]

Moderator note - split from:

May 2023 changes

Question when would we likely start to see the timetable changes for May 2023. Heard TFW were going to run a improved swanline service in addition to the Manchester services just wondering if it will be a hourly service

www.railforums.co.uk

I wish london overground could take over the Clapham Junction to Watford Junction instead of Southern?

 

[Bald Rick]

I wish london overground could take over the Clapham Junction to Watford Junction instead of Southern?

why?

 

[Benjaminmorgan]

why?

To save crew & stock

 

[HamworthyGoods]

To save crew & stock

How does transferring a service to a different operator save crew and stock? You still need a train and crew to operate it…

 

[4-SUB 4732]

It would actually, I think, be perfectly good for 387s to be used on this service. 8 coaches, every 30 minutes, from somewhere in Metroland (Caterham, Tattenham, West Croydon etc) to Bletchley (in the back platform) or Northampton. Unless you do Clapham to Milton Keynes, it’s a pretty useless service.

387s have the right layout and capacity for it, and it would be a good repurpose of the Gatwick Express fleet by making it seem as though the red units are for a reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's mostly used for local journeys and was never busy north of Watford. I doubt many people are bothered by its demise.

 

[PGAT]

I don’t see a case for this change at all. If anything it’s worse because people south of Clapham Junction (such as myself) will be cut off from the line and the Overground rolling stock have speed limit restrictions that don’t make them viable.

 

[A0]

It would actually, I think, be perfectly good for 387s to be used on this service. 8 coaches, every 30 minutes, from somewhere in Metroland (Caterham, Tattenham, West Croydon etc) to Bletchley (in the back platform) or Northampton. Unless you do Clapham to Milton Keynes, it’s a pretty useless service.

No thanks - it was a slow journey from somewhere like MK. Northampton's already got most trains taking more than an hour and stopping in several places along the way - last thing it needs is a *really* slow train to London, in fact a 'fast' train to London would be infinitely preferable.

And south of Harrow the West London Line trains were ridiculously slow - almost to the point where walking would have been quicker.

If it were to be extended north, then Tring would be about as far as it should go. It's effectively an 'inner' suburban service - and comparable inner suburban services go to St Albans, Welwyn Garden City, Hertford North or Hertford East.

South of the river the challenge is finding paths and a destination which work - it used to run to West Croydon and doesn't now, that's probably a bit of a clue.

 

[cle]

I've always thought that an even 2tph from Watford to Clapham would be more useful than random slow extensions. And if this could be run by Overground, great. The 378s are a little slow but it's only on the real WCML between Wembley and Watford - and with a Harrow call, I can't imagine they are too much down or suffer much being under the line speed.

If P10 at Watford could be dedicated to this, and pathing in and out of there could work (equally any improvements on the slow drag between the WLL and Wembley) - this could be interworked with LO/NLL. Or turn at P17, eeek.

This also frees up a slow slot from Clapham via Selhurst which a 10 car train to Victoria might be able to use.

 

[PGAT]

It seems like people on this thread aren’t asking for the Overground to Watford specifically, they want better services. You do realise there are better and easier ways to improve services without all this faff?

 

[WideRanger]

I don't know if the track layout allows it, but could it be extended North of Watford to take over the St Albans service?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I don't know if the track layout allows it, but could it be extended North of Watford to take over the St Albans service?

Nothing is insurmountable, but it would need a half decent second platform at Watford I suspect and then a passing loop on the way.

 

[flitwickbeds]

I don't know if the track layout allows it, but could it be extended North of Watford to take over the St Albans service?

Very good idea. The track layout, however, doesn't seem to support it.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I don't know if the track layout allows it, but could it be extended North of Watford to take over the St Albans service?

To requote Baldrick - "why" ...............(opens up a fruitless discussion , had many times before).

((in any case - Watford already has 2 very slow London bound services - the DC lines and the underused Met Line))

 

[The Planner]

Very good idea. The track layout, however, doesn't seem to support it.

In what respect? The need for a loop?

 

[flitwickbeds]

In what respect? The need for a loop?

From what I can see on Traksy, the route from Willesden Junction only allows access to platforms 1-6 at Watford Junction. The St Albans Abbey branch is only accessible via Platform 11 at WFJ.

It would require a complicated double reversal via Platform 6 at WFJ, onto Kings Langley, back to WFJ platform 8 and onto Bushey platform 5, before reversing again to come via WFJ Platform 11. Vice versa on the way back.

 

[Basil Jet]

From what I can see on Traksy, the route from Willesden Junction only allows access to platforms 1-6 at Watford Junction.

No, the Southern service uses the "Slow" lines, not the DC lines.

 

[The Planner]

From what I can see on Traksy, the route from Willesden Junction only allows access to platforms 1-6 at Watford Junction. The St Albans Abbey branch is only accessible via Platform 11 at WFJ.

It would require a complicated double reversal via Platform 6 at WFJ, onto Kings Langley, back to WFJ platform 8 and onto Bushey platform 5, before reversing again to come via WFJ Platform 11. Vice versa on the way back.

Why would it be using P6 at Watford? They use the reliefs at Willesden and come up onto and off the slows. It certainly wouldn't be using the DC platforms either! Pretty sure Southern don't sign the fasts still as well.

 

[zwk500]

From what I can see on Traksy, the route from Willesden Junction only allows access to platforms 1-6 at Watford Junction. The St Albans Abbey branch is only accessible via Platform 11 at WFJ.

It would require a complicated double reversal via Platform 6 at WFJ, onto Kings Langley, back to WFJ platform 8 and onto Bushey platform 5, before reversing again to come via WFJ Platform 11. Vice versa on the way back.

How do you get from Shepherd's bush onto the DC lines? The biggest problem at WFJ would be the single lead onto the St Albans Abbey branch and flat conflicts on the Up Slow.

 

[flitwickbeds]

How do you get from Shepherd's bush onto the DC lines? The biggest problem at WFJ would be the single lead onto the St Albans Abbey branch and flat conflicts on the Up Slow.

Ah sorry I thought this service called at WIJ, didn't realise it didn't.

 

[cle]

I think the poster thought this would run up the DC (which would be difficult to do at Willesden too)

Even though it would run up the 'Slows' (semi-fasts really, as DC are the slows but naming) - it could still interwork at Clapham and via depot at Willesden.

But down/P8 line>P10 pathing at Watford would be the issue. Luckily not too much doesn't call, and it's probably doable but with some platform holding.

Frankly, getting an even 2tph into Watford bay (exclusive use of that - peak terminators to go to Tring) - would be the ideal outcome, regardless of who ran it. If all turning at Clapham Junction, I'd think LO (and nice for mapping / Overground feel) - but it's not that important. St Albans would be a smart fit if it was all double tracked and P11 would need to be bi-directional for all services - per Wimbledon TL - but seems risky for not much return (or demand).

 

[Lewlew]

Pretty sure Southern don't sign the fasts still as well.

They have done previously when it ran to MKC. I’ve been on a couple on various bits of the fasts south of MK

 

[Nippy]

The last one up from Watford did run Fast Line to North Wembley Junction last night as it clashed with a T3 possession. A lot don’t sign the Fast Lines between West London and Wembley North Junctions - I guess it depends how long the drivers have been on the route.

 

[WideRanger]

I think the poster thought this would run up the DC (which would be difficult to do at Willesden too)

Even though it would run up the 'Slows' (semi-fasts really, as DC are the slows but naming) - it could still interwork at Clapham and via depot at Willesden.

But down/P8 line>P10 pathing at Watford would be the issue. Luckily not too much doesn't call, and it's probably doable but with some platform holding.

Frankly, getting an even 2tph into Watford bay (exclusive use of that - peak terminators to go to Tring) - would be the ideal outcome, regardless of who ran it. If all turning at Clapham Junction, I'd think LO (and nice for mapping / Overground feel) - but it's not that important. St Albans would be a smart fit if it was all double tracked and P11 would need to be bi-directional for all services - per Wimbledon TL - but seems risky for not much return (or demand).

When I wrote it, I realised it wouldn't go up the DC lines - I travel on the service quite a bit.

It was more a reaction to the recollection that @ChiefPlanner refers to. Frequently in the forum people wonder about extending the LO DC line trains to St Albans, and the answer that really kills it (among other things) is that they are on the opposite sides of the formation, and a flyover isn't realistic. But I wondered whether, if this service is no longer going past Watford, and it's on the correct side of the formation, given that it is on the slow (not DC) lines, then it comes into play as an option toward St Albans. Of course, I have no idea whether it would make commercial or operational sense. But it struck me as possibly being neat, and might reduce platform occupancy time for 2 lines at Watford. (And nothing at all to do with the fact that I live in Wembley, and St Albans is a rather nice place to visit...)

 

[zwk500]

When I wrote it, I realised it wouldn't go up the DC lines - I travel on the service quite a bit.

It was more a reaction to the recollection that @ChiefPlanner refers to. Frequently in the forum people wonder about extending the LO DC line trains to St Albans, and the answer that really kills it (among other things) is that they are on the opposite sides of the formation, and a flyover isn't realistic. But I wondered whether, if this service is no longer going past Watford, and it's on the correct side of the formation, given that it is on the slow (not DC) lines, then it comes into play as an option toward St Albans. Of course, I have no idea whether it would make commercial or operational sense. But it struck me as possibly being neat, and might reduce platform occupancy time for 2 lines at Watford. (And nothing at all to do with the fact that I live in Wembley, and St Albans is a rather nice place to visit...)

I believe the crossing movement on/off the branch fouls the normal overlap on the Up Slow, so although it does reduce platform occupancy it does introduce other problems. It's also a single lead junction, and would require reducing the branch to 1tph from the current 40-minute interval service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe the crossing movement on/off the branch fouls the normal overlap on the Up Slow, so although it does reduce platform occupancy it does introduce other problems. It's also a single lead junction, and would require reducing the branch to 1tph from the current 40-minute interval service.

The branch has already been reduced to 1tph during the day (and to be honest if I lived there I'd want hourly - easier to have a memorable service planned to connect properly than an only slightly more frequent non-memorable one).

 

[Southern Dvr]

Right. Time for some fact.
Drivers sign the fast between North Wembley Jnc and Watford South Jnc (will be to Watford North Jnc from May when it opens).

Watford services never went to west croydon.

The best expansion for the service would be to run it through to Gatwick. That would provide a stopping service between Balham & Gatwick. I know it would be a slow service. It would however be a direct train and link Balham and stations south thereof with Purley/Redhill and Gatwick and indeed provide the through link that Watford once had to Gatwick.

Drivers would need a 1 day conversion to 387 but you’re looking at 60 drivers. The advantage of 387 is more metro style seating. The bays on the now 4 car 377/2 really do make the overcrowding worse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Watford services never went to west croydon.

Indeed. Some did terminate at South Croydon for a bit though.

Drivers would need a 1 day conversion to 387 but you’re looking at 60 drivers. The advantage of 387 is more metro style seating. The bays on the now 4 car 377/2 really do make the overcrowding worse.

Are 387s the 5 car sets with ironing boards? Those were indeed used for a bit before it went 8 car and worked fine. 4 car is insufficient even if it was a 4 car LO standee unit; if it was LO it'd want to be 5.

 

[zwk500]

Right. Time for some fact.
Drivers sign the fast between North Wembley Jnc and Watford South Jnc (will be to Watford North Jnc from May when it opens).

Why the extension to Watford North on the Fasts when the junction faces then other way? Or will signing Watford N jn mean you sign the shunt moves as well?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Personally I think all WLL LO trains should extend into Southern land. There's a huge amount of demand down there, more so than going into Victoria in the mornings.