Watford Junction Blockade 8-25 August 2014

[IrishDave]

If everything is stopping at Watford then you do not need loop platforms in the first place so the whole problem of how to fit them in does not arise. The whole point of loop platforms being, that they allow some trains to stop without delaying those following.

On the contrary, if everything is stopping at Watford you definitely need more than one platform per line for them to call in, or you severely reduce the number of trains you can fit through. Trains can currently run 3 minutes apart through Watford; but a stop will cost about another 3 minutes in journey time and force trains to be about 6 minutes apart. In other words you'd only fit half as many trains through!

The point of a loop platform, like at Milton Keynes, is for consecutive trains to be able to call without reducing the headway between trains. I believe that was the original idea behind putting in the extra platform at MK; shame it's not really used to that effect.

A better example might be platforms 4 and 5 at London Bridge: trains leave Charing Cross every two minutes in the evening peak, and then alternately call at platform 4 and 5 at London Bridge, which can cope with a train every 4 minutes but not more than that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That said, Again, if everything is going to be stopping at Watford, then slower geometry can be used that might fit.

Ah, but the beauty of Milton Keynes is that trains don't have to slow down any earlier to cross to platform 5, because the turnout is 75mph. That means trains can call in either platform 5 or 6 at MK with no difference in journey time.

If platform 5 were reinstated at Watford with a slow turnout, then you'd have to allow for that, and again you'd just end up reducing capacity through Watford compared to having fewer trains stop.

 

[The Planner]

Ah, but the beauty of Milton Keynes is that trains don't have to slow down any earlier to cross to platform 5, because the turnout is 75mph. That means trains can call in either platform 5 or 6 at MK with no difference in journey time.

Arguable, there is a train of thought and some evidence that suggests it knocks the train behind if it is on headway.

 

[8stewartt]

well, its another line, but think about customers not money, bus them from hemel hempstead to luton parkway, 16 mins, 10.5 miles, get train to st pancras, then customers walk to euston, adds an extra 20 mins to journey times? 4 platforms at hemel, constant shuttle from MK/rugby?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

FCC is not exactly blessed with spare seats or paths in the peak -so hordes onto this route is challenging.

Some sort of DC lines 6 car working may help - but of neccesity limited stop (some platforms very tight with even 6) - a deal might be struck with the Bakerloo to cut back services to Queens Park. Unfortunatly, both 3d rail power supply and signal headways norrh of Harrow and Wealdstone is tight -

If only the Croxley link were in service ....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

well, its another line, but think about customers not money, bus them from hemel hempstead to luton parkway, 16 mins, 10.5 miles, get train to st pancras, then customers walk to euston, adds an extra 20 mins to journey times? 4 platforms at hemel, constant shuttle from MK/rugby?

An idea - but challenging .....station capacity is a problem , let alone reversing trains south to north .....station area controlled (I think) from Watford PSB though ....

 

[argonaut56d]

Hi, new boy here and first post so go easy on me.

This will impact in me in 2 ways. First being a Watford resident who lives about 5 mins walk north of the junction, my garden backs onto the embankment. And as a driver for LOROL!

The upgrade work will not be that much of an issue for me, but a few of my near neighbours have already had issues with the current repair and upgrade work that has been carried out recently, so Christ knows what they will make if this?

On the points regarding running more trains on the DC or increasing unit length, here are My thoughts on it.

Units are currently 4 car. We have been informed that the DC will be getting the first batch of 5 car units early next year, probably because all of our stations can accommodate the extra length. Most of the NLL stations currently cannot. So that will have a slight increase for the extra passengers during the mainline blockade.

We cannot go to 6 car as this would require guards and the majority of them don't sign the DC anymore and as you might know, LOROL are getting rid of guards from December this year anyway.

With the question of running a more frequent service, up to 6 tph, I cannot see how that would work, what with the bakerloo line? Unless they terminated at Queens Park. It would be too congested and we would be sitting at reds the whole time!

Also, I don't think there are enough drivers at Watford to cope with the increase? Most NLL drivers don't sign the DC either.

Something else that I heard as a rumour in the messroom at the weekend, is that platforms 1-4 are being shut in January for an unknown length of time to upgrade them and the track before the major work starts on the Croxley Link? Anyone heard anything about this?

 

[Tibbs]

This is the sign that went up last week at Euston.

http://flic.kr/p/hQaA7Z

Seems to hint at least that the DC lines are going to be the only things running South of Watford

 

[MK Tom]

One thing that would make sense during this disruption would be terminating the Bakerloo at Queens Park and ramping up the service frequency between Euston and Watford on the DC lines. Maybe have a few of the extra services skip a few stops.

 

[Eagle]

One thing that would make sense during this disruption would be terminating the Bakerloo at Queens Park and ramping up the service frequency between Euston and Watford on the DC lines.

Where are you going to source the units for this service? I'm not sure passengers on LO's other lines would be too happy about having their services reduced like that.

 

[MK Tom]

It's a 100% third rail line throughout so borrowing 313s or 377s if they're in gauge from Southern or FCC perhaps, seeing as Croydon-MKC won't be running. I would've thought it possible somehow.

 

[Eagle]

A 377 would be complicated though, as there won't be anyone who signs both the units and the route. (Same might go for 313s; there are probably some LO drivers who used to do 313s on that line but I'm not sure how long traction knowledge like that is considered to last.)

 

[oversteer]

Where are you going to source the units for this service? I'm not sure passengers on LO's other lines would be too happy about having their services reduced like that.

Not sure all of LM's 350/1s will be fully utilised in that period

 

[PeterY]

Living in Watford, it'll be interesting to find out what work, track changes etc will be taking place.

It would have been a good idea to have some thoughts on improving the services St Albans branch to 2tph

 

[The Planner]

Dont get excited, not a lot is happening.

 

[Eagle]

Not sure all of LM's 350/1s will be fully utilised in that period

350/1s can't run on third rail (at least not any more; they used to have shoegear but it's been removed).

 

[swt_passenger]

350/1s can't run on third rail (at least not any more; they used to have shoegear but it's been removed).

It can be replaced just as easily, amazingly enough.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

It can be replaced just as easily, amazingly enough.

But that still means they run very slowly (25) at the south end because they don't have trip cocks ...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If only the Croxley link were in service ....

Presumably the Metropolitan line will still be running to the existing Watford station? Is there much possibility for using that to provide some congestion relief (eg. providing rail replacement buses from places north of Watford that run to Watford station to link with the Met line to London? Any spare capacity/trains to run a more frequent service on that line during the blockade?)

 

[Bald Rick]

But that still means they run very slowly (25) at the south end because they don't have trip cocks ...

... and only if there was enough juice in the rail

 

[Nym]

But that still means they run very slowly (25) at the south end because they don't have trip cocks ...

Neither do the 378s, last time I was out on the line AWS and TPWS is fitted...

Power shortages would be more my concern than protection...

 

[HowardGWR]

When I first read about this I wasn't sure if the lines were to be totally blocked and started to fantasise about running pendolinos out of PAD dragged by 6023 or 6024, turning the clock back 50 years.

 

[MK Tom]

I don't even understand the need for tripcocks. Apparently Chiltern 165s need them to run over LUL's third (fourth isn't relevant) rail, but FGW ones don't need it to run over the 3rd rail between Reigate and Gatwick...?

 

[Nym]

I don't even understand the need for tripcocks. Apparently Chiltern 165s need them to run over LUL's third (fourth isn't relevant) rail, but FGW ones don't need it to run over the 3rd rail between Reigate and Gatwick...?

Because tripcocks are sod all to do with 3rd/4th rail, CH runs on LUL track that is only fitted with tripcock ATP. Watford DC Lines are dual fitted where required.

Automatic protection is nothing to do with traction systems.

 

[causton]

I don't even understand the need for tripcocks. Apparently Chiltern 165s need them to run over LUL's third (fourth isn't relevant) rail, but FGW ones don't need it to run over the 3rd rail between Reigate and Gatwick...?

Tripcocks are not to do with power, they are to do with signalling. LUL's signalling uses tripcocks, not AWS magnets, so any train using its' signalling has to have one

 

[MK Tom]

Ah right. So all those 66s and 20s Metronet have used were fitted with them?

 

[argonaut56d]

Neither do the 378s, last time I was out on the line AWS and TPWS is fitted...

Power shortages would be more my concern than protection...

378's do have tripcocks fitted. On the DC and NLL definitely, not sure on ELL as I don't drive over there, but am sure they do as well?

Remember we share lines with LUL Bakerloo south of Harrow on the DC and District line on the NLL from Gunnersbury to Richmond.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[causton]

Ah right. So all those 66s and 20s Metronet have used were fitted with them?

According to Wikipedia for the class 66s...

"While working on the network, they are restricted to a maximum speed of 15 mph (24 km/h), since they are not fitted with tripcocks"

Don't know if the class 20s do either though!

 

[DXMachina]

Ah right. So all those 66s and 20s Metronet have used were fitted with them?

the 20s are. Thats why Cl20 is used for S-Stock delivery too, so they can belt down the Met line at line speed rather than holding everything up.

 

[plastictaffy]

Living in Watford, it'll be interesting to find out what work, track changes etc will be taking place.

It would have been a good idea to have some thoughts on improving the services St Albans branch to 2tph

Can't be done. It's single line all the way, and from what I understand, it wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world to double it. Exactly the same as the fact that new trains won't be appearing on the branch for the foreseeable, due to Desiro's being longer than the usually resident 321.

 

[Eagle]

Can't be done. It's single line all the way, and from what I understand, it wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world to double it.

You could do it with just one passing loop in the middle of the branch.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Interesting to see Virgin suggesting in Modern Railways that they will lend voyagers to XC to boost their services to Reading for connections. The loco hauled set to Chiltern allowing them to boost service lengths and even lending Pendilinos to East Coast to allow them to run more services too.

Only problem now is we need more stock for TPE....