On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
burkey wrote:
The report answers numerous questions posed by potential service users
and describes a clear time-line for the project, which will allow the
running of two trams at half-hourly intervals, instead the current one
every 45 minutes.

Heres an idea - why don't they just run trains at half hourly intervals and
same the millions on conversion and buying trams?

Or am I missing something?

B2003

wrote:

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
burkey wrote:
The report answers numerous questions posed by potential service users
and describes a clear time-line for the project, which will allow the
running of two trams at half-hourly intervals, instead the current one
every 45 minutes.

Heres an idea - why don't they just run trains at half hourly intervals and
same the millions on conversion and buying trams?

Because if they did that, Herts County Council wouldn't get nice
little toy of their very own to play with as a sort of apology for not
getting the far more useful Croxley Rail Link.


Or am I missing something?


You're missing a politician's cynical worldview. But in this day and
age, your naive innocence is rather sweet and touching. Don't lose
it.

On Nov 3, 8:02*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"D7666" wrote in message

...

From eWatford Observer, *2:14pm Wednesday 3rd November 2010

Trams could be running regularly between Watford and St Albans by
2012,

Could they ?

Won't the existing rail line have to be subject to formal closure
procedure which has not even started yet ?

The DfT will probably end up running a parallel but completely unadvertised
taxi or bus once a week, on current form...

If you can get away with a rail replacement bus for an indeterminate
time, I see no reason you couldn't get away with a rail replacement
tram in the same way.

Robin

Heres an idea - why don't they just run trains at half hourly intervals and
same the millions on conversion and buying trams?

Or am I missing something?


The trams like the trains will not go where most of the passengers
want to go, which is central London, because we are in the heart of
commuter land after all.

Why not spend some money to allow the branch service to run through to
Euston.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
allantracy wrote:
The trams like the trains will not go where most of the passengers
want to go, which is central London, because we are in the heart of
commuter land after all.

Why not spend some money to allow the branch service to run through to
Euston.

Shame on you for coming up with a sensible suggestion. You'd never get a
job in a council!

B2003

On Nov 5, 10:48*am, wrote:

Why not spend some money to allow the branch service to run through to
Euston.

Shame on you for coming up with a sensible suggestion. You'd never get a
job in a council!

Here's a thought - would an hourly service through to/from Euston be
more useful than a more frequent service on the branch? Could the
money thus be spent on connecting it to the mainline instead?

How much would it cost to bring the connection up to passenger
standards?

Neil

On Nov 5, 9:56*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:48*am, wrote:

Why not spend some money to allow the branch service to run through to
Euston.

Shame on you for coming up with a sensible suggestion. You'd never get a
job in a council!

Here's a thought - would an hourly service through to/from Euston be
more useful than a more frequent service on the branch? *Could the
money thus be spent on connecting it to the mainline instead?


The line has a mixture of uses. During the peak there is a high
percentage of commuters who travel onto Euston whilst off-peak there
is currently little demand for through journeys. An hourly service
would not be good for the peak commuters, as there is currently a
42-43 min frequency until 10am.

How much would it cost to bring the connection up to passenger
standards?


As the connection is currently via the headshunt from the line which
runs through the yard to platform 11, it would probably be quite
expensive as a stand alone project. Either the old connection to
platform 10 would need to be reinstated, cutting the car park in two,
or the junction with mainline upgraded. There would also probably have
to be facilities for coupling / uncoupling units as running a four car
train from Watford Junction - Euston in the peak would not be a good
idea.

If the line hadn't have been severed from the main station (the
current platform 10 and the adjacent unused platform) in the 1960s, I
imagine that we would already have a through service and the argument
would just be about the addition of Bricket Wood loop to increase
frequencies. For a time in the 1980s, the peak Euston - Watford
mainline service was timetabled as though it could run through to St.
Albans (arrival/departure of the mainline train and the branch train
were close together) and there was certain a plan for this to happen
on the last occasion that the track layout at Watford Junction was
remodelled.

On Nov 5, 12:10*pm, Andy wrote:

The line has a mixture of uses. During the peak there is a high
percentage of commuters who travel onto Euston whilst off-peak there
is currently little demand for through journeys. An hourly service
would not be good for the peak commuters, as there is currently a
42-43 min frequency until 10am.

I'm never quite sure if a hotch-potch frequency like that is actually
helpful. Hourly clockface is arguably more useful, because it's more
memorable and connects with things better. Few people, after all,
"turn up and go" for a frequency like that. It's once you go below
hourly that the "hotch potch" best-possible-with-one-unit frequencies
may be best.

The trouble is that the press might see it differently.

Neil

On Nov 5, 12:10*pm, Andy wrote:

As the connection is currently via the headshunt from the line which
runs through the yard to platform 11, it would probably be quite
expensive as a stand alone project. Either the old connection to
platform 10 would need to be reinstated, cutting the car park in two,
or the junction with mainline upgraded. There would also probably have
to be facilities for coupling / uncoupling units as running a four car
train from Watford Junction - Euston in the peak would not be a good
idea.

Presumably you could uncouple and leave 4 in the platform while going
to St Albans and back? Could form the basis of a half-hourly all-day
Watford shuttle to remove local stops from the longer-distance stuff,
as I believe is the end game.

That, or make it "u"/"s" at Watford. As it's a separate platform, it
wouldn't be hard to enforce.

Neil

On Nov 4, 10:48*am, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT)

burkey wrote:
The report answers numerous questions posed by potential service users
and describes a clear time-line for the project, which will allow the
running of two trams at half-hourly intervals, instead the current one
every 45 minutes.

Heres an idea - why don't they just run trains at half hourly intervals and
same the millions on conversion and buying trams?

What I don't know is whether the consultants examined the option of
lightweight vehicles being able to complete the journey in 12 minutes,
through rapid acceleration, late braking, easing of PSRs at each end
and full automation of the level crossing at Watford North for
northbound services. *If* this were feasible [1], 3-min turnarounds
with short units on a self-contained service free of imported delays
shouldn't be impossible [2]. That would mean half-hourly services
could run, but without a loop.

However, it's clearly better to reinstate the loop to maximise
reliability, as well as building in an element of future-proofing e.g.
if new stations extend end to end journey times.

[1] A dusty bin with a good driver can do it in 15 mins southbound.
[2] The Stourbridge branch provides a real-life example.