On 14 July, 13:30, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On 14 July, 01:09, Andy wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:41*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
Indeed, the loop would allow two trains at once, but there is really
no way to increase the frequency to every 30 mins without a loop. The
old timetable (in immediate post-electrification days) had a train
every 40 mins during the peak, but the time keeping fell off a bit
towards the end of the rush hour and there was a gap in service to
allow for this. Current frequency is a train every 42 mins at the
start of service, then 45 mins for most of the day but 45-50 mins in
the evening peak. The journey takes 16 mins end-to-end which doesn't
leave sufficient turn around times to run a reliable service every 40
mins (this would only allow 4 mins at each end).

Fair enough. The mighty wikipedia says the line speed varies between
40-75mph. Could raising this slightly not give the required layover
time...expensive I know, but we're already well off into fantasyville
here anyway. For the record, I think the loop's a great idea. I
wonder, would having 3 or 4 trains on the branch (you'd need both
termini to have dual platforms or at the very least pre-platform
loops) not work too? Two in motion, and one or two waiting at the
terminus/i for the next to arrive. Plenty of layover time.


Speed isn't a problem on the line, as the stations are so close
together that you'd never get to anything like 75 mph and I think
would be hard pushed to get to 40 between stops. On way of speeding
the service up would be to remove the level crossing at Watford North,
as St. Albans bound trains often has to wait for the crossing cycle to
complete before that can leave the station. Reinstating the second
platform at St. Albans would certainly help as well and if a long
enough two track section was built would mean that the loop at Bricket
Wood wouldn't be needed so much, cheaper to have a single set of
points serving two platform tracks than a passing loop.




But there is actually plenty of capacity off-peak to do this and
London Midland are planning have these relief services running from
Watford Junction anyway during the peaks anyway. If you look between
17.00 and 18.00 or between 18.00 and 19.00 there are currently 6
trains leaving Euston on the slow lines, add in the Southern service
and there are 7 passenger trains per peak hour leaving London. The
time penalty for the current Harrow / Bushey stoppers is 4 mins to
Watford Junction at non-peak times although often less during the peak
as many trains are Harrow or Bushey not both. For an easy example,
removing the Harrow and Bushey stops from the xx.04 and xx.34 off-peak
services would allow xx.10 and xx.40 services calling at Queens Park,
Wembley (ok the first two are 'extras'), Harrow, Bushey and Watford
Junction to run without impacting on the following service which uses
the slow lines (xx.24 and xx.54). Compared to many other routes out of
London, the WCML slow lines are not at capacity, even allowing for the
freight which runs during the peak. Platform loops don't really add
capacity whilst allowing for a reliable timetable, as there is a very
narrow slot for the fast train to run through whilst the slow is
stopped in the loop.

Is it really that hard to hold them to timetable? My main concern
would be the acceleration reducing capacity, but that could be
countered by making the loops longer. The Reason I first thought of
these loops was my experience of standing at Harrow & Wealdstone
during the peak with the platform being crush loaded and trying to
force my way back behind the yellow line when a ex-Bushey non-stopper
shot past. Incredibly dangerous, especially when you don't get the
warnings until the trains already shooting through - if indeed you can
hear them at all due to the crappy PA system. Strikes me that if you
put the platforms on loops the air shockwave would be non-existent and
you'd have less change of having your face ground against the side *of
a 90mph train if someone happened to bump you by accident.


LM trains on the slow lines are rarely exactly on time, either north
or southbound between Watford Junction and Euston. This is mainly due
to the number of passengers getting on or off. Was your experience at
Harrow before the platforms were lengthened? I've never seen platform
6 here dangerously overcrowded, even in the height of the peak with
cancelled trains. It is the actual station dwell times eat up the
capacity more than the acceleration, the 350s seem to get upto line
speed more rapidly than the 321s, maybe an advantage of having two
motor coaches to the 321s' one.


Also, it does seem that there is spare capacity, but then I wonder
about several peak gaps in service of half an hour or so (ok, 15
really, but it's 30 if you want to go to Euston rather than Clapham),
which made me wonder if I was missing something.


Southbound the service is more irregular due to different origin
points of the trains and by LM splitting the Bushey and Harrow stops
between different services (which makes sense for making best use of
the space in each train). There are also a couple of freights which
run during the peaks, also eating into capacity. There is one
timetabled between the 08.31 and 08.41 ex Harrow.

But you'll have the same stopping at Harrow and Bushey whatever train
run on the AC lines, as the existing service will have to retain their
calls. Currently the DC services have a 16 min turnaround at Watford
Junction which allows plenty of recovery time (and this is often
used). You would turn this into 4 mins at St. Albans for every other
train, with maybe a couple of mins stand at Watford Junction in each
direction to adsorb late running / power switch over when coming onto
or off the DC lines.

Sorry, I thought we were proposing additional calls? - My bad.


The LM plan is for the Watford - Euston shuttles to replace some of
the calls at Bushey and Harrow made by services which run further
north.

Current plans see 7 x class 321 units retained by LM (unit 411 and 412
have already been repainted in LM livery) and originally it was to be
10.

I stand informed and corrected

Another random thought, given the ample capacity on the DC lines, and
with a flyunder and a link to the MML/proposed Radlett freight
terminal, you could increase freight capacity to Wembley yard whilst
(depending on the location of said flyunder), possibly even moving
some freight off the slow lines between Watford and Wembley.

I'd personally say that the DC lines are more crowded than the AC. The
mix of Bakerloo trains (1 every 10 mins to Harrow and the Stonebridge
Park terminators as well) plus the LO service mean that there isn't
much space for additional trains.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:05:44 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson
wrote:
On 14 July, 14:18, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson

wrote:

Fair enough. The mighty wikipedia says the line speed varies between
40-75mph. Could raising this slightly not give the required layover
time...expensive I know, but we're already well off into fantasyville
here anyway.

Well you might be, but most others here have the sense to see that you
are well and truly in fantasy land.

Umm...trolling by repeating what I just said doesn't make any sense...


I quoted it to prove the point.

Nothing you say makes any sense.

Umm...trolling by repeating what I just said doesn't make any sense...

I quoted it to prove the point.

Nothing you say makes any sense. *

***yawn***

Really, what's the point of posting unless you have something
constructive to say? Is your life so empty and meaningless that you
get a kick out of anonymously trolling an internet forum?

Go out, make some friends, get a life. You'll feel so much better for
it

On 14 July, 17:11, Andy wrote:
Was your experience at Harrow before the platforms were lengthened?
I've never seen platform 6 here dangerously overcrowded, even in the
height of the peak with cancelled trains. It is the actual station
dwell times eat up the capacity more than the acceleration, the 350s
seem to get upto line speed more rapidly than the 321s, maybe an
advantage of having two motor coaches to the 321s' one.

No, I believe that the extensions were already in place by the time I
started using H&W. I do have a photo or two to prove the overcrowding,
actually - Took them to prov

....that should have ended "Took them to prove to my boss why I was
late and how bad things were"

On 9 July, 10:00, burkey wrote:
From eWatford Observer - 8:40am Thursday 9th July 2009

Shops could be bulldozed for new road

By John Harrison »

Shops in St Albans Road could be bulldozed to make way for a new road
linking Watford Junction with the M1 motorway.
....
....
The affected land is currently occupied by Homebase, T K Maxx and Staples
That gets support from me.