On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:45:46 +0800, DW downunder wrote:

The current run-time is 16mins, according to earlier posts this thread.
Turnaround times are subject to standards for railway operation.

1) Use of what are effectively Light Rail vehicles (in the manner of Tyne &
Wear Metro and DLR) allows other (ie non-railway, eg tramway) turnaround
parameters to apply;
2) While it has been commented that the Class 350 have tram-like
acceleration - the question is: at what cost? Vehicle depreciation and
electricity consumption in particular.

So use an old 313 or whatever, rather than ignoring the costs of a new
one-off bespoke vehicle with its own maintenance requirements. The
saving in electricity will only ever apply to a single vehicle, so it
will be unlikely to be large enough offset the capital and
administrative costs of the change.

3) If the line is operated as "one-engine-in-steam" with no operational
access to the main line (means manually locking points at Watford Jn [WFJ],
I suppose), then Light Rail standards for end loadings and vehicle strength
can apply. This means the desired acceleration can be achieved with lighter
vehicles and lower power bills - has some "green" credentials to boot!!~~!

And precludes the single best improvement that could happen to the
line (through-running to London).

4) If the start-to-start turnaround including recovery can be got under 15
mins, then a half-hourly schedule can be maintained.

With little hope of recovering from any delay. Not helpful for
mainline connections.

7) extensions would of course be on County Councillors' minds, subject as
always to business case and expenditure priorities.

IMO the whole idea is completely pointless without street-running
extensions.

"asdf" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:45:46 +0800, DW downunder wrote:

The current run-time is 16mins, according to earlier posts this thread.
Turnaround times are subject to standards for railway operation.

1) Use of what are effectively Light Rail vehicles (in the manner of Tyne
&
Wear Metro and DLR) allows other (ie non-railway, eg tramway) turnaround
parameters to apply;
2) While it has been commented that the Class 350 have tram-like
acceleration - the question is: at what cost? Vehicle depreciation and
electricity consumption in particular.

So use an old 313 or whatever, rather than ignoring the costs of a new
one-off bespoke vehicle with its own maintenance requirements. The
saving in electricity will only ever apply to a single vehicle, so it
will be unlikely to be large enough offset the capital and
administrative costs of the change.

The point I was making was that while a 350 might have the acceleration
required, it's a high depreciation cost unit - also happens to use a lot of
juice to achieve its performance parameters. Rolling stock shortages bedevil
peak operations throughout Britain. Tying up a 4-car 350/1 dual voltage
unit, or 350/2 AC unit on an hourly branch line duty when 24 minutes each
hour during autumn timetable (28 in other seasons) are spent idle does not
strike me as an efficient means of utilising resources. If the timetable is
maintained at hourly, indeed reversion to 313 or use of AC only variants
(these were IIRC 314, 315, 316 but not sure of their fate) would not go
astray. Another option, worthwile only if interfacing 10 or 20 minute
interval connections, would be to change to a 40-minute interval service,
clock face even/odd hours.


3) If the line is operated as "one-engine-in-steam" with no operational
access to the main line (means manually locking points at Watford Jn
[WFJ],
I suppose), then Light Rail standards for end loadings and vehicle
strength
can apply. This means the desired acceleration can be achieved with
lighter
vehicles and lower power bills - has some "green" credentials to boot!!~~!

And precludes the single best improvement that could happen to the
line (through-running to London).

If that was a winner, do you think the present plan would have surfaced? I
have a gut feeling that if a local campaign for through running was
activated and gained traction (as they say), the likely outcome would be a
service through to either or both Stratford and Clapham Junction - not
Euston. Comments on the loadings on the WLL might indeed support the latter.


4) If the start-to-start turnaround including recovery can be got under 15
mins, then a half-hourly schedule can be maintained.

With little hope of recovering from any delay. Not helpful for
mainline connections.

Sorry asdf, but did you not notice that I wrote: If the start-to-start
turnaround including recovery can be got under 15 mins, ....



7) extensions would of course be on County Councillors' minds, subject as
always to business case and expenditure priorities.

IMO the whole idea is completely pointless without street-running
extensions.

And such extensions would be on the agenda no doubt .... as funds can be
allocated.

I guess the primary issue needed to be addressed is this: could an increase
in service frequency increase net revenue sufficiently to recoup the costs
of installing an intermediate loop? Alternatively, could the benefit of
through services at non-clockface intervals (or 40-minute intervals)
increase net revenue sufficiently to recoup the cost of signalling the
connections at Watford Junction [WFJ] for passenger operations? It would
appear both of these have been subject to BCR calculation and have not
achieved the hurdle rate required.

It does seem to me that providing rollingstock for a shuttle operation that
is technically deemed "not a railway" for turnaround performance
requirements may prove a little tricky. Essentially either 1 unit with at
least capacity equivalent to 2 x 20m cars would be needed running every 15
mins, or 2 units with capacity equivalent of 1 x 20m car needed. If the
latter, then 2-unit operations could occur during busy traffic periods, and
single unit operation at other times. On top of these, traffic and
engineering spares would be needed - or we'll see Sunday sevice bustituted
so that the one unit can be serviced.

Like you, I have doubts about the administrative and ongoing costs
associated with an isolated, small operation - unless somehow they can tap
into other fleets and operators of compatible rolling stock.

DW downunder

And precludes the single best improvement that could happen to the
line (through-running to London).

If that was a winner, do you think the present plan would have surfaced? I
have a gut feeling that if a local campaign for through running was
activated and gained traction (as they say), the likely outcome would be a
service through to either or both Stratford and Clapham Junction - not
Euston. Comments on the loadings on the WLL might indeed support the latter.



There has been a campaign to run the Abbey Flyer into Euston in the
past, but it always ran into the problem that Virgin needed the train
paths, whereas St Albans already has a direct route into London
(albeit very overloaded)


IMO the whole idea is completely pointless without street-running
extensions.

And such extensions would be on the agenda no doubt *.... *as funds can be
allocated.


I like the idea of street extensions, but hard to see where these
would go. If you turn right up the steep Hollywell Hill you could
provide a very useful Park and Ride service to the Town Centre.
However I think the overhead cables would drive the Civic Socity into
a frenzy.

You could go straight on across the park with a stop at Verulanium
Museum then run up to Bluehouse Hill and then up to Town via Folly
Lane - and incur the wrath of Friends of Verulanium Park

You could reverse at St Albans Abbey, then take a steep turn up onto
Cotton Mill Lane run up as far as London Road then either a left into
town or a right to City Station. These roads get heavily congested
during school run time, traffic that a tram from Watford probably wont
clear.

You could run back along the old railway line to Hatfield. This has
been looked at before but dropped as the route has become a well used
cycle path.

I would have thought there is no chance of any of this in current
funding climate. However some additional stops on the existing line
might be useful - one serving Abbots Avenue in St Albans, Asda in
Garson and the Trident Centre in Watford spring to mind

Rob Smith

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:01:01 -0800 (PST), Rob
wrote:

There has been a campaign to run the Abbey Flyer into Euston in the
past, but it always ran into the problem that Virgin needed the train
paths, whereas St Albans already has a direct route into London
(albeit very overloaded)


Very overcrowded now, perhaps, but the Thameslink route is the subject
of a hugely ambitious and expensive upgrade which will provide a very
large increase in capacity.

big snip

However some additional stops on the existing line
might be useful - one serving Abbots Avenue in St Albans, Asda in
Garson and the Trident Centre in Watford spring to mind


An excellent idea. There has been a lot of development in recent
years and the present line completely fails to serve it.

I would have thought there is no chance of any of this in current
funding climate. However some additional stops on the existing line
might be useful - one serving Abbots Avenue in St Albans, Asda in
Garson and the Trident Centre in Watford spring to mind

The BRE at Garston as well!

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:01:01 -0800 (PST), Rob
wrote:

There has been a campaign to run the Abbey Flyer into Euston in the
past, but it always ran into the problem that Virgin needed the train
paths, whereas St Albans already has a direct route into London
(albeit very overloaded)

There has to be room on the slow lines, as LM are increasing the
service in December with some Watford shuttles that could easily run
through from St Albans if the infrastructure was sorted.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Nov 3, 1:07*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:01:01 -0800 (PST), Rob
wrote:

There has been a campaign to run the Abbey Flyer into Euston in the
past, but it always ran into the problem that Virgin needed the train
paths, whereas St Albans already has a direct route into London
(albeit very overloaded)

There has to be room on the slow lines, as LM are increasing the
service in December with some Watford shuttles that could easily run
through from St Albans if the infrastructure was sorted.

Where will this tram be maintained? How will it reach that location?
If it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or pulled by
another motive power unit.

My best guess is that these issues have been considered.

E27002 wrote:

Where will this tram be maintained? How will it reach that location?
If it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or pulled by
another motive power unit.

My best guess is that these issues have been considered.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/s...announced.html
says "Network Rail land for a depot has been identified at St Albans Abbey."

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:29:49 -0800, E27002 wrote:

Where will this tram be maintained? How will it reach that location? If
it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or pulled by
another motive power unit.

My best guess is that these issues have been considered.

Siemens has already built a batch of 'Avanto' 'tram-trains' that are
equipped for 25kAC/750vDC operation and are even fitted with appropriate
train protection equipment for the area they operate in.

All you need to do is borrow one Avanto from RAPT (Paris T4) for a while
to try out.

On Nov 4, 9:15*am, Matthew Geier
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:29:49 -0800, E27002 wrote:
Where will this tram be maintained? *How will it reach that location? If
it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or pulled by
another motive power unit.

My best guess is that these issues have been considered.

*Siemens has already built a batch of 'Avanto' 'tram-trains' that are
equipped for 25kAC/750vDC operation and are even fitted with appropriate
train protection equipment for the area they operate in.

*All you need to do is borrow one Avanto from RAPT (Paris T4) for a while
to try out.

Perhaps they could re-import ex-DLR cars that were exported 2nd hand
to Essen (but were imported new anyway.

The 11 P86 sets would be about the right fleet size x5 2-set trains
and one spare unit )

Even have grandfather rights ?

Not that I am aware Essen are selling them .

--
Nick