On Oct 30, 3:42*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"burkey" wrote in message

...
From the Department for Transport
Friday 30th October 2009

Rail passengers travelling between Watford and St Albans are in line
for more regular and more frequent services thanks to exciting plans
to create a new tram service, announced today by Transport Secretary
Andrew Adonis and Hertfordshire County Council.



This raises a lot of questions.
Will the tram trains use the existing 25 kV OHLE, or will the line be
re-electrified at 750 V DC?
Will there be additional stations (Garston and How Wood are comparatively
recent additions)?
Will the tram trains be high floor or low floor? If the latter the existing
stations will have to be altered.
Are street-running extensions envisaged at either end?

Peter

Those were the questions that came to my mind. If the system extends
in the street 25 kV would not be an option there. OTOH, IIRC Karlsruhe
has dual voltage units.

Re-electrifying the line would not be a cheap, or easy, option.

On Oct 30, 3:51*pm, E27002 wrote:


On Oct 30, 3:42*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
Will the tram trains use the existing 25 kV OHLE, or will the line be
re-electrified at 750 V DC?

Those were the questions that came to my mind. *If the system extends
in the street 25 kV would not be an option there. OTOH, IIRC Karlsruhe
has dual voltage units.


There is no need to re-electrify for the sake of it ... tram-trains
such as Siemens Avanto are already capable of 750 1500 3000 15000
25000 V operation of various systems and frequencies, and in dual
voltage forms - 750/25000 V is actually the one in Siemens export
blurb.

I'd also suggest the cost of 750 V DC re-electrification could be as
high as providing a mid point passing loop, then there'd be a need for
full depot provision if single voltage DC. At least a 25 kV tram/train
can still get to Willesden / Bletchley / Northampton / wherever.

A novel solution would be to a two track covered car-shed that *is*
the passing loop i.e. build loop under a shed. All trams work in day,
spare if any can sit at Watford Jn in a sdg, at night they berth in
the shed, passenger platform - I assume we are keeping high platforms
- cab double as cleabers access.

Now where did I get that idea from .... Volks perhaps )

--
Nick

On Oct 30, 10:24*am, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:51*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Oct 30, 3:42*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
Will the tram trains use the existing 25 kV OHLE, or will the line be
re-electrified at 750 V DC?
Those were the questions that came to my mind. *If the system extends
in the street 25 kV would not be an option there. OTOH, IIRC Karlsruhe
has dual voltage units.

There is no need to re-electrify for the sake of it ... tram-trains
such as Siemens Avanto are already capable of 750 1500 3000 15000
25000 V operation of various systems and frequencies, and in dual
voltage forms - 750/25000 V is actually the one in Siemens export
blurb.

I'd also suggest the cost of 750 V DC re-electrification could be as
high as providing a mid point passing loop, then there'd be a need for
full depot provision if single voltage DC. At least a 25 kV tram/train
can still get to Willesden / Bletchley / Northampton / wherever.

A novel solution would be to a two track covered car-shed that *is*
the passing loop i.e. build loop under a shed. All trams work in day,
spare if any can sit at Watford Jn in a sdg, at night they berth in
the shed, passenger platform - I assume we are keeping high platforms
- cab double as cleabers access.

Now where did I get that idea from .... Volks perhaps )

If this is not just electioneering, then this might be a good
solution. Is there potentional to continue the route into the city/
town centre(s) at either or both ends?

On Oct 30, 6:00*pm, E27002 wrote:

If this is not just electioneering, then this might be a good
solution. *Is there potentional to continue the route into the city/
town centre(s) at either or both ends?- Hide quoted text -



St.Albans end yes easy, all would be needed is a contination then
right turn, up the hill, into city centre. Steep climb though nothing
beyond tram capability.

Naturally uk.railway will demand it *must* run to St Albans City but I
see no partcular need to do that if serving the town centre is better
especially if Watford line gets enhanced service.

Watford end would need to bridge or tunnel the WCML to reach to town
centre.


--
Nick

In article
,
(E27002) wrote:

On Oct 30, 3:42*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"burkey" wrote in message

...
From the Department for Transport
Friday 30th October 2009

Rail passengers travelling between Watford and St Albans are in line
for more regular and more frequent services thanks to exciting plans
to create a new tram service, announced today by Transport Secretary
Andrew Adonis and Hertfordshire County Council.

This raises a lot of questions.
Will the tram trains use the existing 25 kV OHLE, or will the line be
re-electrified at 750 V DC?
Will there be additional stations (Garston and How Wood are
comparatively recent additions)?
Will the tram trains be high floor or low floor? If the latter the
existing stations will have to be altered.
Are street-running extensions envisaged at either end?

Those were the questions that came to my mind. If the system extends
in the street 25 kV would not be an option there. OTOH, IIRC Karlsruhe
has dual voltage units.

Re-electrifying the line would not be a cheap, or easy, option.

Don't they need at the very least a new passing loop to allow the
increased frequency? I'm not sure, if so, why they need to convert to
tram-train. It's not as if any street running is proposed, is it?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 30 Oct, 18:45, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:00*pm, E27002 wrote:

If this is not just electioneering, then this might be a good
solution. *Is there potentional to continue the route into the city/
town centre(s) at either or both ends?- Hide quoted text -

St.Albans end yes easy, all would be needed is a contination then
right turn, up the hill, into city centre. Steep climb though nothing
beyond tram capability.

Tram/train appears to me to be about the rolling stock and not about
the town-centre penetration, certainly in this case. There's no need
in Watford, where WJ is at one end of Clarendon Road, the office
district of the town centre, and the High Street loop on the DC line
provides a service to the southern end of the town centre for the
shops. As Burkey says elsewhere, the majority of pax head not to SA
but to WJ, whether for the town or for onward connections to London.

HCC's adoption of the Abbey line and the go-ahead for this scheme seem
to me to be a quid pro quo for getting Croxley Rail Link money before
the coffers close for good on regional transport allocations (i.e.
just after the Tories get in and slash the budgets). Adonis and DafT
obtain proof of concept on a pet scheme and HCC's CRL scheme, which
has been around for longer than me, goes to the top of the pile for
what's left. Simples.

THC

wrote in message
news
In article
,
(E27002) wrote:

On Oct 30, 3:42 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"burkey" wrote in message

...
From the Department for Transport
Friday 30th October 2009

Rail passengers travelling between Watford and St Albans are in line
for more regular and more frequent services thanks to exciting plans
to create a new tram service, announced today by Transport Secretary
Andrew Adonis and Hertfordshire County Council.

This raises a lot of questions.
Will the tram trains use the existing 25 kV OHLE, or will the line be
re-electrified at 750 V DC?
Will there be additional stations (Garston and How Wood are
comparatively recent additions)?
Will the tram trains be high floor or low floor? If the latter the
existing stations will have to be altered.
Are street-running extensions envisaged at either end?

Those were the questions that came to my mind. If the system extends
in the street 25 kV would not be an option there. OTOH, IIRC Karlsruhe
has dual voltage units.

Re-electrifying the line would not be a cheap, or easy, option.

Don't they need at the very least a new passing loop to allow the
increased frequency? I'm not sure, if so, why they need to convert to
tram-train. It's not as if any street running is proposed, is it?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.
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!!~~!
4) If the start-to-start turnaround including recovery can be got under 15
mins, then a half-hourly schedule can be maintained.
5) The smart money would be to liase with the other high-platform LR
operators in the UK and buy in a multivoltage version of whatever they are
buying; possible share the engineering spare.
6) LU and NR DC supplies will be available at WFJ with the Metropolitan line
extension and possible Bakerloo re-instatement. I suspect that repowering
the OHLE with the available DC could work, even with significant voltage
drop so long as the single unit in use can work with voltages from 500 to
800 or so.
7) extensions would of course be on County Councillors' minds, subject as
always to business case and expenditure priorities.

DW down under

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.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:38:57 -0700 (PDT), THC
wrote:

HCC's adoption of the Abbey line and the go-ahead for this scheme seem
to me to be a quid pro quo for getting Croxley Rail Link money before
the coffers close for good on regional transport allocations (i.e.
just after the Tories get in and slash the budgets). Adonis and DafT
obtain proof of concept on a pet scheme and HCC's CRL scheme, which
has been around for longer than me, goes to the top of the pile for
what's left.


Sounds good if it works, but is there any evidence of an imminent
go-ahead for the Croxley Rail Link?

Of course there is nothing to stop the Tories cancelling or delaying
it if they are elected with a working majority.

"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