2.5 month closure of Watford DC Lines to Euston

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:53:25 GMT, Chris Tolley <cjt.7@supanet.com>
wrote:

>jonnyboy122@ wrote:
>
>> Instead of inconveniencing just the NLL travellers and bending over
>> backwards to provide shuttle trains, replacement buses for that part
>> of NLL that will be closed, London Overground in their wisdom have
>> decided to divert ALL the Watford DC line trains from Euston to
>> Stratford via Primrose Hill and Camden Road.
>
>... and thus give people the opportunity of picking up the Victoria Line
>at Highbury and Islington, which for a good number of them would either
>be what they would do at Euston anyway or else will get them to Euston
>so they can carry on in whichever direction they were going.
>
>Trains from Harrow & Wealdstone will presumably still be going to
>Euston.
>
A fat lot of use for the passengers travelling from stations south
thereof.

>It isn't really such a big deal. is it?
>
Some people probably said the same about previous closures by stealth.

On Jun 29, 11:51 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:

> >I don't think there are even any thoughts of closure by stealth.

> There's always a conspiracy. Surely even you should know that?


I suppose there is in most case, but whoever thought there was one for
this particular matter had clearly not been keeping up to date with
what TfL, LOROL et al are doing.

--
Nick

On Jun 30, 12:05 am, D7666 <d7...@m> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 11:51 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
>
> > >I don't think there are even any thoughts of closure by stealth.
> > There's always a conspiracy.  Surely even you should know that?
>
> I suppose there is in most case, but whoever thought there was one for
> this particular matter had clearly not been keeping up to date with
> what TfL, LOROL et al are doing.

But the closure of the route into Euston has been considered and was
part of published plans fairly recently, so there is evidence that
there must be a body of opinion (not currently winning the argument)
that thinks it's a good idea. It wasn't just pulled out of the hat by
the original poster.

Charles Ellson wrote:

> From GLA Transport Committee's review of the North London Railway,
> March 2006 :-
>
> " 2.11 In the longer term, the North London Railway is planned to
> operate in the following manner.
>
> o 4 trains per hour will operate Stratford and Richmond
> o 4 trains per hour will operate Stratford-Queens Park
> o 4 trains per hour will operate Barking-Clapham Junction
> o Extension of the Bakerloo Line to Watford Junction "
>
Extension of the Bakerloo Line to Watford Junction - now that is an
ingeniuous idea, I wonder why no-one thought of it before! :-)

Any chance of getting back to the 1954 timetable, when the combined
off-peak timetable for LMR/Bakerloo was 8 tph Watford-Queens Park?

Peter Beale

trains@davidhwild.me.uk wrote:
> In article <6crfblF3ghp9eU1@mid.>,
> Peter Beale <peter@pjbeale.net> wrote:
>>> o Extension of the Bakerloo Line to Watford Junction "
>>>
>> Extension of the Bakerloo Line to Watford Junction - now that is an
>> ingeniuous idea, I wonder why no-one thought of it before! :-)
>
>> Any chance of getting back to the 1954 timetable, when the combined
>> off-peak timetable for LMR/Bakerloo was 8 tph Watford-Queens Park?
>
> Very little, I would think. Remember that there are now four trains an hour
> from Watford Junction to Euston on the AC lines; in 1954 there was no
> service on those lines for most of the day.
>
Indeed - there were no AC lines! :-) There was the very occasional one
from Bletchley or Tring, calling only at Watford Jct and Willesden Jct.

But the semi-fasts on the AC lines now are not much help to, say, folk
at Carpenders Park.

Peter Beale

On Jun 30, 9:42 am, <tra...@davidhwild.me.uk> wrote:

> > Any chance of getting back to the 1954 timetable, when the combined
> > off-peak timetable for LMR/Bakerloo was 8 tph Watford-Queens Park?

> Very little, I would think. Remember that there are now four trains an hour
> from Watford Junction to Euston on the AC lines;

I'm not sure thats an argument for not running 8 TPH on the DC.

If one used such arguments everywhere there would never be service
expansion - thats a bit like saying no you can't run more TL stopping
trains to Bedford after TLP 24 TPH on TLP because there are already 4+
semi-fast trains per hour.

--
Nick

On Jun 30, 6:22 pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:25:37 +0100, <tra...@davidhwild.me.uk> wrote:
> >I doubt very much whether there would be traffic for more than four trains
> >per hour north of Harrow and Wealdstone. My point is that the 8 trains an
> >hour was, largely, to cater for Watford's needs - and most of the Watford
> >to Euston traffic is now on the AC service.
>
> Though there will be a point when the AC service is really getting
> full due to the amount of housing due to be built along its line.
> When that happens, incentives for Watford and Harrow pax to use the DC
> lines could be very valuable indeed.
>

I don't think that the DC lines will be able to compete with the AC
for quite a while. The time difference between the AC (Watford ~20mins
or Harrow ~13mins) and the DC (~50mins or ~30mins) means it is
unlikely that there would be a big flow of passengers away from the
AC. The DC timings are, of course, slowed by interaction with the
Bakerloo as well.

> A lower season ticket fare for the slow services might be a good
> option if these can be extended to 8 or 12-car and/or upped in
> frequency.
>

Useable platform length is 6 coaches for the DC lines and I think that
lengthening to 8 would be difficult in several cases, for example
Carpenders Park and Bushey. Lengthening the AC services is much
easier, as all platforms are 12 car on the slow lines (except Wembley
Central and Queens Park which are not in normal service for London
Midland trains). Most peak trains stopping at Harrow are only 8
coaches at the moment, with one (I think) 12 coach train in the
morning peak. The only really crowded train, that I use to Harrow in
the evening is the 19.04 (only 4 coaches) (I travel in the morning
peak shoulder, so can't comment on the crowding so much there)

> That said, which is the short platform between Euston and Watford?  I
> can't think of any.
>

See above, plus Watford Junction (DC platforms) might also cause
problems due to the layout.

> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:25:37 +0100, <tra...@davidhwild.me.uk> wrote:
> > >I doubt very much whether there would be traffic for more than four trains
> > >per hour north of Harrow and Wealdstone. My point is that the 8 trains an
> > >hour was, largely, to cater for Watford's needs - and most of the Watford
> > >to Euston traffic is now on the AC service.
>
> > Though there will be a point when the AC service is really getting
> > full due to the amount of housing due to be built along its line.
> > When that happens, incentives for Watford and Harrow pax to use the DC
> > lines could be very valuable indeed.
>
> I don't think that the DC lines will be able to compete with the AC
> for quite a while. The time difference between the AC (Watford ~20mins
> or Harrow ~13mins) and the DC (~50mins or ~30mins) means it is
> unlikely that there would be a big flow of passengers away from the
> AC. The DC timings are, of course, slowed by interaction with the
> Bakerloo as well.

Put bluntly, the DC line's problem is that they are too long. There is
a useful market for all stations as a feeder to the AC station stops,
but end to end on the DC will always be undesirable. The ideal
situation I suspect would be to rearrange the pairs, a-la the Met, so
that fast and slows can mix without destroying the capacity in the
other direction. Something like 4-6 all stations stops then fast to
Euston would probably do it. I seem to recall something about a
suggestion to six track (or just add platform loops from Berkhampstead
(or possibly Leighton Buzzard) to Watford Junction for something
similar on the AC lines. Platform loops at all the AC stations
wouldn't go amiss too, as there is quite a demand for freight paths
down to Wembley.

> > A lower season ticket fare for the slow services might be a good
> > option if these can be extended to 8 or 12-car and/or upped in
> > frequency.
>
> Useable platform length is 6 coaches for the DC lines and I think that
> lengthening to 8 would be difficult in several cases, for example
> Carpenders Park and Bushey. Lengthening the AC services is much
> easier, as all platforms are 12 car on the slow lines (except Wembley
> Central and Queens Park which are not in normal service for London
> Midland trains). Most peak trains stopping at Harrow are only 8
> coaches at the moment, with one (I think) 12 coach train in the
> morning peak. The only really crowded train, that I use to Harrow in
> the evening is the 19.04 (only 4 coaches) (I travel in the morning
> peak shoulder, so can't comment on the crowding so much there)

If you could run an AC all-AC stations shuttle between Watford and
Euston using the aforementioned loops you wouldn't need 12 cars, which
themselves cause no end of problems at Euston as too many bodies turn
up at once for the gateline and the underground to cope. Possibly that
could be solved with a crossrail 3 solution...but I digress. The loops
would allow services from beyond Watford (be they freight or
passengers) to sail past and would let you give Harrow, Wembley and
Willesden the service levels they require.

<jonnyboy122@> wrote
>
> As for Chris Tolley's comment: "... and thus give people the
> opportunity of picking up the Victoria Line
> at Highbury and Islington...", a basic knowledge of London geography
> would tell you that H&I is 3 miles to the east of South Hampstead -
> hardly convenient!

If the long-term plan to divert the DC away from Euston ever resurfaces
there would seem to be a case for reopening Primrose Hill and building an
intercahnge with Chalk Farm.

Peter

On Jul 1, 3:31 pm, Neil Williams <pacer...@> wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> > The current
> > evening peak service from Euston is quite annoying, with no regular
> > stopping pattern at stations as far as Tring between 1700 and 1900.
> > I.e. some trains stop at both Harrow and Bushey, others stop at just
> > one.
>
> The current evening peak timetable is IMO a very clever juggling of
> available capacity to passenger numbers, and manages quite well the
> very difficult feat of avoiding massive overcrowding to the point that
> people can't board the longer-distance services.  It also manages to
> deliver 4tph to most of the main destinations; two fast and two
> slower, with the smaller stations getting 2tph.
>
> By necessity, this ends up departing from the almost-Taktfahrplan that
> is operated for the rest of the day.
>

My problem with it is mainly the inconsistency in which trains stop
where. For example:

the 17.34 is fast to Watford, then all stations to Milton Keynes
(except Berkhamsted).
the 17.40 is all stations to Watford, then Berkhamsted and Tring

an hour later
the 18.34 is Harrow, Watford, fast to Berkhamsted and all stations to
Bletchley
the 18.40 is Bushey and all stations to Tring.

Both these pairs of trains have a similar number of stops (at similar
types of stations), but the pattern makes it harder to just turn up
for the xx.40, for example.

Sure, the peak hour extra trains will alter the 'normal' pattern, but
why does each half-hour's worth of trains have to be different?