Croxley Rail Link

[Sesquip]

Incidentally, this is going to make a pretty big change to the tube map. The two Watford stations are widely separated on the current one. There's also the matter of zones. Watford station is currently in 7, but Watford Junction is in 9.

[Never give up]

Originally Posted by Tubeman

Oh please just build the fucking thing!!!

Can't believe that 250m of railway has been getting talked about for decades...

They listened to your sound advice Tubeman.


http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/gener...cluded-in.html

[mr_jrt]

I'm so very happy about this. I just hope they build the viaduct to handle sufficiently large loadings for non-TfL use in the distant future (i.e. freight coming off the WCML...or other mainlines via St Albans.... )

I wonder if the congestion between Watford High Street Junction and Watford Junction would ever justify expanding Watford High Street northwards to 4 tracks. There is the space available before the ring road, and you could take the opportunity to build a new ticket office under the ring road with an entrance at either the Pyramid or the buildings opposite with a passageway directly into the Harlequin, providing direct interchange with the bus stops, which are currently separated form the station by a very busy ring road. the bridge needs replacing anyway, as it has a severe weight restriction on it at present as well.

...of course, the new housing being built on the disused industrial properties north of the bridge mean you wouldn't get four tracks through there...which is a shame...but there you go. I'd have liked to have seen four tracks though here with two diving down to connect to the St. Albans branch.

Another option would be to reinstate the disused line to Rickmansworth up to where it passes under the Met and build a north-facing junction to the fast lines. This would let Chiltern skip Croxley, Ascot Road and Watford Hospital en-route to WJ. The Met could operate terminating services to the existing Watford Met to free up the paths through Watford High Street for them...

[cle]

Does any freight ever share lines with the tube? So for example on the DC lines?

[sotonsi]

4-track seems a bit excessive. Obviously the 4-track between Harrow and Moor Park carries a similar amount of traffic to Watford Junction - Watford High Street if there's north curve services, but that was 4-tracked when the GCML had the fast tracks. 4-tracking the route seems to be excessive, unless coupled with a wider scheme to build an E-W line across Herts (upgrading the Abbey line and diverting it into the main station at the very least).

The Pyramid as a ticket hall and main entrance would be excellent.

[Glom]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

The Pyramid as a ticket hall and main entrance would be excellent.

Great idea, especially as that building is the kiss of death to any other business that tries to set up there.

It would be great if Chiltern took the opportunity here as well.

[DeepThought]

I'm really happy to hear this news. Just a shame it's come 10 years late to save me the long walk from Watford Met to Croxley Business Park during my summer jobs there!

[cle]

It's great news. Hopefully it will be a boon for Watford town in terms of shopping, and also for Junction in terms of the business up that way, and also the station itself which has had a big decline - largely due to Virgin barely stopping there any more.

It used to get 1tp2h (alternating with MK) on Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow trains and an hourly Birmingham. Now it only has that hourly Birmingham, in addition to a few random peak and graveyard shift calls. Perhaps it will regain some of its former importance with this and return to being Herts and outer North London's railhead for the North West.

[sotonsi]

HS2 will allow Watford Junction to have more trains to up north.

[cle]

That won't be running for another 15 years, let's be honest.

If they can path today's Birmingham and it all works on a clockface (20 min rotation), they should be able to path 2 other stops.

It might mean putting the LM Trent Valley on the slow lines though.

[mr_jrt]

...in an ideal world, I'd like a rebuild to bring platform 5 back into use for the fast lines, enabling services to stop without blocking the lines and thus reducing capacity.

[Sesquip]

This will be built as cheaply as possible. No four tracking or freight loading viaducts, you can bet on it.

[cle]

Originally Posted by mr_jrt

...in an ideal world, I'd like a rebuild to bring platform 5 back into use for the fast lines, enabling services to stop without blocking the lines and thus reducing capacity.

As in at Milton Keynes?

That would be good - the platform would be pretty narrow though especially for the platform 6 fasts whizzing through!

And long distance platforms usually require more space and services - it would be an island now, so separate lifts etc... and longer canopies and a waiting room.

[lemmo]

...in an ideal world, I'd like a rebuild to bring platform 5 back into use for the fast lines, enabling services to stop without blocking the lines and thus reducing capacity

I can't see that there's room for that now, with the office block/station building there...? Also might they need a new (or reinstated) platform 5 for terminating trains, given that the DC line services will be joined by Met services?

Is Watford Jn that much of a bottleneck on the WCML, or is it more of a case that there is value in providing more stopping services but there is not the platform capacity? I would have thought it better to redevelop the station on the NE side, adding platforms where the car park is, slewing the tracks over and building loops.

[sotonsi]

They don't need an extra platform to terminate Met services - they already have more than enough to terminate the DC/Croxley link services - even if you segregate the services by platform (#1 for the DC lines, #2 for the north curve services, #3 and 4 for Met, for instance). The four terminating platforms are an oversupply, so there's no need to add a 5th.

Using it as an extra through platform might be a good idea.

[Malcolm of Kent]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

They don't need an extra platform to terminate Met services - they already have more than enough to terminate the DC/Croxley link services - even if you segregate the services by platform (#1 for the DC lines, #2 for the north curve services, #3 and 4 for Met, for instance). The four terminating platforms are an oversupply, so there's no need to add a 5th.

Using it as an extra through platform might be a good idea.

What is platform 10 used for? (or what was it ever used for, come to that?)

[mr_jrt]

Originally Posted by Malcolm of Kent

What is platform 10 used for? (or what was it ever used for, come to that?)

As-built, the St Albans branch was intended to be a loop a-la Northampton, serving Luton. The Midland got there first, so the loop remained as a branch to St. Albans. Watford Junction however was built to handle the original intention, so platforms 10 & 11 were used for the through branch services - 10 for northbound, 11 for southbound and terminating. When they wanted to expand the car park, they rerouted the start of the line and built a new platform 11 out in the middle of nowhere, leaving 10 as the bay.

If I had my way, platform 5 would be knocked back through, with 5 & 6 as a northbound fast island platform, 7 & 8 as a southbound fast platform, and the area east of the station where the bay is redeveloped as a pair of islands - platforms 9 & 10 being northbound slow and 11 & 12 being southbound slow island. Add in trailing turnback sidings between the slow lines north and south of the station and you have the ideal setup in my eyes.

I'd serve the Abbey branch from a pair of underground platforms linking them to the DC lines south of the station, or failing that, another island (13 & 14).

I.e:


It might be a bit OTT for current services...but come HS2, I'd expect all the fast line services to stop at Watford Junction, and this will be essential.

[TRaji00]

Originally Posted by mr_jrt

If I had my way, platform 5 would be knocked back through, with 5 & 6 as a northbound fast island platform, 7 & 8 as a southbound fast platform, and the area east of the station where the bay is redeveloped as a pair of islands - platforms 9 & 10 being northbound slow and 11 & 12 being southbound slow island. Add in trailing turnback sidings between the slow lines north and south of the station and you have the ideal setup in my eyes.

I'd serve the Abbey branch from a pair of underground platforms linking them to the DC lines south of the station, or failing that, another island (13 & 14).

That is an excellent idea.

[cle]

I like the layout for the fast and slow lines.

Platforms would be quite narrow, so perhaps passengers would need to wait in a foyer/terminal area above the tracks and then go down when their train was approaching.

Trains going through at 100+mph would be another concern, if the non-stop lines had platform faces too.

Good idea though. MKC has this but with a shared bi-di fast line for use in the peak flow direction. Which is might be an ok compromise if the space wasn't available.

The inner two slow line platforms would be great for increased WLL services, and Euston shuttles too (with Queens Park calls! )

[mr_jrt]

Originally Posted by cle

I like the layout for the fast and slow lines.

Platforms would be quite narrow, so perhaps passengers would need to wait in a foyer/terminal area above the tracks and then go down when their train was approaching.

Trains going through at 100+mph would be another concern, if the non-stop lines had platform faces too.

Good idea though. MKC has this but with a shared bi-di fast line for use in the peak flow direction. Which is might be an ok compromise if the space wasn't available.

The inner two slow line platforms would be great for increased WLL services, and Euston shuttles too (with Queens Park calls! )

The platforms would be no narrower than they currently are, I guess the primary change being that with more calls they are likely to have more passengers on them.

...and indeed, moving the "bay" between the slow lines was intended to give non-conflicting movements. Having each island (bar the Flyer's) directional also makes passenger flows much easier to control (i.e. it's very easy to have tidal operations as you can simply put a one-way turnstile on the fast line islands).