Watford Met Station campaigners: 'There is no reason for it to close'

Tube Challenger Adham Fisher joined the campaign this morning. Tube Challenger Adham Fisher joined the campaign this morning.

Campaigners collected signatures outside Watford Metropolitan Station this morning objecting to plans to close it.

Weeks after the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, confirmed the station would not be open to passengers after the Croxley Rail Link extension opens in 2016.

However activists are now campaigning for Mr Johnson to reopen an inquiry into the station’s future and consider running a shuttle service from it.

This morning Adham Fisher, a Tube Challenger who has attempted the Guinness World Record for visiting all the stations on the London Underground, joined the campaign.

Mr Fisher, from Leicester, said he came to Watford Met today as he did not feel the station had to close as part of the rail link.

He said: "This station serves a lot of people. From what I have read, a lot of people in Watford think it’s isolated.

"Everyone here is in favour of the Croxley Rail Link and the connections and economic benefits it will bring. But they are not in favour of the station closing and there is no reason that it should."

The Croxley Rail Link, which received the legal go-ahead last month, will see the Metropolitan Line routed from Croxley station through two new ones in Ascot Road and Vicarage Road, before connecting with Watford High Street Station and terminating at Watford Junction.

Under the current plans Watford Met will be used as a siding for trains.

Lester Wagman, the organiser of the campaign to save Watford Met, said the campaigners were writing to the Mayor of London asking him to look at maintaining a reduced shuttle service to Watford Met.

The 48-year-old web apps designer, from Vicarage Road, added: "We are not against the Croxley Rail Link at all but we don’t think this station needs to close.

"We are proposing they keep it open with a reduced service.

"The Mayor (of Watford) and the MP have left us in the lurch because finding names for the new stations is easier than trying to keep this station open."

Comments (89)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:21pm Wed 21 Aug 13

phil mitchel says...

I wonder what route these people suggest the train takes from Watford Met Station to Watford Junction ?
I wonder what route these people suggest the train takes from Watford Met Station to Watford Junction ? phil mitchel

1:38pm Wed 21 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

No reason...other than the fact that it was always part of the plan for the Croxley Rail Link for the Watford Met Station 20 years ago.
I agree local politicians have known this all along, yet posed as "defenders" of the Watford Met Station. Good luck with the campaign to keep the station open, though I do not hold out any high hopes for your success.
To get to Watford Junction Station, you would go down the line to Croxley Station, then change platforms to catch the up-line train to the Junction.
A little complicated but fairly straightforward, nevertheless.
No reason...other than the fact that it was always part of the plan for the Croxley Rail Link for the Watford Met Station 20 years ago. I agree local politicians have known this all along, yet posed as "defenders" of the Watford Met Station. Good luck with the campaign to keep the station open, though I do not hold out any high hopes for your success. To get to Watford Junction Station, you would go down the line to Croxley Station, then change platforms to catch the up-line train to the Junction. A little complicated but fairly straightforward, nevertheless. John Dowdle

2:21pm Wed 21 Aug 13

Andrew1963 says...

Surely the organiser who lives on Vicarage Road will have a station a lot nearer with Croxley rail link? The whole scheme is about saving TfL Met line operating costs, these savings werre dwarfed by the huge infrastructure costs of £100m plus. It is only because the economy is stagnant and central government is desperate to kick start it with infrastructure projects that the scheme got the go ahead after 40 years of everyone saying it made transport sense (but not economic sense) . The scheme will still need to deliver operating savings, and as keeping the existing station open adds to costs it won't happen. All of this was clear at the public enquiry, which has adjudicatted and the closure notice approved. So frankly petition or not unless the retention of Watford Met can deliver more savings it closes. It was the huge cost of more sidings at Watford junction to accomodate rolling stock that led to the plan to keep the tracks and to use the Watford Met station site as a carriage siding.
Surely the organiser who lives on Vicarage Road will have a station a lot nearer with Croxley rail link? The whole scheme is about saving TfL Met line operating costs, these savings werre dwarfed by the huge infrastructure costs of £100m plus. It is only because the economy is stagnant and central government is desperate to kick start it with infrastructure projects that the scheme got the go ahead after 40 years of everyone saying it made transport sense (but not economic sense) . The scheme will still need to deliver operating savings, and as keeping the existing station open adds to costs it won't happen. All of this was clear at the public enquiry, which has adjudicatted and the closure notice approved. So frankly petition or not unless the retention of Watford Met can deliver more savings it closes. It was the huge cost of more sidings at Watford junction to accomodate rolling stock that led to the plan to keep the tracks and to use the Watford Met station site as a carriage siding. Andrew1963

2:23pm Wed 21 Aug 13

gasguzzler says...

Lost the battle and lost the war.
Be gracious not bitter and accept the fact it's over.
Lost the battle and lost the war. Be gracious not bitter and accept the fact it's over. gasguzzler

2:33pm Wed 21 Aug 13

TRT says...

phil mitchel wrote:
I wonder what route these people suggest the train takes from Watford Met Station to Watford Junction ?
I don't believe a curve out of Watford Met onto the CRL was considered in this proposal that went forward.
A reinstatement of the Southern Curve at Wiggenhall Road would also allow services onto the DC line southbound into London. I don't believe that was considered either.
There are lots of alternatives to the scheme that went forwards. As has been pointed out future of the Croxley Green Line has been debated about for decades. The problem is that at the start of these things there's a completely open field. Options get pruned away as the don't meet the practicalities of that time, and other options go forward and evolve. But if one started with a clean slate again today, would one end up with the same proposal as has been approved? Does this particular plan still meet the best needs of the area? The way these things work, they have to put forward alternative schemes and show which is best, but they never go back to square one with it and re-evolve the solutions.
I agree with attempting to keep passenger services from the Met, it's a beautiful building in a prime location that's truly exemplary of Metroland. It's well used and closer to thousands of homes than the new stations are.
I can clearly see, though, the need for economies to be made, and as such am given to asking why the extremities of the network effectively run trains which do nothing more than move fresh air around, when more frequent, smaller shuttles would be more efficient and provide more of the precious 'turn up and go' services that TfL believe make such a difference.
So, reduce the number of carriages in some of these new S stock that are being ordered currently, order more of them and run them out at the ends of the lines, shuttling people to e.g. Moor Park, Northwood, Harrow-On-The-Hill. Not just for use on the Met either. Richmond, Winbledon, Ealing Broadway, Upminster - all places out at the extremes that don't have the passenger numbers to fill a big train, yet still get them but less often than they could a shuttle.
[quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: I wonder what route these people suggest the train takes from Watford Met Station to Watford Junction ?[/p][/quote]I don't believe a curve out of Watford Met onto the CRL was considered in this proposal that went forward. A reinstatement of the Southern Curve at Wiggenhall Road would also allow services onto the DC line southbound into London. I don't believe that was considered either. There are lots of alternatives to the scheme that went forwards. As has been pointed out future of the Croxley Green Line has been debated about for decades. The problem is that at the start of these things there's a completely open field. Options get pruned away as the don't meet the practicalities of that time, and other options go forward and evolve. But if one started with a clean slate again today, would one end up with the same proposal as has been approved? Does this particular plan still meet the best needs of the area? The way these things work, they have to put forward alternative schemes and show which is best, but they never go back to square one with it and re-evolve the solutions. I agree with attempting to keep passenger services from the Met, it's a beautiful building in a prime location that's truly exemplary of Metroland. It's well used and closer to thousands of homes than the new stations are. I can clearly see, though, the need for economies to be made, and as such am given to asking why the extremities of the network effectively run trains which do nothing more than move fresh air around, when more frequent, smaller shuttles would be more efficient and provide more of the precious 'turn up and go' services that TfL believe make such a difference. So, reduce the number of carriages in some of these new S stock that are being ordered currently, order more of them and run them out at the ends of the lines, shuttling people to e.g. Moor Park, Northwood, Harrow-On-The-Hill. Not just for use on the Met either. Richmond, Winbledon, Ealing Broadway, Upminster - all places out at the extremes that don't have the passenger numbers to fill a big train, yet still get them but less often than they could a shuttle. TRT

3:00pm Wed 21 Aug 13

Bloodwags says...

John Dowdle wrote:
No reason...other than the fact that it was always part of the plan for the Croxley Rail Link for the Watford Met Station 20 years ago.
I agree local politicians have known this all along, yet posed as "defenders" of the Watford Met Station. Good luck with the campaign to keep the station open, though I do not hold out any high hopes for your success.
To get to Watford Junction Station, you would go down the line to Croxley Station, then change platforms to catch the up-line train to the Junction.
A little complicated but fairly straightforward, nevertheless.
...or you could just board the W30 bus from outside Watford Met station.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: No reason...other than the fact that it was always part of the plan for the Croxley Rail Link for the Watford Met Station 20 years ago. I agree local politicians have known this all along, yet posed as "defenders" of the Watford Met Station. Good luck with the campaign to keep the station open, though I do not hold out any high hopes for your success. To get to Watford Junction Station, you would go down the line to Croxley Station, then change platforms to catch the up-line train to the Junction. A little complicated but fairly straightforward, nevertheless.[/p][/quote]...or you could just board the W30 bus from outside Watford Met station. Bloodwags

3:03pm Wed 21 Aug 13

Bloodwags says...

Andrew1963 wrote:
Surely the organiser who lives on Vicarage Road will have a station a lot nearer with Croxley rail link? The whole scheme is about saving TfL Met line operating costs, these savings werre dwarfed by the huge infrastructure costs of £100m plus. It is only because the economy is stagnant and central government is desperate to kick start it with infrastructure projects that the scheme got the go ahead after 40 years of everyone saying it made transport sense (but not economic sense) . The scheme will still need to deliver operating savings, and as keeping the existing station open adds to costs it won't happen. All of this was clear at the public enquiry, which has adjudicatted and the closure notice approved. So frankly petition or not unless the retention of Watford Met can deliver more savings it closes. It was the huge cost of more sidings at Watford junction to accomodate rolling stock that led to the plan to keep the tracks and to use the Watford Met station site as a carriage siding.
Seems it could be done more economically... http://wp.me/p1m3bE-
3G
[quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: Surely the organiser who lives on Vicarage Road will have a station a lot nearer with Croxley rail link? The whole scheme is about saving TfL Met line operating costs, these savings werre dwarfed by the huge infrastructure costs of £100m plus. It is only because the economy is stagnant and central government is desperate to kick start it with infrastructure projects that the scheme got the go ahead after 40 years of everyone saying it made transport sense (but not economic sense) . The scheme will still need to deliver operating savings, and as keeping the existing station open adds to costs it won't happen. All of this was clear at the public enquiry, which has adjudicatted and the closure notice approved. So frankly petition or not unless the retention of Watford Met can deliver more savings it closes. It was the huge cost of more sidings at Watford junction to accomodate rolling stock that led to the plan to keep the tracks and to use the Watford Met station site as a carriage siding.[/p][/quote]Seems it could be done more economically... http://wp.me/p1m3bE- 3G Bloodwags

4:49pm Wed 21 Aug 13

phil mitchel says...

Who realises that in the very beginning the met line was supposed to go right to Watford High Street, but not the High Street station. Watford High Street Met station even had it's façade built, it's where Weatherspoons now stands and Grange's Furniture shop was before. I'm not talking about 20, 30 or 50 years ago I'm talking about when the Met line was originaly built, stand across the road look at the buildings it's quite plain to see.
Who realises that in the very beginning the met line was supposed to go right to Watford High Street, but not the High Street station. Watford High Street Met station even had it's façade built, it's where Weatherspoons now stands and Grange's Furniture shop was before. I'm not talking about 20, 30 or 50 years ago I'm talking about when the Met line was originaly built, stand across the road look at the buildings it's quite plain to see. phil mitchel

5:42pm Wed 21 Aug 13

Nascot says...

I agree, it should be kept open. I mean, all those Cassio residents who do not wish to walk amongst the 'poor' of Watford to any of the other staions.
I agree, it should be kept open. I mean, all those Cassio residents who do not wish to walk amongst the 'poor' of Watford to any of the other staions. Nascot

5:48pm Wed 21 Aug 13

gusgreen says...

Bloodwags wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
No reason...other than the fact that it was always part of the plan for the Croxley Rail Link for the Watford Met Station 20 years ago.
I agree local politicians have known this all along, yet posed as "defenders" of the Watford Met Station. Good luck with the campaign to keep the station open, though I do not hold out any high hopes for your success.
To get to Watford Junction Station, you would go down the line to Croxley Station, then change platforms to catch the up-line train to the Junction.
A little complicated but fairly straightforward, nevertheless.
...or you could just board the W30 bus from outside Watford Met station.
Or walk if you have not forgotten what that is!
[quote][p][bold]Bloodwags[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: No reason...other than the fact that it was always part of the plan for the Croxley Rail Link for the Watford Met Station 20 years ago. I agree local politicians have known this all along, yet posed as "defenders" of the Watford Met Station. Good luck with the campaign to keep the station open, though I do not hold out any high hopes for your success. To get to Watford Junction Station, you would go down the line to Croxley Station, then change platforms to catch the up-line train to the Junction. A little complicated but fairly straightforward, nevertheless.[/p][/quote]...or you could just board the W30 bus from outside Watford Met station.[/p][/quote]Or walk if you have not forgotten what that is! gusgreen

6:06pm Wed 21 Aug 13

bigmeuprudeboy says...

Im in full agreement that this station should close, tough about your house prices.
Im in full agreement that this station should close, tough about your house prices. bigmeuprudeboy

6:17pm Wed 21 Aug 13

ramage1996 says...

gasguzzler wrote:
Lost the battle and lost the war.
Be gracious not bitter and accept the fact it's over.
I agree mate, they should just accept facts and move on. The petition for Vic Road station got tens of thousands of votes, this one has hundreds.

A few hundred annoyed Cassiobury mumsnet and bowling club members are just wasting their own time and **** off that their house is worth less.
[quote][p][bold]gasguzzler[/bold] wrote: Lost the battle and lost the war. Be gracious not bitter and accept the fact it's over.[/p][/quote]I agree mate, they should just accept facts and move on. The petition for Vic Road station got tens of thousands of votes, this one has hundreds. A few hundred annoyed Cassiobury mumsnet and bowling club members are just wasting their own time and **** off that their house is worth less. ramage1996

8:35pm Wed 21 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

phil mitchel wrote:
Who realises that in the very beginning the met line was supposed to go right to Watford High Street, but not the High Street station. Watford High Street Met station even had it's façade built, it's where Weatherspoons now stands and Grange's Furniture shop was before. I'm not talking about 20, 30 or 50 years ago I'm talking about when the Met line was originaly built, stand across the road look at the buildings it's quite plain to see.
Phil: It is not wholly clear if the building on the High Street was destined to be a station or a ticket office. Before the Earl of Essex stopped it, the Met line was meant to continue across Cassiobury Park to link up with a station on Hempstead Road, I believe; though where on Hempstead Road, I do not know.
[quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: Who realises that in the very beginning the met line was supposed to go right to Watford High Street, but not the High Street station. Watford High Street Met station even had it's façade built, it's where Weatherspoons now stands and Grange's Furniture shop was before. I'm not talking about 20, 30 or 50 years ago I'm talking about when the Met line was originaly built, stand across the road look at the buildings it's quite plain to see.[/p][/quote]Phil: It is not wholly clear if the building on the High Street was destined to be a station or a ticket office. Before the Earl of Essex stopped it, the Met line was meant to continue across Cassiobury Park to link up with a station on Hempstead Road, I believe; though where on Hempstead Road, I do not know. John Dowdle

9:51pm Wed 21 Aug 13

fortuner says...

I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station.
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Watford_Cen
tral_tube_station
I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station fortuner

10:03pm Wed 21 Aug 13

Keefer says...

John Dowdle wrote:
phil mitchel wrote:
Who realises that in the very beginning the met line was supposed to go right to Watford High Street, but not the High Street station. Watford High Street Met station even had it's façade built, it's where Weatherspoons now stands and Grange's Furniture shop was before. I'm not talking about 20, 30 or 50 years ago I'm talking about when the Met line was originaly built, stand across the road look at the buildings it's quite plain to see.
Phil: It is not wholly clear if the building on the High Street was destined to be a station or a ticket office. Before the Earl of Essex stopped it, the Met line was meant to continue across Cassiobury Park to link up with a station on Hempstead Road, I believe; though where on Hempstead Road, I do not know.
Phil's right, The land was already bought & paid for.

Exert from Wikipedia:

"Watford Met station was not originally planned to be the terminus. The MR intended to drive the railway across Watford to terminate at Watford Central, and to facilitate this project, purchased a property at 44 Watford High Street in 1927 with the intention of converting it into a station. Their ambition to drive a tunnel under Cassiobury Park, recently purchased by the borough council from the Earl of Essex, was opposed by local politicians. The scheme fell through and to this day, Watford Met station remains as the terminus of the line, somewhat remote from the town centre"
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: Who realises that in the very beginning the met line was supposed to go right to Watford High Street, but not the High Street station. Watford High Street Met station even had it's façade built, it's where Weatherspoons now stands and Grange's Furniture shop was before. I'm not talking about 20, 30 or 50 years ago I'm talking about when the Met line was originaly built, stand across the road look at the buildings it's quite plain to see.[/p][/quote]Phil: It is not wholly clear if the building on the High Street was destined to be a station or a ticket office. Before the Earl of Essex stopped it, the Met line was meant to continue across Cassiobury Park to link up with a station on Hempstead Road, I believe; though where on Hempstead Road, I do not know.[/p][/quote]Phil's right, The land was already bought & paid for. Exert from Wikipedia: "Watford Met station was not originally planned to be the terminus. The MR intended to drive the railway across Watford to terminate at Watford Central, and to facilitate this project, purchased a property at 44 Watford High Street in 1927 with the intention of converting it into a station. Their ambition to drive a tunnel under Cassiobury Park, recently purchased by the borough council from the Earl of Essex, was opposed by local politicians. The scheme fell through and to this day, Watford Met station remains as the terminus of the line, somewhat remote from the town centre" Keefer

10:30pm Wed 21 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

fortuner: interesting map of the 1927 route shows that the line would have run either between or underneath Marlborough Passage.

See: http://upload.wikime
dia.org/wikipedia/co
mmons/3/3d/1927_Met_
line_extension_to_Wa
tford_Central.png.

Interesting to note that it was local politicians who opposed the extension to Watford High Street - maybe they came under the influence of LMS and LNER railway companies. Seemingly, even in those days there were questionable influences at play ?
fortuner: interesting map of the 1927 route shows that the line would have run either between or underneath Marlborough Passage. See: http://upload.wikime dia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/3/3d/1927_Met_ line_extension_to_Wa tford_Central.png. Interesting to note that it was local politicians who opposed the extension to Watford High Street - maybe they came under the influence of LMS and LNER railway companies. Seemingly, even in those days there were questionable influences at play ? John Dowdle

11:51pm Wed 21 Aug 13

phil mitchel says...

' Seemingly, even in those days there were questionable influences at play ?'
Well they do say there's nothing new under the sun.
' Seemingly, even in those days there were questionable influences at play ?' Well they do say there's nothing new under the sun. phil mitchel

11:56pm Wed 21 Aug 13

samwatford says...

TRT wrote:
phil mitchel wrote:
I wonder what route these people suggest the train takes from Watford Met Station to Watford Junction ?
I don't believe a curve out of Watford Met onto the CRL was considered in this proposal that went forward.
A reinstatement of the Southern Curve at Wiggenhall Road would also allow services onto the DC line southbound into London. I don't believe that was considered either.
There are lots of alternatives to the scheme that went forwards. As has been pointed out future of the Croxley Green Line has been debated about for decades. The problem is that at the start of these things there's a completely open field. Options get pruned away as the don't meet the practicalities of that time, and other options go forward and evolve. But if one started with a clean slate again today, would one end up with the same proposal as has been approved? Does this particular plan still meet the best needs of the area? The way these things work, they have to put forward alternative schemes and show which is best, but they never go back to square one with it and re-evolve the solutions.
I agree with attempting to keep passenger services from the Met, it's a beautiful building in a prime location that's truly exemplary of Metroland. It's well used and closer to thousands of homes than the new stations are.
I can clearly see, though, the need for economies to be made, and as such am given to asking why the extremities of the network effectively run trains which do nothing more than move fresh air around, when more frequent, smaller shuttles would be more efficient and provide more of the precious 'turn up and go' services that TfL believe make such a difference.
So, reduce the number of carriages in some of these new S stock that are being ordered currently, order more of them and run them out at the ends of the lines, shuttling people to e.g. Moor Park, Northwood, Harrow-On-The-Hill. Not just for use on the Met either. Richmond, Winbledon, Ealing Broadway, Upminster - all places out at the extremes that don't have the passenger numbers to fill a big train, yet still get them but less often than they could a shuttle.
'Richmond, Wimbledon, Ealing Broadway, Upminster - all places out at the extremes that don't have the passenger numbers to fill a big train' .
This statement is absolutely false. Most times the trains at these LUL London stations are completely full unlike Watford MET where many arriving or leaving trains just carry fresh air. The reason for their being full is that all these stations are connected to National Rail making onward journeys and connections possible.
MET line trains from the future Watford Junction station will be full as well being connected to both to the Abbey line , West Coast Main Line and on the other side to the Chiltern Line and rest of the TFL network. Watford MET line being end of the line is neither connected by either rail or bus network making it uneconomic to run.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: I wonder what route these people suggest the train takes from Watford Met Station to Watford Junction ?[/p][/quote]I don't believe a curve out of Watford Met onto the CRL was considered in this proposal that went forward. A reinstatement of the Southern Curve at Wiggenhall Road would also allow services onto the DC line southbound into London. I don't believe that was considered either. There are lots of alternatives to the scheme that went forwards. As has been pointed out future of the Croxley Green Line has been debated about for decades. The problem is that at the start of these things there's a completely open field. Options get pruned away as the don't meet the practicalities of that time, and other options go forward and evolve. But if one started with a clean slate again today, would one end up with the same proposal as has been approved? Does this particular plan still meet the best needs of the area? The way these things work, they have to put forward alternative schemes and show which is best, but they never go back to square one with it and re-evolve the solutions. I agree with attempting to keep passenger services from the Met, it's a beautiful building in a prime location that's truly exemplary of Metroland. It's well used and closer to thousands of homes than the new stations are. I can clearly see, though, the need for economies to be made, and as such am given to asking why the extremities of the network effectively run trains which do nothing more than move fresh air around, when more frequent, smaller shuttles would be more efficient and provide more of the precious 'turn up and go' services that TfL believe make such a difference. So, reduce the number of carriages in some of these new S stock that are being ordered currently, order more of them and run them out at the ends of the lines, shuttling people to e.g. Moor Park, Northwood, Harrow-On-The-Hill. Not just for use on the Met either. Richmond, Winbledon, Ealing Broadway, Upminster - all places out at the extremes that don't have the passenger numbers to fill a big train, yet still get them but less often than they could a shuttle.[/p][/quote]'Richmond, Wimbledon, Ealing Broadway, Upminster - all places out at the extremes that don't have the passenger numbers to fill a big train' . This statement is absolutely false. Most times the trains at these LUL London stations are completely full unlike Watford MET where many arriving or leaving trains just carry fresh air. The reason for their being full is that all these stations are connected to National Rail making onward journeys and connections possible. MET line trains from the future Watford Junction station will be full as well being connected to both to the Abbey line , West Coast Main Line and on the other side to the Chiltern Line and rest of the TFL network. Watford MET line being end of the line is neither connected by either rail or bus network making it uneconomic to run. samwatford

9:13am Thu 22 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

It is not feasible to keep it open with a reduced service because of operational costs.

The CRL on the other hand will connect up west Watford which will benefit from this. Moreover, the economic benefits will be huge.

Watford Met will be 10 minutes from the new proposed station in the Ascot Road vicinity. I don't quite understand why the Cassiobury residents cannot walk or drive - its not that much of a difference.

Why keep it open for the minority when the majority want the CRL and will benefit from it.

The Earl of Essex blocked the proposed Watford Central station at Wetherspoons in the 1920's. The next best alternative is to bring the London Underground closer to central Watford and not isolated on the outskirts.
It is not feasible to keep it open with a reduced service because of operational costs. The CRL on the other hand will connect up west Watford which will benefit from this. Moreover, the economic benefits will be huge. Watford Met will be 10 minutes from the new proposed station in the Ascot Road vicinity. I don't quite understand why the Cassiobury residents cannot walk or drive - its not that much of a difference. Why keep it open for the minority when the majority want the CRL and will benefit from it. The Earl of Essex blocked the proposed Watford Central station at Wetherspoons in the 1920's. The next best alternative is to bring the London Underground closer to central Watford and not isolated on the outskirts. WriteN0w

9:17am Thu 22 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

Well it was both the Earl of Essex and local politicians I believe!
Well it was both the Earl of Essex and local politicians I believe! WriteN0w

10:02am Thu 22 Aug 13

fugu says...

WriteN0w wrote:
Well it was both the Earl of Essex and local politicians I believe!
No. The Earl if Essex was already selling off the land and had no interest in stopping the line being tunneled under The park. It's s lie spread by the politicians then and still repeated.

You can tell many many comments here are from people who are engaged in some percieved class war when they keep going on about Cassiobury house prices dropping. They're only interested in punishing people with bigger houses by insisting the station closes rather than supporting public transport for all.

Even the lib dems themselves said the people of Cassiobury were "unfairly advantaged" by having a station. Nice attitude. Let's punish people for working hard and being successful.

Just for clarity. House prices on the station side of Cassiobury are predicted to go up when the station closes, as the end of Gade avenue can be closed to stop it being used as a rat run for speeding cars.
[quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: Well it was both the Earl of Essex and local politicians I believe![/p][/quote]No. The Earl if Essex was already selling off the land and had no interest in stopping the line being tunneled under The park. It's s lie spread by the politicians then and still repeated. You can tell many many comments here are from people who are engaged in some percieved class war when they keep going on about Cassiobury house prices dropping. They're only interested in punishing people with bigger houses by insisting the station closes rather than supporting public transport for all. Even the lib dems themselves said the people of Cassiobury were "unfairly advantaged" by having a station. Nice attitude. Let's punish people for working hard and being successful. Just for clarity. House prices on the station side of Cassiobury are predicted to go up when the station closes, as the end of Gade avenue can be closed to stop it being used as a rat run for speeding cars. fugu

10:05am Thu 22 Aug 13

fugu says...

No. The Earl if Essex was already selling off the land and had no interest in stopping the line being tunneled under The park. It's s lie spread by the politicians then and still repeated.

You can tell many many comments here are from people who are engaged in some percieved class war when they keep going on about Cassiobury house prices dropping. They're only interested in punishing people with bigger houses by insisting the station closes rather than supporting public transport for all.

Even the lib dems themselves said the people of Cassiobury were "unfairly advantaged" by having a station. Nice attitude. Let's punish people for working hard and being successful.

Just for clarity. House prices on the station side of Cassiobury are predicted to go up when the station closes, as the end of Gade avenue can be closed to stop it being used as a rat run for speeding cars.
No. The Earl if Essex was already selling off the land and had no interest in stopping the line being tunneled under The park. It's s lie spread by the politicians then and still repeated. You can tell many many comments here are from people who are engaged in some percieved class war when they keep going on about Cassiobury house prices dropping. They're only interested in punishing people with bigger houses by insisting the station closes rather than supporting public transport for all. Even the lib dems themselves said the people of Cassiobury were "unfairly advantaged" by having a station. Nice attitude. Let's punish people for working hard and being successful. Just for clarity. House prices on the station side of Cassiobury are predicted to go up when the station closes, as the end of Gade avenue can be closed to stop it being used as a rat run for speeding cars. fugu

10:05am Thu 22 Aug 13

fugu says...

No. The Earl if Essex was already selling off the land and had no interest in stopping the line being tunneled under The park. It's s lie spread by the politicians then and still repeated.

You can tell many many comments here are from people who are engaged in some percieved class war when they keep going on about Cassiobury house prices dropping. They're only interested in punishing people with bigger houses by insisting the station closes rather than supporting public transport for all.

Even the lib dems themselves said the people of Cassiobury were "unfairly advantaged" by having a station. Nice attitude. Let's punish people for working hard and being successful.

Just for clarity. House prices on the station side of Cassiobury are predicted to go up when the station closes, as the end of Gade avenue can be closed to stop it being used as a rat run for speeding cars.
No. The Earl if Essex was already selling off the land and had no interest in stopping the line being tunneled under The park. It's s lie spread by the politicians then and still repeated. You can tell many many comments here are from people who are engaged in some percieved class war when they keep going on about Cassiobury house prices dropping. They're only interested in punishing people with bigger houses by insisting the station closes rather than supporting public transport for all. Even the lib dems themselves said the people of Cassiobury were "unfairly advantaged" by having a station. Nice attitude. Let's punish people for working hard and being successful. Just for clarity. House prices on the station side of Cassiobury are predicted to go up when the station closes, as the end of Gade avenue can be closed to stop it being used as a rat run for speeding cars. fugu

10:10am Thu 22 Aug 13

fugu says...

No. The Earl if Essex was already selling off the land and had no interest in stopping the line being tunneled under The park. It's s lie spread by the politicians then and still repeated.

You can tell many many comments here are from people who are engaged in some percieved class war when they keep going on about Cassiobury house prices dropping. They're only interested in punishing people with bigger houses by insisting the station closes rather than suporting public transport for all.

Even the lib dems said the people of Cassiobury were "unfairly advantaged" by having a station. Nice attitude. Let's punish people for working hard and being successful.

Just for clarity. House prices on the station side of Cassiobury are predicted to go up when the station closes, as the end of Gade avenue can be closed to stop it being used as a rat run for speeding cars.

As for the economic argunent, it's based on 60 years of benefits. That's right those massive figures you've seen will trickle in over 60 years and most of the economic benefits come from poeple being able to leave for work a few minutes later. The saved time is accounted for as money.
No. The Earl if Essex was already selling off the land and had no interest in stopping the line being tunneled under The park. It's s lie spread by the politicians then and still repeated. You can tell many many comments here are from people who are engaged in some percieved class war when they keep going on about Cassiobury house prices dropping. They're only interested in punishing people with bigger houses by insisting the station closes rather than suporting public transport for all. Even the lib dems said the people of Cassiobury were "unfairly advantaged" by having a station. Nice attitude. Let's punish people for working hard and being successful. Just for clarity. House prices on the station side of Cassiobury are predicted to go up when the station closes, as the end of Gade avenue can be closed to stop it being used as a rat run for speeding cars. As for the economic argunent, it's based on 60 years of benefits. That's right those massive figures you've seen will trickle in over 60 years and most of the economic benefits come from poeple being able to leave for work a few minutes later. The saved time is accounted for as money. fugu

10:11am Thu 22 Aug 13

fugu says...

No. The Earl if Essex was already selling off the land and had no interest in stopping the line being tunneled under The park. It's s lie spread by the politicians then and still repeated.

You can tell many many comments here are from people who are engaged in some percieved class war when they keep going on about Cassiobury house prices dropping. They're only interested in punishing people with bigger houses by insisting the station closes rather than suporting public transport for all.

Even the lib dems said the people of Cassiobury were "unfairly advantaged" by having a station. Nice attitude. Let's punish people for working hard and being successful.

Just for clarity. House prices on the station side of Cassiobury are predicted to go up when the station closes, as the end of Gade avenue can be closed to stop it being used as a rat run for speeding cars.

As for the economic argunent, it's based on 60 years of benefits. That's right those massive figures you've seen will trickle in over 60 years and most of the economic benefits come from poeple being able to leave for work a few minutes later. The saved time is accounted for as money.
No. The Earl if Essex was already selling off the land and had no interest in stopping the line being tunneled under The park. It's s lie spread by the politicians then and still repeated. You can tell many many comments here are from people who are engaged in some percieved class war when they keep going on about Cassiobury house prices dropping. They're only interested in punishing people with bigger houses by insisting the station closes rather than suporting public transport for all. Even the lib dems said the people of Cassiobury were "unfairly advantaged" by having a station. Nice attitude. Let's punish people for working hard and being successful. Just for clarity. House prices on the station side of Cassiobury are predicted to go up when the station closes, as the end of Gade avenue can be closed to stop it being used as a rat run for speeding cars. As for the economic argunent, it's based on 60 years of benefits. That's right those massive figures you've seen will trickle in over 60 years and most of the economic benefits come from poeple being able to leave for work a few minutes later. The saved time is accounted for as money. fugu

10:14am Thu 22 Aug 13

fugu says...

Could someone delete my repeated posts and leave the last one. **** phone.
Could someone delete my repeated posts and leave the last one. **** phone. fugu

10:17am Thu 22 Aug 13

fugu says...

Could someone delete my repeated posts and leave the last one. **** phone.
Could someone delete my repeated posts and leave the last one. **** phone. fugu

10:37am Thu 22 Aug 13

Andrew1963 says...

i think the objection in the 1920s to the LNER/Met line going to Watford High Street was from watford council. The councillors had just ignored public opinion and town wide vote (the public were against buying Cassiobury Park - an example of democracy at its best), and had raised the rates to be able to buy the park. Having done so they did not want it ruined by a cutting right through the middle of it! They key point is that up until the mainline electrification at Watford junction in the 1960';s the local Met Line and local London Overground network wherea lot busier with commuting to London. The time advantage of the mainline wass a lot less. Now Watford Junction is 16-20 minutes to Euston while the Overground is 45 minutes and the Met similar to Baker street. Both London Overground and Watford Met line trains are specified for the commuter flows nearer to London, and both services are over provisioned to Watford Junction. Watford Met remains popular vto central London because users prefer its connectivity to West London or its price advantage over Watford Junction. The Croxley rail link improves journeys for people living outside Watford who want to connect to services at Watford Junction, and there will be a few advantages for local trips to Watford destinations too - but it wont be a massive money spinner, and probably the Met will have reduced services to make up for the extra operating costs (more track to maintain, more maintenance as trains run longer journeys, more stations to maintain, more driver hours, etc). The key point for anyone making a case to retain Watford Met is - what journeys will stop being made (revenue lost) by the closure. If that is greater than the extra operating costs to be incurred they may have a point to argue. If not it is about convenience. Yes if your commuter walk to work is longer, you will be annoyed, but you want resign your job - you still need to get to work, so you will adapt your journey. The station building will be retained. Remember there used to be a bus garage opposite (now 3 houses) and that closed without a massive devaluation in the value of property or reductions in pupils wanting to go to WBGS or to visit the park. In the end of the day once someone is going to pay the infrastructure costs, the scheme just about is revenue neutral, so it will go ahead, and the winners will outweigh the losers.
i think the objection in the 1920s to the LNER/Met line going to Watford High Street was from watford council. The councillors had just ignored public opinion and town wide vote (the public were against buying Cassiobury Park - an example of democracy at its best), and had raised the rates to be able to buy the park. Having done so they did not want it ruined by a cutting right through the middle of it! They key point is that up until the mainline electrification at Watford junction in the 1960';s the local Met Line and local London Overground network wherea lot busier with commuting to London. The time advantage of the mainline wass a lot less. Now Watford Junction is 16-20 minutes to Euston while the Overground is 45 minutes and the Met similar to Baker street. Both London Overground and Watford Met line trains are specified for the commuter flows nearer to London, and both services are over provisioned to Watford Junction. Watford Met remains popular vto central London because users prefer its connectivity to West London or its price advantage over Watford Junction. The Croxley rail link improves journeys for people living outside Watford who want to connect to services at Watford Junction, and there will be a few advantages for local trips to Watford destinations too - but it wont be a massive money spinner, and probably the Met will have reduced services to make up for the extra operating costs (more track to maintain, more maintenance as trains run longer journeys, more stations to maintain, more driver hours, etc). The key point for anyone making a case to retain Watford Met is - what journeys will stop being made (revenue lost) by the closure. If that is greater than the extra operating costs to be incurred they may have a point to argue. If not it is about convenience. Yes if your commuter walk to work is longer, you will be annoyed, but you want resign your job - you still need to get to work, so you will adapt your journey. The station building will be retained. Remember there used to be a bus garage opposite (now 3 houses) and that closed without a massive devaluation in the value of property or reductions in pupils wanting to go to WBGS or to visit the park. In the end of the day once someone is going to pay the infrastructure costs, the scheme just about is revenue neutral, so it will go ahead, and the winners will outweigh the losers. Andrew1963

11:01am Thu 22 Aug 13

fortuner says...

fugu wrote:
Could someone delete my repeated posts and leave the last one. **** phone.
lol What phone have you got? Just so as I know which one to avoid. ;-)
[quote][p][bold]fugu[/bold] wrote: Could someone delete my repeated posts and leave the last one. **** phone.[/p][/quote]lol What phone have you got? Just so as I know which one to avoid. ;-) fortuner

12:04pm Thu 22 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

While it may seem a nuisance now and while Cassiobury Park may be more difficult to access, the downside for a minority of people are certainly way outweighed by the benefits it will bring to the majority of people from Watford and the surrounding areas.

Besides, and while I don't blame them for questioning why there local station has to close im sure they will accept this in time. Cassiobridge station for example will be close by.

Plus, look at the economic benefits it will bring to Watford as a whole - jobs, growth, and better infrastructure while it will put west Watford back on the map and connect Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road Stadium and the Holywell estate with a regular train service into the town, with connections at the High Street and JUnction with trains to Euston, St Albans, and the WCML, while also providing service to Baker Street.

I read in the paper last week that somebody proposes a trial of keeping the station open for a year in conjunction with the CRL. I don't think this would work and wouldn't be feasible.
While it may seem a nuisance now and while Cassiobury Park may be more difficult to access, the downside for a minority of people are certainly way outweighed by the benefits it will bring to the majority of people from Watford and the surrounding areas. Besides, and while I don't blame them for questioning why there local station has to close im sure they will accept this in time. Cassiobridge station for example will be close by. Plus, look at the economic benefits it will bring to Watford as a whole - jobs, growth, and better infrastructure while it will put west Watford back on the map and connect Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road Stadium and the Holywell estate with a regular train service into the town, with connections at the High Street and JUnction with trains to Euston, St Albans, and the WCML, while also providing service to Baker Street. I read in the paper last week that somebody proposes a trial of keeping the station open for a year in conjunction with the CRL. I don't think this would work and wouldn't be feasible. WriteN0w

12:08pm Thu 22 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

fortuner wrote:
I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station
It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively.

Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.
[quote][p][bold]fortuner[/bold] wrote: I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station[/p][/quote]It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively. Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed. WriteN0w

12:16pm Thu 22 Aug 13

TRT says...

WriteN0w wrote:
While it may seem a nuisance now and while Cassiobury Park may be more difficult to access, the downside for a minority of people are certainly way outweighed by the benefits it will bring to the majority of people from Watford and the surrounding areas.

Besides, and while I don't blame them for questioning why there local station has to close im sure they will accept this in time. Cassiobridge station for example will be close by.

Plus, look at the economic benefits it will bring to Watford as a whole - jobs, growth, and better infrastructure while it will put west Watford back on the map and connect Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road Stadium and the Holywell estate with a regular train service into the town, with connections at the High Street and JUnction with trains to Euston, St Albans, and the WCML, while also providing service to Baker Street.

I read in the paper last week that somebody proposes a trial of keeping the station open for a year in conjunction with the CRL. I don't think this would work and wouldn't be feasible.
If the benefits are so huge and clear cut, why was it touted as "either the Met or the CRL, can't have both, it's marginal as it is"?

Same as "It's the hospital or the allotments, edge of a knife".

Make your mind up. Either the benefits massively outweigh the costs, or it's hanging in the balance and the loss of X tips the balance.
[quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: While it may seem a nuisance now and while Cassiobury Park may be more difficult to access, the downside for a minority of people are certainly way outweighed by the benefits it will bring to the majority of people from Watford and the surrounding areas. Besides, and while I don't blame them for questioning why there local station has to close im sure they will accept this in time. Cassiobridge station for example will be close by. Plus, look at the economic benefits it will bring to Watford as a whole - jobs, growth, and better infrastructure while it will put west Watford back on the map and connect Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road Stadium and the Holywell estate with a regular train service into the town, with connections at the High Street and JUnction with trains to Euston, St Albans, and the WCML, while also providing service to Baker Street. I read in the paper last week that somebody proposes a trial of keeping the station open for a year in conjunction with the CRL. I don't think this would work and wouldn't be feasible.[/p][/quote]If the benefits are so huge and clear cut, why was it touted as "either the Met or the CRL, can't have both, it's marginal as it is"? Same as "It's the hospital or the allotments, edge of a knife". Make your mind up. Either the benefits massively outweigh the costs, or it's hanging in the balance and the loss of X tips the balance. TRT

12:16pm Thu 22 Aug 13

TRT says...

WriteN0w wrote:
While it may seem a nuisance now and while Cassiobury Park may be more difficult to access, the downside for a minority of people are certainly way outweighed by the benefits it will bring to the majority of people from Watford and the surrounding areas.

Besides, and while I don't blame them for questioning why there local station has to close im sure they will accept this in time. Cassiobridge station for example will be close by.

Plus, look at the economic benefits it will bring to Watford as a whole - jobs, growth, and better infrastructure while it will put west Watford back on the map and connect Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road Stadium and the Holywell estate with a regular train service into the town, with connections at the High Street and JUnction with trains to Euston, St Albans, and the WCML, while also providing service to Baker Street.

I read in the paper last week that somebody proposes a trial of keeping the station open for a year in conjunction with the CRL. I don't think this would work and wouldn't be feasible.
If the benefits are so huge and clear cut, why was it touted as "either the Met or the CRL, can't have both, it's marginal as it is"?

Same as "It's the hospital or the allotments, edge of a knife".

Make your mind up. Either the benefits massively outweigh the costs, or it's hanging in the balance and the loss of X tips the balance.
[quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: While it may seem a nuisance now and while Cassiobury Park may be more difficult to access, the downside for a minority of people are certainly way outweighed by the benefits it will bring to the majority of people from Watford and the surrounding areas. Besides, and while I don't blame them for questioning why there local station has to close im sure they will accept this in time. Cassiobridge station for example will be close by. Plus, look at the economic benefits it will bring to Watford as a whole - jobs, growth, and better infrastructure while it will put west Watford back on the map and connect Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road Stadium and the Holywell estate with a regular train service into the town, with connections at the High Street and JUnction with trains to Euston, St Albans, and the WCML, while also providing service to Baker Street. I read in the paper last week that somebody proposes a trial of keeping the station open for a year in conjunction with the CRL. I don't think this would work and wouldn't be feasible.[/p][/quote]If the benefits are so huge and clear cut, why was it touted as "either the Met or the CRL, can't have both, it's marginal as it is"? Same as "It's the hospital or the allotments, edge of a knife". Make your mind up. Either the benefits massively outweigh the costs, or it's hanging in the balance and the loss of X tips the balance. TRT

12:44pm Thu 22 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

TRT wrote:
WriteN0w wrote: While it may seem a nuisance now and while Cassiobury Park may be more difficult to access, the downside for a minority of people are certainly way outweighed by the benefits it will bring to the majority of people from Watford and the surrounding areas. Besides, and while I don't blame them for questioning why there local station has to close im sure they will accept this in time. Cassiobridge station for example will be close by. Plus, look at the economic benefits it will bring to Watford as a whole - jobs, growth, and better infrastructure while it will put west Watford back on the map and connect Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road Stadium and the Holywell estate with a regular train service into the town, with connections at the High Street and JUnction with trains to Euston, St Albans, and the WCML, while also providing service to Baker Street. I read in the paper last week that somebody proposes a trial of keeping the station open for a year in conjunction with the CRL. I don't think this would work and wouldn't be feasible.
If the benefits are so huge and clear cut, why was it touted as "either the Met or the CRL, can't have both, it's marginal as it is"? Same as "It's the hospital or the allotments, edge of a knife". Make your mind up. Either the benefits massively outweigh the costs, or it's hanging in the balance and the loss of X tips the balance.
I have always maintained the benefits it will bring.

Its the Watford Met or CRL because it simply isn't cost effective to have both open and for one to have a limited service. Just think about electricity costs, staff costs to maintain the station, track work etc.

There is only so much money going around. The CRL will bring more benefits to Watford that keeping the Met station open will bring to residents in the area.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: While it may seem a nuisance now and while Cassiobury Park may be more difficult to access, the downside for a minority of people are certainly way outweighed by the benefits it will bring to the majority of people from Watford and the surrounding areas. Besides, and while I don't blame them for questioning why there local station has to close im sure they will accept this in time. Cassiobridge station for example will be close by. Plus, look at the economic benefits it will bring to Watford as a whole - jobs, growth, and better infrastructure while it will put west Watford back on the map and connect Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road Stadium and the Holywell estate with a regular train service into the town, with connections at the High Street and JUnction with trains to Euston, St Albans, and the WCML, while also providing service to Baker Street. I read in the paper last week that somebody proposes a trial of keeping the station open for a year in conjunction with the CRL. I don't think this would work and wouldn't be feasible.[/p][/quote]If the benefits are so huge and clear cut, why was it touted as "either the Met or the CRL, can't have both, it's marginal as it is"? Same as "It's the hospital or the allotments, edge of a knife". Make your mind up. Either the benefits massively outweigh the costs, or it's hanging in the balance and the loss of X tips the balance.[/p][/quote]I have always maintained the benefits it will bring. Its the Watford Met or CRL because it simply isn't cost effective to have both open and for one to have a limited service. Just think about electricity costs, staff costs to maintain the station, track work etc. There is only so much money going around. The CRL will bring more benefits to Watford that keeping the Met station open will bring to residents in the area. WriteN0w

1:11pm Thu 22 Aug 13

Keefer says...

WriteN0w wrote:
fortuner wrote:
I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station
It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively.

Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.
CRL will use the old Croxley Green\Watford West (overground) route into High Street Station. Surveying has already started.

I keep reading people say they should build a link into the CRL from Watford Met! But it's not financially possible, it would have to start in the middle of the Cassio Viaduct! Can you imagine the extra cost to start building from\to such a height? it's just not feasible for LU to spend millions of pounds more on so few.

As an LU Employee, I find myself having little pity for their plight! They constantly complain of any noise from works to maintain the line and yet complain when told the Station will close. They can't have their cake & eat it too.

If they're so well-to-do & seemingly self-important, let them fund a link themselves, as the residents association of Moor Park did when they were refused a Station because of limited footfall.
[quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fortuner[/bold] wrote: I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station[/p][/quote]It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively. Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.[/p][/quote]CRL will use the old Croxley Green\Watford West (overground) route into High Street Station. Surveying has already started. I keep reading people say they should build a link into the CRL from Watford Met! But it's not financially possible, it would have to start in the middle of the Cassio Viaduct! Can you imagine the extra cost to start building from\to such a height? it's just not feasible for LU to spend millions of pounds more on so few. As an LU Employee, I find myself having little pity for their plight! They constantly complain of any noise from works to maintain the line and yet complain when told the Station will close. They can't have their cake & eat it too. If they're so well-to-do & seemingly self-important, let them fund a link themselves, as the residents association of Moor Park did when they were refused a Station because of limited footfall. Keefer

1:21pm Thu 22 Aug 13

TRT says...

My comment wasn't directed at you personally, but at the rhetoric developers and the council trot out whenever the need to justify doing something which is going to upset people.

There are clear benefits to the CRL, of course. No-one could disagree that. What's being asked for is a chance to prove the travel pattern changes that the CRL will bring. I for one am not convinced that the passenger modelling used in the forecasts is accurate.
My comment wasn't directed at you personally, but at the rhetoric developers and the council trot out whenever the need to justify doing something which is going to upset people. There are clear benefits to the CRL, of course. No-one could disagree that. What's being asked for is a chance to prove the travel pattern changes that the CRL will bring. I for one am not convinced that the passenger modelling used in the forecasts is accurate. TRT

2:32pm Thu 22 Aug 13

fugu says...

Keefer wrote:
WriteN0w wrote:
fortuner wrote:
I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station
It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively.

Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.
CRL will use the old Croxley Green\Watford West (overground) route into High Street Station. Surveying has already started.

I keep reading people say they should build a link into the CRL from Watford Met! But it's not financially possible, it would have to start in the middle of the Cassio Viaduct! Can you imagine the extra cost to start building from\to such a height? it's just not feasible for LU to spend millions of pounds more on so few.

As an LU Employee, I find myself having little pity for their plight! They constantly complain of any noise from works to maintain the line and yet complain when told the Station will close. They can't have their cake & eat it too.

If they're so well-to-do & seemingly self-important, let them fund a link themselves, as the residents association of Moor Park did when they were refused a Station because of limited footfall.
"If they're so well-to-do..." There's that bias again.

I come from a working class family. I've worked as in manual jobs all my life. Can't afford Sky TV, have a battered 11-year-old car and a computer old enough that it originally ran Windows 98.

You judge me just because I worked hard, saved hard and now have a nice house in a nice area. Sounds like jealousy to me. I could have wasted my money on fags, big TVs and holidays in Spain, but I wanted to live somewhere nice, next to the park. Now I do. Why do you think people who are achieve their goals should have to be penalised? Why do you dislike other people's accomplishments? Do you need to blame your own failings on other people?
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fortuner[/bold] wrote: I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station[/p][/quote]It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively. Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.[/p][/quote]CRL will use the old Croxley Green\Watford West (overground) route into High Street Station. Surveying has already started. I keep reading people say they should build a link into the CRL from Watford Met! But it's not financially possible, it would have to start in the middle of the Cassio Viaduct! Can you imagine the extra cost to start building from\to such a height? it's just not feasible for LU to spend millions of pounds more on so few. As an LU Employee, I find myself having little pity for their plight! They constantly complain of any noise from works to maintain the line and yet complain when told the Station will close. They can't have their cake & eat it too. If they're so well-to-do & seemingly self-important, let them fund a link themselves, as the residents association of Moor Park did when they were refused a Station because of limited footfall.[/p][/quote]"If they're so well-to-do..." There's that bias again. I come from a working class family. I've worked as in manual jobs all my life. Can't afford Sky TV, have a battered 11-year-old car and a computer old enough that it originally ran Windows 98. You judge me just because I worked hard, saved hard and now have a nice house in a nice area. Sounds like jealousy to me. I could have wasted my money on fags, big TVs and holidays in Spain, but I wanted to live somewhere nice, next to the park. Now I do. Why do you think people who are achieve their goals should have to be penalised? Why do you dislike other people's accomplishments? Do you need to blame your own failings on other people? fugu

3:29pm Thu 22 Aug 13

ramage1996 says...

fugu wrote:
Keefer wrote:
WriteN0w wrote:
fortuner wrote:
I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station
It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively.

Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.
CRL will use the old Croxley Green\Watford West (overground) route into High Street Station. Surveying has already started.

I keep reading people say they should build a link into the CRL from Watford Met! But it's not financially possible, it would have to start in the middle of the Cassio Viaduct! Can you imagine the extra cost to start building from\to such a height? it's just not feasible for LU to spend millions of pounds more on so few.

As an LU Employee, I find myself having little pity for their plight! They constantly complain of any noise from works to maintain the line and yet complain when told the Station will close. They can't have their cake & eat it too.

If they're so well-to-do & seemingly self-important, let them fund a link themselves, as the residents association of Moor Park did when they were refused a Station because of limited footfall.
"If they're so well-to-do..." There's that bias again.

I come from a working class family. I've worked as in manual jobs all my life. Can't afford Sky TV, have a battered 11-year-old car and a computer old enough that it originally ran Windows 98.

You judge me just because I worked hard, saved hard and now have a nice house in a nice area. Sounds like jealousy to me. I could have wasted my money on fags, big TVs and holidays in Spain, but I wanted to live somewhere nice, next to the park. Now I do. Why do you think people who are achieve their goals should have to be penalised? Why do you dislike other people's accomplishments? Do you need to blame your own failings on other people?
Well you can enjoy a nice long walk to one of the new stations now when the Met station closes, never mind eh.
[quote][p][bold]fugu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fortuner[/bold] wrote: I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station[/p][/quote]It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively. Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.[/p][/quote]CRL will use the old Croxley Green\Watford West (overground) route into High Street Station. Surveying has already started. I keep reading people say they should build a link into the CRL from Watford Met! But it's not financially possible, it would have to start in the middle of the Cassio Viaduct! Can you imagine the extra cost to start building from\to such a height? it's just not feasible for LU to spend millions of pounds more on so few. As an LU Employee, I find myself having little pity for their plight! They constantly complain of any noise from works to maintain the line and yet complain when told the Station will close. They can't have their cake & eat it too. If they're so well-to-do & seemingly self-important, let them fund a link themselves, as the residents association of Moor Park did when they were refused a Station because of limited footfall.[/p][/quote]"If they're so well-to-do..." There's that bias again. I come from a working class family. I've worked as in manual jobs all my life. Can't afford Sky TV, have a battered 11-year-old car and a computer old enough that it originally ran Windows 98. You judge me just because I worked hard, saved hard and now have a nice house in a nice area. Sounds like jealousy to me. I could have wasted my money on fags, big TVs and holidays in Spain, but I wanted to live somewhere nice, next to the park. Now I do. Why do you think people who are achieve their goals should have to be penalised? Why do you dislike other people's accomplishments? Do you need to blame your own failings on other people?[/p][/quote]Well you can enjoy a nice long walk to one of the new stations now when the Met station closes, never mind eh. ramage1996

3:50pm Thu 22 Aug 13

Keefer says...

fugu wrote:
Keefer wrote:
WriteN0w wrote:
fortuner wrote:
I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station
It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively.

Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.
CRL will use the old Croxley Green\Watford West (overground) route into High Street Station. Surveying has already started.

I keep reading people say they should build a link into the CRL from Watford Met! But it's not financially possible, it would have to start in the middle of the Cassio Viaduct! Can you imagine the extra cost to start building from\to such a height? it's just not feasible for LU to spend millions of pounds more on so few.

As an LU Employee, I find myself having little pity for their plight! They constantly complain of any noise from works to maintain the line and yet complain when told the Station will close. They can't have their cake & eat it too.

If they're so well-to-do & seemingly self-important, let them fund a link themselves, as the residents association of Moor Park did when they were refused a Station because of limited footfall.
"If they're so well-to-do..." There's that bias again.

I come from a working class family. I've worked as in manual jobs all my life. Can't afford Sky TV, have a battered 11-year-old car and a computer old enough that it originally ran Windows 98.

You judge me just because I worked hard, saved hard and now have a nice house in a nice area. Sounds like jealousy to me. I could have wasted my money on fags, big TVs and holidays in Spain, but I wanted to live somewhere nice, next to the park. Now I do. Why do you think people who are achieve their goals should have to be penalised? Why do you dislike other people's accomplishments? Do you need to blame your own failings on other people?
I haven't failed, I earn enough for all of the things you've sacrificed and still manage to keep a nice home. you've taken a snippet of my post personally, but ignore the real reason you're losing the station, that is: it's economically unviable to keep it open, it's a cul-de-sac & serves too few people to make it profitable. "The needs of the many..." my selfish friend.

I suggest you sell your "Nice House in a nice area" & move to an even nicer area with even nicer houses - Moor Park, where the residents pay a surcharge for keeping their station open & don't complain when LU arrive to maintain the track and keep the traveling public safe.

You can also use you're antique computer to google Taxi firms in the area if you don't like the idea of strolling to your nearest NEW station - go on, you can afford it. :)
[quote][p][bold]fugu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fortuner[/bold] wrote: I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station[/p][/quote]It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively. Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.[/p][/quote]CRL will use the old Croxley Green\Watford West (overground) route into High Street Station. Surveying has already started. I keep reading people say they should build a link into the CRL from Watford Met! But it's not financially possible, it would have to start in the middle of the Cassio Viaduct! Can you imagine the extra cost to start building from\to such a height? it's just not feasible for LU to spend millions of pounds more on so few. As an LU Employee, I find myself having little pity for their plight! They constantly complain of any noise from works to maintain the line and yet complain when told the Station will close. They can't have their cake & eat it too. If they're so well-to-do & seemingly self-important, let them fund a link themselves, as the residents association of Moor Park did when they were refused a Station because of limited footfall.[/p][/quote]"If they're so well-to-do..." There's that bias again. I come from a working class family. I've worked as in manual jobs all my life. Can't afford Sky TV, have a battered 11-year-old car and a computer old enough that it originally ran Windows 98. You judge me just because I worked hard, saved hard and now have a nice house in a nice area. Sounds like jealousy to me. I could have wasted my money on fags, big TVs and holidays in Spain, but I wanted to live somewhere nice, next to the park. Now I do. Why do you think people who are achieve their goals should have to be penalised? Why do you dislike other people's accomplishments? Do you need to blame your own failings on other people?[/p][/quote]I haven't failed, I earn enough for all of the things you've sacrificed and still manage to keep a nice home. you've taken a snippet of my post personally, but ignore the real reason you're losing the station, that is: it's economically unviable to keep it open, it's a cul-de-sac & serves too few people to make it profitable. "The needs of the many..." my selfish friend. I suggest you sell your "Nice House in a nice area" & move to an even nicer area with even nicer houses - Moor Park, where the residents pay a surcharge for keeping their station open & don't complain when LU arrive to maintain the track and keep the traveling public safe. You can also use you're antique computer to google Taxi firms in the area if you don't like the idea of strolling to your nearest NEW station - go on, you can afford it. :) Keefer

4:39pm Thu 22 Aug 13

Keefer says...

Even an extension to Watford Town Centre couldn't compete with this proposal

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/File:Croxle
y_rail_link.png

This illustrates the vision for the future of rail transportation links THROUGH (not TO) Watford.
Even an extension to Watford Town Centre couldn't compete with this proposal http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/File:Croxle y_rail_link.png This illustrates the vision for the future of rail transportation links THROUGH (not TO) Watford. Keefer

8:10pm Thu 22 Aug 13

fugu says...

ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.
ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it. fugu

9:55pm Thu 22 Aug 13

Keefer says...

fugu wrote:
ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.
Wow! Those grapes seem pretty sour ...Enjoy. :)
[quote][p][bold]fugu[/bold] wrote: ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.[/p][/quote]Wow! Those grapes seem pretty sour ...Enjoy. :) Keefer

10:16pm Thu 22 Aug 13

pr76uk says...

fugu wrote:
ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.
Make sure you throw away your Oyster card then to avoid paying TfL! Glad you can afford an extra fiver a day.
[quote][p][bold]fugu[/bold] wrote: ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.[/p][/quote]Make sure you throw away your Oyster card then to avoid paying TfL! Glad you can afford an extra fiver a day. pr76uk

4:18am Fri 23 Aug 13

Bloodwags says...

This is a serious discussion about facts. Why is this column full of social jealousy and backbiting - it's pathetic.

Let's get one thing clear: whether or not anyone thinks the CRL business case is shaky, the figures are contrived or the PR has been disingenuous, people who want to Save Watford Met aren't opposed to the Croxley Rail Link or to the general principle of improving transport for people in West Watford. Whatever happened with the Earl of Essex in 1927 is now history - a residential estate has since grown up around the station which houses 14,000 people.

They are concerned about the unnecessary loss of a well used local station which serves a large residential area of 14,000 people. Many of them already walk 15+ minutes to the station from north of Cassiobury Park (way longer than the 800m catchment area used in the CRL business case). They have no choice. There is no other station. They are not concerned about house prices. They are concerned about them and the many children who use the station having to walk up to half an hour each way, each day, light or dark, rain or shine, half of it along a busy main road with two major intersections to cross.

All they're asking for is a 3 tph, 4-car shuttle service connecting them to Croxley or Moor Park so they can keep using the same means of transport that has been serving the area nearly 90 years. If planned carefully it would NOT be uneconomic (in the the CRL business case the idea was sunk because they assumed it would require an 8-car train and dedicated platform at Croxley but this is not necessarily so).

In fact the whole of CRL could be more economic if it was based on 4 car shuttles from Moor Park. Longer trains aren't necessary - they cost more to buy, more to maintain, more to run, use more energy and require longer platforms, more lighting, signs etc all of which push the initial cost up. So, but for the fact CRL is Dorothy Thornhill's meal ticket to another term in office (and Richard Harrington is trying to make it his too) why not review other choices that could really benefit ALL of Watford?

Keefer, no one is suggesting a further viaduct connecting to northbound CRL.

Samwatford, your Richmond etc theory seems not to apply in Watford since most Overground trains arriving at WFJ are also largely empty, apart from passengers like me who board at Watford High St and travel a short way north to catch faster southbound trains. If that's how other West Watfordians will think and act, there would be no need to build the link itself, just reopen the old branch line.
This is a serious discussion about facts. Why is this column full of social jealousy and backbiting - it's pathetic. Let's get one thing clear: whether or not anyone thinks the CRL business case is shaky, the figures are contrived or the PR has been disingenuous, people who want to Save Watford Met aren't opposed to the Croxley Rail Link or to the general principle of improving transport for people in West Watford. Whatever happened with the Earl of Essex in 1927 is now history - a residential estate has since grown up around the station which houses 14,000 people. They are concerned about the unnecessary loss of a well used local station which serves a large residential area of 14,000 people. Many of them already walk 15+ minutes to the station from north of Cassiobury Park (way longer than the 800m catchment area used in the CRL business case). They have no choice. There is no other station. They are not concerned about house prices. They are concerned about them and the many children who use the station having to walk up to half an hour each way, each day, light or dark, rain or shine, half of it along a busy main road with two major intersections to cross. All they're asking for is a 3 tph, 4-car shuttle service connecting them to Croxley or Moor Park so they can keep using the same means of transport that has been serving the area nearly 90 years. If planned carefully it would NOT be uneconomic (in the the CRL business case the idea was sunk because they assumed it would require an 8-car train and dedicated platform at Croxley but this is not necessarily so). In fact the whole of CRL could be more economic if it was based on 4 car shuttles from Moor Park. Longer trains aren't necessary - they cost more to buy, more to maintain, more to run, use more energy and require longer platforms, more lighting, signs etc all of which push the initial cost up. So, but for the fact CRL is Dorothy Thornhill's meal ticket to another term in office (and Richard Harrington is trying to make it his too) why not review other choices that could really benefit ALL of Watford? Keefer, no one is suggesting a further viaduct connecting to northbound CRL. Samwatford, your Richmond etc theory seems not to apply in Watford since most Overground trains arriving at WFJ are also largely empty, apart from passengers like me who board at Watford High St and travel a short way north to catch faster [London Midland] southbound trains. If that's how other West Watfordians will think and act, there would be no need to build the link itself, just reopen the old branch line. Bloodwags

9:07am Fri 23 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

Keefer wrote:
WriteN0w wrote:
fortuner wrote:
I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station
It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively.

Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.
CRL will use the old Croxley Green\Watford West (overground) route into High Street Station. Surveying has already started.

I keep reading people say they should build a link into the CRL from Watford Met! But it's not financially possible, it would have to start in the middle of the Cassio Viaduct! Can you imagine the extra cost to start building from\to such a height? it's just not feasible for LU to spend millions of pounds more on so few.

As an LU Employee, I find myself having little pity for their plight! They constantly complain of any noise from works to maintain the line and yet complain when told the Station will close. They can't have their cake & eat it too.

If they're so well-to-do & seemingly self-important, let them fund a link themselves, as the residents association of Moor Park did when they were refused a Station because of limited footfall.
I know Watford Central isn't happening. I was saying in an ideal world it would be great. The CRL obviously had nothing to do with this and will still be good for the town.
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fortuner[/bold] wrote: I think they should still go ahead and build the, long ago planned and given up, line to Watford Central Met station. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Watford_Cen tral_tube_station[/p][/quote]It would be great, but they'd need serious planning permission which would delay the project massively. Unfortunately the site of the proposed line is now probably - id expect for it to be anyway - developed.[/p][/quote]CRL will use the old Croxley Green\Watford West (overground) route into High Street Station. Surveying has already started. I keep reading people say they should build a link into the CRL from Watford Met! But it's not financially possible, it would have to start in the middle of the Cassio Viaduct! Can you imagine the extra cost to start building from\to such a height? it's just not feasible for LU to spend millions of pounds more on so few. As an LU Employee, I find myself having little pity for their plight! They constantly complain of any noise from works to maintain the line and yet complain when told the Station will close. They can't have their cake & eat it too. If they're so well-to-do & seemingly self-important, let them fund a link themselves, as the residents association of Moor Park did when they were refused a Station because of limited footfall.[/p][/quote]I know Watford Central isn't happening. I was saying in an ideal world it would be great. The CRL obviously had nothing to do with this and will still be good for the town. WriteN0w

9:20am Fri 23 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

If people are travelling from North of Cassiobury Park it may be a nuisance but all this "I don't want my children walking down a dark road" business is silly.

If you're sensible there shouldn't be an issue. As I said earlier, if my local station was closing id be annoyed too.

Having a shuttle to Croxley would require an extra platform surely - again extra expense, but in the peak times possibly though the staff costs and the hassle to open it exclusively at those times means its probably a no-no.

I understand the Cassiobury residents frustration but this link has been in the works for years. Connecting the Met Line with the DC at the High Street has been talked about since the 1960's and 1970's.

It has been put back before. One of its key benefits is not just necessarily for commuters but to attract more people to the town from further afield.

It also opens up the opportunity for Chiltern trains to run into Watford Junction in the future..
If people are travelling from North of Cassiobury Park it may be a nuisance but all this "I don't want my children walking down a dark road" business is silly. If you're sensible there shouldn't be an issue. As I said earlier, if my local station was closing id be annoyed too. Having a shuttle to Croxley would require an extra platform surely - again extra expense, but in the peak times possibly though the staff costs and the hassle to open it exclusively at those times means its probably a no-no. I understand the Cassiobury residents frustration but this link has been in the works for years. Connecting the Met Line with the DC at the High Street has been talked about since the 1960's and 1970's. It has been put back before. One of its key benefits is not just necessarily for commuters but to attract more people to the town from further afield. It also opens up the opportunity for Chiltern trains to run into Watford Junction in the future.. WriteN0w

9:21am Fri 23 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

fugu wrote:
ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.
London MIdland's contract will probably be revoked by then, there is enough complaints at the minute especially regarding the Abbey Flyer.
[quote][p][bold]fugu[/bold] wrote: ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.[/p][/quote]London MIdland's contract will probably be revoked by then, there is enough complaints at the minute especially regarding the Abbey Flyer. WriteN0w

10:54am Fri 23 Aug 13

fortuner says...

WriteN0w wrote:
fugu wrote:
ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.
London MIdland's contract will probably be revoked by then, there is enough complaints at the minute especially regarding the Abbey Flyer.
There has always been a lot of complaints, even under Silverlink and yonder to the good ol BR days.
[quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fugu[/bold] wrote: ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.[/p][/quote]London MIdland's contract will probably be revoked by then, there is enough complaints at the minute especially regarding the Abbey Flyer.[/p][/quote]There has always been a lot of complaints, even under Silverlink and yonder to the good ol BR days. fortuner

11:11am Fri 23 Aug 13

TRT says...

It would have gone a long way towards addressing the lack of East-West rail in Hertfordshire had the CRL linked up with the Abbey Line and onwards to the ECML. If the CRL takes off, and if Chiltern get that service into the Junction, perhaps some serious consideration may be given to an East-West plan, though given the length of time it's taken to get a spade in the ground for CRL, I think I'll be dead and buried by the time we see any direct service e.g. Amersham to Hertford via Watford.
It would have gone a long way towards addressing the lack of East-West rail in Hertfordshire had the CRL linked up with the Abbey Line and onwards to the ECML. If the CRL takes off, and if Chiltern get that service into the Junction, perhaps some serious consideration may be given to an East-West plan, though given the length of time it's taken to get a spade in the ground for CRL, I think I'll be dead and buried by the time we see any direct service e.g. Amersham to Hertford via Watford. TRT

3:08pm Fri 23 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

Bloodwags wrote:
This is a serious discussion about facts. Why is this column full of social jealousy and backbiting - it's pathetic. Let's get one thing clear: whether or not anyone thinks the CRL business case is shaky, the figures are contrived or the PR has been disingenuous, people who want to Save Watford Met aren't opposed to the Croxley Rail Link or to the general principle of improving transport for people in West Watford. Whatever happened with the Earl of Essex in 1927 is now history - a residential estate has since grown up around the station which houses 14,000 people. They are concerned about the unnecessary loss of a well used local station which serves a large residential area of 14,000 people. Many of them already walk 15+ minutes to the station from north of Cassiobury Park (way longer than the 800m catchment area used in the CRL business case). They have no choice. There is no other station. They are not concerned about house prices. They are concerned about them and the many children who use the station having to walk up to half an hour each way, each day, light or dark, rain or shine, half of it along a busy main road with two major intersections to cross. All they're asking for is a 3 tph, 4-car shuttle service connecting them to Croxley or Moor Park so they can keep using the same means of transport that has been serving the area nearly 90 years. If planned carefully it would NOT be uneconomic (in the the CRL business case the idea was sunk because they assumed it would require an 8-car train and dedicated platform at Croxley but this is not necessarily so). In fact the whole of CRL could be more economic if it was based on 4 car shuttles from Moor Park. Longer trains aren't necessary - they cost more to buy, more to maintain, more to run, use more energy and require longer platforms, more lighting, signs etc all of which push the initial cost up. So, but for the fact CRL is Dorothy Thornhill's meal ticket to another term in office (and Richard Harrington is trying to make it his too) why not review other choices that could really benefit ALL of Watford? Keefer, no one is suggesting a further viaduct connecting to northbound CRL. Samwatford, your Richmond etc theory seems not to apply in Watford since most Overground trains arriving at WFJ are also largely empty, apart from passengers like me who board at Watford High St and travel a short way north to catch faster southbound trains. If that's how other West Watfordians will think and act, there would be no need to build the link itself, just reopen the old branch line.
The whole reason the Croxley Green branch closed in 1996 was because of low usage. Why reopen it?

The CRL will ensure it is used much more. In the end the old branch line had just one train a day in each direction, the line was overgrown, trains empty, platforms without staff and left to run into disrepair.
[quote][p][bold]Bloodwags[/bold] wrote: This is a serious discussion about facts. Why is this column full of social jealousy and backbiting - it's pathetic. Let's get one thing clear: whether or not anyone thinks the CRL business case is shaky, the figures are contrived or the PR has been disingenuous, people who want to Save Watford Met aren't opposed to the Croxley Rail Link or to the general principle of improving transport for people in West Watford. Whatever happened with the Earl of Essex in 1927 is now history - a residential estate has since grown up around the station which houses 14,000 people. They are concerned about the unnecessary loss of a well used local station which serves a large residential area of 14,000 people. Many of them already walk 15+ minutes to the station from north of Cassiobury Park (way longer than the 800m catchment area used in the CRL business case). They have no choice. There is no other station. They are not concerned about house prices. They are concerned about them and the many children who use the station having to walk up to half an hour each way, each day, light or dark, rain or shine, half of it along a busy main road with two major intersections to cross. All they're asking for is a 3 tph, 4-car shuttle service connecting them to Croxley or Moor Park so they can keep using the same means of transport that has been serving the area nearly 90 years. If planned carefully it would NOT be uneconomic (in the the CRL business case the idea was sunk because they assumed it would require an 8-car train and dedicated platform at Croxley but this is not necessarily so). In fact the whole of CRL could be more economic if it was based on 4 car shuttles from Moor Park. Longer trains aren't necessary - they cost more to buy, more to maintain, more to run, use more energy and require longer platforms, more lighting, signs etc all of which push the initial cost up. So, but for the fact CRL is Dorothy Thornhill's meal ticket to another term in office (and Richard Harrington is trying to make it his too) why not review other choices that could really benefit ALL of Watford? Keefer, no one is suggesting a further viaduct connecting to northbound CRL. Samwatford, your Richmond etc theory seems not to apply in Watford since most Overground trains arriving at WFJ are also largely empty, apart from passengers like me who board at Watford High St and travel a short way north to catch faster [London Midland] southbound trains. If that's how other West Watfordians will think and act, there would be no need to build the link itself, just reopen the old branch line.[/p][/quote]The whole reason the Croxley Green branch closed in 1996 was because of low usage. Why reopen it? The CRL will ensure it is used much more. In the end the old branch line had just one train a day in each direction, the line was overgrown, trains empty, platforms without staff and left to run into disrepair. WriteN0w

3:10pm Fri 23 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

fortuner wrote:
WriteN0w wrote:
fugu wrote: ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.
London MIdland's contract will probably be revoked by then, there is enough complaints at the minute especially regarding the Abbey Flyer.
There has always been a lot of complaints, even under Silverlink and yonder to the good ol BR days.
Exactly, and where is Silverlink now? Gone.

It was disastrous and LM is better but still has its faults. It had its contract extended until 2015 or something but by then I reckon their will be another provider waiting.

Just nationalise the whole network and leave TFL to control what it does now.
[quote][p][bold]fortuner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fugu[/bold] wrote: ramage1996 & Keefer, sorry to disappoint you but I only use Watford Met to go into London because it's close despite the longer journey times. Once it closes it doesn't make sense to use the "NEW" stations, especially with the increased fares, so I'll be making all my journeys from Watford junction. Still I'm sure London Midland will appreciate the extra income. London Underground obviously don't want it.[/p][/quote]London MIdland's contract will probably be revoked by then, there is enough complaints at the minute especially regarding the Abbey Flyer.[/p][/quote]There has always been a lot of complaints, even under Silverlink and yonder to the good ol BR days.[/p][/quote]Exactly, and where is Silverlink now? Gone. It was disastrous and LM is better but still has its faults. It had its contract extended until 2015 or something but by then I reckon their will be another provider waiting. Just nationalise the whole network and leave TFL to control what it does now. WriteN0w

5:55pm Fri 23 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

WriteN0w wrote:
Bloodwags wrote:
This is a serious discussion about facts. Why is this column full of social jealousy and backbiting - it's pathetic. Let's get one thing clear: whether or not anyone thinks the CRL business case is shaky, the figures are contrived or the PR has been disingenuous, people who want to Save Watford Met aren't opposed to the Croxley Rail Link or to the general principle of improving transport for people in West Watford. Whatever happened with the Earl of Essex in 1927 is now history - a residential estate has since grown up around the station which houses 14,000 people. They are concerned about the unnecessary loss of a well used local station which serves a large residential area of 14,000 people. Many of them already walk 15+ minutes to the station from north of Cassiobury Park (way longer than the 800m catchment area used in the CRL business case). They have no choice. There is no other station. They are not concerned about house prices. They are concerned about them and the many children who use the station having to walk up to half an hour each way, each day, light or dark, rain or shine, half of it along a busy main road with two major intersections to cross. All they're asking for is a 3 tph, 4-car shuttle service connecting them to Croxley or Moor Park so they can keep using the same means of transport that has been serving the area nearly 90 years. If planned carefully it would NOT be uneconomic (in the the CRL business case the idea was sunk because they assumed it would require an 8-car train and dedicated platform at Croxley but this is not necessarily so). In fact the whole of CRL could be more economic if it was based on 4 car shuttles from Moor Park. Longer trains aren't necessary - they cost more to buy, more to maintain, more to run, use more energy and require longer platforms, more lighting, signs etc all of which push the initial cost up. So, but for the fact CRL is Dorothy Thornhill's meal ticket to another term in office (and Richard Harrington is trying to make it his too) why not review other choices that could really benefit ALL of Watford? Keefer, no one is suggesting a further viaduct connecting to northbound CRL. Samwatford, your Richmond etc theory seems not to apply in Watford since most Overground trains arriving at WFJ are also largely empty, apart from passengers like me who board at Watford High St and travel a short way north to catch faster southbound trains. If that's how other West Watfordians will think and act, there would be no need to build the link itself, just reopen the old branch line.
The whole reason the Croxley Green branch closed in 1996 was because of low usage. Why reopen it?

The CRL will ensure it is used much more. In the end the old branch line had just one train a day in each direction, the line was overgrown, trains empty, platforms without staff and left to run into disrepair.
Actually, they ended up closing down the one train per day and replacing it with a single taxi each morning plus - presumably - another taxi back each evening. They cut through the embankment to provide access to the new business park - and that was the end of the Croxley Green line.
This also explains why the bridge carrying the proposed Croxley Rail Link will be on a much wider arc across Rickmansworth Road than was envisaged 20 years ago. This must mean greater works and more cost than 20 years ago.
Nevertheless, although it was eventually considered to be unviable then, it is now claimed that it is viable now. Of course, the difference between then and now is the prospects of a League title for Watford FC and the plans for a health campus - though when they will ever happen is not clear.
[quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bloodwags[/bold] wrote: This is a serious discussion about facts. Why is this column full of social jealousy and backbiting - it's pathetic. Let's get one thing clear: whether or not anyone thinks the CRL business case is shaky, the figures are contrived or the PR has been disingenuous, people who want to Save Watford Met aren't opposed to the Croxley Rail Link or to the general principle of improving transport for people in West Watford. Whatever happened with the Earl of Essex in 1927 is now history - a residential estate has since grown up around the station which houses 14,000 people. They are concerned about the unnecessary loss of a well used local station which serves a large residential area of 14,000 people. Many of them already walk 15+ minutes to the station from north of Cassiobury Park (way longer than the 800m catchment area used in the CRL business case). They have no choice. There is no other station. They are not concerned about house prices. They are concerned about them and the many children who use the station having to walk up to half an hour each way, each day, light or dark, rain or shine, half of it along a busy main road with two major intersections to cross. All they're asking for is a 3 tph, 4-car shuttle service connecting them to Croxley or Moor Park so they can keep using the same means of transport that has been serving the area nearly 90 years. If planned carefully it would NOT be uneconomic (in the the CRL business case the idea was sunk because they assumed it would require an 8-car train and dedicated platform at Croxley but this is not necessarily so). In fact the whole of CRL could be more economic if it was based on 4 car shuttles from Moor Park. Longer trains aren't necessary - they cost more to buy, more to maintain, more to run, use more energy and require longer platforms, more lighting, signs etc all of which push the initial cost up. So, but for the fact CRL is Dorothy Thornhill's meal ticket to another term in office (and Richard Harrington is trying to make it his too) why not review other choices that could really benefit ALL of Watford? Keefer, no one is suggesting a further viaduct connecting to northbound CRL. Samwatford, your Richmond etc theory seems not to apply in Watford since most Overground trains arriving at WFJ are also largely empty, apart from passengers like me who board at Watford High St and travel a short way north to catch faster [London Midland] southbound trains. If that's how other West Watfordians will think and act, there would be no need to build the link itself, just reopen the old branch line.[/p][/quote]The whole reason the Croxley Green branch closed in 1996 was because of low usage. Why reopen it? The CRL will ensure it is used much more. In the end the old branch line had just one train a day in each direction, the line was overgrown, trains empty, platforms without staff and left to run into disrepair.[/p][/quote]Actually, they ended up closing down the one train per day and replacing it with a single taxi each morning plus - presumably - another taxi back each evening. They cut through the embankment to provide access to the new business park - and that was the end of the Croxley Green line. This also explains why the bridge carrying the proposed Croxley Rail Link will be on a much wider arc across Rickmansworth Road than was envisaged 20 years ago. This must mean greater works and more cost than 20 years ago. Nevertheless, although it was eventually considered to be unviable then, it is now claimed that it is viable now. Of course, the difference between then and now is the prospects of a League title for Watford FC and the plans for a health campus - though when they will ever happen is not clear. John Dowdle

6:00pm Fri 23 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

I would like to raise one point that no one else has picked up on.
When the CRL was last proposed 20 years ago, one of the questions which was raised was whether or not the new line would be used to carry rail freight?
We never received any clear answer on this point.
Llinking the whole rail network from the West means the possible prospect of goods such as nuclear waste being transported from the West and up the West Coast Main Line to nuclear facilities in Cumberland - and vice versa.
Has any thought been given to the possibility of freight being transported through the Croxley Rail Link? I doubt it.
I would like to raise one point that no one else has picked up on. When the CRL was last proposed 20 years ago, one of the questions which was raised was whether or not the new line would be used to carry rail freight? We never received any clear answer on this point. Llinking the whole rail network from the West means the possible prospect of goods such as nuclear waste being transported from the West and up the West Coast Main Line to nuclear facilities in Cumberland - and vice versa. Has any thought been given to the possibility of freight being transported through the Croxley Rail Link? I doubt it. John Dowdle

9:20pm Fri 23 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

John Dowdle wrote:
I would like to raise one point that no one else has picked up on.
When the CRL was last proposed 20 years ago, one of the questions which was raised was whether or not the new line would be used to carry rail freight?
We never received any clear answer on this point.
Llinking the whole rail network from the West means the possible prospect of goods such as nuclear waste being transported from the West and up the West Coast Main Line to nuclear facilities in Cumberland - and vice versa.
Has any thought been given to the possibility of freight being transported through the Croxley Rail Link? I doubt it.
It would cause congestion what with three Overground trains an hour in each direction and the numerous Met ones operating around the junction where trains would join up. Plus presumably it would congestion around the Moor Park area.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: I would like to raise one point that no one else has picked up on. When the CRL was last proposed 20 years ago, one of the questions which was raised was whether or not the new line would be used to carry rail freight? We never received any clear answer on this point. Llinking the whole rail network from the West means the possible prospect of goods such as nuclear waste being transported from the West and up the West Coast Main Line to nuclear facilities in Cumberland - and vice versa. Has any thought been given to the possibility of freight being transported through the Croxley Rail Link? I doubt it.[/p][/quote]It would cause congestion what with three Overground trains an hour in each direction and the numerous Met ones operating around the junction where trains would join up. Plus presumably it would congestion around the Moor Park area. WriteN0w

9:43pm Fri 23 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

WriteN0w wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
I would like to raise one point that no one else has picked up on.
When the CRL was last proposed 20 years ago, one of the questions which was raised was whether or not the new line would be used to carry rail freight?
We never received any clear answer on this point.
Llinking the whole rail network from the West means the possible prospect of goods such as nuclear waste being transported from the West and up the West Coast Main Line to nuclear facilities in Cumberland - and vice versa.
Has any thought been given to the possibility of freight being transported through the Croxley Rail Link? I doubt it.
It would cause congestion what with three Overground trains an hour in each direction and the numerous Met ones operating around the junction where trains would join up. Plus presumably it would congestion around the Moor Park area.
What about night-time freight traffic. i.e. when the conventional train services are not running? The early hours - 2 to 6 a.m.?
There is a disused power station near the proposed route of the CRL line, which could be used to transport-in waste for incineration.
If you think that unlikely, know this: when I was a councillor, we bought the site to stop the county council from using the site for locating an incinerator.
The council was under the control of a different group then. Whether or not the Lib Dems would stand up to Veolia and HCC to stop them using the rail link and former power station site for large-scale waste incineration is only something they can say. Perhaps one of their councillors can come on here and let us know where they stand on this issue?
[quote][p][bold]WriteN0w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: I would like to raise one point that no one else has picked up on. When the CRL was last proposed 20 years ago, one of the questions which was raised was whether or not the new line would be used to carry rail freight? We never received any clear answer on this point. Llinking the whole rail network from the West means the possible prospect of goods such as nuclear waste being transported from the West and up the West Coast Main Line to nuclear facilities in Cumberland - and vice versa. Has any thought been given to the possibility of freight being transported through the Croxley Rail Link? I doubt it.[/p][/quote]It would cause congestion what with three Overground trains an hour in each direction and the numerous Met ones operating around the junction where trains would join up. Plus presumably it would congestion around the Moor Park area.[/p][/quote]What about night-time freight traffic. i.e. when the conventional train services are not running? The early hours - 2 to 6 a.m.? There is a disused power station near the proposed route of the CRL line, which could be used to transport-in waste for incineration. If you think that unlikely, know this: when I was a councillor, we bought the site to stop the county council from using the site for locating an incinerator. The council was under the control of a different group then. Whether or not the Lib Dems would stand up to Veolia and HCC to stop them using the rail link and former power station site for large-scale waste incineration is only something they can say. Perhaps one of their councillors can come on here and let us know where they stand on this issue? John Dowdle

10:11pm Fri 23 Aug 13

TRT says...

The turnout between the DC lines and the WCML was IIRC removed to allow higher speeds on the mainline. They used to be able to divert eg HST inter cities through the High Street when the viaduct was being worked on. There's a YouTube video of this happening if you search for it.
The turnout between the DC lines and the WCML was IIRC removed to allow higher speeds on the mainline. They used to be able to divert eg HST inter cities through the High Street when the viaduct was being worked on. There's a YouTube video of this happening if you search for it. TRT

11:04pm Fri 23 Aug 13

fortuner says...

TRT wrote:
The turnout between the DC lines and the WCML was IIRC removed to allow higher speeds on the mainline. They used to be able to divert eg HST inter cities through the High Street when the viaduct was being worked on. There's a YouTube video of this happening if you search for it.
This video clip?
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=YiRO3ZvY
rFI

As far as I'm aware, the turnout is still there at Watford Junction. Probably always will be.
http://binged.it/14M
ue9H
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: The turnout between the DC lines and the WCML was IIRC removed to allow higher speeds on the mainline. They used to be able to divert eg HST inter cities through the High Street when the viaduct was being worked on. There's a YouTube video of this happening if you search for it.[/p][/quote]This video clip? https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=YiRO3ZvY rFI As far as I'm aware, the turnout is still there at Watford Junction. Probably always will be. http://binged.it/14M ue9H fortuner

11:12pm Fri 23 Aug 13

trebleywebley says...

As a matter of interest where is Mars Lander,no prizes for guessing the pseudonym he's hiding under.
As a matter of interest where is Mars Lander,no prizes for guessing the pseudonym he's hiding under. trebleywebley

11:21pm Fri 23 Aug 13

TRT says...

Yep. That's the video.
I know the turn out you can see on the aerial photographs, I thought that had gone now. I've not been up there in a while. It may still be in place. How did they get the ballast trains into the DC last year? I thought they joined it at Wembley somewhere?
Yep. That's the video. I know the turn out you can see on the aerial photographs, I thought that had gone now. I've not been up there in a while. It may still be in place. How did they get the ballast trains into the DC last year? I thought they joined it at Wembley somewhere? TRT

12:25am Sat 24 Aug 13

fortuner says...

TRT wrote:
Yep. That's the video.
I know the turn out you can see on the aerial photographs, I thought that had gone now. I've not been up there in a while. It may still be in place. How did they get the ballast trains into the DC last year? I thought they joined it at Wembley somewhere?
There are/were points crossing to the DC lines at Watford Junction, Willesden Junction & connections at Euston. Though over the last century there were probably far more.
The ballast trains may have gone through Willesden. There are various ways that way, depending where the ballast came from.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Yep. That's the video. I know the turn out you can see on the aerial photographs, I thought that had gone now. I've not been up there in a while. It may still be in place. How did they get the ballast trains into the DC last year? I thought they joined it at Wembley somewhere?[/p][/quote]There are/were points crossing to the DC lines at Watford Junction, Willesden Junction & connections at Euston. Though over the last century there were probably far more. The ballast trains may have gone through Willesden. There are various ways that way, depending where the ballast came from. fortuner

12:28am Sat 24 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

Are you confirming that freight shipments could be routed along the Croxley Rail Link?
Are you confirming that freight shipments could be routed along the Croxley Rail Link? John Dowdle

8:25pm Sun 25 Aug 13

Keefer says...

The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains.

So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.
The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains. So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line. Keefer

1:02am Mon 26 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

Keefer: from what you say, all the properties adjoining the route of the CRL may end up - like those near to the West Coast Main Line - experiencing 24 hours per day, 7 days per week rail movements?
Keefer: from what you say, all the properties adjoining the route of the CRL may end up - like those near to the West Coast Main Line - experiencing 24 hours per day, 7 days per week rail movements? John Dowdle

1:30am Mon 26 Aug 13

Keefer says...

John Dowdle wrote:
Keefer: from what you say, all the properties adjoining the route of the CRL may end up - like those near to the West Coast Main Line - experiencing 24 hours per day, 7 days per week rail movements?
No, not on the CRL.

The mainline is different in that staff carry out maintenance between running trains at all hours of the day & night, not so on the Underground..

LU switch off the current at the end of every day for track maintenance, track inspections &\or minor works, LU track staff are not allowed to carry out maintenance when the traction current is switched on, so it's all done at night after switch off.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Keefer: from what you say, all the properties adjoining the route of the CRL may end up - like those near to the West Coast Main Line - experiencing 24 hours per day, 7 days per week rail movements?[/p][/quote]No, not on the CRL. The mainline is different in that staff carry out maintenance between running trains at all hours of the day & night, not so on the Underground.. LU switch off the current at the end of every day for track maintenance, track inspections &\or minor works, LU track staff are not allowed to carry out maintenance when the traction current is switched on, so it's all done at night after switch off. Keefer

2:21am Mon 26 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

When maintenance work is carried out overnight on the DC line between the Junction Station and High Street Station, they use diesel-powered locomotives to move the maintenance wagons.
Presumably, once the CLR is fully in place, this would make it possible for diesel-powered trains to carry freight overnight from the South West up the West Coast Main Line, assuming that they can be switched from the DC line to the West Coast Main Line at Watford Junction Station. Is that possible?
There is a possibility that LU power can be maintained up to West Watford from what I can recall from the most recent set of drawings.
It think the power is converted from AC to DC somewhere near the old football halt. Is that correct?
When maintenance work is carried out overnight on the DC line between the Junction Station and High Street Station, they use diesel-powered locomotives to move the maintenance wagons. Presumably, once the CLR is fully in place, this would make it possible for diesel-powered trains to carry freight overnight from the South West up the West Coast Main Line, assuming that they can be switched from the DC line to the West Coast Main Line at Watford Junction Station. Is that possible? There is a possibility that LU power can be maintained up to West Watford from what I can recall from the most recent set of drawings. It think the power is converted from AC to DC somewhere near the old football halt. Is that correct? John Dowdle

3:08am Mon 26 Aug 13

Keefer says...

I guessed this was coming John, are you a Journalist?

When LU switch off the traction current at night, it covers the whole of the Underground (at differing times), and is a signal to the workforce that it is safe to go on track! That can't be done with trains running around, so the only trains that will run are those necessary for Engineering Works, and once complete, that won't be necessary for years! If a train is required, it's usually work that needs 24 hrs or more to complete - so won't happen during a week night.

The CRL will not be used as a thoroughfare for Diesels at night because it runs into the other sections, which will also require maintenance. And, the Chiltern Line shuts down first.

I can understand your concerns, But you have to bear in mind that LU Trains run predominantly in built-up areas (unlike the mainline) and not all sections are underground, so they're used to making things work quietly, and on the rare occasion that a train has to run late, even the track itself will be CWR (continuously welded rail) so there won't be any of the old "clackety clack", and there will be Lubricators located every so often, to eliminate the possibility of squealing wheels.

Oh.. one more thing; D\C trains run on a third rail system (750 volt), Underground trains use a lower (650) voltage, 4 rail system - I don't believe the two are compatible.
I guessed this was coming John, are you a Journalist? When LU switch off the traction current at night, it covers the whole of the Underground (at differing times), and is a signal to the workforce that it is safe to go on track! That can't be done with trains running around, so the only trains that will run are those necessary for Engineering Works, and once complete, that won't be necessary for years! If a train is required, it's usually work that needs 24 hrs or more to complete - so won't happen during a week night. The CRL will not be used as a thoroughfare for Diesels at night because it runs into the other sections, which will also require maintenance. And, the Chiltern Line shuts down first. I can understand your concerns, But you have to bear in mind that LU Trains run predominantly in built-up areas (unlike the mainline) and not all sections are underground, so they're used to making things work quietly, and on the rare occasion that a train has to run late, even the track itself will be CWR (continuously welded rail) so there won't be any of the old "clackety clack", and there will be Lubricators located every so often, to eliminate the possibility of squealing wheels. Oh.. one more thing; D\C trains run on a third rail system (750 volt), Underground trains use a lower (650) voltage, 4 rail system - I don't believe the two are compatible. Keefer

3:12am Mon 26 Aug 13

Keefer says...

Keefer wrote:
I guessed this was coming John, are you a Journalist?

When LU switch off the traction current at night, it covers the whole of the Underground (at differing times), and is a signal to the workforce that it is safe to go on track! That can't be done with trains running around, so the only trains that will run are those necessary for Engineering Works, and once complete, that won't be necessary for years! If a train is required, it's usually work that needs 24 hrs or more to complete - so won't happen during a week night.

The CRL will not be used as a thoroughfare for Diesels at night because it runs into the other sections, which will also require maintenance. And, the Chiltern Line shuts down first.

I can understand your concerns, But you have to bear in mind that LU Trains run predominantly in built-up areas (unlike the mainline) and not all sections are underground, so they're used to making things work quietly, and on the rare occasion that a train has to run late, even the track itself will be CWR (continuously welded rail) so there won't be any of the old "clackety clack", and there will be Lubricators located every so often, to eliminate the possibility of squealing wheels.

Oh.. one more thing; D\C trains run on a third rail system (750 volt), Underground trains use a lower (650) voltage, 4 rail system - I don't believe the two are compatible.
although I'm probably wrong on that last part. ;)
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: I guessed this was coming John, are you a Journalist? When LU switch off the traction current at night, it covers the whole of the Underground (at differing times), and is a signal to the workforce that it is safe to go on track! That can't be done with trains running around, so the only trains that will run are those necessary for Engineering Works, and once complete, that won't be necessary for years! If a train is required, it's usually work that needs 24 hrs or more to complete - so won't happen during a week night. The CRL will not be used as a thoroughfare for Diesels at night because it runs into the other sections, which will also require maintenance. And, the Chiltern Line shuts down first. I can understand your concerns, But you have to bear in mind that LU Trains run predominantly in built-up areas (unlike the mainline) and not all sections are underground, so they're used to making things work quietly, and on the rare occasion that a train has to run late, even the track itself will be CWR (continuously welded rail) so there won't be any of the old "clackety clack", and there will be Lubricators located every so often, to eliminate the possibility of squealing wheels. Oh.. one more thing; D\C trains run on a third rail system (750 volt), Underground trains use a lower (650) voltage, 4 rail system - I don't believe the two are compatible.[/p][/quote]although I'm probably wrong on that last part. ;) Keefer

3:21am Mon 26 Aug 13

Keefer says...

BTW: from what I remember of my days working for BR, the Freight Trans were usually either a quarter or half mile long! I think they're too long to make the shunt from D\C to mainline or vice versa at Watford Junction.
BTW: from what I remember of my days working for BR, the Freight Trans were usually either a quarter or half mile long! I think they're too long to make the shunt from D\C to mainline or vice versa at Watford Junction. Keefer

3:25am Mon 26 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

The DC line is now CWR - it was installed about one year ago.
I am not a journalist; the embankment carrying the DC line is immediately behind my house and I am wondering how feasible it might be for overnight freight trains to be running on that stretch of track.
When the CLR was last proposed - about 20 years ago - I checked it out and found it was possible to link up between nuclear facilities in the South West and Cumbria, particularly if diesel powered locomotives are used.
From what you said above, it seems the LUL trains will need to be able to cope with both power levels, I imagine, as they will be running on the lower voltage system up to West Watford and then on the higher voltage between there and the Junction Station. How this will interact with the DC line I am not sure, unless DC power is no longer in use and that is just the old name for the slow line to Euston Junction still being used ever since?
The DC line is now CWR - it was installed about one year ago. I am not a journalist; the embankment carrying the DC line is immediately behind my house and I am wondering how feasible it might be for overnight freight trains to be running on that stretch of track. When the CLR was last proposed - about 20 years ago - I checked it out and found it was possible to link up between nuclear facilities in the South West and Cumbria, particularly if diesel powered locomotives are used. From what you said above, it seems the LUL trains will need to be able to cope with both power levels, I imagine, as they will be running on the lower voltage system up to West Watford and then on the higher voltage between there and the Junction Station. How this will interact with the DC line I am not sure, unless DC power is no longer in use and that is just the old name for the slow line to Euston Junction still being used ever since? John Dowdle

3:31am Mon 26 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

Keefer wrote:
BTW: from what I remember of my days working for BR, the Freight Trans were usually either a quarter or half mile long! I think they're too long to make the shunt from D\C to mainline or vice versa at Watford Junction.
I think length is the crucial point. The maintenance trains are just equivalent to one or two carriages at most but a freight train would be a lot longer.

From what you say, it seems there is insufficient switching capability at Watford Junction Station to move freight traffic between the WCML and CRL.

That is a relief !!

Thank you.
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: BTW: from what I remember of my days working for BR, the Freight Trans were usually either a quarter or half mile long! I think they're too long to make the shunt from D\C to mainline or vice versa at Watford Junction.[/p][/quote]I think length is the crucial point. The maintenance trains are just equivalent to one or two carriages at most but a freight train would be a lot longer. From what you say, it seems there is insufficient switching capability at Watford Junction Station to move freight traffic between the WCML and CRL. That is a relief !! Thank you. John Dowdle

3:40am Mon 26 Aug 13

Keefer says...

I used to live in Gladstone Rd in the eighties backing onto the D\C line too! I now live withing a stones throw of the CRL literally! it's less than 100 meters away - I'll see every train pass the bottom of my road and I'm not concerned in the least

I may not be certain about some things (like the maximum length of trains shunting from the D\C to mainline or the voltage compatibility), but I'm 100% certain the CRL will close every night except for special occasions (new years eve) & emergencies, the same as every other section of LU track.
I used to live in Gladstone Rd in the eighties backing onto the D\C line too! I now live withing a stones throw of the CRL literally! it's less than 100 meters away - I'll see every train pass the bottom of my road and I'm not concerned in the least I may not be certain about some things (like the maximum length of trains shunting from the D\C to mainline or the voltage compatibility), but I'm 100% certain the CRL will close every night except for special occasions (new years eve) & emergencies, the same as every other section of LU track. Keefer

5:29am Mon 26 Aug 13

TRT says...

If your house backs onto the DC line, you'll get a train past every 3 minutes. Good job these new trains, the 378s and the S stocks are quieter. God help us if it was the old Bakerloo or A stock. When it wa the previous silver link ones (315?) you couldn't hear the tv in a front room on Queens Road in the summer.
If your house backs onto the DC line, you'll get a train past every 3 minutes. Good job these new trains, the 378s and the S stocks are quieter. God help us if it was the old Bakerloo or A stock. When it wa the previous silver link ones (315?) you couldn't hear the tv in a front room on Queens Road in the summer. TRT

4:53pm Mon 26 Aug 13

fortuner says...

Keefer wrote:
I guessed this was coming John, are you a Journalist?

When LU switch off the traction current at night, it covers the whole of the Underground (at differing times), and is a signal to the workforce that it is safe to go on track! That can't be done with trains running around, so the only trains that will run are those necessary for Engineering Works, and once complete, that won't be necessary for years! If a train is required, it's usually work that needs 24 hrs or more to complete - so won't happen during a week night.

The CRL will not be used as a thoroughfare for Diesels at night because it runs into the other sections, which will also require maintenance. And, the Chiltern Line shuts down first.

I can understand your concerns, But you have to bear in mind that LU Trains run predominantly in built-up areas (unlike the mainline) and not all sections are underground, so they're used to making things work quietly, and on the rare occasion that a train has to run late, even the track itself will be CWR (continuously welded rail) so there won't be any of the old "clackety clack", and there will be Lubricators located every so often, to eliminate the possibility of squealing wheels.

Oh.. one more thing; D\C trains run on a third rail system (750 volt), Underground trains use a lower (650) voltage, 4 rail system - I don't believe the two are compatible.
Because TFL run the Bakerloo Line trains north of Queens Park on the overground lines, the power in the third rail on the overground line is reduced to 650 volts (part of the reason why in the past there were so many problems when I worked driving the (horrible) 313 trains at Silverlink) and although only the underground trains use the 4th rail system, this is only to provide for the negative return and in no way impacts the running of trains of either companies systems. Once on the overground lines the negative return will run through the running rail that's nearest to the positive 3rd rail (which changes side form time to time down the line) for the overground trains (the other running rail is used for the positive powered track circuits for the signals and to the signal box and also connects through the other rail for return negative) and through the 4th rail for the underground trains making it compatible as it has always been. And somewhere along the line you will actually see that the 4th rail is linked up to the running rail on the overground lines at certain points. I assume the same set-up will have to be used on the Croxley Rail Link.
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: I guessed this was coming John, are you a Journalist? When LU switch off the traction current at night, it covers the whole of the Underground (at differing times), and is a signal to the workforce that it is safe to go on track! That can't be done with trains running around, so the only trains that will run are those necessary for Engineering Works, and once complete, that won't be necessary for years! If a train is required, it's usually work that needs 24 hrs or more to complete - so won't happen during a week night. The CRL will not be used as a thoroughfare for Diesels at night because it runs into the other sections, which will also require maintenance. And, the Chiltern Line shuts down first. I can understand your concerns, But you have to bear in mind that LU Trains run predominantly in built-up areas (unlike the mainline) and not all sections are underground, so they're used to making things work quietly, and on the rare occasion that a train has to run late, even the track itself will be CWR (continuously welded rail) so there won't be any of the old "clackety clack", and there will be Lubricators located every so often, to eliminate the possibility of squealing wheels. Oh.. one more thing; D\C trains run on a third rail system (750 volt), Underground trains use a lower (650) voltage, 4 rail system - I don't believe the two are compatible.[/p][/quote]Because TFL run the Bakerloo Line trains north of Queens Park on the overground lines, the power in the third rail on the overground line is reduced to 650 volts (part of the reason why in the past there were so many problems when I worked driving the (horrible) 313 trains at Silverlink) and although only the underground trains use the 4th rail system, this is only to provide for the negative return and in no way impacts the running of trains of either companies systems. Once on the overground lines the negative return will run through the running rail that's nearest to the positive 3rd rail (which changes side form time to time down the line) for the overground trains (the other running rail is used for the positive powered track circuits for the signals and to the signal box and also connects through the other rail for return negative) and through the 4th rail for the underground trains making it compatible as it has always been. And somewhere along the line you will actually see that the 4th rail is linked up to the running rail on the overground lines at certain points. I assume the same set-up will have to be used on the Croxley Rail Link. fortuner

5:02pm Mon 26 Aug 13

fortuner says...

Keefer wrote:
BTW: from what I remember of my days working for BR, the Freight Trans were usually either a quarter or half mile long! I think they're too long to make the shunt from D\C to mainline or vice versa at Watford Junction.
I don't believe freight trains will in any way regularly be running over the CRL. That is not to say that they will never ever be run as there will always be that possibility if it is deemed necessary for whatever reason, but there are already so many other possibilities to run freight trains north to south or vice-versa.
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: BTW: from what I remember of my days working for BR, the Freight Trans were usually either a quarter or half mile long! I think they're too long to make the shunt from D\C to mainline or vice versa at Watford Junction.[/p][/quote]I don't believe freight trains will in any way regularly be running over the CRL. That is not to say that they will never ever be run as there will always be that possibility if it is deemed necessary for whatever reason, but there are already so many other possibilities to run freight trains north to south or vice-versa. fortuner

5:19pm Mon 26 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

Keefer wrote:
The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains.

So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.
Intercity 125's used to operate Blackpool North and Holyhead services, ie: lines that aren't electrified.

Trains to Holyhead today are diesel.
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains. So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.[/p][/quote]Intercity 125's used to operate Blackpool North and Holyhead services, ie: lines that aren't electrified. Trains to Holyhead today are diesel. WriteN0w

5:22pm Mon 26 Aug 13

WriteN0w says...

Keefer wrote:
I guessed this was coming John, are you a Journalist?

When LU switch off the traction current at night, it covers the whole of the Underground (at differing times), and is a signal to the workforce that it is safe to go on track! That can't be done with trains running around, so the only trains that will run are those necessary for Engineering Works, and once complete, that won't be necessary for years! If a train is required, it's usually work that needs 24 hrs or more to complete - so won't happen during a week night.

The CRL will not be used as a thoroughfare for Diesels at night because it runs into the other sections, which will also require maintenance. And, the Chiltern Line shuts down first.

I can understand your concerns, But you have to bear in mind that LU Trains run predominantly in built-up areas (unlike the mainline) and not all sections are underground, so they're used to making things work quietly, and on the rare occasion that a train has to run late, even the track itself will be CWR (continuously welded rail) so there won't be any of the old "clackety clack", and there will be Lubricators located every so often, to eliminate the possibility of squealing wheels.

Oh.. one more thing; D\C trains run on a third rail system (750 volt), Underground trains use a lower (650) voltage, 4 rail system - I don't believe the two are compatible.
Overground trains run on the line south of Harrow, used by Bakerloo which uses 4th rail.
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: I guessed this was coming John, are you a Journalist? When LU switch off the traction current at night, it covers the whole of the Underground (at differing times), and is a signal to the workforce that it is safe to go on track! That can't be done with trains running around, so the only trains that will run are those necessary for Engineering Works, and once complete, that won't be necessary for years! If a train is required, it's usually work that needs 24 hrs or more to complete - so won't happen during a week night. The CRL will not be used as a thoroughfare for Diesels at night because it runs into the other sections, which will also require maintenance. And, the Chiltern Line shuts down first. I can understand your concerns, But you have to bear in mind that LU Trains run predominantly in built-up areas (unlike the mainline) and not all sections are underground, so they're used to making things work quietly, and on the rare occasion that a train has to run late, even the track itself will be CWR (continuously welded rail) so there won't be any of the old "clackety clack", and there will be Lubricators located every so often, to eliminate the possibility of squealing wheels. Oh.. one more thing; D\C trains run on a third rail system (750 volt), Underground trains use a lower (650) voltage, 4 rail system - I don't believe the two are compatible.[/p][/quote]Overground trains run on the line south of Harrow, used by Bakerloo which uses 4th rail. WriteN0w

5:25pm Mon 26 Aug 13

fortuner says...

John Dowdle wrote:
The DC line is now CWR - it was installed about one year ago.
I am not a journalist; the embankment carrying the DC line is immediately behind my house and I am wondering how feasible it might be for overnight freight trains to be running on that stretch of track.
When the CLR was last proposed - about 20 years ago - I checked it out and found it was possible to link up between nuclear facilities in the South West and Cumbria, particularly if diesel powered locomotives are used.
From what you said above, it seems the LUL trains will need to be able to cope with both power levels, I imagine, as they will be running on the lower voltage system up to West Watford and then on the higher voltage between there and the Junction Station. How this will interact with the DC line I am not sure, unless DC power is no longer in use and that is just the old name for the slow line to Euston Junction still being used ever since?
I very much doubt that you have need to worry about freight going behind your house on the DC lines. Although it may be feasible, there are already so many other better ways to move those freight trains.
The underground Metropolitan trains will work just as well as the Bakerloo trains do north of Queens Park on the overground line, which once also used to go to Watford Junction. Prior to the semi removal of the 4th rail north of Harrow & Wealdstone.
There was talk years back about making the Watford DC lines overhead powered, one of the many ideas that got nowhere. I wished they would at the time as I used to really notice the difference, as in a hell of a lot more power, when driving those 313 trains once they got connected to the overhead powered lines. And also of course once you were in an area of 3rd rail where no underground trains went, like the southern regions where there would be the full 750 volts going through it.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: The DC line is now CWR - it was installed about one year ago. I am not a journalist; the embankment carrying the DC line is immediately behind my house and I am wondering how feasible it might be for overnight freight trains to be running on that stretch of track. When the CLR was last proposed - about 20 years ago - I checked it out and found it was possible to link up between nuclear facilities in the South West and Cumbria, particularly if diesel powered locomotives are used. From what you said above, it seems the LUL trains will need to be able to cope with both power levels, I imagine, as they will be running on the lower voltage system up to West Watford and then on the higher voltage between there and the Junction Station. How this will interact with the DC line I am not sure, unless DC power is no longer in use and that is just the old name for the slow line to Euston Junction still being used ever since?[/p][/quote]I very much doubt that you have need to worry about freight going behind your house on the DC lines. Although it may be feasible, there are already so many other better ways to move those freight trains. The underground Metropolitan trains will work just as well as the Bakerloo trains do north of Queens Park on the overground line, which once also used to go to Watford Junction. Prior to the semi removal of the 4th rail north of Harrow & Wealdstone. There was talk years back about making the Watford DC lines overhead powered, one of the many ideas that got nowhere. I wished they would at the time as I used to really notice the difference, as in a hell of a lot more power, when driving those 313 trains once they got connected to the overhead powered lines. And also of course once you were in an area of 3rd rail where no underground trains went, like the southern regions where there would be the full 750 volts going through it. fortuner

5:34pm Mon 26 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

While I understand that there are many rail - and road - routes running North-South, there are not many that run West-East, which is why I thought there might be a possibility that the CLR could be used for this purpose, as it offers the possibility of moving freight from the West of the country to the East, with switching points North and South along the way, such as at Watford Junction.
It is interesting to note that government has invested heavily in an East-West rail facility across London so why would they not plan to do something similar further North in a national transportation grid?
The A14 road upgrade being a similar case in point.
While I understand that there are many rail - and road - routes running North-South, there are not many that run West-East, which is why I thought there might be a possibility that the CLR could be used for this purpose, as it offers the possibility of moving freight from the West of the country to the East, with switching points North and South along the way, such as at Watford Junction. It is interesting to note that government has invested heavily in an East-West rail facility across London so why would they not plan to do something similar further North in a national transportation grid? The A14 road upgrade being a similar case in point. John Dowdle

5:41pm Mon 26 Aug 13

fortuner says...

John Dowdle wrote:
Keefer wrote:
BTW: from what I remember of my days working for BR, the Freight Trans were usually either a quarter or half mile long! I think they're too long to make the shunt from D\C to mainline or vice versa at Watford Junction.
I think length is the crucial point. The maintenance trains are just equivalent to one or two carriages at most but a freight train would be a lot longer.

From what you say, it seems there is insufficient switching capability at Watford Junction Station to move freight traffic between the WCML and CRL.

That is a relief !!

Thank you.
The maintenance trains length would depend on exactly what the worked involved would be. Ballast trains, for example, are much longer than a few carriages, though not as long as a freight train.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: BTW: from what I remember of my days working for BR, the Freight Trans were usually either a quarter or half mile long! I think they're too long to make the shunt from D\C to mainline or vice versa at Watford Junction.[/p][/quote]I think length is the crucial point. The maintenance trains are just equivalent to one or two carriages at most but a freight train would be a lot longer. From what you say, it seems there is insufficient switching capability at Watford Junction Station to move freight traffic between the WCML and CRL. That is a relief !! Thank you.[/p][/quote]The maintenance trains length would depend on exactly what the worked involved would be. Ballast trains, for example, are much longer than a few carriages, though not as long as a freight train. fortuner

6:09pm Mon 26 Aug 13

fortuner says...

Keefer wrote:
The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains.

So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.
They were specially being run over the DC lines because there was heavy track work being done which involved altering the layout of crossover points on the fast and slow lines at south Wembley as far as I recall. Or was it Willesden...
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains. So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.[/p][/quote]They were specially being run over the DC lines because there was heavy track work being done which involved altering the layout of crossover points on the fast and slow lines at south Wembley as far as I recall. Or was it Willesden... fortuner

6:22pm Mon 26 Aug 13

fortuner says...

John Dowdle wrote:
While I understand that there are many rail - and road - routes running North-South, there are not many that run West-East, which is why I thought there might be a possibility that the CLR could be used for this purpose, as it offers the possibility of moving freight from the West of the country to the East, with switching points North and South along the way, such as at Watford Junction.
It is interesting to note that government has invested heavily in an East-West rail facility across London so why would they not plan to do something similar further North in a national transportation grid?
The A14 road upgrade being a similar case in point.
I would think that they would have to do a lot of improvements at Watford Junction before that happened. Personally, I really doubt it will.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: While I understand that there are many rail - and road - routes running North-South, there are not many that run West-East, which is why I thought there might be a possibility that the CLR could be used for this purpose, as it offers the possibility of moving freight from the West of the country to the East, with switching points North and South along the way, such as at Watford Junction. It is interesting to note that government has invested heavily in an East-West rail facility across London so why would they not plan to do something similar further North in a national transportation grid? The A14 road upgrade being a similar case in point.[/p][/quote]I would think that they would have to do a lot of improvements at Watford Junction before that happened. Personally, I really doubt it will. fortuner

11:21pm Mon 26 Aug 13

Andrew1963 says...

Bloodwags wrote:
This is a serious discussion about facts. Why is this column full of social jealousy and backbiting - it's pathetic.

Let's get one thing clear: whether or not anyone thinks the CRL business case is shaky, the figures are contrived or the PR has been disingenuous, people who want to Save Watford Met aren't opposed to the Croxley Rail Link or to the general principle of improving transport for people in West Watford. Whatever happened with the Earl of Essex in 1927 is now history - a residential estate has since grown up around the station which houses 14,000 people.

They are concerned about the unnecessary loss of a well used local station which serves a large residential area of 14,000 people. Many of them already walk 15+ minutes to the station from north of Cassiobury Park (way longer than the 800m catchment area used in the CRL business case). They have no choice. There is no other station. They are not concerned about house prices. They are concerned about them and the many children who use the station having to walk up to half an hour each way, each day, light or dark, rain or shine, half of it along a busy main road with two major intersections to cross.

All they're asking for is a 3 tph, 4-car shuttle service connecting them to Croxley or Moor Park so they can keep using the same means of transport that has been serving the area nearly 90 years. If planned carefully it would NOT be uneconomic (in the the CRL business case the idea was sunk because they assumed it would require an 8-car train and dedicated platform at Croxley but this is not necessarily so).

In fact the whole of CRL could be more economic if it was based on 4 car shuttles from Moor Park. Longer trains aren't necessary - they cost more to buy, more to maintain, more to run, use more energy and require longer platforms, more lighting, signs etc all of which push the initial cost up. So, but for the fact CRL is Dorothy Thornhill's meal ticket to another term in office (and Richard Harrington is trying to make it his too) why not review other choices that could really benefit ALL of Watford?

Keefer, no one is suggesting a further viaduct connecting to northbound CRL.

Samwatford, your Richmond etc theory seems not to apply in Watford since most Overground trains arriving at WFJ are also largely empty, apart from passengers like me who board at Watford High St and travel a short way north to catch faster southbound trains. If that's how other West Watfordians will think and act, there would be no need to build the link itself, just reopen the old branch line.
Interesting comment about travelling from Watford high street to Watford junction to then go south to London. You are not allowed to do that with oyster as you tap in in at a cheaper zone than Watford junction. This clearly will be more common with Croxley Rail link as people use it to get the junction. I suspect this will mean they will put in an oyster gate line from platforms 1-4 to ensure you pay more if travelling to Watford junction to then get to Euston. They only way then to pay less for a fast train would be to go to Bushey to pick up the fast trains. The costs of providing a new build fleet of short 4 coach units alone rules the scheme for a shuttle out of the question. The reason Watford kept a met service at all after the 1970s cuts in rail and tube services was the fact that Wembley Park could not cope with a terminating service. So the mainline to Amersham was maintained along with locals to Watford. Most Watford trains are principally for the London suburb traffic. It is marginally more to run them onto Watford compared to terminating shorter (you need lots of space to store trains before you have space to send them back up to central London). The existing and CRL proposals do not alter that fact.
[quote][p][bold]Bloodwags[/bold] wrote: This is a serious discussion about facts. Why is this column full of social jealousy and backbiting - it's pathetic. Let's get one thing clear: whether or not anyone thinks the CRL business case is shaky, the figures are contrived or the PR has been disingenuous, people who want to Save Watford Met aren't opposed to the Croxley Rail Link or to the general principle of improving transport for people in West Watford. Whatever happened with the Earl of Essex in 1927 is now history - a residential estate has since grown up around the station which houses 14,000 people. They are concerned about the unnecessary loss of a well used local station which serves a large residential area of 14,000 people. Many of them already walk 15+ minutes to the station from north of Cassiobury Park (way longer than the 800m catchment area used in the CRL business case). They have no choice. There is no other station. They are not concerned about house prices. They are concerned about them and the many children who use the station having to walk up to half an hour each way, each day, light or dark, rain or shine, half of it along a busy main road with two major intersections to cross. All they're asking for is a 3 tph, 4-car shuttle service connecting them to Croxley or Moor Park so they can keep using the same means of transport that has been serving the area nearly 90 years. If planned carefully it would NOT be uneconomic (in the the CRL business case the idea was sunk because they assumed it would require an 8-car train and dedicated platform at Croxley but this is not necessarily so). In fact the whole of CRL could be more economic if it was based on 4 car shuttles from Moor Park. Longer trains aren't necessary - they cost more to buy, more to maintain, more to run, use more energy and require longer platforms, more lighting, signs etc all of which push the initial cost up. So, but for the fact CRL is Dorothy Thornhill's meal ticket to another term in office (and Richard Harrington is trying to make it his too) why not review other choices that could really benefit ALL of Watford? Keefer, no one is suggesting a further viaduct connecting to northbound CRL. Samwatford, your Richmond etc theory seems not to apply in Watford since most Overground trains arriving at WFJ are also largely empty, apart from passengers like me who board at Watford High St and travel a short way north to catch faster [London Midland] southbound trains. If that's how other West Watfordians will think and act, there would be no need to build the link itself, just reopen the old branch line.[/p][/quote]Interesting comment about travelling from Watford high street to Watford junction to then go south to London. You are not allowed to do that with oyster as you tap in in at a cheaper zone than Watford junction. This clearly will be more common with Croxley Rail link as people use it to get the junction. I suspect this will mean they will put in an oyster gate line from platforms 1-4 to ensure you pay more if travelling to Watford junction to then get to Euston. They only way then to pay less for a fast train would be to go to Bushey to pick up the fast trains. The costs of providing a new build fleet of short 4 coach units alone rules the scheme for a shuttle out of the question. The reason Watford kept a met service at all after the 1970s cuts in rail and tube services was the fact that Wembley Park could not cope with a terminating service. So the mainline to Amersham was maintained along with locals to Watford. Most Watford trains are principally for the London suburb traffic. It is marginally more to run them onto Watford compared to terminating shorter (you need lots of space to store trains before you have space to send them back up to central London). The existing and CRL proposals do not alter that fact. Andrew1963

11:30pm Mon 26 Aug 13

Andrew1963 says...

Keefer wrote:
The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains.

So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.
Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains. So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.[/p][/quote]Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak? Andrew1963

2:45pm Tue 27 Aug 13

John Dowdle says...

Andrew1963 wrote:
Keefer wrote:
The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains.

So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.
Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?
Local rumour had it that there had been a collision and derailment between two carriages on the bend in the Waterfields recreation ground, and it was this accident that led to termination of the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction.
However, further rumour discounted this explanation but provided no other.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains. So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.[/p][/quote]Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?[/p][/quote]Local rumour had it that there had been a collision and derailment between two carriages on the bend in the Waterfields recreation ground, and it was this accident that led to termination of the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction. However, further rumour discounted this explanation but provided no other. John Dowdle

5:24pm Tue 27 Aug 13

Keefer says...

John Dowdle wrote:
Andrew1963 wrote:
Keefer wrote:
The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains.

So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.
Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?
Local rumour had it that there had been a collision and derailment between two carriages on the bend in the Waterfields recreation ground, and it was this accident that led to termination of the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction.
However, further rumour discounted this explanation but provided no other.
Maybe you guys are missing the point I was trying to make.

To my eye at least,, a large part of the mystery is why a Diesel\Electric 125 was running on the West Coast mainline\DC at all.

It was then & is now a completely electrified line and at that time it usually ran an all electric Intercity 225 passenger service - Not Diesel\Electric 125's, as in the video. In the 8 years I worked on the tracks between Tring & Carpenders Park, I can honestly say I only ever saw 2 or 3 Diesel 125's pass through & that was because overhead line maintenance meant the Electric 225's couldn't pass through. 125's were usually the preserve of the East Coast (St. Pancras), and Great Western (Paddington) lines, as their routes weren't fully electrified back then.

None of the Diesel 125's were usually stabled anywhere on the Southern section of the East Coast mainline, So it's seems reasonable to assume the diversion up the D\C line was part of a contingency plan meant to keep some form of Intercity passenger service running during a shutdown of the overheads.

No?
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains. So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.[/p][/quote]Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?[/p][/quote]Local rumour had it that there had been a collision and derailment between two carriages on the bend in the Waterfields recreation ground, and it was this accident that led to termination of the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction. However, further rumour discounted this explanation but provided no other.[/p][/quote]Maybe you guys are missing the point I was trying to make. To my eye at least,, a large part of the mystery is why a Diesel\Electric 125 was running on the West Coast mainline\DC at all. It was then & is now a completely electrified line and at that time it usually ran an all electric Intercity 225 passenger service - Not Diesel\Electric 125's, as in the video. In the 8 years I worked on the tracks between Tring & Carpenders Park, I can honestly say I only ever saw 2 or 3 Diesel 125's pass through & that was because overhead line maintenance meant the Electric 225's couldn't pass through. 125's were usually the preserve of the East Coast (St. Pancras), and Great Western (Paddington) lines, as their routes weren't fully electrified back then. None of the Diesel 125's were usually stabled anywhere on the Southern section of the East Coast mainline, So it's seems reasonable to assume the diversion up the D\C line was part of a contingency plan meant to keep some form of Intercity passenger service running during a shutdown of the overheads. No? Keefer

2:21am Fri 30 Aug 13

shalvey says...

Keefer wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
Andrew1963 wrote:
Keefer wrote:
The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains.

So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.
Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?
Local rumour had it that there had been a collision and derailment between two carriages on the bend in the Waterfields recreation ground, and it was this accident that led to termination of the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction.
However, further rumour discounted this explanation but provided no other.
Maybe you guys are missing the point I was trying to make.

To my eye at least,, a large part of the mystery is why a Diesel\Electric 125 was running on the West Coast mainline\DC at all.

It was then & is now a completely electrified line and at that time it usually ran an all electric Intercity 225 passenger service - Not Diesel\Electric 125's, as in the video. In the 8 years I worked on the tracks between Tring & Carpenders Park, I can honestly say I only ever saw 2 or 3 Diesel 125's pass through & that was because overhead line maintenance meant the Electric 225's couldn't pass through. 125's were usually the preserve of the East Coast (St. Pancras), and Great Western (Paddington) lines, as their routes weren't fully electrified back then.

None of the Diesel 125's were usually stabled anywhere on the Southern section of the East Coast mainline, So it's seems reasonable to assume the diversion up the D\C line was part of a contingency plan meant to keep some form of Intercity passenger service running during a shutdown of the overheads.

No?
The Electric 225's didn't work the south end of the WCML!
They were used on the ECML.
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains. So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.[/p][/quote]Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?[/p][/quote]Local rumour had it that there had been a collision and derailment between two carriages on the bend in the Waterfields recreation ground, and it was this accident that led to termination of the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction. However, further rumour discounted this explanation but provided no other.[/p][/quote]Maybe you guys are missing the point I was trying to make. To my eye at least,, a large part of the mystery is why a Diesel\Electric 125 was running on the West Coast mainline\DC at all. It was then & is now a completely electrified line and at that time it usually ran an all electric Intercity 225 passenger service - Not Diesel\Electric 125's, as in the video. In the 8 years I worked on the tracks between Tring & Carpenders Park, I can honestly say I only ever saw 2 or 3 Diesel 125's pass through & that was because overhead line maintenance meant the Electric 225's couldn't pass through. 125's were usually the preserve of the East Coast (St. Pancras), and Great Western (Paddington) lines, as their routes weren't fully electrified back then. None of the Diesel 125's were usually stabled anywhere on the Southern section of the East Coast mainline, So it's seems reasonable to assume the diversion up the D\C line was part of a contingency plan meant to keep some form of Intercity passenger service running during a shutdown of the overheads. No?[/p][/quote]The Electric 225's didn't work the south end of the WCML! They were used on the ECML. shalvey

4:24am Fri 30 Aug 13

Keefer says...

shalvey wrote:
Keefer wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
Andrew1963 wrote:
Keefer wrote:
The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains.

So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.
Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?
Local rumour had it that there had been a collision and derailment between two carriages on the bend in the Waterfields recreation ground, and it was this accident that led to termination of the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction.
However, further rumour discounted this explanation but provided no other.
Maybe you guys are missing the point I was trying to make.

To my eye at least,, a large part of the mystery is why a Diesel\Electric 125 was running on the West Coast mainline\DC at all.

It was then & is now a completely electrified line and at that time it usually ran an all electric Intercity 225 passenger service - Not Diesel\Electric 125's, as in the video. In the 8 years I worked on the tracks between Tring & Carpenders Park, I can honestly say I only ever saw 2 or 3 Diesel 125's pass through & that was because overhead line maintenance meant the Electric 225's couldn't pass through. 125's were usually the preserve of the East Coast (St. Pancras), and Great Western (Paddington) lines, as their routes weren't fully electrified back then.

None of the Diesel 125's were usually stabled anywhere on the Southern section of the East Coast mainline, So it's seems reasonable to assume the diversion up the D\C line was part of a contingency plan meant to keep some form of Intercity passenger service running during a shutdown of the overheads.

No?
The Electric 225's didn't work the south end of the WCML!
They were used on the ECML.
I worked Euston on many an overtime shift! the Intercity's there were purely 225's and you don't get any further south on the West Coast Mainline than Euston Station.
[quote][p][bold]shalvey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains. So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.[/p][/quote]Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?[/p][/quote]Local rumour had it that there had been a collision and derailment between two carriages on the bend in the Waterfields recreation ground, and it was this accident that led to termination of the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction. However, further rumour discounted this explanation but provided no other.[/p][/quote]Maybe you guys are missing the point I was trying to make. To my eye at least,, a large part of the mystery is why a Diesel\Electric 125 was running on the West Coast mainline\DC at all. It was then & is now a completely electrified line and at that time it usually ran an all electric Intercity 225 passenger service - Not Diesel\Electric 125's, as in the video. In the 8 years I worked on the tracks between Tring & Carpenders Park, I can honestly say I only ever saw 2 or 3 Diesel 125's pass through & that was because overhead line maintenance meant the Electric 225's couldn't pass through. 125's were usually the preserve of the East Coast (St. Pancras), and Great Western (Paddington) lines, as their routes weren't fully electrified back then. None of the Diesel 125's were usually stabled anywhere on the Southern section of the East Coast mainline, So it's seems reasonable to assume the diversion up the D\C line was part of a contingency plan meant to keep some form of Intercity passenger service running during a shutdown of the overheads. No?[/p][/quote]The Electric 225's didn't work the south end of the WCML! They were used on the ECML.[/p][/quote]I worked Euston on many an overtime shift! the Intercity's there were purely 225's and you don't get any further south on the West Coast Mainline than Euston Station. Keefer

4:30am Fri 30 Aug 13

Keefer says...

..."None of the Diesel 125's were usually stabled anywhere on the Southern section of the East Coast mainline,"

this is meant to say West Coast mainline ...not East. ;)
..."None of the Diesel 125's were usually stabled anywhere on the Southern section of the East Coast mainline," this is meant to say West Coast mainline ...not East. ;) Keefer

11:40pm Fri 30 Aug 13

shalvey says...

Keefer wrote:
shalvey wrote:
Keefer wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
Andrew1963 wrote:
Keefer wrote:
The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains.

So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.
Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?
Local rumour had it that there had been a collision and derailment between two carriages on the bend in the Waterfields recreation ground, and it was this accident that led to termination of the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction.
However, further rumour discounted this explanation but provided no other.
Maybe you guys are missing the point I was trying to make.

To my eye at least,, a large part of the mystery is why a Diesel\Electric 125 was running on the West Coast mainline\DC at all.

It was then & is now a completely electrified line and at that time it usually ran an all electric Intercity 225 passenger service - Not Diesel\Electric 125's, as in the video. In the 8 years I worked on the tracks between Tring & Carpenders Park, I can honestly say I only ever saw 2 or 3 Diesel 125's pass through & that was because overhead line maintenance meant the Electric 225's couldn't pass through. 125's were usually the preserve of the East Coast (St. Pancras), and Great Western (Paddington) lines, as their routes weren't fully electrified back then.

None of the Diesel 125's were usually stabled anywhere on the Southern section of the East Coast mainline, So it's seems reasonable to assume the diversion up the D\C line was part of a contingency plan meant to keep some form of Intercity passenger service running during a shutdown of the overheads.

No?
The Electric 225's didn't work the south end of the WCML!
They were used on the ECML.
I worked Euston on many an overtime shift! the Intercity's there were purely 225's and you don't get any further south on the West Coast Mainline than Euston Station.
Are you sure you’re not getting the Electric Inter City 225’s mixed up with the Class 90 locos with mark3 coaches & DVT?
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shalvey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: The Intercity's on the West Coast mainline are generally Electric, the Video shows a Diese\Electric Intercity125 which were usually run on the East Coast Mainline - why it was running over this way is a mystery. Also yes the turnout from the D\C will always be there, as access to the Watford sidings at the back of Watford Jcn is sometimes needed for stabling DC trains. So in theory, Yes - Bridge clearances\weight permitting, and with a little shunting at the Junction end - any train from the mainline could be run down a newly completed CRL to Neasden sidings or up to Amersham & onto the Chiltern Line.[/p][/quote]Wasn't it due to severe weather related disruption. Mk3 coaches were not allowed on the DC until 1987 hurricane when the sleepers went that way as an emergency. Mind yo they had gangers at Bushey ready to take off the platform copings on the platform 1 bend as no one. Was sure those longer coaches could get past safely. Freight trains could use the route, but why would they apart from maintenance trains. It is quicker, faster and with higher weight/height permissions on the WCML or via Neasden old oak?[/p][/quote]Local rumour had it that there had been a collision and derailment between two carriages on the bend in the Waterfields recreation ground, and it was this accident that led to termination of the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction. However, further rumour discounted this explanation but provided no other.[/p][/quote]Maybe you guys are missing the point I was trying to make. To my eye at least,, a large part of the mystery is why a Diesel\Electric 125 was running on the West Coast mainline\DC at all. It was then & is now a completely electrified line and at that time it usually ran an all electric Intercity 225 passenger service - Not Diesel\Electric 125's, as in the video. In the 8 years I worked on the tracks between Tring & Carpenders Park, I can honestly say I only ever saw 2 or 3 Diesel 125's pass through & that was because overhead line maintenance meant the Electric 225's couldn't pass through. 125's were usually the preserve of the East Coast (St. Pancras), and Great Western (Paddington) lines, as their routes weren't fully electrified back then. None of the Diesel 125's were usually stabled anywhere on the Southern section of the East Coast mainline, So it's seems reasonable to assume the diversion up the D\C line was part of a contingency plan meant to keep some form of Intercity passenger service running during a shutdown of the overheads. No?[/p][/quote]The Electric 225's didn't work the south end of the WCML! They were used on the ECML.[/p][/quote]I worked Euston on many an overtime shift! the Intercity's there were purely 225's and you don't get any further south on the West Coast Mainline than Euston Station.[/p][/quote]Are you sure you’re not getting the Electric Inter City 225’s mixed up with the Class 90 locos with mark3 coaches & DVT? shalvey
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree