Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2015 11:57:18 GMT
I doubt that would have been cheaper, given the need to tunnel under the park instead of re0using an existing track bed for 95% of the distance. And a connection to an unconnected terminus would not be as useful as a connection to the Junction. Given that "Watford Central" station would have been built a) with tracks well below road level, and b) facing Clarendon Road, I strongly suspect that had it been built we would also have eventually ended up with a cut and cover extension to Watford Junction along Clarendon Road, especially as once it reached there it would have been pointing exactly along the St. Albans branch alignment. Well that is what I am doing in 4mm with my new layout Watford Clarendon Road! How about a link connecting the Met to the Overground where they cross near Northwick Park and keep Watford Met open with a reduced service and an increased service to Watford Jct? XF |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Nov 8, 2015 12:38:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Nov 8, 2015 13:54:44 GMT
TBH, they will be lucky if they get a line at all, given the situation at the moment. However, I would support step-free access at every new station. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 8, 2015 23:49:37 GMT
It's all-but inconceivable that any brand new station will be built without step-free access these days. Indeed, we established on another thread a few years ago that Hatton Cross (opened 1975) was the last Underground station built without it.
The only reason I can think of why a new station wouldn't have it today would be if there was no way for those needing access without steps to leave the station, and even then I would expect it to have passive provision.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 9, 2015 0:02:19 GMT
People at Croxley are wanting step free access as part of the project. I would support step-free access at every new station. There isn't going to be a new station at Croxley. And making the existing station step-free should not be funded as part of the extension project. There is a separate TfL programme for making stations step-free. No doubt Croxley will be somewhere on the list, ranked according to the number of people it will serve and the ease of achieving it. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Nov 9, 2015 16:48:11 GMT
I would support step-free access at every new station. There isn't going to be a new station at Croxley. And making the existing station step-free should not be funded as part of the extension project. There is a separate TfL programme for making stations step-free. No doubt Croxley will be somewhere on the list, ranked according to the number of people it will serve and the ease of achieving it. Or at least a provision for the future. (My bold) |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 9, 2015 23:03:58 GMT
In addition to providing step-free access at every new station, and adding it to existing stations where practical and affordable, I'm suspect (and hope) that whenever work is undertaken a station that it is assessed whether the scope and cost mean it is practical to combine adding step-free access to the station as part of that (for a major rebuild it usually will be, if it's just repainting then it almost certainly will not be). If it isn't possible, then either passive provision will be added if possible.
I wouldn't be surprised if TfL have carried out an exercise at every station to identify how step-free access would be added to the station. I don't expect this to go into any detail at all, just things like "lifts between each platform and a replacement or additional footbridge", perhaps with ballpark figures to give an indication of the costs for prioritisation purposes. This would then be checked each time work was done at the station to ensure it didn't conflict and/or provision made.
I believe that when the DLR 3-car platform extension works were planned, each station was looked at for how the platforms would be extended to four cars, noting that at e.g. Beckton the platforms would be extended at the east end, and at Mudchute they would be extended at the north end, and that this would require modification of trackwork to access the third platform. Nothing more detailed than that.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 10, 2015 6:40:29 GMT
Could it be possible to achieve level access through the car park to the south bound platform only?
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 10, 2015 14:37:57 GMT
Could it be possible to achieve level access through the car park to the south bound platform only? I believe that it used to be so when there was a goods yard there. But you can't have one direction without the other, can you? |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 10, 2015 18:57:04 GMT
Some stations do. I think Amersham southbound is one example. There are probably others.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Nov 10, 2015 19:21:47 GMT
There are quite a few stations that have step-free access in one direction only, and there is precedent for installing it as such.
Both Euston Square and Liverpool Street (SSR) spring immediately to mind - if you want to travel in the opposite direction to where step-free is provided the solution is to travel the wrong way, interchange and then return.
E.g. to go east from ESQ you'd board a Met, alight at BAS, cross to the C+H platforms and then return. If you wanted to align at ESQ on the east travel one stop further to KXX, cross-over and then return.
Convoluted, but better than no step-free access.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 11, 2015 13:18:09 GMT
So there we have the solution. Install a new wide-access gateline in the car park / former goods yard, couple of humps to bring that platform to level-access to the train, corresponding humps at Watford's island platform. I believe Watford Vicarage Road will be island, and Cassiobridge will be flanking with lifts on both sides if you like a longer trek to change... Moor Park is an island for changes to northbound services. Sorted! www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/14023237.Watford_MP_meets_with_rail_minister_to_discuss_rail_links/More local newspaper ramblings about it. I didn't know Crossrail was going to Watford! |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Nov 11, 2015 13:23:36 GMT
Would that not be a reference to the proposal of routing some Crossrail trains up the WCML instead of the GWML as a second western branch. I don't think much came of that idea
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 14:17:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 11, 2015 16:11:34 GMT
If nothing else, it provides an excellent way of getting some trains out of Euston so that it can be rebuilt for HS2. Yeah, I don't think they're going to be rebuilding Euston any day soon. They've just invested Lord knows how much in that mezzanine food court, and there's a new block of flats gone up in the crook of that bend on the throat near the petrol station that was due for demolition. Seeing all this and construction work at other points along the proposed route, I am extremely dubious that HS2 is anything more than a way for the various design and survey companies, lawyers, lords, chairs of review committees etc etc to keep lining their pockets. |
|
|
|
Post by thc on Nov 12, 2015 8:39:48 GMT
I believe Watford Vicarage Road will be island Not so. WVR is due to have two side platforms, as in Cassiobridge. All detailed designs are available on WBC's planning portal. This is the WVR cover document but WVR drawings and other documents and drawings are available to cover Cassiobridge, the substation and part of the viaduct. THC |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 13, 2015 17:35:23 GMT
Oh yes, I forgot about that. Is there any good reason for doing that as opposed to an island? I'd have thought an island would be cheaper as you'd only need one set of stairs, one set of lifts etc.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 13, 2015 19:08:29 GMT
You need to consider the thousands of football fans that will use the station on match days. Having separate platforms will certainly be beneficial.
|
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Nov 13, 2015 22:26:23 GMT
Main reason for separate platforms would be the bridge at one end going over the line, in my opinion. There would not be enough clearance under bridge to have an island platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 13, 2015 22:59:53 GMT
AS far as possible they are trying to use the original trackbed, which precludes island platforms. In any case, if there is an existing bridge it is easier to get access to both sides than to create a single new access to an island platform
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 14, 2015 12:33:03 GMT
So... why not an island at Cassiobridge then? I'm considering that the costs of this project are skyrocketing and the whole scheme's economic viability was hanging on a thread anyway. Any measure which could reduce costs would be attractive.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 15, 2015 9:35:51 GMT
You need to consider the thousands of football fans that will use the station on match days. Having separate platforms will certainly be beneficial. Unless they close the station on match days, as they do at Coventry (It would take 434 trains to clear the stadium |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 15, 2015 10:09:46 GMT
I don't see the point in building the station otherwise! The capacity of Vicarage Road is about 21,000 but many come from Watford Junction and walk there. There may certainly be some from of crowd control however which is common at many stations.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 15, 2015 10:46:44 GMT
I understand that Vicarage Road is being built where it is due to some constraint on the more logical site which is to the south of Stadium Halt, around Cardiff Road.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Nov 15, 2015 16:28:54 GMT
Posts discussing platform arrangements (using the DLR as an example) can now be found here.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Nov 16, 2015 0:53:57 GMT
I do wonder about the decision to built Vicarage Road station where they are going to. Given the link road that is going to be built from the south east announced a few months after the plans became public, I would have thought having two stations would have been preferred (abet a lot more expensive, obviously). Had they decided to build one where the new link road will cross the railway (Cardiff Road station?) it would have been at the end of a short straight road up to the stadium through the new campus, and away from main roads. There would then have been a better case for reopening Watford West station, which would have served Tolpits Lane, which is a high street with a school and a busy residential area surrounding it.
Oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Nov 16, 2015 1:04:37 GMT
What link?
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 16, 2015 10:58:22 GMT
This abomination: lvps109-104-79-249.vps.webfusion.co.uk/watford/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Plan-for-Watford-Health-Campus-road.pdfI do wonder about the decision to built Vicarage Road station where they are going to. Given the link road that is going to be built from the south east announced a few months after the plans became public, I would have thought having two stations would have been preferred (abet a lot more expensive, obviously). Had they decided to build one where the new link road will cross the railway (Cardiff Road station?) it would have been at the end of a short straight road up to the stadium through the new campus, and away from main roads. There would then have been a better case for reopening Watford West station, which would have served Tolpits Lane, which is a high street with a school and a busy residential area surrounding it. Oh well. I seem to recall that there was an argument about "Cardiff Road" station being be too close to Watford High Street, and that the existing Stadium Halt station site was on an unfavourable gradient. It does seem far more practicable from a users point of view, as you suggest Mr JRT, that Cassiobridge, West Watford and Cardiff Road would be ideal places for stations rather than Cassiobridge and Vicarage Road. Vicarage Road has always seemed like a compromise station that sits equidistant between Tolpits Lane and Watford General Hospital, yet if one looks at the road layouts in the area, putting the station where they propose actually serves no-one well! It's right in between a 20 acre allotment and a 10 acre adventure playground, with a substation and relay tower opposite. The number of residences and secondary schools within a five minute walk radius is pitifully small - you have to look at the 10-15 minute walk radius before it starts to look reasonable. Most of the land to the south is wasteland that can never be used due to the River Colne's tendency to flood there. To get to the hospital is an uphill walk along a narrow and broken pavement, not good for the infirm. The distance between Watford High Street and Cardiff Road is greater than that between some London Overground stations around Hamstead. Ruislip and Ruislip Manor are about 600m apart, Ickenham and Hillingdon 1080m apart. The island at Cardiff Road (further round than the old Stadium Halt) is a smidge over 1020m from Watford High Street. |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Nov 16, 2015 11:05:03 GMT
You need to consider the thousands of football fans that will use the station on match days. Having separate platforms will certainly be beneficial. Unless they close the station on match days, as they do at Coventry (It would take 434 trains to clear the stadium They only close the station because the train are too short and infrequent. I am pretty sure Met trains could cope. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 15:05:21 GMT
Ruislip and Ruislip Manor are just over 1.1km apart, Hillingdon to Ruislip, 670m. Looking at the A-Z these distances look the wrong way round (and I assume you meant Hillingdon to Ickenham). |
|
