|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 27, 2017 11:24:32 GMT
This bit seems totally bizarre to me... "Affinity Water has pulled out of the extension" I wonder if it is as simple as utility (water pipe) diversion work they were doing has finished / stopped / been suspended. As they are the local water company it seems logical that their infrastructure might be affected by the proposed works and getting it moved now is a typical early step before substantive building works start. |
|
|
|
Post by croxleyn on Jan 27, 2017 13:54:08 GMT
As a Croxley resident, the benefits of this link are:
The rare occasions for wanting Watford Junction. Watford High Street has such a steep climb out that one might as well use the bus or walk the whole way.
The detriments, including to West Watford are: Further years of disruption on the roads, the likely closure of the pre-school at TS Renown due to the extensive sewer works needed outside, the noise of a set of points + crossover behind Dorrofield Close, which will carry trains at full line speed, plus the removal of some if not all of the peak-hour extra services, especially the semi- and fast trains.
This last statement is made on the basis that the TFL rep stated we would keep the current 15-minute service level, but was not prepared to comment about the extra services. The team wouldn't comment on the fact that the original project plans included two new trains to support the current service level, but only one has been bought, and Watford Junction couldn't cope anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jan 27, 2017 16:38:19 GMT
As a Croxley resident, the benefits of this link are: The rare occasions for wanting Watford Junction. Watford High Street has such a steep climb out that one might as well use the bus or walk the whole way. The detriments, including to West Watford are: Further years of disruption on the roads, the likely closure of the pre-school at TS Renown due to the extensive sewer works needed outside, the noise of a set of points + crossover behind Dorrofield Close, which will carry trains at full line speed, plus the removal of some if not all of the peak-hour extra services, especially the semi- and fast trains. This last statement is made on the basis that the TFL rep stated we would keep the current 15-minute service level, but was not prepared to comment about the extra services. The team wouldn't comment on the fact that the original project plans included two new trains to support the current service level, but only one has been bought, and Watford Junction couldn't cope anyway. Why do people make points then exaggerate things which then make the whole post unbelievable, Many points made are correct however the high street is just across the road from the bottom of the high street, and if that is too much for the op then so would be the walk from the bus stop in town to the bottom of the high street. There are no, and never have been any fast services from Watford, the track does not allow it. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Croxley station area only has an hourly service to Watford centre, no evenings or Sundays. plus the 724 which does not go into Watford centre. |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Jan 27, 2017 22:03:16 GMT
Wouldn't just be easier to recreate the BR era line and run a DMU on it? Anyone from that area going to London would go to Watford Junction anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jan 27, 2017 22:17:08 GMT
Wouldn't just be easier to recreate the BR era line and run a DMU on it? Anyone from that area going to London would go to Watford Junction anyway... The costs would still be considerable and you would be making a loss making line, any line with a commuting base at both ends has a chance to make money. A big chunk of the passenger base for the link will be travelling north from Harrow on the hill and all stations north. If you lived in Northwood and had a choice for a shopping trip to Harrow or Watford which would you chose. On a different tack I wonder if INTU are contributing to this scheme and if not why not? |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 7,119
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jan 28, 2017 0:31:50 GMT
On a different tack I wonder if INTU are contributing to this scheme and if not why not? Because they've spent their transport budget on the Manchester Metrolink extension to the Trafford Centre. |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jan 28, 2017 7:08:05 GMT
On a different tack I wonder if INTU are contributing to this scheme and if not why not? Because they've spent their transport budget on the Manchester Metrolink extension to the Trafford Centre. If it is looking like cancellation they may find a bit more, they stand to benefit massively, I don't know if the development work was influenced by the link but I am sure they will want the extra punters. |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Jan 28, 2017 22:33:42 GMT
Wouldn't just be easier to recreate the BR era line and run a DMU on it? Anyone from that area going to London would go to Watford Junction anyway... The costs would still be considerable and you would be making a loss making line, any line with a commuting base at both ends has a chance to make money. A big chunk of the passenger base for the link will be travelling north from Harrow on the hill and all stations north. If you lived in Northwood and had a choice for a shopping trip to Harrow or Watford which would you chose. On a different tack I wonder if INTU are contributing to this scheme and if not why not? Not knowing that area, I wouldn't be able to answer that... |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 8, 2017 12:52:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Mar 14, 2017 12:31:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kesmet on Mar 14, 2017 20:58:48 GMT
That link doesn't seem to be valid any more; nor can I find the article on the railnews site. It's not on the Wayback Machine or in Google's cache. So - what's the information that doesn't want to escape? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 14, 2017 21:32:58 GMT
That link doesn't seem to be valid any more; nor can I find the article on the railnews site. It's not on the Wayback Machine or in Google's cache. So - what's the information that doesn't want to escape? The article referenced a press release from Tory Assembly Members (not yet on the City Hall nor GLA Tories website). This was their usual unfocused diatribe about the Mayor's budget, "efficiency" targets, fares freeze etc being a disaster. They cited the Croxley Link as a casualty of the financial situation. At the very end of the article was a short two paragraph which quoted David Hughes, LU, as saying that LU had completed their project review and concluded an additional £50m is required to cover the total project cost. It continued by saying that LU did not have that money spare and nor did City Hall and that it was now for the DfT to find the cash. It closed by saying that LU would work with DfT to reach a conclusion or find ways to make the project more "affordable". I take the latter point to refer to "descoping" which would have to be pretty substantial given the project has already been pared down in scope more than once and I expect it has also been "value engineered" as well. Mr Hughes apparently made his remarks at a recent conference. I suspect this emerging has been rather badly timed for City Hall and the DfT hence why the article has been pulled. A copy of the relevant quote was captured and tweeted this morning and is in the image below.  Watford's local paper also has this. www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/15153065.Metropolitan_Line_Extension___50m_short_of_budget/ |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Mar 14, 2017 21:42:35 GMT
That link doesn't seem to be valid any more; nor can I find the article on the railnews site. It's not on the Wayback Machine or in Google's cache. So - what's the information that doesn't want to escape? The article referenced a press release from Tory Assembly Members (not yet on the City Hall nor GLA Tories website). This was their usual unfocused diatribe about the Mayor's budget, "efficiency" targets, fares freeze etc being a disaster. They cited the Croxley Link as a casualty of the financial situation. At the very end of the article was a short two paragraph which quoted David Hughes, LU, as saying that LU had completed their project review and concluded an additional £50m is required to cover the total project cost. It continued by saying that LU did not have that money spare and nor did City Hall and that it was now for the DfT to find the cash. It closed by saying that LU would work with DfT to reach a conclusion or find ways to make the project more "affordable". I take the latter point to refer to "descoping" which would have to be pretty substantial given the project has already been pared down in scope more than once and I expect it has also been "value engineered" as well. Mr Hughes apparently made his remarks at a recent conference. I suspect this emerging has been rather badly timed for City Hall and the DfT hence why the article has been pulled. A copy of the relevant quote was captured and tweeted this morning and is in the image below. Watford's local paper also has this. www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/15153065.Metropolitan_Line_Extension___50m_short_of_budget/Once again another newspaper report with an inappropriate photo  |
|
|
|
Post by kesmet on Mar 15, 2017 0:25:21 GMT
Once again another newspaper report with an inappropriate photo Is that a 1972 stock train? And if so, does that mean it might be a Bakerloo line one? |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixcronin on Mar 15, 2017 6:43:55 GMT
Once again another newspaper report with an inappropriate photo Is that a 1972 stock train? And if so, does that mean it might be a Bakerloo line one? It looks like the Mk1 unit parked up at Aldwych for filming |
|
