|
Post by geoffc on Aug 29, 2017 13:02:07 GMT
From purely personal view I'm all in favour of the MLX - I have friends in the Northwood area and live a couple of stops north of Watford Junction on the WCML -the journey currently achieved by a walk through Cassiobury Park (pleasant in good weather, not so pleasant when raining) or the #8 bus (slow and expensive) . I think the root cause of the debacle is Herts CC's original scoping - on a sliding scale from over optimistic forecasting outside their usual field of expertise through to a wilful lowballing to get the project off the ground. I think it incumbent on them to close the gap. I appreciate my meagre custom won't swing the argument but there are several groups who might benefit. - car commuters from Amersham, Chesham and the like travelling to their offices along the main business drag , Clarendon Road (soon to be expanded by the TJX European HQ complex by Watford Junction). My understanding is planning permission is only given to build a portion of the car parking an office block would need to give every likely car commuter a space - deliberately to force commuters out of their cars. Nothing wrong with that environmental aim but relieving morning congestion in this area needs more than one approach. - there will be a smaller commuter group from the WCML north and south of Watford travelling to the Croxley Business Park. - Watford INTU shopping centre is being massively expanded - with more shops and additional leisure facilities. Metropolitan line users ( Amersham , Chesham , Northwood , Pinner , Harrow ) could all leave the car at home and travel to Watford High Street. There will be more employment in that area as a result as well. - lastly West Watford inhabitants ( Wippendell Road, Tolpits Lane , Vicarage Lane ) will get a station within a moderate walk. Those there without a car would welcome that - finding an on-street parking spot roundabouts must be a nightmare so I suspect car ownership here is below the norm.
|
|
|
Post by geoffc on Jun 22, 2015 19:04:53 GMT
I thought that the capacity issues related to passenger numbers, width of passages etc. The gateline is certainly not adequate now, nor is the corridor under the platforms. The gateline is certainly an issue, but the access to platforms 1-6 is more generous than to the other platforms, with the direct stairs from the gateline to the platforms before entering the subway proper.
I thought there were plans for a gateline on platform 6 - with access to and from the footpath leading up to St Albans Road.
|
|
|
Post by geoffc on Feb 27, 2015 20:02:35 GMT
Have I missed something ? I can't see why HCC are so anxious to retain the civil engineering part of the scheme. Were they expecting a portion of the fare revenue and hope to make decent profit on their £100M . If that seemed a good idea some years ago - surely there are too many risks now. Govt. spending is going to be slashed after the election regardless - UK PLC is still spending more than we earn . Politically HCC cannot afford to borrow to build the line with a 15-20 year payback when other council services are being decimated. I appreciate HCC's lead over the years but please pass the project to LT and bow out gracefully.
|
|
|
Post by geoffc on Aug 17, 2014 20:24:29 GMT
The problem with that idea is that it would mean diverting trains up another branch line. I am not sure that Crossrail or Network Rail would be very keen on that idea. If it was simply a case of sending a few trains up there it wouldn't be any issue however wha the MP plus quite a few others seem to ignore is :- (1) The branch is currenly worked as under the "one train" system with no signalling on the branch whatsoever. Furthermore the number of stations plus the length of the branch means that without significant investment in passing loops, extra & longer platforms and installing some signalling a 75minute service interval is the best that can be offered - which is totally unacceptable for a Crossrail branded service. (2) Even with an enhanced service the extra revenues generated will be far to low to justify the expenditure required and there are far better candidates for the cash especially as St Albans itself will be well served by an enhanced Thameslink service in a few years time To be fair Councillor Walkington didn't actually suggest that. In best newspaper fashion the headline implied something more newsworthy than was actually the case. All that was asked for was the "Abbey Line will be put into the mix" when it came to splashing the cash - so I take this as a straightforward plea for the money from the Crossrail budget for the passing loop and signalling to move to 2tph . More interesting is the Cllr's comment " It could be just the ticket to take the pressure off Thameslink - and provide a real alternative route into London when needed" . I can't see an Abbey - Watford service with a change to Crossrail being any substitute for Thameslink for the good people of St Albans - even if the line was extended to City at significant expense .
|
|
|
Post by geoffc on Jun 9, 2014 19:12:44 GMT
Some time back the restoration of the passing loop plus signalling was costed at £15M . Even at say £20M now this doesn't seem beyond the bounds of Herts CC to fund . However this would only produce a half hourly service . The key improvement would be the old link to St Albans City (MML) but as this cuts a slice from an expensive golf course you can file this under "It won't happen".
|
|
|
Post by geoffc on Feb 25, 2014 21:12:11 GMT
Travelling through Watford Junction on Sunday I noticed some construction work at the far ( southern ) extremity of the disused west sidings . The contractors appear to have constructed a concrete float or bed under that last 10 meters or so of track. My guess is this connected to a concern the nearby embankment is liable to subsidence with all this rain. But it makes no sense to stabilise the earthworks in this manner if the track is to be abandoned . Does anyone know the reasoning behind this work ? Although not part of the Croxley scheme I can't help feeling these sidings will come into play at some point - sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by geoffc on Jul 31, 2013 20:12:47 GMT
Are there any plans to use some of the old sidings south of WFJ for the Met or LO . There is an old carriage wash facility on a siding which I assume has long been abandoned which could be brought into use (without the wash ! with space for a least one train . It might add some flexibility - rather than stabling everything at Watford Met. Use of the sidings is unlikely, unless they substantially revise the track layout. The sidings are only directly accessible from platform 6, so would need a double shunt from platforms 1-4, and I believe that they would also be too short for an S8 train. Easy stabling for just one S8 train (or 2 class 378s) would seem to need a lot of money spent for little advantage. To reply to my own question - I have re-read the London Reconnections articles and it implies an earlier Herts CC scheme did include some work at Watford Junction to bring siding(s) into use but at the expense of leaving the two intermediate stations unmanned ( or more precisely with no staff facilities ) . This was vetoed by TfL , so the siding idea was dropped to bring the costs back down and to put all stabling /contingency to Watford Met.
|
|
|
Post by geoffc on Jul 28, 2013 15:02:42 GMT
Are there any plans to use some of the old sidings south of WFJ for the Met or LO . There is an old carriage wash facility on a siding which I assume has long been abandoned which could be brought into use (without the wash ! with space for a least one train . It might add some flexibility - rather than stabling everything at Watford Met.
|
|