|
Post by thc on Oct 13, 2017 13:15:40 GMT
Can anyone confirm memories that not long after moving to Croxley in 1982, there were proposals to shut the Watford branch entirely, and curtail the "all-stations" trains at Northwood? I lived in Croxley from 1978-90 - my father was a Met line driver at Ricky - and have never heard this before. There were big service cutbacks in 1982, yes, but this sounds like an extrapolation from that rather than anything more substantial. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Oct 13, 2016 9:37:20 GMT
However we do get rid of the hated Abellio name, and I hope with it that Dutch state railways logo.... Hated? Not by me - and I use the line enough. What's your beef with Abellio? I saw the first Renatus 321 parked up at Ilford when passing on a Braintree service on Tuesday evening. 321303 is my guess. 321448 - the demonstrator - was there when I went through at the back end of last week, still wearing the special livery it picked up on conversion. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 28, 2016 8:32:55 GMT
This link is to the presentation given to the MLE Community Liaison Group for Three Rivers on 15 June. There are a few interesting nuggets within, including reference to a potential name change for Croxley station. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 25, 2016 14:13:36 GMT
They do indeed - see this press release - but further conversions will almost certainly be contingent on orders, hence my "shop window" comment. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 25, 2016 8:10:46 GMT
Is this in addition to, or instead of, the Sudbury branch? I hope its "in addition" to the Sudbury branch trial. Instead of. There is only one Class 230 unit. Its use on the Cov-Nun shuttles will be Vivarail's shop window. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 22, 2016 14:47:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 12, 2016 21:37:51 GMT
My guess is as good as yours but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't. IIRC the Sudbury branch is single track throughout.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 12, 2016 13:55:55 GMT
TfL Board on 19 July will take an update paper on, inter alia, the Investment Programme, which contains a small section on the Metropolitan Line Extension (pp12-14). In brief: - Stage 2 contract award significantly delayed (originally due end of March) but hoped to be signed off in q2 (i.e. before end September) - Start on site expected 12 September 2016 - Start on structures piling expected 29 November 2016 - Station construction expected to start 16 February 2017 THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 12, 2016 13:30:57 GMT
Vivarail's finest is bound for tests on the Marks Tey-Sudbury branch "in the next few weeks" according to Today's Railways August issue. Assuming this actually happens, I hope it performs well.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on May 25, 2016 23:26:38 GMT
simon and anyone else interested I spent a lot of time thinking the whole compromise platform thing through when Bakerloo services back to Watford Junction were mooted alongside the Met extension. It can't be that hard to modify sections of platform for Tube stock and others for Class 378/S stock and sign them accordingly, can it? That way bumped heads and/or slippy feet can be a thing of the past, and no PRM-TSI rules need be flouted. Or is that naïve? And I type as someone well acquainted with the demands of the 1995 Act part III from back in the day (reasonable adjustments will out). Thoughts people? Thank you in advance. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on May 25, 2016 17:19:43 GMT
gantshillI use that precise service sometimes when travelling from north to west London and fancy the surface option rather than the Picc. There are indeed a lot of people who travel across the junction, many of whom get off at Hampstead Heath for the Royal Free Hospital. What surprises me is that there are always twenty or so who stay the whole course to Willesden Junction low level. I'm sure extending GOBLIN services westward beyond Gospel Oak would unlock more demand, but doing so could of course lead to performance pollution. Even if the money could be found for new platforms at Goblin through platforms at GO, the penalty regime, tougher still under the new concession, militates against such a move. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 3, 2016 6:22:20 GMT
So Aylesbury to Milton Keynes demand would be met. People from Watford would simply use Midland services or Virgin. Demand to go via Aylesbury would be small. If anything, it would probably make more sense to just recommence Chiltern Railway services at Moor Park. That would be a relatively simple compromise to allow quicker interchange for Watford users onto the Chiltern line and not require terminating facilities for Chiltern trains. This TfL Finance and Policy Committee paper from June 2015 contains an Appendix 2, that is a letter of 30 March 2015 from the DfT to the GLA. Condition f) on page 2 states: “Transport for London will assess in good faith and agree with the Department, by the end of April 2015, the viability of the infrastructure accepting the operation of national rail DMUs (Class 165, 168, 170 and 172 up to six-cars in length), recognising DfT and stakeholders have a longer term aspirations for a service of 2 train per hour from Watford Junction to Rickmansworth, Aylesbury (and beyond). Transport for London will adopt any minor design modifications arising from the agreed viability assessment as part of the Croxley Rail Link project. Note: condition f) is subject to consultation between TfL and DfT.” (my bold) A service from Watford Junction over the north curve to points beyond Amersham therefore appears to be an official aspiration. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 2, 2016 9:17:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 2, 2016 9:15:29 GMT
NJR/atlastrack, spend some time going through this thread or the comments on the London Reconnections article on the Croxley Rail Link and you'll see that both the continued use of the existing Watford Met station and the use of the North Curve have both been evaluated and, in the case of the latter, ruled out for now. It's all there if you care to look.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Mar 24, 2016 11:38:35 GMT
Thanks for sharing - very interesting. On slide 18, there is a reference to "full end to end services including Reading to Heathrow Airport". Wishful thinking or is WRATH being built in secret? THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Feb 24, 2016 8:56:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thc on Feb 23, 2016 22:19:43 GMT
It'll be the "Lizzy line" in no time and "sweaty Betty" in high summer. In all seriousness it's an appalling idea from a Mayor who firstly backed Brexit to bolster his bid for the Tory leadership and now so nakedly wants a gong. Utterly risible. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jan 6, 2016 22:17:40 GMT
|
|
|
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 thc on Oct 28, 2015 12:41:13 GMT
Following the project’s transfer to TfL, there’s a paper going to TfL Board on 4 November. Its main recommendations are: 1. reconfirmation and reauthorisation of previous approvals and agreements with HCC and others so that the project can proceed; 2. the confirmation of the project funding envelope of £284.4m including risk at P50 level (P80 level is £304.68m); and 3. the need for a further Mayoral direction to account for TfL needing to provide up to a further £2.73m of funding in addition to the £46.5m TfL was directed to fund on 26 March 2015. Point 2 is despite the P50 project costs having risen to £298.5m, largely as HCC had higher than expected sunk costs on project transfer. The P50 and P80 (project and finance envelopes) are to remain for now pending a full post-transfer cost review by TfL. Point 3 is to account for the inflated valuation of two pieces of land included in the HCC contribution that are of no commercial value to TfL. One of them – the Croxley Green branch trackbed – was valued at HCC at £1.8m despite being acquired from Network Rail for the princely sum of £1! Naughty. Procurement Authority for the construction of the infrastructure works, acquisition of rolling stock and systems works is expected to be sought from the TfL Finance and Policy Committee in the New Year. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Sept 4, 2015 9:26:52 GMT
I think this has has the makings of a great project in no small part due to the passion and insight of Adrian Shooter. XF XF in positive comment shocker! I think I need a lie down! THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jun 10, 2015 14:25:41 GMT
Yep, just seen them. The only thing I would add to the Herts docs is that HCC is, in the common parlance, a "stakeholder"; it is only the DfT's reference (as the likely funder) to services over the North Curve that actually carries any weight.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jun 10, 2015 13:37:36 GMT
An unknown wild card is the service that Chiltern plan to operate, from Aylesbury. Or could TfL say that since they are funding the new link its not a joint line and therefore Chiltern's trains are not wanted there? Simon No plans for any such workings at the moment. Chiltern won't take a punt so close to the end of their franchise term, especially since the commercial risk would be all theirs. Not impossible but highly unlikely that the DfT would include an Aylesbury-WFJ service in the ITT for the new post-2021 franchise. What is more likely, but again not by much, is TfL operating an Amersham- or Chesham-WFJ service. Of course, that would mean an 8-car 'S' stock carting an awful lot of fresh air around. THC That TfL approval paper posted by snoggle throws up some interesting points, not least of which is in the second appendix, where a letter of 30 March from the DfT to the GLA. Condition f) on page 2 states: “Transport for London will assess in good faith and agree with the Department, by the end of April 2015, the viability of the infrastructure accepting the operation of national rail DMUs (Class 165, 168, 170 and 172 up to six-cars in length), recognising DfT and stakeholders have a longer term aspirations for a service of 2 train per hour from Watford Junction to Rickmansworth, Aylesbury (and beyond). Transport for London will adopt any minor design modifications arising from the agreed viability assessment as part of the Croxley Rail Link project. Note: condition f) is subject to consultation between TfL and DfT.” This is the first official confirmation I have seen anywhere that a service from Watford Junction over the north curve to points beyond Amersham is actually an official aspiration. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jun 1, 2015 9:57:31 GMT
There has never been anything on the official Chiltern Railways website about a service to WFJ, even when the other "Evergreen" proposals such as M1/M6 Parkway were itemised. There was however a fanboy website, which had a similar URL, suggesting that Chiltern were considering such a service despite no utterances to that effect from the company itself. I've just gone looking for it and it is indeed no longer there. THC Edit - found an archive link to the site I mention above here. Copy under the "Chiltern Railways Into the Future" heading states "If the Croxley Rail link gets the go ahead from Tfl and Hertfordshire County Council, direct services into Watford junction from Aylesbury will be likely, as it will link the Chilterns to the important commercial centre at Watford and the important transport connections at the Junction.". Absolutely no citation or source anywhere for this claim.
|
|
|
Post by thc on May 31, 2015 15:03:42 GMT
An unknown wild card is the service that Chiltern plan to operate, from Aylesbury. Or could TfL say that since they are funding the new link its not a joint line and therefore Chiltern's trains are not wanted there? Simon No plans for any such workings at the moment. Chiltern won't take a punt so close to the end of their franchise term, especially since the commercial risk would be all theirs. Not impossible but highly unlikely that the DfT would include an Aylesbury-WFJ service in the ITT for the new post-2021 franchise. What is more likely, but again not by much, is TfL operating an Amersham- or Chesham-WFJ service. Of course, that would mean an 8-car 'S' stock carting an awful lot of fresh air around. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 16, 2015 10:15:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thc on Mar 17, 2015 19:01:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thc on Dec 19, 2014 12:10:18 GMT
You rightly point out the Balkanisation of the railway as the reason that this has taken so long to deliver. I understand that London Underground was ready to go with a CRL variant in the early 1990s (indeed I have some promotional material dating from the time) until John Major, ably assisted by Sir Steve Robson at D(a)fT, set about shredding the railway industry in the name of privatisation.
Subsequently, in order to get through various RDA, DfT- and other government-led funding processes, HCC as the successor project sponsor has had to bend and twist it out of shape to make the numbers stack up. So we have seen various value engineering exercises, designed to drive as much cost as possible out of the project. I give you reusing Watford Met's ticket gateline at Cassiobridge - and keeping the Watford Met layout for sidings - as but two examples of this. Remember, if this cost-stripping had not been done, the CRL probably wouldn't have got the go-ahead at all!
I would like to see the new CRL project cost profile before levelling too much criticism at HCC or the other players involved, but I would urge anyone ready to jump to condemn them to remember that, all along, they have had to dance to some pretty discordant music - and limbo under some pretty low-set bars - to get the scheme to where it sits today. And for this much credit is due.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Dec 19, 2014 9:31:44 GMT
What a shameful farce, just like the ill thought out St Albams tramway! If the progress of HS2 is akin to this we be looking at 2100 before it is complete! We need engineers not vacuous politicians running projects like this with direct central funding., Maybe I should write a book about this project or suggest BBC Panorama special in order to expose what is (not) going on. XF In the nicest possible way, XF, you're speaking out of your hat. The Croxley Rail Link scheme has been programme managed to date on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council by Mouchel, a multi-disciplinary engineering consultancy. That's right, a firm of engineers. Rather than debunk (again) the rest of your anti-local government bluster line-by-line, I'll instead reprint the words of poster 'DTH' on the Watford Observer story linked to above. It's easy to be cynical. But read the actual words. What it says is, "The county council attributed the higher price of the project to 'wider railway benefits' and the cost of inflation.......The wider railway benefits include refurbishing the existing line between Lower High Street and Watford Junction, as well as enhancing the power supplies to both the Metropolitan Line and the Network Rail sections." So what is actually happening is that London Underground and Network Rail are ‘tacking on’ a load of their own work, which is not directly related to the Croxley Rail Link, in order to maximise the benefits from the scheme. When you actually think about, it makes total sense to do all that extra work at the same time. It also makes total sense that LU should be taking over the construction, given their experience in delivering major rail upgrade schemes. It’s just unfair that all this extra cost should be ‘blamed’ on the Croxley Link itself – no, the link is enabling loads of other new investment to go ahead and we should be grateful for that! So please don't bother with the book. Stick instead to building your wonderful model railway layout as that's where your creative strength lies. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Dec 18, 2014 11:38:32 GMT
So now it's a spring 2018 opening date and an overall cost of £230m, approximately double that originally approved. "Increasing the scope" for "wider railway benefits" apparently. I wonder what that can mean. THC -- www.croxleyraillink.com/latest-news/croxley_rail_link_update_20141217.htmCroxley Rail Link update 17 December 2014 Progress continues with the Croxley Rail Link, with Hertfordshire County Council now in discussions with London Underground – an experienced rail provider – about the next steps for this important project. The county council has had significant success in getting the scheme through the planning stages to a point where construction can start. All the partners involved in the scheme agree that there is now merit in the rail industry taking a more direct role in delivering the project. Terry Douris, Cabinet Member for Highways, said: "We have been working very hard to deliver this vital railway development for Hertfordshire, which will have so many benefits for the area. We are now in discussions with London Underground about their potential greater involvement, given that they will ultimately own and operate the railway. I would like to thank everyone involved in getting the project to this stage." David Hughes, London Underground’s Director of Major Programme Sponsorship, said: "We are supporting Hertfordshire County Council with their proposal to re-route and extend the Metropolitan line to Watford Junction. The Croxley Rail Link will improve access to public transport for local residents, lead to jobs growth in the area and provide access for Metropolitan line passengers to West Coast mainline National Rail links from Watford Junction station." Dorothy Thornhill, Elected Mayor of Watford, said: "The Croxley Rail Link is a transformational project for the town, and absolutely critical to unlocking Watford’s future economic potential. It is the thread that links Watford’s major development projects together – Watford Health Campus, Ascot Road, Watford Business Park, Watford Junction Interchange and Charter Place Shopping Centre. That’s over £1.2 billion of investment to the benefit of our residents and businesses." The next steps are for the county council to continue discussions with London Underground and for the scheme to receive final funding approval from the Department for Transport, which is expected in March 2015. Construction is due to start in spring 2015. The target date for trains to start running on the new link is spring 2018. The scheme is projected to cost £230m. This cost takes into account inflation and increasing the scope of the scheme in order to provide wider railway benefits. Notes for editors Hertfordshire County Council, London Underground, Network Rail, Watford Borough Council and Three Rivers District Council are working in partnership to deliver the project. Hertfordshire County Council was encouraged by the Department for Transport to take on and progress this railway scheme at a time in the 1990s when the railway industry, both in the public and private sector, was struggling. The county council has had significant success in getting the scheme to a stage where construction can start.
|
|