8 whole years for the Croxley Rail Link?

Interesting choice of stock on the home page.......

Well the Met Rly was in existence since 1853 (as The Bayswater, Paddington and Holborn Bridge Railway Company) and construction only started in 1860, mainly due to funding problems. This is very similiar to the Croxley Rail Link where funding has been a massive problem and is probably the reason for the long timescale. Construction is planned to take 2 years

This project has been on the cards for at least 25 years on various guises - who remembers the Colne Valley Transit Plans light rail from St Albans Abbey - Amersham & Chesham?

This project and together the ill thought out/stupid idea of the St Albans - Watford tramway will remain vaporware for many years to come, hopefully the latter Lord Adonis inspired whimsical folly will fade away quietly!

I hope the Croxley link is eventually built and continues through to St Albans there would have to be a bridge at Watford Jctn but not really a showstopper.

Xerces Fobe

I suspect a diveunder would be better, but I agree - integrating the lines makes so much sense the mind boggles why it wasn't done years ago. The St Albans service has a lot of suppressed demand, which is only suppressed because the service is so rubbish. Taken under the mighty TfL's wing and actually operated to convenient timetables I have no doubt patronage would pick up dramatically.

Why would the Croxley Link webpage feature Central Line stock (the picture looks like West Ruislip by the way)

The branch was built to double track standards and was double track from Watford High Street Junction – Croxley Junction and Croxley Junction to Colne Junction (the other side of the triangle which closed in 1966).

Xerces Fobe

Wasnt the Croxley Branch legally closed in 2003? If so, are they required to offer a taxi service. Why stop at St Albans Abbey, reconnect the line back to Hatfield!

There is no special London Overground fare from Watford Junction to Euston. All fares charged from Watford Junction into London are the same no matter which operator (LM, LO or Southern) is used.

Well, it's veering off-topic, but my point being that as a branch, it's got a pretty a poor service as you have dodgy connections at each end, a low frequency, and not to mention the logistics of getting units onto the line itself if one breaks down.

...which is why operating it as a through service makes a lot of sense, but I don't see the point of going to Euston or Baker Street. As others have said, it won't compete with going to St Albans and then Thameslink, so the focus should probably be on local services centred on Watford.

A local service to Chesham/Amersham/Rickmansworth from St Albans is a journey that is a pain to make, and should by all rights be much easier than it is. The times by rail should offer a worthwhile time saving over going by road, and it would also help reduce congestion on a busy transport axis.

The options are:

• An extension of every 1 in n Met services (requiring conversion to 4 rail operation)
  
• The extension of every 1 in n LO services (which are dual voltage already)
  
• A diesel service (meaning that the Croxley bit could remain 4 rail, and the St Albans bit remain OHLE), though there is something perverse about operating a diesel service over a fully electrified route, abet one with two different forms.
  
• A new electric service with one of the segments converted to the other's form of electrification. This either excludes the Met from the branch to Watford (but otherwise still fulfils the objectives of the link), or requires new 4-rail installation and removal of the OHLE.
  

Interchange at Rickmansworth for the Met is less of a problem than with LO at Watford as the frequencies are much higher. There would still be issues at the St. Albans end...but that's something else entirely. I suspect that removing a branch from the Met also simplifies operations a bit.



Quite. The loop(s) is/are mandatory for an improved service, and one of the few reasons I offer any support to the tram proposals at all. I'd like to see a double track section at either end and a pair of loops en-route to get the frequency up to 15 minutes. Once the service level improves, so will the patronage, and then a case returns for retaining the loops with a full rail service. My concern is that the conversion back would never happen.

Why should a through service to Bushey, Harrow, Wembley and Euston not make sense? The mainline to Euston is used by a fair number of passengers from the branch already. Timings for the intermediate stations, changing at Watford Junction, are already better than travelling via St. Albans (including getting between the two stations).



But is there demand for cross-Watford services, or would changing at Watford Junction be sufficient? I know that plans for the Croxley link included a Watford - Chesham service to provide some of the local connections, as well as Met line trains to Baker Street.



If there is a conversion to a tram, then I rather it were followed up with a proper extension, with running into both the center of Watford and to St. Alban's City station via the city center. This would probably increase demand more than integration with another service at Watford Junction.

There used to be a loop on the line, at Brickett Wood IIRC, but it got taken out at some stage (1960s/70s) as an economy measure.

ADMIN:

Gents, we have been getting perilously close to "RIPAS"* territory in several of the recent posts. Obviously in this case there has to be some latitude but it is in danger of veering into fantasy land.

PLease can we get back on topic or you'll have to search for this thread in RIPAS. Thanks.


* districtdave.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ideasproposals

I feel sorry for the Watford MET crowd. My mate lives there! He's not looking forward to house prices falling....