Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 20, 2010 21:25:39 GMT
Although if the tram line into Watford is built out that way as well (I don't see why it couldn't be), that would almost certainly more than negate any house price decreases from the closure of Watford Met.
If/when Watford Met does close, are there any proposals about what to use the station's site for?
(any discussion on the tram aspect of this post this should probably be on the RIPS board)
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Aug 25, 2010 17:19:44 GMT
The bit to close includes the bridge over the Grand Union. It'd probably cost a lot to keep it all in working order, but could be used as siding space, especially considering Croxley Green Depot isn't there anymore...
|
|
|
|
Post by metrolander on Aug 25, 2010 17:41:44 GMT
As a slight aside, but relevant to the above, the one thing this thread has prompted me to think about is the impact the scheme happening would have on the predominant 'view' of this particular corner of Metroland what is closest to my heart. Naturally, the definitive 'image' of Croxley Green is the green, but being as most people come in/go out by road, and the other boundary is at the foot of a plain hill, I regard the view from between the 'Two Bridges' (the Met to the West and the severed branch line to the East) looking towards the town as pretty much the quintessential Croxley postcard. This is pretty much where a great big new bridge has to cross between two above-rooftop-height embankments over the convergence of various main roads, with three roundabouts in the vicinity... As I think about it, strikes me as odd that in all these years, I've never been aware of any artist's impression? Of course, I haven't always been looking, but I'd be surprised if anyone could enlighten me? I'm intrigued as to how that could be designed without making a massive KERBOOM in the horizon. I have a very much 'believe it when I see it' attitude towards the scheme happening; I was aware of it from my very first Geography lesson nigh on 2 decades ago, and...
TBH in the current climate I'd be surprised; I can see the CLEAR benefits of the Met arriving at Watford Junction (and perhaps just as importantly, Watford High Street) but there are many other significant projects overdue/running behind, being deferred, etc etc etc. Even as I wrote about the lack of any artist's impression (to my knowledge) it struck me that, even though this has been described as something fairly straightfoward, it'd be quite a job to do it. I used to be familiar with the owners of the pub named after the Two Bridges, right about where I presume any new construction may start to diverge; I used to often speculate with them that one day they'd have trains running through the bedrooms upstairs. But now I'm really not so sure!
...but, IF it did happen, but sidings didn't, that'd be a nice new view...
EDIT: Ok so there's some Google images (lack of foresight on my part, ahem) but still, 'rough' I'd say... and I guess you still will get the view, just once you come out of the bridge if it's where these impressions show, for some reason I'd always imagined it closer to Croxley Green station but I suppose that doesn't make sense. I wonder if the radii as illustrated by impressions of new constructions such as this are realistic...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2010 17:42:10 GMT
The bit to close includes the bridge over the Grand Union. It'd probably cost a lot to keep it all in working order, but could be used as siding space, especially considering Croxley Green Depot isn't there anymore... There is only enough space for 2 sidings and it would be a nightmare to keep secure. The site the former Croxley Depot currently has portable buildings and other debris on it and part of it could be returned to railway use. I would however propose an alternative solution which is to sell some of Watford Met station for houses and build a secure stabling point or depot on the other part. Watford Junction station will potentially have capacity issues with Overground MET and maybe even Bakerloo line trains in the coming years. Without some major engineering work there is only room to re-instate one additional platform. You could divert the WCML to St Albans City station to help achieve this - just joking ;D Xerces Fobe |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 25, 2010 19:12:14 GMT
Only two sidings? Do you mean in addition to the four [inc platform roads] (or 5 if 24 road can hold 2 trains) that are currently there? Could probably squeeze a couple more in if the roads were capable of holding two trains each (bar 21). So if you took the platform out maybe room for 10/11 trains. Not too bad... Didn't know about Croxley Greens site though; would be more practical because the Bakerloo could get to it easier aswell; and in the long term the Bloo will need as much siding space as possible if it takes on WJ - Hayes...
Does the Cardiff Road regen scheme not include the former depot site then?
Got a feeling that Overground and Bakerloo to WJ are mutually exclusive, so a four (or even five as you mention) track station for two lines isnt too bad. Uxbridge manages a similar frequency with three tracks.
Still the scheme has been on the cards for well over 40 years now. A correspondant to UNDERGROUND in the early 60s even wrote that the four tracking scheme then under construction should include a spur to the Church Road branch, to enable a Ricky (Met) - WJ shuttle to run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2010 21:24:05 GMT
Only two sidings? Do you mean in addition to the four [inc platform roads] (or 5 if 24 road can hold 2 trains) that are currently there? Could probably squeeze a couple more in if the roads were capable of holding two trains each (bar 21). So if you took the platform out maybe room for 10/11 trains. Not too bad... Didn't know about Croxley Greens site though; would be more practical because the Bakerloo could get to it easier aswell; and in the long term the Blood will need as much siding space as possible if it takes on WJ - Hayes... Does the Cardiff Road regen scheme not include the former depot site then? Got a feeling that Overground and Bakerloo to WJ are mutually exclusive, so a four (or even five as you mention) track station for two lines isnt too bad. Uxbridge manages a similar frequency with three tracks. Still the scheme has been on the cards for well over 40 years now. A correspondent to UNDERGROUND in the early 60s even wrote that the four tracking scheme then under construction should include a spur to the Church Road branch, to enable a Ricky (Met) - WJ shuttle to run. My only 2 sidings was in response to to the reference to the Croxley Green station site. The present Watford Junction DC platforms can accommodate a 6 car 313/508 you can see some of this plus the unused platform in this photo upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Watford_Junction_stn_Overground_platform_4_look_north_with_unit_508302.JPG The platforms are not long enough for an 8 car S - stock Met train so there are a lot of issues to address. The Cardiff Road regen scheme does not include the former depot site as far as I am aware. The suggestion of linking to the Rickmansworth Church Street branch would have been a good option in my opinion as the station was nearer the town. This is all academic now as the subsequent building on the former trackbed around Church Street has now made this impossible. I fear this scheme has many years to run before it is realised, if ever. This is so frustrating as it makes sense and could be self financing as a result of selling the old MET station off. Our Victorian forefathers would have just got on with it - that progress for you!  Xerces Fobe |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 1, 2010 11:49:13 GMT
I personally favour reopening a depot on the old Croxley depot site, though don't forget, there are little (unused?) sidings south of Watford Junction between the DC lines and the WCML, as well as the obvious platform stabling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2010 12:25:16 GMT
I personally favour reopening a depot on the old Croxley depot site, though don't forget, there are little (unused?) sidings south of Watford Junction between the DC lines and the WCML, as well as the obvious platform stabling. It will have to be a new building - this option gets my vote. Maybe they could service the St Albans branch trams there as well ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2010 11:56:23 GMT
I had not heard about Chesham to Watford services, but I had heard about Chiltern running Aylesbury to Watford services if the link was built.
|
|
|
|
Post by thc on Sept 3, 2010 5:56:00 GMT
I had not heard about Chesham to Watford services, but I had heard about Chiltern running Aylesbury to Watford services if the link was built. Not at first. According to the Major Scheme Business Case document available on the Croxley Rail Link website (a link is at the bottom of the 'benefits' page), prepared in order to gain Programme Entry status with the DfT, the CRL scheme variant that included an Aylesbury-WJ service scored highest in the options appraisal, but won't be taken forward at this stage due to the added complexity and higher risks associated with integrating northbound services into the existing service matrix. That does not preclude such a service being provided at a later date. Maybe I'll see it in my lifetime - and I'm 38... THC |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2010 7:16:08 GMT
I would imagine the problem with such a service would be running fast services. An Aylesbury to Watford Junction service by Chiltern is unlikely to want to stop at Croxley or Ascot Road, but unless they go all out and make the link quadruple track, there won't be any alternative.
Also, suddenly the section of the Watford DC line between the High Street and the Junction will become very, very busy. We're talking 20 tph from the Met line (according to the website but that sounds ridiculous to me as there aren't 20 tph on the trunk), 4 tph from London Overground, plus 2 tph from Chiltern Railways and we have 26 tph operating in that section.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 3, 2010 8:30:48 GMT
I had not heard about Chesham to Watford services, but I had heard about Chiltern running Aylesbury to Watford services if the link was built. It was mentioned that last time that the link was 'nearly ready'. I believe the thinking was that combining a half hourly Watford Junction - Rickmansworth service via the north curve with the Chesham shuttle wouldn't need any more rolling stock than running the trains separately. Of course, now that the Chesham shuttle is not long for the world, a different service is more likely. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 3, 2010 11:51:29 GMT
I would imagine the problem with such a service would be running fast services. An Aylesbury to Watford Junction service by Chiltern is unlikely to want to stop at Croxley or Ascot Road, but unless they go all out and make the link quadruple track, there won't be any alternative. Also, suddenly the section of the Watford DC line between the High Street and the Junction will become very, very busy. We're talking 20 tph from the Met line (according to the website but that sounds ridiculous to me as there aren't 20 tph on the trunk), 4 tph from London Overground, plus 2 tph from Chiltern Railways and we have 26 tph operating in that section. Indeed. Fast services needn't stop at minor stations (e.g. as the Met used to skip Euston Square and G.P.S.), but you'd still need the route clear ahead of them, so you may as well stop. An esoteric option should fast services actually be required could be to reinstate the old LMS Rickmansworth branch heading northwards and hook it up to the Met, essentially as avoiding lines for Croxley, Ascot Road and Watford West. As for the shared section between Watford High St. Junction and Watford Junction, this occurred to be as well. An option I've considered before as a solution to the H&S mixed-height stock issue (Bakerloo/Met) on new build stations was to widen Watford High Street northwards. Before Watford's ring road was built the station was part of the High Street, and when it cut through it, several buildings were levelled, leaving a large open space next to the station. Whilst it's nice to have a surviving artefact of the Watford & Rickmansworth Railway, the station is somewhat decrepit state, despite LOROL's sprucing up. Just too many years of neglect I guess. So, flatten the station, widen the cutting (rebuilding the weak bridge in the process), and build a dual-island station. You could even put together a better ticket hall under the ring road at the same time, using the Pyramid as an innovative station building (finally getting some decent use out of it's isolated location), finally linking the station into the new High Street layout properly, not to mention putting it next to the bus stops. Trains would merge just beyond the station, reducing the shared section whilst enabling them to be held in platforms until the road was clear. If you continued the widening slightly further, you could probably get another pair of lines all the way to where I propose a portal taking a pair of lines under the WCML and up onto the other side for continuation up to St Albans. You might even be able to get them all the way to Watford Junction with a bit of creativity. Either way, you remove the capacity conflict on the lines. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2010 13:47:34 GMT
According to the the September edition of modern Railways tenders are being invited to run the Watford -St Albans Tramway.
If this scheme does go ahead (I hope not) I bet it will consume far more money than is currently talked about, due to the proponents of the schemes lack of reality and inderstanding of the economics of running a tramway. This quite possibly will result in no money being available for the Croxley Rail Link for the next few decades!
Xerces Fobe
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Sept 3, 2010 17:50:10 GMT
Indeed. Fast services needn't stop at minor stations (e.g. as the Met used to skip Euston Square and G.P.S.) <Off Topic> When was that? I can't remember any non-stop codes being published in Met. WTTs - or was it that certain incoming fasts to the City would automatically non-stop certain stations. If so which ones and when, please? </off topic> Non-stopping would need some positive education these days! |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 3, 2010 23:22:36 GMT
Indeed. Fast services needn't stop at minor stations (e.g. as the Met used to skip Euston Square and G.P.S.) <Off Topic> When was that? I can't remember any non-stop codes being published in Met. WTTs - or was it that certain incoming fasts to the City would automatically non-stop certain stations. If so which ones and when, please? </off topic> Non-stopping would need some positive education these days! <Off Topic> I don't know exactly, sorry. It would have been long before my time so I'm just relaying what I've picked up on my reading travels. I seem to recall reading it was just the Met trains, and almost certainly in the 70's or early 80's, and I took that as an explanation as to why the platforms were shorter at these two stations. Indeed, that's what in my musings on adding express tracks to that route I have the met skipping those stations as well as Barbican and Moorgate. If I'm wrong, sorry for leading you astray  </Off Topic> |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Sept 3, 2010 23:40:03 GMT
20tph on the Watford branch? Hardly seems needed when half that suffices for both the Uxbridge and Watford branches. But 26tph over a flat junction is doable; its not envisaged to be a freight link and accelleration of the 'S's, 378s and 165/8s isnt sluggish.
However the Bakerloo is envisaged to be 6tph to Watford Junction (if CRL goes ahead it'll most likely be intergrated with 4th rail on the rest of the DC).
So 6 Bloo, 2 Chiltern, and for arguements sake 20 met. Does Watford Junction require that much for demand? 5 platforms sounds like it may be able to take that much. But why bother causing problems when you have a nice little 2 track terminus already existing with housing around it. Send 4 out of the 20 to Watford Met, compliment it with a 2tph shuttle to Chesham and reintroduce the 4tph to Amersham.
Or do something with a (rebuilt) Bushey - Watford West curve...
Weren't the regional planning authorities (of which this was boosted by the East England one) as QuANGOs supposed to be ditched under the coalition? Perhaps the sudden burst of publicity is a way of trying to keep this project from dieing. I hope it goes ahead!
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 4, 2010 9:04:02 GMT
20tph on the Watford branch? Hardly seems needed when half that suffices for both the Uxbridge and Watford branches. But 26tph over a flat junction is doable; its not envisaged to be a freight link and accelleration of the 'S's, 378s and 165/8s isnt sluggish. 20tph may just be double counting. 10 tph each way over the link seems a more reasonable number (if it includes access from both north and south). |
|
|
|
Post by thc on Sept 5, 2010 18:40:21 GMT
If this scheme does go ahead (I hope not) I bet it will consume far more money than is currently talked about, due to the proponents of the schemes lack of reality and inderstanding of the economics of running a tramway. This quite possibly will result in no money being available for the Croxley Rail Link for the next few decades! With respect, I'd suggest that they (Hertfordshire County Council) have more understanding of the 'reality' and the economics involved than the likes of me or you and, if not, they can always engage the services of people that do (such as Mouchel, their retained transport consultants). Approval for the bid to convert the Abbey line to a tramway was given by the DfT in the closing months of the last Government on the condition that the total cost of conversion and operational subsidy did not exceed the total funding available to run the line as it stands, i.e. heavy rail with one EMU, over the lifetime of any potential concession (expected to be between 20-30 years). On the CRL, however, I do agree with you that the income from sale/disposal/development of the Watford (Met) station site should be included in the overall cost calculations. I'm not sure that the scheme appraisal rules allow for this, which is a desperate shame as, while it wouldn't make the scheme self-financing, it would certainly help reduce the overall funding requirement. THC |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2010 21:00:13 GMT
Government and Council bodies can always make a business case stand up to suit their own agenda this has been proved time and again with the railways. Dr Beeching’s decisions were not all bad with some well justified, however there were numerous deceptions that were carried out in order to make business case stand up some of which, which to say the were at the least, were devoid of all the true facts!. The Bude branch having investment on new concrete sleeper track near Halwill Junction in the year of closure was one prime example (no 30 year business case here!) There’re many books chronicling the events of this time which make interesting reading!
To be absolutely clear I am not anti-Tram/Light Rail and I actual like them, however I am a great advocate of integrated transport policies and this scheme falls far short of this in my opinion. One of the prime reasons for the proposal of the Watford –St Alban’s tramway was the cost to provide a loop on the branch for heavy rail and I think this adds credence to my case. Why do 2 points, signalling and a length of track cost a few million pounds and is not justified, however a complete new standalone tramway system with loop depot and sidings is?
Councils have their short term some what myopic agendas are fail to see the big picture. Yes they can get consultants in and they will tell you what you want to hear, take a long time to do it and charge you arm and a leg for the privilege.
The cost of the provision of new permanent way has rocketed out of all proportion since the railways were privatised in the 1990’s and the over bearing Health & Safety rules make things even worse. The loop on the Falmouth –Truro branch is an example 10 years in the planning Government, Councils and EU all involved £10M to implement and operationally it is very bazaar. Despite all this it has been a resounding success with an increase in passenger numbers, the frequency of the service doubled and the length of all weekday trains halved with many cases of passengers being asked to wait for the next crowded train! Trams would be ideal here, running into both Truro and Falmouth!
OK I am straying from the topic at the head of this page (sorry Mods); my point is with money in short supply, the Croxley Link should be prioritised over the Watford -St Albans Tramway as its integrates with existing services well and benefits are far wider and will improved the journeys of many more passengers.
Anyway be it the Croxley link or St Albans Tramway I will endeavour to be on the first train/tram – if I live long enough that is! ;D
Xerces Fobe
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 5, 2010 22:04:21 GMT
OK I am straying from the topic at the head of this page (sorry Mods); my point is with money in short supply, the Croxley Link should be prioritised over the Watford -St Albans Tramway as its integrates with existing services well and benefits are far wider and will improved the journeys of many more passengers. But this misses the important point that funding for the conversion to a tramway for the St. Albans branch wouldn't be up front, but would be paid for over the length of the concession. It would be upto who ever was awarded the contract to finance the scheme and the subsidy for running the service would then be diverted from London Midland. The Croxley link needs up front government funding to go ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by wildcard on Sept 24, 2010 20:35:16 GMT
20tph on the Watford branch? Hardly seems needed when half that suffices for both the Uxbridge and Watford branches. But 26tph over a flat junction is doable; its not envisaged to be a freight link and accelleration of the 'S's, 378s and 165/8s isnt sluggish. 20tph may just be double counting. 10 tph each way over the link seems a more reasonable number (if it includes access from both north and south). Elsewhere the report quotes 14 tph peak from Watford to London - not on the Met alone. So if you go with 4 tph on LO/Bakerloo , that leaves 10 on the Met. The report also says the Chiltern connection wouldn't be part of the initial operation on the grounds of " increased risk" - so no Watford-Aylesbury. Short sighted or what ! You guys would know but presumably the costs of dual fuel permament way is (alot? ) higher . Perhaps the plan is to leave platform 5 and the rest of the required infrastructure out for the time being but ask Chiltern to pay for it later as part of the franchise extension. In other words it won't happen . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2010 7:53:45 GMT
In other words it won't happen . Unfortunately I agree that this is the reality  Xerces Fobe |
|
