kabsonline
Best SSL Train: S Stock Best Tube Train: 92 Stock
Posts: 686
|
Post by kabsonline on May 5, 2011 20:40:07 GMT
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on May 5, 2011 20:49:34 GMT
Interesting, but Watford will be doomed and reduced to a stabling point without a station!
|
|
kabsonline
Best SSL Train: S Stock Best Tube Train: 92 Stock
Posts: 686
|
Post by kabsonline on May 5, 2011 20:50:35 GMT
do you think they would maintain the line then for stabling?
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on May 5, 2011 21:00:00 GMT
It's a very typical plan, lacking joined up thinking like so much infrastructure development in and around London.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 6, 2011 0:08:26 GMT
Interesting, but Watford will be doomed and reduced to a stabling point without a station! I would have thought it was more likely the land will be sold for housing. Not the most convenient place for train stabling without a station, and I really can't see Watford being retained for a shuttle service. Having said that, in the current climate I just can't see the link getting built either, but we wait to see. |
|
|
|
Post by redsetter on May 6, 2011 2:16:22 GMT
it will leave a large estate of houses without a convenient rail link on the door step so it will affect some,a lot of flat developments seem to have sprung up around stations in the last few years.
its a long walk into the town center but on a nice day its a nice stroll.there are proposals to run chiltern into watford also that would alleviate the need to change twice heading south from amersham.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2011 2:24:53 GMT
Interesting, but Watford will be doomed and reduced to a stabling point without a station! I would have thought it was more likely the land will be sold for housing. Not the most convenient place for train stabling without a station, and I really can't see Watford being retained for a shuttle service. Having said that, in the current climate I just can't see the link getting built either, but we wait to see. If the Croxley Link does get the green light in December (which I hope it does) I am sure Watford Met will close. To put it in context -This is one guy who has got 800 signatures of some local residents who will be inconvenienced.  Poor luvies). As one of person commented on this article “This guy needs to "get real" It is nice to have a station near you for convenience (not the parking though) but most people don't! There will always be winners and losers with any scheme and overall there will be more winners with the benefits the scheme will bring. If the Watford Met did survive it would become the new Croxley Green station with an infrequent service passengers reducing until there was a single train in one direction a day which will then be replaced by a taxi Then the council approves a road scheme that will sever the line- sound familiar? Cassiobury Link Scheme in 30-40 years time anyone? Xerces Fobe |
|
|
|
Post by trt on May 6, 2011 12:07:02 GMT
I'm curious. As proposed there will be 6/7 trains an hour peak running into the Junction, sharing track with the 3 trains an hour LOROL. So, over that shared section, there will be a train every 3 to 3.5 minutes trundling along behind people's houses. Are these S-stock trains significantly quieter? Is there enough space at the Junction to accommodate these extra trains? In the event of a disruption?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrolander on May 6, 2011 12:42:15 GMT
I am Watford product and previous long time resident of Croxley, so have always been interested in this. Fact is though, whilst there's alot to discuss in terms of this article and the views put forward, I simply think it's irrelevant; I can't see why anyone would expect this will go ahead!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2011 15:30:20 GMT
I'm curious. As proposed there will be 6/7 trains an hour peak running into the Junction, sharing track with the 3 trains an hour LOREL. So, over that shared section, there will be a train every 3 to 3.5 minutes trundling along behind people's houses. Are these S-stock trains significantly quieter? Is there enough space at the Junction to accommodate these extra trains? In the event of a disruption? I think I read somewhere that LOREL wants 4 trains per hour in the future. The big issue is that there is currently no credible plan for which funding has been agreed for the Watford Junction DC platforms and associated stabling sidings. Just where is all this stock going to go between peaks? A new Croxley Green Depot could be built but the access from the Watford end ;D Xerces Fobe |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2011 17:27:19 GMT
 How it might have been! Xerces Fobe PS Before anyone asks I have no plans for S Stock on the layout  |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on May 6, 2011 17:53:27 GMT
Damn right! Someone asked me if I was going to make an S stock for Harrow, I nearly threw up! ;D
The long term plan is for the LO to be replaced by the Bakerloo Line.....
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on May 6, 2011 18:11:21 GMT
LOROL may want 4tph, but it'd be a massive overprovision south of Harrow. I believe in part thats why the Bakerloo was supposed to return there.
Watford DC has 4 platforms in order, but 5 potential. That will easily be able to manage ~10 trains, could possibly manage over 3 times that amount?
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 6, 2011 18:41:42 GMT
it will leave a large estate of houses without a convenient rail link on the door step so it will affect some,a lot of flat developments seem to have sprung up around stations in the last few years. Which large estate? Only people living immediately around Watford Met station, on the station side of Cassiobury Park, will have a significantly longer walk to a station served by the Met. Ascot Road and/or Watford West will be as close for many of the people south of Rickmansworth Road and Watford Junction is as close for most of the people living to the north of Cassiobury Park. Of course, people in the new estates off Station Approach (Linden Avenue etc.) and on the northern part of the Boys' Grammar School site should have known that the link was a possibility when the moved in. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on May 11, 2011 12:31:33 GMT
Well, people on the north side of Cassiobury Park, West Herts College, the area bounded by Harwoods Road, Cassio Road, Whippendell Road and Rickmansworth Road.
I've also read in the DfT expression of interest submission that, to cut costs, the new stations are going to be DLR style with no staffed booking halls. They also suggest reducing the capabilities of the signalling system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2011 12:38:36 GMT
Well, people on the north side of Cassiobury Park, West Herts College, the area bounded by Harwoods Road, Cassio Road, Whippendell Road and Rickmansworth Road. I've also read in the DfT expression of interest submission that, to cut costs, the new stations are going to be DLR style with no staffed booking halls. They also suggest reducing the capabilities of the signalling system. St Albans Abbey - Watford Met tram should do nicely then  Xerces Fobe |
|
|
|
Post by trt on May 11, 2011 14:56:05 GMT
That would be wonderful, wouldn't it?! Firmly in RIPaS territory though.  The new stations seem to be a little bit too close together as well. I know there's a heck of a lot of people live in the area, but does it justify it? Wouldn't the Hospital station be better placed nearer Wiggenhall Road, maybe opposite where the Croxley depot used to be, parallel to Cardiff Road and inside the proposed Health Campus? After all, there are units going to have wait round there for clearance to enter the shared section anyway. Also, with the closure of the Royal Mail sorting office, Ascot Road could shunt Eastwards a shade and have an exit onto Tolpits Lane as well. It would space things out a little better. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on May 19, 2011 11:21:30 GMT
LOROL may want 4tph, but it'd be a massive overprovision south of Harrow. I believe in part thats why the Bakerloo was supposed to return there. Watford DC has 4 platforms in order, but 5 potential. That will easily be able to manage ~10 trains, could possibly manage over 3 times that amount? The platforms could, but can a single pair of tracks? I don't know if the signalling will need upgrading to cope with that volume. And if the Bakerloo Line returns, what will happen to Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead? What about passengers at Euston WHEN the West Coast Main Line goes titsup as usual? |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on May 19, 2011 22:26:19 GMT
LOROL may want 4tph, but it'd be a massive overprovision south of Harrow. I believe in part thats why the Bakerloo was supposed to return there. Watford DC has 4 platforms in order, but 5 potential. That will easily be able to manage ~10 trains, could possibly manage over 3 times that amount? The platforms could, but can a single pair of tracks? I don't know if the signalling will need upgrading to cope with that volume. And if the Bakerloo Line returns, what will happen to Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead? What about passengers at Euston WHEN the West Coast Main Line goes titsup as usual? I still think an extension of the ELL would be a better fit than the Bakerloo. Run 4tph to Watford Junction, 8tph to Harrow & Wealdstone, 12tph to Willesden Junction, 16tph to Highbury & Islington, and 24tph to Dalston Junction. True, strictly speaking it'd be a reduction of 1 tph to H&W, but I'm just picking round numbers here. It could just as easily be slightly different values. LO manages 3tph with a single platform at Euston. It can manage 4tph at Watford quite, quite safely with a pair of them, leaving 2 for the Met, just as it has currently, with the potential 5th available for someone like Chiltern. |
|
Poor luvies).
