|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 16, 2015 18:58:06 GMT
Amusing that they have time to worry about the name of the project. Maybe they should consider actually getting the thing finished (or is it started . . .)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 23:25:37 GMT
Amusing that they have time to worry about the name of the project. Maybe they should consider actually getting the thing finished (or is it started . . .) Perish the thought as this is the project that keeps giving , revised completion dates ,deadlines, animations in fact anything but a railway!  XF |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Sept 17, 2015 8:50:51 GMT
But what will they call the next project which extends the Metropolitan Line?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 9:15:22 GMT
But what will they call the next project which extends the Metropolitan Line? Farce 2!  |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Sept 17, 2015 11:12:16 GMT
To be fair they did consider and reject the Croxley Rail Augmentation Project.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 17, 2015 14:13:06 GMT
But what will they call the next project which extends the Metropolitan Line? Since this is the first extension of the Metropolitan Line in its history (the Stanmore branch was opened by its predecessor, the Metropolitan Railway, shortly before it became a mere "Line"), I think we can safely put any thoughts of further extensions on the "not in our lifetime" pile. |
|
|
|
Post by johnb2 on Sept 17, 2015 18:43:34 GMT
Judging by some of the comments on this thread, it seems that actually getting the Met running into Watford Jct could also be in the "not in our lifetime" pile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 18:56:47 GMT
Judging by some of the comments on this thread, it seems that actually getting the Met running into Watford Jct could also be in the "not in our lifetime" pile. That's what is worrying me!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 19:20:25 GMT
There is very little sign of any work on the railway link however preparing the land building of houses in and around the old Croxley Green Depot site is racing on.
The rail side so far has only cleared the vegetation along the old trackbed do far not much to show for @ 4 years work. There is local pressure from the Flat Earther's that want to keep the Watford Met Station open and they are manipulating passenger figures to support their cause. With BoJo the Mare/Mayor moving on anything could happen and my cynical side thinks the whole project is really about getting more housing built in Watford and the proposed Met Extension is the just the vehicle to achieve this.
Looking at where the Cassio Bridge will be built I have my doubts as to how well it will fit in as a bit of a dogs leg to say the least.
Any bets as when the project will be canned? I will go for April 2016 for it all to fall apart!
Hoping that I am proved wrong.
XF
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 20:13:47 GMT
 Will we ever see this .........? XF |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Sept 17, 2015 20:30:07 GMT
Looks like a bad design. The train barely fits past the girders. In fact it looks like its scraping the roof. And then at the end it is leaning dangerously onto the platform. I don't know why you would want this to happen but I certainly wouldn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 17, 2015 20:41:36 GMT
The S stock is showing Uxbridge. May be a bit tricky from Watford High Street . . .
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Sept 17, 2015 20:43:36 GMT
Will we ever see this .........? XF In the picture it's sunny and there's a man wearing shorts. This will never happen in Britain in my lifetime! |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Sept 17, 2015 20:56:18 GMT
Will we ever see this .........? XF In the picture it's sunny and there's a man wearing shorts. This will never happen in Britain in my lifetime! Actually, there's two guys in shorts-in Watford??? Not to mention neither seems overtly concerned about the rear carriages of the train being apparently filling with hot air & swelling to bursting point-is that a metaphor for the chances of this ever happening? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 21:15:40 GMT
Looks like a bad design. The train barely fits past the girders. In fact it looks like its scraping the roof. And then at the end it is leaning dangerously onto the platform. I don't know why you would want this to happen but I certainly wouldn't. My Photoshopping was done late at night, my eyes were tired and my hands shaky! XF |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Sept 17, 2015 21:57:52 GMT
Seriously though, here is an updated map produced by TfL: clicky. |
|
|
|
Post by kesmet on Sept 17, 2015 22:41:50 GMT
But what will they call the next project which extends the Metropolitan Line? Since this is the first extension of the Metropolitan Line in its history (the Stanmore branch was opened by its predecessor, the Metropolitan Railway, shortly before it became a mere "Line"), I think we can safely put any thoughts of further extensions on the "not in our lifetime" pile. Umm - the line north of Baker Street was the original "Extension Line", opened in many stages. The main line ran from Paddington to Farringdon. Although if you're talking about the LPTB and later "line" then the only extension would be the quad-tracking. |
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Sept 18, 2015 9:36:12 GMT
so once the extension opens, the met will be the only line to run alongside 4 possible different lines to all its destinations? Chiltern, Piccadilly, overground and circle/hammersmith?
Although one could argue a similar point with the district
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 18, 2015 10:11:37 GMT
so once the extension opens, the met will be the only line to run alongside 4 possible different lines to all its destinations? Chiltern, Piccadilly, overground and circle/hammersmith? Although one could argue a similar point with the district If you mean alongside, rather than actually sharing tracks, you can include the Jubilee the District also has four lines it shares with - Picc, H&C, Circle, Overground - plus C2C alongside Overground - District, Bakerloo, Southern, Anglia |
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Sept 18, 2015 10:58:45 GMT
I consider the overground to be many separate lines unlike the underground.
Sorry I should have specified and said tracks SHARED (circle and h&c being one)
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by towerman on Sept 18, 2015 12:03:27 GMT
If events carry on in China as they are the project probably will get canned when the next recession hits.
|
|
|
|
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 peterc on Oct 28, 2015 16:02:48 GMT
The repeated meetings to approve things must be costing as much as the actual engineering by this time. Whenever it seems to be done and dusted there is another round of approvals to be obtained!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 22:24:23 GMT
The repeated meetings to approve things must be costing as much as the actual engineering by this time. Whenever it seems to be done and dusted there is another round of approvals to be obtained! I thought like many that the purpose of this work was to related to Met Line trains when in fact all we have got is a Bisto link with it's has ever increasing fleet of Gravy Trains in service! XF |
|
|
|
Post by burkey on Nov 6, 2015 13:17:29 GMT
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by towerman on Nov 6, 2015 13:41:13 GMT
Surely it would've been cheaper & quicker to reinstate the Bakerloo back to Watford,after all the tracks are already there.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 6, 2015 20:18:58 GMT
Too late to reinstate the south curve at Wiggenhall Road now. That would have brought the option of Bakerloo Line or London Overground (aka Harlequin / Watson Line) services to the new "health campus" and West Watford; they've just flattened the earthworks for the bridge over Wiggenhall Road.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 6, 2015 22:41:39 GMT
What might have been cheaper but also less beneficial (for people near the new stations) would have been to extend the Met to Watford town centre from the present-day terminus, this being that the Met Rly had intended and would possibly have done had it remained independent.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 6, 2015 23:27:01 GMT
What might have been cheaper but also less beneficial (for people near the new stations) would have been to extend the Met to Watford town centre from the present-day terminus, this being that the Met Rly had intended and would possibly have done had it remained independent. Simon I doubt that would have been cheaper, given the need to tunnel under the park instead of re0using an existing track bed for 95% of the distance. And a connection to an unconnected terminus would not be as useful as a connection to the Junction. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Nov 7, 2015 0:25:05 GMT
What might have been cheaper but also less beneficial (for people near the new stations) would have been to extend the Met to Watford town centre from the present-day terminus, this being that the Met Rly had intended and would possibly have done had it remained independent. Simon I doubt that would have been cheaper, given the need to tunnel under the park instead of re0using an existing track bed for 95% of the distance. And a connection to an unconnected terminus would not be as useful as a connection to the Junction. Given that "Watford Central" station would have been built a) with tracks well below road level, and b) facing Clarendon Road, I strongly suspect that had it been built we would also have eventually ended up with a cut and cover extension to Watford Junction along Clarendon Road, especially as once it reached there it would have been pointing exactly along the St. Albans branch alignment. |
|
