|
|
Post by trt on Feb 10, 2012 9:29:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 9:59:20 GMT
Because of the folly of our forefathers the Met station in Watford was sited in place that was far from convenient or the town centre . There were some winners - the people who lived near the Met station. This Croxley Link at long last resolves this issue and now the majority of passengers will be better off.
So a vociferous minority are unhappy that they will now have walk a bit further - a 13 minute walk according to Google Maps. Most people including me would be happy to live that near to a station. I live very near the GW mainline in Berkshire however it is a 40 minute walk to my nearest station.
To the Watford Met wingers - get over it, put a pair of walking shoes on or pay the full costs of keeping the Watford Met station open!
XF
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 10, 2012 10:09:33 GMT
Well I for one don't think Sarah Siddons would fit in as well at one of these modern glass, steel and concrete stations. ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 10:32:00 GMT
Well I for one don't think Sarah Siddons would fit in as well at one of these modern glass, steel and concrete stations. ;-) OK good point keep Watford Met open then ;D XF |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 10:49:23 GMT
Because of the folly of our forefathers the Met station in Watford was sited in place that was far from convenient or the town centre . The plan was for the line to get to the town centre, but the continuation under Cassiobury park was blocked. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 10:51:45 GMT
Because of the folly of our forefathers the Met station in Watford was sited in place that was far from convenient or the town centre . The plan was for the line to get to the town centre, but the continuation under Cassiobury park was blocked. Thanks- I was aware of this fact, however it was still a folly. XF |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 10, 2012 10:53:19 GMT
The Junction is pretty far away from the town centre too. It just has a better bus service.
Watford High Street is at the southern end of the shopping area and separated from the Harlequin by a wilderness of tarmac islands populated only by a forest of traffic lights and a low scrub of wire fencing.
The original Met plan would have seen a station right in the heart of the town, in a similar vein to Edgware.
Where stations were put, the housing followed, which in my mind is a case for keeping the current station!
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Feb 12, 2012 17:24:29 GMT
The Junction is pretty far away from the town centre too. It just has a better bus service. Watford High Street is at the southern end of the shopping area and separated from the Harlequin by a wilderness of tarmac islands populated only by a forest of traffic lights and a low scrub of wire fencing. The original Met plan would have seen a station right in the heart of the town, in a similar vein to Edgware. Watford Junction is considerably closer to the main shopping areas in Watford (about 10 mins walk to the Harlequin) than the Met line station (over 20 mins) and Watford High Street is closer than both although a subway underneath the ring road would help access. The big problem with this argument is that most of the land around the Met line station doesn't actually have any housing built on it, being Cassioberry Park and the Boys' Grammar School. So the immediate catchment area for outbound commuters is poor and the Ascot Road station won't be that much further than the current Met line station from the Boys' school. Both the new stations will serve a lot much existing housing than the Met line station does. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Feb 12, 2012 17:59:58 GMT
I imagine the High Street Station will see lots of use. I remember having to walk to Watford Junction from the town centre, it took ages!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 22:15:45 GMT
Watford High Street serves the town well though I am sure that some will complain about this too!
XF
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 13, 2012 10:49:04 GMT
The big problem with this argument is that most of the land around the Met line station doesn't actually have any housing built on it, being Cassioberry Park and the Boys' Grammar School. And just how much of the area immediately surrounding Ascot Road is built on? It's mainly the Marina and a business park. OK, the old Sun Printers site is now hundreds and hundreds of shoebox flats, but aside from that, there isn't much. Not that I'm saying Ascot Road isn't placed well, though I wish they'd restore the Iron Bridge to Croxley Green as a pedestrian route, just that you can't use immediate housing density as an argument for preferring Ascot Road over Watford Met. Also, the playing fields at Boys Grammar have been recently built on, as have the old sidings and print works at Station Approach. The route between WBGS and Ascot Road crosses two major arterial roads, Rickmansworth and Whippendell, which could do without hundreds of extra pedestrian crossings every time a tube arrives just prior to the start of the school day, and again at the end of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Feb 13, 2012 13:14:11 GMT
The big problem with this argument is that most of the land around the Met line station doesn't actually have any housing built on it, being Cassioberry Park and the Boys' Grammar School. And just how much of the area immediately surrounding Ascot Road is built on? It's mainly the Marina and a business park. OK, the old Sun Printers site is now hundreds and hundreds of shoebox flats, but aside from that, there isn't much. Not that I'm saying Ascot Road isn't placed well, though I wish they'd restore the Iron Bridge to Croxley Green as a pedestrian route, just that you can't use immediate housing density as an argument for preferring Ascot Road over Watford Met. Hundreds and hundreds of shoebox flats seems like quite a good argument in favour of Ascot Road rather the current station. There is a lot more 'older' housing within 10 mins of the Ascot Road stop than the current location. There is not a lot of houses on the playing fields (from memory the description was 4-5 bed detached houses!!), although there is more on the new estate off Station Approach. However, this doesn't get away from the fact that there is a lot more land built upon near Ascot Road than the current station Why should a few extra pedestrians be a problem? I sincerely doubt that there are hundreds of students from the Met line going to the school. There certainly weren't when I was there and those that did mostly came from Northwood, which isn't even in the same local authority. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 13, 2012 13:43:29 GMT
I find the hostility towards those who wish to retain the current station as an ongoing passenger carrying concern quite bewildering. There are not many in that camp who would wish to scrap the whole CRL scheme in favour of maintaining the status quo; the majority, I believe, would favour a split service.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Feb 13, 2012 15:07:52 GMT
@ trt > "Well said", so +1 from me.
It is evident, and has been proven time and time again, that there is a level of management that fears any form of "change", and it is in the transport industry more than any other. It could be that there is a fear that change will create "exposure" and a cry of "The Emperor has no clothes" when the light goes on. No change doesn't take anyone outside of their current 'comfort zone' and hence "Fight all change/progress, and stay comfortable". Nobody ever got praised for spending money, so, when it eventually has to be spent, it ends up costing three times as much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 15:29:20 GMT
I find the hostility towards those who wish to retain the current station as an ongoing passenger carrying concern quite bewildering. There are not many in that camp who would wish to scrap the whole CRL scheme in favour of maintaining the status quo; the majority, I believe, would favour a split service. A 13 minute walk to Ascot Road Station, some including me would consider you lucky to live so near to a station!  XF |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 15:43:21 GMT
Prima facie, I can't see a strong case for a single station spur to remain to the existing Watford tube station as it will only be a kilometre away as the crow flies away from the Ascot Road Station (1.2km by road) and the low density of housing and reduced catchment area would almost certainly make it a loss making branch. If it were a long way away from the nearest station and retained a large catchment area like Amersham there could be a case for retaining some service . Currently Watford Tube Station's catchment area is very large as its the end of the line and the nearest alternative is Croxley so effectively people living to the east of the Grand Union Canal have to use it if they want the Met line. With the Met line serving 4 additional stations the current demand for Watford would split between them. Taking a crude and simplistic view that the 1.48 million entries and exits (2010 figure for Watford per www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/passenger-numbers-at-underground-stations.pdf) are split evenly between the 5 stations that would leave Watford with 0.29 million, making it the 2nd worst performing station after Rodding Valley on the tube network. Given entries and exits at Amersham are 2.11m and is served by a peak of 2 trains an hour, the remaining Watford spur could not warrant more that that. Given a choice of a slightly longer journey to one of the met extension stations for a service every 6-10 mins (as opposed to one every 30mins), I think many users would elect for the longer journey to a station as it offers more fexibility. So I can only see passenger demand at the existing Watford tube station dwindle. Maybe I'm missing something but I think it is unlikely that the current Watford tube station will remain part of the Met line. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 13, 2012 15:56:22 GMT
It should be retained for at least two or three years in order to prove the business case one way or the other. The current plans involve shutting it down as soon as the new track is proven and put into service. The station and track are to be retained anyway for stabling and because of the Grade II status. I can see its future as only being open for PAX on heritage days, if they ever run again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 17:42:09 GMT
My thought is that the only realistic justification for retaining Watford Met would be if there are more trains over the new link than can fit into Watford Junction. Whether the desired number of Met trains from the South, any service from Rickie or beyond, LO, etc. would all fit I've no idea, but if they don't, having Watford Met for the peaks would be a useful facility.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 13, 2012 21:28:56 GMT
Given that the Met largely duplicates the Overground between Euston, Wembley, Harrow and Watford, I suspect the Croxley link may be of more potential use for people coming from Rickmansworth and beyond - so why not have services to Watford Met from the south and Watford Juncion from the northwest, with same platform interchange between them at Croxley?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 22:39:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 14, 2012 11:05:03 GMT
Well, FAIK they didn't consider something like this: tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2s1r59k&s=5Not sure if the Bakerloo or the LOROL should run over the new bit, or LOROL over both. But anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Feb 14, 2012 11:08:34 GMT
My "maximum" option is to redirect the Overground to Rickmansworth over a reinstated Southern curve over Wiggenhall Road, with the Met running to Watford Junction over a reinstated line over the Ebury way, and they would interchange at a Cardiff Road/New Link Road station. Conceivably you could retain some LO services to Watford Junction depending on track capacity (though you'd have to increase the pitiful 3tph first!). A station on Cardiff Road means that Watford West on Tolpits Lane is in the ideal location, rather than Watford Hospital on Vicarage Road (A Cardiff Road station actually works out slightly closer than the planned Vicarage Road one).
This proposal serves the currently planned Croxley link (i.e. West Watford), as well as opening up the Holywell industrial estate and the far side of West Watford. Links between the WCML and Watford Junction aren't greatly reduced by removing 3tph from Bushey to WJ, as it'll still be easy with a change at Cardiff Road, not to mention the frequent LM service from Bushey or Harrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 14, 2012 11:28:24 GMT
The Ebury Way is part of the National Cycle Network. You can't go ripping that up! Although this new hospital road affords an ideal opportunity to run NCN 6/61 over the old depot bridge and through the new hospital campus, thereby eliminating that dangerous descent from the old embankment down to river level at Riverside Park. It really is tricky, although they've improved it since they laid tarmac instead of loose gravel - that was deadly. This new road they're planning might well destroy the alignment of the southern curve forever.
And I like the LOROL into Euston. It's very heavily used in the event LM goes SNAFU. Perhaps if they expressed the Bakerloo between Bushey and Harrow... I reckon that's justified given that they express Met trains that are that far out from the centre.
Do you reckon the planned Met service over the CRL will be expressed to HOTH? Won't that be at odds with WBC's plan to get everyone in West London to shop at the Harlequin?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2012 12:58:29 GMT
The Ebury Way is part of the National Cycle Network. You can't go ripping that up! Why not and how much if anything did they pay for it? XF |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Feb 14, 2012 13:02:58 GMT
The Ebury Way is part of the National Cycle Network. You can't go ripping that up! Of course you can. They ripped up a railway to make the cycle path, so ripping up a cycle path to make a railway isn't too great a jump. arguably far more would get use from a railway than a cycle path. Not to mention, a cycle path has a lot more routing options than a railway. This new road they're planning might well destroy the alignment of the southern curve forever. I thought so as well. Closer study of the plans shows it's not unavoidable though. The new road bridge over the CRL would need to be wide enough (i.e. twice as long) to accommodate the junction though, as they're pretty much at the same point. And I like the LOROL into Euston. It's very heavily used in the event LM goes SNAFU. Perhaps if they expressed the Bakerloo between Bushey and Harrow... I reckon that's justified given that they express Met trains that are that far out from the centre. True, but it's a waste for just those rare problems. Diverting it via Primrose Hill and building an interchange to Chalk Farm could cater to that just fine. They can't express it as it mixes with services that stop at every station. IIRC, there used to be skip stoppers, but line usage is much higher now I believe. One crazy idea I had was to rebuild the WCML's southern end with the fast lines on the outside and the local lines in the middle, meaning that you would only need one island platform to serve all three lines as stopping services could move to the locals to stop, enabling locals and slow services to overtake them. A pair of islands would be required for interchanges so slow and locals could both stop. Anyway...RIPAS... Do you reckon the planned Met service over the CRL will be expressed to HOTH? Won't that be at odds with WBC's plan to get everyone in West London to shop at the Harlequin? Not a chance. The Watford service was always local to HotH, then fast. I can't see it being anything else but. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2012 20:24:07 GMT
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Feb 25, 2012 11:49:50 GMT
From Gensheet Forum: The closure proposal notice in accordance with the Railways Act 2005 Schedule 8 for the station and 1.3km of the branch appeared in The Times of 23 Feb. No proposed closure date is given, but it's stated to be dependent on making of an Order under TWA, and construction and opening of Croxley Rail Link. The notice mentions that the Link opening is "anticipated" to take place in 2016.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 21:27:21 GMT
From Gensheet Forum: The closure proposal notice in accordance with the Railways Act 2005 Schedule 8 for the station and 1.3km of the branch appeared in The Times of 23 Feb. No proposed closure date is given, but it's stated to be dependent on making of an Order under TWA, and construction and opening of Croxley Rail Link. The notice mentions that the Link opening is "anticipated" to take place in 2016.
Let's hope there are no more delays to this project - Watford Met RIP! XF |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 28, 2012 12:29:18 GMT
OT maybe, but I found this video, reportedly from the 90s, of a HST using the DC line!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Feb 28, 2012 13:41:41 GMT
Shortsighted. Far better to run a parlimentary train at some god-aweful hour. Once somethings closed its closed and gone for good; Watford especially once closed could not be reopened as it'd have to have lifts fitted. For occasional, special, emergency, or special service this would have no financial justification whatsoever. Gotta protect ones options for the future...
|
|
