|
|
Post by thc on Dec 15, 2011 23:59:48 GMT
I've been following this project for years and have all the literature I can find on the Met in Watford and today is the first time I've ever come across any suggestion that the Met was considering extending beyond its town centre site at 44 High Street (Jamie Thompson on u.t.l beat you to the same idea by a whole afternoon). Care to substantiate or provide a source? THC Here it is - details on Page 18 www.croxleyraillink.com/media/30034/croxley%20rail%20link%20alternatives%20review%20report.pdfXF I'm still quite sceptical, although not of yours and mrjrt's sourcing now having seen that link. Thank you for taking the time to reply (and to mrjrt and mikebuzz for your contributions to the debate on a pet subject of mine). My scepticism is borne of having read much of the source literature and having all the books cited, including the excellent 'West of Watford' by Goudie and Stuckey, and never before seeing mention of Metropolitan aspirations beyond 'Watford Central' (and I know my Met aspirations - Moreton Pinkney or Worcester anyone?) I grew up a stone's throw from these lines, in the ex-LT cottages next to the Grand Union Canal just above Cassio Bridge Lock, so I've followed the development of this scheme since reading about it in the Croxley Resident in late 1978 (I was aged 7 and really excited that it was going to happen at last!) and done my own research over that time. Indeed, I worked for SDG (the report authors) for a number of years when I was in my teens/early 20s and, while I wouldn't ever besmirch their excellent and well-deserved professional reputation, I'd like to see the source of their claim for myself. I'm a doubting Thomas, after all. :-) Maybe I'll drop them a line and ask. THC |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 0:16:41 GMT
I'm still quite sceptical, although not of yours and mrjrt's sourcing now having seen that link. Thank you for taking the time to reply (and to mrjrt and mikebuzz for your contributions to the debate on a pet subject of mine). My scepticism is borne of having read much of the source literature and having all the books cited, including the excellent 'West of Watford' by Goudie and Stuckey, and never before seeing mention of Metropolitan aspirations beyond 'Watford Central' (and I know my Met aspirations - Moreton Pinkney or Worcester anyone?) I grew up a stone's throw from these lines, in the ex-LT cottages next to the Grand Union Canal just above Cassio Bridge Lock, so I've followed the development of this scheme since reading about it in the Croxley Resident in late 1978 (I was aged 7 and really excited that it was going to happen at last!) and done my own research over that time. Indeed, I worked for SDG (the report authors) for a number of years when I was in my teens/early 20s and, while I wouldn't ever besmirch their excellent and well-deserved professional reputation, I'd like to see the source of their claim for myself. I'm a doubting Thomas, after all. :-) Maybe I'll drop them a line and ask. THC I share some of your scepticism and I looked up the author of the report who is "Professional economist specialising in economic development and transport"; econmists can be economical with many things  I too have had a copy of the West Of Watford book since it first was published. I am also friends with Douglas Stuckey, was only speaking with him last Wedneday evening. I may in see him on Monday evening as I am giving a talk on the "Railways West of Watford" to the RCTS in Maidenhead and could be attending. Douglas is exceeding knowledgeable about this area and I will see wht else I can find out. XF |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Dec 16, 2011 8:24:51 GMT
the visual impact of this will tremendous and not sure of the final plan, a plan model would be of interest to see. Having last visited the area some years ago,and so perhaps victim of selective memory,it seems as if this scheme,though very welcome in transport/connectivity terms,is rather OTT. When i walked the route,it seemed to me that the old BR alignment could be used as far as the Terminus at Croxley Grn and the viaduct built thence to join with the Met.Correct me if I'm wrong in some way,please.... The current scheme seems to require about twice the length of viaduct to be built,and to deviate from the old alignment requiring property acquisition (at the very least,if not demolition) and the duplication of the splendid bridge over the canal just short of the end of the line. Surely cheaper would be better in this case? Just a thought.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 8:56:23 GMT
When i walked the route,it seemed to me that the old BR alignment could be used as far as the Terminus at Croxley Green and the viaduct built thence to join with the Met.Correct me if I'm wrong in some way,please/quote] I am afraid this is not starter as the Croxley Green station has a lot more buildings around it's west end and to link to the Met via this route would entail demolishing a lot of buildings. I had concerns about the proposed new viaduct too, however a lot of effort has been spent on coming with an aesthetically pleasing design which very much reminds me of similar structures on the BART in California as shown below  XF |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Dec 16, 2011 9:00:22 GMT
On the subject of 44 High Street, taking a glance at google maps shows the site to be nowhere near a straight line between Watford Met and Watford Junction. Indeed the line would have to take a right angle in the vicinity of the station then follow Clarendon Road. Has the author of the report just done an analysis of what he assumed without checking whether this was even possible? Suddenly the RIPAS board looks like its grossly under valued!
thc, I've got to take the bait... where else did the Met aspire towards? Aside from High Wycombe, Harefield and Paris...
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Dec 16, 2011 9:14:12 GMT
Sorry for double post, just to echo what xerces comments, its actually the opposide of how you describe slugabed. Were the path to use Croxley Green it would require a tight bend onto the Mets alignment and/or significant property aquisition. The planned 'S' bend, though requiring twice the length of viaduct and a third bridge over the canal, convieniently allows it to pass over vacant land, a car park, and roads
|
|
pitdiver
No longer gainfully employed
Posts: 439
|
Post by pitdiver on Dec 16, 2011 9:19:05 GMT
Sorry but somewhere I saw that on the 26th Dec the Met will operate Chesham-Watford. Can I ask what the rest of the Met is doing and how it fits into the Chesham-Watford service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 9:28:04 GMT
On the subject of 44 High Street, taking a glance at google maps shows the site to be nowhere near a straight line between Watford Met and Watford Junction. Indeed the line would have to take a right angle in the vicinity of the station then follow Clarendon Road. Has the author of the report just done an analysis of what he assumed without checking whether this was even possible? Suddenly the RIPAS board looks like its grossly under valued! thc, I've got to take the bait... where else did the Met aspire towards? Aside from High Wycombe, Harefield and Paris... I think the author of the report demonstrates his lack of depth of knowledge of the area and obtained a lot of the content of his report from other sources. His simplistic diagram of a straight link from Watford MET to Watford Junction which would avoided the centre of Watford; money well spent on this report then! Consultants don't you just love um!  The MET aspired to get to Birmingham; maybe there was a plan for a long tunnel to Paris as well! ;D XF |
|
pitdiver
No longer gainfully employed
Posts: 439
|
Post by pitdiver on Dec 16, 2011 9:41:34 GMT
Don't forget XF that Edward Watkin WAS Chairman of the Met, MSL&L Railway, South Eastern Railway and he was on the Board of the Chemin de Fer Du Nord. So perhaps Met trains to Paris (Chesham- Paris Gare Du Nord) I wonder what the residents of Pinner would have thought of that
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Dec 16, 2011 10:10:55 GMT
I had concerns about the proposed new viaduct too, however a lot of effort has been spent on coming with an aesthetically pleasing design which very much reminds me of similar structures on the BART in California as shown below XF Hmm. Not exactly David Mocatta,though,is it? Sorry if that sounds facetious. What are the plans (if any) for the old lattice bridge? Demolition,presumably? |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Dec 16, 2011 10:17:15 GMT
I did see a list of costs somewhere, and I don't recall seeing a demolition figure for the lattice bridge. It's a fantastic feature of the Grand Union, very distinctive. It should be put back into foot use. They could use the area of the old Croxley Green station to replace the playground they are removing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 10:21:29 GMT
The fly ththrough video that the Croxley Link Project shows the lattice bridge still in situ. I would assume that the bridge is outside the scope of this project and is the responsability of BRB Residuary.
I guess it will stay until it becomes unsafe and then it will be removed.
XF
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Dec 16, 2011 10:28:29 GMT
Just for the record, were you being sarcastic when you commented on the work put into the aesthetics of that flyover design. I hope you were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 10:53:05 GMT
Just for the record, were you being sarcastic when you commented on the work put into the aesthetics of that flyover design. I hope you were. No I wasn't, I actually think it is a good solution to a difficult problem. XF |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Dec 16, 2011 11:24:50 GMT
Oh. It's all stained and grey. Looks like a typical 1960s concrete carbuncle. Still, each to his own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 11:26:03 GMT
With that flyover in mind, another new bridge will have to be built across another dual carrigeway that is a few hundred yards from the Grand Union Canal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 11:45:48 GMT
With that flyover in mind, another new bridge will have to be built across another dual carrigeway that is a few hundred yards from the Grand Union Canal. It is one long bridge that that will cross all the roads XF |
|
|
|
Post by redsetter on Dec 16, 2011 11:54:23 GMT
there looks also a distance between the two connection points'.   |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Dec 16, 2011 12:03:04 GMT
Forgive me XF, I want to side with trt here on aesthetics! The greatest fraud that brutalism ultimately was responsible for 60 years ago was that by convincing architecture students that it was fantastic and raw, it then managed to enshrine this myth of beauty into people outside of involved industries! Its very convenient, because something that is fundamentally quick dirty cheap and requires minimal effort suddenly starts to look better than it is. And the acolaydes start to snowball...
It might look nice as a 4 inch model, but nobody ever considered what things will look like after 60 years of neglect on a miserable pouring overcast evening!
If only someone would ultilise modern construction and engineering knowhow to develop classical and gothic styles; with all the inherant pride and craft and soul.... Hmmmmm......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 12:33:51 GMT
there looks also a distance between the two connection points'. Hopefully this will help understand the location of the viaduct. This was taken from an edit of a Croxley Link document that is freely available and in the public domain  XF |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 12:40:19 GMT
Forgive me XF, I want to side with trt here on aesthetics! The greatest fraud that brutalism ultimately was responsible for 60 years ago was that by convincing architecture students that it was fantastic and raw, it then managed to enshrine this myth of beauty into people outside of involved industries! Its very convenient, because something that is fundamentally quick dirty cheap and requires minimal effort suddenly starts to look better than it is. And the acolaydes start to snowball... It might look nice as a 4 inch model, but nobody ever considered what things will look like after 60 years of neglect on a miserable pouring overcast evening! If only someone would ultilise modern construction and engineering knowhow to develop classical and gothic styles; with all the inherant pride and craft and soul.... Hmmmmm...... Whilst I can see you point I do not see the new structure as being that ugly. The similar structures that the BART use IMO minimise the visual impact of the viaduct. I an older DD member supporting a new structure as apposed to a younger DD member supporting a more classical structure. I have wry smile on my face as I type this ;D XF |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Dec 16, 2011 14:40:30 GMT
Maybe it wouldn't be too bad if they could make the viaduct look like a huge tree with spread branches. An S-stock running along a giant tree branch. That would bring a smile to people's faces!
If they throw in a bare concrete thing that looks like the North Circular flyover at Staples Corner, then in a few years, WBC will be spending oodles on consultants to beautify the structure, which is actually going through one of the defined gateways into the town. If it end up looking like your BART example, it will blend beautifully with the brutal, stark, decaying parts of the business park!
Seriously, there's some high tech companies in that place; I used to visit Indigo, the digital printing manufacturer, down there. One side of the park is utra-high-tech with fountains and block paving and peacocks (on a par with Apple's HQ at Stockwell Park in Uxbridge), the other looks like a WW2 PoW camp. And just WHAT does that company down the end, near the Ebury Way do, the one with all the silos that look like they're for making cybermen or something?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 15:23:26 GMT
Make it look like the Met bridge at West Hampstead, the one that has the heritage decor.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Dec 16, 2011 15:57:02 GMT
Not sure which one you mean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2011 17:13:24 GMT
trt - yes, I've often wondered about that. Reinstating the triangle to the DC lines would provide a very large amount of potential flexibility, as the Croxley - Watford Hospital section would have a delta connexion at both ends. Two things strike me about the report; the bias against services running over the north curve (despite the fact this is the far more progressive and revolutionary idea), and the fact that a shuttle service was considered to Ascot Road from WJ whereas a service Euston - Ascot Road over a rebuilt southern spur wasn't. Just seems as though the report was written by someone who wasn't fully aware of local circumstances/history as might have been useful. The inclusion of the Mets original scheme though is a pleasant nod, however, the report strikes me as one written with the conclusion already decided beforehand. I don't want to seem harsh, but it remindes me of low level school science write ups. Still, very glad to see it happen finally! Only been suggested since before Church Street closed... Agreed - it smacks of post-decision write up, but thankfully in this case we got a decent option and we're not sitting here discussing a new misguided bus. The curve reinstatement proposed above is actually quite an interesting one, as operating the DC lines from Bushey exclusively via that, across the new link through to Rickmansworth, with the Met operating via the reopened NR line to Rickmansworth, interchanging at a new grade-separated station where they cross at Cardiff Road, would enable completely segregated services to operate, the only negative being that LO would cease to serve Watford High Street and Junction directly with a change being required. Effectively would enable the Watford Arches to go out of use saving on maintenance...but perhaps you could split the LO service at Bushey....2tph to Watford Junction and 2tph to Rickmansworth....or Bakerloo to Watford Junction and LO to Rickmansworth... Additionally...I've no idea whatsoever why they sabotaged the notion of a shuttle so readily by terminating it at Croxley! A shuttle turning back at Croxley would be useless, agreed....but one operating to the bay at Rickmansworth would be good...and one running to Chesham would be great! Reinstating the Croxley curve and diverting any significant proportion of the Watford LO service to Rickmansworth would be completely pointless. The major traffic objective in the area, both from the Harrow/London direction and from the Rickmansworth direction, is Watford town centre, a major regional shopping and business centre, which Rickmansworth is definitely not. The closure of the Bushey - Watford High Street curve would not make Watford Arches redundant as the junction is at the Watford end of the viaduct.. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Dec 17, 2011 1:06:44 GMT
Reinstating the Croxley curve and diverting any significant proportion of the Watford LO service to Rickmansworth would be completely pointless. The major traffic objective in the area, both from the Harrow/London direction and from the Rickmansworth direction, is Watford town centre, a major regional shopping and business centre, which Rickmansworth is definitely not. ...which would, worse-case scenario, still be accessible via a change at "Cardiff Road". Splitting the service wouldn't be too great a hardship though. The closure of the Bushey - Watford High Street curve would not make Watford Arches redundant as the junction is at the Watford end of the viaduct.. You are of course quite right. Brain fart moment! ....I'm somewhat worried no-one else picked up on it earlier! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2011 10:07:32 GMT
Reinstating the Croxley curve and diverting any significant proportion of the Watford LO service to Rickmansworth would be completely pointless. The major traffic objective in the area, both from the Harrow/London direction and from the Rickmansworth direction, is Watford town centre, a major regional shopping and business centre, which Rickmansworth is definitely not. ...which would, worse-case scenario, still be accessible via a change at "Cardiff Road". Splitting the service wouldn't be too great a hardship though. The closure of the Bushey - Watford High Street curve would not make Watford Arches redundant as the junction is at the Watford end of the viaduct.. You are of course quite right. Brain fart moment! ....I'm somewhat worried no-one else picked up on it earlier! I think we are drifting into a world of fantasy here somewhat. The chances of the Colne Jct - Croxley Green Jct being re-instated are remote as at present there would be little benefit of doing this. When the curve was open, it was used in in the early 1920's to store wagons and at it peak was used mainly for empty stock workings to Croxley Green Depot with a a couple of morning services from Croxley Green station - Broad Street and return services in the evening. XF |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2011 14:21:55 GMT
Not sure which one you mean. The one over the A5. It's actually at Kilburn station now that I check. The Northbound Met bridge and the Chiltern bridge are rubbish, but the Southbound Met bridge is cool. maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.547182,-0.203931&spn=0.001042,0.00239&t=m&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.547142,-0.203887&panoid=K7oOpfyQeH9y-2QQX3zhJg&cbp=12,163.86,,0,-4.1 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2011 16:52:16 GMT
Not sure which one you mean. The one over the A5. It's actually at Kilburn station now that I check. The Northbound Met bridge and the Chiltern bridge are rubbish, but the Southbound Met bridge is cool. maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.547182,-0.203931&spn=0.001042,0.00239&t=m&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.547142,-0.203887&panoid=K7oOpfyQeH9y-2QQX3zhJg&cbp=12,163.86,,0,-4.1 IMO the proposed Croxley Link bridge is far less obtrusive, however each to his/her own!  XF |
|
|
|
Post by aldenham on Dec 17, 2011 22:52:31 GMT
Oh. It's all stained and grey. Looks like a typical 1960s concrete carbuncle. Still, each to his own. +1, the train is hardly a thing of beauty either! |
|
