Croxley link cancelled

Isn't this because it's a Hertfordshire Council project rather than a TfL one?

believe this is the case

Herts CC have given over control to TfL. This is worrying news. The bridge on Thomas Sawyer Way crosses the line of the track, indeed there are steels there which have been filled in with loose dirt to protect them as construction traffic moves around.

Don't think there's anything in this.

First off, it's not TfL financed at source, so why do Londoners (the 'shareholders' in any London Mayor's report) need to know about it? It's not even in London.

Second, the viaduct is indeed a major work, but it's also above ground and this is the wettest part of the British year on a line which has had more troubles than most with landslips, etc. Would it be really surprising if the major structural works did not begin until at least April, even if just on the off-chance that embankment & land-settlement can be reassessed then?

Which would also give Herts CC wriggle room to find money for it in a new financial year, if it, as the major contributor, needed such. And I am not stating that is the case, just pointing out this is how local government sometimes has to work, regardless of political colour.

I've read the DG article. I've also gone back to the last paper that went to the TfL Board.

While I understand how DG has reached the conclusion he has I think he is being a tad premature. A few comments.

1. TfL are only funding about £46m of the total cost. £16m of that comes from the £200m growth fund which has separate funding status. The business plan says the Growth Fund has not been fully spent anyway.

2. DfT are providing the bulk of the money. They would have to sanction any cancellation. They and the Treasury have said nothing. Furthermore Watford BC and HCC (also funding a small part of the bill) have said nothing.

3. If the Mayor had acted capriciously on this I rather feel his "new best friend" (not!) Mr Chris Grayling would have been publicly scathing about the Mayor's actions.

4. We know from the last published Project report that TfL had moved reporting of the Croxley Link within the overall scope of the "4 lines modernisation" project.

5. We know TfL are responsible for cost overruns on the Croxley Link. Is it not entirely sensible of TfL / LU to take pause now and stop any costly contracts they have inherited from HCC and then look to put something far better in place that is more realistically priced and programmed with a better allocation of risk? Far better to spend a bit of time now knocking things into shape with better plans and programmes than be landed with a bill that could be unaffordable come 2021.

6. There have been no Mayoral Decisions on this project from the Mayor that have instructed TfL to stop work. One would be needed to reverse the two MDs that Boris Johnson issued in his last year in office in respect of this project.

7. The local Watford MP, who we know personally manages every single improvement in his constituency (given his press releases), has also said nothing. If the Mayor had "done the dirty" I imagine the MP would have marched on City Hall by now. Nothing on his website - I've just checked.

I may well be 100% wrong and DG may be 100% correct but let's not panic until we get something definitive. Given the increased "hub bub" caused by DG's article I imagine something will emerge fairly soon.

London reconnections piece is now online.

www.londonreconnections.com/2016/one-extensions-missing-precarious-status-croxley-rail-link/#comment-282473

Having read DG's piece, he has the Mayor "bang to rights" IMHO. There is no way it would not go unmentioned from one edition to the next. A great piece of detective work.

I'd love to see a costs breakdown to see where the money is supposed to be going. That said, raw materials are the most vulnerable parts of any UK project to currency exchange rates, and the pound's hammering since the summer won't have helped. Coupled with the quantitative easing by the bank having the net effect of devaluing the existing budget we may have some hints as to how the costs have risen so dramatically.

Still, infrastructure spending is the ideal place to be spending that new money to stoke the economy, so perhaps an argument can be made that this is still the sort of shovel-ready project the government should be putting money into...

How exactly are you going to fit 200 people into that small a carriage?

Isn't it due to be signalled conventionally, with ATO later? There's an obvious saving to be had there if so.

Ultimately, unless we have suddenly discovered iron ore mines in this country, at best all of the steel required is going to have to have been made from imported ore, which means buying it in another currency. Those costs will have been passed on as higher prices for the end-product - the steel.

You're probably right about the complexity increasing costs, but I can't believe for a moment that this could have come as a surprise. That there would be an interface between 4th and 3rd rail and LU and NR signalling at Watford High St. Junction would have been obvious from day 1.

The rails are only a small part of the cost of the project, and the raw material to make them even less. And according to Network Rail, 96% of the rails used by them are manufactured in Scunthorpe



Between 1970 and 1982 Watford High Street to Junction did operate 3rd and 4th rail trains together. And the restoration of Bakerloo between Stonebridge Park and Harrow & Wealdstone in 1984 seemed to be relatively straightforward- albeit after a gap of only two years rather than nearly forty.

Signalling would be more of a problem though.

Yes, but the iron ore isn't.

However, as you said, the raw material for the rails is not likely to be a significant proportion of the cost.

I remember reading in a book about Ian Allan's early life that at one point he had to inspect rails produced at Workington for quality. I imagine that must have been quite monotonous.