|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Nov 1, 2017 20:20:29 GMT
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Nov 1, 2017 21:17:48 GMT
Lines have been drawn, and the whole thing is on notice.
I suspect at this point it will be allowed to lapse, as the political fallout will be considered by certain parties to be more beneficial to them than any perceived benefit the scheme may provide.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 1, 2017 21:35:58 GMT
That confirms what TfL told the last Budget and Performance Cttee meeting held by the London Assembly. Interesting that it has been formalised in a Mayoral Decision. Here is the actual Mayoral Decision www.london.gov.uk/decisions/md2170-metropolitan-line-extension-mlx-tfl-fundingThe linked pdf decision document at the bottom of the above webpage is well worth a read as it provides some additional background and current status info including spend to date. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Nov 1, 2017 21:59:12 GMT
It will become known as The Boris Link. The Richard Route surely - R Harrington MP wouldn't miss the opportunity to take the credit for any development in Watford. So the Boris buses cost £277,400,000 - evidence HEREWhen the original order for 600 was placed, it was claimed that the taxpayer would foot the £160,000,000 bill. It seems that the initial cost was rather more, with a build cost at £354,000 per unit = £212,400,000 Hummmmmmmmmm On that record, the Boris Croxley link is unlikely to happen IMO ! |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 1, 2017 23:26:54 GMT
Shock horror (not!): TfL foots the bill for the Borisbuses.
Well, either the farepayer or the taxpayer always foots the bill, whether the buses are bought outright by TfL or by the operator. If the operators are not required to provide their own buses to run the service, they can afford to tender at a lower price. Conversely, if the operators had been compelled to buy the Borismasters themselves, (because the contract specifies they have to be used on that route) they would have set a tender price which reflects that they have had to make that capital investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by holborncentral on Nov 1, 2017 23:31:05 GMT
it could interfere with the MLX. Perhaps its the latest budget cut to the project - everyone wanting to travel between Watford Junction and Croxley will be lent a bicycle. But what happens if some of those people are unable to ride a bike? Then that wouldn't be ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Nov 2, 2017 8:23:32 GMT
Perhaps its the latest budget cut to the project - everyone wanting to travel between Watford Junction and Croxley will be lent a bicycle. But what happens if some of those people are unable to ride a bike? Then that wouldn't be ideal. I think there may be more than a teaspoon of sarcasm being aired here HC. It happens sometimes.  |
|
|
|
Post by malcolmffc on Nov 2, 2017 8:50:10 GMT
That confirms what TfL told the last Budget and Performance Cttee meeting held by the London Assembly. Interesting that it has been formalised in a Mayoral Decision. Here is the actual Mayoral Decision www.london.gov.uk/decisions/md2170-metropolitan-line-extension-mlx-tfl-fundingThe linked pdf decision document at the bottom of the above webpage is well worth a read as it provides some additional background and current status info including spend to date. From the doc “At the point of transfer the benefit: cost ratio (BCR) for the MLX (calculated in accordance with webTAG guidance) over a 30 year assessment period was 0.4:1 against a cost of £284.4m. The subsequent cost increases further weaken the BCR. ” Dead as a dodo |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 2, 2017 10:26:59 GMT
From the doc “At the point of transfer the benefit: cost ratio (BCR) for the MLX (calculated in accordance with webTAG guidance) over a 30 year assessment period was 0.4:1 against a cost of £284.4m. The subsequent cost increases further weaken the BCR.” Dead as a dodo I agree if everyone was being rational and there weren't politics involved. The only way it proceeds is for Govt to find the money. It's clearly going nowhere as far as City Hall are concerned and quite rightly given such a parlous BCR. If TfL can't / won't fund extra trains on the Jub and Nor, which had far better BCRs, then there's no basis for funding the Met Line Extension (MLE). |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Nov 2, 2017 11:12:47 GMT
From the doc “At the point of transfer the benefit: cost ratio (BCR) for the MLX (calculated in accordance with webTAG guidance) over a 30 year assessment period was 0.4:1 against a cost of £284.4m. The subsequent cost increases further weaken the BCR.” Dead as a dodo I agree if everyone was being rational and there weren't politics involved. The only way it proceeds is for Govt to find the money. It's clearly going nowhere as far as City Hall are concerned and quite rightly given such a parlous BCR. If TfL can't / won't fund extra trains on the Jub and Nor, which had far better BCRs, then there's no basis for funding the Met Line Extension (MLE). The final BCR for the Borders Railway was apparently 0.5:1. Look what has happened to that. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 2, 2017 13:22:33 GMT
. The only way it proceeds is for Govt to find the money.). Central or local (that is Watford/Three Rivers or HCC) Of course this was always to some extent a solution in search of a problem, but insofar as a problem could be identified, I wonder whether anyone ever costed the alternative solution - that is, to reinstate the LNWR Watford - Rickmansworth branch. No need for an expensive viaduct, the trackbed looks more or less intact, and there appears to be room for a spur to connect with the Met where the routes cross. |
|
|
|
Post by holborncentral on Nov 2, 2017 16:22:18 GMT
But what happens if some of those people are unable to ride a bike? Then that wouldn't be ideal. I think there may be more than a teaspoon of sarcasm being aired here HC. It happens sometimes. Ah I see. I didn't quite get it |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Nov 2, 2017 17:04:59 GMT
By its nature a BCR is only ever speculative; a calculated but flawed estimate of what something will likely provide back in the future. It gets increasingly sophisticated and complicated to calculate as economics and political understanding move on, but whether it actually matches how reality turns out is not certain. It would be interesting to see studies on the Ebbw Vale line, and the Borders Railway comparing how the BCR changed over time from the projects inception to what it actually was delivering 5 years after opening. I suspect it would start reasonably high, dip down in the middle as costs accumulate and build, and then go back up again as benefits start to outstrip predictions.
Along this theme, whatever Croxley has atm, if it did proceed, in 5 years time it would unquestionably be used and have likely encouraged some form of modal shift and extra journeys taking place above today.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Nov 2, 2017 18:06:59 GMT
If you look at things like Croydon Tramlink, ISTR that carried the number of passengers in year 1 that it was forecast to carry in year 4. Much the same has happened to the Tyenside Metro, seriously overcrowded and underfunded, hence huge disruption last weekend due to a substation failure at the depot.
The Borismasters are leased to operators by TfL. Probably the only operator in the TfL lot is Sullivan Buses who I think owe everything outright.
As I've said on here before, Germany and France have built entire new high speed networks in the time its taken for this siding with a bridge to be discussed. No doubt like almost every other railway project in the UK it would be very well used, it's just the short-sightedness of the idiots in parliament who can't see further than the ends of their noses. No wonder the country's in such state.
|
|
|
|
Post by croxleyn on Nov 2, 2017 18:27:50 GMT
norbitonflyer, the only reason Watford Council want this link is to provide justification to saturate West Watford with housing, adjacent to the two new stations. However, the political arguments have changed: the Ascot Towers development was proposed on the basis of the Cassiobridge station being built. But, even realising the link probably would fizzle out, WC have still nodded the plans through, with minimal car parking space. The jokes of the original proposal were a) the developer asked for something like 18 stories but WC upped it to 24-odd despite their planning rules on skyscrapers, and in front of the artist's impression of the station, there was a new Boris bus!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Nov 2, 2017 20:39:57 GMT
I agree if everyone was being rational and there weren't politics involved. The only way it proceeds is for Govt to find the money. It's clearly going nowhere as far as City Hall are concerned and quite rightly given such a parlous BCR. If TfL can't / won't fund extra trains on the Jub and Nor, which had far better BCRs, then there's no basis for funding the Met Line Extension (MLE). The final BCR for the Borders Railway was apparently 0.5:1. Look what has happened to that. There were votes in it for a lot of people. Not so here for Sadiq Khan. |
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Nov 3, 2017 10:42:17 GMT
The line would have eased some of Watford's crippling traffic congestion in the peaks but without a local government reorganisation that isn't TfL's problem.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by towerman on Nov 3, 2017 11:17:50 GMT
Couldn't they just reinstate the Bakerloo back to Watford?After all the track & Signalling are already in situ.They could time it to coincide with new Bakerloo rolling stock.
|
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Nov 3, 2017 11:53:27 GMT
I too have also wondered why the bakerloo option hasnt been suggested, it seems a far more easier option. Although, i would probably think that the bakerloo is a much slower line into baker street than the met.
Additionally, what would happen with the current LO Euston service? Does this stay? Does it become a shuttle between Queens Park and Euston (which would probably free up rolling stock for other LO lines), it could run to Watford Junction in the peaks only, which would be interesting as it was once the Bakerloo which ran to Watford in the peaks only!
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 3, 2017 12:53:53 GMT
What would be the point of extending the Bakerloo to Watford Junction? The Overground service seems to cope with the demand (and indeed the existing 5-car trains are to be replaced by new 4-car ones shortly, albeit at a higher frequency). Reinstating the Bakerloo would require conversion back to 4-rail electrification, and adjustment of platform heights to the "intermediate" height (even if that were still allowed for new/reinstated services). And it wouldn't connect the west end of Watford with the junction, which was supposed to be the raison d'etre for the Met extension.
It might be an option if you were thinking of removing the Wat-Eus service altogether, perhaps to make more space at Euston for longer distance services. But you would then need to find a way to serve Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead (both have Tube stations within 5 minutes walk, but neither are ideal if you are heading for Euston).
I'm still interested in the idea of a Rickmansworth- Watford Junction service using the trackbed of the LNWR Rickmansworth branch. Savings over the Met Ex include:
- no big viaduct
- any new stations need only take a 2-car class 165, not an S8
- suitable bay platform at Rickmansworth already available
- no electrification
At the Rickmansworth end, the original LNWR station at Church Street has been replaced by housing, and although only half a mile from the Met station it is much less centrally placed. Tying the line in to the Met/Chiltern line instead would save reinstating about a mile of trackbed, and would also save the cost of a station, as well as providing useful connections. The biggest cost would be the junction with the Met/Chiltern route east of Rickmansworth. This would probably require grade separation, especially if the existing Met branch to Watford were to be kept (which is likely, as the LNWR line does not go through Croxley).
Using Met Ex as a benchmark, how much would such a connection compare in cost?
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Nov 3, 2017 13:06:05 GMT
Aren't the Class 710s equivalent to a 5-car unit in length?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 3, 2017 14:20:49 GMT
Aren't the Class 710s equivalent to a 5-car unit in length? I would have thought that a 710 unit that was significantly longer than classes 315 and 317, which they are to replace, would be a bit of a liability on LO's Chingford and Enfield routes, but I stand to be corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Nov 3, 2017 14:24:52 GMT
Aren't the Class 710s equivalent to a 5-car unit in length? I would have thought that a 710 unit that was significantly longer than classes 315 and 317, which they are to replace, would be a bit of a liability on LO's Chingford and Enfield routes, but I stand to be corrected. I think that they are 4x20m long cars, so not big-bang in terms of extra capacity, but there'll be some improvements from the layout, through gangways, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 3, 2017 15:06:10 GMT
At the Rickmansworth end, the original LNWR station at Church Street has been replaced by housing, and although only half a mile from the Met station it is much less centrally placed. Tying the line in to the Met/Chiltern line instead would save reinstating about a mile of trackbed, and would also save the cost of a station, as well as providing useful connections. The biggest cost would be the junction with the Met/Chiltern route east of Rickmansworth. This would probably require grade separation, especially if the existing Met branch to Watford were to be kept (which is likely, as the LNWR line does not go through Croxley). Using Met Ex as a benchmark, how much would such a connection compare in cost? This would require taking a sizeable chunk out of the Croxley Common Moor SSSI in order to bend the route up and meet the level. There's also a level crossing which leads to a farm at the corner of the King George V field, and that's a heck of a gradient up and down there (tunnel or cutting and bridge?) And then there's a big kink at the corner of the Croxley Business Park which would need easing out. It's doable but I think that raising the trackbed to meet the Met line, widening it to double track (it was only single track) and putting in a crossover to allow bi-directional running would be just as expensive as bridging Two Bridges and would cause disruption to the main service. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 3, 2017 16:37:27 GMT
This would require taking a sizeable chunk out of the Croxley Common Moor SSSI in order to bend the route up and meet the level. . Not if you build the connecting spur on the south side of the Met line (that is, use the existing bridge under the Met) This also avoids conflict with the existing junctions for the Watford triangle. It's doable but I think that raising the trackbed to meet the Met line, widening it to double track (it was only single track) and putting in a crossover to allow bi-directional running would be just as expensive as bridging Two Bridges and would cause disruption to the main service.[/quote] There's also a level crossing which leads to a farm at the corner of the King George V field,. The line would not be electrified, so an occupation crossing should not be out of the question. Or an alternative access road could be built. and that's a heck of a gradient up and down there (tunnel or cutting and bridge?),. where is this gradient? And then there's a big kink at the corner of the Croxley Business Park which would need easing out.? Isn't the trackbed more or less intact, and used by the Ebury Way cycle route? widening it to double track (it was only single track) and putting in a crossover to allow bi-directional running would be just as expensive as bridging Two Bridges and would cause disruption to the main service . If a single track is good enough for the Borders Line, or the Chesham branch, it should be enough for a short link like this, especially as the section as far as Watford Hospital was double track. The distance is less than five miles and even with four intermediate stops the end to end journey is unlikely to take more than 20 minutes. Two trains (passing on the double track section!) would allow 3tph to be maintained. Disruption to the main service could be minimised if the service is kept clear of the Watford line (another reason I prefer connecting to the south side of the main line rather than the north) - trains turning off the main line for Watford leave gaps in the sequence towards Rickmansworth that these trains could take advantage of. I'll put my crayons away now. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 3, 2017 17:14:34 GMT
I can't see where you mean. If you went under the Met line and then turned up, you'd be on the Chiltern Rail side and interfering with even more services. To create a full triangular junction on the north side of the track where the Met rails are you'd have to drive a line across a business park and a school playing field as well, and you're on top of the Watford triangle. The road to the farm crosses the trackbed at the apex of the gradient. It's here: goo.gl/maps/Jb4Kd9XZ9RkThe line would be electrified of course. The trackbed is intact and forms part of NCN6 as The Ebury Way, the sideways kink is here: goo.gl/maps/vpUwYziMci72No, I don't think the Ebury Way route would be cheaper, and would meet with enormous resistance from various interest groups. A reinstatement of the shuttle service as far as Ascot Road would be a far more likely interim option, but it looks like that's out of the question. The whole project is going to be on ice for a while longer yet. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 3, 2017 17:54:59 GMT
I can't see where you mean. If you went under the Met line and then turned up, you'd be on the Chiltern Rail side . There is only double track beyond Watford South Junction - no "Chiltern side" and "Met side" And as I said, I envisage it as operated as an NR service (presumably by Chiltern) anyway. The line would be electrified of course. Why would it have to be electrified? No other Chiltern service is. However, I suspect you are right that the biggest hurdle would be Sustrans. |
|
|
|
Post by croxleyn on Nov 3, 2017 18:42:43 GMT
As mentioned earlier, the new stations need to be close to housing, so that skyscraper car parking can be minimised. Running along the Ebury Way (well, I frequently cycle it but many others do run) would only provide a station a steep walk up to the hospital, and possibly another station for the lottery workers at Camelot + adjacent businesses, which do have parking and a reasonably free-flowing road. The justification to close Watford Cassiobury and Croxley stations would be severely challenged, needing possibly two trains to run this spur, and we know how much they cost! TfL are only keeping the Cassiobury spur to provide stabling tracks for the stock they've already got.
Another hidden justification for the MLX is to access the new Croxley Danes secondary school at the bottom of Baldwins Lane, which although intended to provide for local pupils, will quickly get over-run by the adjacent large conurbation!
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 5, 2017 11:05:29 GMT
Can we keep this thread to the existing (although somewhat in doubt) Croxley link project. Am happy to move posts about reinstating the LNWR branch to a new thread in RIPAS.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 5, 2017 11:58:57 GMT
So this "project" is now in its death throws and almost to script politicians are busy playing the blame game rather than actually figuring out a way to bridge the funding the gap (puns intended). So perhaps it is time to see what ideas this forum can offer to fund this project, such as.. If the good people of Watford really want this project and are so hacked off with traffic jams in their town, then perhaps the Mayor of Watford should take a leaf out of Mayor for London's playbook and introduce some sort of congestion toll on the affected roads. If congestion is really so bad, then establishing a flat £10 per trip toll for the next 30 years should be enough to underpin sufficient additional loan financing to get this project back on track (oops sorry). Normally a simple toll will inspire a lot of traffic diverting to other routes to avoid the toll booths. However last time I was in Watford it seemed railway arches already formed an effective barrier forcing most traffic under a few bridges where a toll can be collected from all motor vehicles. Adding a toll would have the additional advantage of discouraging a lot of the current traffic and probably speed up local bus services, increase bus patronage and even save polar bears. Sounds like a win, win, win  So that's my contribution - What other funding solutions can we come up with? |
|
