|
|
Post by croxleyn on Jan 3, 2017 17:50:03 GMT
The whole project sems a bit of a mess. A main protagonist is the Watford Mayor, Dorothy Thornhill, who just wants to saturate West Watford with as much housing as she can, never mind the rest of the needs of communities. This includes parking - "Who would need cars with a good tube service?" The residents of Cassiobury want to keep their station (Watford Met) open, but the TFL business case says no. That's rather strange, as in the meetings with TFL, we're told that due to platform constraints at Watford Junction, some trains will need to be turned at Watford Met platforms, effectively meaning a "terminating" destination of Croxley (which, incidently the local Residents Association want re-named back to its original Croxley Green, but that's another debate...)
But, the most jaw-dropping thing heard at one local meeting was the TFL rep refering to "The London Borough of Watford"!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 3, 2017 18:42:42 GMT
Croxley (which, incidently the local Residents Association want re-named back to its original Croxley Green If Wikipedia is to be believed, renamed as late as 1949 to distinguish from its older LNWR namesake. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 5, 2017 10:55:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 6, 2017 18:55:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jan 6, 2017 20:47:20 GMT
I would love to know how much has been spent and out of which budget.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480 
|
Post by londoner on Jan 20, 2017 23:17:37 GMT
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480
|
Post by londoner on Jan 23, 2017 21:40:32 GMT
The two answers given were:
Just reiterating what was already known. Doesn't look good...
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Jan 24, 2017 1:36:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 24, 2017 19:45:15 GMT
Does anyone know what the Thales crew are working on in the Croxley area at the moment?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 20:16:24 GMT
Survey works
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 25, 2017 17:06:38 GMT
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jan 25, 2017 19:39:28 GMT
At this point its looking like some serious cost savings are needed for the project to remain above water.
The primary expense, surely, will be the viaduct and bridge to connect the two routes. Since the link is the most important part of the project, perhaps the new intermediate stations should be postponed, Watford Met kept open, and the service split between Watford Met and Watford Junction. At least until money is available to build the new stations.
Anything that lets the core of the project proceed is better than it being kicked into the long grass in its entirety! And given the stream of negative press lately, and the well publicised bad blood between Grayling and Kahn, one fears that its looking more and more likely.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jan 25, 2017 19:42:17 GMT
Just to manage your expectations from the weblink, it's the Mayor of Watford - not London.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 26, 2017 1:08:31 GMT
At this point its looking like some serious cost savings are needed for the project to remain above water. The primary expense, surely, will be the viaduct and bridge to connect the two routes. Since the link is the most important part of the project, perhaps the new intermediate stations should be postponed, Watford Met kept open, and the service split between Watford Met and Watford Junction. At least until money is available to build the new stations. Anything that lets the core of the project proceed is better than it being kicked into the long grass in its entirety! And given the stream of negative press lately, and the well publicised bad blood between Grayling and Kahn, one fears that its looking more and more likely. Haven't the stations already been descoped to the absolute bare minimum anyway to contain costs? If we can't afford to build them before 2021 where will the money ever come from to construct them? LU will never have any incentive to build them. If you remove stations then you lose patronage, lose revenue streams and worsen the business case. A revised business case would have to be produced which is likely to stop the project completely. If there is no demonstrable benefit to the Watford locality then why would there be a basis for Herts CC and other local funding? They'd rightly walk away. Finally LU would be landed with a not inconsiderable issue of having to keep Watford Met open if no new stations were built meaning a strange compromised service level there and to Watford Junction - x20 on each branch? Who's going to find that attractive? They're in a very difficult position now - you either build it and get the extra costs risks properly and wholly covered [1] *or* you kill it and release the funding for other uses. I think it is going to be hard to argue that London's funding sources should be drawn on further to bale out a project that is essentially for the benefit of Watford. I'm aware of the suggested £14m increase in costs but I don't believe that's a true figure. I have a horrible feeling that despite the years of "planning" this project hasn't really been planned or scoped properly and the more TfL/LU try to nail down the design and costs and de-risk poorly scoped aspects the more the cash register keeps ringing. I suspect the actual number plus a revised view on project risks is probably the wrong side of £40m which gets us into silly territory in terms of the total project cost plus the possible draw down on the TfL Growth Fund. [1] you absolutely can't have a situation where we get 2/3s of the way through and another costs crisis emerges and there's not adequate monies to cover it. Therefore a rigorous and thorough assessment is needed now so that if extra money is found it is *all* the extra money that can be seen to be needed. Either that or someone else takes the cost overrun risk / it is shared or split. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 26, 2017 11:35:36 GMT
This bit seems totally bizarre to me...
"Affinity Water has pulled out of the extension"
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 27, 2017 11:24:32 GMT
This bit seems totally bizarre to me... "Affinity Water has pulled out of the extension" I wonder if it is as simple as utility (water pipe) diversion work they were doing has finished / stopped / been suspended. As they are the local water company it seems logical that their infrastructure might be affected by the proposed works and getting it moved now is a typical early step before substantive building works start. |
|
|
|
Post by croxleyn on Jan 27, 2017 13:54:08 GMT
As a Croxley resident, the benefits of this link are:
The rare occasions for wanting Watford Junction. Watford High Street has such a steep climb out that one might as well use the bus or walk the whole way.
The detriments, including to West Watford are: Further years of disruption on the roads, the likely closure of the pre-school at TS Renown due to the extensive sewer works needed outside, the noise of a set of points + crossover behind Dorrofield Close, which will carry trains at full line speed, plus the removal of some if not all of the peak-hour extra services, especially the semi- and fast trains.
This last statement is made on the basis that the TFL rep stated we would keep the current 15-minute service level, but was not prepared to comment about the extra services. The team wouldn't comment on the fact that the original project plans included two new trains to support the current service level, but only one has been bought, and Watford Junction couldn't cope anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jan 27, 2017 16:38:19 GMT
As a Croxley resident, the benefits of this link are: The rare occasions for wanting Watford Junction. Watford High Street has such a steep climb out that one might as well use the bus or walk the whole way. The detriments, including to West Watford are: Further years of disruption on the roads, the likely closure of the pre-school at TS Renown due to the extensive sewer works needed outside, the noise of a set of points + crossover behind Dorrofield Close, which will carry trains at full line speed, plus the removal of some if not all of the peak-hour extra services, especially the semi- and fast trains. This last statement is made on the basis that the TFL rep stated we would keep the current 15-minute service level, but was not prepared to comment about the extra services. The team wouldn't comment on the fact that the original project plans included two new trains to support the current service level, but only one has been bought, and Watford Junction couldn't cope anyway. Why do people make points then exaggerate things which then make the whole post unbelievable, Many points made are correct however the high street is just across the road from the bottom of the high street, and if that is too much for the op then so would be the walk from the bus stop in town to the bottom of the high street. There are no, and never have been any fast services from Watford, the track does not allow it. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Croxley station area only has an hourly service to Watford centre, no evenings or Sundays. plus the 724 which does not go into Watford centre. |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Jan 27, 2017 22:03:16 GMT
Wouldn't just be easier to recreate the BR era line and run a DMU on it? Anyone from that area going to London would go to Watford Junction anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jan 27, 2017 22:17:08 GMT
Wouldn't just be easier to recreate the BR era line and run a DMU on it? Anyone from that area going to London would go to Watford Junction anyway... The costs would still be considerable and you would be making a loss making line, any line with a commuting base at both ends has a chance to make money. A big chunk of the passenger base for the link will be travelling north from Harrow on the hill and all stations north. If you lived in Northwood and had a choice for a shopping trip to Harrow or Watford which would you chose. On a different tack I wonder if INTU are contributing to this scheme and if not why not? |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jan 28, 2017 0:31:50 GMT
On a different tack I wonder if INTU are contributing to this scheme and if not why not? Because they've spent their transport budget on the Manchester Metrolink extension to the Trafford Centre. |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jan 28, 2017 7:08:05 GMT
On a different tack I wonder if INTU are contributing to this scheme and if not why not? Because they've spent their transport budget on the Manchester Metrolink extension to the Trafford Centre. If it is looking like cancellation they may find a bit more, they stand to benefit massively, I don't know if the development work was influenced by the link but I am sure they will want the extra punters. |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Jan 28, 2017 22:33:42 GMT
Wouldn't just be easier to recreate the BR era line and run a DMU on it? Anyone from that area going to London would go to Watford Junction anyway... The costs would still be considerable and you would be making a loss making line, any line with a commuting base at both ends has a chance to make money. A big chunk of the passenger base for the link will be travelling north from Harrow on the hill and all stations north. If you lived in Northwood and had a choice for a shopping trip to Harrow or Watford which would you chose. On a different tack I wonder if INTU are contributing to this scheme and if not why not? Not knowing that area, I wouldn't be able to answer that... |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 8, 2017 12:52:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Mar 14, 2017 12:31:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kesmet on Mar 14, 2017 20:58:48 GMT
That link doesn't seem to be valid any more; nor can I find the article on the railnews site. It's not on the Wayback Machine or in Google's cache. So - what's the information that doesn't want to escape? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 14, 2017 21:32:58 GMT
That link doesn't seem to be valid any more; nor can I find the article on the railnews site. It's not on the Wayback Machine or in Google's cache. So - what's the information that doesn't want to escape? The article referenced a press release from Tory Assembly Members (not yet on the City Hall nor GLA Tories website). This was their usual unfocused diatribe about the Mayor's budget, "efficiency" targets, fares freeze etc being a disaster. They cited the Croxley Link as a casualty of the financial situation. At the very end of the article was a short two paragraph which quoted David Hughes, LU, as saying that LU had completed their project review and concluded an additional £50m is required to cover the total project cost. It continued by saying that LU did not have that money spare and nor did City Hall and that it was now for the DfT to find the cash. It closed by saying that LU would work with DfT to reach a conclusion or find ways to make the project more "affordable". I take the latter point to refer to "descoping" which would have to be pretty substantial given the project has already been pared down in scope more than once and I expect it has also been "value engineered" as well. Mr Hughes apparently made his remarks at a recent conference. I suspect this emerging has been rather badly timed for City Hall and the DfT hence why the article has been pulled. A copy of the relevant quote was captured and tweeted this morning and is in the image below.  Watford's local paper also has this. www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/15153065.Metropolitan_Line_Extension___50m_short_of_budget/ |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Mar 14, 2017 21:42:35 GMT
That link doesn't seem to be valid any more; nor can I find the article on the railnews site. It's not on the Wayback Machine or in Google's cache. So - what's the information that doesn't want to escape? The article referenced a press release from Tory Assembly Members (not yet on the City Hall nor GLA Tories website). This was their usual unfocused diatribe about the Mayor's budget, "efficiency" targets, fares freeze etc being a disaster. They cited the Croxley Link as a casualty of the financial situation. At the very end of the article was a short two paragraph which quoted David Hughes, LU, as saying that LU had completed their project review and concluded an additional £50m is required to cover the total project cost. It continued by saying that LU did not have that money spare and nor did City Hall and that it was now for the DfT to find the cash. It closed by saying that LU would work with DfT to reach a conclusion or find ways to make the project more "affordable". I take the latter point to refer to "descoping" which would have to be pretty substantial given the project has already been pared down in scope more than once and I expect it has also been "value engineered" as well. Mr Hughes apparently made his remarks at a recent conference. I suspect this emerging has been rather badly timed for City Hall and the DfT hence why the article has been pulled. A copy of the relevant quote was captured and tweeted this morning and is in the image below. Watford's local paper also has this. www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/15153065.Metropolitan_Line_Extension___50m_short_of_budget/Once again another newspaper report with an inappropriate photo  |
|
|
|
Post by kesmet on Mar 15, 2017 0:25:21 GMT
Once again another newspaper report with an inappropriate photo Is that a 1972 stock train? And if so, does that mean it might be a Bakerloo line one? |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixcronin on Mar 15, 2017 6:43:55 GMT
Once again another newspaper report with an inappropriate photo Is that a 1972 stock train? And if so, does that mean it might be a Bakerloo line one? It looks like the Mk1 unit parked up at Aldwych for filming |
|
