Re: Croxley Rail Link 'complete by 2014'
1506
> From eWatford Observer, 2:19pm Thursday 28th May 2009
>
> Croxley Rail Link 'complete by 2014'
>
> By Filip Hnizdo »
>
> A timetable and funding plan for the long-delayed Croxley Rail Link
> proposal has been drafted.
> Hertfordshire County Council has announced it hopes to have the
> £26million project complete by January 2014.
> The recently published East of England Regional Authority's funding
> advice document suggests a £119.5million government grant for the
> project. London Underground is set to contribute an additional
> £18.5million.
> The East of England Regional Authority indicated that the project
> would be delivered around 2017 but Hertfordshire County Council says
> it hopes to bring this date forward.
> Public consultations are planned for this summer with a Transport and
> Works application set to be submitted in May next year. A public
> inquiry is proposed for February 2011.
> The rail project would link the Metropolitan Line on the London
> Underground with Watford Junction rail station with new stations being
> opened in Ascot Road and near the proposed Watford Health Campus and
> Vicarage Road Stadium.
We can but hope. I will believe it is happening when construction
starts. This project has drug on for so long that I view it with some
cynicism.
1506
>
> Thats excellent news! Does that mean the current Watford station will close?
> Bet the residents nearby will not be too happy. Also trains "Semi Fast
> Watford Junction" trains :)
The existing Met. Station, IIRC is next to Canonbury Park. I doubt
many folks will be inconvenienced. Many, many more Metroland
residents will gain the benefit of a main line connection.
1506
> On 28 May, 21:47, johnnyburk...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > Hertfordshire County Council has announced it hopes to have the
> > £26million project complete by January 2014.
>
> Regional Funding Allocation statement that CRL funding was due to be
> spent by 2013/4 instead of 2017/8 as proposed at the end of 2008.
> That said, what chance the Tories ditching all this when they attain
> power nationally next year?
>
Is Watford normally a Tory voting area? I suspect that it is. In
which case, this has a small chance of going forward. That said I am
not especially optimistic.
1506
>
> Thats excellent news! Does that mean the current Watford station will close?
> Bet the residents nearby will not be too happy. Also trains "Semi Fast
> Watford Junction" trains :)
The existing Met. Station, IIRC is next to Cassiobury Park. I doubt
1506
wrote:
> On May 28, 9:47 pm, johnnyburk...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > From eWatford Observer, 2:19pm Thursday 28th May 2009
>
> > Croxley Rail Link 'complete by 2014'
>
> > By Filip Hnizdo »
>
> > A timetable and funding plan for the long-delayed Croxley Rail Link
> > proposal has been drafted.
> > £26million project complete by January 2014.
> > advice document suggests a £119.5million government grant for the
> > project. London Underground is set to contribute an additional
> > £18.5million.
> > The East of England Regional Authority indicated that the project
> > would be delivered around 2017 but Hertfordshire County Council says
> > it hopes to bring this date forward.
> > Public consultations are planned for this summer with a Transport and
> > Works application set to be submitted in May next year. A public
> > inquiry is proposed for February 2011.
> > The rail project would link the Metropolitan Line on the London
> > Underground with Watford Junction rail station with new stations being
> > opened in Ascot Road and near the proposed Watford Health Campus and
> > Vicarage Road Stadium.
> > ………………………………..................
> > John Burke
> > WRUG
>
> Don't lets get too excited kids! This has been happening for about 25
> years now. The words project, proposed and planned should tell you
> everything you need to know.
>
> Rich
>
> Consultants bank accounts 4, Railway Passengers 0, after a late kick
> off and extra time...
>
Sadly, I have to share that sentiment.
1506
> On May 28, 10:19 pm, d7...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>> Works application set to be submitted in May next year. A public
> > >>> inquiry is proposed for February 2011.
>
> > >> close?
>
>
> > All this pre-supposes such an enquiry will rule in favour.
>
> > If a public enquiry goes against, it won't happen. And the Cassiobury
> > Park area - where Watford Met. lies - strikes me as an area that might
> > have quite a lot of nimbies in it.
>
> Er, "imbies" surely - the problem for Cassiobury Park residents is
> that they'd be *losing* their Met line station altogether, and instead
> they'd have to troop south to either the new Ascot Road or the re-
> opened Watford West stations.
>
> The new construction would be relatively minimal - a link from the
> existing line near Baldwins Lane across Watford Road to reach the
> existing alignment across the Grand Union Canal (the bridge still
> being existent) and on east. I'm not au fait with the exact proposals
> for this link, and I'm sure some people would complain (particularly
> so if the pub on the roundabout gets it), but the new link is of such
> a small distance that I don't think it would lead to any particularly
> orchestrated campaign against it. There might be some complaints from
> people along the course of the existing alignment opposing it being
> reopened, but that would weigh against the convenience of a new
> station nearby so I wouldn't expect this to be a problem.
>
Was the old Watford High St to Croxley route ever formerly closed? I
had the feeling that it had its serviced reduced until it could be
replace by a bus.
Peter Masson
"1506" <adrian_a...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>Was the old Watford High St to Croxley route ever formerly closed? I
>had the feeling that it had its serviced reduced until it could be
>replace by a bus.
It was eventually - after some time when it had been reduced to 1 train each
way a day, in the early morning. Then this was bustituted (according to the
timetable, but in practice taxistuted), and eventually formally closed. Even
after formal closure someone reported being able to buy a ticket to Croxley
Green out of a ticket machine somewhere.
Peter
garius...@gmail.com
and excited about this going ahead, even for a press office.
That was back in March, and they were saying then that they were
aiming for a 2015 completion. The next barrier it has to overcome is
project entry status with the DfT which, if I remember, it is meant to
be in the process of attaining as we speak. I'll drop Herts an email
and see if they've got any news or dates associated with that yet.
John Bull
1506
This is excellent news.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
news:9752444f-8fba-4d23...@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>The existing Met. Station, IIRC is next to Cassiobury Park. I doubt
many folks will be inconvenienced. Many, many more Metroland
residents will gain the benefit of a main line connection.
Will the Croxley Rail Link facilitate plans to re-extend the Bakerloo Line
from Harrow & Wealdstone to Watford Junction? What's going with that,
anyway?
1506
> "1506" <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. I don't
see any negative issues. But mixing tube with mainline and subsurface
stoke means that the platforms have to be compromise height. Better
in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London Line.
1506
AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. I don't
see any negative issues. But, mixing tube with mainline and
subsurface
stock means that the platforms have to be compromise height. Better
Peter Beale
> AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. I don't
> see any negative issues. But mixing tube with mainline and subsurface
> stoke means that the platforms have to be compromise height. Better
> in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London Line.
That didn't seem to be a problem for the 65 years (1917-1982) that the
Bakerloo ran to Watford Junction. And of course it remains the situation
from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone.
Peter Beale
Chris Tolley
That's true, but we have a more enlightened attitude to disabled
passengers than our predecessors, so it isn't persuasive.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857135.html
(09 025 at Brighton, 20 Apr 1996)
andy...@gmail.com
really)> wrote:
> Peter Beale wrote:
> > 1506 wrote:
>
> >> AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. I don't
> >> see any negative issues. But mixing tube with mainline and subsurface
> >> stoke means that the platforms have to be compromise height. Better
> >> in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London Line.
>
> > That didn't seem to be a problem for the 65 years (1917-1982) that the
> > Bakerloo ran to Watford Junction. And of course it remains the situation
> > from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone.
>
> That's true, but we have a more enlightened attitude to disabled
> passengers than our predecessors, so it isn't persuasive.
>
But all the platforms north of Harrow are still at compromise height,
with a step down from the 313s. Any provision for disabled passengers
could be taken into account by having a raised section in the northern
end of the platforms where the LO services stop and a lowered section
at the southern end, where only the Bakerloo line trains would have
doors; these short sections would have to be in the same spot at each
station and could line up with the areas of the trains with wheelchair
spaces etc.
Such raised sections have already started to appear on the Victoria
line, as part of the upgrade. It's quite unusual not having to step
down from the train.
Mizter T
On Jun 5, 12:04 pm, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> But all the platforms north of Harrow are still at compromise height,
> with a step down from the 313s. Any provision for disabled passengers
> could be taken into account by having a raised section in the northern
> end of the platforms where the LO services stop and a lowered section
> at the southern end, where only the Bakerloo line trains would have
> doors; these short sections would have to be in the same spot at each
> station and could line up with the areas of the trains with wheelchair
> spaces etc.
>
> Such raised sections have already started to appear on the Victoria
> line, as part of the upgrade. It's quite unusual not having to step
> down from the train.
Not only the Victoria line, they're appearing at other stations on the
LU network as well - the Northern line at London Bridge sticks in my
mind, but there are other places too.
andy...@gmail.com
Of course, I knew I'd seen one somewhere else, but I couldn't remember
where!!
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
Chris Tolley <cj.t...@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote:
>
>
>Peter Beale wrote:
>
>> 1506 wrote:
>>
>>> AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. I don't
>>> see any negative issues. But mixing tube with mainline and subsurface
>>> stoke means that the platforms have to be compromise height. Better
>>> in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London Line.
>>
>> That didn't seem to be a problem for the 65 years (1917-1982) that the
>> Bakerloo ran to Watford Junction. And of course it remains the situation
>> from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone.
>
>That's true, but we have a more enlightened attitude to disabled
>passengers than our predecessors, so it isn't persuasive.
So if disabled can't be accomodated then the best solution is that no one is?
Is that what you're saying?
B2003
MIG
Presumbably the raised lumps are mostly likely to appear at stations
served by the JLE, since those would have been made accessible
anyway. Anywhere else, there would be little chance of reaching the
platform in the first place.
On the Bakerloo thing, the platforms are at compromise height which
according to my impression is slightly less of a step up from the
Bakerloo than a step down from a 313. Has anyone got measurements to
confirm this?
MIG
More that the disabled will never be accommodated and will continue to
be ignored unless new works have to meet certain standards. There are
centuries of precedent for this and they've had enough. Sometimes the
requirements seem to go too far, but I understand why.
andy...@gmail.com
> On 5 June, 12:21, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 12:04 pm, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > But all the platforms north of Harrow are still at compromise height,
> > > with a step down from the 313s. Any provision for disabled passengers
> > > could be taken into account by having a raised section in the northern
> > > end of the platforms where the LO services stop and a lowered section
> > > at the southern end, where only the Bakerloo line trains would have
> > > doors; these short sections would have to be in the same spot at each
> > > station and could line up with the areas of the trains with wheelchair
> > > spaces etc.
>
> > > Such raised sections have already started to appear on the Victoria
> > > line, as part of the upgrade. It's quite unusual not having to step
> > > down from the train.
>
> > Not only the Victoria line, they're appearing at other stations on the
> > LU network as well - the Northern line at London Bridge sticks in my
> > mind, but there are other places too.
>
> Presumbably the raised lumps are mostly likely to appear at stations
> served by the JLE, since those would have been made accessible
> anyway. Anywhere else, there would be little chance of reaching the
> platform in the first place.
>
No, because the JLE stations already have the train floor level with
the platforms, so there is no step up or down into the train. The
raised areas will be needed on the original Jubilee line though.
> On the Bakerloo thing, the platforms are at compromise height which
> according to my impression is slightly less of a step up from the
> Bakerloo than a step down from a 313. Has anyone got measurements to
> confirm this?
I think it depends on the station and any cant at the location.
On the Rayners Lane to Uxbridge line, which also has compromise
platform heights, and used to only have a limited Piccadilly service,
it is my impression that the gap is larger stepping up from a
Piccadilly line train than down from a Met line train.
MIG
I meant that at a station like London Bridge, the lumps were needed to
make the Northern Line platforms usable, but there would have been no
point unless the whole station had been made accessible for the JLE.
>
> > On the Bakerloo thing, the platforms are at compromise height which
> > according to my impression is slightly less of a step up from the
> > Bakerloo than a step down from a 313. Has anyone got measurements to
> > confirm this?
>
> I think it depends on the station and any cant at the location.
True. My impression was based on Kensal Green, which is straight and
level.
Chris Tolley
I don't believe I am saying that, no. I believe I'm saying that the
standards of the past, where such things were not taken into account, do
not apply today. And on checking, I find that is just what I wrote.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683699.html
(51398 (Class 117) at Great Malvern, Jun 1985)
E.L. O'Hesra
There is a more useful and cheaper alternative: that each railway be allowed
to open new inaccessible stations so long as the number of inaccessible
stations on that company's network gradually goes down. So if they opened up
a new branch with three stations where wheelchair access would be expensive,
relatively pointless or impossible, they could make up for it by making six
other stations wheelchair accessible elsewhere on the network where it was
cheaper and/or more useful. The current rules make certain new stations
financially unviable, helping neither the disabled nor the able bodied.
Chris Tolley
> There is a more useful and cheaper alternative: that each railway be allowed
> to open new inaccessible stations so long as the number of inaccessible
> stations on that company's network gradually goes down. So if they opened up
> a new branch with three stations where wheelchair access would be expensive,
> relatively pointless or impossible, they could make up for it by making six
> other stations wheelchair accessible elsewhere on the network where it was
> cheaper and/or more useful. The current rules make certain new stations
> financially unviable, helping neither the disabled nor the able bodied.
I presume you intend that suggestion to be taken with the same
seriousness as your inverted name.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632852.html
(33 051 at Eastleigh, 1985)
andy...@gmail.com
Can you name a single potential new station that have been made
unviable by the accessibility rules? Wheelchair access doesn't add
much to the cost, if planned from the start, certainly compared to the
costs of modifying an existing station. If a potential spot is
unviable with the rules, then it is unlikely to have had a clear cut
case in the first place.
Basil Jet
IIRC putting lifts in a brand new station in a cutting or on an embankment
approximately doubles the cost. Allowing passive provision for future lift
installation costs very little. With new stations in relatively quiet areas,
such as Eastfields, the cost of lifts could easily make or break the
business case for the station. The money spent on installing lifts at a
quiet station like Eastfields which already has a wheelchair-accessible
station next door at Mitcham Junction would have been much better spent on
installing lifts at a busier station in an area with no wh-acc station, such
as Tulse Hill or Peckham Rye. (Actually, Eastfields has level access to both
platforms, and the lifts are merely part of the footbridge over the level
crossing - an utterly ridiculous example of wasting money on political
correctness if ever I've seen one. I wonder if those lifts were used once in
their first year.)
andy...@gmail.com
<jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
But the lifts will be an extra cost that is not necessarily needed at
many locations, ramps are a suitable alternative. I recently used Tame
Bridge parkway, where access to the station, in a cutting is via ramps
from street level. Ramps are unlikely to double the cost of a new
station and what is needed is for Network Rail (or who ever is paying
for the station) to challenge a design including lifts when they are
not necessary. I do agree that adding lifts at Eastfields was a waste
of money, as access would have been available anyway.
Commuter
> Is Watford normally a Tory voting area? I suspect that it is. In
> which case, this has a small chance of going forward. That said I am
> not especially optimistic.
After years of that happening under New Labour, do we still believe it
to be the case under an alternative government? The PTE areas did very
well for themselves in the '80s and early '90s with new stations,
electrification, more services and not to mention LRT projects in
Greater Manchester, Sheffield, West Midlands and the Airport extension
to the Tyne/Wear Metro, all initiated under the Conservatives despite
the fact that the Metropolitan Counties were mostly controlled by Labour.
Zen83237
"Commuter" <sp...@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:4a2bfb27$2...@news.x-privat.org...