Re: Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016

[77002]

On Feb 20, 12:24 pm, burkey <johnnyburk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From Watford eObserver  Monday 20th February 2012
>
>  Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016
>
> More details of how the ambitious Croxley Rail Link plan will be
> turned into a reality have emerged.
>
> A basic timetable for the £120 million project has been fleshed out as
> Hertfordshire County Council looks at how to progress the rail link.
>
> According to a report set to be debated by the council’s cabinet,
> passengers will be able to start using the service by 2016.
>
> The procurement process is due to start this spring for the project,
> which will see the Metropolitan Line extended from Croxley station
> through Watford to Watford Junction.
>
> Then in autumn there will be a public inquiry will be held.
>
> If all goes accordingly, procurement will be complete by winter 2013
> and the plan can be taken to the Department of Transport for final
> approval.
>
> Building work on the rail line, which will see two new stations built
> along Ascot Road and West Watford, is scheduled to start in summer
> 2014.
>
> The construction work is hoped to be completed by autumn 2015 with it
> opening to the public the following year.
>
This is great news.

Here's hoping for the best.

[Jamie Thompson]

Indeed.

Interestingly, discussion elsewhere has revealed to me the plans for a
new link road (which also recently got funding) from the one way loop
"Dalton Way" to the southern section of the Watford Hospital site,
with a junction at Wiggenhall Road. Now, with that in mind, it seems
to me that a station at where the link road crosses the railway would
be just as far from the football ground as the planned one on Vicarage
Road, if not slightly closer (and far closer to the Hospital itself).
The increased spacing this afford would then I suspect shift the
catchment balance back in favour of Watford West. One downside of the
current plans is that it's quite a noticeable gap between Watford
Hospital station and Watford High Street station.

[77002]

On Feb 23, 11:14 am, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote:
> "burkey" <johnnyburk...@gmail.com> wrote

>
> > Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016
>

> The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
> now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
> closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
> 2016.
>
So it looks like this is actually going to happen. It feels like we
have waited decades for this.

[77002]

On Feb 23, 12:53 pm, Andy <andyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 11:59 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:14:47 -0000

>
> > "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote:
> > >"burkey" <johnnyburk...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > >> Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016
>
> > >The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
> > >now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
> > >closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
> > >2016.
>

> > I expect the residents of the new estate next to the station who no doubt
> > BOUGHT BAsed on proximity to the tube are going to be mightily miffed.
>
> And even more miffed with their solicitors, if the plans for the
> existing station to close were not bought to their attention before
> buying?

The nearest tube station is quite some distance. I guess it would be
Edgeware?

[Andy]

Not that I mentioned tube stations but, if you are going to be
pedantic, it would help if you could get the name Edgware correct!!
Stanmore is closer to Watford Met anyway.

[77002]

> Stanmore is closer to Watford Met anyway.- Hide quoted text -
>
Boltar mentioned "Tube" station. Your post was a convenient point to
join the conversation.

Thank you fot the correction of "Edgware".

I did wonder if Stanmore, or Rainers Lane might be closer.

[Recliner]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:24:38 -0800 (PST), 77002 <e27...@gmail.com>

I've never heard of "Rainers Lane" (it's certainly not in London), but
wouldn't Harrow & Wealdstone on the Bakerloo line be nearer?

[Graeme Wall]

On 23/02/2012 21:16, Recliner wrote:
>> >I did wonder if Stanmore, or Rainers Lane might be closer.
> I've never heard of "Rainers Lane" (it's certainly not in London), but

> wouldn't Harrow& Wealdstone on the Bakerloo line be nearer?

Perhaps you've heard of Rayners Lane then...

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

[Charles Ellson]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:59 -0800 (PST), Andy <andy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

But while generally frequented by tube trains is not a tube station.

[Andy]

On Feb 23, 10:09 pm, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:59 -0800 (PST), Andy <andyp...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 23, 5:38 pm, 77002 <e27...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 23, 12:53 pm, Andy <andyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 23, 11:59 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
>
> >> > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:14:47 -0000
>
> >> > > "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >> > > >"burkey" <johnnyburk...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> > > >> Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016
>
> >> > > >The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
> >> > > >now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
> >> > > >closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
> >> > > >2016.
>
> >> > > I expect the residents of the new estate next to the station who no doubt
> >> > > BOUGHT BAsed on proximity to the tube are going to be mightily miffed.
>
> >> > And even more miffed with their solicitors, if the plans for the
> >> > existing station to close were not bought to their attention before
> >> > buying?
>
> >> The nearest tube station is quite some distance.  I guess it would be
> >> Edgeware?
>
> >Not that I mentioned tube stations but, if you are going to be
> >pedantic, it would help if you could get the name Edgware correct!!
> >Stanmore is closer to Watford Met anyway.
>
> But while generally frequented by tube trains is not a tube station.

Of course, if we are going to get silly, then not too far from Watford
Met, on the north curve from Croxley to Rickmansworth, there is the
only tunnel with tube like construction on the Met.

Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even in central London, as
the running tunnel has often been opened out to form the platforms.
The tube is now widely used for all London Underground services and
even TfL now use the term for both the deep level 'tube' lines and the
Sub-Surface lines.

[Charles Ellson]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:33:38 -0800 (PST), Andy <andy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So ? Does repetition make something any more true ?

[Martin Edwards]

In parts of New York the Subway runs on viaducts.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[Miles Bader]

Charles Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> writes:
> So ? Does repetition make something any more true ?

In language? Yes.

-miles

--
In New York, most people don't have cars, so if you want to kill a person, you
have to take the subway to their house. And sometimes on the way, the train
is delayed and you get impatient, so you have to kill someone on the subway.
[George Carlin]

[Andy]

On Feb 24, 2:07 am, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:33:38 -0800 (PST), Andy <andyp...@gmail.com>

You seemed to be making a different point than none of the stations
mentioned are in underground tubes. I was pointing out that there are
very few stations which are tubes even when underground. However, if
TfL are happy to call them tube stations, then why aren't you?

[Graeme Wall]

Often still a tube though, just a larger diameter than the running tunnels

[Graeme Wall]

In parts of London the Underground runs on viaducts.

[Peter Masson]

"Graeme Wall" <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote

>
> In parts of London the Underground runs on viaducts.
>

At Whitechapel the Underground runs above the Overground.

Peter

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:07:23 +0000
Charles Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even in central London, as
>>the running tunnel has often been opened out to form the platforms.
>>The tube is now widely used for all London Underground services and
>>even TfL now use the term for both the deep level 'tube' lines and the
>>Sub-Surface lines.
>>
>So ? Does repetition make something any more true ?

The whole system is known as the tube ergo the met line is part of it
regardless of the loading gauge of the trains. Whether it was considered
so 100 years is irrelevant. Definitions change. Deal.

B2003

[Recliner]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:48:32 +0000, Graeme Wall
<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 23/02/2012 21:16, Recliner wrote:
>>> >I did wonder if Stanmore, or Rainers Lane might be closer.
>> I've never heard of "Rainers Lane" (it's certainly not in London), but
>> wouldn't Harrow& Wealdstone on the Bakerloo line be nearer?
>
>Perhaps you've heard of Rayners Lane then...

Of course I have, and have often changed trains there, as well as
driving along the aforesaid lane. That's why I know how it's spelled.

[Recliner]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:47:19 +0000 (UTC), bolta...@boltar.world
wrote:

Indeed, much of the first TV programme entitled "The Tube" was about
relaying track at Harrow-on-the-Hill station, which is a long way from
any Tube tunnels.

[Andy]

Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:01:45 -0800 (PST)
Andy <andy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
>stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
>platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
>have before it is no longer a tube?

Does the East london line count as a tube line because of the tunnels
under the thames I wonder? :)

B2003

[Graeme Wall]

Therefore you were, in true uk.r tradition, being unnecessarily pedantic.

[Graeme Wall]

A lot of the rest was at Morden which is not a tube station but serves a
tube stock line, ho hum.

[Graeme Wall]

The running tunnels are still tubes (or pipes, pace the Bellets :)). I
would also dispute the statement that very few stations on tube lines in
central London are tubes. Despite rebuilding at a few major points, the
majority are still tubes.

[Graeme Wall]

No. IIRC the tunnels are actually square cross section.

[Recliner]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:12:08 +0000, Graeme Wall

<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 24/02/2012 10:36, Recliner wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:48:32 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/02/2012 21:16, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> I did wonder if Stanmore, or Rainers Lane might be closer.
>>>> I've never heard of "Rainers Lane" (it's certainly not in London), but
>>>> wouldn't Harrow& Wealdstone on the Bakerloo line be nearer?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you've heard of Rayners Lane then...
>>
>> Of course I have, and have often changed trains there, as well as
>> driving along the aforesaid lane. That's why I know how it's spelled.
>
>Therefore you were, in true uk.r tradition, being unnecessarily pedantic.

Yup, guilty as charged.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:18:07 +0000
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 24/02/2012 11:07, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:01:45 -0800 (PST)
>> Andy<andy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
>>> stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
>>> platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
>>> have before it is no longer a tube?
>>
>> Does the East london line count as a tube line because of the tunnels
>> under the thames I wonder? :)
>>
>
>No. IIRC the tunnels are actually square cross section.

They don't look square to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tunnel

B2003

[Andy]

Who said that? I said that very few stations are tube stations, even
in central London. Taken over the whole system, stations in a tube are
in a definite minority and a large proportion of the Tube stations in
central London are on the subsurface lines and, of the rest, there are
not many of the Lancaster Gate / Queensway / Goodge Street design
remaining where the old station tunnels are still obviously tubes for
all the platforms.

> Despite rebuilding at a few major points, the majority are still tubes.
>
>

Are you talking about individual platforms or whole stations?

[Graeme Wall]

<Red Queen mode>

Orf With his head!

[Graeme Wall]

Arched as opposed to tube.

[Graeme Wall]

Err, you did.

I said that very few stations are tube stations, even
> in central London.

You said it again

> Taken over the whole system, stations in a tube are
> in a definite minority

I wasn't disputing that. Hence the emphasis on /central/ London.

> and a large proportion of the Tube stations in
> central London are on the subsurface lines

A proportion...

> and, of the rest, there are
> not many of the Lancaster Gate / Queensway / Goodge Street design
> remaining where the old station tunnels are still obviously tubes for
> all the platforms.

Aren't there?

>
>> Despite rebuilding at a few major points, the majority are still tubes.
>>
>>
>
> Are you talking about individual platforms or whole stations?

Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
stations. eg Earls Court/Gloucester Road/ South Ken where the District
station is a cut and cover/cutting but the Picc station is in tubes.

There are very few stations where one platform will be in tube and the
other not. Off hand I can't think of many. The Victoria line
interchanges come to mind, principally Oxford Circus. Otherwise?

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
>for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
>stations.

Minor point - they're not different stations. Perhaps you think a basement
isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
and the other was built?

B2003

[Graeme Wall]

On 24/02/2012 12:31, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000
> Graeme Wall<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
>> for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
>> stations.
>
> Minor point - they're not different stations.

Ah well that's where it gets a bit metaphysical. Plenty of examples on
the surface world of two seperate stations on the same physical site
and, often, sharing the same buldings.

> Perhaps you think a basement
> isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
> and the other was built?
>

Then again perhaps I don't.

[77002]

On Feb 24, 12:31 pm, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000
>

> Graeme Wall <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction.  But
> >for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
> >stations.
>
> Minor point - they're not different stations. Perhaps you think a basement
> isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
> and the other was built?
>
> B2003

Define "Station". In my mind Waterloo is one station. I catch
trains, from platforms, there. However, Network Rail and TfL define
it as at least three stations, Waterloo Main, Waterloo East, and
Waterloo Underground.

[Graeme Wall]

Even normals would tend to differentiate Waterloo and Waterloo East.

Historically there could be said to be up to 6 different stations there:

Waterloo LSWR
Waterloo SER
Waterloo & City Line
Bakerloo Line
Northern Line
Jubilee Line
Waterloo International

First and last are physically in the same building but were operated as
two seperate stations.

[Andy]

My original quote: "Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even
in central London". In Central London, pure tube stations are less
than half of the number, taking into account the Sub Surface lines
plus the Victoria and Jubilee lines. Sure in Central London there will
be a higher proportion as everything is underground, but still not the
majority. If you are talking platforms then that is a different
matter.

>
> > Taken over the whole system, stations in a tube are
> > in a definite minority
>
> I wasn't disputing that.  Hence the emphasis on /central/ London.
>
> > and a large proportion of the Tube stations in
> > central London are on the subsurface lines
>
> A proportion...
>
> > and, of the rest, there are
> > not many of the Lancaster Gate / Queensway / Goodge Street design
> > remaining where the old station tunnels are still obviously tubes for
> > all the platforms.
>
> Aren't there?
>

No, if you don't believe me, go and have a look. Many Central London
stations and their platforms have changed a great deal since the first
line arrived at the location. As I said, when is a 'tube' no longer a
tube? How many holes are needed, or additional sections added to the
ends to a different design?

>
>
> >> Despite rebuilding at a few major points, the majority are still tubes.
>
> > Are you talking about individual platforms or whole stations?
>
> Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction.  But
> for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
> stations.  eg Earls Court/Gloucester Road/ South Ken where the District
> station is a cut and cover/cutting but the Picc station is in tubes.

So double counting the stations to inflate the numbers?

>
> There are very few stations where one platform will be in tube and the
> other not.  Off hand I can't think of many.  The Victoria line
> interchanges come to mind, principally Oxford Circus.  Otherwise?
>

The rebuilt stations such as London Bridge as well? What about the
construction style of the interchange passages between the platform
tunnels, does that count in the definition?

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:00:22 +0000
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Define "Station". In my mind Waterloo is one station. I catch
>> trains, from platforms, there. However, Network Rail and TfL define
>> it as at least three stations, Waterloo Main, Waterloo East, and
>> Waterloo Underground.
>
>Even normals would tend to differentiate Waterloo and Waterloo East.

"Normals"?

*boggle*

B2003

[Graeme Wall]

No they are still tube stations, even if they are part of the same
complex as a sub-surface station. Otherwise one could just as easily
claim they weren't sub-surface stations as they were cosited with a tube
station.

>
>>
>> There are very few stations where one platform will be in tube and the
>> other not. Off hand I can't think of many. The Victoria line
>> interchanges come to mind, principally Oxford Circus. Otherwise?
>>
>
> The rebuilt stations such as London Bridge as well?

Pass, I seldom use it and can't remember the subterranean setails.

> What about the
> construction style of the interchange passages between the platform
> tunnels, does that count in the definition?

A lot of those are classic tube construction as well, but no I wasn't
counting them in or out of the definition.

[Graeme Wall]

You are obviously out of touch. Don't worry, no-one would ever apply
the term to you.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:19:49 +0000
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Normals"?
>>
>> *boggle*
>>
>
>You are obviously out of touch. Don't worry, no-one would ever apply
>the term to you.

I think you've been reading too much harry potter.

B2003

[Graeme Wall]

On the grounds that any Harry Potter is too much, I haven't read too
much :-)

But thanks for letting me know where the expression comes from.

[Charles Ellson]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:27:04 -0800 (PST), Andy <andy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 24, 2:07 am, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:33:38 -0800 (PST), Andy <andyp...@gmail.com>

>> >The tube is now widely used for all London Underground services and
>> >even TfL now use the term for both the deep level 'tube' lines and the
>> >Sub-Surface lines.
>>
>> So ? Does repetition make something any more true ?
>

>You seemed to be making a different point than none of the stations
>mentioned are in underground tubes. I was pointing out that there are
>very few stations which are tubes even when underground. However, if
>TfL are happy to call them tube stations, then why aren't you?
>
There are quite a lot which are in tubes underground, the difference
being the diameter (30ft-ish in the past ?) of the relevant section of
tunnel. OTOH concrete boxes (or deep pits?) seem to feature more in
recent stations.

[Charles Ellson]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:31:52 +0000 (UTC), bolta...@boltar.world
wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000
>Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
>>for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
>>stations.
>
>Minor point - they're not different stations.
>

But structurally (and to some extent operationally) the majority of
them are. There is a range from such as clear separation with e.g.
Paddington while OTOH the Piccadilly Line under the Circle/District
Line was eased into existing sub-surface stations.

>Perhaps you think a basement
>isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
>and the other was built?
>

If it is not formed within the sub-structure of the building then it
is not. Is e.g. the ex-Kingsway telephone exchange part of any of the
buildings above ?

[Charles Ellson]

I make it 23 sub-surface stations on the Circle Line with c.20 tube
stations enclosed and around half a dozen more coincident but
structurally distinct from "upstairs". Not counted were "big tubes"
(Moorgate and DLR). So (without benefit of a spare Underground map to
mark) the tube stations seem to win.

[lonelytraveller]

On Feb 24, 10:39 am, Recliner <Recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Indeed, much of the first TV programme entitled "The Tube" was about
> relaying track at Harrow-on-the-Hill station, which is a long way from
> any Tube tunnels.

At the moment....

[lonelytraveller]

Andy <andyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
>stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
>platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
>have before it is no longer a tube?

It can be entirely hole, and still keep its name. The Drain was never
a drain, but it still has the name.

The Oxford Tube is a bus.

[lonelytraveller]

Not true. Firstly, your list of stations for which there were "up to
6" contains 7 stations. Secondly, you failed to include the Necropolis
Station, which increases the number of stations.

[77002]

On Feb 25, 8:09 am, lonelytraveller

> Station, which increases the number of stations.-

Was not the Windsor side once considered separate? I know that is now
the empty International Station. I am surprised that the Bakerloo and
Northern Line platforms are considered two stations. They are well
integrated. I believe Victoria is, or has been, considered three
stations. To me if it has platforms, and a name, it is a Station.
Although Kings Cross, Saint Pancras, and Kings Cross/Saint Pancras
(TfL) always caused me some mental somersaults.

[Graeme Wall]

On 25/02/2012 08:09, lonelytraveller wrote:
> On Feb 24, 1:00 pm, Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/02/2012 12:52, 77002 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 12:31 pm, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000
>>
>>>> Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
>>>>> for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
>>>>> stations.
>>
>>>> Minor point - they're not different stations. Perhaps you think a basement
>>>> isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
>>>> and the other was built?
>>
>>>> B2003
>>
>>> Define "Station". In my mind Waterloo is one station. I catch
>>> trains, from platforms, there. However, Network Rail and TfL define
>>> it as at least three stations, Waterloo Main, Waterloo East, and
>>> Waterloo Underground.
>>
>> Even normals would tend to differentiate Waterloo and Waterloo East.
>>
>> Historically there could be said to be up to 6 different stations there:
>>
>> Waterloo LSWR
>> Waterloo SER

>> Waterloo& City Line

>> Bakerloo Line
>> Northern Line
>> Jubilee Line
>> Waterloo International
>>
> Not true. Firstly, your list of stations for which there were "up to
> 6" contains 7 stations. Secondly, you failed to include the Necropolis
> Station, which increases the number of stations.
>

Forgot the Necropolis, and yes, I can't count. So make that 8 stations!

[Jonathan Morton]

"77002" <e27...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:05f51cae-3b9d-494b...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

>
>I believe Victoria is, or has been, considered three stations. To me if it
>has platforms, and a name, it is a Station.

You're with Lady Bracknell, then - "the line is immaterial, Mr Worthing", a
joke lost on modern audiences.

Regards

Jonathan

[Peter Masson]

"lonelytraveller" <nospam_lonelyt...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:86036e47-dc45-478d...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Towards the end of the 19th century Waterloo LSWR consisted of 4 separate
stations:
South, New or Cyprus
Central or Main
Windsor
North or Khartoum

Peter

[Graeme Wall]

Were they administratively different or just staff nicknames for the
different groups of platforms?

[Martin Edwards]

Never mind all that. Is Waterloo sunset still fine?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[Peter Masson]

"Graeme Wall" <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6W22r.86449$dZ7....@newsfe08.ams2...

> On 25/02/2012 09:48, Peter Masson wrote:

>> Towards the end of the 19th century Waterloo LSWR consisted of 4
>> separate stations:
>> South, New or Cyprus
>> Central or Main
>> Windsor
>> North or Khartoum
>>
>
> Were they administratively different or just staff nicknames for the
> different groups of platforms?
>

Cyprus and Khartoum were staff nicknames, but South, Central, Windsor and
North were official names. Each section seems to have had its own cab yard,
and passenger routes between the various concourses were not obvious.
South's platforms were not numbered in the main sequence (and in the main
sequence the LSWR did not apply different platform numbers to the opposite
faces of an island platform.

There are plenty of stories of the confusion of the place. Best known is
perhaps the problems the protagonists in Three Men in a Boat had in finding
their train to Kingston, which they solved by bribing the engine driver. A
Devon farmer is said to have remarked to his wife, after four or five
unsuccessful attempts to find his train, 'No wonder the French got licked
here.' ;-)

Peter

[Graeme Wall]

On 25/02/2012 11:59, Peter Masson wrote:
>
>
> "Graeme Wall" <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6W22r.86449$dZ7....@newsfe08.ams2...
>> On 25/02/2012 09:48, Peter Masson wrote:
>
>>> Towards the end of the 19th century Waterloo LSWR consisted of 4
>>> separate stations:
>>> South, New or Cyprus
>>> Central or Main
>>> Windsor
>>> North or Khartoum
>>>
>>
>> Were they administratively different or just staff nicknames for the
>> different groups of platforms?
>>
> Cyprus and Khartoum were staff nicknames, but South, Central, Windsor
> and North were official names. Each section seems to have had its own
> cab yard, and passenger routes between the various concourses were not
> obvious. South's platforms were not numbered in the main sequence (and
> in the main sequence the LSWR did not apply different platform numbers
> to the opposite faces of an island platform.
>

So we are up to 10 different stations in one place. Any advance on 10?

[Peter Masson]

"Graeme Wall" <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote

>
> So we are up to 10 different stations in one place. Any advance on 10?
>

Kings Cross Main (current platforms 0-8)
Kings Cross Local (current platforms 9-11)
Kings Cross Suburban (former platforms 14-17, demolished in or since the
1970s)
Kings Cross Thameslink (formerly Metropolitan or LT)
KXStP(Circle, H&C and Met)
KXStP(Northern Line)
KXStP(Piccadilly Line)
KXStP(Victoria Line)
St Pancras E*
St Pancras (Kent Domestics)
St Pancras (Midland Main Line)
SPILL

12 - and as much separate stations as Waterloo - though the most existing
together at one time is 10, or 11 if you count KXTL which still exists as an
emergency exit.

Peter

[77002]

On Feb 25, 2:02 pm, rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <05f51cae-3b9d-494b-b60b-8dbf0ed5f...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,

>
> e27...@gmail.com (77002) wrote:
> > > Not true. Firstly, your list of stations for which there were "up to
> > > 6" contains 7 stations. Secondly, you failed to include the Necropolis
> > > Station, which increases the number of stations.-
>
> > Was not the Windsor side once considered separate?  I know that is now
> > the empty International Station.
>

> The International Station only partly replaced the Windsor side of Waterloo.
> Platforms 16-19 were always part of the Windsor side.
>
If my memory serves, and it has been a while: The Windsor Platforms
had a different style roof from the mainline side. It was this part
of the station that was dismantled in order to build the International
station. IIRC a signal box was also removed and the approaches
straightened.

[Peter Masson]

"77002" <e27...@gmail.com> wrote

>
> If my memory serves, and it has been a while: The Windsor Platforms
> had a different style roof from the mainline side. It was this part
> of the station that was dismantled in order to build the International
> station. IIRC a signal box was also removed and the approaches
> straightened.

The 19th century North station was the last to be built before the whole
station was redeveloped in the early part of the 20th century. The roof of
this North station was in good condition, so was not replaced in the general
rebuilding. This then became the Windsor lines part of the station, and as
you say, was replaced when International was built.

Among other changes when International was built, the north Yard was
abolished, along with the hoist down to the W&C - so since then stock for
the W&C has to be caned in and out of the W&C Yard.

Peter

Peter

[Charles Ellson]

Won't a tawse do the job ?

[Nick Leverton]

In article <emoik7t8rpk7r09hq...@4ax.com>,

I'm no stickin my hand out for a tawse that big.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

[77002]

On Feb 25, 10:53 pm, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:44:48 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
>
>
>
>
>
> <nospam_lonelytraveller_nos...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Feb 25, 9:21 am, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:01:32 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
>
> >> <nospam_lonelytraveller_nos...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> >> >On Feb 23, 11:14 am, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >> >> "burkey" <johnnyburk...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> >> > Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016
>
> >> >> The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
> >> >> now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
> >> >> closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
> >> >> 2016.
>

> >> >> Peter
>
> >> >Why didn't they run a parliamentary "replacement bus service",
> >> >instead? It worked for network southeast, with the croxley line.
>
> >> That was a tactic to avoid having to run trains, not something that
> >> applies in the case of the Croxley Link except when work requires it.
>
> >It avoids having to run trains to Watford (cassiobury park) Station.
> >And especially avoids having to pay lip service to criticism from the
> >locals.
>
> If services to Watford continue until transfer day and Watford High
> Street and Watford Junction become the official replacements for
> Watford Met. then there is no service to be bustituted. Unless there
> is a practical restriction on doing so, services to Watford Met. could
> continue with a temporary junction at the diversion point to allow an
> overnight change of timetabled services or a temporary delay of
> diversion if something unforeseen** crops up with running Met. trains
> in passenger service into Watford Junction.

This is an expense I doubt Hertford County, TfL, et al will want to
incurr.
>
> ** There will presumably be a NR/LU train detector at Watford High
> Street to stop trains going the wrong way or will Gunnersbury-style
> cockups still be possible ?.

IMHO The latter. LUL Trains could be stopped utilizing their
tripcock. I do not know if Overground trains have any AWS.

[Martin Edwards]

We must have discipline.

[77002]

It is a pity the W&C cannot be extended to form a more useful thru
route. It might then have a proper depot, somewhere.

[77002]

On Feb 26, 11:00 am, rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <297546bc-c1c1-4934-9e23-22b72699e...@l7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
> e27...@gmail.com (77002) wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 10:53 pm, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:44:48 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
>
> > > <nospam_lonelytraveller_nos...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >On Feb 25, 9:21 am, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:01:32 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
>
> > > >> <nospam_lonelytraveller_nos...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >> >On Feb 23, 11:14 am, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com>
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >> >> "burkey" <johnnyburk...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > >> >> > Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016
>
> > > >> >> The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL
> > > >> >> station has now been published. Any objections must be in by 12
> > > >> >> April, though actual closure will not take place until the
> > > >> >> Croxley Link is open, expected in 2016.
>

> > > >> >Why didn't they run a parliamentary "replacement bus service",
> > > >> >instead? It worked for network southeast, with the croxley line.
>
> > > >> That was a tactic to avoid having to run trains, not something that
> > > >> applies in the case of the Croxley Link except when work requires it.
>
> > > >It avoids having to run trains to Watford (cassiobury park) Station.
> > > >And especially avoids having to pay lip service to criticism from the
> > > >locals.
>
> > > If services to Watford continue until transfer day and Watford High
> > > Street and Watford Junction become the official replacements for
> > > Watford Met. then there is no service to be bustituted. Unless there
> > > is a practical restriction on doing so, services to Watford Met. could
> > > continue with a temporary junction at the diversion point to allow an
> > > overnight change of timetabled services or a temporary delay of
> > > diversion if something unforeseen** crops up with running Met. trains
> > > in passenger service into Watford Junction.
>
> > This is an expense I doubt Hertford County, TfL, et al will want to
> > incurr.
>
> > > ** There will presumably be a NR/LU train detector at Watford High
> > > Street to stop trains going the wrong way or will Gunnersbury-style
> > > cockups still be possible ?.
>
> > IMHO The latter.   LUL Trains could be stopped utilizing their
> > tripcock.  I do not know if Overground trains have any AWS.
>

> Don't they have tripcocks for the tracks shared with the Bakerloo?
>
You are most certainly correct. So there is, under currently
installed technology, no automated way to prevent Met, trains being
routed over the "DC" lines, or Overground trains being routed towards
Moor Park.

[lonelytraveller]

On Feb 25, 11:59 am, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote:
> "Graeme Wall" <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

>
> news:6W22r.86449$dZ7....@newsfe08.ams2...
>
> > On 25/02/2012 09:48, Peter Masson wrote:
> >> Towards the end of the 19th century Waterloo LSWR consisted of 4
> >> separate stations:
> >> South, New or Cyprus
> >> Central or Main
> >> Windsor
> >> North or Khartoum
>
> > Were they administratively different or just staff nicknames for the
> > different groups of platforms?
>
> Cyprus and Khartoum were staff nicknames, but South, Central, Windsor and
> North were official names. Each section seems to have had its own cab yard,
> and passenger routes between the various concourses were not obvious.
> South's platforms were not numbered in the main sequence (and in the main
> sequence the LSWR did not apply different platform numbers to the opposite
> faces of an island platform.

Are there any photographs of it, on the inside, when it was like that?
I can only find the current station concourse being depicted.

[Paul Terry]

In message
<2e4b2809-9843-4e34...@w1g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
lonelytraveller <nospam_lonelyt...@hotmail.co.uk> writes

>Are there any photographs of it, on the inside, when it was like that?
>I can only find the current station concourse being depicted.

There's a plan of the 1895 layout halfway down this web page (click on
the plan to enlarge):

http://turniprail.blogspot.com/2011/03/making-mess-of-station-extending.h
tml

--
Paul Terry

[Charles Ellson]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 03:25:57 -0800 (PST), 77002 <e27...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The line isn't installed yet never mind any technology but relevant
technology is already in use elsewhere; a train cannot be signalled
from the DC line to LU at Queens Park if it does not pass current
through the 4th rail.
Similar methods can prevent an LU train going to 3rd rail territory
but are AFAIAA not currently used anywhere, possibly because the
consequences are non-destructive (except for the timetable). For new
work other technology such as e.g. identification transponders could
achieve the same job.

[77002]

On Feb 26, 11:32 pm, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk>

One is aware that transponders could solve this problem. However,
AFAIK, LUL have yet to utilize such technology for the above stated
purpose.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:16:20 -0800 (PST)
77002 <e27...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The line isn't installed yet never mind any technology but relevant
>> technology is already in use elsewhere; a train cannot be signalled
>> from the DC line to LU at Queens Park if it does not pass current
>> through the 4th rail.
>> Similar methods can prevent an LU train going to 3rd rail territory
>> but are AFAIAA not currently used anywhere, possibly because the
>> consequences are non-destructive (except for the timetable). For new
>> work other technology such as e.g. identification transponders could
>> achieve the same job.
>
>One is aware that transponders could solve this problem. However,
>AFAIK, LUL have yet to utilize such technology for the above stated
>purpose.

Just out of interest , has an LU train ever accidentally been routed onto
a 3rd rail line by mistake, eg at the aformentioned locations or
gunnersbury?

B2003

[Richard J.]

bolta...@boltar.world wrote on 27 February 2012 12:36:58 ...

At Gunnersbury, the 4th rail continues for a short distance on the up
North London Line, presumably to enable reversing moves by LU trains.
So if an LU train was accidentally routed on to the NLL, the driver
would realise this before leaving 4th rail territory.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

[Charles Ellson]

That bit still is 4th rail territory, being available for occasional
reversing manoeuvres, described in :-
http://www.trainweb.org/districtdave/html/gunnersbury.html

313s have reached the District Line in the past, some further than
others :-
http://www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/index.cgi?board=picc&action=display&thread=5834&page=2
The LURS journal "Underground" has on at least one past occasion
published photos of a 313 sitting in splendid isolation just past the
junction waiting for a breakdown team to arrive.

OTOH I don't recall any mention of District trains going off the juice
so either the signal at the end of the 4th rail section detects the
lack of 4th rail current flow or people have been lucky so far. Things
could have been different back in the days when the DC and NL lines
were 4 rail and a train would presumably have kept going until the
driver "woke up".