"Andy" wrote in message
...


And the sale of the [Watford Met] site was part of the financing of the
scheme in
past plans, although it doesn't seem to be at the moment.

I'm sure I've seen a reference to selling the site in recent announcements
somewhere.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:57:08 +0000, "Richard J."
wrote:

wrote on 27 February 2012 12:36:58 ...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:16:20 -0800 (PST)
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?

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.

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

313s have reached the District Line in the past, some further than
others :-
http://www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/...=5834&pa ge=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".

On Feb 26, 11:27*am, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:53:32 +0000, Charles Ellson









wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:44:48 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:21*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:01:32 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller

wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:14*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"burkey" 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.

I thought that Watford Met would remain for stabling purposes, so the
track and junctions will not go, and perhaps the station will remain
usable for diversions. The official replacement for the existing
Watford Met station is likely to be a new Ascot Road station on the
diverted line.

Yes, they're keeping it for stabling. The plan is to strip the old
station and reuse as much as possible though (machines, barriers, you
name it) at Ascot Road though if I remember, so doubt that'll remain a
usable diversion site.

On Feb 28, 12:40*pm, Garius wrote:
On Feb 26, 11:27*am, Recliner wrote:









On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:53:32 +0000, Charles Ellson

wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:44:48 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:21*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:01:32 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller

wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:14*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"burkey" 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.

On Feb 28, 10:34*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:

On Feb 28, 12:40*pm, Garius wrote:
[...]
I thought that Watford Met would remain for stabling purposes, so the
track and junctions will not go, and perhaps the station will remain
usable for diversions. The official replacement for the existing
Watford Met station is likely to be a new Ascot Road station on the
diverted line.

Yes, they're keeping it for stabling. The plan is to strip the old
station and reuse as much as possible though (machines, barriers, you
name it) at Ascot Road though if I remember, so doubt that'll remain a
usable diversion site.

Sure it will. A few members of staff dotted about with portable Oyster
machines will suffice for those rare, rare occasions when it needed to
be used. Such is the benefits of Oyster as a system

There's no such kit that does that at present - Oyster validators for
Tube/rail journeys are all permanent installations (gates or
standalone readers). But one could have a single standalone Oyster
reader I suppose - though there wouldn't be much point if the station
wasn't still certified for passenger use