In article
,
(77002) wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:53*pm, 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.

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?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Feb 26, 11:00*am, wrote:
In article
,





(77002) wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:53*pm, 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.

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.

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.

On Feb 25, 11:59*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message

...

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.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 03:25:57 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:00*am, wrote:
In article
,


(77002) wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:53*pm, 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.

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.

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.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:27:08 +0000, 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,

They haven't said the site won't be abandoned but the accountants
might have other ideas.

and perhaps the station will remain usable for diversions.

"The closure of the station has always been part of the Croxley Rail
Link proposals. Keeping Watford Met open in any capacity, including
running a split or shuttle service, would have a negative effect on
the scheme overall resulting in poorer service for all users reducing
the economic benefits of the rail link."
[http://www.croxleyraillink.com/lates...-process.aspx]

The official replacement for the existing
Watford Met station is likely to be a new Ascot Road station on the
diverted line.

On Feb 26, 11:50*pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:27:08 +0000, 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,

They haven't said the site won't be abandoned but the accountants
might have other ideas.

and perhaps the station will remain usable for diversions.

"The closure of the station has always been part of the Croxley Rail
Link proposals. Keeping Watford Met open in any capacity, including
running a split or shuttle service, would have a negative effect on
the scheme overall resulting in poorer service for all users reducing
the economic benefits of the rail link."
[http://www.croxleyraillink.com/lates...-process.aspx]


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

On Feb 26, 11:32*pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 03:25:57 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:





On Feb 26, 11:00*am, wrote:
In article
,

(77002) wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:53*pm, 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.

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.

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.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:16:20 -0800 (PST)
77002 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

d 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.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)