"Jason Fisher" wrote in message
.. .
Watford Junction will not even have that according to the draft timetable.
Just one Birmingham train an hour and the stopping train to Crewe via
Stoke. If I still lived in the area, I would be protesting about that.

That's already better than the previous suggestion, which IIRC was going to
be reduced to about 4 main line trains a day

tim

"tim (not at home)" wrote in message
...

"Jason Fisher" wrote in message
.. .
Watford Junction will not even have that according to the draft
timetable. Just one Birmingham train an hour and the stopping train to
Crewe via Stoke. If I still lived in the area, I would be protesting
about that.

That's already better than the previous suggestion, which IIRC was going
to be reduced to about 4 main line trains a day

I've come to this thread late, catching up after a week away.
Co-incidentally, I was on a canal boat and we were discussing the scheme as
we passed under the Met line to Watford and then (a few yards further on)
the other bridge on the line from Watford West. Further delay on this scheme
is absurd. It just needs sorting. But why is it so expensive? The Cotswold
(partial) re-doubling mentioned in another thread seems to be the same cost
for several miles as a few hundred yards of new construction. As to services
on the new line, one could run Amersham to WJ and cut short some of the
Amershams at Rickmansworth. As others have said, it's misleading to think of
the scheme as "just another way of getting from WJ to London". Aylesbury to
St Albans, anyone?

Regards

Jonathan

On 6 Apr, 12:33, "Jonathan Morton"
wrote:
But why is it so expensive?

It requires a tall 500m viaduct which has to cross various obstacles,
rebuilding another mile and a half of track and building two new tube
stations, which go for £10-20m each. £95m is about right compared to
similar schemes, and it could be worse - the ELL extension is costing
£900m (which has about the same amount of new route) and rebuilding 3
miles of North London Line is costing £400m (with no new structures).

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

"Mr Thant" wrote in message

On 6 Apr, 12:33, "Jonathan Morton"
wrote:
But why is it so expensive?

It requires a tall 500m viaduct which has to cross various obstacles,
rebuilding another mile and a half of track and building two new tube
stations, which go for £10-20m each.

Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations?
Real "tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought,
cost rather more than £20m each. I assume these new Met stations will
be fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on
the DLR. Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc,
to comply with modern statndards.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Mr Thant" wrote in message

On 6 Apr, 12:33, "Jonathan Morton"
wrote:
But why is it so expensive?

It requires a tall 500m viaduct which has to cross various obstacles,
rebuilding another mile and a half of track and building two new tube
stations, which go for £10-20m each.

Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations? Real
"tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought, cost
rather more than £20m each. I assume these new Met stations will be
fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on the
DLR. Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc, to
comply with modern statndards.

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but probably
shorter and therefore less expensive.

Of course it's equally likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will
apply...

Paul S

On 6 Apr, 23:07, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations? Real
"tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought, cost
rather more than £20m each. *I assume these new Met stations will be
fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on the
DLR. *Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc, to
comply with modern statndards.

They'd be built to tube standards, which means ticket machines,
barriers, staff accommodation, full length canopies, etc.

Also LUL and increasingly the DLR like things ambitious
architecturally.

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but probably
shorter and therefore less expensive.

One of them is elevated and the other is in a narrowish cutting
requiring a building on stilts. The modular concept seems designed for
fairly flat open sites.

Of course it's equally likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will
apply...

Not NR's either. The concept is owned by Dean & Dyball, who were
recently bought by Balfour Beatty.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 6 Apr, 23:07, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations? Real
"tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought, cost
rather more than £20m each. *I assume these new Met stations will be
fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on the
DLR. *Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc, to
comply with modern statndards.

They'd be built to tube standards, which means ticket machines,
barriers, staff accommodation, full length canopies, etc.

ITYM LU standards, tube stations don't need canopies.

Also LUL and increasingly the DLR like things ambitious
architecturally.

For "ambitious" read "expensive" ?

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but probably
shorter and therefore less expensive.

One of them is elevated and the other is in a narrowish cutting
requiring a building on stilts. The modular concept seems designed for
fairly flat open sites.

Of course it's equally likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will
apply...

Not NR's either. The concept is owned by Dean & Dyball, who were
recently bought by Balfour Beatty.

U

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 6 Apr, 23:07, "Paul Scott" wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message

Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations?

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but
probably shorter and therefore less expensive. Of course it's equally
likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will apply...

Not NR's either. The concept is owned by Dean & Dyball, who were
recently bought by Balfour Beatty.

I understand there was some financing from Alliterative Associates
involved.

tom

--
I'm not quite sure how that works but I like it ...