"asdf" wrote

Watford West hasn't had a direct service to Euston for a very long
time.

There was one through train a day each way between Croxley Green, Watford
West and Broad Street until 1967. In 1962 (I don't know how much longer it
lasted) there was one from Croxley Green to Euston, though not in the
reverse direction. Of course, after 1966 it was much quicker to travel via
Watford Junction and the AC.

Peter

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
Although now i'm confused about who owns the lines round there.
[...]
But now i'm reading CULG and Clive says "LU takes over ownership of all
6 tracks just south of [HotH]", and on his layout diagram, the border
is drawn on the NR lines, and not the Met ones. Oh, but hang on,
there's another border just north of Amersham, at Mantles Wood junction.

Clive is correct :-)

So do LU really own the shared fasts from HotH to Mantles Wood? So
Chiltern trains run over NR, then LU, the NR?

Correct.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
And while rowlanding, i noticed yet another branch of that, coming off
the main line to Ricky he

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=51.6...=UTF8&t=h&z=16

And heading north. I saw a mention of a branch that was built to the
Croxley printworks - is this it?

That's the paper mill, not the print works. The mill was located roughly
where the end of Byewaters is, just east of the lock on the canal (it
was a regular walk in my youth).

Seems a bit mad that this railway built two separate branches that
went to almost the same place. No wonder they went bust.

This wasn't a passenger branch, it was a normal goods siding off the
Ricky line.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article
, Mr
Thant writes
Anything electrified is LUL, anything not is NR. Thus all tracks
between HotH and Amersham are LUL.

Not quite true: the electrification ends well to the LUL side of the two
boundaries.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , Jack Taylor
writes
Other than that Mantles Wood is not a junction, just a boundary, that is
correct.

It's a junction: the term was often used to refer to an end-on junction
between two railway companies' lines.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Tom Anderson
writes
And while rowlanding, i noticed yet another branch of that, coming off the
main line to Ricky he

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=51.6...=UTF8&t=h&z=16

And heading north. I saw a mention of a branch that was built to the
Croxley printworks - is this it?

That's the paper mill, not the print works. The mill was located roughly
where the end of Byewaters is, just east of the lock on the canal (it was a
regular walk in my youth).

Is this by any chance why there's a Caxton Way in the nearby industrial
estate? I assume it's why there's a Mill Lane running from Croxley Met to
the lock you mention.

Seems a bit mad that this railway built two separate branches that went to
almost the same place. No wonder they went bust.

This wasn't a passenger branch, it was a normal goods siding off the Ricky
line.

Ah, fair enough. I suppose even the 1 km from Croxley Green station (or a
notional goods siding on the Rickmansworth branch) to the mill would have
been too much for big deliveries of rags etc.

tom

--
BUTTS LOL

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.

PS only Uxbridge met line trains go to Euston Square at off peak times. All
others terminate at Baker Street.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:34:40 -0700 (PDT), Adrian
wrote:

It will allow a large chunk of "Metroland" access to mainline services
without going by way of London Euston.

Access to very limited mainline services after the next timetable
change, i.e. one Manchester and one Birmingham an hour, as I recall,
and because it's not the terminus less choice of seats.

I think most would continue to go via Euston, especially given that
all of them[1] have a direct train to Euston Square whereas only some
will have one to Watford.

[1] OK, except Chesham...

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"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