1506 wrote:
On Jan 18, 5:14 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 18 Jan, 21:56, "Peter Masson" wrote:





wrote:
"THC" wrote:
This is excellent news, although every time an additional approval for
the Croxley Rail Link is granted in this tortuous process, the cost
goes up and the proposed completion date stretches further away.
It states on the proposal that trains would run every ten minutes. Yet on
the Amersham branch there are now only two trains an hour (I think I am
correct in saying this?) how come there would be such a variance?
Current service from Watford - Baker Street is every 10 minutes. It is this,
and not the Amersham trains, that would be diverted to run from Watford
Junction. There have, however, in the past been suggestions that if the link
is built there should also be a shuttle service from Watford Junction to
Amersham or Chesham.
And the present Watford Met station would likely be closed.

There is little point in retaining Watford Met. TfL might want to
wait until the property market recovers before selling the real estate!

Wait though. Some masters come from all over London to the Old School.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

On Jan 20, 1:39*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 20 Jan, 00:48, Andy wrote:





On Jan 19, 11:17*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On 19 Jan, 22:00, Andy wrote:

On Jan 19, 9:44*pm, Mizter T wrote:

(snip)

I think that Chiltern would only need the cash for the provision of
the DMUs and staff, I don't think it is suggested that it'll be
another Evergreen project with Chiltern building the infrastructure as
well. TfL might even be able to supply the DMUs, as I imagine that the
Gospel Oak - Barking line will have been electrified before we see the
link built.

Re my comments on the "Chiltern cash angle" - my reading of Andrew
Heenan's post was that he was indeed seeming to suggest that Chiltern
might be tempted to actually front up some cash for the infrastructure
project itself - i.e. as a kind of Project Evergreen spin-off (or
should that be shoot-off!). But as I'm not Mr Heenan I can't know for
sure what he really meant!

Re the class 172 DMUs that are headed for the GOBLIN - actually these
are to be conventionally owned by a Rosco, Angel Trains, so as and
when London Overground don't need them any more then they'll be back
on the market I would think.

But I understood that the lease involves TfL as well as LOROL, so if
they are no longer needed on GOBLIN, TfL can retain them for other
uses, should they wish. LOROL are different from the other TOCs, as
they run the service with the stock that TfL provides (even if via a
ROSCO).

I think you might be getting things jumbled up with the new class 378
'Capitalstar' trains (for use on the electrified parts of the LO
network). Originally TfL was going to buy these outright, but instead
they negotiated a leasing deal with a new outfit called QW Rail
Leasing Ltd that would appear to have been set up for just this
purpose (well I guess they might have intentions on getting into the
rolling stock market and competing with the Roscos but there's been no
indication of that yet) - this deal was signed in February '08, and is
between TfL (not LOROL) and QW Rail Leasing Ltd - see:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...hive/7525.aspx

Meanwhile the class 172s are to be leased from Angel Trains under the
conventional Rosco model, and the contract in this case is between
LOROL and Angel - see:http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/press/release.aspx?Id=692

I think it may have been the case that TfL were planning on getting
more involved in the latter deal, but it seems they decided to take a
back seat on that because of the possibility of the GOBLIN getting
electrified (not much point in them having a stake in diesel trains
then!).


Actually, I wasn't confused, but didn't put enough detail in. As TfL
gives LOROL instructions as to what services it wants run, TfL will
ultimately be responsible for the 172 leases. To be sure, LOROL
arranged for the trains, but TfL will still be on the lease contracts,
as they would want the trains retained if LOROL hands in the keys (DfT
takes the same role for most other TOCs). TfL would also be
responsible for any residual lease, if electrification happens, as
they would be the ones instructing LOROL to run electric trains
instead.



But it's hard to imagine the GOBLIN getting electrified any time soon
- that said I find it hard to imagine the Croxley Link happening any
time soon either.

I think it will all depend on the DfT electrification program, as and
when this happens. It is one of the most obvious routes for
diversionary purposes (see below)

Fare enough, perhaps I'm being rather too cynical...





Anyway don't think anyone's got any money for stuff like this at the
moment... unless that ghost of Keynes who's been hovering around
somewhat lately starts visiting Brown & co in their dreams in
earnest...

The DfT seem to have magiced £54 millon extra for the four tracking at
Camden Road from somewhere

The NLL upgrade was agreed a while back before the Treasury realised
that the dour and miserly bankers at RBS has taken magic mushrooms
before making their investment decisions. Also the NLL upgrade around
Camden was reduced in scope anyway, when it was realised that some of
the works would cost too much.

The £54 million I mentioned is the reinstallation of the original plan
at Camden, over and above the TfL funded works. There was some
discussion about this at the time and it will be phase II of the NLL
capacity works, after the Olympics.

See the press release he

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fu...eID=385423&New....

Blimey - I completely missed all this! I was still on the page where
the Camden Road works had been 'de-scoped' because they were to be too
expensive - looking back that was in September, so things had
obviously moved on by late November. That's great news! (Indeed is it
possible that the initial de-scoping announcement was made in
expectation of an upcoming announcement on phase 2 of the works?
Perhaps the DfT ministers had to go and do a bit more begging and
kneeling at the Treasury before they were ready to ok this...)

Of course the government might change colour between now and then, but
one would hope that regardless of that the future occupants of
Marshall Street and the Exchequer will see that there's a lot of sense
in this plan.


Or couse, they should really be spending the cash now as part of the
ELL works, I'm sure the Camden works will cost less if all done
together!!



If this work does go ahead, then I could see Network Rail electrifying
the Gospel Oak - Barking line as a diversionary route before this
happens, if they can get the funding together. This electrification
could then be a test bed for the new techniques that they are planning
to reduce costs. I do recall mention that TfL were trying to get the
£54million diverted to electrification anyway.

Very interesting thoughts. Regarding your last point - you mean TfL
were/are trying to get the £54 million the DfT is seemingly willing to
spend on phase 2 of the Camden Rd works diverted to electrify the
GOBLIN? (If so then in other words they would be seeing that as a
greater priority than the NLL four-tracking through Camden.)


Yes, I can't immediately find the source for the info, but I do recall
it mentioned. Of course, TfL's main remit is the passenger service, so
they'd want the money spent on things that give a more obvious, up
front, effect.



If there is any money emanating from the DfT any time soon then I
would very much hope it is for making phase 2 of the East London Line
Extension happen - apparently the funding gap is £15 million, which is
not a great deal in the grand scheme of things with regards to rail
projects. But time is running out - I think the costings all revolve
around the current ELLX construction venture continuing on to build
phase 2. I think it would cost significantly more to set it all up
again from a cold start.

I don't disagree with this.

Such an 'easy win' for that amount of money... tick... tock... get on
with it DfT!

On 20 Jan, 08:47, Andy wrote:
Or couse, they should really be spending the cash now as part of the
ELL works, I'm sure the Camden works will cost less if all done
together!!

I seem to be the only one who thinks the Camden works were dropped (or
now, postponed) because of uncertainty over whether they were the
right thing to do. As originally planned, they were mainly concerned
with providing a bay platform at Camden (no bloody use if they decided
to run trains through Primrose Hill); would only have provided three
tracks *through* Camden Road station; and the two track bottleneck
west of the station would be untouched, so the effect on capacity
would be marginal.

So they need a complete rethink. I'm not sure whether £54m buys you
anything more useful though.

U

On 20 Jan, 02:28, Mizter T wrote:
The Silwood Triangle depot is however the perfect base from which to
construct the new link with the existing South London Line (albeit
along a long closed alignment) - it's something like a mile and a half
of railway, if that. Everything is basically already set up and ready
to go, but if the Silwood works depot hasn't got anything left to do
it will obviously wind down and pack up shop.

I'd think it's actually on the wrong side of the railway viaducts. The
major works are a replacement bridge over Surrey Canal Road
(incorporating said station) and a bridge over Hornshay Street, plus
various earthworks, and from Silwood you'd have to go through the
various narrow viaduct arches or use the not especially good road
access.

(btw, they've already done a whole load of building work on the new
flying junction for phase 2, which takes up a lot of the land area of
the Silwood triangle)

U

On 20 Jan, 02:30, 1506 wrote:
On Jan 19, 4:08*am, Jamie *Thompson wrote:



On 19 Jan, 10:44, "John Rowland"

wrote:
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:

I remember seeing this proposed 40+ years ago. I showed it to my old
man (who worked on the Met) who said it was originally planned
pre-war.

Was there ever any thought given during the original construction of
the Met branch to a link-up? Or was there too much competition
between the LNER and the LMSR?

I don't know, but a Met station was built in Watford High St and is still
there AFAIK. The line never reached it.

Might be useful:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watford...tation#History

...though I believe the article to be wrong. It claims "Revolution" as
the location, but other sources claim "Moon Under the Water". Hard to
tell from the photograph in the cited reference which is correct,
though I suspect it is in fact MUtW.

The W&RR built the line to Ricky in the late 1800s, the LMSR built the
Croxley Green branch around the early 1900s,

No LMSR prior to 1923. *It may have been the LNWR.

then the Met built their
Watford Branch, with Watford Met opening in the 20's as direct
competition. The Ricky line had options over the early years of being
extended to High Wycombe (long before the GC joint line was
conceived), and apparently Uxbridge via Harefield.



You are of course quite right. I started my response by questioning
the companies named, then looked them up, so edited my response. Guess
I made a mistake in my editing!

Andy wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:39 am, Mizter T wrote:

Very interesting thoughts. Regarding your last point - you mean TfL
were/are trying to get the £54 million the DfT is seemingly willing
to spend on phase 2 of the Camden Rd works diverted to electrify the
GOBLIN? (If so then in other words they would be seeing that as a
greater priority than the NLL four-tracking through Camden.)


Yes, I can't immediately find the source for the info, but I do recall
it mentioned. Of course, TfL's main remit is the passenger service, so
they'd want the money spent on things that give a more obvious, up
front, effect.

This 'electrify with the Camden 4 tracking money' was floated in the latest
'Modern Railways, (Jan 09 p18):
"We are satisfied with the train plan [1] we produced (without 4 tracking),
so we are talking with the DtT to see if we can spend that money on other
things" a TfL spokesman told MR.
TfL may think that money spent allowing (electric powered) freight
diversions onto Goblin may result in improved timetable reliability there
and elsewhere.

[1] 6 tph generally with 8 tph in the peaks - and with trains extended to 4
car eventually.

Paul S

On Jan 20, 10:13*am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 20 Jan, 08:47, Andy wrote:

Or couse, they should really be spending the cash now as part of the
ELL works, I'm sure the Camden works will cost less if all done
together!!

I seem to be the only one who thinks the Camden works were dropped (or
now, postponed) because of uncertainty over whether they were the
right thing to do. As originally planned, they were mainly concerned
with providing a bay platform at Camden (no bloody use if they decided
to run trains through Primrose Hill); would only have provided three
tracks *through* Camden Road station; and the two track bottleneck
west of the station would be untouched, so the effect on capacity
would be marginal.

So they need a complete rethink. I'm not sure whether £54m buys you
anything more useful though.

U

To remove the two track bottle neck gets expensive, as you need to
build an extra two track bridge over the A400. See

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll...05085&t=h&z=18

for the current situation.

I think that the point of the extra DfT cash was to give restore the
full space for freights to recess, in between the enhanced NLL
passenger services, between Camden Road West Junction and the King's
Cross incline. The planned passenger services can be enhanced without
it, but freight will capacity would remain limited. To properly remove
the two track bottleneck, you'd have to have some form of grade
separated junction, otherwise eastbound freights will always clash
with westbound passenger services.

On Jan 20, 12:38*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:39 am, Mizter T wrote:

Very interesting thoughts. Regarding your last point - you mean TfL
were/are trying to get the £54 million the DfT is seemingly willing
to spend on phase 2 of the Camden Rd works diverted to electrify the
GOBLIN? (If so then in other words they would be seeing that as a
greater priority than the NLL four-tracking through Camden.)

Yes, I can't immediately find the source for the info, but I do recall
it mentioned. Of course, TfL's main remit is the passenger service, so
they'd want the money spent on things that give a more obvious, up
front, effect.

This 'electrify with the Camden 4 tracking money' was floated in the latest
'Modern Railways, (Jan 09 p18):
"We are satisfied with the train plan [1] we produced (without 4 tracking),
so we are talking with the DtT to see if we can spend that money on other
things" a TfL spokesman told MR.
TfL may think that money spent allowing (electric powered) freight
diversions onto Goblin may result in improved timetable reliability there
and elsewhere.

[1] 6 tph generally with 8 tph in the peaks - and with trains extended to 4
car eventually.

Paul S

That was the one, thanks.

I wonder if £54m would pay for complete electrification of GOBLIN, the
only tricky junction area would be Gospel Oak (both the NLL and maybe
the connection to the MML at Upper Holloway, if required and assuming
that the Harringey curve isn't included). The other connections around
South Tottenham and Woodgrange Park have already been done.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:17:07 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

But it's hard to imagine the GOBLIN getting electrified any time soon
- that said I find it hard to imagine the Croxley Link happening any
time soon either.

As others have suggested TfL are lobbying to divert the £54m mentioned
below towards doing GOBLIN electrification. I doubt £54m gets you the
whole job done and there would also be the issue of rolling stock unless
we are to be given new DMUs and then have them snatched away and
replaced by knackered old Class 313s. If more 378s were needed then it
might get difficult in procurement terms as I don't believe TfL have any
further contract options left to exercise.

Anyway don't think anyone's got any money for stuff like this at the
moment... unless that ghost of Keynes who's been hovering around
somewhat lately starts visiting Brown & co in their dreams in
earnest...

The DfT seem to have magiced £54 millon extra for the four tracking at
Camden Road from somewhere

Having looked at some other postings in this thread can anyone say
exactly what the £54m buys at Camden Road? I had assumed that it did
put back the missing bridges to the east of Camden Road and also sorted
stuff out to the west. Seems it does neither unless I am comprehensively
misunderstanding.

The NLL upgrade was agreed a while back before the Treasury realised
that the dour and miserly bankers at RBS has taken magic mushrooms
before making their investment decisions. Also the NLL upgrade around
Camden was reduced in scope anyway, when it was realised that some of
the works would cost too much.

If there is any money emanating from the DfT any time soon then I
would very much hope it is for making phase 2 of the East London Line
Extension happen - apparently the funding gap is £15 million, which is
not a great deal in the grand scheme of things with regards to rail
projects. But time is running out - I think the costings all revolve
around the current ELLX construction venture continuing on to build
phase 2. I think it would cost significantly more to set it all up
again from a cold start.

Do you have any evidence for the costing assumption? I ask because the
work would almost certainly have to be competitively tendered - unless
TfL asked for a priced option for ELLX Phase 2 when they tendered Phase
1. Given that I doubt there is a fully developed design there may be
cost issues regardless. I recognise the current ELLX works contractor
would have a distinct advantage though.

Does the £100m cost include the incremental rolling stock requirement -
6 or 7 trains IIRC?
--
Paul C

On 20 Jan, 18:04, Paul Corfield wrote:
As others have suggested TfL are lobbying to divert the £54m mentioned
below towards doing GOBLIN electrification. *I doubt £54m gets you the
whole job done and there would also be the issue of rolling stock unless
we are to be given new DMUs

I believe the current plan is we'll get Class 165s and be grateful.

and then have them snatched away and
replaced by knackered old Class 313s. *If more 378s were needed then it
might get difficult in procurement terms as I don't believe TfL have any
further contract options left to exercise.

I'm sure I've seen documents listing very high numbers (250? 350?) as
"options", although I can't find them now.

Having looked at some other postings in this thread can anyone say
exactly what the £54m buys at Camden Road? * I had assumed that it did
put back the missing bridges to the east of Camden Road and also sorted
stuff out to the west. Seems it does neither unless I am comprehensively
misunderstanding.

"restore four tracks to [...] west of Camden Road" and "improve
signalling and other infrastructure" is all it says on the press
release.

The bridges are still there, just in a poor state, so it's mainly
restoration and track-laying/signalling. TfL's dropped scheme included
restoring the north face of the middle platform at Camden Road, which
would probably also be needed for any scheme.

They haven't explicitly said it's the same as TfL's scheme. The latter
was all about being able to run 8 tph passenger without impacting
freight capacity, whereas the DfT state increasing freight capacity as
their aim.

U