|
Watford rail link support boost
Watford rail link support boost
From eWatford Observer 5:19pm Friday 16th January 2009 By Michael Pickard » The extension of the Metropolitan tube line to Watford Junction station moved a step closer to realisation today. Two schemes developed by Hertfordshire County Council were backed by the East of England regional Assembly's Regional Planning Panel, and the assembly will now advise the Department of Transport to fund them both. It is hoped the plans - the £162 million Croxley Rail Link and the £38 million Watford Junction Interchange - will reduce congestion and boost Watford's economy. Stuart Pile, executive member for highways, transport and rural affairs, said: Im delighted that the regional assembly will be pushing the Government to fund these schemes. We need to invest in our transport infrastructure if were going to support our economy and reduce congestion. The Department for Transport bases its funding decisions on the regional advice, so were optimistic that well get the go-ahead and that the line can open in 2017. The £162 million Croxley Rail Link scheme will see the Metropolitan Line re-routed and extended to Watford Junction, where it will meet Network Rail services. Tube trains will run from Watford Junction to Central London every ten minutes, the County Council said. New stations would be also opened at Ascot Road and Watford West, with improvements made to existing stations at Watford High Street and Watford Junction. The £38 million Watford Junction Station Interchange scheme involves a major redevelopment of the station. The station will get more drop-off points, easier pedestrian access and better bus and coach facilities. New car parks will be built along with a new link road. ...................................... .............................. ...................................... .............................. John Burke WRUG |
Watford rail link support boost
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. THC |
Watford rail link support boost
"THC" wrote in message ... 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. THC 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? |
Watford rail link support boost
wrote in message ... "THC" wrote in message ... 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. THC 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? There is 6 per hour, certainly Chaltont & Latimer towards London. 2 are Chiltern to/from Aylesbury/Marylebone, the other 4 are either Amersham to Baker Street or 2 Amersham and 2 Chesham to Baker street. |
Watford rail link support boost
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:46:35 -0000, wrote:
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? 4tph of Met trains. But I recall that this will decrease to 2tph once the S-stock arrives, two of them instead providing direct Chesham trains to replace the current shuttle. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Watford rail link support boost
wrote in message ... "THC" wrote in message ... 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. THC 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. Peterto |
Watford rail link support boost
On Jan 18, 9:56*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
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. Peterto Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury! |
Watford rail link support boost
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:25:23 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury! That'd be a seriously useful service, and would get a lot of the benefits of Aylesbury-Bletchley for very little of the additional cost. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Watford rail link support boost
|
Watford rail link support boost
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:37:44 -0000, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote: quoted: The extension of the Metropolitan tube line to Watford Junction station moved a step closer to realisation today. How many steps are there?! About umpty-seven each side of the road that's in the way ? (Plus one very big one if they only build it as a tube line). |
Watford rail link support boost
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:18:03 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:37:44 -0000, "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote: quoted: The extension of the Metropolitan tube line to Watford Junction station moved a step closer to realisation today. How many steps are there?! About umpty-seven each side of the road that's in the way ? (Plus one very big one if they only build it as a tube line). 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. |
Watford rail link support boost
On 18 Jan, 22:36, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:25:23 -0800 (PST), wrote: Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury! That'd be a seriously useful service, and would get a lot of the benefits of Aylesbury-Bletchley for very little of the additional cost. Indeed, a very interesting idea - has this ever been mooted before because it's the first time I've heard of such a notion? It's not as though the Met line is a stranger to DMUs of course. |
Watford rail link support boost
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. |
Watford rail link support boost
On 19 Jan, 01:10, Mizter T wrote: On 18 Jan, 22:36, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:25:23 -0800 (PST), wrote: Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury! That'd be a seriously useful service, and would get a lot of the benefits of Aylesbury-Bletchley for very little of the additional cost. Indeed, a very interesting idea - has this ever been mooted before because it's the first time I've heard of such a notion? Silly me, thinking that it was possible no-one had really suggested this already! The Wikipedia article makes plenty of mention of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croxley_Rail_Link I'm evidently just not that imaginative to have thought about it already. A potential through service from Aylesbury is surely *the* selling point of this link, is it not? I could never get myself that excited about it beforehand, as I didn't think the benefits of there being 'more Met line' at Watford really made the whole thing seem that worthwhile, but as part of a wider service the proposed Croxley link starts to look rather more attractive. |
Watford rail link support boost
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? |
Watford rail link support boost
Mizter T wrote:
I'm evidently just not that imaginative to have thought about it already. A potential through service from Aylesbury is surely *the* selling point of this link, is it not? I could never get myself that excited about it beforehand, as I didn't think the benefits of there being 'more Met line' at Watford really made the whole thing seem that worthwhile, but as part of a wider service the proposed Croxley link starts to look rather more attractive. I was under the impression the plan was to make two obscure back-water suburban stub branches into a through root and make the town of Watford more accessible from the Met. The Aylesbury link hasn't been mentioned that often. |
Watford rail link support boost
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. |
Watford rail link support boost
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, 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. |
Watford rail link support boost
On Jan 19, 12:08*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
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. You are correct. The property at 44 High Street Watford was purchased by the Met for its proposed town centre station (Watford Central?) It was sold, later to become the Grange furniture store and subsequently the Moon. The W&RR built the line to Ricky in the late 1800s, the LMSR built the Croxley Green branch around the early 1900s, 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. To Uxbridge from Ricky (Church Street) was Lord Ebury's dream and the option for extension that I have seen documented most often. IIRC Goudie and Stuckey's excellent book, "West of Watford" (Forge Press, now out of print), tells more of the story and of the albeit vague proposals for the LM&SR's Croxley Green branch to loop back towards Boxmoor and Berkhamsted. THC |
Watford rail link support boost
On Jan 19, 2:40*am, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote: Mizter T wrote: I'm evidently just not that imaginative to have thought about it already. A potential through service from Aylesbury is surely *the* selling point of this link, is it not? I could never get myself that excited about it beforehand, as I didn't think the benefits of there being 'more Met line' at Watford really made the whole thing seem that worthwhile, but as part of a wider service the proposed Croxley link starts to look rather more attractive. I was under the impression the plan was to make two obscure back-water suburban stub branches into a through root and make the town of Watford more accessible from the Met. The Aylesbury link hasn't been mentioned that often. Much more was made of the Watford - Aylesbury service when the link was being talked up in the 80s and 90s. There were also some grandious proposals for an Aylesbury to St. Albans service involving a flyover (or dive under) at Watford Junction. Back then, the plan was supposed to be self-financing as the sale of the Watford Met branch for housing would pay for the new alignment. |
Watford rail link support boost
"Mizter T" wrote: Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury! Indeed, a very interesting idea - has this ever been mooted before because it's the first time I've heard of such a notion? It's not as though the Met line is a stranger to DMUs of course. If it happens, it'll be a Chiltern initiative, not TfL. Boris won't fund it, but if it's commercially viable, Chiltern will be all over it like a rash. Provided they can spare the capacity over their lines, of course! -- Andrew |
Watford rail link support boost
"Peter Masson" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "THC" wrote in message ... 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. THC 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. I wonder if the sponsors are expecting the Met into WJ to become a feeder to LM and Euston, or a realistic route from WJ towards Baker St. And how does Bakerloo to WJ stand up in the event the Met is already there? Paul S |
Watford rail link support boost
"Paul Scott" wrote...
I wonder if the sponsors are expecting the Met into WJ to become a feeder to LM and Euston, or a realistic route from WJ towards Baker St. And how does Bakerloo to WJ stand up in the event the Met is already there? I'm sure it will be a feeder for other routes - especially for London; I'm sure someone has worked out how far up the line you'd need to be to save time (though not money) taking a faster train to Euston than travelling south on the Met. I doubt it'll have a huge effect on the Bakerloo, except removing a few London-bound passengers. But how many people use the Bakerloo all the way to baker street? Can't be many, can it? Has anyone done the time comparison - Virgin / LM / Met / Bakerloo ? (is the Virgin service still possible?) -- Andrew "If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein |
Watford rail link support boost
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:07:27 -0000,
Andrew Heenan wrote: "Paul Scott" wrote... I wonder if the sponsors are expecting the Met into WJ to become a feeder to LM and Euston, or a realistic route from WJ towards Baker St. And how does Bakerloo to WJ stand up in the event the Met is already there? I'm sure it will be a feeder for other routes - especially for London; I'm sure someone has worked out how far up the line you'd need to be to save time (though not money) taking a faster train to Euston than travelling south on the Met. I doubt it'll have a huge effect on the Bakerloo, except removing a few London-bound passengers. But how many people use the Bakerloo all the way to baker street? Can't be many, can it? Has anyone done the time comparison - Virgin / LM / Met / Bakerloo ? (is the Virgin service still possible?) Virgin isn't possible (legally). LM Watford Junction - Euston around 20 mins. Baker Street - Watford Met around 35 mins on a fast train to Moor Park (I did this the night the wires came down near Wembley after 2.5 hours Euston-Euston) Normally more like 45 mins according to the TFL journey planner. Baker Street - Harrow and Wealdstone give 33 mins and H&W-WJ gives 16 mins on overground. Tim. -- God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light. http://www.woodall.me.uk/ |
Watford rail link support boost
"Tim Woodall" wrote ...
Has anyone done the time comparison - Virgin / LM / Met / Bakerloo ? Virgin isn't possible (legally). LM Watford Junction - Euston around 20 mins. Baker Street - Watford Met around 35 mins on a fast train to Moor Park (I did this the night the wires came down near Wembley after 2.5 hours Euston-Euston) Normally more like 45 mins Baker Street - Harrow and Wealdstone give 33 mins and H&W-WJ gives 16 mins on overground. Thanks for that. The time penalty isn't as bad as I suspected - and with the extra costs of using LM, probably many more leisure passengers would use Bakerloo or Met than I thought. I'd happily take a book and 25 mins extra if I didn't have a tight schedule! Of course once Oyster fares are standardised across the 'real' railway, the Met's advantages begin to disappear, for Watford folk, at least. -- Andrew |
Watford rail link support boost
"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message ... Thanks for that. The time penalty isn't as bad as I suspected - and with the extra costs of using LM, probably many more leisure passengers would use Bakerloo or Met than I thought. I'd happily take a book and 25 mins extra if I didn't have a tight schedule! Of course once Oyster fares are standardised across the 'real' railway, the Met's advantages begin to disappear, for Watford folk, at least. ITYF there are no 'extra' costs for using LM, or even SN to Clapham Junction, they are in the Travelcard and Oyster PAYG scheme already, it was all sorted out a week or two after the start of LO services. Unless there is another unlikely change, WJ will remain a special fare 'beyond zone 8'... Paul S |
Watford rail link support boost
On Jan 19, 4:50*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "Andrew Heenan" wrote in message ... Thanks for that. The time penalty isn't as bad as I suspected - and with the extra costs of using LM, probably many more leisure passengers would use Bakerloo or Met than I thought. I'd happily take a book and 25 mins extra if I didn't have a tight schedule! Of course once Oyster fares are standardised across the 'real' railway, the Met's advantages begin to disappear, for Watford folk, at least. ITYF there are no 'extra' costs for using LM, or even SN to Clapham Junction, they are in the Travelcard and Oyster PAYG scheme already, it was all sorted out a week or two after the start of LO services. Yes, but Watford Junction is still more expensive than Watford Met. Peak Oyster single fare from Watford Junction to Zone 1 is £6.50, from Watford Met is £4.70. Watford Junction is NOT in the travelcard scheme, tickets are now Watford Junction plus Zones 1-9. One day Travelcard costs a zones 1-9 (including Watford Met) £9.00, zones 1-9 plus Watford Junction £13.50. Unless there is another unlikely change, WJ will remain a special fare 'beyond zone 8'... Paul S |
Watford rail link support boost
"Andy" wrote in message ... On Jan 19, 4:50 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Andrew Heenan" wrote in message ... Thanks for that. The time penalty isn't as bad as I suspected - and with the extra costs of using LM, probably many more leisure passengers would use Bakerloo or Met than I thought. I'd happily take a book and 25 mins extra if I didn't have a tight schedule! Of course once Oyster fares are standardised across the 'real' railway, the Met's advantages begin to disappear, for Watford folk, at least. ITYF there are no 'extra' costs for using LM, or even SN to Clapham Junction, they are in the Travelcard and Oyster PAYG scheme already, it was all sorted out a week or two after the start of LO services. Yes, but Watford Junction is still more expensive than Watford Met. Peak Oyster single fare from Watford Junction to Zone 1 is £6.50, from Watford Met is £4.70. I thought you might say that actually, but it's academic, because Watford Met will be shut. The LM fare from WJ is THE fare to Euston, LO is, and presumably LU will, be the same? Paul |
Watford rail link support boost
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:38:15 -0800 (PST),
Andy wrote: On Jan 19, 4:50*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Andrew Heenan" wrote in message ... Thanks for that. The time penalty isn't as bad as I suspected - and with the extra costs of using LM, probably many more leisure passengers would use Bakerloo or Met than I thought. I'd happily take a book and 25 mins extra if I didn't have a tight schedule! Of course once Oyster fares are standardised across the 'real' railway, the Met's advantages begin to disappear, for Watford folk, at least. ITYF there are no 'extra' costs for using LM, or even SN to Clapham Junction, they are in the Travelcard and Oyster PAYG scheme already, it was all sorted out a week or two after the start of LO services. Yes, but Watford Junction is still more expensive than Watford Met. Peak Oyster single fare from Watford Junction to Zone 1 is £6.50, from (unless you change oyster cards at Harrow and Wealdstone in which case it's 30p cheaper although unless there's an on platform oyster reader it's not going to be feasible to do without waiting for another train unless you get a mate to hold the doors open while you run round the station with his and your cards) Watford Met is £4.70. Watford Junction is NOT in the travelcard scheme, tickets are now Watford Junction plus Zones 1-9. One day Travelcard costs a zones 1-9 (including Watford Met) £9.00, zones 1-9 plus Watford Junction £13.50. And it's 1:10 WJ-Watford High Street so you have to make five separate journeys over that bit of the line before the travel card is cheaper (obviously there are problems with touching in and out on the "extension") Hmmm, don't know if it's still the case but before I had an oyster card the ticket was effectively a return to boundary Z6 + all zones travel card so once you'd returned to WJ you lost the ticket. If it's now a return to boundary Z9(8?) then that seems very unfair, particularly as an oyster user could do Watford High Street to Euston via Watford Junction and stay in the Z1-9 cap. Tim. -- God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light. http://www.woodall.me.uk/ |
Watford rail link support boost
On Jan 19, 9:10*pm, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:38:15 -0800 (PST), * * Andy wrote: On Jan 19, 4:50*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Andrew Heenan" wrote in message ... Thanks for that. The time penalty isn't as bad as I suspected - and with the extra costs of using LM, probably many more leisure passengers would use Bakerloo or Met than I thought. I'd happily take a book and 25 mins extra if I didn't have a tight schedule! Of course once Oyster fares are standardised across the 'real' railway, the Met's advantages begin to disappear, for Watford folk, at least. ITYF there are no 'extra' costs for using LM, or even SN to Clapham Junction, they are in the Travelcard and Oyster PAYG scheme already, it was all sorted out a week or two after the start of LO services. Yes, but Watford Junction is still more expensive than Watford Met. Peak Oyster single fare from Watford Junction to Zone 1 is £6.50, from (unless you change oyster cards at Harrow and Wealdstone in which case it's 30p cheaper although unless there's an on platform oyster reader it's not going to be feasible to do without waiting for another train unless you get a mate to hold the doors open while you run round the station with his and your cards) No on Platform Oyster readers on the platforms 5 and 6 (where the London Midland trains stop). There are a couple on the footbridge though, originally installed for people changing between the mainline and the Bakerloo / DC. Watford Met is £4.70. Watford Junction is NOT in the travelcard scheme, tickets are now Watford Junction plus Zones 1-9. One day Travelcard costs a zones 1-9 (including Watford Met) £9.00, zones 1-9 plus Watford Junction £13.50. And it's 1:10 WJ-Watford High Street so you have to make five separate journeys over that bit of the line before the travel card is cheaper (obviously there are problems with touching in and out on the "extension") Hmmm, don't know if it's still the case but before I had an oyster card the ticket was effectively a return to boundary Z6 + all zones travel card so once you'd returned to WJ you lost the ticket. If it's now a return to boundary Z9(8?) then that seems very unfair, particularly as an oyster user could do Watford High Street to Euston via Watford Junction and stay in the Z1-9 cap. Except that I don't think that is valid with Oyster, as you are going via a longer route. Only valid route to Euston from Watford High Street, using LM, is via Bushey or Harrow and change. Going via Watford Junction involves going into the special Watford Junction non- zone. Of course, you can probably get away with it. I admit, that I'm not completely sure about normal tickets, I just searched on the National Rail site and it gave a £7 fare either direct, or via Watford Junction, but I'd be suspicious the Watford High Street fare was really valid via Watford Junction, as the Watford Junction - Euston single is £7.80 and I thought that there were rules about doubling back through a station, especially one with a more expensive fare. |
Watford rail link support boost
On 19 Jan, 12:59, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote: Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury! Indeed, a very interesting idea - has this ever been mooted before because it's the first time I've heard of such a notion? It's not as though the Met line is a stranger to DMUs of course. If it happens, it'll be a Chiltern initiative, not TfL. Boris won't fund it, but if it's commercially viable, Chiltern will be all over it like a rash. Provided they can spare the capacity over their lines, of course! Of course Boris won't fund it, nor would Ken have either - it's outside Greater London hence it's basically outside the purview of the Mayor. I think Ken said something like he supported it in principle but basically it wasn't for him to take it forward. It's basically up to the burghers of Watford and the folk of Hertfordshire to make it happen - not for them to fund it in it's entirety, but for them to persuade central government that it's a worthy project. I'm not up on the ins and outs of this project but my understanding is that Hertfordshire CC have pretty much always been in the lead on it - look at the relevant pages on the TfL website and one will quickly realise the CC's elemental involvement in this plan: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/proj...emes/2053.aspx It is interesting however to note the slightly different language used on different pages the "We are developing plans with Hertfordshire County Council [...]" on the introductory page; "Hertfordshire County Council is developing this project in partnership with us" on the 'Background' page; and "Hertfordshire County Council, with our support, are currently working with the Department for Transport (DfT) on a proposal submission for a decision in principle on the project" on the 'Next Steps' page. I hadn't thought of the Chiltern cash angle - but Chiltern would never be able to pay for something like that off their own bat, the most they might do is contribute towards it... and I guess they'd want something in return like perhaps a franchise extension. 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... |
Watford rail link support boost
On Jan 19, 7:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "Andy" wrote in message ... On Jan 19, 4:50 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Andrew Heenan" wrote in message ... Thanks for that. The time penalty isn't as bad as I suspected - and with the extra costs of using LM, probably many more leisure passengers would use Bakerloo or Met than I thought. I'd happily take a book and 25 mins extra if I didn't have a tight schedule! Of course once Oyster fares are standardised across the 'real' railway, the Met's advantages begin to disappear, for Watford folk, at least. ITYF there are no 'extra' costs for using LM, or even SN to Clapham Junction, they are in the Travelcard and Oyster PAYG scheme already, it was all sorted out a week or two after the start of LO services. Yes, but Watford Junction is still more expensive than Watford Met. Peak Oyster single fare from Watford Junction to Zone 1 is £6.50, from Watford Met is £4.70. I thought you might say that actually, but it's academic, because Watford Met will be shut. The LM fare from WJ is THE fare to Euston, LO is, and presumably LU will, be the same? But, if the link gets built, then TfL will be the majority user of Watford Junction (3 LO trains to Euston and 6 Met to Baker Street each hour), so TfL would probably end up setting the fare or at least having a bigger say than now. If this is the case, the maybe London Midland would introduce an Oyster supplement: touching in at Watford and out at Euston being more expensive than touching out at Baker Street. Yes, I know that such a scheme doesn't exist at the moment, but it doesn't need much extra logic on top of the current set up. |
Watford rail link support boost
On Jan 19, 9:44*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 19 Jan, 12:59, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote: Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury! Indeed, a very interesting idea - has this ever been mooted before because it's the first time I've heard of such a notion? It's not as though the Met line is a stranger to DMUs of course. If it happens, it'll be a Chiltern initiative, not TfL. Boris won't fund it, but if it's commercially viable, Chiltern will be all over it like a rash. Provided they can spare the capacity over their lines, of course! Of course Boris won't fund it, nor would Ken have either - it's outside Greater London hence it's basically outside the purview of the Mayor. I think Ken said something like he supported it in principle but basically it wasn't for him to take it forward. It's basically up to the burghers of Watford and the folk of Hertfordshire to make it happen - not for them to fund it in it's entirety, but for them to persuade central government that it's a worthy project. Much of the Crossrail project is also outside the purview of the Mayor, but this hasn't prevented TfL taking over full control. I don't agree that TfL should fund it, but there should be a contribution, if they are able to dispose of Watford Met station. I'm not up on the ins and outs of this project but my understanding is that Hertfordshire CC have pretty much always been in the lead on it - look at the relevant pages on the TfL website and one will quickly realise the CC's elemental involvement in this plan:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/proj...emes/2053.aspx It is interesting however to note the slightly different language used on different pages the "We are developing plans with Hertfordshire County Council [...]" on the introductory page; "Hertfordshire County Council is developing this project in partnership with us" on the 'Background' page; and "Hertfordshire County Council, with our support, are currently working with the Department for Transport (DfT) on a proposal submission for a decision in principle on the project" on the 'Next Steps' page. I hadn't thought of the Chiltern cash angle - but Chiltern would never be able to pay for something like that off their own bat, the most they might do is contribute towards it... and I guess they'd want something in return like perhaps a franchise extension. 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. 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 ;) |
Watford rail link support boost
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... I hadn't thought of the Chiltern cash angle - but Chiltern would never be able to pay for something like that off their own bat, the most they might do is contribute towards it... and I guess they'd want something in return like perhaps a franchise extension. Yet Chiltern do seem to be the proactive organisation in their proposal for a Marylebone - Bicester - Oxford service, within the existing franchise length. But who exactly are the funding authorities for the new Bicester SE/SW chord, and the necessary improvements towards Oxford? Seems on the face of it to be a much easier project to run into WJ... Paul S |
Watford rail link support boost
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:39:29 -0800 (PST),
Andy wrote: On Jan 19, 9:10*pm, Tim Woodall wrote: Hmmm, don't know if it's still the case but before I had an oyster card the ticket was effectively a return to boundary Z6 + all zones travel card so once you'd returned to WJ you lost the ticket. If it's now a return to boundary Z9(8?) then that seems very unfair, particularly as an oyster user could do Watford High Street to Euston via Watford Junction and stay in the Z1-9 cap. Except that I don't think that is valid with Oyster, as you are going via a longer route. Only valid route to Euston from Watford High Street, using LM, is via Bushey or Harrow and change. Going via Watford Junction involves going into the special Watford Junction non- zone. Of course, you can probably get away with it. I admit, that I'm not completely sure about normal tickets, I just searched on the National Rail site and it gave a £7 fare either direct, or via Watford Junction, but I'd be suspicious the Watford High Street fare was really valid via Watford Junction, as the Watford Junction - Euston single is £7.80 and I thought that there were rules about doubling back through a station, especially one with a more expensive fare. Certainly there are rules about doubling back with normal tickets but oyster works differently. There are "presumed routes" and that is what you are charged. Usually the presumed route will be the one that is quickest and there are some journeys that are assumed to go via Z1 that don't have to go via Z1 (and probably vice-versa) Euston is an oddity because it's an OOS interchange. This makes WJ-Kew Gardens much more expensive via Euston. Oyster quotes the fair as 3.50/1.10 but it will be 6.00/3.50 just to Euston- don't know how much extra to Kew would be. If you could change to the underground at Euston without touching then that would still cost you the 3.50/1.00 When I did this journey the first time on oyster (actually to Richmond) I was amazed how cheap it was (Saturday). The journeys will be approximately 1 hour which ever route you take. Tim. -- God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light. http://www.woodall.me.uk/ |
Watford rail link support boost
On Jan 19, 10:30*pm, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:39:29 -0800 (PST), * * Andy wrote: On Jan 19, 9:10*pm, Tim Woodall wrote: Hmmm, don't know if it's still the case but before I had an oyster card the ticket was effectively a return to boundary Z6 + all zones travel card so once you'd returned to WJ you lost the ticket. If it's now a return to boundary Z9(8?) then that seems very unfair, particularly as an oyster user could do Watford High Street to Euston via Watford Junction and stay in the Z1-9 cap. Except that I don't think that is valid with Oyster, as you are going via a longer route. Only valid route to Euston from Watford High Street, using LM, is via Bushey or Harrow and change. Going via Watford Junction involves going into the special Watford Junction non- zone. Of course, you can probably get away with it. I admit, that I'm not completely sure about normal tickets, I just searched on the National Rail site and it gave a £7 fare either direct, or via Watford Junction, but I'd be suspicious the Watford High Street fare was really valid via Watford Junction, as the Watford Junction - Euston single is £7.80 and I thought that there were rules about doubling back through a station, especially one with a more expensive fare. Certainly there are rules about doubling back with normal tickets but oyster works differently. There are "presumed routes" and that is what you are charged. Usually the presumed route will be the one that is quickest and there are some journeys that are assumed to go via Z1 that don't have to go via Z1 (and probably vice-versa) That may be the general case, but I'm personally not sure the normal Oyster rules apply in the Watford High Street - Watford Junction - Euston case, as Watford Junction doesn't lie inside the normal zones. It would be nice if someone with access to the rules can check on it. The Oyster fare for Watford High Street to Euston is not via the quickest route, as that is via Watford Junction and in that case, I would expect the Watford Junction fare to be charged. Instead the most logical fare is charged, for heading into London all the way. I'm sure that London Midland wouldn't be happy with Watford High Street passengers getting a cheap ride this way. |
Watford rail link support boost
"THC" wrote in message ... 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. THC I remember asking the question a few years ago why the scheme was costing £90 million. Now it is £162 million. This is to reinstate a disused railway and about 400 yds of new railway. Kevin |
Watford rail link support boost
On 19 Jan, 22:00, Andy wrote: On Jan 19, 9:44*pm, Mizter T wrote: On 19 Jan, 12:59, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote: Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury! Indeed, a very interesting idea - has this ever been mooted before because it's the first time I've heard of such a notion? It's not as though the Met line is a stranger to DMUs of course. If it happens, it'll be a Chiltern initiative, not TfL. Boris won't fund it, but if it's commercially viable, Chiltern will be all over it like a rash. Provided they can spare the capacity over their lines, of course! Of course Boris won't fund it, nor would Ken have either - it's outside Greater London hence it's basically outside the purview of the Mayor. I think Ken said something like he supported it in principle but basically it wasn't for him to take it forward. It's basically up to the burghers of Watford and the folk of Hertfordshire to make it happen - not for them to fund it in it's entirety, but for them to persuade central government that it's a worthy project. Much of the Crossrail project is also outside the purview of the Mayor, but this hasn't prevented TfL taking over full control. I don't agree that TfL should fund it, but there should be a contribution, if they are able to dispose of Watford Met station. Parts of the Crossrail route are indeed outside the Mayor's jurisdiction of Greater London. However the DfT and central government decided that TfL would be responsible for the project, and thus when the final agreement was signed in December it was signed by Lord Adonis of the DfT and Mayor Bozza. This gave TfL 100% control of Cross London Rail Links Ltd, the Crossrail company, which was previously owned 50:50 by TfL and the DfT. Of course a hefty chunk of money, £5.6bn, is coming directly from central government. The difference with Crossrail is that it's regarded as instrumental to the future prosperity of London (and hence Britain) - the Croxley Link is not! The Croxley Link will principally benefit Watford (and Hertfordshire). I've no idea whether TfL would directly contribute money towards it - though of course the money from any sale of Watford Met would go towards the project. It's possible TfL's contribution could simply be that of providing the Met line service - I don't think providing this service to Watford either is or ever will be self-funding from farebox revenue, running a railway is an expensive enterprise after all! (Or am I wrong on that - are the extremities of the Met actually profitable, to the extent they cover costs? I can't imagine this would be the case.) One should bear in mind that just under half of TfL's budget comes from a central government grant anyway. This will certainly come with a contingent condition that TfL has to provide Underground services on their lines that run outside of the Greater London boundary, though I've no idea if there is a minimum service specified though I rather doubt there's anything that prescriptive. I hadn't thought of the Chiltern cash angle - but Chiltern would never be able to pay for something like that off their own bat, the most they might do is contribute towards it... and I guess they'd want something in return like perhaps a franchise extension. 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 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. 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. 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. |
Watford rail link support boost
"Mizter T" wrote:
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! Sorry for any confusion; in this case, I don't think Chiltern would get involved at this stage - but once the line is built, an Aylesbury connection is certainly possible, and they - rather than LUL - are the only folk likely to take it forward. Just to take it a bit further, there may be a case to extend the Chesham shuttle to Watford Junction too - and that might be an LUL possibility! OK, OK, I'm thinking out of the box - so shoot me! ;o) -- Andrew |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk