On Dec 13, 8:37*pm, The Gardener wrote:
On Dec 13, 7:03*pm, Scott wrote:



Also good to see that the locals are enthusiastic, unlike the whingers
in Edinburgh who are apparently now complaining to the United Nations:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-16165656

If they are worried about air pollution, I say build a public
transport system that runs on electricity and introduce a congestion
charge to discourage use of cars.

The problem is that there are always going to be whingers - ISTR a
similar mob (although not going so far as to complaining to the UN!)
about Croydon Tramlink, who became very silent after it had opened and
proved to be a success.

On the subject of Watford, I can only agree with those who say "and
not before time". This is the sort of project that should be
championed: relatively low-cost and largely using disused or under-
used heavy rail lines, to optimise their utility.

1948 would have been a good time to start this project, :-), if not
sooner.

For historical interest, here's a pic of Croxley Green as was:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6053903.../set-721576269...

On Dec 13, 7:30*pm, Star Fury wrote:
On 13/12/2011 18:53, allantracy wrote:

[snip]

The boys are back in town.

The Transport Secretary is a lady.

This has been pointed out to Allan before. He has difficulty
recognising the genders of politicians, bless him.

On Dec 13, 6:53*pm, allantracy wrote:
I know all the Communists of the North that frequent here will deny
it.

There must been a massive swing to the left, then. I remember you
telling us that socialism was dead, but now you're saying Communism is
alive and well in the North.

At least you're consistently inconsistent. Idiot.

"77002" wrote in message
...

However, approved does not mean funded?

What do we know about funding?

It was one of a number of local authority development pool schemes, and
included on the second part of a list published last month by DfT, for which
a funding decision was to be made in mid December. The first part of the
document was the projects awarded funding last month in the Autumn
Statement.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/local-authority-major-schemes-development-pools/lams-development-pools-update.pdf

Paul S

In article
,
(77002) wrote:

On Dec 13, 8:37*pm, The Gardener wrote:

On the subject of Watford, I can only agree with those who say "and
not before time". This is the sort of project that should be
championed: relatively low-cost and largely using disused or under-
used heavy rail lines, to optimise their utility.

1948 would have been a good time to start this project, :-), if not
sooner.

1925, surely, when the Met branch was built?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Once upon a time, allantracy wrote:

I know all the Communists of the North that frequent here will deny
it.

Just because it doesn't serve M*ddl*sbr**gh doesn't means it's a
communist plot.

But, this government is turning out to be all our Xmas and New Years
combined as far as the railways are concerned.

Not quite. But so far, the coalition does indeed seem to be good for
the railways. The Liberals have always been fans of public transport of
course, and the Tories (bar Major) have a reasonable track record in
that department too. It's Labour who seem to be bad news where public
transport is concerned.

Such relief, after the last lot, who were so determined to file away
stuff like this in the cabinet marked 'to be forgotten for a very long
time'.

Agreed. Though this should have been done decades ago - seems it's been
in the planning since 1948!

The boys are back in town.

What is this gender obsession you have? The Conservatives' greatest
leader in recent times was female, as is the current transport
secretary. We have close to full equality in this country and its done
society and business a world of good. It really does not matter whether
someone is male, female, TG, or other. People are people and anyone
with a brain and a half decent education can achieve whatever they want.
Regardless of what bits they happen to have.

--
- The Iron Jelloid

On Dec 13, 9:26*pm, wrote:
In article
,

(77002) wrote:
On Dec 13, 8:37*pm, The Gardener wrote:
On the subject of Watford, I can only agree with those who say "and
not before time". This is the sort of project that should be
championed: relatively low-cost and largely using disused or under-
used heavy rail lines, to optimise their utility.

1948 would have been a good time to start this project, :-), if not
sooner.

1925, surely, when the Met branch was built?

IIRC the LNWR/LMS DC line was their answer to the Met. and Metroland.

On Dec 13, 9:04*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"77002" wrote in message

...

However, approved does not mean funded?

What do we know about funding?

It was one of a number of local authority development pool schemes, and
included on the second part of a list published last month by DfT, for which
a funding decision was to be made in mid December. *The first part of the
document was the projects awarded funding last month in the Autumn
Statement.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/local-authority-major-schemes-d...

Excellent. The may actually happen.

In message
,
77002 wrote:
1948 would have been a good time to start this project, :-), if not
sooner.
1925, surely, when the Met branch was built?
IIRC the LNWR/LMS DC line was their answer to the Met. and Metroland.

Given that it opened in 1912 (being a branch off the 1862 branch to
Rickmansworth), I think not.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On 13/12/2011 19:30, Star Fury wrote:
On 13/12/2011 18:53, allantracy wrote:

[snip]

The boys are back in town.


The Transport Secretary is a lady.

She is?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail