On Dec 14, 7:49*am, "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
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.

However, I suspect that electrification of said lines was.

On Dec 14, 8:47*am, Dominic wrote:
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....

Paul S

It will be interesting to see what today's announcement says about how
much funding will come from Watford and Herts councils. I hope we
won't still be reading posts copied from the Watford Observer in a few
years time, describing arguments over funding between local
councillors.

Lest's hope for the best. It would be a pitty to lose this project
because of local squabes now.

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:13:47 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

And here is the DfT announcement:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press20111214

Relevant bullet point:
---quote---
Croxley Rail Link (Watford). Extension of the Metropolitan line from
Croxley to Watford Junction mainline station plus two new stations (inc
closure of current Watford Met line station). (£76.2m DfT contribution
towards a total cost of £115.9m).
---/quote---

So - despite all the handwringing when these 45 projects were supposedly
put on the back burner by the current lot, 45 of 45 have eventually been
approved, after various cost estimates have been whittled down. Is there
a positive story here after all?

There probably is good news but many of these schemes still require
local funding and I wonder if that money can actually be found. Can
HCC find £40m for the Croxley Link? It's good it has got approval
and a large wodge of money but given overall spending pressures on
local authorities I remain a bit dubious.

It is also worth noting that 4 schemes were not approved - one being
the Leeds Trolleybus scheme and another being a bus based scheme in
South Essex. They have one more chance to get their numbers right /
convince the DfT but I expect Metro (in West Yorks) are pretty fed up
today. How many times do they have to try to get some sort of decent
public transport investment in that part of the country?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-16182932

"I am mystified as to why the DfT now wants to delay the project another
five months, particularly when every month lost means inflation and other
factors add £1m to the overall cost of the scheme."

I don't know why he is mystified and going on about delay. The DfT press
release makes their reason for the delay clear enough:

"Leeds New Generation Transport. The Department has not yet been provided
with sufficient evidence with which to assess the value for money of this
scheme, as some of the data is relatively new and cannot yet be verified.
However, the Department recognises that a strong strategic case has been
made and so has given the promoters until 31 March 2012 to update their
business case. A decision will be made within two months of that."

The Leeds & West Yorks ITA councillor at a meeting I was at today was indeed
pretty fed up.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 13/12/11 18:00, burkey wrote:
Work on a £120m rail project that will change the face of Watford and
Croxley Green has been approved by the Government.

antipolson

Typical. Another vast and expensive public works contract for the
heavily subsidised south east to be paid for by the Scottish taxpayer.
The sooner the southeasterners get independence and stop leaching off
the rest of us the better.

Some of my best friends come from the southeast.

/antipolson

Ian

On Dec 14, 5:08*pm, THC wrote:
On Dec 14, 1:40*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:

Well, the Met branch as it stands is only half the job - it was
intended to continue under the park, weave a little south, then head
up under Clarendon Road to Watford Junction...upon which I suspect the
Met had set it's eyes on the St. Albans branch. New station to be
provided at Watford Town where Clarendon Road meets the High Street,
currently the famous Weatherspoons station

I've been following this project for years and have all the literature
I can find on the Met in Watford and this is the first time I've ever
come across any suggestion that the Met was considering extending
beyond its town centre site at 44 High Street. *Care to substantiate
or provide a source?

THC

IIRC, it is apparently documented in "London's Lost Railways" (http://
books.google.co.uk/books?id=b409AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=watford
+metropolitan+station+high+street#v=onepage&q=watf ord%20metropolitan
%20station%20high%20street&f=false), and "West of Watford" along with
a map, apparently. I've never seen those however, my information is
third-hand. It's also documented in the Wetherspoons on the wall in
one of their little information panels, abet as text only. Someone
posted some excerpts he http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...16444&pa ge=1

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.
However, I suspect that electrification of said lines was.

The New Lines to Watford Junction, and the Bushey Triangle (to give
access to Croxley depot) were electrified in 1917, basically as soon as
the Bakerloo Line was ready to use it.

The Croxley Green branch was electrified in 1922 and the Rickmansworth
branch in 1927. This is just as likely to be post-war austerity and
dealing with Grouping as any other reason.

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

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote

The New Lines to Watford Junction, and the Bushey Triangle (to give access
to Croxley depot) were electrified in 1917, basically as soon as the
Bakerloo Line was ready to use it.

The Croxley Green branch was electrified in 1922 and the Rickmansworth
branch in 1927. This is just as likely to be post-war austerity and
dealing with Grouping as any other reason.

The Met Watford branch was opened in 1925, and electrified from the start,
though for the first few months half the service was provided by steam GC
trains from Marylebone. There was also, until 1934, a shuttle service
between Rickmansworth and Watford. When the Croxley link is opened is there
a case for an Amersham to Watford Junction service, as well as Met trains
from Aldgate/Baker Street?

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...


"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote

The New Lines to Watford Junction, and the Bushey Triangle (to give
access to Croxley depot) were electrified in 1917, basically as soon as
the Bakerloo Line was ready to use it.

The Croxley Green branch was electrified in 1922 and the Rickmansworth
branch in 1927. This is just as likely to be post-war austerity and
dealing with Grouping as any other reason.

The Met Watford branch was opened in 1925, and electrified from the start,
though for the first few months half the service was provided by steam GC
trains from Marylebone. There was also, until 1934, a shuttle service
between Rickmansworth and Watford. When the Croxley link is opened is
there a case for an Amersham to Watford Junction service, as well as Met
trains from Aldgate/Baker Street?

There is a capability to do that, but it does not form part of the current
business case:

""Whilst Croxley Rail Link does not prevent a service between Amersham
and Watford in the future, the project's objectives will not be changed to
include it at this stage. The project is focusing its resources in achieving
the current preferred scheme. A separate business case and funding bid
would need to be completed to obtain the funding to offer an extended
service to Amersham."

From this recent FAQ:

http://www.croxleyraillink.com/media...y%20issues.pdf

Paul S

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

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

The boys are back in town.

Whilst I dont have much sympathy for the "last lot" it could be that
even they saw how bonkers the scheme is economically. As did all those
that came before them.
If you read the business case you will see that most of the passengers
are expected to switch from other public transport, so weakening that.
Not much more than 200 per day are forecast to switch from car, and we
are going to spend £100m+ to achieve that.

This is going to cost more than the Humber bridge and is forecast to
have only a quarter of the users. Perhaps we need a Croxley Bridge
Board who should have to bear all the capital costs and charge
passengers a toll in their tickets.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:53:01 -0800 (PST), Grumpy
wrote:
Whilst I dont have much sympathy for the "last lot" it could be that
even they saw how bonkers the scheme is economically. As did all those
that came before them.

If you read the business case you will see that most of the passengers
are expected to switch from other public transport, so weakening that.
Not much more than 200 per day are forecast to switch from car, and we
are going to spend =A3100m+ to achieve that.


Agree 100%. The scheme seems to have been dreamt up by people with
LMS*, an affliction common among trainspotters and some politicians
and their officials.


(*Lines on a Map Syndrome)