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.

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

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6053903...57626997351648

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...

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

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.

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 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.

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:

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?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

This is pretty much the only proposal that would be better than the
Croxley rail link, and even then it doesn't offer a station in the
centre of west Watford, though it does offer one at the top end of
town, where one would be most welcome.

....phase 2 of my plans are now to get the diveunder south of Watford
Junction built next

Having done some musing about the situation around there, I wonder if
the branch does prove popular, that there won't be the capacity for
Chiltern to run services from Amersham over it. In that case,
reinstate the disused line to Rickmansworth up to where the Met
crosses it, then build a grade-separated junction up to the fast
lines. Chiltern gets to skip the local stations at Croxley, Ascot Road
and Watford Hospital, and the Met can terminate some services at the
current Watford Met to free paths for Chiltern services. Watford High
Street is going to become quite the bottleneck even without all
these...

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

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