Did anyone here know about this page:
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/about...re/croxley.asp

I haven't seen it before and I suspect that it has sprung up relatively
recently. It implies that progress is being made between TfL and Herts
CC as the Link is an important part of Herts CC's Local Plan.

They say that cost would be £50m, with consultation in August if the DfT
approve starting a TWA inquiry. Target is 2006 for start of
construction, 2009 in service.

Plans appear to be quite detailed, with diagrams of Ascot Road and
Watford West stations, and artist's impressions of the new viaduct
connecting the two branches.

Closure of Watford Met is deemed "possible" rather than certain.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Did anyone here know about this page:
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/about...re/croxley.asp
I haven't seen it before and I suspect that it has sprung up relatively
recently. It implies that progress is being made between TfL and Herts
CC as the Link is an important part of Herts CC's Local Plan.
They say that cost would be £50m, with consultation in August if the DfT
approve starting a TWA inquiry. Target is 2006 for start of
construction, 2009 in service.
Plans appear to be quite detailed, with diagrams of Ascot Road and
Watford West stations, and artist's impressions of the new viaduct
connecting the two branches.
Closure of Watford Met is deemed "possible" rather than certain.

Thanks VERY much for this, Dave - interesting that the map of the proposed
new viaduct carries their label "aqueduct_large.jpg" !! Do you think they've
made a mistake and plan to divert the Grand Union Canal into Watford
Junction ?
Cheerz,
Baz

Closure of Watford Met is deemed "possible" rather than certain.

New large 'private' housing estate being built next to Met station may have
bearing on this?

Burkey

JWBA68 wrote:
Closure of Watford Met is deemed "possible" rather than certain.


New large 'private' housing estate being built next to Met station may have
bearing on this?

Burkey

I asked the same question in this post:



Brad

"Dave Arquati" wrote...

Plans appear to be quite detailed, with diagrams of Ascot Road and
Watford West stations, and artist's impressions of the new viaduct
connecting the two branches.


About those plans... Do the staff at Ascot Road really need TWO kitchens?

In article , Boltar
writes
Am I the only person who can't see the point of this link?

It would seem so.

If they want the
tube to go to Watford Junction why not just re-extend the bakerloo line? Its
a logical and direct route, whereas this extension couldn't be more round
the houses if it tried. Why on earth would someone want to travel almost out
to buckinghamshire to go around in a semi circle just to travel to watford
junction?

Curiously, some people don't start their journeys in London.

This isn't aimed at the people living or working in London (who can use
the Silverlink trains already). It's for those who live in Pinner and
Rickmansworth and Buckinghamshire who want to get to Watford shops or
the WCML trains.

Incidentally, the distance from Baker Street would be 32.85km instead of
27.90km on the Bakerloo. That's only 18% more. And a Metropolitan Line
train would make between 12 and 15 stops instead of 22, so it might well
be faster.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Boltar
writes
Am I the only person who can't see the point of this link?

If they want the tube to go to Watford Junction why not just re-extend
the bakerloo line? Its a logical and direct route, whereas this
extension couldn't be more round the houses if it tried. Why on earth
would someone want to travel almost out to buckinghamshire to go around
in a semi circle just to travel to watford junction?

Curiously, some people don't start their journeys in London.

This isn't aimed at the people living or working in London (who can use
the Silverlink trains already). It's for those who live in Pinner and
Rickmansworth and Buckinghamshire who want to get to Watford shops or
the WCML trains.

So why is it being built by Transport for London?

tom

--
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:


In article , Boltar
writes

Am I the only person who can't see the point of this link?

If they want the tube to go to Watford Junction why not just re-extend
the bakerloo line? Its a logical and direct route, whereas this
extension couldn't be more round the houses if it tried. Why on earth
would someone want to travel almost out to buckinghamshire to go around
in a semi circle just to travel to watford junction?

Curiously, some people don't start their journeys in London.

This isn't aimed at the people living or working in London (who can use
the Silverlink trains already). It's for those who live in Pinner and
Rickmansworth and Buckinghamshire who want to get to Watford shops or
the WCML trains.


So why is it being built by Transport for London?

tom


It's not - because it lies outside the Greater London Authority,
Hertfordshire County Council have claimed that they will stump up a
significant portion of funding. IIRC, like Buckinghamshire and Essex,
they already subsidise TfL for the right to have Underground service
because they are outside the GLA, with Essex providing the most subsidy
(that's why they're in Zones 5 and 6 and not letter zones, IIRC).

Brad

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
...
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Boltar
writes
Am I the only person who can't see the point of this link?

Curiously, some people don't start their journeys in London.

This isn't aimed at the people living or working in London (who can use
the Silverlink trains already). It's for those who live in Pinner and
Rickmansworth and Buckinghamshire who want to get to Watford shops or
the WCML trains.

So why is it being built by Transport for London?

tom


It's not - because it lies outside the Greater London Authority,
Hertfordshire County Council have claimed that they will stump up a
significant portion of funding. IIRC, like Buckinghamshire and Essex,
they already subsidise TfL for the right to have Underground service
because they are outside the GLA, with Essex providing the most subsidy
(that's why they're in Zones 5 and 6 and not letter zones, IIRC).

Brad

If the link goes ahead would Watford then become part of Zone 6 ?
Cheerz,
Baz

On 13 May 2004, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

In article , Tom Anderson wrote:
On 13 May 2004, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

In article , Tom Anderson wrote:
Ken's obviously adopted my master-plan to flood the Underground and
convert it into a subsurface canal network.

Hmm - what about the differences in height?

Locks, my dear fellow, locks!

I still think my submarine idea holds more water (ahem). LU (or would
that be LSC?) could attract driv... er, captains with the slogan, "Be
London's Captain Nemo".

"PLEASE STAND BACK FROM THE PLATFORM EDGE. NO RUNNING, DIVING OR PETTING."

At any rate, this certainly gives the Waterloo & City Line's nickname a
new meaning.

I wonder if an extension to Clapton Pond could be arranged.

Note that my plan also radically improves cycle routes - the canals would
all have towpaths!

tom

--
The burger place at the bottom of the Cowley road has a menu numbered from 1-80, but you can order up to 120 -- Dave Sheldon