On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:44:36 -0000, Chris Tolley wrote:

Paul Hutchinson wrote:
I think technically there is ample capacity on the ECML
IOW - "there's no problem with capacity ...

Doing things like;
cancelling the NoL Eurostar Paths
banning freight at peak times
... so long as you take some trains away."

I think you've contradicted yourself. Don't you?

No I dont.
As far as I am aware the NOL Eurostars have never run except on test it is
ludicrous that the paths are still reserved.
The freight would simply be timetabled away from pinch times. The only
reason this isnt done is because of the freight operators inflexible
access agreements.

The East Coast Main Line is currently way below the capacity achieved on
the Southern Main Lines every day.

Paul

"Paul Hutchinson" wrote

As far as I am aware the NOL Eurostars have never run except on test it is
ludicrous that the paths are still reserved.

IIRC there was a hearing before the Rail Regulator some time ago when E*
contended that either their paths should stay reserved or they should not
have to pay for them any more. AIUI the outcome was that Network Rail could
resell the paths, subject to E*s right to have them back if they were
actually going to use them, but that meanwhile E* would have to keep paying.
One of the barristers in the hearing before the Rail Regulator was a Mr
Choo-Choy.

Peter

Paul Hutchinson wrote:

The East Coast Main Line is currently way below the capacity achieved on
the Southern Main Lines every day.

Of that there is little doubt, in general. But then they are very
different railways, in general. The one which possibly comes closest to
the ECML in character is the SWML, and that has many similar capacity
issues to the ECML, with much the same causes.

(I think it's a great pity that the DN&SR, which was perceived as a
strategically important railway and upgraded in WW2, was allowed to
disappear, but that's an entirely different topic).

"Peter Masson" wrote

IIRC there was a hearing before the Rail Regulator some time ago when E*
contended that either their paths should stay reserved or they should not
have to pay for them any more. AIUI the outcome was that Network Rail
could
resell the paths, subject to E*s right to have them back if they were
actually going to use them, but that meanwhile E* would have to keep
paying.
One of the barristers in the hearing before the Rail Regulator was a Mr
Choo-Choy.

To add to my previous post, I've now found the ORR Press Notice about the
decision (which is effectively as I outlined). It is at
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5407

Peter

THC wrote:

Not holding my breath on this one... I lived in the area from 1978 to
1990 and constructing the Croxley Rail Link was always around the
corner even then. Despite TfL's promise of part-funding it appears as
if the DafT mandarins are sitting on their hands hoping it goes away.
It wasn't mentioned in Hertfordshire's Local Transport Plan 2
settlement before Christmas, pushing the timetable back even further.

Come on DfT, it's now or never surely...?

It wasn't "now or never" then - what's changed now?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

David E. Belcher wrote:

Does this include the necessary tweaks to the track and signalling
arrangements to allow Silverlink to run through to Euston from St.
Albans Abbey?

Almost certainly not.

Anyway, are through Euston to St.Albans Abbey trains really better than
a through Watford Junction - St.Albans City light rail service?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

Aidan Stanger wrote:
THC wrote:

Not holding my breath on this one... I lived in the area from 1978 to
1990 and constructing the Croxley Rail Link was always around the
corner even then. Despite TfL's promise of part-funding it appears as
if the DafT mandarins are sitting on their hands hoping it goes away.
It wasn't mentioned in Hertfordshire's Local Transport Plan 2
settlement before Christmas, pushing the timetable back even further.

Come on DfT, it's now or never surely...?

It wasn't "now or never" then - what's changed now?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

Here's why, with a comment from the Rail Chronology website by way of
context:

http://users.0800dial.com/themaunds/...n%20branch.htm

"Eventually, on 23 March 2001 the Strategic Rail Authority published a
closure notice for the line and for Croxley Green and Watford West
stations. The hoped for closure date of 18 June 2001 was not met
because 34 objections were received - despite which the Department for
Transport approved closure by letter (over John Spellar's signature)
dated 6 November 2002 with the sole proviso that the trackbed should
not be disposed of for five years "by which time the outcome of any
proposals for the Croxley Rail Link should be clearer" (which accounts
for some reports of November 2002 as the closure date).

No date was specified for implementing the "closure" and Silverlink
Train Services Ltd (the franchisee) continued to operate a replacement
road service until the end of the summer 2003 timetable."

Going on this timetable it appears that the trackbed can be disposed of
from next year (2007). It has already been severed by a dual
carriageway at the Croxley Green end; not that this is important for
development of the CRL as this stretch of line would be replaced by the
link in any case, but it means that the precedent for disposing of the
trackbed has been set. So come on DfT; it's now (well, the next twelve
months anyway) or never!

THC

reducing the line limit to 90 mph south of stevenage
Why would you want to do that? There are no trains on the fast lines
that do less than 100, and the 365s can do more than that if pressed.
The limit is 115 from Welwyn tunnels south anyway.

Chris Tolley wrote:
burkey wrote:

The Croxley Rail Link (CRL) and improvements at Watford Junction
Station have been identified by the East of England Regional Assembly
as priorities

Whilst I'm sure that the people of Watford (other than the affected
nimbys) will rejoice, one can't help wondering if this august body has
all its faculties in working order. There are umpteen other East of
England PT projects that should be greater priorities, like increasing
capacity on the ECML, and upgrading cross-country links, especially for
freight flows from the ports.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632848.html

Its funny, last year I was posted a message enquiring what the people
of Watford and Herts would get for approx £90m of expenditure and now
it seems that it is only £66m. I still can't see what is going to cost
£66m but it might be helpful if they could get their estimates a bit
more accurate. I bet if the final estimate is £90m the the final cost
will be £150m.

Kevin

I question the accuracy of that £90m claim Kevin. The TfL website -
the only publicly available online resource on the scheme - gives the
figure at 2004 prices as £65 million. I can't see a near-50% hike in
less than two years, even allowing for construction inflation the way
it is.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/p...ley-rail-link/

AIUI the Croxley Rail Link is central to the multi-agency regeneration
of a large area of west Watford and the development of the Watford
Health Campus as well as being expected to abstract a decent number of
vehicles off the A412 and A404 every morning and evening. You have to
factor all of these benefits into your appraisal.

As the Croxley Rail Link is not just about the good people of Watford
and Hertfordshire (despite what you think) TfL have committed to pay
about £19 million in contribution to reflect the wider social and
economic benefits of this scheme to Londoners. The quicker this scheme
is sanctioned the better. It is an excellent chance for radically
improving rail connectivity for the whole of north west London at an
affordable enough price.

It would only enhance the business case were Chiltern to take interest
in this scheme - direct Aylesbury North - Watford Junction services
(via Watford North Curve) anyone?

THC