On Jan 19, 9:10*pm, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:38:15 -0800 (PST),
* * Andy wrote:



On Jan 19, 4:50*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message

...

Thanks for that.
The time penalty isn't as bad as I suspected - and with the extra costs of
using LM, probably many more leisure passengers would use Bakerloo or Met
than I thought. I'd happily take a book and 25 mins extra if I didn't have
a tight schedule!

Of course once Oyster fares are standardised across the 'real' railway,
the Met's advantages begin to disappear, for Watford folk, at least.

ITYF there are no 'extra' costs for using LM, or even SN to Clapham
Junction, they are in the Travelcard and Oyster PAYG scheme already, it was
all sorted out a week or two after the start of LO services.

Yes, but Watford Junction is still more expensive than Watford Met.
Peak Oyster single fare from Watford Junction to Zone 1 is £6.50, from

(unless you change oyster cards at Harrow and Wealdstone in which case
it's 30p cheaper although unless there's an on platform oyster reader
it's not going to be feasible to do without waiting for another train
unless you get a mate to hold the doors open while you run round the
station with his and your cards)


No on Platform Oyster readers on the platforms 5 and 6 (where the
London Midland trains stop). There are a couple on the footbridge
though, originally installed for people changing between the mainline
and the Bakerloo / DC.

Watford Met is £4.70. Watford Junction is NOT in the travelcard
scheme, tickets are now Watford Junction plus Zones 1-9. One day
Travelcard costs a zones 1-9 (including Watford Met) £9.00, zones
1-9 plus Watford Junction £13.50.

And it's 1:10 WJ-Watford High Street so you have to make five separate
journeys over that bit of the line before the travel card is cheaper
(obviously there are problems with touching in and out on the
"extension")

Hmmm, don't know if it's still the case but before I had an oyster card
the ticket was effectively a return to boundary Z6 + all zones travel
card so once you'd returned to WJ you lost the ticket. If it's now a
return to boundary Z9(8?) then that seems very unfair, particularly as an
oyster user could do Watford High Street to Euston via Watford Junction
and stay in the Z1-9 cap.


Except that I don't think that is valid with Oyster, as you are going
via a longer route. Only valid route to Euston from Watford High
Street, using LM, is via Bushey or Harrow and change. Going via
Watford Junction involves going into the special Watford Junction non-
zone. Of course, you can probably get away with it.

I admit, that I'm not completely sure about normal tickets, I just
searched on the National Rail site and it gave a £7 fare either
direct, or via Watford Junction, but I'd be suspicious the Watford
High Street fare was really valid via Watford Junction, as the Watford
Junction - Euston single is £7.80 and I thought that there were rules
about doubling back through a station, especially one with a more
expensive fare.

On 19 Jan, 12:59, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:

Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury!

Indeed, a very interesting idea - has this ever been mooted before
because it's the first time I've heard of such a notion?
It's not as though the Met line is a stranger to DMUs of course.

If it happens, it'll be a Chiltern initiative, not TfL.
Boris won't fund it, but if it's commercially viable, Chiltern will be all
over it like a rash.
Provided they can spare the capacity over their lines, of course!


Of course Boris won't fund it, nor would Ken have either - it's
outside Greater London hence it's basically outside the purview of the
Mayor. I think Ken said something like he supported it in principle
but basically it wasn't for him to take it forward. It's basically up
to the burghers of Watford and the folk of Hertfordshire to make it
happen - not for them to fund it in it's entirety, but for them to
persuade central government that it's a worthy project.

I'm not up on the ins and outs of this project but my understanding is
that Hertfordshire CC have pretty much always been in the lead on it -
look at the relevant pages on the TfL website and one will quickly
realise the CC's elemental involvement in this plan:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/proj...emes/2053.aspx

It is interesting however to note the slightly different language used
on different pages the
"We are developing plans with Hertfordshire County Council [...]" on
the introductory page;
"Hertfordshire County Council is developing this project in
partnership with us" on the 'Background' page;
and "Hertfordshire County Council, with our support, are currently
working with the Department for Transport (DfT) on a proposal
submission for a decision in principle on the project" on the 'Next
Steps' page.

I hadn't thought of the Chiltern cash angle - but Chiltern would never
be able to pay for something like that off their own bat, the most
they might do is contribute towards it... and I guess they'd want
something in return like perhaps a franchise extension.

Anyway don't think anyone's got any money for stuff like this at the
moment... unless that ghost of Keynes who's been hovering around
somewhat lately starts visiting Brown & co in their dreams in
earnest...

On Jan 19, 7:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message

...
On Jan 19, 4:50 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:





"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message

...

Thanks for that.
The time penalty isn't as bad as I suspected - and with the extra costs
of
using LM, probably many more leisure passengers would use Bakerloo or
Met
than I thought. I'd happily take a book and 25 mins extra if I didn't
have
a tight schedule!

Of course once Oyster fares are standardised across the 'real' railway,
the Met's advantages begin to disappear, for Watford folk, at least.

ITYF there are no 'extra' costs for using LM, or even SN to Clapham
Junction, they are in the Travelcard and Oyster PAYG scheme already, it
was
all sorted out a week or two after the start of LO services.

Yes, but Watford Junction is still more expensive than Watford Met.
Peak Oyster single fare from Watford Junction to Zone 1 is £6.50, from
Watford Met is £4.70.

I thought you might say that actually, but it's academic, because Watford
Met will be shut. The LM fare from WJ is THE fare to Euston, LO is, and
presumably LU will, be the same?


But, if the link gets built, then TfL will be the majority user of
Watford Junction (3 LO trains to Euston and 6 Met to Baker Street each
hour), so TfL would probably end up setting the fare or at least
having a bigger say than now. If this is the case, the maybe London
Midland would introduce an Oyster supplement: touching in at Watford
and out at Euston being more expensive than touching out at Baker
Street. Yes, I know that such a scheme doesn't exist at the moment,
but it doesn't need much extra logic on top of the current set up.

On Jan 19, 9:44*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 19 Jan, 12:59, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:

Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury!

Indeed, a very interesting idea - has this ever been mooted before
because it's the first time I've heard of such a notion?
It's not as though the Met line is a stranger to DMUs of course.

If it happens, it'll be a Chiltern initiative, not TfL.
Boris won't fund it, but if it's commercially viable, Chiltern will be all
over it like a rash.
Provided they can spare the capacity over their lines, of course!

Of course Boris won't fund it, nor would Ken have either - it's
outside Greater London hence it's basically outside the purview of the
Mayor. I think Ken said something like he supported it in principle
but basically it wasn't for him to take it forward. It's basically up
to the burghers of Watford and the folk of Hertfordshire to make it
happen - not for them to fund it in it's entirety, but for them to
persuade central government that it's a worthy project.

Much of the Crossrail project is also outside the purview of the
Mayor, but this hasn't prevented TfL taking over full control. I don't
agree that TfL should fund it, but there should be a contribution, if
they are able to dispose of Watford Met station.


I'm not up on the ins and outs of this project but my understanding is
that Hertfordshire CC have pretty much always been in the lead on it -
look at the relevant pages on the TfL website and one will quickly
realise the CC's elemental involvement in this plan:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/proj...emes/2053.aspx

It is interesting however to note the slightly different language used
on different pages the
"We are developing plans with Hertfordshire County Council [...]" on
the introductory page;
"Hertfordshire County Council is developing this project in
partnership with us" on the 'Background' page;
and "Hertfordshire County Council, with our support, are currently
working with the Department for Transport (DfT) on a proposal
submission for a decision in principle on the project" on the 'Next
Steps' page.

I hadn't thought of the Chiltern cash angle - but Chiltern would never
be able to pay for something like that off their own bat, the most
they might do is contribute towards it... and I guess they'd want
something in return like perhaps a franchise extension.


I think that Chiltern would only need the cash for the provision of
the DMUs and staff, I don't think it is suggested that it'll be
another Evergreen project with Chiltern building the infrastructure as
well. TfL might even be able to supply the DMUs, as I imagine that the
Gospel Oak - Barking line will have been electrified before we see the
link built.

Anyway don't think anyone's got any money for stuff like this at the
moment... unless that ghost of Keynes who's been hovering around
somewhat lately starts visiting Brown & co in their dreams in
earnest...

The DfT seem to have magiced £54 millon extra for the four tracking at
Camden Road from somewhere

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

I hadn't thought of the Chiltern cash angle - but Chiltern would never
be able to pay for something like that off their own bat, the most
they might do is contribute towards it... and I guess they'd want
something in return like perhaps a franchise extension.

Yet Chiltern do seem to be the proactive organisation in their proposal for
a Marylebone - Bicester - Oxford service, within the existing franchise
length.

But who exactly are the funding authorities for the new Bicester SE/SW
chord, and the necessary improvements towards Oxford?

Seems on the face of it to be a much easier project to run into WJ...

Paul S

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:39:29 -0800 (PST),
Andy wrote:
On Jan 19, 9:10*pm, Tim Woodall wrote:
Hmmm, don't know if it's still the case but before I had an oyster card
the ticket was effectively a return to boundary Z6 + all zones travel
card so once you'd returned to WJ you lost the ticket. If it's now a
return to boundary Z9(8?) then that seems very unfair, particularly as an
oyster user could do Watford High Street to Euston via Watford Junction
and stay in the Z1-9 cap.


Except that I don't think that is valid with Oyster, as you are going
via a longer route. Only valid route to Euston from Watford High
Street, using LM, is via Bushey or Harrow and change. Going via
Watford Junction involves going into the special Watford Junction non-
zone. Of course, you can probably get away with it.

I admit, that I'm not completely sure about normal tickets, I just
searched on the National Rail site and it gave a £7 fare either
direct, or via Watford Junction, but I'd be suspicious the Watford
High Street fare was really valid via Watford Junction, as the Watford
Junction - Euston single is £7.80 and I thought that there were rules
about doubling back through a station, especially one with a more
expensive fare.
Certainly there are rules about doubling back with normal tickets but
oyster works differently. There are "presumed routes" and that is what
you are charged. Usually the presumed route will be the one that is
quickest and there are some journeys that are assumed to go via Z1 that
don't have to go via Z1 (and probably vice-versa)

Euston is an oddity because it's an OOS interchange. This makes WJ-Kew
Gardens much more expensive via Euston. Oyster quotes the fair as
3.50/1.10 but it will be 6.00/3.50 just to Euston- don't know how much
extra to Kew would be. If you could change to the underground at Euston
without touching then that would still cost you the 3.50/1.00

When I did this journey the first time on oyster (actually to Richmond)
I was amazed how cheap it was (Saturday).

The journeys will be approximately 1 hour which ever route you take.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/

On Jan 19, 10:30*pm, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:39:29 -0800 (PST),
* * Andy wrote:



On Jan 19, 9:10*pm, Tim Woodall wrote:
Hmmm, don't know if it's still the case but before I had an oyster card
the ticket was effectively a return to boundary Z6 + all zones travel
card so once you'd returned to WJ you lost the ticket. If it's now a
return to boundary Z9(8?) then that seems very unfair, particularly as an
oyster user could do Watford High Street to Euston via Watford Junction
and stay in the Z1-9 cap.

Except that I don't think that is valid with Oyster, as you are going
via a longer route. Only valid route to Euston from Watford High
Street, using LM, is via Bushey or Harrow and change. Going via
Watford Junction involves going into the special Watford Junction non-
zone. Of course, you can probably get away with it.

I admit, that I'm not completely sure about normal tickets, I just
searched on the National Rail site and it gave a £7 fare either
direct, or via Watford Junction, but I'd be suspicious the Watford
High Street fare was really valid via Watford Junction, as the Watford
Junction - Euston single is £7.80 and I thought that there were rules
about doubling back through a station, especially one with a more
expensive fare.

Certainly there are rules about doubling back with normal tickets but
oyster works differently. There are "presumed routes" and that is what
you are charged. Usually the presumed route will be the one that is
quickest and there are some journeys that are assumed to go via Z1 that
don't have to go via Z1 (and probably vice-versa)


That may be the general case, but I'm personally not sure the normal
Oyster rules apply in the Watford High Street - Watford Junction -
Euston case, as Watford Junction doesn't lie inside the normal zones.
It would be nice if someone with access to the rules can check on it.
The Oyster fare for Watford High Street to Euston is not via the
quickest route, as that is via Watford Junction and in that case, I
would expect the Watford Junction fare to be charged. Instead the most
logical fare is charged, for heading into London all the way. I'm sure
that London Midland wouldn't be happy with Watford High Street
passengers getting a cheap ride this way.

"THC" wrote in message
...
This is excellent news, although every time an additional approval for
the Croxley Rail Link is granted in this tortuous process, the cost
goes up and the proposed completion date stretches further away.

THC

I remember asking the question a few years ago why the scheme was costing
£90 million. Now it is £162 million.
This is to reinstate a disused railway and about 400 yds of new railway.

Kevin

On 19 Jan, 22:00, Andy wrote:

On Jan 19, 9:44*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On 19 Jan, 12:59, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:

Better still, use DMUs and run it through to Aylesbury!

Indeed, a very interesting idea - has this ever been mooted before
because it's the first time I've heard of such a notion?
It's not as though the Met line is a stranger to DMUs of course.

If it happens, it'll be a Chiltern initiative, not TfL.
Boris won't fund it, but if it's commercially viable, Chiltern will be all
over it like a rash.
Provided they can spare the capacity over their lines, of course!

Of course Boris won't fund it, nor would Ken have either - it's
outside Greater London hence it's basically outside the purview of the
Mayor. I think Ken said something like he supported it in principle
but basically it wasn't for him to take it forward. It's basically up
to the burghers of Watford and the folk of Hertfordshire to make it
happen - not for them to fund it in it's entirety, but for them to
persuade central government that it's a worthy project.

Much of the Crossrail project is also outside the purview of the
Mayor, but this hasn't prevented TfL taking over full control. I don't
agree that TfL should fund it, but there should be a contribution, if
they are able to dispose of Watford Met station.


Parts of the Crossrail route are indeed outside the Mayor's
jurisdiction of Greater London. However the DfT and central government
decided that TfL would be responsible for the project, and thus when
the final agreement was signed in December it was signed by Lord
Adonis of the DfT and Mayor Bozza. This gave TfL 100% control of Cross
London Rail Links Ltd, the Crossrail company, which was previously
owned 50:50 by TfL and the DfT. Of course a hefty chunk of money,
£5.6bn, is coming directly from central government.

The difference with Crossrail is that it's regarded as instrumental to
the future prosperity of London (and hence Britain) - the Croxley Link
is not! The Croxley Link will principally benefit Watford (and
Hertfordshire).

I've no idea whether TfL would directly contribute money towards it -
though of course the money from any sale of Watford Met would go
towards the project. It's possible TfL's contribution could simply be
that of providing the Met line service - I don't think providing this
service to Watford either is or ever will be self-funding from farebox
revenue, running a railway is an expensive enterprise after all! (Or
am I wrong on that - are the extremities of the Met actually
profitable, to the extent they cover costs? I can't imagine this would
be the case.)

One should bear in mind that just under half of TfL's budget comes
from a central government grant anyway. This will certainly come with
a contingent condition that TfL has to provide Underground services on
their lines that run outside of the Greater London boundary, though
I've no idea if there is a minimum service specified though I rather
doubt there's anything that prescriptive.


I hadn't thought of the Chiltern cash angle - but Chiltern would never
be able to pay for something like that off their own bat, the most
they might do is contribute towards it... and I guess they'd want
something in return like perhaps a franchise extension.

I think that Chiltern would only need the cash for the provision of
the DMUs and staff, I don't think it is suggested that it'll be
another Evergreen project with Chiltern building the infrastructure as
well. TfL might even be able to supply the DMUs, as I imagine that the
Gospel Oak - Barking line will have been electrified before we see the
link built.


Re my comments on the "Chiltern cash angle" - my reading of Andrew
Heenan's post was that he was indeed seeming to suggest that Chiltern
might be tempted to actually front up some cash for the infrastructure
project itself - i.e. as a kind of Project Evergreen spin-off (or
should that be shoot-off!). But as I'm not Mr Heenan I can't know for
sure what he really meant!

Re the class 172 DMUs that are headed for the GOBLIN - actually these
are to be conventionally owned by a Rosco, Angel Trains, so as and
when London Overground don't need them any more then they'll be back
on the market I would think.

But it's hard to imagine the GOBLIN getting electrified any time soon
- that said I find it hard to imagine the Croxley Link happening any
time soon either.


Anyway don't think anyone's got any money for stuff like this at the
moment... unless that ghost of Keynes who's been hovering around
somewhat lately starts visiting Brown & co in their dreams in
earnest...

The DfT seem to have magiced £54 millon extra for the four tracking at
Camden Road from somewhere


The NLL upgrade was agreed a while back before the Treasury realised
that the dour and miserly bankers at RBS has taken magic mushrooms
before making their investment decisions. Also the NLL upgrade around
Camden was reduced in scope anyway, when it was realised that some of
the works would cost too much.

If there is any money emanating from the DfT any time soon then I
would very much hope it is for making phase 2 of the East London Line
Extension happen - apparently the funding gap is £15 million, which is
not a great deal in the grand scheme of things with regards to rail
projects. But time is running out - I think the costings all revolve
around the current ELLX construction venture continuing on to build
phase 2. I think it would cost significantly more to set it all up
again from a cold start.

"Mizter T" wrote:
Re my comments on the "Chiltern cash angle" - my reading of
Andrew Heenan's post was that he was indeed seeming to
suggest that Chiltern might be tempted to actually front up
some cash for the infrastructure project itself - i.e. as a kind of
Project Evergreen spin-off (or should that be shoot-off!).
But as I'm not Mr Heenan I can't know for sure what he really
meant!

Sorry for any confusion; in this case, I don't think Chiltern would get
involved at this stage - but once the line is built, an Aylesbury connection
is certainly possible, and they - rather than LUL - are the only folk likely
to take it forward.

Just to take it a bit further, there may be a case to extend the Chesham
shuttle to Watford Junction too - and that might be an LUL possibility!

OK, OK, I'm thinking out of the box - so shoot me!

;o)
--

Andrew