"1506" wrote

Was the old Watford High St to Croxley route ever formerly closed? I
had the feeling that it had its serviced reduced until it could be
replace by a bus.

It was eventually - after some time when it had been reduced to 1 train each
way a day, in the early morning. Then this was bustituted (according to the
timetable, but in practice taxistuted), and eventually formally closed. Even
after formal closure someone reported being able to buy a ticket to Croxley
Green out of a ticket machine somewhere.

Peter

Last time I spoke to them, the Herts guys did seem unusually confident
and excited about this going ahead, even for a press office.

That was back in March, and they were saying then that they were
aiming for a 2015 completion. The next barrier it has to overcome is
project entry status with the DfT which, if I remember, it is meant to
be in the process of attaining as we speak. I'll drop Herts an email
and see if they've got any news or dates associated with that yet.

John Bull

Mizter T wrote:


On May 28, 10:19*pm, wrote:

Works application set to be submitted in May next year. A public
inquiry is proposed for February 2011.

Thats excellent news! Does that mean the current Watford station will
close?

Yes

All this pre-supposes such an enquiry will rule in favour.

If a public enquiry goes against, it won't happen. And the Cassiobury
Park area - where Watford Met. lies - strikes me as an area that might
have quite a lot of nimbies in it.


Er, "imbies" surely - the problem for Cassiobury Park residents is
that they'd be *losing* their Met line station altogether, and instead
they'd have to troop south to either the new Ascot Road or the re-
opened Watford West stations.

The new construction would be relatively minimal - a link from the
existing line near Baldwins Lane across Watford Road to reach the
existing alignment across the Grand Union Canal (the bridge still
being existent) and on east. I'm not au fait with the exact proposals
for this link, and I'm sure some people would complain (particularly
so if the pub on the roundabout gets it), but the new link is of such
a small distance that I don't think it would lead to any particularly
orchestrated campaign against it. There might be some complaints from
people along the course of the existing alignment opposing it being
reopened, but that would weigh against the convenience of a new
station nearby so I wouldn't expect this to be a problem.


A thorough analysis, Mizter T.

I'm finding it difficult to disagree. ;-)


I'd think the only potential for people getting really upset would be
caused by the loss of Watford Met station - and said people are indeed
likely to be the Cassiobury Park folk.


Friends who live close to the existing line and within a five minute
walk of the station will be only too pleased to see it go. It is both
noisy and visually intrusive. Their walk to the new station will still
be fairly short, but they will be pleased not to hear the trains. I
have no idea whether their views are representative, though.

What is it about Underground trains and permanent way that makes them so
noisy? The traction motors are loud, the brake compressors are loud and
the noise of the rail joints and thumps over the pointwork are also
loud. Is it just me, or are they intrinsically louder than on main line
railways?

In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

On 28 May, 23:06, Mizter T wrote:
The new construction would be relatively minimal - a link from the
existing line near Baldwins Lane across Watford Road to reach the
existing alignment across the Grand Union Canal (the bridge still
being existent) and on east. I'm not au fait with the exact proposals
for this link, and I'm sure some people would complain (particularly
so if the pub on the roundabout gets it), but the new link is of such
a small distance that I don't think it would lead to any particularly
orchestrated campaign against it.

The alignment to connect directly is built on and there's also a major
height difference to overcome. The link will therefore start further
east along the Met and join the Croxley branch south/east of the
canal. It's a quarter of a mile, roughly the same distance as
Shoreditch ELL (RIP) to the Broad Street Viaduct.

Voici:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=...01415660655903
9825.00044285a70fcf91eb4e8&ll=51.649954,-0.429368&spn=0.007136,0.016351&t=h
&z=16

That aerial photography shows no buildings that I can see, not of any
substance anyway, on the new railway alignment.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Tony Polson" wrote in message



What is it about Underground trains and permanent way that makes them
so noisy? The traction motors are loud, the brake compressors are
loud and the noise of the rail joints and thumps over the pointwork
are also loud. Is it just me, or are they intrinsically louder than
on main line railways?

I think thje A Stock is particularly annoying because of the hideous
racket made by the compressors. The new S Stock should be a lot quieter.

On May 29, 1:58*am, wrote:
Last time I spoke to them, the Herts guys did seem unusually confident
and excited about this going ahead, even for a press office.

That was back in March, and they were saying then that they were
aiming for a 2015 completion. The next barrier it has to overcome is
project entry status with the DfT which, if I remember, it is meant to
be in the process of attaining as we speak. I'll drop Herts an email
and see if they've got any news or dates associated with that yet.

Thanks,

This is excellent news.

"Recliner" wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message



What is it about Underground trains and permanent way that makes them
so noisy? The traction motors are loud, the brake compressors are
loud and the noise of the rail joints and thumps over the pointwork
are also loud. Is it just me, or are they intrinsically louder than
on main line railways?

I think thje A Stock is particularly annoying because of the hideous
racket made by the compressors. The new S Stock should be a lot quieter.


Thanks. It really cannot be worse.

"1506" wrote in message
...

The existing Met. Station, IIRC is next to Cassiobury Park. I doubt
many folks will be inconvenienced. Many, many more Metroland
residents will gain the benefit of a main line connection.


Will the Croxley Rail Link facilitate plans to re-extend the Bakerloo Line
from Harrow & Wealdstone to Watford Junction? What's going with that,
anyway?

On May 30, 2:42*am, wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...

The existing Met. Station, IIRC is next to Cassiobury Park. *I doubt

many folks will be inconvenienced. * Many, many more Metroland
residents will gain the benefit of a main line connection.

Will the Croxley Rail Link facilitate plans to re-extend the Bakerloo Line
from Harrow & Wealdstone to Watford Junction? What's going with that,
anyway?

AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. I don't
see any negative issues. But mixing tube with mainline and subsurface
stoke means that the platforms have to be compromise height. Better
in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London Line.

On May 30, 2:42*am, wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...

The existing Met. Station, IIRC is next to Cassiobury Park. *I doubt

many folks will be inconvenienced. * Many, many more Metroland
residents will gain the benefit of a main line connection.

Will the Croxley Rail Link facilitate plans to re-extend the Bakerloo Line
from Harrow & Wealdstone to Watford Junction? What's going with that,
anyway?

AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. I don't
see any negative issues. But, mixing tube with mainline and
subsurface
stock means that the platforms have to be compromise height. Better
in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London
Line.