That other extension.

[thc]

I hope you don't mind me stepping in instead, q8, but this thread contains the reply I received from Hertfordshire County Council (the CRL project leader) back in September when I enquired as to the scheme's status.

districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=met&action=display&thread=1127045445

I was expecting to see it mentioned in Hertfordshire's provisional Local Transport Plan settlement for 2006/7-2010/1 which was released in mid-December, but it appears that the DfT mandarins are sitting on their hands hoping that it will all go away.

I just hope that seniorplanner has some better news than I!

THC

[Deleted]

thc has got it about right.

We're waiting for it to go forward. The project has got partial finance from our Investment Programme - but the bulk is coming from Herts CC.

The project will have a major regeneration effect on West Watford - which is a pretty rundown area.

[lindsay]

As I said in another pose though, there are Disabilty Discrimination issues with extending both the Bakerloo and the Met through to Watford Junction due to Watford High Street.

[amershamsi]

lindsay said:

As I said in another pose though, there are Disabilty Discrimination issues with extending both the Bakerloo and the Met through to Watford Junction due to Watford High Street.

hi all - first post...

you could run districts up the WLL and DC lines to Watford, with a couple of bits of new track - then you'd have just S stock at Watford High Street and Watford Junction. the problem is finding a way of getting the paths along the south london section of the district - terminate watford branchers at mansion house, and maybe run the met/h&c to tower hill, with the circle being eradicated, and the Wimbledon branch all going to Edgware Road, perhaps? You could also get Uxbridge trains on the district then (well, you'll need the stock...)! or for less work, run the ELL to Watford, but then there's the height difference again.

going back to the Croxely link - would it be worthwhile to run trains along it from the Rickmansworth (and beyond) direction?

Simon

[thc]

Hello Simon and welcome on board.

I think that there will be merit in running either something on the Met from Watford Junction either to Chesham (joining up with the shuttle?) or Chiltern Railways operating from Watford Junction to Aylesbury. Either (and for me anyway more likely the latter) will surely enhance the business case for the Croxley Link that Hertfordshire and TfL are trying to sell to D(a)fT. That's as long as any extra services can be fitted around the four or even six trains an hour that will be run from London to Watford Junction...

Seniorplanner - do you perchance have any inside info on this?

THC

[Deleted]

Of course, the addition of trackwork at Watford High Street, while sensible, would cost $TOOMUCH as the station is in a cutting. And with compromise height banned for new works, it's going to have to be one or the other at WHS - the Bakerloo or the Met.

[russe]

theonekea said:

And with compromise height banned for new works, it's going to have to be one or the other at WHS - the Bakerloo or the Met.

Aw, where's your lateral sense of thinking got to, TOK? Here's Russ' sensible cunning plan...



Russ
(architectural solutions to the gentry at very reasonable rates - adjust platform width to suit)

[Deleted]

russe said:

theonekea said:

And with compromise height banned for new works, it's going to have to be one or the other at WHS - the Bakerloo or the Met.

Aw, where's your lateral sense of thinking got to, TOK? Here's Russ' sensible cunning plan...



Russ
(architectural solutions to the gentry at very reasonable rates - adjust platform width to suit)

But, if there is only room for two tracks at WHS, then each line would have to use it's platform bidirectionally, with double crossovers at each end of the station. This could be an operational nightmare!

[thc]

Could HMRI be persuaded to give dispensation in this case? Failing that, what about the concept of differential/alternating platform edge height? It seems to work perfectly well for light rail solutions in the UK (I'm thinking of Manchester in particular with high and low tram doors) and in practical terms would mean different stopping points for S stock and 1972 stock on either Watford High Street platform. So long as the door arrangements don't conflict anywhere along the platform (big ask, I know) then this should not prove too demanding in practice - after all, Tube drivers are among the most skilled anywhere in the world and can stop their trains on the proverbial sixpence, no?

Or - and I'm going for the jugular here - what about dedicated platform staff to assist people with mobility and visual impairments on and off trains as they arrive? Surely common sense must prevail and services from both lines be able to call at Watford High Street. After all, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 enshrines the principle of "reasonable adjustment" as a means of providing access to goods, services and facilities for disabled people - surely the same logic should be applied here?

THC

[Deleted]

stephenk said:

russe said:

Aw, where's your lateral sense of thinking got to, TOK? Here's Russ' sensible cunning plan...



Russ
(architectural solutions to the gentry at very reasonable rates - adjust platform width to suit)

But, if there is only room for two tracks at WHS, then each line would have to use it's platform bidirectionally, with double crossovers at each end of the station. This could be an operational nightmare!

Exactly!

Far better to get a derogation instead.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure what the current status is re Chiltern to Watford. I think the TOC is keen to do it.

Hard to see the RI granting a derogation re platform heights.

[Phil]

(Flight of fancy here)

How about TWO SETS of running rails, side by side at the two different heights, with sets of points just before the station to get trains to the right ones. If the SSL (lower rails) were a bit further away (wouldn't have to be more than about 6") then there should be no noticable gap for either.


I'm just pondering whether of one pair of conductor rails would do for both though............

[Deleted]

Or one service could non - stop this station with connection being available at Watford Junction. Doesn't sound very good but eliminates the platform issue.

[Deleted]

Or maybe a double length platform with 2 exits and 2 stopping marks. One height one end, one height the other.

[nutter]

Ive never been to Watford HS but (and correct me if im wrong) it seems that you are saying that there are only 2 platforms at this station. Even with the various solutions that you could come up with, surely you'd still need somewhere for the non-stopping trains to pass, or is this in place?

[crewman]

Watford HS is a passing loop from the ECML so all trains stop thru this station. The Met trains on the Croxley link would have to travel thru here but the Bakerloo do not have to, they could remain on the ECML direct to Watford Junction, surely?

[thc]

It's the WCML and no they couldn't as the DC lines are separated from the AC-only main line and run in a loop from Bushey through Watford High Street round to Watford Junction.

THC

[crewman]

Stupid me, i meant the WCML

[Deleted]

"New Lines" were built for DC services in the 20th Century.

Someone will be along to explain...

[thc]

From Watford Observer, Friday, February 10, 2006

Rail link scheme a priority

TWO transport schemes in the Watford area could benefit from £63m of funding if the Government listens to regional recommendations.

The Croxley Rail Link (CRL) and improvements at Watford Junction Station have been identified by the East of England Regional Assembly as priorities, along with 23 other schemes earmarked for £778m of investment over the next ten years.

The assembly considered 135 schemes before choosing priorities.

Subject to Government approval, the CRL, which is expected to cost £66m, will get £50m, £11m in 2008 and £39min 2001. The improvements at Watford Junction are expected to cost £16m and will get £13m in 2011.

---

Yet another body declares support for the rail link but there's still no movement from DfT.

THC

[Deleted]

nutter said:

Ive never been to Watford HS but (and correct me if im wrong) it seems that you are saying that there are only 2 platforms at this station. Even with the various solutions that you could come up with, surely you'd still need somewhere for the non-stopping trains to pass, or is this in place?

Is this line busy enough to need a passing place? Even if the non-stopping train has to stop there anyway (without opening the doors) is that a great problem?

[Deleted]

adw said:

nutter said:

Ive never been to Watford HS but (and correct me if im wrong) it seems that you are saying that there are only 2 platforms at this station. Even with the various solutions that you could come up with, surely you'd still need somewhere for the non-stopping trains to pass, or is this in place?

Is this line busy enough to need a passing place? Even if the non-stopping train has to stop there anyway (without opening the doors) is that a great problem?

Watford HS is in a cutting, there isn't room for any extra tracks or platforms.

[amershamsi]

perhaps what is needed is tube stock platforms with ramps up to s stock height!

and the East of England thing is basically the go ahead - it's the long awaited cash. Regions are given their transport budget to spend on all local authority and non-massive national importance projects now. Basically it's a way to cut funding by stealth as they give the regions not enough and cut the money out of the national schemes budget saying that the regions now handle it.

Simon

[thc]

Re-read the article I posted, Si. It's not the go-ahead just yet - this right is still reserved by the DfT through the LTP (local transport planning) process. And they#re the ones that have been holding this up now for as long as I can remember...

THC

[amershamsi]

i thought the major problem was funding (TfL and Herts CC argueing who would pay for it). If the DfT are the ones holding it up, we'll need either a transport secretary that wants to approve schemes, or Darling needs to actually care about approving schemes, even though it'll make people remember that transport exists - he's been sitting quietly since he's got the job, allowing through as few schemes as possible.

Fun, it's almost worth Watford BC to sell their soul and join the big smoke, so it becomes a London issue and TfL could approve it.

Si

[thc]

TfL committed £18m to the Croxley Rail Link through Ken's 5-year investment programme some time ago, so it is the hand-sitting mandarins (great name for a band, no?) at the DfT that are holding up scheme approval...

THC

[mrjrt]

I pass watford high st on the way to work every morning, and though you can't see it in any aerial photos, there's a number of things that makes a widening of the cutting possible, even if only through the station itself. (All orientations are facing from the road from the station)

Watford high street is in a cutting, with buildings on the left, and the ring road on the right, the lower high street crosses the a street-width of the line's cutting on a level bridge, you wouldn't know you were on a bridge unless you looked over the wall to the side where you'd expect buildings to be.....or of course gone down to the platforms

Point a)
When the ring road was built, they cut through the high street, and obviously demolished quite a few buildings. Watford High Street ended up on the somewhat starved of shops "lower" high street, across the ring road from the shops on the high street. This resulted in a fair-sized green space adjacent to the station, about 10-15m wide, probably. Now, there's only the ring road passing down that way, so a minor path and a bench are all that's sitting on this space.

Point b)
The bridge is classed as a weak bridge, and as such will probably need to be rebuilt at some point.

So we have a few options. It may be possible to squeeze another island and tracks in a widened cutting, taking the cutting up to the ring road itself, with the tracks branching from the lines just before the station and re-joining under a rebuilt bridge. Possibly just beyond...I'm not sure of how close buildings further along the line come to the cutting's edge.

Alternatively, if the space isn't enough for an island, use the space to install passing loops for met trains, and have the station bakerloo only. It would fit the service profiles of the lines just fine, and would hopefully reduce the signalling hassles fo having to share the line from the west watford junction to watford junction.

Alterntively, if the space is even smaller than I guesstimated, install a single passing loop on the eastbound line. There's plenty of capacity at watford junction for trains to wait before proceeding back west if need be. Maybe reinstate platform 5 and then the met could have 3 roads with the bakerloo having 2.

Maybe we could also inally get a decent pedestrian subway under the ringroad into a station rebuild...the existing surface crossing across the ring road would be a right pain if more passengers were using watford high street.

[thc]

You're talking in terms of £10s of millions for this work when the CRL overall has recently been priced in the order of £80m. I can't see the extra cost stacking up on what must already be a marginal business case. If it was that clear-cut, surely the CRL would have been built a long time ago. Wouldn't it...?

THC

[mrjrt]

Pie in the sky. It's what I do.

There's two ways of appproaching these discussions, what would be the best solution, and what will be built as its the cheapest workable solution.

I'll let you guess what always gets chosen

...that aside, Watford High Street is *really* shabby and run-down. I suspect even a lick of paint wouldn't be quite enough to make it look nice.

[mrjrt]

I asked a few questions of TfL the other day, one of which was what they had planned for the problem with Watford High street's platforms should the Met/Bakerloo both need to use them.

"I'm not sure there will be the problems you mention if the Croxley rail link goes ahead. The only station the Metropolitan line will share with the North London line or extended Bakerloo line service is Watford Junction."

Interesting, and it seems to contradict the known TfL documentation on the project. Possibly he was just mistaken as to where Watford high St. lies on the route. Still, thought I'd mention it.