Full steam ahead for station campaign (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Full steam ahead for campaign to save Watford Met station
10:42am Thursday 5th May 2011 in News
An online petition to Save Watford Met Station, launched by Lester Wagman, now has about 850 signatures supporting the retention of its service, despite plans for the Croxley Rail Link one step from Government backing.
When a father-of-three discovered an “ambitious” rail project in Watford would lead to the closure of his local station, he was “surprised and horrified”.
An online petition to Save Watford Met Station, launched by Lester Wagman, now has about 850 signatures supporting the retention of its service, despite plans for the Croxley Rail Link one step from Government backing.
The Croxley Rail Link would see the London Underground Metropolitan line leave Croxley station and, instead of continuing to Watford, pass through West Watford and join Watford High Street and Watford Junction mainline stations.
It would bring back into use the disused Croxley Green Branch Line track and lead to the construction of two new stations - Ascot Road and “Watford Hospital”.
In February this year, the Watford Observer reported the scheme was now one of 23 travel projects being considered for funding from the Department of Transport.
A final decision is due later this year and if approved, it would be expected to open in 2015.
Lester, who travels to work in central London from Watford Met station every day, said: “People generally didn’t know the Croxley Rail Link meant the closure of the Watford Met station. I only found this out when there was a piece in the Watford Observer in February about it had been shortlisted for funding by the Government.
“I thought I should find out more and when I saw the plan that showed Watford Met closing, I was surprised and horrified.
“I’m trying to raise local awareness about what this means.”
Lester, 46, has leafleted hundreds of homes in the area surrounding the station and set up the petition.
“My main concern is the families of children who attend Watford Grammar School for Boys. At the moment, if you turn up at the station at 8am, there will be hundreds of kids who travel from north-west London. They all go to the station.
“Also there are Rickmansworth School pupils from Cassiobury who travel in the other direction. If the replacement station is in Ascot Road, they will have to walk along Rickmansworth Road and cross it at some point, which is going to take them 20 minutes. It’s going to be a road safety nightmare.”
Lester, from Shepherd Road, added: “I don’t think it’s very well thought out. The scheme is too ambitious.”
Watford MP Richard Harrington has now called for a meeting with Transport Minister Norman Baker after a questionnaire he conducted with rail users found “overwhelming support” to keep the station open.
“There’s a possibility it will continue as an extension of the Metropolitan line as it is now,” he said, “particularly because the case for London Underground is they need somewhere to store trains at night anyway and that’s an ideal place for it, which would help to facilitate the station staying open.”
To view the petition, visit www.gopetition.com/petition/42760/signatures.html.
Comments(41)
TRT
says...
12:00pm Thu 5 May 11
Mr Lester's fears are very well founded indeed. The local plan (from memory I think it's section H8) prohibits the closure of public transport access, so the council get around this by saying that Ascot Road is simply a 'small relocation' of the Met, but in reality, it isn't small for hundreds of people who will have to walk past a closed station to get their train.
Other 'features' of the Croxley-link proposal that people might not have realised is that West Watford will not reopen; passengers will be expected to use the "Hospital" station, which will be on the other side of Vicarage Road to the current Stadium Halt. This will be expected to serve the football ground as well. The next stop is the High St, so no station for Wiggenhall Road either.
I guess that trying to realise the huge potential from reinstating the Croxley Link is why the scheme has taken such a long, long time to draft.
Andrew1963
says...
1:27pm Thu 5 May 11
Win D Mill-Drive
says...
2:25pm Thu 5 May 11
Students would benefit from the extra 200 yards walk on their journey, either to/from WBGs or Rick using the new Ascot Road station.
It's the first that LesterW has heard of the project? Just shows what an insular world he is living in. WatObs has been carrying the story for a number of years.
Of the 850 signatures how many actually use the service on a regular daily basis?
I think we should shut the line, and use the (old) line as a one-way bypass linking the 2 roundabouts at 2-Bridges and WatTownHall travelling via Cassiobury Drive.
Building the link benefits ALL of the residents at the various new/updated stations along the route. It isn't about a small group of residents on one estate.
Win
Bauer_Is_Back
says...
2:26pm Thu 5 May 11
Bloodwags
says...
2:54pm Thu 5 May 11
Like most commuter stations Watford Met is busier at rush hour. This number which you glibly write-off as "outweighed" (not sure how your scales work?) will be represented to the secretary of state in advance of the funding allocation. He then will see a community not wholly behind a scheme representing a bid for nearly a quarter of the available funding pot against dozens of other schemes which are generally less ambitious.
Although it would be of no personal benefit to me, as a Watford Resident I don't want to see lost the opportunity to connect Ascot Road and West Watford with mainline services from Watford Junction through a more modest light railway shuttle that might stand a chance of getting funded. I don't want to see the people who might benefit having to brace themselves for a "very big fall" when this ill-conceived scheme fails and they are left with nothing.
@Andrew1963 thanks for your observations - please see my comments above.
The Rover
says...
4:18pm Thu 5 May 11
Lester Wagman cannot be that interested in the scheme. It has been in the pages of the Watford Observer and in planning for over 10 years. There is no way he can possibly have just found out that the station may be closing.
It is extremely unlikely that this scheme will ever go ahead, and with our local MP suggesting the plans are floored there is even less chance of the scheme going ahead.
Of course Watford Met station should be central to Watford and not in the middle of a housing estate.
I can believe that Watford Met station is busier than Moor Park, but it would be even busier if it was in a more central location. A lot more people that live in West Watford are more likely to use new West Watford station than the current usage on the Cassiobury Estate. Add the new passengers to/from Watford Junction etc. and the scheme makes perfect sense.
thomas.howard
says...
4:41pm Thu 5 May 11
TRT
says...
5:21pm Thu 5 May 11
Bloodwags
says...
11:04pm Thu 5 May 11
I'm fully supportive of better rail links to West Watford but think this can be better and more realistically achieved via a light railway shuttle interchanging with mainline services to Watford Junction and the London Overground (formerly the Bakerloo Line, I understand) to Watford High Street. Presumably this is where people visiting the town centre would wind up rather than Watford Met Station (I could number on one hand the number of people in 5 years who have asked me directions from here to the Town Centre) but if confusion is the real issue then, without perpetuating the ridiculous notion of it being a "private station", perhaps renaming Watford Underground Station as "Cassiobury Park" would help? The station is well used by people living all over Watford Council's 'Park Ward' (population over 6,000) including the northern streets of West Watford for whose residents it would still be nearer than any of the prposed alternatives. Some people travelling from the north of the Ward already walk 15 mins to get there. As for parking there is a station car park in Metropolitan Station Approach but most people currently walk or cycle so it's actually a very green station.
danieljames
says...
12:01am Fri 6 May 11
Watford Met had... how many? 1.5million.
Unfortunately you'll just have to walk a bit further IF this scheme ever gets built I think - once you halve the frequency to real Watford town centre then people will be less likely to 'turn up and go' on a whim to use it.
If you live near the Watford station you're a lot better off than some other parts of Watford - in the north there is one train every 45 minutes to nowhere much, and that's far away from some parts of north Watford
John Dowdle
says...
10:33am Fri 6 May 11
Our campaign was successful because London Underground's business case was economically unviable.
The costs they quoted then were a huge under-estimate of the actual probable costs of the project and I imagine they are still using figures now that bear no relationship to reality.
In response to TRT, the proposed route of the line back in the 1930s is not now possible as roads like Percy and Francis Road have been built since then, along with Exchange Road.
I suspect the link will never happen as the costs involved cannot be sustained on any proper cost-benefit analysis.
For people wanting to connect with the Underground, they can travel from Watford Junction Station to Harrow and Wealdstone Station, and then board a Bakerloo train there.
TRT
says...
11:11am Fri 6 May 11
The Bakerloo line used to run into the Junction, you know, until the mid 80s. Economical viability is a prerequisite. I favour a LRT system like a guided bus that could even detour around the Croxley business park and would be able to run up to the Met station over road rather than expensive viaduct (although a dedicated roadway overflying the two bridges pinch point would be great).
I originally opposed the plan (some 20 years ago) due to the more intrusive high frequency noise that the tube stock makes and the proximity of the line to my bedroom window! I trust this new stock is quieter?
JustPhil
says...
11:56am Fri 6 May 11
Personally I would prefer the existing system without joining the lines up and it would clearly save a lot of money as well.
Progress is not always beneficial and there seems to be a lot of envy of the Cassiobury residents who happen to live in a very nice area and have a local tube line. Good for them, good for Watford as well. Watford is well served for trains, leave this one alone.
TRT
says...
12:10pm Fri 6 May 11
The metrics are here:
http://www.tfl.gov.u
k/tfl/corporate/mode
softransport/tube/pe
rformance/
I can think of another reason to divert half the Met. line trains to Cassiobury Park rather than running them through to the Junction.
Current peak service of the DC line (London Overground) is one train every 20 minutes.
Current peak service of the Met. line is one train every 10 minutes.
Proposed peak service frequency along the Croxley line is one train every 10 minutes.
This means that the track between the Junction and the High Street (that runs behind Woodford Road, Queens Road, Gladstone Road, Ebury Road, Shaftsbury Road, New Road, Water Lane (part), Lower Derby Road (no houses), Neal St and Field Infants) will see a LOREL train every 10 minutes (one each way), interspaced with a Met. line every 5 minutes, meaning a train about every 3 minutes 20 seconds.
Come on, is that really fair?
Arthur
says...
2:01pm Fri 6 May 11
TRT wrote:The original plan was for Watford Met Station to connect with the Junction via the High Street Station (the Moon Under Water was built to be the High Street Booking Office) via a tunnel under Cassiobury Park. The Earl of Essex objected to the ventilation shafts in the park which were necessary for the steam trains in use at the time.
The original plan was for the met line branch to end just about where the Moon-Under-Water is.
Since the primary reason for the Croxley Rail Link, as admitted by London Transport in the 90's, was to integrate Watford Junction into the proposed westerly London rail system. Doubtless Andrew1963 can provide details of this scheme as originally proposed.
Given that the junction station is scheduled for re-building, is it time to resurrect the original concept and simply construct a single tunnel under the park to enable a shuttle service onto the Met line?
Details of the original plans are available in the Watford Museum.
Win D Mill-Drive
says...
11:37am Sun 8 May 11
http://www.croxleyra
illink.com/consultat
ion.aspx
Consultation
The Croxley Rail Link project is committed to working with local stakeholders and members of the public to ensure that the scheme reflects the needs of the local community.
We want to hear your views, please contact us with your comments.
We are holding public exhibitions to promote awareness of the scheme and to engage with the local community.
We encourage you to come along and share your views on the scheme; there will be detailed information about the project, including 3D visualisations and an opportunity to register your comments.
The exhibitions are as follows:
Unit 17, Charter Place Shopping Centre, Watford Town Centre, WD17 2RU
Thursday 26th May 12.00pm - 8.00pm
Friday 27th May 10.00am - 5.00pm
Saturday 28th May 11.00am - 4.00pm
.
St Oswald's Church Hall, 17 Malvern Way, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth,
WD3 3QL
Wednesday 1st June 12.00pm - 8.00pm
………………
……………....
....................
..
WRUG
Shavedhead26
says...
6:07pm Sun 8 May 11
Bloodwags
says...
8:53pm Sun 8 May 11
However as the official spokesperson for Lonon Underground with your er, helpful advice for residents to "move", how exactly has the function of Watford Met Station changed since 1925? Was it not built then to serve local residents? And would you say there has been a decrease or increase in the housing capacity of Park Ward, Watford since then? If London Underground can't find that statistic on Wikipedia I think you'll find it has increased substantially.
TRT
says...
9:36pm Sun 8 May 11
Bloodwags has pipped me to the post here, but...
(1) Once I was able to locate my file on the project I was able to correct my earlier slip. I've also made another one about the WBC policy reference prohibiting developments which entail the closure of a public transport access point. It's not H8, but I know it's in there.
(2) My statement regarding passenger entries and exits was based on data drawn from the TFL website (passenger metrics, entries/exits from 2009) I referenced, not Wikipedia.
(3) Mr Wagman's campaign is not for the scrapping of a transport link that is much needed, but for saving an existing transport link. The two could co-exist quite happily, and indeed by splitting the service between terminating at the Junction and the Met, the Croxley Link project stands a better chance of appeasing the dissenting voices of many hundreds whose enjoyment of their homes will be blighted by the dramatic increase in noise the proposal entails. Moving is not necessarily an option for people, and selling an affected property will be even harder if you have to say (or shout) "Yes, it's a lovely garden isn't it? And the trains only come past for thirty seconds in every three minutes. All day, every day."
(4) I'm making no assertions here, and I'm genuinely interested in theories, hypotheses and facts which may explain this, but if the demand for a service along the Croxley Line is so great, how come it could not be sustained in the 1980s when it began to die, yet the Met station survived? Presumably it was not a financially viable service, despite, from my observation, housing density in that part of town being more or less as high (relatively) in 1980 as it is now. Observer Drive, Rickmansworth Road and Boy's Grammer, which are closer to the Cassiobury Station, have seen large developments recently, so the case for retaining the service is even stronger now than it was in 1980.
mr_jrt
says...
11:28pm Sun 8 May 11
A station's usefulness is determined by it's coverage area, and having the majority of Watford Met's as parkland is a too great a waste of a limited valuable resource. The west of Watford will be far better served by having a frequent, full, turn up and go service at Watford West, which will be much the same distance as the current station is now, but with the import benefit of direct access to Watford High Street for the town centre and the Junction for onward journeys. Splitting the frequency makes the wait a lot longer, and makes driving more attractive. Ascot Road simply ensures that the existing coverage area is maintained (and indeed, enhanced where there are actually buildings and not just parkland).
This project has a lot of benefits, but it is expensive, and in these cash-limited times the sale of the existing branch's land to housing developers would offset the cost of the scheme greatly, and that cannot be ignored. Especially when you realise the only dis-benefit is of an additional 12 or so minute walk to Ascott Road for a minority of passengers.
Looking towards the bigger picture than some minor inconvenience, the benefits of direct access to the town centre and the junction for those in West Watford, the potential for services from Rickmansworth and beyond to operate, and the (admittedly unlikely) potential for extension over the Abbey Line makes the existing station's branch completely unnecessary, and it would be madness to retain it. London Underground would dearly love to close the only remaining stubs on it's network (Mill Hill East and Chesham), but outright closure is politically difficult to swallow. They will do everything in their power to prevent the creation of a new stub.
mr_jrt
says...
11:36pm Sun 8 May 11
...and the reason the Croxley Green branch withered away was not because it was sited any worse than Watford Met, but because it was only a shuttle to the junction, the curve towards London via Bushey for direct trains having closed long ago. It also had a very infrequent service, which made it very unattractive for people popping into town without planning everything beforehand. Had Croxley Green had westwards services to Rickmansworth or Moor Park, and a decent frequency, then it probably would still be open now.
TRT
says...
9:38am Mon 9 May 11
Well, that's not strictly true is it, not for those people who want to get to the park. In the consultation documents, it states that the Met is more than 800m away from most of Watford's key attraction points, yet they are redeveloping the Colosseum, there's the Peace Hospital and the park.
There are many alternative schemes that retain the Met whilst reopening the link, e.g. reinstate the Croxley to Bushey Arches link and running the Bakerloo Line to the Met.
pr76uk
says...
2:19pm Tue 10 May 11
TRT
says...
2:35pm Tue 10 May 11
Service over the Croxley Link cannot be reasonably provided at 6tph because of track sharing with LOREL (and/or Bakerloo in the future). It has been suggested that the service will be underused and unviable if it doesn't provide a 'turn-up and go' frequency, where one has to wait no longer than 10 minutes for a train. Quite why it's OK for healthy adults and children to make an additional 16 minute (according to Google's walking directions) journey to Ascot Road, but it's unpalatable for the people of West Watford to wait up to an extra 10 minutes for a train is beyond me. Perhaps it's because for the majority of West Watford users (certainly those to the east of the line), it would be quicker to walk to Charter Place than it would be to wait for the train and walk from the Junction or High St?
mr_jrt
says...
3:13pm Tue 10 May 11
As for times to town, then yes, I suspect the ideal situation would be to have the line from the current station projected as intended through up Clarendon Road to Watford Junction would be the ideal, as this would provide rail access to the top of town, and have the "New Line" LO service serving the bottom of town.
Ignoring the construction issues, the only operational issue with it would be that it does little for West Watford. The site of Watford West is a prime location for a station as it serves such a huge residential area (in all directions) and being near enough next to a school no less important than Watford Boys - Westfield. It is however, slap bang between the two lines, so can only be served by the Croxley Link.
Extending the current branch isn't on offer. The Croxley link however is, and is far superior to having nothing happen at all, which is why it needs to be supported. It's taken 50-odd years to get this far...please don't give "them" an excuse to kill it to save money under the guise of local opposition.
TRT
says...
3:29pm Tue 10 May 11
pr76uk
says...
3:53pm Tue 10 May 11
Bloodwags
says...
1:48am Wed 11 May 11
1. There is already a tube connection to WFJ via the old Bakerloo Line (currently dubbed "Overground")
2. For right or wrong Watford Boys Grammar attracts large numbers of students from London boroughs - Westfield does not. Closing Watford Met would not only be inconvenient for the 500 or so a day who use it but a road/pedestrian safety hazard.
3. Watford Met serves 6,000+ residents of Watford BC's Park Ward for most of whom Ascot Rd would be impractical.
4. The capital cost of CRL as currently planned accounts for nearly 25% of DfT's funding 'pot' for which there are 22 other applications. It is the costliest of these by far.
5. It already takes 44 mins from Croxley > Baker St. Why would West Watford Residents rather do this 50+ minute route than travel via the mainline route from WFJ (or Overground from Watford High St)?
6. There would be ample room for stabling/sidings for a WFJ shuttle at Ascot Rd.
Others have also talked about improved bus services. It seems there are lots of other options to CRL and Watford Met is already an established station - so far nearly 900 petitioners want to keep services running there - and I'm sure more would if they knew CRL meant it would close. The campaign goes on...
thomas.howard
says...
9:41am Wed 11 May 11
1. The Colosseum is closer to WFJ than Watford Met, so would benefit from more frequent services to the junction.
2. Park Ward has a population density of 14.37 p/ha), Holywell the location of the proposed Ascot Road station has 37.30 p/ha). Ceteris paribus the new station would have more than twice as many people within walking distance than the existing station.
3. There are 791 households in Holywell with no cars, and just 246 in Park. Holywell residents therefore would presumably more likely to use and/or benefit from public transport links.
TRT
says...
10:25am Wed 11 May 11
(2) I've already argued that it is unfair to use population density to compare Park with Holywell due to the presence of the park. Use absolute numbers instead. A statistic is given of 2,700 more households within 800m of the two new proposed stations.
http://www.croxleyra
illink.com/about-the
-scheme.aspx
There is no indication of how many households will now fall outside that radius, nor how they calculated that net gain.
(3) The Colosseum is an 11 minute walk from WJ along a main road; it is a 13 minute walk through parkland from the Met. The civic centre zone, comprising of a college, Town Hall, Swimming Baths, Library, two hospital buildings and the Colosseum, is within -50m to + 300metres of being equidistant from the Met and WJ. It could be argued that either the Watford Springs site should have been redeveloped as part of the civic plan due to it's proximity to High St and the CRL, or that better transport should have been created for the civic centre.
(4) Where did you get your car ownership statistics from? Are you saying that it's good to put those Park householders into their cars (that they own)? All that's being asked for is to retain a service so that doesn't happen.
(5) If the CRL were to be built in phases, with Phase I being a regular LOROL shuttle from West Watford to Watford Junction, fare income would be generated earlier, demand would be assessable and the people of Holywell and Vicarage would get their trains so much sooner.
thomas.howard
says...
11:14am Wed 11 May 11
2. Why is it unfair to use population density? The park isn't going to provide the station with revenue, residents will.
3. Given many of the events at the Colosseum will end at night, would patrons really rather walk through a badly lit park to one direction station rather than head towards WFJ where they can head north, south and east?
4. Car ownership stats from Census 2001 series UV62 (http://www.neighbou
rhood.statistics.gov
.uk). My point was that there are more residents in Holywell with no other option.
5. Shuttles dont provide sufficient frequency (see Abbey Flyer). Building around a working railway, even a infrequent one, would double the cost and length of the construction period obliterating any gains made from fare revenue.
TRT
says...
11:25am Wed 11 May 11
My suggestion of building in phases would leave the viaduct phase until last as that would take longest, cost the most and could be completed whilst the shuttle service was running, generating income and partially offsetting the traffic effects of the massive roadworks at Two Bridges resulting from the construction with an alternative rail service.
mr_jrt
says...
12:10pm Wed 11 May 11
Unlike a lot of rail proposals, this means the oft-suggested cost-cutting option of a shuttle service can be dismissed as we already know it isn't going to work.
I've never used Watford Met *once* in all my years due to it's location. A lot of people don't even know it exists because it's so remote.
...and as for Watford Boys....please, you'd hope that our grammar school children would be able to operate a pelican crossing by that point in their lives. There simply isn't a road safety argument here (with one caveat: if I'm wrong and there are no crossings, then a couple need to be added as part of this project. But cost-wise they're chickenfeed comparatively).
thomas.howard
says...
3:26pm Wed 11 May 11
Doesnt it seem unlikely that a station in a middle of a low density residential area would command the same number of passengers, and deserve an equal number of trains, to a line serving the towns commercial centre and a major mainline station on the West Coast Mainline?
Passenger numbers at Watford Met would fall below where they are now simply because for some the new Ascot Road Station would be more convenient.
TRT
says...
3:51pm Wed 11 May 11
As someone has already pointed out, Cassiobury residents have (slightly) more access to cars, and are therefore more likely to use them once the tube service has gone, adding to congestion. Do you think that many people in West Watford will give up their cars?
I'm saying don't sell off the family silver, split the service between the two termini, see how it goes for five years. I'm convinced that the use will remain high enough to justify the continuation of the service. Do I have figures to back that up? No. Where are the figures to say otherwise? If Mr Wagman's petition can reach 2,700 there's no argument!
thomas.howard
says...
8:59am Thu 12 May 11
In less than 5 years the Watford Met station would likely need to be refurbished which at todays prices would probably cost ~£2m, add on track maintenance, and staff costs and itd probably be cheaper to pay taxi fare for anyone over a 10min walk from the new station.
How many of the petition signers use the station on a daily basis? Were they specifically told that the station closure would result in a new station or just that the station they use is marked for closure?
Bloodwags
says...
10:45pm Mon 16 May 11
At the last count 61.8% of petition signatories who also completed the user survey use Watford Met daily. If you're interested the latest results can be found by looking up "SaveWatfordMet" on Twitter and following the link to the campaign blog and thence to the survey results. The survey also provides a useful insight into other travel preferences for Watford Met users.
There's also a link from the blog to the petition itself from which you'll see there's a link to the CRL web-site in the first line of the pre-amble so it's quite plain for all signatories to see what the proposed CRL involves.
As a property consultant I also feel qualified to comment that, even if it wasn't required for sidings/stabling and could be released for sale, the value of the existing Watford Met station land wouldn't even cover the cost of the £2m refurb you allege it would need in 5 years' time. Also, having been refurbished to some extent quite recently, I'm not sure why you think that would be necessary.
mr_jrt
says...
4:29pm Thu 19 May 11
Bloodwags
says...
7:59pm Thu 19 May 11
I expect the CRL designers may have ruled out Met Line trains crossing the West Coast main line at Watford Junction to get to the sidings on the east side. I would be surprised if Wiggenhall depot is big enough but the main drawback is it wouldn't be at the end of the line which is usually better for stabling.
mr_jrt
says...
9:09pm Thu 19 May 11
I believe they became disused (in favour of berthing in the platforms at Watford Junction) due to vandalism, but I suspect LO have better staffing policies and budgets that might prevent that becoming a problem again.
As for Wiggenhall, it no longer exists, so I suspect that any new construction would easily be able to more than appropriate.
Shavedhead26 says...
10:55am Thu 5 May 11
It serves absoloutley no purpose for 20 of the 24 hours in a day because people do go through it, about all 10 of them on each train and most people that go through it are bemused why they aren't in Watford High Street and turn up in a Watford resedential estate.
Or is this more to do with losing money value on your house?
As for school kids. Do you think they care either?
Your 850 is far outweighed by benefits for it so be prepared for a very big fall.