Croxley Rail Link public inquiry to start (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Four-day inquiry to be held at Watford Football Club next week
3:30pm Thursday 4th October 2012 in News
By Adam Binnie, Senior Reporter
A public inquiry into a new railway project which could transform the face of Watford will start next week.
A four-day discussion of the proposed Croxley Rail Link will start on Tuesday at 10am, with Roxanne Glaud introducing the background of the scheme.
The event will take place at Watford Football Club, in Vicarage Road, and will also feature statements from those opposed to the scheme, including councillors, residents and businesses.
Statements which will be discussed during the inquiry include those from Laurance Haines School, Councillor Peter Jeffree, Royal Mail, Councillor George Derbyshire, and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited.
They range from concerns over cost and traffic increases to the argument for keeping the old Metropolitan line station open.
The inquiry will finish on Friday with a talk on town planning by Mike Adams.
The £117 million project was announced at the end of last year, and will connect Croxley Station on the Metropolitan Line with currently disused track between Croxley Green and Watford High Street overground station.
A rail bridge will run from Baldwins Lane in Croxley Green, past the Harvester restaurant and over the dual carriageway.
The new railway will then run along Watford Road, the Grand Union canal, and through West Watford, where two new stations will be built in Ascot Road and Vicarage Road.
As part of the proposals, the Metropolitan line station in Cassiobury will be closed, a condition which has attracted many criticisms from nearby residents and commuters.
The business case for the project will also be examined. A report by Steers Davies Gleave described in detail Hertfordshire’s strong economy, which contributes £26 billion, equivalent to two-thirds of the total generated by the entire North East region.
Watford is also home to six of the top 30 largest companies in Hertfordshire and it relies heavily on its link to London and the rest of the county.
Watford, Hemel Hempstead and St Albans are some of the worst congested in terms of traffic in the region, and this imposes a significant economic cost to businesses.
A study into transport estimated the cost of traffic congestion to the region would be £720 million a year by 2021, with the greatest productivity losses coming from the Watford area.
Comments(18)
drunkenduck
says...
10:47pm Thu 4 Oct 12
LynAnn wrote:No they don't, they run every 20mins the overground trains. They only run more during peak times which you expect anyway.
Can the overground between Euston and Watford junction run more frequently? Currently there are only 3 an hour until 9:30pm when they drop to two an hour.
The fast mainline from Watford Juc, runs every 15/20mins. So what's the problem. You just have to get to the station sooner.
TRT
says...
11:34pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Thrice an hour is every 20 minutes and that is the peak frequency, dropping to half hourly out of peak.
The London Midland service only serves the junction, Bushey sometimes, Harrow & Euston, not High Street, Carpenders Park etc
TRT
says...
11:34pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Thrice an hour is every 20 minutes and that is the peak frequency, dropping to half hourly out of peak.
The London Midland service only serves the junction, Bushey sometimes, Harrow & Euston, not High Street, Carpenders Park etc
John Dowdle
says...
8:06am Fri 5 Oct 12
However, I remain unconvinced by the business case put forward in support of the scheme, the costs of which were cut from £170.8 million in 2010 to £116.8 million in 2011. How is this possible?
Does the Department for Transport estimates and methodologies relating to this proposed rail link fill anyone with any degree of confidence after the recent fiasco?
The claimed business case for the line which includes questionable assumptions reminds us that the recent West Coast Main Line franchise fiasco has cost UK taxpayers £40 million in compensation claims to the rail operating companies and there will be yet further expense to be borne while new bids are assessed.
One other question which no one has ever answered is that if the demand for this service does exist then why have they not re-opened the previous Bakerloo service which now terminates at Harrow & Wealdstone? The line is already in place and it would cost very little to continue running the trains up to Watford Junction Station. So why is London Underground not proposing to do this instead?
When this scheme was previously proposed in the mid-1990s there was a suspicion that the line could be used to transport freight, which receives no mention in these proposals. It is conceivable that diesel-powered freight could be routed through Watford from the West Country and on Northwards without having to go through the London area. One very real concern was the prospect of nuclear freight being diverted through Watford in this way. Has anyone received categorical assurances to the contrary?
Home Truths
says...
8:06am Fri 5 Oct 12
John Dowdle
says...
8:19am Fri 5 Oct 12
Unlike 90 years ago, people's human rights - including the right to enjoy privacy and the amenity of one's own home - are now enshrined in law.
You can no longer simply impose schemes like these on individuals.
There is no point in building it just for the sake of building it. The costs and benefits have to make sense if an intelligent approach towards assessing such schemes is to make any rational sense. I am sure Home Truths would be the first to complain about the waste of money involved if the scheme was built and then closed again (like the original Croxley Green Line was) when it became apparent that the line was not viable.
fugu
says...
9:52am Fri 5 Oct 12
John Dowdle wrote:Didn't you get the memorandum from Mayor Dorothy telling everyone not to mention the night-time freight trains...
I am not formally opposing these proposals as they may confer some benefits on people in Watford.
However, I remain unconvinced by the business case put forward in support of the scheme, the costs of which were cut from £170.8 million in 2010 to £116.8 million in 2011. How is this possible?
Does the Department for Transport estimates and methodologies relating to this proposed rail link fill anyone with any degree of confidence after the recent fiasco?
The claimed business case for the line which includes questionable assumptions reminds us that the recent West Coast Main Line franchise fiasco has cost UK taxpayers £40 million in compensation claims to the rail operating companies and there will be yet further expense to be borne while new bids are assessed.
One other question which no one has ever answered is that if the demand for this service does exist then why have they not re-opened the previous Bakerloo service which now terminates at Harrow & Wealdstone? The line is already in place and it would cost very little to continue running the trains up to Watford Junction Station. So why is London Underground not proposing to do this instead?
When this scheme was previously proposed in the mid-1990s there was a suspicion that the line could be used to transport freight, which receives no mention in these proposals. It is conceivable that diesel-powered freight could be routed through Watford from the West Country and on Northwards without having to go through the London area. One very real concern was the prospect of nuclear freight being diverted through Watford in this way. Has anyone received categorical assurances to the contrary?
More interesting is that sudden decrease in construction costs by £55million! Now that Mouchel have been shown as incompetent, they entered administration in August http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/business-19377
058 we really need a full review of the real costs involved, not just the numbers Mouchel made up to fit the political climate. Of course under a more accurate cost analysis the business case looks even more sketchy.
The construction costs will grossly exceed £116m. I don't believe that a proper survey of the bridge construction area has been completed and the ground water there is only 4 or 5 feet below the surface. Sun printers used to abstract 40,000 gallons per hour with the pumps in the Sun Clocktower. The bridge construction costs have been badly underestimated.
At least the Harlequin will get their own Underground station, and I'm sure that hundreds more people crossing the one-way system will do nothing to impact the traffic problems. No costings for pedestrian crossings, or analysis of their impact on rush-hour traffic have been drawn up. Several hundred boys on their way from Ascot Road to the Boys Grammar School will cross two of the most congested roads in Watford in the morning.
Then there's the claim that it will reduce car journeys. The council's own figures show that it might stop as many as 30 cars per day driving into Watford. "Might" and "30" aren't figures I'd like to see associated with a £116m project. Even if you agree with that low cost estimate, that's more that £3.8m per car! Of course the council figures were published per year and counted cars entering Watford and cars leaving Watford as separate, rather than accepting that most people do return journeys. Their figures assumed that many people just drive out of Watford every single day and not return by car.
As the people on the committee told me "pedestrian crossings and traffic impact are nothing to do with us" and "having no service at Watford Underground is better than having a partial service". Do you know something, I think they actually believed it.
Here are two low cost projects that would have far greater beneficial business impact and reduce congestion.
1. Link Croxley Business Park directly with Tolpits Lane (via Greenhill Crescent/Caxton Way)
2. Link Colonial Way Industrial Estate with St Albans Road (via a bridge across the railway line and between Homebase and Staples.)
John Dowdle
says...
3:47pm Fri 5 Oct 12
The linking of Colonial Way and St Albans Road was proposed as a scheme by county years ago, and is still living on there in some guise or another. It makes a lot more sense than forcing people to follow Radlett Road, up Orphanage Road, along Woodford Road and on to Station Road in order to access St Albans Road in the morning. This one small addition would relieve central Watford of huge volumes of road traffic in the mornings.
TRT
says...
3:58pm Fri 5 Oct 12
This scheme rather bizarrely also proposed creating two bus interchanges for the station, one at each end of the underground corridor, so that non-locals arriving in Watford wouldn't know if they should turn right or left at the bottom of the stairs.
TRT
says...
3:58pm Fri 5 Oct 12
This scheme rather bizarrely also proposed creating two bus interchanges for the station, one at each end of the underground corridor, so that non-locals arriving in Watford wouldn't know if they should turn right or left at the bottom of the stairs.
mr_jrt
says...
2:34pm Mon 8 Oct 12
A station at the intersection of the link road and Cardiff Road at the southern edge of the Hospital campus, i.e. "Cardiff Road station" would be as close, if not closer, to the Stadium and Hospital as the proposed station.
Accordingly, this then makes a station serving the Tolpits Lane area viable as the catchment areas are more diverse, so everybody wins.
There would also be the opportunity for reinstating the old southern side of the rail triangle to run services from Bushey direct to Croxley, and an interchange station at Cardiff Road would be perfect for this. Incidentally, this could potentially solve the problem of the bottleneck being created between Watford High Street station and Watford Junction having the Metropolitan, London Overground, and potentially Bakerloo services all funnelled down it.
..but those niggles aside, a great scheme, long overdue.
Reg Edit
says...
10:09am Tue 9 Oct 12
Home Truths wrote:First, call anyone opposed to the Rail link a nimby. It's always good to label opponents with a derogatory name, after all, Nimby's are bad by definition, aren't they?
ignore the nimbies, just get on and build it. we have all been waiting at least 20 years for this important link to be built.
Secondly, pretend you speak for the majority who have "all been waiting for this one thing for the last 20 years". I can tell you I haven't cared about it at all in all that time.
The most important thing is to ignore anything anyone else comes up with, no matter how intelligent their offering. If their opinions differ from yours, then they must by definition be wrong, right?
I think that just about sums up "Home Truths" on this posting.
You Sir, are a prize idiot. You should get out more and smell the air the rest of us breathe. While you are out there, try opening your eyes and if you feel up to it, read other peoples offerings, it will inform you greatly if you are intelligent enough to take it in.
Nigel Spate
says...
12:16pm Tue 9 Oct 12
As for people that live near the current Met station you have been lucky living so near a station which is in the wrong place because of the follies of the past. Most of us do not live next to a railway station, so please just get over it, move on and think of the bigger picture. It's not a long walk to Ascot Road, Watford High Street or Watford Junction stations and you get fit at the same time!
TRT
says...
12:16am Thu 11 Oct 12
They're going to be moving empty space!
Why not use half-length trains as a shuttle service to Moor Park and/or Rickmansworth? There is still an open order with Bombadier for the S7 units for the Circle, District and H&C lines. Plus half-length trains would mean only half the length of platform would be required, saving money there. I wonder if the operations people have considered this as an option?
Nigel Spate
says...
3:49pm Thu 11 Oct 12
mr_jrt
says...
1:44pm Sat 13 Oct 12
Maintaining a sub-fleet of short units is uneconomical, to say the least, even if it would also help the Chesham issue.
If you really had your heart set on shorter trains, then handing over Rickmansworth to Watford Junction over to LO then operating it with 4 or 5-car class 378s as part of that network would make more sense.
...as indeed would using a class 378 on the Abbey line instead of the class 321.
TRT
says...
3:23pm Sat 13 Oct 12
You obviously know a little about rolling stock, so you'll know that the S7 and S8 fleets use almost identical carriages. The S8 comprises 2DMs, 2M1s, 2M2s and 2SMs. There's not much difference between a M1 and M2 car, all axles are driven;, the DMs and SMs have pickup shoes for power. The S8 also has sanding gear fitted ,I believe to M2, to help with traction out in the leafy suburbs. The shoe gear is all heated to de-ice the traction rails. You could easily make up shorter 4 car trains. They already run S7 + 1 on the Met and S8 - 1 on the circle line as experimental units. The skills, tools, parts etc are already in place. There's enough space between the rails at Moor Park to put a headshunt south of the platform to run a S4 into and optionally on the north side to turn round S8s from the bulk of the line. Not only that but the new S stock is fitted with ATO from the outset, and the Watford to Moor Park service could form a test bed for the technology. It's going to need resignalling within 5 to 10 years of opening anyway if the ATO roadmap of TfL is to be believed.
I get your point about the 378s and agree. I'd rather see the Wiggenhall South curve reinstated and LOROL be running a service to Ricky.
Note that there are instances of branch shuttles on the LU at the moment, ie Mill Hill East.
LynAnn says...
3:50pm Thu 4 Oct 12