Metropolitan Line Extension (MLX/Croxley Rail Link)

THC · 28 Jul 2016

This link is to the presentation given to the MLE Community Liaison Group for Three Rivers on 15 June. There are a few interesting nuggets within, including reference to a potential name change for Croxley station.

THC

RailUK Forums

A0wen · 29 Jul 2016

90sWereBetter said:
It was third rail for 2EPBs and the 313s, although Silverlink never ran any trains on the branch as the line was "temporary closed" a year before the Silverlink franchise began. Quite how having the trackbed severed for a new road and never replaced constitutes a "temporary closure", I'm not sure.

It wasn't 2EPBs, it was Class 501s that were the predecessors to the 313s on the Watford locals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_416

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_501

number7 · 9 Nov 2016

Where will the platforms be at Watford Junction for the Met Line trains? Will the current Overground Platforms just be extended?

jopsuk · 9 Nov 2016

as the platforms, as far as I can find, are 135m, and an S8 is 127.5m, no platform lengthening required. Four platforms should be plenty for the combined services.

Bletchleyite · 9 Nov 2016

A0wen said:
It wasn't 2EPBs, it was Class 501s that were the predecessors to the 313s on the Watford locals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_416

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_501

Didn't a couple of the 501s end up on Merseyrail as Sandite units? One was a full unit, one was I think a pair of driving trailers with a 73 shoved in the middle. We used to know them as the "old greasers" when they turned up on a cold morning instead of the service train which was inevitably cancelled to fit them in (prior to the signalling upgrade in the mid 1990s).

Ah yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_936

number7 · 10 Nov 2016

jopsuk said:
as the platforms, as far as I can find, are 135m, and an S8 is 127.5m, no platform lengthening required. Four platforms should be plenty for the combined services.

Ok.

I wish they would keep Watford Met open and split the services.:roll:

tranzitjim · 11 Nov 2016

Why cant they keep the old link open too?

Perhaps they could extend from the old terminus to Watford Junction, and create sort of a loop?

kwrail · 11 Nov 2016

tranzitjim said:
Why cant they keep the old link open too?

Perhaps they could extend from the old terminus to Watford Junction, and create sort of a loop?

The original intention for the Watford branch was to extend under Cassiobury Park to a terminus at the top of the High Street. But the Earl of Essex refused to give permission to cut an cover under the park. However, this is why Watford met is much lower than the road behind, as the intention was to tunnel onwards.

The question of keeping Watford Met open has been done to death. Operationally it would be difficult, as the service would be split, inconvenient for the majority of passengers and would be more costly to operate. There is a web-site run by a very dull group of individuals campaigning to keep the station open. But the final decision has been made. Those living in the big houses in the Cassiobury estate need to walk to one of the other stations, or get their butlers to drive them. But Watford Met won't close for at least another three years

edwin_m · 11 Nov 2016

kwrail said:
Those living in the big houses in the Cassiobury estate need to walk to one of the other stations, or get their butlers to drive them.

If they have to use their butlers does this mean they don't they even have proper chauffeurs? Talk about riff-raff...

philthetube · 20 Nov 2016

kwrail said:
The original intention for the Watford branch was to extend under Cassiobury Park to a terminus at the top of the High Street. But the Earl of Essex refused to give permission to cut an cover under the park. However, this is why Watford met is much lower than the road behind, as the intention was to tunnel onwards.

The question of keeping Watford Met open has been done to death. Operationally it would be difficult, as the service would be split, inconvenient for the majority of passengers and would be more costly to operate. There is a web-site run by a very dull group of individuals campaigning to keep the station open. But the final decision has been made. Those living in the big houses in the Cassiobury estate need to walk to one of the other stations, or get their butlers to drive them. But Watford Met won't close for at least another three years

This got as far as the Watford station being built, now the Weatherspoons "Moon Under Water". I do wonder why they didn't chose a name related to the building as they often do.

Mikey C · 20 Nov 2016

philthetube said:
This got as far as the Watford station being built, now the Weatherspoons "Moon Under Water". I do wonder why they didn't chose a name related to the building as they often do.

They already got a "Metropolitan" at Baker Street!

philthetube · 21 Nov 2016

They got the Watford pub first and other underground related names are available.

BurtonM · 23 Nov 2016

kwrail said:
Those living in the big houses in the Cassiobury estate need to walk to one of the other stations, or get their butlers to drive them.s

Something tells me people with butlers can afford better than the Tube...

philthetube · 23 Nov 2016

BurtonM said:
Something tells me people with butlers can afford better than the Tube...

£8,000,000 per train and chauffeur driven, I can't think what.

AM9 · 23 Nov 2016

philthetube said:
£8,000,000 per train and chauffeur driven, I can't think what.

But they would have to travel with 'horrible smelly people' according to twice failed London mayoral candidate, Stephen Norris.

pitdiver · 23 Nov 2016

kwrail said:
The original intention for the Watford branch was to extend under Cassiobury Park to a terminus at the top of the High Street. But the Earl of Essex refused to give permission to cut an cover under the park. However, this is why Watford met is much lower than the road behind, as the intention was to tunnel onwards.

The question of keeping Watford Met open has been done to death. Operationally it would be difficult, as the service would be split, inconvenient for the majority of passengers and would be more costly to operate. There is a web-site run by a very dull group of individuals campaigning to keep the station open. But the final decision has been made. Those living in the big houses in the Cassiobury estate need to walk to one of the other stations, or get their butlers to drive them. But Watford Met won't close for at least another three years

The only households that inhabit the Watford area with butlers are those in Moor Park. But rest assured when I worked at Moor Park the residents would occasionally travel by the "Met". They would ask in their upper class accents "A return to Town please My Good Man"

PeterY · 25 Nov 2016

Today I had a cycle ride over the new bridge in Thomas Sawyer Way, Watford. It looks like a good vantage point for watching the progress ?? of the new extension to Watford Jct.

Tetchytyke · 13 Dec 2016

An interesting blog post from Diamond Geezer this morning about the proposed Metropolitan Line extension to Watford Junction, which is apparently notable by its absence from the latest TfL business plan.

When the Mayor of London published his draft TfL Business Plan last week, it revealed his vision for transport over the next five years. More investment for cycling, more step-free access and more money to clean up London's air - all of these received the spotlight of publicity.

But what might be more important is what the 80-page document doesn't contain. One major Underground project, I'm sorry to say, has completely disappeared. It should be in this list and it isn't.

The Metropolitan line extension to Watford Junction appears to have been cancelled.

There is mention of the Bakerloo line extension, which Sadiq is attempting to fast-track. There is mention of the Northern line extension to Battersea, even if somebody at City Hall can't spell. And there is mention of the London Overground extension to Barking Riverside, which will unlock the development of tens of thousands of homes. But of the Metropolitan line extension there is no mention at all.

The previous version of the TfL Business Plan was published in March by the outgoing Mayor. It specifically mentioned the Metropolitan line extension, indeed the project had its own paragraph. The new draft Business Plan has nothing.

The 'vision for the London Underground' in the previous version specifically mentioned the Northern and Metropolitan line extensions. The new draft Business Plan mentions only the Northern and the Bakerloo.

In the appendix to the new draft Business Plan we learn that the Northern line extension is due to cost £612m over the five years from 2017 to 2022. We learn that the Barking Riverside extension is due to cost £82m over the same period. But the list doesn't mention the Metropolitan line extension at all, even though contributory funding from Hertfordshire County Council and the DfT is already confirmed.

The Metropolitan line extension was due to link the existing Watford branch to Watford Junction via a new viaduct and a disused railway line. Trains would no longer serve the current terminus at Watford Met, but two new stations would be built at Cassiobridge and Watford Vicarage Road. Or at least that was the plan.

The Metropolitan line extension was given the go-ahead by government five years ago this week, with Hertfordshire County Council originally in control. They found running the project difficult, with the end result that budgets rose and timescales slipped. Last year full responsibility for the extension was handed from HCC to London Underground, with the project due for completion by the end of 2020.
"By 2020 we will have built a 400m viaduct, two completely new stations and numerous new and reconstructed bridges along the route, transforming transport links in Watford. With the funding package complete we're now turning all our attention to appointing contractors, finalising designs and beginning construction in 2016" (Nick Brown, Managing Director of London Underground, 23rd November 2015)

And now it seems that London Underground have decided not to proceed. They might have kicked the project so far into the future that it falls outside the scope of a five year business plan, but that seems unlikely. They might have decided there's insufficient money for the extension, and published the draft Business Plan hoping nobody will notice. Or they might have accidentally forgotten to mention it, and all is still on track.

Here's why I don't think the omission is an accident.

Every three months TfL hold a Community Liaison Group to discuss the Metropolitan line extension with a panel of local stakeholders, and the minutes of these meetings are posted on the project's webpage. In the latest minutes, dated 5th October 2016, we learn that the project is being held up while TfL try to find a new construction partner.

Since taking over delivery of the project, TfL has developed the project as Hertfordshire County Council intended, which included using Taylor Woodrow for the design and enabling works (stage one) and main civil work (stage two). This procurement set-up has not proved value for money and further work is being undertaken on an alternative procurement plan. TfL was therefore unable to confirm the start on site date until this work has been done.

Nothing has happened on site since that liaison meeting except some minor work relating to the diversion of two sewers and a few BT cables. I've even been down and looked. Much vegetation has already been cleared and the trackbed has been levelled, but no construction vehicles are present and no start on the key connecting viaduct has been made. While TfL reconsider their finances and escalating costs, any work of any physical significance has been put on hold.

Most tellingly, the minutes contain this exchange between Philip Brading (Three Rivers councillor, and Chair) and Paul Judge (TfL's acting lead for the Metropolitan line extension project).
PB asked if there had been any change in thinking about the project centrally now a new Mayor had settled into post. PJ said that the Mayor’s Transport Strategy will be announced later this year and will provide more direction over the priorities during the Mayor’s term.

In other words, when the councillor asked in October whether the new Mayor was still interested in the project, he was told to wait for publication of the Mayor's Transport Strategy. We now have that document, in the form of the TfL Business Plan, and the Metropolitan line extension gets absolutely no mention whatsoever. The only logical conclusion is that the Metropolitan line extension is no longer a priority, and has been dropped.

If that is the case, it's enormously disappointing. A project that's been on the drawing board for 40 years, and funded for five, has slipped silently back into oblivion. It's also perhaps not unexpected. Sadiq's fare freeze has put TfL's finances under enormous pressure, so it was always looking likely that a major project would have to be cut. And it's also highly embarrassing. Sadiq has made a big thing of being trustworthy enough to take over suburban rail services around the capital, and here he is scrapping a project just outside London transferred to him by the local county council.

As a Croxley boy, born and bred, I'd very much like to be wrong. I'd like to hope that the omission of the Metropolitan line extension from the draft TfL Business Plan is nothing more than an administrative error, but it appears to be more deliberate than that. Who deleted it, and why, and when were they thinking of telling us?

http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/has-metropolitan-line-extension-been.html

glbotu · 13 Dec 2016

It's still here:

https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/metropolitan-line-extension

and here:

http://www.croxleyraillink.com/

Could it be that it's not in the business plan, because somehow that doesn't make sense any more - ie: it's not relevant to the "business plan" because it's already being built?

rebmcr · 13 Dec 2016

glbotu said:
Could it be that it's not in the business plan, because somehow that doesn't make sense any more - ie: it's not relevant to the "business plan" because it's already being built?

If that were the case, then the NLE to Battersea would be similarly absent.

My money is on a clerical error, it makes no sense for a funded project (with preparatory works already in the bag) to be canned.

swt_passenger · 13 Dec 2016

I think this point has come up somewhere else and it is basically not in the TfL reporting system because it isn't a TfL originated project, they are theoretically managing it on behalf of someone else, maybe DfT and Hertfordshire CC.

swt class 450 · 13 Dec 2016

This page is still on the TFL website.

https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/metropolitan-line-extension

I personally think that TFL should continue with their plans for the new line to Watford Junction but also keep the existing line to Watford.

Deerfold · 14 Dec 2016

swt class 450 said:
This page is still on the TFL website.

https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/metropolitan-line-extension

I personally think that TFL should continue with their plans for the new line to Watford Junction but also keep the existing line to Watford.

With what frequency on each branch?

yorkie · 14 Dec 2016

swt class 450 said:
....but also keep the existing line to Watford.

Already discussed in previous threads; it's not viable.

Mikey C · 14 Dec 2016

glbotu said:
It's still here:

https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/metropolitan-line-extension

and here:

http://www.croxleyraillink.com/

Could it be that it's not in the business plan, because somehow that doesn't make sense any more - ie: it's not relevant to the "business plan" because it's already being built?

And it's not in London either!

number7 · 15 Dec 2016

swt class 450 said:
This page is still on the TFL website.

https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/metropolitan-line-extension

I personally think that TFL should continue with their plans for the new line to Watford Junction but also keep the existing line to Watford.

Agreed.

I would rather the Bakerloo line was extended to Watford Junction.

Tetchytyke · 15 Dec 2016

swt class 450 said:
I personally think that TFL should continue with their plans for the new line to Watford Junction but also keep the existing line to Watford.

Why? Watford Met station is essentially useless, unless you happen to live in Cassiobury.

number7 said:
I would rather the Bakerloo line was extended to Watford Junction.

The Overground service is perfectly adequate for journeys to and from Headstone Lane, Hatch End and Carpenders Park*, which are some of the quietest stations in London (*yes, I know Carpenders Park is in Herts). Bushey has the London Midland stoppers and Watford High Street will, all being well, have the Met.

block6panger · 15 Dec 2016

Arctic Troll said:
The Overground service is perfectly adequate for journeys to and from Headstone Lane, Hatch End and Carpenders Park*, which are some of the quietest stations in London (*yes, I know Carpenders Park is in Herts). Bushey has the London Midland stoppers and Watford High Street will, all being well, have the Met.

Is it true that the Watford DC line in the future will increase from 3 to 4tph but reduce the carriage length from 5 to 4-car?

I seem to remember reading this a few months back..

Bletchleyite · 15 Dec 2016

It will reduce to 4-car when new stock is delivered, but I don't know about the frequency increase.

Verulamius · 15 Dec 2016

Parliamentary q&a:

Q Asked by Bob Blackman(Harrow East)Asked on: 08 December 2016
Department for TransportMetropolitan Line56736
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what representations his Department has received from (a) the Mayor of London and (b) Transport of London on the cost of the Croxley rail link; and whether the Government plans to provide additional funding to support the development of that link.
A Answered by: Andrew Jones Answered on: 13 December 2016
Since taking over management of the Croxley Rail Link in November 2015, Transport for London (TfL) has been reviewing the main work contracts. From discussions between officials in the Department and in TfL, we are aware that, as a result of prices received from the supply chain, the costs of the scheme are currently higher than the agreed budget. We understand TfL is considering how best to deal with this.
At a meeting with the Mayor on 5 December the Secretary of State for Transport re-confirmed the importance that the Government attaches to the scheme which will deliver significant transport benefits and significantly boost economic growth in Watford and the wider north west London area. Indeed, the Government, together with local councils and the Local Enterprise Partnership, has already committed substantial funding to this scheme and nearly 85% of the total budgeted cost.
Under the terms of the funding agreement in place for the scheme, TfL committed to the agreed budget of £284.4m and so agreed to meet any costs incurred over that budget. Conversely, they would retain the full amount of any cost savings. The Department will not be providing any additional funding for the scheme and expects TfL to complete it as agreed.

Metropolitan Line Extension (MLX/Croxley Rail Link)

Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member