The Croxley Rail Link – which will see the Metropolitan Line diverted from Watford to Watford Junction, via new stations at Ascot Road, Watford Hospital – and Watford High Street, has been granted a Transport Works Act Order. This means that the necessary legal permissions for the project, for which finance has already been agreed, have been gained and it can now proceed.
We last covered the Croxley Rail Link in detail in December 2011, when the details of final funding and project breakdown first became clear. Those interested in reviewing the full details of the project can find them on that post here.
In essence, the project utilises the disused Croxley Branch line, and sections of new viaduct, to divert the Metropolitan to Watford Junction via the new stations named above.
The proposed Croxley Rail Link
A project led by Herts Council with active support from TfL, the total budget for the work runs to only £115m. Approximately £76m of this comes from the DfT, £7m from developers and the rest from the council itself who have secured a loan to cover the remainder of the cost. In an innovative piece of financing, TfL have agreed to remit operating profits from the new extension back to the council until that loan has been repaid.
As a result of the restricted costs, there is an emphasis on reusing existing assets to create the extension. This means that those expecting some element of the existing track and station at Watford to remain in place for future use will probably be disappointed. Track and ballast will be pulled up and reused where possible, and the ticket machines and other internal station assets will likely be reused at Ascot Road.
The new stations will also be relatively sparsely fitted out. Indeed the council had originally hoped that London Underground would agree to them being unmanned, but this proposal was rejected. Luckily the additional cost of providing staff accommodation was partially compensated for by the fact that platform extensions at Watford Junction will not now be required. These were initially thought necessary as the new S-Stock (of which a further unit has been ordered as part of the project) will overhang the platforms there, something that would normally contravene Network Rail guidelines. Network Rail have agreed, however, to grant a dispensation in this instance.
Overall the extension represents an interesting, council led project to improve local rail connections in Watford – and no doubt other councils and boroughs will be watching to see how successful it proves to be, with work beginning in 2014 and a projected 2016 opening.
As a final note, we’ll admit that it is also a project that we have a certain amount of affection for here at LR Towers – our very first post was about the proposed project, and with our fifth birthday approaching next month, the timing of the Croxley announcement seems strangely appropriate…
An update on the Croxley link. Looks like a standoff between the council who want to fund the civil engineering part (£99.5million) with TfL funding the rail installation (cost not given ominously) vs TfL who prefer to take on the the whole costs (anyone seen any evidence in any of the TfL reports/committee minutes to confirm this?
There also seems to be a 2 week window for an agreement to be made to prevent the project being postponed until after the general election…
Why should TfL want to take on the whole costs?
@John U.K.
For costs substitute project and it makes more sense to the layman.
Reading Snowy’s link I get the impression Hertfordshire County Council want to supervise the civil engineering aspect of this. This is presumably to keep control on this and no different to road building really. They accept they are not competent in rail installation so want to leave this to TfL.
TfL on the other hand would rather project manage the whole lot so that they don’t get arguments about who is responsible for what etc. or get delays about which they can do nothing.
What bothers me a bit is It is our plan that when operational, this service could deliver six trains an hour during peak periods, running between Watford Junction and Baker Street, and four trains per hour off-peak (i.e no better than we have today to Watford).
I may be wrong but it was my understanding that the project went forward on the basis of 6tph all day. I can see the logic in 4tph as it fits in better with the 2tph Amersham and 2tph Chesham but I don’t believe this is what was proposed. I have heard 4tph mentioned once before but just presumed this was a mistake. One does wonder. If it can only justify 4tph for most of the time is it really worth bothering with?
The report to Herts CC cabinet is here. Note the ominous caveat on LUL’s costings:
It is also understood that the LUL assessment of the likely cost of single (civils and rail) scheme is significantly greater than HCC’s assessment. This alternate model presents a significantly greater funding gap than the HCC preferred model, which may result in the scheme being unaffordable.
And:
If clarity regarding the affordability and fundability of the scheme is not established by the end of February, it is likely that any decision to release funding for the scheme will be delayed further if not indefinitely…HCC has thus stated that it will continue to fund project development, including LUL costs at risk only until the end of 2014/15 financial year.
Meanwhile Watford is a three-way marginal, with a Conservative MP sitting on a 2% margin. Who will blink first?
@ian J
“who will blink first?”
Even more complicated – the benefits of this scheme will not be felt so much by the good folk of Watford, but by the people further afield who will be able to and from Watford Junction and points north from/to the outer Metropolitan Line. Certainly there have rumblings from the Cassioburgers around Watford (Met) station who are less than happy about the proposed closure of the station.
http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/9762875.Residents_make_case_to_keep_Met_Station/
https://theinspectre.wordpress.com/
Reading the first line of that news report: “Hertfordshire County Council remains committed to the Croxley Rail Link …” I’m rather reminded of football club owners saying they fully support their managers – before firing them the next day.
I really hope that the link goes ahead, but I’m getting very concerned that all parties are trying to pull back from it.
Reminds me of what happened the last / current time a party estimated less that TfL for Civils / Structurals – the new W&C entrance at Bank…
Any odds on whether TfL will have been the cheapest option in hindsight assuming completion?
@ngh: Note HCC’s point of view in the cabinet document:
Whilst supportive of the design development process, LUL have not incorporated the project in to its overall delivery programme… This position has resulted in LUL taking an approach to the project which advocates making increasing financial provision for risk within their estimates rather than committing to risk ownership.
In other words, HCC are confident they can keep a lid on costs (as PoP says above, the civils are more like a road-building project so presumably fairly readily understood by HCC) and are prepared to wear the risk, whereas LUL, who aren’t paying for the project, are naturally going to take a more pessimistic view. There is also reference to “requirements from the rail industry to refurbish and enhance existing assets over and above that required to accommodate CRL alone”, and of course the delay caused by the subsurface resignalling debacle (which itself suggests that LUL’s project management is not perfect…)
Reading between the lines the dispute seems to be between the DfT, who wanted LUL to take “ownership of reputational and, potentially financial risk”, and LUL, with HCC stuck in the middle. LUL are saying to DfT “well, it you want us to take on more risk, it’ll cost you”.
@timbeau: the fact that blog hasn’t been updated in months suggests the “save Watford Met” campaign is moribund. And the incumbent MP would have you believe he personally secured funding for the Croxley Link – bit embarrassing for him if it all goes nowhere.
I find all of this incredibly depressing.
If a really useful, connecting link, with a considerable “force multiplier” effect like this, right on the outskirts of London can’t be built, then there’s no hope & it’s back to closures & motorways isn’t it?
Meanwhile, we have Welsh-valley electrification & the partial re-opening of the Waverley route.
[inappropriate phrase deleted PoP]
@Greg T: we have Welsh-valley electrification
Well, not quite. We have a stated government intention to electrify the Welsh valleys, but quite a lot of vagueness about who will pay for it. So a bit like the Croxley Link really.
Cue T. S. Eliot:
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
@IanJ
Nice one.
Graffito seen decades ago on the cutting wall near Westbourne Park, could also be a useful aide-memoire for crayonism:
“Far away
Is close at hand
In images of
Elsewhere”.
@IanJ
Reading the Herts cabinet paper shows me that the key issues are in paras.2.8 and 2.9:
“2.8 The acceptance of this proposed delivery model is subject to ongoing
detailed discussions between DfT and LUL. At the time of drafting this
report, it is understood that LUL have a preference to take on overall
responsibility for the entire scheme (both civils and rail) on the basis
that a ‘split’ of contracts would introduce a further interface and
potentially increase the level of risk. It is also understood that the LUL
assessment of the likely cost of single (civils and rail) scheme is
significantly greater than HCC’s assessment. This alternate model
presents a significantly greater funding gap than the HCC preferred
model, which may result in the scheme being unaffordable.
“2.9 Should discussions between DfT and LUL result in this alternate
arrangement being adopted, HCC would still offer the local
contributions funding as set out in paragraph 9.4 below and at Annex 1
to this report, but this would be a fixed contribution, on the basis that no
further risk or cost liability was carried by HCC.”
So it is LUL who seeks total control of the project, not DfT.
Herts CC has said elsewhere in the report that the costs for the civils element have already been tendered with priced responses back, and that there isn’t much left at risk on the civils, see para. 8.11:
“8.11 This model also limits HCC’s risk exposure. As the civils project is at a
high level of definition and tendered costs have already been secured
on works packages the construction risk are more contained. Key
residual risks to HCC include:
· Adverse weather
· Utilities performance (Utility diversions are required and will be
carried out as a first activity prior to main civils works)
· Delay or disruption to assurance process that will be required to
‘handover’ the civils work.”
These are normal things to be faced in any major civils project, well within Herts CC’s experience with road schemes.
So Herts is presumably locked into close discussions with LUL (and potentially the DfT) to sort out the issue asap, ahead of the election purdah date. It has made its case for why it is not prepared to increase its own financial provisions – the contribution will be capped, as it is content that the civils risks are properly covered in the preferred scheme. Elsewhere, the report states there is adequate risk provision for the railway technical works based on multiple external assessments.
From an LUL perspective, it is of course possible that there will be overlap between the civils project, and the railway technical installation, which is why LUL is uncomfortable and would prefer control of the whole delivery process.
DfT is well aware of the timescale pressures. The report says:
“”11..2 Following the Cabinet meeting on 23 February 2015, officers will
communicate the decisions made to DfT and will continue to liaise with
DfT, LUL and other scheme partners as appropriate to support the
agreement of the detail of a mutually acceptable delivery model and the
associated funding package.
“11.3 On the basis that a fundable delivery model is agreed, it is understood
that the proposal will be reviewed by the DfT Board Investment and
Commercial Committee (BICC). If BICC makes a positive
recommendation, Treasury and Ministerial Approval to release the
appropriate funding streams will be sought. It is understood DfT are
seeking to achieve a decision before the end of March 2015.”
In other words, a go-ahead before purdah…
So yes some exciting days ahead, but nothing that can’t be resolved if there is sufficient mutual desire.
Hmmm – interesting developments and I’m not overly surprised we’ve got to this point given the months of delays. I suspect, for once, that there will be massive government pressure to get this through and approved because of how it plays politically. I suspect LU and HCC will be “pressured” to see sense from “on high”. If it isn’t signed off by purdah time then it’s far too much of a gift to political opponents in Watford / Herts – “oh look the Coalition Govt can’t even sign off the construction of a bit of railway as of part of their “.
@ww
I don’t see where Herts could find an additional budget, whatever the pressure. They’ve done what they could.
Johnson possibly could find the cash (assuming he wants to support his current party leaders) but he’s in a jam politically: if the existing London funding reflect the benefits to the capital, how can he justify more money? Moreover, the case could be made (fairly or unfairly but that’s politics for you) that any such funds would benefit the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, where he is standing for Parliament. His hands are tied.
So, it’s up to the Chancellor to find any contingent funding required. Luckily there’s a budget due on 18 March, just in time for both the election and Croxley.
I have just seen this link on District Dave:
http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/11799074.Watford_MP___I_have_been_told_clearly_that_TFL_is_taking_over_management__of_Croxley_Rail_Link/
@Jonathan Roberts: My interpretation of the report would be that DfT were pushing for LUL to have more of a stake in the project, so TfL called their bluff and said “well we’ll take the whole thing over then, but we think HCC’s costings are too optimistic”. But that’s supposition on my part.
@answer=42: if the existing London funding reflect the benefits to the capital, how can he justify more money
Just to clarify, my understanding on the funding is that Transport for London are “held harmless” by the funding arrangement: they are having their costs paid for by the DfT and HCC (hence the arguments about their estimate of the cost coming in higher than HCC’s), and in return are handing to HCC the extra revenue generated by the link.
In other words, no “London” money is going into the scheme and LUL are not meant to either financially benefit or suffer from the scheme (even though North London residents would benefit from better access to Watford and the WCML – but then again, Herts residents benefit a lot from London transport spending). So as you say, it is down to the government to decide whether to stump up the cash. @anonymous’s link suggests that they will.
Meanwhile they can all reflect on how a £150 million project became a £250 million project without a sod being turned.
Ian J
Meanwhile they can all reflect on how a £150 million project became a £250 million project without a sod being turned.
Yes, well, we’ve discussed this in the past, haven’t we, as has Mr Wolmar … but nothing has ever (so far) been done about it, except, apparently to be used as an excuse to not do any rail-based projects ….
Or, alternatively be used as a stick to beat people with, wielded by the likes of the IEA.
Um.
Ian J @ 17 February 2015 at 23:23
“In other words, no “London” money is going into the scheme and LUL are not meant to either financially benefit or suffer from the scheme”
That fits with the precedent set by decisions to make the last few Crossrail stations accessible.
Re Greg T,
Er haven’t they gone on site and cleared vegetation and done new surveys – this is a point where you might expect a big increase, with a detailed expectation vs reality check?
(Presumably also another iteration of costings with more items have site specific costs rather than general list costs or similar previous work costs)
ngh
Good point – may be they found unpleasant things around where the bridge over the canal used to be – which would not surprise me, actually.
Nonetheless, we have the repeated complaint that “work” here costs 2 or even 3 X the cost of similar work elsewhere in Europe …
How does reinstating ~2 miles of track, which was in daily use until 20 years ago, building a couple of simple stations and a new 250 metre viaduct possibly come to £250 million? That’s around £1 million per 10 metres of track, are they using the cash for the foundations? The Borders railway in Scotland is reinstating around 35 miles of line including some significant civil engineering for around £50m more!
And can anyone explain how much risk there is once the civils work is done, as surely all the real unknowns are at that stage?
@ngh: haven’t they gone on site and cleared vegetation and done new surveys and @Herned
And can anyone explain how much risk there is once the civils work is done
We know that the cost increases are not in the civils works, as HCC are prepared to do these for £97 million and were on the brink of awarding the contracts. So they can’t be due to latent conditions. It must be the rail works (by LUL) that have got more expensive, and where all the perceived (by LUL) risk is.
My guess would be that the biggest risk is signalling: since the funding was agreed, the sub-surface resignalling has fallen in a heap. So what signalling system will be installed on the line, and who will install it?
@ Ian J – add in the recent flex to the scope to do something to Network Rail’s signalling to raise capacity in the Watford area. I imagine that getting the various signalling systems to talk to one another and to accurately get trains across whatever interface there will be will not be a risk free endeavour. The fact that LU can’t yet publicly confirm if it has a deal for SSR resignalling is just one other area of risk that won’t be helping matters. I certainly can’t see the Treasury stumping up cash to cover that particular risk – that’ll be for LU.
@WW: indeed, and the fact that originally the SSL resignalling was going to start with Watford, but now the thinking seems to be to start in central London and work outwards.
I note ( via “Ian Visits” ) that Boris is being asked to get LUL to “commit” to the Croxley link – clearly, some of the locals are, quite rightly getting worried.
[Conjecture snipped. LBM] I do wonder if Treasury have pushed DfT, as there is/may be this wonderful opportunity to kill a (London) rail project – has MacPherson escaped from his keepers again, I wonder?
I may have to eat my words, perhaps, given ngh’s post on the “night tube” thread, regrading a Treasury statement about investment in the tubes (etc).
We shall see, once those statements have been looked at in more detail
@HCC
““2.9 Should discussions between DfT and LUL result in this alternate
arrangement being adopted”
Are Hertfordshire County Council suggesting they and TfL take it in turns to pay for things? Or has Hertfordshire become the 51st state of the Union?
Or do they mean “alternative”?
I have no objection to Americans using their own words for things – they can even walk down the street in vest and pants if they so choose! – but in British English there is an important distinction between such word pairs as “alternate” and “alternative”, which is worth preserving. (Another example is “refute” and “rebut” – the former means to disprove something, the latter merely to deny it)
@timbeau
I also would find it convenient if words retained the same meanings as the ones I grew up with. And “Americanisms” like the one you mention also grate on my nerves.
But I think here we are stuck with the “tyrrany of the majority”. As the USA is the most powerful English-speaking country in the world (if not the most populous), USA-english tends to fulfil the role of world-english. And British-english has to either tag along, or sit back and become increasingly isolated. Like it or not, tagging along seems to be what is happening.
As I have to write material which has to be understood by both British and American readers (and translators into other languages) I try to avoid words which have different meanings on opposite sides of the pond – such as alternate, pants, pavement, subway, cell.
Some notes from the recent meeting regarding this.
http://www.hertsdirect.org/mm/15520666/15744560/cabinetitem8acroxrail20150223.doc
http://www.hertsdirect.org/mm/15520666/15744560/18685189
Months usually elapse between news updates on the CRL website but there have been three in a two-week period. The latest presser, issued the day after HCC’s Cabinet meeting, is available here.
THC
Looks like the Government have opened their cheque book and signed off” the Croxley Link scheme, but, of course, it was *all* the work of the local MP!! I note the MP has said he will be seeking to vary the project scope and incur more expense and risk by continuing to demand Watford Met remains open. Dearie me. .
Interesting that TfL / LU will take on the project lead. Anyone would think there was a budget and election in the offing. 🙂
Thank you for sharing WW. I had a feeling that TfL would end up with the whole project given i) the impasse between them and HCC, ii) their track record of delivery and iii) the fact that this project couldn’t be seen to fail so close to an election, what with Watford being a marginal seat and all…
Still, no matter; this news means it’s a happy St Patrick’s Day for me! 🙂
THC
Final cost £284.4m apparently. Wow.
THC
@ THC – well “wow” is one word for it. “Unbelieveable” (in my best V Meldrew voice) is another. Clearly there has been a political fix here and hopefully the people of Watford will benefit. Without the electoral pressure I can’t believe this project at the new cost would have got past the Treasury and DfT. I don’t begrudge the people of Watford their new rail line either but the cost escalation is incredible given most of the line is on an old railway alignment. We’re not talking about knocking down factories or houses to build it.
Astounding. This is going to cost more than this in Tokyo. How can that possibly be right? I know signalling was discussed earlier, but surely it will be a similar issue to resignalling the District Line to Richmond in terms of interface with NR. There must be more to it than has so far been publicly discussed
So think of a number then double it and then add £50 million for good measure.
It will interesting to see the costs breakdown. Presumably they are still only planning on buying one new train. All this appears to be for 6tph of S8 trains in the peak (4tph off-peak).
It is staggering to think they can spend all this but cannot justify reinstating a passing loop at Bricket Wood station so they can double the frequency on the St Albans Abbey branch.
@PoP
Indeed, especially considering how many rural branch lines are having passing loops installed to allow increases in service frequency eg. Falmouth, Ipswich-Lowestoft etc.
@ Herned – I hadn’t done the currency conversion for that Tokyo rail link but I had seen that it had opened. It sounds like an amazing bit of work given most of it is a “double deck” viaduct with new tracks over the Shinkansen alignment between Ueno and Tokyo stations with construction work taking place during engineering hours and without closures. Given the construction duration they’ve done remarkably well to do it for roundly £230m. The cost of the Croxley Link is appalling in comparison.
@ PoP – I agree that a little loop at Bricket Wood should pale in cost terms with the cost of the Croxley Link. One wonders why the Chancellors’s cheque book couldn’t be opened for two projects especially as St Albans is also a rather marginal constituency but held by the Tories at present.
Funny how the DfT can find £30+ million down the back of the sofa when there is an election coming up….
Interesting to see that it is now TfL, not HCC, who are borrowing the money and so presumably taking not just the construction but also the commercial risk.
@Pedantic of Purley: the last time Network Rail came up with a cost to install a passing loop at Bricket Wood, the price they quoted was so high that it appeared cheaper to convert the whole line to a tram-train.
@ Walthamstow Writer 17 March 2015 at 13:47 Retaining a peak service to current Watford terminus would have low cost. TfL staff information notice for the SSR Upgrade dated January 2014 reports a proposed service pattern of up to six through trains per hour; in the peak four additional trains could terminate at Croxley and run to Watford Metropolitan Line sidings to reverse. Instead of employing new platform staff at Croxley to ensure that those reversing trains are empty of passengers without delaying the following through train, such staff could remain at the current Watford station to provide a four trains per hour peak service for current passengers otherwise inconvenienced by the proposed closure. This could remain on a trial basis whilst usage was assessed, as originally recommended by London Travelwatch in their report to the Mayor on 27 August 2012.
Ian J,
And when they looked at converting to tram (just tram not tram-train) they found all sorts of problems and probably wished they had stuck with the original idea of having the passing loop. The problem is that the line is currently unsignalled. OK, technically signalled for one train working (rather quaintly generally referred to as “one engine in steam”). Fairly obviously the line needs to be signalled if installing a passing loop.
@PoP: yes, but the reason they started looking at the tram conversion in the first place was because the cost of a passing loop was considered unviable – as well as signalling you would presumably need one more train, and that is assuming the power supply can cope. And then there are the running costs of a more frequent service – Croxley link services are meant to more than break even, but I’m not sure improved Abbey Line services would unless you can reduce costs (hence the tram scheme). So we are left with an unviable tram scheme and an unviable passing loop scheme. And a possibly now unviable but politically essential tube scheme. Persevering with the third isn’t much of an argument for pursuing either of the first two.
@Taz: part of the cost cutting done before the scheme got approved involved assuming equipment from Watford Met station would be reused at the new stations.
Perhaps what is driving the funding being directed to Watford rather than St. Albans, despite both being marginals, is the nature of the opposition. Watford is a three way marginal, and is totally impossible to predict. Lord Ashcroft’s polls have shown three different first and second places over five months in 2014.
St Albans, on the other hand, is a Con/LD marginal which the Liberals last won in a 1904 by-election. Ashcroft has not polled it as far as I can tell.
About 15 years ago I lived in St Albans and worked in Watford, I would have loved to have the option of going by train in 16 minutes, but the timing was slightly out for both my start and finish times that I used to drive. The car journey was terrible though, it probably was quicker to walk lots of the time. The buses were busy even though they got stuck in the same traffic. I can’t imagine things have improved since so there must be a huge amount of suppressed demand for a better train service. The location of Abbey station is probably the limiting factor though if an improved service was offered.
@WW I was very surprised when I did the currency conversion too, I was there a few years ago and imagined the costs must have been astronomical but perhaps JR East need to be given the contract for the Croxley link!
WW/THC
I smell a very large rat in that “final cost” – given previous estimates.
I don’t know about “in time” – given the signalling problems on the SSL services, but I would not be the least bit surprised to find it completed “under budget”
A bit like adding 10 minutes padding to a train service that then always arrives 5 min early, cynical old me.
Herned
Trams for Watford – St Albans? We’ve been here before – IIRC the really viable (but long-term) move is trams, running through to the Midland station forcourt.
Problem – ‘orrible first cost, so Treasury won’t fork out.
PoP says “Fairly obviously the line [Watford to St Albans] needs to be signalled if installing a passing loop.”
Well, there need to be arrangements for signalling. In theory it could be ERTMS, though I rather doubt if the technology scales (down) very well!
@ Greg
Even accounting for an increased scope and spec, the leap in cost from the original £118m in 2012, with a DfT contribution of £74m, to today’s overall £284.4m is staggering. To state the bleedin’ obvious, that’s a 140+% uplift in just three years. What is also of interest is that HCC suggested as recently as last month that passing the entire project to TfL will cost £50m more than if they retained the civils and TfL handled the rail element of the overall project. The DfT clearly weren’t convinced.
A poster on another site (Nym on railforums.co.uk) suggests that the new funding envelope buys the following, although I’m not certain precisely what has changed from the original:
– A new sub station, with associated HV cabling and switchgear to Croxley Hall
– Two stations, one event capable, both fully step free.
– 8 new turnouts (One crossover, two divergences (two track))
– 2 moved sets of points.
– Full signalling, twice
– Platform extensions at Watford Junction
– Minimum 8 platforms fitted with SUP OPO CCTV System
– Minimum 8 platforms to be fitted with interim CSDE and SDO
– 20+ Trainstops
– New Westrace unit for Bushey – Watford Jcn section.
I will look for a detailed cost breakdown and, inter alia, I fully expect that the proportion for optimism bias has shot up, as you allude to. Watch this space…
THC
@ Herned – I suspect that Japanese working methods would not be acceptable on the UK railway. That’s not to suggest anything dodgy just very different ways of doing things.
@ Greg – I suspect the numbers are inflated by risk, contingency and “optimism bias” factors. I would expect the real cost to come in under the estimate as risk monies are released during the project life cycle when they don’t materialise. Contingency should also be released once firm prices and terms are agreed. Clearly you don’t release all these monies because it’s real life and things do happen and contractors do submit claims and sometimes they’re valid! I don’t smell a rat per se but I do just wonder if there are civil engineering concerns that have emerged during some of the site clearance / preparation works. I read somewher recently that the SSR resignalling issue had been “decoupled” from the Croxley project and was therefore not a factor. Don’t ask me what that means in practical terms as I don’t know.
@ Taz – interesting about possibly using Watford Met in the peaks. All I’d say is that someone needs to make their mind and fix the scope. They also need to get the “Superman I fix everthing everywhere all the time” local MP back in his box. Projects end up going wrong when the scope resembles a jelly being nailed to a wall. This is one of the most important lessons of Crossrail – decide what you want and stick to it. If someone wants a change then make sure they know *all* the consequences and that they accept them and fund them and do them in time.
News that work on this link could start soon see –
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/croxley-rail-link-nears-approval-as-project-costs-escalate
That’s actually a step back from what was reported last Tuesday.
@THC: Interesting to see confirmation that the line will get existing trainstop-type signalling then be completely resignalled with the rest of the Met. That would help increase the cost. Also that resignalling Bushey to Watford Junction seems to have crept into the scope – previously HCC had carefully crafted the scheme to avoid having to touch any of the signalling from Watford High Street to Watford Junction – this was why there wasn’t going to be capacity for an Aylesbury-Watford Jn service. A classic bit of scope creep.
Making Vicarage Road “event capable” might have pushed the cost up – are Watford FC going to contribute to the cost? (rhetorical question).
@timbeau: yes, sounds like things aren’t quite as nailed down as Watford’s MP would like you to believe. Is this Friday the deadline if it is going to get signed off before the election?
@Ian Sergeant: also promoting economic growth is probably a bigger concern in Watford than St Albans, plus usage of the Abbey Flyer is dwarfed by that of the Thameslink route. People in West Watford might think “it would be easier to get to work if there was a tube line to the Junction (or High Street)”, but not many people in St Albans work in Watford compared to London.
@ Ian J – Parliament ends this coming Monday 30th March. We now have a longer timescale between dissolution and polling day (based on a government briefing note I’ve just checked). There is a TfL Board on 26 March 2015 and while no paper on Croxley is listed something might go at the last minute if a decision is needed urgently. Purdah period starts on 30 March 2015 so no consultations, briefings, announcements from TfL during that period if they could be deemed to be political or skew voting intentions. If nothing is sorted this week on Croxley then it will fall to the next government to sign off – whenever that is actually formed (assuming the polls are vaguely correct about a deeply split vote with no obvious majority for one party). The curse of the over enthusiastic MP strikes again!
WW
Unless, of course, the boy George signs Croxley off at the last minute, in an attempt to retain the seat for his party?
What was that in a n other thread about a distribution of cynicism pills?
@ Greg – my reading between the lines is that the Treasury is not the issue. The cheque has been signed. What I suspect has not been signed are the supporting agreements between HCC and TfL / LU that set out the principles / fine details of how they money and roles and responsibilities are finalised. We need to remember that the current plan unpicks previous agreements between HCC and TfL. DfT won’t sign off until they are content that those matters are sorted. I imagine there is a lot of pressure on the parties to get stuff sorted and that the lawyers and officials will be burning the midnight oil. BTDTGTTS!
BTDTGTTS – Been There, Done That, Got The T-Shirt
So are we in the last chance saloon for the Croxley Rail Link ? And would Labour cancel the scheme if in government?
@ Ian S – I doubt it. If the Tories keep the seat they’ll be obliged to keep their promise given what their incumbent MP has said. If Labour win the election and the Watford constituency then they won’t want to wreck the standing of their new MP by cancelling the scheme. It’s only if you get a mismatch between govt and constituency parties where there might be an issue but even then I still doubt it. After all it’s the DfT that has seemingly pushed for LU to be project lead and with that the much higher project cost. I assume DfT has also endorsed the scope creep on the NR signalling works. Therefore a fair share of the extra cost sits at government’s door or with their tacit approval. To try to cancel the scheme as being too expensive would be rather hypocritical.
Just to chime in on the Abbey line, I still do not understand where all this insistence on becoming fully signalled (and the associated costs) come from to permit a passing loop (and thus the “requirement” for tram conversion) – simple token-based systems are already in place all over the country, and would be more than adequate here.
Two single lines, one from Watford P11 to Bricket Wood P1, one from St Albans Abbey P1 to Bricket Wood P2. Simple sprung points at the end of each line are set so trains can move off their section of line onto the other. All you then need is a token for each section of line that changes a colour signal from red to green when inserted at the ends of each platform (and recorded), and the drivers would swap tokens at Bricket Wood. When there’s only one train on the branch, they just have both tokens. Easy-peasey.
If you wanted to to make it even more bullet-proof (and you probably would), then you just protect the sprung points with conventional powered points with a short length of overrun line to catch the inevitable SPAD or point failure.
I really fail to see how the above could ever work out more expensive than building a new depot, acquiring a fleet of second-hand high-floor trams and all the other changes that would be needed. No, I suspect the real problematic cost was, and always will be, the ongoing recurring cost of leasing a second unit (and crew). In the old integrated railway an old spare metro unit could be used for effectively no cost, but now that units are leased even once they’re paid off their acquisition costs you have to keep on paying to the ROSCO…so no freebies there.
…of course, now the Radlett Railfreight Terminal has finally been signed off, intriguing opportunities present themselves to connect it to the Abbey Line (on the route of the former MML construction line) to gain access to the WCML. That would probably be where full signalling would be required, (along with some long stretches of double track, probably).
@Mr JRT
even on electronic token sections, I would expect a new installation would need TPWS to avoid the “inevitable” (really?) SPAD resulting in a derailment when you go through the trap points.
I said inevitable because with safety you always have to plan for the worst case. For the sake of a set of points you completely eliminate the risk of collision and for a train-length or so’s track beyond them any risk of derailment as well.
One new bit of news whereby the Mayor has signed off the DfT request that TfL take over the Croxley Link project.
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/tfl-takes-over-croxley-rail-link-after-dft-raises-fundamental-concerns-over-councils-leadership/
It’s not yet clear if that was the final hurdle in terms of sign off or whether more has to happen. Note the interesting remarks about HCC’s stewardship and also the incentive for TfL to come under budget as they keep the underspend.
WW
Nopte the last sentence of that piece you linked to?
Under a deal agreed with ministers, TfL will be responsible for any future cost overruns but will also be able to keep any underspend should the project be delivered for less.
And, as we’ve moaned on about, the costs have mysteriously inflated … think TfL will be able to stash away a few pennies?
I’ve just checked with the owner of the Mayorwatch blog. He’s confirmed this was the final sign off so off we go to Watford Junction!
Phew. But not until May 2019 according to Mayorwatch. That’ll be a full 40 years since I first encountered the plan, to link the then Croxley Green branch to the Metropolitan line, in the spring 1979 edition of the “Croxley Green Resident”. Tempus vincit omnia.
THC
@THC – and probably well over a century since the idea was first pursued (I seem to recall that the Met actually acquired some properties in Watford High Street as part of the first version of the scheme)>
@ Graham H
44 High Street – now “The Moon Under Water” pub – was acquired for the Met’s aborted plan to run into the centre of Watford. The Croxley Green branch was the LNWR’s attempt to block this incursion into what they saw as “their” territory. The real killer here is that the LNWR and Met/LNER lines were only yards apart and on the same level at the extremity of Croxley Green goods yard, with only Watford Road separating them. Had a spirit of co-operation prevailed at any time from the Met’s opening in 1925 to about 1965, the lines could have been joined together for a pittance in comparison.
The lines in the area have a fascinating history, as chronicled by messrs. Goudie and Stuckey in “West of Watford” on Forge Books. Although by then long out of print, I contacted Mr Goudie several years ago to see if he knew where I could track one down and, by return, he loaned me his last remaining copy. Needless to say I read it and sent it straight back and happily finally managed to procure my own copy some time later. With the *final* final sign-off for the CRL now secure, it seems like an apposite time to publish an updated edition.
THC
@THC – thanks for the info. (And now, I’ll have to try and track down a copy of Goudie’s book…) (I believe there was also an article in the Railway magazine in the ’50s,with a picture of the future pub,which is what prompted my recollections).
THC
tempus vincit omnia ?
I trust you know Gollum’s last riddle in “The Hobbit”?
@ Graham H
If you don’t manage to find a copy, let me know and I’ll extend the same offer to you that Mr Goudie made to me. It might be just the excuse I need to pop along to a LR meet. 🙂
@ Greg
Gollum wasn’t wrong, that’s for sure…
THC
@THC – That’s kind! I did in fact track down a couple of UK suppliers via bookfinder – at a price (about £20); also some American suppliers at around £200 (why do they bother?)
Re West Of Watford
Try Amazon
Just bought a copy a few minutes ago for £3.94 for delivery tomorrow – `Fulfilled by Amazon`.
Just been sent the TfL press release about the Croxley Link. It’s not yet on the TfL website so here’s a cut and paste of the relevant bits.
London Underground given go ahead to deliver Croxley Rail Link
· Agreement reached with DfT and HCC over funding of the scheme
· Work due to commence by the end of this year
· The extension will see Metropolitan line trains serving Watford Junction and Watford High Street stations, as well as two new stations on the route
· Rail link will provide Metropolitan line customers access to West Coast mainline National Rail services from Watford Junction station
London Underground (LU) today confirmed that it will take over delivery of the Croxley Rail Link after an agreement was reached with the Department for Transport (DfT) and Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) over funding.
Construction work to re-route and extend the Metropolitan line to Watford Junction is planned to start later this year. The plan, which is part of a major investment designed to support the growth and regeneration in the area, includes creating new links to Watford General Hospital, Croxley Business Park and Cardiff Road Industrial Estate – increasing employment opportunities.
Two new stations will be created at Cassiobridge and Watford Vicarage Road, served by new walk-through air-conditioned trains every ten minutes to and from central London during peak hours. The existing Watford station will close following the opening of the new stations, and the first trains are expected to run on the extended line by 2019.
David Hughes, LU’s Director of Major Programme Sponsorship, said: “We have a track record for successfully delivering major projects – the recent signalling upgrade of the Northern line, which has boosted capacity by 20 per cent, being the latest example. Until now the Croxley Rail link project has been managed by Hertfordshire County Council, who along with Government are providing the bulk of the project funding. Late last year, faced with significant project slippage and cost escalation, the Government asked us to consider stepping in and taking over responsibility for delivery of the scheme. We were clear that a suitable funding package needed to be in place before we would be prepared to take this on.
“As announced in the Budget, those discussions have now concluded, and the Mayor has confirmed that LU should take on overall delivery responsibility for the project. We have agreed to contribute £16m, which is the approximate cost of the additional train services required to support the link when it opens in 2019.”
One or two small extra details there but broadly as we were told a day or so ago.
So which go-ahead is this? How many go-aheads left until they are actually committed to start building?
Walthamstow Writer,
I read the last line with incredulity. So it is 2019 now! The article was written in July 2013 and in it a projected opening year of 2016 was stated.
@ Josh – while I understand your comment this is now a done deal. This is what happens when the local MP keeps saying “it’s approved / agreed / signed off” when it actually wasn’t!
The Mayor had to formally consent to TfL taking on the project – previously TfL were a minor party to this project who had all their costs reimbursed by others. It’s also NOT a Mayoral project nor part of the Transport Strategy / Business Plan / Budget so you can see why the consent was required. No more consents are required – the sign offs are done AIUI. It will now be a case of getting contracts let, project team set up / transferred and off we go with site works from September.
@WW 11:50
I am still confused. I have just been on the Croxley Link site, which I take to be the `official` one, although I would not wish to elucidate what `official` means. The latest update 27th March says, (not all quoted):
QUOTE
Hertfordshire County Council delighted that Croxley Rail Link is a step closer following funding agreement
27 March 2015
The long-awaited Croxley Rail Link, which is designed to connect London Underground’s Metropolitan line to Watford Junction, has moved a step closer to receiving the green light, following a funding agreement between Hertfordshire County Council and the Department for Transport.
London Underground will deliver the rail link. The preliminary works will continue and it’s expected that construction work to re-route the Metropolitan line to Watford Junction will start later this year.
The Department for Transport has agreed to provide £109.82m and Transport for London will provide £46.5m for the rail link.
Detailed funding arrangements for the scheme are still to be agreed, although a clearer picture of these arrangements is expected to emerge over the coming weeksUNQUOTE
The first and last sentences seem to to imply some uncertainty. Also …..has moved a step closer to receiving the green light….. seems open to interpretation.
Graham H: “I believe there was also an article in the Railway magazine in the ’50s,with a picture of the future pub,which is what prompted my recollections”
“The Metropolitan Railway at Watford” by Alan A Jackson, Railway Magazine, December 1961. There are two pictures of 44 High Street, one in 1925, and the other “recent” (i.e. in relation to the article). It is a very interesting story, which I was not aware of until picking up these comments on LR. Thanks for pointing in the direction of RM.
Re 44 High Street, Jackson says “… a building which can provoke the imagination of what might have been.”
If and when I make it to an LR meet up, I will try to remember to bring this volume of RM along. Perhaps THC will allow me a glimpse of the Goudie book in return.
@Twopenny Tube /others
On BING, if you search for `Watford Central Station` a picture of the current business, namely, The Moon Under Water is displayed. I seem recollect 40 plus years ago it used to be a Grange furniture store.
@ S Taylor – fair enough. I asked someone who’d seen the City Hall paperwork if it was a done deal and the last sign off and was told yes. If it isn’t then apologies for any confusion. I’ve only relaid what I was told. It seems odd that LU have put out the press release they have unless we are talking about the principles all being sorted and signed off and HCC are simply saying there is some detailed paperwork to tie off the final bits.
@ Steven Taylor & others
Jackson wrote that the premises were (in 1961) occupied by the Grange Furnishing Co. Ltd., and London Kiosks Limited, “a firm which has tobacco shops and kiosks on many Metropolitan stations”.
@WW 13:35
Thanks for response. I agree with your comment. If it has been signed off in City Hall, surely it is `done and dusted`.
As a layman, I am just finding it confusing when the MP stated it was all going ahead about 10 days ago. Then he had `jumped-the-gun`. Then it was subject to TFL borrowing limit being increased. Etc., etc.
And now I understand completion is 2019!! Will I live to see it finished.
@Twopenny Tube
Re unopened Watford Central station. I have just received the copy of the book West of Watford ordered yesterday from Amazon. They have a picture on Page 11 taken in 1986 when it was a branch of NEXT.
The Moon Under Water (aka Watford Central station), as seen on Google Street view.
With the SSR re-signalling project now due 2022, I guess this means “conventional” signalling for the Watford branch? Makes sense due to the interface with the Watford DC lines.
Edgepedia: Yes, that’s correct. They said as much in the press release (as I recall).
The “double signalling” – i.e. the new link will have “old” signalling from new, & then the new signalling … might account (in part) for the apparently excessive cost over-run, compared to the original estimate ??
@ Greg and others
I did a very QADA based on figures obtained from the HCC Cabinet report of 23 February this year. The reasons cited for project cost inflation (paras 7.2 to 7.4) are:
– risk costs being added to total project cost (c. £45m – my calculation)
– significant programme delays resulting from the CRL scheme design being both delayed and changed by disruption to LUL’s much larger signalling upgrade programme (from which CRL has now been decoupled);
– inflationary pressures on cost arising from programme delays;
– requirements from the rail industry to refurbish and enhance existing assets over and above that required to accommodate CRL alone:
– delay and disruption in the delivery of the design programme
So, according to HCC, the extra money (£166m approx.) is all about the double signalling, NR’s shopping list and adding the cost of the risk element.
THC
What inflation?
Re Josh,
What inflation?
Construction cost inflation (only that and house price inflation are significantly inflating at the moment)
Many different data sources but this for starters, 5.5% in 2014:
http://www.building.co.uk/data/cost-data/cost-update/
Some particular costs appear to have been increasing at almost double digit rates.
@THC
What is QADA?
Re LBM
QADA = Quick And Dirty Analysis? cf back of the envelope calculation etc.
While looking for something else I found this Mayoral Decision. It sets out some of the background and financial numbers for the Croxley scheme and how things have changed. It also sets out who funds what in the current scheme and when the line is expected to open and the project complete.
Cheers for that, WW. Interesting, particularly:
…never thought I’d see the day road funding was explicitly transferred to a rail scheme!
Could we, therefore, see a reduction in road congestion in the area, especially if a Watford Junction – Rickmansworth &/or Chesham &/or Amersham service is trialled out?
@Greg T – “Could we, therefore, see a reduction in road congestion in the area, ” Perhaps but there are serious problems with using the reduction in congestion as an argument for investing in public transport;because of the level of suppressed demand – which may well be so here – any road capacity released tends to fill up quite rapidly. For evaluation purposes, that additional traffic has,by definition, a lower value of time, and therefore weighs less in the evaluation calculation. (The most extreme case of that that I have found was in Paris, where the RATP DG once remarked to me that the RER programme had bought perhaps 6months’ congestion relief – and he was n’t the sort of chap who enjoyed winding his audience up).
I know it’s a running joke about the final approval for this project but I think we might be there. TfL paper is going to the Board on 1 July 2015 for all the requisite approvals to transfer the project from HCC control to LU plus the funding regime.
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-20150617-item11-part-1-croxley-rail-link.pdf
Has a lot of detail on the funding, costs, risks, project scope and milestones plus the expected train service levels (4tph off peak, 6tph peak). Confirms conventional LU signalling on the new bit with it being done with internal resources. Note that LU will not commit to the proposed Dec 2019 opening date at this point in time.
@WW 01:40
When I first read your comment about the completion date of December 2019 not being set in stone, I quickly read the salient text in the document:
QUOTE At this stage, and pending completion of an integrated delivery programme, LU’s view is that there is very considerable risk associated with the December 2019 target delivery date. This view has been made clear to HCC and the DfT, and no commitment to this date has been given. The above dates are accordingly indicative only. UNQUOTE
I am literally speechless in a manner of speaking.
Apropos the `running joke` about when the final, final, final…approval given is literally final, I was unaware there was a contemporary joke about the completion date.
As a pensioner, I am seriously worried I may not live long enough to travel on this line, although I hope to live the 3 score years and ten, so I may make the 2022 opening ceremony.
The interesting snippet I took from the latest TfL paper was in the second appendix, a letter of 30 March from the DfT to the GLA. Condition f) on page 2 states:
“Transport for London will assess in good faith and agree with the Department, by the end of April 2015, the viability of the infrastructure accepting the operation of national rail DMUs (Class 165, 168, 170 and 172 up to six-cars in length), recognising DfT and stakeholders have a longer term aspirations for a service of 2 train per hour from Watford Junction to Rickmansworth, Aylesbury (and beyond). Transport for London will adopt any minor design modifications arising from the agreed viability assessment as part of the Croxley Rail Link project. Note: condition f) is subject to consultation between TfL and DfT.”
This is the first official confirmation I have seen anywhere that a service from Watford Junction over the north curve to points beyond Amersham is actually an official aspiration.
THC
Thanks THC. Worth considering that some of the Chiltern stock (think 165, 166, which aren’t mentioned in your note) was built to the wider GWR loading gauge, while the Met Line also employed wide stock (A Class, etc). Just wondering if the greater width is also available at the Watford end, or indeed if it is now needed, if S stock and Class 168 and upwards are built to more conventional widths.
Note the footnote: 1 The upgrade of the Croxley Rail Link signalling to ATC falls within the Four Lines Upgrade Programme and does not therefore form part of the scope of the Croxley Rail Link scheme.
In other words the cost of resignalling is part of the SSR signalling upgrade. However this cost would not have been necessary if this rail link would not have been built – assuming costs to Watford (Met) are much the same whether in passenger service or just used for stabling 5 trains. So basically the final, final cost of the scheme is understated.
Shocking that the final cost for this is now £285m and not opening until at least 2019, given that just 4 years ago it was triumphantly being declared as being just £115m and opening in 2016. A textbook example of optimism bias.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/croxley-maximum-milk-minimum-moo/
@ THC – having worked my way through the entire paper the point you highlight about the potential Chiltern service is all the more intriguing because the deadline for the assessment was April 2015 so it must have been done. I note also that LU are obliged to implement any minor adjustments to the project to accommodate the possible use of NR stock. There’s the “subject to consultation” aspect but you’d expect that. Does make me wonder quite what is being considered by the Department as that’s the second “aspiration” for a Chiltern service linking to TfL (the other being the link down the Greenford line towards Heathrow) services.
The Croxley Rail Link is dead; long live the Metropolitan line extension! With the transfer of responsibility for the project to TfL over the weekend, the CRL website has been “parked” and there’s now a natty new map in TfL house style.
Work on the MLE is finally to start in earnest this autumn. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the aim is now to “complete by 2020/21”. Like the donkey plodding after the carrot-on-a-stick, this one never seems to get any closer…
THC
@ THC – I remain of the view that the 2020/21 date is deliberately pessimistic and reflects a particularly adverse view of risk. There’s obviously some level of concern about what might be uncovered once work starts in earnest but I expect the completion date forecast (not the target) to start becoming earlier and earlier once the riskier bits of work are properly assessed or completed. The one worry has to be Network Rail and their ability to allocate resources to power and signalling works. I’ve no idea when they expect to “integrate” the new line into their local signalling and power functions but hopefully the work they have to do for 5 car 378s later this year is a step towards the final result.
I can foresee a silly situation where LU’s work is almost all done but the line can’t function because there’s a problem about linking it into the NR network and clearing all the necessary assurance stages to allow testing and then passenger operation. At some point NR will have to commit to the resources etc and I expect there’s a long lead time for the inevitable possessions and I can’t see them being happy at being “pulled about” if LU’s progress is much faster than currently anticipated. There’s always a limit to how flexible anyone can be in responding to someone else’s project programme. If all goes swimmingly well I suspect we might see a late 2019 opening date – to align with the Dec 2019 NR timetable change date.
I’m inclined to agree WW. I remember reading that civils would take about 18 months to complete with fit-out and testing taking another 18 months. That would suggest a late-2018 completion for substantive works but of course TfL is now in charge and will no doubt want to first satisfy itself on the quality of work done so far and the absence of cadavres dans le placard.
I also recall that one of the main reasons for the big hike in cost from the originally-agreed £118m to the today’s £280m was to do with upgrading NR signalling and power supply, so hopefully this extra money will go some way to smoothing any interface issues that may arise down the line (ahem).
THC
I also agree….didn’t the Manchester Metrolink extension to the Airport open something like 18 months early? Hopefully something similar will happen here.
Also, will we finally see the extension as ‘Under Construction’ on the tube map (similar to the JLE, DLR and numerous other previous projects)?
Tube maps don’t show lines ‘under construction’ any more, and the Jubilee was certainly never shown until it was finished.
The current map is cluttered enough as it is, without showing travel routes which do not even exist yet (that’s the rationale for not showing them anyway)
The thumbnail map in the corner of the new MLE (ex CRL) map is a strange little beast, showing motorways, the A41 and some other unidentified roads, what appear to be the Midland Main Line and some of the ECML – and no trace of the Metropolitan line or the WCML. Bizarre…
Where will the NR/LU boundary be on the new link?
Mike,
And Watford Vicarage Road station is located on a road called Vicage Road.
And if you look closely at the maps, Rickmansworth Road is in slightly misaligned. It doesn’t join up with roads that it should (eg Cassio Rd) and does join up with roads that it shouldn’t. (The one at the top of this article is better)
RobC says ” (The one at the top of this article is better)”
.. in certain respects, yes. But it clearly has the same origin, as it shares the inset (presumably intended for people who do not know where Watford is), and an area called “Watford Town Centre” which does not include any railway station.
All oddities, (and there are probably more), but I don’t think anyone will be seriously misled by them. Either map, it seems to me, carries out its intended function of showing pretty clearly what is planned to happen to the Met in the area.
People probably won’t be misled by the map itself, but the inset is a wasted opportunity to put the MLE in its wider context – a cartographical waste of space.
Do we all know about the TfL Line diagram Standard Issue 3 ?
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-line-diagram-standard.pdf?
It seems to me that if you take the original map from the top of the page (which was on http://www.croxleyraillink.com originally [1]) and use the above TfL standards you get the new map.
I’ve written a PHP Class that draws TfL standard maps from user input, so I can creates real line map (or crayon ones) like this:
http://d3e4p1336dty1z.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Olympia-Line.svg
http://cdn.hs4.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/HS4-orange.png
[1] http://www.croxleyraillink.com/downloads/TWAO2012/11%20-%20Environmental%20Statement/Volume%201%20-%20Written%20Statement/Croxley%20Rail%20Link%20NTS.pdf
@ChrisMitch: the Jubilee was certainly never shown until it was finished
Really? – tube map from five years before the line opened.
@Malcolm: an area called “Watford Town Centre” which does not include any railway station
Isn’t that more an oddity of the real world than an oddity of any particular map?
@Malcolm: an area called “Watford Town Centre” which does not include any railway station
What’s odd about that? – since most town centres are older than the railways, the railways tend to be on the edge of the towns they serve. This was the case even when the London & Birmingham railway was built in the 1830s (the stations at London (Euston), Harrow (really Wealdstone) and Watford (Junction) were some distance from the centres of the towns concerned. Watford High Street station is, as the name suggests, very close to the town centre, separated from it only by the width of the ring road.
That stretch of the Watford inner ring road was only built in 1979/80, over 60 years after the arrival of the “New Line” to Watford Junction. As an aside, my ex-wife was born in a house, just yards from the High Street station, that was demolished to make way for said tarmac.
THC
Following the project’s transfer to TfL, there’s a paper going to TfL Board on 4 November. Its main recommendations are:
1. reconfirmation and reauthorisation of previous approvals and agreements with HCC and others so that the project can proceed;
2. the confirmation of the project funding envelope of £284.4m including risk at P50 level (P80 level is £304.68m); and
3. the need for a further Mayoral direction to account for TfL needing to provide up to a further £2.73m of funding in addition to the £46.5m TfL was directed to fund on 26 March 2015.
Point 2 is despite the P50 project costs having risen to £298.5m, largely as HCC had higher than expected sunk costs on project transfer. The P50 and P80 (project and finance envelopes) are to remain for now pending a full post-transfer cost review by TfL.
Point 3 is to account for the inflated valuation of two pieces of land included in the HCC contribution that are of no commercial value to TfL. One of them – the Croxley Green branch trackbed – was valued at HCC at £1.8m despite being acquired from Network Rail for the princely sum of £1! Naughty.
Procurement Authority for the construction of the infrastructure works, acquisition of rolling stock and systems works is expected to be sought from the TfL Finance and Policy Committee in the New Year.
THC
@ THC – the agony of the Croxley Rail Link just keeps going on and on. The land valuation issue is really rather sneaky. Did they really think this wouldn’t be spotted?
You have to wonder WW. I am normally the first to defend local government’s corner and its abilities but this, allied to the rampant cost escalation in a relatively short space of time, confirms that at best HCC was painfully out of its depth. I dare not say more.
At least now that TfL is running the show progress should be made and I’m once again hopeful of seeing an S8 at Watford Junction before my fiftieth birthday. 🙂
THC
Councils employ Civil Engineers, but not railway engineers. Therefore HCC should be expert in ground conditions, bridges, drainage, cuttings, embankments and estimating the costs thereof.
So no start of works before next year then.
Not for a long time Alan and definitely not in the case of HCC, who have outsourced civils and highways to Ringway and “professional support services” to Opus Arup. This would appear to be a failure of contract and client-side management rather than engineering.
THC
Email from the metropolitan line extension team (email [email protected] & they’ll add you to the mailing list) confirming no construction before next year.
Presumably this is whilst LUL investigate any other costing tricks that HCC may have failed to mention.
I see that TfL have now announced that the funding package is now complete. This amounts to £284.4m, including local funding of £125.35 million, DfT providing £109.82 million and TfL providing the remaining £49.23 million. The announcement states that construction will start in 2016 and be complete by 2020.
Given how All Crossrail stations will now be step free the question arises as to whether all stations on this extenstion should also become step free ?
^^The new stations have to be by law, Junction already is, leaving just High Street. There’s no legal requirement to provide it on opening, and I’d imagine that it is low on TfL’s list of priorities for access and Herts CC won’t magically provide the dosh to do it.
The Crossrail stations seem to be a mix of some spare cash in the budget being found, that most of the stations on the line already will be step free and (above all) the marketing of the line as new and high-quality. None of which apply to the Met.
@ Quinlet – there was an additional Finance and Policy Cttee on 17 Nov 2015 which considered the ramifications of Boris issuing a Mayoral Direction requiring TfL to find the balancing sum of money created by the “valuation hole” on the land assets transferred by Herts CC as part of the deal. TfL have been told to find the few extra million quid to make up the shortfall. The meeting was effectively the “rubber stamp” to implement the Direction and keep all the governance in line with Standing Orders.
Construction finally confirmed to commence on 27.02.16. By construction I mean utility diversions for the new Baldwins lane viaduct, taking up to 6 months with main construction starting after that. Good to see some movement finally!
There are roadworks. Utility diversions on the A412. Finally something is happening.
[Please note that LR is not a news, progress or status updating website. We welcome informed analysis and discussion on transport issues, but updates themselves, such as this one, are insufficient to warrant keeping. LBM]
Almost on-topic – across the way at Watford Junction.
It would appear that someone has lost their marbles or at least swallowed some snake-oil.
Do I detect the Treasury / DfT trying to sell Hertfordshire a pup, or is this just publicity “froth” ??
@ Greg Tingey
Reading the HCC document, http://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/docs/pdf/l/LTPtranvis2050 , the proposal has some merit, because it is part of a wider scheme to improve east-west public transport across Hertfordshire, which is badly needed. The St Albans branch suffers from terminating at Watford Junction, a considerable distance from the town centre. It is a long walk via the station subway to change to a train to Watford High Street. Buses on the parallel main road do run to the town centre, but suffer badly from traffic congestion and punctuality is poor. The Cambridge system runs right into the city centre and the service is far more frequent than a train would ever manage. The HCC proposal would bring the same benefits to Watford, as well as providing a much better service to Hatfield and Hertford. Of course, an inter-urban LRT of the type found in Germany would be even better – but completely unaffordable I assume.
Don’t rule it out completely. The Cambridgeshire busway seems to be performing. (But is seems to pay to think big – at 16 miles, it constitutes more than half the total of about 25 miles of guided bus lane in the UK, and is, I think, the longest in the world.
As a way of connecting the Abbey Line to St Albans City, or the wider hinterland at the St Albans end (Hatfield?) it might be worth looking at.
@timbeau – given the gross cost overruns on the St Ives scheme (LRT would have been cheaper) and the low usage, it’s difficult to see how the business case could be made.
@Graham H
Low usage on the Cambridge busway? County Council figures give 16.1 million passengers since the Busway opened in August 2011 until June 2016 – and a latest 12 month rolling total of 3.7 million (which is a rising trend).
@ Graham H
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/431/traffic_monitoring_report shows about 3.6m annual journeys on the Cambridge busway, which does not seem that low to me. Furthermore, a lot of these are made by people who would otherwise use a car (and probably would not have considered using an “ordinary” bus). The huge cost increase apparently arose from technical problems with design and construction, so I don’t think that should stand against further schemes, so long as they are properly implemented.
@Londoner in Scotland -“The huge cost increase apparently arose from technical problems with design and construction” Absolutely – these were costs that weren’t anticipated by the engineers designing the scheme (mainly the problems caused by providing drainage). Now we/they know (as anyone who had experience of railway costings and road costings would have predicted) that these unsuspected costs exist, future busway projects will face the same enhanced cost base.
“Furthermore, a lot of these are made by people who would otherwise use a car” Do you know this for a fact?
3.6m is not a big number – the equivalent of about 7 bph – could be shifted in 2-3 trams/hr tops. (As a fact, the busway frequency is not greatly different to the old Whippet service it replaced -see my query on the transfer from car drivers…)
@Graham H
“3.6m is not a big number – the equivalent of about 7 bph – could be shifted in 2-3 trams/hr tops”
So a tram is two or three times as big as a bus. But a 20 minute interval tram service is not as attractive as an eight minute interval bus service. Moreover, guided buses are able to penetrate into the middle of Cambridge without having had to dig up the roads (cf Edinburgh), and can provide a variety of destinations at each end without building bespoke infrastructure to each one. (For example, if one bus a day were to take a detour to serve a school, no extra infrastructure would be needed. The cost of providing a similar service by tram would be prohibitive).
As for whether 3.6 million passengers pa is a large number: it is similar to the number of passengers using a station like New Malden or Wandsworth Town (figures from the SWT franchise consultation document, Annex C),and almost double that of Salisbury.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/477307/south-western-stakeholder-consultation.pdf
…and the buses can then get stuck,as they always did, in the horrendous traffic jams at either end (in Cambridge, even the o/p jams in Regent Street are something else- it is invariably quicker to walk. )
As to whether 3.6 is a big number or a small number, selective choice of a comparator to suit the argument is always possible, but I was referring to the business case.
Revenues from just 3.6m pax are unlikely to support the business case. Busways are not cheap -in fact, in terms of capex/km, they can easily be just as pricey as a railway, and where single track branchlines have to be converted, as here, the costs quickly rack up – costs which would not have to be incurred at all if the line in question was still live – as here. One of the major cost issues is the cost of installing proper drainage. As you may imagine, railway track is porous, waterfast road surfaces are not. This, as I have remarked before, was one of the key reasons why the 1980s proposals to convert Addiscombe- Elmers End failed.
If it ain’t broke, no need to spend tens of millions fixing it..
Graham: I don’t think the tens of millions spent in Cambridge were fixing anything, they were introducing something genuinely new. But as you say, the business case is all, and such a thing is unlikely to be makeable in Watford (which was the original digression which we have digressed from). Another key difference between Cambridge and Watford (apart from Cambridge having used up any residual financial naivety on busways) is that the St Ives railway line was completely defunct, so there were no existing users to shout. Far from the case in Watford – the numbers currently using the St Albans branch, even if they would all fit on one football pitch, are adequate to make a loud enough noise.
@Malcolm – you are making my point: in the case of the Watford line, there is a pre-existing live railway (as there wasn’t to S Ives), so any business case would have to show what extra benefits were bought for the extra spend. No doubt, in the Cambridge case, there were (as we know, in fact) pre-existing bus services and continuing with these would have /should have formed the base case against which the extra cost of the busway should have been set. It’s all in the base case! And sometimes doing nothing is a better option (or even setting fire to the banknotes)
Incidentally, proponents of the busway scheme should look carefully at the journey times – the current A and B services take 38 minutes to reach Cambridge centre(23 on the bus way and 15 sitting in jams in Regent St) compared with the all road timetables which showed a journey time of around, err, 37 minutes…To note also, the eventual outturn cost of £181m, which makes the Borders re-opening a snip. Timbeau to see that at current fares (c £6) and useage (c2.5m pax) the income doesn’t cover the capex carrying costs, let alone opex as well.
@Graham H – for the sake of accuracy I feel obliged to point out that the B doesn’t get as far as Regent Street: it terminates at Drummer Street bus station. But it can spend a long time sitting in traffic in Histon Road.
In fairness to the busway scheme (why am I saying this?), any difference in time will not show in the timetable (which I think was always expected to be little changed), but in the worst case achieved times. Such time benefits as the busway may well provide are likely to arise when the A14 undergoes one of its fairly frequent phase transitions from “fluide” (as French motorway signs sometimes indicate) to “jammed solid”. And such consistency as the busway does (perhaps) offer is probably quite important to commuter users.
Cambridgeshire is now proposing a busway network expansion, with a new corridor from St Neots. It would a bus only corridor though not guided, linking St Neots and Cambridge. link here: http://lscc.co/second-busway-for-cambridge-recommended/
The business case is apparently good.
@Malcolm – no, the busway services run to a timetable with intermediate timing points as did the road only predecessors, so you can make the direct comparison. Apparently the only benefits observable are the removal of a few bph from the A14, creating more road space. That’s a high cost per space… But you’re right about the reliability factor, although quite what price the punters would put on it is unknown in this case.
There is also a small extension to the busway under construction, from the point where it meets Milton Road to the new Cambridge North station (also under construction). This will enable direct busway to rail transfer with no need for the bus to use ordinary roads.
Can anyone explain how the business case stacks up for a busway vs a bus only specific road? I would have thought that building the busway with special concrete segments, and equipping hundreds (?) of buses with the guidance equipment must cost more than just laying a standard strip of Tarmac. So what are the additional benefits? Slightly lower land take, and a lower rate of wear on the bus drivers’ gloves?
I am slightly bemused as to why HCC would wish to see an existing railway line closed down given it pays nothing for it. HCC has long been reasonably pro public transport but in recent times has had no choice but to make substantial cuts to bus service funding. Why would it wish to lumber itself with a capital project and possible ongoing subsidy to provide a sufficiently frequent service? If it wants to improve bus services the one thing operators ask for is effective bus priority. There are huge traffic problems throughout Hertfordshire and that’s where the effort needs to be expended to give buses a fighting chance. The other would be to perhaps lobby for the possible Chiltern trains service from Aylesbury into Watford Junction over LU’s new & existing infrastructure. With a bit of sensible timetabling a reasonable connection across to St Albans might well be feasible. I’m just throwing the idea “out there” – a detailed critique about headways etc is NOT required in response.
@Jim – I think I probably meant S Andrew’s St. More generally, the problem with all transport in Cambridge is that that the city centre is so congested: however many express routes are built, they all end up tipping vehicles into the (very constrained) centre. You might think the case for banning private traffic is strong here – if pedestrianisation can’t bemadeto work there, where can it?
@SFD – search me -one of the silliest decisions that can be imagined(no,that’s not true;I can envisage many others but now is not the time)
@Jonathan Roberts – interesting – so, a bus only road. Again. it’s difficult to see how the benefits stack up unless they have in mind a very ambitious modal split. Or they believe that the external benefits in development terms are dependent on bus services – that would be a first…
@Graham H – I would love to continue the discussion about traffic and its management in Cambridge, but we’re getting too far off-topic.
@Sad Fat Dad – I’m not an expert here and will give way to anyone with more knowledge, but I think it depends what you’re starting from. The key point with a guided busway is that buses travelling in opposite directions can pass far closer to each other than under manual control. This means that if, as in Cambridgeshire, your infrastructure is already there, in the shape of a disused twin-track rail line, you can fit in a two-way guided busway and, in Cambridgeshire’s case, a 3-metre foot and cycle track alongside. If you’re starting from a blanker sheet of paper, then I imagine you build something like the (non-guided) Pilot Busway on the Greenwich peninsula.
Apart from the construction cost, the guided busway has other constraints: buses going in the same direction can’t pass each other, and if one breaks down, others have to divert a long way around it.
@SFD
One advantage of a guideway is that it does keep ordinary vehicles out, in a way that conventional tarmac bus lanes cannot. Certainly one of the longer examples of the latter – from Fareham to Gosport – is easily accessible and regularly abused. I am not sure if there is camera coverage on the latter – I’m fairly certain I recall it being at stops if not elsewhere – though even if there is, there is no guarantee the resources are in place to act on transgressions. The busway (usually) relies solely on physical means to achieve exclusivity. Though it is a large price to pay just for that benefit.
Keeping other vehicles out is a very small side-benefit of a busway. Automatic bus gates would do the same at a fraction of the cost. The ones which comprise a rising bollard have a very amusing effect on other vehicles trying to tailgate a bus through them.
@Malcolm
I don’t disagree, but all of those methods have a continual running cost to them – just the kind of thing that local highway authorities may/have abandoned in the name of cost-cutting (the usual local authority saving of withdrawing the biscuits at meetings having long since passed).
Going back to Watford – St Albans …
Surely introducing trams / drive-on-sight & spring-loaded points @ passing loops would be MUCH cheaper & more effective, since you could then run a tram every half-hour, round the useable clock?
That is the comparator to use against a guided busway
Just type ‘Cambridge busway car’ into google images to see how successful that system is at keeping cars out. I humbly suggest that it is more disruptive to the bus operation than having a simple strip of tarmac with a few enforcement cameras (which would surely be net positive in cash terms).
@Malcolm
Of course, such measures are useless when they suffer a failure. I walk past one of those rising bollards every (week)day which has the tendency to periodically break down…
Dartford’s Fastrack springs to mind here… In places it crosses the road at right angles, but doesn’t use bollards to stop cars, instead the corners are laid out in such a way that it would difficult to get a car onto it without incurring panel damage! This is along the bit to the north of the A206…
@Greg – tram conversion adds costs to the extensions at either end over buses, which is what any conversion scheme is actually about – penetrating Watford town centre, and through St Albans to Hatfield (the disused railway isn’t in the right place to serve the city centre or Thameslink station).
If it was just making the railway better so that more people would use it, then an extra train, a passing loop (or two) to get it to half-hourly (or even every 20 minutes) and Oysterisation would be cheaper than tram conversion or replacing it with a road.
As a near-than-Cambridge comparison, the Luton-Dunstable busway has now been in successful operation for a while now. It replaced a defunct railway line. I’ve yet to see a car try to access it even though it has multiple access points, possibly because the |_…_| positioning of the concrete ‘track’ has a wide gap in the middle, so only wide-track vehicles can effectively use it. For the same reason I’m not sure I see where the drainage problem is given that there is soil/grass in the middle of the track.
@Si:
The recent Herts CC scheme was for a straightforward tram conversion with no extension at either end. The business case was simple: building an unsignalled tram loop and buying a couple of cast-off Continental high floor trams would be much cheaper than the amount Network Rail quoted for building a loop and in principle cheaper even than the existing ongoing cost of operating the line as heavy rail. This was not totally implausible as the example of Manchester shows that heavily subsidised rail services can be turned into unsubsidised tram services.
The scheme failed because a) Herts CC turned out not to be very good at estimating costs (see Croxley Link), b) they weren’t willing to take on the long term liability of maintaining the structures on the route from Network Rail, and c) they weren’t willing to take on the cost of National Rail ticketing systems on the route.
So Herts CC appear to have reverted to their long-standing pre-Adonis scheme of a busway. Issues a) and b) would still apply to a busway of course.
In any case they say “A fully operational scheme is unlikely to be realised until after 2031”. I wouldn’t be putting money on it happening. The point of the Cambridge busway was to support housing development, and the Dunstable one was economic regeneration (in the wake of the Vauxhall closure etc), but the Abbey Line (and onwards to Hatfield) runs through Green Belt and areas not exactly in need of regeneration.
@AlisonW: yes, the Cambridgeshire busway is also designed for wide-track vehicles, and has car traps at the beginning of each guided section, where vehicles of insufficient width fall into a pit which stops them very abruptly. They then have to be dragged or lifted out, so the disruption after each incident is lengthy. But readers should not get the impression this happens all the time: in the worst 12-month period there were 9 such incidents, and the frequency is reducing. There have also been two instances of bus drivers failing to align the bus with the metal “flares”, as they are known, which funnel the bus into the guideway, causing the bus to veer up the embankment at the side of the busway, in one case with passenger injuries. I’m no expert on drainage, but the Cambridgeshire busway runs through some of the flattest and lowest terrain in the country; probably at no point is it more than 10 metres above sea level. And it’s not raised on nice porous ballast like a railway track, so it’s prone to ponding.
Is the St Albans to Watford formation wide enough to take two parallel guided busway tracks? I don’t know if there is any way of installing passing loops.
Also it must be remembered that if two guided buses end up facing each other on the same track, it is impossible for either to reverse.
If you install passing loops, a signalling system is necessary as driving on sight is no longer possible. This is true whether the system is guided or not.
Strictly what Timbeau says does not apply if the passing loops are so close that each one is in sight of the next. After all, driving a car down a residential street is a bit like that. Also if there were just two buses “in steam”, and one central loop, something cheaper than a full signalling system might be possible. But given what Nameless has just pointed out about the impossibility of reversing, this would all get rather tricky. (A mechanical fix to the reversing issue – steerable back wheels perhaps – could be devised, but it would all heap yet more expense on).
@Malcolm “Also if there were just two buses “in steam”, and one central loop, something cheaper than a full signalling system might be possible.”
The 464 bus route in darkest Bromley operates like that – two buses are needed to maintain the interval, and there are two narrow sections on steep hills. The drivers have standing instructions to wait until the other bus has passed before leaving the section between the two hills. (Presumably an exception is made for the first bus of the day!)
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/464.htm
@Malcolm – the guideway relies on there being continuous contact with the edges of the track, much as with a conventional railway, so at passing loops it would be necessary to replicate that – presumably with moveable “points” (or discontinue the guideway at either entrance to the loop, allowing the vehicles to resume their guided mode once in the loop). The first would be clumsy and expensive and the second seems to vitiate the advantages of being guided even if there is enough room to accommodate the toe-in.
All this seems to be an extraordinary expense to allow just two buses to be in transit on the route, and given the notorious congestion on the street running sections at either end, the chances of a “464” solution actually working in practice seem slim.
I may be being a bit dense, but why can’t a guided bus reverse along the guideway? And if this is a problem, how could steerable back wheels be a solution when they don’t have steerable front ones while on the guideway? And since the Cambridge busway to/from Trumpington Park and Ride is a guided bidirectional single track, haven’t all issues relative to this configuration already been resolved?
“Steerable” can mean two different things. I meant wheels which can alter their orientation relative to the vehicle front-back axis. The front wheels are always steerable in that sense, even though while they are on the guideway they are “steered” by the mechanism rather than by the driver turning the steering wheel.
When a vehicle is proceeding steerable-wheels last (typically in reverse), the steerable wheels have to be steered so as to rectify any wrong position of the other wheels. This is done by the driver when reversing manually, and it is one of the things which makes reversing so difficult to teach to learner drivers, even on a rigid vehicle.
If the steering mechanism was disconnected, the driver could in principal steer manually in reverse, but it would be extremely difficult (probably impossible) to keep accurately on such a narrow track. And disconnecting the mechanism would itself be complex.
I think the existing resolution of this issue consists of ensuring that buses never have to reverse. If they ever do, then I suspect a breakdown truck would lift the rear wheels. (Though come to think, the breakdown truck must have to reverse at some point. Hmm, perhaps a crane is involved).
@Mike
A guided bus is a conventional 2 axle bus which has retractable guide wheels fitted near the front. Just before the bus is driven onto the guideway, these are extended sideways to run along the guideway side walls. This enables the driver to let go of the steering wheel. The front wheels will pivot to follow the direction of the guideway. The powered rear wheels just follow and the bus stays on course.
If the bus is put into reverse gear, even if there were rear guide wheels, the rear wheels would tend to run in a straight line parallel to the bus chassis. The lateral forces on such a guidewheel would be excessive. the bus would collide with the sidewalls.
Additionall, the cnfiguration of the front wheels would mean that they would tend to wander – try pushing a bicycle backwards aand you will see what I am trying to describe.
These problems could be overcome but the whole point of guided busways is to use “normal” road going buses that have been subject to a simple and inexpensive modification.
The Abbey Flyer route looks like it could only accommodate single deck buses. Incidentally, rear drive articulated buses are also unsuitable.
I can’t understand the enthusiasm for guided concrete busways. A bus driver who steers gets paid no more than a driver who is guided some of the time so there is no reason there. Laying asphalt on a hard,ex railway,solum is a job that can be done by scores of skilled road asphalt firms,who lay new asphalt every day around the country. These concrete busways are laid by only a couple of firms & the client ends up paying exhorbitant monopoly prices,always vastly in excess of the quote.
The width at some masonary arch bridges may be inadequate for 2 buses to pass. But drivers are used to waiting in substandard country lanes & parking obstructed streets for the other bus to pass & slow down accordingly.
And the buses have to be specially equipped for the guided sections. The only reason I can think of for these few madcap schemes is a cynical one. Councillors & officers are attracted by having to go on fact finding missions to inspect busways world wide. If any one can think of a good reason for these guided ways please post & I will bow my head in shame.
Road-Rail bus, perhaps?
In appropriate situations such as the Cambridge one, a guided busway can provide a rapid bus service, quite different from typical bus services. However, the issue of whether they are the only way of doing this, or whether they justify the significant expenditure involved, has been discussed here at length.
We started with someone’s suggestion about Watford to St Albans – and there does seem to be a consensus that, however appropriate it may be elsewhere, a guided busway would not do on that route.
@Malcolm – I would struggle to describe the Cambridge example as ‘appropriate’ given the troubled history (particularly the repeated cost overruns / quality issues) of the project!
They could have had even a single track heavy rail solution with reinstated passing loops as applicable for a fraction of the cost. Crucially this would have linked into the city centre (well you know what I mean…) via existing rail infrastructure as opposed to dumping all the bus traffic onto the crowded streets south of the A14 junction. It would also have allowed for a ready-made ‘Cambridge North’ station for the Science Park – on the site of the railway!
The history of the project, and the fact that both BR and CCC thought a heavy rail solution was achievable well into the 90s speaks volumes about the farce which eventually emerged.
I suppose, strategically, the tragedy is that the alignment from St Ives into Huntingdon was not safeguarded – but then again, more frequent buses between the two would have sufficed as an interim solution.
I suppose what I meant by “appropriate” was that if a guided busway didn’t work there, it’s unlikely to work anywhere else. Yes, we could debate the extent to which it is “working”, but in the sense that buses are running and carrying at least moderate numbers of passengers, it is not a complete flop. And (as mentioned above), the available strip of land was wide enough for a guided busway, but was not wide enough for any other road-like solution.
Re-opening the branch as the railway it was would certainly have been “a solution”, but it is very doubtful how much use it would have got, given that almost all journeys would have, inevitably, been bus-train-bus, and probably with a train frequency of 2tph at best.
@Malcolm – ” it is very doubtful how much use it would have got” – well, actually, you don’t have much evidence for your assertion that journeys are bus-train-bus. If you knew the area, you’d know that at the Cambridge end, no one would dream of catching a bus just from the station to the town centre (which is the trip end of the A and B routes) because of the horrible congestion*; they’d walk (and if going elsewhere, they require a change to a another bus anyway). And at the other end of the busway, S Ives is hardly such a large settlement that people wouldn’t walk/cycle to the station. It is inherently likely that a revived railway would have (a) cost less, (b) attracted much of the bus traffic volumes, and (c) would have offered a faster journey – itself likely to lead to more traffic.
* Current bus operations envisage a 15 minute peak journey time Station to Drummer Street – a brisk walk in 20 minutes (or a 30 minute academic’s stroll).
Graham: yes, my bus-train-bus claim is not well-founded, I grant you (though not everyone can manage a 20 to 30 minute walk, and at the north end I was thinking of residents of Huntingdon and other surrounding areas). And just how many of the current bus users would be using a revived railway is a complete unknown – my guess is “not much”, whereas yours is “much”. The only users who would definitely have a faster journey by train would be those whose origins and destinations are a short walk from the relevant stations – a fairly small number, I contend, whereas those within a short walk at each end from the end of the actual busway (perhaps a similarly small number) would certainly find the bus quicker. For the vast majority of other users, respective speeds of journeys would be all over the scale.
But we now have the busway, so it’s all a bit, err, academic.
@Malcolm -I fear I was trying to break your habit of sweeping generalisations, as you have confessedly put it, by making another with a slightly higher fact content. Naughty of me, I know, but then I’m not a moderator. BTW when does the millinery exchange take place?
@ Malcolm / Graham H – just to add to the unsubstantiated generalisations I wonder if the Busway is popular because concessionary pass holders can use it (and any in town connecting bus) for free. Futhermore it has three large park and ride sites which I suspect are well used by older car owners (not those who walk) thus allowing them to pay a small parking fee and then enjoy a free ride into town. No doubt a bit less taxing than driving into Cambridge and trying to find somewhere to park. A study of the demographics and ticket types of Busway users would probably be quite revealing. It may also point up some differences that might not have applied to usage of a rail service.
@ Nameless 1239 – interesting comment re bendies. Odd that Essen and Adelaide both had / have guided bus lines which use articulated buses. They must have a solution for removing failed / broken down vehicles. Essen also had dual mode buses which could run as trolleybuses in tunnel sections.
@Malcolm / Graham H
I imagine the chronic shortage of DMUs would have done for it in any case 🙁
It would certainly have cost less.
But – please correct me if I’m wrong (and forgive me for taking the crayons out) – I imagine they could have reinstated the link to Huntingdon (and replaced the existing track/signalling) – thus giving another vital east/west link – for about the same price – (£152m) as was ultimately paid for the flood-prone busway.
I just did a bit of old map digging and was surprised to re-learn from my ‘disused railways of Cambs history’ that this link actually went prior to the Chatteris line…
Nameless: so your “impossible to reverse” actually means that reversing would be possible but difficult – but professional drivers do precision reversing every day (just watch a lorry driver reverse a double-articulated unit into a loading bay hemmed in by two others already occupied by trailers – looks so easy!). And the mechanics of pushing a bicycle backwards are not like those of the rear wheels of a bus pulling it backwards.
And you’ve ignored the point that the scenario you paint could happen many times a day at Trumpington, but it seems to operate pretty well.
As for your assertion that rear-drive artics are unsuitable, in the light of the above and the absence of supporting evidence I think we should also take that with a pinch of salt!
As I live less than five miles from the centre of Cambridge, perhaps the moderators will allow me a few comments.
1) The busway is heavily used at peak times and the peak services have been boosted since the busway was opened. Currently 15 buses per hour leave Longstanton park and ride for Cambridge in the morning peak. Passengers at this time are not concessionary pass holders as you can’t use those before 0930. Outside those hours I would concur with WW’s speculations, with the addition of leisure trips out of the city: the upper deck of the double-deckers affords a unique view of the Fen Drayton nature reserve, and St Ives is a popular stroll-by-the-river/tea-and-cakes kind of destination.
2) With the exception of the A14 and the link from the A14 to Histon, which weren’t there in railway days, the busway between Cambridge and St Ives crosses all the roads it intersects with at grade, the junctions being controlled by traffic lights or give way markings. If the railway had been reinstated, these would all be level crossings, which seems contrary to Network Rail’s policy of closing level crossings wherever possible.
3) Before my time; but I believe that beyond the station at St Ives, the railway crossed the Ouse and its flood plain on wooden trestles. I was told by a local that one factor hastening the closure was that the timbers had rotted to the extent that they would all need replacing. So reinstating the link to Huntingdon – much as I would have welcomed it – would need a lot of new construction at least at the St Ives end.
@Mike
Reversing for a short distance might be possible but it is not possible to keep the rear wheels from striking the guideway side walls while any lateral movement of the front wheels is prevented by the guide wheels. As for reversing to the last guideway entrance..
As far as bendies are concerned, does anyone have any pictures showing which axles had guidewheels? It would also be useful to know whether the centre or rear axles where powered.
How Adelaide rescues buses broken down on the busway
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2858/10851958455_b4383585c4_m.jpg
Pictures of the actual buses look like pusher artics, so like Mike I am puzzled why Nameless thinks they are unsuitable.
I think the issue of reversing buses on a guided busway had better be dropped for now. Unless anyone has a contact (or can establish one) with someone who is actually responsible for these buses – ideally a manager or responsible person at the relevant Stagecoach depot, or someone involved with breakdown recovery of buses from the guideway. (Or perhaps someone who actually drives them, and has presumably been given directions as to what to do if face-to-face with another bus).
Speculation, intuition and analogies with other vehicles in other situations can only take us so far.
Speaking as someone who lives / has lived in Cambridge for the best part of 15 years, and has used the southern half of the busway in the past, I concur with many of Jim’s points. So far, no one has mentioned the vociferous campaign mounted by CASTIron in the noughties against the busway, in favour of the heavy rail option they had advocated ever since the line was closed. They then spent the next several years telling everyone, “We told you so,” when all the construction problems and costs overruns occurred. Now that it’s there, it seems to be popular and well used, but suffers from congestion along its street-running section in the city centre. The council are now proposing peak-time road closures to non-essential traffic in a bid to reduce congestion, but this is proving to be as popular as a daily dose of the flu!
I strongly suspect that if the rail line had remained open to passenger traffic, no one would have successfully implemented a proposal to convert into a busway…..the opposition from existing users would have been just too great. I therefore find it difficult to see HCCs crazy plans for the Abbey Line ever being implemented.
It’s interesting to compare the emerged cost of the busway at c£12m/mile with the cost of the Borders railway re-opening – c£10m/mile. BOFP estimates suggest that opex for the busway and a comparable length railway would be roughly the same (with higher maintenance costs for rail offset by the higher staffing costs for a bus) – both numbers being dwarfed by the capital cost and its long term consequences. On the reasonable assumption that traffic volumes are probably broadly comparable by either mode, the case for a railway is probably marginal; much depends on the valuation of the Achilles heel of busways – that the services get stuck in normal road congestion at either end – and the trade off between that and the alternative of leaving people to access a rail/bushead by cycle or on foot (or park and ride if it comes to that).
Just to put some numbers around revenues and costs of the busway, on the basis of current timetables, there are something like 40 000 return trips on the busway, taking around 1 1/2 hours for the round trip. A fully-costed hour of a bus’s time outside London costs something between £25 and £30 (say £27), so the cost of running a trip is going to be of the order of £40, giving a total opex of around £800k for the busway services. Add in the “highway maintenance ” cost and the total running cost is going to be somewhere in the order of £1m. The capital costs are dependent on the source of finance. A PWLB loan at 2% pa plus amortization over 40 years is going to avaerage out at something like £6-7m pa, but financed by means of a PFI deal, that could easily treble.
On the revenue side, much depends on o/p load factors which may be low if the services are anything like those in other parts of the country – an average occupancy of 50% would be good. With a service offering of about 2.5-3 m return trip seats, that implies 1-1 1/2m journeys pa and at the sort of fares we see elsewhere for this sort of journey length, that would point to revenues of about £10m . So,likely to be profitable unless done as a PFI deal, in which case it would be a dog.
Rail would be much the same albeit with capex costs coming out at about £5-6m pa,which would mean that you could get away with an average occupancy rate approaching 25% and still cover all your costs. The availability of concessionary fares on rail becomes a critical issue at that point (as does the accuracy of the reimbursement formula…)
Busway recovery video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO3PZh55gXg
Not clear how the recovery vehicle gets there, but this is how Adelaide does it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFZW4XXQG5U
Graham H. Very instructive numbers that you have put together. One reason why railway reopening may cost slightly less than a busway is that the actual tracklaying on a ‘new’ railway has become a highly efficient operation with a combination of bulk simplicity (ballast) and pre-packaged factory-built units (the track). Busways, being occasional one-off affairs, mostly rely on in-situ concrete construction. Precast units are possible, but concrete is heavy stuff, so the individual lengths are short. Additionally, the magic of ballast combined with steel rails gives an amazing flexibility. Concrete is horribly rigid. To get a smooth busway with precast units requires a very high standard of foundation preparation, probably far above that needed if ballast is used.
I have marvelled in the past at how the basic railway track construction of rails, sleepers and ballast, developed in the early 19th C ( not sure when), has survived until now with only modest changes and is routinely used for massively heavy trains running at tremendous speeds. I wonder who the (possibly anonymous) engineer was who developed it.
Fandroid
Robert Stephenson ???
Greg. Probably not RS. Idle research suggests the basic technology originated with canal wagonways in the late 18C.
In his biography of the Stephensons, LTC Rolt states that GS clung to the old practice of using stone block sleepers with rails at the gauge of the Killingworth wagonway. Stone blocks were initially preferred so that horses would not damage or trip on cross sleepers, mixed traction being anticipated. This track would not be comparable to our current practice being unlikely to keep gauge with weight and vibration.
It was also considered that as stone blocks were more rigid than sleepered track there would be fewer rail breakages. This was an erroneous theory that persisted for several decades in tramway / wagonway systems.
Brunel’s baulk road used much timber but was not what we would recognise as sleepered track. There were logitudinal timbers every 15ft or so with the rails on long timbers.
Joseph Locke used timber sleepers at 30in intervals and perfected (if he did not invent) bull head rail used for his Grand Junction Railway in about 1837. His track is the nearest to what we have now.
@KitGreen -more recent research shows,however, that stone blocks originated very much later than the notion of track. Blocks seem to have originated with, or at the timeof Benjamin Outram and the Little Eaton Gangway c1793; indeed, the original plan for the LEG envisaged transverse sleepers as we now know them, advertising for the supply of oak sleepers 4′ 6″ long, squared off at each end to receive the rail. Outram claimed to have invented the notion of stone blocks but that may be puff… Horses were able to walk between the rails as the ground was usually built up over the sleepers to provide a level surface.
Track used for guidance appears to have originated,so far as the UK was concerned, around 1604. Iron rails appeared by the midC18.
Re Graham H and Kit Green,
And track for guidance purposes at near standard gauge was seen earlier at the Hohensalzburg in 1504 (8 horse or equivalent prisoner power).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reisszug
This was probably a copy of earlier more extensive narrow gauge tracks at the Schwaz Silver mine from the 1470s.
The technology possibly came to England with the theft of the large bronze casting secrets from the Innsbruck foundry that processed the waste Copper and Tin left over from the Schwaz silver ore processing.
It is thought that grooves were deliberately cut into rock around 2000BC to guide sleds (as originally used at Reisszug) on Malta. This may however have been enhancement of already formed ruts.
Re: Kit Green. I believe Brunel also originally thought that it would be a good idea to support the longitudinal baulks with timber piles at regular intervals. However this actually led to what might be called an extreme example of cyclic top as the baulks between the piles settled into the formation. Presumably there might still be the rotting remnants of vertical piles under Network Rail’s Great Western Route tracks below the point where they were cut off to remove the issue…?
@Kit Green/ngh – certainly grooved track in stone has existed from at least the Iron Age (in Sicily complete with a set of “points”) and was known in Scandinavia from prehistoric times when it was used for ceremonial purposes as a cursus leading to religious sites *(!). Similar grooves exist on certain Alpine passes together with putlog holes to enable a lever to be inserted in them to push the wagon upwards. As to the pre-C16 track, the normal procedure in the German and Bohemian sites (and apparently in Cumberland after c1570) was for the wagons to run on two parallel boards guided by a central pin which ran between the boards. I believe the earliest surviving conventional track is on the older of the two “man wrestling (they meant winch-operated) railways” on the fortress in Salzburg, which dates from just after 1500.
+ the vehicles which used these conveyed corpses to pyres and the tracks includea deliberate upward jink to throw off any evil spirits that might be rising with the corpse. NR have learnt a thing or two about that.
Re Graham H,
The older Hohensalzburg one was a twin track funicular with the wagon masses balancing each other out and a large very impressive capstan winch at the top.
It’s still there – but difficult to see.
Comment by Diamond Geezer today on this.
Any more solid information?
So now we can bid welcome to the Croxley Parkland Walk or Nature Reserve. Temporal myopia strikes again.
Pity , when it could easily have linked Watford to the western section of E-W Rail.
If correct, I would imagine the people of Watford, Croxley etc will be incandescent, if the re-opening is actually cancelled.
Is the Croxley Rail Link Project rail link actually a TfL one?
Isn’t it the case that it is a DfT/Herts/TfL sponsored project with TfL project managing? If so it may not sensibly live in TfL business plan if the risk component if below threshold?
Isn’t this actually about politics. Govt says it doesn’t want the London Mayor getting involved in further rail franchises. Mayor retaliates by binning something that’s in Hertfordshire where I assume no one got to vote for him.
@ngh It was previously in the business plan.
@quinlet 23 Nov and WW 24 Nov 2015
“I see that TfL have now announced that the funding package is now complete. This amounts to £284.4m, including local funding of £125.35 million, DfT providing £109.82 million and TfL providing the remaining £49.23 million…….
Mayoral Direction requiring TfL to find the balancing sum of money created by the “valuation hole” on the land assets transferred by Herts CC as part of the deal. TfL have been told to find the few extra million quid to make up the shortfall”
If money and assets (land) have already changed hands on the promise of TfL building the line, Mr Khan may be looking at having to return £250million for defaulting on that promise.
Not everyone in Watford will be disappointed though
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/14881726.Fight_to_save_Watford_Met_station_continues/
Editors note
There’ll be a post about this on Thursday because, as always, we want to be thorough not quick.
So can I ask that people hold off discussion on this topic until then please to avoid comments on that article all starting with “…as I said in the other thread.”
If you do have a link or document you feel we should see on the subject before then, however, then please send it to us directly.
@timbeau – 13 December 2016 at 12:17
(SNIP)
Not everyone in Watford will be disappointed though
For once a rational discussion in the comments on the Bucks Free Press article (below it – scroll down a long way!)
It would seem to be the case that the petitioners are arguing, not for “either/or” but “both/and”, as 4tph will be usung Watford met to turn.
Seems to me they need to persuade Watford Council to stump up the costs of keeping the station open.
First comment that should have waited for new article has already been deleted. John U.K. was allowed through as it is clear he was already composing comment before the edict from above was published.
I await Thursday with a sense of anticipation, trepidation and self-doubt.
We shall await your article. But I move it be entitled Fear and Loathing in West Watford.