I wonder if I could apeal for information from ths group?

In the spring next year I plan to sell my house in Watford.  It is said
to be the house that was built for the manager of the the 'newly
arrived' railway at Watford Junction.  it is built of the same brick as
the station used to be and is a short walk away.

My questions are:

The deeds show it as having been built in or before 1882.  Is this
consistent with the arrival of the railway at Watford?

Which railway was it that first put the line through Watford Junction
(from Euston)?

The house is named "Clifton" in eth 1882 deeds, and I imagine it was
named after the just completed Clifton Suspension bridge.  Does this
sound plausible?

With thanks for any light people can shed on this..

Robert Laws

Robert wrote:

> I wonder if I could apeal for information from ths group?
>
> In the spring next year I plan to sell my house in Watford.  It is said
> to be the house that was built for the manager of the the 'newly
> arrived' railway at Watford Junction.  it is built of the same brick as
> the station used to be and is a short walk away.
>
> My questions are:
>
> The deeds show it as having been built in or before 1882.  Is this
> consistent with the arrival of the railway at Watford?
>
> Which railway was it that first put the line through Watford Junction
> (from Euston)?
>
> The house is named "Clifton" in eth 1882 deeds, and I imagine it was
> named after the just completed Clifton Suspension bridge.  Does this
> sound plausible?
>
> With thanks for any light people can shed on this..
>
> Robert Laws

I am sure somebody will answer with more accurate information but the
London & Birmingham Railway must have preceeded 1882 by a good while. I
thought that it was around the 1830's but the first station in Watford
wasn't where Watford Junc is now. I think that some of the original
buildings are up by the St Albans Rd bridge, used by a car hire firm or
car dealer seems to ring bells.
Maybe the station on the present Watford Junc site was built around
1882. I suppose it would have had to been around the same time that the
line to St Albans or Rickmansworth was built.

Kevin

Robert wrote:

> I wonder if I could apeal for information from ths group?
>

>
> The house is named "Clifton" in eth 1882 deeds, and I imagine it was
> named after the just completed Clifton Suspension bridge.  Does this
> sound plausible?


I would imagine it was not specifically named after the Bridge, as this
had been completed in the 1860's. It might have been named after that
district of Bristol - perhaps the first resident had a sentimental
regard for the place -  but I have the impression that many Victorian
houses were given arbitrary rustic-style names that sound as if they
had just been made up by the builder - "Rockdene", "Ashcliffe" etc.

Andy Kirkham

wrote in message
news:1126778049.585649.151290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I am sure somebody will answer with more accurate information but the
> London & Birmingham Railway must have preceeded 1882 by a good while. I
> thought that it was around the 1830's but the first station in Watford
> wasn't where Watford Junc is now. I think that some of the original
> buildings are up by the St Albans Rd bridge, used by a car hire firm or
> car dealer seems to ring bells.
> Maybe the station on the present Watford Junc site was built around
> 1882. I suppose it would have had to been around the same time that the
> line to St Albans or Rickmansworth was built.


I only have very sketchy information for the area, but that end of the L&BR
opened in 1837, and presumably the first Watford station would have opened
at the same time.  The Rickmansworth line opened in 1862.  Looking at the
map the opening of the St Albans line looks a likely candidate for requiring
the station to be moved, but I don't have a date.

Roger

This is very interesting.   Where St,Albans Road crosses the railway,
which is where the original station might have been, there are indeed
several buildings in the same brick and style as my house.  I'll go and
see if I can find some earlier deeds.  I have a bundle of them and the
earliest seemed to be 1882.

Perhaps Clifton referring to the bridge is a bit fancyful.  Had it been
a railway bridge it would have been more plausible but it wasn't
(IIRC).

Many thanks for your helpe gentlemen.

Robert

Robert wrote:

> This is very interesting.   Where St,Albans Road crosses the railway,
> which is where the original station might have been, there are indeed
> several buildings in the same brick and style as my house.  I'll go
> and see if I can find some earlier deeds.  I have a bundle of them
> and the earliest seemed to be 1882.
>


The Hirus Van Rental offices are in what was the original goods yard and
are, I believe, an original building, the adjacent used car business between
Hirus and St Albans Road is also on former railway land..

The station was relocated from North of St Albans Road to present site in
May 1858 when St Albans branch was built.  This in turn was rebuilt in 1909
and that in its turn was rebuilt in 1984 to create the current station.


-- 
Cheers for now,

John from Harrow, Middx

remove spamnocars to reply

"John Shelley"  wrote

>
> The station was relocated from North of St Albans Road to present site in
> May 1858 when St Albans branch was built.  This in turn was rebuilt in
1909
> and that in its turn was rebuilt in 1984 to create the current station.
>

1858 was also the date when the 'third line' (up goods) was opened between
Watford and Primrose Hill. By 1875 there was also a 'fourth line' and all
four tracks were being used by passenger trains. Has anyone got a date when
the second Watford Tunnel was built - presumably 1875 or later?

Peter

According to Railways of Great Britain A Historical Atlas (Colonel
Michael H. Cobb).

Watford Junction opened 1858.

St Albans branch opened 1858.

Rickmansworth line opened in 1862.

Second Watford Tunnel opened in 1874.

The Bushey to High St curve opened in 1913 and so did the station at
Headstone Lane followed by Carpenders Park (1914) so perhaps this is
when the surburban pair of tracks opened.

Not sure about the additional pair of main lines but possibly around
the same time as the second tunnel.

wrote in message
news:1126857736.126915.123290@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Peter Masson wrote:
> > "John Shelley"  wrote
> > >
> > > The station was relocated from North of St Albans Road to present site
in
> > > May 1858 when St Albans branch was built.  This in turn was rebuilt in
> > 1909
> > > and that in its turn was rebuilt in 1984 to create the current
station.
> > >
> > 1858 was also the date when the 'third line' (up goods) was opened
between
> > Watford and Primrose Hill. By 1875 there was also a 'fourth line' and
all
> > four tracks were being used by passenger trains. Has anyone got a date
when
> > the second Watford Tunnel was built - presumably 1875 or later?
> >
> > Peter
> Which pair of tracks are the new tracks?


So far as the Watford Tunnels are concerned, the south-western of the two is
clearly the original, as the approaches to the north-eastern one are slewed
from the main alignment - this is apparent even on the OS map. This isn't
the case further north as at least one of the tunnels near Leighton Buzzard
has two new single bores (one each side of the original double bore) leading
to right-hand running in the double bore - with large danger signs to staff
to warn accordingly.

I realise that the cheap and nasty nature of the quadrupling of this route
meant pairing of the tracks by use rather than by direction, but one thing
I've *never* *ever* been able to understand is why the opportunity wasn't
taken to rectify this either in the 1960s electrification or in the recent
upgrade. Modern conditions simply don't suit pairing by use. We keep being
told about capacity constraints, but how much capacity is wasted by movement
from fast-slow and vice versa being conflicting movements?

Regards

Jonathan

"Jonathan Morton"  wrote in 
message news:dghgj1$sap$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>  wrote in message
> news:1126857736.126915.123290@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I realise that the cheap and nasty nature of the quadrupling of this route
> meant pairing of the tracks by use rather than by direction, but one thing
> I've *never* *ever* been able to understand is why the opportunity wasn't
> taken to rectify this either in the 1960s electrification or in the recent
> upgrade. Modern conditions simply don't suit pairing by use. We keep being
> told about capacity constraints, but how much capacity is wasted by 
> movement
> from fast-slow and vice versa being conflicting movements?
>

As I understand it, the main reason that the existing pairings are kept is 
down to a) Watford Tunnels, where the slows take a relatively sharp corner, 
and the fasts go straight on through, and b) Hanslope - Rugby, where the 
slows seperate totally from the fasts and go via Northampton. The ergonomics 
of crossing Silverlink/Freight services over Virgin high speed (via old 
line) services would make pairing by direction, rather than speed, 
impractical, unless Hanslope had a major rebuild to provide grade seperated 
junctions.

A totally unrelated issue, is that directionally segregated tracks are a pig 
to get 2 line possessions for, since you either have to keep one pair of 
lines operational, making access to the other pair more difficult, or shut 
all four lines, unless everything is signalled bidirectionally, which would 
have added a huge extra expense to the already way over budget West Coast 
Mod. Speed segregation makes our life out on the ground so much easier, 
since we just close off one side or the other.

CHeers,

John

"John Savage"  wrote in message
news:ZKXWe.10538$zw1.8998@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "Jonathan Morton"  wrote in
> message news:dghgj1$sap$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >  wrote in message
> > news:1126857736.126915.123290@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I realise that the cheap and nasty nature of the quadrupling of this
route
> > meant pairing of the tracks by use rather than by direction, but one
thing
> > I've *never* *ever* been able to understand is why the opportunity
wasn't
> > taken to rectify this either in the 1960s electrification or in the
recent
> > upgrade. Modern conditions simply don't suit pairing by use. We keep
being
> > told about capacity constraints, but how much capacity is wasted by
> > movement
> > from fast-slow and vice versa being conflicting movements?
> >
> As I understand it, the main reason that the existing pairings are kept is
> down to a) Watford Tunnels, where the slows take a relatively sharp
corner,
> and the fasts go straight on through, and b) Hanslope - Rugby, where the
> slows seperate totally from the fasts and go via Northampton. The
ergonomics
> of crossing Silverlink/Freight services over Virgin high speed (via old
> line) services would make pairing by direction, rather than speed,
> impractical, unless Hanslope had a major rebuild to provide grade
seperated
> junctions.


In my hypothetical configuration the line affected by the Watford Tunnel
alignment would be the up fast. What is the limit through WJ station for
non-stopping trains and how much more restrictive (even assuming no easing
were possible) would the limit approaching the tunnel need to be, I wonder?
I agree that the configuration in the Roade Cutting would have been
"interesting" if you wanted a good scheme, but you can't make an omelette...

It's always struck me how many "you'll never be able to fix that" problems
have been solved on the ECML in comparison with the WCML. Just a moment's
thought of what's been done in my lifetime brings:

Hadley Wood quadrupling (OK, only just in my lifetime)
Offord (twice)
Peterborough (I know it needs doing again, but it was 10 mph IIRC)
Selby deviation
Allington chord line


> A totally unrelated issue, is that directionally segregated tracks are a
pig
> to get 2 line possessions for, since you either have to keep one pair of
> lines operational, making access to the other pair more difficult, or shut
> all four lines, unless everything is signalled bidirectionally, which
would
> have added a huge extra expense to the already way over budget West Coast
> Mod. Speed segregation makes our life out on the ground so much easier,
> since we just close off one side or the other.


That argument won't wash, since as I understand it clearances are already so
tight that closing either of the centre roads means leaving only one line
open on parts of the line. I travelled Crewe to Wolverhampton the other day
(I rarely use the WCML north of Stafford) and the "six foot" does look very
tight in places.

I still think it would be very difficult to explain to a car driver who
didn't understand anything about signalling that in order to overtake you
have to cross the line carrying traffic in the other direction on the level.

Regards

Jonathan

On 17 Sep 2005 08:40:48 -0700, "allan tracy"
 wrote:


>According to Railways of Great Britain A Historical Atlas (Colonel
>Michael H. Cobb).
>
>Watford Junction opened 1858.
>
>St Albans branch opened 1858.
>
>Rickmansworth line opened in 1862.
>
>Second Watford Tunnel opened in 1874.
>
>The Bushey to High St curve opened in 1913 and so did the station at
>Headstone Lane followed by Carpenders Park (1914) so perhaps this is
>when the surburban pair of tracks opened.
>
>Not sure about the additional pair of main lines but possibly around
>the same time as the second tunnel.



The third/forth lines were built at different times. There was a third
line between Primrose Hill & Bletchley built 1858/9 and the forth line
(which seems to be refered to as quadrupling) in the period 1874 -1880
(my sources give various dates).

G

"Jonathan Morton"  wrote

>
> I realise that the cheap and nasty nature of the quadrupling of this route
> meant pairing of the tracks by use rather than by direction, but one thing
> I've *never* *ever* been able to understand is why the opportunity wasn't
> taken to rectify this either in the 1960s electrification or in the recent
> upgrade. Modern conditions simply don't suit pairing by use. We keep being
> told about capacity constraints, but how much capacity is wasted by
movement
> from fast-slow and vice versa being conflicting movements?
>

Both the 1960s electrification and the recent upgrade *assumed* that there
would be a minimal need for fast/slow crossing, so paired by use seemed the
better arrangement. If lines are paired by direction the fast lines really
have to be in the centre (otherwise there are problems with reverse curves
round the platforms  at every station), and it is then difficult to turn
local trains back at intermediate stations (Tring or MKC), as they have to
cross both fast lines. When the Great Northern Suburban electrification took
place a flyover had to be put in at Welwyn for the local services
terminating there.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote

> Both the 1960s electrification and the recent upgrade *assumed* that there
> would be a minimal need for fast/slow crossing...


That's what I thought; so why were the (enormously expensive) new layouts at
Ledburn and Bourne End *each* provided with eight crossovers (allowing
parallel moves) rather than six (which should suffice for "minimal need"?)

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:20:55 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "John
Salmon"  wrote this:-


>> Both the 1960s electrification and the recent upgrade *assumed* that there
>> would be a minimal need for fast/slow crossing...
>
>That's what I thought; so why were the (enormously expensive) new layouts at
>Ledburn and Bourne End *each* provided with eight crossovers (allowing
>parallel moves) rather than six (which should suffice for "minimal need"?)


I suspect that a major reason for doing so is that it allows one
pair of lines to be closed for engineering work and trains crossed
over simultaneously in both directions.

I'm glad. There are far too many examples around the railways of
"facilities" that are so poor that they are next to useless when
they are needed.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.