Talk:Croxley Rail Link

The Watford Health Campus Section should not be split from this page as it regards the rail link and it's benefit. A Page for the Health Campus should be created whilst at the same time, the section in the Croxley Rail Link be retained as it shows the Context of the rail link and provides more information for the reader of the article than a simple stub would. George5210 (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm just creating a map surrounding Watford: Croxley rail link. Interessted to discuss the development concerning colours aso.? Please kindly excuse my bad English writing. (My grasp is much better!) Clausthal (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

http://www.greengauge21.net/publications/capturing-the-benefits-of-hs2-on-existing-lines/ HS2 assessment, for later use George5210 (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The result of the TWAO was due in Easter 2013 but nothing has been announced. The TWAO is the final approval from the government to go ahead. Can this somehow be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.19 (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the edits [1], [2]: as User:Cnbrb has already pointed out [3], the link wasn't dead. The reason I removed it was that (a) the news story it linked to made no mention of the fact that it was supposedly supporting, and (b) the link appeared to be instructing the reader to check a user-submitted comment on the story: not only had the comments disappeared, but they would not be considered reliable sources in any event. Therefore, it should never have been used as a reference in the first place--which is why I described it as "unusable". --RFBailey (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks RFBailey. It's always worth checking the references to see if they actually support the statements in the article. Your edits were clearly made in good faith. In the end I replaced the problematic reference with something more relevant. It's actually an interesting piece of history and worth some research. 12:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs)

Thanks. WP:NEWSBLOG states "Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources", which seems to cover this situation. As it happens, I actually have a copy of Wolmar's book lying around.... --RFBailey (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

When a link goes dead, but preferably long before it goes dead, find and add archive URLs for each reference. The {{cite}} template has the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters for this. Initially tag the reference with |deadurl=no then change to |deadurl=yes should the link ever go dead in the future. Additionally, when the reference is a date-stamped resource (such as a newspaper article), and especially if a dated archive has already been added, the |accessdate= parameter is irrelevant and should be removed. -- 79.67.255.253 (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, 79.67.255.253, for your work on this.Cnbrb (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's a huge number of references to fix. It would be great if there were a few more clued-up volunteers to spread the workload. -- 79.67.255.253 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't find the consensus refered to By Gareth Jones only that he seems to prefer poor English. 188.30.26.7 (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, both versions of the opening paragraph contained mangled English, spelling and grammar mistakes, and were difficult to read. Also, both versions of the paragraph about possible services to Amersham/Aylesbury were overly speculative. I've re-written the opening paragraph completely, and cut down the Amersham stuff to a single sentence. --RFBailey (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

A good job done, too. Now let us hope that marauding non-registered posters will keep away.
Thanks! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your attention to this. All fine for improvements to text etc. I do, however, think it's important to describe Watford Met as the "present day" Underground station just to differentiate it from other future stations called "Watford" which will replace it. In the context of this article there are six stations called Watford so I think we need to be clear.Cnbrb (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the first sentence we currently say that this is a proposed project. When will it be appropriate to lose "proposed"? I get the feeling that it is rather firmer than that now. Views please? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't agree more, DBaK. I shall attend to it forthwith. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

THe lede(I think) said "construction is due to start in June 2014" which I have changed "is" to "was". However a quick Web search does not yield any news that it has actually started. Can Does anyone else have greater success in finding some? (I searched for "croxley rail link construction starts") and "watford rail link construction starts".) Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure how many times this project has to be approved - it was "approved" in December 2011, then in July 2013 the government gave it the "go-ahead", and then just before the 2015 Budget the government gave the project its final final approval. It's all terribly confusing and not really clear what all these "approvals" signify - it's possibly just a product of sloppy journalism, or the time-honoured tradition of re-announcing previous announcements to make a government look good just before a general election, or possibly a combination of the two... but if anyone can clarify what these announcements actually signify, it would be most enlightening! Cnbrb (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's normal for the legislation authorising a major construction project to have some kind of time limit. If it is later found that the project is unlikely to meet that deadline, they might have sought an extension. It's also possible that the original sanctioned cost was severely underestimated, and so fresh authorisation could have been needed for additional money. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll put it down to lax journalism then! I know that there was recently a massive budget hike and Herts County Council were wrangling with TfL over who would manage the whole thing, so maybe the project scope has altered significantly without being adequately explained by the media. Maybe needs clarification in the article.... Cnbrb (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Anyone who's been following this will have noticed how the completion date keeps creeping ... originally it was 2016, and now latest reports suggest the link will not open until 2020. It's getting to be a bit of a wearying task repeatedly changing this date in various WP articles! On the up side, Hertfordshire County Council are expecting "an announcement from London Underground regarding their delivery proposals for the line in the coming weeks,” so we may hear something more reliable than Hertfordshire's ephemeral promises! Cnbrb (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've already updated List of London Underground stations on it. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 18:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this [The price for the rail link has rocketed from £120 million to £284 million and this forced the government to step in and ask Transport for London to take over the scheme last year.] be added too? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Croxley Rail Link. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425152758/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/local-authority-major-transport-schemes/scheme-decisions-december-2011.pdf to http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/local-authority-major-transport-schemes/scheme-decisions-december-2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110601085807/http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/165237/706167/706557/Croxley.pdf to http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/165237/706167/706557/Croxley.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208121112/http://www.railsaver.co.uk/chilternrailway.htm to http://www.railsaver.co.uk/chilternrailway.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Intro is poorly written. Wiki is supposed to be for lay people not train fans. I re-wrote parts of it. An editor, Gareth Griffith-Jones, keeps reverting giving no explanation why. If you change you must give a reason. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

From what I can tell there is no reason for the revert, I'd love to hear Gareth Griffith-Jones's explanation why Jeni ^(talk) 12:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The opening para was disjointed and clunky and did not say what the project was to do. It never even mentioned that two new stations were to be built and all urban lines in Watford were to be focused on one terminal. It mixed a poor explanation with engineering works. I only got to know what was happening by looking at the map, the intro was just confusion. I put in a simple explanation of the aims of the project and the engineering works in the following para, as they are different. Also, when you revert or change you say why, not just change because you do not like it, or that you wrote the piece being changed even though it is poor. There is too much railway language in these rail articles, they are for the layman to understand, not rail fans. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The articles says "Croxley Green to be replaced by Cassiobridge". Croxley Green station does not exist to be replaced. This is example of the poor explanations in this article. It is full of them. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually I'm not keen on either the old intro or the proposed revision. The introduction shouldn't carry too much detail - all the bits about viaducts and route detail and George Osborne are really unnecessary as they are discussed later in the article. Here's my suggestion for the first para:

The Croxley Rail Link is a railway engineering project in the Watford and Three Rivers districts of Hertfordshire, England. When complete, it will divert Watford branch of the London Underground Metropolitan line to terminate at Watford Junction, bringing the urban railway services in Watford together at one terminal station. The current Underground terminus, Watford tube station, will close. The engineering works will make use of disused sections of the former Watford and Rickmansworth Railway and involve the construction of two new railway stations.
The main proponent of the scheme is Hertfordshire County Council....

Cnbrb (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Have warned Gareth Griffith-Jones that they're on the verge of violating the 3RR, given that this user is refusing to enter into constructive discussion instead of blindly reverting. Jeni ^(talk) 13:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Jeni: the user you mention seems to be a nice guy who makes good faith edits and he has not actually broken the 3RR rule yet. It might have been more constructive if you had first invited him to partake in this discussion instead of threatening to block him after only 2 edits! 13:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say they had broken 3RR, they're on the verge of breaking it if they revert once more. He was invited to partake in the discussion by the IP editor above, instead he decided to ignore it. Jeni ^(talk) 13:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good effort Cnbrb. The opening para should be just the basics, no more, so the reader understands what is happening. Then following paras should flesh out in funding, engineering works, etc. There are three "prime" points to the project

1. to focus all lines on one terminal.
2. give greater passenger interchange.
3. provide additional stations.

All three are mentioned in this opening para here....

The Croxley Rail Link is a railway engineering project in the Watford and Three Rivers districts of Hertfordshire, England. There are two urban railway lines serving Watford, London Overground and the London Underground Metropolitan line, with both lines having a terminal station. The project aims to focus both lines into one terminal station, Watford Junction, giving greater interchange choice for passengers. The Metropolitan line terminal station, Watford tube station will close down. The Metropolitan line will reopen a disused trackbed to extend into Watford Junction. On the reopened line two new stations will be built.

Explain it like you would to a friend in the pub. The above should be the first para. Simple and easy, the basics. Following paras can mention future benefits, engineering, the name of the old disused line, names of new stations, one serves Watford FC, maybe used to give greater services to Aylesbury in the future, who funds it, who is pushing it, etc. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mainly I'm not keen on sentence 2, "There are two urban railway lines serving Watford..." - it instantly changes the subject, when the intro should be about the rail link project itself. The fact that there are two urban railway lines is important background info, but it should be introduced later, or woven into the text in a subordinate way (as I attempted to do). Also the word "superior" is a POV term, so I'd drop that. Thanks, 14:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 14:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was not happy with sentence two myself. Superior changed to greater.

The Croxley Rail Link is a railway engineering project in the Watford and Three Rivers districts of Hertfordshire, England. The project aims to focus both urban lines serving Watford, the London Overground and the London Underground Metropolitan line, into one terminal station from the current two, giving greater interchange choice for passengers. The Metropolitan line Watford tube terminal station will close down leaving Watford Junction as the sole terminal. The Metropolitan line will extend from Croxley tube station to Watford Junction via a reopened section of disused line. On the reopened line two new stations will be built.

What do you all think? 94.5.104.222 (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah not bad. I'd like to see what other editors think. 21:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The rewrite looks good to me Jeni ^(talk) 21:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will put it in then. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Changed. It's a shame Gareth did not contribute. :( 94.5.104.222 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

On the contrary; I do have in mind a couple of small changes to your "intro" but anticipate their being shot down in flames. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really sure how this got so controversial but if everyone would like to take a deep breath and make reasoned suggestions for edits, I'm sure everything will be just fine.14:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cnbrb, I agree. The existing first paragraph needs copy-editing but let the weekend be a break from any more.
Interesting, I am the editor with the highest number (78) of edits on Croxley Rail Link and you are second with (45).
All the best! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |
PS You have not typed four ~~~~  19:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Gaaagh!! Bloody tildes!! I blame the Spanish. Cnbrb (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Quantity is no guide to quality. I gave the valid reasons above why I change the opening. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

In this instance Copy-editing is more about the quality of the written English. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croxley Rail Link. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927050548/http://www.hertsdirect.org/infobase/docs/pdfstore/ltp2railstrat.pdf to http://www.hertsdirect.org/infobase/docs/pdfstore/ltp2railstrat.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is the CRL dead yet, given recent news reports? Or are we still holding off on switching to past tense while everyone sorts themselves out? Cnbrb (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Short answer: yes, it is dead.
I have been editing the Lead to past conditional this morning. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 12:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering.... I hesitate to change tenses - as soon as it's done, someone in government discovers a magic money tree, and we have to change the article back again! Oh well, we can keep an eye on official announcements and see if it officially pronounced dead - or more likely, left in limbo. Cnbrb (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

As Kenny Everett said, "It's all in the best possible taste." Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 12:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Cnbrb (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply