Talk:Croxley Rail Link

message: 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)
thread_title: No title

message: 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)
thread_title:  Position map 

message: 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)
thread_title: Benefits

message: 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)
thread_title: Transport Works Act Order (TWAO)

message: When a link goes dead, but preferably long before it goes dead, find and add archive URLs for each reference. The  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)
replies: text: Thank you, 79.67.255.253, for your work on this.Cnbrb (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: dead links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  consensus

message: 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)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more, . I shall attend to it forthwith. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Construction started yet? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Final Final Approval? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Completion date 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Weakly oppose move for the moment. I know this is now TFL's official name for it, but the name isn't in common use, and there have been so many various extension schemes over the years, ranging from Watkin's lunatic through-trains-to-Paris pipedreams, to tunnelling under Cassiobury Park to Watford High Street, to taking over Barking-to-Upminster, that "Metropolitan line extension" is always going to be an ambiguous title. (FWIW, I don't think the unilateral move to Bakerloo line extension should ever have been made, either.) The name is also misleading as it implies a new section of line, rather than just taking over an existing mothballed stretch (which is no doubt why TFL like it, as it makes them sound like they're doing much more than they actually are). In a couple of years the point will be moot in any case, since it will just be the Watford branch (or possibly the St Albans branch, if TFL actually show some forward thinking). ‑ iridescent 15:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Cnbrb (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it dead yet?