|
End of the South London Line
I and some colleagues had a last ride on the South London Line this
afternoon, from Victoria to London Bridge. One question arising is which bits of line will cease to have services from 9th December. It seems to me that only the South London Line from the junction just North of Battersea Park to just short of Wandsworth Road, including the South London platforms at Battersea Park, will lose all services and, though there will cease to be direct services between Denmark Hill and London Bridge, the journey will still be possible by changing at Peckham Rye or Queen's Road, Peckham, the latter on the same platform. Am I correct? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
End of the South London Line
wrote in message
... It seems to me that only the South London Line from the junction just North of Battersea Park to just short of Wandsworth Road, including the South London platforms at Battersea Park, will lose all services and, though there will cease to be direct services between Denmark Hill and London Bridge, the journey will still be possible by changing at Peckham Rye or Queen's Road, Peckham, the latter on the same platform. Am I correct? Not fully, because LO are running a token service to/from Battersea Park to keep the line open and avoid closure procedures. Paul S |
End of the South London Line
|
End of the South London Line
wrote in message
... Just Battersea Park or Victoria to Wandsworth Road? If only Battersea Park to Wandsworth Road that will mean no service over the junction between the Battersea Park South London Line platforms and Victoria and if only Victoria to Battersea Park it will mean no service between there and the junction near Wandsworth Road. I don't think they actually need to run over the physical junction for the purposes of keeping the route open to passengers. The requirement is only for a passenger to be able to get between the stations in question - IIRC this point came up in a previous discussion about the subtle difference between a 'line closure' and 'withdrawal of railway passenger services' under the 2005 Act. This token service is to overcome the latter, because the line itself is not closing and the physical route will remain available - even if only ever used by ECS or diversions. Paul S |
End of the South London Line
In article ,
wrote: In article , () wrote: Just Battersea Park or Victoria to Wandsworth Road? If only Battersea Park to Wandsworth Road that will mean no service over the junction between the Battersea Park South London Line platforms and Victoria and if only Victoria to Battersea Park it will mean no service between there and the junction near Wandsworth Road. Aha! Looking at the new timetable, I see SE's 18:59 M-F from Denmark Hill, calling at Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road at 19:04 and 19:05, arriving Victoria at 19:14. It doesn't stop at Battersea Park though. Odd. Presumably it must go via the Stuarts Lane low level line - I think the SLL lines have access to that route these days. And there is LO's 22:17 M-F from Highbury & Islington calling at all stations to Wandsworth Road (22:57) and terminating at Battersea Park at 22:59. There's an 06:18 from Battersea Park to Highbury & Islington running in a normal South london path. I can't find any SE working in that direction. Their one service does cover the length of track between Battersea Park South London platforms and Victoria, which LO don't. That seems odd to me, as I thought one reason for this truncation of services was to allow the SLL junction at Battersea Park to be abolished so that the Brighton line platforms could be extended ? Nick -- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
End of the South London Line
|
End of the South London Line
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:52:17 -0000, Paul Scott wrote:
I don't think they actually need to run over the physical junction for the purposes of keeping the route open to passengers. The requirement is only for a passenger to be able to get between the stations in question - IIRC this point came up in a previous discussion about the subtle difference between a 'line closure' and 'withdrawal of railway passenger services' under the 2005 Act. Is the act online? -- jhk |
End of the South London Line
"Jarle H Knudsen" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:52:17 -0000, Paul Scott wrote: I don't think they actually need to run over the physical junction for the purposes of keeping the route open to passengers. The requirement is only for a passenger to be able to get between the stations in question - IIRC this point came up in a previous discussion about the subtle difference between a 'line closure' and 'withdrawal of railway passenger services' under the 2005 Act. Is the act online? all acts from about 2000 are. but you have to know its correct name :-( tim |
End of the South London Line
Is the act online?
all acts from about 2000 are. but you have to know its correct name :-( I'm all for doing all I can to encourage visitors to the UK: we need all the inward investment we can get (and so far as I know our beer supplies are reasonably secure and can stand Jarle's visits!) Most UK statutes can now be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/. - and not just those since 2000. They have Acts back to 1267. I think the 2005 Act in question is the Railways Act 2005 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/14/contents -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
End of the South London Line
"Nick Leverton" wrote in message
... In article , That seems odd to me, as I thought one reason for this truncation of services was to allow the SLL junction at Battersea Park to be abolished so that the Brighton line platforms could be extended ? Is it really a 'cause and effect' reason? I think the only (published) bona fide excuse for removal of the service is the capacity reduction caused by alterations at London Bridge, once having made that decision, the platform extension option then became available. Paul S |
End of the South London Line
tim..... wrote "Jarle H Knudsen" wrote under the 2005 Act. Is the act online? all acts from about 2000 are. but you have to know its correct name :-( All now (finally) with translations from law-french for the earliest ones. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/ And you can search. Try all acts containing "crossbow" for example. -- Mike D |
End of the South London Line
In article 01cdccca$03d89c80$LocalHost@default, (Michael R
N Dolbear) wrote: tim..... wrote "Jarle H Knudsen" wrote under the 2005 Act. Is the act online? all acts from about 2000 are. but you have to know its correct name :-( All now (finally) with translations from law-french for the earliest ones. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/ And you can search. Try all acts containing "crossbow" for example. What would they tell us about the South London Line then? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
End of the South London Line
wrote (Michael R Dolbear) wrote: tim..... wrote Is the act online? all acts from about 2000 are. but you have to know its correct name :-( All now (finally) with translations from law-french for the earliest ones. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/ And you can search. Try all acts containing "crossbow" for example. What would they tell us about the South London Line then? I'll leave the fascinating but subtle difference between a 'line closure' and 'withdrawal of railway passenger services' to someone else, my post was to point out that a search was possible even when the correct name of the act wasn't known. A correction, I should have said that all /public general/ acts of parliament were now online. -- Mike D |
End of the South London Line
In uk.transport.london message 01cdccff$41190d20$78cf403e@default, Wed,
28 Nov 2012 00:28:39, Michael R N Dolbear posted: A correction, I should have said that all /public general/ acts of parliament were now online. But they are not all correct (as of a few days ago). In one case, it is both certain and obvious that either a faulty amendment was legislated into an Annex to a perfectly good original Act, or that the minions who provided Webmaster with material had been at best incompetent at cut'n'paste (either with paper and glue, or in the modern manner). -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05. Website http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. |
End of the South London Line
In one case, it is both certain and obvious that either a faulty
amendment was legislated into an Annex to a perfectly good original Act, or that the minions who provided Webmaster with material had been at best incompetent at cut'n'paste (either with paper and glue, or in the modern manner). The process is not automatic so it should not be surprising if there are occasional errors, especially in the "keeled text". IMLE those responsible welcome reports of such errors to PS Acts usually have "Schedules" rather than Annexes. Was this an ancient one? -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
End of the South London Line (now with last trains and Parlys)
In article ,
Paul Scott wrote: "Nick Leverton" wrote in message ... In article , That seems odd to me, as I thought one reason for this truncation of services was to allow the SLL junction at Battersea Park to be abolished so that the Brighton line platforms could be extended ? Is it really a 'cause and effect' reason? I think the only (published) bona fide excuse for removal of the service is the capacity reduction caused by alterations at London Bridge, once having made that decision, the platform extension option then became available. I believe you are right in that it was an opportunity taken rather than a motivating factor. However the changes at the London Bridge / New Cross end of the route would surely not have precluded keeping a service from the South London lines into Victoria ? I did read the document assessing the options at the time it was mentioned here, but don't remember the details. Anyway, whilst we are on the topic of this service, the following has been quoted on the "gensheet" rare track mailing list, forwarded with acknowledgements (some of it apparently further quoted from Branch Line News to whom it is probably copyright). Note the implication that the Battersea Park junction link will not completely close immediately despite the cessation of services. "Battersea Park Platforms 1&2 'Branch Platforms' - Battersea Park Jnc.: (BLN 1161.557) Closes Passengers from 9th December 2012, on cessation of London Bridge - South London Line - Victoria passenger service and extension of the East London Line service to Clapham Jct. It has been suggested this link will eventually close completely to allow extension of Platform 3 across the junction. Wandsworth Road (Factory Jct 'A') to Battersea Park Station is expected to receive a token service of one train each way SSuX from 10th December 2012." "The last Victoria to London Bridge SLL train on Saturday December 8th will be V 2311 - LB 2336. This means that it will be possible to travel on the final through services between Victoria, Battersea Park and Wandsworth Road stations and back: V 2311 - WR 2317 / 2329 - V 2337 (i.e. before the introduction of the 'Parliamentary' trains)." One train each way per day will cover the Battersea Park - Wandsworth Road section: 0618 Battersea Park - Highbury & Islington 2217 Highbury & Islington to Battersea Park and one other each way will cover Wandsworth Road - Victoria via Stewart's Lane: 0530 London Victoria - Bromley South 1818 Sevenoaks to London Victoria Nick -- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
End of the South London Line
wrote in message
... I and some colleagues had a last ride on the South London Line this afternoon, from Victoria to London Bridge. One question arising is which bits of line will cease to have services from 9th December. It seems to me that only the South London Line from the junction just North of Battersea Park to just short of Wandsworth Road, including the South London platforms at Battersea Park, will lose all services and, though there will cease to be direct services between Denmark Hill and London Bridge, the journey will still be possible by changing at Peckham Rye or Queen's Road, Peckham, the latter on the same platform. Am I correct? -- Colin Rosenstiel Southern was doing its best to discourage people from using the service on Friday. The 1411 from Victoria was cancelled because the inward working was a whole eight minutes late so it turned back at Battersea Park. No attempt was made to hold it at Battersea for a cross platform connection off the 1413 from Victoria. In fact it was only announced as cancelled at 1412. The 1541 departure was announced at 1539, front two coaches on platform 11 on top of an eight car 377. While the passengers enjoyed their trek, platforms 9 and 10 were empty. Inevitably the service departed two minutes late. Why do they leave it so late before showing platform numbers? Every train has its booked platform and will normally stick to it unless there is severe disruption or a failed train in a platform. John |
Quote:
I travelled from London Bridge to Victoria just for the fun of it. (Not something I do very often) The train was a four-car unit and was quite busy. The platform was not announced until about five minutes before departure. I too don't understand why it is not known earlier. |
End of the South London Line
"John C" wrote in message ... Southern was doing its best to discourage people from using the service on Friday. The 1411 from Victoria was cancelled because the inward working was a whole eight minutes late so it turned back at Battersea Park. No attempt was made to hold it at Battersea for a cross platform connection off the 1413 from Victoria. In fact it was only announced as cancelled at 1412. The 1541 departure was announced at 1539, front two coaches on platform 11 on top of an eight car 377. While the passengers enjoyed their trek, platforms 9 and 10 were empty. Inevitably the service departed two minutes late. Why do they leave it so late before showing platform numbers? Every train has its booked platform and will normally stick to it unless there is severe disruption or a failed train in a platform. John I meant Thursday for the above. John |
End of the South London Line
In uk.transport.london message , Sun, 2 Dec
2012 07:26:58, Robin posted: In one case, it is both certain and obvious that either a faulty amendment was legislated into an Annex to a perfectly good original Act, or that the minions who provided Webmaster with material had been at best incompetent at cut'n'paste (either with paper and glue, or in the modern manner). The process is not automatic so it should not be surprising if there are occasional errors, especially in the "keeled text". IMLE those responsible welcome reports of such errors to They are polite, and (they say) have checked their Web page against the (unspecified) source material with which they have been provided. They will do no more. They are, after all, lower-grade administrative civil servants. However, they have not denied or doubted the error. They have in fact been asked twice. PS Acts usually have "Schedules" rather than Annexes. Was this an ancient one? That depends on when Ancient ended. The material is not labelled as Schedule or Annex or Annexe in the current version, nor in Statutes at Large 1765, but in the text it is described as annexed material. So, for the double-quoted Annex read annex. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05. Website http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk