On 20 Jan, 20:01, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Mwmbwls" wrote

I don't think that it was geology that was the dominant blocker. Under
the New Works Programme, undertaken to relieve the Depression,
parliamentary powers were obtained in 1931 to build the Camberwell
extension.with a terminus under Camberwell Green However, London
Transport were not convinced that the route would pay.and the project
was postponed. The Camberwell powers were renewed in 1955 prolonging
their validity to 1961 but were allowed to lapse in favour of the
Victoria Line extension to Brixton. In 1963 the London Transport board
considered an extension to Peckham. The 1974 London Rail Study
believed the cost benefit case to be weak and so Camberwell like
sleeping beauty nodded off until most recently in 2006

Of course, Camberwell used to have trains to Farringdon, Kings Cross, and
Moorgate - but Camberwell New Road station was closed in 1916. Quite a lot
of it is still there.

Peter


Whilst the station was indeed called "Camberwell New Road" for most of
its life (1963 - 1908), it opened as "Camberwell" in 1862 - and when
it closed in 1916 it also went by that name. All according to
SubBrit's Disused Stations entry:

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ad/index.shtml


Of course when any extension of the Bakerloo to Camberwell is mooted,
the idea of reopening this station (or at least opening a new station
on this line nearby) will always come up as a cheaper alternative. If
there were to be a new or reopened station then the decision as to
what lines it would serve would have to be made - there are two pairs
of tracks, one carries the FCC Thameslink service from Elephant &
Castle down to the Sutton loop, the other carries the Southeastern
service from Blackfriars and then the Elephant down to Sevenoaks.

The Thameslink service is every 15 minutes, whilst the Southeastern
service is only half-hourly - and the Southeastern trains already stop
at Denmark Hill, on the southern edge of Camberwell. Thus it would be
most attractive if a new Camberwell station was served by the more
frequent Thameslink trains, though platforms could be constructed on
both lines so it could thus be a stop for both services.

I guess the Southeastern service could itself become more frequent,
with trains every 15 minutes. One issue would be whether the
Southeastern service, even a more frequent one, would actually be that
attractive to passenger from Camberwell - it only goes to Blackfriars,
which is itself unlikely to be the final destination for most people,
and which only has interchange with the east/west Circle and District
lines. Of course passengers arriving at Blackfriars could also change
on to Thameslink trains there to get further north - but at present at
least Thameslink does not provide a service akin to an Underground
line, with trains almost crawling through the central part of the
route (something I hope that will be remedied under the Thameslink
2000 project aka the "Thameslink Programme").

Passengers from Camberwell on the Southeastern service to Blackfriars
could also change at Elephant & Castle for the Bakerloo and Northern
lines - but this isn't a very convenient interchange at all, so
passengers might well choose to go by bus to the Elephant (or indeed
stay on their bus) - and it'd be unlikely that passengers would get
off their bus at Camberwell just to get on a train only as far as the
Elephant.

If Thameslink trains stopped at Camberwell, or passengers were
encouraged to transfer to Thameslink at Blackfriars, then one ends up
with the crucial question of whether there is enough capacity -
Thameslink is already a very busy route as it is at peak times, so
could it handle yet more passengers even if all the trains were 8
carriages long?

Whilst having a station at Camberwell would, IMO, be a good thing
(though existing passengers might well disapprove given the increase
in journeys times an extra station would bring) I'd caution anyone who
was tempted to think that it would be a cheaper yet effective
substitute for an extension of the Bakerloo line.


[I use the name of the TOC "Southeastern" above simply for the ease of
reference it provides - of course in a few years time the franchisee
could go under a completely different moniker.]

On 22 Jan, 09:29, wrote:
On 22 Jan, 00:37, Tom Anderson wrote:



My current favourite implausible scheme involves somehow (magic?) putting
tunnels in in the City that let Metropolitan (and District?) trains which
currently terminate at Aldgate (or Tower Hill) carry on to the east,
perhaps Canary Wharf, Lewisham and points south.

One that comes up about every 18 months in these parts is sending the
Metropolitan line from Liverpool Street, through Aldgate East and
Shadwell to New Cross and beyond.

Then someone always pops up and points that two trains can't pass on
that curve without doing severe damage to each other's paintwork, and
the whole thing gets forgotten.

Jonn

The East London Line extension project is the nail in the coffin for
any such ideas. Interchange between the District/H&C and the ELLX at
Whitechapel is very easy anyway. I wonder if Whitechapel will get
lifts for this purpose by the time the ELLX (re)opens...

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jan, 20:01, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Mwmbwls" wrote

I don't think that it was geology that was the dominant blocker. Under
the New Works Programme, undertaken to relieve the Depression,
parliamentary powers were obtained in 1931 to build the Camberwell
extension.with a terminus under Camberwell Green However, London
Transport were not convinced that the route would pay.and the project
was postponed. The Camberwell powers were renewed in 1955 prolonging
their validity to 1961 but were allowed to lapse in favour of the
Victoria Line extension to Brixton. In 1963 the London Transport board
considered an extension to Peckham. The 1974 London Rail Study
believed the cost benefit case to be weak and so Camberwell like
sleeping beauty nodded off until most recently in 2006

Of course, Camberwell used to have trains to Farringdon, Kings Cross, and
Moorgate - but Camberwell New Road station was closed in 1916. Quite a
lot
of it is still there.

Peter


Whilst the station was indeed called "Camberwell New Road" for most of
its life (1963 - 1908), it opened as "Camberwell" in 1862 - and when
it closed in 1916 it also went by that name. All according to
SubBrit's Disused Stations entry:

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ad/index.shtml


Of course when any extension of the Bakerloo to Camberwell is mooted,
the idea of reopening this station (or at least opening a new station
on this line nearby) will always come up as a cheaper alternative. If
there were to be a new or reopened station then the decision as to
what lines it would serve would have to be made - there are two pairs
of tracks, one carries the FCC Thameslink service from Elephant &
Castle down to the Sutton loop, the other carries the Southeastern
service from Blackfriars and then the Elephant down to Sevenoaks.

The Thameslink service is every 15 minutes, whilst the Southeastern
service is only half-hourly - and the Southeastern trains already stop
at Denmark Hill, on the southern edge of Camberwell. Thus it would be
most attractive if a new Camberwell station was served by the more
frequent Thameslink trains, though platforms could be constructed on
both lines so it could thus be a stop for both services.

I guess the Southeastern service could itself become more frequent,
with trains every 15 minutes. One issue would be whether the
Southeastern service, even a more frequent one, would actually be that
attractive to passenger from Camberwell - it only goes to Blackfriars,
which is itself unlikely to be the final destination for most people,
and which only has interchange with the east/west Circle and District
lines. Of course passengers arriving at Blackfriars could also change
on to Thameslink trains there to get further north - but at present at
least Thameslink does not provide a service akin to an Underground
line, with trains almost crawling through the central part of the
route (something I hope that will be remedied under the Thameslink
2000 project aka the "Thameslink Programme").


Much of the above will change from December this year when the Southeastern
Sevenoaks service becomes a joint operation with FCC and runs through to at
least Kentish Town as part of Thameslink Key Output 0, which closes the bay
platforms at Blackfriars...

Paul

On 22 Jan, 00:37, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Jamie Thompson wrote:
I was looking at the South London options for developing the network
the other day, and it seems to me that the Hayes branch is pretty much
the only option for the DLR, so it should probably go to that, with
the Bakerloo going elsewhere,

A better option for the DLR is not to go any further at all. The DLR is an
excellent short-distance transport system, but it's too slow and
low-capacity to be a sensible thing to send great distances. It's a bus on
steroids (or a tram on a pie and mash diet), not a substitute for a real
railway.

I have to broadly agree with you on that one - taking the DLR all the
way to Hayes seems improbable. Also, bear in mind that the DLR model
involves there being many more stations, which would increase journey
time quite significantly - that's unlikely to please many Hayes line
users. Plus, even if it were more frequent, could even a three car DLR
train provide equivalent capacity to the existing service.

The only argument for a Hayes conversion to DLR that makes any sense
is that a great many of the passengers are commuting to the Docklands,
and are currently changing at Lewisham. Even then I still think that
converting the Hayes branch to DLR is a pretty unworkable idea. Maybe
I'm just not imaginative enough.

On 22 Jan, 11:02, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote:



On 20 Jan, 20:01, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Mwmbwls" wrote

I don't think that it was geology that was the dominant blocker. Under
the New Works Programme, undertaken to relieve the Depression,
parliamentary powers were obtained in 1931 to build the Camberwell
extension.with a terminus under Camberwell Green However, London
Transport were not convinced that the route would pay.and the project
was postponed. The Camberwell powers were renewed in 1955 prolonging
their validity to 1961 but were allowed to lapse in favour of the
Victoria Line extension to Brixton. In 1963 the London Transport board
considered an extension to Peckham. The 1974 London Rail Study
believed the cost benefit case to be weak and so Camberwell like
sleeping beauty nodded off until most recently in 2006

Of course, Camberwell used to have trains to Farringdon, Kings Cross, and
Moorgate - but Camberwell New Road station was closed in 1916. Quite a
lot
of it is still there.

Peter

Whilst the station was indeed called "Camberwell New Road" for most of
its life (1963 - 1908), it opened as "Camberwell" in 1862 - and when
it closed in 1916 it also went by that name. All according to
SubBrit's Disused Stations entry:

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...l_new_road/ind...

Of course when any extension of the Bakerloo to Camberwell is mooted,
the idea of reopening this station (or at least opening a new station
on this line nearby) will always come up as a cheaper alternative. If
there were to be a new or reopened station then the decision as to
what lines it would serve would have to be made - there are two pairs
of tracks, one carries the FCC Thameslink service from Elephant &
Castle down to the Sutton loop, the other carries the Southeastern
service from Blackfriars and then the Elephant down to Sevenoaks.

The Thameslink service is every 15 minutes, whilst the Southeastern
service is only half-hourly - and the Southeastern trains already stop
at Denmark Hill, on the southern edge of Camberwell. Thus it would be
most attractive if a new Camberwell station was served by the more
frequent Thameslink trains, though platforms could be constructed on
both lines so it could thus be a stop for both services.

I guess the Southeastern service could itself become more frequent,
with trains every 15 minutes. One issue would be whether the
Southeastern service, even a more frequent one, would actually be that
attractive to passenger from Camberwell - it only goes to Blackfriars,
which is itself unlikely to be the final destination for most people,
and which only has interchange with the east/west Circle and District
lines. Of course passengers arriving at Blackfriars could also change
on to Thameslink trains there to get further north - but at present at
least Thameslink does not provide a service akin to an Underground
line, with trains almost crawling through the central part of the
route (something I hope that will be remedied under the Thameslink
2000 project aka the "Thameslink Programme").

Much of the above will change from December this year when the Southeastern
Sevenoaks service becomes a joint operation with FCC and runs through to at
least Kentish Town as part of Thameslink Key Output 0, which closes the bay
platforms at Blackfriars...

Paul


True - but my understanding is that's a temporary measure (albeit a
long-term one) whilst construction at Blackfriars goes ahead. I was
under the impression that eventually Blackfriars would get new bay
platforms for terminating services. Of course after a few years of
through running to Kentish Town, I think there'll be a lot of
passengers who will have grown quite accustomed/keen on this temporary
arrangement, and will be displeased to see it finish!

Incidentally you say it's going to be a joint Southeastern and FCC
operation - how's this thing actually going to work, and what stock is
going to be used?

On Jan 22, 11:19*am, Mizter T wrote:
Much of the above will change from December this year when the Southeastern
Sevenoaks service becomes a joint operation with FCC and runs through to at
least Kentish Town as part of Thameslink Key Output 0, which closes the bay
platforms at Blackfriars...

Paul

True - but my understanding is that's a temporary measure (albeit a
long-term one) whilst construction at Blackfriars goes ahead. I was
under the impression that eventually Blackfriars would get new bay
platforms for terminating services. Of course after a few years of
through running to Kentish Town, I think there'll be a lot of
passengers who will have grown quite accustomed/keen on this temporary
arrangement, and will be displeased to see it finish!

I agree with above comment but I don't quite understand how reversing
at Kentish Town is going to work - Will the increased dwell time not
interfere with existing services. I would have thought that turning
back at Cricklewood would be less of a problem.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan, 11:02, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Much of the above will change from December this year when the
Southeastern
Sevenoaks service becomes a joint operation with FCC and runs through to
at
least Kentish Town as part of Thameslink Key Output 0, which closes the
bay
platforms at Blackfriars...

Paul


True - but my understanding is that's a temporary measure (albeit a
long-term one) whilst construction at Blackfriars goes ahead. I was
under the impression that eventually Blackfriars would get new bay
platforms for terminating services. Of course after a few years of
through running to Kentish Town, I think there'll be a lot of
passengers who will have grown quite accustomed/keen on this temporary
arrangement, and will be displeased to see it finish!

From what I've read over the last couple of years I believe the new
Blackfriars bay platforms will not necessarily be for the same services as
use them now, partly because they'll be on the east side of the through
platforms, but OTOH we keep being told the eventual services are not
confirmed yet, so anything might happen really...

Incidentally you say it's going to be a joint Southeastern and FCC
operation - how's this thing actually going to work, and what stock is
going to be used?

The joint working bit is based on a 'webchat' reply on the FCC website,
where it was stated that FCC drivers will hand over to Southeastern for the
part of the route south of Blackfriars. The stock is apparently going to be
the recently ordered 'Southern' 377s that were supposed to allow for the
final 319s to be transferred to FCC - its all tied up with the Watford
Junction - Gatwick 'lack of stock' debate thats going on elsewhere at the
moment...

Paul S

On Jan 22, 11:33*am, Mwmbwls wrote:
On Jan 22, 11:19*am, Mizter T wrote:

Much of the above will change from December this year when the Southeastern
Sevenoaks service becomes a joint operation with FCC and runs through to at
least Kentish Town as part of Thameslink Key Output 0, which closes the bay
platforms at Blackfriars...

Paul

True - but my understanding is that's a temporary measure (albeit a
long-term one) whilst construction at Blackfriars goes ahead. I was
under the impression that eventually Blackfriars would get new bay
platforms for terminating services. Of course after a few years of
through running to Kentish Town, I think there'll be a lot of
passengers who will have grown quite accustomed/keen on this temporary
arrangement, and will be displeased to see it finish!

I agree with above comment but I don't quite understand how reversing
at Kentish Town is going to work - Will the increased dwell time not
interfere with existing services. I would have thought that turning
back at Cricklewood would be less of a problem.

Trains at Kentish Town can reverse without blocking either the
Thameslink route or the fast lines. There are six (I think) tracks at
Kentish town and four platforms, with the EMT trains to St. Pancras
using the two fast lines without platforms. Trains from the Thameslink
route can reverse in the two platforms inbetween the Thameslink tracks
(can't remember their exact designation through the station) and the
fast lines without disrupting services for further north.

On 22 Jan, 11:12, Mizter T wrote:
On 22 Jan, 00:37, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Jamie Thompson wrote:
I was looking at the South London options for developing the network
the other day, and it seems to me that the Hayes branch is pretty much
the only option for the DLR, so it should probably go to that, with
the Bakerloo going elsewhere,

A better option for the DLR is not to go any further at all. The DLR is an
excellent short-distance transport system, but it's too slow and
low-capacity to be a sensible thing to send great distances. It's a bus on
steroids (or a tram on a pie and mash diet), not a substitute for a real
railway.

I have to broadly agree with you on that one - taking the DLR all the
way to Hayes seems improbable. Also, bear in mind that the DLR model
involves there being many more stations, which would increase journey
time quite significantly - that's unlikely to please many Hayes line
users. Plus, even if it were more frequent, could even a three car DLR
train provide equivalent capacity to the existing service.

The only argument for a Hayes conversion to DLR that makes any sense
is that a great many of the passengers are commuting to the Docklands,
and are currently changing at Lewisham. Even then I still think that
converting the Hayes branch to DLR is a pretty unworkable idea. Maybe
I'm just not imaginative enough.

Among a great many other things, I've no idea about the mechanical
characteristics of a DLR unit, so can't comment about things such as
acceleration nor top speeds (say the Hayes branch would maintain it's
current stations and not adopt the DLR-style of almost tram stop
frequencies ), but the same argument could be said that the DLR is
insufficient for serving Canary Wharf itself, given the number of
commuters, hence the need to increase the number of units per train.
Don't get me wrong, I think the DLR is a great system that did/does
it's job near enough perfectly, which is to cheaply provide mass
transport on the cheap to spur regeneration. Eventually though, you
hit a point when that phase is complete, and you have to move more
people than you can deal with, and then it's the time to move to
something with more capacity, e.g. medium or even heavy rail. Though,
if they can get the DLR capacity up to tube levels, that's probably
just as good. It's the capacity that matters, not the means. The only
reason I suggest the Lee Valley to Hayes is that it would provide a
downstream heavy rail crossing between the GE lines and SE lines that
could be quite useful, though I suppose we'll (hopefully!) get the
Abbey wood CrossRail tunnel, so perhaps it'd be a fringe benefit at
best.

My main aim with linking things up is to remove services upstream, to
provide better interchange viability as the outer services could then
get to the central area faster (and there would be more terminal
capacity for them). The same can be achieved with shuttle services
though, but opening up new direct journey opportunities is always a
good thing. IIRC, I read something somewhere about the DLR plans for
it to head south to Catford ( or maybe Beckenham Junction? ), but they
built Lewisham station in such a fashion (below the road, but not
deep enough for tunnel nor high enough for viaduct) that it become
much more difficult. So not *totally* random ideas.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:

On Jan 21, 5:08*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could provide a
lot of new person-routes, both north and south of the Thames, at much
less cost than new lines.

I think the original suggestion was about capacity, not routes. Building
more stations on existing lines can't increase capacity.

There are probably cheaper options than extending the Bakerloo, though.

I can't work out a formula, but it seems to me that if people could
travel more directly to where they wanted to go, spending less time on
the transport networks and travelling a shorter distance, it actually
would increase capacity. Interchanges could make that possible.

To a point. If people are making a journey using lines A, B and C, and you
add an interchange between A and C, it relieves B. It doesn't relieve A or
C, though, and if those are at capacity, it doesn't relieve the
bottleneck. It depends on the details of the network, i suppose.

I think you alluded to platforms on the South London line at Loughborough
Junction (interchanging with the Holborn aka Thameslink line) and Brixton
(interchanging with the Chatham main line). Would those add capacity? I'll
assume that people can come from Batterclapstock, ie on the SLL west of
Brixton, from Peckham, ie along the SLL west of Loughborough Junction,
from the southern part of the Chatham, or the southern part of the
Thameslink route, and want to go to one of Victoria, Blackfriars etc or
London Bridge. Looking at the possible combinations:

Batterclapstock - Victoria: no, wrong way
Batterclapstock - Blackfriars: no, take a radial line into town + change
Batterclapstock - London Bridge: no, direct train already
Peckham - Victoria: no, direct train already
Peckham - Blackfriars: no, go via London Bridge / Cannon Street (?)
Peckham - London Bridge: no, wrong way
Chatham - Victoria: no, direct train already
Chatham - Blackfriars: no, change at Herne Hill
Chatham - London Bridge: maybe
Thameslink - Victoria: no, change at Herne Hill
Thameslink - Blackfriars: no, direct train already
Thameslink - London Bridge: no, change at Elephant or Blackfriars

The only journey that gets improved is Chatham - London Bridge: if you're
south of Penge, you can get a direct train or a good change (at Shortlands
or Penge). If you're north of there, you either backtrack to Penge, or do
a double change via Herne and Tulse Hills, both of which are a bit
awkward. Being able to change at Brixton onto an SLL train would make life
easier, even though the SLL route to London Bridge is a bit roundabout.
This would take people off the Tulse Hill or New Cross Gate lines into
London Bridge, and put them on the SLL. Possibly a minor win, i'm not
sure.

To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add
flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users
better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity.

tom

--
space, robots, pirates, vikings, ninjas, medieval castles, dinosaurs,
cities, suburbia, holiday locations, wild west, the Arctic, airports,
boats, racing cars, trains, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman,
SpongeBob SquarePants, Avatar: The Last Airbender and more