ELLX phase 2
 

The excellent
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
reports something worthy of wider exposure.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ember-2007.pdf
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-appendix2.pdf
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-appendix3.pdf

Quote
ELL Phase 2 in respect of Thameslink Phasing at London Bridge
DfT have indicated the current 2 trains per hour 2-car (4-car in peak)
Victoria to London Bridge services (serving stations between
Wandsworth Road and South Bermondsey) will likely be identified as
incapable of accommodation in the rebuild of London Bridge station as
a result of the increase in services on the Thameslink Project.
Network Rail propose these services be part replaced by a 2 trains per
hour Victoria to Bellingham service (serving stations between
Wandsworth Road and Peckham Rye). This change would mean Queen's Road
Peckham and South Bermondsey stations will lose 2 trains per hour
while stations between Wandsworth Road and Peckham Rye lose an
important connection into the City. ELLP Phase 2 would see the
Victoria to London Bridge service replaced by 4 trains per hour 4-car
services between Clapham Junction and the ELL Core Route (serving
stations between Wandsworth Town and Queen's Road Peckham). Bringing
forward commissioning of ELLP Phase 2, funded essentially as enabling
works for Thameslink, would provide the DfT with significant
mitigation against the service difficulties posed by the remodelling
of London Bridge. The benefits of this approach, involving the funding
of ELLP Phase 2, are being pursued.
Unquote

Bringing forward the second phase of the ELLX has been widely talked
about and now the recognition by Network Rail that the existing SLL
Victoria to London Bridge service cannot be accommodated in the
Thameslink inspired rebuild at London Bridge adds to the rationale for
sooner rather than later approval. There should be substantial cost
benefits from a clean follow on from ELLX phase 1 if design teams
and contractors are not obliged to go in for expensive and disruptive
personnel demobilization / remobilization exercises, similarly
benefits arise if existing local construction and logistics bases can
be kept in being. Extending the already running production lines for
the new rolling stock at Derby could again avoid unnecessary hiatus in
the supply chain and hopefully reduce overall cost per unit.

This is all fine in theory but Network Rail and TfL are dealing with
the DfT - an organisation that has muffed similar sensible
opportunities in the past. - such as the non lengthening of Pendolinos
- and the near miss of the Thameslink Box at Saint Pancras
International - Congratulations to all involved who pulled off quite a
close opening date to the reopening of the main train shed. But one
cannot help wonder how much more the Box has now cost than if it had
been incorporated in the overall project plan from the start. With The
DfT even now shunning concepts such as rolling electrification
projects despite best professional advice from those up the sharp end
- will we see a pragmatic approach to ELLX phase 2? Don't hold your
breath.

ELLX phase 2
 

Mwmbwls wrote:

The excellent
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
reports something worthy of wider exposure.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ember-2007.pdf
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-appendix2.pdf
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-appendix3.pdf

Quote
ELL Phase 2 in respect of Thameslink Phasing at London Bridge
DfT have indicated the current 2 trains per hour 2-car (4-car in peak)
Victoria to London Bridge services (serving stations between
Wandsworth Road and South Bermondsey) [...]


The Victoria to London Bridge (South London Line - SLL) service
actually serves Battersea Park as well - however because of plans to
lengthen the other platforms at Battersea Park (the platforms that
serve Clapham Junction bound trains) the SLL platforms would be
severed at the north end, meaning trains couldn't access the lines
that approach Victoria. SLL trains would instead run via the Stewarts
Lane route (possibly northbound via the low-level route, southbound
via the high-level route - as currently happens with the Victoria -
Dartford trains).

This, and all the other issues and options regarding the SLL, ELLX and
other south London rail developments, are all outlined in Network
Rail's draft South London Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS).


[...] will likely be identified as
incapable of accommodation in the rebuild of London Bridge station as
a result of the increase in services on the Thameslink Project.
Network Rail propose these services be part replaced by a 2 trains per
hour Victoria to Bellingham service (serving stations between
Wandsworth Road and Peckham Rye). This change would mean Queen's Road
Peckham and South Bermondsey stations will lose 2 trains per hour
while stations between Wandsworth Road and Peckham Rye lose an
important connection into the City. [...]


Peckham Rye would be in the same situation as Queen's Road Peckham and
South Bermondsey in losing 2tph to London Bridge. It would still
retain all the other London Bridge bound services that come up from
East Dulwich.

Clapham High Street's lost connection into the City isn't a great loss
in that City-bound passengers can use the adjacent Clapham North
station and travel via the Northern Line.

Wandsworth Road, Clapham High Street and Denmark Hill passengers would
be able to travel on the ELLX services to Peckham Rye or Queens Road
Peckham for same-platform interchange with London Bridge services, or
alternatively travel to Peckham Rye on the rerouted SLL services to
Bellingham and change (not same platform) at Peckham Rye.


[...] ELLP Phase 2 would see the
Victoria to London Bridge service replaced by 4 trains per hour 4-car
services between Clapham Junction and the ELL Core Route (serving
stations between Wandsworth Town and Queen's Road Peckham). Bringing
forward commissioning of ELLP Phase 2, funded essentially as enabling
works for Thameslink, would provide the DfT with significant
mitigation against the service difficulties posed by the remodelling
of London Bridge. The benefits of this approach, involving the funding
of ELLP Phase 2, are being pursued.
Unquote


I have to say that when I first ploughed through the South London RUS
it was pretty clear to see that ELLX phase 2 was definitely being
mooted as a solution to how to deal with the capacity issues at London
Bridge when the Thameslink rebuild gets under way. I fully expected
TfL to grab this opportunity to pursue ELLX phase 2, by intermeshing
it with the now approved and much larger Thameslink 2000 (cough)
programme - which is exactly what they appear to be doing.


Bringing forward the second phase of the ELLX has been widely talked
about and now the recognition by Network Rail that the existing SLL
Victoria to London Bridge service cannot be accommodated in the
Thameslink inspired rebuild at London Bridge adds to the rationale for
sooner rather than later approval. There should be substantial cost
benefits from a clean follow on from ELLX phase 1 if design teams
and contractors are not obliged to go in for expensive and disruptive
personnel demobilization / remobilization exercises, similarly
benefits arise if existing local construction and logistics bases can
be kept in being. Extending the already running production lines for
the new rolling stock at Derby could again avoid unnecessary hiatus in
the supply chain and hopefully reduce overall cost per unit.

All very sound points.


This is all fine in theory but Network Rail and TfL are dealing with
the DfT - an organisation that has muffed similar sensible
opportunities in the past. - such as the non lengthening of Pendolinos
- and the near miss of the Thameslink Box at Saint Pancras
International - Congratulations to all involved who pulled off quite a
close opening date to the reopening of the main train shed. But one
cannot help wonder how much more the Box has now cost than if it had
been incorporated in the overall project plan from the start. With The
DfT even now shunning concepts such as rolling electrification
projects despite best professional advice from those up the sharp end
- will we see a pragmatic approach to ELLX phase 2? Don't hold your
breath.


I think TfL will push very hard for the DfT to cough-up for ELLX phase
2 as "enabling works for Thameslink" (in the words of TfL as quoted
above).

I know there are already rumblings of discontent from some local
campaigners in south London about the removal of the South London Line
service - part of the problem is that they haven't really got their
heads round what the proposals are. However perhaps it's a good idea
to look at who will lose out here...

Passenger to/from Battersea Park from the SLL will lose out as the
rerouted SLL service (that will go on from Peckham Rye to Nunhead and
terminate at Bellingham) will not stop at Battersea Park due to
platform lengthening on the other platforms (though this isn't really
anything to do with the ELLX & Thameslink interplay). I think a good
number of SLL pax using Battersea Park were changing to get trains to
Clapham Junction bound trains, so these passengers will in future be
able to go direct to Clapham Junction on the ELLX trains.

Other losers are London Bridge bound passengers from Wandsworth Road
and Denmark Hill, who will lose a direct service to London Bridge.
They will be able to change at Peckham Rye (same platform interchange
for ELLX services, different platform for rerouted SLL to Bellingham
services), or travel to Canada Water on the ELLX for interchange with
the Jubilee line - though that really is the long way around!

I imagine the number of Wandsworth Road to LB pax isn't great. An
alternative for people in the area might be to walk to Clapham North
station for the Northern line to LB (not far) - or even get the first
ELLX or SLL train to Clapham High Street and change for Clapham North
(the stations are across the road from each other).

I'd suggest the loss of direct trains to LB from Denmark Hill is more
of an issue. To an extent people living within the area can change to
using the nearby Peckham Rye and East Dulwich stations to get LB
trains, and certainly people living (or working) any significant
distance north of Denmark Hill are likely to already be using the bus
to get up to London Bridge.

However just next to Denmark Hill station are two major hospitals -
Kings College hospital (KCH) and Maudesley hospital (for mental health
issues). KCH in particular is a major and very busy teaching hospital.
A good number of employees, medical and clinical students and trainees
and of course patients use Denmark Hill to get to the hospital, and a
sizeable number use the SLL to get to and from London Bridge - not
least because KCH is a constituent part of the Guy's, King's and St
Thomas' (GKT) medical school so there is a lot of traffic between KCH
and Guy's hospital next to London Bridge.

Of course they can still get the first train and change at Peckham
Rye, or indeed the first train to Clapham High Street and change for
the Northern line. And there is a direct bus route from outside the
hospital - more if one is willing to walk into Camberwell - and one
can take one of many buses to Elephant & Castle and change for LB
bound buses. However, in particular at peak times, this can be a bit
of a slog up Walworth Road (and, to a lesser extent, Borough High
Street).

So it is at Denmark Hill where I'd expect the loss of a direct service
to London Bridge will be felt most acutely, and also where the voices
of opposition will be the loudest.

Plus, whilst it's outside the remit of this discussion to some extent,
the loss of SLL services to Battersea Park will also be felt by a
number of residents and workers around there. It's a shame as the
Battersea Power station redevelopment will create many new jobs on a
site right next to the station.

ELLX phase 2
 

While on the ELL the other day I noticed what looked like some
extensive prep work being done at the proposed junction with phase 2
(just about here -
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...&t=h&z=16&om=1
- apologies for the long link). Has phase 2 already been alocated some
funding?

ELLX phase 2
 

On 14 Dec, 16:06, wrote:
While on the ELL the other day I noticed what looked like some
extensive prep work being done at the proposed junction with phase 2
(just about here -http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q...
- apologies for the long link). Has phase 2 already been alocated some
funding?


No. Double track has been laid at the Silwood Triangle works site
which can only have one use - sidings to load and unload works trains
to take construction material up and down the line.

It will presumably be connected once the ELL closes for passenger
services later this month.

However phase 2 would indeed use an alignment along that side of the
Silwood Triangle.

ELLX phase 2
 

On 14 Dec, 13:05, Mizter T wrote:

So it is at Denmark Hill where I'd expect the loss of a direct service
to London Bridge will be felt most acutely, and also where the voices
of opposition will be the loudest.


And don't forget Denmark Hill also has direct train services to
Elephant & Castle and Blackfriars.

ELLX phase 2
 

Other losers are London Bridge bound passengers from Wandsworth Road
and Denmark Hill, who will lose a direct service to London Bridge.
They will be able to change at Peckham Rye (same platform interchange
for ELLX services, different platform for rerouted SLL to Bellingham
services), or travel to Canada Water on the ELLX for interchange with
the Jubilee line - though that really is the long way around!
I don't think its appropriate to believe that most people going to
London Bridge go there specifically, rather than just because its a
connecting point on a longer journey to the city, or via the tube. Of
course there will always be some people going to London Bridge itself,
much as there are some people who actually go to Peckham Rye for its
own sake, but for those travelling via the tube, isn't it more
efficient to use the ELLX, where they can change directly onto the
Jubilee at Canada Water, the district line at Whitechapel, or the
Central line at Shoreditch.

I imagine the number of Wandsworth Road to LB pax isn't great.
I imagine that Wandsworth Road --(walk)-- Battersea whatever/Vauxhall
--(NR)-- Waterloo --(Jubilee)-- London Bridge is a lot faster and
more frequent than going via the South London Lines

Of course they can still get the first train and change at Peckham
Rye, or indeed the first train to Clapham High Street and change for
the Northern line.
Or change at Canada Water and get the Jubilee line.

Most opposition to changes like these seems to be idiological. Its
more "better transport links = gentrification = enemies of the working
class" than "change = worse transport".

ELLX phase 2
 

On 14 Dec, 17:08, solar penguin wrote:
On 14 Dec, 13:05, Mizter T wrote:


So it is at Denmark Hill where I'd expect the loss of a direct service
to London Bridge will be felt most acutely, and also where the voices
of opposition will be the loudest.

And don't forget Denmark Hill also has direct train services to
Elephant & Castle and Blackfriars.


Yes, but whilst I'm always keen to suggest people should be a bit less
averse to utilising Shank's pony, Blackfriars and London Bridge are
nonetheless in somewhat different necks of the wood (and Blackfriars
isn't really any good for access to Guy's Hospital). Plus of course
the benefit of London Bridge is the wide range of interchange
opportunities it offers.

Elephant & Castle does indeed offer an interchange of sorts with the
Northern and Bakerloo lines - but it's a pretty clunky interchange.
Denmark Hill to London Bridge via Elephant & Castle is not a route I'd
particularly recommend - in particular going southbound, as one would
have to hit the half-hourly train from E&C to Denmark Hill (the
Blackfriars - Sevenoaks service). The preferable rail route to LB
would be via a change at Peckham Rye or Queens Road Peckham.

What I haven't got my head round is the exact reasoning behind the
South London Line being chucked out of London Bridge. I guess it
occupies a valuable platform, which is space that is much needed. I'm
unclear as to whether this space is needed permanently for Thameslink
'2000' or whether it is just needed for the duration of construction
works... I thought it was the latter, but perhaps it's the former.

ELLX phase 2
 

lonelytraveller wrote:
Other losers are London Bridge bound passengers from Wandsworth Road
and Denmark Hill, who will lose a direct service to London Bridge.
They will be able to change at Peckham Rye (same platform interchange
for ELLX services, different platform for rerouted SLL to Bellingham
services), or travel to Canada Water on the ELLX for interchange with
the Jubilee line - though that really is the long way around!
I don't think its appropriate to believe that most people going to
London Bridge go there specifically, rather than just because its a
connecting point on a longer journey to the city, or via the tube. Of
course there will always be some people going to London Bridge itself,
much as there are some people who actually go to Peckham Rye for its
own sake, but for those travelling via the tube, isn't it more
efficient to use the ELLX, where they can change directly onto the
Jubilee at Canada Water, the district line at Whitechapel, or the
Central line at Shoreditch.

No interchange to the Central at Shoreditch, but don't forget Shadwell
DLR. However I'm still certain that this point is very valid - I worked
out journey times from ELLX West Croydon/Crystal Palace branch stations
to a number of central London destinations on ELLX compared to all-stops
services to London Bridge, and all of them *except* for the LB area
itself were quicker or the same speed via ELLX. It's mostly because the
interchange at London Bridge is so lengthy from the terminal platforms
to the Tube.

I imagine the number of Wandsworth Road to LB pax isn't great.
I imagine that Wandsworth Road --(walk)-- Battersea whatever/Vauxhall
--(NR)-- Waterloo --(Jubilee)-- London Bridge is a lot faster and
more frequent than going via the South London Lines

Of course they can still get the first train and change at Peckham
Rye, or indeed the first train to Clapham High Street and change for
the Northern line.
Or change at Canada Water and get the Jubilee line.

Most opposition to changes like these seems to be idiological. Its
more "better transport links = gentrification = enemies of the working
class" than "change = worse transport".

My impression is more that it's just bad information - the Sydenham,
Forest Hill etc brigade hear "cut in services to London Bridge" and
assume the worst. (I doubt they are worried about increased
gentrification!) It's understandable given the levels of crowding on
those trains at the moment but if the journey time message was better
communicated, then I think they'd be less worried.

Dave

ELLX phase 2
 

Mizter T wrote:
On 14 Dec, 17:08, solar penguin wrote:
On 14 Dec, 13:05, Mizter T wrote:


So it is at Denmark Hill where I'd expect the loss of a direct service
to London Bridge will be felt most acutely, and also where the voices
of opposition will be the loudest.
And don't forget Denmark Hill also has direct train services to
Elephant & Castle and Blackfriars.


Yes, but whilst I'm always keen to suggest people should be a bit less
averse to utilising Shank's pony, Blackfriars and London Bridge are
nonetheless in somewhat different necks of the wood (and Blackfriars
isn't really any good for access to Guy's Hospital). Plus of course
the benefit of London Bridge is the wide range of interchange
opportunities it offers.

Elephant & Castle does indeed offer an interchange of sorts with the
Northern and Bakerloo lines - but it's a pretty clunky interchange.
Denmark Hill to London Bridge via Elephant & Castle is not a route I'd
particularly recommend - in particular going southbound, as one would
have to hit the half-hourly train from E&C to Denmark Hill (the
Blackfriars - Sevenoaks service). The preferable rail route to LB
would be via a change at Peckham Rye or Queens Road Peckham.

What I haven't got my head round is the exact reasoning behind the
South London Line being chucked out of London Bridge. I guess it
occupies a valuable platform, which is space that is much needed. I'm
unclear as to whether this space is needed permanently for Thameslink
'2000' or whether it is just needed for the duration of construction
works... I thought it was the latter, but perhaps it's the former.

The rebuilt London bridge will have fewer terminal platforms in favour
of more through platforms.

Dave

ELLX phase 2
 

On 14 Dec, 18:57, Dave A wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

(snip)

What I haven't got my head round is the exact reasoning behind the
South London Line being chucked out of London Bridge. I guess it
occupies a valuable platform, which is space that is much needed. I'm
unclear as to whether this space is needed permanently for Thameslink
'2000' or whether it is just needed for the duration of construction
works... I thought it was the latter, but perhaps it's the former.

The rebuilt London bridge will have fewer terminal platforms in favour
of more through platforms.

Dave


I presumed it would be something like that - indeed if I'd just read
your website's entry on the Thameslink Programme...
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/23

....I'd have known that the London Bridge redevelopment masterplan
"involves increasing the number of through platforms from 6 to 9, and
decreasing the number of terminating platforms from 9 to 6."

ELLX phase 2
 

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

Passenger to/from Battersea Park from the SLL will lose out as the
rerouted SLL service (that will go on from Peckham Rye to Nunhead and
terminate at Bellingham) will not stop at Battersea Park due to
platform lengthening on the other platforms (though this isn't really
anything to do with the ELLX & Thameslink interplay). I think a good
number of SLL pax using Battersea Park were changing to get trains to
Clapham Junction bound trains, so these passengers will in future be
able to go direct to Clapham Junction on the ELLX trains.

The loss of Battersea Park calls would also make impossible my father's
old rail commute from Putney to KCH, changing between Queen's Road
Battersea (as it was then) and Battersea Park. Anyone doing that in
future would have to use buses for at least part of the journey.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

ELLX phase 2
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

Passenger to/from Battersea Park from the SLL will lose out as the
rerouted SLL service (that will go on from Peckham Rye to Nunhead and
terminate at Bellingham) will not stop at Battersea Park due to
platform lengthening on the other platforms (though this isn't really
anything to do with the ELLX & Thameslink interplay). I think a good
number of SLL pax using Battersea Park were changing to get trains to
Clapham Junction bound trains, so these passengers will in future be
able to go direct to Clapham Junction on the ELLX trains.

The loss of Battersea Park calls would also make impossible my father's
old rail commute from Putney to KCH, changing between Queen's Road
Battersea (as it was then) and Battersea Park. Anyone doing that in
future would have to use buses for at least part of the journey.

Surely anyone doing that commute could just change at Clapham Junction for
the East London Line?

Peter Smyth

ELLX phase 2
 

In article ,
(Peter Smyth) wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

Passenger to/from Battersea Park from the SLL will lose out as the
rerouted SLL service (that will go on from Peckham Rye to Nunhead
and
terminate at Bellingham) will not stop at Battersea Park due to
platform lengthening on the other platforms (though this isn't
really
anything to do with the ELLX & Thameslink interplay). I think a good
number of SLL pax using Battersea Park were changing to get trains
to
Clapham Junction bound trains, so these passengers will in future be
able to go direct to Clapham Junction on the ELLX trains.

The loss of Battersea Park calls would also make impossible my
father's old rail commute from Putney to KCH, changing between
Queen's Road Battersea (as it was then) and Battersea Park. Anyone
doing that in future would have to use buses for at least part of
the journey.

Surely anyone doing that commute could just change at Clapham
Junction for the East London Line?

Oh yes! Good point.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

ELLX phase 2
 

On Dec 14 2007, 11:02*am, Mwmbwls wrote:
The excellent
*http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
reports something worthy of wider exposure.
and he writes the same thing today. There is now an excellent diagram
of Shoreditch High Street section. Is the enclosed section purely for
noise abatement?

http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/

ELLX phase 2
 

On 20 Jan, 10:38, Mwmbwls wrote:
and he writes the same thing today.

Do I?

There is now an excellent diagram of Shoreditch High Street section. Is the enclosed section purely for
noise abatement?

Thanks. It's to protect the line from other development on the site,
and the plan is for it to be inside other buildings. I think it's
windowless.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

ELLX phase 2
 

http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
reports something worthy of wider exposure.

Quote
ELL Phase 2 in respect of Thameslink Phasing

all good stuff snipped

I must sit and read all that lot.

It does occur to me that maybe a possible but expensive supplementry
solution to inner south London surface rail capacity is to revive
extending the Bakerloo line through the area. Of course thats
something thats been sat on for a goodly long time looking as if it
has no hope of ever getting going. I've not seen much about geological
issues or routes but am I right in thinking various schemes have been
worked out ?

--
Nick

ELLX phase 2
 

On Jan 20, 6:46 pm, D7666 wrote:
It does occur to me that maybe a possible but expensive supplementry
solution to inner south London surface rail capacity is to revive
extending the Bakerloo line through the area. Of course thats
something thats been sat on for a goodly long time looking as if it
has no hope of ever getting going. I've not seen much about geological
issues or routes but am I right in thinking various schemes have been
worked out ?


Proposals to extend the Bakerloo have been made a number of times to
Camberwell, Brixton, Peckham Tulse Hill and even (I can't remember the
source for this one) Hayes.

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

http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk...name_page.html

http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk...name_page.html

http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk...name_page.html

Having missed the Olympic Bus or more properly the Olympic tube the
residents of Camberwell now have to wait until post 2015 with say
another five years of political argy-bargy and a five year
construction period they might, as part of the London 2025 plan, get
direct access to that Latin quarter of Bushey known to the locals as
Watford Junction in just under a century.

The plans for the 1931 extension and the supporting papers for the
1974 London rail study should been in archive..Perhaps, Charlie Hulme
could be kind enough to suggest an access route. I vaguely remember
some papers published by the Royal Statistical Society about cost
benefit analysis at that time. In pre computer days statistics used to
be simple - grossly inaccurate but simple. :-)

ELLX phase 2
 

"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

ELLX phase 2
 

Mwmbwls wrote:

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

Tim O'Toole mentioned it in a Time Out interview last year:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...nstion-on.html

Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

ELLX phase 2
 

On Jan 20, 8:01*pm, "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.


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.

It's a bit bonkers how the line from Denmark Hill to Clapham High
Street Crosses two routes to the south, and one to the north, without
any straightforward opportunity for people to connect to them (one can
go to Elephant or Victoria and back it's true).

ELLX phase 2
 

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.

tom

--
Taking care of business

ELLX phase 2
 

On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant
wrote:
Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch.

It's more than a rumour, as confirmed by Bakerloo line GM Kevin Bootle
to Modern Railways in November 2007 (p87). He said that "extending
the line to Hayes remains a live proposition for the longer term".

THC

ELLX phase 2
 

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, THC wrote:

On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant
wrote:

Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch.

It's more than a rumour, as confirmed by Bakerloo line GM Kevin Bootle
to Modern Railways in November 2007 (p87). He said that "extending the
line to Hayes remains a live proposition for the longer term".

Which is completely meaningless, since 'live proposition' means everything
from 'we're oiling the TBMs now' to 'a work experience student once had a
look at a map and thought it might be doable'. The only way it could stop
being a live proposition would be if a rift valley opened up in Peckham.

tom

--
History is about battles, great men, gory executions and wigs. That is
all. -- The Richelieu Association

ELLX phase 2
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, THC wrote:

On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant
wrote:

Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch.

It's more than a rumour, as confirmed by Bakerloo line GM Kevin
Bootle to Modern Railways in November 2007 (p87). He said that
"extending the line to Hayes remains a live proposition for the
longer term".

Which is completely meaningless, since 'live proposition' means
everything from 'we're oiling the TBMs now' to 'a work experience
student once had a look at a map and thought it might be doable'. The
only way it could stop being a live proposition would be if a rift
valley opened up in Peckham.

That could make a cut and cover extension more straightforward? :-)

Paul

ELLX phase 2
 

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, though going through Lewisham is
probably still a good idea. It'd be a bit unbalanced though, so
extending the Stratford branch up the Lee valley or taking over some
of the metro services of the GEML might prove beneficial....and if it
all gets too busy for a DLR-style service...it can always be upgraded;
after all, the hard work comes from securing the basic alignments.

ELLX phase 2
 

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.

ELLX phase 2
 

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.

though going through Lewisham is probably still a good idea. It'd be a
bit unbalanced though, so extending the Stratford branch up the Lee
valley or taking over some of the metro services of the GEML might prove
beneficial....and if it all gets too busy for a DLR-style service...it
can always be upgraded; after all, the hard work comes from securing the
basic alignments.

The beauty of the DLR is that you can build it on alignments that wouldn't
take a heavy rail route; that means it's not necessarily a useful
pathfinder for subsequent upgrading. Of course, if you take alignments and
build bridges and tunnels with this in mind, you can do it, but it means
throwing away much of the cost advantage of the DLR.

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.

tom

--
It is a laborious madness, and an impoverishing one, the madness of
composing vast books. -- Jorge Luis Borges

ELLX phase 2
 

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

ELLX phase 2
 

On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant
wrote:
Mwmbwls wrote:
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

Tim O'Toole mentioned it in a Time Out interview last year:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...line-extenstio...

Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch.

U



I'm not so sure that the travellers on the Hayes branch would really
want it - they already have a 4tph service, two of those being fast
from Ladywell to London Bridge (which is an advantage for those who
wish to get into town quicker, though a disadvantage for those who
want Lewisham either in its own right or for connections including the
DLR to the Docklands).

Would the Bakerloo service intermingle with other services? The
Bakerloo would presumably have to intermingle with freight trains on
the line from Peckham Rye to Lewisham, which could present safety and
reliability issues (though many of the freights do run late or at
night). Even if there was a new separated route constructed through
Lewisham for the Bakerloo to reach the Hayes branch, it would still
have to share tracks with other services from Peckham Rye (if that is
indeed where it surfaced) to the junction just past Nunhead.

I'm just not quire sure how it would all work in practice - and it
certainly seems like there'd be many potential pitfalls in taking the
Bakerloo all the way put to Hayes.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very much in favour of extending the
Bakerloo, I just wonder if this Hayes talk is merely people grasping
for a wider plan which would justify its extension. I think it'd be a
great success even if it was just extended to Camberwell, with an
intermediate station on the Walworth Road - and could even go further
south to East Dulwich (not just the station but into the heart of the
neighbourhood), or east to Peckham. The line's central/southern
section has the spare capacity, and has the unfulfilled potential.

ELLX phase 2
 

On Jan 21, 9:14*pm, 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, though going through Lewisham is
probably still a good idea.

I am not sure that the DLR would offer sufficient capacity down the
Hayes corridor - the South of London RUS is now proposing 6 twelve car
trains per hour in the peak. Plans for the original Fleet line to link
Lewisham with Fenchurch Street were abandoned in 1977 and at that time
an extension of the East London Line from New Cross to Lewisham and
from Shoreditch to Liverpool Street were proposed instead. Thereafter
long grass grew and memories faded. Under the current proposals, I
have always felt that New Cross, like Elephant and Castle, is too
close to the City to be a viable terminus and that an ELL phase 3
extension to relieve Lewisham, possibly going on to Hayes would be a
good idea. It would at some point be necessary to tackle the four
coach constraint limit on the Canada Water - Whitechapel section of
the ELL but I believe that is going to be inevitable anyway sooner or
later. The London Overground proposal already contains links to the
"Not quite Outer Circle" core route from the east from Barking,and the
north from Watford and suggestions were made for a western extension
from Wimbledon to Clapham Junction. Linking the south east quadrant in
a similar manner could be worth considering.

Mwmbwls - "Renowned Builders of Castles in the Air to the Gentry" -
our motto - "Everything will be fine until you try to move in."

ELLX phase 2
 

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.]

ELLX phase 2
 

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...

ELLX phase 2
 

"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

ELLX phase 2
 

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.

ELLX phase 2
 

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?

ELLX phase 2
 

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.

ELLX phase 2
 

"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

ELLX phase 2
 

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.

ELLX phase 2
 

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.

ELLX phase 2
 

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