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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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

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."