On 22 Jan, 02:30, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:21*am, MIG wrote:





On 21 Jan, 23:17, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 21, 9:49 pm, MIG wrote:
The planned reduction in service to London Bridge isn't going down
well locally, and is being conflated with the loss of Charing Cross
services on the line as a general battering of local transport.

OK, enough sarkiness on my part. Genuine question because I'm really
not as up to date on this - how much of a reduction will there be,
peak and off-peak? I was under the impression that wasn't going to be
huge, and also that the services that remain would be more likely to
be longer (e.g. 8 carriages vice 4). The reason why it'd be good to
have some specifics is that I'm afraid I remember you making similar
statements a long while back, but my recollection is that you'd
presumed that the ELL services would simply replace existing services,
when that was not the plan. (Damn long memories!)

What the Southern franchise briefing said:

"In order to accommodate these additional trains, SLC2 will see considerable
changes to existing services to London Bridge. It will no longer be feasible
for South Central to operate limited-stop services on the slow lines in
between all-stations ELL services, so all slow-line South Central trains
will also call at all stations. The South Central slow line service will
consist of 6 tph in the high peak hour (4 off-peak), and will be purely
local in nature.

That's a different way of describing it from what I'd understood. *It
seems to imply extra stopping services, rather than withdrawal (or
redirection) of limited-stop, but is the latter what it means?

I thought that the current off-peak stopping service from London
Bridge was 6 tph? *That is a reduction if it's going to go down to 4
tph. *The current peak is a bit irregularly-spaced, so I am not sure
of the average tph.

Current off-peak service is indeed 6tph from Sydenham up to LB. Agreed
that the text does seem ambiguous as to the fate of the limited
stoppers. *If* those 2tph are getting cut, then yes the off-peak
service to LB would be down to 4tph, which would be a significant
reduction in frequency. I suppose the only thing that could be said
then is whether 6tph could be fully justified on off-peak traffic
terms, but that's not the sort of question I like to ask - turn-up-and-
go (...sooner-rather-than-later) frequencies are a big part of the
appeal.



So that's a reduced service to London, and journeys to places like
Sutton and Caterham will probably always need a change (with who knows
what kind of connection) from the "purely local" service.

If what you fear is indeed what's actually going to happen, then that
might be the result. *If* so then I suppose one could always make the
argument that the demand for ELL will likely outweigh the demand for
Sutton and Caterham, so it's justified to require people heading for
the latter to change. With regards to any prospective connection - the
ELL is 4tph, so it's hardly going to be the end of the world. (And
West Croydon will be - actually, already is - a London Overground
managed station, so there's perhaps a bit more likelihood that they'd
ensure it's a pleasant enough place to wait for, say, eight minutes.)

I do notice your line of attack re the local service is a bit of a
shift away from arguments about the service to London Bridge. Also,
whilst we're on the local tip, then the improved local service for
Anerley and Penge West is to be welcomed, no?


My current best summary of what's likely to happen, including winners
and losers, is

1) W increased frequency between local stations from Norwood
Junction to NXG.

2) W no need to change for Canada Water, Whitechapel, Shoreditch etc

3) L reduced frequency to London Bridge

4) L No direct service beyond Croydon (eg Sutton, Purley ... and
what happens to Crystal Palace etc?)



I am wondering now if the local campaigners have seen further through
the spin than I have and worked it all out.

Perhaps they're simply cynical about the whole thing - however perhaps
that's the best approach to take, as it offers the best defensive
stance. Looking at the unfolding SLL debacle, I think some of the
campaigners/ defenders of the SLL may well have been comforted by the
plans for the replacement SLL service (the Vic Bellingham one)
proposed in the RUS - which was then the subject of a mucky deal twixt
the DfT and Boris which resulted in it being dropped.

Yes, I was forgetting the psychological effect of that debacle. It is
probably making everyone very cynical. Under Ken there was a tendency
to offer something new which was nice to have (late running LU etc)
and then say "by the way, we have to cut the basic (and more
important) service in order to provide the new service."

Orbital routes are Nice To Have, but the reason why most existing
routes are radial is because they are much more important.



However, for all the good that being a cynic might do, when such
service changes happen it's quite likely that there'll be some losers,
as well as winners - in other words there will always be something to
complain about! I think it's helpful to question the extent of their
potential loss.



"Whilst this means a reduction in the number of London Bridge trains from
Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge in the peak hour, the overall
service frequency north of Sydenham, including ELL trains, will increase to
14 trains per hour in the peak. When Network Rail has completed enhancement
work, the South Central peak services on this route are expected to be of 10
car length."

That will need platform extensions nearly everywhere. *I wonder if it
will really happen?

I was just under the perhaps pretty dumb assumption that they might be
long enough already... which is, as I said, a dumb assumption. My
mental image of all the platforms is of them being long - but maybe
not 10-car long.

Mostly 8, including other South Central routes like Victoria to EC via
Norbury. Any 10 car diagrams would be very restricted unless the
whole network was extended. Crystal Palace and a couple of others
seem to be even more restricted.

Limited numbers of long enough platforms at LB too, and the odd short
one at Victoria.




I'd have thought the eventual capacity increase from 8 to 10 car is the key.
6 x 10 car trains in the peak hour must be almost as much capacity into LB
as now?

It would certainly help if it's possible, but they only have to run
out of money and leave some short platforms somewhere (remember "Kent
Link"?) and there may be no choice but to run shorter trains.

Fair enough comment. For whatever reason I thought the 10-car trains
were coming sooner rather than later - now I notice Paul's "eventual"
qualifier. Maybe it all depends on actual usage, i.e. how busy the 8-
car trains will be.

The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say.
AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into
LB seems something of an exaggeration.

It's meant to seem that way. *With all the partial and oddly-worded
information I think I have to wait and see.

You've made a decent case for the defence me thinks. (...or are you
the prosecution...)


I'm just a partial observer ...