"MIG" wrote

Any such reduction is difficult to justify. This route to London
Bridge already suffers from extreme overcrowding, although it's true
that this is mainly due to short trains, and a slow diversion to
Shoreditch etc is hardly a replacement for a direct service to London
Bridge.

There would be even worse overcrowding on the London Bridge trains, and
empty trains diverting off to the pointless non-destinations served by
the ELLX, only filling up from Surrey Docks etc.

Reopening the ELL into Liverpool Street (which is hardly cramped*)
would have been very useful, and much cheaper than building a whole new
line into the inner suburbs. I've never understood the point of any of
it, but hey, it's an excuse for yet another extended closure of the
ELL.

How many passengers who now have to travel via London Bridge, will have
better journeys to their actual destination by changing to the Jubilee Line
at Canada Water, or to the District or Hammersmith & City at Whitechapel?

Liverpool Street is, as you say, hardly cramped, and since the rebuilding
actually has circulating space for passengers. However, the lines into it
are pretty congested and I don't think it could reasonably take trains off
the ELL until Crossrail takes away quite a few departures. It would, though,
have been better to build Crossrail ten years ago, build the southern part
of ELLX, running into Liverpool Street (using capacity released by
Crossrail), then reopen Broad Street to Dalston, and extend to Highbury &
Islington, as Light Rail (preferably as an isolated section of the DLR),
running to a high level terminus within Liverpool Street station, or to an
underground station below it - in the latter case extending to Bank for
through running to the rest of DLR.

Peter

Peter