"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On Jan 21, 11:40 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Paul Scott" wrote

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.

Some passengers who currently use London Bridge will find it advantageous
to
use the ELL - particularly those who walk to work from London Bridge, but
who may have a shorter walk from Shoreditch High Street, and those who
change to the Jubilee Line at London Bridge who may choose to change at
Canada Water instead.

Indeed - re the second point, those heading east to Canary Wharf and
beyond will of course find Canada Water more convenient for changing
to the Jubilee - yes when the old ELL was open this was an option
then, but the benefit of one less change inevitably makes this more
attractive - but it'll also be very interesting to see how many people
do it for journeys to points west (e.g. the West End), thus avoiding
the somewhat laborious and busy interchange at London Bridge.

w.r.t. the first point about Shoreditch High Street, as I suggested
elsewhere on this thread if SHS had been in zone 2 as was originally
planned then price wise it may well have been advantageous for people
to choose it over London Bridge (i.e. Travelcard would not need z2
validity), however now that it's going to be in zone 1 then it may
well remain advantageous for them to stick with a rail-only season to
London Terminals (i.e. London Bridge).

An example - Crystal Palace to somewhere in the City - all prices are
monthlies...

z2&3 Travelcard - £73.00
z1-3 Travelcard - £116
Crystal Palace to London Terminals - £74.90

If SHS had been in z2, then if it was a more convenient location then
the clear choice for the commuter would have been the z2&3 Travelcard
(which would also have afforded them bus travel anywhere in London
too).

Now that SHS is in zone 1, they'd need to decide whether it was
worthwhile or not to splash out on a z1 Travelcard - or indeed a z1
PAYG fare - read on...

***BIG qualifier to the above!***
Importantly to all these calculations we don't yet know two things...

(1) What Oyster PAYG fare will be charged for said journey - though
it's likely that for a straightforward commute, PAYG will still be
cheaper than a season Travelcard (though poss. not an annual), but one
has to factor in any leisure travel too.

(2) Whether there might be some kind of rail-only season available for
travel to SHS. My suspicion is no there won't be.



And may I ask, for those who walked from LB, what would be the pricing and
access issues if they were to use Whitechapel instead?

DW downunder

On 22 Jan, 02:58, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 22, 12:57*am, MIG wrote:

On 21 Jan, 23:31, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 21, 10:42*pm, Andy wrote:
[snip]
To add to this (and my post), the following comes from
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/3

[snip table from alwaystouchout]

Yeah - many eons ago it was looking at that table that made me
question where MIG was getting his info from! However whilst still a
great primer for many things the website is no longer updated - the
author was a great denizen of utl back in the day though! However
whilst I dare say the basic thinking survives, I dunno what subsequent
changes there may have been to that.

("eons" being a purposeful misspelling to test you all - seems like
you've all failed!)





(And I'm sorry if this is coming across as an attack on MIG - that's
not intended, I've a great respect for him as a contributor here - but
I do think there needs to be a clear basis of what the changes are
going to be before people set about taking them apart.)

I have actually argued that claims made by local campaigners seem
rather wild (and to be confused over the Charing Cross issue) and
ought to be checked before supporting them, and I don't know where
they get their information *from. *However, since my only counter
arguments come from what I read in the MR timetable review, which is a
notoriously disingenuous feature, I don't feel on very safe ground
either when local people seem to have information about drastic cuts.

I understood that, because ELL services will need the outer tracks,
some London Bridge services will move to the inner tracks and not be
able to call at several stations, but I don't know if there's a total
reduction in departures from LB.

The table mentioned above seems to be even more generous than the spin-
ridden MR feature, so I am not sure what to make of it. *Maybe there
has been some recognition of operation reality since those frequencies
were claimed?

Long before this blew up locally, I was always perturbed at the idea of
using any paths to send short trains away from London Bridge. *If the
paths are there, why aren't they being used now? *The trains on that
corridor are among the most ludicrously overcrowded in the country,
and London Bridge terminus is underused compared with, say, Charing
Cross.

See my extensive reply to your points elsewhere in this thread, but...

You make several good points (here and elsewhere), including the case
for being mistrustful and sceptical.

Re the comment about paths not being used now - I dunno what the
various potential issues are/ were about running more and longer
trains up and down this corridor to and from London Bridge, but I'd be
interested to know them. Lack of rolling stock perhaps? I acknowledge
the peak overcrowding on this route is severe. (Are all the peak
services 8 car, or some 6 car, or even 4 car?)

One quick thing to say about overcrowding is that some of the crowds
will inevitably opt for the ELL instead, which should hopefully make
things a bit less rammed for everyone else w.r.t. the London Bridge
trains. How crowded the ELL might get is another question. I agree
that there is the potential for a bit of a 'clash of cultures' (for
want of a better phrase) when the 4 car LO model transported down from
the NLL gets to this busy corridor on 'the southern', but I don't
think it'll necessarily be as apocalyptic as you state. Nonetheless
I'll try and endeavour to go and experience the peak crush for myself
in the next few months before the ELL through service starts (because
I'm a sadist like that!).

One other thing - about the Charing X issue - I'm rather out of the
loop about this and everything else, so has it gone down that badly?
Being able to get on a train back in the evening direct from CX in the
West End was I fully acknowledge a neat thing to be able to do.-

It may be more "... and another thing ...". Connections to Charing
Cross at London Bridge are not lacking, and they never ran in the
peaks anyway.

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 ...

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 21 Jan, 23:17, "Paul Scott" wrote:


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

Network Rail have just announced that they have started:

"London Bridge to West Croydon via Norwood Junction
Increasing to 10-car trains during the peak from December 2011"

from
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...Cate goryID=8

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.


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.

This is how the RUS summary reads for the area in question, (section 6.3)
though obviously it's a couple of years old now:

"On the Sydenham line, Brockley, Honor
Oak Park, Penge West and Anerley all see
an INCREASE in the number of morning peak
trains to London Bridge. Sydenham and
Forest Hill will see a marginal reduction from
7tph at present to 6tph in the high peak hour,
but NO CHANGE from the existing 18tph trains
across the entire three-hour peak. However,
the RUS considers that, even if this change
were to be carried out in isolation (as
opposed to at the time of ELL opening),
the service pattern will provide sufficient
capacity, since no trains serving this route
will originate from further away than the
Croydon area (as opposed to locations such
as Epsom or Caterham today)."

[My caps]

"A 2tph service will operate from the
Sydenham line to Victoria via Crystal
Palace. This is a significant improvement in
the morning peak, developed in response
to stakeholder feedback, since this service
currently only commences after the
morning peak has finished."

"A 4tph peak fast service is provided from
Norwood Junction to London Bridge,
at improved intervals. This will provide
capacity for some of the passengers who
would otherwise use the all-stations trains."

I think these latter are the trains that have to shift to the fast lines,
but they should presumably be preferred by pax form West Croydon or Norwood
Jn once they are sussed out, as they'll run non stop.

Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only
seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the
definition...

Paul S

On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...

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

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

Network Rail have just announced that they have started:

"London Bridge to West Croydon via Norwood Junction
Increasing to 10-car trains during the peak from December 2011"

fromhttp://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID....





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.

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.

This is how the RUS summary reads for the area in question, (section 6.3)
though obviously it's a couple of years old now:

"On the Sydenham line, Brockley, Honor
Oak Park, Penge West and Anerley all see
an INCREASE in the number of morning peak
trains to London Bridge. Sydenham and
Forest Hill will see a marginal reduction from
7tph at present to 6tph in the high peak hour,
but NO CHANGE from the existing 18tph trains
across the entire three-hour peak. However,
the RUS considers that, even if this change
were to be carried out in isolation (as
opposed to at the time of ELL opening),
the service pattern will provide sufficient
capacity, since no trains serving this route
will originate from further away than the
Croydon area (as opposed to locations such
as Epsom or Caterham today)."

[My caps]

"A 2tph service will operate from the
Sydenham line to Victoria via Crystal
Palace. This is a significant improvement in
the morning peak, developed in response
to stakeholder feedback, since this service
currently only commences after the
morning peak has finished."

"A 4tph peak fast service is provided from
Norwood Junction to London Bridge,
at improved intervals. This will provide
capacity for some of the passengers who
would otherwise use the all-stations trains."

I think these latter are the trains that have to shift to the fast lines,
but they should presumably be preferred by pax form West Croydon or Norwood
Jn once they are sussed out, as they'll run non stop.

Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only
seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the
definition...

Paul S-

It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I
suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too
much attention to. A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not
least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy
deals*. I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either,
who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and
lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise
that they have some justification for cynicism.

I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out.


*To get the go-ahead for things that may yet not go ahead (and Virgin
not involved ...).

On Jan 22, 11:08*am, MIG wrote:

On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote:
[big snip]

This is how the RUS summary reads for the area in question, (section 6.3)
though obviously it's a couple of years old now:

[big snip of quoted chunks of RUS plus associated comments]

Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only
seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the
definition...

It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I
suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too
much attention to. *A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not
least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy
deals*. *I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either,
who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and
lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise
that they have some justification for cynicism.

I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out.

*To get the go-ahead for things that may yet not go ahead (and Virgin
not involved ...).

I agree that things may well have changed - plus as we've seen the RUS
is not a hallowed document, it's a recommendation, and it strongly
recommended that there be a replacement for the SLL (the proposed Vic-
Bellingham service) which seemingly isn't now going to happen.

With regards to your "dodgy deals" comment, I assume this is in
relation to the cutting of the SLL, right? Well, one justification was
the extension of the other platforms at Battersea Park - whether that
happens any time soon is a fair enough question. However at the other
end of the line, the redevelopment at London Bridge is indeed going
ahead, as it's all linked in with building the 'Shard' tower right
next to the station, which is itself intermeshed with the Thameslink
Programme works. Of course, one could make an argument about about it
being a "dodgy deal" for this to happen in the first place, what with
the associated reduction of terminating platforms at LB from 9 down to
6[*].

The ELL phase 2 to Clapham Jn seems fairly certain to happen (no doubt
it's controversial because of the associated SLL stuff, but I can't
see the plug being pulled on it now).

So are your comments predominantly about Battersea Park and the
disappearing SLL service? Or a wider comment, perhaps including
reference to Crossrail and other stuff?


-----[*] Could anyone briefly summarise to what extent the benefits for
Thameslink of the London Bridge works are dependent on the Bermondsey
flyunder arrangement being built too?

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote:
BIG SNIP

Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only
seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the
definition...

Paul S-

It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I
suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too
much attention to. A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not
least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy
deals*. I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either,
who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and
lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise
that they have some justification for cynicism.

I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out.


*To get the go-ahead for things that may yet not go ahead (and Virgin
not involved ...).



Given FCC's track record, I suspect it's more a case of: we'll know when we
see the trains actually running ... and for your further flung
participants: ... and the news filters through. SIGH

DW downunder

On Jan 22, 4:33*am, "DW downunder" noname wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote in message

[big snip]

w.r.t. the first point about Shoreditch High Street, as I suggested
elsewhere on this thread if SHS had been in zone 2 as was originally
planned then price wise it may well have been advantageous for people
to choose it over London Bridge (i.e. Travelcard would not need z2
validity), however now that it's going to be in zone 1 then it may
well remain advantageous for them to stick with a rail-only season to
London Terminals (i.e. London Bridge).

An example - Crystal Palace to somewhere in the City - all prices are
monthlies...

z2&3 Travelcard - £73.00
z1-3 Travelcard - £116
Crystal Palace to London Terminals - £74.90

If SHS had been in z2, then if it was a more convenient location then
the clear choice for the commuter would have been the z2&3 Travelcard
(which would also have afforded them bus travel anywhere in London
too).

Now that SHS is in zone 1, they'd need to decide whether it was
worthwhile or not to splash out on a z1 Travelcard - or indeed a z1
PAYG fare - read on...

***BIG qualifier to the above!***
Importantly to all these calculations we don't yet know two things...

(1) What Oyster PAYG fare will be charged for said journey - though
it's likely that for a straightforward commute, PAYG will still be
cheaper than a season Travelcard (though poss. not an annual), but one
has to factor in any leisure travel too.

(2) Whether there might be some kind of rail-only season available for
travel to SHS. My suspicion is no there won't be.

--------------------

And may I ask, for those who walked from LB, what would be the pricing and
access issues if they were to use Whitechapel instead?

Whitechapel is and will remain in zone 2, but it's that bit further
away from the City - it will certainly be an option for anyone who
works on that edge of the City (say around Aldgate) and is willing to
walk a bit, but the lay of the land makes it that bit less attractive
to do so - SHS is closer to where it's going on (in City office terms
- Whitechapel market seems to be where it's at for dodgy DVD street
sales...).

So, from points south Whitechapel + walk is a possible option for
avoiding zone 1. The old Shoreditch ELL station (in zone 2) was also
used by a cadre of City commuters - indeed it only had a peak hours
service (though the service window was quite wide), but as we now know
the quasi-replacement SHS station will be in zone 1.

Coming from points north, then one could get off at Hoxton station
(zone 1/2 border, thus only paying for a z2 fare) and walk down into
the City, but again it's a bit of a distance, prob. more so for many
City destinations than it is from Whitechapel, and given that the
furthest away pax will have come from without a change is Highbury &
Islington I'm not sure that many would be willing to do this.

That said, for anyone working in the vicinity of the Old Street
roundabout, then a walk over from Hoxton is rather more doable. So
there's a possibility of the ELL taking a few pax away from FCC's
Great Northern Electrics / Northern City line service into Moorgate
via Old Street, dependent on where they're heading of course (and also
where they're starting from - if it's Highbury & Islington that's one
thing, but if people are coming from further out say on the Great
Northern Electrics service then faffing about changing at H&I becomes
less attractive, esp. if the walk is the same or longer at the other
end!).

On Jan 22, 7:29*am, MIG wrote:

On 22 Jan, 02:58, Mizter T wrote:
[snip]

One other thing - about the Charing X issue - I'm rather out of the
loop about this and everything else, so has it gone down that badly?
Being able to get on a train back in the evening direct from CX in the
West End was I fully acknowledge a neat thing to be able to do.-

It may be more "... and another thing ...". *Connections to Charing
Cross at London Bridge are not lacking, and they never ran in the
peaks anyway.

Yeah, my comment was more about later in the evening, when it was neat
to just be able to hop on the train at CX rather than change at LB to
get back (or indeed head up into town later in the evening and be
delivered right into the West End).

On 22 Jan, 12:29, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 22, 11:08*am, MIG wrote:





On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote:
[big snip]

This is how the RUS summary reads for the area in question, (section 6.3)
though obviously it's a couple of years old now:

[big snip of quoted chunks of RUS plus associated comments]

Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only
seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the
definition...

It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I
suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too
much attention to. *A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not
least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy
deals*. *I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either,
who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and
lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise
that they have some justification for cynicism.

I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out.

*To get the go-ahead for things that may yet not go ahead (and Virgin
not involved ...).

I agree that things may well have changed - plus as we've seen the RUS
is not a hallowed document, it's a recommendation, and it strongly
recommended that there be a replacement for the SLL (the proposed Vic-
Bellingham service) which seemingly isn't now going to happen.

With regards to your "dodgy deals" comment, I assume this is in
relation to the cutting of the SLL, right? Well, one justification was
the extension of the other platforms at Battersea Park - whether that
happens any time soon is a fair enough question. However at the other
end of the line, the redevelopment at London Bridge is indeed going
ahead, as it's all linked in with building the 'Shard' tower right
next to the station, which is itself intermeshed with the Thameslink
Programme works. Of course, one could make an argument about about it
being a "dodgy deal" for this to happen in the first place, what with
the associated reduction of terminating platforms at LB from 9 down to
6[*].

The ELL phase 2 to Clapham Jn seems fairly certain to happen (no doubt
it's controversial because of the associated SLL stuff, but I can't
see the plug being pulled on it now).

So are your comments predominantly about Battersea Park and the
disappearing SLL service? Or a wider comment, perhaps including
reference to Crossrail and other stuff?

Well, mainly about the loss of SLL, and then the loss of the
replacement service from Victoria.

I was thinking that the loss of the service will definitely happen,
but that the service that replaces it may yet not, although you are
more confident that it will happen.

(My Virgin comment was thinking back to how other services were cut to
make way for PUG and Operation Princess, and remain cut, without the
promised benefit.)

I seem to remember there was a deal around the zoning of Shoreditch as
well, but that's more of an aside that explains people's cynicism.



-----
[*] Could anyone briefly summarise to what extent the benefits for
Thameslink of the London Bridge works are dependent on the Bermondsey
flyunder arrangement being built too?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -