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?

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 -

On Jan 22, 1:51*pm, MIG wrote:

On 22 Jan, 12:29, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 22, 11:08*am, MIG wrote:
[snip]
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.

No, that's not what I meant, but on re-reading them perhaps my
comments weren't very clear.

What I was trying to say was that I didn't see any chance of the plug
being pulled on ELL phase 2.

However, in the (I think very) unlikely event that was to happen, then
there would *have* to be some sort of SLL replacement service (for
example a Vic-Bellingham service) - apart from anything else, Clapham
High Street and Wandsworth Road would otherwise be left without any
service

I don't know what the latest is re the fate of the proposed then
rejected Vic-Bellingham service - afraid I wasn't following things at
all much recently, so I'm not up to date with the latest developments
on this front. I do however know that there is very considerable local
opposition to the loss of the SLL on parts of the route. I wouldn't
say I'm confident that the proposed Vic-Bellingham service will be
resurrected - in fact I wouldn't say anything because I just don't
know what's going on now.


(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.)

OK.


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.

The re-zoning of Shoreditch seemed to be part of the overall deal that
the Mayor did with the DfT - or should I say the deal they did with
each other - this was the very same deal that involved the Mayor/TfL
opting to redirect the funding for the proposed Vic-Bellinham service
(a quasi-replacement for the doomed SLL service) into TfL's coffers so
as to help pay for ELL phase 2.

As I understand it, part of the deal was the DfT listening to TOCs
concerns about the possibility for revenue abstraction with SHS being
in zone 2 (i.e. pax transferring to the ELL to get to SHS instead of
travelling to London Bridge and the TOCs losing the fares money), and
then making the funding contingent on TfL agreeing to re-zone SHS into
zone 1 to mitigate against any such possible revenue abstraction.

So it's all bound together somehow - the Shard skyscraper, Thameslink
2K, the ELL, plans for platform lengthening on routes out of Victoria
etc etc etc.

On 22 Jan, 15:57, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:51*pm, MIG wrote:





On 22 Jan, 12:29, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 22, 11:08*am, MIG wrote:
[snip]
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.

No, that's not what I meant, but on re-reading them perhaps my
comments weren't very clear.

What I was trying to say was that I didn't see any chance of the plug
being pulled on ELL phase 2.

However, in the (I think very) unlikely event that was to happen, then
there would *have* to be some sort of SLL replacement service (for
example a Vic-Bellingham service) - apart from anything else, Clapham
High Street and Wandsworth Road would otherwise be left without any
service

I don't know what the latest is re the fate of the proposed then
rejected Vic-Bellingham service - afraid I wasn't following things at
all much recently, so I'm not up to date with the latest developments
on this front. I do however know that there is very considerable local
opposition to the loss of the SLL on parts of the route. I wouldn't
say I'm confident that the proposed Vic-Bellingham service will be
resurrected - in fact I wouldn't say anything because I just don't
know what's going on now.

I haven't a clue, but I wonder if at some point the Catford line
service will just run from Victoria, as it does on Sundays, during
future Thameslink works, and everyone will get used to it.




(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.)

OK.



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.

The re-zoning of Shoreditch seemed to be part of the overall deal that
the Mayor did with the DfT - or should I say the deal they did with
each other - this was the very same deal that involved the Mayor/TfL
opting to redirect the funding for the proposed Vic-Bellinham service
(a quasi-replacement for the doomed SLL service) into TfL's coffers so
as to help pay for ELL phase 2.

There's something double-thoughtful about that. Can't quite get my
head round it.

A service that was only ever proposed as a result of planned changes
was cancelled to pay for the changes that led to it being
proposed ...

Anyway, a lot is going to depend on what happens to the Victoria to
Dartford services, which could do with running later (as they once
did) and on Sundays (as they did as far as Charlton when the Dome was
open), what tracks they use etc.


As I understand it, part of the deal was the DfT listening to TOCs
concerns about the possibility for revenue abstraction with SHS being
in zone 2 (i.e. pax transferring to the ELL to get to SHS instead of
travelling to London Bridge and the TOCs losing the fares money), and
then making the funding contingent on TfL agreeing to re-zone SHS into
zone 1 to mitigate against any such possible revenue abstraction.

So it's all bound together somehow - the Shard skyscraper, Thameslink
2K, the ELL, plans for platform lengthening on routes out of Victoria
etc etc etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

However, in the (I think very) unlikely event that was to happen, then
there would *have* to be some sort of SLL replacement service (for
example a Vic-Bellingham service) - apart from anything else, Clapham
High Street and Wandsworth Road would otherwise be left without any
service

Surely Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road will be served by the ELL
service to Clapham Junction?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"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

"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
...


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

Thankfully, it is nothing at all to do with FCC...

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
...


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

Thankfully, it is nothing at all to do with FCC...

Paul S


Perhaps missing my point - the timetable's one thing - what actually happens
is the reality folk have to deal with. The timetable might be a wonderful
political statement, but if it falls apart, what counts is the number of
trains actually run - witness Thameslink of late, and likewise EMT on
weekends. I wasn't suggesting that FCC was to operate the ELLX or other
local services - but I guess that if they fail to deliver SoL, that would
put more load onto the local operators' trains.


DW downunder

"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
...

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
...


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

Thankfully, it is nothing at all to do with FCC...

Paul S


Perhaps missing my point - the timetable's one thing - what actually
happens is the reality folk have to deal with.

Ah, understood

Paul S