"Mark Brader" wrote in message
...
Robin Payne:
I tend to beleive the more probably explanation that the Southern
Railway took suburban commuters seriously as a market, and provided
frequent, electric commuter trains. The other 3 of the big 4
basically ignored this market...

I tend to believe this one as well. And I'll add that the reason behind
the reason is that London is in the southeast of Great Britain -- so that
lines running north or west from London could carry lucrative
long-distance
traffic, but other lines could not, because there were no long distances.
The southern railways, and later the Southern Railway, *had* to concen-
trate on short- and middle-distance traffic, because except for one line
to Exeter that competed with the GWR, that was all there was.


Of course, the SER and the LCDR did have the lucrative route to Dover and
other Channel ports (and the South Coast resorts to a lesser extent, if you
include the LB&SCR), but this only increased railway penetration in what was
northern Kent and Surrey, as the railway companies sought to gain some
return on the massive capital outlay they made on competing lines and rival
West End and City terminii.

In the inter-war period, the SR simply had greater financial advantages than
LU. Slapping on a third rail brought in as many new surburan passengers as a
Tube line would, at much less cost (even if an existing line had simply been
converted for use by Tube stock). I think the SR in these years could boast
a 14% return on capital for electrification against the 1% for an
Underground extenstion produced. The SR wasn't going to give up any of these
profits to the Tube easily, and fought so hard over the extension to Morden
that expanding elsewhere in South London just wasn't practical.

I sometimes wonder whether I would gain from a Tube line serving me locally.
I live on the Hayes line, which would be a prime candidate for incorporation
into an extended Bakerloo line (for example). As it stands (assuming normal
service and no nasty surprises in forthcoming timetables) I can reach large
parts of both the West End and the City within 30-40 minutes of my
departure. If the line were wholly given over to LUL, the City would no
longer be directly accessible, and journey times to London would probably be
slower on the most likely route. There should be no problem about ensuring
the off-peak 4tph to London could still be maintained if both services were
allowed to run, but NR trains at peak times would still be fairly crowded.

"juvenal" wrote in message ...
I sometimes wonder whether I would gain from a Tube line serving me locally.
I live on the Hayes line, which would be a prime candidate for incorporation
into an extended Bakerloo line (for example).

That'd be fantastic! Elephant & Castle, Camberwell, Peckham,
Brockley, Lewisham, Ladywell, Catford Bridge, Lower Sydenham, New
Beckenham, Clock House, Elmers End, Eden Park, West Wickham and Hayes.
Does any freight run on the Hayes line? If it's passengers only, it
surely wouldn't be too hard to come to some sort of arrangement to
hand the line south of Lewisham over to LU. And the cost of the
tunnel from Walworth Road to Lewisham would surely be far cheaper than
the JLE, to deliver similar benefits. I wonder if such a scheme has
ever been considered by LU?

Patrick

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message om...
"juvenal" wrote in message
...
I sometimes wonder whether I would gain from a Tube line serving me
locally.
I live on the Hayes line, which would be a prime candidate for
incorporation
into an extended Bakerloo line (for example).

That'd be fantastic! Elephant & Castle,

Walworth next, surely...

Camberwell, Peckham,
Brockley, Lewisham, Ladywell, Catford Bridge, Lower Sydenham, New
Beckenham, Clock House, Elmers End, Eden Park, West Wickham and Hayes.


Personally, I'd rather see it head along the more direct route down the Old
Kent Road:

Elephant & Castle, Bricklayer's Arms, Surrey Canal Road, New Cross, St
Johns, Lewisham.

I don't even know if it would be needed any further - passenger capacity
would get pretty tight, and Lewisham would be a good change for a lot of
passengers; plus it would prevent the Hayes line from losing its service to
the City.

Jonn

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message ...
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message om...
"juvenal" wrote in message
...
I sometimes wonder whether I would gain from a Tube line serving me
locally.
I live on the Hayes line, which would be a prime candidate for
incorporation
into an extended Bakerloo line (for example).

That'd be fantastic! Elephant & Castle,

Walworth next, surely...

It's only a five minute walk from E&C to East Street, so I left out
Walworth. They can walk! grin

Camberwell, Peckham,
Brockley, Lewisham, Ladywell, Catford Bridge, Lower Sydenham, New
Beckenham, Clock House, Elmers End, Eden Park, West Wickham and Hayes.


Personally, I'd rather see it head along the more direct route down the Old
Kent Road:

Elephant & Castle, Bricklayer's Arms, Surrey Canal Road, New Cross, St
Johns, Lewisham.

ISTR reading somewhere that there are already Bakerloo tunnels half
way down Walworth Road as part of the proposed 1950 Camberwell
extension, hence why I suggested Camberwell. Your route does make
more geographic sense, I admit, but maybe runs a bit too close to the
JLE?

I don't even know if it would be needed any further - passenger capacity
would get pretty tight, and Lewisham would be a good change for a lot of
passengers; plus it would prevent the Hayes line from losing its service to
the City.

Do you mean there would be too many passengers to get on the trains?
So just like the rest of the tube network, then? Seriously, though,
if an extended Bakerloo were in tunnel from E&C to Ladywell, you could
run a 10/12 tph service, surely, which would take lots of passengers?

Patrick

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message m...
"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message om...
"juvenal" wrote in message
...

(snip)

Camberwell, Peckham,
Brockley, Lewisham, Ladywell, Catford Bridge, Lower Sydenham, New
Beckenham, Clock House, Elmers End, Eden Park, West Wickham and Hayes.

If this route were taken, there would probably be a station at Loughborough
Junction as well.

Personally, I'd rather see it head along the more direct route down the
Old
Kent Road:

Elephant & Castle, Bricklayer's Arms, Surrey Canal Road, New Cross, St
Johns, Lewisham.

I thought about this route. It would probably cut down journey times to
Central London, but would areas along the Old Kent Road, within either E&C,
JLE and East London line service areas, really benefit as much as
Camberwell, where one has to travel to Oval, Brixton or E&C to make a tube
connection?

ISTR reading somewhere that there are already Bakerloo tunnels half
way down Walworth Road as part of the proposed 1950 Camberwell
extension, hence why I suggested Camberwell. Your route does make
more geographic sense, I admit, but maybe runs a bit too close to the
JLE?

You wouldn't, IMO, even need tunnels. You could bring the Bakerloo to the
surface somewhere along Walworth Road and add an extra two tracks to the
existing lines to Lewisham (Lewisham station itself would probably need
major rebuilding though, however you expand it).

I don't even know if it would be needed any further - passenger capacity
would get pretty tight, and Lewisham would be a good change for a lot of
passengers; plus it would prevent the Hayes line from losing its service
to
the City.

Thinking it over, termination at either Peckham or Lewisham might be the
best course.

"juvenal" wrote in message
...

ISTR reading somewhere that there are already Bakerloo tunnels half
way down Walworth Road as part of the proposed 1950 Camberwell
extension, hence why I suggested Camberwell. Your route does make
more geographic sense, I admit, but maybe runs a bit too close to the
JLE?

You wouldn't, IMO, even need tunnels. You could bring the Bakerloo to the
surface somewhere along Walworth Road and add an extra two tracks to the
existing lines to Lewisham (Lewisham station itself would probably need
major rebuilding though, however you expand it).

I don't even know if it would be needed any further - passenger
capacity
would get pretty tight, and Lewisham would be a good change for a lot
of
passengers; plus it would prevent the Hayes line from losing its
service
to
the City.

Thinking it over, termination at either Peckham or Lewisham might be the
best course.

One could alternatively extend the Bakerloo from Lewisham alongside the SER
main line to Grove Park and then take over the branch to Bromley North...

Angus

"Angus Bryant" wrote in message
...

One could alternatively extend the Bakerloo from
Lewisham alongside the SER main line to Grove Park
and then take over the branch to Bromley North...

Is there room?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes