(Gary Jenkins) wrote in message . com...
Either way, this won't be much of an issue for south/southeast London much
longer - as long as no one else tries to screw things up, the East London Line
extensions will be open in 2005 (?) and those parts of London will have tube
service. http://www.ellp.co.uk/route_map.htm is a map of what the line will
look like when it opens.

Hope I helped,

Brad

But the map shows that all the East London Line extensions will run
south or south-west from New X Gate and not south-east from New X.

So a large part of SE London will not get any improved services.

Perhaps the ELL stakeholders would rather not trample on the DLR's parade....

Brad

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message
m...
One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling
equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get
built?


Have you been South of the river ??

Nasty place. Who wants to get to Streatham quicker, and as for
Woolwich...... urghhhh :-)


--
Edward Cowling - London - UK

"Edward Cowling" wrote in message ...
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message
m...
One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling
equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get
built?


Have you been South of the river ??

Nasty place. Who wants to get to Streatham quicker, and as for
Woolwich...... urghhhh :-)

Nasty how it sounds there may be a grain of salt in it. I don't recall
the author, but Metroland (the suburbs to the northwest) were quite
posh and could afford tube fares whereas the more proletarian southern
suburbs weren't as intersting for tube intvestors.
Matthias Scharwies

"m.scharwies" wrote in message
om...

(snip)

Nasty how it sounds there may be a grain of salt in it. I don't recall
the author, but Metroland (the suburbs to the northwest) were quite
posh and could afford tube fares whereas the more proletarian southern
suburbs weren't as intersting for tube intvestors.
Matthias Scharwies

On balance, I think that the existing railways had sewn up most of the
prosperous commuting areas, (places such as Sidcup or Chiselhurst on the
Keantish side, for example) and simply had a much stronger competitive
advantage when it came to new or expanded services.

(m.scharwies) wrote in message . com...
"Edward Cowling" wrote in message ...
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message
m...
One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling
equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get
built?

Nasty how it sounds there may be a grain of salt in it. I don't recall
the author, but Metroland (the suburbs to the northwest) were quite
posh and could afford tube fares whereas the more proletarian southern
suburbs weren't as intersting for tube intvestors.
Matthias Scharwies

i)There was a better network of overground suburban rail services
across South London. These saw early electrification (The London
Brighton and South Coast Railway's lines had overhead electrification
before WW1 on the services on lines between Victoria, London Bridge
and Crystal Palace).

ii)Effective lobbying by the Southern Railway halted some tube plans
before they reached Parliament.

iii)The railway companies, took on the same role in promoting suburban
house building [in what are now the outer London boroughs/Surrey
hills]to develop additional commuter traffic that the Metropolitan
Railway did north of the river. It's just that they didn't market it
with a single "Metroland" identity that is still reproduced in
posters.