Bakerloo Line Extension
 

I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some London
Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension of the Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact I still don't -
but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan an extension via Lewisham
to Bromley. According to the Standard, those disagreeing feel an extension in a
more south-westerly direction would serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

On 18/09/2014 16:26, Robin9 wrote:

I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some
London Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension
of the Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact
I still don't - but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan
an extension via Lewisham to Bromley. According to the Standard,
those disagreeing feel an extension in a more south-westerly
direction would serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?


It features in the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 - see the Transport
Supporting Paper:
https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/business-economy/vision-and-strategy/infrastructure-plan-2050

What do I think? I'd favour heading SE over SW, I think the benefits
would be greater. That said, I can't help but feel that if it was
extended to Camberwell, as planned in the 30's, it'd be greatly
beneficial - and possibly, like the Victoria line from Brixton, quite
full up without the capacity to go much further.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

On 18.09.14 16:26, Robin9 wrote:
I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some London

Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension of the
Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact I
still don't -
but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan an extension via
Lewisham
to Bromley. According to the Standard, those disagreeing feel an
extension in a
more south-westerly direction would serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?



I thought the priority at this point was to reintroduce service between
Harrow & Wealdstone and Watford Junction, whereas any extension beyond
E&C was more just an idea.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

On 18/09/2014 16:26, Robin9 wrote:

I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some
London Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension
of the Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact
I still don't - but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan
an extension via Lewisham to Bromley. According to the Standard,
those disagreeing feel an extension in a more south-westerly
direction would serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?

It features in the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 - see the
Transport Supporting Paper:

https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities...nd-strategy/in
frastructure-plan-2050

What do I think? I'd favour heading SE over SW, I think the benefits
would be greater. That said, I can't help but feel that if it was
extended to Camberwell, as planned in the 30's, it'd be greatly
beneficial - and possibly, like the Victoria line from Brixton, quite
full up without the capacity to go much further.

Sound judgement in my view.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In article , () wrote:

On 18.09.14 16:26, Robin9 wrote:
I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some London
Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension of the
Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact I
still don't - but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan an
extension via Lewisham to Bromley. According to the Standard, those
disagreeing feel an extension in a more south-westerly direction would
serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?

I thought the priority at this point was to reintroduce service
between Harrow & Wealdstone and Watford Junction, whereas any
extension beyond E&C was more just an idea.

If they did the Watford Junction extension where would they get the trains?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:26:03 +0200, Robin9
wrote:

I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some London
Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension of the
Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact I
still don't - but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan an
extension via Lewisham to Bromley. According to the Standard, those
disagreeing feel an extension in a more south-westerly direction would
serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?

A TfL consultation launches on 29 September 2014.

It will cover two basic routes - one via Old Kent Road to Lewisham,
Catford, Beckenham Junction, Bromley. The second is via Camberwell and
Peckham then as option 1.

The ludicrous demands from two Labour politicians suggest a
combination of rank opportunism, ignorance and not paying attention.
Anyone who has been paying attention will know that there are only two
viable inner area routes south of Elephant and the long held view was
to aim for Bromley / Hayes. There is no way the Bakerloo Line is
going anywhere near Mr Umunna's constituency of Streatham. It never
was going there and never will go there. Mr Umunna would do better to
kick Labour Party policy into shape about building new tube lines and
having a coherent policy stance on the rail network. Their half arsed
"public sector operator" concept is so daft it's not worth
considering. It won't work, it will be subject to legal challenge and
is probably very dubious in terms of state aid issues. Back to the
drawing board Mr Umunna, Ms Creagh and Mr Milliband.

Southwark Council want both inner area routes built. I'd suggest the
fact that the Mayor has modified the London Plan to include a
development area on Old Kent Line gives a very strong hint as to where
the line will run because TfL will need private sector contributions
to help fund the line. I am unaware of any great opportunity for that
on the Camberwell alignment.

Personally I'd forget about running beyond Catford. I'd also quite
like a loop arrangement which allows a split service via Camberwell
*and* via Old Kent Road. The reason is simply that there is massive
demand for travel on both corridors and there is plenty of merit in
linking with rail services in Peckham and at New Cross / NX Gate. I'd
like the branches to meet at Lewisham and to have a combined function
where some trains continue to Catford but others can run in a loop
across Lewisham.

The service pattern could be

E&C - Camberwell - Peckham - Lewisham - Catford
E&C - Camberwell - Peckham - Lewisham - New Cross - Old Kent Rd - E&C
E&C - Old Kent Road - New Cross - Lewisham - Catford
E&C - Old Kent Road - New Cross - Lewisham - Peckham - Camberwell -
E&C

I realise that is complicated and LU doesn't like loops very much but
providing convenient through local trips in inner SE London would take
an awful lot of pressure off the bus network.

It always seemed to me that the lack of tubes in South London was not only
due to the Southern Railway's electrification programme but also the last
redoubt of the London tramway network. I guess the Camberwell extension was
to make up for the end of the trams but it still feels as if a densely
populated area lacks high capacity public transport.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In message , at 11:37:01 on
Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:
The tube is generally fairly easy to understand, it is colour
coded and there is coherent signage and trains run frequently on
almost all the network every day of the week. It is no wonder then
that politicians and some constituents spend their time going "we want
a tube line, we want a tube line" even if the real answer is "we want
a better rail service, we want a better rail service". The second
chant from politicians is "we want the Overground, we want the
Overground" but all that is is a reasonably frequent, competently
operated rail service that is well presented and well branded to the
public alongside the tube.

The simple answer to this is to ban the public display of "tube only"
maps, and insist they are replaced by "London Connections" maps.
--
Roland Perry

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 05:26:03PM +0200, Robin9 wrote:

I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some London

Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension of the
Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact I
still don't -
but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan an extension via
Lewisham
to Bromley. According to the Standard, those disagreeing feel an
extension in a
more south-westerly direction would serve Londoners better.

I expect that they mean it would serve their constituents better.

The south west already has a little bit of service from the District
line. The south already has a little bit of service from the Northern
line. the south east has ****-all.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

Only some sort of ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get
rid of Routemasters
-- Ken Livingstone, four years before he got rid of 'em

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

[snip]

It's those sorts of choices and the associated rational debate that is
missing from the politicians. They alight on a solution without
understanding the problem. No wonder so many people think they're
useless.

They are only trying to articulate what the public want, so you are in
danger of characterising the public as useless. It's not easy or cheap, to
be sure.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Any extension to Camberwell, with presumably a station at Camberwell Green,
should go at least one station further south to Denmark Hill. The London
Overground system, which now of course serves Denmark Hill, has two main
weaknesses: the platforms are too short and there are not nearly enough
interchange stations.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 09:12:26 +0200
Robin9 wrote:
Overground system, which now of course serves Denmark Hill, has two main

weaknesses: the platforms are too short and there are not nearly enough

interchange stations.

I wouldn't hold your breath. This is the same overground that happily
bypasses the piccadilly and both branches of the northern line london without
an interchange making it essentially useless as an outer circle line for most
of north london unless you fancy a nice hike between stations.

--
Spud

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In message , Robin9
wrote:
Does anyone have either more details

If I may plug my site:

http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/future.html#existing

has a fair amount.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Yes but that's exactly my point. Because the Overground network does not
have nearly enough connections with other rail routes - Underground or
surface lines - any new lines or extensions should have as one of the primary
objectives a new connection with the London Overground service.

One of the many failings of the over-ambitious Crossrail 2 scheme is that the
planners intend the route to go deep into north London without connecting
with London Overground!

Living in Leyton, I am well served by the London Overground system, and I
use it as much as I use any other part of public transport in London. It is very
noticeable that far more passengers board and alight from trains at
interchange stations than at non-interchange stations.

Although the very rapid increase in patronage since the re-branding of London
Overground means it has been a major success, it is still working far below its
real potential because it does not connect with other routes.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 09:12:26 +0200
Robin9 wrote:
Overground system, which now of course serves Denmark Hill, has two main

weaknesses: the platforms are too short and there are not nearly enough

interchange stations.

I wouldn't hold your breath. This is the same overground that happily
bypasses the piccadilly and both branches of the northern line london
without
an interchange making it essentially useless as an outer circle line for
most
of north london unless you fancy a nice hike between stations.

What is it that you expect them to do?

whilst building a new surface station isn't going to be too difficult a new
underground station on a running line, is.

The latter might cost up up to a billion pounds.

I suggest that there are better uses for such sums of money

tim

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 10:43:12 +0100
"tim....." wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 09:12:26 +0200
Robin9 wrote:
Overground system, which now of course serves Denmark Hill, has two main

weaknesses: the platforms are too short and there are not nearly enough

interchange stations.

I wouldn't hold your breath. This is the same overground that happily
bypasses the piccadilly and both branches of the northern line london
without
an interchange making it essentially useless as an outer circle line for
most
of north london unless you fancy a nice hike between stations.

What is it that you expect them to do?

Nothing - as you say it would cost a fortune. The point I was making is that
the overground isn't the connect all outer circle line that TfL like to
pretend it is. But even when they could have done something very useful like
terminating the ELL at finsbury park so people could interchange directly
from the ECML and great northern lines they didn't bother, citing costs
and rubbish about pathing difficulties. Meanwhile they spend hundreds of
millions on new buses no one asked for and trains on the victoria line that
won't fit anywhere else so can't be cascaded and have to be brought in by
road costing a small fortune.

--
Spud

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

This recent consultation and the discussions provoked by it have convinced me to switch my preferences from the Camberwell route to the OKR option - the opportunity to serve New Cross Gate and gain interchange with the BML is too good to miss, even if it does mean missing out on interchange with the SLL at Peckham Rye or Queens Road Peckham...a shame though.

As for beyond Lewisham...I am still firmly of the opinion that Hayes is completely the wrong option. The route will need vast amounts of new depot capacity, and there is nowhere with the land available on that route. Taking over the surface line from Lewisham to Beckenham via Catford also removes a very useful bit of mainline railway from the network.

No, if you were desperate to remove the Hayes line from Lewisham, then I think the solution is a short tunnel under (through?) South Norwood Country Park to the underused line through Crystal Palace. Perhaps a new station on the BML slow lines at the interchange, though I suspect Crystal Palace would suffice. Both rail lines heading to Beckenham could then be given to the trams.

My preference is for the new tunnels to continue slightly further past Lewisham - through Blackheath - and surfacing past Blackheath Junction. The line then would take over the Bexleyheath line through to Slade Green (expansion of which would give the depot space required), then diving back into tunnel to serve Dartford (so adding more capacity on the lines into it from the west), then heading south east to terminate under Bluewater (adding a major traffic generator to the end of the line to generate contraflow traffic)..

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:26:03 PM UTC+1, Robin9 wrote:
I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some London

Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension of the
Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact I
still don't -
but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan an extension via
Lewisham
to Bromley. According to the Standard, those disagreeing feel an
extension in a
more south-westerly direction would serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?




So currently Northern Line tubes coming into Waterloo from the South have often started from Kennington and have plenty of available seats, and standing space. And, Bakerloo line trains coming into Waterloo from the South, have started from Elephant and Castle, and have ample seating, and standing space.

Those brilliant politicians have decided that since commuters arriving at Victoria Mainline station have to suffer impossibly packed tube trains, the same pain should be inflicted on Waterloo's commuters.

Absolutely Brilliant thinking.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

e27002 wrote:
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:26:03 PM UTC+1, Robin9 wrote:
I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some London

Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension of the
Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact I
still don't -
but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan an extension via
Lewisham
to Bromley. According to the Standard, those disagreeing feel an
extension in a
more south-westerly direction would serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?




So currently Northern Line tubes coming into Waterloo from the South have
often started from Kennington and have plenty of available seats, and
standing space. And, Bakerloo line trains coming into Waterloo from the
South, have started from Elephant and Castle, and have ample seating, and standing space.

There will also be more frequent services on both those lines before the
extensions open.

Those brilliant politicians have decided that since commuters arriving at
Victoria Mainline station have to suffer impossibly packed tube trains,
the same pain should be inflicted on Waterloo's commuters.

Absolutely Brilliant thinking.

Have you forgotten Crossrail 2? It will take a lot of Waterloo and
Victoria mainline pax directly to central London, so they no longer have to
use the existing terminals.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In article ,
(e27002) wrote:

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:26:03 PM UTC+1, Robin9 wrote:
I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some
London Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension of
the Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact I
still don't - but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan an
extension via Lewisham to Bromley. According to the Standard, those
disagreeing feel an extension in a more south-westerly direction
would serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?

So currently Northern Line tubes coming into Waterloo from the South
have often started from Kennington and have plenty of available
seats, and standing space. And, Bakerloo line trains coming into
Waterloo from the South, have started from Elephant and Castle, and
have ample seating, and standing space.

Those brilliant politicians have decided that since commuters
arriving at Victoria Mainline station have to suffer impossibly
packed tube trains, the same pain should be inflicted on Waterloo's
commuters.

Absolutely Brilliant thinking.

Huh? The Victoria Line always seems pretty empty south of Victoria when I
use it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

wrote:
In article ,
(e27002) wrote:

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:26:03 PM UTC+1, Robin9 wrote:
I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some
London Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension of
the Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact I
still don't - but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan an
extension via Lewisham to Bromley. According to the Standard, those
disagreeing feel an extension in a more south-westerly direction
would serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?

So currently Northern Line tubes coming into Waterloo from the South
have often started from Kennington and have plenty of available
seats, and standing space. And, Bakerloo line trains coming into
Waterloo from the South, have started from Elephant and Castle, and
have ample seating, and standing space.

Those brilliant politicians have decided that since commuters
arriving at Victoria Mainline station have to suffer impossibly
packed tube trains, the same pain should be inflicted on Waterloo's
commuters.

Absolutely Brilliant thinking.

Huh? The Victoria Line always seems pretty empty south of Victoria when I
use it.

Sure, but that wasn't the point Adrian was making. He was saying, quite
correctly, that when Victoria mainline commuters try and get on Victoria
line trains heading into central London they often find the Tube station
closed through overcrowding on those trains.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
e27002 wrote:
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:26:03 PM UTC+1, Robin9 wrote:
I've just read an article in today's Evening Standard about some London

Assembly politicians disagreeing with a southward extension of the
Bakerloo Line.
I didn't know an extension was being seriously considered - in fact I
still don't -
but apparently the Mayor has instructed TfL to plan an extension via
Lewisham
to Bromley. According to the Standard, those disagreeing feel an
extension in a
more south-westerly direction would serve Londoners better.

Does anyone have either more details or a firm opinion on this?




So currently Northern Line tubes coming into Waterloo from the South have
often started from Kennington and have plenty of available seats, and
standing space. And, Bakerloo line trains coming into Waterloo from the
South, have started from Elephant and Castle, and have ample seating, and
standing space.

There will also be more frequent services on both those lines before the
extensions open.

Those brilliant politicians have decided that since commuters arriving at
Victoria Mainline station have to suffer impossibly packed tube trains,
the same pain should be inflicted on Waterloo's commuters.

Absolutely Brilliant thinking.

Have you forgotten Crossrail 2? It will take a lot of Waterloo and
Victoria mainline pax directly to central London, so they no longer have
to
use the existing terminals.

CR 2 takes as long ac CR1 that will be some time in 2070!

tim