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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.