|
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk...name_page.html
quote Sign up to keep station on line Oct 16 2007 By Jenny Clover HUNDREDS of people are protesting against plans to cut a direct train service to central London. Nearly 300 commuters who use Denmark Hill station have signed a petition to keep the service - which runs from Victoria to London Bridge - saying it is vital for the community. Network Rail has started a consultation on the future of train services in South London and is proposing that the South London Line be diverted from London Bridge to Lewisham or Catford, meaning Denmark Hill would have no direct link to London Bridge. Other stations, including Peckham Rye and Queens Road, Peckham, would also be hit by reduced services. Veronica Ward, councillor for South Camberwell, said: "This is a very important line, not only for commuters, it also serves two enormous hospitals. "King's College Hospital has a huge training programme that links them to Guy's Hospital at London Bridge, so this is very important to a lot of people. "There's not a great deal of time to respond but people need to make their feelings known to Network Rail by October 26." Last year,Network Rail proposed taking the Victoria service away from Denmark Hill station. After a campaign they bowed to local pressure and it remained. Cllr Ward was joined by council-lors Peter John and John Friary and London Assembly Member Val Shawcross to hand out leaflets at the station during the Monday morning rush hour. A spokesman for Network Rail said: "One option would be to divert Denmark Hill services away from London Bridge. It's important for us to have consultations with local people." He said if proposals were agreed they would go ahead over the next 10-15 years. Visit www.gopetition.co.uk/ petitions/keep-the-south-london-line-link- at-denmark-hill.html to sign the petition online. Or you can email Network Rail at southlondon.rus@networkrail. co.uk or write to at South London RUS Consultation Response, National RUS Consultation Manager, Network Rail, 8th Floor, 40 Melton Street, London NW1 2EE. unquote What is the logic of diversions prior to the building of phase two of the ELL extension. Is this part of the changes consequent on the Thameslink work? |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
"Mwmbwls" wrote in message oups.com... HUNDREDS of people are protesting against plans to cut a direct train service to central London. Nearly 300 commuters who use Denmark Hill station have signed a petition to keep the service - which runs from Victoria to London Bridge - saying it is vital for the community. What is the logic of diversions prior to the building of phase two of the ELL extension. Is this part of the changes consequent on the Thameslink work? Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks like they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on... Paul |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Mwmbwls" wrote in message oups.com... HUNDREDS of people are protesting against plans to cut a direct train service to central London. Nearly 300 commuters who use Denmark Hill station have signed a petition to keep the service - which runs from Victoria to London Bridge - saying it is vital for the community. What is the logic of diversions prior to the building of phase two of the ELL extension. Is this part of the changes consequent on the Thameslink work? Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks like they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on... Paul Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto the Jubilee line? My apologies if google decides to post this message 10 times instead of only once. |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
"lonelytraveller" wrote in message oups.com... On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote: Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks like they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on... Paul Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto the Jubilee line? Presume its just that the pax who currently use the service use it to get directly to London Bridge or Victoria. Everyone is happy with improvements for the greater good, except when directly affected themselves. I'm sure very similar objections will be raised when the DC lines are diverted away from Euston, or the Greenford shuttle stops going to Paddington... Paul |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"lonelytraveller" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote: Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks like they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on... Paul Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto the Jubilee line? Because it will take half an hour longer? Presume its just that the pax who currently use the service use it to get directly to London Bridge or Victoria. Everyone is happy with improvements for the greater good, except when directly affected themselves. I'm sure very similar objections will be raised when the DC lines are diverted away from Euston, or the Greenford shuttle stops going to Paddington... People decide where to live, what jobs to apply for etc based on existing facilities, including transport links. Of course objections will be raised, and quite rightly. I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes into central London into a stopping service to Hackney. The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing services should be taken away". The fact that railways developed as they did, with radial routes having precedence over orbital ones, is a clue to which are more important. |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
"MIG" wrote in message s.com... Presume its just that the pax who currently use the service use it to get directly to London Bridge or Victoria. Everyone is happy with improvements for the greater good, except when directly affected themselves. I'm sure very similar objections will be raised when the DC lines are diverted away from Euston, or the Greenford shuttle stops going to Paddington... People decide where to live, what jobs to apply for etc based on existing facilities, including transport links. Of course objections will be raised, and quite rightly. I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes into central London into a stopping service to Hackney. The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing services should be taken away". You've hit the nail on the head there. I'm not trying to justify it, just distil bits of the RUS into a single sentence. However, as I posted earlier the RUS does suggest the requirement is to provide space in London Bridge and Victoria for increased longer distance services, even without the future Thameslink or Orbirail changes. Paul S |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
On 18 Oct, 13:05, MIG wrote:
I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes into central London into a stopping service to Hackney. The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing services should be taken away". The fact that railways developed as they did, with radial routes having precedence over orbital ones, is a clue to which are more important. s/"are"/"were at the time railways developed". Employment is decreasingly concentrated in central London, and congestion is making rail an increasingly important alternative for commuting in outer London. And AIUI Denmark Hill would keep its Blackfriars and Victoria to Sevenoaks and Dartford trains (just losing the Victoria to London Bridge SLL trains) under the Orbirail proposals, so nobody would be denied access to town... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
On 18 Oct, 14:12, John B wrote:
On 18 Oct, 13:05, MIG wrote: I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes into central London into a stopping service to Hackney. The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing services should be taken away". The fact that railways developed as they did, with radial routes having precedence over orbital ones, is a clue to which are more important. s/"are"/"were at the time railways developed". Employment is decreasingly concentrated in central London, and congestion is making rail an increasingly important alternative for commuting in outer London. As always, things are shifting around. The ELLX trains that will replace some of the existing stopping services up from Croydon to New Cross will be useful to those working at Canary Wharf and the Docklands, given the interchange that'll be offered at Canada Water. I'd be interested to know how many passengers on these trains head for the Jubilee line on arrival at London Bridge to head east for Canary Wharf, or indeed west for the West End. I'd wager it would be a substantial number. Of course London Bridge remains an absolutely crucial destination in itself for access to the City. And AIUI Denmark Hill would keep its Blackfriars and Victoria to Sevenoaks and Dartford trains (just losing the Victoria to London Bridge SLL trains) under the Orbirail proposals, so nobody would be denied access to town... The whole situation regarding the future of the SLL is pretty complex, as Paul Scott said - anyone who really wants to get their head round it should read the RUS. I did a while back but I can't remember all the options now - plus there's a lot of linkages between different proposed plans to aid in one's confusion. Without reminding myself on the plans I don't feel confident in replying with a proper level of authority - however I can say for certain that it is far more complicated that the mere diversion of the SLL away from Victoria or London Bridge. |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
|
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, MIG wrote:
On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote: "lonelytraveller" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote: Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks like they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on... Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto the Jubilee line? Presume its just that the pax who currently use the service use it to get directly to London Bridge or Victoria. Everyone is happy with improvements for the greater good, except when directly affected themselves. I'm sure very similar objections will be raised when the DC lines are diverted away from Euston, or the Greenford shuttle stops going to Paddington... Of course objections will be raised, and quite rightly. I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes into central London into a stopping service to Hackney. The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing services should be taken away". Hear hear! Even if that's not quite what's happening in this case. tom aka Radial Man -- 3118110161 Pies |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
MIG wrote:
On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote: "lonelytraveller" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote: Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks like they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on... Paul Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto the Jubilee line? Because it will take half an hour longer? That's not really true, and can be checked using Journey Planner quite easily. The main issue with London Bridge is that if you are travelling on to anywhere else other than the immediate vicinity, the interchange penalty from train - Tube or vice versa is pretty high; 7 minutes is what the Journey Planner offers, which is tight (particularly in the outbound direction where you are aiming to catch a train that leaves every 10-20 mins). You can compare a bunch of journey times from New Cross Gate to key destinations via both London Bridge and via the existing ELL service to show why diverting people via the ELL is actually not a huge hardship (for other stations on the ELLX, just add the appropriate amount of minutes; and remember that the ELL service will be 8tph x 4 cars to Sydenham plus another 4tph rail x 6-8 cars to London Bridge (i.e. up to 64 cars per hour) whereas the current rail service is up to 6tph x 6-8 cars (i.e. up to 48 cars per hour). London Bridge: via ELL, 15 mins; via rail, 11 mins Canary Wharf: via ELL, 12 mins; via rail, 22 mins Victoria: via ELL, 29 mins; via rail, 31 mins Charing Cross: via ELL, 26 mins (Canada Water / Waterloo); via rail, 25 mins Oxford Circus: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Bond St); via rail, 30 mins (via L Bridge / Bond St) Tottenham Court Road: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Waterloo); via rail, 31 mins (via L Bridge / Bond St) Bank: via ELL, 20 mins (via Shadwell); via rail, 22 mins (fast walk from L Bridge) Liverpool Street: via ELL, 19 mins; via rail, 31 mins (bus from L Bridge) King's Cross: via ELL, 30 mins; via rail, 30 mins Dave |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
On Oct 28, 7:34 pm, Dave A wrote:
MIG wrote: On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote: "lonelytraveller" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote: Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks like they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on... Paul Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto the Jubilee line? Because it will take half an hour longer? That's not really true, and can be checked using Journey Planner quite easily. The main issue with London Bridge is that if you are travelling on to anywhere else other than the immediate vicinity, the interchange penalty from train - Tube or vice versa is pretty high; 7 minutes is what the Journey Planner offers, which is tight (particularly in the outbound direction where you are aiming to catch a train that leaves every 10-20 mins). You can compare a bunch of journey times from New Cross Gate to key destinations via both London Bridge and via the existing ELL service to show why diverting people via the ELL is actually not a huge hardship (for other stations on the ELLX, just add the appropriate amount of minutes; and remember that the ELL service will be 8tph x 4 cars to Sydenham plus another 4tph rail x 6-8 cars to London Bridge (i.e. up to 64 cars per hour) whereas the current rail service is up to 6tph x 6-8 cars (i.e. up to 48 cars per hour). London Bridge: via ELL, 15 mins; via rail, 11 mins Canary Wharf: via ELL, 12 mins; via rail, 22 mins Victoria: via ELL, 29 mins; via rail, 31 mins Charing Cross: via ELL, 26 mins (Canada Water / Waterloo); via rail, 25 mins Oxford Circus: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Bond St); via rail, 30 mins (via L Bridge / Bond St) Tottenham Court Road: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Waterloo); via rail, 31 mins (via L Bridge / Bond St) Bank: via ELL, 20 mins (via Shadwell); via rail, 22 mins (fast walk from L Bridge) Liverpool Street: via ELL, 19 mins; via rail, 31 mins (bus from L Bridge) King's Cross: via ELL, 30 mins; via rail, 30 mins Those times look very odd. I can't work them out. 11 minutes to go one stop to London Bridge, but only 4 minutes more via the dog's leg and changing? Is that meant to be the journey time to the Jubilee platforms? Does the ELL go to Liverpool Street? Trains to London Bridge were overcrowded before the Jubilee existed. If the assumption is that the final destination is London Bridge, then arriving at the deepest platforms via Canada Water is a much worse option that just walking across the concourse from a direct, one-stop train. In practice, I don't think London Bridge is a very popular final destination, but many people will want the Northern Line, the City or Charing Cross. Only people travelling to Westminster, Bond Street etc (fairly new journey options) will be relatively uninconvenienced. |
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
|
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge
MIG wrote:
On Oct 28, 7:34 pm, Dave A wrote: MIG wrote: On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote: "lonelytraveller" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote: Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks like they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on... Paul Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto the Jubilee line? Because it will take half an hour longer? That's not really true, and can be checked using Journey Planner quite easily. The main issue with London Bridge is that if you are travelling on to anywhere else other than the immediate vicinity, the interchange penalty from train - Tube or vice versa is pretty high; 7 minutes is what the Journey Planner offers, which is tight (particularly in the outbound direction where you are aiming to catch a train that leaves every 10-20 mins). You can compare a bunch of journey times from New Cross Gate to key destinations via both London Bridge and via the existing ELL service to show why diverting people via the ELL is actually not a huge hardship (for other stations on the ELLX, just add the appropriate amount of minutes; and remember that the ELL service will be 8tph x 4 cars to Sydenham plus another 4tph rail x 6-8 cars to London Bridge (i.e. up to 64 cars per hour) whereas the current rail service is up to 6tph x 6-8 cars (i.e. up to 48 cars per hour). London Bridge: via ELL, 15 mins; via rail, 11 mins Canary Wharf: via ELL, 12 mins; via rail, 22 mins Victoria: via ELL, 29 mins; via rail, 31 mins Charing Cross: via ELL, 26 mins (Canada Water / Waterloo); via rail, 25 mins Oxford Circus: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Bond St); via rail, 30 mins (via L Bridge / Bond St) Tottenham Court Road: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Waterloo); via rail, 31 mins (via L Bridge / Bond St) Bank: via ELL, 20 mins (via Shadwell); via rail, 22 mins (fast walk from L Bridge) Liverpool Street: via ELL, 19 mins; via rail, 31 mins (bus from L Bridge) King's Cross: via ELL, 30 mins; via rail, 30 mins Those times look very odd. I can't work them out. 11 minutes to go one stop to London Bridge, but only 4 minutes more via the dog's leg and changing? Is that meant to be the journey time to the Jubilee platforms? Does the ELL go to Liverpool Street? They're the timetabled times - about 11 mins (can vary between 9-13 mins) between departing NXG on a Southern service and arriving into the terminus platforms at London Bridge. Try Journey Planner for an 0830 departure time from New Cross Gate to London Bridge. You'll get the 0836 train arriving 0846, and an 0837 Tube departure with a 5 min journey to Canada Water, 3 minute interchange and 4 minutes to London Bridge. Yes, it's the journey to the Jubilee platforms themselves so there is an egress time not taken into consideration, but then again the egress from the terminus platforms at London Bridge can also take some time given the crowding at the gateline when an entire train empties out (let alone two closely-timed arrivals). No the ELL doesn't go to Liverpool Street but the route is fairly straightforward, changing at Whitechapel to the H&C. (When the extension opens, there will also be Shoreditch High Street station as an alternative for anyone working north of Liverpool Street station itself.) Trains to London Bridge were overcrowded before the Jubilee existed. If the assumption is that the final destination is London Bridge, then arriving at the deepest platforms via Canada Water is a much worse option that just walking across the concourse from a direct, one-stop train. This is why I picked a variety of destinations including London Bridge - to show that in practice, there isn't really a journey time penalty to any destinations apart from London Bridge itself, because of the difficulty of changing trains there and the slow onward rail connections. So... if everyone who travels to the immediate vicinity of London Bridge continues to use the (reduced) rail service, and everyone else uses the higher-frequency London Overground service changing at Canada Water, Shadwell or Whitechapel, the crowding problem doesn't seem quite as bad. In practice, I don't think London Bridge is a very popular final destination, but many people will want the Northern Line, the City or Charing Cross. Only people travelling to Westminster, Bond Street etc (fairly new journey options) will be relatively uninconvenienced. This is exactly what I am proving above - very few people will be inconvenienced because the journey times to other popular destinations are remarkably similar via the ELL, mostly because the interchange at London Bridge is lengthy. I deliberately used Bank in the City and Charing Cross as examples - the journey times are different by only about a minute. When the Crossrail interchange at Whitechapel opens, journey times to some destinations via the ELL will be even more attractive. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk