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?

"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

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.

"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

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.

"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

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

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

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