Some very interesting details in two articles in Transport Briefing
about the ELLX Phase 2 funding deal and consequential reductions in NR
services. Also the new Shoreditch Station is to be in Zone 1 as
demanded by the DfT.

More details here

http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=5821
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=5820

--
Paul C via Google

A great shame about the loss of the Bellingham-Victoria service.
There are very limited peak hour trains from Crofton Park currently
and the 0809 is regularly rammed as the next train isn't until, I
think, 0838, which is too late for commuters. And on the 0809, many
people get out at Denmark Hill to change for a Victoria train, so a
direct Victoria service would certainly ease crowding both at Denmark
Hill station and on the trains themselves. I'm sure it'll be
reinstated at some later date.

Also the new Shoreditch Station is to be in Zone 1 as
demanded by the DfT.

There goes concept for Zone 2 OrbiRail then...

On 23 Apr, 13:10, Paul Corfield wrote:
Some very interesting details in two articles in Transport Briefing

I suggest reading the London Travelwatch press release (via London
Reconnections):
http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news.php?id=643

It includes links to the letters sent to and replies from the DfT and
TfL.

(And please don't link to Transport Briefing. It's a press release
mill)

U

On Apr 23, 1:10 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
Some very interesting details in two articles in Transport Briefing
about the ELLX Phase 2 funding deal and consequential reductions in NR
services. Also the new Shoreditch Station is to be in Zone 1 as
demanded by the DfT.

More details here

http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=5821
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=5820


Disappointing news on both fronts, though I can't say I'm entirely
surprised - I am however somewhat annoyed at the loss of the Victoria
to Bellingham service.

I'm afraid I always thought there was a possibility that Shoreditch
High Street would be a zone 1 station - though more because of
concerns about ELLX trains - which will only be 4 cars long -
potentially being overrun with commuters switching to this cheaper
zone 2 option instead of travelling into London Bridge as they would
otherwise have done. I hate to say it, but perhaps just perhaps this
is ultimately for the best.

Nonetheless it may well mean there's no price advantage to avoiding
travelling via central London and the Tube (one of the benefits of the
ELLX is that of taking some pressure off the Tube network) - that
said, this does somewhat depends on what the Oyster PAYG fare
structure will be when the whole of National Rail in London joins in,
as an NR+LU journey may be more expensive than an LU journey (and in
all likelihood London Overground inc. the ELLX would follow the LU
PAYG farescale as opposed to the NR one). Of course if one has a
season Travelcard then this doesn't matter - however it can be the
case that some commutes are cheaper using Oyster PAYG than with a
season Travelcard.

With regards to dropping the Bellingham service - that is rubbish. The
Vic-Bellingham service was intended to complement the ELLX by being
the 'other half' in the replacement puzzle for the doomed South London
Line (SLL) service, i.e. the Victoria to London Bridge via Peckham Rye
service. As Travelwatch's Sharon Grant says in her letter to Ian Brown
of TfL London Rail and Mike Mitchell of DfT Rail, ELLX phase 2 and the
Vic-Bellingham were basically packaged together when it came to
discussions about the future of the SLL - true, no promises were
given, but it was always cited as part of the masterplan - the two
developments were complementary.

What's unclear is what happens at Clapham High Street and Wandsworth
Road when the SLL service is withdrawn - will the current Victoria to
Dartford service (via Peckham Rye, Lewisham and Bexleyheath) take up
the slack and stop at these two stations as well, so as to maintain a
direct link to Victoria? (Going via the ELLX to Clapham Jn and then
changing for a Southern train to Victoria is really somewhat absurd.)
If so the platforms need to have work done on then to accommodate 6-
car trains which run on this service during the peak.

(Battersea Park is unfortunately a bit of a lost cause, as the plans
for lengthening the 'main' platforms mean the junction that links the
main line to/from Victoria to the SLL platforms being severed - the
Vic-Dartford trains run a different route to the east, up via the
Stewart's Lane low-level route and down via the adjacent three track
viaduct. Of course whether the Battersea Park platform lengthening
actually ever happens is another matter - it was proposed in the South
London RUS, but then so was the Vic-Bellingham service.)

Also, because the Vic-Bellingham service is not to go ahead, when the
SLL service is withdrawn then the frequency of trains from both
Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill stations to Victoria will drop from 4tph
to 2tph.

And crucially, this link provided by the Vic-Dartford service only
runs Monday to Saturday and finishes early (last train out of Victoria
at 19:46, last train from Peckham Rye to Vic at 19:06), doesn't start
that early either (first train to Vic from Peckham Rye at 07:55, first
train from Vic out at 08:21). On Saturdays the timings are slightly
different but the pattern is the same, replete with an early finish.
And there's no service on Sundays.

This link from Victoria to Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye is
particularly important as lots of people work (and indeed study) at
the big hospitals in Camberwell (King's College and the Maudsley) next
to Denmark Hill station, and obviously lots of folk go there for
treatment or visits as well.

I suppose that one good thing that could come out of this is that the
Vic-Dartford service might run a proper all day service, i.e. earlier
start and right through the evening plus Sundays as well. However
there'll be much more demand on these trains during the peak in
particular - they're already busy as 6-car trains, so I'd think they'd
have to go 8-car. This in turn presents a problem for Clapham High
Street and Wandsworth Road - whilst I reckon they'd both be able to
take 6-car trains without that much significant work (the platforms
basically exist but are overgrown) I'm not sure they'd take 8-cars
without some more significant work.

Which I suspect spells the death-knell for any ideas of getting the
Vic-Dartford trains to stop there, which would mean they'd lose their
link to Victoria. One could well argue that from Clapham High Street
the alternative route to Victoria is on the Tube from the adjacent
Clapham North station on the Northern line then a cross-platform
change at Stockwell onto the Victoria line. From Wandsworth Road {aka
(Slam)Batterclapstock - look it up!} one could either walk to Clapham
North or to Battersea Park station (the latter for Southern trains to
Victoria) or get on a bus up Wandsworth Road to Vauxhall for the Tube.
(Blimey, I should charge the DfT for consultancy services as it sounds
as though I'm writing their weasel worded excuses for them!)

Maybe folk at Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street aren't going to
complain too much about this, but I'm sure those who use Denmark Hill
and Peckham Rye to get to and from Victoria will - the SLL sevice may
only be a little 2-car train but it's a popular little 2-car train. I
can only presume that the Vic-Dartford service will be extended in
both sense of the word - both extended to run all day every day and
also literally extended and run with longer trains during the peaks. I
dare say that a few Vic-Bellingham 'PIXC-busters' may be necessary
anyway.

On Apr 23, 1:44 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 23 Apr, 13:10, Paul Corfield wrote:

Some very interesting details in two articles in Transport Briefing

I suggest reading the London Travelwatch press release (via London
Reconnections):
http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news.php?id=643

It includes links to the letters sent to and replies from the DfT and
TfL.


Very interesting - I hadn't seen either the London Reconnections piece
or the stuff from London Travelwatch before I posted my spiel. I note
that it seems to have all come out now as a result of the digging and
prodding done by Val Shawcross AM, whom I rate highly.

I note the DfT letter does carry a slight whaft of buck-passing - the
DfT state that TfL were given the role of communicating the changes
with regards to the withdrawal of the SLL service, in particular the
withdrawal of the previously proposed Vic-Bellingham service - though
actually it would appear that as part of the deal for ELLX2 funding
the buck had already been firmly passed to TfL on this matter.

The DfT do however intimate that they had nudged TfL with regards to
when TfL were planning on announcing all this. The DfT's reply is
perhaps subtly different from the reply from Ian Brown of TfL London
Rail with regards to this - the DfT suggests that "stakeholder
communications were to be scheduled later this summer" and passenger
communications happening later, however TfL say that "it is premature
to discuss detail at this stage".

I wonder who is included in the "stakeholder communication" (which may
or may not be happening later this summer) - if it is local residents
groups and also the hospitals in Camberwell (King's College and the
Maudsley) then the DfT and TfL know that the response will be one of
concern and annoyance, which IIRC was exhibited when Network Rail put
the South London RUS out to consultation. The hospitals - King's in
particular - are already losing a direct link to London Bridge (where
Guy's Hospital is located) via the SLL service, and they'll also see a
reduction from 4tph to 2tph on services to/from Victoria - of course
this is mitigated to an extent by the new interchange possibilities at
Clapham Junction that ELLX2 will bring, but only to an extent.

Also, as things stand there'll be no direct service whatsoever to/from
Victoria from the middle of the evening onwards, when the Vic-Dartford
service dies, or on Sundays, when it doesn't run at all. (Plus
services to/from Vic start a bit later in the morning than the current
SLL too). In my earlier post I pondered that this might mean the
service gets extended to run through the evening and on Sundays, but
the DfT's letter strongly suggests that's not part of the plan (and
shows they can't spell either) - it states that one of the key
requirements placed on TfL by the DfT is this:

‘TfL publically proposes the withdrawal of the Victoria – Bellingham
service including informing key stakeholders on the route whilst also
highlighting the impacts on current journey opportunities, especially
at evenings and weekends’.

I wonder if lobbying for the Vic-Dartford service to run all day every
day might perhaps be a realistic goal for campaigners to push for?

Anyway, I have to agree with Sharon Grant, the Chair of LTW, that TfL
and the DfT come out of this looking particularly slippery (though she
phrased it somewhat more diplomatically) - no surprise about the DfT
being murky like this, but one hopes for better from TfL than this. I
hope they've been stung hard by the exposure of this behaviour.


(And please don't link to Transport Briefing. It's a press release
mill)


I suppose one could argue there's nonetheless a place for a press
release mill - but I do recall you berating it for potential
plagiarism.

And copying verbatim as happens here is obviously not plagiarism. If
you want analysis, then you're going to have to pay for it

On 23 Apr, 16:24, Mizter T wrote:
I suppose one could argue there's nonetheless a place for a press
release mill - but I do recall you berating it for potential
plagiarism.

It's their policy of not linking to or mentioning sources that bothers
me most, giving the impression they're an actual news source. It's a
textbook case of the practice of link hoarding, and also means TB
readers never saw the original letters or knew of their existence.
The whole operation is very slimy and reader hostile.

U

On Apr 23, 2:41*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 23, 1:10 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

Some very interesting details in two articles in Transport Briefing
about the ELLX Phase 2 funding deal and consequential reductions in NR
services. *Also the new Shoreditch Station is to be in Zone 1 as
demanded by the DfT.

More details here

http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=5821
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=5820

Disappointing news on both fronts, though I can't say I'm entirely
surprised - I am however somewhat annoyed at the loss of the Victoria
to Bellingham service.

I'm afraid I always thought there was a possibility that Shoreditch
High Street would be a zone 1 station - though more because of
concerns about ELLX trains - which will only be 4 cars long -
potentially being overrun with commuters switching to this cheaper
zone 2 option instead of travelling into London Bridge as they would
otherwise have done. I hate to say it, but perhaps just perhaps this
is ultimately for the best.

Nonetheless it may well mean there's no price advantage to avoiding
travelling via central London and the Tube (one of the benefits of the
ELLX is that of taking some pressure off the Tube network) - that
said, this does somewhat depends on what the Oyster PAYG fare
structure will be when the whole of National Rail in London joins in,
as an NR+LU journey may be more expensive than an LU journey (and in
all likelihood London Overground inc. the ELLX would follow the LU
PAYG farescale as opposed to the NR one). Of course if one has a
season Travelcard then this doesn't matter - however it can be the
case that some commutes are cheaper using Oyster PAYG than with a
season Travelcard.


A few follow on thoughts about Shoreditch High Street (SHS) being put
in zone 1. One thing I'd failed to include in my considerations above
is the rail-only season ticket. Therefore, were SHS to have been in
zone 2, then the calculation for price-conscious City commuters may
have been between a rail-only season from say Sydenham to London
Terminals (i.e. London Bridge/ Cannon Street) and either a season
Travelcard (covering whatever zones were needed but excluding
expensive z1) or Oyster PAYG single fares, whichever is the cheaper.

The other possibility is that of a rail-only season to SHS or other
stations on the ELL 'core' route (which is still a possibility now
that SHS will be in z1) - however whether there will be rail-only
seasons to these stations is an unknown. It would perhaps be against
TfL's ethos of encouraging the use of (a) multi-modal Travelcards and
(b) Oyster PAYG - however, if the ELLX is to be a full part of the
National Rail ticketing arrangements then it would perhaps make sense.

The other thought I've just had is whether or not SHS would be
classified as a 'London Terminal' - which is particularly relevant for
journeys from south London, as it could mean that commuters could
choose between heading to London Bridge/Cannon Street or SHS to get to
the City. If it was also a 'London Terminal' for journeys from points
north then I suppose there'd be the possibility of all sorts of wacky
potential routes - arguably that's one good reason for it not to be!

However what with all this talk of concern about revenue abstraction
from the TOCs, I think it unlikely that it would be a 'London
Terminal' even for journeys from south London - from a planning point
of view, separating out flows to and from London Bridge etc and SHS
can be seen as being advantageous too.

Whilst as I said there is perhaps some sort of argument for having SHS
in zone 1 when it comes to commuting (i.e. trains that aren't heaving
with zone 1 avoiding commuters), it will surely suffer from that when
it comes to off-peak leisure journeys. I suppose it'll have to stand
on its own merits as an easier and more convenient way of crossing
town, rather than as a cheaper way.

Looks like my cunning zone 1-shirking north-south route via the back
streets of Whitechapel and Bethnal Green (between the stations of the
same name) might get a renewed lease of life as a result of this!

On 23 Apr, 17:05, Mr Thant
wrote:
It's their policy of not linking to or mentioning sources that bothers
me most, giving the impression they're an actual news source. It's a
textbook case of the practice of link hoarding, and also means TB
readers never saw the original letters or knew of their existence.
The whole operation is very slimy and reader hostile.

And I should add that my original request not to link to them wasn't
as a boycott - it's because if you see an interesting story on
Transport Briefing, it's always worthwhile spending a couple of
minutes digging up the original press release (which there inevitably
always is one of) and linking to that instead.

U