JamesViktor

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would have thought that areas like Bromley and > Beckenham primarily need fast (i.e. national rail) > links to central London with few stops. The tube > is better for shorter journeys, isn't it? The problem with national rail is that it is shit.

michael_FH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JamesViktor Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The route between Beckenham Junction and > Bromley > > North is beyond pointless! > > Possibly quite clever; as it takes the trains to a > sensible terminus. It would be unlikely that there > would be enough space at Beckenham. > > Unfortunately this scheme will run mainly above > ground, taking over existing capacity. Longer term > longer tunnels would have been better and would > provide much more additional capacity than taking > over existing lines. Despite this I will support > any route for the Bakerloo line extension through > South East London as the area really needs it and > the 3:1 benefit rating is massive for transport > projects, which makes it more likely to happen > sooner rather than later. I see that but why bother calling at any of the stations? For passengers it is useless!

The route between Beckenham Junction and Bromley North is beyond pointless!

Yeah living as far out as I do places like Dulwich, Forest Hill and Sydenham seem much further than Lewisham or Peckham. I'd say true SE London covers the NE part of Southwark, all of Lewisham except the far SW part, all of Bromley except the far NW part and all of Greenwich and Bexley.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Battersea extension > > > Brixton is in South London and has benefited from > the Vic Line resignalling. Likewise Battersea is > in South London. Dulwich may technically be in S-E > London but it is v. close to S-W London - if there > was a S postal area akin to the N area in North > London, it would be right in it. There used to be an S Postcode area. SE19-27 and SW11-20 were it but Anthony Trollope removed this (and NE) as well as retracting the London Postal Boundary (it used to go to Croydon, Bromley, Kingston etc.) S is now Sheffield duck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_postal_district#mediaviewer/File:Londonpostal_iln_1857.jpg

cle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JamesViktor Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I still think (even more so now) that if two > > branches are going to be made, they should meet > > again at Lewisham, then one should take over > the > > Hayes Line, and the other take over the > > Bexleyheath Line. > > As long as they are 100% separate with no mixing > between them - to avoid a mess like Camden Town or > Earls Court and to a lesser degree, Kennington. Would it be easier to have 2 or 4 platforms at Lewisham?

I still think (even more so now) that if two branches are going to be made, they should meet again at Lewisham, then one should take over the Hayes Line, and the other take over the Bexleyheath Line.

cle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think tubes work best up to about 3/4. Any > longer and you want proper trains which don't stop > much in zones 2/3 - much like how Paris's Metro > and RER are very distinct in their scopes. But > London is a lot more contradictory and random. Do not tell me what I want. I don't want "proper trains" that "do not stop much" I want tubes in all zones that stop in all zones between 6 and 1 and then back to 6!

cle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think he meant terminate there, rather than have > a station. > > I agree, it's the typical South London tube > situation of terminating too soon. I doubt the > Victoria line could handle further than Brixton, > but the Bakerloo is dead half the time. You'd at > least want to get to zone 3, say Forest Hill or > Lewisham, for example. > > Any further out, you'd not want to sit on a hot > little toy train but a proper one. No, all tube lines should go to Zone 6. I do not like "proper trains" the tube is a symbol for London and therefore should go to the edges of all the outer boroughs, like Slade Green in mine!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure that's true. I personally think that > Camberwell has a rightful claim for any extension > of the Bakerloo line and if it was only to be > extended that far, it would be a big win. Not > least because so many bus routes pass through the > green and it would relieve congestion and improve > congestion for a large part of SE London. Not my part :(. But I think Camberwell is too central for it to stop there.

I have noticed on this thread though, people only seem to care about East Dulwich! If nothing goes through East Dulwich there is no point in having it at all!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have family who live just north of Burgess Park, > to the East of Walworth Road. It's less than a > couple of miles from Central London and yet in > rush hour it's very difficult to get on a bus, > it's not a comfortable walk to a tube station and > there is no overground. That's not great for an > affluent, highly developed, world class city. My idea alleviates this completely because I would have stations at Walworth East Street and Burgess Park (probably on the junction of Albany Road and Thurlow Street) then another halfway between this and New Cross Gate on the Old Kent Road.

Haha people talking about the tube ruining a non-tube area's "vibe"! Come visit Welling and see how much "vibe" there is out here in Zone 4!

d.b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As the maps posted earlier showed very well, there > is a real transport hole here in ED. The world > will not end if we fix that. What about the far worse transport holes in Outer London? At least Southwark has the tube, and it is only just over 10 square miles in area, that's tiny!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is Bromley even in London? I know it's a London > Borough in the same way that say Croydon, Enfield > or Romford are, but in practise these places are > separate towns in their own right, with "suburbs" > of their own. I'd say that fast rail links into > major London hubs are a better solution for these > places than a tube line. Then places such as Barnet, Edgware and Richmond should be removed from the tube and given these services too!