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!

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "strongly opposed" to a Bakerloo Line Extension > taking over the Hayes Line > > > I find this hard to believe. Why should Bromley > not want their borough to be linked into the > Underground? The Hayes line is already a commuter > line, but at the moment commuters can't go any > further than Charing X, whereas they would be able > to travel to Oxford Circus and Baker Street on the > Tube. > > However, Bromley Council have always had a very > negative attitude to public transport, as they > were the local authority that challenged the GLC's > Fairs Fair policy in the early 80s It's because they do not want that line to lose direct services to London Bridge and Cannon Street.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The option to extend via Burgess Park, Honor Oak > and onto the Hayes line, clearly makes the most > sense if you're interested in providing frequent, > rapid transport services to large inner city > populations. Of course, there are always other > interests. Although, as I said before, Bromley Council is "strongly opposed" to a Bakerloo Line Extension taking over the Hayes Line.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The northern line extension is ridiculous. It > provides a couple of extra stops were there is > little existing demand, at massive public cost and > with the main people to profit being property > speculators. It also diverts the line off it's > natural course, driving it into a dead end with > little opportunity for future extension. > > Still residents of Camberwell, whilst crawling > along the Walworth Road on the 176, can at least > ponder how their taxes are helping boost some > Singaporeans investment portfolio. I'll agree with that. Instead of having 2 Bakerloo branches, the Northern could have gone to Camberwell and Peckham and then to Lewisham, and the Bakerloo the Walworth, Old Kent Road route.

cle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those trains go to Gravesend and Gillingham, Kent > surely even if Bexleyheath and Hayes don't count > these days. > > 2tph sure, but on about three different routes - > Victoria, Charing Cross, Cannon St... > > Harrow & Wealdstone has nothing to do with future > extensions and what they should do, and who's > talking Sunday afternoons? Maybe the Bexleyheath > Forum is more for you. Some trains go Barnehurst then Slade Green and terminate there. There is a big depot at Slade Green, so the Bakerloo trains could easily terminate there, which is what TFL itself has said. Hayes is at the end of it's line. And of course they don't count these days, Beckenham, Bexleyheath and Hayes haven't been in Kent since 1965, you wouldn't call Wembley Middlesex or Richmond Surrey! You said the Bakerloo should go no further than Zone 3, so therefore you want it curtailed to Stonebridge Park? And why shouldn't Sunday afternoons count? I would like to go to Central London on Sunday afternoons but have to time myself around Southeastern's, official worst operator in the country's, services. People in Harrow & Wealdstone don't have to worry about stuff like this! What makes outer NW London so special and not outer SE?

cle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those London Bridge/Lewisham lines places do not > need the links as much. Their trains are frequent > and fast compared to 'South Central' places. > Overground onwards from New Cross makes sense > though, it's a white elephant currently. > > The Bakerloo is a tiny tube and should terminate > in zone 3 rather than take over outer and Kent > routes. Also, the lines would cause delays to each > other. Even Earls Court and Edgware Road on the > District prove that tubes should be self-contained > - Northern line another clusterf*ck too e.g. > Camden. > > What housing is going to be build in the Old Kent > Road? Is 2.5k homes that big a deal compared to > the existing population of Walworth and > Camberwell? I hate this obsession with > regeneration and new developments - god forbid > anyone builds something to serve a long-standing > area. I know it's for developer money primarily, > but also an obsession with shiny new rubbish. Are > there no developer-ready sites along the Walworth > Road catchment? Yes because 2 tph is very frequent isn't it! And stopping at the station forever makes getting into town very quick? Maybe you should take a trip to Beckenham or Bexleyheath on a Sunday afternoon, because quite clearly you have no clue in what you are talking about! Harrow & Wealdstone isn't Zone 3 it's Zone 5? And I never mentioned taking the Bakerloo out into Kent?! The trains will terminate at Hayes and Slade Green respectively. Maybe you should do some research first?

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what's wrong with a branch of the Bakerloo Line > being extended to Dulwich Library and Forest Hill, The extra tunnelling would be very expensive. Besides, that area is pretty well served by TFL Overground Services.

Exactly, which is why TFL said that it needs to surface as soon as possible, which is why the Hayes and Slade Green options are preferred. Obviously Lewisham Station will be underground, but then the line can then surface shortly afterwards for Ladywell and Blackheath stations to be above ground.

cle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Bakerloo runs 24 trains each hour - and most > tube lines can do 28-32 during the rush. Let's say > 28 for argument's sake. > > Could there not be two branches each with 14 > trains per hour - a pretty good number and better > than the District line or Met line branches, or > Hammersmith & City? > > One could go to Walworth, Camberwell, Denmark > Hill, East Dulwich, Dulwich Library and Forest > Hill. > One could go down Old Kent Road to New Cross Gate, > Lewisham and onwards somewhere, like Catford in > between the two existing stations? > > Does leave Peckham out though. > > Goes to show how much South London needs the tube > if we're spoilt for choice on routes. North London > has no such dilemmas or gaps. No! One route should go E&C, Walworth Road, Camberwell, Peckham Rye, Brockley, Lewisham and then Blackheath to Slade Green. The other should go E&C, Walworth (East Street maybe), Burgess Park, Old Kent Road, New Cross Gate, Lewisham and then Ladywell to Hayes. Both Bexley and Bromley need a slice of this pie! I think people living in Southwark borough forget that we are even here!

MissKing Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > First they would have to > get funding. I'm sure the combination of Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley Councils, as well as, Berkley Homes could provide a large chunk of the necessary funding.

The thing is, if Bromley Council are so opposed to this, Bexley Council will gladly have it take over the Bexleyheath Line to Slade Green and then possibly Bluewater. Especially if both Bexley and Greenwich Councils, as well as, Berkley Homes with their massive development at Kidbrooke Village, provide financial support to TFL. It wold be beneficial for all three, as well as, many, many businesses from Blackheath to Slade Green!