Rail stations (what is happening to train services in Denmark Hill and East Dulwich)

[Huguenot]

"Currently those that get the train from QRP, get to QR in the morning and hop on a train to London bridge - there within 10 mins. They would AIM for certain train to reduce platform time. Then they get the tube and carry their journey on

In future they'd have to get a train to PR or Canada Water CHANGE. Then wait for another train and get on that to london bridge "

No! Again!!! :D

They would go to QRP and catch the train direct to London Bridge.

Currently QRP gets 6 trains an hour direct to London Bridge. After the changes thaey will have 8 trains per hour at rush hour. That's MORE. Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!

All the trains from QRP still go to London Bridge. They just won't go from DH to London Bridge.

You will be able to get from DH to QR DIRECTLY on the ELL. Please R&A, you need to check the reality, not listen to the wool pullers. The pdf's on a previous post of mine.

PGC, currently there are 4 trains per hour from ED/PR to South Bermondsey. After the changes there will be 6 per hour. Your trip to The Den will be even MORE convenient!!

Boris supports the protest because it gives him votes in Southwark he hasn't got. He doesn't need any more votes in Bromley, he's got them all.

Tess supports it because she's the Southwark MP.

[Huguenot]

There are currently 6-8 trains per hour from DH to PR, this will raise to 11 after the changes. Eleven!!!!!

Passengers wishing to catch the train from DH to London Bridge will need to change at either PR or QRP, and will wait an average of 3.5 minutes and a maximum of 7 mins.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I was thinking of the journey from London Bridge. Can't expect those nambypamby West Ham fans to go to Victoria!

[Huguenot]

Ah, no worries. :)

There will also be 6 trains per hour running direct from London Bridge to South Bermondsey on Saturday afternoons - that's a 50% increase after the changes.

Sadly this namby pamby West Ham fan would have to go via Heathrow. Heathrow will have no improved services.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Oh Huguenot - you have slumped in my estimation. Some secrets should never be confessed. Claret and blue fails on every sartorial front.

[Smiler]

It is not just about commuting: will also affect people who work / are treated at Kings College Hospital.

[Huguenot]

Existing workers/patients who live west of DH as far as Victoria will be able to continue their journeys to the hospital exactly as before. Train frequency is 3 an hour at rush hours, and 2 at other times.

There'll be an additional ELL service 4 trains/hour allowing people in areas such as Clapham and beyond get to Kings easier. This service also means that frequency of trains serving Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road will double from 2 an hour to 4.

Great eh?

Existing workers/patients who live east of DH as far as Peckham Rye and Queens Road will see their service increase to 4 per hour at QRP, and increase to 11 an hour from PR

Even better eh?

Unfortunately although passengers from London Bridge and South Bermondsey will see services increase from 6 to 8 at rush hour, they will have to change at PR, waiting an average of 3.5 mins and a maximum of 7 minutes.

However, connections on the ELL to the whole of the East End will see workers/patients from that region have so many additional other swift options that London Bridge will have a much lower priority.

All in all, more than 30,000 new people will be within 30 minutes of Kings College Hospital services.

....and that is an absolute winner.

[James Barber]

The reasons for these changes ARE NOT to improve train services in South London. They are to make way for more very long distance commuters on a revamped Thameslink service that requires more through platforms at London Bridge station which means reducing the number of terminating platforms used by services such as the South London Line. Actually London bridge has the physical space for more through platforms and the same number of terminating platforms but has lacked the political will to make this happen and now probably lacks the cash.

So the South London Line as the least used line into London Bridge station is beign sacrificed. Lesast used. No barriers at any of the station. Rarely opened ticket offices. No recording of the free train services some have used it as.

East London Line phase 2 should be useful for some and has been chosen over Victoria-Belligham services to make up for some of the loss of utility of losing the SLL.

Changing trains to get to London Bridge from Denmark Hill etc. If people have to do it they will. They'll have no alternative. Will as many people find moving into our area or staying as attractive. No, not if they have work at Victoria or London Bridge. When life circumstances change they'll consider more favourably buying where they can get direct trains for the journeys they need to take to work. I personally don't take train journeys that involve train changes. Certainly never when with my kids.

Will the local teaching hospitals be as popular for students, patients. No, because if people have to ever move from one site to another they wont like changing trains for what is currently a 9 minute direct train journey. Areas not currently served by trains to Denmark Hill are unliekly to have local health contracts with Kings to perform medical treatments for their residents.

To me bigger issue. South London is blighted in many areas by massive railway viaducts and cuttings. For these to be used more intensively with all the affects on residents to run more long distance services while reducing the services locals find easy to currently use feels morally wrong.

[Huguenot]

I understand where you're coming from James. As a local politician your views, however misplaced, are likely to be very attractive to certain voters. I suspect you may have overlooked the benefits to your own ward.

It has never been claimed that the changes are solely with the objective of improving access to Denmark Hill from London Bridge. It's part of a radical overhaul of South London services that benefits everyone in the long run.

Specifically Denmark Hill (not 'the area' generically) might not be as attractive for people who work specifically at London Bridge or South Bermondsey - this goes without saying. That's also just about it.

It's also a completely lopsided way to look at it. You've missed just about every single positive.

East Dulwich (your own ward) will be more attractive - with an increased DIRECT service (up to 8 trains/hour) from ED to London Bridge at peak hours allowing commuters more pleasant and timely journeys. As ED councillor I'd expect you to be celebrating this rather than trying to prevent it in order to benefit people outside your ward.

More generously, 30,000 more people will be able to get to Kings within 30 minutes. That's a collosal number. An additional 125,000 jobs are now within commuting distance of Denmark Hill. That means salaries, wealth and regeneration for South Camberwell.

Nunhead is finally getting a quality service to the City, allowing it to flourish as a residential zone with consequent benefits to local ED businesses.

It will be far a more attractive area to people who work and live in Clapham, City, Blackfriars, Farringdon, Surrey Quays, Canada Water, Canary Wharf, Islington and huge regeneration areas in East London.

In short, presenting this relentlessly as a negative is pandering to the worst natures of a poorly informed electorate, when really politicians should be thinking about how to inform, inspire and generate the best for our area.

Support East Dulwich business and commuters - say yes to the South London Rail overhaul.

[James Barber]

hi Hugenot,

Those increases in services to/from East Dulwich station are clearly hugely welcome as are services from PEckham Rye where many East Dulwich residetns access trains from.

BUT they could be increased without closed the South London Line which occus in 2012.

If we can have more trains now but SLL closes in 2012 then clearly the two are unrelated.

How can no direct trains from Denmark Hill make the city more attractive?

Many East Dulwich residents take the bus to Denmark Hill station and travel into Victoria station. Victoria trains back will not run late into the evening. It becomes a part-time service.

You've said people can walk from Blackfriars into the City. They can do that already but majority choose not to but travel into London Bridge. Most passengers going in the direction of Blackfriars get of at Elephant&Castle to catch the tube.

The best for our areas would be the increased services you've menitoned and SLL and ELL2 OR the tube line finally coming down to reach us.

[pk]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So the South London Line as the least used line

> into London Bridge station is beign sacrificed.

> Lesast used. No barriers at any of the station.

> Rarely opened ticket offices. No recording of the

> free train services some have used it as.

>

but there are barriers at LB and victoria?

and (although i do use the service occasionally so i'll miss it sometimes) 4 carriages an hour which generally aren't full does suggest to me that it isn't that well used

[Huguenot]

There's an increase in Thameslink trains to 4 per hour. It stops at City Thameslink. It also offers an improved service to Luton Airport.

I'm sure that the timing of increases in train services are linkeed to budgets as well as practicality.

I agree with your point about people currently choosing London Bridge, but in our minds eye we have the jammed trains at ED and PR, not the virtually empty trains at Denmark Hill. The ED and PR trains are still proposed to be running and with greater frequency.

The protesters are thriving in this confusion.

I commuted directly into Victoria from DH when I was at Yahoo! - I could still do that commute under the new service, and there was virtually no-one getting on that train to go to London Bridge. There were plenty at Peckham Rye - and that direct service is still running.

[DJKillaQueen]

Hugenot, you are obsessed with demeaning the validity of any views other than your own. James is not misguided in his views on this, so give the insults a rest. He is absolutely right on the point regarding the lack of reliable data that Network Rail could have used to determine the no. of passengers using London Bridge, esp in reagrds to it being used to change for other services to for example Charing X. You are not the ultimate authority on anything - really you aren't. And sometimes you are just plain wrong.

South London has always had a raw deal from the rail and tube networks (esp the SE), at the expense of other areas of London (notably the North). Plannned extensions and projects like the tram link have never come to anything - priority always being given elsewhere. South Londoners deserve better.

[Huguenot]

I'm not demeaning anyone's point of view DJKQ, I'm just disagreeing. This is an opinion forum, I'm expressing an opinion.

Saying James' views are misplaced hardly qualifies as an 'insult'. You're attempting to bully me by making false acccusations: you trying to smear me? Plus ca change etc.

I consider James views misplaced because he is favouring South Camberwell to the disadvantage of East Dulwich. He explained that he thought ED advantages could be obtained irrespective of the DH issue, I consider this to be unlikely when budget is clearly tight.

If there's not enough data about London Bridge then there's also not enough data to prove me wrong - so you're heading down a blind alley with that accusation too. Since it's so easy to get the data by doing passenger interviews at DH, I suspect you don't have the data because it won't support your case.

The rest of your post about South London's raw deal demonstrates what I've suspected all along: that this protest isn't about this train service at all. You've decided to use this issue as a vehicle to fight another battle. In this case some ill-supported suggestions of a conspiracy to defraud South London!!!

I'm afraid I just don't think they're all out to get us.

I hope you'll forgive me for saying that sounds like a paranoia-fuelled harangue - the kind of greedy rhetoric naughty kids use to get an extra pack of sweets out of mummy.

That's why the protesters are deliberately keeping the public misinformed. They don't want a better train service, they want to bring down the government etc. etc. ;-)

[DJKillaQueen]

I'm not demeaning anyone's point of view DJKQ, I'm just disagreeing. This is an opinion forum, I'm expressing an opinion.

Expressing an opionion is one thing, doing so and thowing a dig in at the poster every time you disagree with someone is another and that's what you are incapable of - expressing a view without throwing in a dig.

Saying James' views are misplaced hardly qualifies as an 'insult'. You're attempting to bully me by making false acccusations: you trying to smear me? Plus ca change etc.

Pot calling kettle black.

I consider James views misplaced because he is favouring South Camberwell to the disadvantage of East Dulwich. He explained that he thought ED advantages could be obtained irrespective of the DH issue, I consider this to be unlikely when budget is clearly tight.

Fair point.

If there's not enough data about London Bridge then there's also not enough data to prove me wrong - so you're heading down a blind alley with that accusation too. Since it's so easy to get the data by doing passenger interviews at DH, I suspect you don't have the data because it won't support your case.

You totally miss the point of both James and myself on that one (because you look for underhand motive all the time instead of just reading what's written). The point was that Network Rail couldn't possibly declare London Bridge as the least used station without any data. Any commuter at peak time would however tell you that London Bridge is as busy as any central London station. You will struggle to get onto most trains for Charing X as they are completely full including standing room. It's a station where most commuters change platform to connect for other services as the thousands of commuters that use it know.

The rest of your post about South London's raw deal demonstrates what I've suspected all along: that this protest isn't about this train service at all. You've decided to use this issue as a vehicle to fight another battle. In this case some ill-supported suggestions of a conspiracy to defraud South London!!!

There you go again with your absurd nonsense. LB is a crucial part of that South London service. You are insane if you think that someone can not defend a route and also make the point that South London is poorly served by rail as part of the defense of that route. You are just looking for any excuse to debunk anyone defending that route with whatever nonsense that la la brain of yours can dream up. You don't even live in London so who cares what you think anyway.

That's why the protesters are deliberately keeping the public misinformed. They don't want a better train service, they want to bring down the government etc. etc.

Completely insane and untrue. How uninformed and arrogant you really are is shown right there.

And yes I just lowered myself to you level, but to be honest I think you set out to wind people up.

[Huguenot]

Sorry DJKQ, I think you may have got your facts wrong again. I can I assure you I really can't be bothered to wind you up, I am bothered however, that the fair citizens of ED should have at least some access to the facts of the case, and not be decieved by incorrect arguments such as the one you've just used.

Network Rail didn't declare London Bridge the least used station, they declared the South London spur through Denmark Hill as the least used line through London Bridge.

Anyone who's used the line as regularly as I did would know absolutely that this was the case - as a consultant I used it and various other south London services at all times of the day. From 10am until 4pm you'd be lucky if there were five people on the two carriage chugger.

You're quite right about the CX trains. These trains are full all the time, and at rush hour dangersously so.

London Bridge needed to free up platform space to allow more trains on these frighteningly busy routes, and The DH spur of the South London line was the obvious opportunity.

A plan was drawn up with increased Thameslink, the ELL and Dartford services that more than adequately served Denmark Hill and the route, albeit with a minor inconvenience that passengers travelling from DH to LB would have to change at Peckham Rye. All other stations in the area, like ED itself, stood to benefit from increased services.

The solution was a fantastic compromise that benefits hundreds of thousands of people. It increases the ease for people to access Kings Colleg Hospital, and gives access to 125,000+ new jobs for people living in the area.

What Network Rail didn't expect was a crowd of irrational protesters with scant regard for the facts trying to mess things up because they've got a bee in their bonnet about a mass conspiracy to short change south London.

Noses, faces, spite etc.

[sambobia]

As entertaining as this little spat is, can we just clarify one point? Post-2012, ED station will have more trains per hour to LB? And this will apply at all times -- days, evenings, weekend?

[Huguenot]

ED's service to London Bridge is scheduled to be uprated from the current 6/4 peak/offpeak to 8/6 service in 2015.

So far as I know the beginning and end times of the service remain unchanged, and peak is only Mon-Fri.

Until that date it will remain unchanged. As James B points out, this is largely due to the timing of infrastructure changes at London Bridge.

[TJMP]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ED's service to London Bridge is scheduled to be uprated from the current 6/4 peak/offpeak to 8/6 service in 2015.

> Until that date it will remain unchanged.

The latter part of this is not entirely correct - there are changes due at the end of this month that, whilst only introducing a couple of extra trains in the peak, will smooth out the gaps in service that were often greater than those in the off peak. The changes should really help with unacceptable levels of overcrowding on certain trains. I gave some detail of this in my contribution to the EDF election debates. It is something I have been arguing for over a considerable period:

Current:

7.03; 7.14; 7.29; 7.51; 8.05; 8.14; 8.35; 8.41; 8.56; 9.16

will become:

7.05; 7.15; 7.29; 7.34; 7.46; 7.57; 8.04; 8.14; 8.27; 8.33; 8.45; 8.59; 9.04

The March 2008 South London Rail Utilisation Strategy document does indeed have an 'indicative morning peak frequency' of 8tph from ED (Figure 9.1) from 2015.

Tessa

[R&A]

I've just been listening to radio four interviewing a spokesman about the rail cuts

They said that the 'Thameslink upgrade' has been scrapped

Does anyone know more about this?

Regarding the new network rail cuts....

Is that linked to what's going on at London Bridge?

Apprently anything that 'doesn't have a signature' will be scrapped.

Does the East London Line extension have a signature yet?

Would the South London Line be kept if the last two are scrapped?

Would this mean we could we keep our direct to london trains?

According to the program there's a report being released in a few days

[R&A]

just reading around more...

http://www.building.co.uk/crossrail-budget-may-be-slashed-by-a-third/5000374.article

quote from this article

Meanwhile, it is understood that Network Rail is examining the implications of dropping plans for the ?3bn remodelling of London Bridge station, the next phase of the ?5.5bn Thameslink programme. This is in addition to ?100m of cuts that Network Rail was asked to make this week.

enough platforms for The South London line now??????

[DJKillaQueen]

London Bridge needs to upgrade to accommodate Thamelink so I guess it's a bit up in the air at the moment. If the money is not there then it's not there.

[James Barber]

Shame South London Line from Denmark Hill & Peckham Rye is under threat. It provides direct train services to Battersea and a huge regeneration scheme has been launched "Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea Opportunity Area". It's believed 25,000 new jobs and 16,000 new homes will be created.

[Anna27]

but the ELL extension will serve DH and Peckham to Battersea! - then on to clapham junction!

the only service lost will be direct london bridge-victoria, the ELL will cover most of that route and all stations along the route will benefit from greater frequency

for example at the moment honor oak park has a train north every 5 mins - used to be every 10. quicker change onto the tube than going into london bridge platform 16 then walking into the underground as well

I can say 99.9% the south london line is gone, and with the same certainty that the ELLX is coming in. the only haggling is over construction of surrey canal road station. london bridge will be too busy during the thameslink upgrade, and major redevelopment of the station during building of the shard to accommodate a barely used 2 car train - most passengers only use small sections of the line, that will be well served by ELLX

[Eileen]

Anna27 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but the ELL extension will serve DH and Peckham to

> Battersea! - then on to Clapham Junction!

I don't think so. The new ELLX will go from Denmark Hill to Clapham High St then Wandsworth Road and then Clapham Junction and not via Battersea Park. So there will be no rail link from this area to Battersea Park.

>

> the only service lost will be direct London

> bridge-Victoria, the ELL will cover most of that

> route and all stations along the route will

> benefit from greater frequency

South Bermondsey and Queens Rd Peckham will also lose their direct link to Victoria

>

> for example at the moment honor oak park has a

> train north every 5 mins - used to be every 10.

> quicker change onto the tube than going into

> london bridge platform 16 then walking into the

> underground as well

The ELLX to Clapham Junction will be at most every 15 minutes not the same frequency as the Honor Oak Park line.