tube station in ED

[Sue]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Look on the bright side JohnL - you're sorted if

> you need mobile phone accessories, yams, or hair

> extensions.

xxxxxxxx

:))

I agree with many of the posts above - I can't see how a tube would be any different in practice from the existing overground to London Bridge, from where as has been pointed out you can easily get to Charing Cross (or Waterloo, or Cannon Street) by an easy overground interchange - or else, easily get onto the tube network if you need to.

OP, even if you lived somewhere with a tube station, that doesn't mean you'd necessarily have easy access to whatever tube station you're aiming for - depends what line/s the station you're starting from is on, grammar.

ETA: Didn't you check out the transport options before you moved here?

[kford]

Get a motorcycle. 20-25 mins to W1.

Get a cycle. 25-30 mins to W1.

[edcam]

OP - if it's a 20 minute journey for you to the train station, you don't really live in East Dulwich, do you? It would still take you 20 minutes to get there!

Anyway, if you're sensible and time it properly, there are plenty of trains to get you the 12 mins to London Bridge, skip over the bridge and get the other overground 2 stops to Charing Cross and you can be in the West End 10 mins later. That journey takes 35-40 mins in total. Most people I know who live in North London take 45 mins-1 hr to get into work if they come from zone 2 on the tube.

And the overground is much more pleasant than the tube!

[James Barber]

A bakerloo station in ED would be fab. It isn't going to happen. But if it did it would be fine.

I used to live 2mins from Borough tube. Weekends and evening were wonderfully peaceful depsite having a tube station there. It became livelier when Tate Modern, the Globe, etc opened. I don't get the feeling a tube station would bring a great big tourist attraction to ED or that we'd want one.

What is more possible is some trains from East Dulwich going through London Bridge and onwards cutting out annoying time consuming changes.

[Medley]

an hour on the tube to get to zone 1 from zone 2? I think not.

The train's all well and good but a tube offers:

Much higher frequency as an average

More constant frequency

Much higher levels of staffing

Usually later and earlier running times

Usually quicker end to end journeys

Usually more seamless changes to other lines (hardly surprising) but also other modes

Far greater range of destinations per line of course.

And a nasty fetid atmosphere to breathe in admittedly!

[edcam]

Medley Wrote:

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

> an hour on the tube to get to zone 1 from zone 2?

> I think not.

>

>

Well it depends where you live. Years ago I lived in Willesden Green (god help me) and I had to allow an hour and that was on the edge of zone 2. I have colleagues who work in Covent Garden, who come in from Kensal Green and Acton for example. Both zone 2 but so prone to problems that it almost always takes them the best part of an hour.

[Twirly]

One big advantage of not having the tube that no-one has yet pointed out is that you're not so badly affected by the tube strikes - I only realise they're going on when colleagues are missing. Although it must be a pain if you have to get into London and then catch a tube elsewhere to get to work, at least you can get into central London without too much bother, and then not having the mentality of relying on the tube all the time, are probably better at considering other options. For some folks, when there's no tube they don't think that there is any other form of transport in London!

Personally, I hate the tube and avoid using it whenever possible, prefering walking, bus or train unless it's absolutely necessary to go by tube.

[Jeremy]

Sue Wrote:

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

> I can't see how a tube would be any different in practice from

> the existing overground to London Bridge

As people have said, the main difference is the frequency. Actually the train service is pretty good for getting to/from work, but in the evenings and Sundays it sucks.

[genwilliams]

I dearly wish they would extend the Bakerloo down to Camberwell (or Peckham High Street... or Albany Road... or ANYWHERE south-east of the Elephant & Castle), because it's between Denmark Hill and the Elephant and Castle that the traffic really bottlenecks and makes bus journeys so long. I went to Camden yesterday by bus and it took the best part of 2 hours, though I didn't have to wait long for buses at all.

That said, you can get the 185 to Oval and jump on the Northern line there - but it doesn't avoid the problem of the traffic, especially near Coldharbour Lane, and as pointed out above, the train services aren't always great. No-one wants it to cost more to live here (unless you're selling your house, I guess) but if you can't get to where you need to go, it does make life difficult!

[Eileen]

Feasibility of extending the Bakerloo Line into Southwark on different routes is now being considered as a long term plan. See SLP news report last September on the Southwark Rail Users Group webpages

The topic will be discussed at the next meeting of the Southwark Public Transport Consultative Forum in the Town Hall Peckham Road SE5 on Wed 9th December 6pm. If you are keen to know more, come along to the discussion.

[Earl Aelfheah]

As I understand it, the tube tunnel does extend for some way down the walworth road (to Burgess Park) and is used for turning the trains.

If the bakerloo line was extended, even just as far as Camberwell, it would massively improve journey times in inner SE London.

I've always thought it would be a good idea to extend it underground to Camberwell, where it could prehaps surface onto what is now the strange little loop line on the Thameslink network. This wouldn't effect the rest of the Thameslink services which come in from the east and use the Walworth Road stretch of line and as the loop line which turns on itself at Tooting, only really serves inner London anyway, I'm sure no one would complain at it's being replaced by a tube service. Probably lot's of good technical reasons why this isn't possible I'm sure...

[Ramble66]

Best way to Camden is thameslink from Peckham Rye or Denmark Hill to St Pancreas International and then either hop on bus or walk to camden. It's about a 15minute walk. Unfortunately the thameslink isn't always running at weekends at the moment.

If you wanted to get bus but avoid walworth, use the 63 to kings cross and either walk, change buses or hope on tube.

genwilliams Wrote:

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

> I dearly wish they would extend the Bakerloo down

> to Camberwell (or Peckham High Street... or Albany

> Road... or ANYWHERE south-east of the Elephant &

> Castle), because it's between Denmark Hill and the

> Elephant and Castle that the traffic really

> bottlenecks and makes bus journeys so long. I went

> to Camden yesterday by bus and it took the best

> part of 2 hours, though I didn't have to wait long

> for buses at all.

>

> That said, you can get the 185 to Oval and jump on

> the Northern line there - but it doesn't avoid the

> problem of the traffic, especially near

> Coldharbour Lane, and as pointed out above, the

> train services aren't always great. No-one wants

> it to cost more to live here (unless you're

> selling your house, I guess) but if you can't get

> to where you need to go, it does make life

> difficult!

[Sue]

Ramble66 Wrote:

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

> Best way to Camden is thameslink from Peckham Rye

> or Denmark Hill to St Pancreas International

xxxxxxx

What a difference an e makes :))

[????]

NO. NO. NO.

There are 260 odd places in London with a tube station so move to one of them.

Part of ED's charm is a little bit of stickability that it engenders in many of its residents. Places with tubes are far more transient as they fill up with the likes of less imaginative colonials and even MORE of the can't afford Clapham mob .

The longer you live in London the more you hate the Tube...I hardly ever use it, give me a bus or me plates anyday.

[Ramble66]

I always do that! One day I'll learn. It's in my typing finger memory.

St Pancras, St Pancras, St Pancras, St Pancras, St Pancras, St Pancras, St Pancras, St Pancras, St Pancras, St Pancras, St Pancras........

:))

Sue Wrote:

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

> Ramble66 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Best way to Camden is thameslink from Peckham

> Rye

> > or Denmark Hill to St Pancreas International

>

> xxxxxxx

>

> What a difference an e makes :))

[Medley]

A bus as substitute for the tube ???? Forgive me but do you work office hours? If so no way in hell will I choose the grinding slowmotion agony that is the bus in rush hour for the admittedly sweaty and rammed pit that is the tube in rush hour.

As for moving to somewhere with a tube, I can't afford it! And yes I am discounting the hellholes with tubes in that calculation.

[Medley]

This has been mooted in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s... you get the picture.

Technical reasons - may be the most pressing being not enough rich and connected people live in SE London?!

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> As I understand it, the tube tunnel does extend

> for some way down the walworth road (to Burgess

> Park) and is used for turning the trains.

> If the bakerloo line was extended, even just as

> far as Camberwell, it would massively improve

> journey times in inner SE London.

> I've always thought it would be a good idea to

> extend it underground to Camberwell, where it

> could prehaps surface onto what is now the strange

> little loop line on the Thameslink network. This

> wouldn't effect the rest of the Thameslink

> services which come in from the east and use the

> Walworth Road stretch of line and as the loop line

> which turns on itself at Tooting, only really

> serves inner London anyway, I'm sure no one would

> complain at it's being replaced by a tube service.

> Probably lot's of good technical reasons why this

> isn't possible I'm sure...

[Jeremy]

I think Medley's a lot more honest than some others. Nice as East Dulwich is, not many of us would choose to live here if money was no object. We live here despite the relatively poor transport, not because of it.

[????]

Yeah, if money was no object I'd live in The Village even less well connected for Transport. "We live here" were you just talking about yourself?

[Jeremy]

???? Wrote:

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

> "We live here" were you just talking about yourself?

Primarily yes, but I imagine most people around here feel the same way... especially when they've just missed the 11:18pm train from London Bridge.

[Medley]

Think you've missed the fact that people who live in the Village don't actually have to get to (or in many cases possibly even do any) work.

???? Wrote:

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

> Yeah, if money was no object I'd live in The

> Village even less well connected for Transport.

> "We live here" were you just talking about

> yourself?

[????]

No of course they don't......they'rre all just lazy fookers with inherited wealth...or sumffink

[Medley]

That was my point. So they don't need transport - they've got large cars, several of them, possibly even drivers!

Although I do find it a bit odd how the richest live in fairly inaccessible places - some of them must have to get somewhere at some point, surely?

???? Wrote:

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

> No of course they don't......they'rre all just

> lazy fookers with inherited wealth...or sumffink

[????]

odder than lazy generalisations?.....no

[SeanMacGabhann]

not that any of us are above

a bit of lazy generalisation