East Dulwich railway station office recommended for closure?

[the-e-dealer]

oh yes ensure station clean and safe. provide and keep to time tables. sell tickets coordinate with other providers.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The bigger issue is the fact that there are now fewer trains than in the past and none at weekends

[Earl Aelfheah]

Meanwhile the northern line is being extended from Kennington, not further into poorly provided SE London, but diverted West to Battersea.

[Bic Basher]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Meanwhile the northern line is being extended from

> Kennington, not further into poorly provided SE

> London, but diverted West to Battersea.

The developers of the Battersea Power Station project are funding the Northern line extension.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Contributing to the cost of a facility which will also have lots of public money invested and which will hugely increase the value of their private development. It will also ensure that Se London loses the possibility of future tube expansion.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Basically, the tube is going to be diverted to a private development, maintained for years to come using public money. The developers will contribute to the inital cost of building the extension, but then effectively receive an huge ongoing subsidy in perpetuity. The develppment at Nine Elms is only 10 minutes walk from Vauxhall underground, but clearly there is desperate need for another station even closer. It seems to me that a publically funded and maintained transport network shouldn't decide strategy according to which developer offers the highest one off payment, but rather actual transport need. The developer will have done their sums. They're not providing a public service here. TFL should be.

[Undisputedtruth]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> I have used E Dulwich station now for almost two

> years. as I use an auto top up Oyster card I have

> never felt the need to use the ticket office. I

> would think that this is probably the case for 80%

> of travellers.

>

> Keeping the ticket office manned is unlikely to

> affect safety - if they have to be in the ticket

> office they'll not be on the platform looking

> after passengers.

>

> High fares are criticised - but this seems to me a

> fairly rational decision.

Fairly rational decision I wonder.

Go-Ahead owns Southern and the article belows shows how much the Chief Executive gets with an annual package of ?1.4m. Easy to see where the money is going. Rational my foot.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23891350-rail-commuters-help-go-ahead-with-ticket-sales-rising.do

[i*Rate]

Just a word in favour of the (very helpful) staff at the ticket office on behalf of all persons who have travel cards and Freedom Passes.

There are plenty of trains at the weekends apart from the odd times when there is engineering works and this station is a lifeline to older travellers who like to travel by rail and avoid driving. There are many persons in ED who are of a certain age who need to buy a ticket using travels cards and/or passes and get some advice on the cheapest route. This service is certainly provided very well by the staff there.

So - Save Our Helpful Ticket Office!

[Jeremy]

rahrahrah, Battersea is currently no better served by public transport than ED. With the new development (including shops, a museum, offices, thousands of new homes) clearly there will be a need for extra public transport capacity.

You think private developments shouldn't be served by public transport? Shouldn't we consider the boost to the economy? How about Canaray Wharf?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think that any strategic expansion of the tube network should look at areas which currently have poor provision and an existing need.

There will be two stops on this new line, one at Nine Elms about 10 minutes walk from Vauxhall and one at Battersea Power Station, about 5 - 10 minutes walk from the new East London line station at Batersea Park (and 10 minutes bus from europes busiest station, Clapham Junction(not to mention Queen's Town Road and Wandsworth Road). There is not currently a need for more transport infrastucture in this ares. The developers are looking to create demand and profit hansomely from it, at tax payers ongoing expense.

[Zina]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The bigger issue is the fact that there are now

> fewer trains than in the past and none at weekends

In what way are there no trains at weekends? There are now actually more trains at weekends than before as they've increased the Sunday service.

From time to time there are engineering works. This is a separate issue.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You're right of course. What I meant was that trains rarely run at weekends because of regular engineering works.

[Jeremy]

I'm all for new developments which will boost the economy, and transport has to be an integral part of that. As I mentioned, Canary Wharf would not have been possible if it wasn't for the Jubilee Line extension (partly funded by the Canary Wharf developers), and that has transformed East London and brought a lot of wealth into the UK. I am also in favour of projects which "spread out" the capital, moving commercial activities out of central London.

Battersea Power Station won't be attractive as a commercial centre if you can't get there directly from Central London. It would be short-sighted to say that existing need should take a higher precendence than future need.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Except both Battersea and nine elms are served by nearby tube and train lines.

[Medley]

I'm all for more Tubes in south London, but it's frustrating that progress can be so rapid on this and so slow on anything else - particularly the Bakerloo line extension, which has a very good case.

So I think the point about ongoing subsidy made above is an excellent one - yes, a slug of money now but ongoing costs forever borne by taxpayers and farepayers.

However, if Battersea is developed on the envisaged scale there will certainly need to be transport links.

What really frustrates is the lack of interconnectivity in this area.

We'll have the new Northern Line Tube stations, new Overground services, existing National Rail services, much reduced services at some stations thanks to the demise of the South London Line from end 2012 - but they don't meet up! Those Overground trains will of course cruise right by Brixton Tube station, but not stop at it - just one example. It's like being in Victorian times with every company doing its own thing.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you look at the development area, it is a triangular site with Vauxhall (Victoria line) in one corner, Battersea Park (east London line) on another and Wandsworth town (also East London line) at the third. Queen's town road is also next to the site, serving Waterloo. This is an incredibly well connected area. Diverting this branch of the northern line to provide two stations and no future potential for further expansion, is not sensible. It's entirely different to the jubilee line extension which served not just a new development but provided many existing areas with new connections / regeneration.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You are diverting a branch of the northern line into a dead end, killing off any further, future expansion into south east London (that big blank area on the tube map). What you get for doing this is two new stations in close proximity to several existing ones. This is not a case of ?win win? (using private investment to make improvements to infrastructure in currently poorly served areas with a wider regenerating effect whilst also benefitting a new development), as Canary Wharf arguably was.

[Jeremy]

Battersea has no tube. East Dulwich has no tube.

Battersea is having a huge mutli-billion pound development including shops, offices, housing. East Dulwich is not.

Pointless discussion.

[Earl Aelfheah]

There has to be a more long term strategic approach to these things. You don't just divert a tube line into a dead end for the sake of one development IMO. 'Battersea has no tube' is not really the only issue here.

[Medley]

But it's not a pointless discussion. Parts of East D or the Aylesbury estate or the area south of Peckham Rye Park or lots of other places in south London all exist already, but don't have good public transport links.

So it makes me more frustrated that new areas seem to trump established ones, but one can see some logic in the sense that Battersea will have lots of relatively high density residential and offices - perfect for transport demand.

Although one does recall Southwark Tube, partly built for offices that never materialised.

[Jeremy]

You're frustrated that new areas trump established ones? That's just not logical! Without the necessary transport, there will be no redevelopment at Battersea Power Station.

Besides, TfL didn't decide to do this as an alternative to a Bakerloo line extension to SE London. The two things are not related. There is private funding for the Northern Line extension. There isn't any for a Bakerloo extension.

[Medley]

>

> Besides, TfL didn't decide to do this as an

> alternative to a Bakerloo line extension to SE

> London. The two things are not related. There is

> private funding for the Northern Line extension.

> There isn't any for a Bakerloo extension.

But that's just how they ARE related. Because there is private funding for the Northern it's happening in the blink of an eye, whereas the Bakerloo will be ten years away from the early planning stages if we're very lucky and lobby hard on it etc.

[Jeremy]

What can I say? Building underground railways is an expensive business. The money just isn't there at the moment.

[Medley]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

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

> What can I say? Building underground railways is

> an expensive business. The money just isn't there

> at the moment.

It's there for Crossrail, Thameslink, new trains on the H&C, Met, Victoria, Circle, District lines, resignalling the Jubilee line, the Overground extensions - it's there alright, it's just that no one's got the ducks in a row to get it into Southwark!

Quite striking when you think about it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Not at the moment, but even if the money were to become available in the future any more wide reaching extension (designed to serve more areas and/or leave room for further staged expansion), is dead. Instead we get just two stops in well served areas and no opportunities left for the line. It's a totally bizarre diversion of a line that is an obvious candidate for extension along it's current route into poorly provided for SE London, switching direction entirely just to be driven into a dead end.