The East London Line extension

[James Barber]

The orignal East Lone Line Extension starting running before its advertised launch date - a soft launch. With test trains running already so many months ahead of December I would hope that the same approach is used again. It reduces risks for the full service worknig as planned and we all get a small window have we have better train services before the SLL is killed due to Boris.

[Michael Palaeologus]

The claims that the Victoria trains will be even more packed with the end of the SLL does not take into account that some people will use the ELLE instead of the Victoria trains because for them it is more convenient.

At the moment everybody is syphoned into LB and Victoria regardless of their destination. Those that wish to go east or west will be able to use the ELLE to avoid the central London bottle necks.

[benevetts]

Good to see this being debated. Good to see you getting engaged on this James - can we have your support on the thameslink consulation too..perhaps a bit of pressure on officers from the LD side?

[Undisputedtruth]

@James Barber

I think you could be right in a soft launch for the ELLX2. Boris Johnson always seems to take any opportunity to grab the limelight where possible. Launching the ELLX2 before December gives TfL more kudos. Especially useful as eventually they would determine all rail services in London in the future.

@Michael Palaeologus,

I've no idea where you get your information from. TfL themselves have admitted that the option to replace the SLL is not a satisfactory result for all rail users along the SLL route.

As a regular travellar to Victoria, both trains are packed at peak time. Taking away the SLL will only result in a more packed Victoria to Dartford via Peckham Rye service. Travelling along the ELLX2 on route to Victoria results in doubling of journey times. I fail to see how this is convenient, Michael.

[Jeremy]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> Those that wish to go east or west will be able to use

> the ELLE to avoid the central London bottle necks.

I think the solution is to increase capacity at the major london terminals, rather than force people to make a longer journey via an orbital route, with the added inconvenience of an extra change.

[Bic Basher]

Oh dear, Undisputedtruth is trolling again. It's no wonder I don't visit the transport threads on here that often when this supposed know it all and regular passenger of the SLL (and possibly a member of Southwark Rail Users Group) can't see what's in front of him and does the classic keyboard warrior actions of bringing down people who don't agree with his viewpoint.

If you search his account, his posts include various put downs to posters who don't see his POV on transport issues.

May I suggest people visit the Railforumsuk thread where a sensible discussion of this topic by transport insiders has been discussed without the need for being agressive. Even the legendary EDF transport user can add his two pennies worth if he signs up.

http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=69548

[Undisputedtruth]

I've just joined up and posting under the name of Another-Level. Should be quite easy to correct a lot of the nonsense you have written.

Anyway, the only troll is you, Bic Basher, with your lone ranger views on the ELL.

[Zebedee Tring]

I don't see why posters can't have a sensible and adult exchange of views on a subject such as this without being insulting or abusive. There are two sides to the argument and both sides can be put politely, with opposing sides agreeing to disagree. It seems that anonymity encourages some people to say things online that they would not say face to face in public.

[Bic Basher]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> I don't see why posters can't have a sensible and

> adult exchange of views on a subject such as this

> without being insulting or abusive. There are two

> sides to the argument and both sides can be put

> politely, with opposing sides agreeing to

> disagree. It seems that anonymity encourages some

> people to say things online that they would not

> say face to face in public.

I'd love to, but when you deal with aggressive behaviour from a man who's more than capable of debating in a mature manner except when it comes to transport issues. It's classic trolling behaviour to wind up other users (as seen with me and edcam) and bring them down to their level which then devalues the discussion.

The facts are with the SLL, from December the SLL closes. Even after 2019 when LB's refurb is complete, London Bridge won't have the platform capacity and as the SLL is the least used of Southern's metro services, it won't return if the DfT can use those paths (slots for train services) for more profitable services from outer London or Surrey/Sussex.

PR and DH will benefit from additional Thameslink services from 2019 and there's also the possibility that TfL will take over Southeastern's metro services, which the Dartford to Victoria train comes under. If TfL take it over and put it under London Overground's banner, there is a strong possibility that late evening and Sunday services will start which will fill the void of the Inner SLL's closure.

In an ideal world, the SLL and ELL would run side by side, yet that isn't the case and SRUG should use their efforts to encourage passengers to change their journey patterns which may be to their advantage. Peckham, Denmark Hill/Camberwell and ED are not in some backwater, there are public transport alternatives which don't necessarily mean using rail.

[njc97]

Bic basher - minor point, but on the other forum you say the ELL stock will be 4 car trains. I think they'll be 3 car, in line with rest of ELL (since some of the old stations are too small for 4). While I think the ELL will be a net improvement for people at Denmark Hill/Peckham Rye, it's also a bit disengenious to suggest that the change to district line at Whitechapel is a good replacement for changing at Victoria - if you're heading west that's a much longer journey.

[Zebedee Tring]

Sorry Bic Basher. As I hope you are aware, my comments were actually not directed at you.

[Bic Basher]

njc97 Wrote:

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

> Bic basher - minor point, but on the other forum

> you say the ELL stock will be 4 car trains. I

> think they'll be 3 car, in line with rest of ELL

> (since some of the old stations are too small for

> 4). While I think the ELL will be a net

> improvement for people at Denmark Hill/Peckham

> Rye, it's also a bit disengenious to suggest that

> the change to district line at Whitechapel is a

> good replacement for changing at Victoria - if

> you're heading west that's a much longer journey.

The trains that are going to be used are the 4 carriage trains currently used on the ELL, which you'll see the current driver training services are in use already. They also have selective door opening if Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road haven't had their platforms extended in time for the opening.

I didn't make the point about using Whitechapel as an alternative to travel to Victoria which of course isn't viable if you're travelling from DH or PR. It'll either be a longer wait for a Southeastern train or change at Clapham Junction. The Whitechapel option is only really an option if you're travelling to East London or into the Tower Hill/Aldgate areas of the city.

Incidentally there will be what is known as a 'parliamentary service' to Battersea Park, it's a way of not going through the bureaucracy of closing a rail line, so expect one train a day going there on weekdays instead of Clapham Junction.

[edcam]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> I don't see why posters can't have a sensible and

> adult exchange of views on a subject such as this

> without being insulting or abusive. There are two

> sides to the argument and both sides can be put

> politely, with opposing sides agreeing to

> disagree. It seems that anonymity encourages some

> people to say things online that they would not

> say face to face in public.

Yes - I wasn't even on a particular "side" of the argument and was subject to some rather unpleasant comments so think I shall avoid any further comment on the subject in case it fuels the (slightly odd) fire!

[Undisputedtruth]

It seems the people who are complaining are the ones who give out misleading and unhelpful information to the forum. Then get upset if they are corrected.

If you're not sure of your facts then please don't post.

[MrBen]

I can see a new "Hipster Express" service emerging between Peckham Rye and Shoreditch High street. Does anyone know how long it will take the checked shirt + beard brigade to get from one to the other? Can't find any journey time info....

[James]

Peckham Rye and Dalston Junction you mean, Mr Ben. Shoreditch High street is SO 90s

[James Barber]

Network Rail stated they had capacity at Victoria to continue the SLL.

The issue is the London Bridge end. LB used to have 22 platforms. Platforms 17-22 were lost with a 'new' signalling box in the 70'2. I've visited that box and its 50's & 60's technology. Network Rail have a plan to build a new regional signalling centre outside of London which would enable platforms 17-22 to reopen. Currently that area is used as a car park for railway staff (I kid you not). Sickening.

[Zebedee Tring]

I can see both sides of the argument. Ideally I would like to retain the current services for Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye with the addition of the ELL. If it's not possible to retain the London Bridge service, then why not retain a shuttle service between PR and Victoria stopping at all stations en route, or would there be operational difficulties involved in this? If the SLL is completely ruled out in its entirety, then there should be more Victoria bound trains from Kent stopping at DH and PR.

If none of the above options is feasible, and I was forced to choose between the SLL and ELL, I would choose the latter, because this is more likely to benefit my family's travel patterns. However, I can see why people who use Victoria and LB more regularly than I do would prefer the status quo.

[Bic Basher]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> It seems the people who are complaining are the

> ones who give out misleading and unhelpful

> information to the forum. Then get upset if they

> are corrected.

>

> If you're not sure of your facts then please don't

> post.

Who made you forum monitor?

I read that as "If you don't agree with my viewpoint, please don't post as I'll rant and rave at you back"

There are two viewpoints to the SLL changes and both should be debated sensibly.

If you read the Rail Forums thread, which our friend is now posting as Another-Level, there's a rumour that from 2019, the SLL may return as a shuttle service between Battersea Park and London Bridge, which would bring back the London Bridge trains from Peckham Rye back up to 6 per hour

[Undisputedtruth]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Network Rail stated they had capacity at Victoria

> to continue the SLL.

> The issue is the London Bridge end. LB used to

> have 22 platforms. Platforms 17-22 were lost with

> a 'new' signalling box in the 70'2. I've visited

> that box and its 50's & 60's technology. Network

> Rail have a plan to build a new regional

> signalling centre outside of London which would

> enable platforms 17-22 to reopen. Currently that

> area is used as a car park for railway staff (I

> kid you not). Sickening.

Very interesting James. It seems with each LB development, Network Rail plans to cut capacity for the South London area. Incredible,

[Undisputedtruth]

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It seems the people who are complaining are the

> > ones who give out misleading and unhelpful

> > information to the forum. Then get upset if

> they

> > are corrected.

> >

> > If you're not sure of your facts then please

> don't

> > post.

>

> Who made you forum monitor?

>

> I read that as "If you don't agree with my

> viewpoint, please don't post as I'll rant and rave

> at you back"

When would you stop giving out misleading information, Bic Basher? Hardly a responsible adult behaviour. Not very helpful to forum members.

[Bic Basher]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Undisputedtruth Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > It seems the people who are complaining are

> the

> > > ones who give out misleading and unhelpful

> > > information to the forum. Then get upset if

> > they

> > > are corrected.

> > >

> > > If you're not sure of your facts then please

> > don't

> > > post.

> >

> > Who made you forum monitor?

> >

> > I read that as "If you don't agree with my

> > viewpoint, please don't post as I'll rant and

> rave

> > at you back"

>

> When would you stop giving out misleading

> information, Bic Basher? Hardly a responsible

> adult behaviour. Not very helpful to forum

> members.

Misleading information? Considering your behaviour in The Lounge, in particular in the Euro 2012 thread, you have a lot to answer.

The fact is you've been rumbled and resorting to troll tactics to get your point across.

*awaits post about my low self esteem*

[Jeremy]

James Wrote:

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

> Peckham Rye and Dalston Junction you mean, Mr Ben.

> Shoreditch High street is SO 90s

The trendy areas are gradually getting further out and more scummy.

Next thing you know, Waltham Cross and New Addington will be the new hipster epicentres.

[Undisputedtruth]

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Bic Basher Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Undisputedtruth Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > It seems the people who are complaining are

> > the

> > > > ones who give out misleading and unhelpful

> > > > information to the forum. Then get upset if

> > > they

> > > > are corrected.

> > > >

> > > > If you're not sure of your facts then

> please

> > > don't

> > > > post.

> > >

> > > Who made you forum monitor?

> > >

> > > I read that as "If you don't agree with my

> > > viewpoint, please don't post as I'll rant and

> > rave

> > > at you back"

> >

> > When would you stop giving out misleading

> > information, Bic Basher? Hardly a responsible

> > adult behaviour. Not very helpful to forum

> > members.

>

> Misleading information? Considering your behaviour

> in The Lounge, in particular in the Euro 2012

> thread, you have a lot to answer.

>

> The fact is you've been rumbled and resorting to

> troll tactics to get your point across.

>

> *awaits post about my low self esteem*

It seems people are happy to give out wrong information and then blame the person for correcting them. What arrogance!

[Bic Basher]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

>

> It seems people are happy to give out wrong

> information and then blame the person for

> correcting them. What arrogance!

Pot, kettle....