Jump to content

Recommended Posts

JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> 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!


Perhaps because it's the East Dulwich Forum.

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.

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.

Camberwell is too central for a tube station. As opposed to the rest of central london you mean? The tube is meant to serve high density urban populations such as Camberwell. It's centrality is exactly what makes it a good candidate. It's also a cross roads for most of SE London and massively overcrowded / congested.

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.

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!

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.

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!

And I wasn't personally telling you 'what you want' JamesViktor:


" Any longer and you want proper trains"


was clearly the royal 'you', as in 'one'. Not you yourself. So pipe down.


And feel free to set up a Slade Green Forum if you feel the zone 2/3 chat doesn't meet your geographical needs, clue's in the name...

Perhaps I'm being na?ve, but isn't the East Dulwich Forum basically for discussion about issues that affect East Dulwich, as opposed to Slade Green, Pratts Bottom etc? I'm happy to go on at length about my yoof growing up in Walthamstow and the gang warfare in Woodford Green, but I'm assuming that I would be told pretty swiftly to post on a Walthamstow or Boys From Da Woodford Green Hood MB
  • 4 weeks later...
Boris confirmed "plans to extend the tube in South East London" at the 'State of London' debate the other day apparently. I am fairly sure it will happen *eventually*. I really hope that when it's time does come it benefits the people who live in SE London and isn't just a big public subsidy for property developers to create 'investment properties' along the Old Kent Road.
  • 3 weeks later...
Z you are right... its my understanding from old that they are unable to dig a tunnel for two reasons on the water table is very high in this part of town due to the River flowing under the towns ... and secondly there a number of black death burial sites by the church, the wishing well areas etc... I know that they used to have a tram and trolley bus routes, and think that they would have to do what they have and make it over ground. It would be nice though.

Hi chellbirdse15,

You were correct but modern tunnelling methods allow such tunnelling through SE London.

In fact the last extension of the Bakerloo line was started and then sadly stopped early 1950;s due to economic situation - not due to soil conditions.


I'm delighted to have nudged the Labour administration agreeing to campaign for two branches of the line - Camberwell * OKR.

Hi James


Can you provide any more details about the proposed routes for both the Camberwell and OKR lines?


Attached is the London PTAL map for SE London (taken from http://maptube.org/map.aspx?mapid=131) overlaid with my best guess as to the proposed routes based on

a) one line through Camberwell, the other through OKR

b) the stations for each line being based roughly on the options presented in the 2005?06 TLF Bakerloo line extension proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakerloo_line_extension_to_Camberwell).


Is this what is being considered?


Thanks

Mike


Note, in the attached photo

Brown line = New Bakerloo line extension

Black line = Existing Bakerloo line or the Hayes line

Red area of map = PTAL score of 1 = Poor transport links

Green area of map = PTAL score of 6 = Excellent transport links

I'd think that a second Camberwell branch would be relatively short - to be an inner city service and allow less tubes (terminus closer to town).


Maybe Walworth Road/Burgess Park, Camberwell Green, Denmark Hill (v close to each other, but a must for connections), East Dulwich, Dulwich Library, Forest Hill - maybe Catford. That's surely enough.


The other one I'd not send past Lewisham - taking over St Johns station for good and getting rid of the New Cross overground branch, and sending those trains elsewhere on the route.

TfL are surely the ones to decide though. I don't think local councils have much clout on issues like this, beyond some diluted lobbying ability. Do TfL care, when it's the developers who call the tune?


Perhaps a compromise route would be down the OKR but then swing south to Peckham Library/Centre and then onwards east again?


Totally misses Camberwell though - and probably too far north for Peckham Rye station too, hence not great in terms of interchanges.

I don't get why people think it would be of significant benefit to have the Bakerloo line go to Camberwell / Walworth Road. Looking at the PTAL scores (http://maptube.org/map.aspx?mapid=131) - it looks like Camberwell / Walworth Road already have great transport links.

However other areas of Southwark (Nunhead, Honor Oak Park, The areas surrounding the southern end of Peckham rye park, Forrest hill) do have poor transport links. I don?t get why these areas are not being focused on.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...