Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Poor transport effects everyone - Clearly people are going to illustrate the point by drawing on personal examples - my own, of how difficult it for me to meet work / childcare commitments (even though I only commute 4 miles), I am sure is a general problem shared by many others.

The potential negative effects of a tube, as described, are not inevitable.

Comparisons to outer London boroughs ignore the fact that there is far lower population density and that travelling a couple of miles in a car is much easier than it is in central London. Also, it's not true that outer boroughs are always worse served - many have high speed trains into town. It's pretty poor that someone travelling in from Surbiton can get to the Southbank quicker on public transport than someone in Camberwell, just a couple of miles away.

I just can't understand why individuals would want to hold back improvements to transport infrastructure.

There are some valid concerns regarding the knock on effects of getting a tube station, but there are clear, objective arguments why certain areas are good candidates for any further extensions. Camberwell has a particularly strong claim I think and this has been recognised for many years, but still it has never happened.

From a selfish point of view (if you want to call it selfish), I would like to see transport links improved in Southern East Dulwich - but would be happy just to see investment in places with a high need, even if it were elsewhere. What really upsets me is to taxpayers money being funnelled into propping up private housing developments in areas with little existing demand.


wavyline girl Wrote:

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

> It would appear that if you oppose the local tube

> station idea, you are described as "selfish."

> Well the arguments for a tube, as seen i've seen

> here, are equally as selfish.

wavyline girl Wrote:

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

> Well the arguments for a tube, as seen i've seen

> here, are equally as selfish


The argument for is:


-If you're investing in new transport infrastructure in densely populated, inner London areas south of the river, there are some clearly identifiable 'holes' based on population and existing provision which should be prime candidates.


....The argument against is:


-I don't want my area to change in character.


I actually don't call the latter argument selfish - I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold this concern, but certainly the former can be argued from a more detached, objective perspective.

forest hill has an overground station, just use that if you need the tube. camberwell would be the best place for a tube station but i always thought that south london's clay soil ruled it out altogether. failing camberwell what about dulwich village...

holloway Wrote:

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

> forest hill has an overground station, just use

> that if you need the tube. camberwell would be the

> best place for a tube station but i always thought

> that south london's clay soil ruled it out

> altogether. failing camberwell what about dulwich

> village...


But Forest Hill is only any use if you live in deepest south of East Dulwich and already well into zone 3. If you're in the main but you're better off using ED rail station or Peckham Rye or Denmark Hill rail or Overground, both in zone 2.

Of course some of this is about plugging the gap left when the third Crystal Palace line was pulled back in the '50s - trains ran:


Ludgate Hill (City Thameslink)

St Paul's

Elephant

Loughb J

D Hill

P Rye

Nunhead

Honor Oak (where the Wood Vale estate now is)

Lordship Lane

Upper Sydenham

C Palace


http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/honor_oak/

Yep, and the closure of Camberwell Station which lay on the same route (although it was closed earlier). It really is about time that this obvious demonstrable gap was closed.


Medley Wrote:

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

> Of course some of this is about plugging the gap

> left when the third Crystal Palace line was pulled

> back in the '50s - trains ran:

>

> Ludgate Hill (City Thameslink)

> St Paul's

> Elephant

> Loughb J

> D Hill

> P Rye

> Nunhead

> Honor Oak (where the Wood Vale estate now is)

> Lordship Lane

> Upper Sydenham

> C Palace

>

> http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/honor_oak/

I have family who live just north of Burgess Park, to the East of Walworth Road. It's less than a couple of miles from Central London and yet in rush hour it's very difficult to get on a bus, it's not a comfortable walk to a tube station and there is no overground. That's not great for an affluent, highly developed, world class city.


Jeremy Wrote:

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

> London Overground is not really comparable to the

> tube. 4 trains an hour and barely enters zone 1.



All those selfish bastards in East London who demanded a tube extension to the Central Line in the 30s. They wrecked places like Gants Hill and Redbridge.


Er... actually they asked for this because the transport in the area was very overcrowded. Which is the reason that many people in ED would like to have a tube here, unlikely though this may.

I'm not either... that was a mistaken click of the mouse. Sorry Jeremy.


Jeremy Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > That's not great for an

> > affluent, highly developed, world class city...

>

> Agreed, but not sure how that's related to my post

> which you replied to...

Plus the Overground service at HOP/FH has not arrived to the detriment of the Southern service to London B (albeit I'm still mourning the loss of the Charing X trains a bit) - so if all you need is the Jubilee line to head westwards, you've got 16 trains per hour or so to choose from. That really is turn up and go, the timetable becomes irrelevant.

HOP/FH aren't really the point though - if you are close to those stations then that's fine, especially FH which has trains direct to London Bridge as well as London Overground to Canada Whater.


However large numbers of people who aren't at the southern end of ED can't conveniently use those stations, and would have to pay more (Zone 3 vs Zone 2) even if they could change their route.


The issue is the lack of provision to central East Dulwich, and the overcrowding on buses and the services from ED rail station. A tube extension could alleviate that, and provide coverage for the other "hole" around Camberwell/Burgess Park, and could run further out to connect up other parts of South London.

HOP/FH only has 8 trains per hour on the Overground because it has two branches, one to Crystal Palace and the other to West Croydon.


While people lament the reduction in Southern services to 4 trains per hour, except the morning peak where 6 still operate, the peak trains are at least 8 to 10 carriages long on that line. ED/PR passengers still only have 8 carriages in the peak.


FH/HOP combined with the Overground has a tube style frequency of 12 trains per hour, in comparison to the 4tph from ED to London Bridge and the 4tph on the Overground's SLL from DH/PR. (DH also has 2tph to Victoria except late evenings and 2tph to the Thameslink core).

  • 3 weeks later...

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I have family who live just north of Burgess Park,

> to the East of Walworth Road. It's less than a

> couple of miles from Central London and yet in

> rush hour it's very difficult to get on a bus,

> it's not a comfortable walk to a tube station and

> there is no overground. That's not great for an

> affluent, highly developed, world class city.


My idea alleviates this completely because I would have stations at Walworth East Street and Burgess Park (probably on the junction of Albany Road and Thurlow Street) then another halfway between this and New Cross Gate on the Old Kent Road.

I don't think one can compare the Overground service in south London to a tube service. The Overground is definitely useful particularly for commuting, but even setting aside the difference in frequency of trains, the seemingly constant engineering works mean that there's often limited or no weekend service anyway. That's true on both the Clapham Junction line and the Crystal Palace line - this weekend was a delight, finding that a return trip that should have taken about an hour and a half took twice that because the Overground was largely out of action.


By the way, here's a fun bit of info I was told by someone who works for TFL: contractors often book station/line closures for works, but don't necessarily carry out the works - something changes, and the date gets shifted. The stations remain closed, though, because they didn't bother to cancel the closures and tell anyone they won't be showing up. So that's good, isn't it?

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...