Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Because it isn?t just about existing transport provision - it is also about the potential for economic development. OKR area clearly has big potential for development and why it is likely to be chosen if only route is. Tunnels are very expensive to build so usually some major economic benefit is needed for them to be justified.


Hopefully both routes will get chosen. Failing that I hope local politicians get behind a tram scheme from south Southwark to Elephant and Castle ? I believe James Barber proposed one a couple of years ago.

Hi cle,

I beg to differ. Greenwich Council funded a ?50,000 report into rail options for Woolwich and possible extending the DLR. It directly led to the DLR being extended to Woolwich and ?180M spend.

WRT to Bakerloo extension Lewisham have talked about it a number of times and had TfL present. So those TfL officials are clear Lewisham wants it. It must help increase the chance of some form of Bakerloo gonig into Lewisham.


Hi picmic,

Yes Camnerwell has a high PTAL - which is calculated by number and frequency of each publci transport option. But it doesnt factor how effective timewise each public transport option is to get somewhere or the variability of time it takes.

James, agree about the Camberwell PTAL point.


But you must be aware, or should be aware, that the idea that the cost of that DLR extension to Lewisham was exorbitant - so there may be an element of 'once bitten, twice shy' there.

The main problem with DLR extension is that it is already running close to capacity heading south from Canary Wharf. Taking it all the way to Bromley would only work if there was an increased frequency of services or longer trains, I don't think either are particularly simple (otherwise they would already be in the pipeline without an extension).


It is great to see more people coming out in support of the Bakerloo line extension. All the talk of different routes is likely to increase support for the eventual route(s) that are recommended. A good choice of route(s) should be of benefit to a much larger area of South East London, assuming interchange is possible from other transport hubs, so I will welcome almost any route, even if it doesn't come straight through Forest Hill.


My only concern is that this must not be a pre-election gimmick by any party in the run-up to May 2015. A concerted effort needs to be made to explain how this vital transport improvement will be funded, otherwise it will probably go the way of the South London tramways.

JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> I still think (even more so now) that if two

> branches are going to be made, they should meet

> again at Lewisham, then one should take over the

> Hayes Line, and the other take over the

> Bexleyheath Line.


As long as they are 100% separate with no mixing between them - to avoid a mess like Camden Town or Earls Court and to a lesser degree, Kennington.

cle Wrote:

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

> JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I still think (even more so now) that if two

> > branches are going to be made, they should meet

> > again at Lewisham, then one should take over

> the

> > Hayes Line, and the other take over the

> > Bexleyheath Line.

>

> As long as they are 100% separate with no mixing

> between them - to avoid a mess like Camden Town or

> Earls Court and to a lesser degree, Kennington.


Would it be easier to have 2 or 4 platforms at Lewisham?

JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> cle Wrote:

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

> -----

> > JamesViktor Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I still think (even more so now) that if two

> > > branches are going to be made, they should

> meet

> > > again at Lewisham, then one should take over

> > the

> > > Hayes Line, and the other take over the

> > > Bexleyheath Line.

> >

> > As long as they are 100% separate with no

> mixing

> > between them - to avoid a mess like Camden Town

> or

> > Earls Court and to a lesser degree, Kennington.

>

> Would it be easier to have 2 or 4 platforms at

> Lewisham?


Four - two separate lines by that point with no intertwining to keep things tidy. The quicker route to Lewisham should go on the longest journey, I guess.


A bit like pretending the Victoria and Piccadilly from Kings Cross were the same line in Central London, but then split off and Lewisham would be the 'Finsbury Park' - cross platform changing, but separate.

It IS great to see people talking about it more. There's such a case for it, to my mind. Time and again, developments come to London public transport:


DLR, resignalling and so hiked frequency (Jubilee, Victoria), new trains (Met, Circle etc. lines), London Overground expansion and new trains, Crossrail, talk of Crossrail 2, even the flipping cable car, Barclays/Boris/Ken bikes.


But most of them are for other bits of London. 'Nuff's enough.

South London has benefited in the last 20 years from the Jubilee Line Extension, DLR extension to Lewisham, Overground expansion to Clapham Junction, Croydon, New Cross and Crystal Palace and the resignalling of the Jubilee and Victoria Lines. There is also the impending Northern Link extension to Battersea.


Things could have been better and a Bakerloo Line extension is way overdue. But the situation is a darn sight better than when we moved from NE London to Greenwich 36 years ago and then to Dulwich 27 years ago.


And there's also the Croydon Tramlink, not to mention the much improved bus services.

I agree with all of that, with one exception. East London has had far more investment in transport than West for the last 20 years or so. Yes a lot has been Docklands and Olympics led, but it still stretched far and wide across East London.

Oh East London is transformed - but not SE London.


And of Zebedee's projects, JLE is to the far north of SE London (so to speak), DLR extension is fair and square in it, London O network likewise, Vic lines - er, not at all. Likewise the Battersea extension.



Brixton is in South London and has benefited from the Vic Line resignalling. Likewise Battersea is in South London. Dulwich may technically be in S-E London but it is v. close to S-W London - if there was a S postal area akin to the N area in North London, it would be right in it.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Battersea extension >

>

> Brixton is in South London and has benefited from

> the Vic Line resignalling. Likewise Battersea is

> in South London. Dulwich may technically be in S-E

> London but it is v. close to S-W London - if there

> was a S postal area akin to the N area in North

> London, it would be right in it.


There used to be an S Postcode area. SE19-27 and SW11-20 were it but Anthony Trollope removed this (and NE) as well as retracting the London Postal Boundary (it used to go to Croydon, Bromley, Kingston etc.) S is now Sheffield duck.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_postal_district#mediaviewer/File:Londonpostal_iln_1857.jpg

I think Clapham is the ground zero. Mind you, Putney and Wimbledon are also hubs for the worst of people.


I see Brixton as just 'south', neither east or west. Camberwell and East Dulwich are similar, but sneak into SE. Peckham definitely so.

Yeah living as far out as I do places like Dulwich, Forest Hill and Sydenham seem much further than Lewisham or Peckham. I'd say true SE London covers the NE part of Southwark, all of Lewisham except the far SW part, all of Bromley except the far NW part and all of Greenwich and Bexley.

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...