Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What was the Strategic Rail Authority at the time, did I believe, agree to reopen the station on the proviso that it would mean the closure of Loughborough station. The council wouldn't agree to this so it didn't happen.personally I thought that was a mistake at the time, as LJ is very close to both Brixton aoverground and underground station and those to the northwould be ceithin walking distance of Camberwell. To have the Thameslink serve Camberwell (a major town centre) makes more sense. I suspect similar conditions would be applied by Network rail even if they were willing to revisit this. With all the developments happening around Camberwell green and along the Thmes,ink line generally, I am surprised that section 106 conditions haven't been used to see he station funded.

Part of TfL's response to proposing NOT to have a Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell and Peckham was for a Thameslink station at Camberwell.


But I would imagine they intended for Sevenoaks trains only to stop at Camberwell which don't go to Loughborough station. So we'd keep Loughborough station and get a re opened Camberwell Station. But an extension of the Bakerloo line to Camberwell would have included an intermediate stop. So if the sop for not getting the Bakerloo line to Camberwell is over ground station - and proposals from TfL that the Sevenoaks trains e moved to London Overground franchise - then a station serving Walworth would also be needed to do the job properly. In fact a re opened Walworth station - both being closed at the same time in 1916 due to manpower shortages and didn't reopen due to competition from trams.

On email this am .......................


The Options Assessment Report for the Bakerloo line extension is now available online at tfl.gov.uk/bakerloo-extension.


The report considers the possible destinations that were suggested as part of the 2014 public consultation. It also further considers the options presented during the 2014 consultation.


A media release regarding the report and the project?s latest status is also available here.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/december/bakerloo-line-extension-to-improve-transport-links-in-south-london-by-2030

nunhead_man Wrote:

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

> On email this am .......................

>

> The Options Assessment Report for the Bakerloo

> line extension is now available online at

> tfl.gov.uk/bakerloo-extension.

>

> The report considers the possible destinations

> that were suggested as part of the 2014 public

> consultation. It also further considers the

> options presented during the 2014 consultation.

>

> A media release regarding the report and the

> project?s latest status is also available here.

> https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2

> 015/december/bakerloo-line-extension-to-improve-tr

> ansport-links-in-south-london-by-2030



If Sadiq Khan becomes LM then half of those 25,000 homes

should be affordable.

miga Wrote:

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

> Sarcasm?


The developers want (and may get) whats happening at Elephant now to extend all the

way down OKR I'd think.



Mind you - this was in the Guardian (referring to Khan) - Can't see it happening :).


"They will use the mayor?s planning powers to ensure half of the homes in any new

development are genuinely affordable, stop developers selling off new properties

to investors before they are finished, and set up a not for profit London-wide letting

agency that would reduce fees and offer tenants longer term lets."


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/government-housing-bill-accelerate-crisis-says-sadiq-khan

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

    • I think it is less easy/ more expensive to fence off the Common, as opposed to the nicer parts, which is why our nicer parts are hawked off to Gala. Why should we have access to nicer parts of our park in summer when we might most like to have access if it can be monetised. It's ironic really that this council is so Trumpy. 
    • Niko is my go to plumber - he's always friendly, reliable and very good at thinking outside the box for finding solutions. He did have his phone stolen recently and was on a brick phone, so if you tried Whatsapping him, he won't have received it yet but he should have a new smart phone by now. He always gets back to you promptly and is full of good advice and always up for a chat 🙂 Niko - 07818 607583 -  highly recommended!
    • Another recommendation for Niko. He arrived in 10 minutes of me calling him and successfully fixed my annoying dripping tap! He did mention a problem with his phone, think it was stolen, but he is now available on 07818 607583 
    • Well, what a huge surprise! So, while the council digs up local footpaths to plant trees and 'green' the roads, it simultaneously offers up our parkland to private hire for a further extended period of annual damage.  It is hard to see from the map, but it looks as though the footpath that was formerly available to walk along the length of the event site of old will now also be partially used up by the new footprint, it looks like it will be partly roped off? I love how the final council report advise that 'while locals will be unable to use this nicer part of the park for a month ( and actually much of summer as it all gets churned up and has to be reseeded) that this is fine as they can just use the Common instead.    It feels wrong that the nicer part of the park is given over for festival use. I do not buy that, as has been stated, the Common is just not big enough for the Gala event.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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