michael_FH

Is it the junction with Sydenham Hill? Plans were made available here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/london-road-sydenham-hill Can't say I'm particularly keen on the designs from a pedestrian perspective but cyclist will be able to do all sorts of exciting things.

If you are retired you might find the University of the Third Age, Dulwich Branch writing group would be of interest: http://u3asites.org.uk/code/u3asite.php?site=678&page=39720 They meet in Forest Hill and my mother speaks very highly of the teacher and the course.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Also interesting comment about the listed > structure. I remember thinking before the works > that the existing platform roof/structure could > look wonderful if it was restored. No such luck! The roof will be restored. You will just have to go to Aberystwyth to see it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-22706442 I am sure that it will be better maintained for a few tourists in Wales than it was for millions of commuters in London.

JamesViktor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The problem with national rail is that it is shit. Included in the GLA document is a plan for TfL to take over the management of metro services - so many of the Southern services in South London would come under the control of TfL and probably be integrated into Overground (which is much more reliable and well respected than Southern).

JamesViktor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The route between Beckenham Junction and Bromley > North is beyond pointless! Possibly quite clever; as it takes the trains to a sensible terminus. It would be unlikely that there would be enough space at Beckenham. Unfortunately this scheme will run mainly above ground, taking over existing capacity. Longer term longer tunnels would have been better and would provide much more additional capacity than taking over existing lines. Despite this I will support any route for the Bakerloo line extension through South East London as the area really needs it and the 3:1 benefit rating is massive for transport projects, which makes it more likely to happen sooner rather than later.

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.

I still don't see why, if the issue is better transport links for Camberwell, that an extra stop between Loughborough Junction and Elephant and Castle is not a better (cheaper) solution. With trains passing over Camberwell every five minutes, I don't really see that a new line is the best solution for this location (when Old Kent Road is an alternative). Can anybody explain this underground need at Camberwell to me? With Crossrail 2 looking like more of a certainty, and deliberately designed to relieve overcrowding on the Victoria line, it would make sense to reconsider a Brixton Overground station as part of this programme. To provide orbital connections from a major inner London town centre, and better connections to West London/West End from South East London. The extension of DLR from Lewisham to Catford would be tricky, but logical if it can be achieved (and supported by large development opportunities). Taking DLR much further would be counterproductive due to capacity issues. Extension of Overground from New Cross to Lewisham, possibly terminating at Hither Green, would make use of an otherwise pointless branch line. But should not be at the expense of existing longer trains into London Bridge. With all these lower cost solutions out the way, we can consider how best to use Bakerloo line extension. And I continue to believe this would be best in a tunnel to provide high frequency service without impact other (longer) train services above ground. Possible Routes (from north to south): 1. Jubilee line relief - Down to Old Kent Road, then across to Isle of Dogs, and possible down to Sidcup or anywhere else 2. Lewisham (there is little value continuing beyond Lewisham following existing routes that have sufficient capacity for the next 20 years) 3. Catford route via Old Kent Road, Crofton Park, Catford and continue underground to Bromley town centre 4. Forest Hill route via Old Kent Road, Peckham Rye, Barry Road, Forest Hill, and on to Beckenham 5. Crystal Palace route via the Old Kent Road and underground following the old High Level Line My view is that route 1 is a missed opportunity (although demand may justify it), route 2 is a waste of an opportunity (just like Nine Elms route of Northern Line). Routes 3-5 make more sense, 5 is particularly sensible if there are major plans to rebuild Crystal Palace. But I would support any route through South East London if it increased capacity on the rail network.

By definition two branches are more expensive than one branch. So it is possible that two phases could be undertaken eventually, but at the moment the main focus needs to be on getting public funding for a Bakerloo line extension to somewhere in South London. The Old Kent Road is looking like a easier route to justify through house building, but it is not clear where it should go after. Some in Lewisham are currently lobbying for an extension of the Overground from New Cross to Lewisham (and beyond), which does make sense, but it is questionable whether the Bakerloo line should also go to Lewisham or whether it could take another route, for example via Peckham and Lordship Lane to Crystal Palace. If you work on the premise that it should go though a tunnel, rather than use existing above ground tracks, then virtually any route is possible. But two tunnels would be very expensive.

ee box works well for my partner. I have never had any problems on 3. I think different devices can cope with different signal strengths, so this might actually have more affect than the provider.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TfL don't want a little extension. They want a > multibillion extension that annoys outer London > tory boroughs such that they don't support it. > Until TfL scales back the extension solely to > inner London boroughs it will go knowhere with a > tory Mayor of London. The only reason outer London boroughs are apparently opposed is that the plans put to them would lose their fast services to central London (i.e. the Hayes line). This is another reason why the extension should stay underground as far as possible (out to zone 4 and the outer London boroughs). If the underground line connects a major town centre in outer London (Beckenham, Crystal Palace, Bromley) then they will attract more visitors from inner London without increasing traffic, so this is something that could be quite attractive to a council like Bromley, once the threat of slower train services is removed. Slowly the debate is shifting within TfL and wider political discussion in favour of Bakerloo extension. This might be after Crossrail2, but we should be lobbying for Bakerloo extension to be the next major tunnelling project in London after Crossrail2 (or even at the same time). Over the next couple of years I hope that people of South East London will put pressure on all politicians to seriously consider the advantages of the Bakerloo line extension so that it becomes a manifesto commitment for all political parties in the 2016 elections. This is exactly the type of issue where out votes for GLA should be brought to bear as it is the most important issue for the development of South East London and is in the control of the GLA/Mayor (with funding necessary from DfT).

Wavy girl: "There is no tube round here?get used to it" There is also no cinema and a shortage or school places, perhaps we should just get used to that? There is a serious problem looming in South East London with a lack of rail infrastructure. We can make trains a bit longer, and we might even manage to increase frequency on some of the lines, but in the next 10-20 years the predictions are that there will be a serious shortage of capacity of the railway in South East London. The best way to solve this problem is to create a new frequent route into London that does not use the existing rail network and for the last 80 years or so there have been plans being developed to extend the Bakerloo line (this is not a new idea, but it is an idea whose time has come). The exact route is not really so important as much as increasing capacity and intersecting with existing lines. This is why my preference is an underground extention to the Bakerloo line roughly following the 176 bus or possibly the 63 bus route. It should not take over existing lines (i.e. Hayes) but continue underground to zone 4, ending somewhere between Crystal Palace and Bromley. However, if what is really wanted is a station in Camberwell / Walworth Road, then the fastest solution is to stick one on the National Rail line as there used to be. The Bakerloo line is a good answer but to a much larger question than the Camberwell issue.

The Overground trains are being extended to 5 carriages from the current 4 carriages. This is due for delivery at the end of 2014. There were signal problems this morning which probably made things worse than normal. I think the trains used to be much more crowded before the Overground, when we all had to pile into the luggage section of the slam door trains at Forest Hill, which then ran fast to New Cross Gate. Honor Oak Park used to have 4 trains per hour, it now has 14 trains per hour - which must be one of the biggest increases in train frequency in the country. You are right about Canada Water, what they should do is set both escalators to down in the morning, and customers wishing to switch from the Jubilee to Overground would be able to access via the ticket office.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The last time I asked the annual bus subsidy per > route was ?4M. > The proposed Bakerloo extension is being touted at > circa ?2bn. > > Over crowded buses wont win the business case > argument. If anything bus routes would be cut to > help finance it. I don't think the subsidy per route is that high (especially not in South East London), but I think the cost of a proper Bakerloo line extension (going underground not using existing rail tracks) is higher. You are correct that overcrowding on buses doesn't automatically provide a business case, but it does show a significant capacity issue in the South East corridor, and almost certainly supressed demand and slow connection times. It is the supressed demand for public transport, and tube particularly, in South East London that is the reason for improving capacity. Bakerloo line is not the most cost effective method in the short term, but you cannot compare capital expenditure to running costs on alternative service. If this were the case then the case against Channel Tunnel would have been overwhelming - why not just run a few additional hovercraft? A business case for HS2 is based on the amount of time wasted by people travelling to meetings in Birmingham, so how time is wasted by bus commuters (long journey time and waiting for full buses to go past) when they could be busy working? Bakerloo line extension is about so much more than bus capacity, but bus overcrowding in South East London is a clear indication that something serious is wrong in South East London and that a radical solution is probably required, and the right solution is obvious for anyone to see.

Good idea Townleygreen. Perhaps we could get a route that would go through Peckham and up to the newly rebuilt Crystal Palace, then on to Beckenham and/or Croydon. All this should be underground rather than taking up space on our already congested rail system.

?24m sounds a lot until you realise that ?30m on Oyster is unspent every year. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10162991 Which more than makes up for the cost of handling cash. As maxxi pointed out, it is not cash payments that delay buses most, it is random questions to drivers from people who have no intension of boarding, and people who have no intension of paying by cash or Oyster. People complain about having to buy pre-paid credit cards to get the best deals on low cost airlines, I see no reason why we have allowed this to become acceptable on public transport.