tube station in ED

[????]

So are BBC journalists on strike today or not? The coffee bars of Hampstead must be chocker.....

[Earl Aelfheah]

Medley Wrote:

> Technical reasons - may be the most pressing being

> not enough rich and connected people live in SE

> London?!

Yeah, I think this is probably closer to the truth. It amazes me that cross rail get's the go ahead, whilst SE london, which has crp transport can't even secure the much cheaper tram. Ealing really does need that forth tube station eh?

[flocker spotter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakerloo_line_extension_to_Camberwell

[ruffers]

I never get these threads. Forest Hill or East Dulwich to London Bridge isn't any slower than a tube would be surely.. apart from late night frequency but that's for most the exception, not the daily rule.

[Huggers]

apparently the Victoria line extends to Herne Hill and the trains turn under there.

[Earl Aelfheah]

ruffers Wrote:

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

> I never get these threads. Forest Hill or East

> Dulwich to London Bridge isn't any slower than a

> tube would be surely.. apart from late night

> frequency but that's for most the exception, not

> the daily rule.

The train often takes longer than the 12 minutes claimed. My morning train takes closer to 20.

An extension of the Bakerloo line would connect directly with far more places in central London - London Bridge is fine as a starting point for your journey, but for most it's not the destination.

And the frequency is a big issue - Two trains an hour post 8 O'clock. Only four trains an hour, before 8 on Saturdays. And on Sunday, two trains an hour up to 10pm, in the rare event of their running at all!

This is hardly a 'turn up and go' service. The tube has it's faults, but at least when it's running properly, the service is frequent and it takes you were you want to go quickly.

[genwilliams]

Hear hear. And if a train is delayed or cancelled, you can be stuck for ages. I wouldn't expect or hope for a tube station in East Dulwich, but ANYWHERE between ED and the Elephant and Castle really would make life a lot easier - it is very strange and outdated that the Bakerloo line should terminate in zone 1!

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The train often takes longer than the 12 minutes

> claimed. My morning train takes closer to 20.

>

> An extension of the Bakerloo line would connect

> directly with far more places in central London -

> London Bridge is fine as a starting point for your

> journey, but for most it's not the destination.

>

> And the frequency is a big issue - Two trains an

> hour post 8 O'clock. Only four trains an hour,

> before 8 on Saturdays. And on Sunday, two trains

> an hour up to 10pm, in the rare event of their

> running at all!

>

> This is hardly a 'turn up and go' service. The

> tube has it's faults, but at least when it's

> running properly, the service is frequent and it

> takes you were you want to go quickly.

[Nero]

The new Overground service is very good - fast, fairly frequent, extremely clean and quiet and - becauase all the carriages are interlinked - a safer feeling. The only thing against it is getting to Honor Oak park to get on it! I know there is a thread about the 63 and wishes for the route to be extended so it goes to HOP, but I am 'just saying' here that now we have a good, new service that is crying out to be used - to return the investment in it - it seems very daft that there is no bus service that will take you there from SE15/22.

[Sue]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

Only four trains an hour, before 8 on Saturdays.

xxxxxxxx

Surely that's not too bad? I prefer the bus, but if you just miss one train fifteen minutes isn't that long to wait for another one is it?

[James Barber]

Hi Nero,

Proposals to extend the no.63 to Honor Oak were suggested about two years ago ansd were part of the May election campaign. Throughout Transport for London siad insufficient users forecast. East London Line has seen twice as many users as they predicted - so QED you'd think they'd expect the no.63 bus extension NOW to actually have twice as many users as they originally suggested. But apparently that was different.

Hi Ivydale,

I'm afraid I don't. But if I come across anything I'll post it hear.

[mikese22]

You can get the 185 or 176 to forest hill and catch the overground

Nero Wrote:

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

> The new Overground service is very good - fast,

> fairly frequent, extremely clean and quiet and -

> becauase all the carriages are interlinked - a

> safer feeling. The only thing against it is

> getting to Honor Oak park to get on it! I know

> there is a thread about the 63 and wishes for the

> route to be extended so it goes to HOP, but I am

> 'just saying' here that now we have a good, new

> service that is crying out to be used - to return

> the investment in it - it seems very daft that

> there is no bus service that will take you there

> from SE15/22.

[Medley]

Totally agree.

'ooh look a shiny new thing - shame you can't get to it'.

Phase two of shiny new thing is launched through P Rye

'ooh look a shiny new thing - shame it goes nowhere'

I know integrated planning and execution is harder in any field than just slapping something down - esp. in transport, perhaps, but why oh why oh why can there not be more understanding that London'd transport is a system. I don't care what mode I use to get somewhere, I just want to get there as quickly, pleasantly and cheaply as possible.

I was very interested to read that there had been the chance to get Phase 2 of the Overground, through P Rye, to link up with the Vict line at Brixton. Now that would have been integration worth having.

mikese22 Wrote:

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

> You can get the 185 or 176 to forest hill and

> catch the overground

>

> Nero Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The new Overground service is very good - fast,

> > fairly frequent, extremely clean and quiet and

> -

> > becauase all the carriages are interlinked - a

> > safer feeling. The only thing against it is

> > getting to Honor Oak park to get on it! I know

> > there is a thread about the 63 and wishes for

> the

> > route to be extended so it goes to HOP, but I

> am

> > 'just saying' here that now we have a good, new

> > service that is crying out to be used - to

> return

> > the investment in it - it seems very daft that

> > there is no bus service that will take you

> there

> > from SE15/22.

[Medley]

Interesting about those figs James. I always suspected that there was a huge amount of unrecorded travel and suppressed demand. It's a variant of the old tactic of running a cr*p service and then claiming there's no demand for it.

[Nero]

So, James, does that mean that we in effect have to like it and lump it, or is there another attempt to get the 63 to go to Honor Oak Park station? I saw a billboard outside the newsagent's last week which was headlining a story about the 63, hence my interest.

[Siduhe]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Nero,

> Proposals to extend the no.63 to Honor Oak were

> suggested about two years ago ansd were part of

> the May election campaign. Throughout Transport

> for London siad insufficient users forecast.

I think I posted this at the time, but I still think it was particularly sneaky of TFL to carry out the survey of the 63 and 363 buses on the Tuesday after a Bank Holiday and then to rely on the results to suggest these routes were not likely to carry sufficient extra users to need changing.

[Medley]

That IS sneaky.

[untamedstylist]

wow, this thread really took off.... and some peoplefrom the later posts ie: pg 2 and 3 actually get my point! (tu)

[James Barber]

Hi Nero,

The newspaper story was the Peckham Rye ward councillor and Lambeth and Southwark GLA rep. 'launching' a campaign to extend the no.63 bus - an idea they rubbished when proposed by Lib Dem candidates two years ago.

So much for cross party unison for such an obviously great idea.

All bus routes are subsidised in London - total of ?900M pa last time I looked. So even a well used peak time extension would be tough to finance in the current national crisis.

I suspect this something for 4-5 years time when the crisis is over.

[njc97]

Nero - as well as the buses to Forest hill above, you could take the p13 to new cross gate or 484 to brockley.

[Medley]

That's all true, but it doesn't get you from ED to the Overground quickly.

njc97 Wrote:

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

> Nero - as well as the buses to Forest hill above,

> you could take the p13 to new cross gate or 484 to

> brockley.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just been reading about plans to extend the Northern Line from Kennington to Nine Elms and Battersea!?!? Yes, the Battersea with three existing train stations and excellent existing transport links. It does seem that the public transport strategy for London is to saturate west London with as much transport as possible (crossrail anyone?), whilst doing everything possible to ensure that southeast london continues to be completely whitewashed from the transport map.

[Nero]

The story in the Standard also says that the developers of Battersea Power Station are required to pay some ?200m to help with the extension, so it is not just a case of TfL/Ministry of Transport dishing out the cash.

On a more positive note, I have been using the Overground service from Honor Oak Park and have really valued it, even if I have to yomp (ask yer dad) from Goodrich School to the station.

[felt-tip]

The Overground service is brilliant. If I'm visiting friends out East then getting back is a doddle. Just get off at Forest Hill and then catch the 176/185 down LL. Nice.

[SeanMacGabhann]

doesn't Dulwich have 3 existing train stations?

[Earl Aelfheah]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> >

> doesn't Dulwich have 3 existing train stations?

yes, dulwich does have 3 stations, but Walworth and Camberwell for example, have none. Southeast London as a whole only has 10 tube stations and 7 of which are in zone 1 (so central london really). I just think that any extension of the northern line from Kennington should come south east (to help fill a little of the gaping hole in the tube map).

Also, hwile it's true that developers of Battersea may contribute ?200m to any extension, the overall cost will be somewhere in the region of ?663m, so not an insignificant bill to the tax payer.

Crossrail which largely involves increasing the already exceptional tube provision in west london, is costing ?15.9 billion. Yet, always the reason why lines cannot be extended, even into inner SE London, is that it's too expensive.

Pesonally, any future expansion south of the river, should involve improving infrastructure in what is clearly the most poorly served quater of London.