Bakerloo Line extension petition through Camberwell and Peckham

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Jeremy]

I don't think people stating their preference is "selfish"... nothing wrong with hearing both sides of the argument.

Not that it's going to make much difference to anything at the end of the day..

[Earl Aelfheah]

I completely agree Jeremy - including that it's all pretty academic unfortunately.

[holloway]

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...

[edcam]

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.

[Medley]

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/

[Jeremy]

London Overground is not really comparable to the tube. 4 trains an hour and barely enters zone 1.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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/

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Zebedee Tring]

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.

[Jeremy]

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...

[Medley]

The Burgess Pk area has a dire need for better public t.

LO being only 4 per hour - depends on your LO. At HOP it's 8 per hour.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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...

[PN33]

> LO being only 4 per hour - depends on your LO. At

> HOP it's 8 per hour.

Is that not because you get 4 per hour in each direction? Which is the same as Denmark Hill, Forest Hill etc

[Medley]

No, I'm talking about each way.

E.g. next trains from HOP to C Water are:

17.26

17.36

17.41

17.51

17.56

18.06

18.11

18.21

[v_the_gelfling]

Medley's right. Overground, i consider to be the Orange line, of which the services are very frequent. Overground as in National Rail is a different story, 4 trains an hour.

[Medley]

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.

[d.b]

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.

[Medley]

Oh totally agree - I was pointing to HOP/FH to make the contrast.

[Bic Basher]

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).

[JamesViktor]

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.

[genwilliams]

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?

[pebs]

it certainly would be a lot better if you did not have to change trains at clapham jn!