Jump to content

Recommended Posts

JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> I have noticed on this thread though, people only

> seem to care about East Dulwich! If nothing goes

> through East Dulwich there is no point in having

> it at all!


Perhaps because it's the East Dulwich Forum.

I'm not sure that's true. I personally think that Camberwell has a rightful claim for any extension of the Bakerloo line and if it was only to be extended that far, it would be a big win. Not least because so many bus routes pass through the green and it would relieve congestion and improve congestion for a large part of SE London.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I'm not sure that's true. I personally think that

> Camberwell has a rightful claim for any extension

> of the Bakerloo line and if it was only to be

> extended that far, it would be a big win. Not

> least because so many bus routes pass through the

> green and it would relieve congestion and improve

> congestion for a large part of SE London.


Not my part :(. But I think Camberwell is too central for it to stop there.

Camberwell is too central for a tube station. As opposed to the rest of central london you mean? The tube is meant to serve high density urban populations such as Camberwell. It's centrality is exactly what makes it a good candidate. It's also a cross roads for most of SE London and massively overcrowded / congested.

I think he meant terminate there, rather than have a station.


I agree, it's the typical South London tube situation of terminating too soon. I doubt the Victoria line could handle further than Brixton, but the Bakerloo is dead half the time. You'd at least want to get to zone 3, say Forest Hill or Lewisham, for example.


Any further out, you'd not want to sit on a hot little toy train but a proper one.

cle Wrote:

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

> I think he meant terminate there, rather than have

> a station.

>

> I agree, it's the typical South London tube

> situation of terminating too soon. I doubt the

> Victoria line could handle further than Brixton,

> but the Bakerloo is dead half the time. You'd at

> least want to get to zone 3, say Forest Hill or

> Lewisham, for example.

>

> Any further out, you'd not want to sit on a hot

> little toy train but a proper one.


No, all tube lines should go to Zone 6. I do not like "proper trains" the tube is a symbol for London and therefore should go to the edges of all the outer boroughs, like Slade Green in mine!

I think tubes work best up to about 3/4. Any longer and you want proper trains which don't stop much in zones 2/3 - much like how Paris's Metro and RER are very distinct in their scopes. But London is a lot more contradictory and random.

cle Wrote:

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

> I think tubes work best up to about 3/4. Any

> longer and you want proper trains which don't stop

> much in zones 2/3 - much like how Paris's Metro

> and RER are very distinct in their scopes. But

> London is a lot more contradictory and random.



Do not tell me what I want. I don't want "proper trains" that "do not stop much" I want tubes in all zones that stop in all zones between 6 and 1 and then back to 6!

And I wasn't personally telling you 'what you want' JamesViktor:


" Any longer and you want proper trains"


was clearly the royal 'you', as in 'one'. Not you yourself. So pipe down.


And feel free to set up a Slade Green Forum if you feel the zone 2/3 chat doesn't meet your geographical needs, clue's in the name...

Perhaps I'm being na?ve, but isn't the East Dulwich Forum basically for discussion about issues that affect East Dulwich, as opposed to Slade Green, Pratts Bottom etc? I'm happy to go on at length about my yoof growing up in Walthamstow and the gang warfare in Woodford Green, but I'm assuming that I would be told pretty swiftly to post on a Walthamstow or Boys From Da Woodford Green Hood MB
  • 4 weeks later...
Boris confirmed "plans to extend the tube in South East London" at the 'State of London' debate the other day apparently. I am fairly sure it will happen *eventually*. I really hope that when it's time does come it benefits the people who live in SE London and isn't just a big public subsidy for property developers to create 'investment properties' along the Old Kent Road.
  • 3 weeks later...
Z you are right... its my understanding from old that they are unable to dig a tunnel for two reasons on the water table is very high in this part of town due to the River flowing under the towns ... and secondly there a number of black death burial sites by the church, the wishing well areas etc... I know that they used to have a tram and trolley bus routes, and think that they would have to do what they have and make it over ground. It would be nice though.

Hi chellbirdse15,

You were correct but modern tunnelling methods allow such tunnelling through SE London.

In fact the last extension of the Bakerloo line was started and then sadly stopped early 1950;s due to economic situation - not due to soil conditions.


I'm delighted to have nudged the Labour administration agreeing to campaign for two branches of the line - Camberwell * OKR.

Hi James


Can you provide any more details about the proposed routes for both the Camberwell and OKR lines?


Attached is the London PTAL map for SE London (taken from http://maptube.org/map.aspx?mapid=131) overlaid with my best guess as to the proposed routes based on

a) one line through Camberwell, the other through OKR

b) the stations for each line being based roughly on the options presented in the 2005?06 TLF Bakerloo line extension proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakerloo_line_extension_to_Camberwell).


Is this what is being considered?


Thanks

Mike


Note, in the attached photo

Brown line = New Bakerloo line extension

Black line = Existing Bakerloo line or the Hayes line

Red area of map = PTAL score of 1 = Poor transport links

Green area of map = PTAL score of 6 = Excellent transport links

I'd think that a second Camberwell branch would be relatively short - to be an inner city service and allow less tubes (terminus closer to town).


Maybe Walworth Road/Burgess Park, Camberwell Green, Denmark Hill (v close to each other, but a must for connections), East Dulwich, Dulwich Library, Forest Hill - maybe Catford. That's surely enough.


The other one I'd not send past Lewisham - taking over St Johns station for good and getting rid of the New Cross overground branch, and sending those trains elsewhere on the route.

TfL are surely the ones to decide though. I don't think local councils have much clout on issues like this, beyond some diluted lobbying ability. Do TfL care, when it's the developers who call the tune?


Perhaps a compromise route would be down the OKR but then swing south to Peckham Library/Centre and then onwards east again?


Totally misses Camberwell though - and probably too far north for Peckham Rye station too, hence not great in terms of interchanges.

I don't get why people think it would be of significant benefit to have the Bakerloo line go to Camberwell / Walworth Road. Looking at the PTAL scores (http://maptube.org/map.aspx?mapid=131) - it looks like Camberwell / Walworth Road already have great transport links.

However other areas of Southwark (Nunhead, Honor Oak Park, The areas surrounding the southern end of Peckham rye park, Forrest hill) do have poor transport links. I don?t get why these areas are not being focused on.

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

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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