Camberwell Bakerloo extension looking unilkely

[JohnL]

Sweptwind Wrote:

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

> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20151217-pt1-item0

> 5-commissioner-report.pdf

>

> Page 38 refers to the Bakerloo Line extension. The

> rest is worth a read too.

Thanks - My search skills have let me down :)

[JohnL]

"Subject to funding and securing powers could be completed by 2030"

The above to me reads as never (subject to.. could) being rather cynical :)

[bil]

Disappointing but expected news from the TfL commissioner.

Interesting that he didn't share the details of the 'work' that he mentioned in the report "Since then we have undertaken further work on a number of alternative routes proposed during the initial consultation. The results of that work demonstrate that the preferred route option for a first phase is from Elephant and Castle to Lewisham via Old Kent Road." I thought the consultation showed there was more support for Camberwell route (albeit because there aren't as many residents in the proposed OKR development area able to contribute to the consultation).

Having a Thameslink station in camberwell is not very helpful as there is already a Thameslink station in Denmark hill. Presumably the same train from Denmark hill will serve the camberwell station so it will already be bursting full with people from Bromley, Crofton park, Peckham etc. Unless the trains are more frequent and/or they increase capacity on the trains and/or they terminate and start from the Camberwell station it's not going to solve the capacity problems we see in these parts (and seems like a waste of money to me).

The reason we are crying out for an underground tube service in this area (or closeby) is that the underground runs more frequent services than network rail. The platform inevitably fills up during the 15-20 minutes between network rail trains and everyone has to fit in because there won't be another for another 15-20 minutes (if that train isn't cancelled). Trains coming every 2-3 minutes is what we want and is only offered by having a tube line underground (that doesn't have to share a line with any other train lines). It's a real pity.

If Boris really wants us to stop using cars then better transport options have to be provided that can meet the capacity requirements. Instead we get road closures that create more congestion, continued attempts to be bullied into using bikes or scooter and 'compromise' transport solutions(e.g. London overground line that doesn't connect with Brixton tube or camberwell thameslink when we already have a thameslink)

[Nigello]

Bil - I agree with what you say. I do hope that sense is seen. The best we can do is Tweet Boris and/or write to him in a more traditional way as well as lobbying our MPs.

If Camberwell were to be reinstated as a Thameslink (or A N Other TOC) station, maybe some services could only stop there and miss out Denmark Hill and vice-versa to try to address overcrowding?

[James Barber]

A new station if served by Sevenoaks route could be really useful for Camberwell. Moves afoot to transfer the Sevenoaks route to TfL and it come under the London Overground umbrella. That would be a minimum of 4 train per hour, better stations, London Overground ticketing. Clearly not as useful as a Bakerloo extension. But it could happen much much quicker than 2030.

Also plans afoot for a tram route from Camberwell to London Bridge. Both together could be a useful alternative to a Bakerloo line extension.

[JohnL]

bil Wrote:

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

> Disappointing but expected news from the TfL

> commissioner.

>

> Interesting that he didn't share the details of

> the 'work' that he mentioned in the report "Since

> then we have undertaken further work on a number

> of alternative routes proposed during the initial

> consultation. The results of that work demonstrate

> that the preferred route option for a first phase

> is from Elephant and Castle to Lewisham via Old

> Kent Road." I thought the consultation showed

> there was more support for Camberwell route

> (albeit because there aren't as many residents in

> the proposed OKR development area able to

> contribute to the consultation).

>

Money considerations outweighed people considerations IMHO.

Looking at the history of the Bakerloo Line extension however

over the last 100 years - and you would say why would this

plan be any different to the others? (nothing happened).

[Lazero]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> A new station if served by Sevenoaks route could

> be really useful for Camberwell. Moves afoot to

> transfer the Sevenoaks route to TfL and it come

> under the London Overground umbrella. That would

> be a minimum of 4 train per hour, better stations,

> London Overground ticketing. Clearly not as useful

> as a Bakerloo extension. But it could happen much

> much quicker than 2030.

> Also plans afoot for a tram route from Camberwell

> to London Bridge. Both together could be a useful

> alternative to a Bakerloo line extension.

James - is this the "Southwark Supertram" or a different one? There was a lot of stuff about this a few years ago, I couldn't find anything recent to suggest it's actually happening. Even the website says "a planning application could be lodged by the end of 2012".

Also, what sort of time frame are we talking with the Overground taking over the Sevenoaks route? I'm increasingly frustrated by this train line's overcrowding and delays, and would do whatever I can to support a transfer.

[candp]

Always an excuse, never built. This is a few years old now but still worth a read: http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/bakerloo-southbound-extension.html

[Chief]

Never going to happen. Boris Johnson is a buffoon.

[wulfhound]

Any Thameslink station at Camberwell would presumably also get the Sutton/Wimbledon Loop trains that come up from Herne Hill. Which means not only double the frequency (6 or 8 trains per hour, all being the big 8/12-car Thameslink stock) but a handy connection to SW London. With that and the Supertram, it'd become quite a hub.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@James Barber - There are developments going up all around Cmaberwell Green and along the Thameslink track running between Loughborough Junction and elephant. Why have Southwark not used section 106 planning gain to fund the resurrection of the camberwell station on that route?

[cle]

Wasn't there a proposal with the Bakerloo serving at least Walworth Road and then running under the park to OKR?

Disappointing but completely not surprising. Camberwell developments aren't quite the Qatari billionaire fodder which has all these goons salivating.

Thameslink station is something (it'd need 4 platforms to serve both DH and HH trains?) - but frequency would be decent to Elephant/Blackfriars if so, and possibly could help relieve the bus congestion. Only 8 cars ever though.

[James Barber]

Hi wolfhound,

NR have refused a new station at Camberwell in the past unless they closed Loughborough Junction. So I suspect any new Camberwell station would just served the route not served by Loughborough Junction.

Hi rahrahrah,

Indeed. Why hasn't Southwark COuncil? I'd suggest an attitude that trains are somebody elses problems.

The current administration has just refused to help fund some station accessibility. When ED councillors suggested we go halves with South Camberwell councillors to fund some East Dulwich station (the ward boundary goes down the middle of those tracks) they blanked us. We proceeded to fully fund additional passenger cover ourselves. Rail and public transport is such a common good that my lot think and many councils of all political persuasions agree to help improve things.

Hi Lazero,

Supertram I believe is still bubbling...

[James]

I still find it amazing that when they proposed changes to the Wimbledon loop all hell was let loose... and yet Wimbledon will be getting Crossrail 2 - and already has direct trains to Waterloo about every 5 minutes, and a tube station! Peckham Rye desperately needs direct, frequent trains into Central London (our London Bridge services have actually been cut from 6tph a few years ago to just 4 now, and you can't even change for Charing Cross any more as Southeastern Services no longer stop at London Bridge).

[picmicnic]

I don't understand while a tram would bring any benefit.

Surely if you bring in a tram you have to repurpose an existing road or railway to accommodate it which means no net benefit.

[wulfhound]

NR have refused a new station at Camberwell in the past unless they closed Loughborough Junction. So I suspect any new Camberwell station would just served the route not served by Loughborough Junction.

More's the pity that politics prevents TfL from being allowed to run Thameslink. They actually understands London's travel patterns - NR are stuck in the 80s.. "nobody wants to go anywhere on Sundays, a couple of short-formation trains an hour will be fine".

you can't even change for Charing Cross any more as Southeastern Services no longer stop at London Bridge

Thankfully that's only temporary..ish, til next summer I think.

I don't understand while a tram would bring any benefit.

Surely if you bring in a tram you have to repurpose an existing road or railway to accommodate it which means no net benefit.

Trams can move a lot of people, pretty quickly. A single tram can carry more than twice as many people as a bus, with fast boarding like the much-maligned but actually pretty capable bendybuses; you can repurpose some relatively minor roads and a bit of park (as was originally proposed for the Cross River Tram, though the disadvantage there is that you're not serving the high streets where people most want to go) and/or prioritise them at junctions.

[Nigello]

Guided bus! Trams get the local politicians salivating because it means that their town too is going to be just like Manchester or Innsbruck or Stockholm, never mind the expense. A guided bus - a bendy-bus with a mini wheel that runs along a high kerb on a dedicated stretch of the highway - are relatively cheap and offer the same kind of frequency and capacity as the much more expensive and fashionable tram.

[bil]

Sevenoaks line on London Overground? It's something but we need more frequent services than 4-6 an hour; we need 6-12 times an hour (i.e. underground services). Agreed that any solution is needed before 2030!

[pebs]

This is so disappointing. Even having the Overground trains stopping at Brixton for the Victoria line interchange would be a much needed improvement - you go right past the station!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Why did they bother consulting on this? The money was always going to be used to hike up values on new 'luxury' flats - our infrastructure budget is simply used as a subsidy for property developers under Boris, why pretend otherwise. There was never really any question of it not being the OKR route, even had the Camberwell option received 100% public support. Why patronise us with a phoney consultation.

[JohnL]

Some people (camberwell/peckham) are pleased - seeing transport links as gentrification facilitators. The whole thing does seem profit driven (getting new people in an area rather than looking after people already there).

"Next up are the Bakerloo Line extension and Crossrail 2. The former could create vanishing acts in Camberwell and Peckham Rye, or along the Old Kent Road, depending which route is chosen."

From http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/24/which-london-neighbourhoods-will-disappear-next

[cle]

At the very least, they could continue to boost the existing services - 6tph Overground, more Catford Loop trains (so underused), more trains using the bay platforms in Blackfriars which seem barely used...

And yes Brixton Overground - although I think Crossrail 2 would be needed before Brixton/Victoria Line could take any more people!

[wulfhound]

@ bil most underground isn't 12/hr by the time you get out to the suburbs; as with the Overground, the lines branch. 6/hour off-peak is fairly commonplace in zone 3, I'd say. But there are limits on how many trains they can put on the core, which is dictated by how reliable the lines feeding in are.

Fully or mostly tunnelled Underground can run higher frequencies, being more controlled climate-wise & having less interaction with other services, even then the limit's just over 30 trains an hour. Thameslink will be 24 through the middle, Crossrail about the same, and they've had to spend an enormous amount of money to do that.

Overground has to share track at various places with Southern Metro & some Thameslinks, so 24 through the tunnel at Rotherhithe is very hard to do. Currently it's 16 (4 to each of 4 branches), I think 18 is planned.

All the more reason if you ask me for TfL to take over the non-Thameslink bits of Southern Metro - the West Croydon via Forest Hill line, the Queens Road - North Dulwich line etc. - let them set the timetable to make the most of the tunnel. Though how many per hour they can turn around at Clapham, Dalston, Highbury etc. may also be a limiting factor.

[bil]

Hi Wulfhound

Wouldn't the Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham (via Camberwell) have been an underground service? My impression is that it would be underground. Brixton is in zone 2 and receives frequent services. Similarly Camberwell and Peckham aren't in the suburbs and are both in zone 2 so it could be possible to provide 12/hour if the line from Elephant came to Camberwell/Peckham and then to Lewisham) was a dedicated underground line.

I am certainly looking forward to seeing the changes along the OKR. There is a definite opportunity to provide lots of housing relatively close to central London. Will it be the equivalent of Battersea or Shoreditch?

The government does need to invest in innovative large scale underground infrastructure services that will serve future generations.

At the same time it's a real shame that TFL are not focusing on providing new services in areas where there are few/no underground options and are not providing real viable alternatives.

[wulfhound]

Yes, it would, I was more talking about the prospect of running Tube-like frequencies on the Overground.

Hard for TfL to improve things for existing built up areas at the moment, I guess - so little money from central government, it all has to come from property developers.