Another view on South London Line

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I agree. One of the reasons I moved to Peckham was because of the convenience of the trains.

[Maurice]

I'm terribly sorry for offending a sandperson. It goes against my constitution.

Now we finally see the true debate, one Eileen fears, for good reason. You cannot have both lines. It is not possible. The result will inevitably be neighbourhood wars, as evidenced on this very website. 'TfL v South London' is not accurate. 'Labour v Boris' is telling, but not the main event. It is 'SLL v ELL'.

The entertainment value alone is worth investing in a front row seat.

[R&A]

Surely Eileen has been instrumental in making this a debate by bringing it to our attention in the first place?

The issue is that this decision was made on our behalf, w/out our consultation, despite us paying for all of this as tax payers.

It has been a direct result of the efforts of the few that tfl/boris etc are now revisiting the issue

I'm curious as to why it's 'impossible' to have both lines?

Isn't it all about priorities?

How can we change tfl's current priorities?

.... as it feels like central south london comes way down the priority list....

[Jeremy]

R&A Wrote:

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

> I'm curious as to why it's 'impossible' to have both lines?

Isn't it because they use the same tracks? And as Torben Pieknik said, extra Thameslink services also infringe on sections of the track. I guess there's only so many different services you can run on a section of track.

[R&A]

i think that's the case - but i heard that there is a way around it by 'stacking' the trains

OR for Southwark council to refuse planning permission for london bridge's planned changes unless they compromise somehow?

[Torben Pieknik]

Maurice Wrote:

> Now we finally see the true debate, one Eileen

> fears, for good reason. You cannot have both

> lines. It is not possible. The result will

> inevitably be neighbourhood wars, as evidenced on

> this very website. 'TfL v South London' is not

> accurate. 'Labour v Boris' is telling, but not

> the main event. It is 'SLL v ELL'.

It's not ELL v SLL. It is Thameslink v SLL and ELL v Victoria - Bellingham. The decision to scrap the South London Line is due to Thameslink. Victoria - Bellingham was a proposed alternative to the SLL and is not proceeding due to ELL.

[Maurice]

Indeed it is Torben, and it will set neighbourhood against neighbourhood!

The idea of 'South London' being deprived is a bit misleading, too. Where most of these stations sit used to be Surrey, all while the original 'London' (south being Charing Cross and a bit on the other side) were being taken care of, as was right. Since London has creeped south, technology made tubes difficult, so suburban trains were the solution. Although I understand tunnelling in the clay is no longer the issue.

One could propose trams? Oh that's right, Eileen fought tooth and nail against them in her last battle.

[R&A]

i thought most of those train stations were zone two?

[Jeremy]

Maurice Wrote:

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

> The idea of 'South London' being deprived is a bit

> misleading, too. Where most of these stations sit

> used to be Surrey, all while the original 'London'

> (south being Charing Cross and a bit on the other

> side) were being taken care of, as was right.

Blimey, you're as bad as macroban!! It's firmly within the modern definition of London. That's all that counts.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Surely the whole point of the changes is to reduce the current over-crowding at London Bridge? Many people have to go into London Bridge to then travel east to Canary Wharf, this way they can go direct and relieve the pressure at London Bridge. Its either that or demolish Borough and Borough Market and turn them into more platforms.

Overall the positives balance out the negatives.

[James Barber]

Hi Michael Paleaologus,

London Bridge Station until mid 1970's had several more platforms.

These platforms were removed to make way for a train workers car park and a then new signalling box.

That signalling box is now ancient - I had a tour several months ago - it works by relays clunking away. It felt like going back in time. During that visit the Network Rail managers talked about moving that singalling box into the suburbs and modernising all the signalling.

This would make is very easy to return those lost platforms.

QED plenty of platforms.

[Jeremy]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> this way they can go

> direct and relieve the pressure at London Bridge.

But it's not direct - they'd still have to change. As it is, the Jubilee Line is massively over-crowded in the mornings, and it is almost impossible to board a train at Canada Water.

We'll see if the works on the Jubilee Line (and also cross-rail) improve things... but I imagine Canary Wharf will continue to grow.

[dogkennel]

It might be easy in terms of space at London Bridge, but I'd love to know how much it would cost to construct extra platforms at London Bridge - bound to be many many times more than the ?24 million shortfall that would have funded the Victoria - Bellingham service.

[James]

It all looks pretty simple to me.

The East London Line extension goes from South London to East London. The South London line connects South London to Central London. Therefore to suggest that one is a replacement for the other is absurd. Note that the East London line is the only tube line not to pass through Central London.

I wonder what the good people of North London would say if someone proposed replacing one of their tube lines (say, the Northern) with an overland train that went to East London? Of course, nobody would dare suggest something so ridiculous.

But when it comes to South London they think they can get away with it. This despite the fact that we are notoriously badly served by public transport as it is!

[Steady Eddy]

-