|
Post by sid on Jul 11, 2017 12:03:41 GMT
Generally I'm sure people will just head for their nearest railway station, I don't envisage people going out of their way to get to Crossrail. I expect the Southeastern service from Woolwich to Blackheath and Lewisham, with a change there for New Cross, will have plenty of spare capacity which could make the 53 vulnerable? Given the substantial amount of development planned, any drop in demand on Southeastern west of Woolwich is likely to be short term. As has been noted, there may well be a shake out of passengers who headed to North Greenwich returning to Southeastern as the service returns to normal after the London Bridge rebuild. Very few people west of Charlton, unless they have a very specific journey demand, will head into Woolwich for Crossrail because they will need to add zone 4 to their journey - go to North Greenwich, and you only need zone 2. Similarly, I don't see the 53 being under threat from the example you give. Firstly, Southeastern services are more expensive. Secondly, there will only be a train every half hour through the Blackheath tunnel to Lewisham. The 53 also sees a lot of through traffic to the railway desert west of New Cross Gate up to the Elephant. That said, I was slightly surprised that the 53 survived east of Woolwich, as I was expecting this to fall to some kind of local feeder service. I don't think the fact trains are more expensive is something TfL concern themselves with. Yes it will only be 2tph to Blackheath but a lot more trains via Greenwich which go in close proximity to the 53 route.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 11, 2017 16:04:45 GMT
Re. the Woolwich/Greenwich NR line : my suspicion is that the Southeastern side of Abbey Wood, Plumstead, the Southeastern side of Woolwich Arsenal and possibly Woolwich Dockyard will see a decrease in numbers using them. TfL may have a nasty shock if they believe other stations will have a decrease, and I also think many passengers from Slade Green, Erith and Belvedere will remain on their Southeastern train into Central London, especially if they have a seat. Oh, and snoggle, as is very often the case with you, that is a fine summarisation of the likely positives and negatives of the South East London bus changes. 😊 Why, thank you (bows). What seems to be the case is that no increase in capacity, other than from "crush 'em in" class 700s on the semi fast Thameslink service, will be offered through Woolwich and Greenwich. That's the DfT's current assumption borne from the expectation of a mass transfer to Crossrail. However the scale of housing development from the Elephant right through to Erith near the Greenwich line is enormous. Those new residents won't all be walking to jobs down the road, they will wish to reach the City and West End and possibly Stratford. This is why I feel that assuming a sustained "emptying out" of the Greenwich line service is a nonsense. It'll be pretty short lived as you, Danorak and others have said. People may also find Crossrail unattractive to use if they have regularly have to stand but could get a SE train with a seat. Some people do place a high value on that and would even incur a small time and financial penalty to gain. Choices are rarely straightforward. There is another factor that may come into play. We don't actually know what Crossrail's fares will be nor how its fares structure will interract with that of South Eastern. Furthermore we do not know if there is any desire on the part of the DfT to see fares alignmnent (more as a political point - whatever the Mayor can do, we can do too). In particular removal of the Z1 add on fare would make South Eastern trains far more attractive to reach Zone 1 and then access the tube. The Fares Freeze is a complication but likely only a short term one. Equalling up the fare scales would generally be well received and is likely to be revenue generative so is a plausible proposition for a franchisee to put forward. It may also alter the assumed modal split in South East London in ways that could be significant. DfT could choose to adopt the same principle on the Kent Thameslink service as the franchise revenue risk is held by DfT not GTR. The advent of Crossrail, the interchange with Thameslink at Farringdon and the unexpected Kent Thameslink service all create a need for some change to current fares arrangements.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 11, 2017 16:12:36 GMT
Similarly, I don't see the 53 being under threat from the example you give. Firstly, Southeastern services are more expensive. Secondly, there will only be a train every half hour through the Blackheath tunnel to Lewisham. The 53 also sees a lot of through traffic to the railway desert west of New Cross Gate up to the Elephant. That said, I was slightly surprised that the 53 survived east of Woolwich, as I was expecting this to fall to some kind of local feeder service. Agreed about the 53. I suspect TfL do not wish to upset people in a number of areas, including Blackheath, by fiddling with the 53. I think the decision to leave it all east of Woolwich is a tacit acceptance on TfL's part that its operation from Plumstead garage is reasonably efficient in resource terms. The second aspect is that I doubt there is sufficient stand space in and around Woolwich to cater for a high frequency service like the 53 *and* another local service to cover the section to Plumstead. As TfL are trying not to increase costs too much I can see why the 53 was left alone despite all the speculation we had here.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 11, 2017 18:32:21 GMT
Similarly, I don't see the 53 being under threat from the example you give. Firstly, Southeastern services are more expensive. Secondly, there will only be a train every half hour through the Blackheath tunnel to Lewisham. The 53 also sees a lot of through traffic to the railway desert west of New Cross Gate up to the Elephant. That said, I was slightly surprised that the 53 survived east of Woolwich, as I was expecting this to fall to some kind of local feeder service. Agreed about the 53. I suspect TfL do not wish to upset people in a number of areas, including Blackheath, by fiddling with the 53. I think the decision to leave it all east of Woolwich is a tacit acceptance on TfL's part that its operation from Plumstead garage is reasonably efficient in resource terms. The second aspect is that I doubt there is sufficient stand space in and around Woolwich to cater for a high frequency service like the 53 *and* another local service to cover the section to Plumstead. As TfL are trying not to increase costs too much I can see why the 53 was left alone despite all the speculation we had here. They could of easily cut the 53 back to Woolwich & extended the 54 to Plumstead without causing too much hassle especially as the 54 parallels the 53 for a sizeable section.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 11, 2017 18:34:42 GMT
Agreed about the 53. I suspect TfL do not wish to upset people in a number of areas, including Blackheath, by fiddling with the 53. I think the decision to leave it all east of Woolwich is a tacit acceptance on TfL's part that its operation from Plumstead garage is reasonably efficient in resource terms. The second aspect is that I doubt there is sufficient stand space in and around Woolwich to cater for a high frequency service like the 53 *and* another local service to cover the section to Plumstead. As TfL are trying not to increase costs too much I can see why the 53 was left alone despite all the speculation we had here. They could of easily cut the 53 back to Woolwich & extended the 54 to Plumstead without causing too much hassle especially as the 54 parallels the 53 for a sizeable section. The 53 also does have the issue of many politicians and "important" people living on it. When it was cut to Lambeth North a year ago the amount of media attention the route received was amazing. Considering the 53 is currently already cut back to Lambeth North for the umpteenth time TfL not want to take the risk of cutting the 53 back on the other end as well.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 11, 2017 18:37:48 GMT
They could of easily cut the 53 back to Woolwich & extended the 54 to Plumstead without causing too much hassle especially as the 54 parallels the 53 for a sizeable section. The 53 also does have the issue of many politicians and "important" people living on it. When it was cut to Lambeth North a year ago the amount of media attention the route received was amazing. Considering the 53 is currently already cut back to Lambeth North for the umpteenth time TfL not want to take the risk of cutting the 53 back on the other end as well. Fair point, forgot it was still cut back to Lambeth North......again However, once those Whitehall/Parliament Square works have finished, it's a change that should of been explored especially as the section between Plumstead & Woolwich isn't as busy (yet still very useful) as the rest of the route.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 11, 2017 18:44:16 GMT
They could of easily cut the 53 back to Woolwich & extended the 54 to Plumstead without causing too much hassle especially as the 54 parallels the 53 for a sizeable section. The 53 also does have the issue of many politicians and "important" people living on it. When it was cut to Lambeth North a year ago the amount of media attention the route received was amazing. Considering the 53 is currently already cut back to Lambeth North for the umpteenth time TfL not want to take the risk of cutting the 53 back on the other end as well. I think there's an important lesson with the 53, which is that you have to kick up a row when TfL comes along with one of its 'temporary' curtailments, otherwise it becomes permanent if they think no-one's bothered! (qv the 3, 15, 25 etc).
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 11, 2017 18:53:36 GMT
Agreed about the 53. I suspect TfL do not wish to upset people in a number of areas, including Blackheath, by fiddling with the 53. I think the decision to leave it all east of Woolwich is a tacit acceptance on TfL's part that its operation from Plumstead garage is reasonably efficient in resource terms. The second aspect is that I doubt there is sufficient stand space in and around Woolwich to cater for a high frequency service like the 53 *and* another local service to cover the section to Plumstead. As TfL are trying not to increase costs too much I can see why the 53 was left alone despite all the speculation we had here. They could of easily cut the 53 back to Woolwich & extended the 54 to Plumstead without causing too much hassle especially as the 54 parallels the 53 for a sizeable section. I think it would need another route as well such as the 122 to retain a decent frequency on what can be a busy section?
|
|
|
Post by Whitherminter on Jul 11, 2017 19:12:38 GMT
They could of easily cut the 53 back to Woolwich & extended the 54 to Plumstead without causing too much hassle especially as the 54 parallels the 53 for a sizeable section. I think it would need another route as well such as the 122 to retain a decent frequency on what can be a busy section? Perhaps the 301 could have been diverted? I feel that the 54 and a SD 301 together would be a reasonable replacement!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 19:20:02 GMT
Do we know if Southeast Trains are going continue to run the London Charing X to Gillingham train, via Blackheath/Woolwich, as Thameslink are starting a similar service?
Good shout for the B11 terminating in Belvedere Indusrial area, don't agree in the dip in frequency though, I would make it every 10 minutes.
Similar 291/244 I wouldn't upgrade to double decker, ai would rather go for an increased frequency.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 12, 2017 19:52:59 GMT
Do we know if Southeast Trains are going continue to run the London Charing X to Gillingham train, via Blackheath/Woolwich, as Thameslink are starting a similar service? Good shout for the B11 terminating in Belvedere Indusrial area, don't agree in the dip in frequency though, I would make it every 10 minutes. Similar 291/244 I wouldn't upgrade to double decker, ai would rather go for an increased frequency. It is being replaced by a daily Dartford - Charing Cross all stopper via Woolwich and Lewisham.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jul 12, 2017 23:51:10 GMT
Did TfL factor in increased demand at Abbey Wood & Woolwich caused by Thameslink services into North London and Luton Airport?
It will still be a pig to get to Eltham and Welling from Abbey Wood. The 469 doesn't even get a turn-up and ride frequency. The 469 changes leave the 229 to fend for itself along Abbey Road and the extra passengers that will travel from Belvedere to Abbey Wood.
I was surprised the 53 survived. Problem with axing it is that Plumstead Common would lose much needed capacity and a new high frequency route would need to replace it or 2-3 separate routes combined.
I responded, but will write to my local MP and our City Hall representative as TfL won't listen to us plebs. The questionnaire is deliberately narrow and designed to control the response and stifle discussion of alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 13, 2017 1:36:06 GMT
I was surprised the 53 survived. Problem with axing it is that Plumstead Common would lose much needed capacity and a new high frequency route would need to replace it or 2-3 separate routes combined. Is demand really that high on that section - I mean it's useful but does it really require a high frequency route rather than just simply extending the 54 along it and cutting the 53 back to Woolwich?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 13, 2017 1:42:25 GMT
Do we know if Southeast Trains are going continue to run the London Charing X to Gillingham train, via Blackheath/Woolwich, as Thameslink are starting a similar service? Good shout for the B11 terminating in Belvedere Indusrial area, don't agree in the dip in frequency though, I would make it every 10 minutes. Similar 291/244 I wouldn't upgrade to double decker, ai would rather go for an increased frequency. As an outsider, having a 10 minute B11 alongside the 301 which will run over a number of similar sections to the B11 seems extremely overkill personally and the drop to every 20 minutes seems perfectly reasonable IMO. I do agree with the extension idea but even then, I'd still agree with the 20 minute frequency cut. The 291 is already at 10 minutes and I think a frequency increase from here wouldn't be as beneficial as double deckers - I'd be very grateful to get routes converting to double decks considering many other deserving single deck route candidates are not as lucky.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 13, 2017 6:16:15 GMT
I was surprised the 53 survived. Problem with axing it is that Plumstead Common would lose much needed capacity and a new high frequency route would need to replace it or 2-3 separate routes combined. Is demand really that high on that section - I mean it's useful but does it really require a high frequency route rather than just simply extending the 54 along it and cutting the 53 back to Woolwich? It's very busy, vjaska. Replacing the 53 with the 54 would make (especially) peak crowding from Woolwich to Plumstead Common unbearable - even now it's very easy for longer distance 51 customers to be crowded out of travelling by people going just a few stops.
|
|