|
Post by vjaska on Dec 6, 2012 13:55:59 GMT
The current Southern service uses the other bridge otherwise why would the Overground use that track if the old line didn't use it - the Overground is just re-using the Inner South London line to full extent between Wandsworth Road & Queens Road.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2012 14:17:21 GMT
The current Southern service uses the other bridge otherwise why would the Overground use that track if the old line didn't use it - the Overground is just re-using the Inner South London line to full extent between Wandsworth Road & Queens Road. Who was suggesting that the Inner South London line/Overground doesn't/wouldn't use the existing line?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 6, 2012 14:28:25 GMT
The current Southern service uses the other bridge otherwise why would the Overground use that track if the old line didn't use it - the Overground is just re-using the Inner South London line to full extent between Wandsworth Road & Queens Road. Who was suggesting that the Inner South London line/Overground doesn't/wouldn't use the existing line? 'Binpod' said that they use the Marks & Spencer bridge when they use the other bridge.
|
|
|
Post by daveb0789 on Dec 6, 2012 16:27:43 GMT
If its of any interest to anyone ill be driving the new service to Clapham Junction from Sunday (although my first shift isn't until a few days later) so I can answer any questions you might have about the line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2012 19:46:10 GMT
Who was suggesting that the Inner South London line/Overground doesn't/wouldn't use the existing line? 'Binpod' said that they use the Marks & Spencer bridge when they use the other bridge. No, what I said was if they were to create platforms for LO at Brixton, I'd suggest opening up the disused platforms, which would mean using the M&S bridge. For the moment though, that will definitely not happen ( ), LO will use the existing bridge/line.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 7, 2012 13:38:24 GMT
'Binpod' said that they use the Marks & Spencer bridge when they use the other bridge. No, what I said was if they were to create platforms for LO at Brixton, I'd suggest opening up the disused platforms, which would mean using the M&S bridge. For the moment though, that will definitely not happen ( ), LO will use the existing bridge/line. TfL have said earlier this year that platforms at Brixton would need to be constructed on the high level route and would cost a huge sum of money - £ tens of millions. The other concern with that option is that the platforms would be on a slope and this is not compliant with the standards that would apply to new platforms. Old ones on a slope have "grandfather rights". I am not very familiar with SR tracks but I looked at a track plan the other day and there aren't crossovers east of Brixton that would get the Overground back onto its route if it was to use the reopened lower platforms (if they could be renovated). Clearly someone could pay for the crossover but it would mean the trains swapping tracks twice and would constrain capacity for other trains using the fast lines (assuming I've understood things properly)!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 18:22:18 GMT
No, what I said was if they were to create platforms for LO at Brixton, I'd suggest opening up the disused platforms, which would mean using the M&S bridge. For the moment though, that will definitely not happen ( ), LO will use the existing bridge/line. TfL have said earlier this year that platforms at Brixton would need to be constructed on the high level route and would cost a huge sum of money - £ tens of millions. The other concern with that option is that the platforms would be on a slope and this is not compliant with the standards that would apply to new platforms. Old ones on a slope have "grandfather rights". I am not very familiar with SR tracks but I looked at a track plan the other day and there aren't crossovers east of Brixton that would get the Overground back onto its route if it was to use the reopened lower platforms (if they could be renovated). Clearly someone could pay for the crossover but it would mean the trains swapping tracks twice and would constrain capacity for other trains using the fast lines (assuming I've understood things properly)! Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 7, 2012 19:04:16 GMT
No, what I said was if they were to create platforms for LO at Brixton, I'd suggest opening up the disused platforms, which would mean using the M&S bridge. For the moment though, that will definitely not happen ( ), LO will use the existing bridge/line. TfL have said earlier this year that platforms at Brixton would need to be constructed on the high level route and would cost a huge sum of money - £ tens of millions. The other concern with that option is that the platforms would be on a slope and this is not compliant with the standards that would apply to new platforms. Old ones on a slope have "grandfather rights". Yeah, I mentioned that earlier in the topic as the same was said of Loughborough Junction when it was announced neither was to get a station. The interchange benefits outweight the cost of building on a high level railway. Surely, the platforms could be built on the bridge that crosses over the Southeastern line to Orpington or they should of brought the burnt out Footlocker store and turned into an Overground station before they sold it to the people who have allowed three new shops to be housed on the same site. They also have the old East Brixton station site with plenty of space to build a new station in it's place and thats on the Overground line - that would go a long way to compensate for no station at either Loughborough Junction or Brixton. Whats the issue with building platforms on a slope if they allowing existing ones to remain as they are - it's ridiculous! At the end of the day, they taken the Inner South London line, altered it's western terminus & missed out, IMO, the two most important stations that the line passes. Apologies for continuing to go on and repeat myself on this topic but I'm very passionate about this particular issue and I mean no harm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 19:27:36 GMT
At the end of the day, they taken the Inner South London line, altered it's western terminus & missed out, IMO, the two most important stations that the line passes. Apologies for continuing to go on and repeat myself on this topic but I'm very passionate about this particular issue and I mean no harm Agreed, I find it weird that Denmark Hill trains miss out Brixton, yet pass through the very center of it. It'd create very useful links in what is a very busy area.
|
|
|
Post by mre81 on Dec 7, 2012 19:51:58 GMT
I suggest you head to London Bridge in the rush hour and take a straw poll of commuters. See how many of them would be happy to go to Victoria instead and take the tube As one of them, I can tell you that I for one would be seriously displeased! Don't forget most of them have the option of going to Victoria, but go to London Bridge instead. As for the fast lines from East Croydon to London Bridge not being well used. Well, in addition to the 4 Thameslink trains per hour, you also have 2 each per hour to Horsham, Tonbridge, Reigate, Tattenham Corner, plus one per hour to Uckfield. As someone who uses these services pretty regularly I can categorically tell you they are well used! Plus you have four central London termini, rather than two. Victoria, Charing X, Cannon Street and London Bridge (five if you include Blackfriars). The decent solution would be to give all Southeastern services from Victoria to Southern. Southeastern seem to operate pretty much as two units anyway, sticking to historical patterns (S.E from Charing X/Cannon St, and LCDR from Victoria), so it probably wouldn't be too tricky. Hell, while we're at it, Southeastern are sh*te, we might as well give all their services to Southern. I bet Southeasterns passengers would be pleased with their cheaper, cleaner, more reliable services ;D I would certainly be pleased if all Southeastern's services went to Southern - but given the Victoria trains via Bromley South stretch right down to Dover/Ashford International I doubt Southeastern would want to share the area with Southern! I didn't mean they weren't used at all - I meant there weren't that many Southern services running into London Bridge relative to Victoria. The Horsham would stay anyway as it serves intermediate stops on at Norwood Junction and New Cross Gate. Tattenham Corner has no alternative service to Victoria, so there's no judging if that would be more popular. Tonbridge would still have a service to London Bridge in the form of Southeastern. I'm only really suggesting the Reigate/Tonbridge/Uckfield/Tattenham Corner are moved over. Horsham/Caterham via Forest Hill would stay as they serve intermediate stops anyway. There's peak Tattenham Corner services to Victoria anyway, and they're not unpopular. The only place that would really suffer would be Reigate, in that respect. The Uckfield service is pretty irregular and never seems to be that heavily loaded when it passes down the Brighton Main Line at Forest Hill. Of course, the total lack of a direct London Victoria - London Bridge link means it's not justifiable anyway - there's not even a bus service let alone a Tube line. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, as I think this could go on for a while ;D Good to have a decent debate though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 20:23:37 GMT
Whats the issue with building platforms on a slope if they allowing existing ones to remain as they are - it's ridiculous! At the end of the day, they taken the Inner South London line, altered it's western terminus & missed out, IMO, the two most important stations that the line passes. Well surely it's pretty obvious that they're not an appropriate design, but the older ones would be so expensive to upgrade, it's not worth it for the moment? It's the same with all structural engineering - you wouldn't build new structures in that design but the cost of getting rid of all of the structures conforming to old practices would be monumental and not worth it. As I've said, I'm sure the cost and benefits of such a situation have been weighed up, of course, it's apparent you don't see eye-to-eye with TFL on the benefit side of things Brixton hardly has the most woeful transport links, compared to some of the areas the Overground was constructed to serve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 20:41:15 GMT
At the end of the day, they taken the Inner South London line, altered it's western terminus & missed out, IMO, the two most important stations that the line passes. Apologies for continuing to go on and repeat myself on this topic but I'm very passionate about this particular issue and I mean no harm Agreed, I find it weird that Denmark Hill trains miss out Brixton, yet pass through the very center of it. It'd create very useful links in what is a very busy area. It's one of the oddities of the rail network that a train can run right through the middle of a busy area and not serve it - the Nunhead - Lewisham branch line runs right by Brockley station. Of course, it wouldn't be feasible to construct a station there, but it's a shame because it's an area which has pretty crap transport links (aside the Overground!) Of course, at the time that line was built there was probably barely anyone living in Brockley, and the expansion of the area wasn't to be predicted. Same goes for Honor Oak Park though that does at least have a decent link to Lewisham (meanwhile Brockley's link is the 484 which is inadequate as a route at the best of times!)
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 7, 2012 20:56:34 GMT
Whats the issue with building platforms on a slope if they allowing existing ones to remain as they are - it's ridiculous! At the end of the day, they taken the Inner South London line, altered it's western terminus & missed out, IMO, the two most important stations that the line passes. Well surely it's pretty obvious that they're not an appropriate design, but the older ones would be so expensive to upgrade, it's not worth it for the moment? It's the same with all structural engineering - you wouldn't build new structures in that design but the cost of getting rid of all of the structures conforming to old practices would be monumental and not worth it. As I've said, I'm sure the cost and benefits of such a situation have been weighed up, of course, it's apparent you don't see eye-to-eye with TFL on the benefit side of things Brixton hardly has the most woeful transport links, compared to some of the areas the Overground was constructed to serve. I've never heard of a problems with platforms on slopes before - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Now if there were major concerns following a number of incidents involving said platforms, then I would easily understand. Your right in Brixton has really good transport links but Brixton is increasing in population all the time as people move out from Central London due to the higher cost in housing & rent prices and when you've got an opportunity to create two excellent interchanges at Loughborough Junction & Brixton, you don't pass them up particularly as I think the benefits outweigh the cost. Removing the buses out of the equation, it's very hard to continue your journey southwards from Brixton as the Victoria Line terminates there and you've got the one service which goes to Orpington. Does anyone know the journey time of the Overground from Clapham High Street to Surrey Quays & Surrey Quays to West Croydon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 21:26:37 GMT
Well surely it's pretty obvious that they're not an appropriate design, but the older ones would be so expensive to upgrade, it's not worth it for the moment? It's the same with all structural engineering - you wouldn't build new structures in that design but the cost of getting rid of all of the structures conforming to old practices would be monumental and not worth it. As I've said, I'm sure the cost and benefits of such a situation have been weighed up, of course, it's apparent you don't see eye-to-eye with TFL on the benefit side of things Brixton hardly has the most woeful transport links, compared to some of the areas the Overground was constructed to serve. I've never heard of a problems with platforms on slopes before - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Now if there were major concerns following a number of incidents involving said platforms, then I would easily understand. Your right in Brixton has really good transport links but Brixton is increasing in population all the time as people move out from Central London due to the higher cost in housing & rent prices and when you've got an opportunity to create two excellent interchanges at Loughborough Junction & Brixton, you don't pass them up particularly as I think the benefits outweigh the cost. Removing the buses out of the equation, it's very hard to continue your journey southwards from Brixton as the Victoria Line terminates there and you've got the one service which goes to Orpington. Does anyone know the journey time of the Overground from Clapham High Street to Surrey Quays & Surrey Quays to West Croydon? I don't think it's very fair to remove buses out of the equation at all if we consider this an integrated transport system. Nobody has to travel everywhere all the time by rail. As I said, a lot of areas which are increasing in population don't have half as good transport links as Brixton. A lot of South London would love to have transport links like Brixton's. There was a very good cartogram of London by population, I'll see if I can find it. And structural engineering is not about waiting for accidents to happen or waiting for things to collapse - that would be a very silly way of doing things. There's obviously a reason that sloped platforms have been decided against - what it is is another question, but structural engineers don't just go "we don't like sloped platforms anymore". There's more risks and complexities behind structures than is immediately visible. BTW, scheduled time from Surrey Quays to West Croydon is 33 mins, Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction is 27 mins - both about half an hour, basically. Surrey Quays to Crystal Palace is 21 mins, and Surrey Quays to New Cross is 5 mins. Surrey Quays to Highbury and Islington is 26 mins.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 7, 2012 23:48:53 GMT
TfL have said earlier this year that platforms at Brixton would need to be constructed on the high level route and would cost a huge sum of money - £ tens of millions. The other concern with that option is that the platforms would be on a slope and this is not compliant with the standards that would apply to new platforms. Old ones on a slope have "grandfather rights". Yeah, I mentioned that earlier in the topic as the same was said of Loughborough Junction when it was announced neither was to get a station. The interchange benefits outweight the cost of building on a high level railway. Surely, the platforms could be built on the bridge that crosses over the Southeastern line to Orpington or they should of brought the burnt out Footlocker store and turned into an Overground station before they sold it to the people who have allowed three new shops to be housed on the same site. They also have the old East Brixton station site with plenty of space to build a new station in it's place and thats on the Overground line - that would go a long way to compensate for no station at either Loughborough Junction or Brixton. Whats the issue with building platforms on a slope if they allowing existing ones to remain as they are - it's ridiculous! At the end of the day, they taken the Inner South London line, altered it's western terminus & missed out, IMO, the two most important stations that the line passes. Apologies for continuing to go on and repeat myself on this topic but I'm very passionate about this particular issue and I mean no harm If we were starting with a clean sheet of paper then I agree with you that serving Brixton would be an excellent idea. When I looked more closely at the route and stations I was rather gobsmacked to see it was not possible to make relatively simple east west journeys because of the lack of platforms and strange railway geography. The line would be much more effective if it served the intermediate locations like Loughborough Junction and Brixton. However we are lumbered with what history has given us. I think you need to recognise that developing the Overground network has been a case of "the art of the possible" and the ability of politicians to get their hands on a lot of money. Ken Livingstone was exceptionally lucky in being able to get a lot of money in the good times. London is exceptionally lucky that over decades he has been in a position to develop today's Overground lines bit by bit. The GLC, prior to Ken, started to develop the North London Line east of Dalston and gave us the basis for having such a good service today. Boris very nearly did not get the money for ELLX Phase 2 - there are all sorts of compromises like Shoreditch being in Zone 1 and LOROL being banned from serving Victoria. None of this is ideal but I would rather have compromises and get the line built and open than get nothing. Once it is open and being used TfL starts to get data and evidence on travel patterns etc to build a case for more investment. TfL are very well aware of the huge potential of serving Brixton but any station would have to be built to modern standards, be accessible and offer good facilities. It is what is expected and it comes with a big bill. My memory may not be working properly but I am pretty sure that Geoff Hobbs of TfL (a good chap that I knew when I worked there) said a Brixton station would cost upwards of £50m which is a lot of money - possibly more than the rest of the ELLX Phase 2 project. I would rather have the project go ahead on its current scope than be turned down because it is too expensive. We need to remember that TfL apparently couldn't find £5m for Surrey Canal Rd stn. It certainly couldn't find money to speculatively acquire property in Brixton just in case a station might be built sometime. I am sure the pressure to serve Brixton will not go away - especially if the new SLL service does very well (as I fully expect it will). The problem we have for the moment is that the immediate problem TfL has is soaring demand on the whole of the Overground network and the next slice of money is to allow for more and longer trains. That is the next bit of work that TfL will do and the Mayor is clearly signed up to it given much of the work is scheduled to finish in 2015/6 just before the next Mayoral election. If TfL are given the right to take over Greater Anglia and South Eastern suburban services under the devolution proposals then this might start to give the basis for more radical ideas on improving interchanges and making services more "logical". The move to concessions, rather than franchises, should also free up over £300m for improvements (according to a report commissioned by TfL). As other schemes are also delivered then more headroom for other works is created - assuming TfL's budget remains broadly similar to today. There are always choices - I'm fed up that the GOBLIN still has not had electrification announced or that bus services have no money for any service development at all. I think that's bonkers, you think not putting more platforms at Brixton / East Brixton is bonkers. Are we both right or both wrong?? The London Assembly are currently consulting on the Mayor's budget. There is the opportunity to tell the Assembly what you think the Mayor should spend his budget on. You have the opportunity to tell them that better and more stations for the Overground in South London is something you would like to see. It is only if we tell politicians about our views and preferences for public expenditure that things get changed even if it takes years to happen. It took well over a decade to get the ELL extended through Hackney to Highbury but we now have that railway because there was political pressure to give Hackney a better railway.
|
|