|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 1, 2013 20:46:14 GMT
A standard 4 tph on each of the Bexleyheath / Sidcup / woolwich lines from Dartford / Gravesend / Gillingham , with the loop services increasing these services to 6-8 tph and extra 2 tph starting from Sidcup and Plumstead. If you mean the evening services, I agree that they should be at least a minimum of 4tph on the three Dartford branches. The Greenwich and Bexleyheath lines already have 6tph serving all stations with 8tph from the Gillingham service calling at Abbey Wood, Woolwich Arsenal, Charlton, Blackheath and Lewisham. The Sidcup line is the only one with a daytime service of 4tph. I'd suggest the extra 2tph for the Greenwich, Sidcup and Hayes lines during evenings and Sundays can be achieved by keeping the existing Cannon Street loop, while the Bexleyheath line would have an extension of the Victoria service, this would also benefit those stations between Peckham Rye and Victoria which lost their direct late service after the SLL was transferred to London Overground. |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Nov 1, 2013 21:51:16 GMT
A standard 4 tph on each of the Bexleyheath / Sidcup / woolwich lines from Dartford / Gravesend / Gillingham , with the loop services increasing these services to 6-8 tph and extra 2 tph starting from Sidcup and Plumstead. If you mean the evening services, I agree that they should be at least a minimum of 4tph on the three Dartford branches. The Greenwich and Bexleyheath lines already have 6tph serving all stations with 8tph from the Gillingham service calling at Abbey Wood, Woolwich Arsenal, Charlton, Blackheath and Lewisham. The Sidcup line is the only one with a daytime service of 4tph. I'd suggest the extra 2tph for the Greenwich, Sidcup and Hayes lines during evenings and Sundays can be achieved by keeping the existing Cannon Street loop, while the Bexleyheath line would have an extension of the Victoria service, this would also benefit those stations between Peckham Rye and Victoria which lost their direct late service after the SLL was transferred to London Overground. The problem with keeping the Cannon Street loop is that CST shuts at 2000 odd of a weekday and is also shut Sunday. When in the West End and in no particular hurry I would often stay on the District Line a few stops and catch a train home from Cannon Street at seven o'clock because they are *empty* As vjaska said, extending the Bakerloo line would be helpful if done properly, it'd help the bus network out, primarily when southeastern are up the toilet (often). The 132 suffers enormously when this is the case, as does North Greenwich tube. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 2, 2013 1:11:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 2, 2013 2:15:27 GMT
If you mean the evening services, I agree that they should be at least a minimum of 4tph on the three Dartford branches. The Greenwich and Bexleyheath lines already have 6tph serving all stations with 8tph from the Gillingham service calling at Abbey Wood, Woolwich Arsenal, Charlton, Blackheath and Lewisham. The Sidcup line is the only one with a daytime service of 4tph. I'd suggest the extra 2tph for the Greenwich, Sidcup and Hayes lines during evenings and Sundays can be achieved by keeping the existing Cannon Street loop, while the Bexleyheath line would have an extension of the Victoria service, this would also benefit those stations between Peckham Rye and Victoria which lost their direct late service after the SLL was transferred to London Overground. The problem with keeping the Cannon Street loop is that CST shuts at 2000 odd of a weekday and is also shut Sunday. When in the West End and in no particular hurry I would often stay on the District Line a few stops and catch a train home from Cannon Street at seven o'clock because they are *empty* As vjaska said, extending the Bakerloo line would be helpful if done properly, it'd help the bus network out, primarily when southeastern are up the toilet (often). The 132 suffers enormously when this is the case, as does North Greenwich tube. My own personal routeing of an extension to the Bakerloo would of only went as far as Lewisham in the beginning but with further extensions for the future like an extension to meet the Hayes branch - stops would be at Walworth (or Walworth Road), Camberwell Green, Peckham or Peckham Rye, Nunhead, then either New Cross or Brockley, Ladywell. Beyond Lewisham, I'll let others decide as I hadn't thought that far ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Nov 2, 2013 10:18:08 GMT
The problem with keeping the Cannon Street loop is that CST shuts at 2000 odd of a weekday and is also shut Sunday. When in the West End and in no particular hurry I would often stay on the District Line a few stops and catch a train home from Cannon Street at seven o'clock because they are *empty* As vjaska said, extending the Bakerloo line would be helpful if done properly, it'd help the bus network out, primarily when southeastern are up the toilet (often). The 132 suffers enormously when this is the case, as does North Greenwich tube. My own personal routeing of an extension to the Bakerloo would of only went as far as Lewisham in the beginning but with further extensions for the future like an extension to meet the Hayes branch - stops would be at Walworth (or Walworth Road), Camberwell Green, Peckham or Peckham Rye, Nunhead, then either New Cross or Brockley, Ladywell. Beyond Lewisham, I'll let others decide as I hadn't thought that far ahead. Interesting idea. I'm fairly sure there is a degree of reluctance to extend the Bakerloo Line only as far as Lewisham because it would not release paths into London and Lewisham is considered too crowded as it is, without adding another interchange pinch point. Its a shame Lewisham's success hadn't been thought through at an earlier stage because it could have become a very useful and significant interchange, I feel, if the land allowed it. Are you familiar with the London Reconnections site vjaska? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 3, 2013 14:30:19 GMT
My own personal routeing of an extension to the Bakerloo would of only went as far as Lewisham in the beginning but with further extensions for the future like an extension to meet the Hayes branch - stops would be at Walworth (or Walworth Road), Camberwell Green, Peckham or Peckham Rye, Nunhead, then either New Cross or Brockley, Ladywell. Beyond Lewisham, I'll let others decide as I hadn't thought that far ahead. Interesting idea. I'm fairly sure there is a degree of reluctance to extend the Bakerloo Line only as far as Lewisham because it would not release paths into London and Lewisham is considered too crowded as it is, without adding another interchange pinch point. Its a shame Lewisham's success hadn't been thought through at an earlier stage because it could have become a very useful and significant interchange, I feel, if the land allowed it. Are you familiar with the London Reconnections site vjaska? Never heard of the site but I'll give it a look to see what's it about. You make a good point about Lewisham being considered overcrowding - what route and stops would you have beyond Lewisham? |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Nov 3, 2013 14:51:38 GMT
Interesting idea. I'm fairly sure there is a degree of reluctance to extend the Bakerloo Line only as far as Lewisham because it would not release paths into London and Lewisham is considered too crowded as it is, without adding another interchange pinch point. Its a shame Lewisham's success hadn't been thought through at an earlier stage because it could have become a very useful and significant interchange, I feel, if the land allowed it. Are you familiar with the London Reconnections site vjaska? Never heard of the site but I'll give it a look to see what's it about. You make a good point about Lewisham being considered overcrowding - what route and stops would you have beyond Lewisham? I had once heard of London Overground being taken down to Lewisham but that wouldn't be feasible in my opinion. Given the routings beyond Lewisham I do think that the Hayes branch would be the best option. The North Kent Line has potential for development within the context of Crossrail, the Bexleyheath line has been mooted for Thameslink services and in theory the Sidcup line could be developed in that way though I know the preferred development for people on the line is peak time services into Victoria. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 3, 2013 18:53:36 GMT
Never heard of the site but I'll give it a look to see what's it about. You make a good point about Lewisham being considered overcrowding - what route and stops would you have beyond Lewisham? I had once heard of London Overground being taken down to Lewisham but that wouldn't be feasible in my opinion. Given the routings beyond Lewisham I do think that the Hayes branch would be the best option. The North Kent Line has potential for development within the context of Crossrail, the Bexleyheath line has been mooted for Thameslink services and in theory the Sidcup line could be developed in that way though I know the preferred development for people on the line is peak time services into Victoria. Without very significant infrastructure works you're never going to "fix" the South Eastern network. I am not an expert on the routes as I rarely use them but there are far too many flat junctions and two track stretches to allow an adequate separation of fast, semi fast and stopping services which would allow vastly improved frequencies. This is why TfL had such a modest prospectus for taking over inner suburban services. I do not expect any London Overground services to run beyond New Cross onto South Eastern metals. Such a move would create additional conflicting movements in a part of the network that is already overloaded. Thameslink works now mean some services through New Cross will be tied into Cannon St in future. It's ironic that billions of pounds is being spent to add capacity at London Bridge but will imposes less flexibility elsewhere. Strikes me as rather daft but I'm probably not seeing the full picture. I am also sceptical about Crossrail expansion unless dedicated tracks are added beside the South Eastern ones. Crossrail have a pretty clear remit in trying to achieve the maximum amount of service segregation so they can deliver an intensive Central area service. I personally think they'll struggle in that aspiration with so many trains proposed to terminate at Paddington - far too much risk of extended dwell times while trains are checked that they are clear before heading to sidings. I don't see TfL volunteering to have their shiny trains dicing for paths with dodgy old South Eastern trains at Abbey Wood! I expect people east of Abbey Wood will clamour for Crossrail once it opens but I rather feel the attitudes of Bexley / Kent councillors and MPs will need radical readjustment. It is my understanding that the proposed Thameslink services onto the Dartford bound routes at London Bridge has been canned. This is because of the campaign to have Sutton Loop services run via the Thameslink core which means something else has to give. I also believe the track layout south of Blackfriars makes things very difficult in terms of deciding what will end up in the bay platforms at Blackfriars. Worse the silly politicians and commuters on the Sutton loop have lost any opportunity for more frequent services by insisting on through running. I can understand people being cross at the potential need to change trains at Blackfriars but the walk from the bay platforms to catch a through n/b service is a matter of a couple of minutes and with 24 tph through the core the wait time will be negligible. Coming south would be more involved and time consuming but hundreds of thousands of people change trains every day on their commute. The whole Thameslink service pattern is at risk of being a complete mess because of a mismanaged consultation process which has resulted in public demands being at odds with what the upgraded infrastructure can deliver. I wonder if the DfT will quietly slip Network Rail a few million quid to redesign the junctions south of Blackfriars to add in flexibility but possibly at the cost of train paths. I also don't see the merit in extending the Bakerloo line to Hayes. Who in Hayes is going to want to sit on a tube profile train and be stopped at every stop all the way into London when they have "proper" trains with big seats and windows into Central London? Are they really going to want to cram in with the residents of Peckham, Lewisham, Camberwell etc? It's not going to happen. I can absolutely see merit in the Bakerloo Line being extended to the Z23 boundary in South East London. The difficulty is that there are several competing corridors - Walworth Road, North Peckham and the Old Kent Road corridors - which would generate considerable demand and where journey times would be reduced compared to today. The problem is that you'd take resource off the bus network but would be very unlikely to free any rail capacity on the main routes into London. In an ideal world (ho ho ho) you'd have two tube corridors into South East London with some form of interchange at Elephant between the new (and existing) lines and possibly at somewhere like Lewisham. A high quality interchange at New Cross / New Cross Gate would also be helpful. I still think it will be a mssive struggle to get a Bakerloo Line extension to the top of the funding list - there are far too many competing funding demands. I'd personally like to see a clearer and more coherent service pattern on all the "Southern Region" routes but it seems that passengers do not want that if they have to change trains at specific places. They are happier to have 30 minute headway services if it means they have a through service. The timetable planners do pretty well to squash in the trains they do and achieve the reasonably frequent services they do on key sections. London Overground shows what can be done with some decent timetable planning, new trains and smartened services. However I'm the first to recognise that South Eastern, Southern and SWT have a much, much harder task to balance all the services they have to run and TfL has not yet to do something similar on the "big" railway. LU and DLR are rather different propositions if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 4, 2013 0:14:22 GMT
I've debated the Wimbledon loop issue elsewhere and although I tried to reason that they'd have a much improved reliable service by terminating at Blackfriars with cross platform transfer into the TL core, the issue as Snoggle mentions is they simply wanted a through service.
However, it's also meant the proposed 4tph on the Sevenoaks stopper service has been axed with the DfT keeping the 2tph as the minimum to the new TSGN franchisee whoever wins that franchise.
Incidentally, Southeastern will lose management of some stations on the Catford loop, Denmark Hill, Nunhead, Crofton Park, Catford, Bellingham and Ravensbourne will transfer to the TSGN franchisee.
|
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 4, 2013 1:51:23 GMT
I've debated the Wimbledon loop issue elsewhere and although I tried to reason that they'd have a much improved reliable service by terminating at Blackfriars with cross platform transfer into the TL core, the issue as Snoggle mentions is they simply wanted a through service. However, it's also meant the proposed 4tph on the Sevenoaks stopper service has been axed with the DfT keeping the 2tph as the minimum to the new TSGN franchisee whoever wins that franchise. Incidentally, Southeastern will lose management of some stations on the Catford loop, Denmark Hill, Nunhead, Crofton Park, Catford, Bellingham and Ravensbourne will transfer to the TSGN franchisee. Catford Loop retains its awful service then, sigh. You'll get nice new Class 700 units (when they're eventually built, which may not be to time!) that'll replace the 319s currently used and a lick of paint/rebranding at the local stations, but that's it. 4tph would have been possible if the proposed Victoria to Bellingham service was given the go-ahead, but TfL didn't have the resources for it and the ELL extension to Clapham Junction. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 10:01:31 GMT
South east London is treated woefully by all concerned parties.
London as a whole needs radical redesign transport wise. The major A roads feeding the capital , with few exceptions, end up one lane in Inner London.
The train network was built over a century ago, and there have been little in the way of redesign since.
I think the challenge is how can you transport more and more people into one centre on this existing infrastructure without knocking down homes, businesses etc ?
Practically impossible, which perhaps is one of the reasons why major corporations such as the BBC head to Salford , an emerging "city" with space to design bespoke transport needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 4, 2013 14:17:51 GMT
4tph would have been possible if the proposed Victoria to Bellingham service was given the go-ahead, but TfL didn't have the resources for it and the ELL extension to Clapham Junction. I think it was the case that TfL, the Mayor and the DfT / Secretary of State played the most ridiculous game of politics over the whole SLL issue with added "grumbling Kent commuters" in the mix. TfL were forced to chooose between DfT (part) funding the SLL project and not funding the Vic - Bellingham service or not getting the SLL project and having the Bellingham service. To be frank it was a wretched political mess that need not have happened if the tactics had been less adversarial. We could, and should, have had both initiatives. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on May 25, 2014 18:44:51 GMT
Now that Govia will have this large Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise, I reckon they will lose South Eastern in 2018.
Apparently a small number of stations will transfer from South Eastern to TSGN anyway. I think these will be on the Sevenoaks via Bat & Ball line not otherwise served by South Eastern.
|
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on May 25, 2014 18:56:37 GMT
Now that Govia will have this large Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise, I reckon they will lose South Eastern in 2018. Hopefuly Stagecoach will take over the IKF and move some trains to replace/exchange the 455s. (although these'll likely move/be withdrawn in around 15 years time with Crossrail 2- which I'm very excited about) Hint: my username... I'll say no more!  |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on May 25, 2014 19:56:10 GMT
Now that Govia will have this large Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise, I reckon they will lose South Eastern in 2018. I reckon Govia will be rather desperate to hold on to Southeastern/IKF. If they do, I would very much like them to stop treating Southeastern like the poor relation compared to Southern. Yes, some stations will transfer : I believe it's some/all stations on the Catford loop line that are moving over. |
|
