|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Jan 15, 2022 21:05:05 GMT
I could once go to....
Willesden, Catford, Lewisham, Oxford Circus 176.
East Acton, Elmers End (garage journeys only), 12.
Chipstead Valley 12B
King's Cross 63 (I live on the 363 only section of the route)
Greenwich, 185.
Lewisham/Elephant & Castle 185A.
|
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 23, 2021 23:02:40 GMT
If that was the case, they wouldn't of continued investigating and buying land for a new station for the Overground, don't think 5 car trains will cause any capacity issue at Brixton at all. Say what you want about the East London Line but it's easily been a success. Depends on your criteria for success ... 10 or 12 coach trains would have been better. No just talking about Brixton, how busy are those trains when they go past it, and when they reach the major traffic objectives? The South London leg was uncomfortably rammed in peaks in as much as people couldn't get on the stupidly short trains. "Uncomfortably rammed" was those two car 456s which used to run on the SLL every 30 mins before the Overground replaced the Southern London Bridge to Victoria shuttle. You may still have to stand on the ELL replacement, but there's a lot more capacity than before. Ideally the Clapham branch should have 6tph to reduce standing in peaks. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 23, 2021 22:54:08 GMT
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 21 gives a direct bus alternative to the Overground from New Cross Gate by passing by Highbury & Islington. I imagine the link to London Bridge and southwards will be popular from the Holloway area, and passengers along Holloway Road would soon cotton on a quicker route to London Bridge in the 21, compared to the 43. Also shocked but not surprised how many on here don't and/or won't read the four page written document that supports the consultation. A great point about there being a bus alternative to Highbury & Islington from NXG. Overall the 21 changes open more opportunities for north and south as the Overground did when it opened in 2010 compared to the route currently going to Newington Green. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 23, 2021 18:01:51 GMT
I think these proposals have fewer issues than the other consultation, but the main concern is possible reliability issues with a route going between Hampstead Heath and Canada Water. Swapping the 1 and 27 termini could be a simple solution, or alternatively, perhaps these ideas below. I think it would make more sense to merge the 1 with the 188 rather than the 168 - this could provide a more direct route between Greenwich and Central London, rather than via Jamaica Road, and possibly more reliable than the current 188. 1 - Extended from Surrey Quays to North Greenwich via the 188. Route N1 unchanged. 188 - Withdrawn, replaced by changes to other routes. 168 - Left unchanged between Hampstead Heath and Old Kent Road. 415 - Cut back from Old Kent Road to Bricklayers Arms, and instead extended to Canada Water (or Surrey Quays) via the 188. 129 - 24-hour service introduced, replacing the 188's night link between Cutty Sark and North Greenwich. I think the problem with axing the 188 with the 129 in Greenwich is losing the direct link into Central London (along with Deptford/Surrey Quays/Bermondsey) overnight when the tube closes at North Greenwich. I'm sure it's well used by night workers and people who use the facilities at the O2 during those hours. Those who currently use the 1 I think would benefit more from having a direct bus to Euston and Camden over another that terminates in Tulse Hill. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 22, 2021 15:30:18 GMT
It'll be seen as a win, win situation for those who use the 1 for local journeys in that part of London where capacity hasn't exactly been great if you add the 188 which is busy east of Bricklayers Arms with passengers also using it to get to Greenwich and the O2. It will only be a win for those 1 users if the route's reliability actually holds up - if it does, good for them but I have my doubts. They'll still have the 188 as back up, especially if they're going to Canada Water. It's not ideal, but we have to be realistic about the cuts that TfL has to make. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 22, 2021 15:23:42 GMT
Yes around Bricklayers Arms good point. Would also make the route 10 miles long. In addition the 172 could have also been considered as a replacement for the 168. 172 doesn’t hit many traffic hotspots either. Hmm...I think the 1 being extended is an easier win than the 172. The 1 has a slightly higher PVR and frequency already. I do wonder it the route will be over-bussed east of Bricklayers Arms with its proposed frequency though. It'll be seen as a win, win situation for those who use the 1 for local journeys in that part of London where capacity hasn't exactly been great if you add the 188 which is busy east of Bricklayers Arms with passengers also using it to get to Greenwich and the O2. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 22, 2021 15:18:45 GMT
Who'd think that TfL would be reintroducing north to south routes again via the City. The 21 as mentioned is quiet up to Newington Green, so sending it to Holloway gives new connections for those who don't or can't afford to use rail services. It does seem long and I suspect a PVR increase is on the cards, but I won't be surprised if there's loads of turns during the peaks.
With the continuing issues regarding TfL's budgetery issues, it's no surprise that we'll see more routes like this, such as the 88 going into North London and the 1 and 21 consultations.
|
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 22, 2021 14:37:49 GMT
It's the least worst solution. The 168 survives as the 1, while those in Bermondsey and Surrey Quays get new connections to Euston, Camden and Hampstead.
Rerouting the 188 to Tottenham Court Road also ensures most passengers in SE16 still have a direct bus to Tottenham Court Road which for those east of Surrey Quays gives bus connections to the West End from Greenwich.
With the hopper fare, those who used the 168 from the Old Kent Road can just get on any bus and change on the New Kent Road for the 1 which should alleviate fears of everyone jumping on the 172 to get to Waterloo and Aldwych. In any case, the Elephant and Castle has better connections for the Waterloo corridor where there's still the 68 and 176 also going to Waterloo and Aldwych, while the 188 will still serve Holborn in addition to the 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 11, 2021 18:21:06 GMT
Remember that the TfL core is still signalled by Network Rail at New Cross Gate signal box, so there's still staff who need to be paid to manage it.
3tph on Thameslink operates overnight fast to London Bridge/East Croydon on the fast lines on weeknights and diverted via Herne Hill at weekends.
However LO services usually run to West Croydon on New Year's Eve until around 0330.
|
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Oct 1, 2021 23:36:59 GMT
To correct myself, it's 8bph currently between Forest Hill and Penge on Sundays. 5bph on the 176 and 3bph on the 197.
Sydenham itself is well served by buses from Forest Hill when you add the 122 as well (and that's before you factor in the trains from Forest Hill which are every 3-7 mins), while Lower Sydenham is served by 3bph on the 356 weekdays and Saturday and 2bph on evenings and Sundays.
|
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Oct 1, 2021 21:11:10 GMT
Extend Route 194 to Upper Sydenham via the current 356 route from Lower Sydenham to Upper Sydenham via Forest Hill, while the 356 runs between Lower Sydenham and Shirley only. This would increase capacity on the busy Forest Hill to Lower Sydenham corridor. Yes Lower Sydenham to Forest Hill deserves better than the x20 minute 356, or maybe reroute the 176 that way? The 176 supports the 197 between Dulwich Library and Penge and would see a loss of capacity between Forest Hill and Penge. The 197 has a lower frequency as well, especially on Sundays which would the FH to Penge section reduced from 9bph to 3bph. Extending the 194 would improve the service to Forest Hill along Wells Park Road with a more regular service. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Oct 1, 2021 20:12:23 GMT
Extend Route 194 to Upper Sydenham via the current 356 route from Lower Sydenham to Upper Sydenham via Forest Hill, while the 356 runs between Lower Sydenham and Shirley only. This would increase capacity on the busy Forest Hill to Lower Sydenham corridor.
|
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Sept 11, 2021 2:22:11 GMT
Route 185 has probably benefitted from the re-routing of the 436 to Battersea Park, so is supporting the 36 along the Camberwell to Victoria corridor, but from my experience the 185 is always busy along the whole route. Camberwell Green to Forest Hill seems to be a pinch point, which deserves it's every 8 minute service on weekdays and Saturdays.
|
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Aug 28, 2021 20:34:28 GMT
I'm merely referring to the whole system in general not whether one particular section has a particular train going elsewhere I think the Inner South London line in many ways misses a direct link to Victoria and LB. A refurbished southern service say 4 tph would have been popular aswell and would now be providing more trains between Battersea Park and Victora aswell as a direct link to Battersea Park (with the Power Station being the next big thing destination) to Wandsworth Road, Claph H St, Denmark Hill and the Peckhams. As great as the Overground on paper works it does effectively leave alot of people changing at Canada Water and Clapham Junction. Same with Crystal Palace. I can't help but thinking I'd rather have 6 to 8tph to Victoria and LB via Sydenham using 10 car trains rather then ones just skiming around the edge and involving a change. Yet the SLL stations have seen an increase pre-pandemic and have more capacity than the old 2tph 456s to Vic/London Bridge. I use the via Sydenham line and wouldn't want to go back to having to use London Bridge to change where there's a direct connection with the Jubilee line at Canada Water to get into the West End or Canary Wharf which is a lot more easier than using LBG. The SLL/ELL will also have a connection to the Elizabeth line at Whitechapel as well when it eventually opens! |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Jul 29, 2021 23:43:53 GMT
Network Rail are in charge of signalling TfL infrastructure on London Overground's East London Line between New Cross/New Cross Gate and the west curve outside Dalston Junction. NR will have more responsibility for TfL metals when the Elizabeth line officially opens between west of Royal Oak and just before Stratford station/Abbey Wood.
Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station will be the first LUL stations to open in South London since Bermondsey, Canada Water and North Greenwich opened on the Jubilee line in 1999.
London Overground's South London line has stations which are largely operated by NR TOCs, Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road are the only two stations managed by the TfL concession. Peckham Rye and Queens Road Peckham are managed by GTR's Southern brand, Denmark Hill by GTR's Thameslink and Clapham Junction by South Western Railway.
Abbey Wood is the only station managed by TfL Rail that doesn't operate any services by themselves in passenger service. Services are operated by Southeastern and Thameslink until the Elizabeth line opens.
London Overground in 2009 managed a group of stations that were only served by Southern services to London Bridge until the ELL extension to West Croydon/Crystal Palace opened in May 2010.
|
|
