• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Funding Approved for New Bermondsey Station and extra ELL services

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,591
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/20...-a-new-station-for-the-london-overground/amp/

The government has approved transport upgrade funding along the London Overground for more frequent trains and a new station at Surrey Canal Road, to unlock additional housing developments.

In a statement, the government agreed to requests for £80.8 million from the GLA to support transport upgrades so that 14,000 homes can be built along the East London Line. The funding comes from the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF), which was set up in 2016 and funds transport upgrades that would be needed to allow additional housing to be built, such as more trains, new stations, or roads.

The value of the HIF is around £5.5 billion, and with the latest announcements, is now fully allocated.

TfL and the GLA have previously been allocated funding for transport upgrades under the scheme, for the DLR, to unlock some 18,000 new homes, while the current tranche of cash is to support improvements along the East London Line, which would be needed if a £2 billion housing development at Canada Water is to go ahead.

That development will see the current shopping centre and the buildings behind swept away and the whole low-rise area becoming a cluster of residential tower blocks.



There have already been concerns about how the Jubilee line would cope with such a huge housing development, so the London Overground capacity upgrade should help to alleviate some of those worries, as people could use the line up to Whitechapel then over to Canary Wharf on the Elizabeth line.

The housing development was also part of the rationale for the no-longer-happening pedestrian/cycle bridge across the Thames that’s now on hold due to high costs.

Although the exact details of how the new cash will be spent needs to be finalised, the funding is expected to see an increase in train frequency through the core of the East London Line from 16 trains per hour to 20 trains per hour. That’s to be achieved by new signalling works, power supply upgrade and additional stabling facilities at New Cross.

The very cramped Surrey Quays station gets a second entrance, which will run under the main road and be based on the north side, where the shopping centre car park is today. That avoids crossing two busy roads, which can take some time if you’re waiting for the lights to change.

The funding also unlocks improved bus facilities at Canada Water station to support three additional bus stands for a new bus route that would serve the new housing developments.

TfL has already indicated plans to increase capacity through the core of the East London Line with more trains terminating at Crystal Palace, subject to paths being confirmed by Network Rail. The new funding will support both two more trains per hour to Crystal Palace (from 4 to 6tph) and also two more per hour to Clapham Junction (also from 4 to 6 tph).

The additional trains to Clapham Junction would be needed as there is provisionthat the long-mooted station at Surrey Canal Road will be included. Some passive provision was included when the East London line was extended to Clapham Junction, but the developer of the housing estate going up in the area says that increased requirements for affordable housing meant it couldn’t fund the station as well. The station would also be given the “sexier” name of New Bermondsey.



Although the upgrades would in themselves generate a net surplus of fare revenue for TfL over a 60-year timeframe, it’s not possible for TfL to fund the upgrades itself at the moment, so it turned to the government’s HIF scheme for support.

The funding under the HIF needs to be spent by 2023, so that’s the deadline for the upgrades to be delivered.

Separately, Enfield Council has been awarded £156 million for Meridian Waterto deliver rail works, road infrastructure, land remediation, flood alleviation and utilities to unlock up to 10k homes

Any thoughts?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
Does this mean they've got the money for ATO (automatic train operation) on the East London Line?
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,203
Mention of Surrey Canal Road reminds me of when I was much younger and lived in a house which backed on to the southern end of the old Surrey canal (I know that isn't the same location as SC road). I remember watching the timber loaded barges go up and down it. The row of houses was knocked down years ago and I think there are allotments there now.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
Nice to see improvements to services. But I can't help thinking that a station ONLY on the overground at Surrey Canal Road seems like a wasted opportunity: The tracks cross the main lines out of London Bridge just north of Surrey Canal Road, and an interchange station serving both routes would seem a lot more useful (albeit obviously a lot more complicated to build).
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Nice to see improvements to services. But I can't help thinking that a station ONLY on the overground at Surrey Canal Road seems like a wasted opportunity: The tracks cross the main lines out of London Bridge just north of Surrey Canal Road, and an interchange station serving both routes would seem a lot more useful (albeit obviously a lot more complicated to build).


The capacity pinch point* on the Sussex lines side is just where the station you propose would be so a non starter.

* trains ideally moving at at least 20mph
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
The capacity pinch point* on the Sussex lines side is just where the station you propose would be so a non starter.

* trains ideally moving at at least 20mph

What about the SouthEastern lines? I would have thought those, rather than the Sussex lines, are where the real opportunities for better journey connections are.
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
Finally!

However, I believe the 4tph to Clapham are already in excess of / at capacity, so this could prove problematic. I know they had plans to do the Crystal Palace services but believed this was only 2tph of the extra 4.

Realistically the ELL needs to get up to about 24tph to be able to cope moving forward - 8 to at least Peckham (which would also allow a 4tph frequency towards Tulse Hill) and 12tph to Sydenham.
 

LeeLivery

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2014
Messages
1,462
Location
London
I think the idea that people would travel 4 stops beyond Canada Water to Whitechapel, to change for Crossrail trains to Canary Wharf is rather naive. It's literally one stop on the Jubilee from Canada Water, no one is going to go to Whitechapel from the South.

I'm also skeptical over the reliability of 20tph in the core. 6tph from one platform at Clapham Junction sounds like a meltdown waiting to happen, while 14tph on the Sydenham corridor is going to be "delayed due to "congestion" half of the day.
 

dlj83

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2012
Messages
169
I think they should do 2tph to Battersea Park all day if people want to go to Clapham Junction it's on the adjacent platform.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
New Bermondsey since Feb 2015
Because LB Lewisham / developers reckon the housing will sell for more if nicely branded.

If the focus was on the housing being truly affordable it would be probably be called Millwall Stadium (Home End) or similar.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Finally!

However, I believe the 4tph to Clapham are already in excess of / at capacity, so this could prove problematic. I know they had plans to do the Crystal Palace services but believed this was only 2tph of the extra 4.

Realistically the ELL needs to get up to about 24tph to be able to cope moving forward - 8 to at least Peckham (which would also allow a 4tph frequency towards Tulse Hill) and 12tph to Sydenham.
It is 24tph achieved with 6tph on all branches but will need ETCS installed in the tunnelled sections for 22/24tph and slightly beyond. 6tph to West Croydon is reliant to the Windmill Bridge Junction rebuild, the rest is relatively straight forward.

GTR will be increasing the SLL capacity in places which might provide some relief.

The 710 order included enough stock to release enough 378 for the extra Palace services.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I think the idea that people would travel 4 stops beyond Canada Water to Whitechapel, to change for Crossrail trains to Canary Wharf is rather naive. It's literally one stop on the Jubilee from Canada Water, no one is going to go to Whitechapel from the South.

Though travelling to Whitechapel to travel Crossrail either westwards to Bond St etc, or eastwards via Stratford, is more than reasonable.

I'm also skeptical over the reliability of 20tph in the core. 6tph from one platform at Clapham Junction sounds like a meltdown waiting to happen, while 14tph on the Sydenham corridor is going to be "delayed due to "congestion" half of the day.

But with 14tph, it becomes more about service intervals - few people will bother looking at a timetable anyway (as few will todaay already)
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
It is 24tph achieved with 6tph on all branches but will need ETCS installed in the tunnelled sections for 22/24tph and slightly beyond. 6tph to West Croydon is reliant to the Windmill Bridge Junction rebuild, the rest is relatively straight forward.

GTR will be increasing the SLL capacity in places which might provide some relief.

The 710 order included enough stock to release enough 378 for the extra Palace services.

6tph is a terrible idea for all branches - not least because it constrains capacity for others.

You need a 4tph ‘standard’ timetable for all branches, with peak additional layered over the top. E.g. departures from Canada Water off-peak:
00, 15, 30, 45 New Cross
03, 18, 33, 48 Crystal Palace
08, 23, 38, 53 Clapham Junction
11, 26, 41, 56 West Croydon

Peak:
00, 15, 30, 45 New Cross
02, 17, 32, 47 Peckham Rye**
05, 20, 35, 50 Crystal Palace
07, 22, 37, 52 Clapham Junction
10, 25, 40, 55 West Croydon
12, 27, 42, 57 Crystal Palace**

** Peckham Rye ‘and beyond’ - if pathing doesn’t work then instead send them to somewhere like Tulse Hill or even back round to Crystal Palace and build a new ‘Rounder’. Crystal Palace trains could be extended to Streatham Hill.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
6tph is a terrible idea for all branches - not least because it constrains capacity for others.

You need a 4tph ‘standard’ timetable for all branches, with peak additional layered over the top. E.g. departures from Canada Water off-peak:
00, 15, 30, 45 New Cross
03, 18, 33, 48 Crystal Palace
08, 23, 38, 53 Clapham Junction
11, 26, 41, 56 West Croydon

Peak:
00, 15, 30, 45 New Cross
02, 17, 32, 47 Peckham Rye**
05, 20, 35, 50 Crystal Palace
07, 22, 37, 52 Clapham Junction
10, 25, 40, 55 West Croydon
12, 27, 42, 57 Crystal Palace**

** Peckham Rye ‘and beyond’ - if pathing doesn’t work then instead send them to somewhere like Tulse Hill or even back round to Crystal Palace and build a new ‘Rounder’. Crystal Palace trains could be extended to Streatham Hill.

6tph /branch with a pretty much standard interval timetable is the plan largely because it is the only workable one and will also be popular with passengers (ans Ianno87 has pointed out)
6tph to New Cross is needed so that passengers can board at Surrey Quays going Northbound in the morning.

If you really wanted to address capacity issues it would need TfL to bite the bullet and go to 8 car on LO. The problems stations are largely confined to the tunnelled section:
Canada Water (value engineered down),
Rotherhithe and Wapping (Brunel Heritage)

Whitechapel and Shadwell platforms are already longer than 5car but not the full 8 though White chapel should be easy to get to 8 car.

As has been pointed on another thread (Thameslink ideas) GTR still have some South London services to roll out.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Though travelling to Whitechapel to travel Crossrail either westwards to Bond St etc, or eastwards via Stratford, is more than reasonable.



But with 14tph, it becomes more about service intervals - few people will bother looking at a timetable anyway (as few will today already)
Crossrail is going to change a lot of journeys with many changes that many passengers and staff haven't got their heads around yet (because a change on the network on the other side of London that they never interact with will be changing) and if things had gone to plan no one would be questioning the impact. Tfl are fully aware and have done decent modelling and are expecting significant Crossrail relief for the Jubilee.

As regards Canada Water/ELL impacts from Crossrail:
Thameslink MML users for Canary Wharf will presumabley change at Farringdon rather than West Hampstead in the future hence major Jubilee relief (major TfL revenue hit as GTR get the West Hampstead - Farringdon revenue.)
Whitechapel is Z2 hence for ELL users heading to Stratford from the south staying on till Whitechapel will avoid the Jubilee and be more pleasant and similar journey time. for those coming heading west from Whitechapel there will be fairly empty CR trains (every other train post Canary Wharf emptying out)

The biggest Sydenham corridor issue as regards congestion at the moment is the capacity on LO services so adding another 2tph (Palace - once all dual voltage 710s in service) and another 2tph (West Croydon) later should help. ( 8 car LO would really help). The LO dwell times are an issue
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Does this mean they've got the money for ATO (automatic train operation) on the East London Line?
No - The initial increased services to 20tph don't require it anything more than that would.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Good news for those of us further down the branches in terms of more seats
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
6tph /branch with a pretty much standard interval timetable is the plan largely because it is the only workable one and will also be popular with passengers (ans Ianno87 has pointed out)
6tph to New Cross is needed so that passengers can board at Surrey Quays going Northbound in the morning.

If you really wanted to address capacity issues it would need TfL to bite the bullet and go to 8 car on LO. The problems stations are largely confined to the tunnelled section:
Canada Water (value engineered down),
Rotherhithe and Wapping (Brunel Heritage)

Whitechapel and Shadwell platforms are already longer than 5car but not the full 8 though White chapel should be easy to get to 8 car.

As has been pointed on another thread (Thameslink ideas) GTR still have some South London services to roll out.

It's good news to have 10-minutely vice 15-minutely, but at peak time you aren't concentrating demand appropriately. Let's be honest, West Croydon isn't the centre of the universe and people would sooner go from Croydon on a fast, 12-car train to London Bridge or wherever and go from there.

Realistically, demand has clearly been identified as being needed via Peckham Rye (not necessarily to Clapham High Street and such) and via Crystal Palace.

Now without taking us into the Speculative Ideas area, what would be correct I'm sure is a slightly staggered timetable such as to ensure that as much as 24tph are going down the branches (Peckham x 8, Crystal Palace x 8, West Croydon x 4 and New Cross x 4), with Southern able to slot a further 4tph in towards Norwood Junction. That way, the Croydon and Norwood area commuters can get to New Cross Gate and change onto a frequent service up towards Dalston; whilst passengers from Crystal Palace benefit from 8tph towards the City and East End with the option of still changing at New Cross Gate. It's not rocket science.

Looking at it from a purely operational and logical standpoint, I note the following:
- Gipsy Hill and West Norwood only get a half-hourly service to London Bridge via New Cross Gate, which makes it sort of pointless. It's nowhere near frequent enough even in peak time.
- West Norwood and Gispy Hill to London Bridge via Crystal Palace is 36 and 34 minutes respectively with a change needed to London Overground.
- Gispy Hill and West Norwood to London Bridge via Peckham Rye is the best bet, and that's 26 and 24 minutes respectively but with only a half-hourly peak service.
- You don't have capacity with fifth freedom freight and Southeastern to have 8tph to Clapham Junction and the turnarounds would be nightmarish at Clapham Junction.

So therefore, if I was TfL and wanted to do an ORCATS raid and also get loads of passengers changing their habits I'd go for:
- 4tph New Cross
- 4tph Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye
- 4tph 'Rounder' Surrey Quays - Peckham - Tulse Hill - Crystal Palace - New Cross Gate - Surrey Quays
- 4tph 'Rounder' the other way
- 4tph Crystal Palace terminator
- 4tph West Croydon

Smart move says you could 'flight in' the departure from Crystal Palace to be ~5 minutes before the one coming round from Tulse Hill so the passengers don't build up too greatly. You're also attracting customers from Dulwich etc as well as, if you use the Old Kent Road Jn with parallel moves, allowing up to 8tph from London Bridge in any event via Peckham Rye.

Just my tuppence worth from travelling on that orange sh*t show at peak time and being crushed into certain trains...
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
It's good news to have 10-minutely vice 15-minutely, but at peak time you aren't concentrating demand appropriately. Let's be honest, West Croydon isn't the centre of the universe and people would sooner go from Croydon on a fast, 12-car train to London Bridge or wherever and go from there.

Loadings would say otherwise - especially once you get to Norwood junction where pretty much every seat is now taken and with plenty standing in the peaks.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
It's good news to have 10-minutely vice 15-minutely, but at peak time you aren't concentrating demand appropriately. Let's be honest, West Croydon isn't the centre of the universe and people would sooner go from Croydon on a fast, 12-car train to London Bridge or wherever and go from there.

Realistically, demand has clearly been identified as being needed via Peckham Rye (not necessarily to Clapham High Street and such) and via Crystal Palace.

Now without taking us into the Speculative Ideas area, what would be correct I'm sure is a slightly staggered timetable such as to ensure that as much as 24tph are going down the branches (Peckham x 8, Crystal Palace x 8, West Croydon x 4 and New Cross x 4), with Southern able to slot a further 4tph in towards Norwood Junction. That way, the Croydon and Norwood area commuters can get to New Cross Gate and change onto a frequent service up towards Dalston; whilst passengers from Crystal Palace benefit from 8tph towards the City and East End with the option of still changing at New Cross Gate. It's not rocket science.

Looking at it from a purely operational and logical standpoint, I note the following:
- Gipsy Hill and West Norwood only get a half-hourly service to London Bridge via New Cross Gate, which makes it sort of pointless. It's nowhere near frequent enough even in peak time.
- West Norwood and Gispy Hill to London Bridge via Crystal Palace is 36 and 34 minutes respectively with a change needed to London Overground.
- Gispy Hill and West Norwood to London Bridge via Peckham Rye is the best bet, and that's 26 and 24 minutes respectively but with only a half-hourly peak service.
- You don't have capacity with fifth freedom freight and Southeastern to have 8tph to Clapham Junction and the turnarounds would be nightmarish at Clapham Junction.

So therefore, if I was TfL and wanted to do an ORCATS raid and also get loads of passengers changing their habits I'd go for:
- 4tph New Cross
- 4tph Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye
- 4tph 'Rounder' Surrey Quays - Peckham - Tulse Hill - Crystal Palace - New Cross Gate - Surrey Quays
- 4tph 'Rounder' the other way
- 4tph Crystal Palace terminator
- 4tph West Croydon

Smart move says you could 'flight in' the departure from Crystal Palace to be ~5 minutes before the one coming round from Tulse Hill so the passengers don't build up too greatly. You're also attracting customers from Dulwich etc as well as, if you use the Old Kent Road Jn with parallel moves, allowing up to 8tph from London Bridge in any event via Peckham Rye.

Just my tuppence worth from travelling on that orange sh*t show at peak time and being crushed into certain trains...
A few quick thoughts for now:
I'm guessing you're a Peckham Orange user? Hence the Peckham centric focus for most improvements?
a) your TfL wish list isn't do-able
b) no longer possible to have fasts services stop at New Cross Gate (until they rebuild it properly i.e. add an Up ELL platform so the slow LBG platforms can take stoppers form the fat lines either way - see Norwood Junction proposals, NXG needs the same)
c) GIP-LBG via Sydenham used to be 23minutes (off peak) and 27mins peak before all the orange stuff started getting in the way and slowing everything down!
d) Significant demand has been identified along Clapham Palace and West Croydon Branches but New Cross is needed top be able to mop up Surrey Quays users who can't get on the other services.
e) Penge / Anerley / Norwood Junction /west croydon could certainly do with another 2 tph.
f) Palace can only cope with 6tph LO unless there is another rebuild.
g) Why Palace first for extra trains? Simple they could do it tomorrow if they had the stock and drivers (it has been done in the past for example the worst of the LBG rebuild closures) and it also means the trains reach Sydenham and other stations with 2 stations less passengers than West Croydon so the dwell time and dispatch issues are less.
h) Bakerloo extension will change a few things with New Cross Gate becoming even busier and Queens Road possibly quieter (with people using the OKR2 (Toys'R'us site) Bakerloo station).
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Adding yet more south London branches to the ELL seems unnecessary, pinches off future possibilities for further service enhancements, and frankly is not what the locals would want. 6tph per branch is going to be the limit for the foreseeable future but may look inadequate in 15 years.

Tulse Hill residents already have their Thameslink services and were one of the main groups kicking up a fuss about Wimbledon loopers potentially terminating at Blackfriars.

As a Dulwich resident, we already have Denmark Hill and Forest Hill with Overground services. East Dulwich's useful (and fairly fast) services to London Bridge are very much loved and I'd not want to see them replaced with yet more Orange.

Anyway, we're going to get told off by the mods soon for Speculative Ideas.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Adding yet more south London branches to the ELL seems unnecessary, pinches off future possibilities for further service enhancements, and frankly is not what the locals would want. 6tph per branch is going to be the limit for the foreseeable future but may look inadequate in 15 years.

Tulse Hill residents already have their Thameslink services and were one of the main groups kicking up a fuss about Wimbledon loopers potentially terminating at Blackfriars.

As a Dulwich resident, we already have Denmark Hill and Forest Hill with Overground services. East Dulwich's useful (and fairly fast) services to London Bridge are very much loved and I'd not want to see them replaced with yet more Orange.

Anyway, we're going to get told off by the mods soon for Speculative Ideas.
Agree on all fronts!
GTR haven't fully implemented the new timetable changes so the Wimbledon loop service improvements haven't been / can't be delivered yet.
 

theking

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2011
Messages
626
Already can't get people on at Queens Road Peckham on the up in the morning peak adding a new station at Surrey Canal Road is stupid. Plus the fact it will be chaos when Millwall play.

The sussex lines signal sections are too big if you are on a Highbury service from West Croydon you crawl along behind a Southern london bridge train.

They say 20 tph is realistic but they wont be running on time and you will be crawling along the core and on the up you will be getting regulated around Surrey Quays? it's bad enough at the moment with the amount of restrictive aspects on the line I can't see how they think they are going to add more trains and keep the time table.
 
Last edited:

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
A few quick thoughts for now:
I'm guessing you're a Peckham Orange user? Hence the Peckham centric focus for most improvements?
a) your TfL wish list isn't do-able
b) no longer possible to have fasts services stop at New Cross Gate (until they rebuild it properly i.e. add an Up ELL platform so the slow LBG platforms can take stoppers form the fat lines either way - see Norwood Junction proposals, NXG needs the same)
c) GIP-LBG via Sydenham used to be 23minutes (off peak) and 27mins peak before all the orange stuff started getting in the way and slowing everything down!
d) Significant demand has been identified along Clapham Palace and West Croydon Branches but New Cross is needed top be able to mop up Surrey Quays users who can't get on the other services.
e) Penge / Anerley / Norwood Junction /west croydon could certainly do with another 2 tph.
f) Palace can only cope with 6tph LO unless there is another rebuild.
g) Why Palace first for extra trains? Simple they could do it tomorrow if they had the stock and drivers (it has been done in the past for example the worst of the LBG rebuild closures) and it also means the trains reach Sydenham and other stations with 2 stations less passengers than West Croydon so the dwell time and dispatch issues are less.
h) Bakerloo extension will change a few things with New Cross Gate becoming even busier and Queens Road possibly quieter (with people using the OKR2 (Toys'R'us site) Bakerloo station).

The TfL wish list can be doable. In fact, I am not seeing clear evidence of what you are saying as it doesn't appear undeliverable.

I didn't suggest fast trains stopping at New Cross Gate, merely not using a semi-destructive 5-minutely frequency between Sydenham and New Cross Gate from LO which prevents a Southern service between Norwood and London Bridge all stops every 15 minutes.

Gipsy Hill to London Bridge via Sydenham was quicker but sadly not now - and that needs to be accepted.

Demand from Clapham Junction exists but from what I could gather a large number of journeys are being made on an 'overlapping hop' basis (e.g. Clapham Junction - Denmark Hill, Clapham High Street - Surrey Quays, etc) and therefore the existing capacity is suitable; and if needed people from Denmark Hill can use a Thameslink service against the peak direction and change at Peckham Rye where required.

West Croydon has demand but the services stop everywhere. This makes it unattractive. Previous ideas from TfL included extending all services back to Sutton and potentially also half-hourly to Epsom Downs. I don't know if this is planned to progress but would be unsuitable due to the shorter trains in use. What is not up for discussion is commuter habits at Norwood Junction: people will use the fast trains for their journeys in the morning, not least because in the 12 minutes it takes your train to get to London Bridge, the Overground has only crawled as far as Honor Oak Park.

Penge and Anerley could be served by 8tph if Southern operate 4 and LO operate 4. It's not rocket science.

Palace can cope with 8tph when 4 run through and 4 terminate.

Palace needs the extra trains as it creates capacity for Sydenham, Forest Hill, Honor Oak and Brockley. By slightly dissuading people at Croydon by deliberately pinning frequency down a touch, you can make people use alternatives.

Bakerloo extension will mean some passenger changes but you have to identify individual flows (on a station by station to station by station basis, e.g. Anerley to Paddington or Gipsy Hill to Moorgate) to actually ascertain what the benefits are. For many, going to New Cross Gate on a slow, 5-car train will not be appealing to then sit on the Bakerloo. The other thing is the Crossrail effect - people might want to go on Crossrail but if it’s PIXC from the Shenfield side (very likely) and heavily loaded from Abbey Wood then people are going to seek alternatives. That might include even going to London Bridge then Farringdon to ease the crush, despite being slightly longer.

Anyway, I’ll go so far as to say a 10-minutely frequency to all branches as it isn’t necessarily going to work, and if nothing else because of the impact on Southern stoppers via Brockley and even more so on the route via Clapham High Street as Southeastern need to use it and quite heavily between Voltaire Road and Crofton Road at peak.
 

LeeLivery

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2014
Messages
1,462
Location
London
Though travelling to Whitechapel to travel Crossrail either westwards to Bond St etc, or eastwards via Stratford, is more than reasonable.

But with 14tph, it becomes more about service intervals - few people will bother looking at a timetable anyway (as few will todaay already)

Of course, I may use Whitechapel often to go into Central London if it's easier than changing for Thameslink. But specifically for Canary Wharf which was mentioned seems wishful.

With 14tph on the Sydenham corridor, people may not look at the timetable for LO, but we certainly do for Southern. 10 mins before a London Victoria train you see the platform suddenly have a load of people waiting for it, while you always see suitcases not too long before the Coulsdon service (for Gatwick & the South Coast). The reliability of Southern has drastically improved as of late, but LO is frequently delaying them by a few minutes. This is what I'm worried about. Also, as I've said on more than one occasion, the reliability of LO in the evening peak from West Croydon is appalling.

Crossrail is going to change a lot of journeys with many changes that many passengers and staff haven't got their heads around yet (because a change on the network on the other side of London that they never interact with will be changing) and if things had gone to plan no one would be questioning the impact. Tfl are fully aware and have done decent modelling and are expecting significant Crossrail relief for the Jubilee.

As regards Canada Water/ELL impacts from Crossrail:
Thameslink MML users for Canary Wharf will presumabley change at Farringdon rather than West Hampstead in the future hence major Jubilee relief (major TfL revenue hit as GTR get the West Hampstead - Farringdon revenue.)
Whitechapel is Z2 hence for ELL users heading to Stratford from the south staying on till Whitechapel will avoid the Jubilee and be more pleasant and similar journey time. for those coming heading west from Whitechapel there will be fairly empty CR trains (every other train post Canary Wharf emptying out)

The biggest Sydenham corridor issue as regards congestion at the moment is the capacity on LO services so adding another 2tph (Palace - once all dual voltage 710s in service) and another 2tph (West Croydon) later should help. ( 8 car LO would really help). The LO dwell times are an issue

Totally agree with Crossrail helping things there. As with congestion, I do hope that is the case and it will improve. The length of the trains is really a big issue.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Totally agree with Crossrail helping things there. As with congestion, I do hope that is the case and it will improve. The length of the trains is really a big issue.

Yeah, Canada Water is frankly near breaking point in the morning peaks at the moment. The Northbound Overground platform has one escalator down to the Jubilee Line and it's congestion regularly skirts 'dangerous' IMHO. While there's a large waiting area away from the platform edge for people wishing to use it, it's now barely emptying before the next Northbound overground pulls in. At 20tph I don't think it will cope.

But you're right, Crossrail may be the saviour. Although it seems unlikely many will wait to change at Whitechapel to get to Canary Wharf (unless their office is at North Quay i.e. just outside the Crossrail station), those going to Stratford may well change their journeys. Westbound, a lot of passengers who get on the Jubilee Line at Canada Water seem to stay on well past Waterloo (my old commute, I remember the patterns). So hopefully this means Crossrail will present a higher capacity, quicker westward link for many of their journeys too, wherever they might be going eventually, staying on the Overground until Whitechapel might attract a good fraction of them.

If there is not a wholesale switch, the only alternative for Canada Water would seem to be a very awkward one way system in the peaks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top