Bromley North branch - Should it be abandoned?

[PG]

Following the bridge strike on the branch earlier today, should Network Rail cut its losses and abandon the branch?

I note it appears that the branch will reopen tomorrow so the damage is not as substantial as it looked, however my question still stands...

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Following the bridge strike on the branch earlier today, should Network Rail cut its losses and abandon the branch?

I note it appears that the branch will reopen tomorrow so the damage is not as substantial as it looked, however my question still stands...

No it would be too much hassle and cost too much to close it and with half a million users a year pre-COVID its not badly used for its length. It doesnt justify closure

 

[PG]

No it would be too much hassle and cost too much to close it and with half a million users a year pre-COVID its not badly used for its length. It doesnt justify closure

Playing devils advocate, surely much of the closure cost could be avoided with a parliamentary service?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Playing devils advocate, surely much of the closure cost could be avoided with a parliamentary service?

But why would you do that. Its well used for such a short branch

In fact pre-COVID Bromley North had 500K entries/exits and the other station Sundridge Park had 225K

 

[telstarbox]

That is good usage considering Bromley has another busier station.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

That is good usage considering Bromley has another busier station.

It is very good

 

[yorkie]

Playing devils advocate, surely much of the closure cost could be avoided with a parliamentary service?

A parliamentary service is a service that runs just once per week; it would surely be cheaper to go through the closure process than maintain a line for just one train per week.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

A parliamentary service is a service that runs just once per week; it would surely be cheaper to go through the closure process than maintain a line for just one train per week.

Plus there is no case to close the line the usage is very good imo

 

[Kingston Dan]

Isn't it one of the possible destinations for an extended Bakerloo line?

 

[cle]

Isn't it one of the possible destinations for an extended Bakerloo line?

And the DLR. And the Tramlink. There have been many suggestions, many of which have merit but I think LR did a study and 'do nothing', as often, was the reco.

Bakerloo is out - seems most likely to run to Hayes (possibly with a spur to Beckenham Junction, which I like) and Grove Park layout would be too difficult.
DLR I can't see running south of Lewisham, and especially if the Bakerloo runs to Catford (Bridge) - is duplicative. And tons of development in Lewisham would make this near impossible.

That leaves the Tramlink, likely from Beckenham Junction down into Bromley town centre and swoop back up - terminating at Grove Park.

Is this useful though? It retains the Grove Park link per today (likely at higher frequency), removes a slight complexity of the shuttles, it covers off Beckenham and Croydon to Bromley routing (potentially all the way to Wimbledon if planned, and presented as a southern orbital). It integrates into an existing mode, with plenty of new combinations and pairs - the one downfall is not linking into the many Kent services at Bromley South.

And it likely would boost the Bakerloo spur to Beckenham itself, in purpose and as a hub.

 

[yorksrob]

The Bromley North line is fine as it is.

It just needs motorists to learn how to drive competently for a change.

 

[tbtc]

There was a thread on it recently where people came up with various weird and wonderful solutions but I think it's one of those awkward routes that probably works best as it is (rather than running through trains to central London or handing it over to the DLR/ Bakerloo/ Overground/ TramLink - all of which look interesting on paper but have some major drawbacks)

I could see some merit in turning it over to a Guided Busway (e.g. extending some bus services from places like Hayes through to Grove Park) but any "new" rail based project would be very expensive and probably involve quite a dog-leg or such a slow journey that people travelling from central London to Bromley would either just change at Grove Park as they do now or travel directly to Bromley South (i.e. you could spend hundreds of millions of pounds extending the Bakerloo but how many people would sit all the way from Bromley into Zone 1?)

One of these alternatives might allow a frequency increase but then how frequent does it need to be if the services from Grove Park to London Bridge aren't any more frequent?

However like the Hayes/ Greenford/ Thames Valley branches or Romford to Upminster, it'll keep cropping up because it's an imperfect solution - you wouldn't design it from scratch like that - one unit shuttling up and down and spending half its time idle - possibly with the complication of whether to have bespoke stock (like 139s at Stourbridge) or with trains massively over-specced for a short branch (e.g. a four coach train with just a couple of dozen passengers or a unit capable of 100mph on a low speed branch line)

Half a million passengers a year sounds a lot (750,000 on the branch), but those passengers were spread over a twenty minute service so the actual loads need to be seen in that context

Certainly not a Parliamentary service - if you're going for the expense of rebuilding the bridge then you might as well keep running the service - it's okay at what it does - and not worth getting the chequebook out for some mega-scheme alternative - the current service is probably the least worst option

 

[PG]

The Bromley North line is fine as it is.

I think that my question has been answered, thanks to all for your replies.

However like the Hayes/ Greenford/ Thames Valley branches or Romford to Upminster, it'll keep cropping up because it's an imperfect solution - you wouldn't design it from scratch like that - one unit shuttling up and down and spending half its time idle - possibly with the complication of whether to have bespoke stock (like 139s at Stourbridge) or with trains massively over-specced for a short branch (e.g. a four coach train with just a couple of dozen passengers or a unit capable of 100mph on a low speed branch line)

I suppose an electric 230 would be well suited for the branch.

 

[paul1609]

Following the bridge strike on the branch earlier today, should Network Rail cut its losses and abandon the branch?

I note it appears that the branch will reopen tomorrow so the damage is not as substantial as it looked, however my question still stands...

Playing devils advocate the branch has more passengers than the Settle & Carlisle and a fraction of the costs why not close the S&C instead?

 

[AzureOtsu]

a class 484 would be perfect for this branch

 

[PG]

I suppose an electric 230 would be well suited for the branch.

a class 484 would be perfect for this branch

Wasn't sure of the class number, thanks.

 

[furnessvale]

How about closing the road under the railway instead, to ensure such an "accident" can never happen again?

 

[87 027]

That road is the sole access to a housing estate which is bounded on all other sides by a golf course and the railway itself

 

[RichJF]

I keep thinking that if the Bakerloo ends up in Hayes (whenever that is) then there'd be potential paths/scope for reintroduction of peak time City services (Charing X or Victoria) from the branch.

 

[PTR 444]

I keep thinking that if the Bakerloo ends up in Hayes (whenever that is) then there'd be potential paths/scope for reintroduction of peak time City services (Charing X or Victoria) from the branch.

Or another option which I think has been mooted somewhere: Extend the Overground from New Cross to Bromley North.

 

[Edsmith]

Or another option which I think has been mooted somewhere: Extend the Overground from New Cross to Bromley North.

Sounds good in principle but lines south of New Cross are pretty much at full capacity so what are you going to remove to make way for them? And then of course there is the issue of crossing the fast line at Grove Park. There is a video that explains the various options and why they're unlikely to work here:

I wouldn't advocate closing the branch but I don't think it would be the end of the world if that did happen. There are two bus routes from Grove Park that go right into Bromley town centre.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Or another option which I think has been mooted somewhere: Extend the Overground from New Cross to Bromley North.

That idea was put forward by Bromley Council, but during peak periods it's completely unworkable and almost unworkable off-peak.

 

[furnessvale]

That road is the sole access to a housing estate which is bounded on all other sides by a golf course and the railway itself

I knew I should have used a smiley.

 

[Mikey C]

I'm disappointed nobody suggested extending the line in tunnel under Bromley, then south to Hurst Green, where it would take over the Uckfield line (which would be electrified) then continue onwards to Lewes.

Operated by 442s

 

[atomicdanny]

I'm wondering if the "Fast" service from Bromley North to London Charing Cross / London Victoria / etc has been thought of? (it's on the fast line side of Grove Park isn't it? ) - I assume it probably would be used, with Bromley South being a busy station? (so some of those would go to the north)

(to note - it's just a random thought, I assume that there would be no paths on the fast lines anyway)

 

[MarkyT]

I'm wondering if the "Fast" service from Bromley North to London Charing Cross / London Victoria / etc has been thought of? (it's on the fast line side of Grove Park isn't it? ) - I assume it probably would be used, with Bromley South being a busy station? (so some of those would go to the north)

(to note - it's just a random thought, I assume that there would be no paths on the fast lines anyway)

While it might be possible, a short train on the fasts would be a poor use of a path from so close in that could be used by a longer distance and more lucrative train from further afield instead. It is a very busy railway.

 

[zwk500]

Another issue with through running is that the junction is single-lead, and slow speed. This means that each movement on and off the branch would take more than one path out, and that they could not be 'paired' efficiently.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

If I was in charge of the public purse, it would be Beckenham Jn - Bromley - Grove Park on Tramlink. No Bakerloo line or DLR extensions to Bromley North.

 

[cle]

If I was in charge of the public purse, it would be Beckenham Jn - Bromley - Grove Park on Tramlink. No Bakerloo line or DLR extensions to Bromley North.

Yep me too. Builds out the network more fully across the main outer South/SE London centres, but with connectivity too. Lewisham considering inner here.

Hopefully with Bakerloo between there and Beckenham / Elmers End

DLR and New Cross Overground aren’t going anywhere.

 

[zwk500]

If I was in charge of the public purse, it would be Beckenham Jn - Bromley - Grove Park on Tramlink.

I wouldn't, the cost of getting it to anywhere east of Beckenham Jn would be astronomical. Tram-trains would come with their own set of problems.

No Bakerloo line or DLR extensions to Bromley North.

Agree with this.

Given that a grade-separated connection to the slow lines is not viable, and taking up paths on the Fast line is to the much greater detriment of people further out, there's not really anything that can be done to the branch that's worth doing, and closure is not really justified either so best just to leave it as it is.
The solution to the bridge bash is to sign the hazards properly, assess the design for potential weak spots and improve large vehicle driver's training about their responsibilities. Also getting together with Satnav companies to mark risky bridges directly (although I wouldn't be surprised if this was already happening). The ultimate option would be to rebuild the bridge.