Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Ideally there should be passive provision for an extension through Belvedere and or/Erith, I believe there's some huge developments planned for Erith in the next few years. Anything to improve rail travel in this part of London should be considered and welcomed.
Ideally there should be passive provision for an extension through Belvedere and or/Erith, I believe there's some huge developments planned for Erith in the next few years. Anything to improve rail travel in this part of London should be considered and welcomed.
We do need another river crossing, but this is the third fixed link to the same place (Royal Docklands); a place which hardly anyone goes to. Yes, ok they're building loads of flats along the Woolwich DLR branch, but those residents aren't going to Thamesmead...
Look at the Woolwich Ferry, it links the N/S circulars together. North of North Woolwich, the North Circular takes you straight to Barking, Ilford and Walthamstow. If we want to reduce traffic, air pollution, unlock housing and make travelling more attractive, surely you build links along busy road corridors without good rail alternatives? Now only if there was a railway that ends right at the river and follows a similar route to the North Circular...
Extending the Goblin might be more expensive, but to me, it's the one that makes most sense. If I was in Thamesmead, I'd rather a one stop link to Abbey Wood, or two stops to Barking, both with very good and very different interchanges, rather than a slow DLR to Tower Gateway (if I'm lucky).
As for Beckton Riverside, I'd still build it and extend to Barking Riverside instead, with the Goblin to Abbey Wood (even Bexleyheath). But that's my crayonista thoughts...
Thamesmead is one of the very few places in London not served by any rail services so I think in terms of regeneration, it's more likely to happen than the Bakerloo Line Extension and cheaper as well.
The Old Kent Road for one. Scope for more homes, offices and retail and of raising greater levies on development to help fund.
Parts of Thamesmead are walkable from Abbey Wood station quite easily. Get off a train at Abbey Wood, head north and in 3 mins you're in Thamesmead. I worked across Thamesmead for some years and know it very very well. Within 10 mins you'll have seen land that can enable thousands of homes.
To the north of town two miles away its a different story, but it's not that long on bus to Elizabeth line and Southeastern, DLR stations. But that area of the town does needs better - however at £1.6bn its never going to be funded so a tram or BRT to Abbey Wood and Woolwich is what is needed for modal change and to unlock development land.
When that's up and running a tunnel using those modes over to useful places (i.e not Beckton) can be built.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It seems a bit pointless to go all that way and not link it up with Elizabeth line at either Abbey Wood or Woolwich.
Is there any detail about exactly how the new bus links will be “rapid?” I had to travel from Harrow to Heathrow airport during the afternoon peak on Friday. Despite being served by the X140 bus which is supposed to be a key part of Khan’s showcase Superloop bus network, was painfully slow and unreliable - it would have been half the journey time by car and actually faster by public transport to have taken the Piccadilly line from Rayners Lane and changing at Acton Town.
Unlike most "rapid" bus routes one in Thamesmead has a very good chance of being rapid. And TfL finally now seem to want to adopt express routes.
Much of the road network in Thamesmead to Abbey Wood, Woolwich and Belvedere was built in the 60s and 70s with a 100k population in mind. It's still 10s of thousands short. I think at 60-70k now.
That means wide dual carriageways, wide central reserves and land abound which aren't at capacity enabling a BRT/Tram at street level.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think people saying 'it's only one stop in Thamesmead how could it justify a tunnel' are missing the point - the number of stops is less important to whether a project goes ahead than what they achieve.
The GLA reckons the Thamesmead opportunity area as could deliver 8,000 new homes as it is. If the DLR is extended they reckon that becomes 15,000 new homes.
Even at a relatively conservative estimate, 7,000 homes are worth billions of pounds to a developer. The reality is that TfL's ability to deliver new infrastructure at the moment is based on whether a private developer will stump up some cash to build it (this has been the case with the Northern Line extension, and even the Elizabeth Line).
As a result this probably has a better chance of happening than many other projects.
Spending £1.6bn on an extension for 7k homes is not great value for money. Even if we discount the Beckton element, we could be talking £1bn+ for a tunnel and one extra stop for those 7k homes.
A BRT/Tram could enable 7k homes for far less and that would link speedily to DLR, National Rail and Elizabeth line.
Old Kent Road and Lewisham are expected to see 20k+ homes for example - and being nearer central London has far more scope to obtain developer levies.
OKR has a far better cost/benefit ratio and in a time of scarce funds, it will win out IMO. Thamesmead could see a BRT/Tram for far less than the DLR idea, service many more growth areas (eg Erith and central Thamesmead given the station planed in the north/north west of town) and offer better connectivity.
The amount that could be raised via private developers on 7k homes in Thamesmead pales into insignificance to many growth areas. And given the private housing element would be 3.5k-5k extra homes, that's really not much at all. Compare to Sivertown, North Greenwich, Croydon, Stratford for just some growth areas in London that vastly exceed that total of homes. 5k homes isn't more than many areas of London are seeing/will see.
The Bakerloo Line extension is a lot more expensive than the DLR extension and also the Bakerloo Line needs massive infrastructure upgrades alongside new stock.
I like the idea of a Tram or BRT although I think TfL would go for a BRT in terms of costs unless they are able to get new trams that could also be used for Croydon since the CR4000s are nearing the end.
We do need another river crossing, but this is the third fixed link to the same place (Royal Docklands); a place which hardly anyone goes to. Yes, ok they're building loads of flats along the Woolwich DLR branch, but those residents aren't going to Thamesmead...
The DLR extension would provide much better connectivity than any extension to the Goblin would as the DLR already has interchanges with the Central Line (Stratford & Bank), the Jubilee Line (Stratford, West Ham, Canning Town), Elizabeth Line (Stratford & Custom House), H&C Line and District Lines & c2c (West Ham), Greater Anglia & London Overground NLL services (Stratford) plus SE High Speed at Stratford International. Plus with the Stratford International branch of the DLR having alot of surplus capacity running the Extension to Stratford International would be the more suitable solution as the trains can alternate between Woolwich Arsenal and Thamesmead increasing the service frequency from 8-10 minutes on the branch to potentially every 4-5 minutes between Stratford & Canning Town
The DLR extension would provide much better connectivity than any extension to the Goblin would as the DLR already has interchanges with the Central Line (Stratford & Bank), the Jubilee Line (Stratford, West Ham, Canning Town), Elizabeth Line (Stratford & Custom House), H&C Line and District Lines & c2c (West Ham), Greater Anglia & London Overground NLL services (Stratford) plus SE High Speed at Stratford International. Plus with the Stratford International branch of the DLR having alot of surplus capacity running the Extension to Stratford International would be the more suitable solution as the trains can alternate between Woolwich Arsenal and Thamesmead increasing the service frequency from 8-10 minutes on the branch to potentially every 4-5 minutes between Stratford & Canning Town
I'm not convinced by the connectivity aspect and yet again orbital links in South London are being ignored. This would be the fourth tunnel (third rail tunnel) in the Woolwich area to the Docklands, while you can't get across to Barking, not even by ferry.
Would the DLR actually go to Bank from Thamesmead? It might not even go to Stratford, it could just head to Tower Gateway. The Elizabeth Line is just 1mi from the centre of Thamesmead at Abbey Wood. That's closer than half of Orpington to their station; closer than Shooters Hill Road to either Eltham or Woolwich Arsenal stns. And seeing I'd have the Goblin go to Abbey Wood anyway, I'd argue that's a better connection to the Liz Line than Custom House and certainly Stratford, while also connecting to Southeastern. Many people who live in Thamesmead also want better connections with the rest of South London and North Kent - this does absolutely nothing for that.
A Goblin extension would give connections to c2c, H&C, and the District at Barking - hugely improving the cross river links between this part of SE London and Kent and the equivalent East London and Thurrock side. It would be a better alternative to the Woolwich Ferry and Dartford Crossings, while also providing a direct link to North London. The DLR would probably make zero difference whatsoever to traffic as well.
I agree the frequency for the DLR would be better, but 4tph doesn't put people off using the Goblin.
If you extend from Gallions Reach to Beckton Riverside, Creekmouth, and Barking Riverside, you can also support the redevelopment of Creekmouth and give an easy interchange at Barking Riv too.
It'd cost more, but honestly, I'd rather have an expensive good project than a cheaper bad one.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Without quoting your entire post, I'd absolutely agree with you @LeeLivery in that connecting Thamesmead to Barking would be a really good move. If it can be done, without major impacts on the existing communities with things like noise etc, then that's what I'd go for.
It's not an area of London I know well at all, so I have no idea how realistic it is. However, I'd absolutely choose that than the DLR option.
It is very frustrating - arrive by train at Barking Riverside and you can see Thamesmead right in front of you. Yet there's no way across. There does seem to be a "computer says no" attitude at TfL to this link, which is tragic considering how many years people have waited for decent public transport there. Save for mayors' and borough leaders' pet projects, cross-river connectivity is a massive blind spot, and even was when TfL had money.
Worth bearing in mind that the Thamesmead DLR extension is less about the existing population - effectively abandoned for more than 50 years - and more about those in the developments planned for Thamesmead Waterfront and its equivalents on the other side of the Thames.
In the short term a ferry (or extension of the clipper) from Barking Riverside to a new pier in Thamesmead would seem to offer significant benefits for relatively little cost and complexity. In the longer term, a fixed link between Thamesmead and Abbey Wood should be just one part of a route that links the various North Kent branches. Whether the DLR, London Overground or trams are the best technology for this I don't know, but it's unlikely to be anything else.
The DLR from Beckton Riverside will have provision for an extension, but that will run east not south.
Worth bearing in mind that the Thamesmead DLR extension is less about the existing population - effectively abandoned for more than 50 years - and more about those in the developments planned for Thamesmead Waterfront and its equivalents on the other side of the Thames.
This is the same everywhere - current targets, funding streams, etc are all geared around private developers paying for better connectivity to their developments. Existing communities do not have developers so there is no private money to be captured, and the current government is loathe to spend public money on anything other than handouts to their friends.
How much would a walking and cycling bridge over the Thames to Barking Riverside cost? It would need to be high to clear ships so would need lifts at each end rather than ramps or very long ramps from futher inland. It could (at worst) be paid for by making it start from the paid area of Barking Riverside station and have station gates at the Thamesmead end. If the whole thing was covered so as soon as you set off up the ramp you are in the dry I could see it working quite effectively for some people. You could also have an ebike taxi for anyone not able to do the walk. Not as exciting as the DLR but more cost effective?
It is very frustrating - arrive by train at Barking Riverside and you can see Thamesmead right in front of you. Yet there's no way across. There does seem to be a "computer says no" attitude at TfL to this link, which is tragic considering how many years people have waited for decent public transport there. Save for mayors' and borough leaders' pet projects, cross-river connectivity is a massive blind spot, and even was when TfL had money.
Rivers really shouldn't be such huge barriers in a city like London. TfL have just placed it in the too difficult, don't bother pile - which I think is a shame.
Worth bearing in mind that the Thamesmead DLR extension is less about the existing population - effectively abandoned for more than 50 years - and more about those in the developments planned for Thamesmead Waterfront and its equivalents on the other side of the Thames.
How much would a walking and cycling bridge over the Thames to Barking Riverside cost? It would need to be high to clear ships so would need lifts at each end rather than ramps or very long ramps from futher inland. It could (at worst) be paid for by making it start from the paid area of Barking Riverside station and have station gates at the Thamesmead end. If the whole thing was covered so as soon as you set off up the ramp you are in the dry I could see it working quite effectively for some people. You could also have an ebike taxi for anyone not able to do the walk. Not as exciting as the DLR but more cost effective?
The scrapped Rotherhithe Crossing idea was said to have cost up to £600m, which sounds like an absolutely insane figure for a footbridge. If they use a similar plan, they'd probably quote 1bn for Thamesmead
... and low to clear City Airport flight paths. Barking Riverside is a whole kilometre from the Thamesmead coast, so much of Thamesmead would have a shorter walk to Abbey Wood.
There's still this mistaken notion that all of Thamesmead is remote. It's really not true.
North Thamesmead is where the housing growth will be, and if they can build an express, frequent link to Woolwich a cross river link isn't much use - not via the DLR anyway given the frequencies and speed that could be expected.
The scrapped Rotherhithe Crossing idea was said to have cost up to £600m, which sounds like an absolutely insane figure for a footbridge. If they use a similar plan, they'd probably quote 1bn for Thamesmead
Any bridge over the Thames downstream of Tower Bridge needs to be either as high as the upper walkways on Tower Bridge or an opening (lifting/swinging) bridge. The plan for Rotherhithe (which has been punted into the long grass but not scrapped) is for an opening bridge carrying pedestrians and cyclists which is why it is significantly more expensive than a simple footbridge would be. That cost would not scale linearly to a bridge to Thamesmead because the width of the opening section would not need to be any wider than that at Rotherhithe, it would however almost certainly have to open more frequently for any given height.
City Airport flight paths are not going to be massively relevant to most designs as these are south of the Thames at this point.
The issue here is that everyone seems to want their fingers in the pie, something the old LDDC in Docklands managed to avoid. The housebuilders would build, but general transport there, including London's No 1 transport mode outside Zone 1, cars, is notably poor. So that impacts the price they can get. The landowners want the maximum price per acre. TfL seem to think there is some huge surplus from building houses they can scoop for DLR extensions (there isn't). The local authority wants to stick all sorts of Section 106 agreements on it to fund their pet projects. They also want the maximum density, to maximise their council tax income. Environmentalists want to ban houses with adequate parking places, which just depresses their value.
Thamesmead already went down the path of the cheapest structures 50-60 years ago. Look where that got them.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
