Should the Inner South London line stations to Victoria service have been saved?

[bicbasher]

Yeah, a bus - the kind of thing that people use to get into central London once their train arrives in Victoria.

And in the case of parts of the capital, the main form of transport.

For those of you who haven't been to Peckham or Camberwell (Denmark Hill) these areas are heavily reliant on bus services as seen by the high frequency routes provided by TfL and are used by some of the poorest residents in London in addition to those who could afford rail.

 

[Minstral25]

What's really being argued here - a low used twice hourly 2-coach service is being replaced by four time per hour 4-coach service going to slightly different destinations.

Passengers for London Bridge will have to change trains at Queen's Road, Peckham to catch the regular Southern London Bridge trains (perhaps 5 minutes longer journey times but four opportunities an hour instead of 2). However a lot of these comparatively few passengers (to other London Bridge Arrivals) can benefit by going directly now to Canada Water for Jubilee line, Shadwell for the DLR, Whitechapel for the District or Shoreditch for Offices in the Bishopsgate Area

Going the other way the loss of two very short trains per hour to Victoria which depart within 5 minutes of a longer twice hourly South Eastern trains. Replaced by four trains per hour to Clapham Junction is not that bad.

The two stations which do seem to loose out are Clapham High Road and Wandsworth Road. Clapham High Road is next to Clapham North tube station (connection to Victoria about 14 minutes) and also has buses every few minutes to Stockwell station which run along bus lanes from where you can get a single tube journey to Victoria, so 5/6 minutes extra journey but much higher frequency on the tube.

So really just Wandsworth Road which is nowhere near any other station. Strangely this is the only intermediate station I do get on and off at occasionally going to Victoria but I'd rather service frequency was up to 4 trains per hour than the current 2 though as I can get on with my journey as I'm rubbish at arriving at the station for a set time and have often sat there for 20 or 25 minutes

 

[Another-Level]

And in the case of parts of the capital, the main form of transport.

For those of you who haven't been to Peckham or Camberwell (Denmark Hill) these areas are heavily reliant on bus services as seen by the high frequency routes provided by TfL and are used by some of the poorest residents in London in addition to those who could afford rail.

That's old news.

Peckham and Camberwell have a growing young population attracted by the arts scene and underground youth culture. These young people will be tomorrow's rail users.

 

[Class377/5]

Certainly not a bus journey for sure.

You seem full of complaints about the change but you seem to have no idea of any alternatives.

Perhaps if you spent more time working on the problem then complaining you might achieve something.

 

[Another-Level]

Alternatives are being considered by the relevant decision makers. The thread is about 'should the SLL be saved' not 'alternatives to the SLL'.

 

[island]

While I understand that Victoria services are being dropped from Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill and at least should have at least 4tph after December, both of these areas also benefit from very regular bus services and are close enough to central London to be viable to change from rail to bus and LB pax can still change at Peckham Rye or use the Jubilee line from Canada Water.

Won't the Southeastern Victoria to Dartford via Bexleyheath services still call at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye?

 

[Another-Level]

yeap, still calls.

 

[tbtc]

Alternatives are being considered by the relevant decision makers. The thread is about 'should the SLL be saved' not 'alternatives to the SLL'.

So you have no alternative? Instead you are complaining about something that is going to happen anyway.

There aren't enough platforms at London Bridge (due to Thameslink work), so which routes should be cut to save the quiet SLL service?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Won't the Southeastern Victoria to Dartford via Bexleyheath services still call at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye?

That half hourly service currently runs within five minutes of the SLL service (meaning that the loss of the SLL trains to Victoria will make little real difference)

 

[Skimble19]

Alternatives are being considered by the relevant decision makers. The thread is about 'should the SLL be saved' not 'alternatives to the SLL'.

Can you go back to whatever forum you came from and stay there please? Since joining this thread you've effectively done nothing but attempt to look like youre right, whilst ignoring any questions you have been asked and failing to provide any realistic solutions.

There are plenty of alternatives for the few people who use the line, or, perhaps (since you just ignore the alternatives!) you could suggest to all these vocal people who want the line to stay open that perhaps they should have used it more in the first place!

 

[bicbasher]

Won't the Southeastern Victoria to Dartford via Bexleyheath services still call at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye?

They will, although those services won't run after 7pm or on Sunday as now.

 

[Another-Level]

They will, although those services won't run after 7pm or on Sunday as now.

and not the early morning trains either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can you go back to whatever forum you came from and stay there please? Since joining this thread you've effectively done nothing but attempt to look like youre right, whilst ignoring any questions you have been asked and failing to provide any realistic solutions.

There are plenty of alternatives for the few people who use the line, or, perhaps (since you just ignore the alternatives!) you could suggest to all these vocal people who want the line to stay open that perhaps they should have used it more in the first place!

Quite a stroppy post, skimble. I'm strictly staying on topic here.

 

[Mintona]

Personally I just hope the London Overground drivers are as friendly at waving as the Southern boys are.

 

[Tav77]

Can you go back to whatever forum you came from and stay there please? Since joining this thread you've effectively done nothing but attempt to look like youre right, whilst ignoring any questions you have been asked and failing to provide any realistic solutions.

There are plenty of alternatives for the few people who use the line, or, perhaps (since you just ignore the alternatives!) you could suggest to all these vocal people who want the line to stay open that perhaps they should have used it more in the first place!

Hear Hear

 

[Clip]

London Bridge 'box goes as part of Thameslink eventually anyway doesn't it, replaced by a 'super PSB' at Three Bridges for pretty much the entire Central division?

Wasnt sure if it all went or not.

 

[The Ham]

Alternatives are being considered by the relevant decision makers. The thread is about 'should the SLL be saved' not 'alternatives to the SLL'.

Given the arguments about passenger numbers from the SLL and that (under the current proposal) to get to London Bridge (although no longer direct) will vary from a little slower (due to adding a change) to quicker (due to not having to wait as long for the next train as the number of services along the line doubles), it apears to be a reasonal suggestion to suggest that in its current form that it should not be saved. Therefore the thread has developed into asking, given the current proposals, what should be done to make the service acceptable to those who wish for the service to remain as it is?

Threads do have a habbit of discussing related subjects which are directly (and sometimes hardly at all) linked to the thread title.

We could start another thread, but then the Admins might suggest that, given that we would be discussing the same line and more or less the same arguments, the two threads were merged.

Another-Level, can you explain what you would want to see (assuming that the SLL service in its current form does not continue) that would mean that you find the new service, if not equal, at least acceptable?

Having explaind why we are asking linked questions, will you now answer my question?

Of course other users of this thread can put forward their own suggestions too.

 

[87015]

Given London Bridge-Peckham Rye was 8tph a couple of years ago before they knocked the Smithams out, getting it back up to 6tph fairly quickly seems fair. I'm not totally up to speed, but I think the (current?) idea is that the Wimbledon loopers will indeed add 2tph onto the L.Bridge-Streatham section post-2018?

You really should be able to have near perfect sub-5min connections (and a 3 mins change allowance SN/LOROL at Peckham Rye) in both directions with 6tph ex LB and 4tph LOROL. Knowing reality it probably won't end up like that, but you have to be optimistic occasionally...

 

[Class377/5]

Alternatives are being considered by the relevant decision makers. The thread is about 'should the SLL be saved' not 'alternatives to the SLL'.

Actually not true. It's complain about someone else not arguing with you and you refusing to either back up your view point or discuss it. As witnessed as we started the thread.

Given London Bridge-Peckham Rye was 8tph a couple of years ago before they knocked the Smithams out, getting it back up to 6tph fairly quickly seems fair. I'm not totally up to speed, but I think the (current?) idea is that the Wimbledon loopers will indeed add 2tph onto the L.Bridge-Streatham section post-2018?

You really should be able to have near perfect sub-5min connections (and a 3 mins change allowance SN/LOROL at Peckham Rye) in both directions with 6tph ex LB and 4tph LOROL. Knowing reality it probably won't end up like that, but you have to be optimistic occasionally...

The last talked about plan was a doubling of the current frequency to counteract the termining of Loop trains at Blackfriars. So 8tph with 4tph via Wimbledon and 4tph Mitcham. If they did do the Blackfriars to London Bridge via Sutton you'd get a boost of 8tph.

 

[tbtc]

Given the arguments about passenger numbers from the SLL and that (under the current proposal) to get to London Bridge (although no longer direct) will vary from a little slower (due to adding a change) to quicker (due to not having to wait as long for the next train as the number of services along the line doubles), it apears to be a reasonal suggestion to suggest that in its current form that it should not be saved. Therefore the thread has developed into asking, given the current proposals, what should be done to make the service acceptable to those who wish for the service to remain as it is?

I agree with all of that

The last talked about plan was a doubling of the current frequency to counteract the termining of Loop trains at Blackfriars. So 8tph with 4tph via Wimbledon and 4tph Mitcham. If they did do the Blackfriars to London Bridge via Sutton you'd get a boost of 8tph.

Every fifteen minutes each way round the Wimbledon loop? Presumably that'd cause some headaches with the single "loop" platform at Wimbledon? Or would the trams have to move?

(yes, other platforms elsewhere can cope with eight trains an hour, but that's normally all in the one direction)

 

[bicbasher]

Ideally, I'd like those SLL 456's for a reinstatement of the Coulsdon Town (Smitham) service via Tulse Hill back, this would've maintained the 6tph between Peckham Rye and LB and reinstated a 6tph service between Peckham Rye and Tulse Hill during the off-peak which would give those stations their East Croydon service back.

But seeing those 456's are going to SWT along with the capacity issues at LB after December....

Hopefully the new timetable will see easy connections between Southern and LO.

 

[OxtedL]

Every fifteen minutes each way round the Wimbledon loop? Presumably that'd cause some headaches with the single "loop" platform at Wimbledon? Or would the trams have to move?

If the Loop becomes a bit more self contained then you might well be able to justify squeezing 8tph alternating direction through Wimbledon, although the planners might feel violently ill doing it. In times of disruption the re-occupation of platform 9 is surprisingly quick. It's often quoted that a long term aspiration of TfL is to have a second tram platform at Wimbledon anyway, so at some point it's quite possible you could get platform 10 back, it really depends on where you could put new tram platforms - I've never yet seen any suggestions - and how much money you could throw together given that the Loop alone isn't going to justify much of a spend.

When the Wimbledon Loop comes up in threads like this, it's normally referenced that the signalling on the Haydons Road arm (?) is not really capable of supporting 4tph yet so improvements aren't imminent.

Hopefully everyone is resigned to the idea that the Inner SLL service is gone until at the earliest the delivery of KO2. The ELL replacement is likely to prove popular, so by then some kind of extra capacity may be required; certainly in the long term something might be desired. The ELL is very unlikely to have anything to give as it's serving several popular branches already. Realistically that means anything extra has to go to London Bridge. Goodness only knows what London Bridge will be handling/able to handle then, but maybe a London Bridge<>Battersea Park (or Clapham if they can find space) might look attractive.

I'll put all of that speculative nonsense up in the air along with new platforms at Brixton, increased frequency Victoria<>Lewisham, and my personal favourite Brockley High Level.

 

[tbtc]

If the Loop becomes a bit more self contained then you might well be able to justify squeezing 8tph alternating direction through Wimbledon, although the planners might feel violently ill doing it. In times of disruption the re-occupation of platform 9 is surprisingly quick. It's often quoted that a long term aspiration of TfL is to have a second tram platform at Wimbledon anyway, so at some point it's quite possible you could get platform 10 back, it really depends on where you could put new tram platforms - I've never yet seen any suggestions - and how much money you could throw together given that the Loop alone isn't going to justify much of a spend

Interesting stuff - cheers.

The Wimbledon Loop is a bit of an oddity like the SLL - a half hourly service is going to struggle to attract passengers in an area with frequent alternative public transport. A fifteen minute one might suddenly see a lot more passengers attracted to it.

The Wimbledon trams have been very busy when I've used them, so I can see the need for a second tram platform there.

 

[bicbasher]

Hopefully everyone is resigned to the idea that the Inner SLL service is gone until at the earliest the delivery of KO2. The ELL replacement is likely to prove popular, so by then some kind of extra capacity may be required;

I certainly recall 5 car ELL services being proposed, although not sure if the Clapham Junction branch being one of those?

 

[Another-Level]

Given the arguments about passenger numbers from the SLL and that (under the current proposal) to get to London Bridge (although no longer direct) will vary from a little slower (due to adding a change) to quicker (due to not having to wait as long for the next train as the number of services along the line doubles), it apears to be a reasonal suggestion to suggest that in its current form that it should not be saved.

But the South London Line served two major terminus. The SLL is actually a very efficient service in terms of passengers numbers over distance.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's often quoted that a long term aspiration of TfL is to have a second tram platform at Wimbledon anyway, so at some point it's quite possible you could get platform 10 back, it really depends on where you could put new tram platforms - I've never yet seen any suggestions - and how much money you could throw together given that the Loop alone isn't going to justify much of a spend.

Network Rail's proposal to '5-track' the SWML (in the London ans SE RUS) also requires the tram to be removed, with no indication of where it would be resited. But in that case it's so that they can divert the down slow through P9, leaving the loop trains stuck with only platform 10...

 

[OxtedL]

I certainly recall 5 car ELL services being proposed, although not sure if the Clapham Junction branch being one of those?

Yes. I can't imagine them only doing certain branches of the ELL and not others (famous last words), so yes it would be Clapham if it happened. They may even try and go for 6-car at some point.

The issue with that is at Canada Water (and a few other stations) they won't be able to open more than 4-cars worth of doors without throwing seriously large amounts of money around. Canada Water is one of the main features of the ELL in that it means you have to go that little bit less far along the Jubilee, particularly in peak conditions, so it's a bit of a kick in the teeth.

Whitechapel with Crossrail will mitigate this a bit perhaps.

London Reconnections did a spot on this when TfL initially came up with their Overground train lengthening proposals. If you haven't seen it already, scroll down a bit: http://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/the-future-of-the-overground-part-2-orange-squash/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Network Rail's proposal to '5-track' the SWML (in the London ans SE RUS) also requires the tram to be removed, with no indication of where it would be resited. But in that case it's so that they can divert the down slow through P9, leaving the loop trains stuck with only platform 10...

I remember reading that and thinking "that's incredibly expensive". This was in their 'we're desperate' scenario I think?

 

[bicbasher]

The issue with that is at Canada Water (and a few other stations) they won't be able to open more than 4-cars worth of doors without throwing seriously large amounts of money around. Canada Water is one of the main features of the ELL in that it means you have to go that little bit less far along the Jubilee, particularly in peak conditions, so it's a bit of a kick in the teeth.

The shocking thing about Canada Water is the lack of forward thinking in the platform length when the station was built in the mid 90s where it appears that the LUL service would stay as it is.

Wapping and Rotherhithe can't be extended, so would require SDO at those and Canada Water.

Edit: Also Shadwell. Surrey Quays and Whitechapel on the original ELL can go up to 5.

 

[Another-Level]

Actually not true. It's complain about someone else not arguing with you and you refusing to either back up your view point or discuss it. As witnessed as we started the thread.

I disagree, what I'm seeing here is a classic moving of the goalpost to suit to justify the ending of the SLL. That is why so many people are angry in the South London area.

 

[OxtedL]

The shocking thing about Canada Water is the lack of forward thinking in the platform length when the station was built in the mid 90s where it appears that the LUL service would stay as it is.

Wapping and Rotherhithe can't be extended, so would require SDO at those and Canada Water.

If we're totally honest the ELL was looking a bit dead at the time. Not everything that gets in the way in the present has to be attributed to a lack of forward thinking, and I think this is an example where forward thinking hadn't even considered the current situation. That the nearby stations aren't 5-car extendable is probably a good enough reason not to consider long platforms a necessity.

Wapping and Rotherhithe are less of a disaster than Canada Water as they don't connect to anything. Shadwell is an interchange so locking doors out of use is undesirable but the DLR has less capacity than the Jubilee anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There's a bit of a non-argument going on in the background here, so if I could back track a bit:

I fully understand the reasons behind the termination of the SLL and fully recognise how the decision making process was flawed.

Genuine questions:
Could you elaborate on what you mean here?
What would you have done differently?

 

[bicbasher]

If we're totally honest the ELL was looking a bit dead at the time. Not everything that gets in the way in the present has to be attributed to a lack of forward thinking, and I think this is an example where forward thinking hadn't even considered the current situation. That the nearby stations aren't 5-car extendable is probably a good enough reason not to consider long platforms a necessity.

Agreed, the focus at the time was on the Jubilee line extension which was to enable those ELL pax to connect to it.

Whitechapel at least is getting the platform extension, once Crossrail opens, we'll see more pax staying on to use it as an interchange to Central London over Canada Water which should relieve some of the pressure.

 

[Another-Level]

Genuine questions:
Could you elaborate on what you mean here?
What would you have done differently?

The decision making process behind the termination of the SLL was flawed because

1) they did not use comparable units of information for each service terminating at London Bridge

2) efficiency of service was not considered either in terms of running a service or delivering passengers per unit of time

3) platform time at London Bridge was not considered