The Bakerloo Line is, in many ways, an obvious candidate for extension and we’ve looked briefly at the history of such schemes on this blog before. Extended, the Bakerloo could encompass a number of areas poorly served for high-frequency rail, relieve main-line services into stations such as London Bridge and serve as a catalyst for urban renewal. It also connects to every other London Underground line at some point, as well as over half of the main line services that run into the Capital.
Sources indicate that London Underground undertook a strategic investigation into the possibility of extending the Bakerloo Line to the south back in 2007, the resulting report accepting that advances in tunnelling methods and technology have largely negated the traditional problem of tunnelling in the sands and chalk that are commonly found south of the river. Indeed sources claim that London Underground’s investigation confirmed that tunnelling south of the river would indeed now provide value-for-money.
That such an investigation was undertaken is hardly surprising – the Underground business is one that, strategically speaking, requires some serious long-term thinking. Whilst Mayors and Governments come and go, lines and extensions-to-lines require immense amounts of construction, planning and (arguably most importantly of all) safeguarding. That means planning work and possibilities decades in advance and investigating ideas that, whilst not practical now, may suddenly become politically and economically viable suddenly and almost without warning. Indeed, one of the criticisms that has been levelled at the current Mayor’s decision to cut off of funds to a number of allegedly “frivolous” schemes originally commissioned by his predecessor is that it may handicap, to a certain degree, the potential for TfL to react to unexpected development opportunities in five or ten years time.
In the Bakerloo Line’s case, however, simply covering future bases was likely not the only reason for London Underground’s investigative efforts. It is believed that a southern extension to the line was marked out as a major recommendation in the South London Corridor section of TfL’s Underground: 2025 report, produced in the same year, which concluded that of all the options in the area (Victoria Bakerloo and Northern), an extended Bakerloo would yield the most benefit.
Sources indicate that TfL’s report also looked to establish what route an extension would likely take, performing a cost/traffic/benefit analysis of a number of options and that, broadly speaking, it recommended three possible options, with London Underground’s own in-depth assessment concurring with TfL’s findings.
Bearing in mind the renewed interest recently in a possible Bakerloo Extension thanks to comments from the Mayor and other sources, this seems a good opportunity to explore the options that TfL’s 2025 report is believed to have laid out.
Option 1: Extend the Line South East to Catford and Beyond (Hayes)
According to sources, this option would see the Bakerloo taken to Peckham Rye and almost certainly beyond to Catford Bridge. There, it could optionally be extended further out to Hayes (via the Mid-Kent line) with an optional additional termination point at Beckenham Junction.
This option would, it is believed TfL’s report established, lead to journey time savings for those on the Peckham Rye side of up to twenty minutes, with further extension outwards leading to possible savings of up to 30 minutes for those further out. This would be due to the omission of connections from feeder services on journeys. Elephant & Castle, Peckham Rye and Catford Bridge would also benefit as new transport hubs within the area. A connection to Hayes would also bring obvious congestion benefits to main line services into London Bridge.
One advantage to an extension that followed this option would be the staggered nature in which the line could be extended – as the map above shows, extension could – if it were supported by additional stabling in North London – be carried out in stages.
Sources indicate that if the connection beyond Catford Bridge were taken, the existing Hayes service would be curtailed at Catford Bridge, and the new Bakerloo Extension would be underground until that point.
Option 2: Extend the Line South to Tulse Hill and Beyond (Streatham and Beckenham Junction)
According to sources, TfL’s report considered the possibility of extending the Bakerloo south to Tulse Hill, with the option of then extending it to Beckenham Junction via Crystal Palace and, optionally, also to Streatham Hill.
This option would carry the advantage of relieving traffic from the Victoria Line, but would not provide as much of a benefit to congestion relief or renewal as the first option listed here, or the third one to come. It is perhaps unsurprising therefore, that sources suggest that this was deemed the least cost-effective and beneficial plan to take forward, with the other two options more favoured.
Option 3: Extend the Line South East, via New Cross and Lewisham and then beyond (to Hayes)
As with Option 1, this option would entail a possible two stage delivery, with the second again going to Hayes (via the Mid-Kent line), Beckenham Junction and, in this case, Catford Bridge. The possibility of transport hub at Peckham Rye would be lost, but replaced by a similar situation at Lewisham. This option would have a similar effect to Option 1 on congestion and journey times for those covered by the line.
An extension that included Lewisham would also create a major “orbital interchange,” thanks to the connections to the DLR, Thameslink and main line railway connections.
Sources indicate that if the connection beyond Lewisham were taken, National Rail services to Hayes from Charing Cross and Cannon Street would be diverted to Dartford to ease passenger congestion on this particular line.
Overall, it is believed that TfL’s Southern Corridor report recommended that either the Lewisham or Peckham Rye options be exercised should the opportunity to extend the line present itself, something that sources say London Underground’s own investigation supported.
If a Bakerloo Extension is truly on the cards as we move into the next decade, then it will be interesting to see whether this is in fact the path down which it manifests.
[n.b. the maps above have one small mistake - where a Beckenham Junction branch manifests, it should do so after New Beckenham not before. Apologies - JB]
Following on from last time this discussion was raised I am pleased to see the planners seem to think that either you go to Peckham or to Camberwell but you do not attempt both.
I can't quite see a Hayes line terminating at Catford Bridge. Once you think along those lines you move heaven and (more relevantly) earth to get the DLR to Catford and in so doing you get rid of the Hayes trains altogether and release 6 slots per hour to London terminii in the peak period – something Network Rail's RUS has already hinted at.
what are the sources? Are they reliable?
what are the sources? Are they reliable?
Very reliable. S'all I can say I'm afraid.
It's funny how, of the three options, the one that's been on the table for nearly hundred years (via Camberwell) is the one with the least cost/benefit ratio!
Assuming only options 1 and 3 are considered viable, option 3 does have the advantage of not having to close down a perfectly good (and popular) station at Ladywell.
I suspect the orphaning of the short Catford Bridge – Lewisham stretch of the Mid-Kent Line was part of the reason for retaining a stub service to Catford Bridge in Option 1. Buy why include it in Option 3? Passengers can simply change at Lewisham, which would have more services to London Bridge, Victoria and Docklands anyway.
From an interface design perspective, Option 3 therefore seems the better choice. Journeys would be easier, as well as quicker. Interchanges would be improved, including at Catford Bridge, which is gagging for decent cross-platform interchange with Catford Loop services; this project would provide an excellent opportunity to build that.
Of course, I'm assuming Lewisham station itself would see major reconstructive surgery to improve its poor layout, remove speed restrictions and sort out the rat's nest of flat junctions which surround it. (Stop giggling at the back!)
@stimarco.
I've just amended that final option 3 paragraph. Should have read:
"Sources indicate that if the connection beyond Lewisham were taken, National Rail services to Hayes from Charing Cross and Cannon Street would be diverted to Dartford to ease passenger congestion on this particular line."
An extension to south-east London will be far more usesful than a northern extension to Watford.
Good to see that things seem to be progressing on this.
Just one thing, on the diagrams, shouldn't New Beckenham be shown before the line splits off to Beckenham Jn?
I agree with Pedantic–option 1 via Peckham would seem to make more sense in conjunction with the proposed extension of the DLR to Catford Bridge.
This would:
*Maintain the important connection from the Hayes line onto the DLR
*Allow removal of the proposed services from Catford Bridge (without Ladywell station having to close and losing the Catford-Lewisham link), allowing extra Dartford services (as option 3)
But presumably we must be missing something? Estimated cost of DLR extension now too high maybe?
Fantastic article John, many thanks. Your next task, should you choose to accept it – gaining access to the DLR horizons report!
Forgive me, but where does it say anything about Ladywell station closing, in any option? Surely it's just a metter of whether Lewisham-Ladywell-Catford is Bakerloo, DLR or National Rail to London Bridge?
I'd say in terms of providing a direct route to Catford (and therefore Hayes) option 1 is superior. Option 3 is appealing for the interchange opportunities but a detour via Lewisham is going to add significantly to the Catford-Elephant journey time.
As well as a possible DLR extension to Catford, lets not ignore that option 1 also provides a useful interchange for the Overground and London Bridge at Honor Oak.
If the route in option 1 was selected, but the Hayes line paths were allocated to Dartford services (as in option 3), then Ladywell would be left with no service.
Unless the DLR was extended…
Kev – the article says "the existing Hayes service would be curtailed at Catford Bridge"
I read that 100% as saying that the existing service – ie the one from London Bridge to Hayes – will run from London Bridge to Catford Bridge. The Bakerloo service is *proposed* not existing, even if it is to use the route from Catford to Hayes, so I don't see how this can refer to that. Perhaps Mr Bull can clarify what he meant.
How would journey times be affected? Are the tubes slower than current Networkers and Electrostars? Will platforms need to be lowered? If the Bakerloo reached Beckenham Jn then there'd be no excuse not to include Tramlink on tube maps as two of the termini would then have a tube interchange.
@paul – you've read it how I meant it.
How would journey times be affected? Are the tubes slower than current Networkers and Electrostars?
The suggestion is that overall journey times for the majority of users would fall because they lose the need to take a feeder service and it improves (or removes) their interchanges.
Speaking hypothetically, for example, one might guess that if TfL had run the figures on a journey from Tulse Hill to Oxford Circus, they'd have estimated a total journey time post-extension at about 19 minutes. A similar journey from Lewisham to Oxford Circus might take just over 20, and a journey from Catford just over 25.
The branch to Beckenham Junction should definitely illustrated between New Beckenham and Clock House.
These maps show interchanges with BR lines but not Tramlink.
Very interesting read – I also would like to see the juicy bits of the DLR Horizons report. I've been hunting for it high and low not realising it's not public. Grr!
Given you wouldn't need a timetable and frequencies would be high, average journey times would be lower. Delays would be less likely too.
Wonder if there could be provision for cooling the Bakerloo with this extension?
Surely a Charing Cross – Catford Bridge service would use the same paths as the Hayes trains, and so not be beneficial in terms of congestion and capacity.
Then again, Ladywell as DLR only would be quite a downgrade. Still, users could go one stop north to Lewisham, for 10tph+ to London Bridge, and Thameslink by then, or one stop south for up to 24tph on Bakerloo – if DLR frequencies were ok, this might be acceptable. They'd also have direct Canary Wharf, Crossrail and Bank trains.
And just to add, I'll modify the maps today.
@ Paul
Apologies for being unclear. I realise Ladywell doesn't have to close under any of the options.
What I'm getting at is that option 1 seems flawed in two important respects, both of which could be resolved if the DLR was extended to Catford Bridge.
The first flaw is that the direct connection to the DLR from Hayes line stations south of Catford Bridge is lost. This is very heavily used at the moment–large numbers change at Lewisham from the Hayes line to the DLR.
The second flaw is that because a curtailed Hayes line service is retained from Catford Bridge to London, the opportunity to send extra trains to Dartford / reduce congestion at Lewisham is lost.
If the DLR were to be extended to Catford Bridge in conjunction with option 1, then both these problems would be solved. The direct connection to the DLR from stations south of CB would be maintained. Also because the DLR would take over the section of the Hayes line between Catford Bridge and Lewisham, the Hayes line NR paths into Charing Cross/Cannon Street could all be allocated to Dartford services.
Of course, the idea of DLR extension to Catford Bridge has been around for a long time, but there have been concerns over the high cost.
The Victoria line is congested already at Brixton, as all the other surrounding areas (e.g. Streatham) have their populaces bussing in, because it's the only tube line available in the Streatham/Norwood area.
The Bakerloo might not provide the best value for money, but then the least they could do would be to extend the Victoria line south.
it all depends upon what you are trying to achieve from tube line (Vic, W&C, Bakerloo, Northern, etc) South London extensions.
NR South London RUS (or was it something else ?) is looking for capacity towards London Bridge/Cannon St/Charing Cross by removing the whole Hayes line onto Network Rail. Thus to achieve (if that one of the key goals) this you have to take over everything from either Lewisham or Ladywell south (option 3 as i read it).
On the Hayes Branch, the 8 car bay (north) platform at Beckenham Jct which is only used by a handful (2?) trains a day on the Hayes Line – it's an useful utislation of a little used bit of track but is it (a short branch) really the thing a tube line extension needs ???
Re option 2, is the Southern line Tulse Hill via Crystal Palace used by other services (ie beyond the service via Birbeck to Beckenham Jct), as the grade separated junction north of Norwood Junction looks very useful. Also wood this option not affect Tramlink's extension to Crystal Palace?
Obviously what a lot of posters here are after is solving the dire lack of rapid transit within the South London Line. Maybe to solve this problem a multi line, extension strategy (ie Victoria, Northern & Bakerloo) is needed. Obviously given we are undertaking ELLX, Crossrail and then Chelney money is tied up for the foreseeable future, the protection of a route (Chelney was protected what almost 20 years ago?) is needed.
Having lived in Camberwell I always found it extraordinary how a relatively well-defined area of Zone 2 London could be without a tube. It became even more stark when I began to realise what a terribly dangerous neighbourhood it was too, and how, with a tube station, it could be a really nice neighbourhood.
Now, I am sure that residents of Peckham and Old Kent Road feel the same about their 'hoods and the prospect of a tube connection. They all need a tube (very badly). Peckham is already due to get the ELL. Old Kent Road…hmmm…can we knock it down and start again?
The one place that absolutely definitely needs the tube is Walworth Road. I would be happiest if it went from Elephant & Castle, straight down the Walworth Road (with a station there) to Denmark Hill (with an interchange for the ELL). I would think that most benefit could be gained from it going SE from there.
Many rail commuters come into London from Kent via Peckham Rye. An interchange to the tube at Peckham Rye station would provide much needed relief to congested terminal stations such as London Bridge and Victoria. Since the Southeastern franchise route to Victoria, the Southern route to London Bridge and the 'Thameslink' services via Blackfriars all cross at Peckham Rye station this would be an ideal spot for such an interchange to provide maximum benefit.
The downside of the SR network, is that it gives a less frequent service than the tube. The Upside (due to its complexity) is the number of direct travel options, e.g. for the Hayes line the option of the City (Cannon Street) or West End, and potential connection to Thameslink at Lewisham.
Thus, the danger of the Tube taking over a branch is lessening the flexibility – the trains go to one destination only, tracks and platforms have to be dedicated etc.
I would have thought Lewisham would be a certainty, the service from Lewisham into town is very uneven, with large gaps due to the various though routes passing though, and the option for 'Dartford line commuters' of changing to the Bakerloo at Lewisham instead of Waterloo is a useful ones.
But then, what is the purpose of a new line into S/SE London, is it to go into virgin territory, or is it to relieve currently overcrowded or inadequate services?
I did not raise this issue before but Mike C has a good point. The people of Hayes and West Wickham (both busy rush hour stations) will not be happy. The earlier 1970s option to take the Fleet line to Hayes was generally not welcomed. As an aside, for a long time the old goods yard at West Wickham was earmarked for a possible tube depot but was released for housing many years ago.
As I see it, any taking over of the Hayes branch makes sense in an overall transport strategy but the people at the far end of the line will be losers, not winners.
So Hayes line commuters for London Bridge or Cannon Street would have to change to the Northern at Elephant and Castle, instead of getting a direct train.
What is the interchange like at Elephant and Castle between the Bakerloo and Northern?
"What is the interchange like at Elephant and Castle between the Bakerloo and Northern?"
– better than the interchange between the tubes and the street/NR. E&C desperately needs escalators
Hypothetically if funding and permissions were in place for the Bakerloo line to be extended to Hayes, with work starting tomorrow, what timescale would we be looking at from start to finish?
Would the line be closed completely like the ELL or could it be done in stages, keeping in mind the addition of a fourth rail, signalling changes, platform heights lowered.
Would there be "express" buses from Hayes to Bromley South, New Beckenham to Beckenham Jn et?
If a branch ran on existing tracks from New Beckenham to Beckenham Jn this would remain a single branch into Platform 4. But would the stabling siding remain, or could this be made into a loop, for tubes to wait in while another departs. (Similar to the DLR at Tower Gateway.)
Finally (!) did New Beckenham originally have a third line in the middle of the existing two. There's a huge gap between the two lines. If large enough this could also become a daytime stabling facility.
"As I see it, any taking over of the Hayes branch makes sense in an overall transport strategy but the people at the far end of the line will be losers, not winners."
Hardly. They'd get a much more frequent service, as well as single-interchange access to the entire tube network *and* Crossrail. Sure, it'll take slightly longer to get there, but not noticeably so when you consider the long delays seen around London Bridge during peak hours today.
As for the option of taking the DLR to Catford Bridge… have you *seen* the DLR station at Lewisham? At present, the trains stop literally a few metres from the A20. At grade! And Lewisham station also has a river confluence right next to it (Ravensbourne + Quaggy = Deptford Creek.) Not only would the DLR have to cross the A20 on the level, it'd also have to bridge the Ravensbourne which crosses under the road directly in front of the station.
Simply taking over the existing Platforms 1 & 2 at Lewisham isn't an option either: these platforms are used by services via both Ladywell (to Hayes) and Hither Green (to Lee, Chislehurst and beyond). The two systems are incompatible, so DLR cannot share tracks here. The only option is to radically alter the entire station complex. Which ain't cheap.
From a purely pragmatic perspective, Option 3 is the only one that makes any kind of sense. Option 1 would only work if the Bakerloo did *not* then extend out to Hayes, but continued in another direction instead. (Perhaps via Downham to Grove Park in tunnel, before taking over the Bromley North branch.)
Remember, at least one large part of the exercise is to relieve congestion at Lewisham Junction. This means the Hayes line *has* to go. The people of Hayes may whinge and moan, but they're not the only users of the ex-SE&CR rail network through Lewisham.
History of railways in Beckenham here:http://www.beckenhamhistory.co.uk/railwaysinbeckenham.html
The point about Hayes and West Wickham residents fighting tube proposals is interesting. People in south-east London often moan about the lack of Tube. It was Bromley council who famously halted Ken's Fare's Fare scheme in the 80s because they believed their rate payers were unfairly levied because they lacked the Tube. Bromley also objected to Tramlink but later argued for its extensions. Boris was elected by outer London but it will be interesting to see if he or a future Conservative goverment would push through proposals to push the Tube into deepest Tory strongholds of south east london.
@Kev – Notwithstanding the logistical issues at Lewisham, I'm with you all the way on Option 1 with DLR to Catford, it seems like the optimal one – particularly for Hayes commuters who will gain both a more direct route to the West End, and decent "one interchange" options for the City and Docklands.
It is worth getting an actual map (as opposed to a tube/rail diagram) to see how the routes vary – taking the Bakerloo to Lewisham and then down to Hayes would be a massive corner, a bit like a giant version of the Bakerloo detour to Paddington, wheras the Peckham route will shorten journey times to the West End from Hayes simply because of the shorter distance – the lack of interchange and higher frequency will be a bonus.
As for Lewisham, you can see the logistical issues of extending the DLR for yourself here – http://bit.ly/Fkwvy – I'm guessing the DLR would have to be raised coming out of Elverson Road so that it could pass over the Dartford line, with Lewisham station completely rebuilt.
Extrapolating from John Bull's journey times is interesting:
Hayes to Charing X
——————
Current 42 min
Option 1
Hayes-Catford 18 min (current)
Catford Bridge-Charing Cross 21 min (based on JB's 25 min CB-OC)
Total 39 min
Option 3
Hayes-Lewisham 23 min
Lewisham-Charing X 16 min (based on JB's 20 min L-OC)
Total 39 min
Hayes to Cannon St/Bank
———————–
Current 50 min (to Cannon St)
With Bakerloo to Hayes
Hayes to Elephant 33 min (taking 6 mins off times above to CX)
Connection to Northern Line 5 min
Northern line to to Bank 5 min
Total 43 min (to Bank)
—————–
So surprisingly the Bakerloo extension would actually speed up journeys to the City, as well as the West End. And the reduction to the City is greater–7 mins as opposed to 4. (All assuming my calculations are correct of course.)
So surprisingly the Bakerloo extension would actually speed up journeys to the City, as well as the West End. And the reduction to the City is greater–7 mins as opposed to 4. (All assuming my calculations are correct of course.)
On the other hand a current Hayes commuter will get a seat at Hayes, then can doze off/read the paper for 50 minutes, whereas changing to the horrendously crowded Northern Line at Elephant may not be so pleasant! I suspect most would change at Lewisham to other SE trains.
Do South London folk who already have a BR service into town actually want the Tube or do they want the frequency of the Tube? And will they be prepared to put up with 45 minutes crammed in a far less comfortable train?
and they are currently in 10 car 376 or 10 car (? or
networkers (465&466s) due to be lengthened (from 10 to 12 car), so service frequency (not discussed here what a tube frequency would be this far out) gains have to be traded against shorter trains (7x16m cars) with less seats (met A stock vs S stock again?)
hi there … i live in south east london; welling and lewisham/ladywell
it would be great to have a tube extension or two to south eas the really lack this connection, but it would have to come without sacrificing the national rail services as there a on the whole great.
My favourite service – Ladywell to London Bridge : 13min non-stop
i have drawn up a potential future london map here if anyone wants to have a look …
http://api.photoshop.com/home_6c5a1e2a7ec241bfbefa023343dc6114/adobe-px-assets/f34804398ecb4047a1ff33b5d8754923
[it is a mixture of fiction and planned works]
also please contact me if you wish to have other options drawn up …
chris
While the plethora of direct journeys on the old SR is great, having all those criss-crossing routes means that it can all go to shit when something goes wrong, particularly if it happens near one of the junctions. Whereas if one of the tubes breaks, you just pick a different route and it still works (albeit rather more crowded than normal!).
I fail to see why the East London line could not have gone to lewisham and then down to hayes.
My vote is for option 1 to catford…..but then heading UPWARDS towards LEWISHAM and beyond possibly to North Greenwich or Woolwich
Mike C – Do South London folk who already have a BR service into town actually want the Tube or do they want the frequency of the Tube?
The question is not Tube vs train but the routes available. South East London needs better radial connections to central London, especially to the West End. The ELLX once Phase 2 is complete will be a great orbital route, with no radial connections at all between Clapham Junction and the Jubilee Line at Canada Water! Additionally as a cost of the ELLX2 train services to Victoria and London Bridge are planned to be cut, reducing transport to central London even further. Peckham Rye would be a very useful interchange between Southern, Southeastern trains, the Overground and the Tube if it had the Bakerloo line. That's what I would call joined-up thinking in town planning.
There is another easier fix for the huge problems of overcrowding at both London Bridge and Victoria, which by the way is having masses of money spent on it to upgrade its capacity: WHY ON EARTH is there not an interchange planned between the ELLX2 and Brixton tube? The trains go RIGHT past the tube station on a viaduct…
Regarding extending DLR and the problem of the A20 at Lewisham: as I understand it, it is thought that the most realistic solution is to divert the A20 so that the DLR can remain on its current elevation. I also understand that one of the reasons that a lot of effort was made to get the DLR Lewisham terminus exactly where it is was so that an extension would at least be possible.
Nobody said it would be easy.
@ Luke
Regarding ELLX2 at Brixton… because as you say, the trains go right past the tube station BUT on a viaduct. You'd have to build platforms and a whole station high up on that viaduct. I'd imagine that'd be tricky to do without major distruption to the trains that currently cross the viaduct!
@Luke and @st
Network Rail want to do it, TfL want to do and they eventually will put up High Level platforms at Brixton…when the get the money.
If they do it on the cheap they can get some pretty decent rickety structure like Brixton East:
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/e/east_brixton/index.shtml
Just a heads-up, re. Lewisham:
http://tinyurl.com/nuzfab
(Mind you, as an ex-resident of the nearby Loampit Hill, I'll believe it when I see it.)
For those banging on about journey times from Hayes, you're missing the point. Converting that branch to a tube line has been advocated for decades because it *frees up capacity at Lewisham Junction*. Trains through Lewisham serve towns and cities like Rochester, Maidstone, Ramsgate, Dover and Canterbury.
They are far more important than what the population along a small branch line want. Life is full of compromises.
thanks stimarco, so as a hayes line commuter i just have to lump it!
on the other hand, why not save the hayes line like this:
Run all trains fast from ladywell – half do already. Frees lewisham j.
Extend the DLR to ladywell / catford bridge to maintain interchange
Run the bakerloo to grove park and then take over bromley north, which is a proper branch line with no direct service?
makes sense to me…
@stimarco
I think everyone on here *gets* the capacity bit, but converse to your point, it hasn't happened for decades precisely because the voters along the branch haven't been convinced – and let's not forget that the good folk of Dartford, Gravesend, Maidstone, Rochester and Dover etc are not even voters as far as the Mayor and TfL are concerned.
Any scheme will most definitely need to be convincingly sold to Hayes branch residents if it is to get the go-ahead, so the discussion here is every bit relevant IMO.
@Paul, etc.:
I understand your points. I'm approaching this from a pure engineering standpoint. (And, incidentally, I now live in Gravesend.)
Running Hayes trains fast from Ladywell to New Cross (or London Bridge) cripples the interchange options for Hayes commuters. What if they want to get to Docklands? What if they want to go to Dartford or Greenwich? Without a stop at Lewisham, you can't do that. And a stop at Lewisham means using the same two platforms used by services from beyond the M25.
(Incidentally, while people in Rochester and Chatham don't get to vote for London's Mayor, many of them do *work* in London! London's corporate interests aren't going to sit back and let a small village in Kent hold the rest of the county to ransom. Money talks!)
And—let's be honest here—large stretches of the existing LU network uses ex-mainline railway branches. Why were all those extensions fine, but not this one? A Bakerloo extension over the Hayes line via Lewisham would *retain* interchange opportunities, while also giving better access to other route options previously unavailable to Hayes commuters.
I'm not convinced that Hayes commuters would lose out. If anything, they'd gain from this. Even if they had to change at Lewisham for London Bridge or Cannon Street, the freed capacity at Lewisham would permit *more* services to call there.
(Also, it's not as if any extension will be built overnight. If you really, really, really *have* to get to Cannon Street for your job, you can always move house. People do it all the time.)
I'd imagine if I were a commuter living in Hayes or west wickham and I was told I cannot get a direct train to London bridge anymore I'd be pissed … Yeah I could change at lewisham and try to squeeze onto a packed train but why would u want to agree to that ?
if you run them fast, you extend the DLR to Ladywell / Catford to keep the interchange for docklands. As has already been suggested. ok its 2 changes to get to the north kent lines, but I don't think the flows are that big…
*them = hayes line trains
I recall a few years ago that the shadow-government SouthEastern planned to divert all Hayes trains to and from Cannon Street to ease the paths from London Bridge to Charing Cross. The plans were shot down by commuters, or at least one association or another, on this line.
But if the people of Camberwell and Peckham want the tube and the people of Hayes do not, whose view should prevail?
Kev (25/08 21;57):
Unfortunately, your calculations are not correct. Currently, a direct Hayes – Cannon St takes 40 – 43 minutes in the peak (with a seat all the way in the morning). Furthermore, if you're changing onto the Northern Line, you may have to let a train go before you can get on.
stimarco (27/08 13;23):
Running Hayes trains fast from Ladywell also impacts the fast lines, particularly in the evening with the flat crossing of the up line.
Also – taking away the Hayes trains would not permit more trains at Lewisham, just more from elsewhere – it would be much the same from there to London Bridge (on a point of pedantry).
The way to sell this to Hayes commuters is on frequency (every 5 minutes daytimes, instead of every 15), particularly evenings and Sundays when there's a half-hourly service, and on the convenience of through journeys to the West End and easier changes to other underground lines.
Not that anyone needs to worry about it a great deal for 10 years or so.
Note there are two Pauls commenting here; the above is not me – ie the Paul who has commented before – I don't post with a URL.
Hi everyone, I'm working with other to give TfL a push and get the Bakerloo Line extended one stop to Camberwell Green.
If you are interested or want to know more about what we're campaigning for please visit the following pages:
SE5 forum:
http://www.se5forum.org/forum/index.php?topic=118.15
Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?members&gid=133160235271#/group.php?gid=133160235271
Petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/camberwellunderground/index.html
Please have a read through our objectives etc and what we're really asking for via the facebook group or the last post on the page linked above from the se5 forum.
Thank you!
It would be really good if they could extend the Bakerloo, line to as far as Lee, Grove Park, Eltham etc, etc. There is a hufge lack of public transport black spot in this part of South-East London which really needs to be addressed.
Option 3 seems most likely – Lewisham to Catford is an important corridor, and Bakerloo line is much better than the DLR extension which would be required for Option 1. However, I can't see Burgess Park and Old Kent Road stations both being built – probably be telescoped into one. Also, New Cross Gate would provide better interchange with ELL than New Cross.
At a recent Mayor's Question Time Boris Johnson was asked:
Can you confirm whether London Underground is currently considering any proposals to extend the Tube system to Streatham and whether funding is available from the Government for any such proposal?
Answer by Boris Johnson:
London Underground is not currently considering any proposals to extend
the Tube system to Streatham. LU has undertaken preliminary work in the past to look at the feasibility of southern extensions to the network, including identifying some route options and looking at their technical development.
Of these, extending the Bakerloo line south from Elephant & Castle
emerged as the option with the most potential. [...] Any construction of an extension to the Bakerloo Line would begin after 2020 at the earliest.
I'd rather have the Bakerloo line converted to a National Rail line. New tunnel portals could be constructed immediately south of Elephant & Castle station to connect up with the National Rail network. The Elephant & Castle National Rail station should be renamed 'Elephant & Castle Thameslink' if the Bakerloo line is converted. The East London line's New Cross branch could be extended to take over the Hayes branch but this wouldn't provide a direct connection with central London. The Metropolitan or Hammersmith & City lines could be extended through new tunnels under the Thames with interchanges at Tower Hill, Bermondsey, South Bermondsey and Surrey Canal Road before joining the Hayes line at New Cross.
I've just caught up with this blog because it's in the local Mercury newspaper today. I read your comments with great interest.
I am a resident of Ladywell and greatly enjoy the 9-minute fast trains to London Bridge (not 14, Chris Haynes).
I don't see any advantage in greatly increasing the tph except Sundays are a bore at the moment at 2tph. Most people I know time their arrival at the station for a particular train and only have to wait a couple of minutes.
Option 3 appears to be favourite at the moment and, on hearing this, I was horrified that our 9-min to LB would be lost so I listed my 6 most frequent central London destinations and drew up a table of my travel times now, and projected via Option 3 (using kev's estimate of Hayes-E&C of 33min).
Surprisingly, three of these journeys would be shorter (by 3 to 5min), one would be the same and two would be longer (by 2 and 5min). The overall saving of implementing Option 3 would be 2.5 minutes per journey. Would I like the government, or whoever, to spend all those billions to save me 5min per day? No way.
Crossrail and Thameslink 2000? Yes please.
My main reason for favouring Southeastern over Bakerloo is that their trains are more comfortable, quieter and I can nearly always get a seat. I avoid using any underground/tube at peak times as they're too crowded and stuffy.
Concerning the DLR at Lewisham: if the DLR is to cross the A20 at ground level, where will the A20 go? Redevelopment of Lewisham right in front of the DLR has already begun and I can't see any alternative route for the A20.