London SE1 community website

Bakerloo Line Extension

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 3 of 12
Tuesday 22 July 2014 5.37pm
James Hatts wrote:

Val Shawcross has also tabled a question to the mayor about this

ironically, it was val showcross who was giving us the 'nah, the stations are too close' talk.

oh well
Wednesday 23 July 2014 10.23pm
Floodplain wrote:
There were once a total of four stations between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars:
Camberwell Station was closed in 1964.

Camberwell Station
Walworth Rd Station
Elephant & Castle
Borough Rd Station

Fascinating stuff - thanks for the links.
Thursday 24 July 2014 10.40am
Floodplain wrote:
There were once a total of four stations between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars:
Camberwell Station was closed in 1964.

Camberwell Station
Walworth Rd Station
Elephant & Castle
Borough Rd Station

Excellent link, Floodplain - but as it says, Camberwell was closed to passengers in 1916 (like the others) - it was the goods yard that finally closed in 1964. Apparently throughout London a lot of smaller stations were closed during the First World War due to shortage of station staff (men called up), and never reopened. Also they faced competition from trams.
Thursday 24 July 2014 10.48am
It'd be good to see some of these viaduct stations reopened and surely it's far cheaper to reinstate stations in such locations as no additional land is needed for station buildings or suchlike.
Thursday 24 July 2014 4.31pm
Thanks for your comments - I'm glad you enjoyed the links.

Here's a quite remarkable photo taken in around 1988 of a pre-war Bakerloo Line train indicator board - it has been painted over - but 'Camberwell' can be seen quite clearly as the final destination!

Photograph of Bakerloo Camberwell train indicator

This website also contains several informed and well researched articles from the last 7 years or so on the topic of the extending the Bakerloo Southwards - just type 'Bakerloo Extension' into the search engine.
Friday 25 July 2014 10.32am
Paid for by the Russians perhaps?
Monday 28 July 2014 7.14pm
Response from Boris to Val Shawcross's Camberwell station question:

Boris Johnson wrote:
I understand that there are many difficulties associated with reopening a station at Camberwell, not least the ability to construct a station to modern standards at this location without needing to realign tracks which could require widening of the viaduct and significant land take.
New signalling technology may assist with the ability for trains to serve Camberwell, but it is unlikely to make a significant difference and detailed timetabling work would be required to determine whether it would be possible for trains to serve here in the future.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Tuesday 29 July 2014 11.44am
Thank-you James for the update.

This answer, (presumably prepared for the Mayor by TfL), is a wonderfully constructed example of what appears, on face value, to be plausible technical constraints - but have TfL undertaken any design studies for a new station and (claimed) new track alignment at Camberwell to evidence their response?

If I where Southwark Council or a GLA member for South London - that would be my follow-up question.

For example - TfL relatively recently upgraded a completely disused railway viaduct to Dalston as part of the new Overground network. Here, they managed quite successfully to re-open two stations (Hoxton & Haggerston) very much to 'modern standards' without the need for viaduct widening. The stations have spawned new bars and shops in the locality - they have actually re-vitalised the local areas. Every station needs 'land-take' - it all depends on how you decide to use the land. The use of the phrase 'land take' here appears calculated to provoke negative reaction.

Having two stations close together is more of a timetabling / capacity issue than a 'new signalling technology' issue. I think this point in the answer is rather disingenuous. Stations will normally always have signals to 'protect' the station - but this is nothing new - and has been done since Victorian semaphore signalling times (i.e. low tech manual signalling).

What will be occupying Network Rail / TfL minds is that a new station at Camberwell could possibly reduce the number of available train-pathways for South Eastern trains heading out to Kent.

The organisation of the rail timetable in London has always been about providing priority to trains serving commuter areas (where voters in marginal constituencies live) as opposed to providing rail services to (Labour-voting) Londoners, near whose homes the home counties train tracks have to run.

What is very revealing in the answer is that although TfL is four square behind improving London Rail services and adopting London Rail franchises under TfL control - there is clearly no interest or benefit to them in adoption of existing services running through Camberwell as the Thameslink and South Eastern franchises run far beyond the Greater London area.

I imagine they want to knock this one into the long grass to enable them to focus on taking control of other National Rail lines that terminate inside or just outside London.
Thursday 31 July 2014 10.23pm
Thanks again James for the update on the Mayor's 2050 infrastructure plan - excellent work yet again in hunting down the juicy bits for SE1.

The Bakerloo line extension is most defintely not showing two branches, but two alignment options - Peter John please take note! Also I note that the option down to Camberwell and Peckham is light brown - maybe I'm reading too much into that but it is sending out an interesting subliminal message that the OKR route is clearly TfL's preferred option - the preference that dare not speak it's name.

The same document contains proposals for an orbital road tunnel which 'would unlock the potential' of congested junctions such as Bricklayers Arms. Herein lies evidence that TfL have big plans for Bricklayers Arms for road, possibly also Bakerloo Line improvements which until now they were very coy about.

Whilst it is great to see this GLA/TfL document which is full of interesting plans city-wide, one cannot help thinking that Boris has had his eye off the ball a little in terms of projects to improve London's trnasport - especially in the pre Olympics period of his term of office.

It looks as though London's increasing popularton has caught up on him whilst he was distracted with completing projects initiated under Ken Livingstone such as the Olympics, Overground and Crossrail and with his - let's face it - vanity projects such as New Bus for London and Cycle Hire.

Now I think London and SE1 are going to lose yet more time whillst Boris is distracted with securing a safe Tory seat in the Commons.
Thursday 21 August 2014 2.34pm
In the Evening Standard last week. TfL announcement on Bakerloo Line Extension Public Consultation next month.

Evening Standard Article 15.08.14

What will be interesting when the consultation is launched is if there will be any more detail on station locations - ominously for SE1, it looks as though Bricklayers Arms is not currently being considered as a station location which seems like a massive wasted opportunity - especially given the amount of TfL owned land there and its strategic location on the edge of the congestion charging zone.

(The map used in the ES article is pretty much a copy of that which appears in the Mayor's 2050 Transport Strategy published at the end of last month.)

As I've stated numerous times previously, the Old Kent Road route option would open up large areas of potential development land and trigger a wider improvement of this rather neglected part of SE1. It also provides interchange to Overground, DLR and National Rail at New Cross and Lewisham. I also suspect that it would be cheaper to build as it is a more direct route and could require less tunnelling (or at least less deep-level tunnelling) by running through what are currently derelict areas.

TfL are intelligent enough to understand all the above - so the option via Peckham is in there quite possibly to placate Southwark Labour. I strongly suspect that TfL will have zero ambition to develop this option as a serious proposition.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 3 of 12

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions