Some of you may have caught the news today that the East London Line extension is going to be called the "East London Railway" and that it isn't going to be part of London Underground.
Instead the line is going to form part of a new body called "London Overground" and is going to be supplemented by the revamping of two existing overground lines to create a "London orbital overground railway". All of the stations will not now carry the LU logo but a logo declaring that they're part of "London Overground"
I've been a great enthusiastic supporter of the ELLX but I think that this is devastatingly bad news for us in Sydenham. Instead of being part of the prestigious underground network we are now being given second class status - and that's how it will be seen by outsiders no matter how often the trains run. Are you on the tube in Sydenham? No, but we're on "London Overground!"
You can read the full story on http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/ ... p?prID=886
East London Line extension not part of London Underground
Yes - this is really bad news for Sydenham. I guess Len Duvall's postbag will be filling tomorrow! I will leave it to any Estate Agents amongst us to tell us the costs in thousands to each and every SE26 homeowner.
Is this part of a brand positioning for Uncle Ken's ambitions to get some control over the old Network Southeast train companies?
Was there any consultation? Or is this another instance of democracy giving way to tyranny in local as well as central government?
Stuart
Is this part of a brand positioning for Uncle Ken's ambitions to get some control over the old Network Southeast train companies?
Was there any consultation? Or is this another instance of democracy giving way to tyranny in local as well as central government?
Stuart
Who knows 'London Overground' might turn out to be better than the Underground. The main thing is about getting a better transport service. If Ken's in charge I reckon its going to be good even though it does just sound like a branding exercise. On the other hand its a bit cheeky to say one thing and then do another...mind you thats been going on for years...i guarantee there are still some people who think east dulwich is getting the underground!
***STOP PRESS*** - I've just heard they're changing the name to 'I can't believe its not the London Underground' !!!!!!
***STOP PRESS*** - I've just heard they're changing the name to 'I can't believe its not the London Underground' !!!!!!
I hope your right but all the indications are that London Overground won't be better than London Underground. London Underground has a huge investment budget and tight health and safety regulations which would mean that our stations would be improved, with better safety and staffing under their control. What this is about is cutting standards so that the line will be more attractive to PFI investors. It isn't just about rebranding either - if it is, what brand would you rather be with - one like LU which is recognised and respected worldwide - or "London Overground" which can simply never achieve that status. We're being fobbed off with the cut-price airline version.
-
stringfellow
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 8 Aug 2005 17:43
Hi, I don't want to appear rude but I'm surprised that anyone thought it was going to be 'underground' - isn't it just an extension from New Cross Gate (already overground), they were never going to start digging under South London (don't think they can anyway due to the clay soil - one of the reasons we have so many susidence problems down this way and the main reason for there not already being a large tube network this side of the river).
What we will get however is an extension to the existing line from New Cross all the way to Croydon and up the other way all the way to Dalston. The underground network only goes so far in north London too, I get the tube to High Barnet everyday and once you go past Highgate you are 'overground' - I wouldn't fret too much it doesn't seem to have had too much of an impact on the residents of Finchley and Hampstead.
What we will get however is an extension to the existing line from New Cross all the way to Croydon and up the other way all the way to Dalston. The underground network only goes so far in north London too, I get the tube to High Barnet everyday and once you go past Highgate you are 'overground' - I wouldn't fret too much it doesn't seem to have had too much of an impact on the residents of Finchley and Hampstead.
-
stringfellow
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 8 Aug 2005 17:43
Hmm, you may be right but I won't be helping to dig them out when the roof falls in!
I don't think it really matters too much, the DLR is overground and has done a lot for property prices in various area's and that seems to be peoples main concern (mine also). The ELL is a fairly useless line to be on anyway unless you happen to want to get to Canada Water to pick up the Jubilee Line and it always seems to run on a 'Sunday' service.
Most commuters presumably want to get to London Bridge or Victoria so nothing will change for them, the trains will still be the quickest route.
I don't think it really matters too much, the DLR is overground and has done a lot for property prices in various area's and that seems to be peoples main concern (mine also). The ELL is a fairly useless line to be on anyway unless you happen to want to get to Canada Water to pick up the Jubilee Line and it always seems to run on a 'Sunday' service.
Most commuters presumably want to get to London Bridge or Victoria so nothing will change for them, the trains will still be the quickest route.
-
Wispy Wonder
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 11 Jan 2006 22:13
- Location: Sydenham
Raymondus - just to answer your question. When the ELLX extension arrives the plan is to continue the same number of trains to London Bridge during the rush hours (5/6 trains per hour). Outside the rush hour trains to and from London Bridge will be cut from five to four trains per hour.
Stringfellow - the East London line won't operate a "Sunday" service when its revamped - there will be 8 trains per hour in each direction. And whilst I'm highly critical of the new "branding" of the ELLX it would be a huge mistake to call the ELLX a line to nowhere except Canada Water. For example, the new Shoreditch High St station is 300m from Broadagte and Liverpool St Station; direct links to DLR and District Lines at Shadwell and Whitechapel; 4 trains per hour to West Croydon and 4 to Crystal Palace (linking you to Victoria and Clapham Junction) isn't bad either. I could go on but take a look at the new tube map yourself and see the possibilities. See below
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5316358. stm
Stringfellow - the East London line won't operate a "Sunday" service when its revamped - there will be 8 trains per hour in each direction. And whilst I'm highly critical of the new "branding" of the ELLX it would be a huge mistake to call the ELLX a line to nowhere except Canada Water. For example, the new Shoreditch High St station is 300m from Broadagte and Liverpool St Station; direct links to DLR and District Lines at Shadwell and Whitechapel; 4 trains per hour to West Croydon and 4 to Crystal Palace (linking you to Victoria and Clapham Junction) isn't bad either. I could go on but take a look at the new tube map yourself and see the possibilities. See below
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5316358. stm
If you notice on the map there is a bit missing from the orbital. i.e. from our area to the SW. A regular service to Richmond via Clapham would be a great improvement. However, we are left with little improvement on what we currently have. There is already an irregular service to Clapham Junction from Sydenham (London Bridge to Victoria line) and on the Penge East / Sydenham Hill line to Victoria. We already have the services south to Croydon and the Palace so no real improvement there either.
As nasaroc says, it does provide the opportunity to go north to change / walk to another line. But you can already go to London Bridge and walk over the bridge to Bank station or get the northern line from LB to the north part of the city.
Other than helping a few Arsenal fans getting to their new stadium and saving those going to Canary Wharf a change at New Cross Gate, I don’t see that this will have a significant impact on our transport options. It really isn’t going to save us a lot of commuting time. (Unless there are lots of people in Sydenham who want to get the new line to go for a night out in Hoxton’s media friendly middle class bars. ).
If Sydenham had been put “on the tube” then that would have brought about significant improvements to the stations and raised Sydenham’s profile. Which in turn would have helped development prospects for the area. But alas no, as ever this seems to be a forgotten about corner of London. Other areas will benefit from this investment, but not us.
As nasaroc says, it does provide the opportunity to go north to change / walk to another line. But you can already go to London Bridge and walk over the bridge to Bank station or get the northern line from LB to the north part of the city.
Other than helping a few Arsenal fans getting to their new stadium and saving those going to Canary Wharf a change at New Cross Gate, I don’t see that this will have a significant impact on our transport options. It really isn’t going to save us a lot of commuting time. (Unless there are lots of people in Sydenham who want to get the new line to go for a night out in Hoxton’s media friendly middle class bars.
).If Sydenham had been put “on the tube” then that would have brought about significant improvements to the stations and raised Sydenham’s profile. Which in turn would have helped development prospects for the area. But alas no, as ever this seems to be a forgotten about corner of London. Other areas will benefit from this investment, but not us.
Whilst this kind of "downgrading" is certainly disappointing, I don't think it's a complete disaster. Ultimately, anything that improves the route into town and connections with other parts of London has to be a good thing.
I used to use the North London line alot. It looks great on the map, but in reality it is unreliable, slow, the rolling stock is dirty and falling apart, the stations are often unmanned and unsafe and the atmosphere on the trains itself is often fairly threatening. In short travelling on the NLL is unpleasant and as a woman, it is not a service I would consider using in the evenings.
True, in Sydenham we already have a great service into town, but by improving the service further, improving access to the ever growing canary wharf etc, more people should recognise the area as a good place to invest, beit in property or other things which could be could for the area.
By bringing these lines under TFL control and investing in them these problems can be tackled. In addition, there is the added exposure/prestige of being on the published map, albeit not on an official Tube line, but that's also important. I have to tell people I live in or near Crystal Palace cos no one's heard of Sydenham!
My main gripe is that TFL and Ken seem to have just changed the branding of the line on a whim and with no consultation, but that's another story..
I used to use the North London line alot. It looks great on the map, but in reality it is unreliable, slow, the rolling stock is dirty and falling apart, the stations are often unmanned and unsafe and the atmosphere on the trains itself is often fairly threatening. In short travelling on the NLL is unpleasant and as a woman, it is not a service I would consider using in the evenings.
True, in Sydenham we already have a great service into town, but by improving the service further, improving access to the ever growing canary wharf etc, more people should recognise the area as a good place to invest, beit in property or other things which could be could for the area.
By bringing these lines under TFL control and investing in them these problems can be tackled. In addition, there is the added exposure/prestige of being on the published map, albeit not on an official Tube line, but that's also important. I have to tell people I live in or near Crystal Palace cos no one's heard of Sydenham!
My main gripe is that TFL and Ken seem to have just changed the branding of the line on a whim and with no consultation, but that's another story..
From the tfl website on the Tube (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/facts.asp);
"Proportion of the network which is in tunnels: 45 per cent"
So, if the Underground is actually more Overground, will they be renaming any of the other lines that are largely overground to London Overground? - I very much doubt it. As a previous poster has stated, this is not a branding exercise, it is about getting away with being able to provide a cheaper and sub-standard service.
And don't forget, before we don't see any discernable benefit, the ELL will be closed for 18 months. The French can build 500 miles of high speed railway faster than we can put up a couple of stations and tinker with some existing track.
"Proportion of the network which is in tunnels: 45 per cent"
So, if the Underground is actually more Overground, will they be renaming any of the other lines that are largely overground to London Overground? - I very much doubt it. As a previous poster has stated, this is not a branding exercise, it is about getting away with being able to provide a cheaper and sub-standard service.
And don't forget, before we don't see any discernable benefit, the ELL will be closed for 18 months. The French can build 500 miles of high speed railway faster than we can put up a couple of stations and tinker with some existing track.
Just a thought. Perhaps the rebranding to Overground is due to the fact that the ELL at the moment seems to run less regularly than the common or garden LU trains, hence on the Northern Line, in theory there is a train every 3 mins in peak time, as opposed to every 7 on ELL.
We'll see. Here is a question for Len Duvall. In an earlier post, you talked about rebranding/signage at Sydenham station. Was the rebranding to Overground what you had in mind (albeit part of City Hall discussions) at the time of writing the post?
We'll see. Here is a question for Len Duvall. In an earlier post, you talked about rebranding/signage at Sydenham station. Was the rebranding to Overground what you had in mind (albeit part of City Hall discussions) at the time of writing the post?
Underground V Overground
Hello people of Sydenham
(No prizes for realising I'm not from Sydenham) In Croydon they introduced a new tram system which many slagged off before it opened. People said it would never work. (myself included)
Many giggled saying they used to have a trolley bus system in the old days which was ripped up in favour of regular busses, so why U-turn on a strategy and re-adopt plans for a tram?
I must confess the tram system is brilliant. OK it was a bit confusing at first with ticketing issues, but now it all works very smoothly.
Those in Sydenham would I feel be better off with an overground system too. The infrastructure and rolling stock will be brand new. Whereas the existing underground trains are mostly 40+ years old. I'm certain the new proposed stations will link underground, bus and rail stations and passes will be valid on all.
What I'm trying to say is, don't worry your minds over this one. I'm sure it will all work out for the best for you.
(No prizes for realising I'm not from Sydenham) In Croydon they introduced a new tram system which many slagged off before it opened. People said it would never work. (myself included)
Many giggled saying they used to have a trolley bus system in the old days which was ripped up in favour of regular busses, so why U-turn on a strategy and re-adopt plans for a tram?
I must confess the tram system is brilliant. OK it was a bit confusing at first with ticketing issues, but now it all works very smoothly.
Those in Sydenham would I feel be better off with an overground system too. The infrastructure and rolling stock will be brand new. Whereas the existing underground trains are mostly 40+ years old. I'm certain the new proposed stations will link underground, bus and rail stations and passes will be valid on all.
What I'm trying to say is, don't worry your minds over this one. I'm sure it will all work out for the best for you.
-
Greg Whitehead
- Posts: 474
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005 15:44
- Location: SE26 5RL
I don't mean to rub entirely against the grain here but not being on the 'undeground' network may be a blessing in disguise?
Part of the reason I like being where I am is no-one has really ever heard of the place - when they come here and go up and up and up they get pleasantly surprised by how beautiful the streets and views are - they can't believe they're so close to the centre of town when they're in the Wood. I don't really want an influx of snobs such as I (quelle surprise!) Putting us on the map might just have an effect such as this that could be viewed as slightly is negative? Not that being on the tube is an indicator of any affluence - just look at the vast majority of areas Norf' a the riva' Whilst I'm all for investment, other than getting people to a part of town I never have any need nor want to venture (E.London) I didn't really see the point of the extension.
Although I may have missed the point entirely so feel free to tell me how silly and narrow-minded I am being.
Truth be told I see the underground merely as dirty, dangerous, over-crowded and inhumanely hot (whether it goes over or underground seems a moot point). Give me my air-conditioned trains that stop only at Forest Hill and New Cross any day!! In my 12 years of living in London I have gone out of my way NOT to live on the tube - it's broken 50% of the time anyway.
Part of the reason I like being where I am is no-one has really ever heard of the place - when they come here and go up and up and up they get pleasantly surprised by how beautiful the streets and views are - they can't believe they're so close to the centre of town when they're in the Wood. I don't really want an influx of snobs such as I (quelle surprise!) Putting us on the map might just have an effect such as this that could be viewed as slightly is negative? Not that being on the tube is an indicator of any affluence - just look at the vast majority of areas Norf' a the riva' Whilst I'm all for investment, other than getting people to a part of town I never have any need nor want to venture (E.London) I didn't really see the point of the extension.
Although I may have missed the point entirely so feel free to tell me how silly and narrow-minded I am being.
Truth be told I see the underground merely as dirty, dangerous, over-crowded and inhumanely hot (whether it goes over or underground seems a moot point). Give me my air-conditioned trains that stop only at Forest Hill and New Cross any day!! In my 12 years of living in London I have gone out of my way NOT to live on the tube - it's broken 50% of the time anyway.