) speaking our new line will be part and parcel of the London Underground and in terms of profile that can only be a good thing.Underground Overground (wombling free etc)
-
sydenhamboy
- Posts: 264
- Joined: 8 Oct 2006 10:33
- Location: sydenham
Underground Overground (wombling free etc)
Have to say extremely good news about the new London Overground for Sydders! I know there has been in the past some discussion about it not being 'officially' the underground - but let's face it - it'll still get called 'the tube' and Sydenham will be ON THE MAP! Plus, 'the overground' has the same logo as 'the underground' so semiotically (look it up ) speaking our new line will be part and parcel of the London Underground and in terms of profile that can only be a good thing.
) speaking our new line will be part and parcel of the London Underground and in terms of profile that can only be a good thing.I think we would all agree with you. The only issue that some of us have is that there is a high probability that the existing London Bridge services will be reduced in frequency, due to track constraints. Furthermore, we are all more than a little sceptical about the train operating companies who will use any excuse to downgrade their services more than is necessary for safety purposes in order to save money - the last we heard, there was some talk about the closing off of the London Bridge Victoria loop, which provides four services (two to and two from) London Bridge and Victoria throughout the day. Any more news on this?
Sydenhamboy has really got something here. Some other underground lines are mostly overground which makes this differentiation a bit odd anyway. The fact that the ELL will no longer be part of London Underground doesn't mean its not part of the 'The Tube'. Dunno who specifies what the 'tube' actually is - but I think most of us consider the presence on a tube map and the familiar roundels a pretty good indicator.
IMHO we need a bit of people power. Common usage may be more important as Uncle Ken's pronouncements. If we call it the Tube - it is the Tube - just as a 'Hoover' doesn't necessarily refer to a particular manufacturer's vacuum apparatus. So I think SydTown will call it the Tube if most people here agree.
The Tube is still coming to Sydenham!
Let's see if TfL agree at this coming meeting on the 14th....
Admin
IMHO we need a bit of people power. Common usage may be more important as Uncle Ken's pronouncements. If we call it the Tube - it is the Tube - just as a 'Hoover' doesn't necessarily refer to a particular manufacturer's vacuum apparatus. So I think SydTown will call it the Tube if most people here agree.
The Tube is still coming to Sydenham!
Let's see if TfL agree at this coming meeting on the 14th....
Admin
Last edited by admin on 9 Mar 2007 18:03, edited 1 time in total.
We now have a copy of the blueprint timetable post 2010 for Sydenham. The loop line between London Bridge and Victoria has been axed, and trains between Sydenham and London Bridge cut by a quarter (from 101 per day at present to 76 per day after 2010).
It is essential that everyone (whether daily commuters or occasional train travellers) attend the meeting on Wednesday 14 March at 7.30 at the Naborhood Centre (next to the post office) which will be addressed by Peter Field, the person in charge of the East London Line.
This is our opportunity to get the rail service that this area deserves.
It is essential that everyone (whether daily commuters or occasional train travellers) attend the meeting on Wednesday 14 March at 7.30 at the Naborhood Centre (next to the post office) which will be addressed by Peter Field, the person in charge of the East London Line.
This is our opportunity to get the rail service that this area deserves.
Today the House of Commons discussed train services to Sydenham and Forest Hill in an Adjournment Debate: Impact on Network Rail services of the Southern extension to the East London Line (Jim Dowd).
You can view the debate at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Player/?Meeting=6796, jump to approximately 90% through the broadcast to view Jim Dowd MP proposing the motion. Jim Dowd made some of the concerns of the Sydenham Society, Forest Hill Society and local residents very clear to The House. The debate covered many of the key issues and made sure that the Department for Transport is very aware of the concerns of local residents in Lewisham.
You can view the debate at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Player/?Meeting=6796, jump to approximately 90% through the broadcast to view Jim Dowd MP proposing the motion. Jim Dowd made some of the concerns of the Sydenham Society, Forest Hill Society and local residents very clear to The House. The debate covered many of the key issues and made sure that the Department for Transport is very aware of the concerns of local residents in Lewisham.
Raymondus,
You can view the feasability timetable at http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s ... etable.pdf
However it is 273 pages long and not particularly fun to wade through. As you will hear in the Parliamentary debate this is not the final version of the timetable, which is why we the Sydenham and Forest Hill Societies are working hard to pursuade the transport authorities of their shortcomings.
At the meeting on Wednesday a more digestable format of the feasability timetable should be available.
You can view the feasability timetable at http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s ... etable.pdf
However it is 273 pages long and not particularly fun to wade through. As you will hear in the Parliamentary debate this is not the final version of the timetable, which is why we the Sydenham and Forest Hill Societies are working hard to pursuade the transport authorities of their shortcomings.
At the meeting on Wednesday a more digestable format of the feasability timetable should be available.
-
castiron73
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 24 Oct 2006 10:05
- Location: Sydenham Thorpes
On the TFL site, news about the ELL is not found under the Tube section but under Rail, with the link headlined 'A new era for London rail'.The Tube is still coming to Sydenham!
Let's see if TfL agree at this coming meeting on the 14th....
I don't know anything about the politics, but perhaps this is so that terms and conditions of service for passengers can be kept separate to the Tube? Also it might allow drivers and other staff to be put on different (ie less lucrative) contracts. But I'm just guessing.
Why set timetables now? Does it have a bearing on how the new track and flyover at New Cross Gate will be arranged? If not, it seems more sensible to see what take-up is like before committing to 8 Overground trains an hour. The current ELL trains seem half empty, from what little I can see with my face squashed in someone's armpit.
There'd still be time to get it right before the Olympics, when I imagine timetables would drastically change anyway.
Big Ben says:
"We now have . . . timetable post 2010 . . . London Bridge [to] Victoria has been axed . . . Sydenham [to] London Bridge cut by a quarter. . . It is essential that everyone . . . attend the meeting on Wednesday 14 March at 7.30 at the Naborhood Centre. . . This is our opportunity to get the rail service that this area deserves."
I suspect it isn't, Ben. TfL have been eager to shift the reponsibility for these cuts to Network Rail (in terms of frequency, trains per hour) and Southern (in terms of capacity, carriages per train).
My suggestion for the LBr problem is a shuttle service between NXGt and LBr. For the loop, we'll have to get the ELR to CPal and change.
This man won't take reponsibility for these cuts as he isn't reponsible for them, nor for Oyster implementation. I probably won't go.
"We now have . . . timetable post 2010 . . . London Bridge [to] Victoria has been axed . . . Sydenham [to] London Bridge cut by a quarter. . . It is essential that everyone . . . attend the meeting on Wednesday 14 March at 7.30 at the Naborhood Centre. . . This is our opportunity to get the rail service that this area deserves."
I suspect it isn't, Ben. TfL have been eager to shift the reponsibility for these cuts to Network Rail (in terms of frequency, trains per hour) and Southern (in terms of capacity, carriages per train).
My suggestion for the LBr problem is a shuttle service between NXGt and LBr. For the loop, we'll have to get the ELR to CPal and change.
This man won't take reponsibility for these cuts as he isn't reponsible for them, nor for Oyster implementation. I probably won't go.
This man IS responsible for Oyster implementation since TFL will take over our local stations long before Oyster implementation.
Your suggestion of a shuttle service between New Cross Gate and LB is interesting but do you really think that this has any chance of implementation coming two years after they've announced the new ELL will run through our local stations and have already arranged a new blueprint timetable for the line?
Yes, of course, Peter Field will pass responsibility for the timetable to someone else. Which is why we've got our MP, local mayor, GLA representative etc etc pressurising the DFT and Network Rail as hard as they can. I'm as cynical as the next person - but an adjourment debate in parliament three days ago on the very issue of cuts to our LB services is pretty impressive to me.
Attending the meeting (at which many of these politicians will be present) will show how local people feel about the issue. Staying at home (sorry, "probably" staying at home) isn't going to do anything. I'd humbly suggest you turn up - you may be surprised.
Your suggestion of a shuttle service between New Cross Gate and LB is interesting but do you really think that this has any chance of implementation coming two years after they've announced the new ELL will run through our local stations and have already arranged a new blueprint timetable for the line?
Yes, of course, Peter Field will pass responsibility for the timetable to someone else. Which is why we've got our MP, local mayor, GLA representative etc etc pressurising the DFT and Network Rail as hard as they can. I'm as cynical as the next person - but an adjourment debate in parliament three days ago on the very issue of cuts to our LB services is pretty impressive to me.
Attending the meeting (at which many of these politicians will be present) will show how local people feel about the issue. Staying at home (sorry, "probably" staying at home) isn't going to do anything. I'd humbly suggest you turn up - you may be surprised.
FYI the text of the debate can he found here http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... 76#g1856.0
Whilst Jim, our MP, is doing his job for us but I'm not hopeful after reading the response. It does goes along the lines of "Don't worry it isn't the final timetable" - no mention of really trying to keep the loop service or increasing LB services in the proposed timetable. It certainly wasn't along the lines of "Don't worry it isn't the final timetable and we will endeavour to keep the loop and LB services by managing the number of ELL trains".
On the plus side it looks like Jim has realised that this issue is a vote winner/loser at the next election (which could possibly be around the time the ELL comes into operation), so he is on the case.
It looks to me as if the battle is not going our way and the more people that turn up on the 14th to voice their concerns the more chance we have to put that right.
Whilst Jim, our MP, is doing his job for us but I'm not hopeful after reading the response. It does goes along the lines of "Don't worry it isn't the final timetable" - no mention of really trying to keep the loop service or increasing LB services in the proposed timetable. It certainly wasn't along the lines of "Don't worry it isn't the final timetable and we will endeavour to keep the loop and LB services by managing the number of ELL trains".
On the plus side it looks like Jim has realised that this issue is a vote winner/loser at the next election (which could possibly be around the time the ELL comes into operation), so he is on the case.
It looks to me as if the battle is not going our way and the more people that turn up on the 14th to voice their concerns the more chance we have to put that right.
-
Paddy Pantsdown
- Posts: 204
- Joined: 1 Oct 2004 10:04
- Location: Venner Road
As Carbon saving is flavour of the week - we really ought to point out that public transport is supposed to be about helping us meet our CO2 targets. Southern´s plans to axe short service trains to Croydon/Crystal Palace so they can run more long distance trains to Kent & Sussex is a trifle counterproductive. It also puts more planning pressure into the greenbelt.
The fact they can increase revenues/profit is an incentive. It looks like we should be moving to make sure the subsidies (without which there would be no prayer for any profit) reflect the public good. Forget about Camaloon´s daft airmile proposals - we should be taxing, not subsidising those who commute to London from beyond the M25.
They do that everyday at our expense causing extra pollution and literally running over the needs of city dwellers on whom they ultimately depend. Nicking our 8.23 too is the ultimate insult!
The fact they can increase revenues/profit is an incentive. It looks like we should be moving to make sure the subsidies (without which there would be no prayer for any profit) reflect the public good. Forget about Camaloon´s daft airmile proposals - we should be taxing, not subsidising those who commute to London from beyond the M25.
They do that everyday at our expense causing extra pollution and literally running over the needs of city dwellers on whom they ultimately depend. Nicking our 8.23 too is the ultimate insult!
On reading the debate, I think Jim Dowd did an excellent job of getting our concerns across. One point which Gill Merron made is that she will bring the debate to the attention of those with whom she consults regarding the timetable. Is it appropriate for us to write to her so this is not forgotten?
I must say it's great to see such energy in relation to this. I've never been a daily user of the Sydenham line, given that I use a combination of bicycle and scooter to commute into zone one, and when I do take the train I tend to use the direct Lwr Sydenham to Charing Cross option. Nevertheless, I value the Sydenham line option and fully support its more regular users in fighting for a long-term good service. I can't attend on Wednesday either, but wish you all good luck. Even if it is fighting for the right to have you face pressed into someone else's armpit every morning and evening. Such are the joys of london life!
For the record, I wrote to Dowd about the recent fare hikes and received an excellent bespoke response from the Minister for Transport.
For the record, I wrote to Dowd about the recent fare hikes and received an excellent bespoke response from the Minister for Transport.
I'm willing to be convinced that the 6 NR / 8 ELL trains is the best configuration, but I need to see some figures.
Surely it wouldn't be too hard to get some stats on the destinations that people using the current rail services (particularly at peak times) are travelling to, and then determine the likelihood that they will switch to ELL once it is introduced.
I'd also like to see some figures to confirm/deny that the ELL will provide a swifter interchange for people who currently interchange to the westbound Jubilee line at LB.
Potentially there are a lot of people who would benefit from the ELL:
-people travelling to the NE of the City who can travel into Shoreditch High Street station on the ELL
-people travelling to Canary Wharf/Docklands plus other ELL destinations
-people travelling to destinations on the Wbound Jubilee.
That has to make up a reasonable % of people travelling into LB at the moment. Why can't stats be made available to back this up?
Surely it wouldn't be too hard to get some stats on the destinations that people using the current rail services (particularly at peak times) are travelling to, and then determine the likelihood that they will switch to ELL once it is introduced.
I'd also like to see some figures to confirm/deny that the ELL will provide a swifter interchange for people who currently interchange to the westbound Jubilee line at LB.
Potentially there are a lot of people who would benefit from the ELL:
-people travelling to the NE of the City who can travel into Shoreditch High Street station on the ELL
-people travelling to Canary Wharf/Docklands plus other ELL destinations
-people travelling to destinations on the Wbound Jubilee.
That has to make up a reasonable % of people travelling into LB at the moment. Why can't stats be made available to back this up?
Weebie - If you come to the meeting on Wednesday, there will a presentation of exactly these statistics.
But in general terms, those taken both by local surveys and by TFL show that after 2010, around two thirds of regular travellers will choose the LB-bound trains and around one third the ELL (measured by work postcode and choosing the swiftest route - either ELL or LB-bound.) This means that two thirds of commuters will be worse off if there are cuts in existing services after 2010.
Of course, there are many places - and you list the most common - where the ELL will be more convenient. It would be crazy not to welcome the arrival of the new line for commuters wishing to access these places.
I simply refuse to see this debate as you do as being persuaded that an 6 train LB/ 8 train ELL is acceptable. Why on earth should the vast majority of locals suffer a worse train service than they have at the moment when their daily journeys won't be on the new line?
Your question of whether it is quicker to access a westbound Jubilee Line train at CW or LB is unclear. It will take approx ten minutes longer to travel to LB via the ELL rather than using the direct LB-bound route (you have to take into account changing at CW and then getting back up to the surface at LB). If you want to access the JL to travel further west, there is little time difference between the two access points - although the CW interchange avoids a busy LB station and a walk to the JL. I can give you the exact timings if you so wish - but a quick look at the new "tube" map and TFL tube timetable should enable you to work this out for yourself.
But in general terms, those taken both by local surveys and by TFL show that after 2010, around two thirds of regular travellers will choose the LB-bound trains and around one third the ELL (measured by work postcode and choosing the swiftest route - either ELL or LB-bound.) This means that two thirds of commuters will be worse off if there are cuts in existing services after 2010.
Of course, there are many places - and you list the most common - where the ELL will be more convenient. It would be crazy not to welcome the arrival of the new line for commuters wishing to access these places.
I simply refuse to see this debate as you do as being persuaded that an 6 train LB/ 8 train ELL is acceptable. Why on earth should the vast majority of locals suffer a worse train service than they have at the moment when their daily journeys won't be on the new line?
Your question of whether it is quicker to access a westbound Jubilee Line train at CW or LB is unclear. It will take approx ten minutes longer to travel to LB via the ELL rather than using the direct LB-bound route (you have to take into account changing at CW and then getting back up to the surface at LB). If you want to access the JL to travel further west, there is little time difference between the two access points - although the CW interchange avoids a busy LB station and a walk to the JL. I can give you the exact timings if you so wish - but a quick look at the new "tube" map and TFL tube timetable should enable you to work this out for yourself.
Thanks for the reply nasaroc.
I hope I can make the meeting tonight if I can extract myself from the office in reasonable time.
I think I'm starting to see it as a reaonable trade off. For people who want to continue to travel into LB, you're saying there will be a 20% reduction in service but a 33% reduction in travellers, which should mean less crowded trains.
It will however mean a reduction in frequency from every 7.5 mins on average to every 10 mins on average. As the trains aren't equally distributed through the hour at the moment, this won't make too much difference (most trains are 9-11 mins apart)
Judging by the rush of people to the platform moments before a train is due, I think commuters generally plan to get to the station to catch a specific train, rather than using it as a turn-up-and-travel service like the tube, so increased waiting time shouldn't be a big problem.
Whereas for the third of people who will switch to the ELL, there are potentially big improvements to journeys. And of course we have to think about the bigger picture beyond Syd/Forest Hill, and the overall balance of 'winners' and 'losers'.
Subject to seeing more detail, I don't personally think it is a big problem.
I'm more concerned about some of the practical issues like service reliability. At the moment (touch wood) the trains are pretty reliable - in eight years of living in SE London and using various overground routes, the trains from Sydenham at the moment are as reliable as I've ever experienced.
By squeezing a total of nearly one train every 4 minutes onto the line, split between two different operators/systems, there seems to be a lot of potential for travel chaos!
I hope I can make the meeting tonight if I can extract myself from the office in reasonable time.
I think I'm starting to see it as a reaonable trade off. For people who want to continue to travel into LB, you're saying there will be a 20% reduction in service but a 33% reduction in travellers, which should mean less crowded trains.
It will however mean a reduction in frequency from every 7.5 mins on average to every 10 mins on average. As the trains aren't equally distributed through the hour at the moment, this won't make too much difference (most trains are 9-11 mins apart)
Judging by the rush of people to the platform moments before a train is due, I think commuters generally plan to get to the station to catch a specific train, rather than using it as a turn-up-and-travel service like the tube, so increased waiting time shouldn't be a big problem.
Whereas for the third of people who will switch to the ELL, there are potentially big improvements to journeys. And of course we have to think about the bigger picture beyond Syd/Forest Hill, and the overall balance of 'winners' and 'losers'.
Subject to seeing more detail, I don't personally think it is a big problem.
I'm more concerned about some of the practical issues like service reliability. At the moment (touch wood) the trains are pretty reliable - in eight years of living in SE London and using various overground routes, the trains from Sydenham at the moment are as reliable as I've ever experienced.
By squeezing a total of nearly one train every 4 minutes onto the line, split between two different operators/systems, there seems to be a lot of potential for travel chaos!