TfL considering Sydenham corridor AM improvement

[LLivery]

Some on here may remember my annoyance with morning overcrowding on the Sydenham corridor, especially from Honor Oak Park/Brockley northwards, as well as our lack of East Croydon service.

Well, Lewisham Council's Transport Committee has brought it up with TfL and GTR.

GTR gave the expected response:

Question: Is there an update on any review to increase the number of trains running from London Bridge to East Croydon, stopping at Forest Hill? 2 trains an hour from London Bridge to Forest Hill is already not enough, particularly in the evening, pushing more users onto the Overground, leading to unnecessary overcrowding on the Overground Service. We would like this service to be extended back to at least 4 trains, including services that connect to East Croydon directly in addition to the existing Victoria trains, as this has many other benefits for Lewisham residents.

GTR: As part of the timetable introduced in September last year, we replaced the East Croydon to London Bridge via Forest Hill stopping service with a London Victoria to London Bridge via Forest Hill stopping service. The context to these changes is the continued need to respond to the gap between our costs and revenues as while demand has partially recovered, it has stabilised at around 80% of pre-pandemic levels. Revenue is reduced by similar levels, with the gap between our costs and revenues currently in the region of £150 million a year

Our approach is to create the best fit of services to demand by making the most efficient use of the resources and the funding available to us, with the London Victoria to London Bridge service designed to provide capacity for journeys to both stations. We know that passengers will always prefer more frequent trains, but the current two trains per hour service between London Bridge and London Victoria via Forest Hill does have enough capacity for the route, with services typically lightly loaded outside of peak times. Connections to East Croydon are available at Norwood Junction. We will continue to keep passenger use and feedback under review, but increasing the services from two trains per hour to four trains per hour would require an increase in funding.

It's clear the reduced Southern service is causing overcrowding on LO, especially as Penge West and Anerley are LO only now (apart from the very last train per day), but Southern says capacity is fine on their provided service, which I think misses the point. Also, Penge W & Anerley are in Bromley, so they were able to not mention the total lack of Southern service in their answer. But fair enough, political/financial constraints and all...

We already knew TfL was considering two extra ELL Crystal Palace services per hour, but they've also said there's another surprising option:

Question: There is severe overcrowding on the London Overground at Brockley Station. TfL says there are no plans to deal with it. This is not acceptable. We have no tube, and Southern Railway has withdrawn half our hourly services, leaving just two an hour – when they can be bothered to run them. OFFICIAL Will TfL reconsider its intention to do nothing about the capacity issues on the London Overground and take action? If so, when and what? If not, why should Lewisham put up with this overcrowding and lack of investment by TfL?

TfL: We acknowledge that there is severe crowding on the Sydenham corridor during the height of the AM Peak. This has been exacerbated by the reduction of the Southern service to two trains per hour, which was undertaken by Southern and their contracting authority the Department for Transport

We are considering how best to mitigate this by providing additional capacity. Two options have been proposed so far:
1. Operating additional services during peak periods between Crystal Palace and Dalston Junction / Highbury and Islington via Canada Water. We want to ensure that the provision of such services does not have an adverse impact on performance and reliability that would negate their value. We need to do further analysis on this before deciding whether or not to proceed

2. Operating additional services during peak periods between Crystal Palace and London Bridge, replacing capacity on this routing that has been lost following the reduction to Southern services
This would represent a new routing for London Overground services that would necessitate significant changes to operational arrangements and driver training. Further work is therefore required to establish the feasibility and business case for this change • There are currently no confirmed timescales for the implementation of either of these options due to the further work they require

Document available here (with thanks to Murky Depths)

I always felt extra ELL would be a performance risk, but reinstating 4tph London Bridge would be most welcome. However, going to Palace, rather than East Croydon still means Penge West & Anerley have no service to a London terminal and the direct East Croydon interchange still isn't available, but it would hopefully reduce crowding on LO and at Canada Water.

So how difficult would it be to run this new service and gain access to London Bridge? And what are the odds of it acutally happening?

 

[30907]

Intriguing - though I can't see the sense of running 5-car trains into LBG in the height of the peak, even without the route learning issues etc.

 

[JonathanH]

If we are in speculative discussion, what GTR arguably should do is run the Tattenham / Caterham service up the slow at peak times and use available capacity on those services to be a crowd buster, perhaps only stopping from Forest Hill inwards.

 

[LLivery]

Intriguing - though I can't see the sense of running 5-car trains into LBG in the height of the peak, even without the route learning issues etc.

I'd hope they'd double them up if they have the fleet.

If we are in speculative discussion, what GTR arguably should do is run the Tattenham / Caterham service up the slow at peak times and use available capacity on those services to be a crowd buster, perhaps only stopping from Forest Hill inwards.

Before LO began in 2010, we had semi-fast services from London Bridge to Forest Hill, then Sydenham, etc., I'm pretty they were Sutton/Dorking/Guildford, but might have been the Caterham service.

The absolute best thing would be Thameslink as that'd create further cross-London options, reducing ELL Core pressure, but I doubt it'd ever happen.

 

[Thebaz]

The service provision from inner London stations to Croydon on this route is rubbish. There are connections to East Croydon at Norwood Junction says GTR - yes, a 29 minute wait at peak time if you're coming from Forest Hill! If you opt to stay on the LO to West Croydon you then have to find your way to East Croydon by bus or tram. At least when they terminated the LO in platform 4 it didn't seem too bad as you could hop out the side exit straight onto the tram stop. But now they terminate in platform 1 giving any passengers who want to change a massive hike down platform 3, through the ticket hall round the corner and back on themselves which is an absolutely pain even for an able-bodied person.

If we are in speculative discussion, what GTR arguably should do is run the Tattenham / Caterham service up the slow at peak times and use available capacity on those services to be a crowd buster, perhaps only stopping from Forest Hill inwards.

I'm not sure there is much capacity available. This is my regular route - all seats are gone from Purley Tues-Thurs and very little standing room left after NWD.

Before LO began in 2010, we had semi-fast services from London Bridge to Forest Hill, then Sydenham, etc., I'm pretty they were Sutton/Dorking/Guildford, but might have been the Caterham service.

Yep peak hours Guildford/Dorking to LBG used to run fast NWD to Sydenham, Forest Hill then fast to LBG. That's not going to help Brockley though!


IMO, in the short term what could be done is 1) reinstate the old London Bridge-Horsham service (now Peterborough-Horsham) stops at New Cross Gate to facilitate change at both ends of the corridor. 2) Proposed extra service from Crystal Palace to LBG seems sensible but Southern should run it to save on route-learning issues. That said they probably have stock/driver availability issues, whereas TfL obviously have stock and drivers lying about awaiting employment. I jest, but at least TfL appear to be grabbing the bull by the horns. Long-term - 1) build the interchange with south-eastern at Brockley to provide alternative termini to the local populace. 2) Currently there are no useful crossovers in the corridor between NWD and New Cross Gate that would allow fast line services to access the slow lines and switch back again. Ideally you could install an effective loop to allow fast line services to access Sydenham and Forest Hill. There's then the option to stay on the slows to pick up pax at Honor Oak Park and Brockley.

 

[PGAT]

As far as I’m aware some trains skip Norwood Junction because of the overcrowding on the Caterham/Tattenham Corner services

 

[Thebaz]

As far as I’m aware some trains skip Norwood Junction because of the overcrowding on the Caterham/Tattenham Corner services

Some certainly skip it but I think that's because a Thameslink is right behind and there's no capacity for a call in the timetable. But yes, I'm always glad I'm not at NWD trying to fight my way onto one of these services.

 

[Starmill]

An awful lot of worse value for money services to subsidise have continued to run across the rest of England, including elsewhere on GTR, despite these Southern ones having been cut. They mostly served densely-populated areas of Greater London. In the grand scheme of things removing them saved relatively little. Of course, if you take more trains away from the least-used routes to compensate you get a much larger political storm than if you push an overcrowding problem into London at peak times.

 

[JonathanH]

They mostly served densely-populated areas of Greater London.

You need a lot of passengers to travel to make any revenue when they are only paying £4 each.

 

[30907]

The service provision from inner London stations to Croydon on this route is rubbish. There are connections to East Croydon at Norwood Junction says GTR - yes, a 29 minute wait at peak time if you're coming from Forest Hill!

My timetable says it's 7min on the Down (18/48 to 25/55), have I missed something? I am sure double the frequency, as in the morning peak, would be better.

2) Proposed extra service from Crystal Palace to LBG seems sensible but Southern should run it to save on route-learning issues. That said they probably have stock/driver availability issues, whereas TfL obviously have stock and drivers lying about awaiting employment. I jest, but at least TfL appear to be grabbing the bull by the horns.

I wonder whether TfL are trying to get DfT to react?
Are there the drivers/OBS spare? Are there units that could be reallocated - requirement would initially be 2x5-car or 4×8.

An awful lot of worse value for money services to subsidise have continued to run across the rest of England, including elsewhere on GTR, despite these Southern ones having been cut. They mostly served densely-populated areas of Greater London. In the grand scheme of things removing them saved relatively little.

Agree, but it probably cost zilch in terms of revenue loss.

 

[Starmill]

You need a lot of passengers to travel to make any revenue when they are only paying £4 each.

Sure it's not a strong financial case, but the economic benefit of more people being able to travel within London on this corridor is quite worthwhile. And of course, it's far a stronger in both cases to run an extra train on one of these stopping services than it is to keep running a near-empty one, as many of Southern's are.

Agree, but it probably cost zilch in terms of revenue loss.

Over the long term it will have a significant downside because people will use the service less. That's simply unavoidable when frequency goes down.

 

[JonathanH]

And of course, it's far a stronger in both cases to run an extra train on one of these stopping services than it is to keep running a near-empty one, as many of Southern's are.

Yes, but it sounds like this is one or two peak services that are needed, not an all day service. Finding a peak service that could be diverted to do the additional calls is the ideal, but the track layout doesn't help.

Finding stock that can be easily moved doesn't seem easy. Basically the choice is between a peak extra from further out, or a peak extra on the Sydenham corridor.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, but it sounds like this is one or two peak services that are needed, not an all day service. Finding a peak service that could be diverted to do the additional calls is the ideal, but the track layout doesn't help.

Finding stock that can be easily moved doesn't seem easy. Basically the choice is between a peak extra from further out, or a peak extra on the Sydenham corridor.

Easy depends on your perspective, because there's rolling stock that is committed to running almost empty services around that time. For example, could quite easily use the units that do the first service from Dorking to Horsham and back. The people commuting into Horsham for 8am or going back into London for a 0945 arrival could be happily accommodated by one double decker bus each. The problem is politics, trains are very lightly loaded at all times of day between Dorking and Horsham, but if that's your village, you're naturally going to make a lot of noise about it and play it up, rather than accepting a bus replacement for the good of the wider economy. In a way I can't blame anyone for that.

 

[LLivery]

I feel like the real crux of the issue is that the 5-car railway that is the London Overground orbital routes does not have the capacity we need on a railway reaching capacity, while Thameslink serves the Greenwich line instead of the Sydenham Corridor. Obviously, ELL core platforms can't be extended, and they're already using SDO.

There are also rumors about LO serving Battersea Park all day, which would probably mean no extra ELL Palace service - making London Bridge logical. The biggest increase in capacity would be a 10 car London Bridge service, rather than an extra ELL Core service too.

Are the Southern London Bridge - East Croydon paths 'free' or are they reserved until 'necessary'?

Yep peak hours Guildford/Dorking to LBG used to run fast NWD to Sydenham, Forest Hill then fast to LBG. That's not going to help Brockley though!


IMO, in the short term what could be done is 1) reinstate the old London Bridge-Horsham service (now Peterborough-Horsham) stops at New Cross Gate to facilitate change at both ends of the corridor. 2) Proposed extra service from Crystal Palace to LBG seems sensible but Southern should run it to save on route-learning issues. That said they probably have stock/driver availability issues, whereas TfL obviously have stock and drivers lying about awaiting employment. I jest, but at least TfL appear to be grabbing the bull by the horns. Long-term - 1) build the interchange with south-eastern at Brockley to provide alternative termini to the local populace. 2) Currently there are no useful crossovers in the corridor between NWD and New Cross Gate that would allow fast line services to access the slow lines and switch back again. Ideally you could install an effective loop to allow fast line services to access Sydenham and Forest Hill. There's then the option to stay on the slows to pick up pax at Honor Oak Park and Brockley.

I remember those fondly! We were better connected with the outer suburbs, which of course, many of us along the route have links to.

Brockley interchange would help a lot, especially if it was upped to 4tph. The growth of Brockley is something I never would've guessed 15 years ago. Being able to take a train across SE London without Zone 1 would be fantastic.

The locations of the points aren't great, which for a line paired by direction, is unfortunate.

New Cross Gate is a wasted interchange opportunity, and Thameslink serving would be very convenient. But then, I can see LO being even worse if Thameslink stopped there (people avoiding Zone 1 £££ for Canary Wharf/Stratford).

My timetable says it's 7min on the Down (18/48 to 25/55), have I missed something? I am sure double the frequency, as in the morning peak, would be better.


I wonder whether TfL are trying to get DfT to react?
Are there the drivers/OBS spare? Are there units that could be reallocated - requirement would initially be 2x5-car or 4×8.

Southern doesn't need an OBS for suburban routes, they're DOO.

Southbound in my experience is pretty quick. And if you're lucky, you can get off an LO and grab the slightly delayed Thameslink Horsham train. Up is worse, you'll be arriving at Norwood Jun and see the LO service departing, and then you've got to use a narrow staircase to deal with, which after a long flight, isn't fun.

Maybe they are trying to get the DfT to react; fair play to TfL/ARL trying to fix it

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I sympathise with you lot on the London Bridge branch. Poor service for us on the Victoria route to East Croydon too. Don't want to be standing on windswept Selhurst station to change trains.

Why-oh-why did the London & Brighton railway branch off the London & Croydon before West Croydon and not after?

 

[JonathanH]

Why-oh-why did the London & Brighton railway branch off the London & Croydon before West Croydon and not after?

Geography and other land uses.

There was once a junction south of East Croydon heading west, that went to where the Library is now, but the land is then obstructed. Further south and you have hills.

 

[MPW]

Do I understand correctly that LO is considering LB trains purely because Southern can't make it work financially? Couldn't TfL just subsidise the additional Southern services instead?

I used to live in forest Hill and hated taking the overground at peak. Would take Southern to LB even though LO via Canada water is faster to canary wharf. Albeit in the reverse journey I preferred the higher frequency via LO vs risking a long wait at LB

 

[JonathanH]

Do I understand correctly that LO is considering LB trains purely because Southern can't make it work financially? Couldn't TfL just subsidise the additional Southern services instead?

Isn't it more that Southern would need to reallocate rolling stock from elsewhere rather than strictly that it doesn't work financially, whereas London Overground explicitly has spare rolling stock available?

The purpose of the 6 5-car 710s was to allow a cascade of 378s to provide more services on the Sydenham corridor.

 

[cle]

Southern has a sever stock problem. And losing 313s exacerbates the 377 need on the South Coast etc - it's all sequential.

That said, LO serving Battersea Park regularly, and now potentially London Bridge, does seem barmy.

LO had always said that the next improvements to the ELL would be an additional 2tph Crystal Palace to Dalston/H&I. That was deemed as path-able for reliability, and doable within the current stock pool - so surely a peak only iteration of this would be a logical, incremental step. It doesn't get the folks of this corridor to Central London - which is what they really want from an increase - but it is still useful in itself.

And since those plans, Whitechapel now of course has another very extra special connection. Journeys like Forest Hill to Liverpool St, Farringdon, TCR - and even Bond St (which I doubted) - route passengers via Whitechapel. And so that additional 2tph will be extremely helpful for turn up and go activity. And leave the LB trains for those who need LB and the South Bank / southern City specifically. There is also Canada Water.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Southern has a sever stock problem. And losing 313s exacerbates the 377 need on the South Coast etc - it's all sequential.

That said, LO serving Battersea Park regularly, and now potentially London Bridge, does seem barmy.

LO had always said that the next improvements to the ELL would be an additional 2tph Crystal Palace to Dalston/H&I. That was deemed as path-able for reliability, and doable within the current stock pool - so surely a peak only iteration of this would be a logical, incremental step. It doesn't get the folks of this corridor to Central London - which is what they really want from an increase - but it is still useful in itself.

And since those plans, Whitechapel now of course has another very extra special connection. Journeys like Forest Hill to Liverpool St, Farringdon, TCR - and even Bond St (which I doubted) - route passengers via Whitechapel. And so that additional 2tph will be extremely helpful for turn up and go activity. And leave the LB trains for those who need LB and the South Bank / southern City specifically. There is also Canada Water.

And yet we got rid of the 365s and 379s...

Could Thameslink's Horsham/Rainham routes be repurposed to run as a LBG to Croydon slow service perhaps?

 

[OneOfThe48]

There might be the case for one of two extra trains in the peak stopping up the Sydenham line into London Bridge, but frankly the current trains from this route into London Bridge are pretty empty most of the day.

The 'pre-pandemic' four trains an hour all day service it had into London Bridge doesn't seem like it'll come back unless Southern get a lot more money from the DfT and the Treasury.

And we all know how generous they feel at the moment about subsidising loss making railways.

 

[LLivery]

There might be the case for one of two extra trains in the peak stopping up the Sydenham line into London Bridge, but frankly the current trains from this route into London Bridge are pretty empty most of the day.

The 'pre-pandemic' four trains an hour all day service it had into London Bridge doesn't seem like it'll come back unless Southern get a lot more money from the DfT and the Treasury.

And we all know how generous they feel at the moment about subsidising loss making railways.

But they're often quiet because like above, many people tend to go via Canada Water coming home to avoid up to a 30 min wait at London Bridge. Towards London Bridge, they're not packed - no 10 car train is packed at 13:00, but they're not empty either

And yet we got rid of the 365s and 379s...

Could Thameslink's Horsham/Rainham routes be repurposed to run as a LBG to Croydon slow service perhaps?

I always thought Caterham Thameslink via Sydenham would make the most sense to me. With the East Grinstead line close to Whytleleaf and Purley Oaks, plus some fasts from Purley, I don't see why Caterham ever needed to be a fast train off peak

 

[JonathanH]

There might be the case for one of two extra trains in the peak stopping up the Sydenham line into London Bridge, but frankly the current trains from this route into London Bridge are pretty empty most of the day.

Indeed. Exactly the issue.

I always thought Caterham Thameslink via Sydenham would make the most sense to me. With the East Grinstead line close to Whytleleaf and Purley Oaks, plus some fasts from Purley, I don't see why Caterham ever needed to be a fast train off peak

GTR wanted the same basic timetable all day, and there was enough demand to justify a fast service from Caterham and Tattenham Corner to London Bridge in the peaks.

Thameslink to Caterham or Tattenham Corner is awkward because the 700s can't split and there were limited paths between East Croydon and Purley.

Changing the Thameslink routes now would involve a major training exercise.

Besides, the issue on the Sydenham corridor is only in the high peak.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I used to live in Sydenham back in the early/mid 2000s, so long before the Overground came along

The pattern in those days from Sydenham northwards was 6tph

- Charing Cross to Caterham (fast Sydenham to Norwood Junction, and in the peaks these skipped Brockley & Honor Oak Park)

- London Bridge to Victoria (the only remaining southern service on this line)

- London Bridge to Sutton (with peak extensions to Epsom and Guildford)

The service levels at Sydenham and the connections you had to destinations across South London and into Surrey and Sussex made it a desirable area to live in.

The London Bridge to Sutton service became a Islington to West Croydon LO service, then they lost Charing Cross, and now there isn’t even a service direct to East Croydon.

A cynical part of me believes that LO proposing to run a London Bridge to Crystal Palace service is the first step in taking over all Southern metro services, but I’m sure it would be welcome, although this still leaves Penge West and Anerley without a direct London Bridge or East Croydon service.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I used to live in Sydenham back in the early/mid 2000s, so long before the Overground came along

The pattern in those days from Sydenham northwards was 6tph

- Charing Cross to Caterham (fast Sydenham to Norwood Junction, and in the peaks these skipped Brockley & Honor Oak Park)

- London Bridge to Victoria (the only remaining southern service on this line)

- London Bridge to Sutton (with peak extensions to Epsom and Guildford)

The service levels at Sydenham and the connections you had to destinations across South London and into Surrey and Sussex made it a desirable area to live in.

The London Bridge to Sutton service became a Islington to West Croydon LO service, then they lost Charing Cross, and now there isn’t even a service direct to East Croydon.

A cynical part of me believes that LO proposing to run a London Bridge to Crystal Palace service is the first step in taking over all Southern metro services, but I’m sure it would be welcome, although this still leaves Penge West and Anerley without a direct London Bridge or East Croydon service.

I almost wonder if they should simplify the services by sending all LO services via Peckham, leaving the Sydenham corridor served exclusively by London Bridge trains with a new interchange between the two lines built where they cross at Millwall. But of course that would add an extra interchange for people going onwards to Canary Wharf.

I travelled on this line last weekend on a direct London Bridge train and overhead a few passengers saying how much nicer it is to get the train to London Bridge, as the Canada Water interchange is awkward and overcrowded.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I almost wonder if they should simplify the services by sending all LO services via Peckham, leaving the Sydenham corridor served exclusively by London Bridge trains with a new interchange between the two lines built where they cross at Millwall. But of course that would add an extra interchange for people going onwards to Canary Wharf.

I travelled on this line last weekend on a direct London Bridge train and overhead a few passengers saying how much nicer it is to get the train to London Bridge, as the Canada Water interchange is awkward and overcrowded.

I don’t think there would be enough paths to send all LO services via Peckham, you have to factor in the Thameslink and SE services there, not to mention that Victoria-Lewisham is set to become 4tph in the near future.

But I do agree that travelling direct to London Bridge is far preferable than changing at Canada Water, my partner lives in Sydenham and she always times her journeys so she can catch the Southern train.

 

[LLivery]

I used to live in Sydenham back in the early/mid 2000s, so long before the Overground came along

The pattern in those days from Sydenham northwards was 6tph

- Charing Cross to Caterham (fast Sydenham to Norwood Junction, and in the peaks these skipped Brockley & Honor Oak Park)

- London Bridge to Victoria (the only remaining southern service on this line)

- London Bridge to Sutton (with peak extensions to Epsom and Guildford)

The service levels at Sydenham and the connections you had to destinations across South London and into Surrey and Sussex made it a desirable area to live in.

The London Bridge to Sutton service became a Islington to West Croydon LO service, then they lost Charing Cross, and now there isn’t even a service direct to East Croydon.

A cynical part of me believes that LO proposing to run a London Bridge to Crystal Palace service is the first step in taking over all Southern metro services, but I’m sure it would be welcome, although this still leaves Penge West and Anerley without a direct London Bridge or East Croydon service.

I'm sure we lost Charing Cross about a year before the ELL started. The coffin being carried to mark the loss of that was quite something!

The coming of LO was a good thing, but we're not getting a good deal now. Back around 2010, I wanted 6tph for each, rather than LO 8tph - SN 4tph (now 8tph - 2tph), but I never expected LO to be as popular as it is and naively thought Thameslink would serve the corridor after the upgrade, balancing out cross London demand.

It will be interesting to see what the next gov's attitude is to rail devolution in London, especially as the London Mayor election campaign is also kicking off.

I travelled on this line last weekend on a direct London Bridge train and overhead a few passengers saying how much nicer it is to get the train to London Bridge, as the Canada Water interchange is awkward and overcrowded.

Considering the 377s with tables, plug sockets, lots of seats and toilets (which are used plenty) vs 378, it's like a first class upgrade

GTR wanted the same basic timetable all day, and there was enough demand to justify a fast service from Caterham and Tattenham Corner to London Bridge in the peaks.

Thameslink to Caterham or Tattenham Corner is awkward because the 700s can't split and there were limited paths between East Croydon and Purley.

Changing the Thameslink routes now would involve a major training exercise.

Besides, the issue on the Sydenham corridor is only in the high peak.

I wouldn't have any splits. Caterham would just go back to its own 8 car service, taking over the former London Bridge - Coulsdon Town, diverting the Rainham TL service to Caterham, and Tattenham stays as fast. Hypothetically speaking it'd be Luton to Caterham; but the basic all timetable all day does make sense.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I'm sure we lost Charing Cross about a year before the ELL started. The coffin being carried to mark the loss of that was quite something!

The coming of LO was a good thing, but we're not getting a good deal now. Back around 2010, I wanted 6tph for each, rather than LO 8tph - SN 4tph (now 8tph - 2tph), but I never expected LO to be as popular as it is and naively thought Thameslink would serve the corridor after the upgrade, balancing out cross London demand.

It will be interesting to see what the next gov's attitude is to rail devolution in London, especially as the London Mayor election campaign is also kicking off.

It was 2009 you’re correct, I’d left the area by then.

No I don’t think the Sydenham corridor is getting a good deal, London Bridge, then again what line is these days? My local line has large gaps between trains and near-empty, slow Cannon Street trains and a unreliable Thameslink service because nearly everyone on the Woolwich & Bexleyheath lines has given up on SE and have switched to the Liz Line/DLR/Jubilee

I mean as for the mayor of London, it could be possible that there could be a Tory mayor (in the 2020s I don’t rule anything out) That coupled with a Labour government would present a rather interesting scenario, albeit unlikely.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It was 2009 you’re correct, I’d left the area by then.

No I don’t think the Sydenham corridor is getting a good deal, London Bridge, then again what line is these days? My local line has large gaps between trains and near-empty, slow Cannon Street trains and a unreliable Thameslink service because nearly everyone on the Woolwich & Bexleyheath lines has given up on SE and have switched to the Liz Line/DLR/Jubilee

I mean as for the mayor of London, it could be possible that there could be a Tory mayor (in the 2020s I don’t rule anything out) That coupled with a Labour government would present a rather interesting scenario, albeit unlikely.

The SouthEastern services are odd. For what is a staple suburban network it seems to have been turned into a a bit of a toy-town railway.

I remember in a 2002 article of the old train magazine "entrain", there was a long article on a plan to unlock London Bridge by a couple of individuals who's exact interest was vague and unclear, but seemed to work in town planning some capacity. They theorised building a"Deptford Park Interchange" station that would allow transfer from all the SE routes (which would have been segregated into single termini) Southern services and the East London Line. Probably impossible to build now what with the recent track remodelling but I wonder if such a station would be of any help today.

The article included a huge, diagrammatic map of the proposed scheme which is quite interesting to look at, albeit mostly implausible. Will post a picture if people are interested.

 

[NorthKent1989]

The SouthEastern services are odd. For what is a staple suburban network it seems to have been turned into a a bit of a toy-town railway.

I remember in a 2002 article of the old train magazine "entrain", there was a long article on a plan to unlock London Bridge by a couple of individuals who's exact interest was vague and unclear, but seemed to work in town planning some capacity. They theorised building a"Deptford Park Interchange" station that would allow transfer from all the SE routes (which would have been segregated into single termini) Southern services and the East London Line. Probably impossible to build now what with the recent track remodelling but I wonder if such a station would be of any help today.

The article included a huge, diagrammatic map of the proposed scheme which is quite interesting to look at, albeit mostly implausible. Will post a picture if people are interested.

Please post the diagram I’d like to see a “what if” scenario.