Was the East London Line extension south a good idea?

[Sad Sprinter]

I’m struggling to see how extended the ELL south of New Cross Gate was a good idea. Trains are far too small and always packed. Canada Water heaving with people interchanging onto the Jubilee. The old Southern service was pretty regular, about every 10 mins. I think keeping this with longer trains would have been better instead.

What was the rationale for this? Did they not expect the passenger numbers to be so high?

 

[JonathanH]

What was the rationale for this? Did they not expect the passenger numbers to be so high?

The simple matter is that Canada Water was built as a four-coach station in a previous era. That has constrained the length of the trains that can be used to five coaches with the front and back doors not able to be opened.

At the same time, London Bridge has less capacity for terminating trains on the Southern side in order to allow the increase in through platforms.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The simple matter is that Canada Water was built as a four-coach station in a previous era. That has constrained the length of the trains that can be used to five coaches with the front and back doors not able to be opened.

At the same time, London Bridge has less capacity for terminating trains on the Southern side in order to allow the increase in through platforms.

Well yes exactly, in hindsight can we say the extension to West Croydon to Crystal Palace was a good idea?

The Sutton Loop services really should have been terminating services. I would rather had 4-6 slow Thameslinks an hour through Forest Hill than the packed Overground.

 

[JonathanH]

Well yes exactly, in hindsight can we say the extension to West Croydon to Crystal Palace was a good idea?

Yes, it was a good idea as it has opened out more journey opportunities.

Also, Southern services were only ever 6tph out of London Bridge, whereas there are 8tph to Sydenham from the East London Line, plus up to 4tph of Southern services in the high peak. Shorter trains but more frequent.

Passengers changing at New Cross Gate wouldn't have been a sensible option.

 

[biggerisbetter]

The simple matter is that Canada Water was built as a four-coach station in a previous era. That has constrained the length of the trains that can be used to five coaches with the front and back doors not able to be opened.

At the same time, London Bridge has less capacity for terminating trains on the Southern side in order to allow the increase in through platforms.

Is this the only thing that restricts the lengthening of Overground services? Do you know if there has been any assessment of how much it would cost to extend these platforms? Are there many other platforms that would also need extending?

Could six car trains not be used with the whole of the back carriage in addition to existing front and rear doors off the platform? I imagine that the vast majority of people would get used to this quite quickly and even if you miss your stop, would only take c. 5 minutes to double back from Rotherhite and would only happen once! Although there's a lot of demand to and from Canada Water, there would be a fair bit of natural redistribution within the trains as commuters not alighting at Canada Water get to know that the rear coach is slightly quieter due to the doors not opening at Canada Water. There are plenty of national rail services where more than one carriage is off the rear of a short platform.

 

[PGAT]

How long are the platforms at Highbury & Islington and Dalston Junction? Are they long enough to turn around a 6 coach train?

 

[cle]

It has been a phenomenal success and passenger numbers show that. And it redirects people from London Bridge / opens new journeys up. There wouldn't have been scope for more metro services into LB otherwise.

 

[telstarbox]

Yes it was a good idea. It gives a large area of South East London access to the hospital at Whitechapel, Elizabeth Line destinations ditto, a good chunk of the City via Shoreditch High St, onward trains north at Highbury & Islington. It takes pressure of London Bridge and the Rotherhithe / Blackwall Tunnels where people might otherwise drive.

I've just put Forest Hill to Romford into Google Maps as an example - it says 57 minutes by train versus 1 hour 40 minutes to drive, so a significant difference.

Slightly provocative but short-distance trains in an urban area should be (almost) packed - it's efficient matching of capacity to demand.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The trains are only packed because they’re routed onto a historically low capacity route. Whilst I’m sure the new journey opportunities are a good thing, it’s undeniable that the section now needs some capacity relief.

 

[JonathanH]

The trains are only packed because they’re routed onto a historically low capacity route. Whilst I’m sure the new journey opportunities are a good thing, it’s undeniable that the section now needs some capacity relief.

The idea was to increase the number of Crystal Palace services in the peak flow. That was what the six five car 710s were indirectly for, to release six 378/2s for Crystal Palace services.

 

[bramling]

I’m struggling to see how extended the ELL south of New Cross Gate was a good idea. Trains are far too small and always packed. Canada Water heaving with people interchanging onto the Jubilee. The old Southern service was pretty regular, about every 10 mins. I think keeping this with longer trains would have been better instead.

What was the rationale for this? Did they not expect the passenger numbers to be so high?

The concept was good, but in some ways it’s a victim of its own success. There’s something of a head-in-sand attitude to the fact that the ELL part of the route can’t accept longer trains without some very significant work.

 

[Hadders]

The simple matter is that Canada Water was built as a four-coach station in a previous era. That has constrained the length of the trains that can be used to five coaches with the front and back doors not able to be opened.

At the same time, London Bridge has less capacity for terminating trains on the Southern side in order to allow the increase in through platforms.

Shadwell and Rotherhithe platforms are barely long enough for 4-car trains as well.

 

[DG85]

Shadwell and Rotherhithe platforms are barely long enough for 4-car trains as well.

Shadwell accommodates 5car and possibly 6 (with some work done at north end tunnel). Wapping, Rotherthithe, Canada Water and Dalston Junction are the problems.

 

[LLivery]

It was a good idea, but not addressing the short trains has made it a problem. The ELL and NLL have basically become a London version of CrossCountry. Very useful, but trains too short.

The Sydenham corridor has become 'trendy', Canada Water/Surrey Quays is seeing huge redevelopment, the Northern end is already 'hip'. The Canada Water interchange between platforms is inadequate and I can't for the life of me understand how the horribly overcrowded Jubilee line can handle the seemingly endless development of flats and offices being built along the eastern end of route without a Victoria line style upgrade now. It does feel very 'head in sand'.

The idea of more ELL trains per hour fills me we absolute performance risk worries especially without ERTMS. It was a mistake not to ensure Thameslink paths on the Sydenham corridor slows as the South Central suburban routes got almost nothing out of the London Bridge rebuild, but got a few negatives.

The Bakerloo line serving NGX probably won't help, in fact, it could make the ELL worse (Lewisham passengers choosing 8tph ELL from NGX rather thn 4tph from New Cross).

I can't see how anything can really be improved without Thameslink serving the Sydenham corridor stations. The TL routes might really actually need a review.

Yes it was a good idea. It gives a large area of South East London access to the hospital at Whitechapel, Elizabeth Line destinations ditto, a good chunk of the City via Shoreditch High St, onward trains north at Highbury & Islington. It takes pressure of London Bridge and the Rotherhithe / Blackwall Tunnels where people might otherwise drive.

I've just put Forest Hill to Romford into Google Maps as an example - it says 57 minutes by train versus 1 hour 40 minutes to drive, so a significant difference.

Slightly provocative but short-distance trains in an urban area should be (almost) packed - it's efficient matching of capacity to demand.

It isn't much longer doing Forest Hill > London Bridge > Bank > Liverpool Street > Romford. Before ELL both NR sections were every 10 mins; the connection times were great. And even better if you grabbed a fast train to Romford.

 

[bramling]

Shadwell accommodates 5car and possibly 6 (with some work done at north end tunnel). Wapping, Rotherthithe, Canada Water and Dalston Junction are the problems.

Just extending Canada Water would require a massive amount of work, though if a northward extension here was technically possible then it may be possible to close Rotherhithe and provide a northern entrance to Canada Water as a substitute. Has this ever been looked at and determined to be feasible or unfeasible?

Wapping could probably manage with SDO, but Dalston Junction being a problem is somewhat remiss considering it was a new build from an almost blank sheet.

There is of course one other significant problem, and that is New Cross Gate Depot. It already required major works just to come up with a solution for 5-car trains. The depot would become virtually unfit-for-purpose for 8-car trains, and I can’t see how it could be extended. There is some space on the up side alongside New Cross Gate station, currently occupied by a retail park, where a replacement depot could go.

All of this is such a long-term headache that I can’t see the current political structure ever attempting to address it. It will always be someone else’s problem.

 

[JonathanH]

I can't see how anything can really be improved without Thameslink serving the Sydenham corridor stations

The Thameslink consultation showed demand for Sydenham corridor to have through Thameslink services, but the timetabling couldn't be made to work.

Presumably the big issue is finding a Southern terminus for any trains on the corridor, which usually translates to being able to match the path on the slower route where it leaves the trunk route up with where it rejoins.

There is of course one other significant problem, and that is New Cross Gate Depot. It already required major works just to come up with a solution for 5-car trains.

Silwood sidings as well?

 

[LLivery]

The Thameslink consultation showed demand for Sydenham corridor to have through Thameslink services, but the timetabling couldn't be made to work.

Presumably the big issue is finding a Southern terminus for any trains on the corridor, which usually translates to being able to match the path on the slower route where it leaves the trunk route up with where it rejoins.


Silwood sidings as well?

I remember and was thoroughly disappointed when the problems doing this were told. Not suggesting this should be today, I'm talking about at whenever the next big rewrite is. But I would suggest this is where the Norwood Jun, Windmill Jun, East Croydon remodelling should've played a good role.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm talking about at whenever the next big rewrite is.

I can't see a big rewrite happening anytime soon. What would trigger it?

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m struggling to see how extended the ELL south of New Cross Gate was a good idea.

Trains are far too small and always packed.

It seems that lots of people think it was a good idea.

 

[cle]

Oh no, a route is too successful and the previously backwater places on it are now thriving and in demand. Connex didn't make Brockley cool, let's be real.

Squeeze in and shut up! It's a metro. I do think addl tph would help, but 2-4 will be the max.

And a final note - the Bakerloo will see far far far more pax in terms of inbound transfer at NXG (ie Canada Water etc relief westbound and London Bridge compensation) - than will see some Lewisham Bakerloo passengers changing onto the ELL.

The Lewisham lines already have direct New Cross access and Lewisham passengers themselves? Have the DLR. Unless we are thinking a Hayes line Bakerloo/ELL future. The Bakerloo will half-empty these trains at NXG, I am confident.

 

[HSTEd]

What is the limiting factor on the number of trains on the line, is it merely capacity on the section shared with the regular railway south of New Cross Gate?

 

[Bald Rick]

What is the limiting factor on the number of trains on the line, is it merely capacity on the section shared with the regular railway south of New Cross Gate?

AIUI, Currently it‘s the signalling headways in the core. Not long after that the issue is indeed capacity south of Surrey Quays, although somebrutal timetabling might sort that. Then you are into passanger capacity at some of the core stations.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Interesting lines of reasoning from some people: “terminally short trains + overcrowding = hooray!”

I don’t buy that forcing people onto a single 5 car max corridor is a sign of success nessassrily.

JohnathanH’s previous comment that there was found to be demand for Thameslink services along the Sydenham corridor (what is this line actually called?) is interesting. Although I’m not surprised a suitable termination point couldn’t be found.

I was always disappointed that the disused land next to East Croydon station was built over with flats, instead of used to expand the station to add more terminating facilities. I eagerly await Southern’s extra 2tph to London Bridge.

As an aside, I think a better service from Crofton Park might lessen the load a bit too.

 

[JonathanH]

I was always disappointed that the disused land next to East Croydon station was built over with flats, instead of used to expand the station to add more terminating facilities.

The room for eight platforms at East Croydon exists within the land that hasn't been built over with flats, not that there is any likelihood of it happening in the near to medium term. I seem to recall that the additional land needed is further north on the western side rather than on the station site itself.

 

[SynthD]

A large flow is from south of New Cross(s) to Canary Wharf. Was there an alternative for this mass of people, rather than hoping they’d go via zone 1 instead of filling unsafe platforms? At least at Canada Water Jubilee line there is protection from the elements and the track.

The bus station is over the platforms. It is about as long as a six car train, without closing or digging under the main road seven seems impossible.

There’s something of a head-in-sand attitude

Who by?

 

[cle]

A large flow is from south of New Cross(s) to Canary Wharf. Was there an alternative for this mass of people, rather than hoping they’d go via zone 1 instead of filling unsafe platforms? At least at Canada Water Jubilee line there is protection from the elements and the track.

This is a very good point. The ELL now offers a Whitechapel Docklands option too (Shadwell exists too of course) - whereas more LB/Thameslink service just pushges more interchanging people back into Central London needlessly, and onto the same Jubilee line trains (plus cost!)

 

[bramling]

Interesting lines of reasoning from some people: “terminally short trains + overcrowding = hooray!”

I don’t buy that forcing people onto a single 5 car max corridor is a sign of success

Certainly agree. Whilst the concept is good, it was implemented in a way that has imposed a massive capacity constraint, that probably ought to have been foreseen.

Silwood sidings as well?

That’s a rather cramped site for sure.

Who by?

TFL, and presumably ultimately successive mayors. It seems the only plan to enhance capacity on the ELL is a slight increase in the number of trains per hour. Lengthening trains doesn’t seem to get a look in anywhere.

 

[cle]

A few more TPH is still a good capacity add, and it's more than many constrained routes in London can hope for. If you are at 10-12tph through the busiest stations (Sydenham to NXG), you are no longer checking a timetable to get at least to Dalston. That is a major freedom South Londoners don't typically enjoy - and would not give up once there.

The NLL is now the same - nobody would ever prefer 2-4tph of 8 cars going to Broad Street, lol. Except nostalgics.

And again, if/when the Bakerloo comes online at NXG, this will feed that hugely. And churn the train space well enough for comfort (and help at Canada Water)

 

[LLivery]

I can't see a big rewrite happening anytime soon. What would trigger it?

Far from anytime soon, but it'll have to naturally happen eventually

Squeeze in and shut up! It's a metro. I do think addl tph would help, but 2-4 will be the max.

And a final note - the Bakerloo will see far far far more pax in terms of inbound transfer at NXG (ie Canada Water etc relief westbound and London Bridge compensation) - than will see some Lewisham Bakerloo passengers changing onto the ELL.

Bakerloo line note. Point taken. I was very tired!

However, the Sydenham Corridor has 10 car platforms and people are squeezing onto 5 car trains, partly because the Southern service has become pretty dire on frequency. Reintroducing the Southern 4tph throughout needs doing. Southern's excuse that the current service isn't overcrowded is missing the point. Of course it's not, people are going via Canada Water instead and people are getting left behind at Zone 2 stations.

This is a very good point. The ELL now offers a Whitechapel Docklands option too (Shadwell exists too of course) - whereas more LB/Thameslink service just pushges more interchanging people back into Central London needlessly, and onto the same Jubilee line trains (plus cost!)

Places like London Bridge, Farringdon, King's Cross have become greater employment and leisure centres. From experience (and data), most people are not going to Canada Water during the peaks to travel East. They're going West, hence the serious Jubilee overcrowding towards Central London in the mornings. Likewise, Crossrail at Whitechapel, people are going Liverpool St, Tottenham Court Road. The Docklands workers are the Zone 6 and Home Counties residents.

Yes, the Dalston, Highbury and Shoreditch are popular flows, but Farringdon to Sydenham is surprisingly high. And despite the half hourly Southern frequency, London Bridge is a very popular flow for Brockley to Sydenham stations, which suggests many are feeling the need to go via Canada Water, needlessly contributing to the overcrowding because they don't want to wait 29 mins for the next Southern service

 

[cle]

Places like London Bridge, Farringdon, King's Cross have become greater employment and leisure centres. From experience (and data), most people are not going to Canada Water during the peaks to travel East. They're going West, hence the serious Jubilee overcrowding towards Central London in the mornings. Likewise, Crossrail at Whitechapel, people are going Liverpool St, Tottenham Court Road. The Docklands workers are the Zone 6 and Home Counties residents.

I agree with this - it's all just finite capacity. But 4tph should be sufficient.

Don't agree with the final statement - Docklands workers come from all directions. Especially with Crossrail now - many more from the west who might not have taken a job at CW. And inner London too.