Extension to Overground announced in Budget.

[SF-02]

I get the Thamesmead issue about not having a direct rail link but then why would people move to any new housing there if most of them actually go to work more in the centre of London? Why would they want to go via Barking even if they did then get a GA train into town?

It's not really about flows into central London. Most in Thamesmead would take a quick train south on an extended Goblin and use the north kent line and Crossrail heading west. It would though get developers building and move ahead comprehensive regeneration in Thamesmead, and facilitate an increase in housing density in Thamesmead much needed to house the existing and future population of London.

It would also allow easy access to the many secondary areas of employment throughout east London. Someone in Thamesmead or Erith, can't feasibly get a job in Barking, for example. With a quick link they can. The connection at Barking opens up a huge swath of East London for SE London residents currently denied through very limited river crossings.

From much of Essex and East London getting to Kent and across SE London would also be easier. All these areas are projected for the main bulk of London's housing in the coming decade.

 

[cle]

Barking also has the uni - not many of them in SE London.

 

[hassaanhc]

Barking also has the uni - not many of them in SE London.

University of East London? The Barking campus closed in 2006 (although it becomes easier to get to Beckton or Stratford)

 

[WatcherZero]

Lib Dems in London angry at Mayors office for misrepresenting this to be full line funding when its only funding for studies. Attacking your allies on budget day #coalition politics

 

[Tobbes]

It's not really about flows into central London. Most in Thamesmead would take a quick train south on an extended Goblin and use the north kent line and Crossrail heading west. ....

It would also allow easy access to the many secondary areas of employment throughout east London. Someone in Thamesmead or Erith, can't feasibly get a job in Barking, for example.

Agreed, and actually, it could be faster for people heading from Barking to Canary Wharf to go to Abbey Wood (c. 10 mins) and then get Crossrail 1 to CW.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I get the Thamesmead issue about not having a direct rail link but then why would people move to any new housing there if most of them actually go to work more in the centre of London? Why would they want to go via Barking even if they did then get a GA train into town?

It's one of the cheapest places in London to buy a house - only a year or two ago you could get quite a decent place for well under £200K, although prices are going up now (probably because of Crossrail). And in the end, if more houses are built there - there's such a housing shortage in London that people will come just in order to get a house. Although there isn't a station anywhere near there, it's not too hard to get a bus to Abbey Wood or Woolwich. And the road network is very good around there - it's one of the few parts of London where traffic practically always flows easily (Though unless you are travelling out of London, that free traffic flow tends to abruptly stop as soon as you get out of Thamesmead ) It's also quite pleasant once you get past the blocks of flats - loads of parks and small lakes etc.

Personally I wouldn't want to live on such an obvious floodplain and I'd question the long term wisdom of building more houses on one, but there's obviously land there.

 

[edwin_m]

Agreed, and actually, it could be faster for people heading from Barking to Canary Wharf to go to Abbey Wood (c. 10 mins) and then get Crossrail 1 to CW.

Is an undefined number of stops to Abbey Wood then three on Crossrail going to be quicker than one stop to West Ham and three more on the Jubilee?

 

[Tobbes]

Sorry, probably not - forgot about West Ham. My mistake.

Still, Barking - Thamesmead - Abbey Wood would be a useful addition. But the costs of a new Thames tunnel are presumably immense?

Tobbes

 

[edwin_m]

Yes it would be an immensed tube tunnel (sorry). I suppose not impossible, but I make it six new rail crossings under the Thames east of Tower Bridge in the last 15 years or so, with Crossrail adding another and the only older one fully revamped. Is that enough to be going on with?

 

[Class 170101]

Personally I wouldn't want to live on such an obvious floodplain and I'd question the long term wisdom of building more houses on one, but there's obviously land there.

Don't build direct onto the floodplain but allow sufficient space to allow the water to pass underneath - perhaps car park underneath and flats above.

 

[SF-02]

Indeed Class170101. Build above ground floor if needed. It happens in many riverside developments. Much of the original part of Thamesmead does not have housing on the ground floor, though defences were upgraded after and regulations relaxed, so many of the atrocious noddy homes built from the 80's until today are inhabitable at ground floor level.

A station in Thamesmead would enable far greater density developments, replacing much of the terrble housing that exists. Blocks of 10 or more storeys could be built. It's not such a problem to leave the ground floor uninhabited. If near a station the footfall would enable shops, restaurants, community centres etc to use the ground floor. Thamesmead lacks any kind of High Street or much in the way of amenties so it would provide a real boost.

Would a tunnel be that expensive? It's deep underground stations that cost a lot. Thamesmead could have one at surface level, or cut and cover, to reduce costs. Like the Woolwich DLR extension model, and that wasn't too expensive. Edwin - 6 crossings may seem a lot but given the existing population, let alone the projected building and population growth in the next 10 years, something new will be needed. Don't forget that 6 crossings compares with triple that number west of London. The population of Bexley, Greenwich, Newham and Barking boroughs is over a million and growing fast.

A new station, with great links, could have high density housing with the ground floor reserved for other uses which would help the housing problem in London and bring much needed facilities.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think shops and restaurants on the ground floor in a flood-prone area would work. They'd never be able to get insurance. But if you leave the ground floor to parking and dustbins then you're at risk of creating something just as bad as was done in past decades.

18 crossings upstream of Tower Bridge (presumably) is a bit misleading as this includes central London and areas to the west where the river is narrower so there are more historic connections and hence need to travel between places either side. Also I'm not sure how far upstream you take the count - are you going all the way to the source?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes it would be an immensed tube tunnel (sorry). I suppose not impossible, but I make it six new rail crossings under the Thames east of Tower Bridge in the last 15 years or so, with Crossrail adding another and the only older one fully revamped. Is that enough to be going on with?

It's probably not enough, partly because of the vast population, and partly because, apart from the two DLR tunnels, they are all aimed mostly at traffic into central London, and the fact that they cross the Thames is to some extent (not entirely admittedly) coincidental. I would say a big problem in outer East London is lack of significant *orbital* rail facilities. If you want to go into central London, you'll get the train. Otherwise for many journeys you'll probably drive.

Add to that you have Bexleyheath centre - a huge shopping area with no rail access, and near-permanent traffic jams around it. And Thamesmead - basically with big dual carriageways everywhere and designed around cars. Works well if you are in Thamesmead and have a car. Crap if you want to travel in Thamesmead without a car. And the resultant traffic coming out of Thamesmead must contribute significantly to traffic congestion in neighbouring areas.

Extending the GOBLIN into Thamesmead-Abbey Wood-Bexleyheath may well require a lot of expensive tunnelling, but it would alleviate all those problems in one go. The benefits would be enormous, even before you think of the possible badly needed new housing it might allow (if you can get round the flood plain issue - I'm not convinced of that).

Genuine question: Would the expense of building a rail tunnel under the Thames at Thamesmead be significantly greater than the expense of building the (IMO, idiotic) new road bridge there that the local authorities are pushing for?

 

[joeykins82]

Would one bridge accommodating both road and rail be doable?

 

[Clip]

Im well aware of housing prices in Thamesmead and such like - I mentioned it ages ago on a crossrail thread about buying last year as will only go up - I just cannot see any point for a crossing over/under the Thames for the overground though. If a link is needed then surley an extension at the time of building the Woolwich extension of the DLR wouldve been better.

 

[SF-02]

I don't think shops and restaurants on the ground floor in a flood-prone area would work. They'd never be able to get insurance. But if you leave the ground floor to parking and dustbins then you're at risk of creating something just as bad as was done in past decades.

18 crossings upstream of Tower Bridge (presumably) is a bit misleading as this includes central London and areas to the west where the river is narrower so there are more historic connections and hence need to travel between places either side. Also I'm not sure how far upstream you take the count - are you going all the way to the source?

I can't see insurance being a problem. There's already the odd newsagent and further north, and closer to the river, is the old town centre and attached out of town retail park. The 80s town centre was decimated by the 90s and 2000s retail park. They all have retail at ground floor level, but it is a very poor and fragmented 'town centre'. A new one planned around a station and housing closer to central Thamesmead would be more accessible to people on foot.

Clip - Woolwich DLR would have been the obvious solution but that's impossible now. I would say there's a big demand now within Thamesmead and also far more widely for a crossing that isn't just heading directly west once it crosses the river like crossrail and the DLR do. Then there's all the housing and population increases that will occur around there which will see the biggest growth in London in the next 20 years. LO would increase journey options and mitigate against DLR and crossrail crowding.

Joey - the Thames Gateway bridge plans would have been able to carry the DLR over the Thames though this was never formalised and was to have been a rapid bus initially. The plan was presumably to extend the DLR from Beckton. That then became the Dagenham Dock extension so crossing to Thamesmead/Abbey Wood over the bridge would not have occurred. Maybe a DLR shuttle from Abbey Wood via Thamesmead over the river meeting the line somewhere in Beckton would work.

 

[Clip]

Clip - Woolwich DLR would have been the obvious solution but that's impossible now. I would say there's a big demand now within Thamesmead and also far more widely for a crossing that isn't just heading directly west once it crosses the river like crossrail and the DLR do. Then there's all the housing and population increases that will occur around there which will see the biggest growth in London in the next 20 years.

Yeah they kind of doubled it back on itself so it points in the wrong direction which is a really big over sight.

But going back to heavy rail I still dont see the need for a river crossing but with the advent of Crossrail which I am assuming lots of people will change for at Abbey Wood when coming from Kent, could they not branch a line off after plumstead and the sidings there to run a line down there? There surely must have been one there previously asa theres the ridgewya path down there - been a few years since I was there not sure if called that - which could go right down to near enough the centre of the place.

I understand that with crossing to the up it may restrict down paths but during then it would be easier for people to use that and carry on into town as usual and then anyone wanting crossrail just changes at Woolwich. This would then also give them access to the rest of the south east.

Has to be cheaper than another bloody tunnel under the Thames.

Joey - the Thames Gateway bridge plans would have been able to carry the DLR over the Thames though this was never formalised and was to have been a rapid bus initially. The plan was presumably to extend the DLR from Beckton. That then became the Dagenham Dock extension so crossing to Thamesmead/Abbey Wood over the bridge would not have occurred. Maybe a DLR shuttle from Abbey Wood via Thamesmead over the river meeting the line somewhere in Beckton would work.

The Thames gateway wouldve joined the DLR just before Gallions I think as would have the Dagenham extension, just before the depot entrance so I am led to believe.

 

[hassaanhc]

Yes it would probably be by Gallions Reach and the depot as the bit from the depot crossover to Beckton is facing completely the wrong way, pointing west and is effectively U-shaped after Cyprus to Beckton. Ok Gallions Reach station itself is facing north but there is empty land just to the east so that bend by the roundabout could be straightened and a new station built slightly further east.

 

[Clip]

Yes it would probably be by Gallions Reach and the depot as the bit from the depot crossover to Beckton is facing completely the wrong way, pointing west and is effectively U-shaped after Cyprus to Beckton. Ok Gallions Reach station itself is facing north but there is empty land just to the east so that bend by the roundabout could be straightened and a new station built slightly further east.

There may be some issues with using that land there from now on (right next to the depot) but I kind of have to keep that quiet ...

 

[W-on-Sea]

But going back to heavy rail I still dont see the need for a river crossing but with the advent of Crossrail which I am assuming lots of people will change for at Abbey Wood when coming from Kent, could they not branch a line off after plumstead and the sidings there to run a line down there? There surely must have been one there previously asa theres the ridgewya path down there - been a few years since I was there not sure if called that - which could go right down to near enough the centre of the place.

The Ridgeway path around Abbey Wood and Thamemead (and on to Crossness) - just like the Greenway between Stratford and Beckton - follows a sewage pipe (still in use, I think), not a disused railway line.

 

[BritishRail83]

Not taking into account cost, this project in my opinion would be far better than the option of the DLR extension, if only for the sheer flexibility heavy rail would give. I mean, with heavy rail you have the option to divert trains during disruption and open up to a wider choice of rolling stock, whereas the DLR is a closed proprietary system. I'm a regular user and while it is a good system, the ride quality doesn't come close to proper heavy rail.

i could'nt agree more!

 

[SF-02]

Yeah they kind of doubled it back on itself so it points in the wrong direction which is a really big over sight.

But going back to heavy rail I still dont see the need for a river crossing but with the advent of Crossrail which I am assuming lots of people will change for at Abbey Wood when coming from Kent, could they not branch a line off after plumstead and the sidings there to run a line down there? There surely must have been one there previously asa theres the ridgewya path down there - been a few years since I was there not sure if called that - which could go right down to near enough the centre of the place.

I understand that with crossing to the up it may restrict down paths but during then it would be easier for people to use that and carry on into town as usual and then anyone wanting crossrail just changes at Woolwich. This would then also give them access to the rest of the south east.

Has to be cheaper than another bloody tunnel under the Thames.



The Thames gateway wouldve joined the DLR just before Gallions I think as would have the Dagenham extension, just before the depot entrance so I am led to believe.

A branch at Plumstead would offer far less than an LO extension from across the river. It would stay south of the sewer 'ridgeway' in all likelihood as it would be expensive and very difficult to engineer when coming from Plumstead as it runs parallel. It's areas to the north of the ridgeway and dual carriageway where the lack of a station is really felt and which LO would greatly boost and where comprehensive redevelopment could occur.

Another issue with a branch is that there's the recently built private road on a bridge which crosses the ridgeway, which any line would have to get over/under shortly after leaving Plumstead. I guess the only option would be tunnel down so a branch could go under the ridgeway and road bridge and then curving to north to Thamesmead which is expensive for the benefits derived.

Plus to service the branch it would presumably take some of the trains heading out into Kent or looping back round via Sidcup, lessening the service elsewhere?

It wouldn't offer the cross river option badly needed, and from Thamesmead it would be longer and more stops to the nearest crossrail station at Woolwich, which isn't a direct interchange. Not terrible but less useful than a one stop 5 minute trip to Abbey Wood.

Abbey Wood makes great sense as an interchange - it has North Kent trains from Gillingham and Dartford to Cannon Street and Charing Cross, Crossrail to Canary Wharf, Paddington and Heathrow and an extended London Overground would give access to stations in east London and north London which are currently very difficult to get to. It would be a big hub, greatly aiding transport options across a large area and facilitating much needed housing.

In Thamesmead there's masses of under-utilised road space and wide verges beside dual carriageways to either build a cut and cover tunnel, or elevate it on stilts above the roads. This should lessen the costs as no deep station construction would be needed at Thamesmead or Abbey Wood.