Why has the Croydon Tramlink never been extended?

[Fleetmaster]

What's been significantly built or redeveloped in the last 22 years that wasn't there when the tram opened?

Could it be as simple as the original design met the needs of the time well, with moderate future proofing expected, and nothing significantly changing since then (other than population density across the board, hence the extra stations and track doubling)?

Odd if true, implying as it does a public infrastructure project that was well planned.

 

[MCR247]

I think the fact that the 'core' of the current network is pretty much at capacity (without further works) is a big factor to consider here. It pretty much rules out any extension that would be a 'branch' (unless it was to be operated as a shuttle) of one the current lines and means any extension would have to be moving the end points. I'm defining the 'core' as Sandilands - W Croydon/Wimbledon. It wouldn't be impossible to squeeze more trams through central Croydon but it would need alterations at junctions and stops etc and probably somehow a doubling of the bridge crossing the train line.

This isn't something that uniquely affects Croydon tbf, Manchester famously had a similar issue which is why they build the '2CC,' and Nottingham is in similar boat to Croydon the 'core' part of the route is pretty much at its current (peak) capacity

 

[Peter Sarf]

What's been significantly built or redeveloped in the last 22 years that wasn't there when the tram opened?

Could it be as simple as the original design met the needs of the time well, with moderate future proofing expected, and nothing significantly changing since then (other than population density across the board, hence the extra stations and track doubling)?

Odd if true, implying as it does a public infrastructure project that was well planned.

You have just jogged my memory. Croydon did acquire extra trams a while back. I think that was to use the extra track capacity West of Mitcham Junction to Wimbledon. I am amazed at how heavily used that tram line is now as I commuted (attempted to) on it in the early 90s when it was a 2EPB on a dire frequency and not very reliable.

 

[etr221]

You have just jogged my memory. Croydon did acquire extra trams a while back. I think that was to use the extra track capacity West of Mitcham Junction to Wimbledon. I am amazed at how heavily used that tram line is now as I commuted (attempted to) on it in the early 90s when it was a 2EPB on a dire frequency and not very reliable.

I think the high usage of the Croydon-Wimbledon line took pretty well everybody by surprise, I would say much more than it should have done. The previous train service could be described as dire, and had never been really good, so to the vicious spiral of direness and low (minimal) usage; and the alternatives - bus or car - were not that much better, so overall travel on what should have been a busy corridor between two major suburban centres was low. Then suddenly there was a good service - frequent, reliable and reasonably fast - and people took advantage, and started travelling...

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think the high usage of the Croydon-Wimbledon line took pretty well everybody by surprise, I would say much more than it should have done. The previous train service could be described as dire, and had never been really good, so to the vicious spiral of direness and low (minimal) usage; and the alternatives - bus or car - were not that much better, so overall travel on what should have been a busy corridor between two major suburban centres was low. Then suddenly there was a good service - frequent, reliable and reasonably fast - and people took advantage, and started travelling...

Indeed. I was commuting West Croydon to Thames Ditton via Wimbledon. I was often getting to West Croydon and having to resort to going on a stopping train to Clapham Junction. For the return I was getting off at Wimbledon, discovering if the West Croydon direct was running or usually not then going to Clapham Junction. It was so bad that I saved time by going straight to East Croydon from home and going on a fast train via Clapham Junction which was a more expensive season ticket. My timekeeping was then more reliable but I gave up that job before I got pushed (looked down on for not driving).

 

[stuu]

Could it be as simple as the original design met the needs of the time well, with moderate future proofing expected, and nothing significantly changing since then (other than population density across the board, hence the extra stations and track doubling)?

Odd if true, implying as it does a public infrastructure project that was well planned.

That is broadly true, the system as built did include all the obvious/easy sections. Except for Crystal Palace, any new extension will need a lot/entire street running, which increases the cost, disruption and possible opposition, as well as offering less reliable journey times unless serious restrictions on private vehicles are introduced, and we can't have that!

 

[Jonny]

That is broadly true, the system as built did include all the obvious/easy sections. Except for Crystal Palace, any new extension will need a lot/entire street running, which increases the cost, disruption and possible opposition, as well as offering less reliable journey times unless serious restrictions on private vehicles are introduced, and we can't have that!

The trouble is that after Khan went off (calling them all sorts of names without evidence) on those protesting against ULEZ expansion, he has now painted himself into a corner on that front. For that reason, I can't see any new-build on street while he remains mayor.

 

[The exile]

22 years doesn't sound like overly long for the initial section. Shows good planning. Rapid expansion tends to be a political decision rather than a business/transport strategy one.

Or simply phased construction!

 

[dub]

What could've been
Source: https://www.insidecroydon.com/2020/06/13/what-might-have-been-how-croydon-trams-should-have-grown

 

[Basil Jet]

Why would you go to Bromley North, without taking over the line to Grove Park? Why would you go to Belmont without taking over the line to Epsom Downs?

 

[zwk500]

Why would you go to Bromley North, without taking over the line to Grove Park? Why would you go to Belmont without taking over the line to Epsom Downs?

More to the point why would you have such an operationally ineffective network? The Sutton return curve is madnes, and the Brixton-Coulsdon line apparently doesn't let you return to central Croydon. The crossover at East Croydon for the inverted return loop is sheer lunacy, as is the right-hand running Bromley loop and the Lewisham-Crystal Palace section is a bizarre service pattern.

 

[paul1609]

At the New Addington end it comes very close to the boundary of Greater London, so TfL wouldn't have any authority to extend it further. All the land beyond the boundary is greenbelt anyway, so you can't extend the route in that direction and create development. Other extensions would require either the takeover of heavy rail routes (e.g. Crystal Palace) or a lot of street-running, which is not good for reliability. I remember when I lived in Croydon in 2004 there was talk of an extension to Thornton Heath Pond, but that would have been entirely on-street.

If you wanted to extend tramlink anywhere from New Addington it would be to Biggin Hill which is in London Borough of Bromley. The boundary between Greater London and Kent here is the top of the North Downs Escarpment about a mile north of the M25. New Addington does have border with Surrey but there's no sizeable settlement until you get to Oxted.

 

[MikePJ]

If you wanted to extend tramlink anywhere from New Addington it would be to Biggin Hill which is in London Borough of Bromley. The boundary between Greater London and Kent here is the top of the North Downs Escarpment about a mile north of the M25. New Addington does have border with Surrey but there's no sizeable settlement until you get to Oxted.

Yeah, but I can't imagine the well-heeled folk of Biggin Hill being that keen on a tram ride via New Addington. I was mostly thinking of the Green Belt as the impediment to development, and had naively assumed that it coincided with the boundary of London. However, as can be seen from this screengrab (source: https://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk/threats-map/) - the area around New Addington is entirely Green Belt even where it's within London. But either way, it prevents any development.

 

[Peter Sarf]

New Addington (and the other Southern half - Fieldway lets not forget) is a MASSIVE estate in the middle of nowhere especially before the tram brought it closer to Croydon. Biggin Hill really looks to Bromley. But there is employment around Biggin Hill airfield (not sure if anywhere near enough) and most employees seem to come from the Croydon direction. The bus service from New Addington and Croydon is awful with an alarming narrow and bendy road linking to New Addington (think busy single line with passing places). I know because I drove there for several weeks working in Biggin Hill.

More to the point why would you have such an operationally ineffective network? The Sutton return curve is madnes, and the Brixton-Coulsdon line apparently doesn't let you return to central Croydon. The crossover at East Croydon for the inverted return loop is sheer lunacy, as is the right-hand running Bromley loop and the Lewisham-Crystal Palace section is a bizarre service pattern.

That extra loop is daft. I saw the consultation stuff and it is an anticlockwise loop intended to reduce pressure on Central Croydon by er avoiding central Croydon !. Worse still it introduces a conflicting junction just East of East Croydon BR which would have been avoided if that little loop was clockwise and so reversing the direction of a shared bit of the existing loop (which is segregated with no stops so no big deal). That loop will not get built because Westfield will not get built.

As for the other extensions - not much point for the ones that will be on road. The real benefit is improving existing rail services by going to more frequent trams with only a bit of on street running. Most of the existing Croydon tram routes are re-used rail routes. These routes then got into Croydon town centre. Big exception is the route to New Addington because that badly needed a good connection to Croydon. That was largely built on green field sites sadly with too many conflicts with parallel roads. I am not sure Croydon was keen on New Addington getting better connected to Croydon as the Field Way part was/is a "sink estate" !.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Unlike in other cities in the U.K., where in cities like Manchester, Nottingham & Sheffield, a second generation tram boom never happened in London.

Even though the Croydon Tram is a success story in giving new life to old and run down suburban lines, and connecting various smaller suburban areas such as Beckenham, Elmers End & Addington with the large town centres of Croydon and Wimbledon, it feels that every mayor after Livingstone has either been anti Tram or completely indifferent toward them.

Under Livingstone, we had proposals such as the Cross River Tram, which was proposed in part to ease the load off the Northern & Victoria lines, the West London tram which would have replaced bus routes 207/427/607 and even a City Tram was proposed to run from Elephant & Castle to Stratford, but this one never caught TfL’s eye, even the East London Transit was supposed to be a tramway which was to have linked up with the proposed Greenwich Tram at Thamesmead via a new river crossing.

By the time Johnson came into office, many of these proposals had been downgraded as going from tram/light-rail, to being trolley-buses, to glorified express bus routes with a small segregated section, and if the 2000s era proposals the only one that saw the light of day was the East London Transit, and it was no tram it was a bus route.

In contrast to the Croydon Tram, the DLR has been extended extensively beyond its original core area, just within its own first twenty years alone, with a possible extension to Thamesmead, one of the only future developments TfL has given an interest in.

Could this be the fact that the DLR is with an area of growth where as Croydon is often cited as being a town in rapid decline?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Unlike in other cities in the U.K., where in cities like Manchester, Nottingham & Sheffield, a second generation tram boom never happened in London.

Even though the Croydon Tram is a success story in giving new life to old and run down suburban lines, and connecting various smaller suburban areas such as Beckenham, Elmers End & Addington with the large town centres of Croydon and Wimbledon, it feels that every mayor after Livingstone has either been anti Tram or completely indifferent toward them.

Under Livingstone, we had proposals such as the Cross River Tram, which was proposed in part to ease the load off the Northern & Victoria lines, the West London tram which would have replaced bus routes 207/427/607 and even a City Tram was proposed to run from Elephant & Castle to Stratford, but this one never caught TfL’s eye, even the East London Transit was supposed to be a tramway which was to have linked up with the proposed Greenwich Tram at Thamesmead via a new river crossing.

By the time Johnson came into office, many of these proposals had been downgraded as going from tram/light-rail, to being trolley-buses, to glorified express bus routes with a small segregated section, and if the 2000s era proposals the only one that saw the light of day was the East London Transit, and it was no tram it was a bus route.

In contrast to the Croydon Tram, the DLR has been extended extensively beyond its original core area, just within its own first twenty years alone, with a possible extension to Thamesmead, one of the only future developments TfL has given an interest in.

Could this be the fact that the DLR is with an area of growth where as Croydon is often cited as being a town in rapid decline?

Croydon is in decline as a shopping and employment centre. It is growing as a dormitory for commuters to London and elsewhere - witness the large number of tall flats being built within walking distance of East and West Croydon stations.

As for DLR - it experienced growth because the original version of it was woefully inadequate. It was done on the cheap BUT I expect it would never have been started if the original design had been more realistic even though it would have been justifiable. It grew with the not insignificant growth in the docklands development - jobs.

 

[stuu]

In contrast to the Croydon Tram, the DLR has been extended extensively beyond its original core area, just within its own first twenty years alone, with a possible extension to Thamesmead, one of the only future developments TfL has given an interest in.

Could this be the fact that the DLR is with an area of growth where as Croydon is often cited as being a town in rapid decline?

The difference being that the DLR has primarily been extended in order to serve redevelopment. There is nothing close to the same amount of land for redevelopment around Croydon so the comparison falls down.

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

As for DLR - it experienced growth because the original version of it was woefully inadequate.

When the DLR was originally planned it was envisaged that the Docklands would regenerate as an area of light industrial units with lower employment density than the financial district that actually established itself there. Once Canary Wharf opened it was apparent the DLR could never cope as it had not been designed for the passenger flows. Hence the express bus services that served the area until the Jubilee Line got there.

 

[317 forever]

This idea probably belongs more in the speculative section than here. Its just that they could consider extending Tramlink from Elmers End to Lewisham via Bellingham and Catford, potentially over railway tracks from Bellingham to Lewisham. Alternatively they could extend the Docklands Light Railway from Lewisham to Elmers End via the same routing.

Then we would have Croydon Tramlink and the Docklands Light Railway meet up.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Croydon is in decline as a shopping and employment centre. It is growing as a dormitory for commuters to London and elsewhere - witness the large number of tall flats being built within walking distance of East and West Croydon stations.

As for DLR - it experienced growth because the original version of it was woefully inadequate. It was done on the cheap BUT I expect it would never have been started if the original design had been more realistic even though it would have been justifiable. It grew with the not insignificant growth in the docklands development - jobs.

I wonder if TfL committed to extending upon the Tramlink would it reverse Croydon’s downward turn?

In the 1980s and 1990s it was a bustling town centre but upon the arrival of the Tramlink in the 2000s there were talks of giving Croydon city status due to the fact it was pretty much booming at the time and this was in part due to the Tramlink being built.

 

[zwk500]

I wonder if TfL committed to extending upon the Tramlink would it reverse Croydon’s downward turn?

In the 1980s and 1990s it was a bustling town centre but upon the arrival of the Tramlink in the 2000s there were talks of giving Croydon city status due to the fact it was pretty much booming at the time and this was in part due to the Tramlink being built.

Very unlikely to. Croydon is, fundamentally, a 'centre of the edge' and will always be primarily more geared towards a local market, or those who don't want to pay the central London premium. Transport can only stimulate growth if there is latent demand being suppressed in the first place. Tramlink did this very effectively in the first stage - connecting outlying estates into the centre. However if you go much further it starts to link into the next locus on the orbit of London, and the benefit of the tram is diffused or even completely negated.
The difference with the DLR is that it was bringing people into what was a rapidly developing international centre, but with very limited housing. Lines to Bank and City airport were about the business connections, lines to Stratford, Lewisham and Woolwhich were about enabling commuting form the hinteterland as well as cross-river bonuses. Tramlink can't link Croydon to anything that's in demand but not already provided.
When proposals are made, it too often feels like the reasoning is either 'but trams are great' or 'there's an old rail alignment we can't leave empty', and there's not an actual transport problem being solved.

 

[Jonny]

This is slightly off-topic, but would SouthEastern trains to Charing Cross run alongside the Bakerloo line or would they be eliminated entirely?

Tube trains only. I'm not sure if there would even be an emergency/maintenance connection maintained.

It would depend on the final design, although there should not be any major technical issues as the existing Bakerloo line inter-works with Overground services "north" of Queen's Park, on Network Rail tracks.

 

[zwk500]

It would depend on the final design, although there should not be any major technical issues as the existing Bakerloo line inter-works with Overground services "north" of Queen's Park, on Network Rail tracks.

There wouldn't be a technical reason not to but a geographic one*. Space for a junction at the Courthill jns end would be extremely limited, especially with the gradients required to achieve both Lewisham HL and deep tube depths. Operationally as well it doesn't make sense to mix the services. A big part of the conversion of the Hayes branch would be that it releases paths through Lewisham for other services as well.

Having the BLE operationally separate at Lewisham would allow the removal of Ladywell, Parks Bridge and Courthill Loop North jns, a significant maintenance and performance saving. It would also allow both tube and train to have smoother vertical and horizontal alignments for the remaining lines, allowing junction remodelling for higher speeds or less flange squeal for local residents.

I'd personally maintain an emergency connection at Beckenham Jn only.
* - The district line also shares track with 3rd rail trains between Richmond-Gunnersbury and Wimbledon-East Putney

 

[MikePJ]

When I lived in Croydon in 2004-5 it felt very much on-the-up, but it has definitely slipped back a long way since. The town centre has suffered from a long period of "planning blight", where buildings that were supposed to be redeveloped had businesses evicted or closed down, and then the developers got cold feet following the 2008 financial crisis and the redevelopment never happened. Several of the premium-end shops in the shiny new Centrale shopping centre closed. So the town centre is way less attractive now than it was, and isn't driving growth in the same way.

 

[NorthKent1989]

When I lived in Croydon in 2004-5 it felt very much on-the-up, but it has definitely slipped back a long way since. The town centre has suffered from a long period of "planning blight", where buildings that were supposed to be redeveloped had businesses evicted or closed down, and then the developers got cold feet following the 2008 financial crisis and the redevelopment never happened. Several of the premium-end shops in the shiny new Centrale shopping centre closed. So the town centre is way less attractive now than it was, and isn't driving growth in the same way.

The 2008 recession and the 2011 Riots basically sent Croydon into decline, the town was booming in the 90s up to the mid 2000s, it was seen as a place to shop at, have a night out in, and also a place to commute to from outplaying areas as well as a place to commute to London from, now it’s essentially just a dormitory town, people who live there never really socialise there much anymore, they all get the train into Central London or other trendy areas that are within reach, like Balham, Clapham, the Docklands and the East End

 

[etr221]

It would depend on the final design, although there should not be any major technical issues as the existing Bakerloo line inter-works with Overground services "north" of Queen's Park, on Network Rail tracks.

There wouldn't be a technical reason not to but a geographic one*. Space for a junction at the Courthill jns end would be extremely limited, especially with the gradients required to achieve both Lewisham HL and deep tube depths. Operationally as well it doesn't make sense to mix the services. A big part of the conversion of the Hayes branch would be that it releases paths through Lewisham for other services as well.

Having the BLE operationally separate at Lewisham would allow the removal of Ladywell, Parks Bridge and Courthill Loop North jns, a significant maintenance and performance saving. It would also allow both tube and train to have smoother vertical and horizontal alignments for the remaining lines, allowing junction remodelling for higher speeds or less flange squeal for local residents.

I'd personally maintain an emergency connection at Beckenham Jn only.
* - The district line also shares track with 3rd rail trains between Richmond-Gunnersbury and Wimbledon-East Putney

While there are no overwhelming technical reasons why Bakerloo and National Rail trains shouldn't both run down the Mid-Kent line to Hayes current thought (and wherever possible, practice) is that LU and NR systems (tracks, lines) should be kept operationally seperate; also - while it may have been thought ok a century ago (and so can continue on grandfather rights) - the running of tube and main line trains on the same tracks is now considered a risk to be avoided whenever possible, and there are also signalling considerations, as both LU and NR move to their own (incompatable) cab signalling/ATO systems. So everybody will be planning and working towards a complete transfer of the line to LU - which will presumably mean a year or two suspension of service

(Perhaps worth noting that both the Met-Jubilee (Finchley Road-Wembley Park) and District-Picc (Barons Court-Acton Town) quadruple track sections have esentially been changed to be seperate double track lines)

 

[duncombec]

What could've been View attachment 130584
Source: https://www.insidecroydon.com/2020/06/13/what-might-have-been-how-croydon-trams-should-have-grown

Why would you go to Bromley North, without taking over the line to Grove Park? Why would you go to Belmont without taking over the line to Epsom Downs?

More to the point why would you have such an operationally ineffective network? The Sutton return curve is madnes, and the Brixton-Coulsdon line apparently doesn't let you return to central Croydon. The crossover at East Croydon for the inverted return loop is sheer lunacy, as is the right-hand running Bromley loop and the Lewisham-Crystal Palace section is a bizarre service pattern.

That extra loop is daft. I saw the consultation stuff and it is an anticlockwise loop intended to reduce pressure on Central Croydon by er avoiding central Croydon !. Worse still it introduces a conflicting junction just East of East Croydon BR which would have been avoided if that little loop was clockwise and so reversing the direction of a shared bit of the existing loop [...]

In fairness to the creator of the map, the blog post does say that (the quote within a quote is because of the awkward formatting of the original post)

Norris-Watson has taken every suggested route addition, extension and feasibility study, even the doomed Dingwall loop, and through the magic of software managed to produce a schematic map of the tram network that looks as if it could have come straight out of TfL headquarters.

[...]
“I dug through and put together this map if everything had come up over the years and actually been built.”

So it naturally a bit artificial and played with to get it all to fit.

If it ever were extended, I wonder whether we would see more tangential links, along the lines of that "proposed" here for Crystal Palace - essentially a separate line or lines, but with more than just a single-stop connection?

 

[Basil Jet]

It would depend on the final design, although there should not be any major technical issues as the existing Bakerloo line inter-works with Overground services "north" of Queen's Park, on Network Rail tracks.

That situation has "grandfather rights". A *new* compromise-height system where you have to step up to the mainline-gauge trains and down to the tube-gauge trains will not be allowed!

 

[Peter Sarf]

This is slightly off-topic, but would SouthEastern trains to Charing Cross run alongside the Bakerloo line or would they be eliminated entirely?

The 2008 recession and the 2011 Riots basically sent Croydon into decline, the town was booming in the 90s up to the mid 2000s, it was seen as a place to shop at, have a night out in, and also a place to commute to from outplaying areas as well as a place to commute to London from, now it’s essentially just a dormitory town, people who live there never really socialise there much anymore, they all get the train into Central London or other trendy areas that are within reach, like Balham, Clapham, the Docklands and the East End

It is true that one of the main benefits of extending the Bakerloo to the Hayes branch was to relieve pressure on the South Eastern rail lines from Charing Cross to the Lewisham area. So it is expected that the Bakerloo line extension will be in tunnel until it is clear of Lewisam. One would hope that the disruption to existing Hayes branch services would be limited to the time taken to create the short link from the new tunnel to the Hayes Branch tracks.

 

[zwk500]

It is true that one of the main benefits of extending the Bakerloo to the Hayes branch was to relieve pressure on the South Eastern rail lines from Charing Cross to the Lewisham area. So it is expected that the Bakerloo line extension will be in tunnel until it is clear of Lewisam.

The only viable portal site is where Courthill Loop Jns/Parks bridge jn is so it will definitely be in a tunnel until south of Lewisham.

One would hope that the disruption to existing Hayes branch services would be limited to the time taken to create the short link from the new tunnel to the Hayes Branch tracks.

The Hayes Branch will need completely resignalling to CBTC (if the Bakerloo has got it by the time the extension happens), platforms rebuilding for tube height stock and all the LU equipment fitting (PIS, Car marker boards, CCTV integrated into line control, etc.) Some of that could be done prior to conversion, but you're still looking at a long closure (think East London Line in reverse). Whether they can phase it so that Hayes-Beckenham closes first and then reopens with a limited shuttle while Beckenham Jn to the portal is rebuilt I don't know.
However conversion of the Hayes branch was always intended to be a later phase, the first section is to Lewisham only.