Beckenham Junction: potential location for an extended Bakerloo Line to terminate?

[cle]

What is the most intensive regular service this platform has ever had? The peak direction Blackfriars/TLs? Or weekend diversions?

Somewhat speculative, but I hope not too much as it's out there in the world, but one day it is earmarked for having Bakerloo line extended service - any ideas on how many it could, or would turn there? And could trains wait for a platform in theory without blocking the Hayes line?

 

[frankmoh]

What is the most intensive regular service this platform has ever had? The peak direction Blackfriars/TLs? Or weekend diversions?

Somewhat speculative, but I hope not too much as it's out there in the world, but one day it is earmarked for having Bakerloo line extended service - any ideas on how many it could, or would turn there? And could trains wait for a platform in theory without blocking the Hayes line?

I don't see why TfL would make it turn off at New Beckenham towards Junction if they were to leave the rest of the Hayes line as Southeastern. Maybe they would have to expand New Beckenham to 4 platforms or whatever to make it a terminus for SE trains but then again they would all be trapped on that line without any way to a depot.

 

[cle]

I don't see why TfL would make it turn off at New Beckenham towards Junction if they were to leave the rest of the Hayes line as Southeastern. Maybe they would have to expand New Beckenham to 4 platforms or whatever to make it a terminus for SE trains but then again they would all be trapped on that line without any way to a depot.

Sorry if I wasn't clear when referring to the 'Hayes line' - I was assuming that would also be all Bakerloo / no longer NR.

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

The aspiration is for the whole Hayes line + the Beckenham Jn spur to turn brown, yes. This would be incompatible with maintaining Network Rail access over the line - the ORR wouldn’t allow it. Existing dual-running like Queens Park-Harrow is grandfathered and could not be approved today if new.

To the question - the most intensive service seen - most likely it has been 2tph from this platform at peak ever.

Reasons are that moves out of it block the main line, and Kent House one stop away has 4 platforms, and has been used for reversals in the past. The only scenario I can see for turning more than 2 trains at Beckenham is a line block towards Shortlands, and in that case I wonder if platforms 2 and 3 could just be used.
Someone with more historical knowledge may be able to give a more definitive answer.

As to if Platforn 4 were Bakerloo’d, I imagine your absolute minimum tph would be 4, rising to at least 6 during peak.
Underground turnaround times tend to be tighter than Network Rail, so 8tph (7.5 mins) into and out of the platform might be totally fine too, if cutting it fine.

Really depends on:

a) the service level needed
b) is Beckenham needed to turn extra trains from the central area around?

My personal view - I’d like to see 6th off peak, and then peak is whatever is needed to accommodate the central area service level.
Let’s assume ideal build/conditions and say that one in every 4 trains terminates at Lewisham in a central third platform, another 1 at Beckenham, and the other two go to Hayes.
Assume a 24tph (peak or off-peak, take your pick) - that’s 6 trains to Lewisham, 6 to Beckenham and 12 to Hayes, with generous 10 min turnaround times at all locations.

On the topic of trains in the platform not blocking Hayes trains, absolutely. The spur itself, if redoubled, could probably hold a train on each track, with one in the platform, and still not block the Hayes like. Depends on how the signalling is set up, really, but the lengths all look good from some basic crayon calculations.

 

[zwk500]

As to if Platforn 4 were Bakerloo’d, I imagine your absolute minimum tph would be 4, rising to at least 6 during peak.
Underground turnaround times tend to be tighter than Network Rail, so 8tph (7.5 mins) into and out of the platform might be totally fine too, if cutting it fine.

The Current WTT for the Bakerloo line has 6 minute turnrounds and 1.5 minute reoccupation at Elephant and Castle all day, so 8tph per platform. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/wtt-48-bakerloo-10-sep-2023.pdf

Really depends on:

a) the service level needed
b) is Beckenham needed to turn extra trains from the central area around?

Current Bakerloo peak service is 20tph in one direction, off peak 16tph. However the Victoria Line gets up to 36tph in the peak, and any extension would likely be looking to also go with a modernisation to increase frequencies. The Victoria line does do that 36tph with 2 platforms at Brixton (albeit with sidings beyond). The Vic line off-peak frequency according to the WTT is 135-second intervals. (26-27tph).

Assuming a 90-second re-occupation (based on current LU WTTs):
16tph, 2 plats. - 8tph/plat, 6:30 turnound
20tph, 2 plats - 10tph/plat, 4:30 turnround
20tph, 3 plats - 2x7tph + 1x6tph/plat, 2x 6:00, 1x 8:30 turnround
36tph, 2 plats - 18tph/plat, 1:50 turnround
36tph, 3 plats - 12tph/plat, 3:30 turnround

With a 2nd driver to relieve immediately, the turnround is limited by the longer of alighting/boarding or cab shutdown and startup cycle times. Equally Elephant and Castle or Lewisham could be provided with a turnback option to allow some of the 36tph to turn there instead of running all the way to Hayes/Beckenham Jn.

I would suggest that a sub-2 minute turnround would be pushing it, partly because of the conflict at the junction which would want train movements paired over it. Spreading that load over 3 platforms would give just a smidge more breathing room. Then there's the connectivity benefit of including Beckenham Jn in the tube network, and the operating benefit of not needing so many trains running if half of them don't have to go all the way to Hayes.

Brixton does run the 36tph service off two platforms with sub-2 minute turnrounds but I'm not sure if it does so utilising the sidings - the WTT Suggests not.

 

[Nym]

The Current WTT for the Bakerloo line has 6 minute turnrounds and 1.5 minute reoccupation at Elephant and Castle all day, so 8tph per platform. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/wtt-48-bakerloo-10-sep-2023.pdf

Current Bakerloo peak service is 20tph in one direction, off peak 16tph. However the Victoria Line gets up to 36tph in the peak, and any extension would likely be looking to also go with a modernisation to increase frequencies. The Victoria line does do that 36tph with 2 platforms at Brixton (albeit with sidings beyond). The Vic line off-peak frequency according to the WTT is 135-second intervals. (26-27tph).

Assuming a 90-second re-occupation (based on current LU WTTs):
16tph, 2 plats. - 8tph/plat, 6:30 turnound
20tph, 2 plats - 10tph/plat, 4:30 turnround
20tph, 3 plats - 2x7tph + 1x6tph/plat, 2x 6:00, 1x 8:30 turnround
36tph, 2 plats - 18tph/plat, 1:50 turnround
36tph, 3 plats - 12tph/plat, 3:30 turnround

With a 2nd driver to relieve immediately, the turnround is limited by the longer of alighting/boarding or cab shutdown and startup cycle times. Equally Elephant and Castle or Lewisham could be provided with a turnback option to allow some of the 36tph to turn there instead of running all the way to Hayes/Beckenham Jn.

I would suggest that a sub-2 minute turnround would be pushing it, partly because of the conflict at the junction which would want train movements paired over it. Spreading that load over 3 platforms would give just a smidge more breathing room. Then there's the connectivity benefit of including Beckenham Jn in the tube network, and the operating benefit of not needing so many trains running if half of them don't have to go all the way to Hayes.

Brixton does run the 36tph service off two platforms with sub-2 minute turnrounds but I'm not sure if it does so utilising the sidings - the WTT Suggests not.

The sidings and overruns allow for a full speed approach into the platforms as there’s a full overlap available. If the overruns are not clear and the points locked, you can’t hit 36tph

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

The Current WTT for the Bakerloo line has 6 minute turnrounds and 1.5 minute reoccupation at Elephant and Castle all day, so 8tph per platform. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/wtt-48-bakerloo-10-sep-2023.pdf

With no stepping back? Cool, so it can be done.

Current Bakerloo peak service is 20tph in one direction, off peak 16tph. However the Victoria Line gets up to 36tph in the peak, and any extension would likely be looking to also go with a modernisation to increase frequencies. The Victoria line does do that 36tph with 2 platforms at Brixton (albeit with sidings beyond). The Vic line off-peak frequency according to the WTT is 135-second intervals. (26-27tph).

Assuming a 90-second re-occupation (based on current LU WTTs):
16tph, 2 plats. - 8tph/plat, 6:30 turnound
20tph, 2 plats - 10tph/plat, 4:30 turnround
20tph, 3 plats - 2x7tph + 1x6tph/plat, 2x 6:00, 1x 8:30 turnround
36tph, 2 plats - 18tph/plat, 1:50 turnround
36tph, 3 plats - 12tph/plat, 3:30 turnround

With a 2nd driver to relieve immediately, the turnround is limited by the longer of alighting/boarding or cab shutdown and startup cycle times. Equally Elephant and Castle or Lewisham could be provided with a turnback option to allow some of the 36tph to turn there instead of running all the way to Hayes/Beckenham Jn.

I would suggest that a sub-2 minute turnround would be pushing it, partly because of the conflict at the junction which would want train movements paired over it. Spreading that load over 3 platforms would give just a smidge more breathing room. Then there's the connectivity benefit of including Beckenham Jn in the tube network, and the operating benefit of not needing so many trains running if half of them don't have to go all the way to Hayes.

Brixton does run the 36tph service off two platforms with sub-2 minute turnrounds but I'm not sure if it does so utilising the sidings - the WTT Suggests not.

I'd question the need, and even the capability, of the Bakerloo line going up to 36tph. 36tph requires huge investment - it took time to get the Victoria line up to that, and everything has to work like clockwork. The Bakerloo is a much older, more twisty line with lower speeds and bigger constraints. The biggest one is Queens Park and interworking with the Overground north of it - where would the trains go? Platform reoccupation time would also be much lower than the Victoria line.
The Bakerloo line is also supported along much of its current length by the Overground and the Jubilee line, meaning demand is lower than a line like the Victoria, as well as hitting fewer top congestion points on the network.

Value for money is much more likely to be around 24tph up to, at most, 30tph, but that still needs somewhere to put those trains. Auto-reversing signalling at Queens Park like that employed on the Elizabeth line outside Paddington could help with this, or sending more trains up the DC Line (but they still need to go somewhere! Consensus seems to be to not send tiny trains to Watford, plus it'd require fourth rail all the way up there, costing more $).

 

[zwk500]

With no stepping back? Cool, so it can be done.

Stepping back of drivers but not units, from the look of the WTT.

I'd question the need, and even the capability, of the Bakerloo line going up to 36tph. 36tph requires huge investment - it took time to get the Victoria line up to that, and everything has to work like clockwork. The Bakerloo is a much older, more twisty line with lower speeds and bigger constraints. The biggest one is Queens Park and interworking with the Overground north of it - where would the trains go? Platform reoccupation time would also be much lower than the Victoria line.
The Bakerloo line is also supported along much of its current length by the Overground and the Jubilee line, meaning demand is lower than a line like the Victoria, as well as hitting fewer top congestion points on the network.

Value for money is much more likely to be around 24tph up to, at most, 30tph, but that still needs somewhere to put those trains. Auto-reversing signalling at Queens Park like that employed on the Elizabeth line outside Paddington could help with this, or sending more trains up the DC Line (but they still need to go somewhere! Consensus seems to be to not send tiny trains to Watford, plus it'd require fourth rail all the way up there, costing more $).

I agree that 24tph is probably the sensible place for the Bakerloo, but I was simply trying to demonstrate what the requirements could feasibly be at the maxed-out level. I've got no idea what frequencies would be proposed for the Bakerloo with the extension.

 

[465fan]

The Bakerloo Line extension is one of the most important projects for South London.

The reason it was so vital pre-Covid was to actually free up the 6/7 paths per hour at high peak into London that are currently 'wasted' by the Hayes line.

The Bakerloo Line needs to be fully-funded through to Hayes. TfL have ridiculous ideas, such as extending it to Bromley South. No.

It should be a Watford Junction to Hayes service (LO can then be reduced to shuttle-status between Euston and Queens Park, considering the Bakerloo takes people into Central London), with Beckenham Junction as well. There's a bay platform there made for it, and if you re-jig the "carriage line" on the Spur from New Beckenham, it could easily accommodate 8tph with no need to even build a second platform on the Waitrose car park.

What is the Bakerloo Line frequency? About 20tph? It probably needs to get to 32tph, if it will then be a behemoth that is consuming people from the likes of Catford, Lewisham (and the entire Southeastern Metro), and all of those stations like New Cross Gate (and the Overground network). So you'd be at 8tph to Beckenham, 16tph to Hayes, and probably 8tph terminating at Lewisham if they built a third platform.

Given the nature of the Chatham Main Line, I think you would then be entirely right to surmise that the 'fast' services from Victoria, would then need to call at Beckenham Junction before continuing into Kent. Chiefly, the services would probably need to be the Ashford 'slow' services, and the Gillingham 'slow' services, running a standard half-hourly service all day to feed the Bakerloo.

And then your peak-time services from Blackfriars to Beckenham would be relegated to a service only as far as Kent House, unless of course by then the sheer numbers of people using Metro services on the Victoria - Herne Hill - Bromley arc have so massively reduced as they switch to the Bakerloo that the frequency becomes unimportant.

 

[30907]

On the history: the bay platform was used in the early years of electrification, until suburban development needed the trains to be diverted to Hayes etc.
After that it was little used as there was no direct access from the Kent House direction, anything terminating needing to shunt via the spur (a procedure I have watched more than once on the way home from school in the late 60s), and the 1967 turnback facility at Kent House was much more useful.
There was definitely an 8.21am morning up train by 1963 - and at some stage this ran later and was formed by the DMO staff train (empty from Holborn with a passenger stop at Lewisham).
The junction was rationalised in the Vic Eastern resignalling around 1980, which produced the current layout allowing direct access. As a result, surviving former Kent House starters now started from the Junction, as is the case today.

 

[cle]

Really depends on:

a) the service level needed
b) is Beckenham needed to turn extra trains from the central area around?

My personal view - I’d like to see 6th off peak, and then peak is whatever is needed to accommodate the central area service level.
Let’s assume ideal build/conditions and say that one in every 4 trains terminates at Lewisham in a central third platform, another 1 at Beckenham, and the other two go to Hayes.
Assume a 24tph (peak or off-peak, take your pick) - that’s 6 trains to Lewisham, 6 to Beckenham and 12 to Hayes, with generous 10 min turnaround times at all locations.

This feels about right to me. Although you might want a shade more than 6tph at Beckenham Junction to get more of a metro mentality (10 mins is on the verge of a timetable) - even 7/8tph, and hopefully instigate a lot more development in Beckenham itself. I think it'd become an even more appealing place to live and be.

24tph seems about right. Maybe one day that will feel a bit low for the Lewisham-Oxford Circus trunk (I imagine it'll become the busiest part) - - - - but as mentioned, where to send the trains at Queens Park. If you could access P4 at QP (very tight) - it might get a lot easier.

But even still, it's a lot of excess capacity and imbalanced. Even with much development around Harlesden (future WLO?) and Wembley town centre. North of there, other lines pick up most of the demand.

 

[brad465]

If the Hayes' line does get taken over, what Southeastern services do when the spur can no longer be used for engineering work diversions will be interesting: if it's due to a Hither Green-Chislehurst closure, you could send passengers on the Bakerloo line to Beckenham Jct, with mainline services that would be diverted to Victoria in this instance anyways calling at the latter to pick them up/drop off accordingly. If it's a Victoria and/or Herne Hill+Denmark Hill closure, with Chatham mainline services diverted to Cannon St, the select services that currently use the spur (Orpington and mainline stoppers, not the Kent coast ones) would probably have to call at Lewisham and Grove Park, with the Bromley North branch being used to serve Bromley instead of South, the latter not being possible anymore.

 

[cle]

If the Hayes' line does get taken over, what Southeastern services do when the spur can no longer be used for engineering work diversions will be interesting: if it's due to a Hither Green-Chislehurst closure, you could send passengers on the Bakerloo line to Beckenham Jct, with mainline services that would be diverted to Victoria in this instance anyways calling at the latter to pick them up/drop off accordingly. If it's a Victoria and/or Herne Hill+Denmark Hill closure, with Chatham mainline services diverted to Cannon St, the select services that currently use the spur (Orpington and mainline stoppers, not the Kent coast ones) would probably have to call at Lewisham and Grove Park, with the Bromley North branch being used to serve Bromley instead of South, the latter not being possible anymore.

The SE network is fortunate enough to have multiple routings in and out of London and in/out of Kent, in times of need, so I don't think this will be that missed.

There are only really 4tph (to go back to another's point) - to Hayes which would be opened up. 2 are fast and so logically would stay fast line to Grove Park and beyond. There will be less crossing moves here (a down from Hayes blocking an up fast) so I wonder if that unlocks anything more.

But it would likely be:
2tph - how quickly does this need to peel off (is a fast right behind? Heathrow Express/Oxford fast style?) - if so, perhaps Bromley North is finally feasible! Or drop off via the Chislehurst Loops - which the Maidstones are now doing all-day (was usually peak only fasts?) - - - - or these run on the fasts all the way to Orpington and beyond. Where would people say the demand is?

Would any of these services (e.g. via Chislehurst) - enable another service, for example a different pair out of Victoria in their place?

2tph - via Lewisham and Hither Green. Either via Sidcup or Orpington slow services to add metro frequency. Could this loop via Greenwich and squeeze into Cannon St that way too?

 

[465fan]

If the Hayes' line does get taken over, what Southeastern services do when the spur can no longer be used for engineering work diversions will be interesting: if it's due to a Hither Green-Chislehurst closure, you could send passengers on the Bakerloo line to Beckenham Jct, with mainline services that would be diverted to Victoria in this instance anyways calling at the latter to pick them up/drop off accordingly. If it's a Victoria and/or Herne Hill+Denmark Hill closure, with Chatham mainline services diverted to Cannon St, the select services that currently use the spur (Orpington and mainline stoppers, not the Kent coast ones) would probably have to call at Lewisham and Grove Park, with the Bromley North branch being used to serve Bromley instead of South, the latter not being possible anymore.

Stuff from deepest Thanet, via Gillingham, could either go up the Hawkwood Curve to Chislehurst and over to Victoria via Lewisham and Nunhead, or into Cannon Street. Or it could go via Sidcup/Bexleyheath/Woolwich to London.

Stuff from Ashford via Maidstone, again it's Hawkwood or buses.

Stuff from Hastings and Tunbridge Wells that will run via New Beckenham on certain engineering work weekends, either runs via Redhill, or via Herne Hill straight to Blackfriars / Victoria, assuming Chislehurst - Grove Park sort of area is blocked.

It's not impossible to find lots of ways out, and if all else fails, revert to the modern railway's favoured replacement bus army.

 

[Class15]

It should be a Watford Junction to Hayes service (LO can then be reduced to shuttle-status between Euston and Queens Park, considering the Bakerloo takes people into Central London)

If the Bakerloo takes away demand for Central London, the DC line service could be diverted via the Primrose Hill line to Stratford, together with Clapham Junction services being diverted to Barking rather than Stratford. Only loser would be Kentish Town West.

 

[465fan]

If the Bakerloo takes away demand for Central London, the DC line service could be diverted via the Primrose Hill line to Stratford, together with Clapham Junction services being diverted to Barking rather than Stratford. Only loser would be Kentish Town West.

To continue to offer a Queens Park to Euston service will be quite important. You also have to consider that if you divert some trains from the West Hampstead area to Barking, there's no platform for them at Gospel Oak, so you'd be having trains not calling between Hampstead Heath and Upper Holloway.

The existing system in that respect is fine.

If Camden Road could be re-built, and if a platform could be provided at St Pancras with a bit of remodelling, you could reasonably suggest that the 'legacy' London Overground service from Queens Park could just run from South Hampstead, to Primrose Hill, to Camden Road, and then down the chord line into St Pancras. In that respect, it would at least give the folks along that bit between Queens Park and South Hampstead a half-decent connection into the heart of Camden, and then the connections into Thameslink, Eurostar and such.

 

[frankmoh]

Even if the Bakerloo Line just goes to Lewisham, I still have no clue how it would affect SE. 3 lines already intersect there, and because of only 4 platforms the Hayes Line trains usually have to take the shortcut past Ladywell.

If TfL did take over the route from Charing Cross to Lewisham then would trains stop above ground at the existing stations? Charing Cross to Waterloo would have 2 ways of getting there, on the same line!

 

[465fan]

Even if the Bakerloo Line just goes to Lewisham, I still have no clue how it would affect SE. 3 lines already intersect there, and because of only 4 platforms the Hayes Line trains usually have to take the shortcut past Ladywell.

If TfL did take over the route from Charing Cross to Lewisham then would trains stop above ground at the existing stations? Charing Cross to Waterloo would have 2 ways of getting there, on the same line!

No, the Bakerloo line would stay in a tunnel, underneath the station and then underneath the 'avoiding lines' that fast trains take to/from the Coast and the Weald, at Parks Bridge. It would rise out of its tunnel at what is currently Ladywell Junction, and the local bin lorry depot has been identified as being for the chop to allow the construction.

So instead of having Courthill Loop North Junction, where you leave Lewisham and go either to Hither Green or Ladywell, and then come down to Ladywell Junction, where there's the line from London not via Lewisham which drops down, you'd just have plain line. So everything from Lewisham platforms 1/2 would be to/from Hither Green only.

This would have a lot of positives, as it would reduce the conflicts, as well as freeing up paths. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't actually funnel an extra 8tph at peak times to other destinations, simply by binning Hayes off.

And down at Hayes, Keston and Farnborough, this would open up stacks of development land by having the better transport.

 

[frankmoh]

And down at Hayes, Keston and Farnborough, this would open up stacks of development land by having the better transport.

Wouldn't the journey on the line be a lot slower though? The current 1972 stock's top speed is 45mph, which will probably be gone by the time this whole plan gets finished but still.

 

[swt_passenger]

Even if the Bakerloo Line just goes to Lewisham, I still have no clue how it would affect SE. 3 lines already intersect there, and because of only 4 platforms the Hayes Line trains usually have to take the shortcut past Ladywell.

If TfL did take over the route from Charing Cross to Lewisham then would trains stop above ground at the existing stations? Charing Cross to Waterloo would have 2 ways of getting there, on the same line!

The safeguarding drawings show that the Bakerloo platforms would be underground at Lewisham, with the tunnel portal at the location of Wearside Road council depot, ie a fair distance beyond Lewisham. Id expect a number of NR junctions to be completely redundant and they’d be lifted.

 

[frankmoh]

The safeguarding drawings show that the Bakerloo platforms would be underground at Lewisham, with the tunnel portal at the location of Wearside Road council depot, ie a fair distance beyond Lewisham. Id expect a number of NR junctions to be completely redundant and they’d be lifted.

Would there be enough space at Ladywell to get back above ground?

 

[swt_passenger]

Would there be enough space at Ladywell to get back above ground?

Yes. The underground section ends alongside the north corner of the council depot. It looks like the underground section would end about 500m north of the existing Ladywell platforms, ie just about where the present intersection bridge is.

 

[Brubulus]

Wouldn't the journey on the line be a lot slower though? The current 1972 stock's top speed is 45mph, which will probably be gone by the time this whole plan gets finished but still.

It'll be 100kph stock most likely, running at up to 60mph in service, which is the current speed of the Hayes line.

 

[frankmoh]

The reason it was so vital pre-Covid was to actually free up the 6/7 paths per hour at high peak into London that are currently 'wasted' by the Hayes line.

How is it wasted? The Hayes Line stops at 3 London Terminals (used to be 4, I miss that Cannon Street service!) whereas the Chatham Main Line only goes to one.

Well the Terminals aren't part of the Hayes Line but you know what I mean, it goes direct to them via Lewisham/Catford Bridge

 

[465fan]

Wouldn't the journey on the line be a lot slower though? The current 1972 stock's top speed is 45mph, which will probably be gone by the time this whole plan gets finished but still.

Yes but you can't and won't assume that the stock would be 45mph, and that the 72 stock would survive long enough for this!

In any event, the Hayes line is not exactly a 90/100mph route, and there's a heavy speed penalty near Clock House and Elmers End from memory. Add to that, if the train is making frequent stops, top speed isn't critical. Your 1995/6 stock trains do 60mph, and the new Deep Tube stock for the Piccadilly is much the same. To achieve 60mph between stations, especially if presumed to be running under ATO conditions, is perfectly reasonable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2025 ==

How is it wasted? The Hayes Line stops at 3 London Terminals (used to be 4, I miss that Cannon Street service!) whereas the Chatham Main Line only goes to one.

Well the Terminals aren't part of the Hayes Line but you know what I mean, it goes direct to them via Lewisham/Catford Bridge

The capacity is effectively wasted because you're using a rail route which would get a much better service through a Bakerloo Line extension, and also having to thread trains across multiple junctions which, if not being done anymore, frees up more space and improves reliability over a whole region. Add to that, if you live somewhere near Hayes and genuinely dislike the idea of going into Central London via the West End, you'll be able to jump ship at Catford Bridge and get a Thameslink to Blackfriars; or you can jump out at New Cross Gate for the likes of Whitechapel and Shoreditch; or you can get out at Elephant for the Northern Line.

In any event, you cannot tell me that if you offer people a turn-up-and-go service of, in the case of north of New Beckenham, probably at least 12tph, if not 16tph, people would tell you they'd rather keep their pretty rubbish suburban service in comparison.

 

[cle]

In any event, you cannot tell me that if you offer people a turn-up-and-go service of, in the case of north of New Beckenham, probably at least 12tph, if not 16tph, people would tell you they'd rather keep their pretty rubbish suburban service in comparison.

Time and again, this has been seen. Expecting nothing different here, and South Londoners deserve the freedom of the tube.

You omit Lewisham, with its fast LB services and directs into Cannon St (currently not served by Hayes trains) - if you work at LV, that’s the biggest loss. But always some compromise on big projects. Waterloo, Embankment, Charing Cross being en route.

Direct Picc and Ox Circus will be very welcome! Likely Baker St and Paddington too.

 

[465fan]

Time and again, this has been seen. Expecting nothing different here, and South Londoners deserve the freedom of the tube.

You omit Lewisham, with its fast LB services and directs into Cannon St (currently not served by Hayes trains) - if you work at LV, that’s the biggest loss. But always some compromise on big projects. Waterloo, Embankment, Charing Cross being en route.

Direct Picc and Ox Circus will be very welcome! Likely Baker St and Paddington too.

I look at what you get at Hayes, even in the most ideal world, and the maximum is probably 8tph. That still precludes Beckenham Junction, and if you are living in some parts of the world near there, to go to Beckenham Junction and have that other onward connectivity (especially as this would surely make Beckenham Jn a stop on fast trains finally), is massive.

And of that heavy rail 8tph, even if its 4tph fast to Charing Cross, and 4tph via Lewisham to Cannon Street, and you still miss a lot. To be able to get to somewhere like New Cross Gate, which is a gateway to East London and also the likes of Crystal Palace (that bit more important for people getting out at Lewisham, going to the Bakerloo, and getting to NXG which they can't do now), is huge. To then have Elephant & Castle and the Thameslink and Northern lines, is equally positive.

You get to Waterloo and Charing Cross, and your journey time has probably barely degraded, but the frequency is the selling point. As you say, you're not now trying to go down into the Tube at those places for Piccadilly Circus, Oxford Circus, Baker Street and Paddington: you're already on the train. Journeys to Heathrow Airport become massively simpler.

I didn't live on the Hayes line, I lived on another Metro route out of Cannon Street / Charing Cross. But if I did live on the Hayes line, I'd be all over this. Look at what Crossrail did for London, and then imagine what this whole project does along the Old Kent Road, through those parts of 'South Bermondsey' and 'North Peckham'. Even at New Cross Gate, it removes probably 50% of people coming up on the Overground from South London, giving that vital capacity in the core section of the ELL from Surrey Quays to Dalston.

For Lewisham, and therefore the wider South Eastern metro area, it's just as big. All those flats, now getting a proper Metro service. Catford station reunited (you hope), Beckenham Junction actually getting meaningful connectivity to places like Lewisham or up to the East.

It's hardly needing to be sold. It's just got to be done.

 

[frankmoh]

I

I look at what you get at Hayes, even in the most ideal world, and the maximum is probably 8tph. That still precludes Beckenham Junction, and if you are living in some parts of the world near there, to go to Beckenham Junction and have that other onward connectivity (especially as this would surely make Beckenham Jn a stop on fast trains finally), is massive.

And of that heavy rail 8tph, even if its 4tph fast to Charing Cross, and 4tph via Lewisham to Cannon Street, and you still miss a lot. To be able to get to somewhere like New Cross Gate, which is a gateway to East London and also the likes of Crystal Palace (that bit more important for people getting out at Lewisham, going to the Bakerloo, and getting to NXG which they can't do now), is huge. To then have Elephant & Castle and the Thameslink and Northern lines, is equally positive.

You get to Waterloo and Charing Cross, and your journey time has probably barely degraded, but the frequency is the selling point. As you say, you're not now trying to go down into the Tube at those places for Piccadilly Circus, Oxford Circus, Baker Street and Paddington: you're already on the train. Journeys to Heathrow Airport become massively simpler.

I didn't live on the Hayes line, I lived on another Metro route out of Cannon Street / Charing Cross. But if I did live on the Hayes line, I'd be all over this. Look at what Crossrail did for London, and then imagine what this whole project does along the Old Kent Road, through those parts of 'South Bermondsey' and 'North Peckham'. Even at New Cross Gate, it removes probably 50% of people coming up on the Overground from South London, giving that vital capacity in the core section of the ELL from Surrey Quays to Dalston.

For Lewisham, and therefore the wider South Eastern metro area, it's just as big. All those flats, now getting a proper Metro service. Catford station reunited (you hope), Beckenham Junction actually getting meaningful connectivity to places like Lewisham or up to the East.

It's hardly needing to be sold. It's just got to be done.

Wait, is there another plan to extend the Bakerloo to New Cross as well?

 

[30907]

And down at Hayes, Keston and Farnborough, this would open up stacks of development land by having the better transport.

Except that London still has a green belt - for good reason, if you look at the pre-WW2 ribbon development through Leaves Green - and even if it were abolished I can't see building being allowed on Keston Common!

Though I suppose you could resuscitate the Southern Heights scheme with an extension from a Hayes to Biggin Hill - Southern Depths perhaps?

 

[frankmoh]

Except that London still has a green belt - for good reason, if you look at the pre-WW2 ribbon development through Leaves Green - and even if it were abolished I can't see building being allowed on Keston Common!

Though I suppose you could resuscitate the Southern Heights scheme with an extension from a Hayes to Biggin Hill - Southern Depths perhaps?

Just build on top of South Norwood Country Park. A solid foundation of poo and WW2 rubble from Croydon.