Potential South London improvement ideas?

[hwl]

Night tube/London services

• Night tube extended beyond New Cross Gate to West Croydon

Overground is not the tube especially on NR infrastructure...

• Night Thameslink calls additionally at New Cross Gate to improve connections - call removed at Norwood Junction where calls happen

Try having a look at the engineering access statements first... (also covers the above)

One reason there are no Thameslink calls at New Cross Gate is to give flexibility of routing (e.g. via Tulse Hill or via Forest Hill) when there are works over night. Norwood Junction is on both sets of routes. (The other reason is that the platforms at NXG are too short for 12 car and SDO (for the last 4 cars) might cause dwell time issues).

Neither of you suggests will happen.

 

[PGAT]

Night Thameslink does not stop at Norwood Junction or London Bridge anyway, for the same reason flexibility via Norbury

 

[Mattplans]

When the route via Forest Hill is open, London Overground and Thameslink (calling at New Cross Gate) can run. When it is not open, Thameslink will divert via Herne Hill like it usually does and LO will cap at NXG.*

Not particularly sure a short platform at NXG is an issue - there are a lot of locations on the Thameslink network with short platforms. The stock has SDO for exactly this reason so I think this is a moot point.

* = I think this is a necessary step for the night time economy in London. This is a global megacity. I see no reason why engineering work can’t be planned around train services - like it’s done on the infrastructure managed by TfL - and completed on all the other days of the week where it doesn’t matter. I recognise that occasionally it will be necessary to close the route for possessions - that’s alright and is necessary on every train route everywhere…

Trains can even be timetabled to accomodate for only closing the fast lines etc. I think a connection between the ELL and TL at New Cross Gate will be very valuable at this time.

 

[PGAT]

I would imagine the issue with the BML via Forest Hill is the lines are paired by direction instead of use so it’s harder to isolate a pair and divert trains to the other

 

[hwl]

I would imagine the issue with the BML via Forest Hill is the lines are paired by direction instead of use so it’s harder to isolate a pair and divert trains to the other

Which is a large part of the issue and the tracks are also minimal spaced on most of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2026 ==

When the route via Forest Hill is open, London Overground and Thameslink (calling at New Cross Gate) can run. When it is not open, Thameslink will divert via Herne Hill like it usually does and LO will cap at NXG.*

Not particularly sure a short platform at NXG is an issue - there are a lot of locations on the Thameslink network with short platforms. The stock has SDO for exactly this reason so I think this is a moot point.

* = I think this is a necessary step for the night time economy in London. This is a global megacity. I see no reason why engineering work can’t be planned around train services - like it’s done on the infrastructure managed by TfL - and completed on all the other days of the week where it doesn’t matter. I recognise that occasionally it will be necessary to close the route for possessions - that’s alright and is necessary on every train route everywhere…

Trains can even be timetabled to accomodate for only closing the fast lines etc. I think a connection between the ELL and TL at New Cross Gate will be very valuable at this time.

The fast line platforms are only 8car - this is one of the key reasons TL services don't stop at NXG. 10car platforms for 12car 700 is normally the limit for SDO on Thameslink.

 

[Mattplans]

The fast line platforms are only 8car - this is one of the key reasons TL services don't stop at NXG. 10car platforms for 12car 700 is normally the limit for SDO on Thameslink.

This is not true. 12 car trains stop at many platforms that only accomodate (less than) 8 cars.

ie South Croydon, Salfords, Ashwell, Baldock

In fact, a 12 car Thameslink train calls at Faygate which can only accomodate 4 cars!

 

[mmh]

Not particularly sure a short platform at NXG is an issue - there are a lot of locations on the Thameslink network with short platforms. The stock has SDO for exactly this reason so I think this is a moot point.

Exactly. When the new version of Thameslink was dreamed up, New Cross Gate would have been a stop on it. A lot of money was spent on improving the access to the fast line platforms, rebuilding the bridge and installing lifts.

Now those platforms are never used, and New Cross Gate (and the following stations) lost all their sensible connections.

 

[amarshe]

Exactly. When the new version of Thameslink was dreamed up, New Cross Gate would have been a stop on it. A lot of money was spent on improving the access to the fast line platforms, rebuilding the bridge and installing lifts.

Now those platforms are never used, and New Cross Gate (and the following stations) lost all their sensible connections.

Thank you. I have wondered for many years why that was - the platforms are in good condition with seating and PIS etc. and hence a mystery

 

[mmh]

Thank you. I have wondered for many years why that was - the platforms are in good condition with seating and PIS etc. and hence a mystery

It was ludicrous. Prior to Thameslink, the fast line platforms were used. In the "preview" time the service was reduced. Then it disappeared altogether.

 

[MarkyT]

It was ludicrous. Prior to Thameslink, the fast line platforms were used. In the "preview" time the service was reduced. Then it disappeared altogether.

When the Bakerloo Line extension reaches the station, perhaps some calls might be reintroduced. That could replace TL connections from Hayes trains at London Bridge. The hoped-for Croydon area remodelling would help make threading revised paths easier through the labyrinth.

 

[cle]

When the Bakerloo Line extension reaches the station, perhaps some calls might be reintroduced. That could replace TL connections from Hayes trains at London Bridge. The hoped-for Croydon area remodelling would help make threading revised paths easier through the labyrinth.

If it happened, I would argue to stop all TL services at NXG. It would relieve London Bridge and its tube lines greatly, especially the Jubilee. The ELL connections (by then 10-12tph towards Canada Water) would also offer a lot of onward distribution and relief of the Jubilee, this time, the other direction! Would be quite the hub.

Re Hayes connections, yes - but it would all run via Lewisham also where those connections to LB exist, and more frequently than at NXG.
But - the tube will be quicker than NR - newer straight sections generally are. I'd expect Lewisham-Elephant to be very speedy! And one-seat rides to the West End to far beat NR with its viaduct trundles through Southwark. People won't believe it until it's real though.

 

[JonathanH]

When the Bakerloo Line extension reaches the station, perhaps some calls might be reintroduced.

If it happened, I would argue to stop all TL services at NXG.

The big challenge appears to be to find a way to build 12 coach platforms at New Cross Gate. Is it actually feasible without rebuilding the road bridge, moving pointwork and signals?

Are there outline ideas for any station rebuild of New Cross Gate as part of the Bakerloo Line extension plans?

 

[Minstral25]

The big challenge appears to be to find a way to build 12 coach platforms at New Cross Gate. Is it actually feasible without rebuilding the road bridge, moving pointwork and signals?

Are there outline ideas for any station rebuild of New Cross Gate as part of the Bakerloo Line extension plans?

Does it matter - Norwood Junction can only take 9/10 coaches with SDO and that can be very busy. Extend what you can if there is a budget and and if not use what's there to create a useful service with many connections that'll be very busy as it once was.

 

[brad465]

Couldn't find any other suitable open threads on this, but there is a renewed push for the Windmill Bridge upgrade to happen, citing the Gatwick expansion and Universal Studios' theme park as reasons:

Croydon rail upgrade delay may impact Gatwick and Universal, says MP

The Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme was paused in 2022 and has not been reinstated, ministers hear.

www.bbc.co.uk

An MP has warned that continued delays to funding a major rail upgrade across Croydon could have knock‑on effects for other projects - including Gatwick Airport's planned runway expansion and the new Universal Studios UK theme park.
During a House of Commons debate, it was revealed that the £2.9bn Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme (CARS) remains stalled.
First proposed in 2020, the project was intended to ease a long‑standing bottleneck on the Brighton Main Line in the Croydon area.
Transport Minister Simon Lightwood confirmed the project had been paused by the previous government in 2022 without notifying stakeholders, and has not been reinstated in subsequent spending reviews.
The Thameslink route is one of the busiest in the country and links London with the south coast, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.
CARS includes major upgrades at East Croydon and Norwood Junction stations, extensive track remodelling around Selhurst, and bridge works to create space for additional lines.
Croydon East MP Natasha Irons warned that failing to tackle the long‑standing bottleneck could have wider consequences for the South East economy.
She said further delays risked undermining the proposed Universal Studios theme park in Bedfordshire, due to open in 2031, which is expected to support about 28,000 jobs and attract 8.5 million visitors a year.
She also warned that the £2.2bn northern runway expansion at Gatwick Airport could be hindered.
"Rail is not an optional extra - it is a fundamental element of Gatwick's success," Irons said.
The transport minister said that rail spending remained constrained and that the government would not be currently providing funding for CARS.
There were also no plans to apply for planning consents such as a Transport and Works Act Order or to carry out any associated compulsory land purchases.
Despite this, Lightwood described the Brighton Main Line as a "vital artery" and pointed to previous investment, including the £7bn Thameslink programme and the £250m upgrade of Gatwick Airport station.
During the debate on 17 March, he urged local leaders to continue developing their business case ahead of the next spending review in 2027.

 

[JonathanH]

Couldn't find any other suitable open threads on this, but there is a renewed push for the Windmill Bridge upgrade to happen, citing the Gatwick expansion and Universal Studios' theme park as reasons:

I think 'renewed push' is a slight exaggeration. It is just a local MP citing the scheme in a relatively inconsequential debate. It seems to have been easily batted away by the minister in the debate, noting that the Brighton line has had other investment.

The idea that it affects passenger flow to Universal is a little far fetched because CARS doesn't of itself allow more trains to run on the St Pancras to Bedford part of Thameslink.

The MP for Strangford in the debate notes that loads of local schemes don't reach the top of the list. This clearly has an impact over a wider area but still seems very unlikely to happen anytime soon. The full debate, which is short, but a bit too long to copy, is here - https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...480-50305CC1AC7A/CroydonAreaRemodellingScheme

I don't think any project once made public ever goes completely away in people's minds, but I am not sure this one will ever reach the top of the list. The Brighton line seems to be coping without it, even though there are difficult compromises about local travel from South London to East Croydon.

 

[Bald Rick]

Couldn't find any other suitable open threads on this, but there is a renewed push for the Windmill Bridge upgrade to happen, citing the Gatwick expansion and Universal Studios' theme park as reasons:

Croydon rail upgrade delay may impact Gatwick and Universal, says MP

The Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme was paused in 2022 and has not been reinstated, ministers hear.

www.bbc.co.uk

£2.9bn

 

[brad465]

£2.9bn

Yes that will just about cover the cost of a new accessible footbridge at East Croydon

 

[JonathanH]

£2.9bn

Can you put a current rough estimate on the cost of the work based on the 2020 outline? Presumably at least double that now? It sounded like it would be a ten year project around the working railway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Can you put a current rough estimate on the cost of the work based on the 2020 outline? Presumably at least double that now? It sounded like it would be a ten year project around the working railway.

Yes, something like that. IIRC it was the complete rebuilding of E Croydon station, and same for Norwood Jn station, plus about 10 new grade seperated junctions. It was based on doing it at the same time as resignalling was needed and the track needed renewal, which is, err, about now, so it including a bug chunk of renewal budgets. But that is going to happen now anyway, while the upgrades aren’t, as we have seen.

 

[NCT]

Some form of CARS needs to happen, but the latest incarnation needs scaling back. I don't think it needed as many grade separations as proposed. An 8-platform East Croydon is worth doing, and making sure the track layout has sufficient overlaps to allow simultaneous arrivals and departures on the same island. 'Slow line crossing slow line' flat junctions like Cottage Junction and Gloucester Road Junction can probably stay. It's just Windmill and Selhurst Junctions that need separating (OK, 'just' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here).

CARS shouldn't feel like another Thameslink (in terms of cost and disruption). Psychologically it should feel like a small % increment on top of Thameslink.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Some form of CARS needs to happen, but the latest incarnation needs scaling back. I don't think it needed as many grade separations as proposed. An 8-platform East Croydon is worth doing, and making sure the track layout has sufficient overlaps to allow simultaneous arrivals and departures on the same island. 'Slow line crossing slow line' flat junctions like Cottage Junction and Gloucester Road Junction can probably stay. It's just Windmill and Selhurst Junctions that need separating (OK, 'just' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here).

CARS shouldn't feel like another Thameslink (in terms of cost and disruption). Psychologically it should feel like a small % increment on top of Thameslink.

Here’s a thought, if CARS cannot happen, could the East Croydon terminators from London Bridge and Watford be extended to Gatwick? At least that’ll give the local stations a direct Gatwick service without having to improve physical connections at East Croydon to terminate more local trains there. You’d have to swap the London Bridge to ECR service to run via Crystal Palace though, then route the Beckenham Junctiom train back to Victoria.

 

[NCT]

Here’s a thought, if CARS cannot happen, could the East Croydon terminators from London Bridge and Watford be extended to Gatwick? At least that’ll give the local stations a direct Gatwick service without having to improve physical connections at East Croydon to terminate more local trains there. You’d have to swap the London Bridge to ECR service to run via Crystal Palace though, then route the Beckenham Junctiom train back to Victoria.

Pretty sure the slows between East Croydon and South Croydon are chokka.

 

[JonathanH]

Here’s a thought, if CARS cannot happen, could the East Croydon terminators from London Bridge and Watford be extended to Gatwick?

Do the passengers at stations between Croydon and Gatwick want to lose a fast service to London for better connectivity to stations in South London? Maybe some do, and it might be good for inbound commuting at Redhill, but I can't see it being hugely popular.

 

[BritishGuy54]

I’m going to make a swing at a Victoria line extension in the southeast, in a post-Crossrail 2 world, with a takeover of the Southern line to Beckenham.

• Brixton (Southeastern)
• Loughborough Park
  • for Loughborough Junction (Thameslink)
• Ruskin Park
• North Dulwich (Southern)
• Dulwich Common
• Upper Sydenham
• Crystal Palace (Windrush, Southern)
• Birkbeck (Tramlink)
• Beckenham Junction (Tramlink, Southeastern)
• Bromley Road
  • for Shortlands (Southeastern)
• Bromley High Street
  • for Bromley North (Southeastern)

I think an extension to Crystal Palace isn’t too farfetched, like 50 years from now, when Crossrail 2 has hopefully been resolved.

Birkbeck would need to be widened, as it currently only has one platform, and Beckenham Junction could have future interchange with the Bakerloo line should it end up extended down there.

And then the extension to Bromley could be nice.

 

[BRX]

I’m going to make a swing at a Victoria line extension in the southeast, in a post-Crossrail 2 world, with a takeover of the Southern line to Beckenham.

• Brixton (Southeastern)
• Loughborough Park
  • for Loughborough Junction (Thameslink)
• Ruskin Park
• North Dulwich (Southern)
• Dulwich Common
• Upper Sydenham
• Crystal Palace (Windrush, Southern)
• Birkbeck (Tramlink)
• Beckenham Junction (Tramlink, Southeastern)
• Bromley Road
  • for Shortlands (Southeastern)
• Bromley High Street
  • for Bromley North (Southeastern)

I think an extension to Crystal Palace isn’t too farfetched, like 50 years from now, when Crossrail 2 has hopefully been resolved.

Birkbeck would need to be widened, as it currently only has one platform, and Beckenham Junction could have future interchange with the Bakerloo line should it end up extended down there.

And then the extension to Bromley could be nice.

Are you carefully avoiding a tube station in dulwich village so as not to upset the more delicate locals?

 

[BritishGuy54]

Are you carefully avoiding a tube station in dulwich village so as not to upset the more delicate locals?

Well, the area of Dulwich Common grazes the southern part of Dulwich Village, like how North Dulwich is around the northern part.

 

[BRX]

Well, the area of Dulwich Common grazes the southern part of Dulwich Village, like how North Dulwich is around the northern part.

Dulwich village is a bit of a public transport black hole - despite being the "town centre" for the surrounding area. Perhaps not by accident all of its rail stations are on its periphery, and no major bus routes pass through it: basically the P4 is your lot.

 

[brad465]

I’m going to make a swing at a Victoria line extension in the southeast, in a post-Crossrail 2 world, with a takeover of the Southern line to Beckenham.

• Brixton (Southeastern)
• Loughborough Park
  • for Loughborough Junction (Thameslink)
• Ruskin Park
• North Dulwich (Southern)
• Dulwich Common
• Upper Sydenham
• Crystal Palace (Windrush, Southern)
• Birkbeck (Tramlink)
• Beckenham Junction (Tramlink, Southeastern)
• Bromley Road
  • for Shortlands (Southeastern)
• Bromley High Street
  • for Bromley North (Southeastern)

I think an extension to Crystal Palace isn’t too farfetched, like 50 years from now, when Crossrail 2 has hopefully been resolved.

Birkbeck would need to be widened, as it currently only has one platform, and Beckenham Junction could have future interchange with the Bakerloo line should it end up extended down there.

And then the extension to Bromley could be nice.

I suggested something similar to this in the "new lines in London thread", where the Victoria line lines under the Chatham mainline all the way to Bromley, allowing all mainline stations above to close except prominent interchange ones, allowing higher capacity for faster Southeastern services and an enhanced frequency into London for the metro station areas via the extended Victoria line:

In my fantasy I'd extend this all the way to at least Bromley - the link already points towards Herne Hill; if it's extended all the way down the Chatham mainline to Bromley South, with stations mimicking the metro stations on the Orpington services, then I would close all the above ground stations except Herne Hill, Beckenham Jct and Shortlands (to maintain interchanges). This would increase capacity for more faster SE services, including retaining some Orpington services on an effective semi-fast pattern into Victoria, while the Vicky line gives the metro area a much enhanced frequency into Victoria.

 

[NCT]

Surely building a pair of fast line tunnels between Victoria and Bromley South allowing the Victoria line to take over on the surface would be cheaper than building an underground line with all the underground stations?

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely building a pair of fast line tunnels between Victoria and Bromley South allowing the Victoria line to take over on the surface would be cheaper than building an underground line with all the underground stations?

Probably. I gather Crossrail 2 looked at a fast line tunnel from Berrylands to Clapham Jn to avoid the costs of rebuilding New Malden, Raynes Park, Wimbledon etc. Several problems with that though.