A Thameslink 8 car train is 160 metres long. You'd need more space than you are going to find in a urban area that you want to significantly increase the density of.
At Mitcham Junction, creating a spur off the mainline track following the tram to Beddington Lane would connect the railway to Beddington industrial estate. There’s enough space there to host a depot of the size necessary to support a much higher frequency service on the Sutton Loop, and it doesn’t have to encroach on the high quality green space of Beddington Park or Mitcham Common!
Can I suggest 10 minutes with a half decent map? Preferably one with contours. Having lived near both at times, I can just about see your Beddington Lane idea working, but in Bromley/Orpington I can't think of any obvious land in those areas that would be a good fit without some serious issues with levels and existing buildings.
You should. But you then need to bear in mind the human tendency to protect what you have more than to campaign for what you might have. So if you are doing this, you need to include the cost to those existing communities within your balance - not discount them as irrelevant NIMBYs.
In most cases the land will stay low density residential, and land use reforms won't make any difference. That's because it is effectively impossible to assemble parcels of land large enough to build high density development. Take Herne Hill for example: how is a developer going to buy large numbers of residential properties in Milkwood Road or Railton Road, plus the adjacent side streets, all of them owned by separate landowners, and many of them owner occupiers?
I suggest that you look at the East West Rail consultation, which closes today. This shows the challenges of finding sites for new maintenance depots and carriage sidings. And of course, according to your economics, any site large enough for your sidings is going to be much more lucrative as high density residential development.
The cost of a spur, the swathe of CPO that would be required, and the construction of a depot there - *if* you could satisfy the local authority, would run into nearly a billion pounds I would suspect.
A decent land readjustment policy would be ideal. But otherwise the same way as all the other economic opportunity areas have been developed - with the city government coordinating stakeholders to achieve an equitable outcome.
Are you saying that large amounts of land very close to high-capacity commuter railways wouldn't be valuable as high density residential development? But railways need depots, so they've got to be built somewhere.
So let's get this straight. Sorting out transport corridors will make redevelopment viable, but it also needs policy levers because the nature of property holding means that otherwise that change to the transport corridor won't happen.
What is the specific problem statement that you are meaning by 'here'?
Local government doesn't have the powers to do that, even after the recent planning reforms.
What I'm saying is that, if the railway doesn't own the land already, then it is going to have to pay premium price to acquire it. That is going to be a significant increase to the costs of the project.
For any change management, it is only possible to start from where you are now, you can't choose to start somewhere else.
Creating high-frequency commuter rail services in south London out of the existing network.
That's a solution, not a problem.
I'll give you a hint - the problems best solved by railways are ones of connectivity. What are you trying to connect people in Sutton to, and why is the current situation not sufficient?
At most, that is a symptom. What is the problem that makes this symptom worth addressing?
Even the TfL proposals for "Metroisation" - they produced a paper on it which used that term - a few years ago didn't exceed 4tph on the whole, which reflects the complex geography of that part of the network
For reference for others, here's TfL's Strategic Case for Metroisation, an interesting read even if it is now seven years old: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/strategic-case-for-metroisation.pdf
Indeed. They raise some good points and have good goals (who doesn't want better train services) , but it did always seem very optimistic. In particular some of the junction rebuilds. And would people really be fine with trains going to less destinations/having to change trains, but having an increased frequency? (in some cases possibly, in some cases probably not, but I'm not sure a blanket assumption always in favour is true)
Opinions vary on that, and your analysis assumes that time is always more important than convenience, and that the costs of change also need to be considered. Memories of living in SE London suggest that there was no problem of demand.
I agree. The question is, which terminal? Central London has 2 distinct areas (West End and City) with quite different demand profiles, and the Southern/Southeastern rail network is able to offer most places it serves the option of both.
Capacity IS connectivity. 2 TPH for a service versus 12 TPH versus 36 TPH are radically different value propositions.
Anyone in north London can testify to that based on the fact that the services currently exist, and they've ordered their lives around it. And yet there's still a major question about splitting the Northern Line and forcing changes at Camden Town.
In a nutshell, to the rest of London’s public transport network. The current situation is not sufficient because services isn’t frequent enough on the Sutton Loop for passengers to turn and go where they want, and interchange stations don’t exist.
In a nutshell, to the rest of London’s public transport network. The current situation is not sufficient because services isn’t frequent enough on the Sutton Loop for passengers to turn and go where they want, and interchange stations don’t exist.
You’re right, I’m not thinking about this from a change management perspective. I’ve narrowed my proposals down to a point where they simply aren’t very disruptive.
And why is that a problem? Not in the abstract, but what is the demonstrable impact? And why is "at their nearest station" the salient factor given the gaps in the existing network?
Part of the reason the Victoria and Northern lines are so busy is because at the south end their catchment areas are uncharacteristically large, due to passengers skipping past their local rail service in favour of a high frequency service they don’t have to plan around.
I’ve never understood why the 5th track is needed and why the trains that use it cant just turn left at the junction instead.