Mattplans
Member
As for the Sutton loop I think the current proposal is a bit much. The aim for all suburban metro routes should just be 6 tph. I think that's realistic and feasible and 10 minutes is not an awful wait time.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fantasy - Deconflicting services at Herne Hill
- Thread starter squingo44
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Also answering a question from @Mattplans, I can think of one very clear scenario because it regularly happened to me - travelling from Charing Cross or Cannon Street, and having to change at London Bridge for the outbound service which is already fully laden from the starting point. Commuting from Orpington to an office in Vauxhall (no, not that one!), I routinely detoured via Charing Cross to stand a chance of a seat. Occasional enforced changes at London Bridge were, bluntly, hellish.I'm unconvinced that this could be the case when the timetable changes will always result in greater capacity, and therefore more seats available.
The only case would be when introducing an interchange to a different service, but since services closer to the centre will certainly have more capacity still, I'm still not convinced that this is an issue. And, even then if the final leg of the journey is spent standing, it's only for a shorter length of time.
With proper segregation of services, I wouldn't expect anyone who starts from an outer commuter service and changes onto another service to complete their commute, to not be able to find a seat on the first service. The only reason that is the case currently is when capacity is very low on a commuter line, usually the 2 TPH services.
And I use that example because the ill effect is not on the short leg, where it might be tolerable, but on the long one, where it is not. Commuting is like gravity - what goes up to town must come down out of town.
As for portals at Clapham Junction - my idea would be for a double set of portals (CR2 dives down into its own tunnels from Earlesfield, and new fast lines emerging from the tunnels to the existing adjacent to Wandsworth cemetery / Wandsworth prison. There's 1.2km to play with between Earlsfield Station and Trinity Way.
Subject of another thread, but that was looked at, and it didn’t work for reasons I don’t know.
Mattplans
Member
Well, that's what you would say, isn't it?(no, not that one!)
And not a lot of people are willing to sacrifice time on their journey just to get a seat, especially peak hour commuters that have already endured long days. That's why it is in the interests of passengers to have a sustained high frequency on one line if they're so busy that it is unattractive or you're unable to board, it mitigates the waiting time until the next one. If faced with the option of joining a train full and standing or waiting a whopping 30 minutes (or in some cases an hour) for the next one, I think most would just get on.
I'm not even entirely convinced that expecting a seat during peak hours is realistic. I wonder how much success you had on London bound services from Orpington? Unless you were able to make use of the services originating there and not the fasts?
there would be few seats available even with these increases in capacity proposed for the sutton loop, especially when the suggestion is 'aggressive' home building. "build it and they will come"
I remember the first couple of times I used the Elizabeth Line after it opened I was always wondering "so where on earth did all of these people come from?". If even the Victoria line (the most frequent line in the world?) can't manage it, I fail to see how it will be achieved here. Trains leave Brixton full on the peaks.
NorthKent1989
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,168
But 6 TPH to one terminus beats out 2 TPH to two termini
Does it? It’s worked for commuters in SE London for generations, I feel that this supposed big deal and problem with 2tph to each terminal is manufactured.
And with the Dartford routes, a complex network in its own right where there are mixed stopping patterns and a mix of suburban metro or outer suburban/interurban services how do you decide which London terminal a service goes to? Which stations get served by the outer suburban services to Gravesend & Gillingham?
Sending whole set of services to one terminal could also create a whole new set of problems
Last edited:
When I did the journey, the fasts didn’t stop in peak and the service was split between the Charing Cross trains starting there, and the Cannon Street services starting from Sevenoaks. That worked for me going in; coming out was more mixed and where looping via Charing Cross worked for me without adding journey time on my particular route - and demonstrated my preference for convenience over absolute speed.Well, that's what you would say, isn't it?
And not a lot of people are willing to sacrifice time on their journey just to get a seat, especially peak hour commuters that have already endured long days. That's why it is in the interests of passengers to have a sustained high frequency on one line if they're so busy that it is unattractive or you're unable to board, it mitigates the waiting time until the next one. If faced with the option of joining a train full and standing or waiting a whopping 30 minutes (or in some cases an hour) for the next one, I think most would just get on.
I'm not even entirely convinced that expecting a seat during peak hours is realistic. I wonder how much success you had on London bound services from Orpington? Unless you were able to make use of the services originating there and not the fasts?
there would be few seats available even with these increases in capacity proposed for the sutton loop, especially when the suggestion is 'aggressive' home building. "build it and they will come"
I remember the first couple of times I used the Elizabeth Line after it opened I was always wondering "so where on earth did all of these people come from?". If even the Victoria line (the most frequent line in the world?) can't manage it, I fail to see how it will be achieved here. Trains leave Brixton full on the peaks.
But you mention time at the end of the day. That makes my point - a current guaranteed through journey is being proposed to be replaced with a requirement to change. That adds time and friction to a journey.
zwk500
Veteran Member
The original proposal was that Sutton Loop services would indeed terminate at Blackfriars, and (I think it's been mentioned already), local politics put a pin in it.It's tempting to say why not just run Blackfriars Bay to Blackfriars Bay services around the loop 15 minutes from the Thameslink services. Yes, these would also form parallel moves with themselves at Streatham South Junction, but they wouldn't work a Wimbledon.
The original proposal was that Sutton Loop services would indeed terminate at Blackfriars, and (I think it's been mentioned already), local politics put a pin in it.
In the context of the feasibility of running 4tph on the Sutton Loop in each direction, whether services originate from the Thameslink Core or Blackfriars Bays is by the by. The four-track section between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars can handle 12tph weaving trivially.
The critical timing points are Wimbledon and Streatham South Junction.
Who is "Wimbledon" here sorry, is that LB Merton council? I thought the shopping centre was quite popular with the local residents?Besides, Wimbledon were quite keen on losing the shopping centre.
When I was last there, Centre Court was struggling - not helped by the demise of the anchor tenant, DebenhamsWho is "Wimbledon" here sorry, is that LB Merton council? I thought the shopping centre was quite popular with the local residents?
Personally, I feel our planning policy is too risk-averse. We’re limiting our potential exposure to the massive positive payoffs of building new infrastructure, such as the 10x higher usage of the lizzie line than expected. It’s a matter of taste, of course, but there’s a lot of opportunities we’re leaving on the table.
I guess I’m a lot more concerned about achieving economic growth by any means necessary than the rest of the people in this discussion.
An absolutist / maximalist approach to density and development is neither possible nor desirable. As some point the built environment needs to settle down.
At a macro level there are a lot of opportunity areas across London, but at a micro level not all areas are equally suitable for large-scale densification. It's a good thing to have variations in character / density / vintage across different parts of London - this is what gives local areas and London as a whole a sense of place.
Once the London Plan is fully realised (essentially ex industrial, big-box retail and failed post-war estates being redeveloped / densified), it can be considered fait accompli. There will of course be continued organic development, but unlikely to be large-scale step changes in density.
Agree to a degree but I think all high frequency transit stations should be suitable for TOD in the proximity of a station. That could be 3-6 story smaller apartment buildings, but a level of medium densification.An absolutist / maximalist approach to density and development is neither possible nor desirable. As some point the built environment needs to settle down.
At a macro level there are a lot of opportunity areas across London, but at a micro level not all areas are equally suitable for large-scale densification. It's a good thing to have variations in character / density / vintage across different parts of London - this is what gives local areas and London as a whole a sense of place.
Once the London Plan is fully realised (essentially ex industrial, big-box retail and failed post-war estates being redeveloped / densified), it can be considered fait accompli. There will of course be continued organic development, but unlikely to be large-scale step changes in density.
And look at how London has evolved - the outer parts are now less so. Edgware, Burnt Oak and Colindale, Wembley - used to be here be dragons places for young professionals, now they need to consider them. Clapham became Balham, became Tooting - etc. Also happening on the outer reaches of the Piccadilly too, and High Barnet. Affordability has meant the core has expanded. And if the transport is there, it should be leveraged to densify within the boroughs.
Who is "Wimbledon" here sorry, is that LB Merton council? I thought the shopping centre was quite popular with the local residents?
Merton, who could see that redevelpment of the oversite was a big win, similarly the local business group, and the owner of the centre itself. The issue was the impact during construction, not afterwards.
That makes sense, thank youMerton, who could see that redevelpment of the oversite was a big win, similarly the local business group, and the owner of the centre itself. The issue was the impact during construction, not afterwards.
The obvious solution to the Herne Hill problem is a double deck station like Canning Town, there isn't room for grade separation. Just the minor issues of cost, construction difficulties and the impact on the conservation area. Other than that it's a winner.
(I used to live on Croxted Road and spend every other morning cursing the unreliability of the services so I had plenty of time for crayoning solutions)
(I used to live on Croxted Road and spend every other morning cursing the unreliability of the services so I had plenty of time for crayoning solutions)
The obvious solution to the Herne Hill problem is a double deck station like Canning Town, there isn't room for grade separation.
A double deck station is, by definition, grade separated!
D'oh! Of course I meant there is no room for grade separation whilst keeping the existing layoutA double deck station is, by definition, grade separated!
Those roads are not low density, they're 10-15k people / sq km. It's decieving, there's little space dedicated to parking and many have loft conversions. For comparison the tower blocks on Hurst St are 17k p/sq km as they've a load of green space around.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?
Some of the nearby roads, eg Brantwood Road, are semis/detached with densities of 6-7k / sq km. These are suitable for denisification policies - see https://www.centreforcities.org/rea...sed-planning-enabled-densification-in-croydon
Densities taken from https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/maps/...ity/persons-per-square-kilometre?oa=E00015519
Agree to a degree but I think all high frequency transit stations should be suitable for TOD in the proximity of a station. That could be 3-6 story smaller apartment buildings, but a level of medium densification.
And look at how London has evolved - the outer parts are now less so. Edgware, Burnt Oak and Colindale, Wembley - used to be here be dragons places for young professionals, now they need to consider them. Clapham became Balham, became Tooting - etc. Also happening on the outer reaches of the Piccadilly too, and High Barnet. Affordability has meant the core has expanded. And if the transport is there, it should be leveraged to densify within the boroughs.
I think this would fall under my umbrella of 'organic development', hopefully with a fair wind from a development friendly planning framework. Even then opportunities aren't universal and I think pace will be modest.
The nice Victorian terraces around Herne Hill and Tulse Hill will want to be preserved, and even those Victoria semis with bay windows around Kent House. I'd go as far as saying Herne Hill and most of Tulse Hill might be considered 'hands off' as far as development is concerned.
Laburnum Road estate at Mitcham Eastfield is a possible development candidate. There's a sizeable development at Hackbridge that's near completion (if not actually completed). Sutton is probably the only significant opportunity in this neck of the woods - from St Nicholas all the way to the Sainsbury's.
The less remarkable inter-war and post-war semis and terraces of 4 could see some redevelopment. Even this requires a developer finding 2-4 willing neighbouring homeowners at the same time, which needs more than a bit of luck. There's a Tesco Extra at West Sutton.
I've gone around the loop in 10 minutes and pretty much identified all realistic development opportunities.
Any uplift in travel demand in this sort of development context would be easily met by upping Thameslink Sutton Loop to 4tph and restoring the pre-Covid 4tph Victoria - Epsom timetable with metro style rolling stock.
I fundamentally disagree, I’m afraid. The city always has room to grow more. I think that redevelopment around transit hubs should be fairly unconstrained, and that we should be turning every rail station in the network into a transit hub. Local character is nice and all, but it doesn’t take precedence over tackling the housing crisis.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Once the London Plan is fully realised, we should make the next one.Once the London Plan is fully realised (essentially ex industrial, big-box retail and failed post-war estates being redeveloped / densified), it can be considered fait accompli.
zwk500
Veteran Member
Well if the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) go through this is basically achieved.I fundamentally disagree, I’m afraid. The city always has room to grow more. I think that redevelopment around transit hubs should be fairly unconstrained, and that we should be turning every rail station in the network into a transit hub. Local character is nice and all, but it doesn’t take precedence over tackling the housing crisis.
Development within c.800m of a railway station achieving 2tph in one direction or 4tph overall throughout the day, located within an existing settlement boundary, would get an automatic yes. These new developments would be required to achieve at least 50 dwellings per hectare.
If the station with that level of service is outside a settlement, but within the top 60 Travel to Work areas by Gross Value Added, it would also get the automatic yes for development within c.800m. These would be required to achieve at least 40 dwellings per hectare.
40 dwellings per hectare would be lower than the density of Victorian terraces found in places like Herne Hill. As others have said, existing densities are already not low. They are not Asian style uber densities but comfortably within the range of functional and liveable European gentle densities.
You may want to consider what the centre can cope with. And the housing crisis is multi-factorial - where excessive demand as well as inadequate supply are factors.I fundamentally disagree, I’m afraid. The city always has room to grow more. I think that redevelopment around transit hubs should be fairly unconstrained, and that we should be turning every rail station in the network into a transit hub. Local character is nice and all, but it doesn’t take precedence over tackling the housing crisis.
I don't think anyone is saying to bulldoze terraces here. I agree - I like them, they 'are London' - and do provide good density. Many are multiple residences of course. We won't get to Haussmann, but they are far more effective (and they are the soul / dynamic of London too) - than semis which I care less for the preservation of.40 dwellings per hectare would be lower than the density of Victorian terraces found in places like Herne Hill. As others have said, existing densities are already not low. They are not Asian style uber densities but comfortably within the range of functional and liveable European gentle densities.
But I'm not saying to bulldoze anything. More to acquire shop parades, garages, big box, crap old buildings near to stations, and those might be suitable for developments - in many cases, not huge ones. Just a little uplift to support growing population and leverage the infrastructure that already exists. Nobody has a right to say their area can't increase in population. Same as views shouldn't last forever.
Not saying everywhere becomes Lewisham either. But the Old Kent Road could do (until NXG) - and Catford could, for example.
I don't think anyone is saying to bulldoze terraces here. I agree - I like them, they 'are London' - and do provide good density. Many are multiple residences of course. We won't get to Haussmann, but they are far more effective (and they are the soul / dynamic of London too) - than semis which I care less for the preservation of.
But I'm not saying to bulldoze anything. More to acquire shop parades, garages, big box, crap old buildings near to stations, and those might be suitable for developments - in many cases, not huge ones. Just a little uplift to support growing population and leverage the infrastructure that already exists. Nobody has a right to say their area can't increase in population. Same as views shouldn't last forever.
Not saying everywhere becomes Lewisham either. But the Old Kent Road could do (until NXG) - and Catford could, for example.
The areas in question (inner Chatham Main Line and Sutton Loop) are not in abundance of those sites. Even 30s parades have heritage value. The opportunities that do exist would just fill the extra 2tph Sutton Loop at best.
Around St Helier is the Upper Morden Conservation Area centred on the Lawrence Weaver Institute, protection of which I can't disagree with.
As an outer Sutton Loop resident, outside of the protected/heritage areas, there doesn't seem to be much protection of the 1930s metroland-esque terraces and semis, in fact there seems to very much be an "anything goes" attitude to alterations, and lot of non-matching infill too.The areas in question (inner Chatham Main Line and Sutton Loop) are not in abundance of those sites. Even 30s parades have heritage value. The opportunities that do exist would just fill the extra 2tph Sutton Loop at best.
Around St Helier is the Upper Morden Conservation Area centred on the Lawrence Weaver Institute, protection of which I can't disagree with.
For stations on main roads, something like the Wimbledon Chase redevelopment (in scale, not in terms of actually rebuilding perfectly functional, albeit often inaccessible, stations!) would be fine I think. In the image in this article https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk...ing-for-art-deco-rebuild-of-wimbledon-station you can see both the planned new station building, but also the existing Tesco+flats next to it that's been there for at least a decade (and is why, along with the already elevated track viaduct, the station building was allowed to be nine stories)
Albeit for something like West Sutton that is in the middle of the suburbs, nine stories would be too overbearing to be "gentle" density, unless you ended up redeveloping half the road - and I think the prices of the Compulsory Purchase Orders to do that would categorically be a non-starter!
As a Sutton Loop resident, outside of the protected/heritage areas, there doesn't seem to be much protection of the 1930s metroland-esque terraces, in fact there seems to very much be an "anything goes" attitude to alterations, and lot of non-matching infill too.
For stations on main roads, something like the Wimbledon Chase redevelopment (in scale, not in terms of actually rebuilding perfectly functional, albeit often inaccessible, stations!) would be fine I think. In the image in this article https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk...ing-for-art-deco-rebuild-of-wimbledon-station you can see both the planned new station building, but also the existing Tesco+flats next to it that's been there for at least a decade (and is why, along with the already elevated track viaduct, the station building was allowed to be nine stories)
Albeit for something like West Sutton that is in the middle of the suburbs, nine stories would be too overbearing to be "gentle" density, unless you ended up redeveloping half the road - and I think the prices of the Compulsory Purchase Orders to do that would categorically be a non-starter!
I'm not against redeveloping 1930 terraces. I just think the practicalities of developers getting a whole row to sell at the same time means the pace of any such developments would necessarily be slow. Any state sponsored redevelopment with compulsory purchase orders would be a legal non starter.
And how they fit with retaining public open land like Wimbledon Common or Richmond Park in those cities…Can we have the golf course / club in cities conversation?
Completely agreed. Hence the reason I feel 4tph would be the most reasonable service you could expect on the loop as it is. Any idea of getting 16tph and suddenly spawning massive redevelopment is absolutely for the birdsI'm not against redeveloping 1930 terraces. I just think the practicalities of developers getting a whole row to sell at the same time means the pace of any such developments would necessarily be slow. Any state sponsored redevelopment with compulsory purchase orders would be a legal non starter.