-
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!
Rail near Blackwell tunnel
- Thread starter Ironside
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Took me 3 seconds to find this:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/26168.aspx
"The service is accessible to wheelchair users and cyclists and is open seven days a week."
I hate to be the one to tell you this Steve, but TfL's/the Mayor's favoured option for a new river crossing in East London is a third Blackwall Tunnel.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/cc90b4dd
The DLR will be allowing cycles in a 6 month trial from 1st July.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
I don't think its appropriate or helpful to use 'hyperbole' on a forum such as this. I also think its extremely rude to start calling people idiots for not being as well versed with the TfL transport network as you apparently are. Or indeed for those unfortunate souls who only visit London twice a year and have neglected to check how credit they have on their Oyster card. A little more tolerance towards others wouldn't go a miss!
anti-pacer
Established Member
Well said!
kevinwaltets
Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 45
Here here
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I pay over £400 a year in road tax. That is my choice and if I wish to use my car then that is my prerogative.
I also enjoy using rail. And use the train frequently.
I do not live in London nor do I work there but I do attend reasonably frequent meetings in that capital.
I think those that say that congestion charge should be increased are entitled to their view bit I cannot agree.
I have definitely made less trips to London since Ken Livingstone came up with this crazy idea. And to suggest that everyone who drives should go by train is ridiculous.
Just imagine the overcrowding on already packed trains if everyone was to switch to rail.
It is horses for courses and many of us pay a fair share in various taxes to use our car so why should we not have the choice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I pay over £400 a year in road tax. That is my choice and if I wish to use my car then that is my prerogative.
I also enjoy using rail. And use the train frequently.
I do not live in London nor do I work there but I do attend reasonably frequent meetings in that capital.
I think those that say that congestion charge should be increased are entitled to their view bit I cannot agree.
I have definitely made less trips to London since Ken Livingstone came up with this crazy idea. And to suggest that everyone who drives should go by train is ridiculous.
Just imagine the overcrowding on already packed trains if everyone was to switch to rail.
It is horses for courses and many of us pay a fair share in various taxes to use our car so why should we not have the choice.
Rail simply does not cover a journey from south to north or north to south through southeast London in one journey or even two changes may even be required. Not convenient. If I go from Bromley and I need to get to North London, what are my options? If I live in southeast London and need to get over the river, train again is not an option. The DLR is as far Stratford or bank (and that's if you live close to Woolwich). From southeast to north of the river, car is the only viable option in one journey.
A third Blackwall Tunnel has been mooted for years but is no nearer happening, crazy idea if you ask me
RichmondCommu
Established Member
But surely there is nothing to stop you taking the train into London Bridge and then taking the Tube northwards? Obviously you would need to change but I would have thought it would be quicker than driving? Especially if you are travelling in the peak?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
What makes you think it's a crazy idea? Congestion in London is a massive problem, as is pollution caused by traffic. By reducing the amount of traffic, the congestion charge has almost certainly sped up the journeys of those who do still go into London on the roads, and slightly improved air quality - benefitting everyone who spends any time in London and therefore has to breathe the air. Seems quite sensible to me.
In my view the craziness was Boris Johnson reducing the scope of the congestion charge, thereby increasing pollution and reducing TfL's revenue, and then at the same time having to increase bus fares, in part to fill the revenue gap.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. Certainly many people are suggesting that *some* people who drive should go by train, but that's not the same as suggesting that *everyone* who drives should go by train.
Is anyone here saying you shouldn't have the choice?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The point was made several times on the Route Master programme that the streets of London were built in an earlier age when traffic was much less. It would be possible to provide road and parking space for everyone who wanted to go into London by car, in fact something like this was proposed in the Sixties. However there is the minor problem that it would involve demolishing most of central London, so nobody would want to go there any more!
All large high-density Western-type cities (most in Europe, some in America like New York and some more prosperous ones in other continents) rely on public transport to function. Road traffic is discouraged either by formal restrictions or by the amount of congestion. Without the public transport network they would be like many high-density cities in less advanced economies, where the streets are constantly choked, it is very difficult to travel more than walking distance, and increasing car ownership will probably push them into total gridlock in the near future if nothing is done. Many of these cities are building high capacity mass transit as quickly as they can afford.
There is an alternative model seen in most American cities, which are built around the car. With wide roads and extensive parking lots, the density of development becomes much lower and walking/cycling is virtually impossible. A city of this type sprawls over a much greater land area, which is perhaps acceptable in the States but would be difficult to imagine in the UK. Most of these cities are now also investing in mass transit, but the low density of development makes it difficult for a transit route to gather enough passengers to be worthwhile.
The congestion charge discourages people from driving in central London if they have an alternative, so making it easier for those with no alternative to get around. So it should really be welcomed by those who drive as well as by those who walk, cycle or go by bus. Arguably it should cover a larger area, but the further out it goes the more likely it will cover areas with less good public transport to provide an alternative.
The reality is that London needs to do whatever it can to encourage non-car travel. It can support a minority of "selfish" car users alongside essential users, but building enough roads and car parks for anyone who would really prefer to drive is not an option. Unless society is prepared to accept much more severe restrictions on driving in cities, it will continue to be restricted in reality by the fact that urban streets are always on the verge of gridlock.
All large high-density Western-type cities (most in Europe, some in America like New York and some more prosperous ones in other continents) rely on public transport to function. Road traffic is discouraged either by formal restrictions or by the amount of congestion. Without the public transport network they would be like many high-density cities in less advanced economies, where the streets are constantly choked, it is very difficult to travel more than walking distance, and increasing car ownership will probably push them into total gridlock in the near future if nothing is done. Many of these cities are building high capacity mass transit as quickly as they can afford.
There is an alternative model seen in most American cities, which are built around the car. With wide roads and extensive parking lots, the density of development becomes much lower and walking/cycling is virtually impossible. A city of this type sprawls over a much greater land area, which is perhaps acceptable in the States but would be difficult to imagine in the UK. Most of these cities are now also investing in mass transit, but the low density of development makes it difficult for a transit route to gather enough passengers to be worthwhile.
The congestion charge discourages people from driving in central London if they have an alternative, so making it easier for those with no alternative to get around. So it should really be welcomed by those who drive as well as by those who walk, cycle or go by bus. Arguably it should cover a larger area, but the further out it goes the more likely it will cover areas with less good public transport to provide an alternative.
The reality is that London needs to do whatever it can to encourage non-car travel. It can support a minority of "selfish" car users alongside essential users, but building enough roads and car parks for anyone who would really prefer to drive is not an option. Unless society is prepared to accept much more severe restrictions on driving in cities, it will continue to be restricted in reality by the fact that urban streets are always on the verge of gridlock.
Last edited:
anti-pacer
Established Member
I'm sorry, I don't buy this!
Looking at the 'live departure boards' for Bromley South for today, you not only have fast trains (16 mins) to Victoria, you have trains to Blackfriars, calling at Elephant & Castle. The latter service provides feasible connections at Elephant & Castle onto both the Bakerloo and Northern lines, between them serving a large part of North London, and connections at Blackfriars onto FCC services, again going north.
Most of South East London has direct rail services to London Bridge and Charing Cross, both of which have direct tube services to North London.
Lewisham, Deptford, Greenwich, and Woolwich have DLR services to Bank and/or Stratford, where connections to North London can easily be made by tube and LO respectively.
So what, you have to change trains! If I go to Ilkley, I have to change trains in Leeds, but it's still faster than by car. :roll:
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,274
The amount of car use in London, especially Central London, is I would suggest very low when compared with most world cities. And the congestion is nowhere near as bad, the majority of the major traffic problems are on the motorway network when there is a problem or the Blackwall tunnel, which is a major pinchpoint and completely inadequate, as it serves
both short distance traffic crossing the river, and the major round London trunk routes, due to the lack of other crossings, such as a direct link between the A406 and A2.
both short distance traffic crossing the river, and the major round London trunk routes, due to the lack of other crossings, such as a direct link between the A406 and A2.
anti-pacer
Established Member
I'll agree that SE London has poor road links to N & E London, but public transport links are not too bad.
Long gone are the days when it was a foot tunnel, a ferry and the 108 bus!
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,274
True, I was referring to road links (which include buses) as rail links across the Thames are massively better than they used to be. At one point it was just the East London line (which seemed to be permanently closed for maintenance at one point) or the DLR plus Greenwich foot tunnel!
Jubilee Line
DLR to Lewisham
DLR to Woolwich
Extended East Kondon Line
HS1
Crossrail to come
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I think it's a little more nuanced than this.
Radial journeys from SE London into central London (and from there to N London) are well served by trains.
For orbital journeys across the Thames, although the situation has vastly improved over the last 15 years, it's more problematic. The Overground is good but only for a subset of possible journeys, since within SE London the Overground only really serves the area around New Cross (before heading into S/SW London), and doesn't have many good connections with other services. If you live further East, you have the DLR, which has the advantage of running to Stratford (good connections to much of NE London). However, the DLR is slow, and only really suitable for quite short journeys. Crossrail will be great, but really just gives a new link into central London - it won't help that much with orbital journeys.
In short, there's a very substantial area of outer SE London, centered on Bexley, from where there is no realistic way to make an orbital journey to NE London by public transport. And worse, if the 'Bridge the Gap' campaign to build a road bridge from Thamesmead succeeds, it will mean that orbital journeys to/from this part of London will become extremely easy by road, yet remain very difficult by public transport, which I imagine will have very bad consequences for congestion, pollution, etc.
JackTheLad
Member
Don't forget from Bromley South during the week you have 2tph FCC and SE Thameslink services from Sevenoaks to Kentish Town via Catford and Peckham off peak, and St Albans, Luton, and Bedford in the peaks which all cross London from South to North
It may mean some bus routes on both sides of the river may be extended to cover those areas not reached before.
The DLR may be 'slow' but it does open up new connections for Bexley residents who use the Greenwich line from Woolwich Arsenal and Crossrail will take off some of the pressure from Southeastern metro services west of Abbey Wood.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,274
Isn't the difference between rail and road, that as rail isn't affected by congestion in the same way, it would be just as quick to take a train into the centre, and then one out the other side, whereas to drive in to Central London then out again would take an eternity? Clapham to Highbury would be more convenient by Overground, but little quicker than going through Central London, for example, whereas the same couldn't be said about the same road journey.
JackTheLad
Member
I live in Bexley and at the weekend can drive via the A2, Blackwall Tunnel, and Limehouse Link and be parked on John Adam Street (by Charing Cross Station) in 25 minutes, the train from Bexley to Charing Cross takes just shy of 40mins. This can't be said in the daytime during the week obviously.
Even Bexley has 2 very well used busy bus routes which only see 2 buses per hour during the day and 1 bus per hour in the evening on the 492 and B12 which is extremely rare to see on a tfl contracted route these days. Transport in the borough just seems to be poor in general, or just uneven as the north of the borough seems to fair pretty well. 9 times out of 10 if I can drive to where I'm going I will, if the public transport was better then maybe I would change my mind.
But it does bring me on to the fact that the Via Sidcup line seems to be the poor relation of the 3 Dartford lines unfortunately. 4 trains an hour London bound (excusing the 2tph Cannon St loop via Woolwich in the opposite direction) hardly seems fair when the Bexleyheath line has 6tph and the Woolwich line receives 10tph respectively. And the Sidcup line seems to be lucky if the train exceeds 4 cars which is chokka by New Eltham. In no means is this as bad as the Catford Loop line with it's 2tph all day which suffered having it's Luton Thameslink trains cut in the 90s which even though have been reinstated since 2009 only sees the benefit of cross London trains on a weekday but curtailed to Blackfriars in the late evenings and weekends. I'm sure this will improve once the Thameslink program is complete in 2018 but still is a long way off. I believe the Catford Loop line is the only line in the metro area to receive only 2tph now, since the Orpington - Victoria via Herne Hill line got a service boost to 4tph a couple of years back.
anti-pacer
Established Member
hock:Using Google Maps generic "Bexley", it reckons 35 minutes (if clear) and a distance of 15.8 miles. Obviously not after your home address, but what figure does it quote from your house? Is that 25 minutes obeying all speed limits?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Those are valid, correct points. I don't think they alter my argument though, since a large number of people are unlikely to use buses or will only use them for very short journeys (because they are so slow and often uncomfortable). The DLR does provide good connections to the Woolwich rail line, but that line only serves a fairly narrow corridor along the Thames.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
FYI the Woolwich line has only 6 stopping trains per hour, plus two Gillingham trains which only stop at a few stations (and further west, run via Blackheath-Lewisham). Obviously still a far better service than the Sidcup line gets. I don't know whether that's fair or not, but between Woolwich Arsenal and London, the Woolwich line trains are usually very busy.
A bridge is needed at Thamesmead but should absolutely include provision for a DLR/Tram/London Overground Goblin line extension from Barking over the river. Ideally the DLR could run over - either an extension or shuttle. Alongside that would be a plethora of bus routes. It would be a massive boost. There's lots of areas of Bexley borough with dire public transport by London standards. There's also lots of housing planned north of the river around the Royal Docks and Dagenham, and south in Thamesmead, Erith, Slade Green etc.
At the very least express buses could run over the bridge alongside slow stopping buses. Both could run north to south across Bexley borough.
At the very least express buses could run over the bridge alongside slow stopping buses. Both could run north to south across Bexley borough.
Last edited:
JackTheLad
Member
Yea sorry I also counted the Cannon St via Sidcup trains on the live departure boards at Wooolwich Arsenal by accident which made it 10tph. I get your point about Higher demand from Woolwich but compared to the other Dartford lines, on the Woolwich line there are the onward connections with the DLR at both Woolwich and Greenwich as you've mentioned, and will have the Crossrail connection from Abbey Wood and Woolwich which will boost service in that area even more leaving the rest of the borough neglected by London standards.
I do drive and park at the o2 sometimes and get the Jubilee line in to town, or by river with Thames Clippers. Maybe to reduce congestion in the Blackwall Tunnel they could turn one of the o2's massive overflow car parks and operate a park and ride scheme using the tube and river.
- Status