The branch line from Grove Park to Bromley North is only one and a half miles long. It has but two stations (excluding Grove Park itself) and those two are ridiculously close to each other. Traffic by London standards is pretty minimal and indeed there is no service on Sundays. Despite this, the branch attracts attention like no other in London because of the conviction of many people from the Mayor downwards that this is really an under-utilised asset that could be used more effectively. Here we take a brief look at the history and the options that are talked about and see how realistic they are.
A sensible location for a station
Bromley North is a natural rail head. Next to the station is the bus station where many routes terminate. There is also quite a large potential catchment area with no obvious alternative station for passengers who want to go to the City rather than the West End. More to the point, Bromley is a large town that would naturally be expected to have a good rail service to London and, given that a station in the town centre would raise a number of problems, the logical place for a station is to the north of the town which is closer to London.
Nowadays A Quiet Branch Line
The branch is not especially busy. It is easy to quote figures for station usage but on their own these are fairly meaningless. To put the usage in context, Bromley South (a major station) is almost ten times busier than Bromley North. The nature the traffic at the two stations is completely different however as Bromley South is busy throughout the week whilst Bromley North is primarily a rush-hour station.
Elmstead Woods station is located in a rural setting about 2 km NE of Bromley North. Instinct would tell you that it would be much quieter than Bromley North but even that station manages almost double the passenger traffic. This is probably explained by the fact that, being on the main line, the service is much better.
The only other station on the branch is Sundridge Park. It is so close to Bromley North that the ‘home’ signal for Bromley North that tells the driver which platform he is entering is actually located on the down platform at Sundridge Park. Surprisingly, despite being so close to Bromley North, it has about half the number of passengers that Bromley North has. Like Bromley North the vast majority are classified as season ticket holders. Although busier than one might have expected, it is still a very quiet station outside peak hours. In the wider context of South London surburbia, Sundridge Park would probably be a strong candidate for one of the dozen least used stations.
A Very Short History
The line from Grove Park to Bromley North (then just called Bromley) opened in 1878. It was double track from the start suggesting that reasonable traffic levels were expected. Although gradients weren’t especially steep it was on a continually rising slope all the way to the Bromley terminus. This would not have been that much of a problem for the steam engines on passenger trains at least as they were unlikely to be hauling many carriages and the only intermediate station was initially just a private halt.
The original station
By all accounts the original station at Bromley was pretty awful
The diplomatically-written history of the station on the Kentrail website states that:
the SER had entered its ‘economical’ era of station construction, when buildings were erected at modest cost
The Railway Magazine for July 1929 is not so polite when referring to the rebuilding of Sundridge Park as a public station:
One might have thought that the opportunity would have been taken to reconstruct the Bromley terminus at the same time, for a more undignified and out of date station would be hard to find, consisting as it did of a wooden shed for the booking office and waiting room, and another for the goods office, with a disused railway carriage as extra office space.
Given that there would have been more competition from the recently rebuilt Bromley South station (now with four platforms) at the other side of town, it is strange that such a state of affairs was allowed to exist.
One possible explanation is that the South Eastern Railway wasn’t really interested in passenger numbers and built the branch line either for goods traffic or to establish territory in the way that railway companies did at the time. Another more intriguing one is that the company still had hopes of implementing an 1865 proposal to tunnel under part of Bromley and continue onward to Hayes. Given that Bromley North is located on considerably higher ground than Bromley South, this would have almost certainly necessitated complete abandonment of the existing terminus and possibly the station at Sundridge Park as well.
The Service in the early days
It appears that from the early days the railway company ran a decent-enough service. Some trains ran all the way to Charing Cross or Cannon Street, whilst others provided a shuttle “connecting (or otherwise)” at Grove Park. There appeared to be an intriguing third category and that was trains that were worked through as rear portions of slow main-line trains which divided at Grove Park.
Incredibly, a letter in the Railway Magazine in 1929 refers to the year 1905 and a description of an all stations to Hastings train detaching a rear portion of the train at Grove Park for Bromley North. This would appear to be a ridiculous imposition and delay to inflict on the Hastings passengers whose journey would have been quite long enough anyway. All this just to save the need for a few passengers using a London branch line from having to change trains. Around eighty years later the Hastings Line would get its revenge.
The coming of Southern Electric
In 1923 the railways of Britain were amalgamated into “the big four”. In the next few years Southern showed a remarkable degree of ambitious but business-like management and rationalisation of the lines now owned. This was true rationalisation which involved best practice and consistency across the territory not the 1980s euphemism for cutbacks.
One of Southern Railway’s early decisions was to completely rebuild Bromley North station. The passenger station building including passenger platforms was brought into use by the end of 1925 and completed several months later.
The current station in 2012. Thanks to Phil Richards for allowing us to use this. According to a comment cited by Tom Burnham on the flickr page this was “replacing a wooden shack which … was called the worst station on the South Eastern Railway, but only by people who had never been to Dungeness.”
Modernisation did not end with the station. Southern’s 3rd rail electrification of the suburban lines into Charing Cross and Cannon Street was proceeding apace and by July 1926 full electric services were running. During the rush hours there were four trains each way (two to Cannon St and two to Charing Cross) and presumably eight carriages long.
At this time the service must have been beneficial to both passengers and railway management and such a service would not have been run if there wasn’t a demand for it. One attraction for the railway company must have been the ability to provide seats for large numbers of people at inner suburban stations without having to run a near-empty train to a far-flung destination. Moreover, it must have been one of the rare cases where rolling stock could manage more than one out-and-back journey in the peak hours which were of considerably shorter duration those days.
A Decline from 1976 but not because of lack of demand
All in all the service was popular, at least in peak hours, until 1976. Although Bromley South offered more frequent and faster services it was Bromley North that offered the better service to the city.
In 1976 Southern’s “Operation London Bridge” signalling scheme came into effect. This created problems when it came to pathing the Bromley North trains. The connection at Grove Park was to the fast lines. At least in the down direction the Bromley North trains would have to call at Grove Park using the otherwise-little-used fast platforms and hold up following fast trains. From Grove Park to Hither Green trains would either have to use the fast lines and do the same at Hither Green (or miss out the stop) or cross on the flat to and from the slow lines. The latter was not desirable because one of the main objectives of the resignalling scheme was to avoid crossing the main line on the flat on the approach to London.
The scenario then got worse. If the train stayed on the fast lines on its way up to London it would then find itself on the Charing Cross lines and have no means of calling at Lewisham, St Johns or New Cross. So Bromley North passengers would get a lovely fast service but hardly one to justify ten-carriage trains.
There was a simple (in railway operating terms) solution to this – just get rid of the through trains and run a shuttle. This was not feasible, in terms of adverse passenger reaction, in the peak hours but this was implemented for all off-peak services. This more-or-less doomed the branch to be little used off-peak. A factor that must have contributed to this was the existence of two reasonably frequent bus services between Bromley North and Grove Park. Why wait for a half-hourly shuttle when a bus will get you to Grove Park, where the trains are more frequent?
It was clear that Southern Region wanted to get rid of their through trains. During this period a vociferous local railway users association was set up to resist cuts to the peak-hour through service.
The end of a through service is inevitable
By the 1980’s Southern Region were coming under more and more pressure to find slots for the increasing number of long-distance commuters. In 1986 the Hastings line was finally electrified and the rather unsatisfactory narrow-bodied Hastings DEMUs replaced by EMUs. The old DEMUs were an operating pain in that they could not accelerate as fast as an EMU and they were also disliked by customers. The EMUs were more popular and that, as well as faster journey times, led to increased usage on the line.
A 4-car class 465 at Bromley North. Normally these would only be used in peak periods with a 2-car class 466 more than adequate to handle the very limited off-peak traffic. Thanks to Matt Buck for permission to use this.
In the end it was inevitable. It was extremely hard to give preference to through Bromley North trains that just got in the way of everything over long distance trains carrying commuters who pay four-figure amounts for their season tickets. The through service was withdrawn in 1990 and the direct connections with the up and down fast line platforms at Grove Park were removed shortly afterwards.
Looking south east from the branch platform. It has been more than twenty years since there has been a direct connection to the adjacent fast lines.
A possible ray of hope dashed
By now the only possible glimmer of hope for a restored through service was if demand in the inner suburbs made it necessary to run some short workings into London to provide the necessary capacity. Whilst Bromley North was hardly ideal as an originating point for such a service, there wasn’t anywhere else very suitable either.
Of all things, it was the Channel Tunnel that put an end to that possibility. When trains were planned to run through the Channel Tunnel, the main proposed route through Kent was via Orpington. It was realised that there would a potential problem because trains often terminated there in one of the four through platforms. This would be awkward as Orpington would be the last place where it was possible to delay a domestic train so that the Eurostar train could have priority on the two track line down to Sevenoaks. Mainly for this reason, in the early 1990s new terminating platforms 7 and 8 were built on the down side of the station adjacent to the slow lines.
Platforms 6, 7 and 8 at Orpington are ideal platforms for terminating all-stations trains. Thanks to Nigel Chadwick for allowing us to use this photo.
If one were to run a service to ensure that passengers at Grove Park and Hither Green could get on a train in the peak periods one would far rather terminate it at Orpington in preference to Bromley North. The extra running time would be at most six minutes and there would be a virtual absence of conflicting movements.
Recent developments
The December 2011 timetable introduced a 20 minute interval off peak service. This is easily achievable for 2 car trains on a line with a journey time of just five minutes. It is not entirely benefical as it is a 20 minute service feeding into an off-peak timetable based on half-hour and quarter hour frequencies. Off-peak connnection times for trains to London are either 4, 5 or a whopping 13 minutes. It appears that the trains could still be described as “connecting (or otherwise)”.
The situation today
Whilst the future of the branch is secure it is now hardly ideal. For a start the shuttle service terminates at platform 1 at Grove Park but other services depart from platform 4 or 5 so changing trains is not trivial. With so many people changing trains it is probably impossible to get a seat at Grove Park in the morning rush-hour. In fact you would be doing well to get on the first train that arrives. Leisure traffic to Bromley is probably limited by the fact that the modern shopping centre is a five minute walk from the station and involves crossing a busy road.
It is time to look at the alternatives. The main suggestions, with varying degrees of official support are: conversion to tram, extend the DLR from Lewisham to join it and extend the London Overground from New Cross to join it.
Conversion to Tram
Shortly after Croydon Tramlink opened and was judged a success, it was natural that people looked around for somewhere else to emulate this. The Bromley North branch was an obvious choice with many similarities to the Addiscombe branch. Suggestions either used the Bromley North branch as the basis of a new tram system or by various convoluted routes proposed somehow joining it to Croydon Tramlink. Unfortunately the Bromley North branch is very different in character from the lines that made up Tramlink, excepting perhaps the original Elmers End – Addiscombe branch, the southern half of which was abandoned and is now a linear park. It is really difficult to see the potential for more than one additional stop (New Street Hill is the only obvious candidate) and a line that skirts the edge of Sundridge Park golf course for much of its route and also adjoins playing fields and a cemetery doesn’t have the potential for traffic that the Croydon Tramlink, which mainly passes through built up areas, does.
Significantly no suggestions have come from Bromley or Lewisham council, and West London Tram has shown what happens if you don’t have the local council at least supporting (and preferably leading) the project.
Extend the DLR from Lewisham to Bromley
An investigation into the possibility of extending the DLR to Bromley was the surprise suggestion of Mayor Johnson in his manifesto during the most recent mayoral elections. Whilst this has some initial attraction it is not obvious that this would generate any significant extra local traffic. If you could continue northwards from Bromley beyond Grove Park then it would appear that a single-track route to just short of Hither Green could be made by moving the NR tracks over to the east. It is hard to see how that route can be continued to join the DLR at Lewisham.
View from the branch platform looking towards London. Nowadays this is the only connection to the branch line. Any plan for the DLR to take over the branch would probably involve punching a route beyond the buffers. This would be difficult and an engineering challenge but not impossible. The picture is deceptive and the overbridge is much wider than it appears to be.
From the other direction it is difficult to see how the DLR continue south from Lewisham. A viaduct for the DLR over Lewisham National rail station would be almost impossible and unsightly and going underground would be extremely problematic.
The orientation of the DLR terminus was carefully chosen to enable a continuation south, with Catford seen as a likely destination. It was recognised that such an extension would only be possible in the event that the borough of Lewisham went ahead with its proposals to reroute the A20 and bring the heart of the town centre nearer the station. It would still seem that this is the only realistic way that the DLR can be extended southward without abandoning its existing terminus.
This picture, showing the Ravensbourne in the foreground, is taken with the A20 behind the camera and is in alignment with route of the DLR. If extended it needs to cross the Ravensbourne and will probably need to go underground at the first opportunity.
The problem is that Lewisham have now published their proposals and there is no provision for southward extension of the DLR. The options for routeing the DLR southward would appear to be very limited and to be realistic would probably need to form an integral part of any future development. Given how advanced the plans are it would appear there is little chance of the DLR going further south unless there was a major intervention by the Mayor to overrule Lewisham’s proposals.
There does not appear to be any provision for a southward extension of the DLR in Lewisham council’s plan for regeneration of the area.
Extend the London Overground from New Cross to Bromley
The idea of extending the Overground to Bromley has has one good thing going for it – there would be a suitable match of traffic levels. More critically you wouldn’t overload the East London line. A four (or five) car train every fifteen minutes is the sort of traffic level one would be looking to run on the Bromley North branch.
The problem is that the Network Rail lines between Hither Green and New Cross are extremely busy. Even in 1958, when the report of the Lewisham Rail Disaster came out, the inspector wrote:
[W]ith the electrification and new signalling it became possible to run many more trains and, the four track main line through St Johns is now one of the busiest in the world
More recently Network Rail’s Summary Route Plan for Kent states that:
The route between Orpington and London Bridge operates at maximum capacity during peak times.
It therefore seems that no more peak period trains can be run between Hither Green and New Cross. Network Rail are moving towards a goal of making sure all trains are at their maximum length possible when occupying critical sections of track in peak hours. One just cannot see them agreeing to run five car units in each direction every fifteen minutes in peak hours along this section of track. These would not only to take up valuable slots currently used by packed trains, but also generate conflicting movements between lines where there are none currently. It should not be forgotten that the whole reason for withdrawing the branch trains in the first place was to free up slots on this section of track.
One alternative would be a dedicated track to bridge the divide, but even if this were possible it would be very expensive and not cost effective. Once any significant length of new tunnel is involved the costs would be completely disproportionate to any benefit. The only hope is if an additional track, or tracks, could be justified on the basis of a number of benefits of which linking up to the Bromley North branch was just one.
A sober realistic conclusion
It is really hard to see anything radical that can be done in practice to increase usage of the Bromley North branch when considered as a standalone project. It does seem another problem destined for the “too hard” pile. Perhaps a better idea is simply to single the completely unnecessary double track when the track comes up for renewal and then radically simplify the signalling so that the line can be run as economically as possible without affecting the quality of service. Then one day in the distant future maybe, just maybe, a radical scheme will evolve to relieve the railway congestion in inner south east London and, with the train paths released, the through trains from Bromley North to London can be reinstated or incorporated into a grand new scheme.
In the meantime the line will continue to stand out as the only remaining suburban shuttle service in London that is south of the river. Something future LR Quiz entrants would perhaps do well to mentally note…
The reason it is not heavily used – it isn’t rocket science – is the poor connection at grove park (times do not marry up at all) and/or the absence of a through train. Work out how to fit in a direct service and lots more would use this, especially with all the redevelopment. People prefer and favour trains from BMS because trains from Bromley South to Victoria AND a tube back the other way are quicker! SE’s brain cells are out looking for one another.
@Anonymous: There are good reasons for running it as a shuttle. Please read the comments above and you’ll see why…
Actually under the tarmac of the down ramp from the bus station at Grove Park is still the old filled in tram line but ol’ Boris has plans for that shed and its called housing…
As a kid, I remember asking about why there was overhead wire poles right up to the Bromley/Lewisham border, of the same period as those along Downham way but no one seemed to know why.
The platform 3 crossover to the branch at Grove Park was always troublesome and drivers would report “skidding” on that point set, a kind of cringeworthy sound made as the rerailer sets the wheel back on the rail.
I do remember the weekend they started stopping trains at Lewisham from Grove Park, surprisingly that extra stop wasn’t always on the route and my father who was a London Bridge signalman on that side of the box said it caused immense scheduling nightmares hence why it was weekends only at first and the traffic from GP to Lewisham has always been less than moderate and didn’t open wide the expected revenue simply as the buses from Grove Park went to the places people wanted to go, whether Catford, Lewisham High St or Lee so if the railways simply ceased traffic to Lewisham say in the peak times, it would lessen the already crowded lines there anyway and allow a more dedicated peak service from the branch with windows for the through trains that people want.
Alternatively, platform 2 was never used unless I was late for work and a fast Hastings would find itself at a red conveniently after a call to ones father and platform 3 infrequently as the southbound to Orpington traffic always went down on 5 and up on 4. Passengers were so remote that Eric or Ken who worked there never unlocked the toilets or the waiting room on 2/3.
Trouble is, like so many prime rail sites, the developers have their beady eyes on a lot of land that isn’t theirs, the site alone of Bromley North would be worth billions in development and all that trackbed down to Kings Meadow would be prime prime housing land, their view is there is already a station to London and plenty of buses too, people say it would never happen but once upon a time, the old heathland between the line and Sundridge Park golf course was protected, then came some tennis courts and now its all gone and I heard they want to snick off the little triangle of park between the two lines at Chinbrook Meadows for housing now.
@Ian W
“As a kid, I remember asking about why there was overhead wire poles right up to the Bromley/Lewisham border, of the same period as those along Downham way but no one seemed to know why.”
The border was the boundary between the counties of London and Kent. Before London Transport brought them altogether, LCC trams had standardised on conduit collection, where most other operators in the home counties (in this case I think South Metropolitan Electric Tramways rather than a municpal) used overhead wires.
@Ian W – To add to timbeau’s reply, the whole of the Downham tram route lay within the LCC boundary. I wonder whether what you thought were overhead wire poles were, in fact, the very common occurrence of poles opposite one another in just the same way as tramway overhead wire poles, but supported the centrally-suspended gas lamps. I have definite photographic evidence of them at Rushey Green, Catford and at Lewisham Town Hall, for example.
An example (albeit in Greenwich) is here:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/3089623207_143fdccc71_b.jpg
@IanW et al. The LCC’s intention was to further extend the Downham – Grove Park tram line (54) down Burnt Ash Lane and along the South Circular to connect up with the Westhorne Avenue route (72) in Eltham, which opened around the same time (1929-31, IIRC). This would provide an outer orbital connection between the Catford/Lewisham and Lee Green/Eltham routes, and I think the aim was to link the new Downham housing estate with ’employment opportunities’ in Eltham and Woolwich.
I believe the LCC had already obtained the powers before the tramways were subsumed into London Transport in July 1933, and were about to start work – which may be why the overhead poles had already been installed on some of the route. As history turned out, the LPTB was dominated by the former Combine interests, which had an anti-tram policy, so the extension was cancelled in favour of phased abandonment, which in the case of the Grove Park route was delayed for a decade by the war.
@Chris J -the first section of the Westhorne Avenue route was completed in 1932, but as early as March 1933, the LCC was advising that because of the LPTB Bill, nothing would be done by them about the remainder of the route, and as early as September, TE Thomas was notifying the LCC that the road would be covered by trolleybuses – later amended to refer also to motorbuses. The trameay powers then lapsed. It’s most unlikely that either the LCC and certainly not LPTB, spent any money on poles at this stage.
@ChrisJ
I stand corrected – I had assumed the LCC/Kent boundary became the Lewisham/Bromley one.
“the former Combine interests, which had an anti-tram policy, ”
The Combine had already started replacing trams with trolleybuses by 1933, but there was no definite plan at that time to go the whole hog – hence the new “Feltham” tram design. However, very early in LT days it was decided to convert everything to trolleybus – and indeed LT did not build a single new tram – even at the end nineteen years later every one of its trams had been inherited from the LCC, other municipals and private companies like LUT and the MET. The job was completed in 1952, with the trolleybuses only lasting another ten years.
Most trolleybus routes were simple conversions of the tram routes, with very little extension of the system except where necessary to allow them to turn round.
@IanW
I am a bit confused by your reference to tram lines and Grove Park Bus Station. The tramway terminated in the middle of the road at the end of Downham Way. The OS 1:1250 map of the area, accessible from the National Library of Scotland’s excellent website and dating from the late 1940s, clearly shows this. The Bus Station was built around the corner in Baring Road, on what appears to be allotment land, as part of the Tram Replacement Programme. It is a small open site, all built at street level. The only building is the former canteen which has remained locked and out of use since privatisation. There is nowhere to build housing, especially as it is a working bus terminus.
@ Timbeau
The same map shows the London/Kent County boundary, coterminous with the Lewisham Metropolitan/Bromley Municipal Borough boundary as being at the south end of Bromley Hill (the top) between Avondale Road and Kings Avenue. The current boundary has moved slightly to the north of Avondale Road, then along the middle of Bromley Hill northwards for about 150 meters before branching westwards. I assume that this changed with the creation of the GLC in 1965 but cannot find any immediate detail about it.
I just noticed that trains are running direct from Bromley North to London Charing Cross, London Bridge and Cannon Street this Saturday May 30th. Is it a test from Southeastern or are they making this service permanent on Saturdays?
Anonymous,
Don’t get excited. A quick look at the National Rail website shows that the line is closed between Grove Park and Petts Wood for Engineering work so the Charing Cross – Orpington trains are diverted to Bromley North and, obviously the shuttle has been cancelled.
Not sure what happened today but next week both the Charing Cross – Orpington and Cannon St – Sevenoaks trains are diverted. Note that both platforms will be in use at Bromley North as trains alternate between platforms – rare indeed.
@PoP: The point motor will probably fail…. 😉
I’ve been meaning to comment on this article for a while, so here goes…..
As we all know, Bromley Council aren’t too keen on a Bakerloo line takeover of the Hayes line. In their official response to the consultation (reported by the News Shopper), they reiterated their preference for a DLR/LO extension using the Bromley North branch. They did though state an interest in the spur from Beckenham Junction being extended underground into Bromley Town, as long as mainline trains could still share the Hayes branch (let’s not go any further into deconstructing why this is a ridiculous suggestion, at least not in this thread!).
As I’ve said in the Bakerloo line thread, the Bromley councillors don’t seem to know or understand why DLR/LO to Bromley North is probably unviable, for all of the reasons mentioned above. I have seriously considered writing to the council leader, with a reference to this webpage, in order to ‘educate’ him and his colleagues about this, but lack of time (and a reluctance to get LR involved in local politics without permission!) has so far stopped me.
One thing has struck me though (and I did actually suggest this in my response to the TfL consultation)…..if for whatever reason a takeover of the Hayes branch doesn’t happen, would the Bromley North branch be a suitable candidate south of Lewisham for takeover by the Bakerloo? Of course you wouldn’t release any extra capacity on the main line by doing this, but I strongly suspect this proposal might be easier to sell to Bromley council if they remain firmly set against ‘Haykerloo’. There would also be less scope for financial contributions along this part of the route from property developers, and would require extra tunnelling to reach Grove Park (perhaps with an intermediate station at Lee Green). Passengers would though finally get a direct service into town (albeit the West End), with accompanying improved interchanges at Grove Park/Lewisham/E&C if they want the City or Docklands.
I suppose at the end of the day what I really wish for is for the tube to reach Bromley Borough in some shape or form….whether that is using the Hayes branch or Bromley North branch doesn’t really matter to me, as long as it gets there!
Anonymously,
I suppose at the end of the day what I really wish for is for the tube to reach Bromley Borough in some shape or form….
But why? What can the tube deliver that SouthEastern (or its successors) potentially can’t? Surely any appropriate investment should be directed at the most beneficial solution? The Bromley North branch is subject to the same arguments as other potential Bakerloo line extensions. If it fills the trains up and prevents others boarding further as the train gets nearer London then what is the point? Conversely, if it doesn’t can it really be seen to be worthwhile doing it?
Would a tube extension be necessarily better than doing what it takes to get the London Overground extended from New Cross to Bromley North? This may involve some tunnelling but may have the advantage of having some track that can be shared with SouthEastern trains. If London Overground goes to 6tph on all branches from the early 2020s and introduces 6-car trains shortly thereafter then should this not also be a consideration?
It is back to the same old questions. What issue are you trying to resolve? Would this be the best solution? And I would add, is there a danger of going for a solution now when it may jeopardise a far better solution that may come along in future?
Looking at it another way, if there is no willingness to provide at least 15 minute service now with good connections at Grove Park then how can we justify a complete tube extension?
In the not too distant future, TfL wants to achieve their objective of getting 6pth off-peak run on high-usage routes south of the river and this would probably include Charing Cross/Cannon St – Orpington. If there really is any potential demand along the Bromley North Branch then 6tph could relatively cheaply be achieved by an extra 2-car unit (maybe 4-car in the peak) and employing extra drivers to cover the one extra driver at any given time needed to provide this service. This could probably be achieved in far shorter timescale. It would also give significant benefits assuming that there was any real demand for the service and it would show whether there really was any potential in including the Bromley North branch in some future bigger scheme.
@PoP
If London Overground goes to 6tph on all branches from the early 2020s and introduces 6-car trains shortly thereafter then should this not also be a consideration?
At the risk of going slightly off-topic, are 6-car trains a serious aspiration? This would mean a lot of work between Surray Quays and Whitechapel if so.
Ian Sergeant,
Well according to the 2050 Transport Supporting Paper it is. Admittedly it has a date of 2029 so not quite “shortly thereafter” but it does say “£300 million including platform extensions”. I have heard earlier dates suggested and with the population rise and other projects having been brought forward to cater for this I do not think it implausible it will happen earlier.
What significant work would be involved at Whitechapel? I would have thought it would be absolutely minimal. The current stairs which result in SDO at present are only temporary and will be gone by the time Crossrail trains call there.
@PoP
Hard to know what is behind the hoardings at Whitechapel, but I’ll take your word for it. We’ve discussed the issues at Canada Water, Wapping and Rotherhithe before, and this needs a lot more than platform extensions, even if there is a £300m budget (I know a lot of that goes on extra cars). I can’t see how this can be done without a protracted blockade, and then what happens when people want 8-car trains?
Ian Sergeant,
I don’t know the answers. I can only point you to official TfL/Mayoral pronouncements on the subject. Time to move on.
@PoP:
” If it fills the trains up and prevents others boarding further as the train gets nearer London then what is the point?”
That argument boils down to: “We can’t build it because it would be too popular!” Which is a peculiarly British application of illogic when it comes to building anything of consequence, not just infrastructure.
That said, given the low population density of this area, I’m not convinced that would happen. Chances are that Lewisham would be the key issue, not Bromley. (In any case, opening a Tube line to Bromley won’t remove the South Eastern and Chatham main lines that already serve the borough. This is additional capacity. It’s not as if the Bromley North branch is flooded by passengers at the moment. 2-4 tph is a long, long way from 24 tph.)
Well Anomnibus it seems perfectly logical to me. No point in rebuilding something that was already used so that now Y can use it but not X, as previously. As a Briton I not regard this as being perceptive not as being illogical.
Extending a service from Elephant & Castle to Bromley North does not create additional capacity except locally. It doesn’t mean that more trains (tube or on National Rail) will go to central London – just the same trains will start from further out. We are back to the argument about is there any point in extending the Bakerloo beyond Lewisham – discussed many times and a repeat performance is not needed.
I agree that I really can’t see Bromley North being in the 24tph league. To my mind the most one can reasonably expect is enhanced turn up & go – 6tph. The frequency would be primarily determined by the minimum acceptable desirable frequency not the number of passengers using it. The fact that you could probably run 6tph for only marginally higher cost than 4tph is a factor here. A decent shuttle service and lifts at Grove Park to make interchange easier is the most one could reasonably initially expect.
@Anomnibus
Given funding challenges, and given that any Bakerloo extension will already have absorbed its excess capacity south of Waterloo by extending to Lewisham, I can’t see how the Bakerloo can go to either Bromley North or Hayes. As PoP said earlier, an overground extension could work – it creates realistic opportunities for people to live in Bromley Town and work in Canary Wharf. That is currently a two change journey with a 3tph service to/from Bromley North, hardly attractive for commuters.
Bromley North to Grove Park would make for lovely preserved railway in weekends with a shuttle service during the week, if only they hadn’t built those houses where you’d have to put the reversing loop….
Damned short sighted!
@ PoP 0947 – surely part of the response to your “but why?” is one of perception. Yes people moan about tube strikes and overcrowding but the Tube is perceived as being a quick and very high frequency service that runs every day bar one from early morning to late at night. It’s part and parcel of a dynamic capital city and is seen as being essential to its success. It isn’t perceived as being run as a capitalist money grabbing machine but still as a public service. With the best will in the world South Eastern is seen as being dire, backwards, unhelpful, expensive, uncaring and definitely not interested in London at all. Why would anyone want to support South Eastern’s suburban services in the same way as people support, even love, the Tube? Has anyone posting on this blog ever said anything like “I really love South Eastern’s trains” – nope! Do we have people drooling over the prospects of new tube trains, new tube lines and even having the 72 stock reach its 65th birthday – yep!
I don’t disagree at all with the stark logic that you, and the Treasury number crunchers, apply to the basic issue. However that is all rather irrelevant to people who live in Bromley who are fed up with infrequent, “useless” train services (when compared to the tube). They want something better and their perception, having had Boris dangle a Bakerloo shaped carrot in front of them, is that that equals the Tube. Anyway I don’t think the poor souls in Bromley will see the tube, DLR or Overground ever reach the centre of their Borough because local politics vs the respective business cases will make it all fail anyway. They’re just going to put up with what they’ve got now. Sorry.
@PoP
“Would a tube extension be necessarily better than doing what it takes to get the London Overground extended from New Cross to Bromley North?”
I don’t understand your argument here, since it contradicts what you say in your own article above!!!!! In quote, to respond to your point:
‘It therefore seems that no more peak period trains can be run between Hither Green and New Cross……One just cannot see [Network Rail] agreeing to run five car units in each direction every fifteen minutes in peak hours along this section of track. These would not only to take up valuable slots currently used by packed trains, but also generate conflicting movements between lines where there are none currently…….One alternative would be a dedicated track to bridge the divide, but even if this were possible it would be very expensive and not cost effective. Once any significant length of new tunnel is involved the costs would be completely disproportionate to any benefit.’
“What can the tube deliver that SouthEastern (or its successors) potentially can’t?”
The best way of answering this is to quote from Tim’s post on the Fleet Line page:
‘(disclaimer: a pissed off commuter stranded halfway between Ravensbourne and Bromley North stations, desperately wishing for an adequate service to London Bridge, along with the rest of the area!)’
Granted, the Bakerloo line wouldn’t take you to London Bridge, but it would take you to plenty of places with a one stop interchange to there (at E&C, or Grove Park/Lewisham if you really wanted). It would also have two major new benefits that you barely acknowledge: direct trains to Central London *on an alternative, non-National Rail route* (people really do hate SouthEastern that much!); and a more frequent, true turn-up-and-go service. You may not be able to imagine 24 tph on the current branch any more than one could have imagined 8 tph on the Wimbledon to Croydon line in the early 90s. And look what happened there once a better service was provided!
I strongly suspect the Bromley North branch has a lot of suppressed demand around it due to people who don’t use it due to the lack of a through service. Increasing the frequency of the shuttle (assuming you could get that through the bureaucratic nightmare of today’s railway franchising process) therefore might not work, unless it is a through service. As for traffic levels, I doubt that the traffic levels would prevent boarding at Lewisham or other stations further north (three or four extra stations at most, compared to 10 with a Hayes line takeover), especially since quite a few will change at Lewisham to get to the Docklands. Besides, the consultation mentioned that not all trains are currently planned to go past Lewisham.
In summary then, to answer your question, “What problem[s] are you trying to solve?”
– The Bromley North is an under-utilised transport asset, with a lot of suppressed demand due to the lack of a frequent through service.
– Extending DLR/LO/Tramlink to use it are not viable, for the reasons explained in your article.
– There is now a firm proposal to extend the Bakerloo line at least to Lewisham, and possibly beyond. But extending it to Hayes may end up as too politically tricky, whatever it’s other major benefits (let’s not rehearse the arguments again in this thread).
-Terminating all trains at Lewisham in a subterranean terminus may create other issues (i.e. where do you put the extra depot or train stabling sidings?).
– Grove Park is about 3 miles south of Lewisham as the crow flies.
– Planning issues aside, there is space along the line for a depot and/or sidings (either next to Bromley North station itself, or between Grove Park and Sundridge Park).
– It might be easier to get Bromley Council on board with a Bakerloo takeover to Bromley North instead of to Hayes, as long as someone patiently explains to them the difficulties of a DLR/LO extension.
Extending the Bakerloo line to Bromley North (with perhaps one intermediate tube station) would therefore seem to solve quite a few problems! I will put my crayons away now….
@WW….. :(.
To quote a certain POTUS….YES WE CAN! It just needs belief and leadership (quantities in short supply in this day and age, I admit).
To clarify, I meant one intermediate tube station between Lewisham and Grove Park (i.e. at Lee Green).
Some interesting notions here about public perception and its influence on the political mind. When I saw Tim’s post about waiting for a decent service I knew exactly what he meant. I seem to remember a debate on here a while back about how it didn’t matter that a 4tph split between Charing Cross and Cannon Street (effectively giving only a 2tph service) didn’t matter, as on the return from town if one missed the train one could take the first train to London Bridge and change for the train originating at the other terminus. Sounds great in theory, but the reality is that unless you can time it perfectly, you’re just faced with an incredibly irritating half hour wait while your lucky counterpart living near a tube line is probably nearly home. Public perception of a Bakerloo extension will be positive (unless you’re a City worker who only ever uses public transport to get to and from your office). If none of the promised extensions reach SE shores public perception will likely be, well the Fleet/Jubilee line was diverted east, we endured London Bridge being rebuilt and the Catford Loop STILL only gets 2tph (while they speak of trams in Sutton and Crossrail 2 in Wimbledon) and Crossrail largely misses us, here we go again, we know we’re second class citizens in City Hall.
Anonymously,
We have seen demand severely underestimated but it would take an enormous leap of faith to convert the Bromley North branch into a tube line with a frequent service. I reiterate that to genuinely provide new capacity to London it would have to be a complete new line not just tacked onto the Bakerloo. As with Wimbledon – Croydon I would suggest that you need to build these things up to convince those holding the purse strings that the demand really is there. Lets not get deluded by this idea that run a TfL service and the punters will always come. I haven’t heard any reports of people flocking to the Romford-Upminster branch and the Euston-Watford Junction Line seems to have relatively unchanged passenger numbers despite being run by TfL. There are parts of the Central line that are really quiet etc, etc.
Both you and Walthamstow Writer emphasise the loathing of TOCs in general and SouthEastern in particular. I thought SouthEastern was basically on a management contract so ultimately you are saying you want it TfL run not DfT run. Surely it is easier to achieve that by TfL taking over the relevant lines and running London Overground services?
My logic is not unsound. I am not claiming that either a tube extension or a London Overground extension is viable. What I am saying is that a tube extension (with its extensive and expensive tunnelling) is almost certainly going to be less viable than a London Overground extension if the sole objective is to have Bromley North as a destination. Of course if you can justify a tube on other grounds to serve Hither Green, for example, then that would be different.
Since the article was written confidence in getting improved capacity (e.g. by using ERTMS signalling) has risen and it may actually be possible to fit in the extra trains. I am not convinced but know there are those within TfL who thought they could devise a viable scheme to get London Overground from New Cross to Bromley North (but not via Lewisham). I have yet to hear of anyone inTfL who seriously thinks there is a viable scheme to terminate tube services at Bromley North.
Anonymously @ 0019
“I strongly suspect the Bromley North branch has a lot of suppressed demand around it due to people who don’t use it due to the lack of a through service. Increasing the frequency of the shuttle (assuming you could get that through the bureaucratic nightmare of today’s railway franchising process) therefore might not work, unless it is a through service.”
Until relevantly recently the service from Bromley North was 2 tph for much of the day. Political pressure got this increased to 3tph as it was still possible to use just one train. However, the connecting services at Grove Park are 4tph (2tph each to Charing Cross and Cannon Street) and so this does not fit together well. Matching up the frequencies might help. However,employing an extra train and crew to take it up to 4tph would add considerable extra cost that is unlikely to be matched by increased demand for much of the day. I would agree that a service continuing beyond Grove Park is likely to stimulate more traffic.
James Bunting,
So the best first stage would be to increase the off-peak service on the Charing Cross/Cannon St-Orpington line to 6tph. This would then mean that the 3tph on the branch would actually connect with trains which would make a difference. Best of all this can be done without actually incurring costs that would be assigned to the branch.
Personally I would then try and improve the ambiance at Grove Park making it a more pleasant place to change.
The real problem with the Bromley N branch is political – Bromley council, in fact.
The “obvious” answer is trams, running along Bromley High St to & past Bromley S station – where, beyond that, I don’t know.
There are serious problems about joining up towards Beckenham Jn, I know, the topgraphy is against it
N of Grove Park?
( Lee – Lewisham? The two Catfords? )
Greg: I think we may be repeating earlier discussions, but it seems to me that an approach of “now where else could a Bromley – Grove Park tram go?” is not helpful here. There are places all over London where a tram line might suit, but they cannot all be afforded, so we should surely start with the ones where rather more of the difficulties (local demand, council attitudes, depot provision, existing travel patterns, etc) are a bit closer to being overcome.
What is more, as we have seen with Haykerloo proposals and elsewhere, proposals which are perceived as “messing up my commute” do not go down well. The rail lines which succumbed to Tramlink had, I think, next to no commuters to central London.
@PoP
That would surely be a case of the tail wagging the dog. And 6tph on the main doesn’t fit in very tidily, do you have 3tph to each terminus, which doesn’t fit tidily with the 2tph (or 4tph) to other SE destinations, or have an asymmetric pattern with 2tph to one terminus and four to the other (alternating between 10 and 20 minute intervals).
(I note by the way that the up services from Grove Park are not even-interval anyway – being at 03, 15, 33, 45. I don’t know whether this makes arranging connections easier or harder overall)
Why is the real problem with the Bromley North branch political? Bromley want a better service. I strongly suspect TfL want a better service. How would that change if hell froze over and Bromley Council was Labour run?
I can’t see why trams are the obvious answer. I would have thought a far from obvious answer and I really can’t see the benefit. As pointed out in the article there is only one obvious place to add a tramstop on the route. I also cannot see Bromley Council agreeing to trams down the pedestrianised High St. Croydon does not allow it down its main shopping street and that would appear to have all-party consensus.
I also suspect getting a tram from Bromley North station to the High Street would also be contentious having recently revamped East Street.
Re PoP, James Bunting & Anonymously,
If the Bakerloo to Hayes proposal goes ahead that theoretically releases 6tph (peak, currently 4 Charing Cross and 2 Cannon Street) based on the limit being terminus capacity*. Split those 6 extra TPH between the 3 via or bypassing Lewisham suburban branches and you get 2 extra tph for Grove Park immediately.
*ATO should be able to increase capacity at Cannon Street but won’t do anything for Charing Cross but more into CST might require additional infrastructure works or further service simplification (beyond anything in the Jan 2018 timetable) which causes potential issues with providing a service to Lewisham. Which is when extending the overground if CR3 looks to far on the horizon might make sense. (Makes more sense if the ELL is resignalled for higher capacity and/or the train lengths become longer as that could push the BCR higher).
timbeau,
6tph to Orpington would all be part of a revamp of the suburban SouthEastern area and 6tph off-peak service pattern in general. I am not suggesting it is done to improve the Bromley North branch. I am suggesting that this is what TfL is looking at for the long term and serendipitously it would improve the Bromley North branch.
Of course the good burgers of Bromley will most easily get a LO service to Bromley North if TfL takes control of the inner SouthEastern franchise, as it is eagerly pressing to do. That would make the stopping services to Orpington/Sevenoaks and the Bromley North shuttle LO services. Would that satisfy anyone?
quinlet: Yes, TfL is pressing for some sort of control of inner SouthEastern trains. But just what form that control takes is very much “subject to negotiation”. And even if they can, TfL may not automatically apply the Overground brand to all (or any) of the lines. Experience elsewhere has already shown that the brand is a little fragile, and TfL have already shown sensitivity to such questions by not (yet) branding the Shenfield services as “Crossrail”.
Shakespeare also had something to say about the branding of roses…
@quinlet – as an aside, last time I spelled burgers without the h, some illinformed pedant rebuked me – ignore them if it happens this time; OED is perfectly happy with, or without…
@ Quinlet – I doubt “Overground sticky labels” would satisfy Bromley Council. Their objective is a line to Docklands – presumably by extending the Overground’s New Cross terminators. We know the complex issues associated with achieving that. We also know Bromley see themselves as part of Kent and that KCC are “content” with South Eastern as the train company in their county. Perception is important when it comes to politicians and their ambitions.
Re WW,
Some of the Kent local councils (especially along the Disgusted of TW corridor) apparently aren’t happy with SE and have been in discussion with those inside the mayors boundaries recently…
Part of me feels the ‘best’ medium-term option for the Bromley North branch is to convert it into a people mover.
If the good burghers of Bromley Town then want to extend it down the hill to Bromley South via the shopping centre, they can do it themselves when they’ve saved up enough cash. Shouldn’t take ’em more than a few weeks.
@Ian Sargeant:
“…it creates realistic opportunities for people to live in Bromley Town and work in Canary Wharf.”
There are already 2 Thameslink services per hour from Bromley South station. Once Crossrail 1 opens, that gets you a one-change link to Canary Wharf and pretty much everywhere else of note in central London.
People who need better links to Canary Wharf can always just move to somewhere more suitable. Like Abbey Wood. Or Woolwich. Or Lewisham…
@PoP
“We have seen demand severely underestimated but it would take an enormous leap of faith to convert the Bromley North branch into a tube line with a frequent service.”
No more so than the leap of faith taken to convert Wimbledon to Croydon into Tramlink, when it would have been easier and perhaps cheaper to leave it untouched.
“Lets not get deluded by this idea that run a TfL service and the punters will always come.”
I think you’re missing the point that both myself, WW and many others are trying to make. If it is a new *Tube* line in a built-up area with an inadequate train service, then people will most certainly come (myself included)! Like it or not, the Underground benefits from the perception of being a more frequent, more convenient service than the corresponding National Rail services. Why else would the Piccadilly line be much busier than the nearby Great Northern suburban line, even though it runs directly into Moorgate during the week? The other examples you quote aren’t directly comparable, for differing reasons:
– Last time I checked, Romford – Upminster was still an infrequent shuttle service.
– A large proportion of Euston – Watford Junction traffic is swallowed up by the parallel, more frequent Bakerloo line service over the same tracks.
– The Central line north of Woodford is as quiet as it is because the Green Belt prevented the housing developments that had been planned to accompany the line before the war.
“I thought SouthEastern was basically on a management contract so ultimately you are saying you want it TfL run not DfT run.”
I didn’t think that is was (only TSGN), but even so it makes little difference to me. LO takeover would certainly improve services on the Orpington – London line, but I seriously doubt it would significantly improve use of the Bromley North line (here, the analogy with the Romford – Upminster line does become relevant). Even if you managed to increase services to 6 tph, the shorter wait to get the connecting train only works northbound…southbound, if you don’t happen to catch one of the 6 tph that directly connects with your 3 tph to Bromley North, you may still end up waiting around at Grove Park for your train home. And it still leaves the unpleasant interchange at Grove Park.
“What I am saying is that a tube extension….is almost certainly going to be less viable than a London Overground extension if the sole objective is to have Bromley North as a destination.”
But it wouldn’t be the sole objective, would it? I mentioned several possible reasons why it might be a good idea. If TfL had never put forward the Bakerloo scheme out for consultation and serious consideration, I’m not sure even I would be advocating a Bakerloo extension solely in order to use the Bromley North branch!
“I am not convinced but know there are those within TfL who thought they could devise a viable scheme to get London Overground from New Cross to Bromley North (but not via Lewisham).”
Please do tell us more, if you’re able to….I’m dying to know how TfL think this can be done. I suspect it will only be possible by transferring Hayes services away to the Bakerloo (making redundant all of my earlier comments!), but I could be wrong.
Anonymously,
And I in turn think you are missing the point. Yes, we all know there is a perception that tube is better than those trains that only run above ground and are not run by TfL. Each side could produce examples to back their case. Try, for example, travelling from Amersham to central London or vice versa. I actually make that journey sometimes and chose the two-car diesel over the Metropolitan line every time. Is there really anything that TfL could do to make c2c better than it is? Companies like c2c are off TfL’s radar because, amongst other reasons, they know there would be no benefit to anyone in taking them over. And I don’t believe more people would use c2c if it was run by TfL.
The problem is this “TfL good, TOCs bad” perception is leading to irrational ideas. How often have I heard it would be good to extend the Bakerloo to Hayes because we would have a better Sunday service/Night tube or some other perceived benefit. The point is you shouldn’t need to change the whole structure including trains, signalling, electrical supply and platform height to achieve things that should be perfectly possible to achieve by other means – and billions of pounds cheaper.
Unfortunately I don’t know the details of LO to Bromley North. A few years ago I spoke to an engineer on London Rail (which runs the Overground) who said that they have looked at various things and were convinced that extending the London Overground beyond New Cross on Network Rail’s tracks was possible and they had a scheme to do it. I queried this and listed some of the difficulties. He smiled and said they said the same thing when TfL proposed extending the East London Line beyond New Cross Gate. Some of the council documents of Bromley Council I remember seeing suggest they have seen a TfL proposed scheme (which naturally they support) but unfortunately little detail was provided. I remember one of the issues was that it couldn’t go via Lewisham and Bromley’s attitude was they didn’t care about that whereas I am pretty sure Lewisham think this is essential if the extension is to take place – so there will be no joint campaigning by Bromley and Lewisham then.
Re Anonymously & PoP,
SE is a shortish term Direct Award franchise extension at the moment which means SE has far less freedom than a medium / longer normal franchise which has many similarities to a management contract.
Re Anonymously,
“Please do tell us more, if you’re able to….I’m dying to know how TfL think this can be done. I suspect it will only be possible by transferring Hayes services away to the Bakerloo (making redundant all of my earlier comments!), but I could be wrong.”
Via the Lewisham bypass route – the big capacity limitation is Lewisham station and Lewisham Crossover Jn on the via Lewisham route so you avoid that! There is capacity on the slow lines SE of StJohns so you just have to worry about that bit between New Cross and St Johns* . If you don’t have any NR Hayes services it is even easier.
*Producing a viable timetable is another matter 😉
I think where many would disagree with those in Tfl would be around how you much infrastructure you had to do to get 4 or 6tph LO through the New Cross – St Johns section.
Re Anomnibus
I think Bromley are scared other boroughs will get the higher Canary Wharf earners in the future so they will get comparatively less house price inflation in LB Bromley…
Anonymously,
What probably helps the case is now that all trains through Greenwich go to Cannon St there should be more paths available through New Cross/St Johns. There are currently around 16tph max. Lets assume that you also have 6tph London Overground to Bromley North and 6tph call at St Johns. These probably can’t be the London Overground trains since ideally they should also call at Lewisham. That’s 22tph with six stoppers through St Johns. Probably doable but tight. It would be easier with ERTMS signalling but the problem there is that ERTMS would make it possible for more trains to go to Cannon Street so it could mean that the six paths are not available as signalling won’t help dwell time at St Johns which would be unaltered.
To disagree slightly with ngh, I don’t think eliminating the 3tph to Hayes – Cannon St especially helps because there is bound to be a better case for a new 12-car train service to Cannon St than a 5 (or 6) car service to Dalston Junction.
I would suggest what has to be done if you want London Overground to Bromley North is:
1) devise a suitable junction at New Cross taking into account any roads that run underneath the long viaduct west of New Cross station
2) abandon any pretence of going via Lewisham
3) devise a means of getting the trains from the slow tracks south of Hither Green to platform 1 at Grove Park. Ideally you want an additional platform at Grove Park but that might be tricky.
4) Produce a workable timetable
I would suggest, in complete agreement with ngh, that the hardest of these is to produce a workable timetable (think Thameslink).
All this would be a lot easier if St Johns station wasn’t there as each stopping train will use the best part of two train paths. Before anyone jumps up and down and suggests closing St Johns I would point out that the ORR numbers via Wikipedia (I know) for Bromley North are lower than St Johns and even if you add Sundridge Park park figures they are fairly similar (St Johns 0.714m, Bromley North 0.635m , Sundridge Park 0.275m).
@PoP
Once again, your Chiltern line and c2c examples are not analogous to the situation in SE London. Both are paralleled within Greater London by LU services, meaning that *people have some level of choice as to which service they use*. You yourself give an example of choosing Chiltern over the Metropolitan to travel from Amersham into London. Most of SE London on the other hand is stuck with SouthEastern, and suffers because of it.
If all the improvements you mention (increased frequency, overnight services etc) could be done at significantly lower cost by other means, it begs the question….why haven’t they happened already? It is because SouthEastern (and ultimately Network Rail and the DfT) have very differing priorities from TfL, which makes these seemingly simple improvements much more difficult to achieve. Even if BR/NSE still existed, I’m not at all sure it would be much different….at the end of the day, they will always wish to prioritise their longer distance services over shorter ones, since that is where they earn most of their money from.
I think it is unfair to brand a Bakerloo extension into SE London an irrational suggestion when so many of us are making it, any more so than it is to the brand the Heathrow Third Runway advocates as irrational (however much they deserve it!). It is only a sincerely held viewpoint…..I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you can somehow demonstrate that the more ‘rational’ suggestions you put forward (which I assume involve TfL/LO takeover of some form) are actually achievable in a reasonable timespan within the present day railway structure, then I’ll happily admit defeat and shut up.
Returning to Bromley North…..your comments on Bromley council seeing a proposal from TfL to extend LO services there do go some way to explaining why they remain fixated with the idea. Maybe a quid pro quo (TfL says to Bromley: We can get LO to Bromley North if you really want, but only if we can create space on the mainline by moving the Hayes trains onto the Bakerloo line; your call…..) is in the offing? I doubt Lewisham would care very much about LO bypassing them as by then they will have the DLR and Bakerloo line to placate them. Also, after reading today’s TfL document on the Bakerloo consultation, it does appear that they are reluctant to tunnel any further beyond Lewisham, so Bakerloo either terminating there or continuing to Hayes seems like the most likely options at present.
As for Bromley worried about missing out on higher earners and house price inflation…I’m fairly confident it is not worrying them at all. Bromley will always attract plenty of both…that’s what makes it the borough it is ;).
Anonymously,
It is because SouthEastern (and ultimately Network Rail and the DfT) have very differing priorities from TfL, which makes these seemingly simple improvements much more difficult to achieve.
But that is my point entirely. Talk of new tube lines etc. is a nonsense way of dealing with the situation. What you need is regime change because the priorities we want are the TfL priorities not the DfT ones. We shouldn’t need to spend billions circumventing the DfT when for far less money we could achieve what people really want (TfL standards of service back by TfL attitudes) by simply putting the services in TfL’s control.
You don’t even need to get rid of SouthEastern. All you have to do is get them to follow TfL’s bidding not the DfT’s bidding. When the North London Line was awful it was run by various people who are now regarded as some of the better more visionary railwaymen. There was nothing wrong with them or their ability to run a decent service. What was wrong was the paralysing influence of the DfT which in turn made Silverlink take various courses of action. The service on the North London Line has seen an unbelievable improvement but there has been no new tube line or anything really major like that.
At this stage I would caution and say that you have to be aware there is a limit to what TfL can do and it is hard to see any changes they could do that would significantly improve rush hour travel on SouthEastern. As Anglia has shown, there is a limit to what London Overground can achieve on takeover – certainly in the short term.
Re PoP,
“To disagree slightly with ngh, I don’t think eliminating the 3tph to Hayes – Cannon St especially helps because there is bound to be a better case for a new 12-car train service to Cannon St than a 5 (or 6) car service to Dalston Junction.”
My thinking on the benefit of eliminating the Hayes NR services was from the point of making it easier to timetable the remaining NR services through Lewisham etc. to maximise overall capacity which would be easier without them as it removes conflicting moves at both Courthill on the slows Junctions (and Parks Bridge Jn on the fasts).
Aha, I didn’t think of that.
Re PoP,
PS Agree on the BCR for a 12 car to CST always winning.
In the case of say 3 extra tph due to ATO/ERTMS etc around Cannon Street I was assuming that at least 1 would be via Greenwich. Diverting the Gillingham semi-fasts via Greenwich (1.5 – 2mins longer journey than via Lewisham) and more ECS via Greenwich would be helpful to maximising gains at too.
I suspect that the LO proposal would have required the Cannon Street tph to drop from 25tph to 22tph (3 less due to no ECS via Blackfriars route post TL etc.) but if that effectively doesn’t happen due to ERTMS/ATO etc. then it won’t work.
Anonymously: I thought that was “Bob the builder”‘s tagline.
Anomnibus. Let’s never improve anything. If people want something better they can move somewhere else. Every time.
@poP
“Yes, we all know there is a perception that tube is better than those trains that only run above ground and are not run by TfL.”
Not at Wimbledon or Richmond – some people change, for sure, but even with S7 stock you are more likely to get a seat in the morning peaks on the District Line than you are on SWT.
With regard to an overground extension, although I can’t find any references to it, wasn’t there talk of a new station in Lewisham, ‘Lewisham South’ or something?
A stab at a minimal LO to Bromley North (I’m more than happy to be shot down in flames here, my asbestoas jacket is at the ready):
1. Demolish New Cross Station and put it on the bridge as an appendage…
2. Build a junction at the A2 end for Southbound trains. This may require a small northwards extension of the current eastmost SE platform.
3. Add a platform to the Up Chx track, this will be narrow, but no worse than some tube stations.
4. Remove the substation just north of Edward St (BTW Google maps are showing the slewing of the lines currently in place)
5. Add a high speed point to diverge the up (northbound trains)
6. Use the largest possible curve to join onto the current branch
7. At Grove Park add a connection from the down fast to the Bromley North branch
Incidentally that would restore how the line used to be!
Paths:
Southbound trains join the down slow/CST, as far as the curved points in the bend at Lewisham (name illegible, due to graffiti) here they jump onto the down fast calling at Hither Green and Grove Park, then it goes down the branch.
The northbound trains, simply stay on up fast, calling only at Hither Green and New Cross.
In both cases the LO extension has a platform to wait at before being inserted into the remaining traffic.
I’m not going to go anywhere near a viable timetable!
As specified above, minimal cost, maximum headache
[Note that this is very close to being snipped for crayonism, saved only by the fact that it would restore the line to what it originally was. LBM]
Crayonistas beware: This requires filling in the entrance to the Fleet line test tunnel!
😉
@Southern Heights
Looking at what you’ve just proposed for New Cross (incidentally, the original station building was on the road bridge before it was rebuilt in the 1970s), I would characterise it as substantial cost, fatal headache! Any use of the fast lines which involves stopping trains on them at stations will never happen, due to the resulting loss of train paths for express trains. If that wasn’t an issue, you may as well just restore a direct service from Bromley North into London that runs fast from Grove Park or Hither Green!
@PoP
Yes, it’s a depressing situation, isn’t it. One further advantage of a tube line is that, unlike the LO, everything is under the exclusive control of TfL, and they can do pretty much whatever they want with it without TOC or Network Rail (or even BR/NSE back in the day) interference. This is one of the main reasons why I believe that CR2 should be a metro, not a regional line, since as soon as you join it to the national rail network in its present state, you are opening yourself up to a whole world of complications, risks and operational pain…..
I will shut up now.
Once LO goes much beyond NX, then the last remaining peak hour spare capacity on the core section will disappear, and it will be 100% chockablock… as would the Bakerloo. ‘Careful what we wish for!
It will be interesting to see the result of the Bakerloo route consultation. My theory is that optimum loading / maximum local benefit would be achieved by using the Old Kent Road alignment, and (time for me take cover) terminating at NX. Any further, and NXG would become a Canada Water. Where this leaves achieving a turn up and go service Bromley North would be some form of grade separation at Grove Park. Time to put Google Maps away: Chinbrook Meadow might be a pleasant spot.
The Bakerloo consultation response is out? Why do TfL never publicise it? I only find out here.
@ Hedgehog – they did put out a tweet earlier but I think you only find out directly if you actually responded to a consultation and TfL send you an E Mail. It’s the same with every consultation – buses, cycling etc – there is no mechanism or status page that makes it crystal clear that an update has happened. You have to keep going back and checking the actual consultation page all the time which is very annoying. The principle of consultation is good but the execution is a long way from good. Plenty of scope for improvement to aid people’s understanding of the process and its results.
@WW Maybe I have an email. Thanks anyway.
As a thrice-a-year (or so) user of the Bromley N branch ( There’s a very good pub, called the “Red Lion” near the station) I also wish for a better service, that integrates better with others.
As I’ve mentioned before a proper rail link to Bromley S would be very good … but the problems are in terms of, as far as I can see from comments, that there are “no paths” N of Grove Park.
Hence my “tramisation” idea – but, again, where does it go to provide better connectivity, all-round, in that part of London?
[ Is there scope for a questioning article comparing Paris’ almost entirely circumferential trams & London’s absence of same?
London is easily the biggest single-centre conurbation in Europe, but, surely, comparisons with Paris & Berlin, the other real biggies might be relevant.
Why are particular solutions favoured in one city & not another – & it ain’t “just” politics, though that does play a large part.]
Re comments above re LO beyond New Cross
The TfL response to the Bakerloo consultation feedback says in one comment that the possibility of LO beyond New Cross depends on the availability of paths in the post Thameslink timetable, and that TfL will consider the issue further once the timetable is known post 2017. Suggesting that they so indeed see the main problem as the ability to produce a workable timetable.
ML,
I suspect that is referring to the desire to add 2tph to Crystal Palace initially. The would also like to increase services to Clapham Junction and West Croydon but they depend on a number of longer term factors.
Re PoP & ML,
And if/when Windmill Bridge Junction gets rebuilt in CP6 (2019-24) TfL want to go to 6tph to West Croydon but can’t because of the infrastructure limitations at present. Clapham Junction area is also similarly limiting at the moment for the LO SLL services.
The problems with extending beyond New Cross is that you then tie the SE timetable to the Southern Metro timetable which may well not be possible…
(And everyone else is probably trying to avoid that happening!)
I notice that direct services from Charing Cross and Cannon St. have resumed the past few weekends due to engineering work between Grove Park & Petts Wood. Not permanent but proves that on rare occasions direct services do run.
Yes, they use the same tracks as is used to get the shuttle to and from the depot. If the experience you get on the mainline at 70mph is anything to go by, this will be done very slowly!
Hello,
It might be a good time to look at this again. The Mayor of London has seen that the land around Bromley North Station is an area that he could build lots of new housing on. The land is currently a largely unused car park and a bus terminal and would be a perfect brownfield site to build on. They can’t knock down the station and build on it because it’s a listed building and there are plans to develop the old Town Hall opposite into a huge hotel.
http://www.bromleytimes.co.uk/news/nearly_1_500_new_homes_set_for_bromley_north_as_part_of_200m_investment_1_4451590
http://oldtownhallbromley.squarespace.com/
Bromley Council has completed a massing exercise of the area, known as Site A and has upped the number of units that could possibly be built to 525. They’re currently in public consultation and a plan is expected to be submitted Jan 2017. They’re quite happy for developers to build residential property up into the sky, you only have to look at the development at Bromley south.
http://www.uandiplc.com/portfolio/st-marks-square-bromley
http://brra.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Bromley-Site-A-presentation-15-june-16-Draft-1.pdf
Now it doesn’t make any sense to have all the new people that will be living next door to Bromley North Station getting the little shuttle train to Grove Park, clambering over the footbridge to Platform 4 and joining already overcrowded stopping services to LB, CX and CS. And the problems of getting the DLR from Lewisham to Bromley has been well documented.
http://cds.bromley.gov.uk/documents/s50021448/Future%20DLR%20and%20rail%20links%20to%20Bromley.pdf
However the Thameslink work at London Bridge is due to complete in 2018, and all the Thameslink trains that were going through the London Bridge to Orpington line will now be going through Peckham, Catford and Bromley south to get to Sevenoaks. Therefore freeing up some slots for a fast commuter service from Bromley North. The platforms are long enough and as described here the tracks are all there. This was mentioned by a Network Rail spokesman in an article a couple of years ago in the News Shopper.
“”At this point, we cannot squeeze another train in without negatively impacting on other services.”
The spokesman said they would review the situation in 2018 after the Thameslink programme is completed.
The £6.5 billion rail project is expected to free up more capacity at London Bridge station.”
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/11501577.Residents_back_campaign_for_Bromley_North_trains_to_run_to_central_London_once_more/
Now with the extra demand from the thousand or so brand new Bromley residents as well as the existing residents who need to get to the City and into Docklands (Has anybody tried to get to Canary Wharf from Bromley South… impossible yet it’s just ten miles away) I can see this having legs.
Then in the future they may even bring the Overground to Bromley north too.
http://tubedreams.london/will-take-overground-bromley-north/#
I live in hope.
Well I don’t, I live in Sundridge Park but you know what I mean.
@Furious: There are no Thameslink trains currently going that way and there never were… There is one from Blackfriars to Orpington in the afternoon, it goes via Loughborough Junction… Three in the morning (IIRC), also via Loughborough Junction…
So no paths to be freed, and certainly no chance of a fast service, as Bromley South has that already….
re Furious of Sundridge Park,
I think you will continue to “live in hope” and probably be furious for a very very long time to come.
“However the Thameslink work at London Bridge is due to complete in 2018, and all the Thameslink trains that were going through the London Bridge to Orpington line will now be going through Peckham, Catford and Bromley south to get to Sevenoaks. “
Not true
London Bridge to (Orpington and beyond) – 2 will still operate post 2018 as Thameslink on the Fast lines through Grove Park and the other TL services on the Catford Loop are effectively reinstated stopping or semi-fast services that were withdrawn for various reasons the last of which was for the rebuilding of Blackfriars in 2009 and earlier for Eurostar introduction in the 1990s. They are not diverted away magically…
Capacity frequently doesn’t mean extra trains but longer ones especially in the case on the SE side of the London Bridge rebuild.
“Therefore freeing up some slots for a fast commuter service from Bromley North. The platforms are long enough”
No fast slots are freed up.
Without selective Door Operation on trains the Bromley North branch is limited to 8 car when the aim would be to get all SE services into the termini to 10 or 12 car length. The platforms are not full length.
Useless a direct train from Bromley North at full length 10/12car is as rammed full as other services then it is an overall loss of capacity into London Bridge so is non starter.
The branch is connected to the Fast (Charing Cross) lines where there will be no spare capacity post 2018 whatever infrastructure upgrades you do as there are physical limits at Charing Cross.
The only possibility is extra trains into Cannon Street after resignalling etc. upgrades but that would be via the slow lines where there isn’t any grade separated connection at Grove Park.
There is more demand for extra capacity on other SE metro routes as they have many more stations all seeing growth so would probably win any analysis as they effectively have in TfL’s latest analysis for what it would do if it took over running SE metro services.
Any review in 2018 will come to the same conclusions as previous ones.
@Furious
all the Thameslink trains that were going through the London Bridge to Orpington line will now be going through Peckham, Catford and Bromley south to get to Sevenoaks.
As SH(LR) says, the ex – SER Charing Cross- London Bridge – Grove Park – Orpington services and the ex-LCDR Blackfriars – Catford – Sevenoaks services have always existed; both are running now; and both will continue to do so after 2018.
“They can’t knock down the station and build on it because it’s a listed building”
There are many listed station buildings which haven’t seen a train for decades. Here is Staines West.
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/staines_west/index72.shtml
Sadly, I think you are more likely to see the trackbed occupied by yet more houses, rather than through trains to London……………
Furious,
Whilst I have my sympathies (I remember the Bromley North branch when it had a better service and was much busier) I think you are asking for something unachievable.
The primary flaw in your logic is that you look at what is going on at Bromley North in isolation. Basically to get through trains to Charing Cross or Cannon Street you have to take through trains away from someone else.
Reporting on the growth at Bromley North is pretty much irrelevant. To even start to have a case, what you have to show is that growth at Bromley North is more than elsewhere and I fear that others (the Greenwich line springs to mind) have a far better case. You are talking about a few hundred extra apartments – others will be talking about thousands or even tens of thousands of extra apartments on their line with “capacity improvements” (long promised but rarely materialising longer trains) only partially catering for the extra inevitable demand.
@ngh
“The only possibility is extra trains into Cannon Street after resignalling etc. upgrades but that would be via the slow lines where there isn’t any grade separated connection at Grove Park.”
Which, as said previously, doesn’t seem to cause a problem for the in or outbound Charing Cross services leaving from P4/5 Grove Park necessarily crossing on the flat further down the line.
One or two, peak time, 8 car trains would be rammed – as they were in the past – which would help regulate loading for ex-London Bridge Orpington/Sevenoaks services, reduce dwell time at LB, Grove Park, etc…
There is massive supressed demand for such a service.
I don’t think it would be technically insurmountable to extend to 10-car platforms at either P1 Grove Park or at Bromley North.
Tim,
I would certainly agree that there is probably substantial potential demand. Perhaps latent (hidden) is more accurate than suppressed.
I go back to my point though. Is the latent demand higher than on other competing lines? Also, counting against the Bromley North branch are the possible alternatives of Bromley South, Elmstead Woods and a bus journey to Grove Park. Only two stations lose out and it is hard to envisage Sundridge Park ever becoming busy.
I know this is not a fair indication but, off-peak passenger numbers don’t suggest a flood of passengers just waiting to use the service. Sure, changing at Grove Park must put off a substantial portion but that would probably have to be 95% or more to make it worthwhile to run through trains. As a contrast, if you had caught a Greenwich train from London Bridge before last August you would have seen a line that genuinely could justify an off-peak train every 10 minutes and could be even more frequent.
Re Tim,
A few things have moved on in the last circa 4 years since the article was published and the initial comments.
“Which, as said previously, doesn’t seem to cause a problem for the in or outbound Charing Cross services leaving from P4/5 Grove Park necessarily crossing on the flat further down the line. ”
Except the new proposed TL7 service from Cambridge to Maidstone East via London Bridge when going south swapping from Thameslink to SEML slows (e.g. Cannon Street Lines) then swapping to SEML fasts at Courthill Loop South Jn then on the fasts out through Grove Park (and vice versa going north). Hayes Line trains are swapping to more Charing Cross destination ones which are paired at Parks Bridge Jn with the TL7 junction moves to maximise capacity with no conflicting moves so fewer Grove Park slows to Charing Cross services in the future doing the opposite swap, they also tended to use the slow line speed points & crossings just north of Parks Bridge* to do the slow (Cannon Street) lines to fast (Charing Cross) lines swap which you want to reduce to improve capacity and resilience overall.
*(track geometry limited by under bridge spacing)
Anything new you would want to propose running in the future would really have to be 12 car and rammed for the entire peak to entertain consideration.
Dwell time at London Bridge in the peak for SE services (in the peak flow direction for Cannon Street) won’t be a problem from August 2017 for Charing Cross services or Jan 18 for Cannon Street services. The old P6 has departed.
Very little was said about the TL7 service on the Thameslink timetable thread. If it really is going to be hopping onto the slows before it gets on the fasts, won’t it be hugely disruptive in both directions, as its chance of being on time at Grove Park when starting at Cambridge or Maidstone seem slim too me. And conversely any Southeastern disruption is going to ripple into the presentation of the service into the Thameslink core.
Perhaps TL7 should stop at Grove Park on the slow lines to give the Bromley North line speedy access to Canary Wharf via Farringdon 🙂
Re John B,
How is TL 7 going to stop at Grove Park on the slow platforms when it goes through on the Fasts 😉
Apart from the Fast – Slow swap (north bound direction and v.v. south) at Courthill South Jn which is 40mph all the other swapping opportunities are effectively 15mph so 2.5 times the occupancy of the track being crossed…
And additional housing unit wise far more units are being added on the soon to be for Fort Halstead site than around Bromley North so even for services through Grove Park those that go to Orpington or Sevenoaks might be more a better use of capacity?
@ngh
If TL7 is on the fasts through Grove Park, then presumably it has to cross back to the slow at Chislehurst in order to access the Chatham reversible (and then make a crossing of the up Chatham at some point in order to turn right at Swanley). Is staying on the slow line throughout an easier way to avoid these conflicts?
In the other direction it could in theory use the up Chatham loop, which eliminates both of these at-grade crossings. I can’t remember what the usual routing of the old service was, but the 1Gxx Kent Coast-Cannon Street trains usually use the reversible.
Elephant in room – totally ignored (?) by everyone – though mentioned in passing up-thread.
Capacity on all these relevant services is limited from 2018 onwards by (terminal) capacity @ CHX & CST.
There will be only one way to relive that & that is “route 7” i.e. CR3 …
[ Marylebone & Euston services surfacing somewhere in the Lewisham / Hither Green area ]
@greg
Well, not the only way. Any of the following might take a bit of pressure off the lines through Borough Market.
– Haykerloo (arguably a “Marylebone service surfacing somewhere in the Lewisham area”)
– Extension of the ELL from New Cross
– Crossrail beyond Abbey Wood Expensive, yes – but so would CR3 be.
Re Greg,
I did mention Charing Cross and Cannon Street capacity issues @ 1328 yesterday…
And also the justification for a swap being huge passenger numbers on the branch.
Re Timbeau,
Agreed but CR east of Abbey Wood* is substantially cheaper (costed at circa £500m by Crossrail) by an order of magnitude than Haykerloo and ELL east of New Cross is becoming more unrealistic as time goes on.
*As SE can’t deliver the number of passengers to Abbey Wood to change and fill the trains in addition to demand along that branch then the case for extension will be good.
@PoP
It unfortunately does, as you said originally, appear to be in the ‘too hard’ pile.
Realistic outcomes over the mid term?
1. Do nothing to the service pattern and perform maintenance when unavoidable. As pointed out up thread, the track and ballast will need replacing at some point – I can’t see the line being singled because of the occasional need to utilise branch as diversionary route and the necessary flexibility to have 2 trains on the branch at a time in such an occurence.
– trivia point – is the branch the only substantial remaining section of conventional ‘non-continuous welded rail in Z1-X?
2. ELL south of New X, as said, won’t happen.
3. Flyover/grade separation one day from P5/branch in the distant future? I still think this is technically feasible on site (there is plenty of room to the south east of the station at the end of Amblecote Meadow cul-de-sac) but bow to engineering judgment in another thread. It won’t happen.
4. Haykerloo won’t happen. As pointed out in your other article, Lewisham will be the terminus. Given the NTfL procurement delays/Bakerloo stock issues, I think even initial construction of this being unlikely to start within the next 15 years…
5. DLR won’t happen.
6. Ditto trams – nowhere realistic to go as discussed in detail by others above (having reread this whole thread + comments last night there appear to be some strangely prescient comments re Sandilands junction a couple of years ago…)
7. Increase peak frequency to 4tph to fit in with the main line timetable? Insist that branch trains don’t pull away as the (late) evening peak service pulls into P5 (another not to be underestimated driver against using, or considering using the service, in the evening peak)
8. Stop a couple of peak hour fasts at Grove Park on the fast platforms?
9. Extend Bromley North platforms to 10-car on the cheap a la Hampton Court?
7/8/9 being most realistic?
To try and address your point about latent demand being higher than other lines, my take on it is more ‘area based’ than line based. An area roughly bordered by Bromley town centre, Shortlands, Beckenham Junction etc does not have a reliable, fast, service to the City which it deserves – as you acknowledge in the article. The occasional peak Thameslinks out of BJ are rammed. Hence the pressure on Grove Park and displacement to Catford Loop. This latent demand is peak commuter demand for LB / the City – for the West End, obviously people go to Bromley South or other stations on the Chatham Main.
4tph on Catford Loop will help, but I predict issues with the reliability of this service post TL-go live. To link neatly back on topic, other much discussed issues with crossing ‘on the flat’ at Blackfriars may emerge…
Contrary to popular belief, the bus service between Grove Park and Bromley (again at key peak times) is neither adequate nor reliable nor quick. Especially if the scenario envisaged in 7) above re branch trains pulling away occurs, the bus stop outside the station very quickly becomes packed and it is often impossible to get on the first or second bus that (eventually) emerges at a known bottleneck road junction.
Re ngh
Points accepted re TL7 and useful technical info. I still however do not entirely buy the issues with crossing on the flat and the subsequent occupation time of the main line. All fast Waterloo trains leaving from P1 Surbiton do it – often 12 cars – and the fast SWMLs through P2 Surbiton pass at higher speeds and to my experience higher frequencies than they do at Grove Park. This scenario equates fairly well to putative or past London-bound Bromley North services as the stopping train has to join the main line at high speed.
I have spent long enough waiting at Grove Park in the morning in my time and would guesstimate the average time between fasts going through P2 is about 5 minutes.
I am just glad I very infrequently have to use this branch or Grove Park in the peaks again! Granted my experience has been seriously coloured by being over the duration of the worst bits of the LB works but these issues effectively made me, amongst other reasons, change jobs last year.
@Tim
“I still however do not entirely buy the issues with crossing on the flat and the subsequent occupation time of the main line. All fast Waterloo trains leaving from P1 Surbiton do it.”
But at Surbiton the lines are paired by use, not by direction, so such trains do not need to cross the down fast on the flat.
I can’t see that extending the platforms to ten cars would be worth it. A ten car train would only be worth running on the shuttle if ten cars-worth of passengers can be accommodated on the connecting services at Grove Park, in addition to those already on board having joined at Orpington, Chislehurst, etc.
Tim: comparing flat crossings. Regardless of whether the one you mention is strictly comparable, this is anyway a mug’s game. As has been pointed out several times, one flat crossing can in theory allow the same number of trains per hour as plain track. Provided, and this is a very important proviso, the timetable can be built round this particular crossing, which can normally only happen if all of the trains using the crossing in question do not use any other flat crossing.
Back in the real world, with complex networks having flat crossings scattered unevenly all over them, the best, or only feasible, timetables always involve apparently sub-optimal use of many of the crossings, with only a few of the crossings (round which the timetable is developed) achieving anything like the theoretical maximum throughput.
Re Tim,
In addition to Timbeau’s points on paired by direction vs paired by use as to why Surbiton isn’t a suitable comparison:
Surbiton is the last point on the SWML where services join the fasts, where as there are 2 further ones inside Grove Park which you have completely ignored at Parks Bridge Jn where the Hayes services join and Tanners Hill Jn where the Lewisham – Charing Cross services join. So you have 12 trains per hour in each direction in total at those 2 locations to move on /off the Charing Cross (fast) lines (24 train in total in both directions) which conveniently fit into everyone of those carefully choreographed “5 minute” gaps! e.g. those gaps don’t exist further up the line!!! GTR is carefully sneaking a new TL service up the fasts then onto the slows without the getting in the way of the above moves.
The Entry /Exit speed of Bromley North branch is 20mph which is lower than the other junctions mentioned above so longer occupation time also the down services occupy the up fast for very long time in comparison to elsewhere because of the track layout and line speeds at Grove Park (c.f. no conflicting moves at Surbiton).
You cannot optimise capacity at every junction you have to pick and chose to minimise overall capacity loss overall.
So there is no space at Charing Cross (no upgrades possible) or Cannon Street (Only if resignalled with ATO etc but other lines have greater demand for additional services).
There isn’t fast line capacity between Charing Cross and St Johns and on the slows the future Thameslink TL7 and the TL Gravesend via Greenwich have wiped out the spare capacity between Parks Bridge / North Kent East Jn and Surrey Canal Junction. There is then no spare capacity.
Ngh/timbeau
Point taken re paired by direction.
But I am not advocating some 8tph all day service or indeed any through service at all if it is technically or practically impossible given current infrastructure, rolling stock and/or crew rostering constraints.
All I am saying is that this is a service which used to exist. It was well patronised when it did exist. There is significant demand for it to exist again (at least for limited peak working).
It is clearly thus not beyond the realms of possibility to get a train over a set of points and two fast tracks – or even to run a (again, limited, peak) fast service as – to take the SWML example again – does or did happen with one evening peak train from Waterloo which goes fast to Surbiton then takes the Hampton Court branch.
This “can’t and won’t be done” attitude I find rather frustrating, and dare I say it, somewhat patronising to the residents of Bromley, all who just want a half decent service to London Bridge and the City as opposed to the “closure by stealth” tactics operated imho over the past 25 years re this branch.
One reason I would venture to suggest that the Hayes branch is so packed – at the Hayes / Bromley end – is the displacement of passengers as representing the only viable alternative route. Hayes is surprisingly close to Bromley South as the crow flies but the history of a branch of the Mid-Kent has meant stations that are largely inconvenient to get to or, latterly with no effective connecting public transport (see New Beckenham). It does gall slightly to see places like Orpington / Sevenoaks almost obscenely well served by services to a variety of destinations when a small pocket closer in is comparatively poorly served. And Z4 season tickets are still well into four figures as we all know…
We are where we are, there seems to be very little appetite for change, so I’m not sure there is much more to be said on the subject and will attempt to refrain from commenting further!
@Tim -the fact that certain service patterns once existed – and worked – doesn’t mean that they could exist now: service patterns have changed on virtually every line over the last decade or so and things that were possible in the past have become impossible today. That’s not patronising, merely practical.
It sounds like relocating central Bromley nearer to the London – Orpington main line is the most practical option
Re Tim,
One man’s realism is another’s pessimism I’m afraid.
Capacity has been lost over the years into Cannon Street due to current safer signalling requirements and also very slightly into Charing Cross. Because something used to exist doesn’t mean it can now with current infrastructure or typically longer trains which occupy junctions for longer. e.g. it is “now technically and practical impossible” as there is effectively no where for the trains to go inwards after Hither Green, it is that simple hence what you call “can’t and won’t” from everyone else.
Any capacity for direct Bromley North services has been (or is going to be – see future TL services) allocated elsewhere.
With the removal over time of both Greenwich line and earlier and Caterham/Tattenham Corner – Charing Cross services there are now more services on the fast lines inwards from St Johns during the London Bridge rebuilding and afterwards than there were in 1967 before passenger numbers started to fall and safety requirements started to increase leading to cuts in services!
A few simple questions:
1. Which existing or planned services do you want to axe to create inorder to create a direct Bromley North service(s)?
2. Are the axed services busier than a potential Bromley North Service? [yes]
3. What are you going to do to cope with the displaced passengers on those services especially as they are all on higher growth lines?
Ngh…sigh
Reread the bit where I said I am not advocating direct services if it is not possible and instead suggested some improvements to the present situation.
But seeing as we are now going down the path of crayonism, and you are being facetious, let’s have a go.
1. The TL7 one (planned) for a start as we have been told for years the “track is full up”. I would stop some Tonbridge etc trains which go fast to Orpington / Sevenoaks at grove park fast platforms at morning or evening peaks. Just look at current live evening peak as at time of writing for disparity. Or divert one or two Orpington stoppers full stop.
2. How on earth do you know? The last direct trains regularly ran 25 years ago. I never took any. I’m currently on a service out of Vic with my dad, who did – who attested that they were packed then. On 8 coaches. Without any modelling or extrapolation for passenger growth in the intervening period, a glib “yes” won’t cut it. is there the possibility that with 10 coaches the demand could be there? We don’t know as the trains don’t run! Suppresed, or prevented, demand logically goes elsewhere – unless no one who lives in central Bromley or hinterland needs to work near Cannon Street or London Bridge. Hence running down the service, closure by stealth, 2tph up to 3 after a fight. Oh, sorry [yes]
Does the Hayes branch count as one of the “growth areas”?
3. Treat them like the Bromley North passengers, simples!
/snark
@Tim 1720
That Hampton Court service has only recently been extended from its original Surbiton terminus – probably more as a way of getting it off the main line than anything else. It exists to provide relief to existing longer distance services on which Surrey passengers were being squeezed out by the massed hordes only going as far as Surbiton.
Hampton Court, of course, has a direct Waterloo all stations service every half hour, but if it were not for the need to provide a service at Berrylands, SWT would love to reduce it to a shuttle and use the paths for something else. Indeed, most HC passengers save time by changing at Surbiton anyway, and the branch is reduced to a shuttle at the first sign of a need to think out the service through Wimbledon.
@Tim the fasts haven’t stopped at Orpington in the rush hour for 40+ years because they are full when they get there. I don’t think they could take on passengers at Grove Park either, and stopping them would stall the fast line, losing paths.
Re Tim,
“Reread the bit where I said I am not advocating direct services if it is not possible and instead suggested some improvements to the present situation.”
You don’t seem to have understood from the many subtle hints from several individuals so far that it isn’t possible without substituting for an existing SE service so hence the explicit statement.
1. Let me rephrase that more carefully which existing SE service as you need to find some capacity at Cannon Street or Charing Cross (i,e. not TL7 as it doesn’t have those terminus capacity issues so uses available capacity outside the termini)? What is the BCR for extra stops on fasts (focus on the time cost to longer distance passengers)?
2. See John B’s comment… Everything else is rammed hence it is non starter especially as those other services will have higher fares baskets as the passengers have travelled further on average.
3. Hayes line yes – and 1 station catchment alone on that branch has more development in the pipe line that the council originally turned down and then lost on appeal that is going ahead that the Bromley North branch has approved via any path. Some stations on other branches have several 10,000s of extra homes proposed. (PS all the other Branches have more MPs and bigger fare baskets.)
Tim 1720
Your example fast train to Surbiton still crosses onto the slow at Surbiton and uses the down direction flyover. It doesn’t ‘cross two fast lines’ in the context of causing conflicts, it’s a grade separated Junction.
But just to cheer Tim up or at least reinforce his father’s memories, 10-car trains ran between London and Sundridge Park & Bromley North during the peaks. Indeed the platforms on the branch were/are cleared to accept 10-car trains of Mk 1 stock, viz. EPB’s but only 8-car since that era. From personal experience, it was a real bugbear to change trains at Grove Park on and off the Bromley North branch and I don’t doubt that explains the loss of traffic on the branch, although some loss of traffic anyway for reasons unknown must have occurred to reduce the branch to a shuttle but possibly because of an improved service stopping at Bromley South down the road. Trouble is, as explained above, there’s no longer room on the ‘main line’ to reinstate through services unless other services are lost.
P.S. I remember one of “the reasons unknown”. Around the time when the Bromley North through services ceased there was also a shift in commuter traffic from the City, esp. Cannon Street/London Bridge areas, to the West End and hence Victoria was seen as requiring improved services, which of course Bromley South and Shortlands were able to meet.
That also explains the remodelling at a similar time of Windmill Bridge and Gloucester Road junctions on the Brighton main line.
Now the pendulum has swung the other way, so they say.
@ngh: SE people have explained it to me, that the reason fasts do not stop in Orpington during the peak is not that they are actually full, it’s that the current load + current Orpington passengers plus the extra traffic migrating from other stations (by use of the excellent bus links, see Diamond Geezer’s post today) would completely overwhelm the trains.
However having said that, I have noticed that recently there the window of the “no fasts” has been narrowing, so now the last fast from LBG in the evening is 16:59 (previously 16:08 [approximately]) and the first is 18:30 from CHX (previously 18:40).
However those people in Bromley, should enjoy the fact that they do get fasts, during the entire rush hour. And it really isn’t that far to walk either…
Re SH(LR)
It was John B rather then me.
Agree with what SE have said and would add: The other issue is that due to power supply issues (lack of sufficient power beyond Seven
threeoaks which is hopefully being addressed in the next few years – blame ORR for not allowing NR to tackle sooner) that there are limits on train length on some of the fasts so if that changes and there are all full length trains then may be things will change. The TL7/8/9 should help with the semi fast/stopping capacity so there might be some possibility of more fast/semi fast stops as there will some transfer around between those and existing services.Its impressive that Tubbenden Lane/Orpington station bus stop is so up there, as there is no layby, just a complicated junction with 2 side roads, heavy pedestrian traffic and buses turning towards the bus station up a road where they can’t pass for illegally parked cars which the council never ticket.
In my youth there used to be Sevenoaks starter that stopped until Petts Wood, then fast to Cannon St. Did they go when the 2 extra terminating platforms were added?
@John B: Plus the pedestrian crossing outside the Maxwell cycles very rapidly so causing quite a knock-on effect. And you missed Tower Road and Hill View Road….
Living near the north end of the High Street, if I want to go to Locksbottom during the morning rush hour, I head towards Petts Wood first and use Crofton Lane just to avoid that nightmare!
Gentlemen,
Your responses have been really interesting, although I can’t pretend that I have followed all the technical stuff. But from what I can understand it would be extremely difficult to achieve any through service for Bromley North without taking trains away from other busy services, as the whole system is at capacity. And the passengers on the other services pay a whole lot more for a fast service.
However it can’t be right that Sevenoaks to LB takes just over 20 minutes but because of the change at Grove Park even at peak time it can take twice that long from Bromley North in zone 4. I’m only asking for a couple of trains in the whole peak periods. They’d be very popular.
As a resident a through service is of course beyond wishful thinking on my part. If it is impossible as has been suggested I wonder how commuter transport can be improved into the borough as has been promised for years. It was announced that the Bakerloo line is going to terminate at Lewisham and isn’t going to Bromley after all. The DLR option seems to be too complicated and is vehemently resisted by Lewisham Council and the overground seems to have similar difficulties going beyond New Cross. Bromley is the largest borough in London and I would suggest that politically it would be a good idea to do something for it’s residents who feel excluded from employment in the City and docklands because of the ridiculously long commute in spite of their proximity.
As outer London boroughs go, I don’t think LB Bromley is that hard done by. It may be large in area but parts of it are quite rural so it is by no means the most populous.
LB Bromley has 27 stations (and five tram stops) to serve 321,278 people (12,000 people/station), with services to all London termini, with a fast service from two of them (Bromley South, Orpington). TfL has a presence at two of the stations, as well as the tram stops.
Although much smaller in area (less than a quarter of Bromley’s), Kingston is comparable in many respects. It has nine stations to serve its 169,958 inhabitants (19,000 people /station). All nine are served exclusively by SWT, and only one (Surbiton) has a fast service to London.
Yes, as a LBB resident, I kind of agree that commuting provision to London is pretty good. The trick is to be located near to the main arterial rail lines, i.e. Orpington through to Grove Park or Orpington through to Beckenham via Bromley South. With the Hayes line filling some gaps.
If you live to the North East of Bromley centre, if you arrived recently you probably knew that the train service was a bit patchy or required you to get to a better station on the above arteries. Development does not negate the need to look on a map before you decide where to live …
timbeau 12 December 2016 at 17:07
I’ll take you word that “LB Bromley has 27 stations”.
That is more than my native county of South Yorkshire, population about a million and a half. Some of them were closed and were re-opened in Met County days.
@Alan Griffiths
Wikipedia’s entry for the borough has a list, which seems to be accurate.
For many reasons (no single dominant city centre, people living nearer their place of work) the industrial areas of the north of England were historically a different kettle of fish to the metropolis. There were plenty of railways, but their main purpose was for conveying coal, not people.
Disappointed: Living in Orpington, it takes 40 minutes from there to London Bridge in the peaks…. Partly due to trying to squeeze on all those passengers getting on at Grove Park. 😉
I have noticed that these days the people waiting at Grove Park and Hither Green, for that matter, are more widely dispersed along the platform. Probably a side effect of the rebuild of London Bridge…. This seems to have sped up the loading at both stations.
Re SH(LR)
“I have noticed that these days the people waiting at Grove Park and Hither Green, for that matter, are more widely dispersed along the platform. Probably a side effect of the rebuild of London Bridge…. This seems to have sped up the loading at both stations.”
Not having the exit from platforms at London Bridge at the “front” of the train probably also helps encourage passengers to spread out.
@ngh: At London Bridge (platforms 8&9), the last two coaches are now much closer to the escalators than the first 4, so yes… It started to be noticable within a week of the new platforms opening (at least in the peak).
timbeau
That makes for interesting comparisons.
Waltham Forest has ( Said he trying to count them up ) 14 stations & (wiki) a population of 268k, so 19 143 people per station & no fast services to the centre.
A comparitive table of all the London Boroughs would be instructive, perhaps, as well as those authorities that “touch” the periphery of the GLA area.
[Perhaps it would, but hosted somewhere else please. Malcolm]
I don’t think there’s any obvious solutions. Ultimately it comes down to money, time, political will… and imagination by the transport companies. The easiest option is to increase the BN to GRP frequency to 4tph. Having two fast trains per hour during peak stop at GRP would help too.
I would also propose that two BN trains terminate/shuttle to GRP, but the other two per hour continue from GRP (stopping on the slows) to somewhere else. Ideally this would be Blackfriars or the ELL through NX, but could be Dartford or Abbey Wood, most likely going on the Mottingham line.
I also like the idea earlier of Crossrail going on to Dartford (or beyond), this could justify taking a couple or four trains per hour away from Dartford to CHX and Cannon Street- thus freeing the capacity for a direct service from BN.
[This is a reminder to use full station names, not abbreviations, as we have many readers that are not conversant in railway codes. In this comment, methinks BN means Bromley North and GRP is Grove Park, whilst I’m certain that CHX is Charing Cross. LBM]
Used the branch last night, coming home from the Red Lion..
On the 19.54 passengers were outnumbered by “SE” ticket-checkers … who ignored us, until we got on to the Up CHX terminator, whence they promptly checked our cards, having seen us arrive at Bromley N (!)
Not planning a full list, but on a point of accuracy:
@Greg
“Waltham Forest has 14 stations ”
I make it eleven (Wikipedia lists twelve, but omits Lea Bridge, and double-counts the two Victoria Line interchange stations). However, a full comparison (which we won’t do here) would have to take into account service frequencies as well. Walthamstow Central sees more trains in an hour than Bromley North sees in a day.
Or, to put it another way, in two weeks Walthamstow Central (LU portion only) has comfortably had more passenger journeys (entries and exits) than Bromley North has in a year.
Walthamstow Central also sees a service 7 days (and 2 nights) a week. Bromley North has a service for 6 days a week.
Even passenger numbers at St Johns comfortably exceed the number at Bromley North.
Possibly one of the most dramatic variations used to be between East Croydon (very busy) and the fairly nearby terminus of Addiscombe (one could reasonably expect to be the only passenger on the train much of the time). Obviously the numbers using Bromley North and Bromley South are also considerably different.
@ Greg – Waltham Forest may not have non stop services but we are not exactly devoid of quick journeys. The Vic Line is very quick these days and the high frequency cuts down platform wait time to little more than 1 min on average. The line into Liv St takes barely more than 16 mins off peak to reach the City, a tad more in the peaks. We could never be described as badly off on radial lines. The Central Line also provides a quick and frequent service for those on the south side of the borough. We’re also getting significant investment on the GOBLIN which many other areas would love to have. Given the typically decent journey times, even with the older trains in years past, I’m amazed Walthamstow and Leyton remained “undiscovered” by the property buying hordes for as long as they did.
@PoP: East Croydon (very busy) and the fairly nearby terminus of Addiscombe (one could reasonably expect to be the only passenger on the train much of the time). Obviously the numbers using Bromley North and Bromley South are also considerably different.
Bromley and Croydon are good examples of one of Jarrett Walker’s principles of transport planning – if you want a good service, be on the way to somewhere else.
Annual usage of the branch runs at 936,000 entries and exits so despite all the cuts over the years – notably the removal of direct trains to London, its still can be quite busy, although not of course as some other branches in London. I commuted on the 12-car direct trains to Charing Cross in the 1980s and they were pretty full by the time they got to Grove Park.
Anonymous,
The latest figures are :
Bromley North: 536, 856
Sundridge Park: 243, 006
So more like 780,000 than 936,000
And while the trains used to be busy they certainly weren’t 12-car trains. 12-car trains have never run on the Bromley North branch.
What isn’t known is whether the trains were busy because it was the service easiest to get on and get a seat or whether it was the one that genuinely was the first choice for convenience for the users. The former merely means the users get a benefit at someone else’s expense. The latter means a useful facility has been lost. The drop in numbers suggests to me that much of the demand was due to the former.
Walthamstow Writer,
high frequency cuts down platform wait time to little more than 1 min on average
Of course, it depends what you mean by platform wait time. At Walthamstow Central you could argue it is almost zero because there is nearly always a train in the platform – even when Night Tube is running.
If you average mean time waiting at platform for a train to arrive and if the train is already in the platform it is zero then it is less than a minute on average on intermediate stations the Victoria line in the off-peak. Trains are generally 135 seconds apart. Allow 25 seconds for door open time so for almost 20% of the time it is zero. For the remaining 80% of the time it averages at 55 seconds ((135 – 25) ÷ 2). So, by my reckoning and definition, average platform wait time on the Victoria line is around 45 seconds and even less than that in peak hours.
@ PoP – I was making a casual observation based simply on splitting the headway in half. I didn’t expect a “treatise” and a correction by way of response. 😉 It hardly matters does it if we’re talking about “broad brush” accessibility to the central area from an Outer London Borough?
Waiting time is waiting for the train to depart, surely.
Reading the latest comments on this resurrected thread has been amusing since it supports my suspicion that there is a lot of latent demand in the area for a better service of *any kind* on this branch. If you don’t believe me, just look where its two stations are situated…..they’re hardly out in the rural sticks, are they?
I suspect the only realistic way to provide a better service on the line without causing detriment to other services is to link it in with a brand new (Tube?) line to somewhere….but I’ll stop now since I can’t find my set of Crayolas ? .
@Anonymous;y
“they’re hardly out in the rural sticks, are they”
Not quite, although Sundridge Park’s hinterland includes a large golf course. The latent demand you refer to is largely met by the presence of several other stations in the area, (not just Bromley South), so if the service on the branch were improved most of the extra users would not be new traffic but migrated from other routes. Thus no more revenue for the railways, and no fewer cars on the roads.
@timbeau…..And why is it a bad thing if it encouraged users to switch from other routes, if this reduced overcrowding on those routes? With a growing population, we need all the extra public transport capacity we can muster (which could also generate extra net revenue, depending on construction and/or running costs of any newly implemented service).
@anon
Not a bad thing at all, if it can be done without robbing Peter’s capacity to pay Paul.
And if the line it is supposed to relieve is actually full (see the Croxley link vs Wat-Eus discussion)
I may well be talking nonsense but a look at the bus routes that roughly parallel the Bromley North branch (126, 261 and 314) have all been putting on solid growth in recent years (slight wobble the last 1-2 years in line with wider patronage trend volatility). Obviously I don’t have detailed origin / dest info at route level but I wonder how many people who might use the B North line are, instead, using the higher frequency local buses to link to Grove Park or into Bromley for faster trains
One way to improve the service is to marry the timetable of the London services to that of the Bromley North shuttle particularly during the off peak
At the moment the Bromley North shuttle runs at times completely independent to those of the trains it is supposing lay connecting to which gives uneven waiting times at Grove Park station of up to 20 mins for a Charing Cross train
This is because the Bromley North Branch runs at 20 mins intervals and the main line trains run at 15 minute intervals
The problem is exacerbated by the London Bridge works as Cannon Street trains which have been the best connectors in the past are now no longer useful to a west end traveller.
If the Bromley North shuttle service were run at the same frequency as the main line ie every 15 mins and the service integrated ie with improved connection times then maybe the service would see increased passenger numbers?
See the few messages from Alan (5 March 2014 at 08:12) onwards on this thread. I expect Southeastern view a 15 minute pattern as too tight to work.
Walthamstow Writer
My family live close to Bromley North station (half-a-mile). Since the cuts that got rid of the direct trains to London in (early?) 1990s most people I know simply now catch a bus to Chislehurst – very frequent and most more easier than faffing around catching a shuttle service to Grove Park – much better to go Chislehurst where you’ll have a better chance of getting a seat in morning rush hour. You’re right about the connections, this has made in very difficult to get a connection. For example the .50 from Cannon Street tends to run a couple of minutes late, notably in the mornings. This arrives at Grove Park (in theory) at .12. The Bromley North train leaves at .15. Experianced passnegers know to get the right carriage on the train – one that stops right by the footbridge so you can get quickly over to the shuttle. This train will not wait, so tough luck to the elderly or parents with buggies. I have on many occasions just missed this train due to the Cannon Street service being 2 mins late. Solution? get a bus from Grove Park to Bromley as the next shuttle won’t be for another 20 mins.
Trains from Charing connect badly for the shuttle – the .36 for example arrives at Grove Park at .58 – just missing the shuttle at .55 and leaving frustrated passengers to wait almost 20 mins for the next shuttle (.15). Most won’t of course, they’ll get off at either Grove Park or Chislehurst and get a bus – as they know the connections are so bad. Want to kill a previously well used branch line in London? Kill the direct trains, and run a shuttle with connection times. Result? People simple switch to using different stations and the bus/and or drive. Oh, and I forgot to mention
a) that the 2-car shuttle is inadequate for the rush hour, in my experience really packed and not enough space – a four car train should run then (wishful thinking I know). It may be a short journey but a lot of people can be bothered with that either.
b) no ticket gates at either Bromley North or Sundridge Park – there were always ticket checks under BR in the 1980s I remember. No ticket gates at Grove Park, Hither Green, St. Johns, Elmstead Woods, Chislehurst etc, so they may be a large number of people travelling without buying tickets at certain times, so I doubt if the “official” entry and exit figures can be seen as reliable.
In a nutshell this is problem with cuts in my opinion. You ruin a decent direct service from Charing Cross in the rush hour (not BR’s fault, but the then Tory government), you end up with shoddy shuttle service – result? fewer people use the service. You also cut back on staff, leaving the line wide open to ticket evasion and free travel. And how much does that cost over the years I wonder?
‘Want to kill a previously well used branch line in London? Kill the direct trains, and run a shuttle with connection times.’
This of course has happened before (e.g. the post-war fate of the Ally Pally branch and the Woodside to Selsdon branch, although admittedly traffic levels on the latter weren’t that great to begin with). In a way, it is slightly remarkable that anyone still uses it at all in the numbers that they do, and that it has thus far managed to avoid rationalisation and closure!
Regarding “killing” of branch lines. Every dead branch line, just about, has had a poor service immediately before getting chopped. Whether this is the cause of the closure, or shared consequence of poor-anyway patronage, is just about impossible to determine from this observed correlation.
What might make a (negative) point about causation would be an example of a branch line with excellent service which was nevertheless closed. But the absence of such evidence does not really prove anything.
@Malcolm -I suspect that the category of “well-used” and “*branch*” lines within London is actually quite short, and indeed, the list of those which have not been *deliberately* rundown (if that is right) may even be longer than the list of those which have. You may have actually listed all the latter anyway.
Of course it would help if the connection was gauranteed, in that every (say) train coming from Charing Cross would have the shuttle waiting for it, with a five minute change allowed. But I guess that would be too advanced for the franchising system we are suffering under….
After all the turn-around time at Bromley North should be enough to allow the shuttle to arrive up to 5 minutes late?
@Graham H
Some branches have thrived after a period of neglect or at least low traffic levels – the District’s Ealing & South Harrow line and the Hounslow branch were both slow to pick up trade, and there are also the North, East, and West London Lines (the latter ridiculed in its early life as “Mr Punch’s Railway”), the LSWR’s Hammersmith to Richmond line, the Wimbledon-West Croydon line, the Snow Hill link, and the High Barnet branch of the GNR, all now carrying traffic levels undreamt of 100 years ago.
Maybe it should be “Overgrounded”?
@timbeau -my remark was directed at “branch” – since that was what Malcolm was mentioning. If you start to include through services which have or have not been lightly used, then the list is, if not endless, extremely long – just think of the enormous number of variants on the Inner, Middle and Outer Circles, for a start, or the variations in stopping patterns on the GWML, for example, or the Midland’s attempts to get to strange places such Kew. An entertaining but unprofitable exercise .
@GH
Most of those I listed were operated at some time in their histories as shuttles, with connections for central London. For example the railmotors to High Barnet, or the “Kenny Belle”, or the Hounslow to South Acton service.
@Timbeau -again, the list of former shuttles is quite long,without shedding much light on the issue (eg Stanmore to Wembley, Stratford to Epping).
@Malcolm…..Is the Westerham branch then the exception that proves the rule (killed off by Earnest Marples purely because it was in the way of the M25)?
No, I think the Westerham branch is another of those which proves nothing. It was lightly used, and it was closed to save money. It was closed in 1961, and the motorway was eventually built partly on its course starting some 15 years later. Though there was, during the early part of that period, talk of enthusiasts re-opening the line, and (according to Wikipedia) some of these discussions were aborted because of then-planned road works. So the branch was certainly not killed off for the M25, not then a gleam in anyone’s eye, but the Sevenoaks bypass (opened in 1966) did put the kybosh on anyway rather fanciful revival plans.
[The Westerham branch] was closed in 1961, and the motorway was eventually built partly on its course starting some 15 years later. So the branch was certainly not killed off for the M25, not then a gleam in anyone’s eye.
Rather more than a gleam, even in the 1940s
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/articles/ringways/ringway4/
Anonymously,
Sorry to allow the facts to get in the way of your assertions.
Woodside to Selsdon was an absolute basket case from the day it was built. I covered it as the final item in my article on the proposals in the Beeching report for railways in London. There are plenty of other articles online or good old fashioned books which more-or-less say the same thing.
In any case you are wildly wrong about it being a shuttle. Until 1976 there was a direct service to London. This was not because the “branch” carried many passengers but simply because the “mid-Kent” (now Hayes) line needed to have a decent service of trains and the block section between Elmers End and Hayes precluded more trains being run to Hayes – where there was a substantial demand. This meant that Elmers End – Sanderstead (and Addiscombe) always had a direct service that could not really be justified.
By the time it became possible to run all the trains to Hayes (not to kill the branches but because that is where the demand was) the number of passengers on Woodside – Selsdon was already absolutely minimal. The line basically kept going (as a shuttle) until renewal became necessary and it was wholly uneconomic to continue to run it. This would have been the case whether it was a shuttle or not. It was quite a miracle the line kept going until 1983.
To suggest that the Westerham branch was closed by Marples so that the trackbed could be used for the M25 is almost certainly untrue though, given it was an obvious candidate for closure, it had probably been eyed up for that purpose. Even before Beeching (and Marples) the branch made no real sense and, M25 or not, it was hard to see how it could survive. I seem to recall a book which covered some of the Beeching closures and pointed out that the Westerham branch was only used by 71 people in the peaks. Or, as the book said, little more than a [motor] coach worth of passengers who could have been taken to Sevenoaks and have a journey that was only a few minutes longer overall. The branch was incredibly rural and the green belt policy would ensure that it would stay that way. The number of passengers within walking distance must have been absolutely minimal. If you are going to drive then you might as well drive to Sevenoaks.
By the way, I am pretty sure that the Westerham branch was always run as a shuttle from Westerham to Dunton Green although someone may correct me if I am wrong. So the idea that through trains were withdrawn in order to kill off demand was probably wrong too.
@PoP…I did say in my original post that traffic levels on the Woodside to Selsdon branch were not that great, so there’s no need to be so cutting with me about my ‘assertions’! And strictly speaking I *was* correct about it becoming a shuttle after the loss of the through service….I was just unaware of the technical reasons you describe for its existence prior to 1976. One does wonder why (having survived Beeching, for reasons left unexplained by your other than ‘hardship to 650(!) daily users’) it wasn’t shut after the Hayes branch was resignalled…..clearly whatever ‘usefulness’ it had for the small number of regular passengers almost disappeared once the direct service was withdrawn
As for Westerham, I was merely quoting it as an example of branch line which might have been better used if a decent service had been provided on it….I apologise for not making that clear. With regards to your other points, Subterranea Britannica (http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/w/westerham/index.shtml) provides more information on this…..given what we know now about Marples and the DfT’s policies at the time, it’s hard not to come to the cynical conclusion (particularly after seeing what happened with the reopening attempt) that the line’s alignment was already earmarked for something more ‘transport-worthy’, despite official denials at the time.
And while the numbers using it weren’t that high, they were high enough that (a) a campaign for reopening as a private venture nearly succeeded, and (b) after closure the parallel 403 bus route became overloaded, despite the additional peak services that were put in place to compensate.
Having lived close to the Westerham branch, and travelled on it in the fifties, I recall the Monday to Friday service ran in rush hours only, whilst the weekend service ran hourly, all day. It was a steam operated shuttle service, with the engine shedded at Tonbridge. I also recall the ‘killer blow’ to the preservation attempts was the cost of a bridge on the A21 Sevenoaks by-pass.
As for ‘overgrounding’ the Bromley North branch, I have always been curious as to why the Overground ends at New Cross, as extending that route, prima facie, would serve a variety of markets, with Bromley North as possible terminus. The cost of a a few points and a connection at New Cross would be minimalist in comparison with Thameslink (2000!!). My assumption though is that there is no capacity in the peaks between New Cross and Lewisham. But what about off peak?
Better connectitivity at Grove Park would be a great improvement.
As I said – I came out of the Red Lion last Wednesday, walked to BN &(having checked beforehand) had found that half the trains… ( See table 204 of the NTT) connected, the X.24 & X.54 off BN gave a 3-minute connection @ Grove Pk, but the other half, the x.10 & x.40 deliver yo to “GP” with no inward connection at all.
A very slight re-jigging might work wonders, might it not?
PeterR,
It is not the cost of a few points. It is the cost of providing the trackbed for the points to be placed. To get a connection from the up slow (Cannon St) to ELL would be hugely expensive and an engineering challenge. You can’t have flat junctions at a place like New Cross.
The real challenges are:
i) getting from the slow tracks on the east to the Bromley North which is located to the west of the fast tracks
and, above all,
ii) producing a workable timetable that could fit in these trains.
Lewisham station is already at capacity and if you don’t go via Lewisham then it is hardly worth doing as it would be very expensive for very little benefit. Even not going via Lewisham would be extremely challenging with the 3 track restriction at New Cross and the two track restriction (slow lines) at St Johns.
Also, for future proofing, any proposal would need to either be able to cope with 6tph from the East London Line or maintain the existing terminating platform at New Cross – in which case it would seem to be a lot of effort for 3tph.
Greg Tingey,
Options are:
30 minutes. Good connections but only twice an hour. This is how it used to be.
20 minutes. Better but does not mesh well with 15 minute service at Grove Park. Some resilience but very little. Very little scope for adjustments as you have to connect in both directions and there is just one train. Erratic timings goes against the principle of a regular timetable.
15 minutes. Very tight. Probably not possible or would either need major infrastructure cost or two trains to provide the service.
The simple answer … There is no simple answer.
PoP: I quite understand the difficulty of creating a flat junction at New Cross but the statement ‘you can’t have flat junctions at a place like New Cross’ is contradicted by North Kent East junction, a flat junction of course, immediately to the north of New Cross. I’m well aware of the issues at Grove Park — you can’t commute on this line for any length of time without becoming aware of them — but Bromley North is only one option.
On Westerham, Oakwood Press’s Westerham Valley Railway (1974) includes the timetables from June 1961, which is as I reported earlier. But I had not previously noticed timetables showing a through train from Westerham to Cannon Street — from 1904 and 1906.
Re Peter R,
I think PoP meant “room for more flat junctions”
The future peak traffic level through the slow lines at St Johns will be 22tph with 8 stopping at St Johns which is about a sensible maximum given the other constrains in the area without ATO.
Overgroundisation could of course take the form of the stand alone Romford – Upminister branch. You could of course partiallysolve the timing issues by using 2 units on the branches but with more passengers waiting time at Grove Park and trains at Sundridge Park going north. (SE don’t have any spare units so slightly academic)
There are indeed many existing flat junctions on the SE network, and they are the main limiting factor on capacity. Adding another is really not going to help.
At New Cross Gate there was space for a flying junction, and it could be used to reduce the number of trains heading towards London Bridge from the SLL and the Forest Hill line, allowing the reduction in terminal platforms there which was necessary for the Thameslink project.
If the limiting factor were capacity between New Cross and London Bridge, as it was between NXG and London Bridge, it might be worth doing. But the limiting factor is capacity between New Cross and Lewisham, and it can’t be squandered on the five car trains which are the maximum the East London line can take, whereas SE suburban services are 10 or even 12.
Just what I hope is for clarity and not to confuse further …
The future limit on all trains to Cannon St will be at least 22tph. It may be more one day but that will probably need ECTS + ATO and even then will probably not exceed 25tph*.
A recent new factor to consider is GTR’s proposal to have Thameslink services on Southeastern (2tph via Greenwich and 2tph to Maidstone East not via Greenwich but presumably running on the slow [Cannon St] lines). So possibly 26tph north of North Kent Junction (where the Greenwich trains diverge) with 6tph, at least, going via Greenwich leaving 20tph to go via St Johns. That 20tph will have to include the new 2tph Thameslink service to Maidstone East so, for our purposes, that is 18tph Southeastern services.
St Johns has a flat junction to the east of the station platforms so, by the time you include stopping trains, 20tph is a reasonable maximum assuming manual driving and no form of junction optimisation.
Nowadays it is almost unthinkable to close St Johns. It takes pressure off Lewisham station and, whilst numbers are not enormous, usage exceeds that of the Bromley North branch.
As timbeau says, if the constraint were St Johns, then putting 5-car trains in service at this location makes no sense. You should be aiming for every train to be 12-car in the peak.
Until the GTR proposal you could have made a fairly good case for arguing that the ELL trains could use the slots freed by trains going via Greenwich. The weakness of this idea, which I partly alluded to, is that
I) It doesn’t take into account dwell time at St Johns
II) It needs to work for 6tph as that is what TfL are planning on running on the East London line to New Cross (24tph overall) from around 2023. Alternatively, you still need to terminate some ELL trains at New Cross.
III) It needs to be possible with a workable timetable. I still argue the timetable would be the biggest challenge.
Ironically, assuming that there will only be 4tph on the East London Line to New Cross doesn’t entirely help as much of the Southeastern metro morning peak hour timetable is based on 20 minute cycles. Worst still the evening peak is based on a 22 minute cycle.
[* I know that they used to run more than 25tph to Cannon St many years ago but the layout at London Bridge was different then and it was also partly at the expense of fewer Charing Cross trains.]
On flat crossings around Grove Park, there was a comment by ngh some way back on thread about routing TL7 on the fasts. I can understand this on the up: up Chatham fast, up Chatham loop, up fast to up slow at Courthill South Jn. However in the down direction as the up Chatham loop is not reversible (any plans to change this?) a move at Courthill South Jn to access the down fast would need to be replicated at Chislehurst (20 mph Jn?) to access the reversible Chatham loop. The train would then be on the down Chatham slow and need to cross over to the down Maidstone.
I can see why the down movements might be required to overtake stopping trains, but it does add additional complexity.
@PoP: 15 minutes. Very tight. Probably not possible or would either need major infrastructure cost or two trains to provide the service
Would there be any prospect of using a lighter type of vehicle with faster acceleration to make a 15-minute return journey feasible?
@ Anon 18/12 2245 – I have only used the Bromley North branch once and was caught out by the somewhat convoluted interchange to reach the platform at Grove Park. This, of course, meant I missed the shuttle and had to sit for 20 minutes. I was distinctly unimpressed and have not sought to use the line again. I tend to use buses in SE London as I’m not familiar with the trains and half hourly frequencies on most services are not worth bothering with when buses run 3 or 4 times more frequently albeit more slowly in many cases.
@pop
Sadly, the removal of 6tph at North Kent junction does not create six paths through St Johns that could be filled by trains off the ELL. There are three tracks, not two, on the Cannon Street line between North Kent junction and London Bridge, which allows more parallel moves than would be possible at New Cross.
timbeau,
Presume you mean St Johns junction rather than New Cross. But it is not as simple as that because the main constraint is not North Kent junction but throughput at London Bridge on the three tracks (platforms 1, 2 & 3) due to dwell time and the throat outside Cannon St station.
The point I am trying to emphasise is that you have to solve all these issues simultaneously (hence my obsession with the need to produce a workable timetable) so worrying too much about whether A is a bigger constraint than B or C is when viewed in isolation is not the whole issue.
@PoP
No, I meant the hypothetical junction at New Cross implied in the suggestion that “Until the GTR proposal you could have made a fairly good case for arguing that the ELL trains could use the slots [through St Johns] freed by trains going via Greenwich.” You have come up with three reasons it wouldn’t have worked. I have merely added a fourth.
timbeau,
Yes, that junction would have to be taken as grade separated before even considering anything else.
The obvious and easier way to enhance capacity on Cannon Street services is to lengthen the trains from 8/10 car to 12 car (and upgrade the power supplies (again) AND go for higher capacity train interiors rather trying to run more services hence little real appetite for the more expensive infrastructure needed for the alternative of running more services to add more trains instead.
With Crossrail 2 trying to reduce the SWML suburban branches into Waterloo downwards not upwards I can see the opposite happen on SE via London Bridge services.
ngh
The other way (as well) to increase capacity into CST would be to have three tracks, not two over the whole distance between LBG & CST – I know the distance covered by only 2 tracks is very short, but it must be a constraint, especially as regards conflicting moves
Greg,
You keep pointing this out. It is the successor to the Emergency Spur.
As I point out each time you do, ngh and myself have actually been at a meeting with Network Rail where they have explained that this isn’t actually much of a constraint (no stations involved) and that it would be much easier, more cost-effective and increase capacity by a higher amount to fan out to four tracks on the approach to Cannon St (from two). This is how it was prior to 1990-ish but it was reduced to three to allow for the extra width of Network trains. At the time three tracks would have covered any foreseeable future requirement.
Also ETCS would probably achieve more for less once the opportune time for it comes.
Greg – the constraint on the approaches to Cannon St is not the short section of two track, but:
a) the longer section of three tracks round the corner
b) the configuration of the junctions that go from 3 tracks to the 7 platforms
c) that there are only three platforms for Cannon St services at London Bridge
Of these it is c) that is by far the biggest issue.
Even if a) and b) could be solved (they can’t without new viaducts, it’s been looked at), c) still prevents more than 24tph going into Cannon St as you can’t get more than 24tph out. And vice versa.
To solve c) also needs new viaducts. Rather large ones, over what is now Duke St Hill and Tooley Street.
@PoP – apologies, I started my response before you, but finished after.
Incidentally, it is this situation at Cannon St which makes the TfL devoloution business case for this area ‘interesting’, bordering on ‘controversial’.
SFD
Thank you
I hadn’t realised that it was the 3-track section that was the problem ….
Whilst we are on a (temporary) diversion to Cannon Street, I have noticed that link to Metropolitan Junction (i.e. the Thameslink branch junction) is OOU and not only that, but that the restaurants and bars under it have closed down and the walls/everything demolished.
What’s going on there then?
Re SH(LR),
[Metropolitan curve – therein lies the reason you as you can’t sneak more empty trains out].
The gap between the new Charing Cross lines coming into use and the old coming into use as the new Thameslink lines provides a once in multi-century opportunity to do structural repairs etc on the Met curve as well the former Charing Cross line (future Thameslink) viaduct and also fully integrate the northern part of the new Western Approach Viaduct (the “wedge”) to the 2 existing viaducts so the new Thameslink and Met Curve track can be laid.
Re Greg,
You can get 28 tph over the 2 track section between Waterloo East and London Bridge as you aren’t stopping at a station, however you need 4tracks and platforms at both stations as soon as you want to stop all those services. See the current 3 track and platform issues for Charing Cross Services at London Bridge where there is only 1 track available for counter peak services so they can’t stop (26tph pass in peak am hour). A mix of stopping an non stopping is possible at 22tph (assuming quick dwell times).
The 3 track section on the curved approach to Cannon Street had some sections that are only signalled unidirectionally but this is being addressed and more will be bi-directionally signalled after the rebuild is completed (Helps getting train out of P5,6 and especially P7 with the Met curve not generally usable for it former use. [from left to right: Rev, Up, Down changes to Rev, Rev, Down]
Is the Met curve the west-facing one linking Cannon St to Waterloo East/Blackfriars?
Yes
the junction at the W end of that triangle is “Metropolitan Junction”
@Anonymously: Correct….
What, then, is the name of the curve from Metropolitan Junction to Blackfriars Junction: the one connecting the ex-LCDR and SER lines that were, and will be, used by Thameslink trains between Blackfriars and London Bridge?
According to my Pre-Grouping railway atlas (5th Edition) that would appear to be Waterloo Junction. But I might be wrong and the name does seem somewhat strange!
Waterloo Junction was the original name of Waterloo East (renamed 1935), although it ceased to be a true junction in 1911 when the connecting spur across the concourse of the LSWR station was removed.
See here for more details of the link
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/the-waterloo-link/
Ah yes, having retrieved my more recent map and working from East to West, we have:
Stoney St Jn – Where the curve starts at the Cannon St end
Metropolitan Jn – Where it touches the Charing Cross line
Blackfriars Jn – Where it ends at the Blackfriars end…
Waterloo Jn doesn’t appear on this edition (2010)…
I’m not sure about history, but currently the curve from Cannon St to Met Jn is commonly known as the Met Reversible, whilst the curve(s) from Met Jn to Blackfriars are known as the Blackfriars Spurs.
Digging up an old thread here to ask some possibly stupid questions, and probably at risk of at least a little bit of crayoning.
1. There are major projects proposed or underway across the world to bury or ‘green over’ existing motorways. Is there a reason this does not seem to be considered for railways as well? The cutting from Beckenham junction to near shortlands seems low enough for a roof to go over the top of it which could be used for a new tram line as well as segregated walking/cycling facilities as a sort of narrow linear park. Obviously shortlands itself is high-level so a tram connection to bromley would need to find a new route around there, but then the railway drops a bit again to a more level height before finally going under bromley high street. Green walls with sound barriers could also help assuage residents, but they are already backing on to a busy railway line anyway!
2. Most of the suggestions seem to relate to a tram route down the high street but to me it seems much easier to go down Kentish way, reallocating two lanes of vehicle traffic for combined bus and tram lanes. This could be done as a combined project to double-end bromley south station (see Q3 for funding). There could be an intermediate stop outside the civic centre alongside the back of glades. Then continue to bromley north and grove park from there. Of course, I know a conservative council would not like the idea of taking space away from private vehicles and giving it over to public transportation. I suppose that is the main reason why has not been suggested in this thread? Or alternatively, to run down Elmfield road before going above kentish way as this section of the road is not already elevated itself.
3. Funding could come from development of the car park south of bromley south station where the waitrose is, and the car park adjacent to bromley north. I assume these are soon to be under the ownership of GBR. TFL has also been instructed to look for ways to fund itself through real estate. Of course, that depends on the specifics of the particular property ownerships. Though I wonder if the the authors of LR expect these types of funding arrangements to be more achievable with the new GBR structure?
PS… I am a long-time reader and this is my first comment. I always greatly appreciated this website for helping to understand the practical realities of what gets built and what does not. Always very balanced commentary. Thanks very much to the authors. Now, please feel free to tear me apart for this comment 🙂
@Matt – I think the biggest problem for the tram to get to Bromley is what happens at Shortlands. I’d say it would be impossible to get up Beckenham Lane, which at the Bromley end is steep and windy and there is only one lane in either direction. An alternative is Station Road/Queens Mead Road/Glassmill Lane which is not as bendy and is quieter than Beckenham Lane but how do you get to it? Getting anything under the railway at Shortlands will require the road to be lowered as the number of supermarket lorries that hit it will testify to.
@Mark 01 October
The vital part of Church Road/Glassmill Lane is narrow and has two blind right-angle bends within 30m of each other by the war memorial. As well as being narrow the road is steep as it descends the escarpment much more quickly than Beckenham Lane. Assuming the gradient difficulties could be overcome the width and radius of the curves would require single track working and one way traffic control for the road for a good 100 metres. Having got down to Shortlands Station you would then have an extremely tight 90 degree turn to the left to get under the railway bridge. The traffic control here already has to deal with two roads on the west side and three on the east, in addition to what is passing under the bridge, all with their individual flows so would require a major recast of how the junction works. There is also a little matter of the River Ravensbourne which flows under the road north to south parallel to the railway and is the reason why the bridge cannot be lowered.
I recently noted ( On the way to a good pub near Bromley N ) that said branch is probably the last remaining one in passenger use in London … with jointed ( 60-ft ) rail.
Can anyone confirm or refute this suspicion, please?
[ Freight-only lines, like “Angerstein” don’t count ]
I recently read on the KentRail website that in the 1980s there was a proposal to reduce the Bromley North Line to single-track, while converting the other track to a heritage line for old tube trains.
Seems like a great idea to me – the running costs of the line would be reduced, and maybe those savings could be used to provide special lower fares between Bromley and London, potentially taking some passenger traffic away from Bromley South, which you’d think would be good for both stations.
The heritage line would surely be good for both the line and the local economy as a tourist attraction.
I’m really thinking that if Southeastern don’t improve the service (now only half hourly in the evening peak) then they might as well close it down or hopefully turn it over to TFL.
If your train from Cannon street (and I guess also Charing Cross) is a few minutes late the driver won’t wait despite having loads of dwell time at Bromley North. I’m not waiting 28 minutes for a train that takes 5 minutes so I go and get the 126/261 at extra expense.
And it makes no sense for it not to be every 20 minutes when the same train and driver are just sitting around.
In response to Alan A last October:
Fares from Bromley North to London ARE lower than from Bromley South. North is in Zone 3, South in Zone 4.
Special temporary arrangements for interavailability were put in place during the Thameslink shambles a few years ago.
There would be hardly any difference in running costs for converting SE / NR to single track and handing over the other to a heritage railway. Structure inspections would be unchanged, running costs of the stations would be unchanged, there would be the additional cost of installing, maintaining and inspecting a fence between the two tracks, etc.
Could you not extend the DLR from Woolwich to Bromley North via Grove Park?
John M – The Zones are 4 for Bromley North and 5 for Bromley South.
Mark – The frequency on the Bromley North branch is 20 minutes in the morning peak. These connect with northbound trains which have a similar, if slightly irregular, calling pattern. In the evening peak the southbound trains from Charing Cross and Cannon Street are nearer to a combined 15 min calling pattern so having a 20 minute frequency on the branch would only help some of the passengers. Given that the branch is self-contained I cannot see why there cannot be some flexibility in departures from Grove Park but someone more knowledgeable may be able to explain.
A Trainspotter from Berkshire – Extending the DLR from Lewisham would probably be the simplest as far as passengers are concerned. However, this would require extensive tunnelling as the SE line does not have space to fit the separate tracks required in. At the risk of letting my crayons escape it would seem to me to be better to route via Catford town centre and Downham to get to Grove Park, but at what cost?