In part 4 of our Study in Sussex we looked at the restrictions on capacity at Victoria Station and came only to the rather vague conclusion that there was probably more capacity available in future. Other possible ultimate destinations for non-Thameslink trains from Sussex are somewhere on the West Coast Main Line via Clapham Junction and the Blackfriars bay platforms. In both cases the track layout means these are really more suited to local metro services. In principle Thameslink could operate at more than 24 trains per hour (tph) but Network Rail seem adamant that this will not happen, with providing 24tph a hard enough challenge for now.
The only other medium term possibility for handling an increased number of services from Sussex once they get to central London is an increase in capacity of the terminating platforms at London Bridge. On this occasion we will look not so much at the station in its reconstruction phase, but instead at the track layout after 2018 when the Thameslink Programme should be complete. It is, however, a convenient time to also mention other changes not directly related to London Bridge station that will occur before 2018 that will affect train service (or frequency).
Never Trust Any Source
A Network Rail slide detailing capacity at London Bridge before, during and after building work there as a result of the Thameslink Programme. FCC is First Capital Connect (defunct but effectively Thameslink), SET is SouthEastern Trains.
In May 2014 Network Rail made available a presentation containing a slide (pictured above) showing the capacity of London Bridge in terms of trains per hour at various phases of the Thameslink Programme. Here it is worth bearing in mind London Reconnections’ Third Law of Trustworthiness of Sources™ . This states that one should never, ever assume that a slide within a presentation is up-to-date.
In this instance despite the date of the presentation being on the slide, it is clear that it is actually quite old. It refers to 18tph Thameslink services down to East Croydon when it is now settled that 16tph will operate. The commencement of non-stopping of trains to/from Charing Cross is also shown as May next year and this will now commence in January.
Did we mention this before?
As an aside, you will note that, according to this slide and other documentation, after 2018 there will be only 22tph to Cannon Street – down from 25tph. It is a rather little publicised feature of the Thameslink Programme that, as it stands, it will lead to a reduction in the number of paths available into Cannon Street in the morning peak. Network Rail had hoped that a clever plan to get around this would reinstate at least two of these trains per hour and talked optimistically to the GLA Transport Committee about it, but it seems that it is now accepted that the plan then conceived would actually cause more problems than it solves.
Next installment in the Cannon Street Empties saga
Despite the above setback, Network Rail and SouthEastern are quietly hopeful that they can actually manage 24tph to Cannon St in the high peak hour after the Thameslink Programme is complete. On occasions when the they have been unable to get Empty Coaching Stock (ECS) out of Cannon Street by the “back door” (the reversible curve on the western side of Borough Market Junction) and have had to run them through London Bridge the disruption was not as great as feared. Furthermore there is still the option of running trains from Cannon Street in the morning without stopping at London Bridge – either as ECS or in service. On top of that there is a lag between the maximum peak frequency inbound and outbound so, coupled with carefully tuned platform occupation times at Cannon Street, it may just be possible to eke 2 extra trains per hour out of the timetable at the busiest time in the morning peak.
Don’t blame everything on Thameslink
You will also note that the number of trains into Charing Cross per hour is marginally down by one. On this occasion the Thameslink Programme probably isn’t the cause. On the contrary, without the removal of the 1tph in the peak period Thameslink service that currently goes via London Bridge using SouthEastern lines, it may have been worse. The cause is almost certainly due to plans for 12-car trains which take longer to clear critical junctions, plus the need for extra resilience.
Extra trains from the south? – Not a lot
Until reconstruction of London Bridge began there were nine terminating platforms permitting a service of 30tph in the morning peak. On top of that there was a single Thameslink train each hour. After the Thameslink works these figures will be 20tph and 16tph respectively according to this and other published information. So in terms of number of trains the net benefit on the Southern side of the station is just 5tph, from 31tph to 36tph. Again we have stated many times that, in terms of the number of trains coming into London Bridge from the south, the Thameslink Programme offers much less benefit than most people would imagine – something just over 16%. Of course the figure continuing onward from London Bridge is dramatically different.
What is quite surprising is the difference in the overall number of trains arriving from the east and the south (basically the “country” end) at London Bridge before and after the Thameslink Programme. Taking into account that there will be 16tph Thameslink services through London Bridge and not 18tph as originally planned, we can add up the totals on the slide and find than the total overall improvement in capacity is 1tph. It is not entirely surprising that whilst the Thameslink Programme website extols the many virtues of the programme it is careful not to specifically proclaim “more trains”.
Platform Capacity
One other very significant thing present on the slide is how many trains per hour the six remaining terminating platforms at London Bridge handle at various stages of the Thameslink Programme. Again the slide is not to be entirely trusted as it is almost certainly quite old.
When the number of terminating platforms went down from nine to six at the start of the rebuilding of London Bridge station there was very little disruption to the timetable. Two trains per hour on the South London Lines service had already been removed and a further one diverted to Victoria – which despite Network Rail’s protestations seems quite good at handling extra traffic when this is required. So in fact the reduction of three platforms at London Bridge only led to a reduction of three trains per hour and it seems that six platforms could, if stretched, handle 27 trains per hour.
From January 2015 the number of tracks between London Bridge and New Cross Gate goes down to two for a short distance.
What will happen from January 2015 is that the number of trains that can be handled at London Bridge will go down to around 23tph. This would appear to be nothing to do with platform capacity and will be entirely due fact that it will be necessary to temporarily reduce to two the number of tracks into London Bridge from New Cross Gate. This is to allow the Bermondsey Diveunder to be constructed.
In September the pain started to be felt
One thing that has remained unclear even as work has begun on the London Bridge rebuild is just how Network Rail intended to get down from 27tph to 24 or even 23tph – i.e. which services were going to be cut. We think we have at last discovered the reason for this. Network Rail themselves did not know and could see that none of the choices were at all palatable from a passenger perspective.
The most recent changes to the Southern timetable took place at the start of September. This involved the judicious removal of just a few services and diversion of one service to Victoria. To accommodate this diverted service it has been necessary to cancel one Gatwick Express train from Gatwick to Victoria but curiously no corresponding Gatwick Express train from Victoria has been cancelled – suggesting either some dividing of Gatwick trains at Victoria or the stock being used for a commuter service from Horsham.
In January 2015 the pain gets worse
Southern Railway’s January 2015 timetable has not officially been published but appears to be a bit more of the same with a few more trains withdrawn. There are certainly going to be further terminations/starts from South Bermondsey. It would seem that these get in the way of the intense service from New Cross Gate which will by then be reduced due to the Diveunder work. The significance of all this is that, like Victoria, it is not actually the number of platforms at London Bridge which is the ultimate restriction otherwise the service could continue as it does today.
London Overground saves the day again?
The extension of the London Overground to Clapham Junction was originally controversially brought forward to provide some sort of alternative service when the South London Line service was withdrawn in order to facilitate the Thameslink Programme. It now seems likely that London Overground will provide enhanced alternative services to further support temporary arrangements during building work taking places as part of the Thameslink Programme.
Although looking at possible London Overground enhancements does appear to be straying from the main purpose of this article’s topic, it could have some less obvious consequences that may have some relevance later on.
If there is anything good that is coming out of the January 2015 reduction of trains into London Bridge from the south, it is a rumour that London Overground will be running extra trains on the East London Line to Crystal Palace. It has to be said that, although the extra 2tph to Crystal Palace is a known aspiration of London Rail, this recent rumour didn’t come from London Rail or any other part of TfL.
It is not clear if the above rumour refers just to the peak service or if it is even just one or two services. What we do know is that the most recent Commissioner’s Report makes it clear that TfL have quietly increased their order of the next tranche of London Overground trains (the original order was destined for West Anglia in its entirety) by six trains. The report only mentions extra trains on the North London Line but it seems entirely plausible that the six (4-car) trains are to replace 5-car trains on the Euston – Watford Junction service and that two of them would be destined for the East London Line service to Crystal Palace.
There is already a known demand for such additional London Overground services to/from Crystal Palace to relieve places like Brockley – at least in the peaks. TfL have, in the past, referred to them many times as “pixie busters” – an industry term for trains run for the purpose of bring down excess overcrowding that gets flagged up to the DfT as Passengers In eXcess of Capacity (PIXC).
Welcome though these rumoured extra pixie busters would be, they would, of course, only be 5 cars long. Depending on which rumour you believe, these will either be additional trains taking the East London Line up to its design capacity of 18tph, or they will merely be the diversion of two of the 4tph New Cross trains. The latter option would enable the current ELL core frequency to be maintained and so not introduce potential issues there as the ELL core is pushed towards its limit – Canada Water platform re-occupation time being a particular issue.
If the rumour of extra London Overground trains is true it almost certainly won’t mean more capacity on the slow lines between Sydenham and New Cross Gate, as they will probably occupy the former slots of Southern trains that will from January 2015 terminate from the west at Crystal Palace during the London Bridge works (having originated from Victoria). Of course the replacement London Overground service to Dalston Junction will only be 5 cars long instead of the original Southern service of 8 or 10 cars to London Bridge.
Where this might start to get interesting is when one considers what pressures there will be after 2018. Will there be strong pressure to retain such London Overground services? Could they co-exist with reinstated Southern services to London Bridge? Possibly the main question will be where the higher unmet demand is after 2018 from stations such as Brockley. Would it be to London Bridge or the East London Line? Before we get too excited we need to bear in mind that the timetable planners in 2018 would probably be looking for 8tph London Overground from West Croydon/Crystal Palace (as now) and 8tph Southern. Nevertheless, if demand for travel from inner South London continued to drift towards Canary Wharf and away from the City, there could be circumstances where 2 extra terminating slots at London Bridge became available after 2018.
Bermondsey Diveunder
It is finally time to look at Bermondsey Diveunder now that details of it are emerging. In a sense Borough Market Viaduct and Bermondsey Diveunder are the only two parts of the Thameslink Programme that are fundamental. Everything else is just upgraded to fit in with these completely new structures. It is true that the Canal Tunnels connecting St Pancras Thameslink with Finsbury Park are critical to the actual proposed service, but the alternative of terminating at Kentish Town or elsewhere was always available. We will save a detailed look at the actual construction of the Bermondsey Diveunder for another time.
A Network Rail view of the Diveunder.
The above diagram shows the track layout of the Bermondsey Diveunder. Note the provision of four tracks that actually diveunder. The southernmost one is especially important as it enables London Bridge terminating trains to reach the Thameslink down fast with the minimum of conflict and without affecting East London Line services. The northernmost track is reversible but seems to serve very little useful purpose as an up line for regular day to day operation as it rather unhelpfully joins a down line west of the diveunder.
The Bermondsey Diveunder basically takes the Charing Cross Lines through New Cross and puts them under the Thameslink Lines thus enabling the two separate busy services to cross without conflict. If that was all it did then it would only require two tracks beneath the two Thameslink tracks. It is in fact more useful than that.
An alternative diagram drawn by our own Unravelled.
For a slightly different perception see the above diagram. Although this does not provide such a large overview it does show the construction in more detail and where it is located in relation to current structures. CHP refers to the Combined Heat and Power plant which is an incinerator that burns some of London’s waste and is located just off Surrey Canal Road.
On the northern side of the diveunder there is the previously mentioned further track that as well as forming the Charing Cross down line also connects with SouthEastern’s Cannon Street lines. Although this additional connection is not much use for normal day to day operation this enables various things to happen which might be useful during service disruption or engineering works – such as terminate trains that normally run to Cannon Street at London Bridge low level instead. This could be done without needing to cross Thameslink or Charing Cross services on the level.
On the southern side of the diveunder is a further track that enables access to the down slow from London Bridge to New Cross Gate without crossing the Thameslink tracks on the level. From the slow line there is a crossover that gives access to the fast line (which is now mainly but not exclusively for Thameslink). So there is a pretty much conflict free route from London Bridge terminating platforms to the down fast. This (and its simpler equivalent on the up side) means that, whilst there are only 16tph Thameslink trains, there will also be other fast trains from East Croydon. These trains will terminate at London Bridge and slot in between the Thameslink trains utilising four of the eight per hour five minute gaps between Thameslink trains. The trains in question will be the Uckfield diesel services and almost certainly a train that combines Tonbridge and Reigate portions at Redhill making 20tph and four spare slots.
Thanks to Unravelled we have have this fairly recent photo of construction of the diveunder part of the diveunder. Clearly as much of this as possible will be built prior closing tracks and realigning them.
Capacity – but useable capacity?
A multi-coloured track diagram showing how the layout will be at the end of the works.
The above diagram of the works when completed shows that, thanks to the Bermondsey Diveunder and provision of the Brighton down slow to use it, trains can join or leave the fast Thameslink lines and terminate at London Bridge with the absolute minimum amount of disruption or conflicting moves.
We mentioned above that there will be four spare slots on the fast Brighton Line on the approaches to London Bridge at the end of the works. If there are four spare slots on the fast line then the obvious question is: why not use them? It seems that the answer is that it is too difficult at present to find a matching slot through East Croydon. The TSGN timetable south of the river will be built around maximising northbound capacity in the morning peak period at East Croydon. This effectively means there is no opportunity to “tweak” the East Croydon end to fit in with paths between between London Bridge and East Croydon. There are hopes that by 2018 an examination of the timetable may result in 22tph being possible. Beyond that it is hardly worth looking since Network Rail would be extremely reluctant to give away the last two paths due to their usefulness in assisting recovery from minor disruption.
Looking at the signalling
In fact there is a further opportunity to improve pathing between London Bridge and East Croydon on the fast lines. That is to introduce ETCS (European Train Control System). Even its most basic form (level 1) would help matters. Level 1 is merely cab signalling superimposed over the existing signalling which would be easy to do as the signalling would be upgraded anyway from January 2015 (and operated in its entirety on this stretch of line from the new Regional Operations Centre at Three Bridges). This would remove restrictions on signalling sighting distances for suitably equipped trains and offer more resilience as well as the possibility of taking a minute off the East Croydon – London Bridge schedule. Maybe this added resilience would be enough to enable Network Rail to agree to the final two paths being used.
In fact we could go further when looking at capacity and argue that the fast lines from north of New Cross Gate to south of Norwood Junction could quite easily handle 30tph if needed with Automatic Train Operation and trains 2 minutes apart. This wouldn’t fit in very well with Thameslink at London Bridge with its alternating gaps of 2½ and 5 minutes but could be done by padding the timing of some trains between suitable points that would not conflict with anything else. Of course this cannot be done without removing any issues currently at East Croydon, and, in addition, any fast train stopping at Norwood Junction will become extremely problematic. It must be emphasised that there are no proposals to do this. In Network Rail’s 30 year plan published last year, Network Rail was as confident as it can be that it can get to 2043 without resorting to such untested ideas. In any case such an idea would require either Thameslink increasing its core capacity (which Network Rail insists won’t happen) or terminal capacity at London Bridge which would be beyond the most optimistic projection.
Perhaps scheduling the fast lines south of New Cross Gate for 2 minute headways is a little unnecessary but the idea of extending ATO south of London Bridge as far as Norwood Junction or East Croydon may not be. A disadvantage would be that it would probably require certain services to be operated by a dedicated sub-fleet equipped with ATO capability. An advantage would be that it would give much more resilience to disruption, and of course by then ATO on Thameslink would be tried and tested and the majority of trains (the Thameslink ones) that use the fast lines would already have ATO capability.
ATO just for the fast lines out of London Bridge could be construed as overkill but we have already seen in our article on Clapham Junction that ATO could be beneficial elsewhere. Clearly a decision to install ATO (or not) is going to be dependant on looking at the bigger picture and not just one area in isolation.
Fast or Slow
We have established from the first diagram that only 20tph will terminate at London Bridge once Thameslink is complete. One wonders why the figure is so low. A simple explanation could be that Network Rail is struggling to find trains suitable to terminate there due to conflicts and capacity issues elsewhere. It would appear that the most likely explanation for these trains is:
- 8 via South Bermondsey (up from 6 today)
- 8 via Forest Hill (up from 6 today)
- 2 diesel services from Uckfield
- 2 services from Redhill with portions from elsewhere – at least Tonbridge and Reigate and possibly Three Bridges as well OR, more likely, 2 services from Epsom running fast from Norwood Junction to London Bridge
The 8tph via Forest Hill would very neatly fit in with the 8tph London Overground via Forest Hill giving an alternating service to each destination. There is also currently a single direct train from Guildford to London Bridge in the morning and an equivalent return journey in the evening, but it is presumed that this will no longer run.
One suspects that one would be struggling to fit in more services via South Bermondsey especially as these have to fit in with London Overground to Clapham Junction at Queen’s Road Peckham and Peckham Rye, and anything via Tulse Hill is also likely to be problematic. Nevertheless Network Rail are known to have looked at providing 2tph around the Wimbledon Loop in each direction terminating at London Bridge. These would have complemented the 2tph in each direction terminating at Blackfriars. Network Rail haven’t abandoned the plan as a long term aspiration but it has been made hugely more difficult to timetable due to the decision to continue to provide through services on Thameslink from the Wimbledon loop. The full ramifications of this decision continue to be felt in the planning process.
The services via Forest Hill would probably have to dovetail in with London Overground so going beyond 8tph would appear to be difficult. If it turns out that providing the extra services on the Wimbledon Loop or a suitable suburban alternative is too hard then there could be capacity available at London Bridge. It would seem that it may well be available for additional fast services to Sussex if there was the demand for these.
What is significant is that most of the services that will terminate at London Bridge in future are local services. One is inclined to ask whether these really need a full 15 minutes turn around time. What if this could be reduced to just 12 minutes? This is not really an unreasonable possibility in the future, especially with improved signalling. Even with the temporary arrangements 27tph was managed at one point during the Thameslink Programme. Whilst it would not be reasonable to suggest that the extra slots are there for the taking, there may well be some wriggle room in the future.
Conclusion
In simple terms, if East Croydon weren’t a problem, it looks like one should be able to easily find two additional slots per hour for trains to and from Sussex if they were needed. If more were needed then there are further potential possibilities. As with our look at Victoria, it appears that the problem with capacity lies not so much at the London terminal but elsewhere. Any issues north of East Croydon to London Bridge are solvable. On the London Bridge route of the Brighton Main Line at any rate, it seems to be becoming more and more obvious that the critical problem is East Croydon.
Needless to say Unravelled has been photographing progress on the Bermondsey Diveunder for a while. The work currently being done is preliminary work and it is still hard to have a clear idea on the ground where the exactly the diveunder will be and what it will look like.
Breaking news on Evening Standard of chaos tonight at London Bridge following a person being hit by a train ( not at London Bridge) –
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-bridge-commuters-leap-barriers-to-escape-overcrowding-amid-rush-hour-chaos-10083409.html
Here’s something odd – I just searched ” person hit by train” re above incident and it seems several incidents have occurred around the country in the last week or so !
I suggest inspection of the recent pdf from this Southern link to explain their performance shortcomings and what they are trying to do about it:
http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/performance-results/performance-improvement-plan/
I know not whether the fatality yesterday at Streatham Common was on the fast or slow lines but railings were installed on the up slow platform dividing it from the down fast specifically to discourage deliberate attempts off the fast platform.
Even post-completion of Thameslink at London Bridge, it is difficult to see how the restrictive layout, coupled with likely lack of route knowledge for the many diversions physically available (unless somebody bites the bullet to train ‘all’ drivers for ‘all’ routes), will be able to cope with such disruption and, worse, it will affect services throughout the forthcoming extensive Thameslink area. And that’s not even taking into account route clearance for the new Class 700 trains themselves.
I think this is just an unhappy coincidence of there already being issues at London Bridge coupled to a congestion causing incident at the worst time of the day. All drivers sign East Croydon to Victoria via Selhurst and London Bridge via Sydenham, fast and slow lines and all London based drivers also sign routes via Tulse Hill and Crystal Palace anyway, so having a few coastal based crew signing them too isn’t going to make that much difference when there is chaos. The problem comes with new drivers who haven’t had the chance to sign all routes yet and take time to do so because they are needed on those that they do. As for class 700s, well currently one can see Thameslink trains, 319, 377 and 387, on various roundabout routes to and from London Bridge and Blackfriars so I don’t anticipate that it will be any different in the future. I hate to say it but the tone of this post seems to be looking for trends of terrible foreboding that don’t really exist. One under at this place and time would have always caused chaos, it just so happens that the London Bridge rebuild (note rebuild, not final layout) is currently exacerbating the consequences of any such incident.
@GTR Driver – Point taken – and my apologies for perceived foreboding.
In a broader sense, however, time was that many Southern (Central, South Western and South Eastern Division) crews had a much broader route knowledge, e.g. via Balham, Streatham Junction and Wimbledon and back via West Croydon, on and off the South Eastern diversion route ‘over the hills’ via Beckenham Junction and Crystal Palace, and so on. In other words, just about all the central suburban network. In that way, for example, South Western division trains bound for Waterloo were diverted as far as possible to Victoria at Wimbledon via Balham in case of disruption north of Wimbledon on the SW main line. None of that would help what happened at Streatham Common, of course, bar diversions via Balham and West Norwood but I guess all four tracks were closed because of the incident at Streatham Common, thus denying access to London Bridge even via Streatham?
Bearing in mind your comment about new drivers, added to which Southern/GTR are short anyway, do you know what is the situation regarding the original idea that drivers should have the opportunity to visit Germany to permit this, as I was told when viewing the mock-up of the Class 700 at ExCel, that “the train operators have been given free rein at Wildenrath to do their worst on the prototype(s) for their drivers “to test them to destruction” as it were”? I was told that Siemens were at first very much against this idea but warmed to the suggestion when it was realised that it was going to be a good way of proving the stock as it might be in service and to take on board drivers’ concerns”. Southern had planned to invite every driver over at one point or another.
Have any drivers gone over yet?
GF – 0559.
No drivers have gone over yet from the TL side at least. There are currently interviews for drivers to join the working group in a management capacity. The number escapes me but i think maybe 18? I understand presently it is proving difficult to recruit drivers to this role (at least from Bedford, due to the travelling time).
How many Southern are sending I do not know. But it will be a handful at a guess – certainly not all!
GF – Certainly we could do with broader route knowledge for more rarely used diversions such as the afforementioned Three Hills. One of the many issues (I suspect unforseen) of the franchise system is that knowledge becomes narrower by design.
It’s actually the first I’ve heard of the idea of visiting Siemens to be trained early on the 700s – communication being what it is – but it seems like a great idea to me. At the moment we have no idea how the merged company will work in terms of routes/drivers/depots etc. So do let me know if you hear anything(!)
Is there a limit as to how many routes drivers can actually sign for? I have a silly hunch that Class 700 drivers may end up signing for the BML, ECML, MML and probably a few diversionary routes in South London (via Herne Hill – Crystal Palace or Streatham).
I imagine Class 700 drivers will also be certified to operate 377s as well. GTR want to operate 377s to Kings Lynn (which share the route as far as Cambridge as the future Thameslink services), and I imagine they will also wish to run something slightly shorter than a 12-car 700 on late evening and overnight trains through the Core…
Is this a suitable place to ask those who are both able to eyeball the developments and know what they are looking at to report on progress with the Bermondsey Diveunder? I have been unable to find such reporting elsewhere. We get very good photographs at times but these are sometimes challenging to interpret for those of us who are unable to see the location personally and so work out just what has been presented.
RayK
Work is progressing fairly rapidly.
They are busily re-arranging the track at present.
Some of the concrete has been laid.
The simplified track layout means that you rarely get held near the work so photos are a bit difficult.
RayK, Chris Patrick
I too am fascinated by this but struggle to relate to what is happening on the ground. As Chris Patrick says photos are a bit difficult and it is also a bit of a pain to get to the site anyway. When the situation at London Bridge calms down a bit more (as I am sure it will in the next month or two) I’ll try and see if I can get a site visit there at a suitable time during the construction works.
I don’t think there has been any substantial work on the Bermondsey dive-under ‘boxes’. There is a newly constructed (and single track) ramp heading down to where it will eventually be, but there is major demolition required before they can start on the main concrete box sections that will take all four lines under the future up and down Thameslink pair, and up again on the London side of the ‘boxes’.
AIUI the twin track viaduct that carries the New Cross Spur fast lines has to be demolished over a large distance first. Until its tracks are out of use nothing much can start?
David Harvey (unravelled) attempted to explain the removals in this sketch:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/14392752440/
Paul
Re Paul,
The viaduct is triple track and they have lifted 2 of the 3 tracks for most of the length, with the northern most track remaining for the time being to enable the removal material from the site by rail.
Presumably now that the SE Charing Cross services were swapped to lines 3+4* at Easter past the dive under site, there will be a phase of recovery of the now out of use lines 5+6 and after that the demolition and construction of the boxes of the actually dive under will start.
The construction work to date on the dive under has largely been for the northern most line** through the dive under that won’t actually see much regular use*** as there aren’t currently any planned Thameslink Dartford services but should be useful on Sundays post 2018 when CST is closed for engineering works.
*(completely relaid since January)
** along the route of the track linking to the SER line to the former Bricklayers arms depot
*** Could be very useful in regular use for Down CHX- Blackheath services as it removes conflicting moves at Tanners Hill Jn ( adjacent to StJohns station) and Lewisham Jn. Possibly the third biggest benefit for SE from the thameslink programme works after 2 up platforms for CHX services and Tanners Hill Flydown remodelling and doubling???
@RayK 07:02
Pages 23 to 25 of this comprehensive document explains the Bermondsey Flyover in some detail. It helped me understand what is going on.
http://www.ice.org.uk/ICE_Web_Portal/media/eastofengland/Thameslink-KO2-London-Bridge-Presentation.pdf
Thank you all for your responses.
@ngh Thanks for the details. I thought I saw part of a new bridge which could have been a replacement for the lowest one over Bolina Road (shows as 8′ 9″ on Google Earth). It could have been wishful thinking on my part.
@Steven Taylor If you haven’t already seen it I found this very useful:-
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co.uk
Scroll down to the heading ‘The Thameslink Programme, illustrated’
Even though it’s from 2008 I’ve not come across a better overview of of ‘why’ all the work is being done on Thameslink South of the Thames.
@ngh
What I was describing as newly constructed ramp (that you correctly point out includes part of the previously discussed former route to Bricklayers Arms) I wouldn’t consider part of the diveunder, but a route to it? (Possibly a pedantic distinction though – it’s clearly related work…)
But are we referring to the same viaduct section? The part of the New Cross Spur viaduct that I meant, is where it runs completely separate to the Cannon St lines, ie. on the north side of the CHP plant, it is only shown as having two tracks in my various track diagrams, but it does gain a third track on the north side in the vicinity of where the ‘Southern’ lines come in from the south; i.e. west of Bolina Rd bridges.
However if that two track section has recently lost its tracks then I expect serious demolition can now start.
Paul
Bermondsey Dive Under (BDU)
Also see this presentation pages 66-68
http://www.infrarail.com/_downloads/presentations/IF14_Thameslink.pdf
There are 9 separate structures (ie. excluding earth works) that form the DBU and associated structures. These are numbered 401-406, 408-410 by NR
The only new structures visible so far is a new viaduct 408 & 404*. A single track structure than connects to the OOU twin track Bricklayers Arms (SE) Spur Viaduct. Originally desinged to link the SE slow (CST lines) via New Cross to the TL lines. (Up direction)
Work on the others requires much recovery and demolition first before construction.
The New Cross Spur (existing twin track viaduct carry the CHX lines) will be linked to the BDU by new structures 409/405* which will effectively reduce the height of the existing viaduct and links to the middle of the 4 tracks under the dive under.
The dive under box is structure 403. 4 tracks underneath (2 Twin track concrete structures) with 2 Thameslink tracks over the top.
The Western 4 track down ramp is 401.
402 and 406* are the Western and Eastern TL track approach structures
410 is a retaining wall between the terminating platforms down slow and TL down slow
*short linking structures
Re Paul
I was referring to the removal of the 2 of the 3 track on the Sussex Spur (southern lines) so far which can be seen in many of Unravelled’s photos
For example from 3 weeks ago:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/16451048043/in/pool-londonreconnections
The 2 southern most sussex lines have been lifted leaving the northern most (old) down slow where the orange suited are walking and the New Cross spur behind (now OOU post Easter).
Structure 408 can be seen in these Unravelled photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/16157413079/in/pool-londonreconnections
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/16059259922/in/pool-londonreconnections
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/15872511048/in/pool-londonreconnections
In the last photo 404 is to the left of the scaffolding (structure with concrete retaining walls and 408 is the concrete arched viaduct to the right behind the scaffolding (including for several hundred metres to the right out of shot).
@ngh
Thanks for linking to that ‘infrarail’ version of a number of (vaguely similar) presentations that are knocking around online.
IIRC it is possibly the only one so far that explains the viaduct and concrete box work in such detail.
And you have cleared up that we were actually referring to separate existing viaducts that effectively both get the same treatment, a sort of ‘demolish and rebuild on slightly different alignment/gradient’.
All five tracks have gone now in the BDU construction zone… So I fully expect demolition to begin soon…
1st June
Re SFD
Thanks for the info!
It was previously stated the (terminating platform) down slow through the BDU would be in service January 2017 (post Xmas – NY blockade) but when do the Charing Cross lines through the BDU come into service Post Easter 2017 (Tue 18/04/2017?) or post August BH 2017? (when the CHX services also get use of all 4 platforms at LBG?)
Re RayK @ 17:53 on 27th
Having been along on a train this morning I’d concur with your suggestion the London end of the new ramp (408/404 as ngh explains above) does now include a new bridge section over Bolina Rd. Indeed is it possible that structure 404 is that bridge?
What is interesting to see is that the gradient of the new ramp is probably near double that of the original incline, the junction with the Cannon St lines when eventually complete will be much further west than the original – presumably to gain access to the ladder junction that will allow access to the Deptford/Greenwich lines.
That chips away a bit at the oft stated ‘fact’ that the project ‘re-uses’ the original Bricklayers Arms route.
Paul
Re Paul
Looks Bolina Road bridges contained in 404, 405 (CHX and Sussex Down Slow, rather than those structures just being the bridge in the case of 406 (TL bridge)
East of the SLL Overground Bridge by the CHP the new ramp is built higher and on top of the original bricklayers “ramp” with the new ramp starting circa 220m to the west of the old one so partial re use…
I think the new Thameslink tracks will be a bit higher (1m?) at Bolina Road than the old Sussex fast lines or CHX lines which might also be part of the reason for ramp being able to start further west (electric traction allowing steeper gradients being the main one and the desire for a ladder with decent operating speed and access to the Greenwich Lines being the main dirver)
Unravelled’s photo (looking North towards i.e. SELCHP behind camera and SLL overground to the left out of shot) shows the new ramp constructed up on top of the old (this bit is the lightest coloured part of the 408 structure nearest the viewer in the illustration on p68 of the IF 14 presentation). This is the eastern most part:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/15721165344/in/set-72157633053354298
Looking south from over 404 and Bolina Road towards the Den:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/17226012592/in/set-72157633053354298
Thanks – now prompted by those links I’ve found another of Unravelled’s set that shows the very east end of 408, and the height difference with respect to the original ramp at the right hand edge of the picture is quite obvious:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/16402703595/in/album-72157633053354298/
@ngh. Charing X lines under the, err diveunder, are due to be commissioned Christmas 17, although that might come forward.
@Paul – I see what you mean about the height difference. I just wonder how much of the concrete that we can see is new height and how much replaces materials which were unfit for service. I don’t know that there are any photos of it as it was originally.
The new ramp entirely replaces the original ramp, although the top part of the original remains. The demolition required special care to ensure the rest of the structure remained stable – see http://www.swantonconsulting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Swanton_Bermondsey_Dive_Under.pdf
RE MikeP
That’s a useful page from Swanton. The photo at the top clearly shows that there was very little distance between the apex of the arch and the track. That tells us that South of the ELL, where the viaduct was not demolished and they have built on top of it, all the concrete we can see (less a breast high parapet) is increased height. I wonder if expanded polystyrene or something else light was used to infill in order to minimise added weight.
@RayK: I’ve been observing the construction on my daily commute, I can’t recall seeing any polystyrene during the construction…
@RayK – the “long drag” arches to the South(-East) of the ELL have remained in place, and a ramp has been added (well before these works) into the SELCHP yard for RRV access. As far as I’ve been able to see, there’s no additional build on top of them. The new steel bridge across the ELL is where the new dive-under line branches off the Cannon Street lines. It was a while before I figured out this was what was going on, and that the new “long drag” would be a lot steeper than the old one. So the “short drag”, really. And not so much of the dragging, wot with EMUs 🙂
Polystyrene seems to be in abundance at London Bridge, and the ICE presentation reveals it’s all about transferring acceleration and braking forces. Not being (a) Civil, this was something I previously knew nothing about in railway bridge/viaduct design…
This photo from 2014:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/13997146271/in/album-72157633053354298/
…shows the end of the original ramp section just east of the LO ELLX underbridge.
I suggest that concrete ‘wall’ supporting the new parapet is stepped in from the end of the new overbridge and it is either standing between the disused ramp and the main viaduct, or it is built onto the inner side of the ramp (which would be unlikely, I think).
There’s a possibility that pictures from directly in front of the structures compress the depth a bit, and mislead us into thinking things are superimposed rather than alongside?
Paul
@MikeP
‘As far as I’ve been able to see, there’s no additional build on top of them.’
Paul has convinced me that there has in fact been a build up. (see earlier posts)
I too was surprised that polystyrene is being used as a huge ‘shock absorber’ at London Bridge. I had also not thought, until this came up, about the acceleration and braking forces that a train transfers to the track. Having been mentioned it now seems obvious.
Re RayK @ 17:53 on 27th (Again!)
Have found an ‘unravelled’ picture of the new Bolina Rd bridge that we were discussing earlier. It’s taken from the south, through the New Cross Spur viaduct in the foreground, the latter will all be demolished in due course.
Hope it is of interest: https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/15767349707/in/album-72157633053354298/
Thanks Paul,
I was pretty sure that I’d seen it on one or other of Unravelled’s photos but couldn’t find it.
Re Mike P et al.
Nothing on top? See this one as linked in the post on Wednesday (29 April 2015 at 17:48):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/15721165344/in/album-72157633053354298/
East of the LO ELLX girder bridge but West of the RRV ramp. The singnal gantry is clearly visible on google earth for precise location.
By way of a mild diversion here is a Thames News clip about Network Southeast’s plans to cope with the 1990s recession. Features Chris Green, Bob Reid Mark 1, plans for £300m to be spent on improving Thameslink as well as other schemes we would recognise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXWozrv1tiM&feature=youtu.be
I apologise to Graham H if this causes undue flashbacks and nervous twitches.
WW
See also Chris Green’s excellent book on the subject.
Must be between 1990 and 1992 if Rifkind was transport secretary.
Well, we got Heathrow Express and HS1, but we would also have had Crossrail and Thameslink 2000 up and running fifteen years ago if Chris Green had his way, and perhaps already be building CR2.
Current things going on in South Bermondsey:
1. The worksite has been marked off and most of the ballast has been cleared
2. Demolition of the two track Southeastern Charing Cross viaduct has commenced
3. Concrete walls are being constructed around the point where the Thameslink lines will join the main set of tracks going into LBG (not entirely sure what these are for, they being built on top the exisitng viaduct)
@Southern Heights (Light Railway)
‘3. Concrete walls are being constructed’
If these are either side of the Thameslink tracks they could be for a modest up ramp to enable the unders to be less of a dive.(Or perhaps to allow them to have sufficient headroom.) This could be what structure SS402 is on Page 68 in the presentation on :-
http://www.infrarail.com/_downloads/presentations/IF14_Thameslink.pdf
Currently in the Network Rail Media Centre, there’s an item that contains a rather nice overhead picture (from a drone maybe) of such activities.
And, of course there’s the ever reliable picture stream on Fl!ckr from David “unravelled” Harvey, many of which are included in the LR photo pool.
@Dave: Yes you can see them on there, immediately above the blue cabin in the middle of the picture…
@Dave, @Southern Heights
Thanks for those pointers. It looks to me like the zig-zag walls are support for SS402 as shown on Page 68 of the IF14_Thameslink presentation. They may also serve to prevent things sliding over the edge once they start removing the viaducts proper to make way for the Diveunder boxes.
Good progress is being made on the demolition of the viaduct alongside the SELCHP refuse plant, the former fast lines to Charing Cross . As I sped past today I noticed that demolition is almost down to ground level. I can never quite remenber when the viaduct was built (early 1850s ?) but it surely quite a historic week in the history of the London Bridge approaches.
@dvd: The demolition of the Fast lines and the slow down on the Southern lines is now also proceeding apace…
@RayK: Immediately next to the zig-zag walls they are laying some concrete slabs, from the looks of them, they appear to be cambered and rise a little on the eastern end….
The NSE film for Thameslink mentioned a cost of £300 million and it was interesting to hear John Prescott calling for BR to be able to obtain private funding while it seems the reclassification of NR as a public sector body by the Conservative Government now means it’s finances are more closely controlled by government than BR was !
Perhaps it’s time to consider the issue of Bonds for infrastructure projects just like London Transport did before the war with schemes like Crossrail 2 and HS2 being candidates for Transport Bonds.
@Melvyn
If you have a link to this NSE film could you post it please.
@ LBM see WW entry above on 5 May at 23.00 for link to Thames news item re NSE from which my comments come from
[Copied here for easier reference: LBM] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXWozrv1tiM&feature=youtu.be
@ngh on ‘Perfect Storm’ thread ‘Dive under:
Staff out on scissors platforms cleaning up the brickwork on the lower levels of the piers (former CHX lines) which it looks like they are going to reuse (cut down lower as you go from the ELL tracks to Bolina road and at the same gradient as the almost finished new viaduct).’
Thanks for this. Looking at Unravelled’s photo’s I had wondered about them reusing the piers which appeared to have been cut to a height rather than just demolished so far.
RayK @ 11:15
Saw above comment after reading the other thread, but please see also this photo that shows the piers had blue and red lines appearing to mark the cut height, gradually sloping down from east to west: https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/19218809921/
@Paul and ngh
I hadn’t noticed the coloured lines. This is the photo which caught my eye.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/19191396940/in/album-72157633053354298/
from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/albums/72157633053354298/page6
From the demolition work going on at the moment, am I right in thinking that the lower part of the Southern viaduct (fasts and down slow) across Bolina Road is being retained?
@Southern Heights
Understandably, priority appears to be being given to clearing access for foundations for the new viaducts and dive under box(es). Also understandably , things are being demolished in a logical sequence. I think it is too early to guess at anything being left as was. What little is left of the bridge over Bolina Road which carried the Sussex fasts and down slow is unlikely to remain.
I wonder if the heavy ‘modern’ concrete reinforcement under that bridge will be as much ‘fun’ to remove as was the concrete that gave so much trouble during the Tanners Hill Flydown doubling. Does anybody on here know when it was reinforced?
Re Ray K and Southern Heights,
The Southern down slow & Thameslink tracks will be further north after completion and not on the location of the current / soon to be former section of viaduct over Bolina Road hence there is no rush to demolish as it isn’t directly in the way of the future alignment which is however the case with the Charing Cross lines viaduct.
The reinforcement at Bolina Road will have been added due to bridge strikes (i think it was circa 13′) so relatively recently in its history.
@ngh
Google Earth still shows the bridges as they all were. The one in question is complete with 13′ 9″ warning sign for drivers entering from the south. Drivers leaving the yard from the North seem to be expected to remember that. There is plenty of evidence of strikes (especially when viewed from the North. Would they have concreted all the way through because of bridge strikes or could that be for other reasons?
As a curiosity, the Google Earth picture of the area shows half a train on the SLL where the photos join – about one and two thirds carriages in total.
Re Ray K,
The Bolina road bridge with the concrete reinforcement is now mostly rubble.
I wonder if with a small bit of widening, the diveunder would give enough room to let the fast/Charing Cross lines to descend far enough to go under the ELL branch and so be the entrance to a Lewisham bypass.
This would allow fast trains to descend between Grove Park and Hither Green from the other direction, giving much more room for the locals to sort themselves out around Lewisham…
(Crayons firmly locked up again)
Thanks ngh. No more room for doubt about that then.
Is all the rubble being carted off somewhere or is it being stockpiled for later use on site? I can imagine it qualifying as suitable fill for ramps.
As I’ve seen neither mention nor photographs of the viaducts by Jarrow Road I suspect that they are being left until clear access has been established from the South East. Is there any evidence of preliminary work similar to the concrete supports either side of the last un-demolished arch on the CHX lines.
@Southern Heights:
There’s a huge To-Do list of problems to be solved. Lewisham Junction isn’t at the top of it. It’s close, yes, but you need to provide those extra trains with somewhere to go first. London Bridge’s current upgrade won’t provide that: Charing Cross services will only have two tracks to themselves, though at least they won’t be sharing them with Thameslink any more.
Keep an eye on Crossrail 3. From what I’ve read recently, it looks like this could be the project that finally sees some serious investment in improving the ex-SE&CR network. (The current work primarily benefits services via New Cross Gate—i.e. the ex-LB&SCR network.) It’s still many, many years away, though I wouldn’t be surprised if its construction ended up overlapping with that of Crossrail 2.
@Anomnibus
Do you have a link you can post on what you’ve read about Crossrail 3? As far as I can tell Crossrail 3 is merely a placeholder name for a very vague north-west to south-east London corridor. Or some other corridor, depending on who is putting wax to paper.
Long Branch Mike,
True, but when that person is Mike Brown, almost Acting Transport Commissioner, speaking to the GLA transport committee one tends to take it a bit more seriously. I think one should not dwell on the exact corridor and, instead, concentrate on its purpose which I think, at present, is generally agreed in part to be to relieve SouthEastern services in the same way Crossrail 2 will relieve South Western services (current South West Trains).
RayK,
The rubble is fed from one pile using a digger into a mobile crusher and extracted at the other end onto another pile using another digger. It will generally be reused on site.
I think if you could be patient we might be able to better supply answers in a more organised manner than drip-feeding. Let’s just say you didn’t quite understand Sad Fat Dad’s cryptic comment the other day.
@PoP: I wonder how it fits in with Haykerloo proposal? If CR3 totally ignores that (say by taking over the Hayes branch instead), then was it all just a political charade?
Southern Heights,
I am starting to get the impression that it is now realised the Haykerloo proposal wasn’t a bold enough plan for South East London with population forecasts rising as they currently are. I suspect there was quite a lead time in getting the Haykerloo proposals out and things were soon afterwards overtaken by events. What is surprising is that it seemed that anyone who spoke in anything like an official capacity was fully behind Haykerloo when the consultation came out but I haven’t heard a single person in some kind of authority talk about it at all let alone as if it were going to happen in the past few months.
@ PoP – I don’t have the contacts you have but the comments by Isabel Dedring at the T’port Cttee last week certainly fit in with your sense of where we’re at in respect of SE London. The fact she mentioned that the approach on rail services across London was being reviewed by TfL and the need to pull them up to be much closer to a “metro” style service suggests some rather more radical thinking on TfL’s part. East London is also being looked at specifically and again I suspect there will be some surprises in terms of suggested enhancements / projects.
Walthamstow Writer,
To be clear, these were largely hearsay comments via other trusted sources and talks attended where what isn’t said is often as interesting as what is said. Other factors are things such as the Commissioner’s Report going silent on the issue – things tend to be repeated in subsequent reports if something is a favoured idea and there is any progress whatsoever to report. You will also notice that the Mayor was doing his usual over-the-top enthusiasm for the scheme but has also not mentioned it recently.
Back on topic, I do wonder if the extra interchange demand put on Lewisham station in recent months due to the non-stopping of Charing Cross trains at London Bridge has influenced this decision with the realisation that the station really could not cope with the demands a Haykerloo scheme would put on it. I see they are in the process of removing the old booking office and also a small former retail outlet in the old booking hall (still a public part of the station) in order to make passenger access to platforms 2 and 3 easier. (Press release here.) However you can only do so much and ultimately the problem of the number of passengers (including interchange) using Lewisham has to be tackled.
Using ORR figures (usual caveats apply) passenger number entering and exiting alone has increased by 38% at Lewisham in 5 years. These figures will be unaffected by the works at London Bridge and there is still a lot of large buildings being built in the vicinity of the station.
@PoP
“…there is still a lot of large buildings being built in the vicinity of the station.”
Given this, is there any realistic possibility that Lewisham junction and the surrounding mess will be rebuilt?
Kingstoncommuter,
Purely a personal opinion but I can’t see what rebuilding would really achieve. You would still have all the fundamental problems of the tight curves, large platform gaps etc. Remember there was a lot of enhancement done a few years ago.
As an aside I used the old narrow steep steps down from platform 4 the other day and found it hard to believe that until quite recently this was normally the only entrance and exit – there was a peak hour exit to Lewisham Road at the other end of the platform until a few years ago. As they say, you would think this would be the steepest station steps in London – but only if you hadn’t been to Battersea Park station.
Lewisham really could do with a write up but I seem to have written too many multi-part articles with outstanding parts to be written. There are also other things to be written up. So maybe not just yet.
Pedantic refers to a press release about work on Lewisham station.
Reading this press release, I was amused at a slightly amusing use of words, probably the fault of an intermediary rather than the manager quoted. Whatever, it reads:
Peter Stapleton, Head of Facilities at Southeastern, said: “This work is vital to deal with the ever increasing demand at Lewisham station, which has been exasperated by the ongoing Thameslink work at London Bridge.”
PoP writes: “There was a peak hour exit [from Lewisham station platform 4] to Lewisham Road at the other end of the platform until a few years ago.”
And it was extremely useful. It was used by people who lived to the north of the station (including me, when I lived in that short street of houses overlooked by platform 4 from 1981 to 1989), and by people wanting to shop in the large Tesco, or catch buses towards Greenwich. Now it’s a long drag round via the main entrance, even before the Lewisham town-centre reconstruction project started.
The entrance seemed to have been closed about the time that Oyster PAYG was introduced – perhaps just to save the cost of an Oyster reader. Why?
https://se13ure.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/lewisham-station-platform-4-gate-in-parliament/
Closing that exit at Lewisham was ridiculous. Typical SE thinking (at the time – maybe different now?). TfL would have gated it and have staff there or remotely covered by CCTV. With all the extra staff brought in to deal with overcrowding since January some could’ve manned it. It would lessen the load on the other side.
It’s a matter of time till it will be re-opened I’d have thought. Tesco will eventually redevelop, and the estate just to the north of Lewisham station by Tesco is being redeveloped and going from 500 to 1200 homes. http://www.building.co.uk/bptw-wins-consent-for-lewisham-estate-regeneration/5072067.article
That’s in addition to the thousands now being built to the south of the station which are highly visible from passing trains.
I also wonder whether the big increase in counted passengers is in part due to more now having to pay. Manning the gates for most of the day is an exception for Southeastern. It coincided with the increase in numbers. Not the whole story of course, but could account for a decent percentage increase. You’d see the same at many other SE metro stations if gated. As mentioned, manning could’ve been done smarter at Lewisham by including the north entrance as well.
Who knows though, maybe the silence on the Bakerloo is due to the Treasury and Govt just deciding to kick the can down the road yet further.
@ Alan Burkitt-Gray – I believe South Eastern refused to bear the costs of installing and running ticket gates / staff for this entrance when they gated the rest of the place. There have been umpteen local campaigns and petitions about it. I think it’s one of those small issues where the difference between TOCs and TfL becomes clear. I’d expect TfL would have funded the gates and whatever coverage they needed whereas South Eastern just said “no, no money and no instruction from the DfT”. They have no reason to consider things like shorter walk times, customer convenience etc. They just want the cheapest do minimum option. It’s another one of those issues that makes people hate South Eastern as a train company.
It’s also a rather dubious position on their part when you see how utterly lackadaisical they are about revenue matters elsewhere in Greater London. Still it’s probably a bit much to expect consistency.
@Ed/WW
“Typical SE thinking (at the time – maybe different now?). TfL would have gated it and have staff there or remotely covered by CCTV.”
Not by any means peculiar to SE – we have exactly the same issue at Kingston – second entrance direct to the London-bound platform from the side of the station closest to the residential areas, never open except when the booking hall is shut, despite two Oyster readers and several CCTV cameras for monitoring, so everyone has to traipse round to the entrance on the town side and do battle with the hordes coming off the down trains. SWT refuse to even recognise there is a problem, let alone consider the convenience of their loyal customers.
Contrast Lewisham and Kingston Station with West Croydon where on taking control of the station TFL built a new entrance which gives both step free access and better interchange to Buses and Trams outside .
One does wonder if it’s time The Mayor and TFL were given control of stations in London even if services remain with private TOCs ?
While at Lewisham we have major new developments together major road changes by TFL and yet no changes to rail infrastructure or stations as part of a integrated upgrade of the area .
@ Melvyn – that would be the entrance that has been shut on every visit I have made to West Croydon since the entrance was built? Conceptually it’s a good idea but it’s given zero benefit to me leaving me to trudge for 5 minutes to end up 2 metres away from where I alighted from the train. The double failure is, of course, TfL’s pledge to have staff on the platform who could surely monitor provide assistance, if required, at that gateline for the 14 minutes between trains when they are not having to make sure everyone has alighted from a class 378. You can argue this is worse than South Eastern because they at least haven’t spent money on assets and staff and then failed to offer the most convenient service to a proportion of their customers. South Eastern have just said “no” and not wasted any money. There’s always more than one way to look at how things pan out in reality.
Melvyn
While at Lewisham we have major new developments together major road changes by TFL and yet no changes to rail infrastructure or stations as part of a integrated upgrade of the area
We’ve discussed this many times & I believe that the general consensus is that the ship has sailed.
As recently as 3-5 years back, something could have been done, but the entire “inner” area between the railway lines is now built over with ( IMHO) brutalist new blocks, so any hope of an even vaguely rational rebuilding of the transport infrastructure has been lost, probably permanently.
See also last 200 metres of southern approach to Blackfriars ….
Walthamstow Writer,
I am surprised at your comments on the entrance at West Croydon. Do you only visit on Sundays (when it is advertised as not open)? I cannot recall ever having known it shut and have used it on several occasions as well has occasionally passing it.
@ PoP – not just on Sundays but my last visit was on a Sunday. I don’t visit Croydon very often but I’ve never been able to use the side entrance.
@ngh: The Bolina road bridge with the concrete reinforcement is now mostly rubble.
A bunch of bent rails/girders being pecked at using a very large pair of tin-snips this morning!
@Melvyn:
Lewisham needs something on the scale of Crossrail 3 before any substantial improvements can be made. It looks the way it does because that’s literally the only place the station can go given the layout of its surrounding junctions. It’s a question of geometry.
What’s needed is a project that removes the Blackheath route entirely from the present station, allowing it to be rebuild on a new, straighter alignment. (Removing the Hayes branch doesn’t actually help with this as the Sidcup and Orpington lines use the same platforms.)
So… Crossrail 3 should be interesting.
Here’s a very good webcam positioned on a tower at Lewisham overlooking the junction and building work outside, along with the station, giving a very good overview of what’s going on: https://timelapse.regenology.co.uk/api/embedded/1xq/
It shows but a fraction of the new housing. It’s actually positioned on the old citibank office tower, which itself is due to be converted imminently to housing, with a few hundred extra flats.
Crossrail 3 sounds a long way off.
At Lewisham it would be possible to build a straighter platform on the other side of the lift on the up Hayes/Hither Green platform. Over the temporary bus park etc.
Having done this you could build a new down platform where the up platform and tracks are currently located.
@Chris L: Actually I don’t think you could! The platform currently is where it is, so that it can connect to the massive double crossover at the St. Johns end…
@Anomnibus
“What’s needed is a project that removes the Blackheath route entirely from the present station, allowing it to be rebuild on a new, straighter alignment. ”
I assume you are suggesting that all Charing Cross services could run via the bypass line (with new platforms there, near Parks Bridge Junction) Some means of getting the Hayes services across the fast lines would still be needed of course.
So how do you remove the Blackheath line from the equation? Two options – run all services from Blackheath via Nunhead – you might even integrate it into TSGN and give South eastern some competition in the Bexley area.
Or, if only there were a proposal for a new tube line to Lewisham, looking for somewhere to go after that…………………
Or, of course
Or of course bite the bullet and tie each route passing through Lewisham to the most suitable terminal in operational terms. Be truthful about the disadvantages (end of direct trains for some) and advantages (less likelihood of conflict related delays and possibly a higher frequency and more regular service on each route). Of course some work on Lewisham’s interchange facilities would be needed. I don’t think we can still run the timetable according to the rules established decades ago, regardless of how many people chose to live or work in particular locations based upon that, when the railway is full and there is little room to make major enhancements.
@Ed:
Thanks for that. It’s good to see how much progress they’ve made. I won’t miss the roundabout.
@PoP – (to WW): “I am surprised at your comments on the entrance at West Croydon. Do you only visit on Sundays (when it is advertised as not open)? I cannot recall ever having known it shut…”
Unless things have changed in the last two weeks, that entrance is advertised as closing at 19.30 Mon-Fri and 18.30 Saturdays come what may. I have known it closed other times when no staff member is on the platform.
Indeed, somebody said here:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/new-entrance-at-west-croydon-station/
“It’s a pity the opening hours are so poor for this new entrance.”
@GTR Driver – “Or of course bite the bullet and tie each route passing through Lewisham to the most suitable terminal in operational terms” seems to suggest that you are ignoring the significant freight traffic that is timed to pass through Lewisham.
@GF – seems to suggest that you are ignoring the significant freight traffic that is timed to pass through Lewisham and then proceeds to fall off the tracks or break down somewhere in the vicinity
@GF
Is there sufficient Freight Traffic to justify segregation? Are the Freight paths simple or do they come from and go to here, there and everywhere as do the passenger Trains?
That web-can picture was a revelation.
Again, because of poor planning I assume the ship here has also sailed…
Because it would have been possible ( ? I think ? ) to ease the curve of the Hayes/Hither Green platforms by building new to the East.
You have still got the awful problem of the tight crossover at the NW end, though.
Would a separation at high-level of the Nunhead link, with one (pair) of tracks going on aboove the Blackheath line work?
You are talking really serious sums of moolah at this point though.
Rather helpfully google streetview has JUST updated. Looks to be 2-3 weeks old. You can see all the road junction changes, as well as the many new homes built. This faces the station entrance: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.464407,-0.012895,3a,75y,35.24h,100.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj9juljVJaLbeXw0kd5qffA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Scrolling straight ahead on this road shows the thousands of homes built the past 2-3 years. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.464542,-0.013463,3a,75y,254.74h,107.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAiMHvQ293k64WUCs0Zvmsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
To the north of Lewisham now, showing new builds there. These new residents would benefit from p4 re-opening. It’s worth scrolling through the timeline to say 2012 to see the big changes:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.470463,-0.014301,3a,75y,17.34h,97.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRBd4KN2aGc6fBpsJM_TK8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Not at all Graham, since freight will be part of operational considerations.
Thanks GTR. You know how it is – many transport users tend totally to forget that much of the railway has to cope with freight/non-passenger trains of various types, not forgetting empty coach workings, too.
For RayK, suffice to say that the main freight artery is on and off the West London Line, distributed via Lewisham to various parts of Kent and beyond. The Catford Loop is another route, as is that via Herne Hill. All this has to be worked on top of Southeastern, Thameslink and Overground services.
Right up to the final days in its original incarnation, the Thameslink route via Blackfriars and Farringdon was also a major route for freight, including then significant parcels traffic. It was the construction of the flyover at Lewisham from Nunhead that enabled much of that traffic to avoid London Bridge.
Don’t forget that the East London Line was also used for freight once upon a time…
“It was the construction of the flyover at Lewisham from Nunhead that enabled much of that traffic to avoid London Bridge.”
In fact, the Nunhead connection at Lewisham was originally freight-only for a few years. Electrification took a while to catch up.
The ramp and chord up to the then-disused Greenwich Park Branch was built at the same time as the chord linking Lewisham station with the ‘main line’ route via Hither Green was added. Right up until the 1920s, none of those services had any access to Lewisham’s station at all.
All this infrastructure was built primarily to allow freight services to access the Nunhead route, not for passenger services.
@SHLR – or indeed much of the District and Met outside the Circle, well into the ’50s and ’60s. LURS published an article on this a few years ago (maybe others will have the reference?). The list of yards served was quite long – for example, the Uxbridge line had yards at S Harrow (served off the Uxbridge freight trip), Rayners Lane, Eastcote and Ickenham.
@ Graham H
As well as former LNER parts of the Northern Line. I can remember steam trains delivering coal to Finchley Central up until the family left London for deepest Somerset in July 1961.
(Apologies to Mods for veering a little off topic)
@Graham H. It is some years now since I lived in Ruislip and Uxbridge but the non-electrified track used to be still in situ at Rayners Lane, between the running line and the car park.
Hint (to everyone). If you would like your comment to slip under the moderators’ (sometimes erratic) radar, then do not apologise for it being off topic! Kind and thoughtful as such apologies may be, by drawing attention (and removing the excuse of “I didn’t notice it”), they are highly counter-productive!
@Anonymous – yes, that was the site of the freight yard. Pause for nostalgic wallow: there used to be a mid-day freight trip, usually as I recall worked by a Cricklewood 4MT in filthy condition, which served the Uxbridge line yards. The locos really were in appalling condition – I once watched one have three attempts to push 2 wagons up the grade into Eastcote yard. Quite what this did for the Met/Piccadilly timetable is not recorded…
To come back a little nearer to topic, the elimination of trip freight working on the London network must surely have been beneficial in terms of reliability, and certainly so in terms of capacity – it’s virtually impossible to see how you could write a timetable for the present level of service on the inner sections of the mainline network, and yet accommodate freight. And it’s going to be fascinating to see whether the intensity of the CR service forces longer distance freight to run to a fixed timetable and stick to it.
Looking at Unravelled’s latest diveunder photo’s I see that the last of the iron bridges over the old bricklayers arms branch has gone. I wonder how much more has to go before they can start on foundations?
The length of time it is taking to demolish the old Bermondsey Viaducts has finally brought it home to me just how big a job the Bermondsey Dive Under is. It wouldn’t fit into my back garden. Indeed it would occupy several adjacent streets (not just properties).
Quinlet 31 July 2015 at 11:06 on ‘Perfect Storm’ thread
‘I was, indeed, referring to the Bermondsey dive under.’
I feel sure that had you posted your original comment here rather than on the LBG thread I would have associated it with Bermondsey DU immediately instead of mistaking it for a reference to LBG.
‘As others have pointed out, the viaduct for the Thameslink route takes a different alignment from that of previous viaducts in the area and hence a completely new link is needed from where it departs from the line of what are currently tracks 4 and 5 over to the northern approaches to New Cross Gate.’
I am confused again. There are either two or three lines between the work site and New Cross Gate depending on just where you look. I can’t make sense of you reference to Tracks 4 and 5. I wondered if you meant to the West of the site but there are only four tracks in use there and they are either 1 to 4 or 1,2 5 & 6 (again depending on just where you look).
‘I had presumed that the carefully retained bases to the recently demolished viaduct were to support the Charing Cross lines . . .’
Yes! This was discussed on this thread during early July and (I think) we came to the same conclusion. I don’t know how many of the original bases can be used in this way given the new alignment of the lines. Presumably replacing three tracks will two is of help with this.
@PoP 11th July
‘I think if you could be patient we might be able to better supply answers in a more organised manner than drip-feeding. Let’s just say you didn’t quite understand Sad Fat Dad’s cryptic comment the other day.’
Sometimes the wheels grind very, very, very slowly. The penny has finally dropped. Thanks for your patience.
I think the track numbering is as was before the works started, so 1-3 for CST traffic, 4&5: Old down tracks.
4&5 will now become the Thameslink tracks, the works are affecting those.
6&7 will become the Charing Cross tracks with 8 – 11 being the low level LBG tracks (IIRC).
Thanks Southern Heights. I have now reread Quinlet’s comment and it is now crystal clear what he is saying.
There is already some new track being layed between Spa Road and Southwark Park. Some of this looks to be points to adjacent lines. Given the length of the points (and the fact that they appear to be in four bits) suggests they they will for high speed running.
I read the final layout as being as per Southern Heights’ comment, but with 6-8 being Charing Cross and 9-11 being low-level, each with 1 up, 1 down, 1 reversible.
Don’t forget that the low-level platforms lose trains to the Thameslink route on re-opening.
But I’m open to being wrong 🙂
Southern Heights 31 July 2015 at 14:52
I make you right for tracks
MikeP 2 August 2015 at 13:49
I fear you’ve got tracks and platforms slightly garbled
That’s because the up and down Charing Cross tracks both part to run either side of island platforms, creating a significant increase in capacity and better timekeeping.
When the whole super-duper mega-expensive project is finished, platforms from north to south will be
1 – 3 Cannon Street
4 & 5 Thameslink
6 & 7 – 8 & 9 Charing Cross
10 – 15 Southern terminating
That’s 9 through & 6 terminating platforms, as per all publications.
Nonetheless, MikeP is correct for the track numbers at the point where there are 11 parallel tracks , about a mile or so east of London Bridge before the branch to Bermondsey leaves. Neither of the earlier posts were describing platform allocations as far as I can see:
1-3 Cannon St
4&5 Thameslink
6-8 Charing Cross
9-11 London Bridge low level
PS, that should be South Bermondsey, however allocation of tracks to services is also shown as Mike P describes in the last of the diagrams in the article we are discussing…
My train to New Cross (from Platform 10) went through the Dive Under yesterday. I wasn’t even aware it was operational.
It opened 28th December, which is significantly earlier than the estimates back in 2014. Has been discussed in the comments towards the end of this more recent thread:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/bermondsey-diveunder