The Surprise Contender: Sutton Tramlink

1. Another great read PoP, thanks

2. Yes. Good to read and a nice set of pictures, to be perhaps contrasted in a decade or so by ones with trams in. I did say “perhaps”!

   Regarding the hospital; I would suggest diverting the trams one way only (say southbound), to go via the hospital. This would mean passengers to/from the hospital would have to change, but only in one direction, and through passengers would be slightly delayed, but again only in one direction. The pain, such as it is, would thus be nicely shared.

3. @PoP: Thanks for the article, very good pictures today.

   I looked into this when I was doing the LR London 2050 map, and I really felt that the South Wimbledon to Sutton tram via the Hospital seemed like an excellent idea for a tram route.

4. 
   Thanks for this article.

   Regarding the Wimbledon loop…it’s been discussed before, but with shades of the former Wimbledon-to-Croydon service pre-Tramlink, is the low service level the cause of, or because of, the low demand? Clearly, increasing it to 4tph was to be one of the benefits of terminating it in the Blackfriars bays before politics intervened, but if the limit is indeed the Thameslink core, what can be done about that? Conversion of the heavy rail line to Tramlink has been suggested in the past, as has disentangling Sutton station through the provision of a segregated terminal bay west of the road bridge (i.e. breaking the loop to remove the conflicting movements.) …you could of course come up with a few more obvious options I’ll avoid detailing lest I incur the mod’s wrath, but I’m sure you can guess what they would be given my previous comments on the subject of Wimbledon (hint: [Hint snipped as it incurred the mod’s wrath PoP]).

   …so, is improving the existing NR service between Wimbledon an Sutton the answer here, or is the tram proposal sufficiently beneficial to warrant the investment?

5. Could Sutton be a way to get longer trams into Croydon by moving the existing fleet?

6. Thanks for the article.

   I find it deeply ironic that the article refers disparagingly to tram schemes being promoted for other reasons than transport demand (based on the Commissioner’s quote) when the whole “flavour du jour” of every transport plan emerging from City Hall is to support housing and other development. Transport demand seems to come second or third in all the hype that pours forth. Talk about picking whatever argument you want to justify doing or not doing something. It is very well known that trams have triggered massive levels of inward investment in many cities in Europe and the EU. Retention of tram services has also helped keep local areas in cities attractive to live in and to help foster local businesses.

   Ironically I was in the Rose Hill / St Helier Hospital area last Friday when using the S1 bus. One of those seemingly daft buses that goes everywhere and nowhere. What was telling was that the heaviest used section on the S1 was St Helier into Sutton. Now that’s a bit to the east of the tram alignment but there’s clearly quite a hinterland that could be given easy links to a tram service. I recall the outraged comments from Sutton councillors at the “Bus Summit” at City Hall that you briefly mention with regard to notorious comments. The councillors were just completely fed up with TfL and the complete lack of improvement and investment in the Borough in terms of bus, tram and rail. I suspect that outrage at being ignored is in part what forced them to undertake the consultation so they at least garnered some level of understanding of / support for the tram.

   I’m pretty sure you could run a tram line almost anywhere in a built up part of London linking to a tube / rail line and / or local town centre and it would pull in the punters. It is completely ludicrous that we do not have a proper London wide strategy to put in place environmentally friendly medium capacity links where buses are totally inadequate and trains or tubes are simply too expensive to build. Croydon has shown quite clearly what can be achieved if you provide a competently run frequent service.

7. Is there space near South Wimbledon for trams to terminate?
   The crossroads here is already very restricted, and often backs up for half a mile in the morning and evening.
   There is a small carpark next to the ex-Grove pub (now a Tesco metro) on the SW corner of the South Wimb crossroads which could be used for a tram terminus, but that is about the only space anywhere near the tube station.

8. I would also argue, contrary to the article, that Sutton actually has a pretty bad train service at present, compared with places like Croydon, Kingston, Bromley and Richmond.
   Sutton has no fast trains, and half the trains to Victoria go the ‘long way’ round, via West Croydon.

9. Sutton doesn’t have a bad train service so much as being on a ‘less strategic’ part of the network. Bromley and Croydon are on main lines to major destinations elsewhere on relatively direct routes from town and thus benefit from being the first or second stop. Sutton is at the confluence of two track railways with nowhere for fast trains to overtake, with only one of them leading to Central London in anything like a direct way. Epsom and Dorking are the nearest to a major destination from Sutton and the majority of their trains do take the quickest route to Victoria, the Dorkings being fast. Would a tram from East Croydon through to the Sutton-Morden-Wimbledon area bring even more on to fast trains to there and Wimbledon I wonder?

10. A very thorough article – thank you for the usual high quality research. A small initial point – £20m/km is by no means way out of line if you allow for usual optimism bias – 10 years ago, the average cost (except in France) of on-street tramway construction in Europe was around £15m/mile, so allowing for inflation since (and that OB factor), it’s about what you might expect.

    Some of the gradients around Sutton High Street seem quite fierce but I notice that these are not mentioned as a problem.

11. @ GTR Driver – you’re being logical whereas the councillors probably aren’t because they’re fighting for their locality. I suspect there are several things going on.

    1. Simple things like a regular night bus from Croydon was scrapped and years later it still hasn’t been replaced. Requests for a more frequent X26 service have been made hundreds of times and nothing has been done despite buses being jammed solid.

    2. I suspect that having a directly TfL operated service is seen as beneficial because your residents get more generous concessions, the quality is perceived to be better, there is greater democratic control / influence over the service, it may get on the tube map thus raising profiles.

    3. If you compare Sutton with, say, Harrow then the latter has three rail services plus a frequent tube service. I’d argue the buses are probably equivalent in a lot of ways but journey times and choice of rail service is far better in Harrow than Sutton. There’s just more service volume. All those rail lines have had new trains or similar in recent years.

    4. If you compare Sutton with say NE London then there’s a revamped tube service, newly acquired Overground route with millions to be spent on it plus electrification of the GOBLIN. We going to get some experimental virtual electric DD buses. If I was a Sutton councillor I might be a bit jealous.

    There may well be things that have happened in Sutton that I don’t know about but I can’t recall much happening transport wise in that part of town. The S1 bus had a frequency increase a while ago and the S3 and S4 got some new buses. Can’t think of any hybrid buses yet in Sutton. It may be more about perception than reality but I can see why people aren’t exactly thrilled with Southern and Thameslink running their trains given how everyone cheers about how fabulous LOROL are on the Overground (no rants about West Anglia please).

12. I’ve no idea of the costs of Metrolink, but I did a comparison against the proposal to extend Edinburgh trams to Newhaven at £144m for 4.5km – roughly £30m per km, and of course this would need no new trams. On that basis either the Edinburgh figure has massive contingency or the Sutton figure is good value – hard to know which…

13. Given the history of Edinburgh Trams, I would go with massive contingency ;)….

14. In terms of the diversion to Morden to connect to the Northern Line or a Spur to South Wimbledon the existing tramlink alignment at Morden road is within about 50 feet of the Northern line alignment. The only trouble is that it is 50 feet vertically !

    How much would it cost to build a new station here ?

    I would think most of the station could be built before the existing cast iron Northern line tunnels were opened up so the disruption to the Northern line should be minimal. With TBTC there will be no signals to change on the Northern line just a few data changes to get the train to stop in the new platforms.

    \if the station could be ‘open to the sky’ it would not need to meet all the ‘section 12’ requirements that would help with the construction and staffing costs.

15. @Anonymously – on all the comparative tables of tramway construction costs, Edinburgh sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb – unfortunately,HMT will use that for ever to beat up tramway promoters on costs, and fuel demands for an ever bigger OB number….

16. As an Edinburgh resident, I would suggest not using the bad execution of the construction here, as something to take account of in new schemes. It was poorly done, period. Now they are here, usage is ahead of expectations. Taking one mid morning from the airport last week, it was rammed. An extension is being talked of with many sanity checks built in before committing.

    Manchester has construction off to fine art, so may I suggest using them as the yard stick, not Edinburgh.

    As a final aside, Edinburgh clearly demonstrates that old LR maxim, “if you build it they will come”. No doubt Sutton would be the same.

17. Having attended the consultation, and with this being fairly local to me, I hope I have a bit to add.

    1) IIRC, the consultation included detailed engineering drawings of the route and potential stations. I can’t remember exact details sadly, but it is interesting that level of detail was available. (As such, I can’t remember where the stop at Rose Hill or South Wimbledon were going to be exactly). One thing to bear in mind is that Sutton council was pushing the consultation more than Merton.

    2) The link at Modern between the two systems was a choice. The cheap option was to take the South Wimbledon to Sutton route over the bridge having two vertically separate stations. The expensive option was to take trams from Sutton to the east, then under the bridge (heading towards Wimbledon) with the systems sharing a combined station, before heading on to South Wimbledon via the yellow link marked on the diagram above (through a park). In my opinion, the combined station would make the system feel much more unified, and avoid traffic queues around South Wimbledon.

    3) The choice of South Wimbledon as the destination was one I questioned. There is far more development planned for the area around Sainsburys near Colliers Wood, and terminating a tram at Colliers Wood station would be easy as there is already a bus-only street. It would also be very possible to extend the tram from Colliers Wood alongside the river to Haydons Road NR station and thus into central Wimbledon. As a loop, this seemed to have as much potential as a central Wimbledon one. Plus, the retail area around Sainsburys (near Colliers Wood) is a reasonable draw for passengers and jobs, ideal for generating tram journeys.

    4) In Sutton town centre, the promoters have made some awkward choices. In particular, the tram is kept away from most of the high street. Note the difference in success between the Birmingham and Manchester trams, where the Birmingham tram has been hidden from most visitors and the Manchester one is very “in your face”. Having the tram very visible is a huge advert for the tram and definitely draws in passengers.

    5) In my view, Angel Hill is likely to be the key challenge for the project in layout terms. It is a busy and complex junction with height issues.

    6) Diverting via the hospital seemed unwise to me. There are continual questions over the hospital’s future, and it is a big diversion. My view was that it would be better to plan for a future link from Rose Hill to Carshalton, via the hospital rather than messing up the main flow to Sutton.

    7) The TfL funding pot allocations are indeed pretty scandalous. I keep meaning to calculate the amount of money TfL spends per borough, because the figures would be shocking. Basically, large amounts of funds are collected in the south and spent in the north.

    8) Finally, it is hard to discuss the tram without considering the Wimbledon to Sutton railway line. Knowing the local area, I do think that line would be suitable for tram conversion. There would be be far more stops (6 to 8 more stops) which would tap into the population far better given how it is relatively low density. Equally, the line would be entirely suitable to be added into Crossrail 2 with an 8tph fast service to central London. If that approach was taken, it would draw significant numbers away from the Northern line, allowing CR2 to not be routed via Tooting Broadway. What does seem clear is that TfL have no clear plan for the line, which means it carries on being a wasted asset.

    Hope that helps.

18. StephenC,

    Thanks for additional info. I had no idea that there were engineering drawings and I am pretty sure nothing was put up online. I must confess I made no attempt to attend the consultation because at the time I thought this would never get to the point where it was seriously considered and I assumed all the information available was online.

    I hadn’t understood the point of the alternative route to South Wimbledon. Mind you I think it is a non-starter because in the consultation response one gets the impression that this opinion was by far the most criticised.

    Something I really failed to do was take a decent photo at South Wimbledon. Basically the road is very wide until it gets to the junction and then it dramatically narrows. To me there was a very obvious place for a terminus on the west side of the road. This would involve a very short walk to the junction (and therefore the tube station). I am not familiar with the area but I think the issue with continuing north is getting across the junction at South Wimbledon without having a very negative effect on other traffic that would spread to a large area around this part of London.

19. As WW points out, the outer parts of London are fairly obviously suited to trams. Tramlink itself demonstrates this. It’s equally obviously a lot easier to fiddle around with bus routes than to promote a tram scheme. It also seems easier to promote mind-bogglingly expensive rail projects like CR2. The latter is backed by ‘business’, who seem to lack any interest whatsoever in the outer suburbs. Buses possibly have the advantage of not attracting too much embarrassing growth (unlike trams!), so give the transport planners a relatively quiet life.

    Over the water, Paris seems to lead in many transport areas (RER, bike hire, suburban trams) and London belatedly follows. Well done Sutton for pushing the issue.

20. Crayon alert! Perhaps the proposed CR2 works at Wimbledon would provide an opportunity for releasing/creating platform space to help resolve the multiple issues that Tramlink expansion and possible changes to services on the Wimbledon Loop lines keep throwing at us. StephenC’s very sensible comment about the Sutton to Wimbledon line highlights this issue again. After all, the Wimbledon-Croydon line was a Cinderella line until Tramlink brought passengers out of nowhere. Conversion of the Sutton line to 25kv (so that it can carry both peak loaded trains and trams (cf Karlsruhe) wouldn’t give any problems even for existing stock, as they are already dual voltage.
    Sorry, getting carried away.

21. Being Sutton born and bred (now living in Australia) the talk was always about extending the Northern Line to Sutton. Makes more sense than this half baked scheme which still looks like a feeder to the NL anyway. As for the interchange with the Croydon Tramlink?!

22. @An Engineer
    13 July 2015 at 08:03
    “How much would it cost to build a new station here ?
    I would think most of the station could be built before the existing cast iron Northern line tunnels were opened up so the disruption to the Northern line should be minimal. ”

    Better just pick up on that one.

    I think this will compare with the costs we have discussed before about doing similar things before with closed Northern Line stations (such as City Road) as well as the Bakerloo line proposed Bromley Central station.

    You would be looking at £200m at the very, very minimum. Also, I have a feeling that making the other changes to signalling would be not as inexpensive as you suggest.

    A final point is that this branch of the Northern Line is also at capacity to the north, so providing a new station here would only exacerbate that.

    I suspect that the costs of this tram route would more than double with your new station suggestion; also (as mentioned in the article) the ratio of long, frequency Northern Line trains to short less frequent tram would cause extreme queues and overloaded trams.

23. Re PoP,

    There are a lot of traffic issues around the area because the rail (both heavy and light and the alignments of former rail lines) and the River Wandle becuase there are very few crossing points, channel lots of traffic through a number of pinch points including inefficient and constrained junctions that are very difficult to do anything about. As noted in comments a previous article thread there is always significant opposition from local residents unless do anything about the local roads network unless it involves closing off more side roads or narrowing other roads (hoping the traffic will go elsewhere)

    https://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/the-croydon-tramlink-part-2/#comment-246633

    Re heading north of South Wimbledon, it would be very difficult north of the junction as the road is fairly narrow (single lane for 600m with several bus routes), has a tight bend after 300m and has lots of slow moving traffic that can’t easily be diverted elsewhere.

    Re Stephen C
    I quite like your alternative idea of Colliers Wood given Merton are currently trying to rejuvinate the area to align with the redevelopment of the former Brown and Root House, it offers far better quality of interchange with the tube and buses.

24. Thank you for yet another informative article.

    As with some commentators, I have mixed feelings about whether Tramlink to Sutton should be on a street alignment throughout. Let’s look at the wider picture – I’m afraid I shall have to grab the crayons…

    At present, the safeguarded route for CR2 envisages two tunnel portals north of Wimbledon, one on each side of the SWML. I have seen indications that this will involve a large raft of infrastructure rearrangements to the north of Wimbledon, including shifting around parts of Wimbledon depot and the District Line alignment. This will be complicated and probably require nine-digit sums of money.

    At the same time, the Thameslink service on the Wimbledon loop – forced through by the MP for Wimbledon for no reasons other than political ones – will ensure the service (a) will continue to be unattractive in terms of frequency; (b) will continue to maintain Thameslink’s performance at a very low level.

    So how about this:
    – Crossrail 2 could have a flyover south of Wimbledon so that it comes in on the south side of the station. It would then take over the northern portion of the Wimbledon loop. The portal could then be built along the loop rather than next to the SWML, saving cost. Happy to debate about where the stations should be in that area, and where the Crossrail-Northern line interchange should go. This will provide a vastly improved service (in terms of frequency and range of destinations) for passengers on the northern side of the Wimbledon loop.

    – This leaves the southern end of the loop. If we route Crossrail 2 through a flyover south of Wimbledon and then through the high-numbered platforms, that leaves the issue of what you do with the trains at the south end of the loop. You could build new platforms to the south of where Tramlink joins the station (leaving the issue of frequency and a long walk to the rest of the station), or you could convert it to Tramlink, thus providing a fast, frequent and reliable connection from Sutton to Crossrail 2. By increasing the number of stops you could probably reach a similar level of accessibility as the road-based option, although St Helier hospital would probably no longer be on the map. The southern portion of the route could still be street-based to allow for the town centre to be served properly.

    Most importantly, though, such a solution would probably be cheaper both for the Crossrail 2 and Tramlink to Sutton projects.

    I shall put my crayons away now.

    And P.S.: The Royal Marsden Hospital in Belmont is looking to significantly expand soon:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regeneration-project-sutton-for-life-london-gdv-100m/regeneation-project-sutton-for-life-london-gdv-100m
    One would imagine a tram service linking it to Sutton and Wimbledon would be rather popular…

25. Straphan,

    I find your proposals rather off-topic as well as crayonista. I will leave it to others to judge but to me it seems to be almost entirely about CR2.

    I didn’t realise the Royal Marsden proposals were so far progressed. Thanks for the link. I will add it to the article.

26. @PoP: I did warn about the crayons.

    The reason for my long-winded post was down to the fact, that your article does not mention much about Crossrail 2 and its potential impact on Wimbledon (except a brief note at the end). I appreciate you chose to focus on the proposals that have been put forward by TfL officially to avoid speculation. However, it must be borne in mind that the work done by TfL was before Crossrail 2, and any Sutton extension must take into account how Wimbledon will be changed by Crossrail 2. It is one of those tricky project interfaces that do not get enough attention paid to them. This is why I chose to comment on this particular issue. If it is too crayonistic for your taste, I shall not mention it further.

    From what I heard there is still some sort of funding conundrum with regard to the Royal Marsden site, but the plans for its redevelopment are indeed well advanced. With Belmont station being able to offer no more than 2tph all day a tram would be seen as very desirable from the point of view of the developers of the site.

    (They could do with a better name, though… ‘Sutton for Life’ sounds like something to do with the prison down the road…)

27. straphan, one of the points of the route for this tram link is to fill in an area of low connectivity, hence it goes through the centre of the loop, not on the loop itself.

    The issue of the pointless Thameslink loop service is another thing altogether, I could suggest that a 10 minute interval Overground service (Clapham Junction (where it would terminate is an issue) – Balham – Loop) would probably be a far more useful service than Thameslink, but would mean a lot of people who enjoy a direct train to Blackfriars (and beyond) would suffer. Maybe it could be an Overground service terminating at Blackfriars though, if there is capacity on that section to E&C.

    (IMO Thameslink is too important to waste through services on a frickin’ local loop service). And off topic.

    I agree that Colliers Wood (then up to Streatham!) would be a more interesting termination point, for a pure Sutton Tram Link (although the route would be difficult, it’s all park/Wandle so undesirable to use). But if the line ever connected to the Croydon Tram Link, then Croydon-South Wimbledon might be useful.

28. @Sykobee: I think it’s a question of the scale of costs and benefits – going on-street has higher costs AND benefits, taking over the Wim Loop has lower costs AND benefits. The question is which one has a higher ratio of the two?

    Regarding an extension to Colliers Wood: I understand Merantun Way was built on the old trackbed of the Tooting, Merton and Wimbledon railway line – would there not be enough space for a tram track?

    @PoP: Just spotted you quoted the address of the Tramlink depot as ‘Therapia Road’ in one place in the article…
    [Now corrected. Thanks. PoP]

29. The discussion about the Royal Marsden triggered a memory that I saw the site mentioned on one of the display boards at the consultation. I’m sure some consideration has occurred behind closed doors as to the possibility of converting the Epsom Downs line to a tram with a deviation to serve the Marsden site. (And as I’ve pointed out before, this is by far the most likely way to connect Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner, even though still highly unlikely).

    A South Wimbledon terminus remains very difficult in my view. There are always large traffic queues on all routes to the junction, such that there are at least 2 regular “alternative” routes used by cars (and many other roads have also been blocked off). The problems are linked to the level crossing at Merton Park tram stop, where the lights cause further long queues, with more “alternative” routes in use. The level crossing issue is going to be a problem anyway once the frequency to Wimbledon increases.

    The only solutions are likely to be expensive. Once upon a time there was meant to be a replacement bridge on a new road to the south of the level crossing. That is why Merantum Way has a gap between the two carriageways where it joins Morden Road. While a surface route through housing is no longer viable, it is important to bear in mind the Roads Task Force work of TfL. It is certainly feasible to consider that the Roads Task Force may be considering a tunnel from Merantum Way to Bushey Road south of Raynes Park station. Such a new road could allow the level crossing to close, and potentially allow a connection to Hartfield Road, creating a situation where Merton Road north of South Wimbledon station could be closed to traffic. It seems to me, that an intervention of this scale would be necessary to get the tram up Merton Road and up Wimbledon Broadway. (We really need more info on the Roads Task Force to understand whether my educated guesswork might be what is planned).

30. @Straphan, in my opinion, any tram to Colliers Wood would run on the south side of Merantum way, initially using the car park of an industrial building, then further industrial land before crossing the road at the river and running to the north of Merantum Way from there. Bear in mind that it has been proposed (formally to some degree) that the Sainsburys/M&S site would be completely redeveloped, with the superstore perhaps moving into the industrial park. (This would be a better land use, putting high density housing near the tube… except that the tube is full).

    Running the tram on Merantum Way itself would run into traffic issues.

31. Can I just remind contributors about a couple of points on “off-topic” and “crayonistic”. Both of these terms are open to interpretation. Moderators are sometimes torn between a wish to let people put ideas forward, and a wish to enforce the rules. This will inevitably result in what may look like rough justice at times.

    As PoP implied in an earlier comment, you can all help by refraining from commenting on something which strikes you as off-topic. This will leave space for the discussion of the articles (and matters directly arising) which is the main focus of these comment pages.

    And, importantly, there is no automatic get-out by adding “Sorry about the crayons” (or equivalent) to your message!

32. Re: StephenC – point 3 – with you and ngh on this, any reason put forward why Collier’s Wood wasn’t considered ??
    Point 6 – It’s hard to think of any other area across London where so much has been discussed about secondary care reconfiguration, with so little happening – except for the Epsom/St Helier shotgun marriage all those years ago. So I do realistically expect the hospital to still be there in 30 years’ time. Caveat: I’m not so up-to-date on recent plans.

33. The following was tweeted by Sutton Council earlier today.

    “Leaders of Sutton and @Merton_Council meeting with Dep. Transport Mayor today to discuss next steps for Wimbledon-Sutton tramlink extension”

    Nice timing on the article. Do you have a spy camera with sight of Ms Dedring’s diary? 😉

34. I’m from the Sutton area. Not to sound like a NIMBY, but I don’t think tramlink should be extended into Sutton. Unlike the Croydon route, it appears the plans will mainly run over existing roads instead of disused or lightly-used railway lines. Many of these roads are already jammed packed during the rush hour. Apart from St Helier Avenue, many of the roads are also quite narrow. Morden Road around South Wimbledon, Angel Hill and Rose Hill are all very congested roads. Since the tram will take over existing road lanes, the roads will probably become more congested. A small decrease in cars and buses on these roads are unlikely to make a difference if these roads lose lanes to the trams.

    In addition to this, the London borough of Sutton is very different to Croydon. The current Croydon tramlink route runs through less well-off areas which are more dependent on public transport. On the other hand, the London borough of Sutton tends to be more affluent, suburban and less dependent on public transport for local journeys. Most households have one or more cars. Despite a large number of buses running through the area, most people continue to use their cars for most journeys. I doubt many residents will use the trams for local journeys over their own car. Apart from commuting to central London, most people don’t use public transport.

    I feel the £250 million would be better spent on improving the rail services to central London. The Sutton loop between Wimbledon and Sutton could become another Crossrail 2 branch, and would provide a faster route than tramlink between Wimbledon and Sutton. Many residents would favour a more frequent and faster service to the West End and Kings Cross, than a slow Tramlink service and slow Thameslink service. The money could also be spent on converting the Southern Victoria metro services to London Overground. More trains and an off-peak service London Bridge would also be welcomed.

    Personally I would prefer faster and more frequent train services to central London than a tramlink extension.

35. I have to say, I’m also surprised heading up Merantun Way to Colliers Wood and the shopping/industrial park wasn’t a goal of the project. It’s probably just short of an extra km and vastly increases the travel opportunities.

    I also thought there were a few empty lots near Sutton station that were being held by the council for possible future bus station/tram stabling? Have they sold it off now?

    WW:
    “1. Simple things like a regular night bus from Croydon was scrapped and years later it still hasn’t been replaced. Requests for a more frequent X26 service have been made hundreds of times and nothing has been done despite buses being jammed solid.”

    The lack of a night bus is still gutting, but I looked into the X26 issues before and it’s the length of the route that causes issues there. It doesn’t have the ridership to justify more than a half hourly service during most of the day, but because of the route’s tremendous length it’s quite difficult to add a peak time service to it without ending up having to just increase it all day long. T’would be nice if they could justify a 3/hr service just because of the unique service it provides, but I’ll not hold my breath.

36. Potential alternative Colliers Wood detail:

    I might actually go for a central alignment for tram tracks or StephenC’s Southern alignment but not North side for the tracks.

    From the Jn with Morden Road (A24) the first 150m of Merantun Way the original track bed is still in the centre of the road so plenty of spare there for realignment of road. The next 100m could be done using grass verge. Beyond that Merantun way rises up till till the roundabout where it is circa 3m (more in places) above the surrounding land (there are pedestrian underpasses east of the round about) – the choice here is between some fairly old industrial units to demolish (Corrugated Asbestos board type!) on either side. East of the roundabout (the former site of Merton Abbey station) there should be enough land if the retaining wall of Sainsbury’s /M&S carpark is extended higher. The route would then diverge from the former railway route on to Christcurch Road where the carriage way could be moved further north-west (on to grass verge) and follow Christchruch Road round to Colliers Wood tube station entrance (part bus and access only already on bit nearest the tube station), beyond the tube station cross the A24 (time the trams at the same time as the parallel pedestrian crossing!) to Baltic Close and then through Wandle Park (part ex Sewage Works with 400kV cables overhead) to the rail line @ Haydons Road.

    Christchurch Road used to have an over bridge over the railway line (at the junction with what is now Merantun Way so it might be possible to have some of the tram line grade seperated.

    OLD OS maps:
    http://maps.nls.uk/view/103313854
    http://maps.nls.uk/view/103313860

    Agree with Straphan that Transport (schemes) in this area can’t be sensibly assessed in isolation (i.e. CR2 Thameslink and Norhtern Line and road /bus issues need to be kept in mind especially if the 2tph issue if to get sorted).

37. On the basis that this is the only interest TfL will take in the area to improve transport it has my full support. Though as most of the buses round here are feeder to the Northern Line anyway, it would seem far more logical to extend that instead. Then deal with the consequences with Crossrail 2.

38. hmmmn. Long, almost straight road connecting two locations running through an area which wants improved transport.

    Makes you miss the bulk-moving capacity of ‘bendy-buses’ on reserved routes, doesn’t it :O

39. @ Ryan – While I take your point about the dominance of car travel in outer boroughs I think there is a pretty decent track record of evidence that trams are very successful at pulling in people from the wealthier socio-economic groups who wouldn’t be seen dead on a bus. Therefore, if the scheme is well designed, I’d not be surprised to see some reduction in car traffic in and around Sutton because motorists have decided to use the tram. After all if you can make trams work in the United States, the land of automotive freedom, then you can certainly make them work here. It is also worth bearing in mind that there is also evidence that reducing road capacity also reduces demand. It’s merely the reverse of the “more roads means more traffic growth” phenomenon that’s been witnessed across the world. People are just terrified by the concept and what they think the consequences will be during the planning and development of schemes.

    I also don’t really see why the money should simply be spent on improving journeys to the centre. Surely journeys in and around Sutton deserve investment too? There is more than one argument to be made here. Sutton probably does deserve to have a better heavy rail service but local political campaigns in S/SW London have killed that one off for a long while. There is surely no harm at all in having a tram that eases local journeys, gives a good link to the tube and also allows people easier access *to* Sutton never mind for Sutton residents wanting to travel *from* Sutton.

    I think I’m going to start a campaign against “make everything the Overground” as if it makes a rail service instantly wonderful. I think it’s more cogent to argue for more frequent daily services, longer trains, visible staff and an uniform ticketing and concession structure across Greater London. It doesn’t all have to be painted Orange but it will need a lot of money spent on infrastructure and rolling stock. One has to get with the “new mantra” from City Hall and Windsor House. 😉

    @ Chz – the X26 issues could be solved relatively easily but perhaps not as cheaply as TfL might want. Firstly stick some double deckers on the route. That would remove some of the capacity issues due to crowding. I know not everyone using the route can manage stairs but many can. Secondly and I know it would cause the TfL bus planners great mental stress and anxiety to have to flex their service planning guidelines but they could actually specify some supplementary short runs between Croydon and Kingston to deal with the worst of the crowding in and around Sutton. TfL will happily bend its own rules when costs require it too – the 25 and 38 have short workings scheduled all the time. Regardless of all of this the daily reality for passengers is that they’re regularly booted off buses that get short turned anyway so it’s hardly an alien concept.

    What the X26 really needs is some funding and some commitment to do something even if it sticks in TfL’s craw to do so. You need only go back to the original paper that reported on the enhanced frequency trial on the X26 to see that TfL didn’t want to run the enhanced service anyway but were forced to by the Mayor. Worse the service is popular making their dislike probably even greater and even worse it allows people to argue for more express buses which is clearly on TfL’s “dearie me no we can’t ever do that unless we’re forced to by the Mayor” list. There’s endless evidence that decently structured express bus routes work perfectly well in many parts of the country. London passengers would get used to them pretty quickly if more were introduced for those journeys where they’d bring genuine benefit. I understand all the arguments about confusion with stopping services and not duplicating the rail / tube network but when you face a crisis in moving people about perhaps you need some creative thinking?

40. @Walthamstow Writer – the Uxbridge Road tram scheme was a classic example of asking the public “Do you want to reduce congestion?” and they say “Yes” then asking them “Do you want a tram scheme?” and they say “No”….

    “Congestion” is always other people, and too many were scared of their own car journeys being affected or the tram causing rat-running through residential streets.

    Ealing were in favour of the Uxbridge Road scheme so will be interesting if Merton and Sutton can do a better job of bringing the public along with them.

41. @ Reynolds 953 – fair comment about West London Transit. I suspect TfL have learnt a lot about planning and tactics since those days. Organisationally it was still “young” in those days and Ken L had a bit of “knows best” stance on transport stuff so that was probably a lethal combination in helping things go wrong. If I was “crazed Transport Dictator of London” I’d still have built WLT but that’d just be me in mad demagog mode. Unfortunately real councillors have to deal with the real objectionable / concerned public who vote for them. I was looking earlier at the Sutton Tramlink consultation results – from a quick glance many aspects of the scheme were well received with very high scores in the “strongly support” and “support” categories with very low percentages for “hate the damn thing and hope it never happens” category. 🙂 Hopefully that gives them a decent starting point to take the scheme forward from.

42. One of the reasons the roads from Sutton to Morden are jam packed is because of the appalling public transport in and around Sutton. The Thameslink service around the loop is infrequent and hopelessly unreliable. It only takes the slightest bit of disruption anywhere between Brighton and Bedford and the service gets binned. The bus service is a hostage to the traffic congestion heading north to Morden, east to Croydon or west to Kingston. The train service has suffered as a result of the London Bridge debacle.

    Sutton is very much the land that TfL forgot. The efforts of the previous MP and the vocal minority snookered the prospect of 4 tph round the loop. The relatively simple scheme to extend the Northern Line to West Sutton (and ultimately Sutton) which would do wonders for West and North West Sutton was dismissed out of hand by Livingstone when he was mayor on the basis he didn’t want the trains “full up by Tooting”. Extending the Overground from West Croydon is similarly dismissed and Crossrail 2 looks like another lost opportunity with the new MP wittering on about tph at Worcester Park and fogetting the majority of his constituents. The tram appears to be the only hope.

43. One of the things people frequently forget when it comes to the Wimbledon – Sutton line is platform capacity (or the lack of it at) at Sutton. Its all very well saying “add the Wimbledon – Sutton line to Crossrail 2” but that ignores the very real issue of what to do with those 6 or 8 tph when they get to Sutton.

    Providing terminating platforms (or more through platforms) so as to allow space for all these extra trains will be very expensive and require extensive demolition not to mention height issues (the line from Wimbledon climbs VERY steeply to join the Epsom line just short of Sutton station platforms). Yes that is not a insurmountable issue but requires works well away from the core Crossrail 2 route.

    The Southern railway and all their successors realized this limitation which was why the service has pretty much always been an out and back loop from Holborn Viaduct / Thameslink with Wimbledon station (until Tramlink stole one of the platforms) an ideal place for trains to have extended dwell times so as to allow recovery if they were running late and ensure they hit the junctions at Sutton, Tulse Hill, Herne Hill etc on time.

    Conversion of the loop to Tramlink would actually be far better from a railway point of view than incorporating it into Crossrail 2. Thameslink services that currently go ’round the loop’ could terminate at Wimbledon and on the other leg, be extended from Sutton to Epson (which has 4 platforms and is a slightly better place to terminate even though it also has to cope with SWT / Crossrail 2 via Motspur Park).

    The downside of this is of course dependent on the inhabitants of the are not throwing a massive hissy fit about the lack of ‘direct’ trains to City Thameslink – something they have enjoyed since the Wimbledon – Sutton line opened back in the mid 20s as a fully electrified suburban service, with all the political problems that creates.

44. Surely one of the reasons tfl forgets about Sutton is because many parts of it are affluent. Kingston seems to have a similar problem. Transport planning seems to be obsessed with “opportunity areas” and “development” which from a funding point of view makes perfect sense. However it means that places like Sutton are left with a shoddy train service and very few improvements proposed.

45. As a Sutton resident and daily user of either the Northern line or District from Wimbledon (both accessed by bus):

    -Northern line taking over the Sutton loop is the ideal that existing NL overcrowding just doesn’t permit. (I had to let two trains go before I could fight on tonight). The money would be wasted.
    -Sutton loop services are too infrequent and unreliable for it to to make sense for me to use (I can walk to the loop station in 15 minutes). Instead I sit in traffic on a bus.
    -The junction at South Wimbledon really is awful, in both directions. Coming back in the eve traffic regularly stationary all the way from South Wimbledon to to the Trinity Road crossroads with the Broadway.
    -I hope any tram design is is done to leave open getting to Wimbledon easily – that to me really would be the objective.
    -An increased frequency on the Sutton loop (even just a Sutton-Wimbledon shuttle) would be be great for public transport locally. Tram out train it doesn’t matter. The roads are very slow, but the train is too infrequent and unreliable.
    -X26 is very popular for hours either side of the peak in my experience. Express buses are definitely preferable to regular one (journeys you wouldn’t do by bus otherwise become sensible). Again, it’s generally undone by ťhe frequency being a bit low.

    All in all, I’m glad to see things progressing – and wouldn’t want to see destination Wimbledon being an example of perfection being the enemy of the good. But equally, given the popularity of buses in the vicinity (and how ineffective Morden Road Tram is for Morden), I hope the design will permit getting to Wimbledon station with the changes, opportunities and increased demand Crossrail 2 will (may?) present.

46. The reason the roads around Morden are jam packed is less to do with local traffic than that there are few sensible alternatives for trunk traffic from the south west towards the City. Everything heading towards the Elephant from the A24 and A217, and most from the A3 going that way (few try their luck round Wandsworth) end up being funneled past Colliers Wood station. A huge number of HGVs, construction vehicles and white vans pass that way before you count private cars.

    Providing Sutton with better access to the Northern line is a laudable ambition, but I doubt the morning peak queue down St Helier Avenue – it’s back to the Middleton Road lights on a bad day – will get any more tolerable.

47. Probably not (any freed capacity is likely to be used up by new road users who find that their journey slightly easier by road…) – but it would provide an opportunity for locals to bypass it!

    (As long as the trams aren’t stuck in the same traffic jams…)

48. The part of the scheme that seems the least convincing is that element to the north of Morden Road.

    While I don’t have a better answer to suggest, something that involves a loop at the South Wimbledon end and meets new or existing exits of the tube station would merit consideration, particularly if it facilitates a future route towards Colliers Wood.

49. I note the comments above about the possible tram route diversion to serve St Helier and also the notes about The Royal Marsden site development above.

    Following the release ( they were recorded discussing it on public transport !) of ‘confidential discussions’ from the NHS consultants looking at the future of St Helier is to build a new hospital on the Sutton Hospital Site adjacent to The Royal Marsden. So perhaps the option will be to move the hospital to the tram rather than the tram to the hospital ?

50. I understand the physical limitations at Wimbledon and the need to provide another terminus connecting with the Northern line. In which case why can’t Croydon and Sutton services alternate (ish) at each terminus rather than requiring a possibly non-step-free interchange somewhere around Morden Road?

51. NickD – the Croydon-Wimbledon route is already massively overloaded, so reducing the number of direct trams from Croydon/Mitcham to Wimbledon would be very unpopular

52. ChrisMitch – That rather suggests that Sutton branch passengers would also prefer in overwhelming numbers to go to Wimbledon, and there would be even more peak overcrowding on that last stretch if people are allowed to change onto it. Has any analysis been done on how many Croydon line people would prefer to change to the Northern Line, and only go via the District or South Western because there’s no alternative?

53. Kingston has the advantage that Surbiton and its fast trains are just up the road, Sutton Tramlink reminds me a bit of the DLR – it’ll provide a handy link – once you reach it!

    Of course the opening of the Jubilee Line changed that – no longer that unwanted visit to Tower Hill or Bank.

    It seems to me that a bus to Wimbledon or Croydon, then a train is preferable to a trip by tram to South Wimbledon then the Northern Line – or changing at Morden Road then Croydon Tramlink to Wimbledon/Croydon for the trains, it’s not exactly a step change in travel opportunities.

    It could be worse – you could live in Erith – but then again you’ll soon have Crossrail from Abbey Wood, now that’s a step change.

54. @Chrismitch
    ” would also argue, contrary to the article, that Sutton actually has a pretty bad train service at present, compared with places like Croydon, Kingston, Bromley and Richmond.
    Sutton has no fast trains, and half the trains to Victoria go the ‘long way’ round, via West Croydon.”

    I would agree Croydon, Bromley and Richmond have better services than Sutton, but Kingston? Kingston has no fast trains either, and does badly compared to Sutton, which has trains to Victoria (two routes), and the Thameslink core (two routes), with a few peak services to London Bridge as well: Kingston only has trains to Waterloo, and a third of them go the long way round via Twickenham.

    The future of Tramlink is inextricably linked with that of Crossrail 2 – if CR2 were to take over the Haydons Road line instead of run in a parallel tunnel to Tooting, and Sutton were to be one of its branches, it could use platforms 9 and 10 at Wimbledon and avoid any reconstruction at all other than kicking Tramlink out.

    Tramlink has always been a strange bedfellow at Wimbledon station anyway, with the arcane touch-in procedures necessary because the stop is within the controlled area and the inconvenience of being only accessible by a narrow staircase that everyone has to use unless they are changing to/from Thameslink.

    It will be interesting to see how patronage on the Wimbledon branch of Tranmlink is affected over the next few months when the line terminates line at Dundonald Road

55. Interesting comments.

    It does seem like a difficult sell to me to tear up long stretches of tarmac to be replaced with rails at vast expense, when there’s a badly underused set of rails just a few hundred metres to the West.

    What about keeping the current Thameslink service (given the opposition to changing it!) but adding a tram-train using some or all of the route? At the Sutton end a single track tram line could rise to run on Bridge Road before the loop joins the line from Cheam. Redevelopment of the commercial site on the corner of Grove Road would seem unlikely to cause any big upset, and Grove Road probably has space for a terminus.

    At the other end, if there’s no more terminating space at Wimbledon, run through using the NR platforms and on around the loop perhaps leaving after Haydons Road to reach a terminus somewhere around Wimbledon Stadium, which is up for redevelopment by Galliard Homes.

    This stuff doesn’t come for free, but it seems to me it’d be a lot cheaper than what’s on the table, and however appropriate St Helier Avenue itself might seem for a tram route, the stretches beyond at either end look much less so. The loss of road space will be a hard sell locally, regardless of net benefits real or purported.

56. Clearly Suttonians (Suttoners? Suttees?) have been dreaming of the Northern Line for many years but it’s worth remembering that the Southern Railway only built the Wimbledon-Sutton “Wall of Death” in the first place to stop the Northern and District lines from reaching Sutton. Both lines soon filled up so much from their current terminuses that London Underground was probably relieved that it didn’t get there and doesn’t seem to have tried to since.

    It’s worth bearing in mind that Morden road northbound has a bus lane along most of its length so adding a tram would not necessarily entail much loss of road capacity in this direction.

    Waiting for Crossrail 2 for any solution at Wimbledon feels like the best being the enemy of the good. One advantage of light rail schemes is that they don’t have the elephantine gestation period of megaprojects.

    The problem with a tram-train on the existing loop is that you are left with running the existing “busy bus corridor between Sutton, St Helier and Morden” (TfL’s words), as most people would continue to catch the bus rather than walk to the inconveniently located stations at St Helier and Morden South. Rosehill and the northern end of Sutton town centre actually rate as amongst the lowest 20% of areas in England for deprivation (map on p. 13).

    @NickD: I guess Part III of the article might discuss the interaction between the Sutton branch, the Croydon branch, and the South Wimbledon spur, so I’ll hold off until then. But for now I can’t help noticing that in the TfL document linked to, the South Wimbledon spur is described as “proposed” and the Sutton line as only “potential”.

57. The problem(s) are at the “top” end aren’t they?
    So, avoid the horrendous jams @ S Wimbledon – go along Merantun Way to Colliers Wood – then what?
    You can’t, realistically, terminate there – so we are instantly in to Crayon territory:
    Up the Surrey Iron Railway to Earlsfield & Wandsworth??
    Loop back towards Wimbledon from the SE ??
    Um, err ….

    Agree that the the local politicos have shafted themseleves & their constituents, by insisting on going past Blackfriars, as a 15-minute, but terminating-@-BFR loop service would, actually be better for everyone, including the opeators.
    Oh dear.

58. @PoP – great article

    @Stephen C – like the idea of continuing from South Wimbledon station up Merton Road and Wimbledon Broadway. It the existing Wimbledon tram station was moved upstairs, it may be possible to connect both lines such that Sutton trams could run to Croydon via a loop at Wimbledon.

59. @ Greg – why not terminate at Colliers Wood? OK it’s not Tooting Broadway in terms of shops but as said it does have the tube, there is a planned development in the area (funding source?), there is space for trams to stand, there would be frequent bus links and there is the Savacentre complex. It’s a pity we’re so averse to street running because another obvious link is Colliers Wood – Mitcham – Pollards Hill (poorly served by public transport). That would give a high capacity link into the tube from those areas. The current 152 bus is chronically overloaded. Beyond Pollards Hill there are choices about do you serve Streatham Common / Streatham or Thornton Heath. Again though you’re reliant on taking road space and this doesn’t seem to be in favour unless there’s a dual carriageway width road.

60. Despite knowing the Royal Marsden site fairly well, I’ll admit that I am baffled by that plan shown in the link. It shows neither the existing hospital buildings nor the local roads. Note however, it does include a tram depot ! Don’t forget, that as a specialist cancer hospital, The RM draws in patients from all over south London and north Surrey, as well as some from further afield in the UK. Add to that the staff from the medical sciences centre,who will also travel in from all over. Currently, its public transport links are really rather poor (as I know from personal experience). A tram extension to there (and Belmont Prison?), would seem to be a no-brainer for an institution seeking world status.

61. @ The Other Paul – I agree, with the Thameslink loop running so close to the proposed tramlink route, it seems like a waste of money. The only problem is that its very unreliable and infrequent. An improved rail service on the Sutton to Wimbledon section would be more preferable. The Sutton to Wimbledon loop becoming part of Crossrail 2 would be great.

    I live close to the Sutton loop yet rarely use it. Like many along the route, I get a bus to Morden or Wimbledon station. I understand that a large rebuild at Sutton would be required if it became a Crossrail branch, but it would provide a better rail services for people along the route. It would ease congestion on the Northern Line and perhaps a Crossrail Tooting station may not be needed. It would also ease congestion on roads and buses since many people would use Crossrail 2 instead of getting a bus/driving to Morden.

    The Thameslink route would become a lot more simpler to operate and perhaps more reliable. 2tph trains could terminate at the two new platforms at Wimbledon whilst the other 2tph could continue to Epsom and terminate there. Platform 9 at Wimbledon can also become another Tramlink terminating platform.

62. Seems the Sutton theme has extended to Mayor’s Question Time for July. All the following are from AM Steve O’Connell.

    Wimbledon Station – How will my constituents benefit from the building of a second tram platform at Wimbledon Station?

    Wimbledon Station – Is the building of a second tram platform at Wimbledon Station a necessary pre-requisite for the Sutton tram Extension to be built?

    Overground – As part of the tendering process for the next concession operator of London Overground, have Transport for London included plans for an extension of the line to Sutton, if not why?

    It’ll be interesting to see the answers to those but we can probably predict what they will be.

63. Crossrail 2’s purpose (at this end of it) is to relieve the South Western Main Line, not Thameslink.

    Crossrail 2 is therefore unlikely to have much effect on the Wimbledon loop lines. They’re part of Thameslink now, and that’s just had a fresh wad of £billions spent on it. If the locals want higher frequency services, they should have thought of that before demanding every train go through the Thameslink core. [Would all commenters please note that this has been said quite enough times already, and needs no further repetition. Malcolm]

    Either of the two loop lines would need to be closed for extensive periods for conversion to tram use. The two(-ish*) old railways that were recycled by Tramlink during its construction took about a year to convert, which wasn’t an issue at the time as one line was already closed, and the other was so poorly served and underused, a bus every 30 minutes was an improvement!

    I think the current proposals are therefore the most realistic and pragmatic, but the extensive use of street-running could be a major stumbling block. I’m not sure how popular it’s going to be with local businesses, for example. They’re going to face months of major disruption and road works. Some businesses went bust while the Croydon loop was built, so their fears would be well-founded.

    * (The route to Beckenham Junction makes use of a line that was originally twin-track, but had been singled some years earlier, so much less work was needed here.)

64. The locals of the Sutton loop who insisted that they retain services through the Thameslink core not only shafted themselves (I’d rather have 4tph terminating at Blackfriars than 2tph through the core), but they shafted those of us on the north side of town. MML slow services, which form the other half of Sutton loop services, have now been condemned to being operated by 8-car trains, so I don’t see there being M&S ch capacity enhancement. Also, those of us on the north side never had an opportunity to participate in the debate, Sutton loop users ran a campaign and secured a result with wider ramifications without those who would be affected on the other side of town even knowing that there was a campaign that it would be in our best interests to counter campaign against.

65. Some businesses went bust while the Croydon loop was built, so their fears would be well-founded.

    True, but not necessarily related and in the normal course of events there will always be businesses that go bust – and probably want to blame it on an external event. My gallbladder gave me problems while the Croydon loop was being built but I would not claim that the Croydon loop was causal.

    There is (and was) a well established regime available whereby if businesses could show a link between the two (e.g. sudden drop in takings or footfall compare to before work started) then they would be compensated. To the best of my knowledge no business was compensated. Of course this procedure never takes into account businesses that artificially lowered their earlier profits by cooking the books for tax purposes.

    More relevant, the scheme would not impact directly on Sutton Town centre and its shops so I think that any impact there would be would be less severe. At Rose Hill Roundabout the the parade tends to have shops that would have local custom that would be largely unaffected by such works.

    I would think a bigger concern of businesses would be “the Addiscombe effect” where the shops nearby welcomed the coming of tram as a means of giving the place more of an identity but then found that people used it to get in to Croydon so their taking went down after it was opened.

66. Extension of Overground from West Croydon around the Wimbkedon loop would have been a better option and would have created a link to North London via The City .

    If future calls are made for better services then hopefully those asking will be told the reason this is not possible unless their service terminates at Blackfriars Station .

    As for street trams well this area was once served by trams but was also served by Trolleybuses with the war intervening to halt full conversion .

    As to whether this scheme goes ahead will depend no doubt on who become London Mayor next year .

67. @Melvyn: and where would your proposed Overground service go? ELL – Sydenham – West Croydon – Sutton – Wimbledon – Streatham – East Dulwich – Peckham Rye – ELL? I wonder if the PPM figure for such a service would ever reach 50% on any given weekday…

    As for shopkeepers: they do suffer hardship when the street outside their shop is dusty, noisy, and blocked off from the rest of the world. I walked past Shandwick Place a couple of months before the Edinburgh Tram opened and the place was a sea of ‘SHOP TO LET’ signs. Barring the Jessop’s (which went bankrupt for other reasons), I doubt all the other tenants there had problems with their gall bladders simultaneously…

68. @ Steve L and others. Given it now appears impossible to increase the number of loop trains through the core at Snow Hill why has no one considered a compromise whereby we retain the current loop service as is plus another two trains per hour terminating at Blackfriars? Network Rail had proposed four trains per hour terminating at Blackfriars presumably we could still fit in another two loop tph as terminators with the others going on to Luton etc.

    [Please can we not have a diversion of discussion onto the Thameslink Loop at every opportunity. Sometimes things seem to be a bit like playing “Mornington Crescent”. How quickly can the comments digress onto “Thameslink Loop”? PoP]

69. Re Melvyn: If the Overground is to be extended via the Sutton loop then more trains will be needed. Maybe your vision is to cascade (?) Watford DC trains (which will be 5 cars) and make the Watford line “share” trains with the electrified GOBLIN and / or Lea Valley Lines?

    [This too is going way off topic. At this rate we will be having a major cull of comments. PoP]

70. There are a lot of people out there who will use their car just to go the the local newsagent. If they use public transport, the connections have to be ‘easy’ otherwise they won’t bother.

    The suggested Tramlink route from Sutton through Morden Hall Road and Morden Road would, I suggest, be just “too far away” from Morden underground and the bus station area to be feasible for the car/newsagent people as well as for the aged/infirm and the disabled.

    If this projected route is going as far as South Wimbledon (or even Colliers Wood), well, it’s the same tube line as the one that starts from Morden so why not do the job properly and divert the line via Aberconway Road and that part of London Road between Morden Station and the roundabout at the junction with Morden Road?

    The carriageways should have sufficient width (if necessary the north and south tracks could interleave along London Road) and the result would be a satisfactory interchange between tram, tube and buses.

71. There is no reason to make the tram route fit in with existing bus routes – the big advantage of buses is that their routing can be altered to fi changes in infrastructure. So if Colliers or South Wimbledon were to become a more significant interchange than Mordor, the bus network would be modified accordingly. That’s what happened in Addington and Croydon.

    Give that the alignment of the western extension of Merantun Way (actually the former Merton Abbey branch line) is not going to be used as intended, it would allow a connection between the Morden Road route and the existing one. However, something will have to be done about the level crossing at Merton Park – delays are already unacceptable and increasing to 12 tph will lead to complete gridlock. A flyover or diveunder may be the answer.

    An alternative might be to divert trams from the Croydon direction at Morden Road to follow the proposed alignment to South Wimbledon and into Wimbledon proper. This allows trams from both Sutton and Croydon/Mitcham to connect with both the Northern Line and the variety of services at Wimbledon, and eliminates the Merton Park crossing – although I suspect some clever junction management would be needed at South Wimbledon.

    Judging by the loadings of the trains I see arriving off the St Helier Line at Wimbledon it is well patronised – how many of them would find a tram more convenient is debatable.

72. Is this proposal purely to improve connections northwards from Sutton because the service on the Thameslink loop isn’t good enough, or is this proposal expected to create many new journey opportunities ? It would seem to be cheaper to just add new services to the local railway lines, rather than take up road space with a new tram system. Looking at Carto Metro, the area doesn’t appear to be that poorly served (I am ignoring bus services), so if it is viable here, surely it would be viable in *many* locations around the edges of London.

    Just to be clear, I have no opinion either way and certainly have no axe to grind with regards to Thameslink. It just appears to me that the either the money could be better spent improving local rail services, or Trams are now viable in many locations and this could be the first of many such schemes.

73. [Snip. Malcolm]

    Drat. This is going to be deleted, isn’t it? [Yes]

74. @Melvyn – actually, the 654 trolleybus served only part of the High Street, terminating at the Green and then set off westwards via Benhill Avenue to Croydon. The postwar conversion plans wouldn’t have added any more routes to Sutton – they were concerned with the conversion of the surviving tram network – which hadn’t got anywhere near Sutton since the 654 went over.

75. @PoP
    “Please can we not have a diversion of discussion onto the Thameslink Loop at every opportunity”
    Point taken, but the future of the Thameslink loop is inextricably linked with that of the Sutton tram proposal, not only because there is at least an overlap of catchment, and thus improvements to one may reduce or negate the case for the other, but also because the two systems compete for space at Wimbledon station, and if either service is to be improved, space will have to be found elsewhere for the other.

    Noted also that the 654 was Sutton’s only trolleybus – it replaced South Met’s tram route 7 (and route 5 beyond Croydon) in 1935.

76. With regards to extra trains on local routes, I suspect there isn’t really room for any more with the bottlenecks existing in and around Sutton (I have never heard a more grateful signaller than when I agreed to shunt a terminating short Epsom service at Belmont to avoid blocking the main line). But due to rail junction/signalling improvements being outside the council’s jurisdiction a new tram route may be the best they can influence or achieve.

77. A question: how much traffic do the two branches to the Epsom Downs racecourse get on race days? Is it too much for trams to cope?

    I ask because it seems that the stabling / depot issue could be resolved by taking over the Epsom Downs branch, where there’s some eminently suitable land available.

78. Anomnibus,

    I can’t answer for the Epsom Downs service but on the Tattenham Corner branch I have been told it is packed to the extent that people cannot get on further down the line. There is a 15 minute interval service on race days. Unfortunately I was not told how long the trains were but I presume 8-car.

    timbeau,

    If it were a brief relevant discussion that would be one thing but we were getting the whole Thameslink loop scenario replayed which was of no relevance to Sutton Tramlink.

79. Some research suggests that the Epsom Downs branch sees very little race-related traffic now. The original nine-platform terminus was replaced some years ago by a much smaller station set further back from the racecourse, so Tattenham Corner is much more convenient for the venue.

    This makes ‘tramification’ of the Epsom Downs line viable, I think. This gives you space for stabling / depot facilities, as well as access to a key commuter district, helping to balance services through Sutton itself.

    The long term goal would be to make Sutton a viable nucleus for further expansion of the network, reducing the pressure on the constrained infrastructure at both Wimbledon and Croydon. I think this is the key to extending the tram network in future, similar to the DLR’s softly-softly piecemeal approach, but without the single focal point / nexus that inherently limits expansion beyond a certain point. By building up a critical mass of infrastructure and additional foci, expansion should become easier to justify (as well as cheaper) over time.

    Anyway, that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

80. @anomnibus
    “This makes ‘tramification’ of the Epsom Downs line viable, I think.”

    But would it be worthwhile: does the traffic on offer justify a tram service? Most of it passes a succession of golf courses.

    Note also the political element: only one third of the branch is actually in Greater London, most of the rest forming the boundary between Reigate & Banstead and Epsom & Ewell.

81. @Anomnibus

    “The long term goal would be to make Sutton a viable nucleus for further expansion of the network…”

    I’m not clear whose long term goal you are referring to. Is it yours? If it’s TfL’s or someone organisations’s, please provide a reference.

82. Surely to make a tramway worthwhile you’ve got to shift 50 or so people every 10 minutes or so. Epsom Downs station is at the end of an ‘executive’ housing development which pushed the station another 300 yards further away from the racecourse in the 80s. Banstead station is nowhere near Banstead but in the middle of nowhere too. The numbers prepared to walk from home to either station might, at a guess, reach three figures all day on a sunny day. The entire area is very low density very expensive detached housing. The only obvious purpose of the Epsom Downs branch is to provide somewhere for Southern inner suburban services to terminate. I can’t imagine fare income at Epsom Downs and Banstead justifies their existence – a free taxi or two would be cheaper to provide most of the time – and apart from operational reasons it could easily be abandoned.

    Belmont stations however is in a far more built up are and and could be served by a Sutton tram serving the Marsden.

83. ORR figures, usual caveat, for Annual use via Wikipedia

    Epsom Downs: 83,370
    Banstead: 135,180
    Belmont: 150,572

    I don’t have a breakdown of figures but I believe usage is extremely peaky. From my very limited experience of Banstead station, I would be surprised if more than one person got on or off a train in the off-peak. I don’t think a frequent service or more stops along the line would make much difference given that, as Nick says, it is in the middle of nowhere.

84. I can testify that much of the Epsom Downs branch traffic is peaky…during the day despite an hourly service there is no build up of punters waiting eagerly for the next train…I’ve never seen much more than three or so people waiting in either direction off peak.

85. @Ian J (and others)
    I get that Morden Road and other places have bus lanes that could be given tram tracks without loss of further road capacity. It’s just that, even though I love the idea of trams, I’m not convinced it’s worth it. Surely the tram budget would be better spent on more bus priority/segregation measures and more buses? Yes there are benefits to trams, but the net BCR has to be low if the route is a conversion from dedicated bus lanes.

    Surely it’s only when you add a significant proportion of completely segregated running, especially if over an underused or new route, that the tram option ends up with a better benefit-cost than the buses.

    Is Sutton trying to solve a transport problem here, or a status problem? It seems to me that they might be after a tram system more for status reasons than for transport reasons.

86. The Other Paul,

    By happy coincidence I happened to come across this Febuary 2012 transcript of the GLA transport committee. Geoff Hobbs, principal transport planner with London Rail, spoke of a tram extension to Sutton as “The one we feel is the most feasible and offers decent value for money”. So it clearly is not just a proposition for status reasons. I didn’t realise that there was at least some support within TfL as long as three years ago. They have, however, seemed a bit wobbly on the issue – not sure if that depends on who you speak to or whether it is the current flavour of the month or not.

87. Re: Epsom Downs/Banstead/Belmont
    Isn’t this the sort of territory where the line still exists only to serve wealthy types who want to sit on a train in first class and work on a laptop whilst being comfortably taken to Victoria? Can’t imagine a tram conversion going down too well, or picking up much traffic.

88. I think it’s a very long time since first class was offered on the Epsom Downs branch – the faciligty was withdrawn from most Southern inner suburban routes in 1941.

89. @ PoP – I see Mr Hobbs was at the Railfuture meeting tonight along with Mr Roberts. To stick to the Sutton theme one of the attendees was tweeted about as having travelled from Carshalton on a 2 tph service with a train that was half the length it should have been. Seems the locals are still cross about their trains. If nothing else it shows the disparity between the reality people face and what the planners aspire to.

90. @timbeau, I was being slightly dry, and did say “want to”. I guess since 1941 they’ve just had to find a quiet corner and use their newspapers to shield them from the “hoi polloi” getting on at places like Thornton Heath?

91. Walthamstow Writer,

    Nothing to do with Railfuture as far as I am aware. I presumed it was organised by London First. Meeting details here.

    Sadly I couldn’t attend but John Bull should have been there and maybe Nicole too so hopefully we will get a report on it. I have seen some of the slides and there are some interesting ideas but perhaps it is better reported at first hand.

92. The Other Paul: “hoi polloi” not “the hoi polloi” Honestly!

93. @PoP
    Interesting Geoff Hobbs transcript that, thanks. He indeed seems very positive about the Sutton extension but I note another comment: “Double tracking is not the sort of thing to get the finance department too upset but an extension would be. That is hundreds of millions.”

94. @PoP – “There is (and was) a well established regime available whereby if businesses could show a link between the two (e.g. sudden drop in takings or footfall compare to before work started) then they would be compensated. To the best of my knowledge no business [during Tramlink construction – GF] was compensated.”

    There was compensation for some local businesses but, as you suggest, only for those who weren’t perceived as going to the wall anyway before construction commenced (they were often the ones who tended to be most anti-tram vocally and thus clutching at straws by blaming Tramlink for their failing business). Other, more enterprising folk, actually made an effort to accommodate disruption during Tramlink work by well-publicised promotions. Some may remember for example the efforts of the proprietor of “Beanos”, the record store just off Crown Hill, to bring punters to his emporium during that time.

95. @PoP – “…I happened to come across this Febuary 2012 transcript of the GLA transport committee. Geoff Hobbs, principal transport planner with London Rail, spoke of a tram extension to Sutton…”

    Might he have had this map in mind at the time?

    http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/tubemap2016.pdf

96. @Ronnie MB
    Sorry but I’m not writing in Greek; “the hoi polloi” is common English usage. Google it and see.

97. @Graham Feakins
    No because elsewhere in the same transcript he says –
    It is too early to say an exact mark on an A to Z but, yes, you go down to Morden Road [from Wimbledon] and turn right

    That map provides an interesting take though.

98. @The Other Paul – Epsom Downs/Banstead/Belmont – For 2013/14 ORR reported 307,592 journeys to/from Tattenham Corner and only 86,994 to/from Epsom Downs. Even if those figures cannot be trusted, there is only an hourly service off-peak on the Epsom Downs branch, only roughly 2tph in the peaks and no Sunday service, which is not sufficiently attractive to urban users. Including Banstead, all these stations are in Zone 6. The journey from Victoria to Epsom Downs (all stations via Selhurst) takes 55 minutes and is 10 min. slower than in 1930 and under BR in the 1970’s.

    The branch was cut back in 1989 by 300 yards to a new Epsom Downs platform hidden away at the back of a housing estate and cannot take more than 2tph anyway. It is thus quite remote from the racecourse and the ‘town centre’. (Source: “Live Rail”)

99. @Ronnie MB, T’Other Paul

    We prefer commentators avoid commenting on the correctness of wording or grammar, except for clarity of meaning, as it often descends into grammatical differences and sourness of tone. I have made the mistake myself of commenting on another’s use of English, so even in jest it is something we try to avoid. The focus is on the idea, not the quality of one’s English.

100. As one who used the Epsom Downs line almost daily from 1972 to 1991, and more occasionally after that until 2008, I have to say that it was the singling of the line in (?) 1982 which at a stroke reduced it to its present marginal state. It had a well-patronised peak service of 5–6 tph in the 70s, but from the 80s onwards the service was so poor that it was frequently more practical (even in the peaks) to drive to Sutton and pick up a train there. By the 90s it had the feel of a “Cinderella” line rather like the (then) Wimbledon–West Croydon line — seemingly waiting for the coup de grâce to put it out of its misery.

     We all know what has happened since to the fortunes of the Wimbledon–West Croydon line. For all that the areas served by the two lines are not strictly comparable, I’d be very surprised if the restoration of a proper service (whether heavy rail or tram) appropriate to a suburban area was not capable of similarly transforming the Epsom Downs line. The residential catchment areas served by its three stations are considerably larger than they were in the 70s/early 80s. “Build it and they will come!”

101. 
     

     I think the corridor would be better sserved by a takeover of the Wimbledon to Sutton line by CR2, in my preferred ‘metro’ incarnation, allowing for a maximum frequency service. This would however require a new underground terminus at Sutton below the existing station…..

     *Runs away and takes cover before he is shot down in flames*

     [Any comment on this should please try to avoid getting too far into details of CR2 proposals. Malcolm]

102. @Jim Cobb: Is this proposal purely to improve connections northwards from Sutton because the service on the Thameslink loop isn’t good enough, or is this proposal expected to create many new journey opportunities

     What do you mean by northwards? To Rosehill, or to central London? Part of the reason people keep diverting onto the Thameslink loop issue is that I think they are too fixated on longer distance travel than I think this scheme is aiming at. When you look at how Tramlink works in Croydon, it seems to me it has two purposes: to give better access to the town centres on its route, and to act as a feeder connecting places with previously poor connections like New Addington into the London-wide rail network. The same applies here: it’s about making it easier for people to get to Sutton and Wimbledon town centres (and maybe the hospital), and to feed people on the St Helier estate into the Northern or District lines – maybe to Central London, but maybe to other town centres along those lines.

     @The Other Paul: Surely it’s only when you add a significant proportion of completely segregated running, especially if over an underused or new route, that the tram option ends up with a better benefit-cost than the buses.

     Don’t forget operational cost, which matters more over the long term. Trams are cheaper to run than buses (they last longer, need less maintenance, and each vehicle carries more people so you need less of them). And you get more revenue because they attract more ridership and the regeneration that comes with trams adds patronage as well.

     @PoP: They have, however, seemed a bit wobbly on the issue – not sure if that depends on who you speak to

     Would you say that there is a disconnect between the views of TfL Surface Transport (ie Buses) and TfL Rail? At first glance it seems odd that trams aren’t considered as surface transport, but if you see TfL Surface as inheriting a long history of disdain for trams that goes back to the LPTB, then it makes sense that they are kept away from it.

     Also the political winds have blown hot and cold for trams. The current mayor seems to be enthusiastic about Tramlink extensions only in the early months of years divisible by four. I see Geoff Hobbs was talking not long before a Mayoral election.

103. @ Ian J – thanks for the reminder about the tram essentially being a way to raise the quality of local transport. They also raise capacity in a cost effective manner as you say. If transport networks are adjusted properly when a tram service starts then you can also get a “bounce” in terms of more people using buses too. Would be interesting to see if Sutton got “tramlink through tickets” as New Addington has. That could do wonders for local bus use.

     It was suggested to me recently that the balance of priorities in TfL had tilted so much to roads and cycling that the bus network had been “forgotten about” (in relative terms). If trams were part of Surface Transport they’d have vanished from view altogether. I do understand why people are critical about the Mayor’s “on/off” enthusiasm for tram extensions on a 4 yearly cycle *but* it is worth noting that a level of consistent spend has been directed to Croydon Tramlink. Some of that is fixing worn out tracks but a decent amount has been on raising capacity and service frequency. Far more has gone on Tramlink than on buses in and around Croydon in recent years. Apart from some new vehicles on a few routes little else has happened – the 130 extension to Norwood Junction, Sunday buses on the 434, 2 extra school services and a frequency enhancement on the 154 (checked against TfL’s own list of changes). That’s unlikely to be more than £1m per annum extra spend. Imagine how poor local connectivity in and around Croydon would be without Tramlink.

104. Ian J,

     My first draft of the recent Croydon tram article went on at length about the fact that trams originally came under Buses (now “Surface Transport”) and now comes under TfL Rail. I think that a lot of the policies are related to this because there is a different attitude. Parity of fares with the buses seems to me definitely a “bus thing”. I think this actually did not help matters because it made the business case for improvements less good. I also suspect the bus attitude was not helpful when it came to long term planning. Also that the personalities involved seem to have a different attitude (e.g Geoff Hobbs [TfL Rail] and Leon Daniels and his predecessors).

     I know a lot of people, more on the inside than me, feel the same way. You can take this back further and wonder whether this has always been so since the formation of the LPTB and maybe things could have been different if that organisation had been structured differently.

     If anyone wants to write a well-considered article about this I am sure it would attract a lot of interest. [Note to Greg: Your rants on the subject, which we always promptly delete, don’t count]

105. @Ian J – As I said, I don’t care about Thameslink – all I see is a project to create a tram line that parallels some under-utilised railway infrastructure. If the aim is to provide better connectivity from Sutton to other parts of London, then surely a better bet is to add more trains between Sutton and Wimbledon – a shuttle would do that, or some additional services to other parts of London. I can understand that Sutton station may not be able to cope with additional trains, but it doesn’t appear that busy.

     If on the other hand this is about improving services between points on the tram line, such as the hospital, then it suggests this model could apply to many other parts of London and small tram lines could pop up all over the place.

     So is this about connectivity to Sutton, or about internal journeys on the tram line ? I guess the test would be that if you increased services over the Sutton to Wimbledon line to 8tph (ignoring where they go or station capacity), would the tram still be viable ? If not, wouldn’t it be cheaper to improve the rail services. If the tram is cheaper than more trains (and possible station changes), then again this model would seem to apply to many other locations.

     Sutton does not appear to be in any way unusual in terms of services or connectivity, so why is is special enough to be able to justify a new tram ?

106. @ PoP – I agree an article would be interesting but I’m not sure how you could “prove” the alleged impacts of long standing culture. It’s clear to me that the constituent bits of what is now TfL have very strong cultures. Certainly true of LU and “ways of doing things” persist no matter how you chop up the organisation. Some of that I’d guess is down to the numbers of long serving staff who pass on attitudes and ways of working. There may be other issues but they’re more subtle such as high level corporate views or even just perception about the relative importance / contribution of particular modes. Politics also kicks in here. Unless you’ve worked in all the different bits of TfL / LT it’d be hard to genuinely demonstrate the positive and negative results of the decades long permeation of ideas and attitudes. There’s clearly an awful lot of suspicion about what’s gone on but how you go beyond that I’m not sure.

107. Jim Cobb,

     Sutton does not appear to be in any way unusual in terms of services or connectivity, so why is is special enough to be able to justify a new tram ?

     What is special enough is that it is right next door to an existing tram system so it can tap into many existing facilities.

108. @Pop et al
     A lot of the current discussion on this post appears to revolve around using bits – possibly large bits – of lightly trafficked railways or their formation more effectively. Spin your coin on whether that’s a railway worked harder or a tram overlay or tramstitution. I agree with the points made that there is a lot of local travel at stake, for which not a lot more road capacity can be expected.

     So as housing density/population increases in the outer boroughs – up to 40% in places such as LB Enfield – public transport which is up to the future bigger task will be vital, and not just in Sutton. ‘Croydon Tramlink’ (the phrase used yesterday evening by Geoff Hobbs at the Centre for London event) is in a good position to support Croydon’s development and some of its neighbours.

     If you cast your mind back to the original CT, weren’t there some nearly moribund bits of railway in and around the Croydon area, that have now been transformed – at a cost – and are washing their face and underpinning Croydon’s revival? I don’t see a discussion on Epsom Downs or Sutton-Wimbledon as offline in that context.

     Enough has been said on the Thameslink loop, the options are clear. [My money is on it working harder as a railway.] For Epsom Downs, you could keep Southern/GTR as it is or metro-ise it with a passing loop. Jointly or severally you could use the existing vacant second track formation like Birkbeck if you wanted and if it made enough difference, and run Sutton-Merton Tramlink along it. Sounds like the Royal Marsden could be a good second stage, and maybe Central Banstead if Surrey and/or the Coast to Capital LEP (which significantly also overlaps into the GLA area at Croydon) were proactive.

     A Sutton Councillor yesterday evening made the good point that some Surrey residents drive into Sutton borough to work there – so I’m merely extrapolating the Tramlink opportunity if you chose to extend opportunities to neighbouring communities and they in turn welcomed that approach. Maybe a park-and-ride or transport interchange might be relevant, similar to Croydon Tramlink’s Addington Village stop.

     Ultimately it will be a matter of political buy-in how much of a scheme to support, and in which spending period and business plan years. TfL and Mayoral backing are vital. Fundability will certainly depend on which parts of which authorities are supportive. Oyster land extends hereabouts to the Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner branches, so that looking beyond the GLA boundary isn’t out of court locally, though the present scheme keeps itself within the GLA area.

     LB Croydon was a part-promoter of the original Tramlink. There’s no reason why other local authorities might not want to be involved with the new Tramlink. Sutton is partnering with Merton on the current proposals. The link is one of the key projects in the Opportunity Sutton Economic Growth Programme and Opportunity Sutton. The economic case is that Tramlink will enable 10,000 new jobs, including 3,500 jobs in the World Class Life Sciences cluster. The social case is about connectivity for 60,000 people, including some of Sutton’s most deprived neighbourhoods.

109. @IanJ
     “Part of the reason people keep diverting onto the Thameslink loop issue is that I think they are too fixated on longer distance travel than I think this scheme is aiming at. ”
     To judge from the people pouring off the loop trains at Wimbledon in the mornings, not many of its users are going into central London. The Wimbledon-Sutton leg, at least, seems to be of mainly local (orbital) significance, and a tram may well be a better answer to demand on that corridor.
     The timetable is such that from most stations on that leg the quickest way to the City is the other way round the loop, via Sutton.

110. @ Jonathan Roberts – I was surprised when TfL was considering further extensions of the London Overground on little used lines that the possibility of extending say four East London line Overground trains (i.e. 4 tph) from West Croydon to Epsom Downs via Carshalton Beeches and Sutton was not considered. The present service on the Epsom Downs line is especially poor in the off peak (normally one an hour) and if it were part of London Overground with an increased frequency I can’t help feeling patronage would improve significantly. Belmont in particular would if frequency were improved be very useful given its proximity to the hospital.

111. Re RichardB,

     I’m not because it had already been discounted when they decided to go no further than West Croydon as there would be no capacity for passengers to board inwards of Sydenham when LO originally opened. To change that it would probably need 8car LO services and 6tph to West Croydon which would require a rebuild of Windmill Bridge Junction ( see sussex part 7: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/study-sussex-part-7-east-croydon/ )

     The current Windmill Bridge junction track layout certainly limits potential Sutton via Selhurst and West Croydon services which is quicker than the via Crystal Palace route.

112. @Richard B
     “4 tph to Epsom Downs ”

     The line from Sutton to Epsom Downs is single track and the end-to-end one-way journey time is 10-12 minutes. “Do the math”, as our transatlantic friends would say.

     see also Chesham.

     IF there were already a tram service to Sutton, it might be a good plan to convert the branch to tram to Belmont to serve the hospital. The line could be re-dualled as far as Belmont. Although few would miss the rest of the line, it would probably be more politically expedient to convert it all the way to Epsom Downs, although I doubt that a service better than 3tph could be justified. If the trams can join the existing formation SW of the station, that would free up the two branch platforms at Sutton for terminating services. (Unfortunatelyn either the St Helier and Epsom lines can use the bays – they both have to use the other pair)

113. @RichardB and ngh: I believe TSGN has plans to increase the service to Epsom Downs to 2tph all day. And ngh is quite right in suggesting that extending Overground towards the South would require those trains to be much longer than 5-car – and the Jubilee Line would have to run far more frequently to provide enough capacity at Canada Water…

     @Jonathan Roberts: I also think that discussing portions of the Thameslink loop and the Epsom Downs branch in the context of alternatives/compliments to the proposed Wimbledon-Sutton scheme should not really be viewed as a ‘hijack’ of this topic.

114. @ timbeau I am well aware that the line was singled but this does not mean it could not be redoubled or additional passing loops put in place. Yes it would cost money but most improvements do. On that basis the additional track to link the south London line with the East London line would never have been contemplated.

     We are now stuck with a vestigial service which doubtless was intended to wither by BR so they could have withdrawn the entire service. Are we saying that decisions taken in the context of the economic climate of the 1980s can never be reversed? It’s almost akin to saying the West London line should not have been reopened with additional stations as it had never been heavily used before the Second World War and those circumstances could never change so any investment would be futile.

     Virtually all London Overground projects have involved some measure of capital investment including reinstating stations in some cases. I acknowledge that the business case might highlight issues but I am not aware of any modern study which concludes the current service remains the best outcome.

115. Re Staphan,

     “@Jonathan Roberts: I also think that discussing portions of the Thameslink loop and the Epsom Downs branch in the context of alternatives/compliments to the proposed Wimbledon-Sutton scheme should not really be viewed as a ‘hijack’ of this topic.”

     Agree with both of you! Part of the reason Sutton Tramlink is being considered is that local roads are at /near capacity which is impacting lots of local (potential) journeys but there is also the other aspect of providing extra capacity to rail heads further away because the service level locally is leaves much to be desired – if this were solved would it help improve the local journeys?

     It appears TfL are therefore focusing on what they can control (building a tram system (extension) with the 2 onside local councils) rather than trying to work with DfT, NR, 3 franchises (and a few more indirectly due to TL interactions) and LO to improve rail services because that option doesn’t solve the local journeys issue and Sutton Tramlink looks easier to achieve than working with that number of parties to get a good result across the area. (Though the same money would also get some useful infrastructure improvements and rolling stock for rail services.)

116. Re. Tramstitution of Epsom Downs branch:

     My primary reasons for suggesting taking over this line are:

     1. There is ample space for stabling sidings and / or a depot if desired. This removes the need to expand the present depot at Therapia Lane. It also allows a route to be chosen that doesn’t need to physically connect with the existing network initially. (E.g. Option 1a, as shown in the article.) A chord or two can be added later on as both networks expand. This also means future extensions serving Sutton can be built more easily as there’d be no need to send trams all around the houses just to find somewhere to park them up overnight, or get them cleaned.

     2. The Epsom Downs branch isn’t so busy that it would swamp the trams, but its relatively recent history strongly suggests sufficient latent demand is there to justify conversion and the resulting service frequency improvements. One of the existing stations could also be used to provide a Park & Ride facility, reducing car traffic heading into Sutton itself.

     3. The “Thameslink” reason: it avoids having to provide expensive turn-back facilities in the centre of Sutton itself, (should this be a problem). It also means the vehicles will be used more efficiently as they’ll be carrying passengers in both directions of travel, rather than just the one.

     4. It releases space at Sutton station itself. When a Lewisham Gateway-style redevelopment project comes along, it would be relatively easy to convert the station into a four-platform through station, allowing the Wimbledon Loop lines to be kept segregated from the main line to Leatherhead.

     @LBM:

     The “hub” aspiration is an implicit one: Why would TfL buy a small, Croydon-centric guided trolleybus service, unless they plan to either expand the tram network, or change their name to “Transport for Croydon”? The former seems more likely.

     [Tangent snipped. LBM] Sutton is as good a choice as any for a new tram network core. (Beckenham and Wimbledon may follow in future, assuming their respective capacity constraints can be resolved.)

117. @ngh
     The Tramlink timescale for delivery might not be vastly different to achievement of contemporaneous outcomes via a metro-isation of the ex ‘Southern Electric’ system.

     However I do judge that Thameslink is for longer travel, Tramlink for more local travel. It’s nice that both options exist locally for Sutton. That’s not a widely available option around outer London.

     I don’t agree with your philosophy that TfL is supporting one rather than the other. As I see it, TfL is supporting both! Geoff Hobbs at CfL yesterday evening aspoused metro-isation, and was also nice about Tramlink.

     We are likely to need all the extra public transport capacity that outer London can get. Whether both desires succeed is a different matter. Since in our discussions we are very close to the racecourse, may I suggest that TfL is being wise to back several horses?

118. @PoP – so the main reason for a Sutton tram is because of Therapia depot ? As you said, the Sutton tram cannot use the Wimbledon to Croydon line because it is too busy, so the depot is the only bit it can share, although I accept that that is a pretty big bit.

     @ngh – If local road are at capacity, then it doesn’t seem like a good idea to shove a tram line down them. Whilst much of it will be segregated, there are still lots of crossings & junctions. You can hope that enough people transfer to the tram to reduce the load of the roads, but that is big gamble.

     Also the suggestion that this is easier to do than negotiate with other parties to get more trains is depressing and adds fuel to the argument that TfL should take over surburban rail.

     Don’t get me wrong – if they can pull it off, I am all for it. I just wonder how long it will be before we get lots of “me too” proposals from other parts of London.

119. Stehen C wrote :
     “Having attended the consultation, and with this being fairly local to me, I hope I have a bit to add.
     1) IIRC, the consultation included detailed engineering drawings of the route and potential stations. I can’t remember exact details sadly, but it is interesting that level of detail was available. ”

     Well you must have attended a different consultation to me!
     I was dismayed by the lack of information – there certainly weren’t any drawings, just blown-up copies of what was in the leaflet, possible routes – and the decided lack of knowledge of local traffic flows by the people supposedly there to answer questions.

     —-

     As to other comments about increasing the frequency of the Thameslink service as an alternative, that shows a lack of understanding of the area – the existing service runs near-empty during the day, serves nowhere of interest to anyone other than commuters, so increasing it would simply mean more near-empty trains.
     The nonsensical idea of converting the Wimbledon & Sutton to a tramway fortunately bit the dust years ago.
     As to serving St.Helier hospital in one direction only, that’s not going to happen.

     Running trams to Epsom Downs? Again a nonsense.

120. @Richard B
     “this does not mean it could not be redoubled or additional passing loops put in place. Yes it would cost money but most improvements do.”
     Indeed – and relatively low cost if the line is being converted to tram anyway. And if R&B or E&E councils are willing to pay for it, why not? But TfL should concentrate on doing what its name suggests, and I doubt LB Sutton would be willing to pay for this either.

121. Jim, to say that Sutton doesn’t seem all that busy is possibly due to a misunderstanding of railway logistics. Currently trains from Wimbledon can’t turn back without a shunt, which requires the driver to change ends and the train to be cleared of passengers. If new signalling and a new crossover was installed, the driver would still need to change ends and the train would have to travel wrong direction before returning to the right direction. Any of these options incur a time penalty as the train is occupying a platform or creating conflicts with other trains. Hence currently not really terminating there and continuing towards Mitcham. With 2 such trains now and 5 Southern trains from the Epsom direction, and that’s just off peak, there just isn’t wiggle room. The extra peak services are already frequently held up outside Sutton. With extra trains on that side of the station, it only takes one to be late for real problems to start – and nowhere to get them out of the way. More platforms could help – but where would they go? Hence the local council going for something a)new and separate and b)designed for high frequency and c) something they can have more influence over than the national rail network.

122. To me any tram extension needs to have as much segregated track as possible. The road sections are so slow. I beleive they have to obey the road traffic speed limit and that combined with frequent stops, junctions, pedestrians and road vehicles results in a low average speed. I don’t know the official figures for the Croydon loop but it feels as though the average is around 10mph.

123. Re:
     -Thameslink loop vs Road route
     -Short vs Long distance travel
     -Where people want to go vs where the rails go

     I think these things are to some extent irrelevant.
     How locally focused a route is depends on how closely spaced the stations/stops are, what the frequency/speed of the service is and what alternatives are available. Not on whether it’s a bus, a tram or a train.
     Although it’s a process that takes a few years, housing developments and retail clusters are drawn towards effective transport corridors. The fact that the TL route stations are “not in the right places” is an effect of that route being underutilised and ineffective, not a cause.

     @Dave Russell
     the existing service runs near-empty during the day, serves nowhere of interest to anyone other than commuters, so increasing it would simply mean more near-empty trains
     The exact same was said about the Croydon-Wimbledon route 20 years ago.

     Personally I think I’d like to see both a Sutton tram route and a better service of some sort on the TL loop, but one can’t help but feel that the BCRs might be mutually destructive. I suspect that the Hospital gives the tram route the edge.

124. Jim Cobb,

     @PoP – so the main reason for a Sutton tram is because of Therapia depot ?

     I never said that. What I said was

     What is special enough is that it is right next door to an existing tram system so it can tap into many existing facilities.

     That doesn’t just mean the depot. It also means a shared control room, shared fleet to minimise shortages (or alternatively do more with less), shared drivers with a shared their training regime, shared specialist BTP to cover the network etc.

     Most important of all it is shared knowledge. If you decide to build a tram network in another place, I don’t know, Ealing for example, you duplicate engineers who don’t speak to each other and don’t learn from each other. You have to duplicate on-call fitters, back office functions to support front line staff, electrical control rooms etc. etc.

125. @PoP – okay, fair enough. I read the article as this would be a completely seperate entity, which just happened to use the depot as well, rather than an integrated part of Croydon Tramlink.

126. @PoP – whilst a lot of what you mention can be covered by mere proximity, some things – shared rolling stock, shared facilities such as wheel lathes – cannot. Given the desirability of physical connexions between the two routes, I was surprised to see the possible link as a dotted option. I appreciate that a connexion at the actual point of intersection is probably out of the question. Perhaps the business case for the actual physical connexion is weak – extra track mileage to be constructed versus,the cost of two underfloorlathes, additional spare stock etc?

127. I’m not sure how much TfL takes it into account, but I know when I lived in Toronto tram schemes were *intentionally* on busy roads because the trams will force traffic regulation. The traffic flow tends to become ever-so-slightly slower, but congestion is eased considerably (and not because they’re finding alternate routes, either!). The road being busy is not a good argument against running trams down it. It’s usually noise regulations (trams are surprisingly noisy buggers) that scuppers things.

     Overground past W.Croydon is madness. 5 car trains replacing quite full 8 and 10 car trains isn’t going to fly. TfL realised this ages ago. At one point in the past, there was a fantasy of replacing the whole Croydon-Sutton rail line with trams until sanity was restored.

128. @Graham If no link was built, then there would have to be a depot somewhere (rather than extending the existing one), access to which would possibly need as much new track as the not-built link.

129. Chz
     Yes indeed to your first point….it was the failure to understand this that (in my humble opinion,but one which I am not alone in holding) that scuppered the Uxbridge Road tram scheme.
     A dogmatic fixation on “separation at all costs” led to a scheme which proposed unnecessary demolitions and pushed the cost sky high,causing a public backlash….which,I suspect,has set back tramway development in London for years.
     I also do not understand the antipathy of modern tramway systems for double-decking…capacity is increased almost two-fold…Understood,we don’t have any tram-builders in the UK anymore and so import from abroad where double-decking is pretty-much unheard of…but we do have coachbuilders….

130. Graham H, Malcolm

     A fixed link can either be track to be operated in service or simply a section of single track built for trams to run without passengers on board to get to the depot, wheel lathe, whatever. If the latter there is no need to show it on consultation documents intended for the general public anymore than there is a need to show the line up to Northumberland Park depot on the tube map.

     I just cannot believe one can seriously propose a new tram route in the Morden area without some kind of fixed link to the existing network.

131. @PoP – no, I agree with you – the logic of your point about not needing to show the link presumably implies (a) that the link will actually be the dotted brown line, and (b) that it may – or may not – used for a passenger service “round the corner”.

132. @PoP
     “A fixed link can either be track to be operated in service or simply a section of single track built for trams to run without passengers on board to get to the depot”
     Indeed, but much of the opposition to the link is because it would encroach on the Abbey Recreation Ground – which it would do whether it carried passengers or not.

     However, if the connection were to face Wimbledon instead of Mitcham, following the line of the old Merton Abbey branch line, it could skirt the recreation ground. Given the low levels of usage it would see, and the fact that any tram on it would be out of service, it could possibly co-exist with the existing footpaths. (It might not even need wiring up if a battery operated “tug” were to be kept at Therapia Lane.

133. timbeau,

     I fear we are straying onto territory where so little detailed information is available it is just guesswork. I notice no-one has come up with any link to any engineering diagrams about the route that are rumoured to exist – which makes me suspect they don’t.

     I had just assumed that the obvious minimal fixed link would be achieved by demolishing and rebuilding a few industrial buildings on the eastern side of the A24. No need to go near the park although that is one option and, from a tram operating point of view, has advantages.

     I really think it is far too early to speculate. All I will say is that it wouldn’t be that hard to relocate the tram platforms at Morden Road (e.g. to the other side of the road) if that would help matters.

134. @Slugabed
     “I also do not understand the antipathy of modern tramway systems for double-decking…capacity is increased almost two-fold”
     As it is with articulation: and as trams run on rails the problems associated with articulated rail-less vehicles don’t arise. Double deckers have to make more compromises on dwell time and accessibility – the more doors and stairs, the less lower deck space there is.
     Even Blackpool has not built any new double deck trams since 1934

135. I went to the consultation at Sutton Civic Centre and I can assure you that there were detailed ‘engineering’ diagrams of the route. One of them implied that the demolition of Sutton’s Tory HQ would be necessary, much to the delight of one person there. I believe this is where the tram is supposed to terminate?

     As these documents were shown at a public consultation it might be worth requesting them from the council. I can’t remember whether they covered the whole route, but it definitely showed Sutton Station to Rose Hill.

136. Re PoP,

     Joining the 2 lines – It depends a lot on whether you want an in service and if so what are the service(s) or just an out of service connection?

     If you want Sutton – Wimbledon there is a commercial building in the western corner between the 2 lines so demolishing that might make sense.

     The Morden Road bridge over the current tram route at that point doesn’t meet current vehicle crash resistance standards so a rebuild and realign might be quite easy to justify.

     If going for an in service connection would you want a grade separated or flat junction between the tram lines?

     An alternative connection for running Croydon – South Wimbledon could be done without too much difficulty as well. I suspect they have wanted to avoid anything at that point up until now because they might want to avoid dealing with the National Trust (Morden Hall Park).

137. Engineering drawings – I’ve found this
     http://sutton.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s16424/3.1%20Proposed%20Tramlink%20Extensions%20final%202%20pages.pdf

     and this
     https://www.sutton.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1474/leaflet.pdf
     (see page 8). This suggest the tram line from Sutton town centre to the Royal Marsden would run alongside the railway line – Beckenham junction style. This would, of course, preclude doubling the railway and thus limit its frequency to 2tph in perpetuity. With Belmont having a frequent tram service connecting at Sutton with the fast trains to London, this would take away 40% of the branch’s passengers (according to the ORR figures) – or even more if Bansteadites decide to railhead (tramhead?) to Belmont.

138. @ngh
     “The Morden Road bridge over the current tram route at that point doesn’t meet current vehicle crash resistance standards so a rebuild and realign might be quite easy to justify.”
     It very much looks as if the A24 bridge was built alongside the original alignment of the road, (which would have crossed the railway on the level), and it may be possible to use that original alignment for a connecting spur.

     A flat junction should be adequate given that the line to Croydon is single beyond that point (towards Mitcham Junction) anyway

139. Given the numbers of comments about trams vs trains I am left wondering if there is not some scope in and around the Sutton area for a level of tram train operation. That could allow through rail services to Zone 1 to be preserved but for enhanced frequencies and connections to be provided locally. Clearly there would be complications about platform heights and power supplies but they may not be insurmountable. If a way forward was found it might provide a lot of local connectivity without having to completely adandon what people value currently.

140. Timbeau:- where in the Sutton Town Centre leaflet that you link to (today at 11.45) does it suggest that there are plans for Tramlink to run alongside the Epsom Downs railway line as far as the Royal Marsden Hospital? While there might be some merit in this, I don’t see any mention of this in the leaflet. What am I missing?

     The other link (to the map of proposed Tramlink extensions on the UDP map) does contain something interesting, namely an apparent plan to build a Tramlink route north-east from the hospital on Wrythe Lane in the direction of Mitcham Junction. I haven’t seen this mentioned before. Is this a new proposal or have I again missed something?

141. timbeau,

     A flat junction should be adequate given that the line to Croydon is single beyond that point (towards Mitcham Junction) anyway

     Never think of how things are. Think of how they will be. As we shall see when I get to write the next installment, this track will eventually be doubled.

142. Walthamstow Writer,

     To be clear, are you seriously suggesting tram and trains running on the same track?

     If so, I think ORR would have a fit at the suggestion of the combination of 3rd rail and trams. Or are you suggesting that trains move to overhead current collection in which case this is a whole new can silo of worms?

143. @ PoP – Yes I am suggesting that the ORR has a fit. I am not saying it is without challenges that would require solutions to be found and funded. If you wish to dismiss a possible solution to the actual / perceived travel problems in and around Sutton then that is completely fine. Instead I shall dream of the sanity that manages to prevail in Europe where they can manage to combine rail and tram systems effectively when they put their minds to it. Meanwhile the UK takes 3, possibly 4, years to achieve next to nothing in providing a tram train demonstrator service in South Yorkshire.

144. @PoP
     Tram-trains – it would be possible to add tram ohle without removing the 3rd rail for heavy rail services.

     @Guano
     I linked to the wrong Sutton document: try this one
     http://www.sutton.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1620/sutton_tramlink.pdf

145. timbeau,

     I get that. But I think ORR would have a fit with tram evacuation procedures. It would be so easy for the tram driver to forget about the third rail. How would a tram driver know it was no longer live? How would you couple two trams if one breaks down with a live 3rd rail lurking around? Personally I think the idea is bonkers and and non-starter but that could be interpreted as a bunker mentality by me.

146. @poP
     Point taken. However, it occurs to me that Southern does have quite a large fleet of dual voltage trains, which can work on overhead collection. Whether you adapt the trains to work on 750Vdc or the trams to work on 25kV ac may be a knotty question though. Both should be possible
     – the Class 399s for the Sheffield tram/train project are to be dual voltage.
     – a Southern class 377 can already work on 750V dc when on the third rail. It should be possible to arrange for the overhead current collection gear to be connected directly to the dc side (shunting out the transformer/rectifier set). Eurostars switch between ac and dc overhead collection every time they go into Belgium.

147. timbeau,

     Maybe it is just me but this seems to be daft idea that is getting dafter.

148. @timbeau. I’m with PoP on this one. The idea is on the eccentric side of off the wall. It’s one thing to build a train to cope with mixed electrics when that is unavoidable. But to deliberately introduce such things ab initio, just because you can’t quite figure out whether you want trains or trams down this particular corridor, well, a fleet of landrovers pulling farm trailers would be marginally less absurd.

149. Is this the same Malcolm who here urged us to stick to writing in English?

150. I detect scope creep in this blog! Bound to raise costs, depending on whether the crayons need to be dual-voltage or not… Doesn’t the Birkbeck example, sui generis, show that main line train and third-rail and low tram platforms can co-exist – just not on the same tracks but OK on parallel ones with the minimum standard railway distance apart. From looking at Google, the 3rd rail on the Birkbeck line is on the tram track side, so rem’arc’ably close to passengers at track level Tramlink platforms. And this IS acceptable to Health & Safety. See link here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.403776,-0.0558322,50m/data=!3m1!1e3

151. sui generis = in a class of its own

152. @PoP Yes it is the same one, in an off moment. But your comment clearly answers the different question of who watches the watchmen?”

     ab initio = from the start, from scratch

     [I’m watching both of you. LBM]

153. @Malcolm ” to deliberately introduce[trains with mixed electrics] ab initio, just because you can’t quite figure out whether you want trains or trams down this particular corridor”
     That’s not what was being suggested – the point was that the proposal requires both trains (to Epsom Downs) and trams (to Wimbledon) to use the Sutton-Belmont corridor.

     @poP
     “Maybe it is just me but this seems to be daft idea that is getting dafter.”
     @Ww
     ” I am not saying it is without challenges that would require solutions to be found and funded. ”
     I was identifying the challenges and possible solutions if the tram is to serve the Royal Marsden as proposed. Tram-train is one – whether it is more daft than the alternatives of
     – a Birkbeck-type solution,
     – converting the whole Downs branch to tram,
     – closing the branch beyond Belmont,
     – running a flee of Land Rovers between Epsom Downs, Banstead and Belmont (!)
     – extending the Tattenham Corner branch to Epsom Downs in cut and cover (descending 2km at 1 in 40!) and along the Downs branch as far as Belmont(!!!)

     is a matter of opinion.

154. Oh what fun – three moderators commenting on each other and threatening to delete each other’s remarks. 🙂 🙂 🙂

     @ J Roberts – thanks for pointing out that we do have mixed power infrastructures in close promixity to different vehicle types and passengers and that the world has yet to fall off its axis or ORR self combust through having to consider safety risks and mitigations. 😉

155. Thanks for the link to the correct Sutton document. But does anyone know anything about the apparent plan to build a Tramlink route north-east from the hospital on Wrythe Lane in the direction of Mitcham Junction?

156. WW 13.29: The first incarnation of the “Tram-Train Trial” was announced in 2008.

157. Tram trains have been running in Karlsruhe since 1992, and there have been examples of trains operating over tramways way back to the 19th century
     http://www.govanhistory.org.uk/images/ipaw/9.jpg
     http://www.govanhistory.org.uk/img/main/mi1_849.jpg

     or vice versa
     http://railphotoprints.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v86/p512292043-3.jpg

     There is mention of the Sutton-Tooting “extension B” here
     http://croydon-tramlink.co.uk/extensions/index.shtml
     and here
     http://croydon-tramlink.co.uk/extensions/SLTBrochure.pdf

158. @ Timbeau that final map of South London Trams shows possible extenstion of Tramlink north from Croydon to link with Cross River Tram . Had this been part of plans for Cross River Trams then the scheme would have presented a better image than must being an isolated scheme .

     As for Tram Trains the plans are more to do with setting guidelines for DFT than proving a concept that has been used for decades in mainland Europe and it price we pay for abandonment of trams in post war era rather than upgrading them as happened in Europe.

     Looking at that South London Map a Crayonista would look not just at Train Trams but DLR Trams ……

     One does wonder why we have so much difficulty in getting away from on street trams and creating more segregated running which as photos of some European schemes include tram tracks running on grass – imagine putting tram lines say inside Finsbury Park along boundary instead of on Seven Sisters Road with tram tracks having a grass base !

159. I have never seen the pictures of tram tracks “running on grass”. But as grass is not known for its structural strength, I suspect that the tracks are laid on a suitable foundation, and grass is encouraged or allowed to grow in a soil layer between them. This could obviously be done anywhere, if it was felt that the look was worth paying the mowing costs. I doubt if the defenders of public open space would see it as much of a sop, though.

160. @Malcolm/Melvyn – Yes, “running on grass” involves grassing over the trackbed, which is otherwise quite normal. V popular in the more recent French systems.

     More generally, a propos tram trains, my impression has been that the “experimental” tram-trains projects in the UK are merely a means of DfT stalling – how they do hate trams so – the technical issues are well understood and have been entirely resolved in Germany*, Switzerland and Austria and no different to the technical issues here. The commercial issues do not require a technical demonstration to sort out, so why the need for a trial?

     *To the point where enthusiasts hired a Karlsruhe tram for a trip to the mountains in Bavaria…

161. @Malcolm
     “I have never seen the pictures of tram tracks “running on grass”. ”
     This sort of thing?https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.829925,4.449966,3a,75y,270.38h,78.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOrvsdDDHN-tcJkCsjycW3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

     https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.820251,4.477083,3a,15y,141.16h,85.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPdy19FWXh1XJ0zQF8yImXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

162. More grass tramtracks – I was going to say “closer to home” but in fact they are not quite as close as Brussels.

     http://www.britishtramsonline.co.uk/gallery328-1.html
     http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/beetham-tower-architect-ian-simpson-9584554
     http://www.britishtramsonline.co.uk/news/?attachment_id=8899

     Apparently the first was in Liverpool, in 1924

163. @grass tracks. The role of the grass between the tracks was of course quite different on the Tallylyn railway in 1951, as this evening’s TV programme reminded me. There it was holding the rails to gauge, the sleepers having mostly rotted away.

164. This is my prefered track in Gent, Belgium, just arround the corner.
     https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.046862,3.711152,82.15h,-4.76p,1z
     The tree lining in between the 2 tracks, ads realgreen to the scène.

165. I work for the National Trust in the park and in regards to the Morden Road bridge there is a lot of land who might belong to TFL next to the National Trust land. There is room for tight curve possibly a triangle. I do not know if it would be impossibly tight though. Morden Hall Road is a really random road for traffic in my mind some days it can be really busy other days really quiet. In response to the post about raising the retaining wall at the sainsburys this wall is planned to be removed and replaced with a glass wall to show the former priory chapter house which is located under the road /old railway formation.

166. @timbeau:
     “This would, of course, preclude doubling the railway and thus limit its frequency to 2tph in perpetuity.”

     Not really. It would only preclude doubling between Sutton and Belmont. The rest of the double-track formation would be unaffected. 4tph would be perfectly feasible.

167. Anonymous 16/07 23:42
     Did they ever find that length of Pre-Tudor wall (which I think belonged to he NT) from the Abbey that they “lost” when the car-park for the Sava Centre was built c.1988?
     I was working for a local museum at the time,and it was a bit of a scandal.

168. I struggle with objections to trams of the form “The roads are busy so trams would be bad.” The key point of public transport is to effect a shift from cars to trams / trains / buses. Some people will voluntarilly swap from cars to trams but disincentivising driving by giving priority to trams making car journeys slower seems in line with policy.

169. Trams running over/on third rail – I am reminded that the present Tramlink (and any future) rolling stock bodywork would foul or be unacceptably close to any third rail and so to run in such a dual mode or over such tracks is out of the question.

     Trams running through grass – The Tramlink route through Lloyd Park was intended originally to be grassed in order to maintain the ambience of the park but sufficient objections were raised at the time to persuade that the track should be ballasted instead. When one considers that one aim was to make Tramlink as unobtrusive as possible in its surroundings, then came the ‘you can’t win’ argument that folk wouldn’t see where the rails were amongst the grass and thus where the trams were! Accordingly, Tramlink fails to have such comfortable scenes as in the links timbeau has provided.

     @Chz 16 July at 08:17 – “The road being busy is not a good argument against running trams down it. It’s usually noise regulations (trams are surprisingly noisy buggers) that scuppers things.”

     I assume you mean trams in Toronto are noisy buggers (at least the older generation there) rather than the new stock now being delivered to Toronto and the trams running on e.g. Tramlink here. But just how noisy do you perceive they are, compared with e.g. buses and the rest of the motor traffic and just what in your view causes the noise?

     Before Tramlink opened, much was made by objectors of the noise they would make but e.g. on the part of the route that only had c. 28 trains per day (Bingham Road – today’s Addiscombe tram stop – to Woodside) in the past, those complaining originally who lived beside the route had to admit they didn’t notice the 10-fold plus number of trams passing them daily at all!

170. Theban says “disincentivising driving by giving priority to trams making car journeys slower seems in line with policy.”

     It may be in line with someone’s policy (or it may not), but either way it is unlikely to be popular with those whose car journey is made slower. So objections are quite understandable.

171. P.S. Re. trams on grassed tracks in Croydon – there was another absurd objection from an authority (which doesn’t deserve to be named), viz. that grassed tracks would encourage earth leakage! One sometimes may wonder how those Continental Europeans ever manage so successfully to run their tram systems but I know the answer, just as I am sure many here do.

172. @Jim Cobb: If not, wouldn’t it be cheaper to improve the rail services. If the tram is cheaper than more trains (and possible station changes), then again this model would seem to apply to many other locations.

     Given that Network Rail are quoting £11.6 million to open a basic new station at Lea Bridge (half a million just in software changes alone), every signal or pair of points costs £200K, and any time you lift a finger on the operating railway you have to pay the TOCs through the nose in compensation, it is not a given that changes to the Sutton Loop to enable 8tph would cost much less than the proposed Sutton Tramlink.

     @Guano: the apparent plan to build a Tramlink route north-east from the hospital on Wrythe Lane in the direction of Mitcham Junction?

     It is on a local council land use planning map, so it could be that the council just want to make sure nothing is built that makes such a route impossible, rather than they are seriously pushing it as a proposal.

     @Graham Feakins: I assume you mean trams in Toronto are noisy buggers

     It may also be that the type of track used in Toronto (set in mass concrete, I seem to recall from photos?) affects the noise: modern UK tramways I think have always included some kind of layer between track and roadbed to absorb vibration.

     There’s an interesting ORR document on track laying techniques here that rather heretically suggests that the rather over-engineered reinforced concrete construction typically used in new UK tramways in the 1990s might not be as good as the much more lightweight concrete-sleeper-and-tie-bar systems used elsewhere in Europe.

173. There is another possible alignment if trams from Sutton to Wimbledon rather than South Wimbledon were desired by spurring off by Merton Park tram stop down Hartfield round to a new terminus at the back of Morrisons. There’s no reason why trams from Croydon and Sutton both need to use the same Wimbledon terminus. Hartfield Road could stand 6tph on road running on twin tracks.

     Personally I prefer the South Wimbledon route with a high level crossing to keep services on the two lines separate. It’s only a matter of time before Croydon to Wimbledon needs to be increased above 12tph and it is best to retain capacity for that.

174. @Theban
     a single track terminal loop at between Merton Park and Wimbledon (out by the existing route, back by yours) might be a better solution. with 12tph from Croydon, and 6 from Sutton) that is 18tph round the loop but note that as its one way Hartfield Road would not be three times as bad as the 6tph each way you propose. (There would also be the option of 12 round the Hartfield Road loop and six reversing at Wimbledon via Dundonald Road) .
     BUT – this still gives 18tph each way across the A238, double the level it has had to date. It also fails to feed into the Northern Line.

     The prospect of a building a flyover is not going to fly – the last time that was proposed, in 1989, the party controlling Merton Council promptly lost its majority in a byelection, and have not yet managed to win a majority at any of the subsequent seven elections.

175. I find the (mooted) idea of a single platform at South Wimbledon very disappointing. The existing system has struggled to overcome the constraints of spendthrift design & construction, particularly in the Merton area. What happens if the Sutton branch is similarly successful and both Wimbledon area termini are maxed out? That’s one of several reasons why I favour Collier’s Wood over South Wimbledon. There is more space to build a terminus, yet more could be created in the redevelopment of the area, it would generate more traffic in itself and there is scope to extend round to Wimbledon.

176. James GB
     

     [We don’t point out or correct others’ grammar here, unless to clarify meaning. The point is the idea and fact, not the proper use of English. LBM]

177. James GB says “I find the (mooted) idea of a single platform at South Wimbledon very disappointing”.

     Of course it’s disappointing. But it is the key to getting anything actually built. Anything else remotely practical would be far more expensive, and therefore not built at all. The history of the last 50 years, probably more, of London infrastructure is full of examples where things were built to a minimum standard, and later had to be extended, improved or even replaced. Think DLR, Tramlink, Thameslink, Victoria Line, Waterloo International. But if the only way you can build it is small and not-very-good, then better to do that than to let the chance slip by while you’re agonising over which shade of gold to paint the lily.

178. Single terminal platforms have sufficed at Elmers End and Beckenham Junction since the system opened – and even Wimbledon itself is just being doubled. Realistically the usage between Morden Road and South Wimbledon is likely to be lighter than between Morden Road and Sutton so the first likely enhancement would probably be to increase the frequency between Sutton to Morden Road to 8tph or more, turning the extra trams back there.

     The single platform at Wimbledon has anyway been managing 8tph just fine for some time so I don’t think that 6tph is the limit to a single platform anyway as someone suggested.

179. @Timbeau

     A Wimbledon loop is an interesting idea and maybe with hindsight that is the way the original system should have been built. It’s out of the question at present but CR2 might bring the idea into play if platform 10 is needed; my guess though is that TfL don’t think platform 10 will be needed for CR2 otherwise I am not sure they would presently be doubling it.

180. Theban,

     Single terminal platforms have sufficed at Elmers End and Beckenham Junction since the system opened

     Well, except that this is entirely false.

     The case of Beckenham Junction is the one easier to refute because there are two platforms there as shown on Carto Metro.

     To say that a single platform suffices at Elmers End depends on exactly what you mean by words but trying to run the current service with a single platform at Elmers End is an absolute pain. As I understand it, the entire Tramlink timetable has to be built around platform occupation at Elmers End with its two services of 4tph each. It could be argued that having a single platform at Elmers End is one of the reasons that we currently have such a ridiculous timetable. The sensible thing would be if the service on line 4 slotted neatly between two Wimbledon trams. The reason it doesn’t and the current service pattern doesn’t use the trams to their full potential is because there is only a single platform at Elmers End which doesn’t suffice.

181. @ Malcolm – fully understand both the history and logic of the “start small” idea. However it’s surely got to the point with demand levels that TfL should be aiming to get things “right” from day one to avoid rework and disruption later? If the mantra coming from the top of TfL and City Hall is correct about the need for much accelerated investment in transport capacity then surely we must try to “get it right first time” from here on in. I know that will be a battle with HMT and others but it has to be fought or else we’re just wasting time and money and condemning future users to disruption.

182. @WW – couldn’t agree more, though there is an important distinction between doing the right thing (ie planning ahead) and doing the thing right (ie delivering the wrong project satisfactorily). In the instances cited by Malcolm, the common thread is that they were either the wrong project or very quickly, and predictably, became so. The DLR is a classic. Ridley opposed it violently and was finally trodden on by Heseltine and gave way “only if the cash price was capped at £87m”; for that money, the only thing that could be bought was – even before shovels were raised – seen as woefully inadequate. But it was delivered for £87m cash… Subsequent purchases of sticking plasters have really only underlined the point.

183. @WW – I had a finance guy explain to me once that because of financial rules on capital investments and write offs, it is often better financially to start small and then upgrade at a higher cost later on. He also said it was often easier to get finance on an upgrade because you have a proven business case.

     I don’t pretend to understand it all, but it he seemd convincing to me. Based on this I wouldn’t be surprised if the constant upgrading of infrastructure is here to stay.

184. @PoP I can see why turning an evenly timetabled 8 tph at Elmers End could be tricky, and if they were timetabled unevenly, even worse. But is it not the case that the constraint here is not (just) the platform, but rather the stretch of single track (with just one short loop) adjacent? Unfortunately I can’t afford a site visit in time, but Google Earth, and the line’s history, suggests this could be doubled with no problems (except the cost, of course).

185. @Jim Cobb -beware passing snakeoil salesmen

186. @ Graham H – while I understand what you mean with the DLR and clearly vast sums have been expended on it I do have a bit of a soft spot for the DLR. I think it has pretty successfully shown you can have a largely unmanned automatic system which is reliable and safe to use, gives really good local transport links, ties in with local communities and which can be extended to meet transport needs. Clearly it can’t and never will cope with demand to Canary Wharf from Zone 1 or Stratford on its own but it clearly helps share the burden. It has also given us good and well used cross river links. I’m sure that at some point someone might have decided to build a main line rail link from Lewisham to the Isle of Dogs but something tells me it would still be under construction and that the ELL would have collapsed completely under the strain of people travelling via New Cross. And yes it has had its fair share of woes and growing pains over the years but I suspect there’d be a massive outcry if someone said “oh we’ll close the DLR link to Woolwich when Crossrail opens”. I think the DLR has its fair share of supporters amongst those who use it regularly. Circa 120m pass jnys a year isn’t a bad performance.

187. @PoP

     You are right about Beckenham Junction of course although I have never seen both platforms occupied but your Elmers End analogy is inapt because the Sutton Tramlink would be segregated. Trams can linger in Sutton (or indeed anywhere) so that a single platform is not really an issue.

188. Theban,

     It wasn’t my Elmers End analogy. It was your Elmers End analogy.

189. Malcolm,

     Or to be more technically correct, double track here could be reinstated with no problems – other than cost of course. However double track won’t solve the problem of the single platform. The loop is very deliberately located very close to the platform. This means that the next tram can be waiting outside the platform ready to occupy it almost as soon as the first tram leaves. Full reinstatement of the doubled track (as it was in BR days) between Elmers End and Arena would possibly help when trams are not running perfectly. I think the reality is that you really need both double track and two platforms to run a better service – one without the other won’t really help much.

190. I have a soft spot for the DLR as well, having travelled on it as a child (imagine my excitement at sitting in the front seat ‘driving’ the train!) after it first opened in the late 80s. I still remember those early train units (only 11 of them for the whole system!), with their ‘bus-style’ folding passenger doors. I still find it remarkable that they managed to build such a high-tech, ‘driverless’ system from scratch (albeit using disused railway alignments and modular construction techniques) for just £77 million, and also made attempts to make it step-free accessible (all the stations had lifts for example, IIRC) long before this became mandatory.

     As others have said, it was woefully unsuited at opening to what was going to happen in the Docklands over the following 20 years. It would be interesting to know (and relevant for future transport projects such as this Tramlink extension) as to whether this was purely a case of penny-pinching knowing full well that it would require more money for expansion further down the line, or if the scale of development envisaged in the Docklands was on a much smaller scale at the point where it was designed, and then grew massively by the point it opened.

     There will always be a difficult balance to strike…..build it cheaply and you may actually stand a chance of getting the damn thing built, but then attract so much traffic that you spend a small fortune later on rectifying this when it would have been cheaper to include this at the outset. Or, design a fantastic system at the outset with plenty of capacity to spare for decades, but with a price tag that will have the paymasters (i.e. HMT Treasury) telling you to get lost.

191. Anonymously says “There will always be a difficult balance to strike….”

     Precisely. And to return to Sutton Tramlink, I think that the “cheap” version (to South Wimbledon) is what is indicated here, and talk of Colliers Wood or Wimbledon station (let alone both!) is a recipe for a “no” conclusion, and the money being spent elsewhere. Others may disagree, obviously.

192. @Anonymously,

     The problem with Tramlink was it was such an unknown quantity. It was designed for 24 million journeys a year but it was many years before that figure was reached. Even though that figure has been reached and exceeded by a considerable margin one could argue that it has been made artificially more attractive by reducing fares to match bus fares – that was never the original intention.

     The classic thing that shows what an unknown quantity Tramlink was is the original timetable. This allowed for 9tph to Addington which was quickly seen in the early days as a bit of an overprovision. In contrast the 6tph to Wimbledon were hopelessly overcrowded almost from the start.

     I would say that Tramlink got the initial system design right as far as provision level goes. It was just unfortunate that at the last minute the treasury demanded a cut in the cost which led to some unfortunate pruning. I think Micheal Portillo was somehow involved but he has subsequently kept very quiet about his role in this – not good for his rail-friendly image.

     Back to the treasury demanded cuts which most notably led to the track between Beddington Lane and Mitcham Junction flyover being initially single track when it was intended to be double track – it was eventually doubled last year. Also at Gravel Hill roundabout on the Addington branch it was originally intended to to have a short tunnel at the summit. When the cuts were demanded they decided that the trams were powerful enough to manage the gradients without resorting to the tunnel. Unfortunately the less powerful Stadler trams then came along and they are reluctant to run them on the New Addington branch because they are not ideal for the steep gradients.

193. Malcolm,

     I think you are absolutely right. It is only 300m from the junction of Merantun Way/A24 to South Wimbledon. If it was subsequently decided to extend along Merantun Way to Colliers Wood then in absolutely the worst scenario you have wasted 300m of double tram track but made an intermediate solution possible. More realistically you would probably be grateful for all the termini that you could get in order to expand the system.

     Sometimes the all-or-nothing approach is best. At other times an incremental approach reduces risk and makes a scheme easier to budget for. I think Sutton Tramlink is in the latter category.

194. @Anonymously

     Regarding the appropriateness of DLR’s small scale start, my co-author and I shall be attempting to explain the reasons behind it, as well as the Docklands regeneration efforts and plans, in the Fleet/Jubilee Line Part 2. Obviously the emphasis in Part 2 is on the attempts to extend the Jubilee line, and the DLR as an interim transport mode. Part 1 is near completion and we are hard at work on Parts 2 & 3 (3 being the Canary Wharf years).

195. @Anonymously/WW – without wanting to steal LBM’s future thunder, my point was simply – as Anonymously implies – that “everyone” (by which I mean politicians, planners, and operators alike) knew that DLR was the wrong solution for the likely volumes well before it was authorised. The problem was that, having cancelled the Fleet Line, no politician, or HMT especially, was going to admit that that was the wrong decision so soon. HMT had got what they wanted and weren’t going to let it go. Coupled with Ridley’s determination to avoid expanding public transport (remember, he being forced to renationalise LT through gritted teeth), and John Gunn’s determination that LDDC would have control over transport, the scene was set for a bodge. Indeed, Ridley (ex- Treasury) fought the decision to have DLR at all and was overruled by Cabinet.

     DLR has been playing catch up expensively ever since.

     In fact, to take an historian’s view, most of the waste generated by poor project selection (DLR, WIT, Stratford) in public transport in London can be traced to a serious sytemic failure to handle the redevelopment of the Stratford/Isle of Dogs area properly -the mere plaything of the the politicians (well, one leonine one in particular). Never, ever, give politicians the key to the sweet cupboard.

196. LBM
     In which case, why the furore about “foreign” words & phrases used in this blog?
     Nil desperandum

     [The first part of LBM’s message to which I think you are referring, read “We don’t point out or correct others’ grammar here, unless to clarify meaning”. A preference (not a furore) for English is, ipso facto, part of clarifying meaning. Malcolm]

     Anonymously
     [Comment largely duplicating Graham’s, but with additional unnecessary invective, snipped. Malcolm]

     “knowing full well that it would require more money for expansion further down the line”,
     Yes, WE know that, the rail transport professionals knew that, but the politicians & the Treasury did not ( & some still don’t) ….
     See also Graham H’s recent extra comment, too.

     LBM
     I assume you have a copy of the James Abbott/Modern Railways 1991 publication on the DLR? Useful stuff in there – I can send you pdf-scans if you need extra material.

197. Briefly, the DLR was built between 1984 and 1987. At that time the LDDC was planningonly for low-rise “back-office” and light industry (Billingsgate being a early arrival). Olympia & York only came into the picture in 1987.

198. Graham H 18 July 2015 at 07:25

     The only “poor project selection (DLR, WIT, Stratford) in public transport” in Stratford is the lack of a travelator between the eastern ends of the two stations. Too late now.

     Do visit and spend half a day having a good look around

199. @Alan griffiths -and where are the international trains? (I was referring to the £1bn sunk in that project well before anyone had thought of the javelin service). BTW, it was Heseltine’s original intention that Stratford Unintentional should actually be the terminus for international services. As you say, there is much that is “too late now”. And yes, I have visited the site.

     PS You might also usefully add the siting of the JLE terminus in such a way that extension will be very difficult.

200. 30 years ago, public transport was at long-term ebb and nobody understood the positive feedback cycle between building transport infrastructure and development. For many reasons DLR can be excused and it is a poor analogy for Sutton Tramlink.

     There are strong grounds for building at least passive provision for substantial expansion into the plans; however, I still believe that applies much more to the section South of Croydon Tramlink, than to the north. Rather than worry about the South Wimbledon terminus, I think the real attention should be on the loop through Sutton.

201. Graham asks “and where are the international trains?”. I think they have all got stranded at Birmingham International.

202. I always wonder why they didn’t build the route through Canary Wharf instead of Stratford..

     In relation to Theban’s comment, the Javelin and MML platforms are one of the best reminders of the lack of thorough futureproofing for transport projects with only four platforms each, and would cost a fortune to expand. Similarly with Tramlink I can’t help thinking that some day a tram may just be enough, at least for the Wimbledon section. Would a reconversion back to heavy rail such as LO be a possibility at some point in the distant future?

203. For street running trams, where the road is single carriageway, when the trams stop at tram stops does traffic just have to wait or is usually designed so there is enough space for cars to go around the trams? This isn’t such an issue at Lebanon Road tram stop because cars are only allowed to use that part of Addiscombe Road at certain times, so the road usually only has buses and trams on it.

204. @Miles
     Converting the Croydon to Wimbledon line back to heavy rail would be very unpopular. Firstly there are too many stops for a heavy rail service to be worthwhile so many stops would need to be closed. Platforms would need to be lengthened massively if you wanted even a four car train to run on the line. People would lose direct services to Wimbledon from the centre of Croydon and the Eastern Branches of tramlink. However journey times would probably improve which at the moment are tediously long. If you want to get to Wimbledon from Croydon it’s much quicker to go to Clapham Junction and change.

205. Miles,

     We have discussed conversion back to rail before. Apart from the issues that Kingstoncommuter mentions you have to get around the problem of the two critical level crossings (don’t worry about Dundonald Road, if desperate just close it). One is the Kingston Road at Merton Park and a perennial favourite topic and the other is Beddington Lane. Ask yourself: what are the chances of getting approval to put another heavy rail level level crossing on the national rail system? The digression into the topic of level crossings elsewhere is actually very useful to make this point.

     Kingstoncommuter,

     The general policy is that, because boarding times are normally so quick, the traffic is expected to wait. Cars overtaking trams at tram stops (especially when, too late, they find a tram coming the other way) is one of the deadliest Road Traffic Collisions that can happen as a result of trams. I would expect bollards to be in place to highly discourage any vehicle to attempt to make this manouvre.

206. Overtaking trams. Indeed my memory is telling me that when I took my driving tests in the 60s, trams were explicitly listed as one of the circumstances in which overtaking on the nearside was permitted (though not when passengers were boarding). And “tram pinch” was one of the road signs we were expected to recognise. Even though Blackpool and Douglas were then the only places one might use this information (driving abroad then being too exotic to contemplate).

207. @Malcolm – apparently the Warboys Committee, which designed the current style of road signs, forgot about Blackpool and had to add a tram pinch sign hastily when this was pointed out.

208. @Kingston Commuter

     On a point of pedantry (sorry but I think the accuracy is worthwhile) there are no traffic restrictions past Lebanon Road tram stop: the restrictions lie either side which is what makes traffic on that stretch of Addiscombe Road quiet-ish – crossing the road after leaving a tram can be slightly tricky at times even so.

209. @Greg T

     Thank you for the offer. The emphasis of the Part 2 article will be on Docklands planning and heavy rail, with DLR information as background, so we won’t be going into detail about the DLR itself.

     @Timbeau
     Your comment

     “Briefly, the DLR was built between 1984 and 1987. At that time the LDDC was planning only for low-rise “back-office” and light industry (Billingsgate being a early arrival). Olympia & York only came into the picture in 1987.”

     summarises the situation very well.

     @Miles et al (and everyone else)

     If everyone could please hold on to questions and comments about Docklands and DLR development until the Part 2 article is published, it would be much appreciated. Also such comments would be off-topic to this thread, so we will limit them heavily.

     LBM

210. @Graham H….why would you want to extend the Jubilee line north of Stratford? The only extension anyone has ever mentioned is a branch from North Greenwich towards Thamesmead, and I’m not sure there’s even the capacity for that!

211. @Anonymously – personally, I don’t, but at the time of its planning, a number of further extensions NEward were suggested. That was before we all discovered that it would be full.

     It is true that a lot of the “mistakes” have been salvaged – but only by accident – and if the present outcomes had been planned for,they could almost certainly have been achieved more cost-effectively. And there may be more to come: the jury is still out on whether the surrender of platforms at StP will be sustainable long -term, for example.

212. @LBM: part 2? Which article is part 1?

213. The back cover of one of the old editions of the Baker atlas had a photo of a car overtaking a tram on Lebanon Road.

     I understand the comments about getting something built in the first place, but I wonder how much of the transport budget is wasted on upgrading things which should have been built to a higher specification in the first place. I cannot shake the feeling that we end up with fewer new schemes because we insist on paying for the ones we have in this piecemeal and expensive way.

     With regards the proposed line to Sutton, a route with a terminal loop at one end and single platform at the other looks operationally risky at 8tph. There is no obvious place to turn back trams short. Morden Road would be difficult unless the double tracks are together on one side of the bridge: reversing on the existing line would likely disrupt the Croydon-Wimbledon trams.

214. James GB says “a route with … looks operationally risky at 8tph”.

     I am not an expert in operational problems with trams. But it seems to me that, on a standalone line, this is not nearly so difficult as 8 tph (or worse) termini are on a rather more complex network like the current Tramlink. Because there would be no interactive bits, it is not a disaster if the timetable falls apart, and trams just keep going (with action taken to smooth out any bunching). I could be wrong, though.

215. @Malcolm – just so – in the mark 1 London tramway, there were plenty of stub end termini which saw anything up to 30 tph (I haven’t done the Vauxhall Bridge Road figures yet, but they are likely to be even higher). As you say, and as with very high frequency bus routes, you just try and keep them rolling, ditching the timetable if necessary. [I was also looking for modern examples, but modern systems have mostly eliminated stub termini].

216. @SHLR (Southern Heights Light Railway)

     I mentioned yesterday that Part 1 is almost complete – hasn’t yet been published.

217. @Graham H, Malcolm

     Toronto’s streetcar system, having been started about 120 years ago, still has numerous short turn loops (effectively stub termini) for the uni-direxional cars. The new (bi-directional LRV) LRT lines abuilding here will have cross-overs for similar short turns to balance traffic & vehicles.

218. It may be worth mentioning that the Morden Road/South Wimbledon northern option for Sutton Tramlink is a fairly recent development. After the current Tramlink system opened, the main Sutton tram proposal publicised was Sutton-(possibly St Helier Hospital)-Rose Hill-central Mitcham-Figges Marsh-Tooting Broadway. This is also shown on two of the documents that Timbeau linked to, one of which purports to be a TfL official map.
     Back then, bringing a rail service into central Mitcham was seen as desirable, particularly in the years before Mitcham Eastfields station opened in 2008. “Mitcham” tram stop and Mitcham Junction tram stop/station were both on the edges of Mitcham.
     The Sutton-Tooting tram proposal would have apparently crossed the Wimbledon-Croydon line immediately west of the existing Mitcham tram stop. There was some debate about whether the current road bridge would be retained there, or whether the grade separation should be removed and a flat junction/level crossing installed (I was dubious about whether that was sensible).
     As Stephen Parascandolo’s unofficial Tramlink website pointed out, the Mitcham-Figges Marsh-Tooting section would have presented serious challenges because of the traffic congestion and road widths along parts of this section.
     Compared with the Sutton-Mitcham-Tooting proposal, the Sutton-Morden Road-South Wimbledon scheme seems simpler to achieve (though I agree with others that Colliers Wood would make a better northern destination if possible).

219. Not quite sure what is meant by a stub end terminus. Does Phoenix Park count?

     http://www.thetrams.co.uk/net/lineone/map.gif

     Or herdings Park and Malin Bridge?
     http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/uk/sheff/sheffield-map.gif

     Essentially allowing short workings without obstructing the main line.

220. GH: “but modern systems have mostly eliminated stub termini” – I can think of only one modern British tram terminus that *isn’t* a stub end, namely the Croydon loop; nearly all termini on modern French systems are stub-ended (only traditional St Etienne has none); and similarly with the USA, I think.

     So which modern systems are you referring to?

221. @Mike – Maybe I can answer your question. Double-ended trams, i.e. trams with driving positions at both ends, can use loops at termini or stub-ended turnbacks. Single-ended trams, with a driver normally only at one end can only use a loop and there are plenty of tram systems e.g. in Germany which only have single-ended trams. Exceptionally, such single-ended trams use a reversing triangle, which is not so desirable but OK where space and surroundings suit; an example is in the first couple of minutes here in Düsseldorf showing the view from the driver’s cab (well worth following through to see an example of an established but modernised system – note esp. the car driver/parked car v. tram discipline):

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTa3w1ahWWQ

     The elimination of the second cab or driver’s position enables a greater passenger-carrying capacity and eliminates the cost of the second cab equipment but that has to be offset against providing turning loop facilities. It also means difficulties if trams have to be turned short if no loops are provided. London’s double-ended trams of today and yesteryear reverse(d) at stubs, save for the major exception of yesteryear with trams running around the loop formed by the Embankment, Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges from the Elephant and Kennington Oval, with Embankment handling up to 175 trams per hour. The replacement London trolleybuses normally had no such stub-terminal luxury and routes had to be found around side road loops and roundabouts at termini.

     Loops usually also mean a swifter turnaround if required, especially when two or more tracks are provided on the loop for separate routes/overtaking purposes. A classic I recall was the set of loops just outside the ground of FC Köln when a full end-of-season match crowd was completely cleared by the (single-ended) trams within 20 minutes.

     However, if double-ended trams are acceptable, then so must be the intermediate crossovers that should be installed to ensure short workings along the routes are swiftly turned back. Whatever happens, tramways must not fall into the trap of cheap skating by paring back the number crossovers on the route, as so often seen on Network Rail.

222. Thanks, Graham, but that makes t’other Graham’s statement even less explicable, since all the modern (in the sense of 2nd generation, new/recent) systems that I can think of have double-ended trams, as have at least some traditional (in the sense of 1st generation) systems – including arguably the world’s largest, in Melbourne, which has always been entirely double ended, with most (if not all) termini – including recently built ones – being stub ends.

     Modern (in whatever sense) systems provide no shortage of stub-ended termini to satisfy GH’s quest.

223. Addiscombe Road has a solid white line down the middle, which means overtaking, in all circumstances, is illegal (save for the broken down vehicle scenario). So, in Croydon, overtaking a tram at a stop is not allowed.

224. @ Graham F – I don’t know what you think you are doing providing links to such disgraceful anti British transport “pornography” showing trams gliding effortlessly across a German city with priority at junctions, barely any congestion and no pollution. Appalling. We really must make sure our transport consists of huge traffic jams, fatal levels of pollution and definitely no trams or trolleybuses whatsoever. 😉

     Dusseldorf was my first ever foreign travel destination – ironically on a transport society trip.

225. @Mike – I was thinking mainly of German, Austrian and Swiss systems, but I take your point. Actually, the point of my point, as it were, was to try and identify any systems where there still high numbers of reversals on stub ends (or at intermediate points, as timbeau remarks). None of the British or French systems has very high tph (except,frivously perhaps,Crich) and the Swiss and German ones that do, have substantially eliminated stubs, as have many of the high frequency eastern European systems such as Tallinn or Moscow.

     I should have made the selection criteria clearer – I was looking for upwards of 15-20 reversals/hour.

226. I don’t understand all these issues about loops. Can’t trams just stop and travel back in the direction they came?

227. @Andy brice – Absolutely, and for many years that was pretty well universally the case; many systems (not many in the UK) took time out to run round a trailer as well. A loop has the advantage that the driver doesn’t have to take time out to swap cabs (and in some cases, trolley poles as well).

228. @Andy Brice
     single-ended trams do exist – see here http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/T_Brussels1.html#anchor54387
     (70xx and 75xx series)

     Rear view of a single ended tram
     http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Tram_Brussels/7500_090320-3023_b.jpg

     Moreover, reversing at a stub end takes more time as the driver has to change ends, and there are conflicts between arriving and departing trams crossing each others’ paths.

229. Graham Feakins,

     Exceptionally, such single-ended trams use a reversing triangle, which is not so desirable but OK where space and surroundings suit

     For completeness I would add there is also the other option, which I am sure you knew, of having a small, normally-hidden, shunt panel in the rear of the tram – rather like we used to get on Underground stock. This enables the tram driver of a single-ended tram to use a reversing triangle but be driving the tram from a forward position at all times – vital if the reversing triangle involves public roads.

     I’m sure you also know this (been there, done that, about to post the video) but Glienecker Bridge (“the spy bridge” where east and west used to exchange spies) in Potsdam is an excellent example of this.

     Whatever happens, tramways must not fall into the trap of cheap skating by paring back the number crossovers on the route, as so often seen on Network Rail.

     A very sweeping statement that you know I will always challenge and probably we will always disagree on. It is not simply a matter of cheap skating. It is also a matter of reliability. Points and crossings occupy less than 1% of track but account for 20% of track cost and are nearly always the location of an problems due to track. Even if money were no object there would still be an optimum number of points and crossings to put in for the most reliable, comfortable journey. I suspect that would not be much different to what we have now. Way back in the days of Southern Railway Sir Herbert Walker did his utmost to remove these when they achieve no real purpose so as to improve reliability. Remember also these mean that you have less flexibility as to where to put in your block sections and all the consequences of that.

     To save you the effort I will pre-empt your response of the example in the Peckham/South Bermondsey area that you consider illustrates the case. They may well be individual cases where the decision is wrong but that does not alter the general principle of trying to avoid putting in points and crossings where they are not really needed.

     I dread to think how much more unreliable London Bridge would have been if there were yet more points around that could fail. As it is I have heard feedback suggesting that the relatively few infrastructure problems now occurring between New Cross and Borough Market Junctions on the Charing Cross lines is because there is little to go wrong. This greatly improves reliability.

230. GH – take a look at the following stub termini in Melbourne: Melbourne University, Elizabeth St, Waterfront City Docklands, St Vincent’s Plaza, or Etihad Stadium Docklands – see http://ptv.vic.gov.au/getting-around/maps/ and http://ptv.vic.gov.au/timetables.

231. @WW – Tee hee! When somebody doesn’t describe it as disgraceful, then I’ll know we are getting somewhere.

     @PoP – “…there is also the other option, which I am sure you knew, of having a small, normally-hidden, shunt panel in the rear of the tram” – Yes indeed, and its not just a shunt panel – I have driven such a tram (two units coupled, each 3-section articulated) ‘backwards’ from such a panel at full line speed over some miles on the Albtalbahn (Karlsruhe). It’s just not normal practice almost to crouch to drive rearwards fast in normal service but nearby passengers willingly move out of the way (in Germany). I retain my key to access such hidden panels; I might need to renew my tram driver’s licence.

     And “As it is I have heard feedback suggesting that the relatively few infrastructure problems now occurring between New Cross and Borough Market Junctions on the Charing Cross lines is because there is little to go wrong. This greatly improves reliability.”

     Precisely. Take the tracks out altogether and nothing will go wrong at all. Nevertheless, what you say does nothing whatsoever for operational flexibility.

232. P.S. @PoP – “there would still be an optimum number of points and crossings to put in…. I suspect that would not be much different to what we have now. Way back in the days of Southern Railway Sir Herbert Walker did his utmost to remove these when they achieve no real purpose so as to improve reliability.”

     Yes indeed, but he was bent on removing redundant trackwork required by steam locomotive operation wasn’t he? Useful crossovers (now removed) for electric traction lasted well into the late 1970’s and beyond.

233. Graham Feakins,

     Absolutely not. I can recall reading one specific example at Brighton where he was convinced that around a third of the points and crossings outside the station were, in his opinion, completely unnecessary. His operating department told him they were needed. So he arranged for the them to clip out of use all the points he considered redundant and a liability. It turned out not only was he right, the service actually improved. This was in the days of electric traction. I wish I could find where I read this by I got the impression that the area had been recently resignalled and modified with electric traction in mind so he was actually demonstrating that the scheme was completely over the top when it came to provision of points and crossings.

     I think that, far from removing redundant points leftover from the days of steam, Sir Herbert grasped that people were installing far too many points and crossings in the days of much more reliable and predictable electric traction.

234. @Mike – yes, of course – reinforces my conviction that those who complained about reversing 12 tph on a stub at Wimbledon were, err, incorrect. It’s just that I couldn’t find a suitable modern example which gave high volumes. (There are plenty of low volume cases such as the Place Pury in Neuchatel, or indeed many British systems).

     @Graham F – I ought to be reassured by this vision of you crouching down driving a tram abroad at high speed, but for whatever reason, I’m struggling a bit.

235. @PoP – Point taken (geddit?) but Croydon Tramlink reversals on short workings over crossovers are common, even one that may not come immediately to mind, viz. at the Avenue Road tram stop loop, where the terminating tram concerned draws forwards in the Beckenham Junction direction away from the platform onto the single track and reverses back onto the other side of the loop before proceeding on the single track on the Birkbeck side to return to Croydon. That example is not infrequent in order to balance/rectify the service intervals and it’s a crossover in all but name. If the route were to be truly double track throughout there, then a crossover would be required to achieve the same reversing operation facility.

     The trouble with your Brighton example is that it seems to ignore the then still-remaining and significant locomotive-hauled stock workings. Walker might have improved his electric multiple unit stock workings but I wonder how the loco-hauled workings fared and did he care? The track in the Brighton throat was complex enough when I was a lad and I suspect that was after Walker’s time…

     To try and tidy this up, trams ‘find’ crossovers for reversal useful, main line railways on the Continent have crossovers all over the place (c. every few kilometres) and particularly these days for bi-directional working.

     As for “I dread to think how much more unreliable London Bridge would have been if there were yet more points around that could fail.”, that tells me that I am not the only one to mistrust the reliability of stuff that ought to work ab initio, especially on what can be seen at least in part as a like-for-like basis, track layout-wise. Very sad.

236. @Graham H- The only things I really worried about were the level crossing flashing lights because one couldn’t judge whether the traffic on the road alongside was actually going to stop as I (the tram) crossed (!). Needless to say, I needn’t have worried. Anyway, I’m sure that you and others know what I meant – the tram ‘shunt’ controller was below the rear window level. Don’t worry, the crate of beer wasn’t on board that day.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-OYBefcPHQ

     (see perhaps 1:12+ in) and, finally, I wonder whether TfL could replicate this camaraderie (only 5+months to go to next chance) on its trams. I certainly, reflecting WW’s ‘rebuke’, cannot see this occurring comfortably on a London bus:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU-9yvx9syc

     Sutton may have to wait a tad longer in any case. The Crystal Palace extension was being discussed long before Tramlink opened (the earliest record I have is 1989) and where are we with that?

237. Here’s an interesting blog about junction complexity comparing similar sized major stations in Holland and Japan: http://micheljansen.org/blog/entry/955

     Schematics of Utrecht and Tokyo stations are illustrated. The Utrecht example is not quite as complex as it seems at first glance, with some flyovers at the left side of the diagram (the north end of the station geographically) but nevertheless that north throat is a beast! It also includes some carriage sidings close by which complicates matters as they may need to connect to a number of different service routes through the station. Tokyo is clearly a mixed gauge station so there’s no need or possibility of any connection between the different gauges, although interestingly the two separate standard gauge Shinkansen lines are not connected at all, due to different owning and operating companies, and different frequency electric power supply used apparently.

238. @Graham F – no, Goodwillman Claus would undoubtedly either be arrested by the BTP as handing out sugar-based snacks without a licence or prosecuted by TfL for annoying passengers.

239. @ Graham F – oh I don’t know. Perhaps a last festive role for the customer assistants on the NB4Ls before they’re all fired next year once Boris is out of the way? It’d give them something to do rather than sitting on the back seat snoozing or playing with their I-pads (too much social media comment on these latter two things happening).

240. Many commenteers here seem to believe in a very strange concept, that of perfect planning and perfect forecasts of the future. The very best that can be achieved in most transport projects (including roads) is to actually get something built without either: Overestimating the demand; or placing too many obstacles in the way of reasonably economic future expansion. All within the geographic constraints that we are currently faced with.

     London’s first generation tram system involved some road-widening which included building demolition, so tricky problems concerning routes are not new either.

241. Single ended trams reversing
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6x4ZDPytCY
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tPZjY84LI

     And how to reverse the pole without dewiring
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d021xWx0Y6E

242. @Robert Butlin
     “Addiscombe Road has a solid white line down the middle,”
     It doesn’t look very solid in this picture.
     https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sJdnhXDQCYM/hqdefault.jpg

243. timbeau,

     Well, to be pedantic, it has two solid white lines although they could do with a repaint. As seen here. As the discussion concerned Lebanon Road tram stop there wasn’t much point in showing us a picture right by a junction quite a way from there – in fact around a minutes walk from Sandilands tram stop.

244. Graham Feakins says “to mistrust the reliability of stuff that ought to work ab initio”

     I don’t know whether you are impling that the point problems apply particularly to new points. There is an impression of many recent train delays being blamed on “point failure”. Granted PoP’s approach (of minimising the instances) should help here, but isn’t that a secondary matter, compared to the direct solution of ensuring that points (and associated gear) do not fail so often.

     However, I have a faint suspicion (based on no evidence whatever, so readers beware) that “points failure” may occasionally be the first excuse out of the box when, due to long and tangled information chains (and a reasonable concentration on fixing the problem rather than explaining it), the person putting out the public message does not actually have the foggiest idea what is actually wrong.

245. @Malcolm. I was at Hackney Wick station the other day. There was a general announcement of a blockage in the Kensington Olympia area. Then there was an automated announcement of the cancellation of an an eastbound train for ‘reasons that have not been ascertained yet!’ Not blaming the points there, just seemingly unable to work out why they had cancelled a service!

246. @Malcolm -announcements are one thing, but operational management certainly focusses on critical assets. Even in SE days, with relatively limited information available, we identified particular sets of points as key to delivery of a reliable service and prioritised maintenance accordingly.

247. @Malcolm, 19 July 2015 at 19:46
     . . . Granted PoP’s approach (of minimising the instances) should help here, but isn’t that a secondary matter, compared to the direct solution of ensuring that points (and associated gear) do not fail so often

     Do both and you should be able to achieve even higher levels of reliability (the Japanese approach).

248. @Fandroid. Absolutely. The dreaded passive voice. They are not saying who has not yet ascertained the reason.

     A parallel was a small fire in a small computer in one department in a big university. The local paper said “It is not known whether any student records were held on that computer”. Perfectly correct, the reporter did not know, probably because he had not asked. But readers all concluded that the university did not know where it kept its student records. Very annoying.

249. Mark Townend says “Do both and…”

     Yes, and it’s a virtuous circle, because if reliability is higher, you will need fewer emergency crossovers, and reliability will be even higherer.

250. A double-ended tram seems really wasteful in terms of both cost and space. Surely a reversing triangle could be negotiated by means of a rear view camera, particularly if the reverse is performed on a segregated track ?

     What about turntables – are they used anywhere ?

251. Turntables are not used anywhere for trams as far as I know.

     Reversing at triangles takes quite a bit of time, especially if negotiating traffic. Loops on the other hand take up a lot of space, which as I understand is quite valuable in London (unless said loop is built along streets). Stub termini are both small and quick in terms of operations, which is why they are the preferred solution nowadays. Even if an extra set of doors and a second cab increases the costs of the tram by 1/3 compared to a uni-directional vehicle.

252. The route shown on the Sutton UDP maps heading north-east from St Helier Hospital would appear to have been part of the previously planned route to Tooting via Figges Marsh. It doesn’t appear on the 2014 Merton UDP maps, but these do show proposed Tramlink extension from the Sutton boundary as far as Merton Road tram stop. There is no clue as to how this proposed line would join the existing line.

253. @Straphan
     http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/cable-car-turntable-san-francisco-17330573.jpg

254. @Anonyminibus – but the worst of all worlds as they require a table with the diameter of the longest tram – anything up to 45 m on a modern system – not many places have that sort of room handy. The cars/tables mentioned by timbeau are short/small diameter and probably the only examples anywhere.

255. @timbeau
     Using very short cable hauled vehicles, although not a tram, the Perugia Minimetro uses turntables for reversal at the extremities:
     https://youtu.be/ROoLdIFsrZ8?t=1m18s

     Turntables are not at all compatible with typical modern long multisection tram vehicles, even more so on systems where trams can be coupled together into multiple vehicle consists.

256. @timbeau: That’s a cable car – I believe Sutton is looking for conventional overhead-powered vehicles.

257. Indeed it is a cable hauled tram, but Straphan was asking if there were any tram turntables, so I found him one!

     As the San Francisco turntables appear to be unique, it is indeed unlikely to be a practical solution for an electrified system, or one using articulated vehicles.

258. @Anonyminibus
     “A double-ended tram seems really wasteful in terms of both cost and space.”
     A rail-less vehicle (car, lorry, trolleybus) can execute a three poin turn am=lmsot anywhere but if you run on rails the opportunities to do so are very limited. Consequently, nearly all railed vehicles, from the humble coal truck to Eurostar, are designed to operate equally well in either direction, and nearly all motive power other than large steam locomotives are fitted with duplicate driving controls to allow them to be driven from either end. (Considering a multiple unit as, well, a unit!) Very few trams are single ended – even when terminal loops are provided there is always the possibility that a reversal will be needed short of the terminus if the line ahead is blocked.

     Terminal loops are useful for other reasons, e.g avoiding conflicts between incoming and outgoing vehicles.

259. The primary advantage of a loop in South London (at least at Wimbledon if such a thing were possible, post Crossrail 2, maybe) is that the maximum frequency is not determined by the “terminus”. This also applies to heavy rail e.g. Kennington Loop, “rounder” services on the National Rail network.

     Of course upping the frequency which is no longer terminus restrained simply means it hits the next problem down the line (literally) which in the case of Wimbledon is almost certainly Merton Park crossing (Kingston Road).

260. @timbeau at 1234 – try the electrified turntables at Vitznau or Landquart – not tramways but certainly electrified!

261. @timbeau
     Single-ended trams really aren’t that rare, although there seems to be an increasing tendency for newer cars to be double-ended. Siemens Combinos in Amsterdam, Bern and Potsdam as well as successor model Avenio in Munich, for example. Also, the vast majority of older Tatras, and nearer to home, the Belgian coast tram and low floor cars in Antwerpen (but not Gent, which has had double-ended and crossovers for years).

     A further advantage is that most are also single-sided, so there is a greater passenger capacity and fewer doors to go wrong. But you do always then have to have the platform on the same side – and two platforms on single track.

262. Man of Kent says “ fewer doors to go wrong [on single sided trams]”

     It’s maybe a trivial quibble, but the said fewer doors will get operated twice as frequently, so the MTBDF [mean time between door faults] will probably be the same as on double-sided ones.

263. Timbeau – “nearly all railed vehicles…are designed to operate equal well in either direction” only if you ignore the large fleets of locos in North America and countries that follow American railroading practice, where double-cab locos are very much the exception.

264. @Mike – a good point, although in practice they usually operate in multiple and, other when leading the formation, seem to have no problem running cab-last.

265. timbeau
     Or even the EE class “20”, often operated nose-first ( As were the awful NBL & better BTH type 1’s back in the day )

266. @Graham H: to try and identify any systems where there still high numbers of reversals on stub ends

     As well as the terminuses mentioned, the busiest in Melbourne might be Elizabeth St – 32 trams per hour at a double track stub terminus (originally built in cable tram days when it handled something like 60tph). Melbourne also has a lot of single-track suburban terminuses.

     There is at least one tram turntable in the UK, but it’s not what you would think – instead of being built in the street, it is built into the tram itself.

267. @greg
     “Or even the EE class “20”, often operated nose-first ( As were the awful NBL & better BTH type 1’s back in the day “)
     The single-cab NBL and BTH types had off-centre cabs, unlike the EEs whose cab was at the extreme end. These all had duplicate controls and could be driven (long) nose-first. I don’t think American types can be driven from a rear-facing cab in normal use. In this example there are three locos – only the first is cab-forwards.
     http://fineartamerica.com/featured/freight-train-5509-robert-bales.html
     But it seems to be normal practice to arrange for the end two locos of any such formation to be cab-outermost so the group as a whole is double-ended. Where multiple working is the norm this is obviously a sensible economy. See also the single-ended units of C stock, D stock, 1972, 1973 and 1992 tube stock, Eurostar, HST power cars, etc.

268. Initially all trams were double-ended, as that reduced the amount of space required for (mostly private) companies to purchase for a terminus. This was largely unproblematic in horse-drawn days – you just uncoupled the horse and brought it round the other end. Single-car electric trams were also not much of an issue.

     However, as networks outside the UK started carrying trailers, shunting trams became lengthy and the termini became more and more complicated to allow for shunting. This is why single-ended trams were invented, which required more space to turn around (either in triangles or in loops), but required less complex electrics and saved time at the termini. This trend was continued after the war in Europe where most cities built loops (with cities heavily damaged and both space and companies communalised it wasn’t that difficult to find space).

     The trend was then reversed in Western Germany and Belgium in the 70s and 80s as cities started building ‘pre-metro’ or ‘Stadtbahn’ systems, where tram networks received tunnel portions and were enhanced to take on characteristics of metros. There doors were required on both sides to serve some stations with central platforms, and were double-ended to allow for trams to turn around in stub-track termini in tunnels (loops underground are a bit expensive).

     Nowadays companies with networks adapted for single-ended trams have started buying bi-directional trams in limited quantities. This is primarily to assist with engineering works, as bi-di trams in combination with temporary crossovers allow routes to be terminated just next to the building site. I’ve also seen a few cases where network extensions were built in phases and bi-di trams were used to operate services to a temporary terminus at the end of a phase while the rest of the line (including loop) was being built. In some cases normally single-directional networks have decided to permanently build stub-termini for various reasons (usually lack of space to build a loop) and accept that they will need to operate two separate vehicle fleets which will not be 100% interoperable.

     From the evidence I have seen, bi-di trams are approximately 1/3 more expensive to procure than comparable single-ended trams. They are not unduly more expensive to operate (except, as pointed out, they may be a little less reliable on the whole), however, in most cases they offer fewer seats to passengers for obvious reasons.

269. The article’s link to the consultation appears to be broken.
     [Fixed. Thanks. PoP]

270. @Straphan
     “tram networks received tunnel portions and were enhanced to take on characteristics of metros. There doors were required on both sides to serve some stations with central platforms”
     Ever the pioneer, London needed to make special provision for trams running through the stations on the Kingsway subway because of its centre platforms, as passengers had to join and alight at the front. It also led to this curiosity
     https://www.flickr.com/photos/44996480@N02/4795558257

271. @timbeau: Thanks. I did not know trolleybuses used the subway as well…

272. @straphan – well, strictly speaking A trolleybus used the subway for 2 round trips on 13 August 1939 and that was it. Only one experimental vehicle, as depicted, was built with offside doors to cater for the centre platforms in the subway. The two trips were run using the batteries, which apparently failed on each trip, with a tow vehicle finishing the job. Needless to say, no farepaying passengers were conveyed.

273. @GH
     Well I don’t know why LPTB didn’t think of right-hand trolleybus running through the Kingsway Tunnel to avoid the need for offside doors at just two stops in the entire network….! Was the organisation stuck in its ‘tracks’?

274. @Milton Clevedon
     Maybe they did – but the experiment was in the very early stages and never went any further – maybe they would if the Unpleasantness hadn’t started later that month.

     However, there were other problems – in particular, driving a trackless vehicle in the narrow confines of the tunnel proved to be quite difficult. The tunnel would also need wiring up (the tunnel was only electrified on conduit).

275. @MC -not sure where there would have been room for the reversal of the rule of the road – might have made emerging onto the Embankment fun.

276. It’s a shame the trolleybuses in the subway didn’t end up being a regular occurrence – who knows what the place would have looked like now…

277. @straphang
     Probably much the same as it does now, given that the rest of the trolleybus network closed in 1962, less than ten years after the trams.

278. IMHO, and apart from the wider issue about the case for tram conversion, the Kingsway Subway failed in part because it didn’t connect North London with South London efficiently via Waterloo terminus, and via Waterloo Bridge which was being rebuilt in the 1930s/40s.

     A trolleybus entrance, much like the present Strand underpass but double-deck, could have proved really useful in the pre-war scenario of South London tram to trolleybus conversion during the 1940s. The Cross-River tram scheme has made a similar point more recently, by illustrating the travel demand on the Waterloo Bridge/Kingsway corridor. However, I doubt that a 654 route variant would have made it into North London in any circumstances!

     Reverting to Sutton-Merton, the case for trams is being made in part by a skills cluster centred on the Royal Marsden, worth several thousand jobs, so I fail to see why the scheme doesn’t go that far in Phase 1, rather than Part 2. These days you make your business case on jobs and homes, not just on transport benefits.

279. @timbeau: I appreciate that, but had the trials been more successful London Transport may have been persuaded to maintain the subway for public transport use rather than converting to car.

     In any case – we’ll never know…

280. @straphan – actually, we do know what the place might have looked like for at least the decade or so after the war had the s London conversion schemes taken place. The subway would have had three trolleybus routes:

     533 Newington Green to West Norwood
     535 Archway to Forest Hill
     631 Hackney to Wandsworth

     Whether the 40 % increase in the fleet and electrified mileage resulting from the complete conversion programme would have created a sufficiently spread out (timewise) critical mass of assets to enable a sensible rolling programme of renewals to be financed is a moot point. Certainly a total fleet of nearly 3000 vehicles might have kept the UK trolleybus manufacturers alive.

281. @Graham H
     ” Certainly a total fleet of nearly 3000 vehicles might have kept the UK trolleybus manufacturers alive.”
     London’s trolleybuses were built by AEC and Leyland. They were quite happy to build diesel buses instead!

282. @timbeau – just to be precise, then, alive and building trolleybuses [with apologies to others for wandering too far off topic].After the Q1s appeared, so few other operators ordered anything -mainly Reading, Bournemouth and Walsall, as I recall.

283. @Graham H
     Don’t think you are off topic at all, the issue here is UK procurement volumes vs. years of life of existing vehicles.

     Trolleybuses – maybe 3,000 London trolleybuses at say 150 per year replacement might have supported one production line at one vehicle every 2 days (and non-European rules at the time). Other provincial trolleybus operations might or might not have collectively supported one other production line, or the single line working harder.

     Trams/DLR – we are nowhere near that nominal trolleybus-scale of production, and there is European procurement to address as well.

     How many vehicles does Sutton-Merton represent? 15? 20? That’s a guess, but likely to be an upper limit even with a Phase 2 to Royal Marsden. So even if trolleybuses had survived, the UK tram supplier market wouldn’t have, and that isn’t re-opening now. Sutton Tramlink will be a discrete order into an existing supplier.

284. @straphan: city centre bus tunnels are not unheard of worldwide, for example in Seattle, Brisbane, Harvard, but most seem to either to use trolleybuses or to have been built since the 1980s – I’m not sure whether an earlier generation of ventilation and older diesel engines would have made a non-electric bus tunnel feasible in the 1960s. Putting the traffic beneath and the buses on the surface was not an unreasonable idea, and the Cross-River tram didn’t propose to re-use the underpass (in fact I think it would have caused its abandonment to create space for tram tracks where the entrances are).

     @Jonathan Roberts: a UK tram/trolleybus/whatever maker could have survived if there were enough export orders (after all, Strasbourg’s first trams were built in York) – but as ever, British peculiarities would make it unlikely they would develop a product with global appeal (problems would include a love for double deckers not shared by most countries, driving on the left, a poor reputation for build quality, domestic customers who over-specify and insist on a heavily customised product, and a home market big enough to make manufacturers complacent about exports but too small to keep them going through tough times).

285. @Jonathan Roberts -a further procurement /manufacturing complication in the UK is (for trams) and would have been (for trolleybuses), the bunching in the age profile of the vehicles concerned For instance,of the 4000 or so trolley vehicles run in the UK, about 75% were built between 1933 and 1939. Feast and famine for would be manufacturers – not a sustainable business model, alas, as those of us knew who were faced with perpetual bleats from BREL (aided by their running dogs at DTI…) on the need for another order “to keep the workforce together” regardless of the business case. With the present generation of tramways. reliance on overseas builders who face a much smoother age profile, is probably inevitable.

286. @Graham H
     “faced with perpetual bleats from BREL on the need for another order “to keep the workforce together”

     See 1972 MkII tube stock, Class 365 electric units, Class 168 diesels etc.

     The bunching in the age profile of trolleybuses caused by the diversion of manufacturing capacity after 1939 also affected diesel buses of course( not much helped by the wartime “utility” designs, which were not designed for longevity). Bu a careful programme of refurbishing the best and replacing the worst could have stretched that profile. (On Brutish Rail, an attempt was made in the 1980s to deal with the replacement of the huge dmu fleet, all built between 1956 and 1963, by refurbishing the best, and replacing the rest with new dmus, some of which – classes 15x, 16x were built with longer design lives than others: classes 14x. Unfortunately this plan has fallen apart, as the new units should have started to be replaced in the mid-noughties, but are all still running.

287. @Ian J
     ” city centre bus tunnels are not unheard of worldwide”
     Does this count?
     http://www.yellins.com/moderntransport/modern4/mal11%20on%20521%20kingsway%20subway-7.jpg

288. Or indeed this
     http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/routes/082-2.html

     Or particularly the Tateyama and Kanden trolleybuses
     https://www.alpen-route.com/en/transportation

289. @timbeau: Or even this: Hataitai bus tunnel

290. @timbeau – those were only a few of a constant stream of “make- work” (more strictly, “make work sooner”) schemes. It was occasionally quite difficult to find them sometimes – there was a point in the late ’80s, where we were being pressed to help out the manufacturers and really couldn’t think of anything that wasn’t already in the pipeline other than the engineering fleet (which was normally staffed up with the poorer runners from the freight business, anyway). BTW the Pacers were definitely not intended as short life vehicles: I used the standard vehicle life when reviewing BR’s business case; as I have already set out in these columns, the case wasn’t about vehicle life anyway, but about their vfm in relation to any plausible OPS closure programme. They were very definitely a make work scheme; this time for BL, however.

     Whilst I agree with you that it is possible to smooth an asset replacement programme – and that is something devoutly to be wished – in my experience, it usually takes two or three iterations of the programme before you achieve a steady state. It was certainly the intention with the Networker programme and I have always assumed that LT were working towards that with the Underground fleet – indeed, up to the point of re-nationalisation, they seemed to have achieved it; that’s what makes the SSL single build so interesting as a business case. It also is very dangerous, because it presents the Treasury with a very large target and encourages them to ask too many (facile but wrecking) question

291. @timbeau: they count to an extent, but note the lack of stops in the tunnels, unlike the Brisbane, Seattle and Harvard bus tunnels which have quite extensive bus stations underground. When the Strand underpass was converted to car use they surely didn’t intend it to be used by buses, otherwise they would have retained a high enough ceiling for double deckers. As it is it must be the ideal route for articulated buses and it’s hard to see any reason other than prejudice to replace articulated buses with non-articulated single deckers.

     A smooth asset-replacement programme gets harder to achieve if there is also an infrastructure component like electrification or resignalling – hence I assume the big single subsurface stock order, and in the future a huge New Tube for London order too. At the moment the Underground stock replacement timetable seems mainly driven by progress or lack of it on resignalling schemes.

     @Graham H: the fact that Leyland bus bodies were assumed to have rail-vehicle rather than bus lifespans perhaps helps explain why they are now so hated by passengers. There aren’t a lot of 1980s buses in frontline service.

292. @Ian J – The Strand Underpass, aka (part of) the Kingsway tram subway of old, opened in 1964 “for light traffic only” and so was never designed for double-deck anything. However that did not preclude the running of single-deck buses in the form of Red Arrow route 501 through it commencing in 1968. Apart from the weight of the coinage jangling around in the pay-as-you-enter coin boxes/turnstiles, I expect those buses were deemed to be light enough; they fell apart quite easily…

     When first designed, the Strand Underpass was widely bemoaned precisely because it did not cater for double-deck vehicles, was only one way and was about half the length of the original, two-way Kingsway tram subway (which included two stations). In other words, the argument went that trams should have been retained through it because all the other bus routes were caught up in the general congestion on Southampton Row, Kingsway, Aldwych and the Strand above.

     To be fair, the Strand Underpass had to incorporate ventilation and fire equipment in its ‘ceiling’, had no room to be made wider unless the service subways paralleling it on both sides in Kingsway were physically shifted laterally, whilst of course it had to accommodate free flowing light traffic as opposed to trams on their fixed and predictable tracks.

293. @Graham Feakins: Thanks, that’s interesting. When you look at American cities that kept their tram networks in the same period it does seem that the routes that included extensive tram subways (like the Green Line in Boston, the Twin Peaks and Sunset tunnels in San Francisco) that survived. Similarly, it was often the cities with streets too steep for diesel buses that kept trolleybuses, because electric motors have more torque at low speeds.

294. Ian J says “…because electric motors have more torque at low speeds”.

     They do, but that is not why trolleybuses manage hills better. A diesel bus can be designed to provide as much torque, or as much power as you want, but if you want enough power to go up steep hills at normal speeds with a full load of passengers, you need a much bigger (heavier) engine and transmission, special design, and this all costs money. Whereas a trolleybus of standard design can manage the hills, just by taking more power from the wires, which requires little or no extra provision of anything.

295. @Ian J – the engineers answered – at the time – yourpoint about the life of bus bodies by referring to the much smoother ride on fixed track reducing vibration. How we should have laughed then (well we probably did, but said privily amongst ourselves that even if the things don’t last as well as it says on the tin, they’ll at least have got us out of this very dangerous corner for now)

296. @IanJ/Graham H

     Leyland also built the bodies for the class 155 bogie dmus. They didn’t last too well either – one reason for their selection for conversion to single units (class 153) was that they needed attention anyway.

     Trolleybuses on hills – although they can draw as much power as necessary to get up a hill, they can be a liability going down. By selecting a low gear, the operator of an internal combustion engine can use the engine to assist the brakes. Modern trolleybuses may be fitted with regenerative systems which can also use braking effort to feed power back into the supply network, or charge on-board batteries, but in the 1930s London’s trolleybuses’s batteries only had very small capacity, and the technology of feeding power back into the supply was very much in its infancy (the O and P “Metadyne” stock on the Underground experimented with it unsuccesfully).
     Instead, the trolleybuses intended for use on the routes negotiating Highgate and Anerley Hills had extra coasting and run-back brakes.

297. Didn’t Sheffield “lose” a lot of Buses ( Burnt-out clutches mostly IIRC) after they got rid of their trams, back in 1961 (ish) ??

298. @Ian J – As an addendum to what I described above re. the Strand Underpass/Kingsway Subway, here is how British Pathé viewed the scene in 1964:

     http://www.britishpathe.com/video/road-under-the-strand

     One can race through, eh!? Well, those limited (bus) stop Red Arrows on the 501 certainly didn’t travelling northbound, especially as they were soon caught up in the traffic once they queued to emerge from the underpass in Kingsway.

     Southbound, there was no choice anyway – they had to stay with the rest of the surface transport, just as today.

     The concept of the Strand Underpass in its way met its purpose, to secure an uninterrupted passage for northbound traffic under the Strand at the north end of Waterloo Bridge but it only solved part of the problem that the original tram subway did and one hopes and trusts that whatever is designed for a Sutton Tramlink will take into account that it will not be just a case of fitting it in but also not with some glaring failing of traffic flow consideration somewhere along the route, including Wimbledon. There has to be a touch of class about it. The Strand Underpass perhaps provides a useful reminder.

299. @timbeau: the technology of feeding power back into the supply was very much in its infancy

     Ironically the tramways were way ahead of the Underground on this – some trams had regenerative braking as early as 1906, including, Wikipedia claims, the Crystal Palace – Croydon route. Phew, back on topic. But with trams you always have the option of a track brake if all else fails.

     @Graham Feakins: Driving at speed through the tunnel when there are still people on ladders working on it? A different era… I was surprised to see Herbert Morrison AKA the father of London Transport opening the tunnel – one of his last public engagements?

300. We are told that Pathe were given a “preview” so the drive-through would have been a one off and the driver aware that workmen would be about. (Notice in the opening shot the shadow of the cameraman can be seen, apparently on the roof of the camera car – hope he wasn’t very tall!)
     Herbert Morrison died in early 1965, about a year after the underpass opened, at the age of 77. His lifetime coincides almost exactly with that of the London County Council of which he was a leading light for so long, being 14 months old when the LCC was formed in March 1889, and dying during its last month of existence.

301. @timbeau: the driver aware that workmen would be about

     Yes, but I just can’t see it happening on a modern construction site, driver aware or not, given that it took the BBC “four months of negotiating with the Crossrail safety team” to fly a small drone through those tunnels above head height.

302. The REAL story of the closure
     http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007jlsh

303. A few observations as all this is very local…

     With regard to a tram route to St Helier hospital, we don’t even know if St Helier will survive, all kinds of people have all kinds of varying plans to either close/move/rebuild it elsewhere, there seems to be rumblings of a new plan every week.

     I’m not sure how the ICR/Marsden extension would route down into Sutton, if along the Brighton Road then I don’t see how that would be feasible. That road feeds off of the A217 and thus M25 and is very very busy in peak. If another suggestion is that a Belmont tram stop would serve as a hospital service then I find that somewhat implausible, it’s a steep walk up and annoyingly narrow pavement that most hospital patients would not cope with at all. It’s very annoying even for non hospital patients. 😉

     Epsom Downs NR branch, at the moment most people for Belmont simply get on the 280 (or perhaps 80) and Banstead/Epsom Downs seems to be mostly used in commuter peak. The line doesn’t even run on Sundays at all!

     Veering slightly off-topic.. I find it hard to describe the train services into Sutton as ‘quite good’, the slow route via Carshalton Beeches is 40-45mins and the faster route via Carshalton is often slow anyway. For example the other day the scheduled journey time was 30mins, but in reality 39mins later I am actually on the platform at Victoria.

     Often there simply isn’t the platform capacity and loads of time is frustratingly wasted sat on the train outside Victoria – in the article that talked about platform capacity at Victoria, I would argue that getting rid of that luggage storage unit for an extra platform or two is greatly needed, providing the bottleneck isn’t Grosvenor bridge/tracks. Especially now that we are in a world of 10 car trains and double stacking them on the platforms must be more impractical.

     I’ve even seen my journey planner show two trains departing via this route and the fast train stopping only at Clapham Jn and Victoria scheduled as 1 min quicker than the stopper! We also lost most of the direct London Bridge services when the Overground was re-launched but thankfully they gave us some more slow Victoria via Crystal Palace services to make up for it. 😉

     I suppose I am unsatisfied because you can live far further out than Sutton and have a much better service into London. I did read that when the Bognor service routed through Sutton it was 20mins direct once upon a time!

     I find the Wimbledon loop slow and the tedium of squealing wheels and crawling along at what feels like 20mph in some bits doesn’t make for a pleasant journey. It’s also annoying heading out of London late at night to Sutton as none of the services go the quick way and so if you want to go to Sutton you have to go around the loop regardless. I avoid it, especially at night.

304. @Paul:

     The problems with Victoria may be related to the rebuilding work at London Bridge. It’ll be two more years (at least) before the project is completed, and it doesn’t take much disruption to make large chunks of the Southern + Southeastern networks fall over.

305. @Paul
     “If another suggestion is that a Belmont tram stop would serve as a hospital service then I find that somewhat implausible, it’s a steep walk up and annoyingly narrow pavement that most hospital patients would not cope with at all. It’s very annoying even for non hospital patients.”
     The proposal I saw had the tram using the railway formation as far as Belmont and then going up the hill.
     http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/275777/Article/images/19145964/4903188.jpg

     “It’s also annoying heading out of London late at night to Sutton as none of the services go the quick way ”
     Half the Thameslink services go via Mitcham Junction (it seems like more, as I want to go to Wimbledon!) and surely there are services from Victoria via Micky J too.

306. I am suitably admonished – for sufficiently large values of “late” (after 9.30pm) what you say is true. And the loop service is so slow that it’s often quicker to go to Waterloo and catch it up at Wimbledon.

     There are also direct services from Victoria via MJ, which are probably more useful.

307. @timbeau

     Sending the tram up the hill from Belmont would also be very problematic. A lot of traffic feeds up/down that road to get to the A217 and thus M25, so much so that the bit of road I regularly cross is like walking across the himalayas because of the right turn grooves worn into the tarmac! Is there a larger version of that map? Or article link? Google failed me.

308. @Paul
     The diagram is very blurry, but appears to suggest the tram would not follow the road but would leave the existing railway shortly before Belmont station, and skirt what, on Google Earth, appears to be parkland and allotments to reach the hospital.

309. @Paul
     It’s on page 8 of this doc that @timbeau posted a link to in an earlier comment –
     http://www.sutton.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1620/sutton_tramlink.pdf

     “Potential has also been identified by Sutton Council for a longer-term Phase 2, which would extend Tramlink southwards from Sutton town centre along a 2 km route south to Sutton’s Life Science Cluster, with potentially up to three station stops in total. The majority of this route would run alongside the existing rail-line.”

     My reading of the map is that the intention would be to sacrifice the allotments to build a new tram alignment up the hill to land at a terminus in the car park.

310. I have taken the liberty of doing something we don’t normally do and have updated the article long after publication.

     Graham Feakins has provided a picture of one of the original tram deliveries showing a blind with the Sutton Tramlink route in mind. This is absolutely convincing evidence that the idea of Sutton Tramlink was at least in someone’s mind before Croydon Tramlink opened.

     The picture is near the start of the article and a paragraph has been added beneath it.

311. Zac and George paid a visit to Sutton on Tuesday and extolled the benefits etc. of Sutton Tramink

     http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/14202173.Zac_Goldsmith_backs_Sutton_tramlink/

     Selected Zac and George comments on funding – applicable to many potential schemes in London as well as Sutton Tramlink:

     Zac:

     Further devolution of Transport for London (TfL) to pay for the tram connection.

     There are two options;
     One, we get a cheque from the Chancellor but given the constraints that the Government is facing that is unlikely.
     The alternative is devolution to enable us to benefit from the property uplift, we know that when you grow the transport network the first thing that happens is land value goes up.

     Where land is unlocked directly as a consequence of TfL investments it is not a big stretch that the property tax harvested off the back of that should be kept in London.

     It would enable us to be much more ambitious and bullish when it comes to making plans for transport link expansions.

     George Osborne:

     We have to make sure we can afford it and of course London taxpayers want to make sure it is good value for money.

     How you pay for that is a big question in a country where we don’t want to raise taxes and want to make sure people can keep as much of their income as possible.

     Looking at new tax revenue that comes about because of a new Tramlink or new businesses being created or new homes being built I think is really exciting.

312. “a country where we don’t want to raise taxes and want to make sure people can keep as much of their income as possible.”

     Who is the “we” in that statement? Not me.
     I don’t want to “keep” (hoard) my income – I want it spent, by me or on my behalf, on things I think are worth having. Some things I can buy for myself, but others, like a decent public transport service, have to be funded at least in part by public subscription (aka taxation).

     This is basic economics – I won’t get into the politics or I’ll get snipped

313. @timbeau: We are hoping to do an article on the mayoral elections in due course. So would people please avoid too much detail about the various candidates’ sayings. In this case (some of) what they said was directly relevant to the topic in question – Sutton Tramlink. The rest, as timbeau notes, is standard soundbites, maybe even dog-whistles. This site cannot be totally party-politics-free, but we would appreciate it if people could avoid political generalities ungrounded in transport relevance.

314. @ngh – 14 January 2016 at 14:55
     Zac and George paid a visit to Sutton on Tuesday and extolled the benefits etc. of Sutton Tramink

     One of them (Zac IIRC) in the BBC clip last night said the stamp duty on the new developments could fund 50% of the cost.

315. @ Malcolm – is that why my post about the Zac and Gideon show has been thrown on the cutting room floor?

     [Not by me; I can’t see such a post anywhere. Maybe another mod has hidden it somewhere. But as a general statement, any posts with politics in are a bit liable to getting chopped. Malcolm]

316. For at least the third time this year the whole system is down again. (It is probably more than three times – that is just how often we have been affected.) The need to add better resilience is climbing the priority list imo.

     And for those who advocate online information, yet again the online status page shows a “good service” on all lines long after trams grind to a halt. The status page is utterly useless.

317. This time apparently the problem is at Sandliands. A couple of extra sets of points and trams could run from Addiscombe to Lloyd Park and vv in such circumstances – not ideal but better than nothing.

318. @Kate….It has always surprised me that this wasn’t done at the time when Tramlink was built, to facilitate stock movements as well as for diversionary purposes, as you say. After all, this was the original alignment of the Woodside to Selsdon rail line. For comparison, when the DLR first opened, there were points installed at the junction outside West India Quay to enable through running between Poplar and Westferry, even though no trains in passenger service ever used this.

319. Although having said that, it might not help in this instance since all the trams would be stuck in the depot at Therapia Lane!

320. As this thread has sprung back to life it is worth just noting that the new TfL Budget has apparently allocated £100m for development and construction of the Sutton tramlink extension. Local councils have apparently pledged £50m but the scheme remains £90m short against the expected total scheme cost. Reading some local newspaper coverage it seems City Hall have been applying enormous pressure on the local councils to push up the likely totals of new house building to try to get the scheme moving. Seemingly the local councils are not happy with this pressure and are resisting being forced into accepting undeliverable development targets. It seems the scheme will now be “value engineered” (posh word for descoped) [1] and otherwise reviewed to see if the funding gap can be narrowed.

     [1] yes I know it really means something else but I can detect a repeat of Wimbledon line single tracking being wrought and we all know what that has meant.

     There is also this little snippet in the TfL Budget document that I confess I was unaware of as an actual project.

     This year will see the completion of design work for the Elmers End line enhancements. The project will include a second platform at Elmers End station and double tracking of the line. To accommodate passenger journeys reaching a record 30.9 million – 3.3 million more than in 2015/16 – we will run three per cent more services, equating to 3.3 million train kilometres in total.

321. Most of the recent comments should not have appeared under Sutton Tramlink. I will answer a couple of the points made about Elmers End and direct running between Addiscombe and Lloyd Park in a more appropriate thread.

     From now on anything not relevant to Sutton Tramlink that is posted here will be deleted.

     To follow current off-topic discussions in this thread click here.

322. The Mayor has confirmed that the £100 million earmarked for the extension has been reallocated to a central fund and there is no money for any Tramlink extensions.

     http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/confirmation-tram-link-between-croydon-and-sutton-under-threat/story-30069332-detail/story.html.

323. @ Rational Plan – interesting as that seems to differ from what was said to the Assembly Budget Cttee when TfL appeared in front of them. Perhaps it was just some very clever wording that created a more favourable “spin” than the reality? Still on the assumption that the Mayor’s statement is correct then we have yet another casualty of the Mayor’s fares freeze and “flab” abolition strategy. Sad to say that what I feared would happen to the Budget and Business Plan is coming true as each week passes and a bit more info emerges.

324. Perhaps the £100m will now be made available for the Croxley link shortfall.
     [Porcine air traffic alert].

325. @ Nameless – well there’s been no public comment about the scale of extra funding that might be required for Croxley. However can you imagine the reaction if £100m was sent to that project thus depriving Sutton of Tramlink (and the rest of London of a lot of possible projects)? Extending Tramlink has always proved difficult and seems to be heading to the “intractable” category. If it does get there I think politicians in South London will be very unhappy that they’ve been “led a merry dance” for over 12 years by Mayors of both political complexions.

326. This article mentions the project is £14m over budget.

     https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/no-replacement-for-met-line-expansion-boss/10016170.article

327. This is an interesting thread. My question has always been why tramlink doesn’t go from Croydon to Purley which could then go on towards Sutton. Getting from Croydon to parts of Purley especially Foxley Lane area is underserved. Also why trams from Wimbledon go to Elmers End but not Beckenham. My biggest bind is that in the evening there is always a long wait for a tram from Wimbledon to Croydon but never a wait in the morning. For information there was talk of Crystal Palace to Croydon being talked about a few years ago but haven’t heard anything about this for a while.

328. LizB,

     It is a bit off-topic but I will cover the points.

     Sending the tram to Purley was looked at but the preferred route was street running which would lead to it being affected by other traffic. There was also the issue of how to turn round or link up to other services in Croydon. The main issue is, what would it really achieve? It would be replicating existing bus and train services. So the money could probably be better spent.

     The reason for no trams between Beckenham Junction and Wimbledon is because there were concerns about the reilability of this long route being affected by the single track sections between Arena and Beckenham Junction. There is now a long-term plan to run the Wimbledon service as 6tph to Beckenham Junction and 6tph to Elmers End.

     The extension to Crystal Palace is effectively dead. With the expected substantial increase in demand on the existing system there is simply not the capacity to have an additional branch on the east side of Croydon.

329. I would appear that this is still being pushed but slowly….

330. So new consultation published – cost ballooning now to approx £450 (double estimate) for the tram options (including South Wimbledon or Colliers Road for a terminus).

     Has the Mayor been wooed by a Bus Rapid Transit company recently? Having suggested one for both Croxley/MLE and now here?

     Also note the tram-train suggestion (presumably for balance as it seems to add little to enhancing journey possibilities.

331. @snowy

     If you can build it for £450 I’ll have a dozen. I think you mean £450 million.

     Seriously though , I can’t see option 3 flying – given the promise to preserve through services from the Loop to the Thameslink Core.

     All capital costs should be taken with a very large pinch of salt, of course – and this applies to tram as well as BRT schemes . Unlike the diesel-hybrid vehicles used in Metz (illustrated in the consultation document), Sutton’s BRTs would, we are told, be Zero Emission vehicles, – possibly battery-electric , as the comparison with trams says that the latter run with overhead electric lines, implying that BRTs don’t. (This is actually a bit misleading, as trams could be battery powered too).

     The consequences of the BRTs being smaller than trams has pros and cons: the necessarily higher frequency is good for passengers, but not for other road users. And the staffing costs are higher.

332. By the time all this is being built Croydon’s existing Bombardier trams will be ready for replacement. A combined fleet of battery/overhead trams would be ideal. Trams could top up the batteries at each terminus, and they could pave the way to eliminating the overhead in the centre of Croydon once gone Starlet Stadler trams are gone (or converted)

333. I assume Starlet is an autocorrect for Stadler?

     Since there are nine other networks using the standard-gauge version of the Variobahn, they could probably be found a new home fairly easily, rather than converting them.

334. @130: Is the existence of overhead wires such a problem?

335. I wondered about that. Some places like the old centre of Bordeaux go to extraordinary lengths to avoid overhead wires, and there was of course the prewar conduit system in London. But with all due respect to Croydon, it is not quite in the same league. The permanent refusal to contemplate trolleybuses nation-wide (*), and the present fashion for bi-mode trains does suggest that politicians may not know much about transport, but they do know what they don’t like, and that is overhead wires.

     (*) Leeds did teeter on the edge, but that is not highly thought of for its streetscapes, especially when seen from London.

336. It’s not so much the visual impact as the cost of maintaining the wires and fixing them when they are brought down.

337. The wires are thought to be a problem for deliveries to the future Westfield, https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2015/06/28/a-look-around-croydons-tram-sidings-and-repair-depot/ mentions it explicitly where the TfL consultation only implies it.

338. All – re wires…..There was terrible publicity in Croydon when the wires went up, albeit, not the wires themselves but the masts which were standard RSJs!

     Also in my post, my tablet changed Stadler to Starlet!

     Lots of historic cities dislike overhead near their “sights”. The Alstom APS third rail system was an interesting innovation, but is limited in speed on the APS sections (22km/h from memory) as the tram has to be able to stop quickly in order to protect a conductor rail that is not proved de-energised.

     Today, Batteries and or super capacitors topped up at tram stops of termini makes much more sense and overcomes the speed limit

339. Option 3 (tram taking over between Wimbledon and West Sutton) is a complete waste of time – surely it would be far cheaper to provide a 15 minute frequency service with heavy rail services (instead of the current 30 minute frequency) and terminating the additional 2 trains per hour at Blackfriars – that would provide a step change in frequency and reduce some of the pressure on the Northern Line.

     In the Thameslink RailPlan 2020 consultation it was proposed that an additional 2tph peak service would be provided with a London Bridge to Blackfriars loop the loop (via Tulse Hill twice) service operated by Southern – not sure what has happened to it!

340. @ 100andthirty – re Croydon’s wires and masts – Yes indeed – and I was part of that, having published an illustrated article in a transport magazine critically covering the topic. The Croydon Council Tramlink Team were highly embarrassed because they had planned conventional, neater, tubular traction poles but unfortunately the RSJ’s were significantly cheaper and the severe Tramlink construction budget cuts meant that poles were out and RSJ’s were in – or no Tramlink at all. More span wires attached to buildings in the town centre were planned as well, in order to support the running wire (see any Continental examples for illustrations of that), thus obviating the needs for masts or poles at all in many more places; however, hindrance from awkward property owners and surveyors killed that one off.

     TOBY above mentions the 2015 Ianvisits item with its perceived problem for Westfield with its totally ridiculous suggestion: “…the tram network surrounds the planned huge Westfield shopping centre redevelopment, and its impossible for large vehicles to get to it when there are overhead tram power cables in the way”. What nonsense! How does one think that the stores and shops in today’s Whitgift Centre are served? It is certain that the delivery lorries pass underneath tramway overhead wires.

     In case I am wrong, just how large, or rather high, are these intended Westfield vehicles intended to be? Double decker buses in Croydon pass safely under Tramlink’s wiring, whether at crossing points or underneath them as along Addiscombe Road. Much higher than a double-deck bus and there’ll be far more obstacles to the passage of those Westfield vehicles around South London than Tramlink’s wires in the form of railway bridges!

341. I’d assumed the height issue was relevant (mainly? only? ) during construction phase of the new centre.

342. I’m sure that’s what Ian was referring to – cranes, excavators and other oversize construction equipment. Presumably the building contractors will have to dismantle some of this plant for access to and egress from the site, unless a convenient break can be made somewhere in the wires to allow overnight removal and reinstatement?

343. @Anon-In-Essex: Again that strikes me as utter nonsense… On the continent they also build large buildings and have large cranes (as well as build them).

     Perhaps this is complete and utter laziness on the part of the developers?

344. All the talk of increasing the number of heavy rail services on the St Helier line doesn’t really address the problem of capacity at Sutton station. The current timetable has about six trains an hour each way offpeak on the Epsom line plus two each way on Thameslink – that’s already a lot for a station with junctions at both ends and some rather lengthy services prone to delays.

     Notably Option 3 (converting most of the line to tram use) would retain West Sutton as a stub for reversing trains to & from Sutton without clogging the Epsom platforms or crossing the four way junction – or else someone in the planning department has great expectations for Sutton United FC and is trying to future proof.

     (The Epsom Downs line now has two trains an hour each way, bar an odd gap around 15:00, and a Sunday service so we’ll see what hidden demand has already been unleashed for Belmont.)

     Looking at the various proposals I fear there’s too much in each that will provoke outcry and opposition to kill the scheme. Options 1 & 2 will have all the fears of on road running congestion, there doesn’t seem to be enough space for a full BRT option, the BRT buses look a bit too much like bendies to resist outcries, Option 3 takes away little used trains through little used stations (South Merton & Morden South are two of the ten least used in the whole of London) that have already had one successful campaign to save them at the expense of a better overall service, none of the plans actually connect to Morden tube station… There’s plenty of imperfect in there that makes me sceptical this will get off the ground.

345. @Tim R-P

     While none of the plans connect to Morden station, neither option A and B need to as they connect to the Northern line at South Wimbledon/Colliers Wood.

346. @ Si & Tim R-P

     If you read the detailed info about option 1, it specifically mentions interchange with the Northern line at both South Wimbledon & Morden. Whilst it might not stop directly outside the tube station, the tram stop would only be approx 230m away, perhaps not ‘perfect’ but quite reasonable given some interchange distances.

     A deviation around the Aberconway Road could serve the station directly but I suspect the time penalty involved and required curve radius would preclude this given that interchange is available at South Wimbledon anyway.

347. I guess an interchange to the Northern line at South Morden would be theoretically possible.

     [lights blue touchpaper with magic crayon and sidles away]

348. Stewart,

     Presumably you mean Morden South. I think, as you seem to realise, it is in the ‘possible but pointless’ category.

349. Feeding more passengers into the southern end of the Northern Line is probably not a good plan. (Especially as Crossrail 2 is likely to do that anyway, and on Option 3 would connect with the Tramlink extension) )

350. Wimbledon-Sutton seems to be a line used vastly below potential. But both Wimbledon and Sutton stations have limited capacity to accept extra services. If NR thought it was possible to double the frequency to 4tph then maybe, without an expensive rebuild at Wimbledon and/or Sutton, thats the best that can be hoped for. Always thought the extension of Tramlink was somewhat a flawed way to spend money when such an underused rail link is within walking distance. Something like the Bloo extension though breaks new ground without duplication.

351. Si & Snowy: My comment was more in the “here’s the perfect to be the enemy of the good” problem. You’re right that options 1 & 2 do both end up at Northern Line stations though they don’t look as interchange friendly as Morden (and even “it’s easier to get a seat at a terminus” can become a rallying cry) and of course option 3 misses it altogether.

     Ben: I’d have to check, but wasn’t the 4 tph St Helier option pushed in a period when the Epsom line also only had 4 tph? The capacity the plan relied on may no longer be available.

352. @Ben: They could have double the frequency! The flip side is that you need to change at Blackfriars for points North…

     The “people” rejected it because they gained through services to West Hampstead Thameslink during the Blackfriars rebuild and don’t want to give that up…..

     Which way would you vote?

353. As a resident of L B Sutton, I’m being urged by the council to contribute to the current consultation and I’d appreciate your thoughts before I click Send at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/sutton-link

     There is no mention in the info supplied with the consultation as to where Sutton’s trams would be stabled at night. In view of the risk of vandalism, a secure depot would surely be vital. There is no room in Sutton town centre and I can’t imagine there is room for more than reversing tracks at either South Wimbledon or Colliers Wood. (I’ve eliminated the Sutton Loop route from my choices for all the obvious reasons.) Where would the trams be stabled?

     One of the ‘Pro’s’ for the Colliers Wood route is listed by TfLas:
     ‘Fewer engineering constraints on connecting to the existing London Trams network at Belgrave Walk (if delivered as a tram extension)’
     To my mind a connection to the existing Tramlink network is of first class importance. Not only would it give Sutton’s trams access to Therapia Lane for servicing and stabling (as long as there is room), but it would open up possibilities of a Sutton-Wimbledon route and a Croydon-Sutton route.

     Sutton town centre to Wimbledon town centre via Belgrave Walk without a change seems blindingly obvious as a connection. It is almost as short a distance as the Sutton Loop option and the only extra cost is a chord between the lines

     Now a Croydon – Sutton route might seem unnecessary when there is a good train service between West Croydon and Sutton, but Sutton Station is at the top off a long hill, with some of the big stores and supermarkets over a quarter of a mile away at the bottom of the hill. In contrast, the trams will service the whole length of the hill.
     At the other end, there is no train connection between East Croydon and West Croydon . For someone arriving at East Croydon, a tram outside the station to Sutton (or Rosehill for St Helier Hospital) without changing would have an obvious attraction and would cost less than the train.

     For me, the Colliers Wood route with a bridge at Belgrave Walk for Sutton – Colliers Wood services and chords to allow east and west transfers to and from the existing line seems the best option. Any thoughts?

354. I would have thought the Belgrave Walk connection would be on the flat – no bridge needed. This is why it is so much cheaper than connecting at Morden Road. And my reading of the proposal did not include a connection in the Wimbledon direction (cheaper again) – I may be wrong here though

355. The TfL link that I gave contains a link to a pdf which includes this statement:
     ‘New bridge required at Belgrave Walk to carry new route between Morden Road and Church Road over existing tram tracks’

356. I would also question how many people arrive at East Croydon wanting to go to St Heller hospital. This must rate in the tens per day if that.

357. Following a visit to the Sutton-link display at Colliers Wood Library this morning and a discussion with a TfL official, I gleaned a lot more about the thinking behind the project.

     For example, they are looking into building a second depot, preferably on the east side of Croydon. This would allow limited services to continue east and west of Croydon even if the loop around central Croydon was out of action due to maintenance or an accident. Trams would not be ‘orphaned’ on the wrong side of a worksite,

     With a second depot taking part of the Croydon fleet, there would be room at Therapia Lane for Sutton’s trams.

     On the basis of Option 2 (Sutton to Colliers Wood) their initial thoughts about connecting the CW-Sutton line (north-south) with the Croydon-Wimbledon line (east-west) would be a chord between east and north (Croydon and CW) .

     Apart from the one-way system in Sutton, all the rest of the route would be twin track – and that includes the bridge at Belgrave Walk. The presence of nearby electricity pylons could well decide whether Sutton trams would have a bridge over the Croydon line or vice-versa

     The extra terminating facility at Elmers End was mentioned.

     Option 3 (trams on the railway line between Sutton and Wimbledon) could not be started until after Crossrail 2 had rebuilt Wimbledon Station.

     Because TfL are looking at this project in partnership with Sutton and Merton councils (who will contribute funds if it goes ahead), they are waiting to see the public response before the plans go any further. If any LR readers live in either borough and want to see the trams reach Sutton, it would be well worth while filling in the questionnaire.

358. @ Ray L – I’m not a Sutton resident and don’t know the area that well. From my limited reading of the proposals for the Sutton tram I don’t think there will be any through services from Sutton to Wimbledon or Croydon. The way the whole thing is presented is as two independent routes with little recognition of the potential for alternative service patterns. I suspect this is deliberate to avoid extra project costs at this stage. Keeping scope “creep” to a minimum will be essential to make any progress with this scheme.

     While I have no problem with Sutton getting a tram service I think it will take a miracle if it is built within the next 20 years. Costs are already heading in the wrong direction and will only increase. Note the lack of detail about how St Helier Hospital would be served. TfL has no money to fund the full scheme and clearly there is no agreement yet about whether it is remotely possible to squeeze the difference out of developers of new housing. I doubt Sutton Council want to see a very dense set of tall tower blocks anywhere in their borough. I also doubt residents would want that either. I also suspect that Mayoral demands for higher percentages of affordable housing are scaring developers off so the whole economics of private sector funding looks dubious to me. There are long standing concerns about a conflict between what City Hall wants and what Sutton Council wants in terms of extra housing that would part fund the tram route.

     The presence of a Bus Rapid Transit as an alternative also rings alarm bells. If we look at the farcical so called “East London Transit” which consists of very little apart from tarted up bus stops, jazzy vinyls on NB4Ls and the odd peculiar bit of bus priority on very quiet roads I’d be worried about what Sutton might end up with. Remember also that the much promised South London Transit from Greenwich to Thamesmead never materialised at all. TfL have a poor record on large scale bus improvement schemes.

     Note also that extensions to Tramlink itself have failed to materialise. The much vaunted Crystal Palace extension never happened – another con trick from a previous Mayor. The Dingwall Loop looks doomed never to happen from what I can tell. The only real plus on Tramlink has been that TfL have stabilised asset condition issues and funded much needed extra trams and Wimbledon line capacity improvements.

     The simple fact is that schemes like this should bring very considerable benefits once the inevitable construction related woes are done and dusted. It should be publicly funded with perhaps a small share of private funding. I know that’s not the current “fashion” but expecting the private sector to dole out nigh on £200m for a tram route in Sutton is dreamland. Even if there weren’t huge political and practical problems in building a tram route in Central London I think it would be a huge struggle to raise £200m in private funding for such a route even though the potential upside for private funders would be far higher there. I hope Sutton gets its tram route but (IMO) it is going to take an enormous battle to make it happen.

359. Walthamstow Writer,

     I suspect you are probably correct as regard to Dingwall loop (as well as everything else). Much of the argument for it was the developer was putting forward £25million so it was good value for money for TfL at roughly £15million. It was made clear to those who thought the money could be better spent that the £25million was specific for this purpose – which also had benefits for the developer – and the development money would disappear if allocated for anything else.

     What happened is that the developer started getting cold feet and was not rushing (the new shopping centre should have been opened by now but hasn’t yet been started). Croydon Council were still keen and so the developer was able to demand that he no longer had to provide the £25million. I think everyone can see that the Dingwall loop is not worth £40million of public money when there is the alternative of extra New Addington trams terminating in the centre platform at East Croydon.

     The only way I can see it being revived is if another (or more than one) developer developing around the rebuilt East Croydon station has a similar obligation. But I suspect Network Rail will want first pickings.

360. Walthamstow Writer,

     Just to add, I think the Crystal Palace line is a non-starter and, realistically, has been for many years. The additional services proposed to New Addington and Elmers End (as well as long term plans for 8tph to Beckenham Junction) mean that further extra trams along Addiscombe Road are not really practical. We are also getting to the point where the town centre loop will be ‘maxed out’ so we really need the Dingwall Road loop (or similar) and, eventually, the equivalent on the other side before many more extra services can really be considered.

361. @ PoP – thanks for confirming what I believed had happened with the Dingwall loop funding. I’d seen political party remarks about it but wasn’t 100% certain all the funding had gone. Interesting also that Westfield have got “cold feet” given TfL are proposing to reduce a number of cross Croydon town centre bus links to reduce traffic flows on Wellesley Road.

     I hadn’t quite appreciated that capacity on the main loop was as constrained as it is but I rarely get to Croydon. As there’s not much that can be done it looks like the original Tramlink network has reached a rather critical point given the inability to expand services very much further.

362. I took a while to examine the proposals, walk the route and take photos before writing my blog and sending in my response (I live locally). My conclusion is that the scheme will fail to gain a business case unless it reaches Wimbledon (the major northern destination).

     In practical terms, this requires option 3 at the Wimbledon end because the level crossings on the Croydon route wouldn’t cope with the increase in frequency into Wimbledon. But at the southern end the street running sections are better, particularly as the local councils want the tram to reach Rosehill roundabout to boost development there. As such, I came up with option 4, which uses the railway alignment in the north and the streets in the south (with a carefully chosen location to reach street level). This approach frees up a lot of railway land for development, particularly around St Helier station, potentially providing the funding stream necessary to actually pay for this.

     In the longer term, option 4 could be extended with a link from Morden College through Morden town centre to Belgrave Walk, enabling a highly useful Croydon to Morden College service.

     (And just to note that doubling the frequency of the Thameslink trains would simply not have the same effect as conversion to tram. 8tph of 2 car trams stopping more frequently would be dramatically more effective than 4tph of 8 car trains.)

363. @Stephen C
     I am intrigued that no scheme serves Morden tube. Presumably this is for good reasons? Otherwise any tram might be able to release some Sutton-Morden buses for other purposes (not that appears to have happened much in Croydon apart from the former 130 Express from Addington).

364. Jonathan Roberts,

     On the contrary, I would say that Tramlink released a lot of buses that served New Addington. 130 (cut back, diverted and reduced to single decker) and all the siblings – 130a etc. They alone, when combined with X130 were, I believe, a massive portion of Thornton Heath Garage’s workings.

     I doubt if route 64 is at anything like the frequency it was. True more smaller buses have appeared on new routes but they are ‘infiltrators’ designed to get more houses within 400 or 500 metres of a bus stop and would have been provided anyway.

     On another branch we also saw the 54 cut back between Croydon Town Centre and Elmers End.

365. @JonathanRoberts. Reading between the lines, it seems that Sutton is the driver behind the scheme, not Merton (compared and contrast how the consultation is pushed on Twitter by the two councils). Merton has apparently pushed back against the tram running into Morden town centre, this despite there being a plan to completely redevelop the triangular block east of the station north of Aberconway Road. I also suspect the Morden redevelopment plan is the council’s baby, and it sees the tram as a threat when it should be seeing it as a key driver.

     If Merton had been more sensible, it could have argued for a Morden to Sutton link (not South Wimbledon), with a single track non-passenger connection to the Croydon line. Such a proposal would have made more sense than terminating 200m short of South Wimbledon station (a detail not mentioned in the consultation). As it is, TfL and Merton argue that tram passengers from the Rosehill area will change at Morden Road to the Croydon route in order to reach Wimbledon, something which I find unlikely given the inconvenience.

     My option 4 is at street level at Merton College (on the A24) precisely to allow for a future branch into Morden town centre. Such a branch (hopefully as part of a bigger route) would allow even more buses to be removed. But my view is that part of the tram’s goals should be to get passengers for central London from the St Helier area to travel via Wimbledon and Crossrail 2, rather than Morden and the Northern Line. As such the current bus service pattern may not be the best guide to passenger demand.

366. stephen_c ,

     I have always understood that Sutton has been behind this. I cannot see that it offers Merton anything so don’t blame them for not giving it full support. They probably don’t want more people funnelling into Morden station – no benefit to the borough. They will get the traffic congestion and reduced road space wherever the northern terminus is and I can’t see how it really helps London Borough of Merton residents.

     Indeed, if the scheme does progress at all, it will be a bit of a challenge to get Merton onside and I cannot really see what sweetener can be offered.

367. @StephenC,@PoP
     Thank you for those responses.
     If there are significant bus economies to be had (for TfL) and quicker passenger connectivity with rail via Morden (mainly for Sutton’s residents) then clearly there is a debate to be had with Merton, about Morden access.
     Why pussyfoot around, if it could make the case better?!

368. The Sutton tram came up at the TfL Budget Review meeting on 7.1.19. While not a lot was said it was clear that discussions with both councils were continuing. It also seemed to be from the Commissioner’s comments that we may be headed more to a non tram option (bus rapid transit) because of cost issues which really means the business case doesn’t work. There was very little commitment to dates or anything else. I tend to agree with earlier posts that the business case for this Tramlink extension has probably weakened, possibly fatally.

     This was not the only scheme in this position – I think it dawned on the Assembly members that very little is going to progress because of the pending Spending Review discussions with Government. There will be little commitment to large projects until TfL knows it has some level of multi year funding certainty. Mike Brown was clear on this.

     That caused a lot of consternation from Assembly Members who then started demanding to know where their personal / local “pet schemes” were on the TfL priority list. We had CR2, CR1 to Ebbsfleet, Bakerloo Line Extension, london wide road pricing, Camden Town station rebuild all trotted out. I leave it as exercise for the reader to align the project with the correct Assembly Member. 😛 AMs were also not terribly happy that the “headline” on some projects had changed from “oh we get money from local councils and developers to take this scheme forward” to “oh no we have to have money from Central government” in less than a year. Read into that what you wish about the willingness of the private sector to dole out cash and the approach TfL would appear to be taking in their approach to the Spending Review round. If TfL are expecting some sort of Treasury generosity post 2021 I fear they are going to be massively disappointed.

369. Re WW,

     “the “headline” on some projects had changed from “oh we get money from local councils and developers to take this scheme forward” to “oh no we have to have money from Central government” in less than a year. ”

     In reality all the schemes need a mix of public and private/local to happen.

     The reality of the grant disappearing, fare freeze and projects costing a bit more/running late is beginning to bite! There is one obvious target which the Mayor can change of course, the rest he can’t.

370. @WW
     “That caused a lot of consternation from Assembly Members who then started demanding to know where their personal / local “pet schemes” were on the TfL priority list. ”

     We are now getting close to being just 12 months away from the purdah standstill date (March 2020) prior to the next round of Mayoral and Assembly Member elections, in May 2020. The Spending Review will represent the start of a countdown to purdah. Most Spending Reviews look at least 3 years ahead (with the third year being a bit vague on the detail), so financial support for pet projects will be a matter of concern for electoral reasons quite apart from their real benefits for the areas served.

371. @ Ngh – well, yes, the “fares freeze” issue turned up as you would expect from the Tory AMs on the Committee. This was used as an attempt to show that TfL’s plan was undeliverable because it assumes RPI+1% beyond 2020. There were also attempts to force TfL to give the cost of another 4 year’s fare freeze – they wouldn’t do so as they haven’t done the calculation because circumstances in 2020 will likely be different to now. It then got to the point of questioning how “independent” TfL would be in assisting Mayoral candidates in the run up to the next election with the clear undertone that they were being dreadfully unhelpful *now*. Mike Brown deftly batted that one away but it was like watching a bunch of 5 year olds going “wah wah you’re only nice to him but being horrible to me”. This is when I get really really fed up with politicians.

     You are, of course, correct in saying that all major projects require government monies. However it was rather stupid (IMO) for TfL to try to create the impression that somehow major schemes could ever be financed without central govt funds. All they’ve done is irritate those who scrutinise them and make themselves appear not very clever in that their past statements are now wholly or partly invalid. I agree the revised funding regime is clearly causing pain but that should have been foreseen long ago – especially in both business plans and budgets. That’s part of the point of having them!

372. The report on the Sutton Tramlink consultation has just been published.
     tfl.gov.uk/sutton-link

     It’s summary:
     There was significant support for the Sutton Link in principle. A total of 86 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported the scheme, although some respondents objected in principle to our proposals. Amongst other questions, we asked respondents the extent to which they supported or opposed each of the three route options we included in our consultation. We found that:
     •65 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported Option 1 (SouthWimbledon – Sutton)
     •55 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported Option 2 (ColliersWood – Sutton)
     •49 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported Option 3(Wimbledon – Sutton)
     We also asked respondents the extent to which they supported or opposed each of the transport options we included. We found that:
     •81 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported the Tram option
     •40 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported the Bus RapidTransit option

373. It seems Colliers Wood – Sutton is now the preferred option once they’ve found the money. The consultation response was updated again last week…

     https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/trams/sutton-link/?cid=sutton-link

374. @ap A bit more information and lovely maps from IanVisits on the proposed tram extension.

375. TfL selects preferred route and trams for the proposed extension of the London Trams network to serve Sutton.

     Following the public consultation, TfL has opted for Route 2 from Sutton to Colliers Wood, and for a tramway.

376. Am very interested in the new route from. Colliers Wood to Sutton, not least due to me living in Britannia Point next to the proposed terminus outside Colliers Wood tube station.

     Does anyone have any plans for the new route?

Comments are closed.