Peckham extension proposal - is this for real?

alpinejohn - remember John Welsby's words (when he was BR's Chairman) about West Coast modernisation - this is something that is announced every year, in a good year, twice.

The case for the Bakerloo extension is a good one in planning terms as there is significant spare capacity on trains south of Waterloo (although probably less than was the case when the extension proposal was last seen). Logically, one then carries on down the same corridor into SE London. Just to go to Peckham with two stations would cost around £700m-£1bn and require perhaps no more than 6 extra train sets (based on adding about 12 minutes to the normal round trip time; these would cost around £50m. 6 extra sets might be fitted into the existing depot capacity; triggering a whole new depot for so few trains would be hard to justify.

In terms of the financial business case, there ought to be some savings to the surface bus network (the Elephant-Peckham corridor has one of the most intensive bus services in the country) but these will probably just about balance the extra running costs of the extension. Whether there would be sufficient extra fares revenue generated to cover the annual costs of servicing the ~£1bn capex is unclear. That would need to be of the order of £250-300m pa. I'm not sure what the average zone 1/2 tube fare is these days - this is what comes of having a sticky - but let us say it's £4, so the extension would need to generate about 60-75m new tube journeys each year. That would imply the trains being on average half full all day or probably crushloaded in the peaks by the time they reached Waterloo - that seems unmanageable and unlikely.

The economic case would depend mainly on time savings compared with bus travel, reduction in road congestion, and any development value created (assuming that that can be captured by the GLA, as with the Battersea extension). A very rough back of envelope suggests that tube is about three times as fast as bus, so each passenger shifting mode might generate time savings of about £2; other benefits as described would typically be about the same again. That seems to add up to £4 of economic benefits per passenger as with the financial case for the same volume of traffic, but add on any new cash income from new, generated journeys and the economic case would require a considerably lower and perhaps more manageable level of traffic.

So - yes, there is likely to be a good case on economic grounds for going to Peckham but whether the money can be raised is another matter - you can't pay the contractors in economic benefits, alas...

Graham H

The main aim is provide a better terminus than Elephant! The 2 platform layout is not great for turning 30 odd tph! Wouldn't be the same which Bakerloo trains not going to Elephant though!

Wonder why they didn't just plumb a third platform in at Elephant. Arivals only, say, and the other end connect into the siding.


Is the prefered route still Elephant - Camberwell - Peckham - Lewisham?

Boris just tweeted:

"yes we are going to extend the northern line with work beginning by 2015 ..bakerloo to follow

See there is now a push for a DLR extension from Lewisham to Bromley

Much more useful than extending the Bakerloo that far

Peckham does make more sense

If you create a tunnelling team for the Northern line extension another project to follow is sensible

A re-opened Walworth and camberwell would have fitted well in a London Overground style Blackfriars - Wimbleloop service, but now the loop has to fit into the Thameslink core and thus inevitably into an outer suburban oipaertion (since thameslink has no inners to the north)

There's hope for a single entrance with the redevelopment that starts soon

Perhaps this regular dusting down of the Bakerloo extension is best suited for the proposals and ideas section!

There are already 4 tracks between Southwark and Loughborough junction with former station sites and maybe limited works to terminate or increase service further south. But the extra tracks are on viaduct in the north so what to do about it?*

If a cost effective solution could be found then DLR south from Lewisham and this would cover the gap IMO. I'm not sure the 'tunnelling expertise' angle's gonna work with the small bore tubes. Crossrail 2 has the funding priority and the expensive boring machines.

*At the risk of a call from the RIPAS police I'll just throw the second Blackfriars bridge into the mix, all for terminating of course.

I wasn't thinking here of Thameslink 2, just a limited option for terminating more trains and justifiying opening stations that reduce the gap. Thinking about it, DLR extension from Lewisham doesn't do this so it's just Walworth, Camberwell for better access for those to west of the line. Without the money for a new Bakerloo I can't see much else. I know a part-surface suggestion has been made for the Bakerloo through the Aylesbury Estate to Peckham Rye. It might suit Light Rail better though.

Better links for Lewisham could be achieved by extending the Met from Aldgate to Bermondsey but this doesn't offer direct West End services and as its probably of similar cost to Bakerloo extension must be way down on the list of likelihood.

There will always be a problem if the DfT insists on the extra through services irrespective of improvements and naturally without a proper solution the stations can't open - the tracks are there, the opportunity not. A terminal capacity increase to allow all Wimbledon loop trains to terminate (and not being forced through the core by the DfT) and for higher frequencies on the relevant section would increase paths for through Thameslink services too.

Would having stoppers on the western tracks north to Blackfriars then terminating mean any significant conflicts? How many other trains would need to use those western tracks? What limitations are there further down the line, i.e. Herne Hill?

mikebuzz - far be it from me to defend DfT (!) but I believe that they think that the heaviest usage is likely to be between Bfrs and Farringdon and therefore want the maximum service level there. The Wimbledons are a bit of a nuisance in that respect (short trains) but dropping the Wimbledon throughs will mean a loss of about 2500 places per hour. The real problem with Bfrs terminators is terminating anything other than the Wimbledons there - from the Brighton direction, you would lose 1 path southbound for every terminator, and from the Sevenoaks direction, a path each way because of the conflicts. The problem of uneven station spacing would also remain (probably best envisaged in terms of the graphical - with uneven station spacing and no margin for recovery, the paths on the graphical will not be parallel).

norbitonflyer - very difficult to walk past C&K but has to be done as a severe spiritual discipline. I agree about the trip via Fleet Street; it's a real crawl, not helped by having to travel all the way round Aldwych. As to the 7/168A truncation, I think we lost those and the successor 10A when the 507 appeared as part of the bus reshaping plan - a piece of doctrine therefore about trunk routes and local services - not that TfL would remember that. Travel on AR RMLs on the 76 used to be one of life's (very) minor pleasures, although I don't think it was very frequent (about every 10m?).

GH

Does this imply a rebuild of Elephant & Castle to include escalators?

I know I suggested earlier the remodelling the station but thinking anout one area of the station, I disagree for a new layout although the area would need more step free access. The lifts at the southern end of the Northern Line I find do provide the best exit for the station with them quickest to the streets, just outside the shopping centre (if it still exists).

In other words, maybe don't rebuild everything.

I haven't been to that area for a while. I know a while back it was earmarked for a major redevelopment project (and the bowling alley on the top floor was always an interesting eventful mixed bag especially with the lanes). Has it occurred?

Struggling to get out of the roundabout? Said exit was right next to the ramp, south side.