|
|
| Re: London Overground (308069) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Sep 8 15:47:11 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 8 08:59:19 2006. After looking at your plan more carefully, I see that you would be providing much more service on most local lines.I think the Caterham and Tattenham Corner services should remain at their present levels; you have reduced them! Concerning Tulse Hill and Streatham, I agree that Victoria would be a more popular destination than Blackfriars, but the area is already well served from Victoria by Herne Hill, Streatham Hill and Streatham Common. Besides, those Blackfriars trains have to go somewhere, especially if you Tramlink the Sutton & Wimbledon loop and cease local service on the Catford loop. I'm not happy about the latter; Catford station alone has almost as many passengers as Catford Bridge; Crofton Park and Bellingham are also quite busy, considering that the service is only 2 tph and goes to Blackfriars. Also closing those stations would mean more passengers on the crowded Mid-Kent line which goes via the London Bridge bottleneck. About your "Giant Arches" station (North Dulwich viaduct), I don't see how would help one to get from Epsom to Bromley, at least with the present services; probably the best way would be via Victoria. If there was a service from Epsom (or even Sutton) to London Bridge via Tulse Hill, the interchange station might help somewhat. Otherwise, apart from the cost and possible congestion on the tracks, I think your plan is pretty good! |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|