Like the plan, its badly needed but they're missing a trick or two. Extend it to Bromley but also from Lewisham via Grove Park and Bromley North to create a loop. Will seriously relieve pressure on heavy rail services in to London.
I like the look of this - could seriously increase the value of a house I part-own in West Wickham. Only problem is I have to wait until 2030, when I will be 72!
I like the look of this - could seriously increase the value of a house I part-own in West Wickham. Only problem is I have to wait until 2030, when I will be 72!
You noticed the small print? It says
The proposed route between Lewisham and Hayes would replace the existing National Rail lines
Anyway, it won't happen. They first presented plans for CrossRail in 1970.
Something could well happen because London is a global growing city. Re Eltham I've long thought they should link Kidbrooke with North Greenwich Jubilee... All this to relieve crowds, develop housing and provide alternatives when southeastern screws up.
Nothing wrong with linking tube to poor overground services - worked well with the east London line and helps to break up network rail (which is labour party policy)
Nothing wrong with linking tube to poor overground services - worked well with the east London line and helps to break up network rail (which is labour party policy)
Agree about the East London line, but that connects up previously separate lines. Cannot see how this is the same thing.
Surely your final sentence isn't right? You must mean the Tory party. they are the party of privatization for its own dogmatic sake. Maybe I missed something, or maybe you misunderstood something from Labour. Breaking up Network Rail is the last thing any sane person should support.
I always thought, that the Tube network wasn't extended south of the river, because it was too difficult/impossible. Something to do with chalk/soil etc?
Crossrail should be linked to HS1 at Ebbsfleet, using part of the North Kent line, providing a London-bound connection into Dartford and SE London.
Bloody right. Only the Brits would have built a high speed line station at Ebbsfleet from where you can see the local trains but there is no connection to them.
I always thought, that the Tube network wasn't extended south of the river, because it was too difficult/impossible. Something to do with chalk/soil etc?
Promoters of the Underground system customarily found it difficult to raise finance. There was no clear opportunity south of the river because the whole of the area had already long been covered by a dense network of surface lines and in the early years of the 20th Century by an even deadlier Tube enemy, the extensive tramway system.
Nothing wrong with linking tube to poor overground services - worked well with the east London line and helps to break up network rail (which is labour party policy)
Agree about the East London line, but that connects up previously separate lines. Cannot see how this is the same thing.
Surely your final sentence isn't right? You must mean the Tory party. they are the party of privatization for its own dogmatic sake. Maybe I missed something, or maybe you misunderstood something from Labour. Breaking up Network Rail is the last thing any sane person should support.
The Labour policy is to link the train operating companies back with the rails. Whether this is Virgin/Branson buying/ leasing the rail assets for the West coast line ( and workforce) or whether it is a semi state company bidding elsewhere, the point is that network rail and it's labyrinthine structures (not to mention bonuses!) will have a regulatory role and but no longer an operational delivery one. I happen to believe that western government with serious debts and long term promises on health and pensions should sell any assets they can for the best price available and focus on regulation... And building the next generation of assets. Not everyone's cup of tea and more than happy to consider state run providers bidding to run things. I hope you would agree that linking the tracks and stations with the Tocs will deliver value and innovation, whether it is private or public. Labour are not promising to nationalise everything because that would cost money and perhaps their thinking is that they don't want government doing the day to day management? Years ago, post Hatfield I did a stint with a well known rail maintenance company... Three sets of accountants, three sets of surveyors and three sets of lawyers all arguing over essential works and whether they were in the contracts or not! UK railways cost 30% more than any other country to run because of this nonsense conjured up by Major. If nothing else, London commuters should vote labour to facilitate a change here.
Not at all Prague! Labour are not committed to kicking Virgin, stagecoach and Deutschbahn etc. off despite pressure from some. They do wish to allow state owned companies and cooperatives to tender. I've seen reference to linking tracks and trains so logically they sell or lease the tracks and stations - raise money, link it up and retain regulatory control / the power to terminate a franchise. But that might be a policy idea not yet adopted? The main public announcement on network rail is that it will be merged with a new strategic body accountable to parliament - that's a coded way of stating that network rail is accountable to nobody right now! Tories don't have any policy announcement on railways since 2006 according to Google!
Labour are not committed to kicking Virgin, stagecoach and Deutschbahn etc. off despite pressure from some. They do wish to allow state owned companies to tender. I've seen reference to linking tracks and trains so logically they sell or lease the tracks and stations - raise money, link it up and retain regulatory control / the power to terminate a franchise. But that might be a policy idea not yet adopted? The main public announcement on network rail is that it will be merged with a new strategic body accountable to parliament - that's a coded way of stating that network rail is accountable to nobody right now! Tories don't have any policy announcement on railways since 2006 according to Google!
Labour are not committed to kicking Virgin, stagecoach and Deutschbahn etc. off despite pressure from some. They do wish to allow state owned companies to tender. I've seen reference to linking tracks and trains so logically they sell or lease the tracks and stations - raise money, link it up and retain regulatory control / the power to terminate a franchise. But that might be a policy idea not yet adopted? The main public announcement on network rail is that it will be merged with a new strategic body accountable to parliament - that's a coded way of stating that network rail is accountable to nobody right now! Tories don't have any policy announcement on railways since 2006 according to Google!
Honestly, which party would be more likely to have a policy which seeks a mystical return to the 1920's and Isambard Kingdom Brunel?
Labour are not committed to kicking Virgin, stagecoach and Deutschbahn etc. off despite pressure from some. They do wish to allow state owned companies to tender. I've seen reference to linking tracks and trains so logically they sell or lease the tracks and stations - raise money, link it up and retain regulatory control / the power to terminate a franchise. But that might be a policy idea not yet adopted? The main public announcement on network rail is that it will be merged with a new strategic body accountable to parliament - that's a coded way of stating that network rail is accountable to nobody right now! Tories don't have any policy announcement on railways since 2006 according to Google!
Honestly, which party would be more likely to have a policy which seeks a mystical return to the 1920's and Isambard Kingdom Brunel?
1920s? ........ Brunel died in 1859, Prague.
;o)
Yes ,clumsy combo there, but I meant to illustrate that the Tories love the Golden Age of railways with the country divided up into 4 private companies, and Brunel as the iconic British engineer. They look for inspiration to Britain's past, rather than Germany's present.
Seems pointless to me other than the old kent road stop, ho hum, won't be long until my property is worth 7 figures.
6 trains per hour serve London on this line. The proposed bakerloo line extension would see thus increase to 15 (although they fail to nention that a tube train is smaller than the trains currently operating this route)
Hayes line is severely underused compared to other SE London lines as it is, I would much rather see a DLR extension that links Woolwich Arsenal, Lewisham, Canning Town and North Greenwich, which is simple enough to do
I also think they need to build a line that goes across the other lines, so linking woolwich, along to Eltham, into mottingham, over to Elmstead woods, and into bromley. That can then go through to Hayes and all the way along to Croydon
Comments
The proposed route between Lewisham and Hayes would replace the existing National Rail lines
Anyway, it won't happen. They first presented plans for CrossRail in 1970.
Nothing wrong with linking tube to poor overground services - worked well with the east London line and helps to break up network rail (which is labour party policy)
Surely your final sentence isn't right? You must mean the Tory party. they are the party of privatization for its own dogmatic sake. Maybe I missed something, or maybe you misunderstood something from Labour. Breaking up Network Rail is the last thing any sane person should support.
If you mean adding value to your property then I agree. If not. Wtf !
Crossrail should be linked to HS1 at Ebbsfleet, using part of the North Kent line, providing a London-bound connection into Dartford and SE London.
I happen to believe that western government with serious debts and long term promises on health and pensions should sell any assets they can for the best price available and focus on regulation... And building the next generation of assets.
Not everyone's cup of tea and more than happy to consider state run providers bidding to run things. I hope you would agree that linking the tracks and stations with the Tocs will deliver value and innovation, whether it is private or public.
Labour are not promising to nationalise everything because that would cost money and perhaps their thinking is that they don't want government doing the day to day management?
Years ago, post Hatfield I did a stint with a well known rail maintenance company... Three sets of accountants, three sets of surveyors and three sets of lawyers all arguing over essential works and whether they were in the contracts or not!
UK railways cost 30% more than any other country to run because of this nonsense conjured up by Major. If nothing else, London commuters should vote labour to facilitate a change here.
I've seen reference to linking tracks and trains so logically they sell or lease the tracks and stations - raise money, link it up and retain regulatory control / the power to terminate a franchise. But that might be a policy idea not yet adopted?
The main public announcement on network rail is that it will be merged with a new strategic body accountable to parliament - that's a coded way of stating that network rail is accountable to nobody right now!
Tories don't have any policy announcement on railways since 2006 according to Google!
Try this re Labour policy
Honestly, which party would be more likely to have a policy which seeks a mystical return to the 1920's and Isambard Kingdom Brunel?
;o)
I also think they need to build a line that goes across the other lines, so linking woolwich, along to Eltham, into mottingham, over to Elmstead woods, and into bromley. That can then go through to Hayes and all the way along to Croydon