Interesting article on the proposed CP Tram from the Croydon Guardian here

Also - just been looking at the proposed tube services and it looks like 4 trains an hour from CP, but up to 16 an hour through the central section!

Just realised that not all trains will come this far south, but I think the Croydon/Bromley/Penge side of CP will be increasingly attractive over the next few years.

It does look good. I'm selfish I know, but I wish at least one of the proposals would include West Norwood occasionally ...

I see that the extended East London Line is going to be a "metro-style (National Rail) train service". So officially, and by the sneers of the North, we still won't be on the tube.

I noticed that, still only 4 trains an hour! Despite working for TfL, I can't find out anymore than the press releases give away! We are moving soon to the flats in the middle of CP station, and I rang TfL on the hope they'd be able to tell me about any building work.

Nope - wall of silence! Check the website for updates was all I got!

When Peter Boxell, Head of Communications, The East London Line Project came to the Chamber of Commerce meeting on 5th October 2004 he circulated draft (unpublished) plans for the station with us. This included a lift shaft going through the offices above the station. The director of the aforementioned offices was also at the meeting and pointed out this was news to him. Also that he had made extensive enquiries about proposed construction work and hadn't been consulted.

Why can't they extend the Victoria line or add a differnt branch to the northern line?
The East London Line extension is all very well and good but what use is a tube to Dalston?

I bet gettting to the West End (Oxford Street area for example) is still going to be quicker getting the train to Victoria and tube from there than getting the east London to Canada Water and Changing to Jubilee line to Bond Street.

The proposed tram extension is only going to go as far as Crystal Palace station. It can't go up and over the hill so won't be able to make it to West Norwood.

If the East London Line Extension terminates at Crystal Palace it isn't also possible for trains to run through with the West Norwood / Tulse Hill loop due to technical issues. Crystal Palace is favoured as a terminus because it allows them to stop some services short of Croydon. The Croydon route is favoured because peak hour flow is good in both directions.

However, there are several bus routes to Crystal Palace that go via West Norwood and terminate early at the bus station. In this respect you could say that West Norwood is better served than Crystal Palace for some transport services.

However, when the East London Line Extension and/or Tram services are available you'll still be able to make a connection to West Norwood without much difficulty, so I don't see West Norwood as losing out significantly. But the recently established Norwood Rail Users Group is lobbying for better rail services and most notably there's plenty of scope for improvement at Tulse Hill station. Sorting out Tulse Hill would bring a lot of benefits to West Norwood.

The Victoria Line is never likely to be extended - when it was built, it was originally designed to go through to Croydon - in fact the sidings at Brixton extend almost as far as Croydon anyway. However the powers that be decided that it would put too much pressure on the central part of the line, i.e. Victoria, and would only add to the already horrendous overcrowding in peak hours on the Victoria Line.

The Northern Line was meant to go out as far as Borehamwood (no help to us, I realise), but funding issues meant it ended up stopping at High Barnet and Edgware.

Rachel
xx

Hearing our tube link is going to be called a train service makes me think more and more that our tube line is a case of "the emperors new clothes"

There is already a service leaving platform four that travels into London Bridge. Can this service continue when the train called a tube starts? I dont think it can. I assume the line heading out from new cross going through forest hill/ sydenham/ anerley/ will be considered a tube line.
At the moment if I want to get on the East London Line I would have to get off at New Cross and go to the platform where the tube finishes.
In a few years time I wont have to change trains at New Cross. But if it means loosing the faster service into London Bridge from platform four, have I gained anything? In some ways they are just changing the name of a service that already runs?

Obviously to the rest of London it will sound good and the value of my property will increase

When the works start I dont think they will cause you many problems. There shouldnt be any major construction needed.

Assuming your flat is where I think where it is and your not renting....

If youre moving to the end of Orchard Grove between the two lines at Crystal Palace Station, then you could have an advantage. I know that road, I have flat on Thicket Rd, and nearly bought another on Orchard Grove to rent out.
I believe the road is split into two managment companies, one for the houses/flats on Orchard Grove and a second for the flats between the railway lines. They own and manage the land around the properties. If you own your flat you will own a share in that company and have a right to be a director. Use that right.
Clearly the managment of the flats and land has deteriated over last two years, I assume only "lazy" landlords who care little about the land around the flats are now directors. I have seen this happen in a lot managment companies. If you clean up the area around the car parks with new planting etc, you would increase the value of your property. Remember its your company, you own it. Get rid of the current gardeners/ maintanence company.

But the important thing as far as the railway goes is this. They have access the railway at platform three across your car park. They also stuck a gate into a fence along platform two.

I assume you would own that car park. They must have a "right of way" across your car park to reach platform three. But I dont think they have "right of way" to access platform two. They have just stuck a gate into a fence and walk across your plants. When they have engineering works they park vans in your car park. If it is a "right of way" they have, its a very poor right. All works on the line are dependent apon it not being blocked and there is very little they can do about it if it is.

If this is true then profit from it. Tell them they cannot cross onto platform two from your land, dont let them create a right of way through use. Dont let them park vans in your car park, unless they have paid.
If they have serious works to do, like the East London Line, make them aware the "right of way" to platform three might be blocked on the day they need it.

When serious work is needed the railways have employees or use companies to liase with people who might be affected by works. But very few people have actual power to do anything about the actions of the Railways. But if they have to use a "right of way" across your land You can queeze them until their pips squeek. Make them put in everygreen trees to block sound, and anything else you can think of.
I would also contact the directors of the lower section of the Rd so you can both put the squeeze on Network Rail.

I've got home to find a copy of the newsletter sent out by the councillors for the Crystal Palace Ward. One of the things it metions is that TFL are to start a consultation process shortly. First with key stakeholders and community groups and then with residents, between October and December. There are three options for the route. The newsletter said all three routes will affect the park, some businesses and homes. I've seen three proposes routes previously on a badly blurred map, and wrote the following (they might have slightly changed by now).

On the whole I'm in favor of the tramlink extention to Crystal Palace parade, so that people would not have to rely on cars or buses to get to the triangle. Both nearby stations gypsy Hill and Crystal Palace may not be close enough for some people, with the added hurdle of having to climb a hill.

However, it is worrying that the tram would cross the park and if strictly necessary it should be done in a way that would interfere with the park as litle as possible.

It would certainly be wrong for the tram to interfere with the park. However, it can be done well if they use the same methods used where the Beckenham Junction branch runs through the South Norwood Country Park. I cycle there regularly with my children, and the trams every 10 minutes or so in each direction don't significantly disturb the peace - the planes overhead are more of a distraction. They are not particularly visually intrusive either.

Nice to see joined-up thinking going on here - consultation on the park last year which didn't mention the tramlink at all.

Now we'll have a consultation on the Tramlink which no doubt won't refer to the proposed redevelopment of the park.

*sigh*

Hi Weeble - yes it was slightly odd that the tramlink wasn't mentioned but, I think the LDA were probably correct not to discuss the tram link as it would have taken away from the major issues of the park and the principles to be agreed.

That said I would now expect the masterplanning team for the park which includes transport planner Steer Davies Gleave to be in talks with TFl regarding the proposed routes which will obviously have to be taken into account when drawing up the masterplan options and final options for planning. In theory, the masterplan should inform the route and vice versa - especially as this could have an effect on any proposal for the Triangle Gateway.

Unfortunately, from my experience, the likelihood of joint up thinking prevailing can not always be guaranteed but, fingers crossed.......... the timing of the two projects could be very favourable indeed.

This appears in the Newsshopper.



(TfL) is launching a public consultation about a proposed Tramlink extension.

The extension would link the existing Tramlink network with the Anerley and Crystal Palace areas with up to six trams an hour running on the route by 2013.

People participating in the consultation, which starts next week, can choose from three options.

continued...
The first option is to run the tram up Anerley Road and Anerley Hill into Crystal Palace bus station through the edge of the park.

Another option is to run the tram fully off-street beside the railway to Crystal Palace station and then along the edge of the park behind the museum.

The final option is to mix the two with the trams running on the street up to the station and then off-street through the edge of the park.

It is expected four million passengers a year will use the proposed service.

London Mayor Ken Livingstone believes the extension will help regenerate Anerley and Crystal Palace Park and improve transport links in south London as a whole.

TfL had also proposed to build an extension linking Crystal Palace directly to Beckenham Junction.

This idea has been withdrawn because it would have involved building a completely new tram line and was considered to be too expensive.

Both Tramlink extension schemes are supported by Bromley Council.

Its head of transport strategy Ian Forbes said: "We have consistently supported the extension of Tramlink to Crystal Palace.

"We also supported the link between Beckenham Junction and Crystal Palace and we hope it is brought back to the table as well."

Funding for the tram scheme exists as part of TfL's five-year investment plan but there is no guarantee it will be built because it has to be approved by the Government after the public consultation.

Residents interested in taking part in the consultation should look in next week's News Shopper for more details.

The Mayor feels that tramlink would be good for Crystal Palace but I feel that if there is any significant opposition to it going through the park, he will simply spend the money somewhere else and we simply won't get it.

Most of the traders see the tram as a good way to regenerate a flagging town. If more customers come here, small independent shops will bother to open up. Therefore I would urge people to think long and hard before objecting to this one.

If it is designed sensitively I think the tram going along the edge of the park would be a good thing, certainly better than the amount of cars that currently use the park.

I agree that the area shouldn't miss this great opportunity. I don't think that the tram going through the edge of the Park would cause signifficant disturbance, and also it may help to cut traffic and therefore to cut pollution. However, I have noticed that the CPCA are campaining against the tram since in their minds the tram "threatens to ruin our Park" www.cpca.org.uk

Maybe the area needs some strong movement of oposition to the CPCA if we don't want to end up living in a forgotten ghost town in the future.

Moderator's Note
You are very much entitled to your own opinion. However due to previous problems with discussion of the CPCA this issue falls under the category of politics and as such is restricted from further discussion on our forum.

may I suggest we adopt the term ' a certain community association' in future.

I'm sorry but the answer is no.

TFL's tramlink consultation appears to be "live" now via their website. Unfortunately all the options seem to require some form of property acquistion. I would imagine the parade of shops/offices on Anerley Road, between Hamlet Road and Tesco ,would be vulnerable? Does anyone have any further information on this?

Options 2 and 3 seem to require the most property demolition. Certainly options 2 looks like it would require a serious rebuild of the station around Platform 1. I quite like Option 2 at an initial look, but probably need to look more closely.

Nick

The tramalink proposals (see http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiatives/te...s.shtml#option1 ) look very exciting and should provide fantastic access to Croydon shopping centres. I would advise everyone to express an opinion on the proposals so that they aren't sunk by those who oppose any development or change.

Having looked at the proposed routes, I don't think that this would have a negative impact on the park - and any reduction in car traffic would be highly beneficial to the area as a whole.

In my limited experience (Holešovice in Prague and Dolores Park in San Francisco), I've found trams integrate well with parks.

I've just received the Tramlink extension consultation document, and I'd just like to say that I'm all for any one of the three options. I don't really have a preference - I just want to see it happen!

Lloyd Park is an excellent example of how modern transportation can integrate well with the natural environment.

Let's just hope that the extension is not blocked on the grounds of conservation - progress isn't always a good thing, but in this case it's a fantastic opportunity for the area.

Bring it on!

I'd like to add to those sentiments. Either of the options will be excellent for the area. I looked through the document last night and I also think it is between option 2 and 3. However it does say that option 2 is the most expensive and I don't want to put them off going ahead by suggesting the most expensive so maybe option 3 is a happy medium.

You can check out the proposals on line.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiatives/tep/index.shtml


Exhibition Details
Ledrington Road (portacabin)
Thursday 2 November, 11am to 8pm
Friday 3 November, 11am to 8pm
Saturday 4 November 12 noon to 5pm

Upper Norwood Salvation Army Hall, Westow Street
Friday 10 November 11am to 8pm
Saturday 11 November 12 noon to 5pm

I can see this issue raising my political temperature again... Can we resurrect the politics forum off-site? Maybe we could discuss later??? I always think more clearly after a couple of beers...

Has everyone received the doc through the door?

I got it yesterday, had a quick scroll through it but have not made my mind yet.

However it seems as if local residents may go through a rough time and the park will be affected too.

The one that does not go through the park looks like my fav options at this stage but have to look into the details.

I think there should be an option 4. Via railway and Ledrington Road (as per option 2). Then back on to Anerley Hill and into the park at the top (as per option 1).

This would have the least impact on the park. Just because the part of the park they have their eyes on is at the moment "underused and neglected" doesn't mean it should stay that way (or be lost forever).

I'm all for a link by the way.

We received the consultation document yesterday too. I for one can not wait for the tram, although I do wonder about the noise and how it will affect adjacent properties. Just wish it could be connected to the Cross River Tram Proposals -surely they could take it down to Brixton?

I suppose that if the tram follows the railway the adjacent properties will already be used to the noise of the trains. Me too I would like the tram to have a link with Brixton or somewhere else with a tube line, but I hope this extension will only be a first step and that more extensions will come in the future.

I think they should carry it on down the parade, down to sydenham hill station and along the track to Brixton. That would be great, just like an extension of the victoria line (almost).

I should have been a railway planner...

I want to see the tram come to Crystal Palace, but dont want to see it entering the park, especially below the museum. Option one has the tram going nearly all the way up the hill, so there is no "engineering" reason to enter the park, and the triangle junction is wide enough. It may as well go a extra few metres, around the outside of the gate, finishing on the wide parade. I'd prefer a route that goes via the station up Ledrington Rd, then Anerley Hill, turning right at the junction onto the parade.
The land below the museum consists of a large tree lined ridge that screens the park from the sight and noise of Anerley Hill. Loosing this would be bad for the park. The previously peacefull park terraces would be full of the sounds and sights of cars, and tram overhead electrics. Trams are very quite (except on hills and when going around corners.), they'll make less noise than the cars & buses that use the hill.
Secondly, if your going to develop that site then it should be for the benefit of the park. That strip of land could be developed into" green flats", giving the park an income of hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, and increasing the screening of the noise and view of Anerley Hill. Giving the park away for a tram is bad business, especially at a time when the park needs an income source. I suppose you could have the tram going along the basement of the flats.

Not wanting the tram to enter the park, doesnt mean your against the tram.

I think there is good reason to hope that the tram would eventually go to central London via Brixton. There are plans for a Cross River Tram, and it seems obvious that they will connect Brixton to Crystal Palace

The big problem with not using the Park is that Anerley Hill is likely to become one way. That would cause a large amount of rat running along Hamlet Road, Anerley Park and Thicket Road. Taking the edge of the park route would be less likely to cause massive traffic problems. I suspect a closer link than the on street option at Crystal Palace station is TFL's primary concern especially with the bus station at the top of the hill and the station half way down.

Nick

I think the tram is a fantastic idea.

My real concern is the track up to the bus station. Does this mean the station is definitely staying where it is? I thought it may be under review as part of the park redevelopments?

If it is staying and the tram does link up to the station, won't this create another 'barrier' to that entrance to the park? I really think that gateway needs a lot of work to make it more inviting...

I went to the exhibition by Crystal Palace station today. There is nothing there that you will not find on the TfL website, although you can pick up a hard copy of the proposal document.

However, there are some representatives there from TfL who are well clued up about the proposals and the politics of the park, and who were able to answer all of the questions I had.

But it was a shame, for once, not to have anyone outside trying to force their opinions on me and getting angry when I suggested I might not agree with them. Maybe I just like the confrontation and to challenge others views.

Agreed - the TfL reps were very well informed.

Don't always believe what you hear from TFL. They will print and say anything to get the vital "vote" to push ahead with Tramlink. It is the Mayor's baby and ever since a presentation meeting with Bromley Council at the NSC in 2003 he has always maintained the favoured option of taking the tram through Crystal Palace Park.

The public consultation document that has been delivered through the letterboxes of many homes in the Crystal Palace area will show you the three options but the favoured one will be through the park.

Personally I have no problem with Tramlink coming to the palace myself but to terminate at Crystal Palace Station but this is an option they want to avoid I'm afraid.

I don't think the tramlink would be of much use if it were to finish at Crystal Palace Station. There is already the train Station with trains running to and from Croydon plus many buses going up hill.

The point is that there is no reliable public transport serving the triangle and that exacerbates the trafic problems. Maybe the car pollution benefits the park? I think the tramlink would be less disruptive to the park than all the cars and besides it is suppose to run on the border of the park, following the already existing railway line.

Tramlink will be disruptive in every way when you start to realise that the intension of TFl is to take the tram through this historical Grade II*Listed Park.

The preferred option is Option 3 in the public consultation document-Anerley Road/Crystal Palace Park on street from the railway line at Hamlett Road, up Anerley Road, crossing right into Crystal Palace Station then left up Ledrington road through the park passing close to the Museum and through the ornamental gardens and terminating behind the bus station on the park.

One thing that TFL are not telling you is that they are thinking to make compulsory Purchaces of two or more houses for demolition, this coming from Mathew Yates who is the Project Manager for Croydon Tramlink.

The public consultation document does contain a number of inaccuracies, one on page 11 that states " The LDA undertook public consultation on their proposals in late 2005 and all the options presented in the consultation for the Norwood Gateway at that time made allowance for the tram" Those who visited the LDA exhibitions and road shows and completed questionaires may recall that the four options on offer for the Gateway were focussed on landscaping or housing. There was no mention of the Tram accessing the Park at this point.

I know its stating the obvious but the tramlink will not follow the "already existing railway line" The railway goes under the park, the tram will go through the park. The plans for the tramlink do show the railway line going through the park. An attempt to misslead and make that edge of the park look as if its already blighted?

You think the tramlink would be less disruptive to the park than the cars and will reduce car pollution to the park? I think thats wrong. There's a wide and high tree-lined ridge running down that section of the park. Its screens off the park, from chemical, noise and "vision" pollution. The tramlink would remove that ridge and the trees. That section of the park would then be blighted by the pollution from the cars, and the noise and view of Anerley Hill traffic.
If you believe the tramlink will reduce the number of cars, then the tramlink should be constructed along the road.

If the tramlink finished in Ledrington Rd, it would only be four minutes walk from the bus station. Its not worth destorying a section of the park for that.

Well said Axean please read what is really the truth of Tramlink.

I trust people replying to the consultation are mature enough to decide for themselves and hopefully tfl will follow what the mayority of people living in the area want, whatever that may be, and not just follow particular interest groups.

Whilst I have reservations about the tram cutting into the park the whole point of the tram link is to encourage people to come up to Crystal Palace and use the shops / restaurants up in the Triangle.

Agreed - make your own mind up people! Now you may not agree with me, but as far as I'm concerned TFL aren't bogeymen with chainsaws ( ), they're fulfilling their brief to provide a sustainable and wide-reaching metropolitan transport infrastructure for the 21st century and beyond.


As Richard says - this project is as much about increasing access and footfall to the triangle as improving transport links.


If you ask me the whole park's pretty blighted already!

The park is not a nature reserve.

It's a place to play , walk the dog , ride your bike etc etc. If the Dutch can put tram through their city parks I don't see why we can't accept the idea of a tram line skirting the edge of the park

There will still be plenty of more tranquil areas of the park to visit. . The side of the park affected is already blighted by traffic noise , the railway noise , the noise from the model car track and ugly 1970's architectuire.

Just what is it that is so precious it needs to be saved at all costs ?

This is the same sort of argument that delayed the LDA's plans. Everyone gets all over excited about a small bit of housing on the fringes without actually stopping to think about what the current state of teh park is.

Face it - most of the park from the "triangle gate" down as far as the station is pretty crummy already. The paths are unmade and impossible to negotiate with a pushchair , much of the area is overgrown and inaccessible , large chunks of it are already taken up by the car park and most of the facilities (like the Zoo) which were once there have disappeared long ago.

How many of those arguing against using a bit of the park for the tramlink do what most of us do - hurry through the rubbish bit at the top and along the boundary to use the nicer bits at the bottom of the park, the playing field areas and around the fishing lake ?

I agree.

If everyone had the attitude in Victorian times that some people seem to have now, then the Crytal Palace would never have been built in the park, along with the Brunel water towers and many other developments.