170 replies to this topic

[Elmo]

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.

Edited by Elmo, 25 February 2005 - 08:24 AM.

[cha003]

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

[StephenB]

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.

[rachel]

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!

Edited by rachel, 25 February 2005 - 10:38 AM.

[James]

I rang TfL on the hope they'd be able to tell me about any building work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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The East London Line Project came to the Chamber of Commerce meeting on 5th October 2004 he circulated draft (unpublished) plans for the station with us.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.

[drummerboy]

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.

Edited by drummerboy, 27 February 2005 - 12:58 AM.

[James]

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.

[rachel]

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

[Axean]

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

Edited by Axean, 27 February 2005 - 02:59 PM.

[Axean]

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.

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.

Edited by Axean, 28 February 2005 - 10:57 AM.

[Axean]

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).

He also showed me a terribly (deliberately?) blurred map of the three proposed routes from behind Anerley town hall to where the tram would enter the park on Anerley Hill.
1 Go straight up Anerley hill, then into the park.
2 Go up Anerley Hill, turns right to go up to Crystal Palace station, then up either via Ledrington Rd or the park (couldn't tell). Then enters the park.
3 Follow the line all the want into the station, then up Ledrington rd(maybe park), then into park. I know it doesn't make sense to enter the station then go up Ledrington Rd.
All three routes involve entering the park before the museum, then going diagonally up through the park to end north of the bus terminus.

[Angeles]

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.

[Woodvale]

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.

[weeble]

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*

[charlie]

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.