please empty your brain below
This is great. I'd never thought about how many Tube stations each borough has. But Southwark has 7 within its boundaries, not 6. These are Southwark, London Bridge, Bermondsey, Canada Water, Borough, Elephant and Castle and Kennington.

Greg Watts | Homepage | 10.11.09 - 6:50 a.m. | #

See, I told you I couldn't count.
See post above.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 10.11.09 - 7:07 a.m. | #

Croydon proves a rule that no tube doesn't necessarily mean a worse service. You may be able to get any one of 20 tube trains an hour into town from Enfield stations, but it's a 25 minute slog and the service dries up at midnight. Purley, East Croydon (and, in practice, Selhurst) get 24/7 trains into London Bridge and Victoria taking a little over 15 minutes.

Four tracking > trains in tunnels. Perhaps we should have employed the NY model a little more vigorously in the early years.

Nico | 10.11.09 - 8:01 a.m. | #

I'm honestly surprised at how good tube coverage is that far west, even in the metroland corridor. That's an eye-opener.

Jameso | 10.11.09 - 8:11 a.m. | #

Yep, Nico. Give me a 24 hour real railway service over a tube service any day although our 24 hour service is only to Victoria. Not needed often but when it is, it is exceedingly useful.

Pedantic of Purley | 10.11.09 - 9:26 a.m. | #

Croydon having a good train service does not make up for the fact that the area itself is a depressing grief hole at the best of times.

James | 10.11.09 - 9:37 a.m. | #

but one that it is very easy to get away from!

Pedantic of Purley | 10.11.09 - 10:03 a.m. | #

informative

siidiq | Homepage | 10.11.09 - 11:28 a.m. | #

As regards Hackney, I accept that Manor House is just in, but what other tube station is there?

Gripper | 10.11.09 - 11:29 a.m. | #

Old Street is also just in. DG even gave a link to it - "stations".

Pedantic of Purley | 10.11.09 - 12:05 p.m. | #

Too bad South London and important boroughs like Greenwich, Bromley and Croydon lack of tube service. Would be feasible if the mayor consider major expansion of the tube network south of the river? Just imagine South London with decent tube service, it would help Croydon establish as a third economic centre of Greater London and boost locales like Erith or Deptford to become more desirable places to live.

John Tryfonas | Homepage | 10.11.09 - 1:01 p.m. | #

Deptford's fairly well-connected to central London and Docklands anyway, and is just around the corner from rail services to Dalston and Highbury when the shiny new-look East London Line opens.

As for Erith... the best hope for them is an extension to Crossrail, because any kind of Tube link there would be ploddingly slow (the current mainline link benefits from having no stations between Deptford and London Bridge, although there's plenty of stops...)

darryl853 | Homepage | 10.11.09 - 1:14 p.m. | #

Why this obsession with giving Croydon a tube service? It doesn't need it and wouldn't be useful. What can it provide that London Overground (from next year) can't apart from slightly improved frequency? We want big fast trains to shift the enormous number of people who want to get to their destination quickly.

Having said all that Network Rail have very long term dreams for a tunnel from Croydon to central London to provide more train paths on their congested network but that is decades away.

Pedantic of Purley | 10.11.09 - 3:38 p.m. | #

Ooh, I like the South London tube map - it has a stop at Craven Cottage!

Josh | 10.11.09 - 4:02 p.m. | #

In reaction to John Tryfonas, I wonder if extending the network much further into South(East) London would change the character of all these boroughs. Many south Londoners or so used to taking buses and overland trains and is South London not partly South London 'cause many north of the river can't be bothered to come south because of lack of tube?

Dark Fairy Adventures | Homepage | 10.11.09 - 5:30 p.m. | #

Dear Fairy Adventures, why not bother? South London has: Greenwich heritage sites, Woolwich, Crystal Palace, Horniman museum, Kingston (lovely place by the river, used to be the seat of Surrey), posh Blackheath (I dare say "Hampstead of the South"), Eltham Palace and so many other places I ignore. All these places have no tube service, only have rail links which is much infrequent than Underground. For me, south of the river is as interesting as the northern part. I lived in Greenwich historic centre for one month and I loved it.

John Tryfonas | Homepage | 11.11.09 - 9:35 a.m. | #

DG, I have just been looking at the detailed boundaries, and in fact both Roding Valley and Grange Hill lie outside Greater London, and therefore in Essex rather than LB Redbridge. The boundary is not the centre of the tracks, but at the southern boundary of the railway land.

dg writes: Thanks for checking more carefully than I was able to. I've now updated this post (and two of yesterday's!) in the light of this new information.

SELondoner | 11.11.09 - 2:34 p.m. | #

DG,

Do you need to get the colouring pens out again?

Hackney (2) the same colour as Greenwich (1)?

Simon | Homepage | 12.11.09 - 9:33 a.m. | #

From what I have been told about the location of tube lines, when they made them all the south/south east was all very well connected with trains and it was actually the north
orth west which didn't have very good train connections. There was no incentive to build more train lines there, and not much money to be made from all the competition.

So they branched out into new areas which were all the (then) not well connected places in the north
orth west.

Seems like in the long run they got the better deal!

Maryam | 26.11.09 - 11:59 a.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy