please empty your brain below
It's all a bit contrived, using the circle as a clock face, a fair chunk of those living between 9 o'clock and 12 o'clock are only a short walk from the Northern Line, between 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock the same can be said for those near Denmark Hill and Loughborough Junction, even those by the blue dot in the middle will have vast numbers of buses even after the cuts (same for Old Kent Road) to travel the relatively short distance to E&C where you can luxuriate in a Bakerloo Line seat, plus there is walking.

Still Anon | 21.09.18 - 7:38 a.m. | #

Where you live, Roger, such railway-gaps may be the norm.

But nowhere else in inner London is it possible to draw a station-free circle of this size. Transport bosses have known for decades that Camberwell deserves better.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 21.09.18 - 7:47 a.m. | #

Yeah, eradicate this circle and another, slightly smaller, one will be found elsewhere for campaigners to jump on.

This situation is what buses are for. And as there's been no station since 1916, literally no-one moved there in ignorance. The property prices will reflect the (lack of) provision. A B/C ration like that doesn't lie: it's not worth doing and it's not going to happen.

David | 21.09.18 - 8:57 a.m. | #

I am surprised no mention of the other closed station along that stretch of what is now Thameslink: Walworth Road - the entrance was on what is now John Ruskin Street, so far more central to the 'desert'. See http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/w/walworth_road/index.shtml for more details.

dg writes: That's the penultimate link in the post (if not specifically mentioned).

Jeremy | 21.09.18 - 9:24 a.m. | #

I used to live in that circle and transport was horrendous; a convoy of late 343s was your lot. But was never going to be a business case for this station on this site, on present rules, not least as it was too far away from the Heygate/Aylesbury developments.

Which is in part why the Cross River Tram scheme was taken seriously by London’s first mayor. It would have gone via Burgess Park to Peckham, covering the least served area of that circle (since I left, the 136 has been extended up there, but now the 343 frequency has been reduced).

But as we know, it was scrapped by the second mayor, and the rest - Bakerloo confirmed down Old Kent Road, TfL funding cuts, Thameslink planning without mention of a Camberwell station, all the rest - is history.

The present mayor declared no intent to reconsider the tram scheme in 2016 - but that was before the Bakeroo route and Camberwell station non-starter developments. Could there be a case for another reconsideration now? My feeling is it’s an either/or - the Bakerloo extension or this (or something else); and it’s far from clear there’s the funding or political will for any of it.

yeoldemother | 21.09.18 - 9:25 a.m. | #

The scrapped Cross River Tram was one of the eight options considered in the business case. It didn't even make the top three.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 21.09.18 - 9:39 a.m. | #

The blue circle ought to be much bigger as it takes into account the two Bakerloo stations which do not exist and quite probably never will. That moves the blue dot rather, and Camberwell station struggles to get into the circle at all.

dg writes: See pink circle:

kev | 21.09.18 - 10:13 a.m. | #

While I share kev's view that the Bakerloo extension could well succumb to impending austerity, it makes no logical sense to disregard its planned stations when making a case (or not) for something even further down the investment queue.

But thanks DG for the pink circle, which in nevertheless interesting.

Malcolm | 21.09.18 - 11:06 a.m. | #

Just so I can be clear: does a negative BCR ratio mean that the benefit is less than zero, i.e. that opening the station would make the world an overall worse place?

Geoff | 21.09.18 - 12:41 p.m. | #

For a ratio to be negative, either the top or the bottom must be negative, but not both. So either the cost is negative (perhaps if a housing developer overpays drastically) or, more likely, the disbenefits (e.g. delays to through passengers) outweigh the benefits: quite possible if there are many through passengers and few people able to get on the trains. But not both.

Malcolm | 21.09.18 - 1:39 p.m. | #

So... Camberwell (and in particular the east Camberwell/Burgess Park bit) just gets told no, and that’s that? Harriet Harman, Camberwell’s longstanding MP, has declared she is “deeply disappointed”; many of her constituents will be too.

An alternative is lacking. Extending the 136 from Peckham to Elephant doesn’t really amount to much for a community so marooned from rail options - despite the tenacious work undertaken by Val Shawcross, Jenny Jones and others down the years.

yeoldemother | 21.09.18 - 6:20 p.m. | #

I have sympathy for the residents of Cambwerwell. But I suppose house prices will increase if a station is built, so Camberwell is good for those who work in the capital and want a cheap way to get to work. Cycling is ideal for some, so is the intensive bus network down Walworth Road. It can feel slightly awful if you want to travel further afield however.

Gregory | 21.09.18 - 7:45 p.m. | #

'Major transport works are only justified if they unlock residential and/or commercial growth' is nothing new, as that's what drove London's rail expansion back in the days of Metroland and the other lines that reached out far into then open countryside.

A tram would have been a good idea, but everyone was so against Ken Livingstone's proposed tram route along the Uxbridge Road (which possibly contributed to his downfall) that trams are unlikely to be suggested again.

ActonMan | 21.09.18 - 9:02 p.m. | #

I find the circle is a bit coarse for showing the issues. Some of the area within it is in fairly easy walk of many of the surrounding stations (e.g. part of Walworth Road is an easier walk from Kennington). Although counted out, the green circle in my image does show how useful Camberwell station would be:

[IMG]http://i68.tinypic.com/n20o4i.jpg[/IMG]

NickW | Homepage | 21.09.18 - 11:53 p.m. | #

Your green circle isn't centred on the suggested Camberwell station.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 21.09.18 - 11:57 p.m. | #

@Actonman It wasn't that everyone was against the team route it was due to the all other traffic (in one direction) being diverted off said route no less than four times onto parallel side roads via connecting roads at right angles. This was so nonsensical that the lavish plans and road shows should never have happened but the political imperative drove it that far before common sense righted itself. You can't fit a quart into a pint pot.

Ken | 22.09.18 - 9:10 a.m. | #

I think the counter argument in favour of the Uxbridge Road tram was that it would replace a stream of buses and encourage more people out of their cars and thus reduce traffic congestion.

Sadly, this 'modal shift' argument was about 10 years ahead of its time, for it's now the basis of most transport planning, together with many other more aggressive measures to discourage motor vehicles.

Shame it's too late to ever afford a tram now, either in West London or Camberwell.

ActonMan | 22.09.18 - 12:21 p.m. | #

Even if the two OKR stations aren't built with the Extension, TfL may implement protective planning for later... See CrossRail tunnelling under London City Airport as the latest example.

The Bakerloo Extension's twin tubes may be splayed apart at those points, for stations to be added later, with surface access safeguarded.

The original Fleet Line route across the City had safeguarding for over a decade (?) after the route of the Jubilee Line Extension was confirmed. Parts of Hackney are still theoretically safeguarded for the former line of the Chelsea-Hackney route.

'LT' is a past master at protecting its future infrastructure interests - but fouled up over retaining bus garages in the piratisations (not a misprunt).

Joel | 22.09.18 - 8:11 p.m. | #

Oops, my green circle is indeed too far right, but I suppose the correct position would still benefit some un-covered streets further west. TfL uses this tool, but as buses are included, Camberwell would seem to be doing ok without the station...
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat?intcmp=25932

They presumably know that people are willing to walk further to a good rail connection than to a bus route. It also has Camberwell looking much more favourable than Loughborough Jn. which is questionable.

NickW | 23.09.18 - 12:19 a.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy