Via Railway Eye and London Reconnections comes word that London Travelwatch, the rather toothless body charged with representing the London transport user, has noticed a bit of buried bad news in the recent East London Line Extension Phase 2b announcement.  This was the one, you may remember, greeted so warmly a few weeks ago by a certain Mayor:

Mayor Johnson said: “This is tremendous news. We can finally get cracking on a vital section of track that will orbitise our Overground rail services. I promised Londoners that where funds were made available we would build the improvements they need. And it will be a real achievement when our Overground services are fully oysterised. I am delighted that a long hard slog of negotiations between ourselves and the Department of Transport has borne fruit that will result in a superb new service for thousands of Londoners.”

Obviously it couldn’t last, and I don’t mean Boris’s school-show-off attacks on the English language (‘orbitise’?).  News has sort of leaked out (via Val Shawcross, it appears) that part of the negotiations apparently saw TfL working directly opposite to the interests of Londoners.  Now bear with me while I get technical – here’s a map to help set things out.

Most of the railway for ELLX 2b is already there – the only new bit is a short connecting piece from the eastern end of what it known as the South London Line, round the back of Millwall’s New Den football ground and into a junction on the new East London Line Extension Phase 1.  The existing line has a half-hourly service running from Victoria in the west, out via the inner suburbs and back in to London Bridge in the east.  This effectively provides a reasonable way into town from stations at the western end of the South London Line (Clapham High Street, Wandsworth Road, Denmark Hill) via Victoria and a reasonable way into town for stations at the eastern end of the SLL (Peckham Rye, Queens Road Peckham, South Bermondsey) via London Bridge.

Now, the problem arises in the east where London Bridge is having its capacity to terminate trains reduced owing to the Thameslink works.  Something had to go and the SLL, being a relatively infrequent service of short trains, was always going to be chopped.  The original plan which everyone thought Boris and TfL were working towards was that the SLL service would be replaced by *two* new services, the TfL-run East London Line service from Clapham via Peckham Rye to Whitechapel and Shoreditch.  While people for whom London Bridge was more convenient lose out by this, for many others there’s a gain from the greatly increased frequency, newer trains, wider interchange opportunities etc.  South Bermondsey, while losing four trains an hour, gets partially replaced by a nearby new station at Surrey Canal Road on the new link line.

At the western end, the service from Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street to Victoria, which is currently a really fast way into town from those areas, vanishes completely – the trains go to Clapham Junction instead.  Hence the Network Rail South London RUS (Route Utilisation Strategy) proposed a new service from Victoria calling at those two stations and then on via Peckham Rye and Catford, terminating at Bellingham.  Although not run by TfL (it would presumably be run by Southeastern) this would complement the ELLX 2b service to give an enhanced level of service along the SLL from all existing stations, while preserving the quick link into Victoria for Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street.

The fuss now brewing over this is because the Victoria-Bellingham service is not now going to happen.  Why?  Because TfL *asked the Department for Transport to scrap it*.  Yes, that’s right, London’s transport body asked the national government to scrap a planned transport improvement in London.  Sounds bizarre?  It is, but the real reason is money.  The ELLX Phase 2 scheme costs £75m, of which TfL were apparently only prepared to pay £15m.  The rest had to come from the DfT, and it came with strings attached.  TfL has the power, under a 2008 change to the franchising arrangements in London, to ask the DfT to tell the rail operators to reduce service on parts of the London rail network, the savings from which are reallocated somewhere else.  Hence, in this case, TfL have asked the DfT to withdraw the £24m it was planning to spend on the Victoria-Bellingham service and reallocated it to the ELLX Phase 2 project.  If you were to call this ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ I’d agree with you – the £24m was for a ten-year period, so this is actually £2.4m a year, which is roughly the cost of, you’ve guessed it, removing bendy buses.

As for the rest of the money, £20m goes onto Network Rail’s RAB (a weird bit of accounting which ties NR’s government funding into the value of NR’s regulated assets, which increases when you build new railway), £20m goes direct from the DfT to TfL, £15m of which TfL puts into the project on top of its own £15m and £5m of which vanishes somewhere into TfL’s budgets.  In return for this public largesse there are conditions attached:

To secure the money from the DfT TfL had to agree to a number of conditions, including taking on responsibility for proposing the withdrawal of the planned Victoria-Bellingham service. It also had to agree not to operate East London Line services into London Victoria station for at least 10 years, except during engineering works or service disruption.

Another condition of the funding was that the new Shoreditch High Street station, situated on the East London Line phase one route, should be classified as a Zone 1 station when it opens in 2010 rather than Zone 2 where Shoreditch station, which closed as part of the line upgrade works, was situated.

During funding negotiations TfL turned down an offer of an additional £7m from the DfT if it agreed to take responsibility for the full cost of building the proposed new Surrey Canal Road station. According to Mitchell this was rejected by TfL which deemed that the costs of the station were likely to be significantly higher.

I have to ask myself quite who TfL is representing here.  If they can’t get a small project like this underway without significant compromises and shortcomings built in, what chance do they have with seriously large scale enterprises like Crossrail and Metronet?

Now, TfL have helpfully published their response to the South London RUS, so let’s take a look at what they used to believe pre-Boris (11/10/2007, to be precise):

The synergy between the proposals in the RUS for the South London Line and our development of the East London Line Extension Phase 2b scheme is very apparent, and we believe this scheme will offer significant benefits and new journey opportunities for passengers travelling on this route.

No equivocation there, no hint that this was an either/or deal – it’s a ‘synergy’.  Let’s look deeper:

TfL believes that the South London Line service should stay in its current form until infrastructure changes made at one or both ends of the route mean that it can no longer operate in its current manner.  To this end TfL supports the diversion of the service into Victoria Eastern once platform extension works at Battersea Park are underway – whereby the existing line would be blocked by those extensions.


TfL believes that a Victoria-Catford service would be an appropriate additional service, either before or after the proposed introduction of ELLX 2b services.

So, as of late 2007, TfL’s view was that the SLL service would be diverted at each end and doubled in frequency and a new service replacing the western end into Victoria would be ‘appropriate’.  What changed?  Ah, Boris.  The original response to the RUS from TfL is full of stuff about the deprived inner city areas of Peckham and Catford and how much better things would be for them under these enhanced service levels.  The Cross River Tram is mentioned.  Unfortunately, since Boris has come along, crapping on Peckham has been the fashionable sport at TfL so it had to go.  Got to pay for scrapping the Congestion Charge somehow, chums.

Naturally, there are shenanigans and buck-passing going on here:

In a letter of 9 April to Ian Brown and Mike Mitchell, Travelwatch’s Sharon Grant writes: “ELL phase two was vigorously promoted as a means of mitigating the loss of the SLL’s London Bridge end, and the Bellingham service as the means of maintaining the links into Victoria. So far as the public were concerned, ELL phase two and the Bellingham service were packaged together and they had a clear right to know of a decision to separate them and opt for one rather than the other.” The press release issued by London Mayor Boris Johnson’s office on 12 February announcing funding for phase two of the East London Line makes no mention of the Bellingham service.

So, to recap.  TfL gets the DfT to pay for the majority of the scheme.  TfL forks out £15m of its own money, takes £20m off the DfT, keeps £5m of that, rejects £7m towards a station serving a key area but which TfL don’t now want to build and sabotages plans to retain the direct SLL link to Victoria, thus associating the Overground takeover of Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street with a less convenient service for existing users.  Meanwhile it has already cancelled plans to run a tram through the same area.  Finally Boris puts out a press release saying how brilliant it all is, but strangely not mentioning any of the downsides.  As he said:

I promised Londoners that where funds were made available we would build the improvements they need.

Well, I do believe the DfT offered you £7m for Surrey Canal Road which you appear to have rejected.  Spin and fibs, again.

Note: a lot of this piece is based on articles on Transport Briefing, which vanish behind a paywall shortly after publication.  The two articles are here and here – take a copy if you want to refer to them later.

Update: Brockley Central have a piece on this.

Tagged with:

11 Responses to South London Line Woes

  1. […] from London Reconnections, Boris Watch and Brockley […]

  2. D-Notice says:

    … not to forget Shoreditch HS now being zone 1 destroys the whole idea of what was initially an effective “zone 2 circle line”.

    Do you know if any other stations gone from zone 2 to zone 1?

  3. Tom says:

    Not aware of any. It does suggest that the ELL is seen by the DfT as a Thameslink-style cross-city line rather than an attempt to ‘orbitise’ the network, whatever Boris says.

    Considering the capacity of the trains, however, it would be something of a tempting bargain to people heading for the City.

  4. Mark Lee says:

    The *whole* point of the ELL was to create an outer-suburban route. In cases where journey time savings are marginal or non-existant, people will not choose the ELL if there’s no financial benefit.

    It may just be a dodge by TfL because they’re struggling to solve the “how do we tell which route someone took for their journey?” question for Oyster users facing via/avoiding Zone One options.

  5. Tom says:

    The most believable reason I’ve seen is that it’s to deter people from replacing Z1 seasons with Z2 seasons and walking the last 500m to the City – the DfT relies on income from the TOCs who sell Z1 seasons and are therefore keen on retaining this. That and the trains being only four cars.

  6. D-Notice says:


    Of course that only would apply to people who work within the Liverpool St/Moorgate area.

    Not sure if Bank/Blackfriars/Fenchurch St would be walkable from Shoreditch HS…

  7. Mr Thant says:

    Can’t agree with your comments re: Surrey Canal Road station. It would be in the middle of nowhere in an an area adequately served by several other stations. Spending millions on it* would be a complete waste of public money.

    * The station site is on a bridge over a road, so TfL are right to say it would cost considerably more than the £7m the DfT were offering.

  8. L P says:

    I live by Denmark Hill station and rely on the train service to Victoria and London Bridge. Camberwell is otherwise left or reached by a bus ride in a traffic jam.
    I wrote to Travel Watch and Harriet Harman (local MP) in February to see if I could learn more about the threat to the service. Both were reassuring that the Victoria – Bellingham line would take care of any loss of service. Frightening how quickly things can change in just a couple of months.
    Camberwell is home to a busy hospital and an Art School and judging by the lack of parking available during the day there are plenty of people who need to get here and work here.
    The road through Vauxhall, Oval, Camberwell, Peckham and New Cross is already so busy what will it be like with less trains serving the area.
    Traveling to Clapham Junction from Denmark Hill will be great for some journeys but getting into central London will be really hard now.
    Why are they making it easier to reach one part of London only to cut off another part.
    I love living in Camberwell but I may have to think of moving if I can’t easily get to the rest of London too.

  9. […] Boriswatch describes in admirable detail the wheeling and dealing that lead to TfL agreeing a deal with the DfT to build the East London Line 2 extension. A fantastic achievement for all concerned. Slipped in among the news of funding was that the DfT had offered TfL and additional £7m to build Surrey Canal Road Station, but that TfL had turned down the money. […]

  10. Nick Biskinis says:

    I was the first person to uncover TfL’s plans to scrap the South London Line back in March. As part of a commuter group i had been involved with TfL Rail since 2005. Since 2008 South London stakeholder groups had experienced lots of difficulty getting meetings with TfL Rail Stakeholder ‘Communications’ Officers (of which there are several on high wages paid for by you and me). Either they’d not respond to e-mails or abruptly cancel meetings we’d set up. Now in retrospect it was at the time Ian Brown was hatching the plan to scrap SLL.

    I found out the truth by piecing the clues together. Victoria-Bellingham (which was to be the SLL) was to be an 8 car train requiring platform lengthening at Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road. This would be operating alongside the ELLX trains so we had a mixture. So far so good. I then wrote to TfL Rail to ask why ELLX trains were only going to be 4 car. Eventually they responded by saying they needed to be 4 car because some stations couldn’t take any longer trains.

    But wait – those stations were Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road – which were getting longer platforms anyway weren’t they? No response from TfL Rail, so i e-mailed the DfT in early March, and buried deep within the response was a strong clue. I then e-mailed and asked the question outright: ‘Has TfL Rail got the Victoria-Bellingham service scrapped to fund ELLX?’ And i got a straight answer.

    No mention was made by Ian Brown of this when ELLX was announced. In fact the DfT made it a condition of agreeing to scrapping SLL that he publically propose scrapping Victoria-Bellingham and consult stakeholders and elected representatives. He has not do so – even now when TfL’s actions have been revealed.

    On March 26th the DfT wrote to Ian Brown to ask for an ‘update’ on what progress he’d made on informing stakeholders. Yet earlier that month (before i discovered the truth) Angela Atkinson, TfL Rail’s Communications Executive sent me an e-mail subdivided into headings. One of them was ‘Services at Victoria and London Bridge’. She made no mention about Victoria-Bellingham. In March TfL Rail held a ‘Stakeholder Update’ meeting with key stakeholder groups. Again TfL Rail said nothing about Victoria-Bellingham being scrapped to fund ELLX.

    So just when the DfT were asking Ian Brown whether he’d informed stakeholders about the proposal to axe Victoria-Bellingham, he and his staff were actively concealing the truth from stakeholder groups. Ian Brown has since claimed to the DfT that he did inform stakeholder groups and elected representatives. Yet – the evidence is entirely to the contrary.

    Now Ian Brown is doing a ‘review’ of South London rail services. We have asked him who he is consulting, but he has yet to respond.

    For those of you who want to know more, you are entitled to ask under Freedom of Information (FOI), But you must use those words in your correspondence. It strikes me that there is a question TfL need to answer: Did TfL Rail lie to the DfT about publicising to stakeholders the axeing of Victoria-Bellingham in order to get approval for this? If so, then Ian Brown’s position as MD of TfL Rail is untenable.

  11. Pretty section of content. I simply stumbled upon your blog and in accession capital to say that I get in fact enjoyed account your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feeds or even I achievement you get entry to persistently fast.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>