Undisputedtruth

The original Nov 07 estimates for building media centre and olympic village did not include village construction cost of ?707m. Receipts for Stratford City development plots were scaled down from ?250m to ?70m. It's quite easy to see where Fazer confused his figures.

Brendan Rodgers for the sack!

Forest Hill station is still ain't in SE22 what ever way you want to spin it, Bic Bash. It also involves a fifteen minute walk from Dulwich Common/Lordship Lane junction. Where the surrounding area are the least densely populated areas of SE22 when you take into account parks such as Dawson's Hill, Dulwich and Dulwich Common as well as Camberwell Old cemetery. Denmark Hill & North Dulwich stations are much more closer to an SE22 post code than Forest Hill station and also serves densely populated areas of SE22. And as Cllr Barber rightfully said , a number of East Dulwichers uses Denmark Hill station. Let's face it, you want a better train service at your doorstep/Forest Hill while at the same time you want most people in East Dulwich to have worse train services.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even Dame Tessa Jowell added Forest Hill as part > of her rail survey questionnaire a couple of years > back. That's because the East Croydon trains running through East Dulwich to London Bridge were cut. The Forest Hill station is one of the nearest station that offers a direct route to East Croydon. And now you want to see more cuts in our local service. You won't be satisfied until you see our local services decimated because of your simplistic thinking. Well boo to you.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The media centre village > Total Media Centre and Media Centre Village > estimate ?492 million > actual ?1.23 billion > > I'm finished with this it's pointless. The final cost of building the media centre was ?292m. You're right, it is pointless as you don't understand how the figure breaks down to its components. Substantial money was spent on acquiring the land, CPOs, compensations to local businesses, infrastructure, etc.

Now you're showing your allegiance to the Sydenham line.

@mynamehere, Great info. I live near to St Apostle church so I gander over on Tuesday and report back.

I can tell that you're easily narked because you just resort to name calling. I don't think you know what trolling is. Anyway, you've been exposed with your simplistic thinking and your hatred over the South London rail services. I will continue to fight for improvements on rail services for East Dulwich, Camberwell, Nunhead and Peckham.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Sydenham line carries more passengers than the > SLL and saw two trains per hour scrapped in 2010 > when the ELL service was introduced, yet it still > warrants 4tph to London Bridge, which Peckham Rye > and Queens Road Peckham will still have after the > introduction in December, along with an extra 4tph > serving those two stations on the ELL. The Sydenham line carries more people than the SLL because the line is much longer. It doesn't mean that the Sydenham line is more busier than the South London line. For example if line A carried 500 passengers over 100 miles, is it any busier than line B carrying 250 passengers over 50 miles? The answer is no difference in busyness between the two lines if you compare passenger numbers over comparable unit lengths. However, it is clear from your simplistic thinking that you think that line A is more busy than line B without taking into account the length of the two lines. I would argue that the SLL service is actually more busier as it passes through high density populated areas and serve two major rail terminals - London Bridge and Victoria with each train journey lasting 25 minutes. The SLL train service is the least tax subsidised service out of London Bridge station because you need only two trains. Furthermore, population and employment opportunities are expected to grow substantially to the year 2031 where the SLL travels through.

You're confused, Bic Basher. Better transport infrastructure allows people access to more jobs. So some of the poor can better themselves by accessing better paid jobs. You're the one who wants to worsen our local rail services.

@LM You said: "The issue with Travel Watch survey which was acknowledged by the authors is that most of those surveyed were not fully aware of the interchanges the ELL would allow." But actually the information from the survey study was primarily that there would be no direct services from Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye to Victoria. This means that the disbenefits are overstated by respondents and the benefits are understated. The survey didn't just include Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye users but also Queens Road Peckham, Clapham High Street, Wandsworth Road and Battersea station users. Queens Road Peckham, Clapham High Street, & Wandsworth Road will not have direct train access to Victoria after December 2012. It seems you're quite happy to post incorrect/misleading information but not so happy if someone corrects you for the greater good. I'm really disappointed that you chose to throw a tantrum instead.

@LondonMix Perhaps you didn't read the paragraph that followed: "E8 Of the large majority of respondents who believed they would disbenefit, our independent analysis demonstrates that many of these people would indeed experience a reduced frequency and/or worse crowding, if the loss of the direct SLL services to Victoria was not mitigated. Options for this include stopping other trains at the affected stations, or re-instating the Victoria ? Bellingham shuttle, especially for the period 2012-2015, until other planned service enhancements take place." Now you can see why I'm challenging every statement you make, LondonMix, where your information doesn't either tally or taken out of context. Bic Basher is different as he wants to undermine our South London line services and improve his at Forest Hill and Sydenham Hill. Two different challenges for me. Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A reduction in their travel costs which would no > longer require a Zone 1-2 travelcard, along with > an enhanced service to Canada Water from SLL > stations and only having to use the Jubilee line > for one stop may change their minds along with the > Canary Wharf businesses who'll save money on > travelcard loans for their employees. Not much of a consolation if the Jubilee train at Canada Water going to Canary Wharf is so packed that you can't get on it. Better to go to London Bridge to where the Jubilee trains are less packed. To quote a post from Rail UK Forums after UDT was asked again and again how his solution to the SLL situation would work. They were given a reasonable answer with more information to come. I will not tolerate censorship and cowardly behaviour from their admin.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The issue with > Travel Watch survey which was acknowledged by the > authors is that most of those surveyed were not > fully aware of the interchanges the ELL would > allow. It doesn't say that at all LondonMix. You've made that up. I have a copy of a study of the South London Line using data from the London Watch survey where 8% of all SLL users actually goes to Clapham Junction. Furthermore, those who travelled to Canary Wharf via London Bridge felt than an extension to Canada Water offered no advantage as the Jubilee trains were always packed.

Not really, dulwich2012. There are pockets of deprivation next to affluent areas in London. I also spoken to a member of Iceland management (where I earlier reported on this thread) and they confirmed that the store was making money. What we're see here is the risk of excluding the least well off members of society from their local high street. That is morally wrong. It's a concept that LondonMix couldn't grasp in relation to the National Planning Framework.

It seems people like Bic Basher, BITE, and Fazer have a remarkable simplistic view of the world.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, do you know if TFL did any > passenger surveys regarding final destination > before eliminating the SLL? > > Thanks, > LM London Travelwatch conducted a survey which showed SLL users would be deeply inconvenience by the new ELL. This is completely different to what Bic Basher was claiming earlier on in the thread. http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news/2009/09/south-london-line-plans-will-anger-passengers

dulwich2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would be nice to see Waitrose instead I like to see a Waitrose too but not at the risk of excluding the lower income people from their local high street.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's wrong with being a platform sweeper? Are > these people members of some lower social order > who are not allowed to have an opinion? Nothing wrong with being a platform sweeper but Bic Basher was claiming there were industry insiders on the other forum. In view of their simplistic view and inability to understand concepts behind number crunching then Bic Basher's claims were ratherly over-optimistic though some might say wild exaggeration.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Undisputedtruth Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Bic Basher Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > May I suggest people visit the Railforumsuk > > thread > > > where a sensible discussion of this topic by > > > transport insiders has been discussed without > > the > > > need for being agressive. Even the legendary > > EDF > > > transport user can add his two pennies worth > if > > he > > > signs up. > > > > > > > http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=69548 > > > > I don't think these people are transport > insiders. > > And if they are then more likely to be in a > very > > junior capacity such as sweeping the platforms. > > Perhaps that is why they are blocking my posts. > > If you have a genuine complaint, raise it with the > administration team at Rail UK Forums. > > The thread over there gave you ample opportunity > to put your reasons for keeping the SLL open and > you were asked for your solutions. The members > gave you reasons for why some of your solutions > wouldn't work and you disagreed in typical UDT > style which may had led to you being put on > moderation. In view of one of the administrators and others' simplistic views and short attention timespan then I really can't be bothered to complain. My view is that there are no industry insiders ot that website as you claimed on this forum. Platform sweepers, yes, but no industry insiders. It's like the other wild claim when you said you can travel on the outer south London line by using the same inner south london line rail pass because some unknown person said on a website without checking official clarification. Thus basically what you're doing is inciting others to break the law and risk a criminal record due to your flawed belief that these rail forums are run by industry insiders. As I said before on the other forum, I wanted to explain the case for retaining the SLL. I should not be censored for doing so. Anyway, I will not be wasting my time with platform sweepers anymore. ETA: I have done nothing wrong as I have recived no PMs from their admin. Sorry Bic Basher but it's a case of cowardly censorship.

I have, nice chips, though they were using frozen chips as opposed to hand cut chips. Philips were demonstrating them at an interior design exhibition a couple of years ago, I think. Who knows, with a bit of marketing then you would believe they were connoisseur chips!

Beer in The Evening? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Er, so? Opium was a widely-sought commodity in the > 19th century. Not forgetting that its trade was > perfectly legal, and any profit made from it. > Should we seek indemnity from the Wright brothers' > descendents, seeing as their ancestors' creation > has lead to so much pollution? Next you'll be saying that slavery wasn't wrong because it was legal at the time. Sorry I don't accept your point.

Just because gm99 spotted an ELL train doesn't mean he/she knows where December-2012 timetable is published. ETA: as previously discusssed on the thread, ELL trains are currently undergoing testing along the new route and driver training.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Enriching the Indian middle class is > > probably not useful to the poor. > > I thought they had tax in India too. Is this not > the case? As this country has shown, the gulf between rich and poor have got wider despite reforms to the taxation system since the days of Thatcher.

Let us not forget how Britain sold opium to China in the 19th century and built hospitals, bridges and railways from the proceeds.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > May I suggest people visit the Railforumsuk thread > where a sensible discussion of this topic by > transport insiders has been discussed without the > need for being agressive. Even the legendary EDF > transport user can add his two pennies worth if he > signs up. > > http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=69548 I don't think these people are transport insiders. And if they are then more likely to be in a very junior capacity such as sweeping the platforms. Perhaps that is why they are blocking my posts.