HopOne

Yes, LondonMix is correct. An FT report found this, see BBC story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19151471 For how long that will be sustained is another matter. A lot of this was down to London Challenge, the funding for which has been cut.

Whether you think any house is worth it is another matter but no illegal substances required. Just an example: http://www.sebastianroche.com/property/view?property=587

ontheedge,which bridge do you refer to (or both)? There are actually 2 bridges that cross the railway there, one for each direction. AFAIK, they are meant to be rated to take double-deckers (once upon a time the original bridge was not, which I think is historic reason why 63 route ends where it does). There are plenty of lorries, much heavier when loaded I imagine, that use that route too. So, if there is excessive vibration then this should be looked at. If not, then this strikes me as a perfect opportunity to gauge demand for an extended 63 bus route.

I think they look great. As for the electricity substation by the bus stop - that is a truly wonderful example of public art. I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer the plain brick eyesore to look at. Still, takes all sorts to make a world...

Actually, anthropomorphising a cat to the extent that you compare it to a human is, IMHO, misguided. This is what I was responding to and it does seem to be a UK-only phenomenon. I have had experience of keeping cats and I am also a parent. I teach my child about road safety but recognise that pets are unlikely to develop the same road sense as a human being and we should as pet owners take responsibility for that. I am genuinely sorry if anyone has lost a pet but really, a moment of rationality is required here - it is your choice whether you keep a cat as a house pet or not - if you don't feel that you can do that, it doesn't suddenly make that pet any different from another animal, sadly it may get run over.

Sorry to hear that you have lost your cat. Also, it is a shame if you feel that the driver was not sufficiently concerned - if true, then this does show a lack of empathy even if no law was broken. Having said all that, if you were not in control of your cat at the time then I'm sorry to say that it is still your responsibility. If you *really* do not want a cat to be run over, do not let it out of the house!

Agreed - I had encountered this too. An off licence should always be able to offer a box, at least, to those that want one. Even if you had the wit to carry a spare bag it may not be up to the job in this case.

Quite. Not only would it meet fierce resistance but sending a tube frequency service through Lewisham on surface routes that are already at capacity would also mean an unreliable tube service. So, reserving land in Southwark is an excellent idea. Getting the route right outside of Southwark is also essential.

Renata, Am in favour of any practicable extension, wherever it goes at this stage, but am curious to know where this route comes from. The 3 routes I linked to previously were from a TfL study IIRC. The route you describe sounds similar to a Lewisham Borough proposal "B4+B5 Beyond Peckham Towards Lewisham": http://www.londonreconnections.com/2010/bakerloo-extension-a-report-to-lewisham-council/ which states "Specification: - standard tube railway characteristics as far as Lewisham (surface alignment unlikely to be achievable)" So you have a surface alignment in mind - do you have a source?

Ok, thanks James. I was getting the impression that there was a new route proposed that went Camberwell, Peckham then overground to Bromley which was the thrust of the mayor's statement. If you are referring to the 3 routes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakerloo_line_extension_to_Camberwell only option 1 comes close to this but it doesn't go overground straight away south of Peckham. I understand the route specifics need to be determined but am wondering whether it is these 3 routes that are on the table or others?

michael_FH is right. If this scheme is just seen as a Southwark thing then it will die a death. Wherever the new Southern terminus is will need suffcient space to turn around and stable lots of trains, there will need to be plenty of links with existing public transport along the route and, I think crucially, will need to integrate with areas that need development in order to raise finance and help the business case along. Peckham and Camberwell certainly tick this box but so do Lewisham and Catford. Though tunneling under One Tree Hill would certainly be expensive, I don't think it should be discounted out of hand as I understand that once Tunnel Boring Machines are installed it is cost effective to keep them going. Also, there is a risk that using existing lines above ground will cause knock on adverse affects on other services - this would be a high frequency service after all.

As a generalisation, if you compare the same style house and square metreage, you will probably find that ED will be more expensive (but with a smaller garden). So, yes I think so but I suspect not for much longer.

I don't think this is quite a simple as the Independent article makes out. They are not alone in this. Industrial helium is mostly sourced from Natural Gas and is supplied in liquified form. Balloon gas is a recycled by-product from MRI machines and other sources. It has impurities and so is no longer suitable for industrial use. Check on this with your local supplier. I don't tend to buy He balloons but with a 5 year old around we do inevitably acquire them and so I do occasionally inhale it to amuse my daughter. This is perfectly safe to do from a balloon BTW but don't do this from a cylinder - the pressure can cause the bends in the same way as with nitrogen for a diver. There is an awful lot of bad science kicking around to do with Helium.

It is Honor Oak BTW. The shopping is not concentrated in one road, like Lordship Lane, but practically everything else is there if you know where to look with possible exception of a dedicated fishmonger. The new FH butcher is good but then so is Peter James who also sells some fish now. Budgens is an excellent supermarket, small but with a great range. There is also the Forest Hill Road supermarket which is also well stocked and has good veg and fruit, seemingly open all the time too. There is a deli in Hills & Parkes - good but I find a little pricey but if you are used to the East Dulwich deli then probably a few bargains to be had. Just a few tips, there are many more. It is a great area for kids. Lots of green spaces and of course the Horniman is not far away. Property prices are rising fast so differential with ED is diminishing.

I wouldn't dispute that more needs to be done, and that is why the Forest Hill society interventions and Portas Pilot is so welcome. However, I was responding to your point about the benefit of the ELL - it was not just transport. A tangible improvement in other areas too - it has reversed a decline in shops and new ones started to appear.

Bic Basher Wrote: > On the other hand, if you look at the southern > extension, there hasn't been any direct benefit to > Forest Hill (with the exception of East London > school parties to Horniman Museum) or Sydenham > with those areas receiving Portas Pilot funding to > attract businesses and customers to their retail > outlets. Are you kidding? The ELL has massively improved transport connections in these areas. Way before the Portas Pilot, it helped many new businesses to start. For a bellweather check, just count the coffee shops, before and after.

henryb, agreed re direct link. Re new bus service - sounds absolutely wonderful. However it would also be very expensive. Extending the 63 bus would require operating perhaps 4 or 5 extra buses IIRC, so if the demand can be demonstrated then the funding would be much easier to find.

dbboy, for the shops, the P4 goes to the wrong end of Lordship Lane.

Hello from HOP resident and occasional ED forum lurker. Have been following this thread with interest and especially after Katrusja's excellent posts, have decided to dip my toe in... Am a long-time advocate of extending the 63 bus route and can see the following benefits for HOP residents: 1. This would improve access to Peckham Rye park and East Dulwich. Though Cllr Hamvas's interim proposal has merit, am not sure it will fully gauge the demand as I think it will principally help only those less mobile. For instance, can get to East Dulwich by public transport but involves train to Forest Hill then bus - waiting for irregular P services is not going to get me to Moxon's and back in a lunch break. So, we end of driving to East Dulwich on a Saturday and, even with the struggle to find a parking space, this is quicker than any other way. 2. One Tree Hill splits historic Honor Oak in two to the detriment of both sides IMO. Having a connection over the hill would allow me to nip to the excellent Forest Hill Road supermarket more regularly for instance. Any more footfall generated for the HOP parade of shops can only be a good thing too. 3. There is undoubtedly a traffic congestion problem on Honor Oak Park itself. As others have pointed out, some more buses won't make this noticeably worse - more likely, this will encourage some to use the bus rather than car. Connecting train to bus is surely always a good idea. 4. There is a local parking problem. (Yes, I know we are not alone in this). There is a specific cause though which is park and ride use of HOP train station. The new Clapham Junction extension may have helped a little but a bus link would likely help a lot with this. Lewisham Council would like to bring in a CPZ 'solve' this but these commuters will still need to get to work and this will just shift the problem elsewhere. Also, congestion is made worse at the peak by some people waiting in the car to pickup from the station - sometimes by the zebra crossing which is a safety problem. To respond to some other points and other observations: * Forest Hill Road is indeed narrower up to Honor Oak Park but it strikes me that if the 63 turnaround area was no longer required then this could be mitigated somewhat by releasing extra road width for parking. * the drop off issues at Francesca Cabrini are valid but I wonder how many parents would use a bus instead if it was available. * I have heard that the reason the 63 never made it over the hill is historic. The original railway bridge at HOP was not rated sufficiently for the weight. Since the 'new' bridge doubled the crossing this has not been a consideration anymore. Certainly double deckers do go that way whenever there is a railway replacement service and do negotiate the turns. * The stretch going down Honor Oak Park probably shouldn't have parking on the One Tree Hill side now. This would inconvenience some locals but from a safety standpoint seems sensible to me. It also seems more likely that vistors to church or temple are more likely to be parked there. Perhaps they could be accomodated on the slip road up to the church? * I would expect some locals, on Honor Oak Park iself, to object to this on the basis of noise disturbance. * The issue of the turnaround at Brockley Rise is probably the main problem in this proposal. I'm sure there must be an inventive answer to this. Large scale map and toy cars anyone? * Me'mate'Dave is absolutely right about the turn left issue at the lights. There has been some discussion on this at se23.com and there was a proposal there to move some parking spaces to the other side of the road where there is a ghost bus stop. This would make sense as a proof of concept initiative - a traffic study would make sense here and if it worked it would have an immediate benefit for the wider area - car and bus routes. * there is an expansion in capacity planned on the Overground. My 2p with inflation. Hope you find it a useful alien contribution!