bargee99

I posted a message this afternoon giving National Rail's information about train services tomorrow morning after the dreadful attack last night. For some reason it has been lounged. No idea why. If you need this info please look in the Lounge.

Admin, I posted a thread about the disruption to train services tomorrow morning caused by the dreadful attack at London bridge. I would have thought that it was important information for forum users. Why has it been lounged?

After last night's tragic events at London Bridge commuters should be aware of understandable problems which may occur tomorrow morning. Southern have posted the following on the National rail website "Southern Customer Advice: Southern expect further impact to services scheduled to run on Monday 5th June. Train services may have fewer coaches than usual and short notice alterations may take place as trains will not be in their normal positions in time to start their journey. Please use nearby stations such as London Blackfriars, London Victoria and London St Pancras to complete your journey. The following train alterations will apply to services that normally run to and from London Bridge: - London Bridge to East Croydon trains will start and terminate at South Bermondsey. - London Bridge to Beckenham trains will start and terminate at South Bermondsey. - London Bridge to Tonbridge trains will start and terminate at New Cross Gate. - London Bridge to Horsham trains will start and terminate at New Cross Gate. - London Bridge to Caterham trains will start and terminate at New Cross Gate. You may use your ticket on: Gatwick Express, Southeastern, London Overground, South West Trains, Thameslink, Great Western Railway, TFL Rail, London Underground (London Underground services are also unable to call at London Bridge) and London Buses via any reasonable route. Please be aware that some buses may be diverting away from their usual routes. Shuttle bus services are running between South Bermondsey, New Cross Gate, Surrey Quays and Canada Water. If you were unable to use your ticket on Saturday 3 June, you'll be able to use this today, Sunday 4 June or Monday 5 June or alternatively you can claim a refund via customer services. Thameslink Customer Advice: Thameslink are not operating a service from London Bridge today due to engineering work. Please be advised that due to the nature of this incident it is possible that London Bridge will remain closed into Monday 5th June. Therefore you are advised to check National Rail Enquiries before travelling. Trains in and out of London Victoria, Gatwick Express and Thameslink services are NOT affected by this incident. Please use nearby stations such as London St Pancras, London Blackfriars, London Victoria, London Charing Cross and London Waterloo East to complete your journey

I am logged in as the same user. I only have one account. It's no big deal, just strange.

Hi Admin, I was referring to this scenario this morning. I cleared all the new posts yesterday and today it is showing every thread and post ever made as new. Screenshot attached. Does this happen when a PC is rebooted do you happen to know or when any cookies are removed. Thanks for your hard work in keeping the forum going.

Hi Admin, I notice that the front page regularly shows thousands of posts as "new" when in fact only a few are. I hope this isn't a problem caused trying to accommodate my request to have a global reset of new posts. I find now that it is easier to reduce the size of the page so that you can see it all on the screen and then click all the reset buttons in turn. If trying to do it in normal size it resets to the top of the page so you can't see the bottom ones and you have to scroll down to every button which then resets it to the top of the page again. Once all new posts are cleared return to normal size.

Good luck James. I appreciate you trying but I don't hold out much hope. They will never listen to anyone who doesn't agree with their dogma. I do wish the Lib Dems could take control of the borough from this labour lot. The Conservatives never will.

Hi James, I would not try to cross a full speed hump at 20mph without fear of severe damage to my car and everything and everyone inside being thrown around. I don't agree that here they allow traffic to flow at 20mph without braking, clutching and speeding up and down. I don't have them on Landcroft Road where I have lived for over 50 years so don't suffer the noise impact that I fear they must cause to residents beside them. We are never going to agree about them. Drivers, residents and planners see things very differently.

That's why the recommendation is to have cushions or tables to restrict speed but allow that speed to be constant. Not so dramatic that the vehicle has to slow down below the speed limit to clear the hump and then speed up again between them. To think that drivers will stay at the 5-10 mph required to negotiate the hump and not speed up between them is, I think, naive on the part of the regulators.

This is a very interesting PhD study from an Imperial student. She focuses on the additional impact of brake and clutch dust and the shearing effect of tyres on roads and the subsequent dust caused. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/medicine/newssummary/news_17-10-2016-13-41-22

Hi James, I assume it came from the NICE draft document section 1.4.2 which says " Where physical measures are needed to reduce speed, such as humps and bumps, ensure they are designed to minimise sharp decelerations and consequent accelerations". https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-phg92/documents/draft-guideline This was originally interpreted by the papers to suggest removing them altogether but subsequently modified to say road cushions were preferable to full width speed humps and tables at junctions were best although recognising the substantial cost involved.

Hi James, It appears the full Nice document is out for consultation before publication in July. The BBC reported this in December. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38156778 It is also in the Guardian, Telegraph and the Mail so covers all political flavours. Strangely I can't find the original Imperial college report. I have copied a section from the Telegraph below. The original report was reported as recommending the removal of speed humps but in Dec '16 was reinterpreted as saying that they should be redesigned. "The researchers found that in one north London street with a speed limit of 20mph and fitted with road humps, a petrol driven car produced 64 per cent more Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) than in a similar 20mph street fitted with road cushions. It also produced 47 per cent more Particulate Matter (PM) and nearly 60 per cent more Carbon Monoxide (CO2) emissions. The contrast was even more pronounced when it came to a car using diesel. This produced 98 per cent more NO2 when driven over humps rather than cushions, along with 64 per cent more CO2 and 47 per cent more PM. The report concluded: ?This can be attributed to the difference in speed calming method. Whilst both employ vertical deflection, in the case of Liverpool Road it is predominantly speed cushions, whilst on Furlong Road it is speed humps. Speed humps are higher and usually span the width of the carriageway, therefore requiring additional deceleration.? There was also a noticeable difference in the amount of emissions produced by a vehicle on a 20mph road without any raised traffic calming measures compared to one fitted with road humps. In Exhibition Road, south Kensington, which has a ?single surface? for both vehicles and pedestrians, a car produced 0.5402 g/km of NO2; 0.0159 g/km of PM and 161.64 g/km of CO2. That compared to far higher readings of 0.9911 g/km of NO2; 0.0222 g/km of PM and 245.45 g/km of CO2 produced by the car going over the humps in Islington?s Furlong Road. Professor Lewis, who is also a director of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, said: ?If you are scrutinizing whether road humps are really needed then places where children spend most of the day are a good place to start, because you carry the harm caused to your development by pollutants with you for the rest of your life.? Describing the impact of a road hump on emissions, he said: ?On the acceleration cycle you get combustion pollutants. On the braking part of the cycle you get non-exhaust emissions caused by friction on brake pads and tyres which throws out fine particles into the air ? this happens even if you drive an electric car.? Roger Lawson, of the Alliance of British Drivers, backed calls to remove road humps from outside schools , as well as elsewhere, saying they damaged health while having a negligible impact on safety. He said: ?Road humps provide no real safety benefit and they have a negative impact on pollution. There are lots of alternative traffic calming measures which can be used more effectively near schools, such as road narrowing and speed display devices. Most road accidents with children do not take place outside their schools, but councils like to indulge in gestures such as fitting humps.?

Shouldn't we put a freeze on putting in road humps in light of the study that they greatly increase pollution from vehicles. It may soon be government policy to instruct all boroughs to remove them and we will look silly having put them in after the report was made public.

Thanks for your reply James. Sorry to hear about you being injured after being knocked off your bike at a mini roundabout. It seemed a good idea to me but people obviously aren't taking proper notice of them if they are that more dangerous. I must admit to seeing deplorable behaviour at full size roundabouts. I do come to almost a full stop to get through the width restrictions on Hunts Slip Road by the college but people will still need delivery vans and removal lorries so that can't really work on residential streets.

How about a mini roundabout at the Chesterfield Rd/ Melbourne Grove junction. It could act as a pedestrian refuge if designed to be so, stop large lorries turning and make traffic stop thus slowing it down as seems to be desired. And it's cheap or it could be if the powers wanted it.

"Can you imagine the chaos if the council prioritised based on councillors making the most fuss. 63 councillors trying to out shout each other for attention. The opposite of good governance - it would also make the council extraordinarily partisan." I think you have summed up the situation most of us feel is the case admirably James. Thank You

I don't think Robin was for a moment suggesting that anyone had done her any favours. Surely her experience had taught her that those that complain the loudest get things done just as a few of the residents of Melbourne Grove have demonstrated over the last year or so.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rch, > > Thanks as ever for your considered response. I > think you seem to have a real handle on the > issues. If there are real dangers to pedestrains > then certainly worth looking at but, and I think > you are in agreement on this, the pavements are in > an appalling state round here and repeated calls > for a remedy seem to fall on deaf ears while > councillors throw money at bike hangars and > needless yellow lines. Bad pavements are a trip > hazard and also a big problem for residents. > It is such an obvious thing to sort out, it > benefits everyone not just a few so why do the > local reps seem so slow out of the blocks? I couldn't agree more.

I think rendelharris strikes about the right balance for the bike parking issue. I do wonder why the council has to pay for motor bike anchors in private front gardens rather than offer the installation at a charge. I realise that a large percentage of the flats are rented and the gardens are not owned by the occupiers but doesn't that complicate matters from a council perspective? I did try to think of a way to provide public secure parking for motor bikes within the proposed yellow lines to be available to all but doubt whether it will happen. I suppose it's down to how much council money an individual thinks should be spent on providing private rather than public facilities. I doubt whether we will all agree to the right balance for that one.

Since this is the East Dulwich Forum where most of the properties are terraced houses and not flats then I don't consider your argument to be valid in a local discussion. I also believe most council flats have storage facilities for bikes anyway and don't need a ?5k bike shed. Spending the whole yearly rates of 3 hard working families to accommodate 6 bikes is in my opinion wasteful. That's only my privileged opinion of course. I'll just go and see if a car would fit through the front window.

Sorry James, I don't really think it matters what makes up the ?5k be it council officers time on top of the original cost or something else. It is still upsetting to me to spend ?850 per bike for a road storage facility when in most cases they can be taken indoors. I think there are much more urgent ways to spend our money in hard pressed times. I know we will never agree because if someone is ardent about biking they think whatever it costs of our money is OK. If they aren't avid bikers they will think it a waste of our money. Such is life.

Exactly my point Nigello. Thank You.

Hi rch, Sounds like something "Wolfie" Smith would have been proud of. Power to the people! What do we do when every request for funds such as yours is being refused to provide for one minority of the populous with a loud, a very LOUD, voice. ?1700 is more than the average council tax for an entire Southwark household yet it is all being used to pay to save 2 bike owners (1/3 of a bike shelter) the bother of wheeling their bikes indoors. If the hall is crowded because of shared ownership wheel it out back to the garden.

Are those bike hangers really ?5000 each. That's more than the total value of the bikes in them! They can store 6 bikes each so that is ?830 per bike!!!! Unless of course you are putting high value racing bikes in them which would be stupid. Out of the total East Dulwich funds of approx ?50k we have ?15k spent on 3 bike stores (18 bikes) and another ?10k spent on cycling generally. That's half the total budget spent on cycling. Does anyone else ever get funds nowadays or are cyclists the only successful lobbying group.

7.4 billion not 4.7 according to all sources. Some interesting things might happen if we could simply swap things around to our hearts content.