Cardelia

micromacromonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The diesel thing is annoying; successive > governments of whatever colour have been using tax > breaks to push us more towards diesel, then are > now telling us all with collective billions > invested in diesel cars that if we don't sell up > soon then our investment will drop massively in > value. It can't help but affect diesel resale > prices, and what is worse since most new cars are > bought on PCP (i.e. credit) then you could end up > owing money to hand back your diesel car after 4 > years. That is a domesday scenario for the > government as thousands of people defaulting on > their car loans is going to see us heading towards > credit crunch part II. I assume they must factor > in these these sort of macroeconomic externalities > before they announce schemes like this, > interesting to see if central government has a > view. If you buy a car on PCP then at the end of the contract you either hand the car back and walk away, or finance the balloon payment to own it outright. The only way you can owe the lender any money is if you exceed the stipulated mileage, or if you've damaged the car and it needs repairs. Resale values don't come into it, and they won't affect the size of the balloon payment either because those are determined at the very start of the PCP process.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the contrary, I think their comment was overly > harsh, especially about a place that is of such a > consistently high standard. I can see why you might think it was a harsh comment based on the one (well, two) overcooked pieces of pork I mentioned. Especially if you have different experiences of the place. But we went to the Camberwell Arms knowing full well that it had a really good reputation for food. Perhaps our expectations were a bit high for a gastropub, but there were lots of minor faults with our meal that I wouldn't have expected from a place which prides itself on its foodie reputation. For example: A starter of cured salmon with pickled red cabbage was very underseasoned. The dish was also unbalanced because the pickled cabbage was far too acidic for fish and the salmon flavour was lost. My twice-burnt pork chop came with polenta which was also underseasoned. And lumpy. My wife had brisket of beef which was another unbalanced dish; the pickles on the side of this were far too delicate for the strong beef. At the time we said that if the pickles had been swapped between the salmon starter and beef main, both dishes would have been immeasurably better. Dessert of salted caramel ice cream was just a caramel ice cream with not even a hint of salt. To be fair I think they bought in the ice cream so this may not have been the kitchen's fault, but the dish still wasn't right. As I said, perhaps we were unlucky and the kitchen had an off day. Based on your experiences it sounds like they're usually much better than we found them to be. But they're clearly not of a *consistently* high standard (as a glance at Tripadvisor will show), and they're not in the same league for quality as some of the restaurants mentioned above.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Completely disagree. The food at The Camberwell > Arms is great. If you think they don't know how > to cook, you probably shouldn't eat out. On the day I visited, they didn't know how to cook. Perhaps I was unlucky and the kitchen was having an off day, or there were a load of trainee chefs, or whatever. But my pork was overcooked to the point where it resembled a lump of charcoal attached to a piece of old leather. Twice. Does that sound right to you?

I don't know whether that level of detail in performance statistics is released into the public domain. ED station may have its own performance metrics rather than the ones for Southern as a whole: I've not seen them displayed anywhere, but that's probably a good place to start looking. The warren of lines through South London can be a good thing for some services because if one part of the network goes down then there are always alternative routes for trains. Generally though this tends to benefit long-distance trains over the urban commuter services - for example, there must be at least 4 ways for Thameslink trains to get from Brighton to the core. And Balham is a good example for the reasons you mentioned.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let me rephrase: the fact remains that these > incidents seem way more frequent on our lines than > on other lines run by the same Southern Fail. Is > this impression wholly wrong and unfounded, or is > there a logical explanation as to why that is? Are > the tracks and the equipment on our lines older? > Are our lines used by less healthy and less > well-behaved people, who are therefore constantly > falling ill on the trains, trespassing on the > tracks etc, way more than passengers on other > lines? Don't forget that the tracks and signals are the responsibility of Network Rail, not Southern. If points are breaking then that's Network Rail's fault. We're also in a particularly vulnerable position because only one line runs through ED and there are many pinch points in South London which affect our services (Tulse Hill, Selhurst, East Croydon, Beckenham). If any of those fail then our line gets taken out of service and all our trains are screwed. So yes, we are disproportionately affected by infrastructure failures and delays. > Yesterday there was a fire at Waterloo which > caused a lot of disruptions. However, as far as I > remember, and based on what friends and relatives > commuting into Waterloo tell me, this kind of > incident is, luckily, very rare, so yesterday's > delays are not particularly representative. > Today's delays on our lines are, instead, way more > frequent and more representative. Just a case of > bad luck? Waterloo has 8 lines running in to it. If one goes down, or one set of points fails, then there's enough slack in the system to manage services without too much disruption. From ED, we have two lines (one up, one down) to London Bridge. That gives us much less flexibility, and makes our services much more prone to delays.

Clifton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems that what we need is not lots of digging > on a Bakerloo line extension (though I'm happy for > that to happen as well), but the much simpler and > cheaper approach of Tube-ising more lines. For > example, if the Sevenoaks via Otford line were > diverted at Bromley to run fast into Victoria (no > doubt delighting users from Kent), we could > Tube-ise the Catford Loop line and transform the > quality of service on the London section. > > I realise I'm oversimplifying enormously by > leaving out lots of practical problems, but > doesn't this approach have promise? The reason it worked so well in north London was the existing segregation between urban tracks and long distance tracks meant that the metro-style services could be brought under TFL control with relatively little disruption and cost. Options for doing that south of the river are limited because there are too many junctions and crossing points which serve both long-distance and urban trains. Lewisham and Tulse Hill spring immediately to mind, but there are others. These would need to be rebuilt with flyovers to segregate the long-distance services from the stopping services, thereby enabling more frequent urban trains to run. The cost of this would likely run into the ?billions, at which point digging new tube lines (or extending existing ones) starts to become economically viable.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It looks crazy / dangerous. > But this is because ED trains were cancelled, > right ? > I'm not sure that any individual station is > designed with an in-built capacity for handling > overspill from nearby stations which have > problems. > I know DH can be a swine even on a normal day, but > aren't these crowds particular to today's problem > at ED ? Yes and no. The huge queue outside the station stretching back beyond Windsor Walk is not normal, even on very busy days, and this was almost certainly influenced by events at ED station. But if one of the entrance barriers at Denmark Hill stops working then I've seen crowds build up outside the station to the extent they spill out onto the road by the crossing. This happens around once a month on average. The queues inside the station, however, are typical of the morning rush at Denmark Hill. Queuing on both bridges and down the stairs to the platform is normal. The station simply doesn't have the infrastructure to cope with the number of people who use it every day.

I second Trinity, especially if someone else is paying! The Camberwell Arms is hugely overrated in my experience. When I went there they had a huge issue with seasoning (virtually no salt on anything) and they seemed unable to cook a pork chop correctly. They then had the gall to claim that it was meant to be black, dry and tough! After sending it back the second chop was only marginally more acceptable, but they took so long to cook it that hunger won out over the desire to have a properly cooked meal. I hope my experience is atypical, but I have no intention of going back to find out.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The number 12 from corner of Goodrich gets to PR > in about 10 - 12 mins even in rush hour and PR has > Victoria and Blackfriars trains on the same > platform, both of which can work for my commute. > So I take whichever comes first. between the two > options I rarely have to wait more than 5 mins. > They are packed, but at least i'm safely on before > the train then gets to the scrum at Denmark Hill. The one caveat is that if you have to get to Victoria, then Denmark Hill is better because it has more trains calling there. The Sheerness/Rochester services don't stop at Peckham Rye whereas they do stop at Denmark Hill.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It sounds like you are very unlucky DL. He's unlucky in the sense that the delays have such a negative affect on his personal and professional life. He's not unlucky in the sense that his experiences with Southern/SouthEastern are atypical. I have similar issues every morning trying to get to Victoria. Since the 'leaf fall' timetable was introduced, it has simply been a lottery which trains will turn up, and when. A 9 am meeting for me now means getting to Denmark Hill at 8 am to guarantee being in work on time. For a sub-10 minute journey, that's ridiculous.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No it isn't. An estimated nine million people die > worldwide each year from pollution related > illness. Approximately 50,000 die in the UK each > year, of whom approximately 10,000 are in London. > These aren't figures from some environmental > lobby, by the way, but from The Lancet. > > "Diesel cars collectively emit 5.3% of all NOx > within Greater London and 2.4% in Central London." > Try 11%: > > https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Driv > ing%20Away%20from%20Diesel%20final%20report.pdf > (Page 10) Ok, if your figure is from the Lancet, why not reference the Lancet article which shows this? Because, from your own link (page 7, section 1.3): "In 2010, over 3,000 extra deaths were attributed to man-made toxic particles in the air across London ? seven per cent of all adult deaths." Are you telling me that in a mere 7 years, 7,000 extra people are dying in London due to air pollution? And that 40,000 additional people across the UK are dying from air pollution even though London is the most polluted and most populous city in the UK? I'll come back to the other point tomorrow, but there's an IPPL report which we've discussed before on this board which is where I took my figures from. When I get a chance to find it I'll link to it.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some facts. Not sure I'd class these as facts: > Around 40,000 people die each year > due to poor air quality. *Estimated* to have died because of poor air quality. Unless you know for sure what every single one of those 40,000 people died from, you can't claim that number is a fact. Besides, that's 40,000 people worldwide. Most of these people will die in heavily polluted countries like China and India, where emissions controls from industry outweigh those from transport. I don't want to sound harsh, but that figure is pretty meaningless when it comes to debating air quality within London. > The main source of the > toxic pollution is diesel vehicles. Cars > disproportionately so. No. Diesel cars collectively emit 5.3% of all NOx within Greater London and 2.4% in Central London. For PM10 the numbers are 0.48% and 1.08% respectively. Buses, vans, HGVs and taxis are all worse.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And Meadow are withholding full information about > bar profits, which is a huge moneyspinner ? never > mind taking into account the monies that could be > earned from a properly-run gym, venue hire, > astroturf pitch etc etc. I'm sure the bar does very well, but is it profitable to the tune of tens of thousands per year which is what DHFC need? I struggle to believe it's *that* profitable. Exeter's income from "associated businesses" (including their bars but also other companies) was ?156k. They average almost three times the number of fans that DHFC do, so unless DHFC fans drink three times as much as ECFC fans I think you're overestimating the ability of the bar to provide sufficient revenue. Perhaps if all those revenue streams were up and running at full capacity then it would be a different story. But even then they would bring associated costs which DHFC don't currently incur. For example, do you know how much it costs to install and maintain a 4G pitch? They're not cheap, at all, and they wear out after 10 years(ish) which means a replacement at the same price of a new installation.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, the wage bill is a huge part of the > outgoings of any football club. But no-one else in > the Isthmian Prem is pulling in an average gate of > 1,400. Meadow are in the business of ramping up > club-related costs ? look how they unceremoniously > got rid of all the volunteer stewards at the first > home game of last season and replaced them with > security company goons. And ask them how much they > spend on cleaning... Technically Billericay are only a hundred or so below DHFC's average, although for obvious reasons they don't really count for this sort of discussion. But for many clubs, ground-related expenditure is just as much of a burden as the wage bill. DHFC haven't had to directly bear this cost for several years because they don't own Champion Hill. It's likely that Meadow absorbed this cost (or a good chunk of it) as part of their business plan to get the bigger redevelopment past Southwark Council. Lets face it, on an ?80 million development, ground maintenance of ?150k per annum (see below) won't even be a line on the balance sheet. But now the council have said no to the development, maybe Meadow are not willing to subsidise ground maintenance any more and are passing on more of the true costs of running a football club to DHFC? http://ecfcst.org.uk/yourclub/club-finances/ To give everyone an idea, this is a broad overview of Exeter City's annual income/outgoings from 2012/13. That year they were in League 2 and averaged 4142 from 23 matches with adult admission prices of ?17 (terrace) and ?21/?24 (standing). From that, they got ?865k of net income from tickets. If you scale down to DHFC's current average attendance (about 1/3rd of ECFC) and current ticket prices (about 2/3rds of ECFC's terrace price), that gives you an anticipated net ticket income of ?200k for DHFC. Roughly. Stuff like advertising and Trust contributions can also be estimated by scaling down ECFC's numbers to provide a rough income for DHFC. Some of the outgoings can also be scaled down, like travel costs and league fees. The first problem comes with ECFC's ?659k of football league income (TV rights, effectively) which DHFC doesn't have. That was 30% of ECFC's total income and massively boosted their spending ability. Without that TV money, their wage bill would have been much, much smaller. The second problem is that ground maintenance costs don't scale down so well. The capacity of St James' Park is about three times as big as Champion Hill, but that doesn't mean their ground maintenance costs were three times as big as DHFC's costs. For example, the pitches are roughly the same size so they need roughly the same amount of maintenance. I know ECFC had League 2 ground regulations to comply with, but that year they spent ?170k on the pitch and general maintenance with a further ?250k on fixed stadium costs. If you use a crude 1/3rd scaling factor then that gives ?140k of estimated ground maintenance costs for DHFC, but as I said above this scale factor isn't so accurate so the true figure is likely to be higher. Now, if we take ?5k per week as DHFC's wage bill, that equates to ?200k over a 40 week season. At this point it should be obvious that if wages = gate income for DHFC, that doesn't leave enough other income to cover all the other outgoings associated with running a football club. Hence DHFC is in trouble unless someone is willing to put their hand in their pocket to bridge the gap. Meadow claim they have been doing this to the tune of ?170k per annum. I think that figure is too high, but equally I have no doubt they have been putting substantial sums into DHFC in order to balance the books.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn't believe a word Meadow say. In this > article in the Independent from just a few weeks > ago, the figure was ?5K a week. Who knows if they > have been nice to DHFC, given that they won't > reveal any of the finances to the club, the > supporters trust or anyone else? Their 'niceness' > as I see it consisted in betting on a ?5.7million > freehold with the hope that they could swing an > ?80million development. They've lost the bet and > are now taking it out on the club. > http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/footba > ll-league/dulwich-hamlet-future-southwark-council- > developers-champion-hill-green-dale-meadow-partner > s-gavin-a7994291.html ?5k per week is still a huge amount of money for Step 3 football: it would be a pretty decent budget for the level above, let alone where DHFC are actually at now. Whether you believe Meadow or other club sources, there's no doubt that the wage bill is responsible for a huge portion of the outgoings of DHFC.

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm still left wondering about the not viable > issue. Can someone explain it to me please as from > where I sit the club looks pretty successful in > terms of income.. so where does the money go? > > Apologies if I've missed an explanation elsewhere. The explanation is ?8k per WEEK on players' wages! There are clubs in the National League that operate on smaller budgets than that! For the level of football DHFC are playing at, that's some serious bankrolling. I mean, apart from Billericay and Hereford, how many other clubs at Step 3 can even get close to that level of playing budget? I know Meadow are coming across as the bad guys in this situation, but if they've funded an ?8k per week playing budget for the past few seasons then as an investor they've actually been pretty nice to DHFC.

It's hard to claim he was "robbed" when he actually did go clean off the track to overtake Raikkonen! Having said that I have great sympathy for him being the only one to get punished when all 20 drivers were repeatedly abusing the track limits. Either punish all of them or none of them. And I'm sure it's pure coincidence that the one instance which was penalised happened to benefit Ferrari the most...

We left Virgin Media about 4 months ago and switched to Sky because we were fed up of the constant day-long outages. Sky's fibre service is perfectly fine for streaming even though it does drop out occasionally, but it's nothing compared to the regular loss of service that we suffered with Virgin. It's a shame because I like VM's product (when it works!), but their customer service is abysmal. The people in the overseas call centre are utterly hopeless and VM's policy towards compensation for loss of service is a complete joke. Neil: you need to speak to one of the "disconnections team" in Newcastle. They are a lot more knowledgeable regarding VM's systems than the people overseas and they have a lot more freedom when it comes to compensation for loss of service. We managed to get ?45 to reimburse the money we spent on mobile data add-ons when VM's service went down for two weeks. Note this is not company policy but we were persistent and eventually they caved, so it is possible to get your money back.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if there was a 45 minute wait for paramedics for a > suspected heart attack that's appalling so close > to Kings - but that's also not the GP's bad. . There is no ambulance dispatch centre at King's, it's drop-off only. The nearest one is probably Forest Hill (or Brixton) but if they were very busy then an ambulance would have to be called from further away and could easily get stuck in heavy rush hour traffic. 45 minutes does seem like a long time to wait though.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dbboy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I suspect what they actually pocket themselves > is > > way above the figures quoted by the beeb. Bet > lots > > of those on top pay will be keeping a very low > > profile. > > Are you suggesting they are paid more by the BBC > than quoted, or earn more from other sources?... A bit of both. For example, Graham Norton's BBC salary doesn't include the money he's paid to host The Graham Norton Show because that's produced by an external company. The likes of Matt LeBlanc and David Attenborough are not on the list at all because they're not directly paid by the BBC, even though Top Gear and the Attenborough documentaries are produced by BBC Worldwide.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I found works best for me when (luckily not > too often) I have to travel by public transport > towards Victoria, Mayfair, Marylebone is a > Southeastern train from Denmark Hill to Victoria, > and then a bus. I am lucky enough that I can walk > to DH in 10-12 minutes; if I lived, say, near the > cinema or the butcher on Lordhsip Lane it would > take much longer, because most buses to DH are so > packed they don't even stop. I live very close to the cinema and I work in South Ken hence I take the Victoria trains from Denmark Hill every day. It is possible to walk to Denmark Hill in 20 minutes but most mornings I just hop on the first bus which comes along. The 40 is always empty and there is almost always room on the 176/185, albeit sometimes you have to stand. I know they fill up quickly and often skip stops from Goose Green onwards but I rarely see them skipping the cinema.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So there's no truth in anything the unions say, > it's all just a big scam got up to protect their > power? Not an iota of justification in any > argument they put forward? Moving into tinfoil > hat territory. Where's your quote from, by the > way, if you're going to put it out there as a > truism let's at least see the source. ETA oh I > see, quoting another poster. Which doesn't really > demolish the alternative argument. DOO has been in place in the UK for several decades. There are a few places where trains with DOO and trains with conductor-operated doors have run on the same piece of track between the same stations. There is no evidence to suggest that DOO is in any way less safe than the use of guards/conductors. The Office of Rail and Road is an independent authority responsible for overseeing safety on the UK's railways. They say DOO is safe: http://www.orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/press-releases/2016/orrs-statement-on-driver-only-operation The Rail Safety and Standards Board is another independent authority responsible for rail safety. They say DOO is safe: https://www.rssb.co.uk/hot-topics/driver-controlled-operation The RMT's response is to accuse both organisations of whitewashing their report and making a mockery of their claim to be independent: https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-office-of-road-and-rail-report-into-southern-rail/ What was that about tinfoil hat territory?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the unions wanting better pay and conditions > makes them first world problem J.Arthurs...your > refusal even to listen to the suggestion of any > other form of transport beyond a direct fast > train, that's not a first world problem at all, I > take it? This isn't about pay and conditions. It's about the RMT (and ASLEF to an extent) wanting to consolidate their powerbase by retaining guards as key members of train crew. Currently the situation is 'no guard, no train' but when DOO comes in the only crucial member of train staff is the driver. Currently if guards go on strike the unions can bring services to a halt, whereas with DOO they have to get the drivers to go on strike in order to create the same level of disruption. The unions don't want to lose this influence hence their opposition to DOO. Anything from the unions regarding safety, pay etc. is a smokescreen, the real issue is power and influence.

The Times supposedly made a loss this year due to restructuring costs but my understanding is that it is usually in profit. Similarly the Telegraph and Express are just about holding their heads above water and making small profits despite a declining circulation. The Mail, too, is profitable so it's not really true to say that right-wing media billionaires are prepared to take a loss on their papers: right wing papers (with the exception of the Sun) typically make money for their owners. Left-wing papers, on the other hand, are making losses. Trinity Mirror Group is doing well but the actual Mirror gets subsidized by the rest of the business. The Indy had to go online-only because its circulation wouldn't support a printed paper anymore (yes, I would stick the Indy and i in the 'vaguely left leaning' camp) and the Guardian makes massive, massive losses each year. So it's not too difficult to see why there isn't more choice for left-wing people: they simply don't buy enough newspapers to make it worthwhile printing them!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Corbyn has agreed to renew Trident as that's what > the Labour party conference voted for. Nothing to > do with betraying his principles, it's accepting > the democratic decision of his party. Similarly, > with Brexit, whatever his principles, he's agreed > to abide by the democratic choice of the people. > Nice try, but you can't equate accepting a > democratic vote, whether in the party or the > country, with the sordid grubbing around and > cosying up to a bunch of rightwing homophobic > creationist terrorist-supporting whackadoodles to > try to stay in power by any possible means in > which Mrs.May is currently engaging. Corbyn is vehemently against nuclear weapons and wants to scrap Trident. Yet he campaigned on a platform of keeping Trident. Whatever the reasons behind this decision, that equates to betraying his principles in order to stand a chance of getting into power. If he really felt that strongly about Trident then he should have resigned rather than campaign to keep it. Or at the very least leave it out of the manifesto. But he didn't. To him, the chance of getting into power was more important than being staying true to his principles on Trident. By the way I don't blame him for doing this. It's not meant to be derogatory towards Corbyn at all, it's just that I don't think he should be held up as a paragon of virtue and principle when in reality he is no better than any other politician who has to accept that compromise is a necessary part of politics.