Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Medley Wrote:

> Technical reasons - may be the most pressing being

> not enough rich and connected people live in SE

> London?!


Yeah, I think this is probably closer to the truth. It amazes me that cross rail get's the go ahead, whilst SE london, which has crp transport can't even secure the much cheaper tram. Ealing really does need that forth tube station eh?

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I never get these threads. Forest Hill or East

> Dulwich to London Bridge isn't any slower than a

> tube would be surely.. apart from late night

> frequency but that's for most the exception, not

> the daily rule.


The train often takes longer than the 12 minutes claimed. My morning train takes closer to 20.


An extension of the Bakerloo line would connect directly with far more places in central London - London Bridge is fine as a starting point for your journey, but for most it's not the destination.


And the frequency is a big issue - Two trains an hour post 8 O'clock. Only four trains an hour, before 8 on Saturdays. And on Sunday, two trains an hour up to 10pm, in the rare event of their running at all!


This is hardly a 'turn up and go' service. The tube has it's faults, but at least when it's running properly, the service is frequent and it takes you were you want to go quickly.

Hear hear. And if a train is delayed or cancelled, you can be stuck for ages. I wouldn't expect or hope for a tube station in East Dulwich, but ANYWHERE between ED and the Elephant and Castle really would make life a lot easier - it is very strange and outdated that the Bakerloo line should terminate in zone 1!



rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The train often takes longer than the 12 minutes

> claimed. My morning train takes closer to 20.

>

> An extension of the Bakerloo line would connect

> directly with far more places in central London -

> London Bridge is fine as a starting point for your

> journey, but for most it's not the destination.

>

> And the frequency is a big issue - Two trains an

> hour post 8 O'clock. Only four trains an hour,

> before 8 on Saturdays. And on Sunday, two trains

> an hour up to 10pm, in the rare event of their

> running at all!

>

> This is hardly a 'turn up and go' service. The

> tube has it's faults, but at least when it's

> running properly, the service is frequent and it

> takes you were you want to go quickly.

The new Overground service is very good - fast, fairly frequent, extremely clean and quiet and - becauase all the carriages are interlinked - a safer feeling. The only thing against it is getting to Honor Oak park to get on it! I know there is a thread about the 63 and wishes for the route to be extended so it goes to HOP, but I am 'just saying' here that now we have a good, new service that is crying out to be used - to return the investment in it - it seems very daft that there is no bus service that will take you there from SE15/22.

Hi Nero,

Proposals to extend the no.63 to Honor Oak were suggested about two years ago ansd were part of the May election campaign. Throughout Transport for London siad insufficient users forecast. East London Line has seen twice as many users as they predicted - so QED you'd think they'd expect the no.63 bus extension NOW to actually have twice as many users as they originally suggested. But apparently that was different.


Hi Ivydale,

I'm afraid I don't. But if I come across anything I'll post it hear.

You can get the 185 or 176 to forest hill and catch the overground


Nero Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The new Overground service is very good - fast,

> fairly frequent, extremely clean and quiet and -

> becauase all the carriages are interlinked - a

> safer feeling. The only thing against it is

> getting to Honor Oak park to get on it! I know

> there is a thread about the 63 and wishes for the

> route to be extended so it goes to HOP, but I am

> 'just saying' here that now we have a good, new

> service that is crying out to be used - to return

> the investment in it - it seems very daft that

> there is no bus service that will take you there

> from SE15/22.

Totally agree.


'ooh look a shiny new thing - shame you can't get to it'.


Phase two of shiny new thing is launched through P Rye


'ooh look a shiny new thing - shame it goes nowhere'



I know integrated planning and execution is harder in any field than just slapping something down - esp. in transport, perhaps, but why oh why oh why can there not be more understanding that London'd transport is a system. I don't care what mode I use to get somewhere, I just want to get there as quickly, pleasantly and cheaply as possible.


I was very interested to read that there had been the chance to get Phase 2 of the Overground, through P Rye, to link up with the Vict line at Brixton. Now that would have been integration worth having.







mikese22 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You can get the 185 or 176 to forest hill and

> catch the overground

>

> Nero Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The new Overground service is very good - fast,

> > fairly frequent, extremely clean and quiet and

> -

> > becauase all the carriages are interlinked - a

> > safer feeling. The only thing against it is

> > getting to Honor Oak park to get on it! I know

> > there is a thread about the 63 and wishes for

> the

> > route to be extended so it goes to HOP, but I

> am

> > 'just saying' here that now we have a good, new

> > service that is crying out to be used - to

> return

> > the investment in it - it seems very daft that

> > there is no bus service that will take you

> there

> > from SE15/22.

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Nero,

> Proposals to extend the no.63 to Honor Oak were

> suggested about two years ago ansd were part of

> the May election campaign. Throughout Transport

> for London siad insufficient users forecast.


I think I posted this at the time, but I still think it was particularly sneaky of TFL to carry out the survey of the 63 and 363 buses on the Tuesday after a Bank Holiday and then to rely on the results to suggest these routes were not likely to carry sufficient extra users to need changing.

Hi Nero,

The newspaper story was the Peckham Rye ward councillor and Lambeth and Southwark GLA rep. 'launching' a campaign to extend the no.63 bus - an idea they rubbished when proposed by Lib Dem candidates two years ago.

So much for cross party unison for such an obviously great idea.


All bus routes are subsidised in London - total of ?900M pa last time I looked. So even a well used peak time extension would be tough to finance in the current national crisis.

I suspect this something for 4-5 years time when the crisis is over.

Just been reading about plans to extend the Northern Line from Kennington to Nine Elms and Battersea!?!? Yes, the Battersea with three existing train stations and excellent existing transport links. It does seem that the public transport strategy for London is to saturate west London with as much transport as possible (crossrail anyone?), whilst doing everything possible to ensure that southeast london continues to be completely whitewashed from the transport map.

The story in the Standard also says that the developers of Battersea Power Station are required to pay some ?200m to help with the extension, so it is not just a case of TfL/Ministry of Transport dishing out the cash.

On a more positive note, I have been using the Overground service from Honor Oak Park and have really valued it, even if I have to yomp (ask yer dad) from Goodrich School to the station.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> doesn't Dulwich have 3 existing train stations?



yes, dulwich does have 3 stations, but Walworth and Camberwell for example, have none. Southeast London as a whole only has 10 tube stations and 7 of which are in zone 1 (so central london really). I just think that any extension of the northern line from Kennington should come south east (to help fill a little of the gaping hole in the tube map).


Also, hwile it's true that developers of Battersea may contribute ?200m to any extension, the overall cost will be somewhere in the region of ?663m, so not an insignificant bill to the tax payer.


Crossrail which largely involves increasing the already exceptional tube provision in west london, is costing ?15.9 billion. Yet, always the reason why lines cannot be extended, even into inner SE London, is that it's too expensive.


Pesonally, any future expansion south of the river, should involve improving infrastructure in what is clearly the most poorly served quater of London.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...