Denmark Hill to London Bridge Closure

[Frisco]

"I agree about Camberwell but can you source where Jenny has said she lives in East Dulwich?"

That's not quite what I said, I said 'she seems'. I'm reasonably sure that I recently read in one of her columns in a freebie magazine that comes through the letterbox columns that she preferred to be associated with ED rather than Camberwell, which has not 'arrived' in quite the sense that ED (apparently) has. That's my recollection.

[Maurice]

No one addressed my original point that was confirmed by the bloke from Network Rail. Denmark Hill seems to have a poor case in the 'competition' to secure the very limited spaces on offer at London Bridge. I don't think the emotive arguments to date can overcome that obstacle. Especially Alan's true argument, which is simply 'I don't use Denmark Hill myself but limited service will impact on my house price'. Then again, it may be a winning argument for the Syringe palava...

[Administrator]

I suggest that this thread is kept on topic

Regards

[Quaywe]

The biggest factor for me is losing a link to the west end. Even more importantly it's a major station for accessing the hospital used by many in South London. What's the point in putting in wheelchair access if the strategy is to have the station used by less people by removing services!?

Don't forget to sign: Online petition - Keep the South London Line link at Denmark Hill

[downsouth]

I for one am glad TJMP has taken this up and on her website references the EDF petition as well. This is an important link for Zone 2 south London and should not be closed.

[mikese22]

Frisco Wrote:

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

> However, stopping the trains from London Bridge to

> Victoria (via Denmark Hill) would be stupid, and

> it probably illustrates National Rail's inability

> to be a constructive part of integrated transport

> systems.

err - doesn't holding a full public consultation, which outlines various options and the reasons for or against each count as 'constructive'? or at least as 'constructive' as comments like "stopping the trains from London Bridge to

> Victoria (via Denmark Hill) would be stupid"

[Muttley]

This little train is one of the most important links in my journeys to and from the centre, I'll be signing the petition. Until about ten years ago, incidentally, this was also surely the cheapest train journey into central London. For years when singles from East Dulwich cost ?1.80 or so, you could travel single from Denmark Hill to Victoria for just ?1. Sadly they spotted that loophole and the prices rocketed.

[Quaywe]

164 Signatures and counting!

Online petition - Keep the South London Line link at Denmark Hill

[Quaywe]

209 and counting!

Online petition - Keep the South London Line link at Denmark Hill

[Frisco]

"err - doesn't holding a full public consultation, which outlines various options and the reasons for or against each count as 'constructive'? or at least as 'constructive' as comments like "stopping the trains from London Bridge to Victoria (via Denmark Hill) would be stupid""

Just accept it as as a very brief summary of my contribution to the public consultation. Yes, it would be very stupid indeed to remove a very convenient semi-circular rail transport route, and it's quite constructive to say so, however succinctly. Also, my experience of public consultations is that they are often wheeled out to confirm decisions that have been all but formally taken.

My view is that National Rail should be working to promote integrated public transport, rather than engaging in consultations on a proposal to withdraw what could be considered to be a key local service, hence the other part of my sentence (not quoted) which was that "it probably illustrates National Rail's inability to be a constructive part of integrated transport systems". Hopefully, the Mayor will take responsibility for this line, as is the case with the North London Line, and other local rail services, soon and it will become part of a fully integrated London-wide transport. system.

Anyway, thanks for your constructive observation, and I enjoyed reading your other contributions on the issue.

[mikese22]

No worries!

A few more points - it's Network Rail not National Rail (which is a wholly different body); they are undertaking the consultation because they have a statutory obligation to do so, to ensure that the limited supply of taxpayers money is spent on those parts of the network where it can really do benefit rather than simply to maintain services because they have always been there.

As a regular user of the Victoria - London Bridge service in rush hour, even with just two carriages it is clear that on most days there are seats available suggesting that it is not the most heavily used service. By comparison the Dartford service, which also stops at Denmark Hill, is invariably packed to bursting despite having 8 carriages (or more) suggesting that this service is of more use to the wider community - hence the reason that there is no plan to curtail this service in the consultation.

Perhaps a more in depth reading of the document would be beneficial.....?

[Quaywe]

332 Signatures!

Online petition - Keep the South London Line link at Denmark Hill

[JesusCappuccino]

.

[Frisco]

"A few more points - it's Network Rail not National Rail (which is a wholly different body); they are undertaking the consultation because they have a statutory obligation to do so, to ensure that the limited supply of taxpayers money is spent on those parts of the network where it can really do benefit rather than simply to maintain services because they have always been there."

A few more responses: The name matters not; it was the principle involved and flamboyant correction is usually the territory of nerds who prefer love detail and pointing out irrelevant errors.

"As a regular user of the Victoria - London Bridge service in rush hour, even with just two carriages it is clear that on most days there are seats available suggesting that it is not the most heavily used service. By comparison the Dartford service, which also stops at Denmark Hill, is invariably packed to bursting despite having 8 carriages (or more) suggesting that this service is of more use to the wider community - hence the reason that there is no plan to curtail this service in the consultation."

As I said, I see no reason at all for there to be a consultation exercise on the closure of the route when in a matter of a couple of years it will pass to the control of the Mayor. Also, rather than planning route closures they ought to be closely working with TfL and the Mayor to ensure that the route can play its part in a fully integrated transport system. The fact that Network Rail doesn't seem to recognise that, in my view, illustrates its inability to be a constructive part of integrated transport systems. I hope the public consultation manages to convince them otherwise.

Perhaps you could now think about constructively responding to JesusCappuccino's informed posting, which seems to indicate a far better understanding of the workings of the route than yours.

[Maurice]

I'm all for pointing out the incompetence of Gov't and similar.

But Frisco, can you just clarify, you believe Network Rail is doing this just because it is bored and wants to deal misery? Honestly. You believe there is absolutely no rational thought devoted to this?

I don't disagree but it just seems a bit farfetched.

[Frisco]

"But Frisco, can you just clarify, you believe Network Rail is doing this just because it is bored and wants to deal misery? Honestly. You believe there is absolutely no rational thought devoted to this?

I don't disagree but it just seems a bit farfetched."

No Maurice, don't be ridiculous. I haven't said that at all, and I don't know how you've possibly arrived at that silly conclusion from what I've written. My view is that it's probably taking a silo view of the issue (not unknown), and is proposing something regarding a route that will, hopefully, be very soon be out of its sphere of control.

[Maurice]

My experience in such matters has taught me often our micro view of something pails a bit when seen in the macro. It doesn't lessen the impact on our daily experience, but seen as a whole, there is solid reasoning for proposing such changes. Consultation is about ensuring the macro view isn't missing something important seen by those of us on the ground, as it were.

I hope the service is retained - even expanded. But as much as we can blame Network Rail for not seeing our view, they can probably make a very solid argument (without using words like 'stupid') that the greater good will be served.

[Maurice]

A note to our Alan Dale to show I am on side.

I fear too many emotional arguments are being made and this has to be fought rationally.

I think the hospital is a huge weapon. The other could be our well funded friends at St George. Will they sit idly by and watch a major draw for City/Canary Wharf buyers of their Mary Datchelor site be withdrawn?

Get them on board.

[reasterbrook]

i was handing out some leaflets last night to people using the south london loop, and exiting at peckham rye,

most seemed unaware of these proposals. Being realistic, the review is unlikely to increase the number of services connecting the local stations with central london.

A key point is, if the number of services are reduced either at peak or off peak times, this is bound to increase the amount of people using buses or cars, given their perception-outlook on a less frequent and less convenient rail service

[Frisco]

"My experience in such matters has taught me often our micro view of something pails a bit when seen in the macro. It doesn't lessen the impact on our daily experience, but seen as a whole, there is solid reasoning for proposing such changes. Consultation is about ensuring the macro view isn't missing something important seen by those of us on the ground, as it were."

My experience has taught me that it's wrong to assume that only the representatives of transport companies are capable of thinking strategically, or take the long view. One only has to think of Dr Beeching for that to be brought into question.

"I hope the service is retained - even expanded. But as much as we can blame Network Rail for not seeing our view, they can probably make a very solid argument (without using words like 'stupid') that the greater good will be served."

I can think of worse words than stupid to use regarding them.

Mo, do you have any experience of dealing with transport officials and tying to influence them, because I do. Ten years ago I was involved in a campaign to have a bus rerouted and was told it was impossible to do. Several years later, exactly what we had early proposed as a solution, but were told was impossible, was put in place. Nothing had changed in that time. I can only imagine that different people with different mindsets were put in charge. The original people we had to deal with were both obtuse and stupid, and I make no apology for using those terms.

[Maurice]

Perhaps you are far more experience than I am in these matters. It just occurs to me that in gearing up for a fight, a solid argument that anticipates their strongest weapons would be more useful than shouting that they are stupid.

Emotional arguments win the meeting but not the issue.

[Frisco]

"Perhaps you are far more experience than I am in these matters. It just occurs to me that in gearing up for a fight, a solid argument that anticipates their strongest weapons would be more useful than shouting that they are stupid.

Emotional arguments win the meeting but not the issue."

Each to his own Mo, but there are a whole range of tactics that can be employed in such campaigns, and most of them don't involve fighting. You may have noticed that the media don't tend to hold back or agree with your rather coy approach, when it comes to getting things done.

[Maurice]

Possibly. I don't discount any tactic.

But when Network Rail produces astounding statistics showing the very limited London Bridge tracks must be relieved, and that cutting a zone two connection with multiple bus services within easy reach stacks up better than curring suburban services with longer platforms and more carriages and no other option, then you might find it difficult if you don't craft your answer in advance.

I've suggested the hospital argument is good. So is the environmental one. Still think St George is worth getting on board. Politics make for strange bedfellows.

[Frisco]

"But when Network Rail produces astounding statistics showing the very limited London Bridge tracks must be relieved, and that cutting a zone two connection with multiple bus services within easy reach stacks up better than curring suburban services with longer platforms and more carriages and no other option, then you might find it difficult if you don't craft your answer in advance."

Good for you, and this analysis is a good use of your time and energy, and should be targeted towards Network Rail, which every stance you choose to take on the issue, rather than expending it pointing out the flaws in the arguments of others, or banging on about that you don't approve of their choice of words or tactics.

[Maurice]

You are an angry soul. Do try and let it go. Channel it toward Network Rail?