Jump to content

The East London Line extension

PN33

By PN33
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

Undisputedtruth

Undisputedtruth

Posted
Posted

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> > It seems people are happy to give out wrong

> > information and then blame the person for

> > correcting them. What arrogance!

>

> Pot, kettle....


Nonsense, my information is accurate unlike yours.

Lloyd_F

Lloyd_F

Posted
Posted

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/15403.aspx


This link shows how tfl plan for the local lines, now and in the future. There will be some winners it looks like there will be 2 more LB trains from ED in the future, and a lot more options for travel from Peckham Rye. Victoria from all stations looks like it's going to be woefully underserviced peak and non peak times (Changing via CLJ is no substitution for a 10 minute direct train!)


Denmark Hill, Wandsworth Road, and Clapham High Street passengers heading central are the real losers in this change. Hopefully they will run some sort of loop service from Vic to Lewisham area via Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye until LB is back in full action.

Bic Basher

Bic Basher

Posted
Posted

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Undisputedtruth Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> >

> > >

> > > It seems people are happy to give out wrong

> > > information and then blame the person for

> > > correcting them. What arrogance!

> >

> > Pot, kettle....

>

> Nonsense, my information is accurate unlike yours.


Which you spin to meet your own objectives, where as I can see both sides without being rude and childish which you clearly are.


However, unless anything else constructive comes out of this conversation, which I doubt will come out of undisputedtruth's mouth, I'm out of here.

Michael Palaeologus

Michael Palaeologus

Posted
Posted
You are transfixed by Victoria being the only destination for people using the SLL. Most simply pass through Victoria to points east or west. The ELLE allows them to go east or west without going through Victoria and so reduces the pressure on that station.
Bic Basher

Bic Basher

Posted
Posted

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> You are transfixed by Victoria being the only

> destination for people using the SLL. Most simply

> pass through Victoria to points east or west. The

> ELLE allows them to go east or west without going

> through Victoria and so reduces the pressure on

> that station.


The ELL was designed not to take passengers to a central London terminus, but to give passengers easier access to connections, particularly to the tube network and at Clapham Junction where there's a multitude of national rail services to Southern England as well as Victoria and Waterloo.


The interchange at Canada Water is easier than walking from the end of platform 16 to the tube platforms at London Bridge which can take 5/7 mins.


As I already use the Overground, if I'm travelling to a Zone 1 tube station, except for London Bridge, Waterloo East or Charing Cross, I use the Overground and tube, it also works out cheaper for me using Oyster PAYG.

Undisputedtruth

Undisputedtruth

Posted
Posted

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> You are transfixed by Victoria being the only

> destination for people using the SLL. Most simply

> pass through Victoria to points east or west. The

> ELLE allows them to go east or west without going

> through Victoria and so reduces the pressure on

> that station.


No, but I suspect you're not a regular user of the South London Line to know any better. Basically, the SLL offers dual access to London Bridge or Victoria. As many others have said, most people do need to travel into central London areas and this is something that the ELL just cannot do.


This has nothing to do with transfixation but your inability to understand the bigger picture.

Bic Basher

Bic Basher

Posted
Posted

So in UDT's world, this is how it goes.


1. If you don't use the SLL - you don't understand the bigger picture.

2. Everyone travels to Victoria, period.

3. No-one EVER uses the bus, I mean, what's the point of all those bus routes which pick up all those people on a daily basis when you can wait for a SLL train to Victoria.

4. If you don't have a copy of the South London Rail Utilisation Strategy to hand, you give out misleading information.

5. Ensure you spin or put down other members of EDF to ensure only your point is heard.

6. Also post absolute crap on topics from sash windows to football, so that you're the Mac Daddy of EDF.

7. Go on other forums where same thread is being discussed, pretend to be sensible, then resort to trolling when you don't get your own way when rail experts debate your viewpoint.

8. Be nice to the one or two people who agree with you, including local politicians.

Undisputedtruth

Undisputedtruth

Posted
Posted

Actually, there have been a large number of people supporting the SLL. It seems it's only Michael and you that doesn't. Nothing to lose sleep over.


Mind you, I suspect you want to be a transport wanna be. Perhaps that is why you go to other forums and bring back back hearsays and present them as facts. I'm sure there are people daft enough to believe it. No self-respecting transport campaign organisation will have you,


As I've always said, you're out of your depth on transport matters. Name calling and making up nonsense is your limit. Anything factual is purely out of your reach.

showboat

showboat

Posted
Posted

antantant Wrote:

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

> Personally, I appreciate UDT standing up for the

> side of the arguement that I believe is correct.



Fair enough that he's standing up for it, but he descends into insults and condescension of the type he accuses others of and then says "who, me?". Takes some big brass ones to be that arrogant and hypocritical.

Undisputedtruth

Undisputedtruth

Posted
Posted

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> The fact that only a few of us can be bothered to

> challenge UDT and his diatribes does not mean that

> we are in the minority.


A few? Just Bic Bash and you. Hardly any consensus on the forum, is it?


> I guess that most people accept that it is just

> going to happen and so cant be bothered to wade

> in.


Pure guess or rather a fantasy.


But please show me your councillors giving support to your arguments.

Undisputedtruth

Undisputedtruth

Posted
Posted

showboat Wrote:

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

> antantant Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Personally, I appreciate UDT standing up for

> the

> > side of the arguement that I believe is

> correct.

>

>

> Fair enough that he's standing up for it, but he

> descends into insults and condescension of the

> type he accuses others of and then says "who,

> me?". Takes some big brass ones to be that

> arrogant and hypocritical.


Completely disagree. If I wanted to give abuse then would have been far stronger in my language.

showboat

showboat

Posted
Posted

No one likes a show off... :-)


Look, I'm not impressed by that statement - if you can't see how you've been rude then that conversation is over - and I think you're pretty aggresive frankly, but hey - it's your problem if you want to be like that. I just think you make yourself look bad.


I think it's a shame when you have good points.

Zebedee Tring

Zebedee Tring

Posted
Posted

Some of the aggressive opinionated stuff on this thread reminds me of the bullying school playground language that I thought I'd left behind nearly fifty years ago. At least when we were in the playground we had the excuse of being only 13 years old.


In my post above, I set out what is hopefully a balanced argument pro and con the impending ELL and SLL changes. It would help the debate if posters tried to follow a similar tone, whether or not they are in favour of the arguments presented by other posters

Undisputedtruth

Undisputedtruth

Posted
Posted

showboat Wrote:

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

> No one likes a show off... :-)

>

> Look, I'm not impressed by that statement - if you

> can't see how you've been rude then that

> conversation is over - and I think you're pretty

> aggresive frankly, but hey - it's your problem if

> you want to be like that. I just think you make

> yourself look bad.

>

> I think it's a shame when you have good points.


Who is showing off and what a ridiculous statement. Thousands of people rely on the SLL and yet you want to make the argument into a personality contest. It really does irks me when people can't get the facts right on a very serious matter. Perhaps you are confusing aggression with irritation.

Bic Basher

Bic Basher

Posted
Posted

antantant Wrote:

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

> Personally, I appreciate UDT standing up for the

> side of the arguement that I believe is correct.


In which way?


This thread is a classic example of how trolling derails (no pun intended) what should be a reasonable debate on a topic which will affect many of EDF's members.


The best thing is now is not to feed him and simply debate the topic, also sign up to the Rail UK Forums thread and discuss it there too, I'm sure it'd give them a broader representation of views from other people in the area and not just him and me.

Undisputedtruth

Undisputedtruth

Posted
Posted

@Bic Basher, MP & showboat


I failed to see what valuable contribution you've made to the thread other than engaging in making personal remarks. But I take heart in what antantant wrote as vindication:

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

> Personally, I appreciate UDT standing up for the

> side of the arguement that I believe is correct.


*UDT waves bye bye*

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • malumbu
      Oh David / Is David Lammy Toast?

      By malumbu · Posted

      The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Dogkennelhillbilly
      Dell Autos is closing tomorrow

      By Dogkennelhillbilly · Posted

      Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • HeadNun
      Oh David / Is David Lammy Toast?

      By HeadNun · Posted

      Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • malumbu
      The economy, a sensible debate in advance of the budget

      By malumbu · Posted

      @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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