Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Network Rail plan to terminate all northbound 'Wimbledon Loop' trains via Herne Hill, Loughborough Junction and Elephant & Castle at Blackfriars. No more through services to the city, Farrindgon, St Pancras and beyond; south London is already poorly served by public transport and this will make it considerably worse. There is a campaign to get National Rail to reconsider. Click on this link to see the details of the campaign: https://www.facebook.com/SaveTheThameslink and 'Like' to support them.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Bare in mind that the alternative is currently a

> reduction of services from Peckham Rye / Denmark

> Hill.


I've not seen that in the documentation; do you have a link to that info?

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> There have been multiple threads with links to the

> consultation documents here on the forum. Do a

> search of Renata's posts as she has as Peckham's

> councillor has been very involved.


Thanks, I just did. Couldn't see anything on the alternative being a reduction of the Peckham Rye/Denmark Hill services, apart from this http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,933821,946508#msg-946508 which refutes it and no other mention of the Facebook campaign.

Here is the relevant thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,921668


The Wimbledon (Herne hill) loop is likely to be axed for logistics but they are campaigining against this. If they are sucessful, the Peckham service would have to go instead.




1865 Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > There have been multiple threads with links to

> the

> > consultation documents here on the forum. Do

> a

> > search of Renata's posts as she has as

> Peckham's

> > councillor has been very involved.

>

> Thanks, I just did. Couldn't see anything on the

> alternative being a reduction of the Peckham

> Rye/Denmark Hill services, apart from this

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5

> ,933821,946508#msg-946508 which refutes it and no

> other mention of the Facebook campaign.

this post about the Southwark Rail Users Group (SRUG) comments might also be useful to read: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,944735,946714#msg-946714


SRUG's comments cover the issues raised by the Thameslink consultation for users of rail services from the stations Nunhead, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill, North Dulwich, East Dulwich, Queens Rd Peckham, South Bermondsey. See here for copy of the comments: http://www.bellenden.net/sites/default/files/SRUG%20response%20to%20DfT%20Thameslink-Southern%20Franchise%20consultation%202012.pdf

Page 5 covers particularly the Wimbledon Loop questions.


It is important for users who value the direct connections to St Pancras from Nunhead, Peckham Rye or Denmark Hill to email their comments to DfT before 14 September, focussing on their use of the service and why it is valuable and important to them. All relevant weblinks are in the post mentioned above.

There's an article in today's "Southwark News" (Dulwich & Herne Hill edition) entitled "Huge public outcry adds extra time to train cut consultation". This includes the sentence "The service through Herne Hill, Elephant and Castle and Blackfriars into central London faces the axe from 2018 as part of a shake up of the [Thameslink] network - with services from Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye also facing uncertainty".


This is surely badly worded, if not misleading, since it could be interpreted as suggesting that the through London services from both Herne Hill and Denmark Hill could be axed, when, as I understand it, it would be only one of these two services that could be taken away, and then for operational reasons.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Your right. It plays down the fact that the

> stations are actually comepeting with one another

> to maintain their services!


No not quite right. It may be that this is what Network Rail want us all to think. But there are questions about whether their case about a particular capacity limit is correct. See page 5 answers to Qs 18/19 in SRUG's submission for more info on this. http://www.bellenden.net/sites/default/files/SRUG%20response%20to%20DfT%20Thameslink-Southern%20Franchise%20consultation%202012.pdf I think more will begin to unfold on this point over the next few weeks.

I'm not sure if I have got this right, but isn't the ultimate aim to increase through traffic from London bridge to North London? That would likely benefit more people, I guess. It would certainly take alot of pressure off the Northern Line.


I've always been amazed at how poor the service from London Bridge to Farringdon is, for example. It should be linked up like Charing X - every 5 mins or so.

healey Wrote:

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

> I've always been amazed at how poor the service

> from London Bridge to Farringdon is, for example.

> It should be linked up like Charing X - every 5

> mins or so.



Given as the only (sensible) route from London Bridge to Farringdon is via Charing Cross, that would result in the scrapping of every other North-South service through Charing Cross. Somehow, I can't see that one getting the thumbs up.

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

    • Link to petition if anyone would like to object: Londis Off-License Petition https://chng.it/9X4DwTDRdW
    • The lady is called Janet 
    • He did mention it's share of freehold, I’d be very cautious with that. It can turn into a nightmare if relationships with neighbours break down. My brother had a share of freehold in a flat in West Hampstead, and when he needed to sell, the neighbour refused to sign the transfer of the freehold. What followed was over two years of legal battles, spiralling costs and constant stress. He lost several potential buyers, and the whole sale fell through just as he got a job offer in another city. It was a complete disaster. The neighbour was stubborn and uncooperative, doing everything they could to delay the process. It ended in legal deadlock, and there was very little anyone could do without their cooperation. At that point, the TA6 form becomes the least of your worries; it’s the TR1 form that matters. Without the other freeholder’s signature on that, you’re stuck. After seeing what my brother went through, I’d never touch a share of freehold again. When things go wrong, they can go really wrong. If you have a share of freehold, you need a respectful and reasonable relationship with the others involved; otherwise, it can be costly, stressful and exhausting. Sounds like these neighbours can’t be reasoned with. There’s really no coming back from something like this unless they genuinely apologise and replace the trees and plants they ruined. One small consolation is that people who behave like this are usually miserable behind closed doors. If they were truly happy, they’d just get on with their lives instead of trying to make other people’s lives difficult. And the irony is, they’re being incredibly short-sighted. This kind of behaviour almost always backfires.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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