Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Recently North/ East Dulwich to London Bridge and return trains have been very poor. My return trains late 11pm+ have been cancelled but they don't show to be on the southern website or on the departures board, so I end up waiting 20 minutes for a train that never gets a platform number and then just disappears of the the board. Very annoying!
Ditch useless Southern and cycle if you can. I live on the ED/Forest Hill border and cycle to London Bridge in 20mns. I?m kicking myself, having worked in London Bridge for many years and wasted so many hours waiting for trains. I known it?s not for everyone but if you can, do!
According to the Southern Rail website, the new timetable is in place until further notice and will be reviewed weekly and there may be further changes. I have been getting the early trains (between 7am - 8am) for a couple of weeks, accompanying my husband for daily treatment at Guys. We have noticed the trains are getting busier and this new timetable will make them more so. but people are still a bit 'precious' about having someone sat next to them and are reserving the adjacent seat with their bags. As a couple of 70+ year olds and my husband suffering from cancer, if we need a seat we are more than happy to sit next to another passenger as we are both double vaxxed.
Presumably this is due to shortage of drivers/staff, due to this "pingdemic". I think it is temporary, as soon self-isolation will be replaced by workplace testing for key workers.


This ^^

Train companies nationwide are reducing services due to staff isolating. Ultimately you can either say you'll run 4 trains an hour and then cancel half of them (which is incredibly frustrating for all concerned) or you reduce the service intentionally which keeps reliability much higher. There may only be 2 trains an hour but at least they'll be there.

That might possibly be acceptable if they kept one train from each route, but they have cancelled an entire route. OK if you're only travelling from, say East Dulwich, you would still have 2 trains an hour. But if you're travelling from a station further out, you will have to find a completely new route into London.
So,just when council is trying to reduce car use through all its road closures, a major public transport route into town has been cut in half ? This isn?t just East Dulwich but the main Peckham Rye route. Our route to Victoriamwas sliced a couple of years back too. What do our councillors have to say about this?

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Presumably this is due to shortage of

> drivers/staff, due to this "pingdemic". I think it

> is temporary, as soon self-isolation will be

> replaced by workplace testing for key workers.

>

> This ^^

> Train companies nationwide are reducing services

> due to staff isolating. Ultimately you can either

> say you'll run 4 trains an hour and then cancel

> half of them (which is incredibly frustrating for

> all concerned) or you reduce the service

> intentionally which keeps reliability much higher.

> There may only be 2 trains an hour but at least

> they'll be there.


I really hope this does turn out to be a temporary/ emergency change. Once bought in, these things tend to quietly become permanent. Suggest everyone writes to Helen Hayes to express their concern and make sure pressure is kept up on the rail company.

Got the 8.23am train from East Dulwich this morning. It was pretty crowded with several standing, as it seems that some people are reluctant to sit right next to someone else. We did manage to get seats. Good to see that most passengers were wearing masks.
  • 3 weeks later...

From https://www.southernrailway.com/coronavirus-information/revised-timetable#timetableK:

There will be additional changes from Monday 23 August until 5 September


In off-peak hours, an hourly train service will operate between Redhill and Gatwick Airport calling at Earlswood, Salfords and Horley. Southern peak services will still run.


The Beckenham Junction to London Bridge route will have 10 trains during peak hours, these will be


07:01, 08:01, 16:01, 17:01 and 18:01 London Bridge to Beckenham Junction

07:45, 08:45, 16:45, 17:45 and 18:45 Beckenham Junction to London Bridge


Services on Saturdays and Sundays have not been altered, but are subject to engineering work. Please check our engineering work page for more information.

.....

From Monday 6 September 2021, we will be changing the times of trains across our network to support the return of schools and colleges.


Those additional Mon-Fri departure times from EDW are:


To Beckenham Jn: 07:14, 08:14 ; 16:14, 17:14, 18:14

To London Bridge: 08:08, 09:08 ; 17:08, 18:08, 19:08


EDW real time departures board: https://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/ldbboard/dep/EDW

Huggers Wrote:

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

> What do our councillors have to say about this?


Southwark doesn't run the trains. What exactly do you expect a Southwark councillor to do about a shortage of train drivers aggravated by COVID?

This is good. I have noticed when travelling to Guy's hospital daily with my husband that the trains are getting more crowded. This is usually between 7.30am - 9am. Also, there are many passengers who still feel 'entitled' to use the adjacent seat for their bags, which leads to more people standing around the doors when seats are actually available. I have had to ask almost daily for someone to move their bag so that I can sit down. This is usually met with a 'look' before the bag is grudgingly moved. I would add though, that most passengers are wearing masks on the trains, whereas on buses, quite a few passengers don't. Just an observation as I don't know the personal circumstances of fellow passengers.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Huggers Wrote:

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

> ----

> > What do our councillors have to say about this?

>

> Southwark doesn't run the trains. What exactly do

> you expect a Southwark councillor to do about a

> shortage of train drivers aggravated by COVID?


Physically to replace staff sickness, nothing, however to put pressure on the train operators to balance out which trains are kept and which are cut to balance the network, then the council and our MPs should be involved.


Equally to understand the squeezes on public transport and adjust the local policies including road closures, then I would fully expect the local councillors to be in the loop and make informed decisions rather than sticking their fingers in their ears saying "la la la can't hear you"


So in answer to your point, the local authority need to be on top of things like this and be proactive about keeping things moving and ensure that East Dulwich and surrounding areas are accessible for all and not just the fully mobile or able to cycle residents.

> the local authority need to be on top of things like this


How? How would Southwark councillors get Southern to train more drivers and stop them having to isolate because of COVID?


I think you're really overestimating the powers the council and individual councillors have. Have a look into how railways are run and regulated in this country, for a start.


It's odd how on this forum there is a Southwark Derangement Syndrome (led by a few "usual suspects") where everything under the sun is somehow the fault of the council. England didn't win the World Cup? Bloody Southwark! Rained on my morning walk? Stupid councillors! Train drivers getting COVID? Lazy bleeding Southwark again!

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> > the local authority need to be on top of things

> like this

>

> How? How would Southwark councillors get Southern

> to train more drivers and stop them having to

> isolate because of COVID?

>

> I think you're really overestimating the powers

> the council and individual councillors have. Have

> a look into how railways are run and regulated in

> this country, for a start.

>

> It's odd how on this forum there is a Southwark

> Derangement Syndrome (led by a few "usual

> suspects") where everything under the sun is

> somehow the fault of the council. England didn't

> win the World Cup? Bloody Southwark! Rained on my

> morning walk? Stupid councillors! Train drivers

> getting COVID? Lazy bleeding Southwark again!


Amazing, you are so blinkered that you take a quote and twist it


But to put it in hill billy talk for you


The local authority need to be on top of all transport issues (be it reduced train services, bus issues ...) and , for example, adjust their policies around road networks to ensure people and goods keep moving.

Equally they need to be able to put pressure on other transport providers to ensure an area that already has a low PTAL score isn't impacted. Yet as we've seen when the no 40 was diverted from London bridge, despite local outcry the council did nothing to support their residents and the change occurs.


It's not about training drivers, but by representing the area, some changes may not occur when they are proposed.

It's odd how on this forum there is a Southwark Derangement Syndrome (led by a few "usual suspects") where everything under the sun is somehow the fault of the council.


The council is making significant alterations to the facility of one type of travel (by private car) without (apparently) noting or taking any account of other types of travel (train/ bus) which also impact their constituents. In the north of the borough there are substantial alternatives to almost any single travel type (including the tube) - this is not true of the south (the old Borough of Camberwell) where alternatives are few and far between. Of course they don't control those alternatives but (1) they could be making more noise when these are withdrawn or disrupted and (2) they should not be planning to pull the levers they have without reference, or care, to the levers in others' hands. If inner city transport is not planned for in a joined-up manner (it isn't) then we have chaos and unfairness. As we have seen.

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...