The East London Line extension

[Bic Basher]

To quote a post from Rail UK Forums after UDT was asked again and again how his solution to the SLL situation would work.

"Can you go back to whatever forum you came from and stay there please? Since joining this thread you've effectively done nothing but attempt to look like youre right, whilst ignoring any questions you have been asked and failing to provide any realistic solutions."

Sound familiar?

[Undisputedtruth]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Also, do you know if TFL did any

> passenger surveys regarding final destination

> before eliminating the SLL?

>

> Thanks,

> LM

London Travelwatch conducted a survey which showed SLL users would be deeply inconvenience by the new ELL. This is completely different to what Bic Basher was claiming earlier on in the thread.

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news/2009/09/south-london-line-plans-will-anger-passengers

[LondonMix]

Yes, thanks I've seen that. I meant a really detailed survey on final destinations specifically. The issue with Travel Watch survey which was acknowledged by the authors is that most of those surveyed were not fully aware of the interchanges the ELL would allow. While I assume most people using the SLL are terminating in Central London for work and therefore think losing the SLL is a bad idea, I could be wrong. It would be interesting to learn how many people's final destinations are areas in West or East London that could be better accessed by the ELL. It would influence my view on how travel habits might change once the new ELL line is introduced.

[Bic Basher]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

t would influence my view on how

> travel habits might change once the new ELL line

> is introduced.

As seen when the ELL was introduced onto the Sydenham line, passengers changed from using London Bridge over to the ELL mainly changing at Canada Water for the Jubilee line, a direct link to the tube network, thus reducing the capacity issues which will be even more apparent once the platforms are reduced and the station refurbishment works are at their height due to the Thameslink project.

Passenger usage has gone up at every ex Southern station on the line as services became more frequent, although it comes at a price. Like when you build a new road, the capacity is soon used when people realise the other connections that it brings. A TfL London rail survey that was discussed at the LOROL stakeholders meeting in the spring suggested heavy usage of the ELL from Peckham Rye.

[LondonMix]

Was that LOROL survey a final destination survey or did they simply ask "do you think you will use the ELL"? If its the latter, its really not any better than the Travel Watch Survey asking "will you be inconvenienced by losing the SLL". Most people have no idea. The best way to gauge use is understanding final destinations, since regardless of what people say, that is what will determine if new routes will be utilised without great inconvenience.

[Undisputedtruth]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> The issue with

> Travel Watch survey which was acknowledged by the

> authors is that most of those surveyed were not

> fully aware of the interchanges the ELL would

> allow.

It doesn't say that at all LondonMix. You've made that up.

I have a copy of a study of the South London Line using data from the London Watch survey where 8% of all SLL users actually goes to Clapham Junction. Furthermore, those who travelled to Canary Wharf via London Bridge felt than an extension to Canada Water offered no advantage as the Jubilee trains were always packed.

[Bic Basher]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> I have a copy of a study of the South London Line

> using data from the London Watch survey where 8%

> of all SLL users actually goes to Clapham

> Junction. Furthermore, those who travelled to

> Canary Wharf via London Bridge felt than an

> extension to Canada Water offered no advantage as

> the Jubilee trains were always packed.

A reduction in their travel costs which would no longer require a Zone 1-2 travelcard, along with an enhanced service to Canada Water from SLL stations and only having to use the Jubilee line for one stop may change their minds along with the Canary Wharf businesses who'll save money on travelcard loans for their employees.

Both the Forest Hill and Sydenham Societies (who have reps who attend the LOROL stakeholder meetings) both raised concerns before the ELL opened due to the reduction in LB services, yet it's the passengers who decide how they'll travel and they chose the East London line with Southern increasing capacity on peak services to London Bridge.

If there are issues where Southwark passengers are not happy with the ELL, I'm sure LOROL will invite the Southwark Rail Users Group to represent them at future stakeholder meetings.

[LondonMix]

From the Travel Watch Study:

Many respondents to the survey took up the opportunity to include comments

about how they believe the changes to train services might affect their journey. (A

sample of these is included as Appendix D of this report). It was clear from the

feedback received that there is a general lack of accurate information (and,

indeed, some misinformation) about the proposed changes, which means that a

more substantive communications exercise by TfL is likely to beneficial in the

near future. Therefore, there were many misconceptions in passengers?

responses, primarily that there would be no direct services from Denmark Hill and

Peckham Rye to Victoria. This means that the disbenefits are overstated by

respondents and the benefits are understated.

and also:

3.3 In general, though, this general ?revealed preference? approach should provide more

robust data than asking passengers questions about their possible behaviour in the

future, although sometimes this has to be done. Such is the case in trying to

understand what passengers might do if their current (preferred) SLL alternative were

to be no longer available. Some of the responses given here clearly reflected misinformation

or a lack of information both about current journey opportunities and (more

particularly) about likely service plans. Transport for London, Network Rail and train

operators clearly need to consider a communications programme to publicise future

train service plans and the improved journey opportunities afforded.

[Undisputedtruth]

@LondonMix

Perhaps you didn't read the paragraph that followed:

"E8 Of the large majority of respondents who believed they would disbenefit, our

independent analysis demonstrates that many of these people would indeed

experience a reduced frequency and/or worse crowding, if the loss of the direct SLL

services to Victoria was not mitigated. Options for this include stopping other trains at

the affected stations, or re-instating the Victoria ? Bellingham shuttle, especially for the

period 2012-2015, until other planned service enhancements take place."

Now you can see why I'm challenging every statement you make, LondonMix, where your information doesn't either tally or taken out of context. Bic Basher is different as he wants to undermine our South London line services and improve his at Forest Hill and Sydenham Hill. Two different challenges for me.

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> A reduction in their travel costs which would no

> longer require a Zone 1-2 travelcard, along with

> an enhanced service to Canada Water from SLL

> stations and only having to use the Jubilee line

> for one stop may change their minds along with the

> Canary Wharf businesses who'll save money on

> travelcard loans for their employees.

Not much of a consolation if the Jubilee train at Canada Water going to Canary Wharf is so packed that you can't get on it. Better to go to London Bridge to where the Jubilee trains are less packed.

To quote a post from Rail UK Forums after UDT was asked again and again how his solution to the SLL situation would work.

They were given a reasonable answer with more information to come. I will not tolerate censorship and cowardly behaviour from their admin.

[LondonMix]

UDT, I have already stated I am in favour of the SLL being maintained but want more information. I said the problem with that opinion survey was misinformation by users- which is true, and you accused me of making it up. I have come to realize that even when I agree with you, you are impossible to speak to so again, I choose to end the conversation with you on another topic.

[Bic Basher]

Hilarious that UDT thinks that I've got an agenda where I support the abolition of the SLL based on my own train services. Complete nonsense.

The Sydenham line carries more passengers than the SLL and saw two trains per hour scrapped in 2010 when the ELL service was introduced, yet it still warrants 4tph to London Bridge, which Peckham Rye and Queens Road Peckham will still have after the introduction in December, along with an extra 4tph serving those two stations on the ELL.

The fact is the SLL would have been scrapped ELL or not because of the Thameslink Programme works at London Bridge, at least this way passengers are getting something with extra services and less waiting time between trains, despite having some of the least used passenger rail usage in South London. (SLL only and not the Vic to Dartford)

If forum members on Rail UK Forums from across the country can see why the SLL had to go in it's current form, yet ED's own transport/anti M&S Simply Food/Sash Windows keyboard warrior can't see it, then I don't know what else to say?

[Undisputedtruth]

@LM

You said: "The issue with Travel Watch survey which was acknowledged by the authors is that most of those surveyed were not fully aware of the interchanges the ELL would allow."

But actually the information from the survey study was primarily that there would be no direct services from Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye to Victoria. This means that the disbenefits are overstated by respondents and the benefits are understated.

The survey didn't just include Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye users but also Queens Road Peckham, Clapham High Street, Wandsworth Road and Battersea station users. Queens Road Peckham, Clapham High Street, & Wandsworth Road will not have direct train access to Victoria after December 2012. It seems you're quite happy to post incorrect/misleading information but not so happy if someone corrects you for the greater good. I'm really disappointed that you chose to throw a tantrum instead.

[Bic Basher]

Hold on, he sourced that info from the link YOU gave!

One rule for you and another for anyone else, so who's misleading now?

[Undisputedtruth]

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> The Sydenham line carries more passengers than the

> SLL and saw two trains per hour scrapped in 2010

> when the ELL service was introduced, yet it still

> warrants 4tph to London Bridge, which Peckham Rye

> and Queens Road Peckham will still have after the

> introduction in December, along with an extra 4tph

> serving those two stations on the ELL.

The Sydenham line carries more people than the SLL because the line is much longer. It doesn't mean that the Sydenham line is more busier than the South London line.

For example if line A carried 500 passengers over 100 miles, is it any busier than line B carrying 250 passengers over 50 miles? The answer is no difference in busyness between the two lines if you compare passenger numbers over comparable unit lengths. However, it is clear from your simplistic thinking that you think that line A is more busy than line B without taking into account the length of the two lines.

I would argue that the SLL service is actually more busier as it passes through high density populated areas and serve two major rail terminals - London Bridge and Victoria with each train journey lasting 25 minutes. The SLL train service is the least tax subsidised service out of London Bridge station because you need only two trains.

Furthermore, population and employment opportunities are expected to grow substantially to the year 2031 where the SLL travels through.

[Michael Palaeologus]

> The Sydenham line carries more people than the SLL

> because the line is much longer. It doesn't mean

> that the Sydenham line is more busier than the

> South London line.

"More busier" - Good grief UHT.

[Undisputedtruth]

Now you're showing your allegiance to the Sydenham line.

[Bic Basher]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Now you're showing your allegiance to the Sydenham

> line.

It's all us and them with you isn't it? You may be shocked to find that ED'ers use various rail lines to commute, not just the SLL or the trains from East Dulwich station.

Even Dame Tessa Jowell added Forest Hill as part of her rail survey questionnaire a couple of years back.

Some even use the bus which you despise so much.

[Undisputedtruth]

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> Even Dame Tessa Jowell added Forest Hill as part

> of her rail survey questionnaire a couple of years

> back.

That's because the East Croydon trains running through East Dulwich to London Bridge were cut. The Forest Hill station is one of the nearest station that offers a direct route to East Croydon. And now you want to see more cuts in our local service. You won't be satisfied until you see our local services decimated because of your simplistic thinking. Well boo to you.

[Bic Basher]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

Well boo to you.

For someone with a superior intellect, that's dire. Sunstroke?

The eastern end of Lordship Lane is nearer to Forest Hill than East Dulwich, so would you say they travel down to ED by walking as the bus is so pass?e than the shorter distance to FH?

[Undisputedtruth]

Forest Hill station is still ain't in SE22 what ever way you want to spin it, Bic Bash. It also involves a fifteen minute walk from Dulwich Common/Lordship Lane junction. Where the surrounding area are the least densely populated areas of SE22 when you take into account parks such as Dawson's Hill, Dulwich and Dulwich Common as well as Camberwell Old cemetery.

Denmark Hill & North Dulwich stations are much more closer to an SE22 post code than Forest Hill station and also serves densely populated areas of SE22. And as Cllr Barber rightfully said , a number of East Dulwichers uses Denmark Hill station.

Let's face it, you want a better train service at your doorstep/Forest Hill while at the same time you want most people in East Dulwich to have worse train services.

[Bic Basher]

I wasn't disputing that ED'ers use Denmark Hill. Once again you only listen to what you want to believe which is one sided and bordering on the Autistic spectrum where you can't relate to other people's differences. Also considering you claim to know everything from planning issues, sash windows to transport is also a trait of the condition.

You seriously need help my friend and spending all your time keyboard bashing on the EDF isn't helping you.

If people are offended by my comments, I apologise, yet this person clearly takes the piss and brings our hyperlocal forum down with him, which is a shame as there is constructive and community here which this person is bringing down with his constant diatribes.

[Undisputedtruth]

Bic Basher, you're sounding like a broken record each time I knock back each of your arguments. Trying to sling mud is just about the only thing you can do as clearly you're not up to the debate and your rant is a sign of your desparation and my victory. I suggest you go back to the railuk forum where you can pretend you know something with the other platform sweepers.

At the end of the day, I refuse to relate to low self-esteem, self-interest, idiots, simplistic thinking thickos or selfish people. That I'll make no apologies for. You're in the self-interest category but happy to expand just for you, Bic Basher. You want good rail system for yourself and not for other people in the East Dulwich area.

I shall fight for good transport links for the good people of East Dulwich, unlike you Bic Basher. Now crawl back under a stone.

As for autism then that's an absurd suggestion as I'm pretty good at most team sports especially football. People who suffer from autism find playing sports difficult.

[Bic Basher]

Your victory??? Bringing me down to your level? Woo bloody hoo!!!!!! If that's a victory, than my goodness, I can think of other things I'd rather celebrate or get a thrill off than that.

The fact is you should have been banned years ago for what you are quite frankly a sad little man who has nothing to do but disrupt forums with your always right attitude.

I didn't come here to fight with you, but to debate, something which you have to have the final say. The fact that you feel that you have to win every argument shows that you have a lack of understanding and empathy with other people who disagree with you. Even though your methods are to basically make people feel smaller than you to make your own life seem better than it actually is. I'm sure you were the class bully at school?

The fact you were banned from Rail UK Forums as quickly as they did shows your motives which is to troll and make yourself feel better by belittling people you consider to be "thickos" Another Autistic trait.

As for the self-interest. Pot, kettle. As long as people agree with how you travel, that's all that matters. Don't worry about the little people (in your own mindset) who use the bus or use the Sydenham line as that's beneath you.

Quit the alpha-male crap about sports, I'm sure your Sunday league team loves having you, but don't believe your own hype eh?

[Undisputedtruth]

You're sulking because you can't get your way. Too bad and get over it.

I just checked my access to RailUK forums and I'm not banned yet. But does lead me to think whether you were involved in some cowardly capacity to get my posts censored and your dim witted platform sweeper mates to ambush me.

As for the class bully then that's complete nonsense. I was more of a model student, despite attending one of South London's toughest schools, and getting top marks in most subjects. I will not make apologies for being good at most things. None whatsoever.

As you cannot indulge in serious transport matters then it's pretty pointless having discussions with simplistic thinker thickos like yourself so to speak. You clearly don't know about autistic issues. http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/hampshire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9366000/9366335.stm

You thought you were EDF spokesman for rail issues. You've been knocked off your perch and now you're sulking and name calling like a little cry baby.

Quit the alpha-male crap about sports, I'm sure your Sunday league team loves having you, but don't believe your own hype eh?

This is another one of your daft comments. You've never seen me play at my peak, yet you tried to make an untrue jibe.

But I'm beginning to think that you're the one who is useless at everything. What's the matter, did you get beaten up at school because you were one of the school's idiots? Do you have a face that only a mother could love?

Now the only thing that gets me off is shopping. I just love shopping. Everything else is just water under the bridge.

[Undisputedtruth]

Sorry, nearly forgotten. I do get off in exposing self-interests people such as Bic Basher!