latest on the South London Line Campaign

[Eileen]

The campaign continues on a number of levels. Visit http://www.southwarkrailusers.net to keep up to date.

Two key recent events are reported below. Also don't forget - if you use Denmark Hill Station - 8am Tuesday 1st December a media photo event. Come and support. for details see link on http://www.southwarkrailusers.net

_________________________________________

1. On 4th November Southwark Council agreed a cross party motion supporting fully and comprehensively the campaign to Save the South London Line. See details here http://www.bellenden.net/sites/default/files/LateMotionSouthLondonLine.docA_.ps_.pdf

_________________________________________

2. Meeting with TfL on 24th November - News from the Save the South London Line Campaign (** see at end for campaign members)

Subject: TfL Recognises Need For Central London Links from South London Line stations

At a meeting on 24th November with stakeholder groups in South London, TfL recognised one of the main objectives of campaigners, the need to keep radial services to Central London for current South London Line stations. TfL has proposed a variety of short-listed options for keeping service to Victoria, including diverting the East London Line from Clapham Junction, introducing a Victoria-

Bellingham service and making current Victoria-Dartford services run all day, guaranteeing for Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye all day trains to Victoria. This is in contrast to TfL's earlier assertions that SLL passengers should take ELLX to Clapham Junction and change for Victoria there.

However the Save South London Line Campaign is calling out for the Department for Transport to review all terminating services at London Bridge, based on impact and future demand. Network Rail has acknowledged that keeping the South London Line to London Bridge is possible but would require elaborate signalling or the removal of other services. The Campaign has argued that the cutting of SLL would be a rupture of links and hence impact disproportionately. Negotiations with the DfT over this will continue.

The Campaign group is also looking for a Lawyer with experience in Judicial Review proceedings. Anyone able to help?

** The SSLL Campaign is a consortium of elected representatives from all 4 main parties, plus the Southwark Rail Users' Group, Clapham Transport Users Group, Lambeth Public Transport Group, Kings College Hospital, and SLAM (South London & Maudsley).

[reggie]

Looks like protestin' actually gets things done..well done Eileen

[Applespider]

Well done and the costumes looked marvellous this morning.

However, looking at the new timetable from 13 December, it appears that we're losing trains between 8-9 at Denmark Hill with the 8.06 and the 8.40 disappearing and the 8.14 being retimed. I'm relieved that the 0829 is staying (as the 0830) since having one train at DH that doesn't stop at PR does make for a less crowded journey.

It is annoying to lose the 8.06 and 8.14 though since now there's a fairly big gap if you miss the 0759. I guess those days I have to be in the office for 8.30 meetings just became earlier starts...

[Huguenot]

Crikey, you guys have no idea whether it's right or wrong. You just want to protest it.

I'd like to protest Eileen starting a new thread every time she has an opnion.

[Gimme]

If you go for the Victoria to Dartford option, any chance of asking for it to start running a bit earlier?

It is one of the best ways to get to Canary Wharf / Docklands (changing at Lewisham) but the first train is 8.31 from Denmark Hill which makes getting in early difficult.

[reggie]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Crikey, you guys have no idea whether it's right

> or wrong. You just want to protest it.

>

> I'd like to protest Eileen starting a new thread

> every time she has an opnion.

If you know more about this issue why dont you enlighten us?

And what is your problem with Eileen posting her opinion?

Hug u not

[Huguenot]

;-)

I don't mind Eileen having an opinion, but it's both lazy and poor etiquette to start a new thread every time - it makes it confusing to follow the story.

Having worked alongside various transport outfits for a number of years, my experience was that they're dedicated, intelligent, generous people who try to find the best solution.

The arguments for the redistribution of the service have been patiently laid out in threads passim, but conveniently mislaid by Eileen's strategy of starting a new thread every time.

There may well be opportunities for tweaking, but the 'power of the protest' is facile in this case. Nobody's trying to rip anyone off, and 'protesting' creates confrontation where none is reasonable.

Some people just like confrontation because it makes them feel cool, don't they reggie?

[reggie]

If Eileen had not protested she would not have got the concessions.

And so, she is cool.

[Smiler]

Thank you very much for the update Eileen.

Thanks also Applespider - didn't realise trains were disappearing at Denmark Hill between 8-9 after 13 December, argh. Always rely on not having to wait too long if I miss them.

Applespider Wrote:

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

> However, looking at the new timetable from 13

> December, it appears that we're losing trains

> between 8-9 at Denmark Hill with the 8.06 and the

> 8.40 disappearing and the 8.14 being retimed. I'm

> relieved that the 0829 is staying (as the 0830)

> since having one train at DH that doesn't stop at

> PR does make for a less crowded journey.

>

> It is annoying to lose the 8.06 and 8.14 though

> since now there's a fairly big gap if you miss the

> 0759. I guess those days I have to be in the

> office for 8.30 meetings just became earlier

> starts...

[Huguenot]

What concessions, that they are reviewing alternatives? They would have been doing this anyhow.

They are now burning up resources exploring and possibly delivering solutions that may be commercially ludicrous for the benefit of an action group.

This is why lobbyists should be banned from parliament.

[TJMP]

It is not commercially ludicrous to provide a service that is well used and patently needed - especially when balanced against other environmental and social factors. It is also not ludicrous to suggest, having spent several million pounds making Denmark Hill Station accessible for patients to King's and the Maudsley, that cutting the trains that serve it from London Bridge and Victoria is a bad idea.

The Transport Minister has now put forward a solution that will mitigate much of the loss of service to Victoria. I am hopeful that TfL and the Mayor will support his proposal which builds in a process where the replacement service can be evaluated for usage etc over a period of 2-3 years fron 2011.

We continue to campaign on that and on the direct link into London Bridge. I along with Eileen, and virtually every other politician, passenger, patient and everyone with a link to King's and SLAM from SE5 to SE27 support the aims of the SLL campaign. Eileen should be thanked for the hard work she has been doing for the local community on this and other issues.

Tessa Jowell

[Torben Pieknik]

I find it incredible that a Government Minister can come on here and claim credit for campaigning on this issue when it was DfT and Network Rail who took the decision to cut the SLL in the first place.

If it was so patently needed why were you not fighting DfT when this decision was first taken? You only became interested when you could blame Boris for the cuts to the planned Victoria to Bellingham service (which again was a DfT decison).

[R&A]

I can't see how TJ is claiming credit... she is merely pointing out to hugenot that there are wider economic and social impacts that far out weigh the direct costs associated with maintaining links to central london from central-south london.

She clearly points out that 'every politician' is campaigning to keep these vital links that benefit a cross section of society (from patients to city workers)

And just to reiterate that point. This isn't a small 'action group' fighting to keep these train services, it covers all parties and the Mayor. This is not a political issue anymore. Consensus is that we keep central london line links.

[TJMP]

Thank you R&A,

I would just say in response to the post above that I was interested in this issue a long time before any decision had been made to cut the SLL - as evidenced in responses I submitted to the Cross London Rail Utilisation Strategy and the South London Rail Utilsation Strategy consultation documents which were published four and two years ago respectively.

If you read my post you will see that I haven't claimed credit for anything. I am just one of many people helping to make the case for local people under the banner of the South London Line Campaign. The main reason for the post was because I thought that Eileen had been treated rather unfairly in this thread given all the work she has put in.

There will be a new East London Line service running through Denmark Hill which is to be welcomed. The only capital contribution in cash terms has been made by DfT who suggested in the South London Rail Utilisation Strategy that a replacement service into Victoria should be provided. TfL asked DfT to scrap this planned service (as they are entitled to do under powers given to the Mayor) as their 'contribution' to the ELL project. That is where the argument was but, as my post makes clear, things have moved on and I believe that real progress is being made.

Tessa Jowell

[Jeremy]

I can't really see where Huguenot is coming from on this one. The assumption that it is "commercially ludicrous" is based on what? And surely you realise (as possibly the strongest advocate of public transport on this forum) that profitability should not be the main reason for operating a route?

[reggie]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> What concessions, that they are reviewing

> alternatives? They would have been doing this

> anyhow.

>

> They are now burning up resources exploring and

> possibly delivering solutions that may be

> commercially ludicrous for the benefit of an

> action group.

>

> This is why lobbyists should be banned from

> parliament.

Do you think it is wrong for people to lobby their MP?

Middle Class Mayhem

[charliecharlie]

Thanks for keeping us up to date Eileen... much easier to see 'what's new' when you start a new thread...

[Huguenot]

I wasn't saying it was commercially ludicrous, I was saying that it's perfectly plausible that it could be.

Tessa and Eileen have taken a very close focus on the desires and prejudices of local people in the immediate area.

Conversely the rail planning authorities also have to consider the requirements of travellers based outside the area who are in transit.

My understanding with the proposed changes is that they are a response to the practical challenge concerning platform availability and train density.

I'm sure that TJMP and Eileen won't give a flying fig about people outside of Southwark, as it gains neither votes for the former or neighbourly accolade for the latter. Maybe I'm just less self-serving?

There is an underlying tone to this campaign which portrays rail planners as cost-cutting faceless administrators employing a personal grudge against the people of Southwark.

Most of the demonstrators seem to be saying "I don't care what the needs, requirements and restrictions of the transport infrastructure are, I just want what's right for me". It's particularly self-indulgent and leads to bad planning.

[James]

Huguenot, can you explain why it is so unreasonable to campaign against the cutting of train services to Central London when:

a) The East London Line extension WON'T GO THERE and is therefore not a replacement for them

b) We have no tube lines in this part of London, meaning we rely more on overland trains than other suburbs

c) The train services we do have are relatively infrequent and crowded compared to other parts of London

d) The vast majority of commuting is into the centre of town - not East London!

I'd love to hear the case for cutting train services - please explain.

[Jeremy]

It is not selfish to campaign against reduction of transport services in your local area.

People pay a lot of money to use public transport in London, and in this area of London we are gradually receiving less services in return for our money. Huguenot, your worthy/empathetic position sounds fine in theory, but it's an easy thing to say when you don't live here (a cheap shot admittedly). In practise few people would feel the same way.

[James Barber]

During November Southwark Council agreed it new Core Strategy - the local planning bible.

I ensured a revision so that it includes a presumption that London Bridge railway station will serve Southwark located railway stations. Considering the community dislocation all the viaducts and cuttings the rail lines provide mostly for the benefit of non Southwark residents such a presumption seems reasonable.

Hopefully Network Rail will have a requirement to submit a planning application for London Bridge station before the South London Line is closed. Such a planning application would be tested against this new requirement. As things stand the Dept of Transport has not directed Network Rail to provide sufficient platforms after its redevelopment to keep all currently terminating services and the extra through services linking home counties north and south of London. Hence the planned South London Line closure.

If you walk to the end of platforms 14-16 and look back you can see the original engine shed which is now used for Network Rail car parking instead of the original platforms 17-21. Plenty of room for more platforms than the Department of Transport has told Network Rail to provide.

[ayresc]

I don't mean to blow smoke but I just want to say a big thank you for politicains and councilors for paying time to listen and speak on this forum... a real step in the right direction!

[peckhamboy]

Incidentally, can anyone explain why the people providing our public transport infrastructure need so many car parking spaces in central London? Surely they should be required to use public transport like the rest of London?

[Huguenot]

I don't think there is a case for the cutting of train services, quite the opposite.

I'm thinking that the most likely reason for the change in services was to maximise the 'people miles' travelled at a better efficiency - hence to improve the overall service.

The unfortunate side-effect was that the maximum success didn't necessarily deliver the maximum service to Denmark Hill.

I'm thinking that the result of single-issue lobbying for Denmark Hill is possibly a degradation in the service overall, a decrease in efficiency.

I had mates who used to travel the longer distance beyond Southwark and London. Guess what - their services were cramped and inefficient too. The rail authorities are unable to please everyone.

My experience of Denmark Hill and the SLL was that outside of rush hour the service was virtually empty. I was often one of only four/five people in a carriage. Thus a campaign for an all-day service is simply convenience, the indulgent equivalent of buying a Rolls Royce and 24 hour driver when you only go to Sainsbury once a month.

So since the service is poorly used outside of rush hour, it strikes me that a campaign like this might be more about house prices than hospitals.

[R&A]

">My experience of Denmark Hill and the SLL was that outside of rush hour the service was virtually empty. I was often one of only four/five people in a carriageSo since the service is poorly used outside of rush hour, it strikes me that a campaign like this might be more about house prices than hospitals.The unfortunate side-effect was that the maximum success didn't necessarily deliver the maximum service to Denmark Hill.<"

- there are many stations that will be affected across south london.... Clapham north tube station is closed most mornings because of over crowding.. the SLL is used as an alternative during these times. Equally Wandsworth road is a barren desert in terms of public transport links etc etc