|Posted on Friday, 21 February, 2003 - 12:49 pm: |
Does anyone know what happened to the original station, i found a photograph with it in it. the photo is dated 1955. if you would like to look at them have a look.
|Posted on Monday, 24 February, 2003 - 12:27 pm: |
I thought it got hit by a flying bomb - but perhaps not if your photo is taken 1955
|Posted on Monday, 24 February, 2003 - 10:01 pm: |
I don't think it was the original station but it was the one that survived into the early 70s(?)It had a square tower and a quite impressive tiled ticket hall as I rememeber. It was pulled down and replaced by that portakabin of a station we have now, a terrible shame. There was also a ticket office on the other side of the station if I remember correctly. At one time there was a third platform but am not surwhen that was removed. It must have been dangerously narrow!
|Posted on Friday, 07 March, 2003 - 01:27 pm: |
thanks frank, shame they pulled it down.
|Posted on Friday, 04 April, 2003 - 10:38 am: |
I was born in 1952 and I remember the old staion. The clock was blown out during WWII and the central platform was quite big, with trains to Brighton and the south coast. There was indeed a ticket office on the down platform, but as with a lot of things to do with the railways it was demolished. The entrance to the central platform was in the subway.
|Posted on Friday, 04 April, 2003 - 02:38 pm: |
thanks alot everyone it has been most helpful. now all we have to do is harrass south central for a new train station!
|Posted on Monday, 28 April, 2003 - 09:34 am: |
As part of the recently approved Forest Hill Urban Design Framework & Development Strategy, Lewisham Council & Network Rail will now seek to secure funding for a more detailed feasibility study for the redevelopment/ improvement of Forest Hill Station.
Let's hope they find some cash and approve a new station.
|Posted on Saturday, 13 March, 2004 - 11:08 pm: |
I was just about to post the same question until I fould MJ's thread.
Forest Hill Station is an eyesore and totally out of keeping with the character and style of the 'village', not to mention as a gateway to the beautiful Horniman museum and gardens, as the platform signs quite rightly proclaim.
Moreover, hows about a beautiful, big fountain, illuminated at night, slap bang in front of the entrance of what presently passes as a car park, perhaps integrated with those trees. That would be beautiful and be a much more fitting intro to Forest Hill IMO.
|Posted on Sunday, 24 July, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
I too well remember the old station having been born and lived in the area since 1949.
The ststion was badly damaged in the war and something had to be done.
As PT said the middle platform was quite wide. They have probably moved the existing lines since that date.
|Posted on Wednesday, 08 March, 2006 - 07:54 pm: |
According to tonight’s Evening Standard “Lewisham Council is working on plans for a major redevelopment of Forest Hill station and surrounding land.” Looks like some dosh has been found to fund the detailed feasibility study mentioned in Rob’s posting.
|Posted on Wednesday, 08 March, 2006 - 08:20 pm: |
I trust this new development allows for some commuter car parking - better to have it in one place than around our residential streets. I am thinking of the main car park at the back.
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
Roz - not sure why it should have space for commuter car parking, particularly since I think most new planning applications should seek to minimise car parking and therefore the often unnecessary reliance on cars.
The vast majority of people are perfectly capable of walking to the station - station car parking should be for the benefit of the few, not the many. By granting permission to allow more car parking the Council would be seen to be endorsing car usage when in fact it should be discouraging overuse of cars.
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 12:51 pm: |
I agree anyone able bodied using F H station lives in walking distance.( or should ) Problem seems to be with parking those good citizens of leafy Purley and places like that travelling by car as far as possible and then getting the train for the final leg.
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 01:24 pm: |
What was the purpose of the central platform? Could this have been for the fast trains stopping (a Thameslink connection, now that would be exciting). Having just used the Stansted (inappropriately named) Express we are fortunate to have separate lines for fast and slow traffic (well those using the Thameslink and fast commuting lines are).
And why did I get a TFL East London newsletter through my door? I don't live in East London, I'm quite happy for them to have the Olympics and their new lines but doesn't make a lot of difference to my life. My brain is addled at the moment or else I would have put this into rhyme on the East London Line thread. And I have to put a riposte to the most ungrateful Hilltop on my posting on SE London vistas.
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 02:08 pm: |
Hi West Brom Man.
The Middle platform I seem to recall was originally because two railway company served FH.
London B to Croydon and Charing Cross to Croydon.
This would have been up to the 1920's , when the companies were amalgamated into Southern Railway.
I believe it was something like this but would need a local railway historian to give the full facts
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 03:54 pm: |
Likely to be correct as the funny construction of London Bridge (terminus platforms on different levels to through, etc) dervives from the existence of separate companies who built separate stations.
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 04:37 pm: |
I have some old photos of the original station, and of London Road. Perhaps if I emailed them to the Webmaster they could create a page for old photos of Forest Hill?
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 05:31 pm: |
May be of interest, checkout the image index as well.
According to John Coulter there have been 3 booking halls at Forest Hill on the up platform. "We know little about the first, and all too much about the third."
The second one with the tower was very badly damaged by a V1 in 1944, although what was left remained till the 1970's.
Apparently the first station was called the Dartmouth station as it was close to the pub.
If I remember correctly the latest station was opened by a government minister, must have come as a shock to him when he saw the building.
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 05:55 pm: |
This is getting interesting, in a trainspotter sort of way.
Sure my old map of London showed separate train companies going into London Bridge from Kent and Sussex, not competing companies running parallel lines through our neck of the woods.
But the person who recalls the timetable for the old Crystal Palace High Level line probably knows this level of detail (where passengers could stop off for a beer in the Moor Park Tavern).
continuing on mindless and unregulated competition between the railways you can see the bridge supports on the Thames by the railway crossing for Blackfriars where a competing company foolishly ran their service.
You learn so much on this web site (thanks BD)
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 08:02 pm: |
Baggydave this site may bring you out in spots.
for those into retro
www.francisfrith.com/pageloader.asp?page=/shop/pri nts/printSelector.asp&neg=F179015&collectionid=10& townid=F179&start=1&action=prevphoto
a bit of history
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 08:04 pm: |
The reason that new developments including the station development should have ample car parking is this- housing and indeed other schemes without adequate car parking provision do not discourage car parking unless there are car free agreements that prevent users applying for parking permits, and /or expensive meter parking in the immediate area. There is no parking permit system/meter system in most of Forest Hill at present so there is nothing to prevent people from parking in side residential streets. Other parts of Lewisham and indeed London, and Camden where I work, are different and there it makes sense to encourage through the planning system, developments without parking. Here in Forest Hill it does not. The concept is too premature. The new upvc monstrosity in Devonshire Road is underprovided for parking and people just park ( badly) on the road. The former post office sorting office is to be converted into residential flats without adequate parking. The theory is that the lack of this provision makes people give up their cars. This is simply not the case, and we must get real. The only thing that will reduce car use is a 'user tax', congestion charge type schemes , etc which hurts everyones pocket and a carrot by way of a decent safe integrated public transport system, which frankly will never materialise in this country in the way is has in Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc, etc,.
I'd like to bring to everyones attention a poster in Camden Town tube station advertising the re energised Horniman Museum, and at the bottom advising 'ample free parking in adjacent streets' ie yours and mine. How very dare they.
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 08:04 pm: |
Just an idea, the church spire tucked away on Round Hill couldn't that be relocated to outside the station?
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 09:02 pm: |
The idea of relocating the spire has been raised before. However, it has lived safely in the middle of the Round Hill council estate for many years, without damage or vandalism. I think the residents of the estate have been good custodians, and I think it should stay with them.
Incidentally, it is the top of the spire of the Wren church which was demolished when they build Canon Street station (St Antholin's).
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 07:39 am: |
You are now talking about residents parking as opposed to parking for those to lazy to walk to the station
Re residents parking I agree is a problem some of the time but cannot see any alternative.
I think and CPZ would be negative for everyone bar the council and union of traffic wardens. No residents ever gain from CPZ.
I also object to people paving over gardens
Re UPVC building in DR do you mean the building on the railway side about 40. I thought they had some parking.
I did not know the old post office building being changed to residential use. Will there be any jobs left in SE 23 soon. We will all need cars to go elsewhere as the few commercial sites we have are going.
Why is the council allowing this.???????
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 08:38 am: |
Roz - I will be writing to the Horniman asking them for a little more sensitivity in their posters. The quickest and cheapest way to get here from Camden Town is tube and rail.
Brian - it is emerging that paving over gardens may end up causing some serious environmental problems which we need to think about.
Why does the Council allow these developments? Well, the pattern of economic activity has changed drastically over the last thirty to forty years. This partly reflects the reduced importance of manufacturing in the national economy (I personally think this is a worrying trend), but partly it reflects massive improvements in manufacturing productivity which mean that the same amount of goods are produced by less people. Manufacturing has also relocated to sites with better access etc. As a Council, we have to respond to applications on their merits, and as there is little real possibility of retaining some of the smaller less accessible sites in Forest Hill for industry, then we must consider other uses. All the developments off Dartmouth Road will include business units, however, so there will be employment - I'm not sure that there will be that many less jobs at the end of the day.
I wouldn't take the same attitude to other parts of the Borough. The industrial estates along the Bromley border in Sydenham seem to still be viable. Also, the East London Line and other transport improvements will make it possible for residents to commute to areas in the Thames corridor where there will still be industrial employment.
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 08:48 am: |
Thanks for your reply which I mainly agree with.
Working in the logistics industry there does not appear to be much manufacturing left in the UK. I am not sure how this country will survive in 20 years time. But that is hardly a local issue
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 09:14 am: |
Sorry but I have to take issue with the statement "No residents ever gain from CPZ". I lived for a number of years within walking distance of Clapham Junction and without a CPZ in our area there would have been no way that local residents would have got parking spaces. I agree that it's not necessary in Forest Hill but I don't think you can dismiss these things out-of-hand.
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 10:59 am: |
I cannot speak for Clapham Common.
Trouble with CPZ's is they sound good in theory.
What actually seems to happen is.
They mark out parking spaces which reduce the current spaces by at least one third. Where are all these cars going to park.
We , as locals , are charged for the privalidge of possibly being able to find one of the vastly reduced number of spaces. When we were parking for free in a much larger ammount of spaces.
Not sure where the plus is here.
To stop commuters from outside the area parking is another problem. But not sold by CPZs. How about Lewisham issuing resident stickers for nominal charge and making parking by non borough residents illegal.Or subject to charge.We could insist Forest Hill Station booking staff have to ask for proof of address before issuing season tickets. These people would not do it if they had to buy daily tickets.
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
So Brian, you restrict (one might even say "Control") parking to residents only in a particular area or "Zone". Hang on a second....
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 12:23 pm: |
Oh what have I said Simon.
What we do not want is marked spaces. Surely a residents sticker would still be OK with NO marked spaces.
I think my idea of insisting FH station only sell season tickets to locals is the best idea. People are driving about 10 miles or so then using our station. They should get the train all the way.
|Posted on Tuesday, 14 March, 2006 - 09:08 am: |
Let's play a game. Next time any of you are at London Bridge station, see if you can find platform 7....
|Posted on Tuesday, 14 March, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
I can assure you it is and has been for years as elusive as platform 9 3/4 at Paddington
|Posted on Tuesday, 14 March, 2006 - 02:26 pm: |
Not true. 7 is there, just with no tracks.
|Posted on Tuesday, 14 March, 2006 - 06:23 pm: |
Platform 9 3/4 is actually at Kings Cross, not Paddington, where it certainly is elusive.
Potter from Paddington? I think not.
|Posted on Tuesday, 14 March, 2006 - 07:06 pm: |
So why do the trains that I use always seem to stop at platform 16, entailing a half mile walk to the exit. OK I exagerate, and as you all know being a vegan crusty I cycle everywhere
Even worse at Victoria, where the Croydon trains stop so far South you are almost our side of the river. Any for years no one even knew that there was an occasional (now regular) Forest Hill service.
|Posted on Wednesday, 15 March, 2006 - 11:28 am: |
Re the Horniman poster at Camden Town tube station advising “ample free parking in adjacent streets”, the Horniman actively encourage their visitors not to use public transport in all their publicity, including their What’s On” brochure and website. Particularly mean to Forest Hillers is the website text for Venue Hire for Weddings and Other Events” which reads “ ample parking is available on neighbouring streets”. Great neighbours! Making money for themselves but dumping their visitors’ vehicles outside our homes.
|Posted on Wednesday, 15 March, 2006 - 12:19 pm: |
OK Guys sorry for my errors. I was not having a good day.
|Posted on Wednesday, 15 March, 2006 - 07:40 pm: |
Exactly my thoughts re the Horniman, but usually these issues would be dealt with as a planning requirement, everywhere except Lewisham apparently where everyone runs rings round the planning department. The new extension came with a business plan to allow growth. That growth would result in an increase in traffic, hence a planning condition to deal with this somehow would have been in order.
|Posted on Thursday, 16 March, 2006 - 06:37 pm: |
Thanks loan ranger for an excellent 'retro' site
See: http://www.francisfrith.com/archive/england/west+m idlands/rednal/photos/R250092