No. This effect the South London Line via Peckham, not via Crystal Palace. We should not be effected by these changes.

The RUS from 2008 shows peak morning trains running to Victoria from Forest Hill and there are no reasons to suppose this has changed. The South London Loop Line was not shown in the RUS.

Those who believe that the retention of the South London line (SLL) service would have no effect on our local services should examine statements from the group campaigning to retain the SLL. They recognised immediately when the SLL was first under threat that retaining their service meant that ?our? loop line from LB to Victoria would have to be scrapped. Here is a fraction of their statement of evidence to Network Rail and TfL:


?The London Bridge-Crystal Palace-Victoria service is an inefficient use of resources, as it runs via stations already very well served by other lines and does not carry many people from (say) Clapham Junction or Balham to London Bridge. We do not see the rationale for this service at all. ?.. As such we can keep 2 trains per hour SLL service to London Bridge in return for withdrawing the Crystal Palace service.?

So come on Tam!

Here?s the damning evidence straight from the horse?s mouth. Please make a clear and unequivocal statement on SE23. Do you or do you not support retention of the SLL ? and the aims of the group fighting for reinstatement of the line ? an outcome which would automatically entail axing of our loop line?

Once we are clear on you and your colleague?s attitudes to this damaging campaign, we can then deal with the threat faced to our services by the campaign to open up the line from Bellingham to Victoria.

Southern didnt explicitly say the loop was going, but that was what I deduced from them saying they would no longer operate the Victoria/Clapham route and that the Overground would instead be extending services to Clapham and the west. I also deduced that the Overground will not be going to London Bridge. Clearly if this is the proposal,the route to Clapham from London Bridge will be via Peckham. That means no loop.

Seems obvious to me. Of course you can always talk to them yourself.

Michael, I suspect you have been mislead.

Gingernuts - Just consider one simple fact.

The loop line makes up two out of the six morning peak hours trains taking passengers from FH to LB and back again - and two out of 4 of the proposed trains per hour operating throughout the rest of the day.

Are you seriously suggesting that once the ELL extension to Clapham Jct is constructed, our trains to and from LB will be cut to 4tph morning peak and 2tph for all of the remainder of the day including the evening rush hours?

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20do...%20rus.pdf
The Victoria service from Forest Hill is detailed on page 77
Scrapping the South London Line is addressed on page 6 and 97

The Bellingham to Victoria service was included in the RUS (see page 6) but would not start until 2012 when the SLL would cease to run. Provision has been made in the timetable for both the Bellingham and the Crystal Palace loop to run into Victoria. I do not see that there is any conflict between Forest Hill to Victoria services and Bellingham to Victoria services.

Nasaroc is correct that there probably is a conflict between SLL and FH services at London Bridge after 2012, when capacity is reduced at London Bridge and we can expect to lose some of our peak morning services into London Bridge regardless. However, before they cut our services further they intend to extend all the platforms on our line to cope with 10 carriage trains, and for the SLL they were planning to implement ELL and Bellingham-Victoria services. I see no reason why we should not support the campaign for Bellingham-Victoria services, and I hope they will support our campaign for 6tph in the evening peak (and through the day), as well as our late evening services to Victoria.

After 2015, when the Thameslink work is completed we will also benefit from direct services to Kings Cross from Forest Hill!

According to the Route Utilisation Strategy document (RUS), the South London Line (SLL) carries far fewer passengers than any of the others which run into London Bridge and Victoria and the capacity is needed by other trains, so to argue that our loop service (which carries more people) should be cut is self defeating. The plan is to replace this SLL in 2012 by another branch of the East London Line running from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction; passengers will be able to get to London Bridge by changing at Peckham Rye.

The RUS also highlights the changes upto 2010

The difference between our campaign and the SLL campaign is that Southern stated in their reply to the RUS consultation that

Michael and New Forester - Many thanks for clarifying some of the points about the SLL.

So having established that the reinstatement of the SLL will hugely damage our local rail services, will Tam Langley (who after all is aiming to represent many commuters along our line) make it clear on SE23 that she does not support the aims of the campaign to save the South London Line?

Does Tam have any regrets in pressing the London Mayor in public to reinstate the SLL - an action that has helped to condemn her potential future constituents and local community to cuts in their rail services?

The retention of the South London Line was debated in Parliament on Remembrance Day.

This debate explains quite clearly why the SLL is to be cut. Chris Mole (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Ipswich, Labour) stated

He also covers the Victoria-Bellingham service

Listening to the LBC podcast, Tam's question actually related to the Victoria-Bellingham service, although she muddied the waters by mentioning SLL

However, Caroline Pidgeon, while mentioning Forest Hill (48:40), did campaign for the SLL...

The situation is very clear.

Local Liberal Democrats need to decide what they want to do.

They can either support the FH Society, Sydenham Society, Brockley Society, Telegraph Hill Society, HOPAG and their local communities in the fight against local rail cuts or support a campaign in some other part of south-east London to reinstate the South London Line which will decimate our local services.

You can't do both.

So please make a choice.

Well said nasaroc!

Do we have more voters than our competitors?

Alex Feakes and Tam Langley both have 100% of voters in their constituencies interested in having a good rail service serving stations from Anerley to New Cross Gate and approximately zero voters interested in running a loop line calling at Peckham Rye if it means our own loop line is axed.

If I wanted to be elected as MP for Lewisham West or Lewisham Deptford, I'd be rushing to acknowledge that I'd made a mistake.

Don't spend too long deciding whether you want to support your local community will you guys!

According to London Reconnections

While this is just one of the options being considered, it does make the additional threat to our services very real

New Forester - Many thanks for this information. Statements like the one above really do make me very anxious for the future of our local services.

We clearly are in a situation where demanding entirely new lines elsewhere in south London poses a very real threat to our own services.

For some reason, neither Alex Feakes or Tam Langley want to make clear their views on the subject on this forum despite having both been involved in supporting the South London Line campaign and the new line from Bellingham to Victoria. Could Alex and Tam please let us know:

a. Do they support the SLL campaign?
b. Do they support the Bellingham to Victoria campaign?

If they support either campaign, can they then explain how these lines can be implemented without posing a high risk to other services in our constituency such as the loop line to Victoria and services from Penge East /Sydenham Hill to Victoria in the south of the LW constituency?

If the SLL does win a reprieve, it almost looks certain we'd lose 2 per hour of our Southern trains, probably the LB to Vic via Crystal Palace service, seeing as we'll have 8ph to Dalston which on the whole are useless to us unless you're travelling locally or via Canada Water or Whitechapel to London which takes longer.

Looking at the other Southern services from LB, there is the LB to Beckenham Junction service which runs via East Dulwich Mon to Sat only, but I can't see our neighbours standing for that being axed leaving them with trains every 30 mins.

The big question for me is how TfL can consider running SLL to Charing Cross while FH services cannot run on this line (at least in the late evenings and Sundays - just as they do for the next 27 days).

RB Martin - I agree fully with your concern that a reprieve for the SLL would mean disaster for our local services.

One way that we can help to ensure that the SLL does not rear its ugly head is to ask local politicians who have been pushing to have this and other new lines resurrected to please stop campaigning for these new services and to fight for the interests of their local communities rather than those in Peckham Rye or Bellingham.

I simply do not understand why these politicians are unwilling to simply say "No, we don't support these campaigns" rather than maintaining a deathly silence.

It was bad enough when we lost our daytime off-peak services to CX which I think was back in 1995/96 when Connex took over the franchise, although the pain was lessened when we got the metro style service of 6ph to London Bridge.

With the new Oyster pay as you go prices being announced, it's more than likely I'll continue to use Southern services to London Bridge to go to work instead of the Overground as it'll be cheaper than using the TfL services.

On the other hand, trips to Croydon will be much easier when we get 6ph to Croydon (2 EC, 4 WC) instead of getting the 197 bus which takes ages.