Nasaroc,
Regarding your point about off-peak services, this was raised at the FH Society AGM and I shall say nothing to defend my statement. I got the tone and phrasing wrong when I was trying to highlight the disaster that will be caused to the peak evening services (although even then I have difficulty using the same word that we use to describe Tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands of people - that is a real disaster).

Regarding semi-fast trains I still do not understand what the suggested problem would be.

Regarding cutting ELL trains - It is not something that I want to see, but if I was given a choice (as I was in the Meet the Manager session) between trains to London Bridge and trains to Shoreditch I know which I think is best. It does not seem to make sense to have 4tph from London Bridge and 8tph from Shoreditch. The London Bridge trains are twice as long and can carry significantly more passengers. Switching two of the slots from ELL to Southern would give equal numbers of trains on both services but would provide more space for passengers in line with where people travel.

It should be possible to run more than 12tph on our line but there are complications around Crystal Palace / Norwood.

I'm not going to speak on behalf of the Forest Hill Society but for myself I will state as clearly as I can:
I oppose all cuts to London Bridge services via Forest Hill - daytime, evening peak, late evening
I oppose cutting the direct services from Charing Cross to London Bridge
I do not wish to see any cuts to the proposed 8 tph running via Forest Hill
I oppose any further cuts to trains to London Bridge without the lengthening of all trains and platforms on our route

I welcome the morning peak services to Victoria
I welcome the plans to run Thameslink trains via Forest Hill in 2015
I want all the Victoria services to be at least 6 carriages (never 2 carriages in the late evenings)
I want all trains on the Forest Hill to London Bridge route to be 12 carriages by 2012 (rather than the 10 proposed by Network Rail)
I want the ELL to be extended to a 5 or 6 carriage service. Due to the nature of the carriages I believe this could be achieved with limited door opening at certain stations.
I want to see a Bellingham to Victoria service via Crofton Park to replace the South London Line (as long as it has no impact on services through Forest Hill)
I want to see the Bakerloo line extended via Forest Hill to Hayes (via the 176 route and an interchange at Bell Green).
I want Cannon Street to remain open after 8pm to service certain North Kent services, allowing for more services to run from Forest Hill to Charing Cross.
I want additional escalators at Canada Water for interchange between platforms.
I would like to see an interchange station at Brockley with the Crofton Park line.

Well from 2015 FH may be getting a welcome extra service with Thameslink, however the Sutton/Wimbldon loop which services Streatham/Tooting will not as the proposal is for that line to cease and have trains start & terminate at Blackfriars

Tootings local MP is a certain Sadiq Khan who is the Minister For Transport, so please good citizens of FH and surround - be careful who you vote for and what you wish

Could I just deal with the issue raise by junegapi above about whether ELL trains are likely to suffer from overcrowding.

June says that "there will be 8 trains an hour travelling in each direction through NXG. Each train will have 4 carriages. I don't see a problem of overcrowding on these trains".

If the TfL assessment of about one third extra passengers after 2010 is correct this would mean between 6,000 - 6,500 extra passengers using the line each morning (and the same number in the evening) from the 7 stations stretching from Anerley to NXG.

Doesn't sound like that many extra people until you realise that to shift 6,500 people you would need around 16 ELL trains (two full hours worth of trains!) just to cope with the increase - and this is assuming 400 people per train (not the maximum 600+ but still very, very crowded). We are talking about just "the increase" here, we are not allowing for current LB passengers mving to the ELL.

If you add to that a crazy campaign to invite large number of commuters from East Croydon and Surrey onto the ELL, you have a plan which spell very very bad news for local rail passengers.

That's all very well and understandable, Nasaroc, but what about the proposal that additional trains FROM London Bridge stop at NXG - surely this can only benefit us locals along the ELL line who will be hit by the loss of stopping trains from London Bridge?

Gaz - Can't disagree with you more.

Have you thought about the numbers who will join the ELL to get on the stopping fast trains at NXG if this silly scheme gains traction?

Imagine the number of people who work in the northern part of the City and Canary Wharf area who live in East Croydon/Surrey.

Thousands of them will want to take advantage of a trip home that doesn't involve changing at London Bridge if instead they can come straight down the ELL and hop on an "Abrahams Special" direct to East Croydon and beyond. Even changing at Canada Water from Canary Wharf is going to save time (and money) compared to travelling through LB.

The idea that we can keep this special link "secret" only to be used by locals along our line is non credible. Every single experience since mass transport began tells us that passengers will quickly find and use the route that is easiest and quickest.

The ELL can only comfortably carry around 3,500 passengers per hour. It's taken 30 years to get this new line. Please, please don't put it at risk with a scheme that is going to make evening journeys even even worse for locals.

Diversion from current debate...

The SLP is reporting that a report on the future of the SLL is with City Hall. It is not clear if this is the TfL/Travelwatch report, but apparently TfL will now possibly fund the Victoria-Bellingham service for 2 years (2012-2014). Then (in a neat twist which pushes any decision past the general election) the service will be included into the SouthEastern franchise if passenger numbers were sufficient - no definition of sufficient numbers

Nasaroc,
You make some interesting points. I'm still not completely convinced by your analysis as I would assume that the Surrey bound passengers from Canary Wharf would currently be using the stopping service via Forest Hill.

I have never seen huge numbers of passengers left on the train after Forest Hill, and I suspect most of these passengers get off at Sydenham and the remaining trains before Croydon.
When the ELL was running (admittedly less frequently than 8tph) I did not see huge numbers changing from ELL to get down to Surrey.
Our figures suggested that less than 4% of passengers from Forest Hill travel to Canary Wharf. Even if 10% of passengers to Surrey who currently use our line are coming from Canary Wharf, I don't think that is a lot of passengers based on the numbers currently travelling on our trains. I also do not expect many people to travel from Shoreditch to Surrey in exactly the same way.
I expect that the vast majority of Surrey passengers who currently use London Bridge will have come from the Northern Line and from central London via the Jubilee Line. I would not expect an extra stop at NXG would change their travelling patterns.

Whilst the "Abrahams Special" does seem quite attractive (to people in Surrey) I don't think that it would lead to the chaos you suggest. In fact I think the people who would most object would be those from Surrey who would not welcome hoards of South Londoners travelling on their trains for one stop to get to NXG. The question is who would benefit most - the 70% of Brockley-Sydenham passengers using London Bridge or the 10% (estimate) of Surrey passengers using the fast line?

I noticed that there is now a Facebook group for the campaign against cuts to rail services. Help spread the word to your friends, and their friends, by joining this group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=176493422198

Regarding the "Abrahams Special". What's to stop Surrey commuters from changing onto the ELL at Norwood Junction if they wish to avoid London Bridge? At least if they change at New Cross Gate, residents along the line will have a chance of a seat.

Of course, the ELL may well be full by the time it gets to NXG, so the Surrey commuters who wish to use this option would have to change at Norwood Junction anyway.

But at NXG there'd be 8 tph as opposed to only 4 tph at N Junc? The whole matter is a question of which research or objector you believe. For me, Michael has been on the case for at least 3 years and should know what he's talking about - and, I think, is a regular commuter. I don't know about Nasaroc and others - are they armchair warriors or perhaps they only travel at slack times and in the opposite direction?

For those of you who live just over the border, Tessa Jowell MP is doing a rail survey and FH is listed as one of the stations listed as being regularly used by her constituents. Feel free to pass on your comments if you live in that area.

http://www.tessajowell.net/railsurvey

Can I say straight away that my view on the danger of the ELL being "swamped" by stopping fast trains at NXG is one that is shared by senior rail planners.

About two and half years ago, I attended a "High Level Rail Meeting" organised by LBL which brought together TOCs, Network Rail, Lewisham officers and local civic societies to discuss future rail needs. Representing FH Soc was Peter Irby, then head of the FH Soc Transport Committee. Peter, keen to gain easy access for local rail passengers to Thameslink trains, asked why Thameslink trains couldn't stop at NXG. One of the key reasons why this wouldn't work, Peter was told by Network Rail was the danger that this could "draw too many passengers from outside London onto the ELL".

If you won't accept this from me at least listen to professional rail planners.

I have the greatest of respect for Michael but there really is a danger in these circumstances of drawing up ill-thought out schemes without fully thinking through the exact, and sometimes unintended, consequences.

Michael himself has pointed out earlier one of the biggest holes in this scheme - how on earth you would get 2,000 extra passengers heading for our part of the world on each of the already packed fast trains from LB?

Many people when they spot a huge hole in their calculations decide that the course that they have been following is wrong and drop the idea. I can only suppose that when you are in a hole most of us, myself included, often keep digging.

The point raised by New Forester about what is to stop Surrey commuters from gaining acccess to the ELL at Norwood Junction is very simple - absolutely nothing. I am fully confident that ELL trains from W Croydon in the morning will be packed to bursting point by the time they arrive at FH. The other four trains coming from Crystal Palace will be less full since they don't, of course, go through NJ. My point would be - you already have ample opportunity for crowded ELL, so why make things worse by encouraging Surrey commuters to interchange at NXG?

I have created a survey which anyone can use - it is available at http://TrainSurvey.notlong.com/. It asks the same questions as Tessa Jowell's survey, with the addition of an East London Line question, which is why only family name and postcode are required!

Please take the time to fill it in. We will use the results to help the campaign. The questions are:

FHSoc wrote:

Could you explain how?

Simply put, the data will be used to support (or counter) our claims.

As I was sitting in my chair,
I knew the bottom wasn't there,
Nor legs nor back, but I just sat,
Ignoring little things like that.
~Hughes Mearns (although it is not clear if he was writing about the last train).

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. ~ Einstein

I think I'll vote 'No', but I'm not sure if I'm qualified to answer.

FHSoc wrote

Not simple enough for me, I'm afraid. By 'our claims', I assume you mean the campaign against the forthcoming service cuts. In that case, why do you want me to provide data which might 'counter' rather than support those claims? And how in any case are my views about the reliability of the trains, the state of the stations, whether I feel safe on the trains/on the stations, who my MP is, etc, etc, relevant to that campaign? And what are you going to do with my address, email and telephone number?

I think we should be told.

I agree with Robin - I dont see the relevance of these questions. Family name and post code are the only required fields, so what are you trying to determine? It doesnt take the brains of Solomon to work out when you can get a seat on a train from Forest Hill into London, or service reliability (the train companies have to record this anyway). I dont see how feeling 'safe' at a station has anything to do with cutting services. Sorry.

Cuts in services means longer waits at the station. Sometimes some women don't feel safe hanging around for ages at stations.

That's only an arguement if trains are cancelled - and you dont need a poll to make that obvious.