Following the approval by the planning committee of the new barriers we are bringing in the big guns to deal with Southern once again. You can see a copy of my email to Southern Railway at http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2008/11...thern.html
I understand from Southern that the new gates at FH and Sydenham will not be constructed until just before the introduction of Oyster PAYG on the line. This is now scheduled for September 2009, which is also when TfL will take over the running of our local stations from Southern.
When TfL take over running of our local stations they will staff the stations at all times when trains are in operation, so that we should expect the new gates to be available for passenger use at all times.
I may have got this wrong so please let me know. My point is that if the above is correct, why should we be concerned - Southern won't be running our stations as from next September, and the new regime of TfL will ensure that gates are usable at all times.
Isnt the issue about the location of the gates, the back up of people during rush hour on the stairs (dangerous) and the fact that the area is likely to be used as a public toilet during the evening. I'll eat my hat if tfl man these from 6am to midnight!
The intention is not to staff the new gate "from 6am to midnight" - and never was - and we shouldn't realistically expect TfL to do so.
This is "a remote self-contained ticket gate" which is designed to be operated at times without the need for a ticket inspector standing by the gate. I understand from Southern that they intend to place a person by the gate during peak use - during the morning and evening rush hours. But at other times, the barriers will be opened automatically by passengers with tickets and Oystercards. Remote gates such as these (with a CCTV and buzzer system to help those with problems) operate successfully in many suburban stations already and their operation will be made much easier when Oystercards become the norm.
I'm unsure what you mean Gingernuts about the issue being the "location of the gates etc". Surely, the gates are going to be placed close to the existing bollards on Perry Vale where there is easily enough space for passengers to collect safely at the foot of the stairs.
Step-free access via the Perry Hill car park is, of course, an idea which would be welcomed by all passengers but this will only be achieved in the medium to long term. In the meantime, all passengers want the choice of entering and leaving the station via the steps - so let's allow them this choice. If the way to achieve this is by erecting gates (and both Southern and TfL simply won't budge on this point) then let's proceed. Why should this be a worry?
The alternative is to see the gates locked up for part or all of the day again. Who wants that?
The door at the top of the stairs (and the stairs themselves) surely are a sufficient bottleneck in themselves? I suppose if half the barriers are either out of use or blocked with someone looking for their ticket it could back-up pretty quickly.
I use this entrance three times a week to leave FH station and get into it.it is narrow but it is the only way into te station from PV we have got. trying to prove it is dangerous will lead to one thing, the gate being shut down all together. i want to use these steps and so do thousands of others, hands off our exit you lot!!!ive used it for years and iwant to keep it.
Nasaroc: I don't know what your definition of "close to the existing bollards" is, but the plans indicate the gates will be about 2-3 metres from the bottom of the stairs: http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/37771_2.pdf
Grasshopper: the issue isn't the exit as it is now, it's the addition of barriers close to the bottom of the stairs and the possible danger this creates. I use this exit every day and I'm cautious when walking down the stairs, particularly in the dark: the lighting is poor and I often can't see the steps immediately beneath me because they're in deep shadow created by other passengers. I even wait until I get to the bottom before putting gloves on etc so that I'm not distracted when walking down the stairs. I may be overly cautious in my own actions but unfortunately that's not going to keep me safe from the increased chance of someone else tripping on the stairs when they start digging around in their bag or pocket to retrieve their ticket for the barrier. And God help anyone who drops their ticket on the steps and has to grope around in the dark for it while trying to avoid being trampled by other passengers.
I think the reference to bollards is the ones listed on the PDF plans, the bollards on the pavement.
On a positive note it will steady the flow of people leaving the station, and not the usual rush that forces anyone else on the pavement out the way of the commuters. lol
I personally think the suggested placement of the barriers makes perfect sense.
We've fought long and hard to keep access to both sides of the station open. So what are we now saying? That at this late stage we reject the gate which we've known all along was part of the Oystergate "settlement" ?
This is total madness!
Thank goodness the planning commitee had the good sense to plough ahead with this scheme.
Reassure me Michael. I'm a member of the FHS. Is it really the FHS's position that we are opposed in principle to this gate and that we are going to fight it? Such a stance can only result in one outcome - the closing off of that side of the station again. The rail authorities would love nothing more.
I am fully confident that the overwhelming majority of passengers would rather have the option of using the steps (which are by no means ideal) via a gate rather than risk that side of the station being closed off.
Barry Milton
PS This is a four barrier gate - even if one of the three available barriers failed to operate, the other two gates would still "clear" over 100 passengers a minute using Oystercards. There are simply no grounds to stir up panic about possible accidents due to crowding.
Again, I would have to add that I personally feel the suggested barriers are more than suitable, and slowing the flow down, both on the steps and onto the pavement has to be a positive thing.
Im sure the downside is when the cabs all start parking on the pavement right outside the barriers!
Closing off that side of the station would be shocking I would think. Of course the earlier mentioned access via the car park would be a brilliant idea, and im sure one that would benefit all.
I dont think the steps are in any way original to be fair
The only way the exit would be closed is if they could not control the flow of passengers through it. Hence the comments about NOT objecting to it, to keep the exit in use. (I think)
"I hope you understand that the Forest Hill Society does welcome the introduction of ticket barriers for revenue protection and for the advantages of using pre-pay Oyster cards in the future. However, safety and accessibility are our primary concerns and we hope that you also take these concerns seriously."
The FH Society made it clear in its submission to the Planning Department that it supported the Platform 2 exit but was concerned about passenger safety: "Despite our strong support for the principle of having an exit from Platform 2, we ask that the application be refused unless Southern Railway can supply evidence that the ticket gates will not put passenger safety at risk."
As someone who uses that exit on a daily basis I think it perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence to allay passenger concerns about safety. So far no such evidence has been produced.
Search
Help
