I am sure that admin/Sean will post a full report of the meeting shortly but could I just review what came out of the meeting:
1. There are plans for a new gate on the up platform. These plans have been submitted to Lewisham council. The proposed gate has two entrances - a "wide" entrance/barrier for disabled access/buggies/ passengers with luggage etc and a "normal" width entrance/barrier. This gate will have a roof to protect it from the weather and a ticket vending machine. The gate will allow automatic access via barriers to anyone with a valid ticket and will eventually accept all Oyster Cards. Locals will be able to comment on the plans as part of the planning process. These gates will not be operational for at least 4/5 months (to allow time for the planning process and for construction).
2. Between now and then, John Oliver of Southern Rail said that he would strongly consider placing a member of staff on the existing gate on the up platform during the morning rush hours. This would allow passengers holding a valid ticket to use the gate in the morning. He said that he would confirm this decision "quickly".
3. Both Peter Field of TFL and John Oliver said that they would never operate an "open gate" policy at Sydenham. In their view, ticket barriers are here to stay.
4. Crowding at the barriers in the ticket office was discussed extensively. Despite being barraged by a huge swell of contrary evidence and views from those present, John Oliver maintained that the present barriers were perfectly capable of coping with current passenger flows. Peter Field of TFL had a different view. He said that when TFL take over the station (in May 2009) they would institute a thorough review of existing barriers and would not hesitate to build more if they were necessary.
My view is that:
1. We are on our way to achieving what we set out to do on the up platform i.e. to allow equal and ready access to the platform for all passengers with a valid ticket. Of course, this will not happen for a few months until the new gate arrives but in the meantime we have the real prospect of having the gates opened during the morning rush hour. We should also bear in mind that the new gate will shortly be a planning proposal and that it is up to all of us who support such a gate to ensure that LBL hear loud and clear that there is a large groundswell of local opinion who want this gate.
2. Anyone who has used Sydenham Station during the rush hours will know that the existing gates are woefully inadequate. Frankly, it appears that Southern Rail have set their mind against extra gating despite the clear evidence - and they certainly aren't going to operate an "open gates" policy. I think we have to keep pressing our position. If all else fails, I believe that we will be facing a very much different attitude in May 2009 when TFL take over the station.
Now, there are people (Bensonby is one) who want to continue fighting for an "open gate" station. Personally, I won't be supporting this fight. It is one that you simply won't win. It lays you open to the charge of supporting fare dodgers. And (let's not exaggerate this) but barriers make the station and trains more secure from intruders, vandals and grafitti artists.
We are on our way to winning the original battle (direct passenger access to both platforms). Let's congratulate ourselves on this. A second battle lies ahead to ensure that the gates on the down platform are extended and that the rest of the station is improved for the ever-increasing number of passengers expected in the run-up to 2010.
Oystergate: Showdown Time
I didn't add to Sean's video as:nasaroc wrote:I am sure that admin/Sean will post a full report of the meeting shortly but could I just review what came out of the meeting
1) I thought the video told the story (from all sides) rather well
2) The sun was shining and I had to do some gardening
Together with your summary I think its almost the whole story. I guess the next steps are:
1) Get the decision on peak morning gate opening from John Oliver's office
2) Get confirmation on if and when the gate plan goes to committee
3) Nail the facts on the nuisance element of a Peak Hill opening
I guess Steve Bullock should be pursuing 1). And can we rely on the relevant SydSoc committee to tell us about 2)? And paradoxically we need 1) to be achieved before we can evaluate 3).
Admin
This is certainly progress. We are on the way to achieving equal access to the station, even if that equal access is grossly inadequate.nasaroc wrote: 1. We are on our way to achieving what we set out to do on the up platform i.e. to allow equal and ready access to the platform for all passengers with a valid ticket. Of course, this will not happen for a few months until the new gate arrives but in the meantime we have the real prospect of having the gates opened during the morning rush hour. We should also bear in mind that the new gate will shortly be a planning proposal and that it is up to all of us who support such a gate to ensure that LBL hear loud and clear that there is a large groundswell of local opinion who want this gate.
I am indeed of the opinion that the gates are uneccesery, inadequate, insulting and a grotesue inconvenience. And I also believe that these should be opposed as much as the platform 1 gate issue. I agree that it is a fight that has less chance of succeeding, but that is not helepd by the fact that this issue seems, in the eyes of many people, to be the "poor relation" of the platform 1 issue.2. Anyone who has used Sydenham Station during the rush hours will know that the existing gates are woefully inadequate. Frankly, it appears that Southern Rail have set their mind against extra gating despite the clear evidence - and they certainly aren't going to operate an "open gates" policy. I think we have to keep pressing our position. If all else fails, I believe that we will be facing a very much different attitude in May 2009 when TFL take over the station.
Now, there are people (Bensonby is one) who want to continue fighting for an "open gate" station. Personally, I won't be supporting this fight. It is one that you simply won't win. It lays you open to the charge of supporting fare dodgers. And (let's not exaggerate this) but barriers make the station and trains more secure from intruders, vandals and grafitti artists.
The fact remains that there are other ways of catching fare-evaders. Methods that have been used for the past 139 years that this station ahs been open for (i.e. mobile patrols of ticket inspectors and inspectors on gates & gates at larger stations). While the gates may be the most effective they impact disproportionately badly on the law-abiding users of the railway.
More ticket barriers would be a good thing if they alieviate congestion - but tfor this to happen there need to be about 3 times the number of gates.
The point about stopping vandals is rubbish. The gates are open in the evening (when are vandals most likely to come out to play?) Indeed, fences can be cut/climbed over even if the gates are in operation. Determined vandals will even ust buy a ticket or a platform ticket anyway - or take their vandalism to another part of hte community.
The fact is, we can have oyster access with "stand alone" oyster points. Sydenham station is unsuited to barriers and consequently we, the law-abiding public are inconvenienced every evening. That means, IMHO, Southern railway have broken bylaw 6 (a something which the chap from southern didn't aknowledge when I posited it to him)
I see the original battle being equally split between the two issues. So, we have not one the battle as yet - only part of it.We are on our way to winning the original battle (direct passenger access to both platforms). Let's congratulate ourselves on this. A second battle lies ahead to ensure that the gates on the down platform are extended and that the rest of the station is improved for the ever-increasing number of passengers expected in the run-up to 2010.
Incedently - The gate was open this morning with noone manning it. I had just missed my train so was sitting near it for nearly 10 minutes - enough time to see about a dozen people lamenting the inconsistency of Southern Railway.
No, one shouldn't.Patch wrote:I know people shouldn't jumb to conclusions
quite, i could start smashing up my computer screen - but I don't. anyone "could " start trouble. Just because they are in a certain place - doens't mean that they are going to cause trouble. As I have said elsewhere on this forum, there are very few places for youths to go - so they end up hanging around because they quite naturally want to socialise somewhere other than home.but, there may be times when the people hanging around could indeed start causing trouble or being loud which can be a problem
Always a bad idea - basing opinions on what the "meedja" tell you. Contrary to popular opinion most kids are relatively reasonable people.which i have seen on the news or tv
A stand against what? Its a free(ish) country - people can stand or congregate where they like. I'd give you backchat if you told me to move on if I was minding my own business standing in the street.a fews times residents making a stand against groups hanging around would in turn cause them to have backchat or even be assaulted.
Indeed, but every motorist pays their road tax and consequently is allowed to use any public highway. (providing they are not obstructing it) - That road is a public highway - residents have no grounds to object to people using it as such.A stand agains
about the parking situation, on silverdale from bishops thorpe all the way down to the top alleyway there isn't residential houses that need silverdale road in order to park on since most of the houses along that part of silverdale have own parking facilities, this is not the case over on i think its peak hill gardens, side of the station. Residential house back straight onto the roads over there.
If they want they may lobby the council for "residents parking" spaces &c. - but that is a seperate issue and one that the residents may take if they wish. If there is a problem of people consistently blocking the road then they can inform the police - it is a seperate matter.
Yes I did try to make a point about the congestion where the gates are now but I obviously didn't make it clear because the point kept going back to 'the extra time it takes to walk around'.bensonby wrote:I am indeed of the opinion that the gates are uneccesery, inadequate, insulting and a grotesue inconvenience. And I also believe that these should be opposed as much as the platform 1 gate issue. I agree that it is a fight that has less chance of succeeding, but that is not helepd by the fact that this issue seems, in the eyes of many people, to be the "poor relation" of the platform 1 issue.
There are clearly people who feel that they don’t want extra gates but want to remove gates altogether.
I disagree strongly with this but – of course – those people have a perfect right to fight for this proposition and see if they can get support from passengers for such a stance.
A new gate is proposed for the up platform. I strongly welcome this (and I believe 99% of passengers will also). It is, after all, what many of us have been demanding for the past few months. I also want to then press for extra gates at, or close to, the ticket office.
By taking on the issue of "no gates" you are not just fighting gates at Sydenham Station but all of the recent direction of gating policy on the railways. We've had gates on London Underground for decades. Many large suburban overground stations have had gates for at least ten years. You may feel that stand-alone card readers with open gates are OK but TFL and the railway operating companies don't. They believe (and frankly they are correct) that fare dodgers would simply walk through the open gates and not "register" their cards.
The issue of greater security which gates provide cannot be denied either. Gates help make the station more secure. Yes, of course people with valid tickets can still attack passengers but it does help stop the “unpremeditated” attack (when perpetrators simply run into a station and then run out again). Incidentally, when TFL take over the station in May 2009, the gates will never be left open after 8pm because of extra staffing (in fact they will never be left open, period.). Try asking someone standing alone on the up platform at 10pm on a dark evening whether they’d like the entrance to the platforms to be gated or left wide open and I believe you’d only receive one answer.
I personally do not want to fight the entire railway industry on this issue because such a fight is unwinnable. And actually, I don't believe in barrier-free stations. I want barriers, providing there are enough of them and they allow access to both platforms.
Those wanting no barriers now have to face the rather unpalatable choices presented by the real world. What, I wonder is going to be their attitude is to the new barriers proposed for the up platform. Are they actually going to oppose those because they want gate-free stations? Or stand at the station explaining to passengers that they should oppose the new gates until they get a guarantee from the railway authorities that they drop the idea of gates at stations altogether. It’s not a position I’d want to argue but best of luck in doing so.
I disagree strongly with this but – of course – those people have a perfect right to fight for this proposition and see if they can get support from passengers for such a stance.
A new gate is proposed for the up platform. I strongly welcome this (and I believe 99% of passengers will also). It is, after all, what many of us have been demanding for the past few months. I also want to then press for extra gates at, or close to, the ticket office.
By taking on the issue of "no gates" you are not just fighting gates at Sydenham Station but all of the recent direction of gating policy on the railways. We've had gates on London Underground for decades. Many large suburban overground stations have had gates for at least ten years. You may feel that stand-alone card readers with open gates are OK but TFL and the railway operating companies don't. They believe (and frankly they are correct) that fare dodgers would simply walk through the open gates and not "register" their cards.
The issue of greater security which gates provide cannot be denied either. Gates help make the station more secure. Yes, of course people with valid tickets can still attack passengers but it does help stop the “unpremeditated” attack (when perpetrators simply run into a station and then run out again). Incidentally, when TFL take over the station in May 2009, the gates will never be left open after 8pm because of extra staffing (in fact they will never be left open, period.). Try asking someone standing alone on the up platform at 10pm on a dark evening whether they’d like the entrance to the platforms to be gated or left wide open and I believe you’d only receive one answer.
I personally do not want to fight the entire railway industry on this issue because such a fight is unwinnable. And actually, I don't believe in barrier-free stations. I want barriers, providing there are enough of them and they allow access to both platforms.
Those wanting no barriers now have to face the rather unpalatable choices presented by the real world. What, I wonder is going to be their attitude is to the new barriers proposed for the up platform. Are they actually going to oppose those because they want gate-free stations? Or stand at the station explaining to passengers that they should oppose the new gates until they get a guarantee from the railway authorities that they drop the idea of gates at stations altogether. It’s not a position I’d want to argue but best of luck in doing so.
I don't oppose the idea of barriers as I have stated. However, I feel that unless the station has many many more barriers then the "cons" greatly outwiegh the "pros." Its all very well having barriers at railway stations - but there need to be enough of them to cater for the flow of passengersl; this will not be achieved with one or two barriers on the other side...
As I have said, barriers are not the only way of caqtching fare evaders - they just seem to be the cheapest and easiest for the railway companies.
As I have said, barriers are not the only way of caqtching fare evaders - they just seem to be the cheapest and easiest for the railway companies.
Gates on platform 1 will improve the position somewhat but will not solve it.nasaroc wrote:Those wanting no barriers now have to face the rather unpalatable choices presented by the real world. What, I wonder is going to be their attitude is to the new barriers proposed for the up platform. Are they actually going to oppose those because they want gate-free stations? Or stand at the station explaining to passengers that they should oppose the new gates until they get a guarantee from the railway authorities that they drop the idea of gates at stations altogether. It’s not a position I’d want to argue but best of luck in doing so.
If the railway wanted to knock the booking hall down altogether and build a new one with a very large entrance to the platform then I wouldn't really object (except to think it was a bit of a waste of money). The simple fact remains that there isn't room for an adequate number of barriers.
To be frank, we are inconvenienced by the crush at rush hour exiting the station. Therefore the person operating the barrier is inconveniencing the passenger. Therefore they could be quite legally arrested or removed from the premesis (the member of staff) - perhaps that would send out a strong message
Just to say very well put together report well done everyone, put forward all sides of the argument. Lewisham Council should be offering solutions to the litter & parking problems surely?
I was amazed the Southern guy was saying 3 to 6 months to put another gate up on the other side, almost laughable time scale.
The other argument that when Oyster ticket holders will all go through the gates quicker assumes that 100% will actually switch over from card tickets which is a massive assumption with the amount of tracking data those cards generate.
I was amazed the Southern guy was saying 3 to 6 months to put another gate up on the other side, almost laughable time scale.
The other argument that when Oyster ticket holders will all go through the gates quicker assumes that 100% will actually switch over from card tickets which is a massive assumption with the amount of tracking data those cards generate.
well, quite - I don't want barriers but would concede that they could be a necessery evil. The gates don't bother me in the slightest when I am travelling off peak. The fact of the matter is though is that in the evening rush hour the provision is woefully inadequate. And I can't see how that is about to change....where are TfL going to put their extra barriers?nasaroc wrote:I want barriers, providing there are enough of them and they allow access to both platforms.
(sorry about the multiple posts...I mucked up the formatting somewhat)
Swopping the cards around the family and friends helps to confuse. Provided none happen to be serial killers of course. Ditto for 'loyalty' cards.Ronski wrote:The other argument that when Oyster ticket holders will all go through the gates quicker assumes that 100% will actually switch over from card tickets which is a massive assumption with the amount of tracking data those cards generate.
Admin
Bensonby mate, help me out. My head is spinning. Your position currently is like backing every single runner to win the Grand National.
What precisely is your stance if the gates at the ticket office remain exactly as as they are at present and a new two gate barrier is proposed for the up platform?
Do you support the new barriers (along the lines of your statement "I don't oppose the ideas of barriers") or oppose them (along the lines of your statement "the cons greatly outweigh the pros").
At the moment, if you don't mind me saying, you are rather "straddling the barriers".
What precisely is your stance if the gates at the ticket office remain exactly as as they are at present and a new two gate barrier is proposed for the up platform?
Do you support the new barriers (along the lines of your statement "I don't oppose the ideas of barriers") or oppose them (along the lines of your statement "the cons greatly outweigh the pros").
At the moment, if you don't mind me saying, you are rather "straddling the barriers".
I believe that the barriers on the platform 2 side are inadequate. I believe that barriers on platform 1 would be a step in teh right dierction but would not solve the issue. It will increase the "gate capacity" but not by enough.nasaroc wrote:What precisely is your stance if the gates at the ticket office remain exactly as as they are at present and a new two gate barrier is proposed for the up platform?
Yes I support them, generally speaking, but they will not solve the issue.Do you support the new barriers (along the lines of your statement "I don't oppose the ideas of barriers") or oppose them (along the lines of your statement "the cons greatly outweigh the pros").
Sorry if I've not been clear enough. My position is that barriers are not in themselves wrong. But they should be implemented so that they do not cause a bottleneck (i.e. there should be many more, or there should be "open barriers" during the evening peak) and so that they provide access on both sides.At the moment, if you don't mind me saying, you are rather "straddling the barriers".
If this cannot be achieved then there should be no barriers.
-
LivesNearby
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 21 Feb 2008 11:44
- Location: Forest Hill
I notice from the video that
- the gates were open during the visit to avoid the queues, so the invitees did not see the full extent of the chaos
- the number of gates has been based on 100% Oyster card usage.
- Oyster cards are processed 50% faster than paper tickets
I don't think it is possible to compartmentalise the issue into several smaller issues.nasaroc wrote:You are still maintaining both positions at once.
If the barriers at the ticket hall remain the same, are you opposed to or for the implementation of two-gate barriers on the up platform.
I support an end to congestion, inconvenience and inequality of access at Sydenham Station.
I think this is an important point for the residents of Peak Hill Gardens - this will represent an improvement on the current situation under Southern management whereby the gates are left open after 8pm, allowing people to use PHG as a cut-through/hang-out area at night.nasaroc wrote:Incidentally, when TFL take over the station in May 2009, the gates will never be left open after 8pm because of extra staffing (in fact they will never be left open, period.
Whilst installing ticket barriers on the Platform 1 side won't help with the issues of parking/litter etc, it should help discourage "anti social" behaviour at night.
Incidentally - I had a small but heavy wheeled suitcase with me this morning, so I tested the new "no questions asked" policy for opening the gate on platform 1. Sure enough the gate was opened almost instantaneously on pressing the intercom, without any questioning or even having to wave my ticket at CCTV.
I agree fully Weebie.
It's also worth pointing out that opening the new gates onto Peak Hill Gardens will have an effect on the current flow of passengers currently crowding the barriers in the ticket hall.
When both gates were open, between 2,500 and 3,000 passengers used the gates onto Peak Hill Gardens to enter and leave the station daily(roughly 20 per cent of the total flow). Once the new gates are in position, there will be 2,500-3,000 fewer people per day cloggng up the barriers in the ticket hall. Not enough to make the system work correctly without hold ups but not exactly the negligible effect that some posters to this forum have claimed.
We need to get the new gates in position ASAP.
Another idea we should get away from is that the present barriers cannot be extended in the future since there isn't any more room on that side of the station. This is incorrect.
The newsagent kiosk could be resited. If this is unworkable, then new gates could be built at the "night gate" entrance. These ideas were discussed by the two officials at the station on Monday so they aren't pie-in-the-sky. But they won't happen in my view until TfL takes over the station.
It's also worth pointing out that opening the new gates onto Peak Hill Gardens will have an effect on the current flow of passengers currently crowding the barriers in the ticket hall.
When both gates were open, between 2,500 and 3,000 passengers used the gates onto Peak Hill Gardens to enter and leave the station daily(roughly 20 per cent of the total flow). Once the new gates are in position, there will be 2,500-3,000 fewer people per day cloggng up the barriers in the ticket hall. Not enough to make the system work correctly without hold ups but not exactly the negligible effect that some posters to this forum have claimed.
We need to get the new gates in position ASAP.
Another idea we should get away from is that the present barriers cannot be extended in the future since there isn't any more room on that side of the station. This is incorrect.
The newsagent kiosk could be resited. If this is unworkable, then new gates could be built at the "night gate" entrance. These ideas were discussed by the two officials at the station on Monday so they aren't pie-in-the-sky. But they won't happen in my view until TfL takes over the station.
I strongly doubt it too - I thought Peter Field from TfL made a very valid point on the video - that Southern and their predecessors had been managing well enough without barriers for years and years until TfL stumped up the cash for installing them, at which point they're suddenly an essential tool in the fight against fare dodgersnasaroc wrote:But they won't happen in my view until TfL takes over the station.
But that's franchising for you - no incentive to invest...