"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:54:10 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 09:48:30 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2015 21:10, tim..... wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33066006

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the
mayor
"

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

Watch the transport committee webcast and listen to what the reps
from
Kent CC said. I've watched all 2.5 hours of it and I'm very clear
about what was said. Tom Edwards of the BBC was at City Hall during
the meeting so he may have put a journalistic flourish on what was
said but the basic detail is correct.

Kent CC objected to the Estuary
Airport and refused to agree to the rail devolution proposal.

None of that is contested

but where the proof of the link?


In the 2 1/2 hour webcast of the committee session that Paul has
watched/listened to, and you have not...

so the claimant should provide a transcript of the relevant bit then

expecting someone to watch a 2 and a half hour presentation to accept
your
point is plain unreasonable.

I still think that the link is invented up by someone with a vested
interest. I don't believe that elected "officials" would openly admit
that
they acted out of spite (even if in private, they have)!

For goodness sake. You really think I would make it up?

No I'm not.

I assumed that you quoted someone else's claim

I'm actually
offended by that. I've no axe to grind given I don't live in South
East London and rarely use the trains there.

Well I do ... and I don't - because I live in the bit that KCC want to
"protect", and ISTM that KCCs view here is entirely sensible.

I didn't say it wasn't sensible. They're doing what you'd would expect
them to do which is protect the interests of Kent.

I'm currently suffering a vastly reduced service because the works at LB
have meant that fewer SW locals can run, so in order to protect them, my
services have had extra stops inserted.

Yes - nothing to do with TfL. Everything to do with DfT and Network
Rail.

I don't want this reduction in service to be perpetuated because TfL take
over responsibility after LB is complete and think "that's what their
getting now so we don't need to go back to the previous service, and can
use
the new paths for our own stations"

Let's hope you keep your eyes open for the consultation on the post
2018 franchise specification and you respond appropriately.

There's not much to suggest that current service levels and stopping
patterns will persist beyond 2018. The only thing that is apparent is
that North Kent line services into Cannon Street may be marginally
less frequent than prior to the LB works. That's a function of the LB
redesign and again a DfT / Network Rail issue and nothing to do with
TfL whatsoever.

If TfL were to take over the North Kent route trains they'd face the
same infrastructure and signalling constraints as any other operator.
The only way to ease those is spend a lot more money on the
infrastructure either side of LB. Apparently some of it is in poor
state and will need attention after 2018 anyway.

The transcript of the meeting hasn't been provided yet so I can't
point you at it. Now go and tell City Hall's Secretariat that they're
a bunch of slackers.

Meeting agenda with attendees listed. Mr Balfour from Kent is the
person to listen to.

http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/d...20Services.pdf

The webcast is at

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assem...embly/webcasts

9th June 2015 Transport Committee is the one to watch / listen to.

Fast forward to 1 hour 48 mins for the bit on "red lines" and then
keep watching to see the ongoing discussion about what happens when
TfL take over a service. 2hrs 10min is the point about Kent's
objection to previous plans.

Oh so I've still got to listen to 30 minutes :-(

No you listen from 2hrs 10 mins in as I said above. It lasts for about
5 minutes if it's such a massive strain on your schedule to find the
time.

see my reply to Mizter T


I won't bother posting relevant stuff here anymore given all the
criticism from you. You can all live in ignorance.

It wasn't you who posted the original information that I commented upon.

You attempted to support it with something that didn't actually do so.

I'm sure that people find these links to these committees most interesting,
if they are relevant to them,

tim