On Apr 23, 1:44 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 23 Apr, 13:10, Paul Corfield wrote:

Some very interesting details in two articles in Transport Briefing

I suggest reading the London Travelwatch press release (via London
Reconnections):
http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news.php?id=643

It includes links to the letters sent to and replies from the DfT and
TfL.


Very interesting - I hadn't seen either the London Reconnections piece
or the stuff from London Travelwatch before I posted my spiel. I note
that it seems to have all come out now as a result of the digging and
prodding done by Val Shawcross AM, whom I rate highly.

I note the DfT letter does carry a slight whaft of buck-passing - the
DfT state that TfL were given the role of communicating the changes
with regards to the withdrawal of the SLL service, in particular the
withdrawal of the previously proposed Vic-Bellingham service - though
actually it would appear that as part of the deal for ELLX2 funding
the buck had already been firmly passed to TfL on this matter.

The DfT do however intimate that they had nudged TfL with regards to
when TfL were planning on announcing all this. The DfT's reply is
perhaps subtly different from the reply from Ian Brown of TfL London
Rail with regards to this - the DfT suggests that "stakeholder
communications were to be scheduled later this summer" and passenger
communications happening later, however TfL say that "it is premature
to discuss detail at this stage".

I wonder who is included in the "stakeholder communication" (which may
or may not be happening later this summer) - if it is local residents
groups and also the hospitals in Camberwell (King's College and the
Maudsley) then the DfT and TfL know that the response will be one of
concern and annoyance, which IIRC was exhibited when Network Rail put
the South London RUS out to consultation. The hospitals - King's in
particular - are already losing a direct link to London Bridge (where
Guy's Hospital is located) via the SLL service, and they'll also see a
reduction from 4tph to 2tph on services to/from Victoria - of course
this is mitigated to an extent by the new interchange possibilities at
Clapham Junction that ELLX2 will bring, but only to an extent.

Also, as things stand there'll be no direct service whatsoever to/from
Victoria from the middle of the evening onwards, when the Vic-Dartford
service dies, or on Sundays, when it doesn't run at all. (Plus
services to/from Vic start a bit later in the morning than the current
SLL too). In my earlier post I pondered that this might mean the
service gets extended to run through the evening and on Sundays, but
the DfT's letter strongly suggests that's not part of the plan (and
shows they can't spell either) - it states that one of the key
requirements placed on TfL by the DfT is this:

‘TfL publically proposes the withdrawal of the Victoria – Bellingham
service including informing key stakeholders on the route whilst also
highlighting the impacts on current journey opportunities, especially
at evenings and weekends’.

I wonder if lobbying for the Vic-Dartford service to run all day every
day might perhaps be a realistic goal for campaigners to push for?

Anyway, I have to agree with Sharon Grant, the Chair of LTW, that TfL
and the DfT come out of this looking particularly slippery (though she
phrased it somewhat more diplomatically) - no surprise about the DfT
being murky like this, but one hopes for better from TfL than this. I
hope they've been stung hard by the exposure of this behaviour.


(And please don't link to Transport Briefing. It's a press release
mill)


I suppose one could argue there's nonetheless a place for a press
release mill - but I do recall you berating it for potential
plagiarism.

And copying verbatim as happens here is obviously not plagiarism. If
you want analysis, then you're going to have to pay for it

On Apr 23, 4:40*pm, trundleage wrote:
And copying verbatim as happens here is obviously not plagiarism. If
you want analysis, then you're going to have to pay for it

The comment re "potential plagiarism" relates to Mr Thant's suspicion
that Transport Briefing reworked some of his own material which
appeared on his now mothballed blog, London Connections, into a piece
it presented as its own.

Anyway, I'm not getting involved in this any further.

On Apr 23, 5:18*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:40*pm, trundleage wrote:

And copying verbatim as happens here is obviously not plagiarism. If
you want analysis, then you're going to have to pay for it

The comment re "potential plagiarism" relates to Mr Thant's suspicion
that Transport Briefing reworked some of his own material which
appeared on his now mothballed blog, London Connections, into a piece
it presented as its own.

Anyway, I'm not getting involved in this any further.

Oh. Thank you for that. Sometimes it can be difficult to understand
some bits said when you don't get the context. Cheers.

On Apr 23, 8:52*pm, trundleage wrote:

On Apr 23, 5:18*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 23, 4:40*pm, trundleage wrote:

And copying verbatim as happens here is obviously not plagiarism. If
you want analysis, then you're going to have to pay for it

The comment re "potential plagiarism" relates to Mr Thant's suspicion
that Transport Briefing reworked some of his own material which
appeared on his now mothballed blog, London Connections, into a piece
it presented as its own.

Anyway, I'm not getting involved in this any further.

Oh. Thank you for that. Sometimes it can be difficult to understand
some bits said when you don't get the context. Cheers.

No worries. I wasn't quite sure if you were connected to Transport
Briefing or not, hence my slightly abrupt manner!

I did ponder linking to the relevant comment on Mr Thant's now no-
longer updated blog, but I thought that might be a bit unnecessarily
incendiary, and anyway I thought it was perhaps not really my place to
do so. Mr Thant has now set out his take on this downthread.

On Apr 23, 9:22*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 23, 8:52*pm, trundleage wrote:



On Apr 23, 5:18*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 23, 4:40*pm, trundleage wrote:

And copying verbatim as happens here is obviously not plagiarism. If
you want analysis, then you're going to have to pay for it

The comment re "potential plagiarism" relates to Mr Thant's suspicion
that Transport Briefing reworked some of his own material which
appeared on his now mothballed blog, London Connections, into a piece
it presented as its own.

Anyway, I'm not getting involved in this any further.

Oh. Thank you for that. Sometimes it can be difficult to understand
some bits said when you don't get the context. Cheers.

No worries. I wasn't quite sure if you were connected to Transport
Briefing or not, hence my slightly abrupt manner!


Nah, Got better stuff to do than run a site like that. I think this is
what should be more concerning with regards to copying verbatim. Read
the last paragraph.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/bu...er=rss&emc=rss

On 23 Apr, 16:24, Mizter T wrote:
I suppose one could argue there's nonetheless a place for a press
release mill - but I do recall you berating it for potential
plagiarism.

It's their policy of not linking to or mentioning sources that bothers
me most, giving the impression they're an actual news source. It's a
textbook case of the practice of link hoarding, and also means TB
readers never saw the original letters or knew of their existence.
The whole operation is very slimy and reader hostile.

U

On 23 Apr, 17:05, Mr Thant
wrote:
It's their policy of not linking to or mentioning sources that bothers
me most, giving the impression they're an actual news source. It's a
textbook case of the practice of link hoarding, and also means TB
readers never saw the original letters or knew of their existence.
The whole operation is very slimy and reader hostile.

And I should add that my original request not to link to them wasn't
as a boycott - it's because if you see an interesting story on
Transport Briefing, it's always worthwhile spending a couple of
minutes digging up the original press release (which there inevitably
always is one of) and linking to that instead.

U