|
Post by snoggle on Jul 20, 2017 14:58:46 GMT
The 180 is my local route and I'm hoping that the new alignment will give a more reliable service as it will avoid traffic issues in Lewisham and be less affected by the usual Blackwall Tunnel chaos. Slightly puzzled by the comments here. Obviously by no longer going to Lewisham the 180 is immune to traffic problems there. I don't understand the Blackwall Tunnel comment. AIUI the 180 follows the 161's route through East Greenwich before turning under the A2 and heading to North Greenwich. Therefore if the tunnel goes pear shaped it will get ensnarled just as it does today at that particular junction. If it was going round the back of the Sainsburys, a la 472, then I'd agree there'd be a bit less risk.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 20, 2017 17:33:47 GMT
The 180 is my local route and I'm hoping that the new alignment will give a more reliable service as it will avoid traffic issues in Lewisham and be less affected by the usual Blackwall Tunnel chaos. Slightly puzzled by the comments here. Obviously by no longer going to Lewisham the 180 is immune to traffic problems there. I don't understand the Blackwall Tunnel comment. AIUI the 180 follows the 161's route through East Greenwich before turning under the A2 and heading to North Greenwich. Therefore if the tunnel goes pear shaped it will get ensnarled just as it does today at that particular junction. If it was going round the back of the Sainsburys, a la 472, then I'd agree there'd be a bit less risk. I understand your point which is correct but I think he probably was more referring to the section of Woolwich Road between the A102 & Greenwich which would no longer affect the 180 like it does now.
|
|
|
Post by lazy_eye_metaphor on Jul 20, 2017 19:45:18 GMT
Slightly puzzled by the comments here. Obviously by no longer going to Lewisham the 180 is immune to traffic problems there. I don't understand the Blackwall Tunnel comment. AIUI the 180 follows the 161's route through East Greenwich before turning under the A2 and heading to North Greenwich. Therefore if the tunnel goes pear shaped it will get ensnarled just as it does today at that particular junction. If it was going round the back of the Sainsburys, a la 472, then I'd agree there'd be a bit less risk. I understand your point which is correct but I think he probably was more referring to the section of Woolwich Road between the A102 & Greenwich which would no longer affect the 180 like it does now. Precisely so. Great minds thinking alike here!
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 20, 2017 22:05:20 GMT
Or maybe the 178 instead at an increased frequency? Still links Thamesmead and Lewisham. What would be the plan Sid? Up to every 15 mins with double deckers? That would satisfy what 301 would carry. Or extend the 54 even.....that's the fastest route from Woolwich to Lewisham (by quite a bit.......off peak about 14 mins faster than the 178) but it's 11 min service would over do the requirement from 301. Not sure which would use more vehicles, increasing/extending the 178 or extending the 54 with its more frequent service. If I was on the laptop I would have a look. With the route in Thamesmead, how could it be done? Up Nathan Way, via Bentham Road and then up Carlyle Road to the town centre stand? Or just down Bentham Road and round at Boiler House like the N1? There's no facilities there. Another one that crossed my mind was to keep the 472 up Nathan Way, and send the 54/122/178/301 candidate up Western Way, then up Eastern Way to the high level roundabout and into Bentham Road that way, terminating at the town centre (so a bit like an express bus). Reason being this way round that you can't do the turn from Nathan Way straight into Eastern Way in both directions........ At the other end - it was mentioned in the thread about what would cover the other end of the 301.....I was thinking of extending the 244 to Bexleyheath along the 301 to save on stand space at Abbey Wood and keep the link - but held back from saying so due to the 244 being a 10 min route as opposed to the 12 min proposed 301. Again this would be a laptop job to see if these little increases could be offset by savings by not having 301....... That's a good point about the 54 being much quicker between Woolwich and Lewisham. Also an interesting idea about extending the 244 to Bexleyheath instead of the 301 although it would be quite similar to the 301 proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 20, 2017 22:11:46 GMT
That's a good point about the 54 being much quicker between Woolwich and Lewisham. Also an interesting idea about extending the 244 to Bexleyheath instead of the 301 although it would be quite similar to the 301 proposal. I deffo got what you meant about the 178 Sid.....as the other routes (54 or 122) are quite long as they are and the 178 should be more manageable. If I had time to sit down properly I would jot down an example off peak set of workings on those routes to see which would need the greater PVR increase, but looking at the 472 times an extension from Woolwich to Thamesmead would need about another 19 mins in each direction (midday M-F timings). You're right about the 244 - between Bexleyheath and Woolwich it would indeed share much of the planned 301. I don't know what the bus stand space will be like at Abbey Wood once the work is complete but extending the 244 to free some up seemed to make sense
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 21, 2017 5:57:22 GMT
That's a good point about the 54 being much quicker between Woolwich and Lewisham. Also an interesting idea about extending the 244 to Bexleyheath instead of the 301 although it would be quite similar to the 301 proposal. I deffo got what you meant about the 178 Sid.....as the other routes (54 or 122) are quite long as they are and the 178 should be more manageable. If I had time to sit down properly I would jot down an example off peak set of workings on those routes to see which would need the greater PVR increase, but looking at the 472 times an extension from Woolwich to Thamesmead would need about another 19 mins in each direction (midday M-F timings). You're right about the 244 - between Bexleyheath and Woolwich it would indeed share much of the planned 301. I don't know what the bus stand space will be like at Abbey Wood once the work is complete but extending the 244 to free some up seemed to make sense That's what I was thinking, if an extension to Thamesmead/Abbey Wood makes the 54 too long it could be curtailed at Catford Garage and the 289 extended to Lewisham. However there's a danger of overbussing the Lewisham to Catford corridor and it would make the 289 rather long so the TH to Purley section would have to be replaced by something else.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 21, 2017 6:36:23 GMT
That's a good point about the 54 being much quicker between Woolwich and Lewisham. Also an interesting idea about extending the 244 to Bexleyheath instead of the 301 although it would be quite similar to the 301 proposal. I deffo got what you meant about the 178 Sid.....as the other routes (54 or 122) are quite long as they are and the 178 should be more manageable. If I had time to sit down properly I would jot down an example off peak set of workings on those routes to see which would need the greater PVR increase, but looking at the 472 times an extension from Woolwich to Thamesmead would need about another 19 mins in each direction (midday M-F timings). You're right about the 244 - between Bexleyheath and Woolwich it would indeed share much of the planned 301. I don't know what the bus stand space will be like at Abbey Wood once the work is complete but extending the 244 to free some up seemed to make sense As it is most unlikely the 54 will ever see Croydon again, I think you'd get away with an extension east of Woolwich with it. 178 also a decent call. Think I'd leave the 122 alone.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 21, 2017 10:35:41 GMT
I deffo got what you meant about the 178 Sid.....as the other routes (54 or 122) are quite long as they are and the 178 should be more manageable. If I had time to sit down properly I would jot down an example off peak set of workings on those routes to see which would need the greater PVR increase, but looking at the 472 times an extension from Woolwich to Thamesmead would need about another 19 mins in each direction (midday M-F timings). You're right about the 244 - between Bexleyheath and Woolwich it would indeed share much of the planned 301. I don't know what the bus stand space will be like at Abbey Wood once the work is complete but extending the 244 to free some up seemed to make sense That's what I was thinking, if an extension to Thamesmead/Abbey Wood makes the 54 too long it could be curtailed at Catford Garage and the 289 extended to Lewisham. However there's a danger of overbussing the Lewisham to Catford corridor and it would make the 289 rather long so the TH to Purley section would have to be replaced by something else. The 289 is probably the worst route to mess with due to the horrendous amount of traffic it encounters and I can't honestly see another route being able to replace its Thornton Heath Pond to Purley section.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 21, 2017 12:07:03 GMT
That's what I was thinking, if an extension to Thamesmead/Abbey Wood makes the 54 too long it could be curtailed at Catford Garage and the 289 extended to Lewisham. However there's a danger of overbussing the Lewisham to Catford corridor and it would make the 289 rather long so the TH to Purley section would have to be replaced by something else. The 289 is probably the worst route to mess with due to the horrendous amount of traffic it encounters and I can't honestly see another route being able to replace its Thornton Heath Pond to Purley section. I just think the 54 and 289 terminating end on at Elmers End (no pun intended!) is poor. The 289 could do West Croydon to Lewisham with a new bespoke route for Purley Way (489?) between West Croydon and Purley, maybe with Citaro's? I realize some links to Mayday would be lost with the 289 change but there would be so many more links in the opposite direction and there is the good old hoppa ticket now!
The 54 can then do TL to Thamesmead/Abbey Wood.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 21, 2017 12:15:55 GMT
The 289 is probably the worst route to mess with due to the horrendous amount of traffic it encounters and I can't honestly see another route being able to replace its Thornton Heath Pond to Purley section. I just think the 54 and 289 terminating end on at Elmers End (no pun intended!) is poor. The 289 could do West Croydon to Lewisham with a new bespoke route for Purley Way (489?) between West Croydon and Purley, maybe with Citaro's? I realize some links to Mayday would be lost with the 289 change but there would be so many more links in the opposite direction and there is the good old hoppa ticket now!
The 54 can then to TL to Thamesmead/Abbey Wood.
Where is this room at West Croydon to terminate another two routes? I also don't like the breaking of the 289 as many people use it to cross through Croydon and it would put more pressure on the already busy Tramlink. I also don't see the need for the 54 to go to Thamesmead or Abbey Wood - the 301 idea is personally better. I really don't see the big problem with terminating at Elmers End especially now it has a better interchange between both routes, Tramlink & National Rail - the 289 can hardly go elsewhere due to Purley Way & London Road so it goes back to the same thing I keep bleating on about having politicians with balls who actually want to significantly reduce congestion but they won't because it would be politically suicidal to do so which in effect constrains what you need to do.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 21, 2017 12:37:08 GMT
I just think the 54 and 289 terminating end on at Elmers End (no pun intended!) is poor. The 289 could do West Croydon to Lewisham with a new bespoke route for Purley Way (489?) between West Croydon and Purley, maybe with Citaro's? I realize some links to Mayday would be lost with the 289 change but there would be so many more links in the opposite direction and there is the good old hoppa ticket now!
The 54 can then to TL to Thamesmead/Abbey Wood.
Where is this room at West Croydon to terminate another two routes? I also don't like the breaking of the 289 as many people use it to cross through Croydon and it would put more pressure on the already busy Tramlink. I also don't see the need for the 54 to go to Thamesmead or Abbey Wood - the 301 idea is personally better. I really don't see the big problem with terminating at Elmers End especially now it has a better interchange between both routes, Tramlink & National Rail - the 289 can hardly go elsewhere due to Purley Way & London Road so it goes back to the same thing I keep bleating on about having politicians with balls who actually want to significantly reduce congestion but they won't because it would be politically suicidal to do so which in effect constrains what you need to do. Things can be changed at West Croydon to create more space, the previously mooted 312/412 merger for instance although electric buses cloud the issue a bit now. The whole idea at Elmers End was to force people off the 54 and onto the tram but it hasn't worked in fact more people probably use Beckenham Junction for tramlink. The 54 to Thamesmead creates a link from there to Lewisham. I still don't understand this politicians and balls bit, road pricing?
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 21, 2017 15:22:29 GMT
Walked down to Erith Quarry recently to have a look. It's a huge site. Not sure where the 180 will terminate there, but it is reasonable to speculate it may stretch down to the edge of Erith Cemetery. Which would make it my new link of choice to North Greenwich...
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 21, 2017 16:15:06 GMT
Where is this room at West Croydon to terminate another two routes? I also don't like the breaking of the 289 as many people use it to cross through Croydon and it would put more pressure on the already busy Tramlink. I also don't see the need for the 54 to go to Thamesmead or Abbey Wood - the 301 idea is personally better. I really don't see the big problem with terminating at Elmers End especially now it has a better interchange between both routes, Tramlink & National Rail - the 289 can hardly go elsewhere due to Purley Way & London Road so it goes back to the same thing I keep bleating on about having politicians with balls who actually want to significantly reduce congestion but they won't because it would be politically suicidal to do so which in effect constrains what you need to do. Things can be changed at West Croydon to create more space, the previously mooted 312/412 merger for instance although electric buses cloud the issue a bit now. The whole idea at Elmers End was to force people off the 54 and onto the tram but it hasn't worked in fact more people probably use Beckenham Junction for tramlink. The 54 to Thamesmead creates a link from there to Lewisham. I still don't understand this politicians and balls bit, road pricing? I'm aware of the link created by the 54 extending to Thamesmead but does Lewisham really need a link to Thamesmead. Not only does it have only mini shopping area at Thamesmead but it's also got nearby Woolwich & Bexleyheath for more major shopping areas and the tube at North Greenwich. It's crystal clear what I'm saying in regards to politicians growing balls in regards to congestion - if you don't understand, I'm afraid that's not my fault.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 21, 2017 16:57:32 GMT
Things can be changed at West Croydon to create more space, the previously mooted 312/412 merger for instance although electric buses cloud the issue a bit now. The whole idea at Elmers End was to force people off the 54 and onto the tram but it hasn't worked in fact more people probably use Beckenham Junction for tramlink. The 54 to Thamesmead creates a link from there to Lewisham. I still don't understand this politicians and balls bit, road pricing? I'm aware of the link created by the 54 extending to Thamesmead but does Lewisham really need a link to Thamesmead. Not only does it have only mini shopping area at Thamesmead but it's also got nearby Woolwich & Bexleyheath for more major shopping areas and the tube at North Greenwich. It's crystal clear what I'm saying in regards to politicians growing balls in regards to congestion - if you don't understand, I'm afraid that's not my fault. I would suggest that Thamesmead does need a link to Lewisham, and Eltham as well, for a variety of reasons. I'm afraid it's not crystal clear to me what you mean but if you don't wish to elaborate we'll leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 21, 2017 17:30:03 GMT
I'm aware of the link created by the 54 extending to Thamesmead but does Lewisham really need a link to Thamesmead. Not only does it have only mini shopping area at Thamesmead but it's also got nearby Woolwich & Bexleyheath for more major shopping areas and the tube at North Greenwich. It's crystal clear what I'm saying in regards to politicians growing balls in regards to congestion - if you don't understand, I'm afraid that's not my fault. I would suggest that Thamesmead does need a link to Lewisham, and Eltham as well, for a variety of reasons. I'm afraid it's not crystal clear to me what you mean but if you don't wish to elaborate we'll leave it there. Why would Thamesmead require a link to Eltham or Lewisham? It is merely a giant housing estate with a run down shopping area - it already has a link to other better shopping areas at Woolwich & Bexleyheath, a link to Crossrail at Woolwich & Abbey Wood and a link to the Underground at North Greenwich - what does Eltham and Lewisham bring to the table that is not only different but worth traveling further for?
|
|