|
Post by danorak on Jul 14, 2017 8:45:34 GMT
The 53 should be kept as is at the SE London end. I think any tinkering should be at the Whitehall end. Perhaps an X53 between Woolwich and Whitehall and a 53 between Plumstead and Elephant or Lambeth North would be a fair restructure. I'm sure TfL are watching the 140 experiment with great interest, with other trunk routes like the 53 in mind. The one bus that does seem to carry fresh air between Woolwich and Plumstead is the 122. As extending the 122 isn't really feasible, I think it could be looped back to Woolwich and not missed very much. Deckers on the 301 could easily take on the extra load on that part of the route. The problem in this area is that many local journeys are easier by car. The fight is against taxis and getting people to leave their cars at home. Greenwich council isn't very progressive in its handling of public transport and doesn't seem to grasp the small detail or demand very much. Ideal fodder for TfL in their current predicament. I think the 122 goes to PD largely for operational convenience. If the 122 was ever taken by another operator, I suspect it would fall back to Woolwich. The 122 was definitely tendered at one point as terminating at Woolwich Monk Street. As PD won it, it carried on as before.
|
|
|
Post by lazy_eye_metaphor on Jul 14, 2017 12:53:51 GMT
It's very busy, vjaska. Replacing the 53 with the 54 would make (especially) peak crowding from Woolwich to Plumstead Common unbearable - even now it's very easy for longer distance 51 customers to be crowded out of travelling by people going just a few stops. I've seen evening peak buses on the 53 arrive at Woolwich Arsenal and almost empty out and then fill up again. It would perhaps seem preferable though for a more local service to cover this section allowing the 53 to go direct to PD? As a former resident of the area I too have observed this many times. The Plumstead Common section is indeed very busy and I think would be better served by another route that is less impacted by disruption elsewhere. I would like to see the 422 diverted via Bloomfield Rd, Plumstead Common Rd and Kings Highway vice Plumstead High St (the latter is served by more than enough routes as it is). I would also like to see the 53 and 453 combined between Woolwich and Marylebone with LT operation throughout, but that's another story!
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 14, 2017 19:41:04 GMT
Ok......I had a quick doodle now I'm back at home (the electric crayons) and felt that I should send something into the consultation (something which I've never done before - exciting - though I'm led to believe 'consultations' don't really matter a lot, as many know)........ Anyhow, reading ideas on this thread, looking at a few timetables and possible bus links to places, this is what was sent to the consultation. There are many good ideas on here (here = this forum) - I hope people don't see me as stealing some - but - if lots of people send similar things to the consultation then this might carry more weight. That's the logic behind it Here goes:
I personally would like to see other routes altered/extended instead of a new route 301. I have discussed these with others and heard some very good ideas, my account, taking in different ideas from individuals is as follows: Route 122: Extend from Plumstead Bus Garage to Thamesmead Town Centre or Abbey Wood (via Bentham Road) keeping the direct link to Woolwich (proposed 301 route) and giving new direct links from Thamesmead to Eltham Green, Lewisham and Crystal Palace. Route 180: Keep as is at present. Route 428: Extend from Erith, via Upper Belvedere and then Abbey Wood, to Thamesmead Bentham Road and Town Centre (this gives many new direct links as the route goes to Dartford and Bluewater). This could also be sent via the new Erith Quarry development to give many direct links from there. Route 469: Keep as is at present. Route 472: Terminate at Abbey Wood as proposal. Route B11: Terminate in Alsike Road/Yarnton Way as proposal. I have noted the technical notes regarding the proposals, and looking at service frequencies on these routes believe they can fulfill the service demand on the proposals and open up many new direct links by bus in South East London. I used to live in Plumstead, but still have a great interest in the area and visit there when I can. As such I felt an interest to take part in the consultation. Ends.....The 122 idea was one I had later on, I realise many will think I'm playing with fire given the reliability (sometimes) of the route, but it would give some very good new links from Thamesmead and also as discussed it's the nearest 'Woolwich' route to extend, as it already serves PD Garage. This would make the PD Garage - Woolwich section quite a bit more worthwhile......
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 14, 2017 22:23:17 GMT
Alex, I can't see in your proposals what you would have instead of the Abbey Wood to Bexleyheath section of the 301?
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 14, 2017 22:34:01 GMT
Alex, I can't see in your proposals what you would have instead of the Abbey Wood to Bexleyheath section of the 301? The B11 does it - unless you mean that bit along Long Lane where the 401 goes. To be fair I got the impression this was a 'nice to have', the main point of the 301 being the Abbey Wood - Thamesmead Bentham Road - Woolwich bit making up for Woolwich (or ex) bound buses lost from the 472. Interestingly enough, I measured the 472 a minute ago, with the shorter run up Western Way, even running to Abbey Wood the route mileage is about the same. The Western Way bit seems to make a bit more sense now.....
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 14, 2017 23:28:38 GMT
Ok......I had a quick doodle now I'm back at home (the electric crayons) and felt that I should send something into the consultation (something which I've never done before - exciting - though I'm led to believe 'consultations' don't really matter a lot, as many know)........ Anyhow, reading ideas on this thread, looking at a few timetables and possible bus links to places, this is what was sent to the consultation. There are many good ideas on here (here = this forum) - I hope people don't see me as stealing some - but - if lots of people send similar things to the consultation then this might carry more weight. That's the logic behind it Here goes:
I personally would like to see other routes altered/extended instead of a new route 301. I have discussed these with others and heard some very good ideas, my account, taking in different ideas from individuals is as follows: Route 122: Extend from Plumstead Bus Garage to Thamesmead Town Centre or Abbey Wood (via Bentham Road) keeping the direct link to Woolwich (proposed 301 route) and giving new direct links from Thamesmead to Eltham Green, Lewisham and Crystal Palace. Route 180: Keep as is at present. Route 428: Extend from Erith, via Upper Belvedere and then Abbey Wood, to Thamesmead Bentham Road and Town Centre (this gives many new direct links as the route goes to Dartford and Bluewater). This could also be sent via the new Erith Quarry development to give many direct links from there. Route 469: Keep as is at present. Route 472: Terminate at Abbey Wood as proposal. Route B11: Terminate in Alsike Road/Yarnton Way as proposal. I have noted the technical notes regarding the proposals, and looking at service frequencies on these routes believe they can fulfill the service demand on the proposals and open up many new direct links by bus in South East London. I used to live in Plumstead, but still have a great interest in the area and visit there when I can. As such I felt an interest to take part in the consultation. Ends.....The 122 idea was one I had later on, I realise many will think I'm playing with fire given the reliability (sometimes) of the route, but it would give some very good new links from Thamesmead and also as discussed it's the nearest 'Woolwich' route to extend, as it already serves PD Garage. This would make the PD Garage - Woolwich section quite a bit more worthwhile...... The 122 would ultimately suffer in reliability if it was extended to Thamesmead given how long the route is already. Personally, I really like the 301 (though I'm not a local so my opinions really shouldn't be weighed up to much) and it's proposed route so I'd stick with that myself. The B11's proposed terminus at Yarnton Way seems like a real after thought in that they suddenly realised actually that it needs to terminate somewhere - I'd send it to the industrial estate myself or if more room could be found at Abbey Wood, curtail it there and divert the 469 from Enysham Drive to traverse the B11's Alsike Road section before continuing onto Abbey Wood. I do like the 428 proposal though and fully support that - I'd add though that I'd convert it to deckers at the same time
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 14, 2017 23:47:16 GMT
The 122 would ultimately suffer in reliability if it was extended to Thamesmead given how long the route is already. Personally, I really like the 301 (though I'm not a local so my opinions really shouldn't be weighed up to much) and it's proposed route so I'd stick with that myself. The B11's proposed terminus at Yarnton Way seems like a real after thought in that they suddenly realised actually that it needs to terminate somewhere - I'd send it to the industrial estate myself or if more room could be found at Abbey Wood, curtail it there and divert the 469 from Enysham Drive to traverse the B11's Alsike Road section before continuing onto Abbey Wood. I do like the 428 proposal though and fully support that - I'd add though that I'd convert it to deckers at the same time Yes, the 122 idea was mainly based on figures - the shortest route to extend and the 13 min frequency being somewhere near the 5bph for 301. Another bit of logic behind it was that Nathan Way being one of the less busy roads in SE28, recovery could be made on this part - but you're right, if things went wrong it wouldn't just be the Thamesmead end that suffered, towards Crystal Palace could go a bit awry too. I'm not a local there myself these days - but I still think as many people as possible should get in on the discussion. I like the idea of 469 doing Alsike Road, then continuing via Abbey Wood and Abbey Road to Erith - the 428 doing the Upper Belvedere bit. Like you I am very taken with the 428 idea, I think it would be an excellent route. I just can't help thinking instead of having the 301 that extending other routes could make very handy links. Measuring the 301 it comes in at roughly eight miles which is a nice manageable figure for a London bus route these days : )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 20:33:13 GMT
Surprised TFL hasn't looked at doing something with the 422, as this route around Hythe Avenue/King Harold Manorway doubles back on itself and adds extra run time.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 19, 2017 7:50:04 GMT
Surprised TFL hasn't looked at doing something with the 422, as this route around Hythe Avenue/King Harold Manorway doubles back on itself and adds extra run time. I'm surprised the 422 wasn't cut too : I had images of the western half being diverted at Bedonwell Road to run via Upper Belvedere, Woolwich Road and Knee Hill to Abbey Wood, and a new route running as current 422 to Wickham Lane, then King's Highway, Plumstead Common and 51 to Woolwich...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 22:13:50 GMT
Alex, I agree! Extending the 122 to Thamesmead would be great.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 20, 2017 5:51:37 GMT
Alex, I agree! Extending the 122 to Thamesmead would be great. Or maybe the 178 instead at an increased frequency? Still links Thamesmead and Lewisham.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 20, 2017 6:26:57 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.......
|
|
|
Post by lazy_eye_metaphor on Jul 20, 2017 8:08:12 GMT
As a resident of the Abbey Wood area, and after pondering these proposals, I find myself broadly in agreement with them. The only modification I would make is to extend the 428 to Erith Quarry and terminate the 180 in the town centre.
When the new 180 contract was announced last year I was very surprised that existing diesel buses were involved rather than new hybrids. This was because the 177 (a very similar route) got new hybrids only a few months earlier, and also because the 180 serves Trafalgar Road, which has been reported many times as suffering from poor air quality due to traffic emissions. Now it makes sense as the 180 won't serve that road in future. Maybe TfL had this in mind when they made that decision. 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.
As regards the reduction in buses between Woolwich and Greenwich, I suspect that TfL have done their homework here and found that the existing services are currently in excess of demand. My observations of eastbound 177 and 180 journeys are that they are very busy until Woolwich, then about 70% of passengers alight whilst only a handful board. Add to that the fact that Southeastern now run trains on the Greenwich line every ten minutes, and given that resources are not infinite, it begins to make sense.
I think the 301 will be well used, especially in the peaks, and may even lead to a decrease in overcrowding on Southeastern's Bexleyheath line, with some existing commuters opting for Crossrail instead. The route follows exactly the way I drive to Bexleyheath, so I know this to be the fastest possible option, as well as providing a totally new service for some heavily residential areas.
The B11 change seems to be a reasonable economy to make in view of the likelihood that the 301 will take away some of its patronage.
I like the new faster route for the 472 between Thamesmead and Plumstead Station. I'm sure it will be appreciated by many.
Routes 244 and 291 becoming double deck is a good move as both can really suffer from overcrowding in sections. Not so sure about the 178 however - the 380 would be a better case IMO, but I don't know if the Woolwich - Charlton section is suitable.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 20, 2017 11:10:35 GMT
As a resident of the Abbey Wood area, and after pondering these proposals, I find myself broadly in agreement with them. The only modification I would make is to extend the 428 to Erith Quarry and terminate the 180 in the town centre. When the new 180 contract was announced last year I was very surprised that existing diesel buses were involved rather than new hybrids. This was because the 177 (a very similar route) got new hybrids only a few months earlier, and also because the 180 serves Trafalgar Road, which has been reported many times as suffering from poor air quality due to traffic emissions. Now it makes sense as the 180 won't serve that road in future. Maybe TfL had this in mind when they made that decision. 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. As regards the reduction in buses between Woolwich and Greenwich, I suspect that TfL have done their homework here and found that the existing services are currently in excess of demand. My observations of eastbound 177 and 180 journeys are that they are very busy until Woolwich, then about 70% of passengers alight whilst only a handful board. Add to that the fact that Southeastern now run trains on the Greenwich line every ten minutes, and given that resources are not infinite, it begins to make sense. I think the 301 will be well used, especially in the peaks, and may even lead to a decrease in overcrowding on Southeastern's Bexleyheath line, with some existing commuters opting for Crossrail instead. The route follows exactly the way I drive to Bexleyheath, so I know this to be the fastest possible option, as well as providing a totally new service for some heavily residential areas. The B11 change seems to be a reasonable economy to make in view of the likelihood that the 301 will take away some of its patronage. I like the new faster route for the 472 between Thamesmead and Plumstead Station. I'm sure it will be appreciated by many. Routes 244 and 291 becoming double deck is a good move as both can really suffer from overcrowding in sections. Not so sure about the 178 however - the 380 would be a better case IMO, but I don't know if the Woolwich - Charlton section is suitable. Agree with pretty much all of this - the only thing I will say is that the 180 wouldn't exactly have gained diesel buses because it was no longer going to serve Trafalgar Road because diesel buses on routes like the 118 & 250 which were retendered with its existing allocations will be upgraded for the Brixton green corridor. I suspect the WVL's were specified as they were available to use for a cheap bid - they will be modified to Euro VI at some point themselves along with any remaining diesel buses at that point.
|
|
|
Post by Gellico on Jul 20, 2017 12:42:47 GMT
Surprised TFL hasn't looked at doing something with the 422, as this route around Hythe Avenue/King Harold Manorway doubles back on itself and adds extra run time. The 422 doesn't double back on it's self, the B11 does. I use the the 422 almost daily and it can stay as it is.
|
|