|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Apr 15, 2014 11:25:45 GMT
Bromley council are not going to help out with the 176 issue. They do not care a jot about anything in Penge , it is almost literally the dumping ground for the entire borough, has labour councillors in a Tory dominated council chamber so very little gets done. If the 176 turned instead at Crooked Billet, the 354 would have to move. Perhaps the 354 could stand in Croydon Road instead of the 176 ? I'd be against moving the 176 from the Pawleyne Arms considering the interchange possibilities between it and the 75, 197, 356 and 358, although I agree that the bus stand is far from good. If I recall, the Crooked Billet stand was used as a stand for the old N176, which changed when the 176 became a 24 hour route?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 15, 2014 12:05:33 GMT
The common theme with routes like the 176 is they run through areas of low income who opt for bus travel to Central London rather than expensive overground rail. Particularly prevalent in SE London with no tubes. Even by Sydenham the 176's in peak hours are almost standing room only. They also need to sort out a new southern stand because the Penge one still has no toilet facilities nearby and the stand is on a busy main road, accessed via residential roads (the buses run dead) which have frequent problems with bad parking. Only option really is for a short extension to Elmers End or Anerley Station, but that will require a over increase as we'll ! Yes that Penge stand has always been problematical, one idea might be to increase the 176 to every 6mins as far as Forest Hill with alternate buses providing a 12min frequency to Penge and onto Elmers End. A 12min frequency should be sufficient south of Forest Hill where it shadows the 197 anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 15, 2014 12:08:46 GMT
Bromley council are not going to help out with the 176 issue. They do not care a jot about anything in Penge , it is almost literally the dumping ground for the entire borough, has labour councillors in a Tory dominated council chamber so very little gets done. If the 176 turned instead at Crooked Billet, the 354 would have to move. Perhaps the 354 could stand in Croydon Road instead of the 176 ? I'd be against moving the 176 from the Pawleyne Arms considering the interchange possibilities between it and the 75, 197, 356 and 358, although I agree that the bus stand is far from good. If I recall, the Crooked Billet stand was used as a stand for the old N176, which changed when the 176 became a 24 hour route? I think there were residents objections about buses using the Pawleyne Arms stand at night, nobody wants noisy VLA's outside their bedroom window at 2am, although it's usually T at night now anyway. The night service could be extended to Croydon anyway.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 15, 2014 13:06:42 GMT
I'd be against moving the 176 from the Pawleyne Arms considering the interchange possibilities between it and the 75, 197, 356 and 358, although I agree that the bus stand is far from good. If I recall, the Crooked Billet stand was used as a stand for the old N176, which changed when the 176 became a 24 hour route? I think there were residents objections about buses using the Pawleyne Arms stand at night, nobody wants noisy VLA's outside their bedroom window at 2am, although it's usually T at night now anyway. The night service could be extended to Croydon anyway. Not sure if TfL would consider extending it to Croydon after withdrawing the night element of the 75 a few years back.
|
|
|
Route 176
Apr 15, 2014 13:24:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 15, 2014 13:24:49 GMT
Bromley council are not going to help out with the 176 issue. They do not care a jot about anything in Penge , it is almost literally the dumping ground for the entire borough, has labour councillors in a Tory dominated council chamber so very little gets done. If the 176 turned instead at Crooked Billet, the 354 would have to move. Perhaps the 354 could stand in Croydon Road instead of the 176 ? That would mean the 176 would miss the main town centre stop in Penge. Personally, I'd leave it as it is - if buses using the side road is a problem, then parking restrictions should be considered or the 176 should give up its 10.6m deckers for shorter buses - not ideal but is just one idea to the bad parking problem.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Apr 15, 2014 15:02:24 GMT
I'd be against moving the 176 from the Pawleyne Arms considering the interchange possibilities between it and the 75, 197, 356 and 358, although I agree that the bus stand is far from good. If I recall, the Crooked Billet stand was used as a stand for the old N176, which changed when the 176 became a 24 hour route? I think there were residents objections about buses using the Pawleyne Arms stand at night, nobody wants noisy VLA's outside their bedroom window at 2am, although it's usually T at night now anyway. The night service could be extended to Croydon anyway. If that was to happen, I'd hope the stand on Westbourne Drive is fully reinstated. Currently if a 176 does a turn in Forest Hill, it returns to London Road, parking outside the Capitol Wetherspoons which is far from desirable. I'd go for Sydenham rather than Forest Hill, the route is heavily used by students of Sydenham School who'd see capacity drop and could see an increase of use on the 197.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 16, 2014 10:08:25 GMT
I think there were residents objections about buses using the Pawleyne Arms stand at night, nobody wants noisy VLA's outside their bedroom window at 2am, although it's usually T at night now anyway. The night service could be extended to Croydon anyway. If that was to happen, I'd hope the stand on Westbourne Drive is fully reinstated. Currently if a 176 does a turn in Forest Hill, it returns to London Road, parking outside the Capitol Wetherspoons which is far from desirable. I'd go for Sydenham rather than Forest Hill, the route is heavily used by students of Sydenham School who'd see capacity drop and could see an increase of use on the 197. Yes that's a fair point, it would need a stand at Cobbs Corner though.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Apr 16, 2014 10:19:52 GMT
If that was to happen, I'd hope the stand on Westbourne Drive is fully reinstated. Currently if a 176 does a turn in Forest Hill, it returns to London Road, parking outside the Capitol Wetherspoons which is far from desirable. I'd go for Sydenham rather than Forest Hill, the route is heavily used by students of Sydenham School who'd see capacity drop and could see an increase of use on the 197. Yes that's a fair point, it would need a stand at Cobbs Corner though. I've seen them park further up Kirkdale, which then misses the Cobbs Corner stop currently on a Sydenham turn. Lack of parking space in that area is an issue, unlike Forest Hill.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Aug 14, 2014 12:11:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 14, 2014 12:41:22 GMT
Send those 05 reg VLAs back to N and replace them with spare DWs on the 159 or use some displaced 1st generation DWs on the 50 and take the small VLA allocation off there
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 14, 2014 14:07:00 GMT
So an increase from approximately 7.5 buses per hour to 9 buses per hour - about 130 extra spaces an hour. I expect that'll be used up within a fortnight. Good that they're doing it but given some buses were lopped off the PVR when the Oxo - TCR bit was scrapped it's ironic that TfL sat on a saving for years (or used the money elsewhere) and only now are putting some resource back in.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 14, 2014 14:07:33 GMT
Send those 05 reg VLAs back to N and replace them with spare DWs on the 159 or use some displaced 1st generation DWs on the 50 and take the small VLA allocation off there Get rid of the 54/05 reg VLA's altogether, I don't want them at N or BN - send some spare DW's from Borehamwood to N as it would be nice to see some DW's on N's routes.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Aug 14, 2014 19:30:46 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if Arriva just pull out some more VLAs from somewhere (like the 417/432, or even from BN).
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Aug 26, 2014 14:17:51 GMT
Send those 05 reg VLAs back to N and replace them with spare DWs on the 159 or use some displaced 1st generation DWs on the 50 and take the small VLA allocation off there Get rid of the 54/05 reg VLA's altogether, I don't want them at N or BN - send some spare DW's from Borehamwood to N as it would be nice to see some DW's on N's routes. Has anyone forgot 133? (Yes I know it's not good to breach a contract etc so forth) 133 could swap with 176 you know I mean, 133 does use 10.6m buses off 176 in the AM peaks anyways. Or otherwise VLA74-78 could go to 176 instead of 2/415/7/432/690 and the spare Ts go to 176 leaving 4 spare 10.6m VLAs.
|
|