|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 19, 2019 15:35:48 GMT
It's a shame the N250 couldn't have taken over the 64 to New Addington to provide new links and save a little bit on an overlap between TH and East Croydon.
|
|
|
Post by Max B on Oct 19, 2019 15:55:08 GMT
Wow, I was about to say there’s no way the 250 can lose it’s night service cause then that would leave Thornton Heath without a night route again which it was without before the N250 was introduced in 2003. Glad to see the “N250” making a return. I don't think it will be fully N250 i think it will be like the 148 at night as the day service run to Shepherd's Bush and the night service runs to White City I know that. But the way it was typed on here (losing night service) made me think the night service got axed untill I read the N250 being introduced.
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Oct 19, 2019 16:02:31 GMT
I don't think it will be fully N250 i think it will be like the 148 at night as the day service run to Shepherd's Bush and the night service runs to White City I know that. But the way it was typed on here (losing night service) made me think the night service got axed untill I read the N250 being introduced. oh okay
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 19, 2019 19:34:55 GMT
It's a shame the N250 couldn't have taken over the 64 to New Addington to provide new links and save a little bit on an overlap between TH and East Croydon. Even though its several years on from the N109/N159 changes, I still think the people of New Addington were robbed, and deserve a night service going at least as far as Brixton.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 19, 2019 19:39:43 GMT
At the same time, are you telling me that the route is that busy at West Croydon that the remaining passengers cannot jump on a bus from West Croydon into Croydon Town Center? Your missing the point presumably because you haven’t used these routes - stand at Park Street and you’ll see how busy the stop is and how many people board certain routes there nothrbound. Croydon Town Centre stretches for quite a distance and doesn’t simply encompass one stop - people shouldn’t have to change buses to go the few stops they need when an alternative is already in place. These negligible, and almost petty cutbacks are some of the worst TfL make because it seems ridiculous to get on a bus for a stop or two then change on to another bus - akin to what would have happened had the 207 and 607 between cutback to Shepherd's Bush. Already overcrowded routes like the 109 will suffer even more from this change, the 407 may have been decked but it only parallels the 109 between Park Street and West Croydon so the idea that this will somehow help to offset pressure on the 109 is simply ridiculous. I'm not expert in Croydon geography, but I can say I've been on packed 109s leaving Park Street so this doesn't bode well for the future with far fewer cross Croydon routes to support the 109.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 19, 2019 19:42:24 GMT
New bus routes this year (if I've got this right): Genuinely new: 301 Technically new: N27, N53, N242, N250 Temporarily new: 378, 533, N33, N72 Upcomingly new: 218, 278, 306, 335, 497, X140 The 497 will be genuinely new
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 19, 2019 20:48:20 GMT
Shame I didn’t get round to doing the 246 to Chartwell this summer I would have thought they would swap the Fulwell terminus for the 33 and 267 but perhaps thats too obvious. LU Fulwell fast becoming a mainly single deck garage. From being all Metrobus 25-30 years ago that’s quite a shift. Yes true although 3 of those single decker routes can take double deckers. I still think they should do a route test on the 33 as I reckon it might possibly pass having seen the turning area at Casletnau, I say with bated breathe.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 19, 2019 20:53:15 GMT
I would have thought they would swap the Fulwell terminus for the 33 and 267 but perhaps thats too obvious. LU Fulwell fast becoming a mainly single deck garage. From being all Metrobus 25-30 years ago that’s quite a shift. Yes true although 3 of those single decker routes can take double deckers. I still think they should do a route test on the 33 as I reckon it might possibly pass having seen the turning area at Casletnau, I say with bated breathe. Well on paper the 216 can also take deckers, but its a shame in practice they're banned.
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 19, 2019 20:56:54 GMT
Yes true although 3 of those single decker routes can take double deckers. I still think they should do a route test on the 33 as I reckon it might possibly pass having seen the turning area at Casletnau, I say with bated breathe. Well on paper the 216 can also take deckers, but its a shame in practice they're banned. I hope some double deckers at FW get fitted with 411 blinds the route needs them
|
|
|
Post by Max B on Oct 19, 2019 21:22:39 GMT
Overall, the Croydon changes are not as bad they could have been. Very pleased that the 60 is getting a frequency increase to every 10 minutes. The patronage on that route is ever increasing and it supports the 109 in Croydon (until it reaches Galpins Road). Also, I understand why the 250 cutback to West Croydon and I like the introduction the N250 service. However, it is a shame the 405 is being curtailed to Croydon Katherine Street. The 250 change is stupid because it will merely pile pressure onto the already busy 109 even with the frequency increase on the 60 because anyone wanting Streatham & beyond from that end of Croydon is forced to wait for the 50 which isn't as high frequency as the 250 - your not going to get a 60 unless merely wanting the southern end of London Road. Furthermore, it means those using the 250, which is very busy in its own right, now has to change buses to access it - another way of how to get promote easy access in public transport - NOT! It’s a shame as well that the 468 won’t get much needed support at Park Street when the 50 won’t be serving it in November.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 20, 2019 18:18:49 GMT
London bus routes doesn't mention the 405 but I'm sure it was being cut to Croydon/Katherine Street aswell.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Oct 20, 2019 18:27:09 GMT
Yes true although 3 of those single decker routes can take double deckers. I still think they should do a route test on the 33 as I reckon it might possibly pass having seen the turning area at Casletnau, I say with bated breathe. Well on paper the 216 can also take deckers, but its a shame in practice they're banned. I sort of disagree with that, because if they’re banned something must have happened to compromise their safety on the route. So I’d say while they’re barred from the route the 216 can’t take deckers. Having said that I do say that not knowing why they were banned in the first place. Do you know what caused deckers to get banned from the 216? (I don’t know myself so I’m interested to know why, I’ve always wondered)
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 20, 2019 18:58:23 GMT
Well on paper the 216 can also take deckers, but its a shame in practice they're banned. I sort of disagree with that, because if they’re banned something must have happened to compromise their safety on the route. So I’d say while they’re barred from the route the 216 can’t take deckers. Having said that I do say that not knowing why they were banned in the first place. Do you know what caused deckers to get banned from the 216? (I don’t know myself so I’m interested to know why, I’ve always wondered) There are no physical restiction from the 216 taking double deckers, but there are pratical ones. I believe the reason double deckers are banned is because someone was killed by a double decker on the route, that's what george told me.
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Oct 20, 2019 21:49:10 GMT
I sort of disagree with that, because if they’re banned something must have happened to compromise their safety on the route. So I’d say while they’re barred from the route the 216 can’t take deckers. Having said that I do say that not knowing why they were banned in the first place. Do you know what caused deckers to get banned from the 216? (I don’t know myself so I’m interested to know why, I’ve always wondered) There are no physical restiction from the 216 taking double deckers, but there are pratical ones. I believe the reason double deckers are banned is because someone was killed by a double decker on the route, that's what george told me. I should imagine there must be along the route as well as this as double deckers have killed people on other routes, purely by accident didn’t mean they have had their deckers revoked and a single decker also can kill someone, I should imagine there maybe more to it.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 20, 2019 21:53:10 GMT
There are no physical restiction from the 216 taking double deckers, but there are pratical ones. I believe the reason double deckers are banned is because someone was killed by a double decker on the route, that's what george told me. I should imagine there must be along the route as well as this as double deckers have killed people on other routes, purely by accident didn’t mean they have had their deckers revoked and a single decker also can kill someone, I should imagine there maybe more to it. Well I doubt there are physical restrictions when the route regularly used double deckers when at HH, however, I doubt the SPs/VHs at FW are blinded for the 216.
|
|