|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 27, 2015 20:41:23 GMT
I am literally making this up as I go along... might work, might not! 132 Withdrawn Eltham Station to North Greenwich. Converted to single deck. 286 Converted to double deck. Revised to serve Kidbrooke Park Road in both directions now that the right turn from Rochester Way is permitted. 161 Rerouted between Well Hall Roundabout and East Greenwich via 132 to Dover Patrol, Kidbrooke Park Road, right into Shooters Hill Road (currently you can't get a bus to North Greenwich from here, but you can get one back!) then 132. 126 Converted to double deck. Diverted/extended at Eltham Church via 161 to Woolwich. You'd need to add something to cover the lost bit of the 161 to provide the link from Woolwich Road to North Greenwich. That does not really solve much as your new 161 just replaces the 132 at the same frequency. What is really needed is at least 10 Buses per hour at peak times between North Greenwich & Eltham.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 27, 2015 20:45:55 GMT
The 161 is not all that indirect only takes 5-8 mins longer than the 132 between Eltham - North Greenwich. Also a good link when the 472 is running like crap. ok fair points. I Just Remember when I used to travel through Woolwich a lot of passengers getting on and off at Woolwich with a mere handful continuting on the bus through Woolwich. I would be foolish to disagree with that. Yes it is getting a frequency increase but until that is implemented the current frequency is still poor. Out of all the terminating buses at NG the only route to run x12 is the 132, every other route (even the 108) runs more frequent. So if you look at it like that, I wouldn't exactly say the 132 has the best frequency. Better than no frequency at all, should be grateful it is high frequency. The 132 today is not the same 132 it was 10 years ago. Rather than over bussing the route I think another service should cover the busiest section of the route.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 27, 2015 21:39:47 GMT
I agree about the 132: there is a mismatch across Eltham. The Eltham - Bexleyheath section ran quite happily with single decks for some time and probably still could. The question for me is where you'd split it. As for the 286, the Greenwich - Eltham section is always busy, and certainly more so than the 132 off peak. It also has to cope with a lot of school traffic, even at the Sidcup end. I wouldn't extend the B16 to replace the Greenwich section, not least because Kidbrooke Village residents would prefer the link to North Greenwich tube. I don't think it is nessasary to split the route, what I think needs to be done is another route covering North Greenwich - Eltham assisting the 132 leaving it as every 12 minutes. As said above there will be too many buses between Eltham & Bexleyheath where not needed. Or just run the 132 every 6 minutes between North Greenwich and Eltham, every 12 minutes is perfectly adequate for the Eltham to Bexleyheath section.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 27, 2015 22:34:04 GMT
I don't think it is nessasary to split the route, what I think needs to be done is another route covering North Greenwich - Eltham assisting the 132 leaving it as every 12 minutes. As said above there will be too many buses between Eltham & Bexleyheath where not needed. Or just run the 132 every 6 minutes between North Greenwich and Eltham, every 12 minutes is perfectly adequate for the Eltham to Bexleyheath section. That's not a bad idea - I'd happily see that then splitting the route up.
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Dec 27, 2015 22:47:52 GMT
A new trunk route for a South to West Link
Route 84 Sydenham/Catford/Crystal Palace to Putney Bridge
Sydenham/Crystal Palace Forest Hill(optional) Lordship Lane/Wood Vale West Dulwich Tulse Hill(could be diverted via Lancaster Avenue) Christchurch Road Clapham Park Clapham Common Clapham Junction/Bollingbroke Grove Wandsworth High Street Putney Bridge Road or East Putney Putney Bridge.
Help create another west to south link alternative to route 37 Could be extended to Hammersmith
Running every 5-10 mins Monday to Saturday. 12 mins Sunday AND Late Evenings
PVR 22 single deckers 10.8m or 11.3 via low bridge 20 Double Deckers Enviro 400 MMC via Lancaster Avenue
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 28, 2015 1:06:31 GMT
A new trunk route for a South to West Link
Route 84 Sydenham/Catford/Crystal Palace to Putney Bridge
Sydenham/Crystal Palace Forest Hill(optional) Lordship Lane/Wood Vale West Dulwich Tulse Hill(could be diverted via Lancaster Avenue) Christchurch Road Clapham Park Clapham Common Clapham Junction/Bollingbroke Grove Wandsworth High Street Putney Bridge Road or East Putney Putney Bridge.
Help create another west to south link alternative to route 37 Could be extended to Hammersmith
Running every 5-10 mins Monday to Saturday. 12 mins Sunday AND Late Evenings
PVR 22 single deckers 10.8m or 11.3 via low bridge 20 Double Deckers Enviro 400 MMC via Lancaster Avenue
Interesting idea - I do like parts of this idea but I also have a few worries: Any route starting from Catford and running to South West London will most likely have to run along the South Circular Road or along Catford Hill and both are very congested roads. It could be done but it would need a lot of resource and it would be prone to falling over at busy times. Personally, I'd start it from Anerley (the 432 gets extended to Elmers End of course ) and run it via Crystal Palace, Sydenham & Forest Hill onto your routing but I'll concede that it's a a bit round the houses. I avoid the bridge on Thurlow Park Road and run it via Lancaster Avenue instead as a route like this would require deckers. Also, gives Lancaster Avenue their first regular bus service (diverted buses have used this road in the past). Christchurch Road can be a nightmare as can a lot of the A205 so again, this can cause havoc but at the same time, I do think there should be one route that traverses the whole road as it's practically aligned with houses all the way along and the 201 & P13 are the most reliable routes to wait upon. Are you serving Clapham Common from Clapham Park Road/King's Avenue or from Clapham South? Personally, I'd suggest the former just because entering Long Road from Clapham South is prohibited sadly (it didn't use to be as the 255 would stop near the lights and then turn left) and it would involve using Rookery Road which is used by 249's running to the Old Town - as they result, the 249 doesn't serve Clapham Common Station towards Clapham Common. Lastly, I'd run via Putney Bridge Road and divert the 270 to serve East Putney Station & Putney Station. I'd also drop the frequency as I think it's too high - every 8-10 minutes would be the very most to start off with personally.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 28, 2015 8:57:18 GMT
Maybe extend the 155 or 333 to London Bridge subject to stand space availability? I would rather extend the 270 at the other end to Hammersmith. Maybe reroute the 161 to Belmarsh via Broadwaters in place of the 380? That section could do with double deckers subject to any residential issues. I'd be more inclined to extend the B13 to Grove Park via WB Drive and then the 273 route. I agree that the A23 corridor deserves a limited stop service but I think an X159 to the west end would be better than an X59 to Waterloo I did consider route 155 & 333. However i dismissed the 333 because the 133 shares a lot of the same routing as it is, then the 155 I dismissed due to the high PVR and frequency. Stand space could be found by amending the 17. I think the 270 extension would be unnecessary as the 220 and 485 both continue onto Hammersmith from Wandsworth. I don't know if double deckers would fit around Whinchat Road et al. I did not choose the routing you mentioned as I know William Barefoot Drive can often have traffic delays that could effect service on the route. I going to the West End would be more helpful, however I could not identify stand space in central London and making changes to other routes would not of been sensible. The 220 often struggles to cope with demand south of Hammersmith, the 270 also restores the link from there to Tooting. The congestion around fiveways is only really at peak times and I think some bus priority measures could be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Dec 28, 2015 9:01:22 GMT
A new trunk route for a South to West Link
Route 84 Sydenham/Catford/Crystal Palace to Putney Bridge
Sydenham/Crystal Palace Forest Hill(optional) Lordship Lane/Wood Vale West Dulwich Tulse Hill(could be diverted via Lancaster Avenue) Christchurch Road Clapham Park Clapham Common Clapham Junction/Bollingbroke Grove Wandsworth High Street Putney Bridge Road or East Putney Putney Bridge.
Help create another west to south link alternative to route 37 Could be extended to Hammersmith
Running every 5-10 mins Monday to Saturday. 12 mins Sunday AND Late Evenings
PVR 22 single deckers 10.8m or 11.3 via low bridge 20 Double Deckers Enviro 400 MMC via Lancaster Avenue
Interesting idea - I do like parts of this idea but I also have a few worries: Any route starting from Catford and running to South West London will most likely have to run along the South Circular Road or along Catford Hill and both are very congested roads. It could be done but it would need a lot of resource and it would be prone to falling over at busy times. Personally, I'd start it from Anerley (the 432 gets extended to Elmers End of course ) and run it via Crystal Palace, Sydenham & Forest Hill onto your routing but I'll concede that it's a a bit round the houses. I avoid the bridge on Thurlow Park Road and run it via Lancaster Avenue instead as a route like this would require deckers. Also, gives Lancaster Avenue their first regular bus service (diverted buses have used this road in the past). Christchurch Road can be a nightmare as can a lot of the A205 so again, this can cause havoc but at the same time, I do think there should be one route that traverses the whole road as it's practically aligned with houses all the way along and the 201 & P13 are the most reliable routes to wait upon. Are you serving Clapham Common from Clapham Park Road/King's Avenue or from Clapham South? Personally, I'd suggest the former just because entering Long Road from Clapham South is prohibited sadly (it didn't use to be as the 255 would stop near the lights and then turn left) and it would involve using Rookery Road which is used by 249's running to the Old Town - as they result, the 249 doesn't serve Clapham Common Station towards Clapham Common. Lastly, I'd run via Putney Bridge Road and divert the 270 to serve East Putney Station & Putney Station. I'd also drop the frequency as I think it's too high - every 8-10 minutes would be the very most to start off with personally. From Clapham park I was thinking for it. To follow the route 50 from where the route 57 terminates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2015 18:18:57 GMT
Extending the 468 (Northern Terminus) from Elephant & Castle (Lambeth Road) for a further 3 stops (Along Waterloo Road to terminate at Waterloo Station, Tenison Way) however drops off outside Waterloo Station as stands at Tenison Way. Saves the need to 68/176 along most part of the route, increases the number of available buses at Waterloo picking up passengers and help clearing the bus stops full of people. (X68 does this very well during peak hours in one direction)
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 29, 2015 20:02:36 GMT
Extending the 468 (Northern Terminus) from Elephant & Castle (Lambeth Road) for a further 3 stops (Along Waterloo Road to terminate at Waterloo Station, Tenison Way) however drops off outside Waterloo Station as stands at Tenison Way. Saves the need to 68/176 along most part of the route, increases the number of available buses at Waterloo picking up passengers and help clearing the bus stops full of people. (X68 does this very well during peak hours in one direction) Never noticed any issues myself at Waterloo with the 68 or 176. I think the 468 wouldn't be the best choice as its already long enough and I really don't want to tweak it in anyway possible as its helped me out on umpteen occasions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2015 15:01:13 GMT
Trying to Solve the 160 issues 124 extension to Sidcup High Street (Sidcup, Morrison's) via Footscray Road, Southwood Road, fast via Sidcup By-Pass and Chislehurst Road. New bus stand at Jenner Close opposite Sidcup Morrison's Superstore. Frequency increase Bus every 4-6 minutes. 160 withdrawn from New Eltham and Eltham High Street; no longer serving Southwood Rd, Footscray Rd, Southend Cres, High Street, Eltham Hill. Rerouted via Sidcup Road, Court Road, Middle Park Avenue to line of route (for replacement see 124) 160 every 20 minutes . Routing around Edgebury Estate, Chislehurst swapped with route 162. Route 160 becomes single-decked. Route 162 becomes double-decked. Sidcup Road may cause issues and 124 becomes very long could be problem but not many of broken links for anyone and creation of new links plus my attempt at resolving the 160. Haha it took time and I'm still unsure if this plans feasible. Let me know your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 30, 2015 16:55:35 GMT
I am literally making this up as I go along... might work, might not! 132 Withdrawn Eltham Station to North Greenwich. Converted to single deck. 286 Converted to double deck. Revised to serve Kidbrooke Park Road in both directions now that the right turn from Rochester Way is permitted. 161 Rerouted between Well Hall Roundabout and East Greenwich via 132 to Dover Patrol, Kidbrooke Park Road, right into Shooters Hill Road (currently you can't get a bus to North Greenwich from here, but you can get one back!) then 132. 126 Converted to double deck. Diverted/extended at Eltham Church via 161 to Woolwich. You'd need to add something to cover the lost bit of the 161 to provide the link from Woolwich Road to North Greenwich. That does not really solve much as your new 161 just replaces the 132 at the same frequency. What is really needed is at least 10 Buses per hour at peak times between North Greenwich & Eltham. ...in which case, leave the 132 alone, but also send the 161 to North Greenwich via the same route. Replace the 161 to Woolwich with the aforementioned 126. North Greenwich - Woolwich replaced with a new route, which could then extend to Belmarsh replacing that section of the 380 and effectively increasing capacity with double decks.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 30, 2015 21:19:06 GMT
Trying to Solve the 160 issues 124 extension to Sidcup High Street (Sidcup, Morrison's) via Footscray Road, Southwood Road, fast via Sidcup By-Pass and Chislehurst Road. New bus stand at Jenner Close opposite Sidcup Morrison's Superstore. Frequency increase Bus every 4-6 minutes. 160 withdrawn from New Eltham and Eltham High Street; no longer serving Southwood Rd, Footscray Rd, Southend Cres, High Street, Eltham Hill. Rerouted via Sidcup Road, Court Road, Middle Park Avenue to line of route (for replacement see 124) 160 every 20 minutes . Routing around Edgebury Estate, Chislehurst swapped with route 162. Route 160 becomes single-decked. Route 162 becomes double-decked. Sidcup Road may cause issues and 124 becomes very long could be problem but not many of broken links for anyone and creation of new links plus my attempt at resolving the 160. Haha it took time and I'm still unsure if this plans feasible. Let me know your thoughts. Some interesting ideas, no reason why there shouldn't be a bus service along the A20, plenty of houses currently rather remote from the nearest bus stop. I'm not sure the 124 justifies quite such a high frequency (although could be increased to every 5 minutes between Catford and Grove Park) and I think the 160 should remain every 15 minutes at least (and restored to Brownhill Road) especially if its single decked.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 30, 2015 21:28:56 GMT
That does not really solve much as your new 161 just replaces the 132 at the same frequency. What is really needed is at least 10 Buses per hour at peak times between North Greenwich & Eltham. ...in which case, leave the 132 alone, but also send the 161 to North Greenwich via the same route. Replace the 161 to Woolwich with the aforementioned 126. North Greenwich - Woolwich replaced with a new route, which could then extend to Belmarsh replacing that section of the 380 and effectively increasing capacity with double decks. Or maybe extend the 126 from Eltham via the 132 to North Greenwich and leave the 161 as it is to Woolwich? I like the idea of a new route from North Greenwich replacing the 161 to Woolwich and the 380 via Broadwaters (as far as I'm aware there's nothing to preclude double deckers) to Belmarsh. Could be extended further into Thamesmead as and when further development justifies it.
|
|
|
Post by Gellico on Dec 30, 2015 21:57:51 GMT
That does not really solve much as your new 161 just replaces the 132 at the same frequency. What is really needed is at least 10 Buses per hour at peak times between North Greenwich & Eltham. ...in which case, leave the 132 alone, but also send the 161 to North Greenwich via the same route. Replace the 161 to Woolwich with the aforementioned 126. North Greenwich - Woolwich replaced with a new route, which could then extend to Belmarsh replacing that section of the 380 and effectively increasing capacity with double decks. This seems by far the easiest and simpliest way of improving frequency, also a link from North Greenwich to Bromley is good if not a bit long if you wanted to do the whole route
|
|