|
Post by sid on Jul 23, 2019 12:45:22 GMT
Four routes giving in excess of 20bph is a bit over the top and I don't think reducing that section of the 486 to 4bph whilst increasing the North Greenwich end to 8bph is likely to cause any undue hardship? It would to me, and if TfL were ever to propose that, I would bitterly complain. Why? I'm genuinely baffled? Surely an extra 2bph at the North Greenwich end of the 486 would outweigh the loss of 2bph less at the Bexleyheath end? It wouldn't surprise me if the Welling to Bexleyheath section of the 486 was withdrawn completely although I wouldn't go that far.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 23, 2019 11:09:59 GMT
Boris gets the gig, LT's from Lands End to John O'Groats?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 23, 2019 10:45:14 GMT
Seriously there is plenty of spare capacity between Bexleyheath and Welling and the 486 is much busier at the North Greenwich end, you do the maths! *Just to add that this should be in the bus routes section not the bus operators section. I suspect Bexleyheath to Welling is slightly overbussed - but I would solve that by swapping the routing of the B15 and B16 between Bexleyheath and Welling, not by further cutting the 89 or 486. Four routes giving in excess of 20bph is a bit over the top and I don't think reducing that section of the 486 to 4bph whilst increasing the North Greenwich end to 8bph is likely to cause any undue hardship?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 23, 2019 5:13:11 GMT
I wonder if this consultation revival now means the Westfield works will finally begin? I really hope so as Whitgift is really starting to look in a sorry state now, especially the Allders Square. My god what’s left open of that shop is so creepy and the surrounding square I don’t think has any shops left in it! All this shuffling of where buses terminate in Croydon points towards that suggestion. As for the Whitgift Centre, I have to agree with you there! It is pretty much derelict there and whenever I've been in there as of late it has been pretty dead and it will keep being that way until Westfield opens. Westfield can't come soon enough and I just hope that construction begins soon. Allders Square has been derelict ever since Allders shut down back in 2009 (I think) I used to go to the Whitgift Centre a lot when I was younger but I hardly do now. I will miss it when it finally closes and gets demolished but it's time has come to go. I think it was 2012 Allders closed although it had been on the cards for sometime. If the Westfield development doesn't happen the future of Croydon town centre looks pretty bleak.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 23, 2019 4:55:37 GMT
Had a feeling that the 130 & 466 was just rumours and no more beyond that. I would have been shocked if that went ahead. For a start the 466 in its current form is an extremely busy route and the 130 goes a completely different way to it after Shirley so such a plan would have been unworkable. The Shirley Hills section is ridiculously over bussed, that level of service was necessary pre Tramlink but not any more.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 23, 2019 4:42:56 GMT
So what do you suggest? It wouldn't be inadequate as there is the small matter of the 89,96 and B16 as an alternative. Looks like another stuck record. They are not an alternative for people wanting a bus to the Charlton retail parks and North Greenwich station. The 96 is also very busy at weekends because of Bluewater and the 89 carries very good loads through Welling. Seriously there is plenty of spare capacity between Bexleyheath and Welling and the 486 is much busier at the North Greenwich end, you do the maths! *Just to add that this should be in the bus routes section not the bus operators section.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 22:12:18 GMT
Amazed to see freq increases to the 60, 127, 130, 154, 249, 289, 314, 466. Seems large amount on routes that don't always seem massively busy particulary the 130 and 466 but even the 154 and 249 cope pretty well. Can't help but think when so many routes have seen cuts in freq or altogether that the 60 and 466 need an increase. Purley to Croydon site already getting mroe cacapcity with the DD conversion of the 407. For all we know these could be evening and Sunday frequency enhancements. The report says that they are subject to cost, so we shall see if they happen or not. Probably be something daft like the 60 being increased from x13mins to x12mins! If the Westfield development doesn't go ahead (it's still "under review") then I really don't see the need for these changes which will only bring relatively meagre savings. If there is a need to reduce bus movements along Wellesley Road just implement the 264 and 433 change which shouldn't cause too much hardship and reroute the 154 via Reeves Corner thus removing 16bph in each direction which should be enough?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 16:39:29 GMT
I think the RV1 is a lost cause. Some of the other ideas are worthy of consideration though, although having the Overground calling at Brixton would be more a matter for Lambeth Council. I did speak to a Lambeth Councillor at Clapham High Street on the day the Clapham Junction service started, he said the Council would definitely be interested in having Overground platforms at Brixton, but they would probably have to be funded as part of a redevelopment project. Yes the RV1 has gone and clearly isn't going to return, London Overground platforms at Brixton should be the priority but as you've alluded to would have to be part of a bigger project. Also a suggestion of extending the 63, but to where?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 16:17:06 GMT
Amazed to see freq increases to the 60, 127, 130, 154, 249, 289, 314, 466. Seems large amount on routes that don't always seem massively busy particulary the 130 and 466 but even the 154 and 249 cope pretty well. Can't help but think when so many routes have seen cuts in freq or altogether that the 60 and 466 need an increase. Purley to Croydon site already getting mroe cacapcity with the DD conversion of the 407. So am I amazed, the 130 or 466 were rumoured for withdrawal. The 289 on the other hand certainly needs a frequency increase and why on earth it hasn't been double decked I don't know. I'll wait and see what transpires.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 10:16:35 GMT
It’s odd that while the P3 & P11 were both renumbered into the 343 and 381, the P4 still remains, yet it goes nowhere near Peckham, unlike the P11/381 which starts/ends at Peckham, while the P3/343 goes through Peckham. Personally the P3 and P11 should have remained while the P4 should be renumbered. If I remember correctly the P3 and P11 were renumbered because they gained a night service and TfL didn't like the idea of NP3 and NP11, that was before 24 hour routes were I brought in.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 8:49:00 GMT
I’d like most of the letter prefixes to go, let alone the suffixes... -runs- I've never understood the notion that prefix letters are ok but suffix letters cause confusion. I think prefix letters are ok for local networks like Orpington, Ealing, Uxbridge etc but a bit odd on routes like the P4 although I wouldn't advocate changing it for the sake of it in fact I think there should be a golden rule that route numbers should never be changed if the route itself isn't changing, it just causes unnecessary confusion.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 6:40:36 GMT
Well no passengers aren't inherently stupid, and there is a certain irony in that claim, they are just not going to have the same knowledge of the bus network as the average enthusiast and indeed why should they? In Brighton for example there is a 5,5A and 5B which all work perfectly well. There is no benefits to having them changed apart from pleasing a few enthusiasts. I'm not suggesting that they should be changed back just for the sake for it just that there was no point removing suffix letters in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 6:33:53 GMT
Heaven forbid I express my opinion in a forum, Sid. And what a surprise you’re the troll to criticise, as per. You made a sweeping unsubstantiated statement that I've disagreed with, that's how it works.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 6:26:12 GMT
Because passengers are inherently stupid, as a group (as opposed to some individuals within that group who know what they’re doing) They can’t cope with reading a destination properly for short workings, so how do you think they’d manage 12, 12A, 12B and god knows what else turning up? They’d see the number 12 and that’d be it. Far better for distinct numbers for each. Well no passengers aren't inherently stupid,and there is a certain sense of irony in that claim, they are just not going to have the same knowledge of the bus network as the average enthusiast and indeed why should they? In Brighton for example there is a 5,5A and 5B which all work perfectly well.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 5:52:26 GMT
The point I'm making is that if reductions have to be made on the 486 it's better to make them at the quieter Bexleyheath end by terminating alternate buses from North Greenwich at Welling. But it isn't quieter and people from the Bexleyheath end are travelling to Charlton and North Greenwich. Your proposed service to/from Bexleyheath would be inadequate. So what do you suggest? It wouldn't be inadequate as there is the small matter of the 89,96 and B16 as an alternative.
|
|