|
Post by Hassaan on Jul 8, 2017 12:17:23 GMT
244 and 291 to DD - yes yes. Good to see 244 also surviving, why on earth did people want it withdrawn and replaced with other routes?? 291 I heard it is a massacre in the peak (and I often see 1door buses on it!!!), so the locals will surely be delighted with the upgrade. Those 03-reg single door Pointers that are allocated to the 291 are actually longer than most single door single deckers at 9.3m, therefore are the same size as the 58-reg E200s for the 386.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 8, 2017 12:37:20 GMT
I assume that a 70 person capacity single deck, as specced for the 301, effectively means a 12m long vehicle and not 10.8m? I'm not sure as I believe a 12m Citaro, for example, has an overall capacity much closer to 100 judging on the 227's Citaros - I could easily be wrong though That's the legal capacity based on weight - nobody really expects a 12m Citaro to carry 100 people in practice (I hope)! In TfL-speak a 70-capacity bus usually means a 12m bus - the H37 was awarded with 70-capacity buses for example. However I think you could also meet that requirement with a lighter vehicle, such as the longest versions of the E200 or Streetlite, which are just under 12m these days.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 8, 2017 13:22:48 GMT
I'm not sure as I believe a 12m Citaro, for example, has an overall capacity much closer to 100 judging on the 227's Citaros - I could easily be wrong though That's the legal capacity based on weight - nobody really expects a 12m Citaro to carry 100 people in practice (I hope)! In TfL-speak a 70-capacity bus usually means a 12m bus - the H37 was awarded with 70-capacity buses for example. However I think you could also meet that requirement with a lighter vehicle, such as the longest versions of the E200 or Streetlite, which are just under 12m these days. So, are all the ex Red Arrow 12m Citaros accounted for? If not, you could see Go Ahead potentially offering these in their tender bid.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 8, 2017 13:56:19 GMT
That's the legal capacity based on weight - nobody really expects a 12m Citaro to carry 100 people in practice (I hope)! In TfL-speak a 70-capacity bus usually means a 12m bus - the H37 was awarded with 70-capacity buses for example. However I think you could also meet that requirement with a lighter vehicle, such as the longest versions of the E200 or Streetlite, which are just under 12m these days. So, are all the ex Red Arrow 12m Citaros accounted for? If not, you could see Go Ahead potentially offering these in their tender bid. GAL have held onto a few purely as trainers, but I don't know if there's enough of them to cater for the 301.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses67 on Jul 8, 2017 15:01:28 GMT
Still an outsiders view here Route 301Thumbs up from me and I think they've got the correct routing as well. The 301 starting off with single deckers seems a bit of a cautious move but like others have said, I can see this eventually being double decked before long. Regardless, this a route I'm looking forward to trying Route B11I feel like they were a bit lost as to where to send the route after Abbey Wood now that the 301 has been born - the South Thamesmead roundabout terminus seems like it's simply been chucked there. The frequency decrease makes sense though now the 301 is running alongside a chunk of it. Route 472I like the changes here as it means it can take a slightly more direct route to Thamesmead leaving the 301 to mop up Nathan Way and also removes the annoying loop working around Crossways & Bentham Road. The Abbey Wood part seems to be part of a overcrowding relief to the 229 though I'd of thought the 301 would achieve that instead Route 129This very important route gets an important extension into Lewisham - gets my vote especially if it can help relieve the very busy 108. TfL seem to have slightly admitted that the 8 minute frequency during the peaks was slight overkill given that the capacity boost it got when it went deckers was the help it actually needed. Route 180I think the changes to the 180 on the whole are ok though the loss of a route along Woolwich Road & Trafalgar Road leaves the already busy 177 as the sole route from Greenwich to Woolwich/Thamesmead - as others have suggested, a simple diversion of the 161 to Greenwich would solve this. I also agree with stuckonthe486 in regards to running via Bugsby Way - I've used the Smyths here multiple times now despite living nowhere near it but there is some demand here and it saves sitting at the Woolwich Road roundabout in heaps of traffic. The extension to Erith is welcomed though does it really need to go beyond the town centre to the quarry? Route 469I'm not really sure why they've done what they've done to this route - quite a lacklustre change really. Routes 178, 244 & 291Decker conversions - yes please. Each route here has it's reasons and I support them fully. Route 161I don't like this change because it seems to just simply skirt the town centre rather than serve the pedestrian area, Woolwich Arsenal or the market area. As I mentioned before, I think more people would rather the 161 be diverted to Greenwich in place of the 180 than this re-routing. Route 301 - This route should be double-decked without a doubt in case Crossrail suffers any major problems. Route B11 - Support the route being cut to South Thamesmead, it will improve the reliability of the route. Route 472 - I support the new routeing by making it run via Crossway & Bentham Road, it will speed up journey times to/from Abbey Wood. I would also extend the other end of the route to Greenwich, Cutty Sark to relieve Route 177 from the Woolwich-Greenwich corridor. This mini extension shouldn't be too much of a problem. Route 129 - The extension to Lewisham is solely to replace the link loss by 180 being withdrawn from the Lewisham to North Greenwich corridor. I would consider extending the route further if possible. Route 161 - I would want to see this route take the existing routeing of route 472 to Woolwich from North Greenwich, with route 472 taking the existing route 161 routeing to Woolwich from North Greenwich. This is mainly for the benefit of relieving route 177 along the Woolwich - Greenwich corridor. Route 161 could be extended to Cutty Sark but the current routeing is already too long and I think route 472 should be extended instead. I'm also sceptical of the changes to skip the town centre, it will not be popular amongst the shoppers there. Route 180 - I support the new routeing from North Greenwich to Erith as it will create new links. Route 469 - I don't really care, don't use the route. Double deck conversions for routes 178, 244 and 291, I support.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 8, 2017 16:47:30 GMT
A x10 min frequency on the new bit of the 180 to Erith looks a bit like overkill to me, given that it runs through an industrial estate. I wonder whether this might be best left to a further rerouted 469 between Belvedere and West Street, with the 180 trimmed back to Thamesmead East. I'm also not sure whether the destinations offered by the 180 are the right ones for Erith Quarry.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 8, 2017 17:07:54 GMT
So, are all the ex Red Arrow 12m Citaros accounted for? If not, you could see Go Ahead potentially offering these in their tender bid. GAL have held onto a few purely as trainers, but I don't know if there's enough of them to cater for the 301. And thinking about it further, we're 18 months away from these changes so probably too long to mothball them for.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 8, 2017 19:10:46 GMT
A x10 min frequency on the new bit of the 180 to Erith looks a bit like overkill to me, given that it runs through an industrial estate. I wonder whether this might be best left to a further rerouted 469 between Belvedere and West Street, with the 180 trimmed back to Thamesmead East. I'm also not sure whether the destinations offered by the 180 are the right ones for Erith Quarry. Wouldn't call that overkill at all for just 1 bus service. The whole point of extending the 180 to Erith is to create a new link. I would leave the 469 as it is at Erith Town Centre.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2017 19:28:05 GMT
GAL have held onto a few purely as trainers, but I don't know if there's enough of them to cater for the 301. And thinking about it further, we're 18 months away from these changes so probably too long to mothball them for. I suspect it will new vehicles for either of the three operators who would bid though I can't see where Stagecoach would house the 301 due to space issues unless something was lost beforehand. My own money is on Go-Ahead winning the 301 with new MEC's possibly run from this potential Greenwich site especially if the 108 moves out of NX to this new site in order to keep a common type together. The interesting one would be an Arriva win as potentially, we may see very long MMC's or SLS's (probably be coded SLX or something) rather than Citaros
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2017 19:32:17 GMT
Still an outsiders view here Route 301Thumbs up from me and I think they've got the correct routing as well. The 301 starting off with single deckers seems a bit of a cautious move but like others have said, I can see this eventually being double decked before long. Regardless, this a route I'm looking forward to trying Route B11I feel like they were a bit lost as to where to send the route after Abbey Wood now that the 301 has been born - the South Thamesmead roundabout terminus seems like it's simply been chucked there. The frequency decrease makes sense though now the 301 is running alongside a chunk of it. Route 472I like the changes here as it means it can take a slightly more direct route to Thamesmead leaving the 301 to mop up Nathan Way and also removes the annoying loop working around Crossways & Bentham Road. The Abbey Wood part seems to be part of a overcrowding relief to the 229 though I'd of thought the 301 would achieve that instead Route 129This very important route gets an important extension into Lewisham - gets my vote especially if it can help relieve the very busy 108. TfL seem to have slightly admitted that the 8 minute frequency during the peaks was slight overkill given that the capacity boost it got when it went deckers was the help it actually needed. Route 180I think the changes to the 180 on the whole are ok though the loss of a route along Woolwich Road & Trafalgar Road leaves the already busy 177 as the sole route from Greenwich to Woolwich/Thamesmead - as others have suggested, a simple diversion of the 161 to Greenwich would solve this. I also agree with stuckonthe486 in regards to running via Bugsby Way - I've used the Smyths here multiple times now despite living nowhere near it but there is some demand here and it saves sitting at the Woolwich Road roundabout in heaps of traffic. The extension to Erith is welcomed though does it really need to go beyond the town centre to the quarry? Route 469I'm not really sure why they've done what they've done to this route - quite a lacklustre change really. Routes 178, 244 & 291Decker conversions - yes please. Each route here has it's reasons and I support them fully. Route 161I don't like this change because it seems to just simply skirt the town centre rather than serve the pedestrian area, Woolwich Arsenal or the market area. As I mentioned before, I think more people would rather the 161 be diverted to Greenwich in place of the 180 than this re-routing. In regards to the 469 it links Upper Belvedere directily to the crossrail. In regards to the 180 there is a new development in that part of Erith. Plus the Erith Town Centre Stand is small Sorry, should of made it clearer - I see the link that will be created but to me, the 469 still looks like it's been plonked there for the sake of it - don't worry, I'm not local anyway so my opinion doesn't mean a lot Ahh so this quarry place is actually a new development rather than an actual quarry? I really hate these sorts of names for these developments - why can't it be called, "The Fraser Road development" instead. I reckon the 469 would of been better off extended to here and leave the 180 to terminate in the town centre instead?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2017 19:38:59 GMT
Here we go… I see we all got concerns for 301 being single-deck, looks I'm not alone. 306 in west London will start off as DD so I wonder why they weren't willing to take that risk Good to be reassured Knee Hill is doable as I've had a bit of a debate with a pal prior B11 with a bit chopped off and frequency reduced to only every 20 sounds worrying, but then again let's see if the addition of the 301 can remedy that. 244 and 291 to DD - yes yes. Good to see 244 also surviving, why on earth did people want it withdrawn and replaced with other routes?? 291 I heard it is a massacre in the peak (and I often see 1door buses on it!!!), so the locals will surely be delighted with the upgrade. The only one I'm not convinced about is 178, as despite paralleling 321 for a bit and serving a whole neighbourhood at Kidbrooke, it was rather quiet. I guess TfL hopes Crossrail will attract masses... but will it 129 finally gets extended, but it's still breaking 180's Lewisham links. I really wonder what effect it'll have on 108 and which route will be faster. Will the E400s freed from 36 complete rest of its allocation (not much work needed, they already have the blinds)? I still liked my own idea better of keeping 180 as it is on its western end, and only to tamper around with the 129, but oh well. Erith 180 extension is good. The problem is you can't compare the 306 & 301 because the 306 is taking over from the incredibly busy 266 where demand has been known for many years whereas the 301 is taking on bits & pieces either previously unserved or are parts of current routes and so is much harder to gauge what demand will be like. If demand ends up to be high to the point these long single deckers end up struggling, then I'm sure it will be looked into again. The 291 is indeed very busy - even on Saturdays, it can be absolutely rammed from Woolwich to the Woodlands Estate - only the Queen Elizabeth Hospital is relatively quiet - here's hoping there isn't a anti bus crowd in Woolwich as maybe they will complain about empty double deckers around the hospital
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 8, 2017 20:08:50 GMT
A x10 min frequency on the new bit of the 180 to Erith looks a bit like overkill to me, given that it runs through an industrial estate. I wonder whether this might be best left to a further rerouted 469 between Belvedere and West Street, with the 180 trimmed back to Thamesmead East. I'm also not sure whether the destinations offered by the 180 are the right ones for Erith Quarry. Wouldn't call that overkill at all for just 1 bus service. The whole point of extending the 180 to Erith is to create a new link. I would leave the 469 as it is at Erith Town Centre. I'm with you as regards 180, TL 1, but in my opinion we really don't need the 469 plying similar roads east of Belvedere as well : I feel something much more imaginative could be done with the 469 to link a few more local areas to Abbey Wood without TfL having to spend any more. My favourite would be to send it further along Woolwich Road from Upper Belvedere, then along the top end of Brook Street, Carlton Road, Park Crescent to stand at Erith Hospital - there's a nice set of roads there to swing round and head back the other way, and we all know how the powers that be like links to medical facilities 😉
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 8, 2017 20:14:40 GMT
The 291 is indeed very busy - even on Saturdays, it can be absolutely rammed from Woolwich to the Woodlands Estate - only the Queen Elizabeth Hospital is relatively quiet - here's hoping there isn't a anti bus crowd in Woolwich as maybe they will complain about empty double deckers around the hospital The only thing I would add to this very accurate description of the 291 is that if this is the first Woolwich bound bus to appear after a gap at the barracks, it will get equally hammered. All three of 178, 244 and 291 will welcome double deckers, but I feel it's the little 291 that will appreciate the extra seats most. It's a very busy little service.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 8, 2017 20:25:56 GMT
A x10 min frequency on the new bit of the 180 to Erith looks a bit like overkill to me, given that it runs through an industrial estate. I wonder whether this might be best left to a further rerouted 469 between Belvedere and West Street, with the 180 trimmed back to Thamesmead East. I'm also not sure whether the destinations offered by the 180 are the right ones for Erith Quarry. Wouldn't call that overkill at all for just 1 bus service. The whole point of extending the 180 to Erith is to create a new link. I would leave the 469 as it is at Erith Town Centre. To put my point into context, I think we're all pretty much agreed that the key route is going to be the 301, which will run with single deckers every 15 minutes. By contrast, the 180 extension will use double deckers on a ten minute frequency through an industrial estate. If we look at similar estates in the area, Nathan Way is coming down to a x15 frequency using single deckers. Fishers Way, which has a food distribution centre of the kind cited in the technical note, is losing its service altogether. That's why it feels like overkill to me. Yes, the 180 will create new links, but most of those (Erith, Abbey Wood, Plumstead, Woolwich) would also be created by sending the 469 that way. I'd rather use the resource elsewhere, perhaps even on the aforementioned 301. As for Erith Quarry, are residents likely to look towards Abbey Wood and Woolwich? Or south towards Bexleyheath? And realistically, won't they start a Crossrail journey by walking to Erith station and connecting at Abbey Wood? The Jubilee Line was different as you had to go out of your way to get there - Crossrail is connected in to existing rail services to a much greater extent.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 8, 2017 20:29:07 GMT
Wouldn't call that overkill at all for just 1 bus service. The whole point of extending the 180 to Erith is to create a new link. I would leave the 469 as it is at Erith Town Centre. I'm with you as regards 180, TL 1, but in my opinion we really don't need the 469 plying similar roads east of Belvedere as well : I feel something much more imaginative could be done with the 469 to link a few more local areas to Abbey Wood without TfL having to spend any more. My favourite would be to send it further along Woolwich Road from Upper Belvedere, then along the top end of Brook Street, Carlton Road, Park Crescent to stand at Erith Hospital - there's a nice set of roads there to swing round and head back the other way, and we all know how the powers that be like links to medical facilities 😉 I thought a little more could be done with the 469 myself. Sending it via Upper Belvedere links the area directly to Abbey Wood. Not too happy it will retain the current frequency of every 15 minutes. Still will have overcrowding issues, going to get worse.
|
|