|
Post by danorak on Feb 17, 2022 17:13:57 GMT
LOTS seem to be hinting at further proposals for route changes associated with the Elizabeth Line opening, in addition to what's already been proposed. I wonder if that is correct or whether it is just slightly maladroit sentence construction. I haven't seen it but if you type out the sentence here I'll try and work it out. Under forthcoming changes... "Worth noting here that we expect some proposals for further route changes to coincide or proceed ( I assume means 'precede') the introduction of the Elizabeth Line. Hopefully these can be updated in future TLBs as there is some uncertainty whether the various schemes for East and South East London will take place at the same time". I would be inclined to say these mean the changes already consulted on, particularly given the timescales, but it's the use of 'proposals' and 'further' that muddies things a bit,
|
|
|
Post by london23 on Feb 28, 2022 22:31:04 GMT
Do you know what changes will be made once the Elizabeth line opens In the southeast consultation.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 28, 2022 22:39:19 GMT
Do you know what changes will be made once the Elizabeth line opens In the southeast consultation. 129: Extended from Cutty Sark to Lewisham Shopping, Centre 180: Withdrawn between Lewisham, Shopping Centre and Charlton Station diverted via 472 route to North Greenwich and extended to Erith Quarry via Church Manorway 469: Re-routed via Upper Belvedere Picardy Hill, Woolwich Road & New Road 472: Extended to Abbey Wood. Bentham Road no longer served. Nathan Way no longer served diverted via Eastern Way. B11: Truncated to Yarnton Way
|
|
|
Post by london23 on Feb 28, 2022 23:03:06 GMT
Do you know if the 244 will still be converted to Double-deckers once the Elizabeth line opens and will the 129 have a PVR increase.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 28, 2022 23:06:08 GMT
Do you know if the 244 will still be converted to Double-deckers once the Elizabeth line opens and will the 129 have a PVR increase. The 244 is not getting double decked.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Mar 1, 2022 10:03:35 GMT
Do you know if the 244 will still be converted to Double-deckers once the Elizabeth line opens and will the 129 have a PVR increase. The 244 is not getting double decked. Yet. The consultation said conversion would be reviewed. Loadings on the route have recovered with many journeys having all seats occupied and standing passengers.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 1, 2022 11:06:27 GMT
The 244 is not getting double decked. Yet. The consultation said conversion would be reviewed. Loadings on the route have recovered with many journeys having all seats occupied and standing passengers. Not my problem. A few weeks ago it was posted it is not happening by someone in the know... Link Here
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 1, 2022 11:12:47 GMT
Yet. The consultation said conversion would be reviewed. Loadings on the route have recovered with many journeys having all seats occupied and standing passengers. Not my problem. A few weeks ago it was posted it is not happening by someone in the know... Link HereAnd he is the very same person that asked and was told a few weeks ago .....
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 1, 2022 11:17:16 GMT
Not my problem. A few weeks ago it was posted it is not happening by someone in the know... Link HereAnd he is the very same person that asked and was told a few weeks ago ..... And probably ask the same thing in four weeks time?
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Mar 1, 2022 12:26:04 GMT
And he is the very same person that asked and was told a few weeks ago ..... And probably ask the same thing in four weeks time? Being told is nothing to do with the point I made. If you bothered to read the consultation documents you will see that when the decision to retain single deckers on the route was taken it stated that this would be reviewed after Crossrail opened. That is all I am saying. Early morning journeys to Woolwich are packed even before the line opens and the route is busy through the day.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 1, 2022 12:38:11 GMT
And probably ask the same thing in four weeks time? Being told is nothing to do with the point I made. If you bothered to read the consultation documents you will see that when the decision to retain single deckers on the route was taken it stated that this would be reviewed after Crossrail opened. That is all I am saying. Early morning journeys to Woolwich are packed even before the line opens and the route is busy through the day. So many routes deserve a frequency increase or decker conversion as well but it doesn’t mean it will happen especially given the financial situation
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 1, 2022 15:32:03 GMT
And probably ask the same thing in four weeks time? Being told is nothing to do with the point I made. If you bothered to read the consultation documents you will see that when the decision to retain single deckers on the route was taken it stated that this would be reviewed after Crossrail opened.That is all I am saying. Early morning journeys to Woolwich are packed even before the line opens and the route is busy through the day. I’ve read the consultation documents, you can continue dreaming about the 244 if it makes you feel better asking the same question every few weeks does not magically make a change. In addition the crossrail has not opened yet so why did you even mention what is in bold above...
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Mar 1, 2022 16:31:41 GMT
I didn’t think the 180 changes were even happening anymore? The changes to the 180 I think are utterly ridiculous, it should be kept as it is, a handy trunk route linking Thamesmead & Abbey Wood with Greenwich and Lewisham via Woolwich & Charlton, the 177 won’t be able to cope on its own, it’s not a positive change that will service the community at all it’s butchering a route for the sake of it.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 1, 2022 17:01:32 GMT
I didn’t think the 180 changes were even happening anymore? The changes to the 180 I think are utterly ridiculous, it should be kept as it is, a handy trunk route linking Thamesmead & Abbey Wood with Greenwich and Lewisham via Woolwich & Charlton, the 177 won’t be able to cope on its own, it’s not a positive change that will service the community at all it’s butchering a route for the sake of it. As I have said before (to you I believe), there’s not a whole lot wrong with the 180 change really. More 177s might be nice, also I’m unconvinced that the 180 is the best route for Erith Quarry - might be better to send the 428 there instead, and have the 469 follow the 99 from Upper Belvedere to Erith for the service linking Quarry to Abbey Wood. Terminate the 180 at Erith instead of the 428. Not convinced West Street in Erith needs three routes, neither am I convinced Picardy Street needs more than the 401. But this is ground we have crossed many times before and you won’t agree!
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Mar 1, 2022 17:03:30 GMT
I didn’t think the 180 changes were even happening anymore? The changes to the 180 I think are utterly ridiculous, it should be kept as it is, a handy trunk route linking Thamesmead & Abbey Wood with Greenwich and Lewisham via Woolwich & Charlton, the 177 won’t be able to cope on its own, it’s not a positive change that will service the community at all it’s butchering a route for the sake of it. As I have said before (to you I believe), there’s not a whole lot wrong with the 180 change really. More 177s might be nice, also I’m unconvinced that the 180 is the best route for Erith Quarry - might be better to send the 428 there instead, and have the 469 follow the 99 from Upper Belvedere to Erith for the service linking Quarry to Abbey Wood. Terminate the 180 at Erith instead of the 428. Not convinced West Street in Erith needs three routes, neither am I convinced Picardy Street needs more than the 401. But this is ground we have crossed many times before and you won’t agree! As you say we have discussed this before, that’s mainly because nobody has come up with a good reason why the 180 is being altered so drastically, Erith doesn’t need the 180 at all.
|
|