|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 27, 2024 9:43:29 GMT
I do think the 195 would benefit massively from being decked & there aren’t any restrictions or resident objections on it either. Most of its route runs over routes that already use DD’s.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 27, 2024 12:20:36 GMT
Are parked cars on Chaplain Road really the issue that prevents double deckers from going on the H17? The 258 was proposed to run over the full length of the H17 so there aren’t any restrictions on that route. That doesn’t mean there is not any restrictions currently |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on May 5, 2024 22:28:11 GMT
After extension S4 can’t take deckers over Ampere Way under the bridge
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on May 5, 2024 22:53:46 GMT
After extension S4 can’t take deckers over Ampere Way under the bridge Deckers use that section of road daily on light runs from C and BC, so that isn't the issue. The trees would almost certainly be a no-go for the S4 (one of my local routes) |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on May 5, 2024 23:18:14 GMT
After extension S4 can’t take deckers over Ampere Way under the bridge Deckers use that section of road daily on light runs from C and BC, so that isn't the issue. The trees would almost certainly be a no-go for the S4 (one of my local routes) Also the roof of the Royal Marsden, which the S3 and S4 stop under, is too low for double deckers (as well as the tight turns along the route). |
|
|
|
Post by londonbusbro on May 10, 2024 13:39:54 GMT
if the 201 went up the herne hill to tulse hill road instead of going through west dulwich the route could defo be double decker and this would cut off a solid 10 minutes from the journey which could lead to it being extended to somewhere like sutton or wimbledon. the 322 could replace the section since its single decker and basically goes to the same place.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on May 10, 2024 14:03:00 GMT
if the 201 went up the herne hill to tulse hill road instead of going through west dulwich the route could defo be double decker and this would cut off a solid 10 minutes from the journey which could lead to it being extended to somewhere like sutton or wimbledon. the 322 could replace the section since its single decker and basically goes to the same place. Both Sutton and Wimbledon are already well connected to Morden and the 201 would only duplicate those. There doesn’t need to be another link just frequency increases on existing ones. Most journeys in Morden are to/from the tube and there aren’t many cross journeys. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 10, 2024 16:20:52 GMT
if the 201 went up the herne hill to tulse hill road instead of going through west dulwich the route could defo be double decker and this would cut off a solid 10 minutes from the journey which could lead to it being extended to somewhere like sutton or wimbledon. the 322 could replace the section since its single decker and basically goes to the same place. By diverting the 322 that way, your increasing the journeys of many passengers who are going further than Herne Hill - the only way to remotely justify a change like this would be if some of the 322's current links were covered by something else like converting the 690 to a regular route rather than a school one. |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on May 10, 2024 16:39:49 GMT
if the 201 went up the herne hill to tulse hill road instead of going through west dulwich the route could defo be double decker and this would cut off a solid 10 minutes from the journey which could lead to it being extended to somewhere like sutton or wimbledon. the 322 could replace the section since its single decker and basically goes to the same place. Question is if the 201 needs double deck buses, I’ve never seen it struggling with crowds or leaving people behind with observations mainly between Morden and Streatham. I like taking it from Morden to Mitcham in the evening when I’m around because it picks up barely anyone whilst the 118/157/164/80 and others get packed. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbusbro on May 10, 2024 18:04:11 GMT
if the 201 went up the herne hill to tulse hill road instead of going through west dulwich the route could defo be double decker and this would cut off a solid 10 minutes from the journey which could lead to it being extended to somewhere like sutton or wimbledon. the 322 could replace the section since its single decker and basically goes to the same place. By diverting the 322 that way, your increasing the journeys of many passengers who are going further than Herne Hill - the only way to remotely justify a change like this would be if some of the 322's current links were covered by something else like converting the 690 to a regular route rather than a school one. thats another good idea but id say if there gonna do that they should extend it slightly further. I would name it the 369 |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 11, 2024 1:14:10 GMT
if the 201 went up the herne hill to tulse hill road instead of going through west dulwich the route could defo be double decker and this would cut off a solid 10 minutes from the journey which could lead to it being extended to somewhere like sutton or wimbledon. the 322 could replace the section since its single decker and basically goes to the same place. Question is if the 201 needs double deck buses, I’ve never seen it struggling with crowds or leaving people behind with observations mainly between Morden and Streatham. I like taking it from Morden to Mitcham in the evening when I’m around because it picks up barely anyone whilst the 118/157/164/80 and others get packed. It does get incredibly busy at times between Mitcham & Tulse Hill with rammed crowds on board - the Tulse Hill to Herne Hill section is very quiet and has always been like that since the extension was implemented. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on May 11, 2024 12:05:29 GMT
If the 201 is not particularly busy between Tulse Hill and Herne Hill then I would have been tempted to divert it to run to Forest Hill to provide the missing Forest Hill to Streatham link along the South Circular. However the new Superloop route may solve that problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 11, 2024 12:50:40 GMT
If the 201 is not particularly busy between Tulse Hill and Herne Hill then I would have been tempted to divert it to run to Forest Hill to provide the missing Forest Hill to Streatham link along the South Circular. However the new Superloop route may solve that problem. The 201 wouldn’t be able to handle that extension as nice as it would be (especially as it would restore a lot of the old 115) due to the Dulwich Common portion of the A205. The current route between Tulse Hill & Herne Hill is light in terms of road traffic as well as Thurlow Park Road & Croxted Road both flow well in comparison |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 11, 2024 14:13:54 GMT
If the 201 is not particularly busy between Tulse Hill and Herne Hill then I would have been tempted to divert it to run to Forest Hill to provide the missing Forest Hill to Streatham link along the South Circular. However the new Superloop route may solve that problem. The 201 wouldn’t be able to handle that extension as nice as it would be (especially as it would restore a lot of the old 115) due to the Dulwich Common portion of the A205. The current route between Tulse Hill & Herne Hill is light in terms of road traffic as well as Thurlow Park Road & Croxted Road both flow well in comparison The SL16 if it does happen will introduce the suggested link. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 11, 2024 14:57:01 GMT
The 201 wouldn’t be able to handle that extension as nice as it would be (especially as it would restore a lot of the old 115) due to the Dulwich Common portion of the A205. The current route between Tulse Hill & Herne Hill is light in terms of road traffic as well as Thurlow Park Road & Croxted Road both flow well in comparison The SL16 if it does happen will introduce the suggested link. Indeed but via more of the A205 and more congestion as a result |
|
