|
|
Post by redexpress on Jan 22, 2018 13:58:55 GMT
I didn't know that about the 68 back in 1994. As the 68 had run as one I guess there was a feeling back then that 2 routes were not needed on the stretch. Prior to the 68 being split, the 40 used to run to Herne Hill instead of Dulwich, so you had two routes between Camberwell and Herne Hill but only one continuing to West Norwood (and beyond). I guess the original idea was to continue this pattern by having the 68 and 68A overlap only as far as Herne Hill. Anyway, that was over 20 years ago. Having seen how busy the 468s are over the Camberwell - West Norwood section, I'd say the extra capacity of the 68 is very much needed at busy times. As with many routes, there is probably scope for reductions at quieter times. If we were to accept a return to the days of buses running in overlapping sections, we could renumber the 468 to 68; run in overlapping sections during the daytime and run a through service in the evenings. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 14:07:47 GMT
I didn't know that about the 68 back in 1994. As the 68 had run as one I guess there was a feeling back then that 2 routes were not needed on the stretch. Prior to the 68 being split, the 40 used to run to Herne Hill instead of Dulwich, so you had two routes between Camberwell and Herne Hill but only one continuing to West Norwood (and beyond). I guess the original idea was to continue this pattern by having the 68 and 68A overlap only as far as Herne Hill. Anyway, that was over 20 years ago. Having seen how busy the 468s are over the Camberwell - West Norwood section, I'd say the extra capacity of the 68 is very much needed at busy times. As with many routes, there is probably scope for reductions at quieter times. If we were to accept a return to the days of buses running in overlapping sections, we could renumber the 468 to 68; run in overlapping sections during the daytime and run a through service in the evenings. I don't think we should return to the days of overlapping sections, it often caused endless confusion. There is no reason why a through service couldn't be run in the evening anyway as indeed it does with the N68. Anyway I still think West Norwood to Elephant & Castle is an extravagantly long overlap. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 22, 2018 14:20:54 GMT
In my very limited experience I too have seen and been part of the Anerley crowd waiting for a cross Crystal Palace bus. As you say the buses are not ram jammed full from there but people do value the facility. The overlap with other routes also allows same stop interchange with the 410, 358 and 157 further along the road. Crystal Palace isn't ideal for interchange especially as several routes pick up on the Parade despite standing in the bus station but it's far from being the worst interchange in London. Ironically one of the complaints about interchange at Crystal Palace is that the 249 and 432 don't serve the bus station. Anyway it is evident that four routes, five if we include the 410, up and down Anerley Hill is excessive so people can decide for themselves which route or routes they would rather see go if it comes to the crunch. Admittedly not as knowledgeable as some here about that area, but in these financially straitened times, I would have shot of one of the Palace - Anerley routes. Given choice, keep 432, axe 249. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 22, 2018 14:28:36 GMT
Ironically one of the complaints about interchange at Crystal Palace is that the 249 and 432 don't serve the bus station. Anyway it is evident that four routes, five if we include the 410, up and down Anerley Hill is excessive so people can decide for themselves which route or routes they would rather see go if it comes to the crunch. Admittedly not as knowledgeable as some here about that area, but in these financially straitened times, I would have shot of one of the Palace - Anerley routes. Given choice, keep 432, axe 249. Where would people terminate the route(s) if there is no capacity in the bus station ... or would you move another route out? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 14:29:54 GMT
Ironically one of the complaints about interchange at Crystal Palace is that the 249 and 432 don't serve the bus station. Anyway it is evident that four routes, five if we include the 410, up and down Anerley Hill is excessive so people can decide for themselves which route or routes they would rather see go if it comes to the crunch. Admittedly not as knowledgeable as some here about that area, but in these financially straitened times, I would have shot of one of the Palace - Anerley routes. Given choice, keep 432, axe 249. Problem is there's not enough stand space at Crystal Palace which is why they were extended to Anerley after a new stand was built there. The original plan was to extend the 3 and 322, don't know why it was changed? |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 22, 2018 14:50:06 GMT
Admittedly not as knowledgeable as some here about that area, but in these financially straitened times, I would have shot of one of the Palace - Anerley routes. Given choice, keep 432, axe 249. Where would people terminate the route(s) if there is no capacity in the bus station ... or would you move another route out? 358 cut Anerley - Palace... |
|
|
|
Post by Whitherminter on Jan 22, 2018 16:39:56 GMT
I mean, Crystal Palace to Anerly are not that far from each other. The route has 5 stops in common with the 157 & 358 so I'd hardly call it excessive. Both the 249 and 432 are well used from 'Anerly Station' when people get off the LO to get to Crystal Palace at late nights.
Even if you were to find space at Crystal Palace to cut the 432, what would be the point? You're hardly saving much time or money.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 16:48:49 GMT
I mean, Crystal Palace to Anerly are not that far from each other. The route has 5 stops in common with the 157 & 358 so I'd hardly call it excessive. Both the 249 and 432 are well used from 'Anerly Station' when people get off the LO to get to Crystal Palace at late nights. Even if you were to find space at Crystal Palace to cut the 432, what would be the point? You're hardly saving much time or money. It would obviously save a bus on each route. And why would people be getting off the LO at Anerley and getting a bus to Crystal Palace rather than going there direct on the LO? |
|
|
|
Post by Whitherminter on Jan 22, 2018 16:54:55 GMT
I mean, Crystal Palace to Anerly are not that far from each other. The route has 5 stops in common with the 157 & 358 so I'd hardly call it excessive. Both the 249 and 432 are well used from 'Anerly Station' when people get off the LO to get to Crystal Palace at late nights. Even if you were to find space at Crystal Palace to cut the 432, what would be the point? You're hardly saving much time or money. It would obviously save a bus on each route. And why would people be getting off the LO at Anerley and getting a bus to Crystal Palace rather than going there direct on the LO? Good question, because frequencies are lower. People intend on going to West Norwood and Streatham (but the London Bridge to Vic train is sometimes suspended or a long wait) so people get on either the 249 or 432. A lot of people there have travelcards so aren't losing any money from doing this. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 17:04:19 GMT
It would obviously save a bus on each route. And why would people be getting off the LO at Anerley and getting a bus to Crystal Palace rather than going there direct on the LO? Good question, because frequencies are lower. People intend on going to West Norwood and Streatham (but the London Bridge to Vic train is sometimes suspended or a long wait) so people get on either the 249 or 432. A lot of people there have travelcards so aren't losing any money from doing this. Anerley and Penge West are two of the least used stations on LO so I struggle to see where this alleged demand for the 249 and 432 come from. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jan 22, 2018 17:07:09 GMT
The 202 could be cut to every 12 and I’m sure the 38 doesn’t need so many buses!
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 22, 2018 17:39:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Whitherminter on Jan 22, 2018 17:42:14 GMT
Good question, because frequencies are lower. People intend on going to West Norwood and Streatham (but the London Bridge to Vic train is sometimes suspended or a long wait) so people get on either the 249 or 432. A lot of people there have travelcards so aren't losing any money from doing this. Anerley and Penge West are two of the least used stations on LO so I struggle to see where this alleged demand for the 249 and 432 come from. Well, luckily I'm not asking you to look outside of your own travel patterns. I'm just simply explaining that the Crystal Palace - Anerly section is well used by the 432. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 17:44:26 GMT
Anerley and Penge West are two of the least used stations on LO so I struggle to see where this alleged demand for the 249 and 432 come from. Well, luckily I'm not asking you to look outside of your own travel patterns. I'm just simply explaining that the Crystal Palace - Anerly section is well used by the 432. Funny but the ones I see are normally carrying little more than fresh air. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jan 22, 2018 19:39:55 GMT
No room at Crystal Palace the 3 and 227s are standing on the parade. uote author=" Whitherminter" source="/post/413485/thread" timestamp="1516639196"]I mean, Crystal Palace to Anerly are not that far from each other. The route has 5 stops in common with the 157 & 358 so I'd hardly call it excessive. Both the 249 and 432 are well used from 'Anerly Station' when people get off the LO to get to Crystal Palace at late nights. Even if you were to find space at Crystal Palace to cut the 432, what would be the point? You're hardly saving much time or money. [/quote] |
|
