|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 6, 2018 18:58:41 GMT
That was my thinking. TFL will simply cut the 113 to Selfridges whereas the swap with the 453 keeps it to Oxo. I agree with the thinking of excessive cacapcity between Elephant and Woolwich (well extra Deptford and Woolwich).
|
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 6, 2018 22:31:14 GMT
One of the things keeping the 113 quite busy is that it was a partial replacement for the 13 down to Oxo. If you re-route it as suggested you risk losing passengers which in turn could put it in danger of a frequency cut. That rerouting is likely to happen anyway if and when buses are banished from Oxford Street. If buses are withdrawn from Oxford Street, I think it is more likely the 113 will be terminated at Marble than re-routed. Given what happened the last time it terminated at Marble Arch the result may well be a loss of passengers which in turn could result in frequency cuts to the 113. If CS11 goes ahead on the existing plans it is unlikely to be good for buses and that too may well be a trigger for frequency cuts to the 113. Maybe the plans for CS11 will now be revised which could help the buses (and pollution) while delivering a high-quality cycleway.
Sorry to have gone off-topic there, as far as the 53 is concerned, I agree, TfL should leave alone, it seems to be working fine as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Aug 7, 2018 17:15:10 GMT
To maintain a proper cental london link from Woolwich and Blackheath what if the corridor was restructured into 53 Plumstead to Elephant (maybe even NX) and 453 Woolwich to Oxford Circus. The 113 could be diverted at Baker Street to Oxo via the 453 (which would remove another Oxford Street route). Freqs could be every 8-10 mins on both. As an alternative to the current 53, that’s actually not too bad though there is no space at Elephant to terminate anything else. There's not enough room to terminate the 453 at Woolwich either. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Aug 8, 2018 10:38:02 GMT
As an alternative to the current 53, that’s actually not too bad though there is no space at Elephant to terminate anything else. There's not enough room to terminate the 453 at Woolwich either. An off-the-wall suggestion: take that 453 idea, but divert it at Charlton via Cemetery Lane, Charlton Park Lane, Ha Ha Road, Nightingale Vale and Plumstead Common Road to terminate at Plumstead Common. Loads of stand space at Plumstead Common that's not been used in years, a more direct link from Plumstead without having to rely on Woolwich, and some new links to Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The tight turn at Cemetery Lane/Charlton Park Lane could be an issue, though it is used as a diversion route for buses every now and then. |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Aug 8, 2018 11:52:22 GMT
There's not enough room to terminate the 453 at Woolwich either. An off-the-wall suggestion: take that 453 idea, but divert it at Charlton via Cemetery Lane, Charlton Park Lane, Ha Ha Road, Nightingale Vale and Plumstead Common Road to terminate at Plumstead Common. Loads of stand space at Plumstead Common that's not been used in years, a more direct link from Plumstead without having to rely on Woolwich, and some new links to Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The tight turn at Cemetery Lane/Charlton Park Lane could be an issue, though it is used as a diversion route for buses every now and then. There is a clue as to why not in the name of one of the roads. The traffic objective is Woolwich not a stretch of roads with a lot of grass. The occupied stretches of road are reasonably well served by existing services. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Aug 8, 2018 14:35:56 GMT
An off-the-wall suggestion: take that 453 idea, but divert it at Charlton via Cemetery Lane, Charlton Park Lane, Ha Ha Road, Nightingale Vale and Plumstead Common Road to terminate at Plumstead Common. Loads of stand space at Plumstead Common that's not been used in years, a more direct link from Plumstead without having to rely on Woolwich, and some new links to Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The tight turn at Cemetery Lane/Charlton Park Lane could be an issue, though it is used as a diversion route for buses every now and then. There is a clue as to why not in the name of one of the roads. The traffic objective is Woolwich not a stretch of roads with a lot of grass. The occupied stretches of road are reasonably well served by existing services. Well, that's charming. There's plenty of demand from Plumstead Common towards central London. Giving an alternative to a route that schleps through Woolwich could free up space to/from Woolwich itself. Whether this would work off-peak is open to question, mind, but I thought I'd lob it in as an idea. I do wonder whether Crossrail is going to be used as an excuse for cutting the 53 (as the Jubilee Line was for the X53 nearly two decades ago). |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Aug 8, 2018 15:25:07 GMT
There is a clue as to why not in the name of one of the roads. The traffic objective is Woolwich not a stretch of roads with a lot of grass. The occupied stretches of road are reasonably well served by existing services. Well, that's charming. There's plenty of demand from Plumstead Common towards central London. Giving an alternative to a route that schleps through Woolwich could free up space to/from Woolwich itself. Whether this would work off-peak is open to question, mind, but I thought I'd lob it in as an idea. I do wonder whether Crossrail is going to be used as an excuse for cutting the 53 (as the Jubilee Line was for the X53 nearly two decades ago). Well your suggested route does pass a very large cemetery, Charlton Park, the sports grounds for Woolwich Barracks and Woolwich Common. In addition the peak hour queues in Nightingale Vale are pretty bad. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 8, 2018 15:28:53 GMT
There is a clue as to why not in the name of one of the roads. The traffic objective is Woolwich not a stretch of roads with a lot of grass. The occupied stretches of road are reasonably well served by existing services. Well, that's charming. There's plenty of demand from Plumstead Common towards central London. Giving an alternative to a route that schleps through Woolwich could free up space to/from Woolwich itself. Whether this would work off-peak is open to question, mind, but I thought I'd lob it in as an idea. I do wonder whether Crossrail is going to be used as an excuse for cutting the 53 (as the Jubilee Line was for the X53 nearly two decades ago). I came up with a long and involved scheme once upon a time that included sending the 486 on its 'Olympic' diversion and rerouting the 291 via Hillreach and Cemetery Lane rather than Repository Road to maintain the link from there to the QEH. This would have also provided support to the 54, which I had extended to Plumstead Common in place of the 53. But that is by-the-by. I take the points about the Plumstead end of the route. But I can't help feeling the 53 is a classic core radial service that should be focused on bringing people into Central London. It is after all already one of the most 'Hopper-ed' services. To my mind, Oxford Circus to Woolwich Crossrail Station is the natural route. An extended 54 and perhaps a new North Greenwich - Plumstead shuttle (replacing the plan for the 180) could replace the lost section. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 8, 2018 15:40:48 GMT
I'm surprised TFL didn't throw the 53 into the south East London Crossrail consultation like the 25 was in the guise that the Elizabeth line will take custom from the 53 to central London.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 8, 2018 16:00:48 GMT
I'm surprised TFL didn't throw the 53 into the south East London Crossrail consultation like the 25 was in the guise that the Elizabeth line will take custom from the 53 to central London. I suspect they didn't want the entire Crossrail consultation process ground into the dust by the residents of Blackheath and Charlton Village campaigning about route 53. I suspect TfL have their own little strategy on how to deal with route 53 and that will emerge in due course. I have no specific insight about the 53 but I can guess, based on some other gossip on routes elsewhere, what might be being hatched. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 8, 2018 20:21:17 GMT
My guess TFL have long harboured plans to cut the 53 to Elephant. With likely excess capacity on the 12, 148 and 453 I'm they have been itching to take the last 2 miles to Whitehall off. Stand space at Elephant is probably what has stopped them but in some ways if not going to Whitehall, Elephant would probably be just as good as Lambeth North which is frustratingly close to Whitehall.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 8, 2018 20:32:59 GMT
My guess TFL have long harboured plans to cut the 53 to Elephant. With likely excess capacity on the 12, 148 and 453 I'm they have been itching to take the last 2 miles to Whitehall off. Stand space at Elephant is probably what has stopped them but in some ways if not going to Whitehall, Elephant would probably be just as good as Lambeth North which is frustratingly close to Whitehall. If stand space is a problem the 48 stand near Borough Station will be available soon and there's also an overflow stand near the Bricklayers Arms. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 8, 2018 21:47:10 GMT
My guess TFL have long harboured plans to cut the 53 to Elephant. With likely excess capacity on the 12, 148 and 453 I'm they have been itching to take the last 2 miles to Whitehall off. Stand space at Elephant is probably what has stopped them but in some ways if not going to Whitehall, Elephant would probably be just as good as Lambeth North which is frustratingly close to Whitehall. As I previously mentioned, there is no stand space at Elephant especially for a frequent route like the 53. |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Aug 9, 2018 10:19:11 GMT
My guess TFL have long harboured plans to cut the 53 to Elephant. With likely excess capacity on the 12, 148 and 453 I'm they have been itching to take the last 2 miles to Whitehall off. Stand space at Elephant is probably what has stopped them but in some ways if not going to Whitehall, Elephant would probably be just as good as Lambeth North which is frustratingly close to Whitehall. As I previously mentioned, there is no stand space at Elephant especially for a frequent route like the 53. Toilet and refreshment facilities need to be available near the stand. |
|
