|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 5, 2018 16:05:09 GMT
The Chislehurst - Orpington section would be overbussed and I strongly doubt TfL would want to introduce the effects of Blackwall Tunnel traffic that far south. A rerouting of the 160 might work, although something else might need to pick up the Sidcup - Chislehurst service. I know I introduced the notion, but I'm not for one minute advocating the 161 be extended to Orpington. I think it was a crying shame that the 161 got sucked into the North Greenwich peninsula in the first place; in my view it should have continued to terminate in Woolwich and concentrate on ferrying the considerable number of passengers who have always wanted to travel between there and Eltham/Mottingham. The long-delayed extension of the 132 from Eltham to North Greenwich compounded the situation. I wonder whether TfL in their Crossrail 'consultations' have underestimated the possible demand from those living on or close to the 161 who might wish to access Woolwich Arsenal station in future, perhaps as opposed to North Greenwich. I can scarcely believe the derisory level of service on the 161 now: what has happened? I won't go anywhere near either Eltham or Woolwich now for my own personal reasons, but I grew up in the area and knew it extremely well for twenty years and pretty well for another twenty. Get the 161 back Woolwich to Chislehurst at a 5 minute peak frequency, and max 10-12 at other times, and I'm sure they'll come again, if they ever sort out the mess I read about regarding the traffic/roads. I agree about Crossrail - it's particularly absurd that the changes proposed to the 161 take it further away from the station. The 132 released pent-up demand from Eltham to North Greenwich. There's lots of politics in Greenwich about north-south links but both main parties were agitating for an X161 to serve Crossrail and I suspect they will continue to do so. On the original point, I do think there is a case for a proper Bromley/Orpington review but I worry what the outcome might be in the current climate. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 5, 2018 16:59:43 GMT
The Chislehurst - Orpington section would be overbussed and I strongly doubt TfL would want to introduce the effects of Blackwall Tunnel traffic that far south. A rerouting of the 160 might work, although something else might need to pick up the Sidcup - Chislehurst service. I know I introduced the notion, but I'm not for one minute advocating the 161 be extended to Orpington. I think it was a crying shame that the 161 got sucked into the North Greenwich peninsula in the first place; in my view it should have continued to terminate in Woolwich and concentrate on ferrying the considerable number of passengers who have always wanted to travel between there and Eltham/Mottingham. The long-delayed extension of the 132 from Eltham to North Greenwich compounded the situation. I wonder whether TfL in their Crossrail 'consultations' have underestimated the possible demand from those living on or close to the 161 who might wish to access Woolwich Arsenal station in future, perhaps as opposed to North Greenwich. I can scarcely believe the derisory level of service on the 161 now: what has happened? I won't go anywhere near either Eltham or Woolwich now for my own personal reasons, but I grew up in the area and knew it extremely well for twenty years and pretty well for another twenty. Get the 161 back Woolwich to Chislehurst at a 5 minute peak frequency, and max 10-12 at other times, and I'm sure they'll come again, if they ever sort out the mess I read about regarding the traffic/roads. I think you should be careful what you wish for, the 161 is probably fortunate to still have a x10 minute service. If the North Greenwich section was removed and replaced by something else there is no reason why the 161 couldn't be extended to Orpington apart from the frequency maybe being a bit excessive. I don't what mess you're expecting to be sorted out, the road situation is the result of an increasing population in London, does anyone have a solution? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 5, 2018 17:05:11 GMT
I know I introduced the notion, but I'm not for one minute advocating the 161 be extended to Orpington. I think it was a crying shame that the 161 got sucked into the North Greenwich peninsula in the first place; in my view it should have continued to terminate in Woolwich and concentrate on ferrying the considerable number of passengers who have always wanted to travel between there and Eltham/Mottingham. The long-delayed extension of the 132 from Eltham to North Greenwich compounded the situation. I wonder whether TfL in their Crossrail 'consultations' have underestimated the possible demand from those living on or close to the 161 who might wish to access Woolwich Arsenal station in future, perhaps as opposed to North Greenwich. I can scarcely believe the derisory level of service on the 161 now: what has happened? I won't go anywhere near either Eltham or Woolwich now for my own personal reasons, but I grew up in the area and knew it extremely well for twenty years and pretty well for another twenty. Get the 161 back Woolwich to Chislehurst at a 5 minute peak frequency, and max 10-12 at other times, and I'm sure they'll come again, if they ever sort out the mess I read about regarding the traffic/roads. I agree about Crossrail - it's particularly absurd that the changes proposed to the 161 take it further away from the station. The 132 released pent-up demand from Eltham to North Greenwich. There's lots of politics in Greenwich about north-south links but both main parties were agitating for an X161 to serve Crossrail and I suspect they will continue to do so. On the original point, I do think there is a case for a proper Bromley/Orpington review but I worry what the outcome might be in the current climate. From what I read of the X161 idea it sounded completely bonkers quite honestly and seemed to assume masses of people would be travelling to Woolwich for Crossrail rather than using nearer stations at Mottingham and Eltham. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 5, 2018 18:24:19 GMT
I agree about Crossrail - it's particularly absurd that the changes proposed to the 161 take it further away from the station. The 132 released pent-up demand from Eltham to North Greenwich. There's lots of politics in Greenwich about north-south links but both main parties were agitating for an X161 to serve Crossrail and I suspect they will continue to do so. On the original point, I do think there is a case for a proper Bromley/Orpington review but I worry what the outcome might be in the current climate. From what I read of the X161 idea it sounded completely bonkers quite honestly and seemed to assume masses of people would be travelling to Woolwich for Crossrail rather than using nearer stations at Mottingham and Eltham. A lot less bonkers than assuming masses of people would make the long journey on the 161 to North Greenwich to access the Jubilee for London Bridge, Waterloo, Westminster, Green Park and even Bond Street, when, as you say, local stations catered for that traffic: they didn't, and don't, of course, it's Canary Wharf, other Docklands destinations and Stratford they want. A lot of that traffic could save a fair bit of time by going to Woolwich Arsenal for Crossrail or DLR, probably without the crush many will experience on the Jubilee. Further west, Liverpool Street and Farringdon (particularly until Thameslink get their act together, which could take as long as Mayor Khan's knife crime strategy! ) might be more attractive propositions on Crossrail than South Eastern trains and either Thameslink or the soon-to-be-cut-further bus links. The X161 has a history behind it, if you care to do the research. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 5, 2018 18:33:10 GMT
From what I read of the X161 idea it sounded completely bonkers quite honestly and seemed to assume masses of people would be travelling to Woolwich for Crossrail rather than using nearer stations at Mottingham and Eltham. A lot less bonkers than assuming masses of people would make the long journey on the 161 to North Greenwich to access the Jubilee for London Bridge, Waterloo, Westminster, Green Park and even Bond Street, when, as you say, local stations catered for that traffic: they didn't, and don't, of course, it's Canary Wharf, other Docklands destinations and Stratford they want. A lot of that traffic could save a fair bit of time by going to Woolwich Arsenal for Crossrail or DLR, probably without the crush many will experience on the Jubilee. Further west, Liverpool Street and Farringdon (particularly until Thameslink get their act together, which could take as long as Mayor Khan's knife crime strategy! ) might be more attractive propositions on Crossrail than South Eastern trains and either Thameslink or the soon-to-be-cut-further bus links. The X161 has a history behind it, if you care to do the research. Indeed and obviously the 132 is quicker from Eltham as is the 486 from QEH so I don't think it would cause too much upset if the 161 was replaced by something else to North Greenwich and it would avoid the awkward routing through Woolwich town centre. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 5, 2018 18:38:49 GMT
A lot less bonkers than assuming masses of people would make the long journey on the 161 to North Greenwich to access the Jubilee for London Bridge, Waterloo, Westminster, Green Park and even Bond Street, when, as you say, local stations catered for that traffic: they didn't, and don't, of course, it's Canary Wharf, other Docklands destinations and Stratford they want. A lot of that traffic could save a fair bit of time by going to Woolwich Arsenal for Crossrail or DLR, probably without the crush many will experience on the Jubilee. Further west, Liverpool Street and Farringdon (particularly until Thameslink get their act together, which could take as long as Mayor Khan's knife crime strategy! ) might be more attractive propositions on Crossrail than South Eastern trains and either Thameslink or the soon-to-be-cut-further bus links. The X161 has a history behind it, if you care to do the research. Indeed and obviously the 132 is quicker from Eltham as is the 486 from QEH so I don't think it would cause too much upset if the 161 was replaced by something else to North Greenwich and it would avoid the awkward routing through Woolwich town centre. Hooray, the day has arrived, we're in agreement.  |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 5, 2018 18:49:23 GMT
I know I introduced the notion, but I'm not for one minute advocating the 161 be extended to Orpington. I think it was a crying shame that the 161 got sucked into the North Greenwich peninsula in the first place; in my view it should have continued to terminate in Woolwich and concentrate on ferrying the considerable number of passengers who have always wanted to travel between there and Eltham/Mottingham. The long-delayed extension of the 132 from Eltham to North Greenwich compounded the situation. I wonder whether TfL in their Crossrail 'consultations' have underestimated the possible demand from those living on or close to the 161 who might wish to access Woolwich Arsenal station in future, perhaps as opposed to North Greenwich. I can scarcely believe the derisory level of service on the 161 now: what has happened? I won't go anywhere near either Eltham or Woolwich now for my own personal reasons, but I grew up in the area and knew it extremely well for twenty years and pretty well for another twenty. Get the 161 back Woolwich to Chislehurst at a 5 minute peak frequency, and max 10-12 at other times, and I'm sure they'll come again, if they ever sort out the mess I read about regarding the traffic/roads. I agree about Crossrail - it's particularly absurd that the changes proposed to the 161 take it further away from the station. The 132 released pent-up demand from Eltham to North Greenwich. There's lots of politics in Greenwich about north-south links but both main parties were agitating for an X161 to serve Crossrail and I suspect they will continue to do so. On the original point, I do think there is a case for a proper Bromley/Orpington review but I worry what the outcome might be in the current climate. I grew up in the Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich, and I remember well when we were lumped in with Greenwich for local government purposes on the abolition of the London County Council and creation of the Greater London Council in its stead. Old resentments/jealousies from those days probably still endure, and have been added to ever since. All I know is that our library hours were cut and the local road services depot closed. The Labour Party in the area has always been divided too, with two SDP MPs representing constituencies for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 5, 2018 19:15:01 GMT
I agree about Crossrail - it's particularly absurd that the changes proposed to the 161 take it further away from the station. The 132 released pent-up demand from Eltham to North Greenwich. There's lots of politics in Greenwich about north-south links but both main parties were agitating for an X161 to serve Crossrail and I suspect they will continue to do so. On the original point, I do think there is a case for a proper Bromley/Orpington review but I worry what the outcome might be in the current climate. I grew up in the Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich, and I remember well when we were lumped in with Greenwich for local government purposes on the abolition of the London County Council and creation of the Greater London Council in its stead. Old resentments/jealousies from those days probably still endure, and have been added to ever since. All I know is that our library hours were cut and the local road services depot closed. The Labour Party in the area has always been divided too, with two SDP MPs representing constituencies for a while. I've spent my whole life in the (ahem) "Royal Borough" and have certainly seen Woolwich fade away in my lifetime. I vividly recall the hustle and bustle of Beresford Square market when growing up - with buses somehow running between the stalls - but it is very thinly populated now. When I look at Powis Street, I sometimes wonder how buses ever ran down it in both directions. It's never been the same since Cuffs closed  ( That's enough nostalgia - Ed) |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 5, 2018 20:25:42 GMT
I grew up in the Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich, and I remember well when we were lumped in with Greenwich for local government purposes on the abolition of the London County Council and creation of the Greater London Council in its stead. Old resentments/jealousies from those days probably still endure, and have been added to ever since. All I know is that our library hours were cut and the local road services depot closed. The Labour Party in the area has always been divided too, with two SDP MPs representing constituencies for a while. I've spent my whole life in the (ahem) "Royal Borough" and have certainly seen Woolwich fade away in my lifetime. I vividly recall the hustle and bustle of Beresford Square market when growing up - with buses somehow running between the stalls - but it is very thinly populated now. When I look at Powis Street, I sometimes wonder how buses ever ran down it in both directions. It's never been the same since Cuffs closed ( That's enough nostalgia - Ed) It's never been the same since the trolleybuses and trams left I promise my last word on the subject in this thread - I believe the Royal is because of Eltham, which was very much in the Woolwich borough. I was in 1st Royal Eltham cubs and scouts. |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Nov 5, 2018 21:37:34 GMT
I've spent my whole life in the (ahem) "Royal Borough" and have certainly seen Woolwich fade away in my lifetime. I vividly recall the hustle and bustle of Beresford Square market when growing up - with buses somehow running between the stalls - but it is very thinly populated now. When I look at Powis Street, I sometimes wonder how buses ever ran down it in both directions. It's never been the same since Cuffs closed ( That's enough nostalgia - Ed) It's never been the same since the trolleybuses and trams left I promise my last word on the subject in this thread - I believe the Royal is because of Eltham, which was very much in the Woolwich borough. I was in 1st Royal Eltham cubs and scouts. Just a little bit more nostalgia(Top of Powis St.Even the Odeons gone) Not my photo Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 5, 2018 22:31:04 GMT
It's never been the same since the trolleybuses and trams left I promise my last word on the subject in this thread - I believe the Royal is because of Eltham, which was very much in the Woolwich borough. I was in 1st Royal Eltham cubs and scouts. Just a little bit more nostalgia(Top of Powis St.Even the Odeons gone) Not my photo Breaking my promise immediately (I must be a nascent politician) that's Parsons Hill. I saw 'Around the World in 80 Days' at that Odeon, starring David Nevin. I seem to remember the 696 used that side, and the less frequent (marginally) 698 a stop just out of the picture. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 6, 2018 13:20:56 GMT
I can't see how much can be changed in Croydon so I don't expect it to be a big one.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 6, 2018 13:38:47 GMT
I can't see how much can be changed in Croydon so I don't expect it to be a big one. I wouldn't be surprised to see some reductions in the Addington and Selsdon area.
The 130 or 466 withdrawn, rumoured to be happening.
The 64 or 433 could be rerouted replacing the 412.
And is there any point running the 353 between Addington Village and Forestdale?
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 6, 2018 14:15:49 GMT
Money on 466 as out to tender with the 130 diverted to Caterham on the Hill.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 6, 2018 14:23:03 GMT
I can't see how much can be changed in Croydon so I don't expect it to be a big one. Apparently, my source reckons there could be a number of changes - the only one he knows about is the 404 & 434 merging which was mentioned on here before as well. I suspect the 75’s cutback to West Croydon will be included too. |
|
