|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 17, 2019 0:08:36 GMT
Dulwich Village: the site of London's only private toll road. Dulwich Village: where Margaret and Denis Thatcher were planning to retire to. Dulwich Village (and much of West Dulwich): where the writ of Dulwich College Estates still holds enormous sway, both in law and in other, more nebulous ways. i speak as executor of my late brother-in=law's estate and my attempts to assist his widow, my sister, with her endeavour to run a children's nursery in part of a residential property that was otherwise her home. The influence of these people should not be under-estimated! This is one of the reasons why The Grove Tavern pub has been left derelict for the last few years. In an ideal world, the P4 would be diverted away from Dulwich Village to allow deckers via East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Going back on topic: 185 should be 24/7, providing a 30 min service. This would give 4bph between Camberwell Green and Forest Hill (176) while providing overnight connections to Lewisham and Catford which currently overnight requires changing buses in Peckham or Camberwell in this area. Extra buses on the 197 between Peckham and Forest Hill during shopping hours. This would reduce the loads on the 176 and 185 for which 197 passengers get on after the 12 if there's a long wait at Dulwich Library. Sunday service increased to 15 mins along the whole length of the route. 356 increased to every 15 mins Mon-Sat, 20 Sunday. 122 divided into two separate routes. One running between Crystal Palace and Lewisham, the other would start from Plumstead, run to Lewisham as now then along Rushey Green to Catford or Catford Garage. There would be the loss of direct connections from Crystal Palace, Sydenham, Forest Hill and Brockley Rise to Lee, Eltham Green, Woolwich & Plumstead, but the hopper should give enough time to change between the two routes. Diverting the Plumstead end to Catford would give extra capacity for passengers travelling to Woolwich along Rushey Green, reliving the 54. Townley Road would of been another way to run in an ideal world but the alternative would be via Half Moon Lane & Burbage Road where 3's have gone down on diversion a few years back when Croxted Road was shut. It even would provide a direct link to the Herne Hill Velodrome track  |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jan 17, 2019 6:32:58 GMT
This is one of the reasons why The Grove Tavern pub has been left derelict for the last few years. In an ideal world, the P4 would be diverted away from Dulwich Village to allow deckers via East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Townley Road would of been another way to run in an ideal world but the alternative would be via Half Moon Lane & Burbage Road where 3's have gone down on diversion a few years back when Croxted Road was shut. It even would provide a direct link to the Herne Hill Velodrome track Burbage Road would still take the route through part of the Village though. I don't think the residents of College Road would be any more bus-friendly than those who live on Dulwich Village (the road). Come to think of it you'd probably get plenty of objections from Burbage Road itself.
Sounds like an interesting diversion on the 3 - shame I missed it  |
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on Jan 17, 2019 13:36:38 GMT
The ongoing debate route 490, overused under buses, why not why double deckers?
Route 72, well the ongoing saga of Hammersmith Bridge is not possible but why not convert back to the short workings from Barnes to Roehampton, surely these short workings be double decked or brain wave.
Extend route 265 via current 72 route to Hammersmith from Barnes Station thus not losing Barnes/Hammersmith link and divert route 72 from Barnes Station to Putney Bridge via current 265 route then Fulham Palace Road to Hammersmith thus helping route 220/430/74 then current route to East Acton using Deckers. Anyone in favor of this idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jan 17, 2019 19:51:31 GMT
The ongoing debate route 490, overused under buses, why not why double deckers? Route 72, well the ongoing saga of Hammersmith Bridge is not possible but why not convert back to the short workings from Barnes to Roehampton, surely these short workings be double decked or brain wave. Extend route 265 via current 72 route to Hammersmith from Barnes Station thus not losing Barnes/Hammersmith link and divert route 72 from Barnes Station to Putney Bridge via current 265 route then Fulham Palace Road to Hammersmith thus helping route 220/430/74 then current route to East Acton using Deckers. Anyone in favor of this idea? Well the 33/72 Hammersmith Bridge thing has been mentioned a million times and still I'm sure we can all agree it should happen. Maybe the short workings thing could work out for the 72 though it can be an inconvenience for some people confused or less able I think 265 should stay at Tolworth, it provides a unique and helpful link. 220 could get a boost in frequency between Putney and Hammersmith/Sheperds Bush/White City if there really is that much demand, I think Roehampton appreciates the frequent 24 hr 72 as a nice link and it should probably just stay as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on Jan 17, 2019 22:23:24 GMT
I should of been clearer keep the 265 running to Tolworth but reroute to Hammersmith so also gives a link between Hammersmith/Barnes to Tolworth whilst the 72 will go via Putney Common and Fulham Palace Road.
Another route I think should be deckers is route R70 if I remember rightly this route can be really heaving, a little interesting fact, from Barnes to Hampton (Richmond Borough) there’s no Double Decker routes to get you there, I only can think of only 3 Double Decker routes in the borough 65, 281 and 267 does the borough hate deckers here?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 18, 2019 5:01:31 GMT
I should of been clearer keep the 265 running to Tolworth but reroute to Hammersmith so also gives a link between Hammersmith/Barnes to Tolworth whilst the 72 will go via Putney Common and Fulham Palace Road. Another route I think should be deckers is route R70 if I remember rightly this route can be really heaving, a little interesting fact, from Barnes to Hampton (Richmond Borough) there’s no Double Decker routes to get you there, I only can think of only 3 Double Decker routes in the borough 65, 281 and 267 does the borough hate deckers here? There are other double decks in Richmond Borough eg 111, 285, 337 Part of it stems from the old weight limit on Richmond Bridge which meant loaded double deckers weren’t allowed, except part loaded night buses (but it was raised to 18t few years ago). The borough is relatively sprawling in parts, which means easier to cover sections with lower frequency single decks, covering different sub-areas, than few high density corridors. |
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on Jan 18, 2019 5:13:29 GMT
Oh I forgot about these routes...I have been out of the UK to long.. 🤪🤪 if there’s a weight restriction on Richmond Bridge how is it allowed the N22 being allowed to cross it? But only 6 or 7 double deck routes through the borough is this the least Decker routes to serve the borough or any boroughs have less?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 18, 2019 7:19:23 GMT
Oh I forgot about these routes...I have been out of the UK to long.. 🤪🤪 if there’s a weight restriction on Richmond Bridge how is it allowed the N22 being allowed to cross it? But only 6 or 7 double deck routes through the borough is this the least Decker routes to serve the borough or any boroughs have less? It is 8 or 9 (add 681 to list) and not sure if you are included the scheduled double decks on 371 Richmond Bridge was 16.5t restricted and N22 was assumed to not carry more than about 65 (rather than 87) so was ok A few years ago was raised to 18t which is the max for 2 axle double decks so now unrestricted across bridge I think electric double decks may have a 19t derogation, but none operate in Richmond area so irrelevant |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 18, 2019 12:10:41 GMT
I should of been clearer keep the 265 running to Tolworth but reroute to Hammersmith so also gives a link between Hammersmith/Barnes to Tolworth whilst the 72 will go via Putney Common and Fulham Palace Road. Another route I think should be deckers is route R70 if I remember rightly this route can be really heaving, a little interesting fact, from Barnes to Hampton (Richmond Borough) there’s no Double Decker routes to get you there, I only can think of only 3 Double Decker routes in the borough 65, 281 and 267 does the borough hate deckers here? There are other double decks in Richmond Borough eg 111, 285, 337 Part of it stems from the old weight limit on Richmond Bridge which meant loaded double deckers weren’t allowed, except part loaded night buses (but it was raised to 18t few years ago). The borough is relatively sprawling in parts, which means easier to cover sections with lower frequency single decks, covering different sub-areas, than few high density corridors. When did the old weight limit on the bridge begin as the 33 was double deck until the restriction on Hammersmith Bridge came in and even then, London United threw a few deckers out between Barnes & Fulwell every so often. |
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Jan 21, 2019 16:50:20 GMT
route 170 DD (but bridge on lombard road restricts route becoming DD
|
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jan 21, 2019 18:00:22 GMT
route 170 DD (but bridge on lombard road restricts route becoming DD Also I think there were some turns near Chelsea/Battersea Bridge too |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuschannel on Jan 21, 2019 18:40:33 GMT
A PVR increase or DDs on the 364
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jan 21, 2019 18:42:45 GMT
318... new or at least refurbished buses  they need a lick of paint... same goes for the buses on the W3  |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 22, 2019 12:05:33 GMT
route 170 DD (but bridge on lombard road restricts route becoming DD Also I think there were some turns near Chelsea/Battersea Bridge too The turns by the bridges are ok for deckers as the 39 used to go the same way from Battersea Bridge Road to Victoria with Leyland Metros, this was up until around 1989 when the 239 was introduced in that area. Also to bear in mind that the single deckers on the 170 are longer than the standard length double deckers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 15:07:13 GMT
291 - a good service from GAL
|
|
they need a lick of paint... same goes for the buses on the W3 
