|
|
Post by Pilot on Jun 9, 2019 18:39:45 GMT
You can wait 1hour to get out of it officially without going through amber or red or blocking traffic. 8/10 drivers will jump red going out of stand as well, stand exit needs box junction as well. I presume it was a case of the traffic ahead not moving anywhere copuled with numerous buses all trying to get out of Station Road Yes and or too many buses attempting at once because cars drivers are on the same boat, while they have no box junction towards stand, they just keep piling up and if you are just gonna sit there at the lights waiting for perfect world scenario to have a gap for your bus to go, then you'll wait 30 minutes for such scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Jun 13, 2019 20:25:38 GMT
Something really must be done about the 161, it literally serves no purpose being a North Greenwich feeder route, being far too circuitous, especially since the 132 is a much better alternative from Eltham, however I’m against Chislehurst losing its link to North Greenwich, I suggested once a route 361 which follows the 161 as far as Shooters Hill then down Shooters Hill Road, A102 then North Greenwich.
I know it’s nearly 20 years too late, but SE London is still reeling from the links lost by the 54 butchering, the team doesn’t offer much of overlap, and the 75 is slightly longer between Lewisham and Croydon, a 454 (unless that number is taken) could fix this, Catford to West Croydon
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jun 13, 2019 20:58:06 GMT
Something really must be done about the 161, it literally serves no purpose being a North Greenwich feeder route, being far too circuitous, especially since the 132 is a much better alternative from Eltham, however I’m against Chislehurst losing its link to North Greenwich, I suggested once a route 361 which follows the 161 as far as Shooters Hill then down Shooters Hill Road, A102 then North Greenwich. I know it’s nearly 20 years too late, but SE London is still reeling from the links lost by the 54 butchering, the team doesn’t offer much of overlap, and the 75 is slightly longer between Lewisham and Croydon, a 454 (unless that number is taken) could fix this, Catford to West Croydon I think it might be better to wait now for the opening of Crossrail which, I'm convinced, will prove a pent-up demand for a connection to Woolwich Arsenal, largely at the expense of North Greenwich, unless fare zones dictate otherwise. A peak express on the Eltham to Woolwich section (back projected to Mottingham and, possibly, Chislehurst) could be called for. I do agree with you on the 54 - even when I lived at Hither Green, much nearer to the 75 than the 54, I'd never choose the former over the latter to get to Croydon, though I suppose if I'd specifically wanted West Croydon I might have wavered. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jun 14, 2019 5:12:08 GMT
Something really must be done about the 161, it literally serves no purpose being a North Greenwich feeder route, being far too circuitous, especially since the 132 is a much better alternative from Eltham, however I’m against Chislehurst losing its link to North Greenwich, I suggested once a route 361 which follows the 161 as far as Shooters Hill then down Shooters Hill Road, A102 then North Greenwich. I know it’s nearly 20 years too late, but SE London is still reeling from the links lost by the 54 butchering, the team doesn’t offer much of overlap, and the 75 is slightly longer between Lewisham and Croydon, a 454 (unless that number is taken) could fix this, Catford to West Croydon The main reason the 161 nowadays still goes the way it goes is to link western parts of Woolwich to the hospital. It’s still I think the most cost effective way of doing so, so unless a better idea can be thought of, then the 161 should be untouched. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 5:43:44 GMT
Something really must be done about the 161, it literally serves no purpose being a North Greenwich feeder route, being far too circuitous, especially since the 132 is a much better alternative from Eltham, however I’m against Chislehurst losing its link to North Greenwich, I suggested once a route 361 which follows the 161 as far as Shooters Hill then down Shooters Hill Road, A102 then North Greenwich. I know it’s nearly 20 years too late, but SE London is still reeling from the links lost by the 54 butchering, the team doesn’t offer much of overlap, and the 75 is slightly longer between Lewisham and Croydon, a 454 (unless that number is taken) could fix this, Catford to West Croydon I agree with you about the 161 and I can't imagine many people travel all the way from Chislehurst to North Greenwich, the 160 to Eltham then the 132 would probably be quicker. It would be nice to see the 54 return to Croydon even if it's at the expense of the 289. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 14, 2019 7:07:30 GMT
Something really must be done about the 161, it literally serves no purpose being a North Greenwich feeder route, being far too circuitous, especially since the 132 is a much better alternative from Eltham, however I’m against Chislehurst losing its link to North Greenwich, I suggested once a route 361 which follows the 161 as far as Shooters Hill then down Shooters Hill Road, A102 then North Greenwich. I know it’s nearly 20 years too late, but SE London is still reeling from the links lost by the 54 butchering, the team doesn’t offer much of overlap, and the 75 is slightly longer between Lewisham and Croydon, a 454 (unless that number is taken) could fix this, Catford to West Croydon I agree with you about the 161 and I can't imagine many people travel all the way from Chislehurst to North Greenwich, the 160 to Eltham then the 132 would probably be quicker. It would be nice to see the 54 return to Croydon even if it's at the expense of the 289. The 161 does the job perfectly fine as far as I'm aware and doesn't exist solely for a North Greenwich to Chislehurst link anyway. As for the 289, what it needs is double deckers and certainly not touched in terms of any extension of the 54. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 7:29:00 GMT
I agree with you about the 161 and I can't imagine many people travel all the way from Chislehurst to North Greenwich, the 160 to Eltham then the 132 would probably be quicker. It would be nice to see the 54 return to Croydon even if it's at the expense of the 289. The 161 does the job perfectly fine as far as I'm aware and doesn't exist solely for a North Greenwich to Chislehurst link anyway. As for the 289, what it needs is double deckers and certainly not touched in terms of any extension of the 54. It doesn't because the 161 is far too circuitous as previously mentioned. The 289 doesn't go east of Elmers End. |
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Jun 14, 2019 9:09:56 GMT
Wish we can have cross London buses back like the 36 now the 205 have being reroute away from Marylebone Station I like to see the 1,N1 and 176 extended there via Warren Street and Baker Street now there a stand at Marylebone
|
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Jun 14, 2019 9:52:31 GMT
36/a/b Queens Park to Grove Park/ Hither Green
171 Tottenham ( Bruce Grove ) to Forest Hill
53 Camden Town to Plumstead Common
196 Tufnell Park to Norwood Junction
12 Park Royal to Selsdon ( VERY l8ng route)
63 Parliament Hill Fields to Crystal Palace
Long gone North to South routes. Some exist but only in truncated form
|
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Jun 14, 2019 10:01:25 GMT
I've just downloaded 2 maps from Mike Harris. 1939 and current. Many more local routes todsy but very few old links still extant.
653/253 more or less same
607 express still same as old 607
543 643/243 same routing
649/149 same basic routing
These were all trolleybus repacements but actual bus routes are now very different. I have a bus stops right outside my door if i wave at the driver E11 no such busses existed in 1939 or even 30 years Go so in some ways bus travel in London is far more accessible than ever but of course the population has doubled. I prefer now to then
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 10:19:13 GMT
36/a/b Queens Park to Grove Park/ Hither Green 171 Tottenham ( Bruce Grove ) to Forest Hill 53 Camden Town to Plumstead Common 196 Tufnell Park to Norwood Junction 12 Park Royal to Selsdon ( VERY l8ng route) 63 Parliament Hill Fields to Crystal Palace Long gone North to South routes. Some exist but only in truncated form Pedant alert........the 12 never actually went to Selsdon only the 12A. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jun 14, 2019 11:17:07 GMT
Wish we can have cross London buses back like the 36 now the 205 have being reroute away from Marylebone Station I like to see the 1,N1 and 176 extended there via Warren Street and Baker Street now there a stand at Marylebone Funnily enough I believe the 176 did used to pass via Warren Street, Baker Street and Marylebone on its way to Willesden Junction. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 14, 2019 12:19:26 GMT
Don't forget a lot of the long routes ran in overlapping sections - a 21 reaching Sidcup often started at Eltham for example, while a 1 from Bromley generally wouldn't get further than Waterloo or Surrey Docks.
I can't see how you'd be able to run such routes in modern traffic conditions and it would be difficult to tender them,
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jun 14, 2019 12:51:47 GMT
Wish we can have cross London buses back like the 36 now the 205 have being reroute away from Marylebone Station I like to see the 1,N1 and 176 extended there via Warren Street and Baker Street now there a stand at Marylebone Funnily enough I believe the 176 did used to pass via Warren Street, Baker Street and Marylebone on its way to Willesden Junction. The 1/1A and 176 all went that way. 176 was Willesden Garage by the way, rather than the oddly named Junction. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 14, 2019 13:04:20 GMT
The 161 does the job perfectly fine as far as I'm aware and doesn't exist solely for a North Greenwich to Chislehurst link anyway. As for the 289, what it needs is double deckers and certainly not touched in terms of any extension of the 54. It doesn't because the 161 is far too circuitous as previously mentioned. The 289 doesn't go east of Elmers End. Not every route is designed to be direct otherwise many links would be lost in the process. As for the 289, whether it goes east of Elmers End or not, it’s a used route and having two routes between Elmers End & Croydon would be overkill. Not only that but very few cross Croydon links exist which is one factor as to why the 289 is overloaded and needs double deckers. It would be even better if we had a significant reduction in traffic as that would help the 289 become a lot more reliable and make an extension east of Elmers End viable. |
|
