|
|
Post by busaholic on Jun 14, 2019 13:19:26 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 I know it's only one example, but the 96 rather bucks the trend. It follows the old 696 trolleybus route from Woolwich to Dartford, where the latter terminated outside the library, but is of course extended to Bluewater. Now THAT would have been an exhilirating ride on a non-stop trolley! The ethos back a few decades ago was to provide frequent fairly long trunk road services, with few changes of bus required for too many people going to work or school, but if you lived very far from the main drag you were expected to walk the final mile, as it were! Of course, the big new LCC and other council estates needed bus connections e.g. Harold Hill and New Addington, but there was no intention that every road would be within striking distance. There weren't ANY specific school routes during my time at school, or even schoolday only journeys on main routes either! I believe it was the creation of Crown Woods School at Avery Hill, one of the first and largest comprehensives, that led to pressure. I lived a mile from Crown Woods, and what happened was that a number of extra journeys were provided at school times on the 124 terminating at Avery Hill or Falconwood Parade, but these ran regardless of whether the school was on holiday, making the 124 an incredibly overbussed route at those times, The crews loved it, particularly the conductors. The Southend Crescent turners (a large proption of the service) would wait for the Crown Woods buses to appear, then make a mad dash down Southend Crescent, swing into Footscray Road and catch them up by the Eltham Church lights, then they'd race down Court Road, hoping they didn't get stuck behind a 126, very much the 'old boys' route at TB with crews seemingly older than one's great grandfather! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 14:27:47 GMT
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. The 161 could be better which is what this discussion is about.
Yes two routes between Croydon and Elmers End would be excessive, the suggestion was that the 54 replaced the 289.
|
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Jun 15, 2019 10:26:50 GMT
188 Extended to Chalk Farm Morrisons via N5 for new links and start of the old tem
|
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Jun 15, 2019 11:13:14 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. Good points. Also I’m pretty certain the 486 does a job of linking Charlton with QE Hospital, I think the 161 would be better providing a link between Thamesmead and Eltham via QE Hospital. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 15, 2019 12:08:12 GMT
188 Extended to Chalk Farm Morrisons via N5 for new links and start of the old tem The 168 already links Elephant and Castle to Chalk Farm. Is there really sufficient demand to warrant another route along that axis? |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jun 15, 2019 13:52:40 GMT
It doesn't because the 161 is far too circuitous as previously mentioned. The 289 doesn't go east of Elmers End. Good points. Also I’m pretty certain the 486 does a job of linking Charlton with QE Hospital, I think the 161 would be better providing a link between Thamesmead and Eltham via QE Hospital. Can't honestly think of any reasons why anyone would travel from Eltham to Thamesmead. The QE Hospital has too many routes. The diversion of the 161 via the hospital is at the detriment of longer distance passengers made worse by traffic delays at peak times on Shooters Hill Road and Stadium Road. |
|
|
|
Post by 10121ddo on Jun 15, 2019 14:36:25 GMT
I thought to myself the other day that it would be nice to have something going Woolwich to Bromley direct - did the 208 > 122 that day and took a fair while on the 122 stretch Lewisham Centre to Woolwich. Maybe 261 > 122 would have been better, seems to be the most direct busable route on the map at present.
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 15, 2019 14:57:03 GMT
I thought to myself the other day that it would be nice to have something going Woolwich to Bromley direct - did the 208 > 122 that day and took a fair while on the 122 stretch Lewisham Centre to Woolwich. Maybe 261 > 122 would have been better, seems to be the most direct busable route on the map at present. Why not just get the 161 then change to the 269 at the War Memorial rather than deviating via Lewisham. I think a direct Woolwich-Bromley link would be great and its defintely a missing link when trying to get across South East London. I know many have suggesting extending the 161 to Bromley and although that would create a very long route, you would have a useful direct link between Woolwich and Bromley |
|
|
|
Post by LVF_Admin on Jun 15, 2019 15:16:40 GMT
I thought to myself the other day that it would be nice to have something going Woolwich to Bromley direct - did the 208 > 122 that day and took a fair while on the 122 stretch Lewisham Centre to Woolwich. Maybe 261 > 122 would have been better, seems to be the most direct busable route on the map at present. Why not just get the 161 then change to the 269 at the War Memorial rather than deviating via Lewisham. I think a direct Woolwich-Bromley link would be great and its defintely a missing link when trying to get across South East London. I know many have suggesting extending the 161 to Bromley and although that would create a very long route, you would have a useful direct link between Woolwich and Bromley 122 Woolwich to Lewisham is just over 30 mins, in theory should be quicker than the 178 but if you want a nice fast run go for the 178 to Lee Green and then the 261 to Bromley |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 15, 2019 15:47:32 GMT
Why not just get the 161 then change to the 269 at the War Memorial rather than deviating via Lewisham. I think a direct Woolwich-Bromley link would be great and its defintely a missing link when trying to get across South East London. I know many have suggesting extending the 161 to Bromley and although that would create a very long route, you would have a useful direct link between Woolwich and Bromley 122 Woolwich to Lewisham is just over 30 mins, in theory should be quicker than the 178 but if you want a nice fast run go for the 178 to Lee Green and then the 261 to Bromley Surely you wouldn't bother going to Lewisham for the 261 when the 122 paralells the 261 along Lee High Road on the way into Lewisham |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 15, 2019 16:27:29 GMT
It doesn't because the 161 is far too circuitous as previously mentioned. The 289 doesn't go east of Elmers End. Good points. Also I’m pretty certain the 486 does a job of linking Charlton with QE Hospital, I think the 161 would be better providing a link between Thamesmead and Eltham via QE Hospital. The 54 replacing the 289 wouldn't work as then you remove the valuable cross Croydon link as I previously mentioned a few posts up - what needs to happen is the 289 receives double deckers to help with the excess loadings and to sort it's reliability out before any cross Elmers End link is proposed. |
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Jun 15, 2019 18:20:00 GMT
Good points. Also I’m pretty certain the 486 does a job of linking Charlton with QE Hospital, I think the 161 would be better providing a link between Thamesmead and Eltham via QE Hospital. Can't honestly think of any reasons why anyone would travel from Eltham to Thamesmead. The QE Hospital has too many routes. The diversion of the 161 via the hospital is at the detriment of longer distance passengers made worse by traffic delays at peak times on Shooters Hill Road and Stadium Road. Because there really aren’t enough links between Thamesmead/Abbey Wood and South of the Royal Greenwich borough. |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jun 15, 2019 19:57:33 GMT
Can't honestly think of any reasons why anyone would travel from Eltham to Thamesmead. The QE Hospital has too many routes. The diversion of the 161 via the hospital is at the detriment of longer distance passengers made worse by traffic delays at peak times on Shooters Hill Road and Stadium Road. Because there really aren’t enough links between Thamesmead/Abbey Wood and South of the Royal Greenwich borough. You can have all the links from anywhere but Thamesmead/Abbey Wood doesn't have any big employers, attractions or other reasons to go there. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 15, 2019 21:05:27 GMT
Because there really aren’t enough links between Thamesmead/Abbey Wood and South of the Royal Greenwich borough. You can have all the links from anywhere but Thamesmead/Abbey Wood doesn't have any big employers, attractions or other reasons to go there. Crossrail will no doubt boost the local economy in Abbey Wood and remember some people will travel to Abbey Wood/Thamesmead to see friends/family. However, I know I'd rather have a direct link to the Jubilee line at North Greenwich as opposed to a link to Thamesmead |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jun 16, 2019 3:19:15 GMT
You can have all the links from anywhere but Thamesmead/Abbey Wood doesn't have any big employers, attractions or other reasons to go there. Crossrail will no doubt boost the local economy in Abbey Wood and remember some people will travel to Abbey Wood/Thamesmead to see friends/family. However, I know I'd rather have a direct link to the Jubilee line at North Greenwich as opposed to a link to Thamesmead I should have added to justify a seven day a week service to/from Eltham. Changing at Woolwich is simple enough. |
|
