|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 18, 2020 8:50:57 GMT
Never understood why words such as station were removed. Worse than that are the examples where a place name has been removed in favour of a building name. Why ‘Sidcup’ had to be removed from ‘Queen Mary’s Hospital’ is utterly beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 18, 2020 10:56:42 GMT
I never understood why the blinds didntjust say " Westfield" that's the reason most people take these buses anyway. Makes more sense to me but what do I know I'm so old I can still remember Trams !! Westfield is not exactly clear would much rather White City. Have to consider people who are not familiar with the area but having said that I'm sure Blackwall probably causes some confuse to people in central London when boarding a 15. TfL maybe needs to review blind displays again. Never understood why words such as station were removed. Blackwall is one that makes me laugh, as it suggests Blackwall Tunnel as that's what everyone knows the area for, but that said it does terminate under Blackwall Station which is probably still acceptable. However adding the word station at the end could help quite a bit. I did read a post on the forum quite a few years ago, don't quite remember who it was that mentioned it that the word station is only mostly used should the station in question be a non-Underground only station. There's quite a few examples of this: Ilford Station Romford Station Streatham Station Tooting Station and many more Examples of the other way include: Barking Stratford Canning Town (I'm ignoring the 147 anomaly) Mile End Leytonstone Tooting Broadway London Bridge Waterloo King's Cross However there are quite a few anomalies to this, especially when DLR stations get involved. Blackwall doesn't have the station Lewisham does have the station Deptford Bridge doesn't have the station East Ham does have the station Beckton does have the station Harold Wood doesn't have the station.
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Sept 18, 2020 12:41:23 GMT
I was thinking of a potential route ideas for Beam Park’s Development.
Some include:
287 - New 24 hour Weekend Service, re-routes from Ripple Road A13. Now serving Maplestead Road/Goresbrook Road. Gives the Rainham area a night route, while connecting night areas like Barking, Ilford, etc.
365 - No longer serving the current routing in Orchard Village. Instead will serve New Road directly and Beam Park Station. Gives links to Romford, Hornchurch, etc.
369 - New Route serving Beam Park Station to Ilford Roden Street via Upney and South Park Drive. Replaces the 287 on the A13. Single Decker route. Will be decked if needed. Gives Beam Park and Upney a new link west to Ilford.
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Sept 18, 2020 14:02:03 GMT
Westfield is not exactly clear would much rather White City. Have to consider people who are not familiar with the area but having said that I'm sure Blackwall probably causes some confuse to people in central London when boarding a 15. TfL maybe needs to review blind displays again. Never understood why words such as station were removed. Deptford Bridge doesn't have the station Deptford Bridge is a quite a weird one - the New Cross bound bus stop (ID 49816) was renamed to "Deptford Bridge Station" in 2016, but the bus stop on the opposite side and the 453 overflow stand still remain as "Deptford Bridge" to this day.
|
|
|
Post by rift on Sept 18, 2020 15:58:27 GMT
I never understood why the blinds didntjust say " Westfield" that's the reason most people take these buses anyway. Makes more sense to me but what do I know I'm so old I can still remember Trams !! Westfield is not exactly clear would much rather White City. Have to consider people who are not familiar with the area but having said that I'm sure Blackwall probably causes some confuse to people in central London when boarding a 15. TfL maybe needs to review blind displays again. Never understood why words such as station were removed. Is it up to operators to decide the blind display? An upgrade was the W19 display as Ilford with GAL, and Ilford High Road, Hainault Street with HCT. A downgrade would certainly be the 161
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Sept 18, 2020 16:07:07 GMT
I was thinking of a potential route ideas for Beam Park’s Development. Some include: 287 - New 24 hour Weekend Service, re-routes from Ripple Road A13. Now serving Maplestead Road/Goresbrook Road. Gives the Rainham area a night route, while connecting night areas like Barking, Ilford, etc. 365 - No longer serving the current routing in Orchard Village. Instead will serve New Road directly and Beam Park Station. Gives links to Romford, Hornchurch, etc. 369 - New Route serving Beam Park Station to Ilford Roden Street via Upney and South Park Drive. Replaces the 287 on the A13. Single Decker route. Will be decked if needed. Gives Beam Park and Upney a new link west to Ilford. The 365 is one of the options already under consideration by TfL to serve Beam Park. It may however be taken over by the 165 if they were to swap termini. The 369 sounds good on paper - traffic around the Lodge Avenue flyover could be a problem Not sure on a night service for the 287 - would imagine the 145 is satisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 18, 2020 18:09:28 GMT
Westfield is not exactly clear would much rather White City. Have to consider people who are not familiar with the area but having said that I'm sure Blackwall probably causes some confuse to people in central London when boarding a 15. TfL maybe needs to review blind displays again. Never understood why words such as station were removed. Is it up to operators to decide the blind display? An upgrade was the W19 display as Ilford with GAL, and Ilford High Road, Hainault Street with HCT. A downgrade would certainly be the 161 I think the W19 with HCT was a bit too much of an upgrade. What that did was needlessly clutter the blind making it a lot harder to read at a glance. I think with blind displays you need to be as detailed as possible without it becoming full of text.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 19, 2020 23:49:15 GMT
A very simple one and one that came to mind today as I was travelling through the area:
Instead of the 365 terminating on New Road, change that end of the route into a circular route via the current routing but with a hesitation point at Orchard Village reflecting the blinds it shows eliminating the need for Orchard Village residents to walk down to New Road to board a Havering Park bound 365. Not sure how feasible it is in terms of schedules but in terms of overall cost, should be quite cheap.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Sept 20, 2020 5:40:18 GMT
Some ideas in the North: 121: Withdrawn between Enfield Island Village and Ponders End Bus Garage. (Abit of a lengthy route, so cutting it to Ponders End will make it more reliable) 349: Extended from Ponders End Bus Garage to Enfield Island Village. ( I’d say 349 is more suitable to replace 121, plus I’d say 349 has a high chance of getting withdrawn because of low usage so atleast this would give it something) 307: Frequency Increase. (To make up for 121 getting cut) 67: Withdrawn 243: Re-routed to Wood Green via 67 ( 67 hasn’t been the same since it got cut to Dalston and gets out classes by others routes, plus I don’t see why 243 needs to go Tottenham as 3 others routes do so from Stamford hill) I understand the 67's usage has taken a big hit since the idiotic Dalston cut back but that's no excuse to withdraw it in my opinion. From my experience the 243 is well used between Stamford Hill and Wood Green, the route is busy in its own right but also helps to assist the busy 149 between Shoreditch and Tottenham. I wouldn't want to do anything that would worsen overcrowding on Kingsland Road. You have to say the bus station at Dalston Junction has been very useful for TfL giving them a convenient place to cut the 67 and 277 to. Otherwise, they could extend a route such as route 221 or 329 from Turnpike Lane to Stamford Hill or Stoke Newington and withdraw route 67.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Sept 20, 2020 8:07:18 GMT
I understand the 67's usage has taken a big hit since the idiotic Dalston cut back but that's no excuse to withdraw it in my opinion. From my experience the 243 is well used between Stamford Hill and Wood Green, the route is busy in its own right but also helps to assist the busy 149 between Shoreditch and Tottenham. I wouldn't want to do anything that would worsen overcrowding on Kingsland Road. You have to say the bus station at Dalston Junction has been very useful for TfL giving them a convenient place to cut the 67 and 277 to. Otherwise, they could extend a route such as route 221 or 329 from Turnpike Lane to Stamford Hill or Stoke Newington and withdraw route 67. The 221 is already super long between Edgware and Turnpike Lane, if anything it could do with a cut or split. Not sure about the 329 though, could work. Don’t think it would be popular though in terms of connecting two areas.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 20, 2020 8:08:35 GMT
I understand the 67's usage has taken a big hit since the idiotic Dalston cut back but that's no excuse to withdraw it in my opinion. From my experience the 243 is well used between Stamford Hill and Wood Green, the route is busy in its own right but also helps to assist the busy 149 between Shoreditch and Tottenham. I wouldn't want to do anything that would worsen overcrowding on Kingsland Road. You have to say the bus station at Dalston Junction has been very useful for TfL giving them a convenient place to cut the 67 and 277 to. Otherwise, they could extend a route such as route 221 or 329 from Turnpike Lane to Stamford Hill or Stoke Newington and withdraw route 67. You have to recognise the 221 is an incredibly long route and doing that would damage it's reliability - it's already having some questioning over its Edgware end whether it could be rerouted via Deansbrook Road instead of via Hale Lane or a full on cutback to Mill Hill Broadway. I would suggest leaving the 221 as it is
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Sept 20, 2020 8:15:39 GMT
A very simple one and one that came to mind today as I was travelling through the area: Instead of the 365 terminating on New Road, change that end of the route into a circular route via the current routing but with a hesitation point at Orchard Village reflecting the blinds it shows eliminating the need for Orchard Village residents to walk down to New Road to board a Havering Park bound 365. Not sure how feasible it is in terms of schedules but in terms of overall cost, should be quite cheap. I agree, these one-way loop workings where passengers can board and alight at all stops and ride across the "terminus" are common in the real world (i.e. outside London). To be fair though some London routes do feature these loops, e.g. H3, and H2 is effectively one large loop!
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 20, 2020 15:00:36 GMT
309 - Cut back to Bethnal Green Station, and instead extended to Wapping via route D3.
100 - Withdrawn from Shadwell, and extended from Wapping to Leamouth via route D3.
D3 - Withdrawn.
D6 - Rerouted to Bonner Road in Bethnal Green (current 309/D3 stand).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2020 15:53:49 GMT
309 - Cut back to Bethnal Green Station, and instead extended to Wapping via route D3. 100 - Withdrawn from Shadwell, and extended from Wapping to Leamouth via route D3. D3 - Withdrawn. D6 - Rerouted to Bonner Road in Bethnal Green (current 309/D3 stand). I'm at confused about the 309, do you mean extended from Canning Town? Would make it a very around the houses long route and almost a complete circle in a roundabout way. Or did you mean turn left at Bethnal Green and follow current D3 route?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 20, 2020 17:34:41 GMT
309 - Cut back to Bethnal Green Station, and instead extended to Wapping via route D3. 100 - Withdrawn from Shadwell, and extended from Wapping to Leamouth via route D3. D3 - Withdrawn. D6 - Rerouted to Bonner Road in Bethnal Green (current 309/D3 stand). Why are people obsessed with withdrawing routes that have good usage?
|
|