|
Post by route53 on Dec 4, 2020 10:44:09 GMT
I'm not sure if the 180 is needed to North Greenwich, in addition to the 161, 422 and 472. Could perhaps keep the 180 unchanged, perhaps cut back to Woolwich or Abbey Wood with another route extended to Erith? The 129 could perhaps instead extend to Peckham via the 177, allowing the lengthly 177 to be shortened for reliability. The whole reason for the 129 extension is to provide a 108 alternative from North Greenwich to Lewisham which the 180 left unchanged would not do. I reckon TfL are a bit worried about over-bussing the corridor to Lewisham so are cutting the 180 back instead. Woolwich does have the 54, 122 and 380 running to Lewisham aside from the 180 already. However as you say they seem to be overbussing the corridor to North Greenwich instead, I really don't know where the stand space at North Greenwich is for the 180 unless it stands apart from the main stand area which will require either a different alighting stop or a different pick up stop. Woolwich does seem to have many routes paralleling others which all seemingly go to the same place. Many routes to North Greenwich, many routes to Lewisham and many routes to Bexleyheath however there's good reason for that as that's where most people want to go from the Woolwich area, these links will probably be in even more demand if/when that line that they're apparently building ever opens. Being a regular user of the 177/180 I think the 180 should stay at Lewisham, CrossRail hasn’t opened up yet and Woolwich commuters may just end up using that rather than heading to NG as much, it’s a rather senseless change in my opinion since the Woolwich-Greenwich corridor is very busy, and many people rely on the 180 to get to Lewisham and Greenwich from Abbey Woods the 122 and 380 are too circuitous to be real alternatives, the 54 is the best alternative but still doesn’t help those in Abbey Wood and Plumstead
|
|
|
Post by jamirie on Dec 4, 2020 16:16:54 GMT
The whole reason for the 129 extension is to provide a 108 alternative from North Greenwich to Lewisham which the 180 left unchanged would not do. I reckon TfL are a bit worried about over-bussing the corridor to Lewisham so are cutting the 180 back instead. Woolwich does have the 54, 122 and 380 running to Lewisham aside from the 180 already. However as you say they seem to be overbussing the corridor to North Greenwich instead, I really don't know where the stand space at North Greenwich is for the 180 unless it stands apart from the main stand area which will require either a different alighting stop or a different pick up stop. Woolwich does seem to have many routes paralleling others which all seemingly go to the same place. Many routes to North Greenwich, many routes to Lewisham and many routes to Bexleyheath however there's good reason for that as that's where most people want to go from the Woolwich area, these links will probably be in even more demand if/when that line that they're apparently building ever opens. Being a regular user of the 177/180 I think the 180 should stay at Lewisham, CrossRail hasn’t opened up yet and Woolwich commuters may just end up using that rather than heading to NG as much, it’s a rather senseless change in my opinion since the Woolwich-Greenwich corridor is very busy, and many people rely on the 180 to get to Lewisham and Greenwich from Abbey Woods the 122 and 380 are too circuitous to be real alternatives, the 54 is the best alternative but still doesn’t help those in Abbey Wood and Plumstead How about diverting the 177 to Lewisham from Greenwich over the 180 withdrawn section and extending the 129 to Peckham?
|
|
|
Post by rift on Dec 4, 2020 17:03:04 GMT
I know it would be impractical but I did think that perhaps the 286 could be extended to Peckham replacing the 177 between Peckham & Greenwich, while the 177 was rerouted to Canada Water/Surrey Quays but I now think the 177 should stay as it is, the 286 could still be extended however. The 129 could extend to Catford or Grove Park, as for the 161 I’d simply cut it back to Woolwich and extend it southward to Bromley, provided if it got an extension beyond Woodlands Estate I’d extend the 291 to NG, I know that’s unpopular to many on here but I think it would useful. I don't think the 286 would be best being extended to Peckham when you consider that reliability may diminish as a result as currently, the corridor between Greenwich & Charlton has been wrecked by the cycle lanes. Greenwich already has two routes with questionable reliability with the 177 & 188, possibly 180 as well and the 286, as a single decker route, would be overwhelmed if replacing the 177 west of Greenwich. I think Lewisham may be far enough for the 129 currently due to the 199 already providing a Greenwich to Catford link as well as multiple routes running through Lewisham & Catford that serve Grove Park already. The 161 to Bromley would probably overbuses the Bickley corridor which probably explains why it stops at Chislehurst and as for the 291, whilst I can see merit in an extension southwards from the estate, I'm not sure what would be the purpose of a potentially less reliable link to the estate as a result of going to North Greenwich as currently, I suspect getting the 291 to Woolwich and then taking a North Greenwich service would be more benificial as then the estate still gets a pretty reliable service as Woolwich is really the only major headache to pass through and is only nearby after all. I'm not local so feel free to ignore A 286 from somewhere around a mile from the border with Kent to somewhere just under a mile from Central London like Canada Water would definitely end up becoming just another early 2000s 322 in terms of reliability, I agree with an extension being hugely appropriate. Maybe they could make a new route along the 286 route from Eltham to Peckham, Canada Water or even London Bridge? The third one would reconnect Eltham with Central London just like the old 21, but even then I feel it’s a little bit of a stretch. If Convoys Wharf was ever built, then they should’ve send the 129 through there to Camberwell Green or Peckham, but both are probably forever going to be an idea at best. The 291 could be done if it was sent through Thornhill Avenue, but even then I think it’s left as it is.
|
|
|
Post by Just an MCV Evolution.. on Dec 5, 2020 11:25:59 GMT
232: Withdrawn between Woodheys Road and St Raphaels. Rerouted to Stonebridge Park Station via 112 - Harrow Road - Point Place - Stonebride Park Station. Converted to electric double deckers. Replacement: 224 for Passengers travelling to Brent Park, 112 and 232 can be used from Conduit Way bus stop to travel towards Brent Cross.
Why?: This small section of route is what stops the 232 from being a double decker. Something that is really needed, especially with the current restrictions of 14 people per 232. I use the 232 every week day and often find myself waiting a good 30 min before a bus I can board comes, often making me late. With an increased capacity to 30 people the 232 can still run every 15 min without getting too busy. And allowing social distancing to be properly enforced
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 5, 2020 13:36:33 GMT
Being a regular user of the 177/180 I think the 180 should stay at Lewisham, CrossRail hasn’t opened up yet and Woolwich commuters may just end up using that rather than heading to NG as much, it’s a rather senseless change in my opinion since the Woolwich-Greenwich corridor is very busy, and many people rely on the 180 to get to Lewisham and Greenwich from Abbey Woods the 122 and 380 are too circuitous to be real alternatives, the 54 is the best alternative but still doesn’t help those in Abbey Wood and Plumstead The 122 and 380 are too circuitous? Off peak, the 122 takes about 30 minutes Woolwich to Lewisham. The 54 is similar: these are the two routes I’d go for if wanting to ride between the two. The 180, almost 40 minutes. The 380 is pretty comparable to the 180. I still see absolutely no justification for not recasting the 180 to run North Greenwich to Erith.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Dec 5, 2020 13:37:17 GMT
232: Withdrawn between Woodheys Road and St Raphaels. Rerouted to Stonebridge Park Station via 112 - Harrow Road - Point Place - Stonebride Park Station. Converted to electric double deckers. Replacement: 224 for Passengers travelling to Brent Park, 112 and 232 can be used from Conduit Way bus stop to travel towards Brent Cross. Why?: This small section of route is what stops the 232 from being a double decker. Something that is really needed, especially with the current restrictions of 14 people per 232. I use the 232 every week day and often find myself waiting a good 30 min before a bus I can board comes, often making me late. With an increased capacity to 30 people the 232 can still run every 15 min without getting too busy. And allowing social distancing to be properly enforced There was a time in the early 2000s that double deckers went on the 232. Unless some changes have been made to the routing I'm sure it's cleared to run double deckers. Can someone confirm this?
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Dec 5, 2020 13:51:28 GMT
232: Withdrawn between Woodheys Road and St Raphaels. Rerouted to Stonebridge Park Station via 112 - Harrow Road - Point Place - Stonebride Park Station. Converted to electric double deckers. Replacement: 224 for Passengers travelling to Brent Park, 112 and 232 can be used from Conduit Way bus stop to travel towards Brent Cross. Why?: This small section of route is what stops the 232 from being a double decker. Something that is really needed, especially with the current restrictions of 14 people per 232. I use the 232 every week day and often find myself waiting a good 30 min before a bus I can board comes, often making me late. With an increased capacity to 30 people the 232 can still run every 15 min without getting too busy. And allowing social distancing to be properly enforced There was a time in the early 2000s that double deckers went on the 232. Unless some changes have been made to the routing I'm sure it's cleared to run double deckers. Can someone confirm this? On the “routes that can’t be decked thread” someone said that the 232 can’t be DD’d right now is because of low hanging trees in St Rapheals.
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Dec 5, 2020 13:51:47 GMT
232: Withdrawn between Woodheys Road and St Raphaels. Rerouted to Stonebridge Park Station via 112 - Harrow Road - Point Place - Stonebride Park Station. Converted to electric double deckers. Replacement: 224 for Passengers travelling to Brent Park, 112 and 232 can be used from Conduit Way bus stop to travel towards Brent Cross. Why?: This small section of route is what stops the 232 from being a double decker. Something that is really needed, especially with the current restrictions of 14 people per 232. I use the 232 every week day and often find myself waiting a good 30 min before a bus I can board comes, often making me late. With an increased capacity to 30 people the 232 can still run every 15 min without getting too busy. And allowing social distancing to be properly enforced There was a time in the early 2000s that double deckers went on the 232. Unless some changes have been made to the routing I'm sure it's cleared to run double deckers. Can someone confirm this? No, there are some low trees at the St. Raphael's terminus.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 5, 2020 14:07:32 GMT
232: Withdrawn between Woodheys Road and St Raphaels. Rerouted to Stonebridge Park Station via 112 - Harrow Road - Point Place - Stonebride Park Station. Converted to electric double deckers. Replacement: 224 for Passengers travelling to Brent Park, 112 and 232 can be used from Conduit Way bus stop to travel towards Brent Cross. Why?: This small section of route is what stops the 232 from being a double decker. Something that is really needed, especially with the current restrictions of 14 people per 232. I use the 232 every week day and often find myself waiting a good 30 min before a bus I can board comes, often making me late. With an increased capacity to 30 people the 232 can still run every 15 min without getting too busy. And allowing social distancing to be properly enforced I've said time and time again the 232 should've been cut to Brent Park IKEA (92 terminus) and converted to DD with the 112 kept as a Brent Cross to Ealing Bdwy route
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Dec 5, 2020 14:11:46 GMT
Being a regular user of the 177/180 I think the 180 should stay at Lewisham, CrossRail hasn’t opened up yet and Woolwich commuters may just end up using that rather than heading to NG as much, it’s a rather senseless change in my opinion since the Woolwich-Greenwich corridor is very busy, and many people rely on the 180 to get to Lewisham and Greenwich from Abbey Woods the 122 and 380 are too circuitous to be real alternatives, the 54 is the best alternative but still doesn’t help those in Abbey Wood and Plumstead The 122 and 380 are too circuitous? Off peak, the 122 takes about 30 minutes Woolwich to Lewisham. The 54 is similar: these are the two routes I’d go for if wanting to ride between the two. The 180, almost 40 minutes. The 380 is pretty comparable to the 180. I still see absolutely no justification for not recasting the 180 to run North Greenwich to Erith. I’ve done the 180 in a little over 30 mins, from Woolwich to Lewisham it can be 40 on bad days, especially since the road changes in East Greenwich just like the 122 can often be held up on the South Circular and that can take 40-45 mins. Not all changes are favourable, And this change doesn’t make any sense, splitting a route in half with no real overlap or replacement is senseless and more than enough of a reason be justifiably against it
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Dec 5, 2020 14:12:33 GMT
On the subject of double decking routes wasn’t the 244 due to be double decked a few years ago?
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Dec 5, 2020 14:36:34 GMT
On the subject of double decking routes wasn’t the 244 due to be double decked a few years ago? Indeed it was. November last year, TfL stated that they "will not be converting route 244 to double deck operation at this time" without a reason. 291 and 178 still received their DD conversions, which they very much needed...but not the 244. Very annoying considering that this is the one route out of those three that is my local route.
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Dec 5, 2020 14:50:21 GMT
The 122 and 380 are too circuitous? Off peak, the 122 takes about 30 minutes Woolwich to Lewisham. The 54 is similar: these are the two routes I’d go for if wanting to ride between the two. The 180, almost 40 minutes. The 380 is pretty comparable to the 180. I still see absolutely no justification for not recasting the 180 to run North Greenwich to Erith. I’ve done the 180 in a little over 30 mins, from Woolwich to Lewisham it can be 40 on bad days, especially since the road changes in East Greenwich just like the 122 can often be held up on the South Circular and that can take 40-45 mins. Not all changes are favourable, And this change doesn’t make any sense, splitting a route in half with no real overlap or replacement is senseless and more than enough of a reason be justifiably against it Yes, the 54 usually takes around 30 minutes, a little bit less during the night. As you mentioned, both the 122 and 180 can get caught in Greenwich and the SC. On good days however, I can reach Lewisham from Abbey Wood on the 180 in 50 minutes. 30 mins usually for the 122 between Woolwich and Lewisham as mentioned. Christmas Eve last year on the 122 was terrible, crawling through Well Hall Rd and Westhorne Ave for a good 30 minutes at least. NG is a major SE London hub that is constantly changing and growing, but I'd agree that this doesn't justify rerouting the Lewisham link. I would've simply increased the frequency of the 161 and 472.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Dec 5, 2020 15:09:49 GMT
On the subject of double decking routes wasn’t the 244 due to be double decked a few years ago? Indeed it was. November last year, TfL stated that they "will not be converting route 244 to double deck operation at this time" without a reason. 291 and 178 still received their DD conversions, which they very much needed...but not the 244. Very annoying considering that this is the one route out of those three that is my local route, GRRRR!!! Yeah that is annoying, the 244 is busy every time I see it, I hope it gets converted soon though, maybe when CrossRail opens?
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 5, 2020 15:20:56 GMT
"Extend the 148 to Acton Green and withdraw the 94, as it only operates every 4 minutes at peak times so is clearly not needed". - Yes, great idea! I take it that means moving the BCEs to the 148 to up the LTs?
|
|