|
Post by danorak on Feb 26, 2021 15:43:42 GMT
With Simpsons Road apparently available, sending the 269 or 227 down that way seems a fair suggestion and would help enormously with finding a space in a congested stand! While I'm not a local, but I do feel like the 269 is poorly served with the all the shops in the town centre when going back towards Bexleyheath compared to every other Bromley routes and it's quite a long walk for some to the Widmore Road / Kentish Way stop even from the northern parts of The Glade such as the Boots inside the shopping centre. Sending the 269 to the South would mean anyone who wants to go towards Bickley/Chislehurst wouldn't have to rely on the 162 for that. Mentioned this before, but I wondered whether you could designate stop Q outside Boots on Widmore Road, which is currently an alighting point only, as a stand for the 269. That way, on leaving Bromley, passengers would be picked up there and outside Sainsburys which is likely to be more convenient for shoppers. (You don't have the shopping with you on arrival!)
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Feb 26, 2021 15:45:04 GMT
Ideas for route 166, due to the route being indirect and the irregular Epsom workings: Option A: 312 - When extended to Old Lodge Lane, diverted fully along the 455 routeing between Croydon and Purley 166 - Withdrawn, with no replacement between Purley and Croydon, following frequency increases to other routes along Brighton Road 359 - Extended from Purley to Banstead, but directly via Foxley Lane, Little Woodcote Lane and Croydon Lane 434 - Rerouted at Purley to terminate at Cane Hill 404 - Cut back to Coulsdon, and extended to Epsom Hospital via the 166 to Woodmansterne (plus a double run to Rickman Hill), then Woodmansterne Lane to Banstead (serving a new stretch of road) and the 166 to Epsom. Provides a regular service through to Epsom, with higher frequency but lower capacity vehicles. Option B: 410 - Rerouted to serve the 455 routeing around Beddington, retaining the Beddington-Croydon link (but continuing via Croydon Road to Wallington). S4 - Split route revised to operate between Banstead and Croydon, via the S1 to Belmont, S4 to Roundshaw, 455 to Croydon Road then the 410. To provide a more direct link between Banstead and Croydon, and introduce a new link from Belmont to Croydon. Could extend from Banstead to Epsom depending on the frequency. 166 - Could be reduced to operate between Banstead and Croydon only, or merged with the 359 to operate between Banstead and Addington. Obviously, someone like YY13VKP and 725DYE can give a better insight but a lot of Option A sounds awful in all honestly - the link from Croydon beyond Coulsdon is severed and a much longer 404 service would be detrimental to the people living on the current routing especially as the 404 is purposefully designed to bring the residents from Old Coulsdon to either the Tesco at Caterham-On-The-Hill or to the shops and stations at Coulsdon. The 312 idea is probably the only one I can see a lot of logic in - it depends how much the roads around South Croydon require a link to West Croydon as then the 166 could keep it's current routing and leave the 312 to fully replace the 455 between Fairfield Halls & Old Lodge Lane instead. Regarding Option B, the 410 idea is a decent one providing something else takes over the 410 between Wallington & Croydon as I don't think the S4 is a good replacement for the 410's current section and I'm not sure if anyone from Belmont will require Croydon when Sutton is nearby and has a good enough range of shops. I see no need to mess with the 166, especially any idea of merging with the 359. Option B would mean the 410 having a trip cycle of nearly 3.5 hours, making reliable operation very difficult and requiring 2 extra buses as well as give the 455 section twice the frequency the demand requires, given it would presumably retain the 6bph frequency. Don't think the core Croydon-Wallington route needs tweaking, though I do see a place for another route to provide it in lieu of the 410, either the 403 or 433. Also, Pampisford Road does not justify more than 6bph/7bph - the 312 and 405 would provide 9bph which is excessive.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 26, 2021 15:46:56 GMT
Obviously, someone like YY13VKP and 725DYE can give a better insight but a lot of Option A sounds awful in all honestly - the link from Croydon beyond Coulsdon is severed and a much longer 404 service would be detrimental to the people living on the current routing especially as the 404 is purposefully designed to bring the residents from Old Coulsdon to either the Tesco at Caterham-On-The-Hill or to the shops and stations at Coulsdon. The 312 idea is probably the only one I can see a lot of logic in - it depends how much the roads around South Croydon require a link to West Croydon as then the 166 could keep it's current routing and leave the 312 to fully replace the 455 between Fairfield Halls & Old Lodge Lane instead. Regarding Option B, the 410 idea is a decent one providing something else takes over the 410 between Wallington & Croydon as I don't think the S4 is a good replacement for the 410's current section and I'm not sure if anyone from Belmont will require Croydon when Sutton is nearby and has a good enough range of shops. I see no need to mess with the 166, especially any idea of merging with the 359. Option B would mean the 410 having a trip cycle of nearly 3.5 hours, making reliable operation very difficult and requiring 2 extra buses as well as give the 455 section twice the frequency the demand requires, given it would presumably retain the 6bph frequency. Don't think the core Croydon-Wallington route needs tweaking, though I do see a place for another route to provide it in lieu of the 410, either the 403 or 433. I can see sense in diverting the 410 to Ampere Way with a 403 or 433 taking over the current 410 section.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Feb 26, 2021 15:49:34 GMT
Option B would mean the 410 having a trip cycle of nearly 3.5 hours, making reliable operation very difficult and requiring 2 extra buses as well as give the 455 section twice the frequency the demand requires, given it would presumably retain the 6bph frequency. Don't think the core Croydon-Wallington route needs tweaking, though I do see a place for another route to provide it in lieu of the 410, either the 403 or 433. I can see sense in diverting the 410 to Ampere Way with a 403 or 433 taking over the current 410 section. Once the 1000 odd new homes come on stream in that area, potentially - but for now I only see room to introduce an extra 2 bph route through Factory Lane (proposed for a bus service) into the town centre from Ampere. Can't see any justification yet for a high freqeuncy bus - and probably not the 410 given the tram duplication.
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Feb 26, 2021 16:29:19 GMT
Golders Green post Covid Changes + Other potential changes. 460 permanently rerouted via its Diversion Route (Clitterhouse, Staples Corner and Cricklewood Garage) in both Directions. 268 Extended towards Finchley Church End reason Golders Green has been severely packed with over flow buses due to bus stop closure due to Social Distancing or extend the either the 83 to Finchley Church End. Alternative 268 (With plans to redevelop the O2 and the car dealerships with a linking road to West End Lane) - Extend it to Kilburn Park or Paddington potentially allowing Double Deckers. The 187 could also be a contender for extension to either place. 2nd Alternative 268 Have it run as a loop style service both Anti and Clockwise, as most know buses that run on Finchley Road are always packed with no Direct secondary route. N5 Rerouted in the Hendon Area to serve roads lost by the Night Weekend 183 plus Middlesex University Students probably love a night out right? Weekend Night 182 Extended to Golders Green via 210 then N113 then 102 (Brent Cross isn’t 24/7 so why Night buses terminate there is beyond me) 189 could possibly be Extended to Colindale Station via 113 then 125. 266 Extended to North Finchley via 112 the 460, i dont like that diversion, it just makes route weird, and indirect rather see it extended from the terminus. There needs to be an N260 or N460 as that willesden cricklewood golders green night link is non-existant, id prefer the N260 as with the N266 it would just be another N28/N31 thing going on. 83/268 no need for the church end extention making 83 unreliable, and you d reduce the usefulness of the 13 and 460 northbound as well you would have to reroute the 187 from warwick avenue, paddington is fine, could link the two hosiptals together st marys and central middlesex yeah the night service for students would be good N83 could be moved but however, i think N5 would be a lot more useful to a student as it links camden and central London rather than just wembley, which i agree with. 182 night bus, could be a good shout goes gives neasden and dollis hill another night link along with 297 and N98 but i think via the 210 would be fine 189 dont really have an opinion, apart from this route needs an extention, but if this is a good possibilty im for it. 266-no lol, however if you did this with the 460 reroute, you could curtail at cricklewood and reextended back to hammersmith, but it isnt run by metroline.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Feb 26, 2021 16:42:06 GMT
While I'm not a local, but I do feel like the 269 is poorly served with the all the shops in the town centre when going back towards Bexleyheath compared to every other Bromley routes and it's quite a long walk for some to the Widmore Road / Kentish Way stop even from the northern parts of The Glade such as the Boots inside the shopping centre. Sending the 269 to the South would mean anyone who wants to go towards Bickley/Chislehurst wouldn't have to rely on the 162 for that. Mentioned this before, but I wondered whether you could designate stop Q outside Boots on Widmore Road, which is currently an alighting point only, as a stand for the 269. That way, on leaving Bromley, passengers would be picked up there and outside Sainsburys which is likely to be more convenient for shoppers. (You don't have the shopping with you on arrival!) Probably wouldn’t be so bad at the moment but when things get back to normal there’s probably going to be too much traffic to have (at least) two buses sitting there. Additionally, some bright spark at the council decided that it was appropriate to have parking on the opposite side of the road so with buses standing at stop Q you’ve reduced a two way road to a single lane I’ve idly wondered whether or not you could send the 269 down to Downham via the 208/320. There’s not a huge amount of traffic issues over that section, it opens up new links and means the 269 can serve Bromley far more efficiently than it does now
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Feb 26, 2021 18:01:57 GMT
Mentioned this before, but I wondered whether you could designate stop Q outside Boots on Widmore Road, which is currently an alighting point only, as a stand for the 269. That way, on leaving Bromley, passengers would be picked up there and outside Sainsburys which is likely to be more convenient for shoppers. (You don't have the shopping with you on arrival!) Probably wouldn’t be so bad at the moment but when things get back to normal there’s probably going to be too much traffic to have (at least) two buses sitting there. Additionally, some bright spark at the council decided that it was appropriate to have parking on the opposite side of the road so with buses standing at stop Q you’ve reduced a two way road to a single lane I’ve idly wondered whether or not you could send the 269 down to Downham via the 208/320. There’s not a huge amount of traffic issues over that section, it opens up new links and means the 269 can serve Bromley far more efficiently than it does now I came up with the idea of extending the 269 from Bromley to Beckenham Junction via Park Langley, instead of the 162. You could then have the 162 terminate at Bromley North Station in the 269’s place.
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Feb 26, 2021 20:45:39 GMT
52 extend to Neasden shopping Centre via 302 This will help the 302 and give Neasden a Direct link to Central London
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Feb 26, 2021 21:04:02 GMT
52 extend to Neasden shopping Centre via 302 This will help the 302 and give Neasden a Direct link to Central London The 302 is fine as it is, the 52 will be very unreliable as it experiences heavy traffic in Central London
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 26, 2021 22:22:39 GMT
52 extend to Neasden shopping Centre via 302 This will help the 302 and give Neasden a Direct link to Central London The 302 is fine as it is, the 52 will be very unreliable as it experiences heavy traffic in Central London It doesn't serve Central London though
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Feb 26, 2021 23:22:47 GMT
The 302 is fine as it is, the 52 will be very unreliable as it experiences heavy traffic in Central London It doesn't serve Central London though You don't consider areas like Hyde Park, Knightsbridge and Victoria not central London?
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 27, 2021 7:14:39 GMT
It doesn't serve Central London though You don't consider areas like Hyde Park, Knightsbridge and Victoria not central London? Well, traffic wise they aren't Central London levels. The A315 can bugger up in the peaks but that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Feb 27, 2021 8:28:26 GMT
You don't consider areas like Hyde Park, Knightsbridge and Victoria not central London? Well, traffic wise they aren't Central London levels. The A315 can bugger up in the peaks but that's about it. You've clearly never been around that area, especially Knightsbridge, before!! Even during lockdown the 52 suffers from curtailments and bunching because of the traffic in that area. This can occur throughout the day, not just the main peak. I'd say Knightsbridge is probably amongst the worst traffic in central London.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Feb 27, 2021 10:08:09 GMT
[/quote]I came up with the idea of extending the 269 from Bromley to Beckenham Junction via Park Langley, instead of the 162. You could then have the 162 terminate at Bromley North Station in the 269’s place.[/quote]
No no no no way!! I know someone won't be very pleased with this if swap with 269/162.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 10:17:09 GMT
You don't consider areas like Hyde Park, Knightsbridge and Victoria not central London? Well, traffic wise they aren't Central London levels. The A315 can bugger up in the peaks but that's about it. I am really scratching my head here - Hyde Park, Knightsbridge and especially Victoria can be extremely busy! I would say maybe worse than some parts of Central London.
|
|