|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 18, 2021 20:08:07 GMT
Could a good idea be extending the 130 to Croydon University Hospital (for Mayday hospital links) and perhaps (if Selhurst Park Stadium is disruptive on match days) divert the 130 via S Norwood Hill & Whitehorse Lane and maybe even extend the 312 to Crystal Palace via Church Road & S Norwood Hill? There were plans originally for the 130 to extend beyond Thornton Heath to serve the hospital but I can’t see where you could create a stand unless there is space inside the hospital grounds itself. The 312 to Palace is a good idea though the big problem is a lack of stand space which is why the 3 & 227 now stand on the parade rather than within the bus station itself. That works for those two routes because they come from the north but the 312 coming from the south would have to run all the way to the roundabout at Fountain Drive to turn around and stand with those buses - very much doable just not sure it would happen |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 18, 2021 20:09:29 GMT
Could a good idea be extending the 130 to Croydon University Hospital (for Mayday hospital links) and perhaps (if Selhurst Park Stadium is disruptive on match days) divert the 130 via S Norwood Hill & Whitehorse Lane and maybe even extend the 312 to Crystal Palace via Church Road & S Norwood Hill? I remember a driver on the 130 saying he wouldn't mind a pound for everytime he's asked if he's going to Mayday! It would be useful but finding stand space might be difficult. I always thought South Norwood Hill and Whitehorse Lane would be the better route although disruption either way when football is on. The 312 to Crystal Palace has been suggested before but funding and stand space? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 18, 2021 20:32:29 GMT
Could a good idea be extending the 130 to Croydon University Hospital (for Mayday hospital links) and perhaps (if Selhurst Park Stadium is disruptive on match days) divert the 130 via S Norwood Hill & Whitehorse Lane and maybe even extend the 312 to Crystal Palace via Church Road & S Norwood Hill? There were plans originally for the 130 to extend beyond Thornton Heath to serve the hospital but I can’t see where you could create a stand unless there is space inside the hospital grounds itself. The 312 to Palace is a good idea though the big problem is a lack of stand space which is why the 3 & 227 now stand on the parade rather than within the bus station itself. That works for those two routes because they come from the north but the 312 coming from the south would have to run all the way to the roundabout at Fountain Drive to turn around and stand with those buses - very much doable just not sure it would happen I seem to recall the 312 was mentioned in the Croydon paper as potentially being extended via Chruch Road to Palace. Wasnt suggested back in 1998 to switch the 157 and 197 which I think would have been good as giving a Croydon Town centre link to CP but also shortening the 157 a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 18, 2021 20:34:38 GMT
I'm sure Fieldway residents would prefer a direct link to Croydon, but it would massively improve the 64's reliability if it didn't have its circuitous routing in Fieldway and New Addington. Plus with the hopper fare they can make the short journey to Addington Village and change for other destinations. In terms of shopping and other similar amenities, the 494 does give them a new direct link to Bromley. From my own experience, the 64 hasn't really been unreliable and it helps that a large proportion of it's routing is along roads that don't see as much traffic as other areas with really any issues being in the Croydon & Broad Green areas. I'm not local but I probably would stop your routing at Addington Village Interchange rather than continue onward to New Addington and look into either a decker conversion if possible or frequency increase to the 314 up to every 10 minutes and improve the Sunday service to every 15 or every 20 minutes. I personally don't understand swapping the 194 & 198 between Shirley & Monks Orchard especially as it sounds like from your proposal that the 194 will simply duplicate the 119 from Croydon to West Wickham and I disgaree with diverting the 358 via the 227 between Shortlands & Beckenham as that would unnecessarily break a number of links nor have I found the 358 to be unreliable at all despite it's length likely due to a number of sections of the route where traffic isn't as bad as other parts of London. These are all fair points and I knew there would be opposition to some of the ambitious rerouting stated, but in order to create a service that provides new links some other adjustments had to be made in order to fit it in in other areas. Although I stand by my point that my changes would improve the reliability of those services whilst continuing to perform their main functions, the services themselves aren't at breaking point or unsustainable going forward, it just would've been an added benefit. One thing I will say is that, like with all my route proposals, I extensively research potential links and try to sever as little as possible, so I disagree with your point about the 358's direct rerouting severing "a number" of links. The direct link from Bromley North/Town Hall to Chinese Garage and Eden Park is served by the new route, the 194 serves the Eden Park to Beckenham link, the 356 serves the Elmers End to Penge link and the 367 serves the Elmers End to Bromley and Bromley South to Shortlands link. The 358 change was without a doubt my most ambitous, but the links the 358 provides, I believe, are catered for. The 198 would be diverted along Shirley Way to replace the 194. The 194 was diverted away from Shrublands to allow the 494 to serve it and provide its links to West Wickham and Eden Park. Again, that rerouting might not be popular but most links are maintained. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 18, 2021 21:04:20 GMT
From my own experience, the 64 hasn't really been unreliable and it helps that a large proportion of it's routing is along roads that don't see as much traffic as other areas with really any issues being in the Croydon & Broad Green areas. I'm not local but I probably would stop your routing at Addington Village Interchange rather than continue onward to New Addington and look into either a decker conversion if possible or frequency increase to the 314 up to every 10 minutes and improve the Sunday service to every 15 or every 20 minutes. I personally don't understand swapping the 194 & 198 between Shirley & Monks Orchard especially as it sounds like from your proposal that the 194 will simply duplicate the 119 from Croydon to West Wickham and I disgaree with diverting the 358 via the 227 between Shortlands & Beckenham as that would unnecessarily break a number of links nor have I found the 358 to be unreliable at all despite it's length likely due to a number of sections of the route where traffic isn't as bad as other parts of London. These are all fair points and I knew there would be opposition to some of the ambitious rerouting stated, but in order to create a service that provides new links some other adjustments had to be made in order to fit it in in other areas. Although I stand by my point that my changes would improve the reliability of those services whilst continuing to perform their main functions, the services themselves aren't at breaking point or unsustainable going forward, it just would've been an added benefit. One thing I will say is that, like with all my route proposals, I extensively research potential links and try to sever as little as possible, so I disagree with your point about the 358's direct rerouting severing "a number" of links. The direct link from Bromley North/Town Hall to Chinese Garage and Eden Park is served by the new route, the 194 serves the Eden Park to Beckenham link, the 356 serves the Elmers End to Penge link and the 367 serves the Elmers End to Bromley and Bromley South to Shortlands link. The 358 change was without a doubt my most ambitous, but the links the 358 provides, I believe, are catered for. The 198 would be diverted along Shirley Way to replace the 194. The 194 was diverted away from Shrublands to allow the 494 to serve it and provide its links to West Wickham and Eden Park. Again, that rerouting might not be popular but most links are maintained. I like the majority of the 494 proposal but I just don’t think other routes need to be diverted away in order for it to exist. It’s an interesting proposal and has had thought put into it even if I do disagree with it. There are a number of links on the 358 beyond some of the places you mention that would be broken as a result, again I’d personally leave it as it is. I understand why you diverted the 194 but as I stated previously, it now becomes a needless duplication of the 119 between Croydon & West Wickham IMO - you could for example, extend the 198 to Addington Village via West Way directly onto Shirley Church Road and start the 494 from Shrublands which would preserve existing links and still give Shrublands a link to Bromley. Of course, the big sticking point would be the width restriction at the village of Addington but would be nice if buses could get through |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 18, 2021 21:14:12 GMT
These are all fair points and I knew there would be opposition to some of the ambitious rerouting stated, but in order to create a service that provides new links some other adjustments had to be made in order to fit it in in other areas. Although I stand by my point that my changes would improve the reliability of those services whilst continuing to perform their main functions, the services themselves aren't at breaking point or unsustainable going forward, it just would've been an added benefit. One thing I will say is that, like with all my route proposals, I extensively research potential links and try to sever as little as possible, so I disagree with your point about the 358's direct rerouting severing "a number" of links. The direct link from Bromley North/Town Hall to Chinese Garage and Eden Park is served by the new route, the 194 serves the Eden Park to Beckenham link, the 356 serves the Elmers End to Penge link and the 367 serves the Elmers End to Bromley and Bromley South to Shortlands link. The 358 change was without a doubt my most ambitous, but the links the 358 provides, I believe, are catered for. The 198 would be diverted along Shirley Way to replace the 194. The 194 was diverted away from Shrublands to allow the 494 to serve it and provide its links to West Wickham and Eden Park. Again, that rerouting might not be popular but most links are maintained. I like the majority of the 494 proposal but I just don’t think other routes need to be diverted away in order for it to exist. It’s an interesting proposal and has had thought put into it even if I do disagree with it. There are a number of links on the 358 beyond some of the places you mention that would be broken as a result, again I’d personally leave it as it is. I understand why you diverted the 194 but as I stated previously, it now becomes a needless duplication of the 119 between Croydon & West Wickham IMO - you could for example, extend the 198 to Addington Village via West Way directly onto Shirley Church Road and start the 494 from Shrublands which would preserve existing links and still give Shrublands a link to Bromley. Of course, the big sticking point would be the width restriction at the village of Addington but would be nice if buses could get through Yes they could turn the fire gate on Shirley Church Road into a bus gate, which was the most likely solution I had thought of when looking at the obstacles to get a route through Addington, but as we have seen at Kingsbury with the 303, that's easier said than done. Or they could scrap the width limit altogether but the residents may not be happy about larger vehicles using the village as a rat run. I developed this route plan in consultation with a good friend of mine who lives in New Addington who said its often difficult or daunting for elderly residents to get across Kent Gate Way to use public transport at the interchange, and a bus route through the village would likely be welcomed, but nothing too extravagant. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 18, 2021 21:25:59 GMT
Could a good idea be extending the 130 to Croydon University Hospital (for Mayday hospital links) and perhaps (if Selhurst Park Stadium is disruptive on match days) divert the 130 via S Norwood Hill & Whitehorse Lane and maybe even extend the 312 to Crystal Palace via Church Road & S Norwood Hill? There were plans originally for the 130 to extend beyond Thornton Heath to serve the hospital but I can’t see where you could create a stand unless there is space inside the hospital grounds itself. The 312 to Palace is a good idea though the big problem is a lack of stand space which is why the 3 & 227 now stand on the parade rather than within the bus station itself. That works for those two routes because they come from the north but the 312 coming from the south would have to run all the way to the roundabout at Fountain Drive to turn around and stand with those buses - very much doable just not sure it would happen Maybe instead of a 312 extension, a 363 extension could always be a decent idea? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 18, 2021 21:42:23 GMT
There were plans originally for the 130 to extend beyond Thornton Heath to serve the hospital but I can’t see where you could create a stand unless there is space inside the hospital grounds itself. The 312 to Palace is a good idea though the big problem is a lack of stand space which is why the 3 & 227 now stand on the parade rather than within the bus station itself. That works for those two routes because they come from the north but the 312 coming from the south would have to run all the way to the roundabout at Fountain Drive to turn around and stand with those buses - very much doable just not sure it would happen Maybe instead of a 312 extension, a 363 extension could always be a decent idea? I believe that was proposed at one point as well, possibly as an alternative to the 312 idea IIRC |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 18, 2021 22:41:09 GMT
Maybe instead of a 312 extension, a 363 extension could always be a decent idea? I believe that was proposed at one point as well, possibly as an alternative to the 312 idea IIRC Didn't routes used to do a U turn to stand on the Parade. I'm thinking of the 2, 137, 249 that came from the South. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 18, 2021 23:00:39 GMT
I believe that was proposed at one point as well, possibly as an alternative to the 312 idea IIRC Didn't routes used to do a U turn to stand on the Parade. I'm thinking of the 2, 137, 249 that came from the South. Yes they did but after the bus station was built, they had no need to turn around except for the 3 which had to use the roundabout towards Oxford Circus as there was no right turn from the bus station into the parade (227 back then stood with the 63, 122 & 202) |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 18, 2021 23:46:52 GMT
Didn't routes used to do a U turn to stand on the Parade. I'm thinking of the 2, 137, 249 that came from the South. Yes they did but after the bus station was built, they had no need to turn around except for the 3 which had to use the roundabout towards Oxford Circus as there was no right turn from the bus station into the parade (227 back then stood with the 63, 122 & 202) An alternative is to extend the 417 to Anerley to create space from the south. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 19, 2021 0:44:13 GMT
Didn't routes used to do a U turn to stand on the Parade. I'm thinking of the 2, 137, 249 that came from the South. Yes they did but after the bus station was built, they had no need to turn around except for the 3 which had to use the roundabout towards Oxford Circus as there was no right turn from the bus station into the parade (227 back then stood with the 63, 122 & 202) I didn't know that about the 3. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 19, 2021 1:00:10 GMT
Didn't routes used to do a U turn to stand on the Parade. I'm thinking of the 2, 137, 249 that came from the South. Yes they did but after the bus station was built, they had no need to turn around except for the 3 which had to use the roundabout towards Oxford Circus as there was no right turn from the bus station into the parade (227 back then stood with the 63, 122 & 202) Think there was an official turning place which they could pull into, but if the road was quiet they did not bother going up that far and turned in the road |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 19, 2021 1:05:29 GMT
Yes they did but after the bus station was built, they had no need to turn around except for the 3 which had to use the roundabout towards Oxford Circus as there was no right turn from the bus station into the parade (227 back then stood with the 63, 122 & 202) Think there was an official turning place which they could pull into, but if the road was quiet they did not bother going up that far and turned in the road Yes that's right and that's what I was referring to when saying U-turn, I could of been a little more clearer on that  |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 19, 2021 1:12:31 GMT
Yes they did but after the bus station was built, they had no need to turn around except for the 3 which had to use the roundabout towards Oxford Circus as there was no right turn from the bus station into the parade (227 back then stood with the 63, 122 & 202) An alternative is to extend the 417 to Anerley to create space from the south. It would be overkill to extend another route to Anerley - the stand has space for 5 vehicles and currently uses a maximum capacity of 4 as 2 249's & 2 432's are permitted at any one time but in order for the 417 to also go there, it would have to strictly be limited to one bus in only. Realistically, the only way a route from the south could stand at Palace currently is run the full length of the parade and turn around using the Fountain Drive roundabout and stand on the parade itself with the 3 & 227 |
|
