|
Post by redexpress on Dec 16, 2021 20:59:30 GMT
barrypotter . You are correct, the W8 was single deck for little while (not sure of the year). Although it was the road underneath the railway that was lowered, enabling double deck bus operation. The height of the railway was not interfered with as this is nearly always the significantly more expensive option in a road v railway scenario.
I believe that this may have been a real sign of the times for the road to be lowered to accomodate a bus service (although there may have been other reasons) with agreement from TfL and Local Authorities. I wonder how many single deck routes which could do with double deck operation are constrained by bridges whereby a combination of will and funding from TfL and/or the Local Authorities could enable double deck services.
Clearly in the current financial climate this is unlikely to happen, but I do not recall many other cases of road being lowered to enable double deck operation since route W8 in the 2000s?
The work for the W8 at Edmonton was not major. It was only needed because Metroline's new TPs turned out to be fractionally taller than the outgoing First TNs, despite both being plated as the same height! The bridge is now signed as 14'9.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 16, 2021 22:27:17 GMT
Only if there was some sort of split imo, it would be too long I think providing congestion is reduced throughout the route it's not unreasonable and would create a link between Wimbledon & Raynes Park with Brixton A bus link between Wimbledon¹ and Brixton could be better achieved with a three way swapping of the 155, 219 and 355 south of Tooting Broadway, ie: 155 replacing the 355 to Mitcham 219² replacing the 155 to Tooting (St. George's Hospital) 355² replacing the 219 to Wimbledon 57 best left unchanged ¹ - plus Merton and Colliers Wood ² - plus full conversions to double-deckers
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 16, 2021 22:37:03 GMT
I think providing congestion is reduced throughout the route it's not unreasonable and would create a link between Wimbledon & Raynes Park with Brixton A bus link between Wimbledon¹ and Brixton could be better achieved with a three way swapping of the 155, 219 and 355 south of Tooting Broadway, ie: 155 replacing the 355 to Mitcham 219² replacing the 155 to Tooting (St. George's Hospital) 355² replacing the 219 to Wimbledon 57 best left unchanged ¹ - plus Merton and Colliers Wood ² - plus full conversions to double-deckers Would an N57 be reasonable to Brixton instead of a full day service? It has a pretty good night time industry around there, perhaps that would be attractive for SW London residents?
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 16, 2021 23:02:20 GMT
Would an N57 be reasonable to Brixton instead of a full day service? It has a pretty good night time industry around there, perhaps that would be attractive for SW London residents? N57 is a good idea
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Dec 16, 2021 23:11:56 GMT
Would an N57 be reasonable to Brixton instead of a full day service? It has a pretty good night time industry around there, perhaps that would be attractive for SW London residents? N57 is a good idea But again there are quite a few night routes already connecting Streatham and Brixton. It’s not like it’s a difficult interchange with a single stop to do it, there must be what 8 or 9 stops to pick from to interchange between the 57 and routes to Brixton.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 16, 2021 23:32:28 GMT
But again there are quite a few night routes already connecting Streatham and Brixton. It’s not like it’s a difficult interchange with a single stop to do it, there must be what 8 or 9 stops to pick from to interchange between the 57 and routes to Brixton. I mean I know you're local and I definitely see your point but I did see someone say somewhere that by having an N57 (I believe it's been previously suggested) to Brixton you'd reintroduce a night link between Tooting & Brixton which was broken as a result of the N133 diversion to Mitcham.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Dec 16, 2021 23:53:24 GMT
But again there are quite a few night routes already connecting Streatham and Brixton. It’s not like it’s a difficult interchange with a single stop to do it, there must be what 8 or 9 stops to pick from to interchange between the 57 and routes to Brixton. I mean I know you're local and I definitely see your point but I did see someone say somewhere that by having an N57 (I believe it's been previously suggested) to Brixton you'd reintroduce a night link between Tooting & Brixton which was broken as a result of the N133 diversion to Mitcham. Whilst it’s true there isn’t a direct link between Tooting and Brixton at night it’s not an impossible journey. There is already the N109, N133, 159 and N250 all providing frequent connections. Adding another link just seems unnecessary when so many exist already especially in the age of the hopper fare.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 17, 2021 0:41:20 GMT
I think providing congestion is reduced throughout the route it's not unreasonable and would create a link between Wimbledon & Raynes Park with Brixton Why do Wimbledon and Raynes Park need a link with Brixton when it’s easy enough to switch buses in Streatham. Extending to Brixton would leave a poorer service on the Kingston end. There are too many hotspots even with reduced congestion to make it viable. It’s the same people talking about routes they have little experience with as if it’s fact - just like comments about the Kennington corridor being over bussed and it’s no surprise, Captain Cuts, as you coined him, being at the heart of it. The A23 corridor is one of the busiest corridors in London and has a high BPH for good reason - even in the 80’s & 90’s when bus travel was lower, it regularly had a large number of routes running along it especially south of Brixton where they’d be usually at least 7 routes along Brixton Hill and even more throughout Streatham Hill & Streatham. I agree that right now, extending the 57 to Brixton isn’t an option because of the congestion it has to face. I think a N57 at night wouldn’t be bad though I think your reservations are understandable as well.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Dec 17, 2021 1:38:22 GMT
barrypotter . You are correct, the W8 was single deck for little while (not sure of the year). Although it was the road underneath the railway that was lowered, enabling double deck bus operation. The height of the railway was not interfered with as this is nearly always the significantly more expensive option in a road v railway scenario.
I believe that this may have been a real sign of the times for the road to be lowered to accomodate a bus service (although there may have been other reasons) with agreement from TfL and Local Authorities. I wonder how many single deck routes which could do with double deck operation are constrained by bridges whereby a combination of will and funding from TfL and/or the Local Authorities could enable double deck services.
Clearly in the current financial climate this is unlikely to happen, but I do not recall many other cases of road being lowered to enable double deck operation since route W8 in the 2000s?
I think Snaresbrook was one? Snaresbrook would have been done in 1947 when the Central line was extended to Woodford on GER tracks. Prior to this bus routes used Eagle Lane where there was a level crossing. Other places where this practice of road lowering appears to be done is St. James St Stn in Walthamstow, Silver St in Edmonton. Church Lane in Leytonstone (although this was filled in when the M11 link road [A12] was built in the 90's), Grove Rd In Mile End
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Dec 17, 2021 1:40:04 GMT
I think Snaresbrook was one? South Grove in Walthamstow used to have much smaller bridge which couldn’t take buses, but the current lowered road and new bridge was probably done in 1980s It did have a different layout in South Grove. It is so many years since it changed, I cannot even remember the old one. I believe it changed in the mid 1980s. This was before they made Selborne Rd a through road again.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 17, 2021 7:47:15 GMT
We're verging further north into unfamiliar territory for me, but I know the W8 uses single decks and I don't think the capacity would be enough. It has to be a double deck route for when the 123 throws a wobbly on the A406, single deckers would struggle to clear up passengers. I know everyone has their own ideas for the 349, but withdrawing it from Stamford Hill and rerouting the 349 via Broad Lane, Tottenham Hale, Forest Road and Hoe Street up to Walthamstow Central would be a good idea. Why via Broad Lane? To not break as many journeys as possible up to Seven Sisters. The W8 has been double decker for a few decades now, was you thinking of the W9 which is single decker and shares a terminal with the W8 at Chase Farm Hospital? Must've been referring to the W9 then. Told you guys I was getting into unfamiliar territory!
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Dec 17, 2021 8:28:00 GMT
barrypotter . You are correct, the W8 was single deck for little while (not sure of the year). Although it was the road underneath the railway that was lowered, enabling double deck bus operation. The height of the railway was not interfered with as this is nearly always the significantly more expensive option in a road v railway scenario.
I believe that this may have been a real sign of the times for the road to be lowered to accomodate a bus service (although there may have been other reasons) with agreement from TfL and Local Authorities. I wonder how many single deck routes which could do with double deck operation are constrained by bridges whereby a combination of will and funding from TfL and/or the Local Authorities could enable double deck services.
Clearly in the current financial climate this is unlikely to happen, but I do not recall many other cases of road being lowered to enable double deck operation since route W8 in the 2000s?
Christchurch Avenue rail bridge in Wealdstone was rebuilt in 1958, at the same time the roadway under was widened and lowered. It was rather a waste, as the Harrow & Wealdstone - Belmont shuttle train service was withdrawn five years later, in October 1963, and the 230 route retained its low-height RLH double-deckers due to another low bridge in Headstone Drive, Wealdstone. The lowering did however permit route 140 garage journeys between Harrow Weald (HD) and Mill Hill to proceed directly to and from Kenton Library to pick up line of route there. The bridge was demolished in the 1960s. The lowered road was prone to flooding during heavy rain and the road was eventually levelled again, probably about the time the link to Masons Avenue was put in.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 17, 2021 8:36:29 GMT
Why do Wimbledon and Raynes Park need a link with Brixton when it’s easy enough to switch buses in Streatham. Extending to Brixton would leave a poorer service on the Kingston end. There are too many hotspots even with reduced congestion to make it viable. It’s the same people talking about routes they have little experience with as if it’s fact - just like comments about the Kennington corridor being over bussed and it’s no surprise, Captain Cuts, as you coined him, being at the heart of it. The A23 corridor is one of the busiest corridors in London and has a high BPH for good reason - even in the 80’s & 90’s when bus travel was lower, it regularly had a large number of routes running along it especially south of Brixton where they’d be usually at least 7 routes along Brixton Hill and even more throughout Streatham Hill & Streatham. I agree that right now, extending the 57 to Brixton isn’t an option because of the congestion it has to face. I think a N57 at night wouldn’t be bad though I think your reservations are understandable as well. I'd agree with your statement that the A23 is one of the busiest bus corridors in London (and probably the UK) from Kennington to Streatham, but heading towards E&C the corridor definitely dies down from my experiences. I think the 415s extension breathed new life into it, certainly I wouldn't remove it nowadays, but I do notice the 333 does get pretty quiet between Kennington & Elephant whilst the 133/155 are obviously busier. To me as a non local I can respect that it's probably not as a broad view as someone who is local.
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 17, 2021 9:06:40 GMT
I mean I know you're local and I definitely see your point but I did see someone say somewhere that by having an N57 (I believe it's been previously suggested) to Brixton you'd reintroduce a night link between Tooting & Brixton which was broken as a result of the N133 diversion to Mitcham. Whilst it’s true there isn’t a direct link between Tooting and Brixton at night it’s not an impossible journey. There is already the N109, N133, 159 and N250 all providing frequent connections. Adding another link just seems unnecessary when so many exist already especially in the age of the hopper fare. What about an N159 Oxo to Kingston via 159 to Streatham then 57?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 17, 2021 9:16:54 GMT
It’s the same people talking about routes they have little experience with as if it’s fact - just like comments about the Kennington corridor being over bussed and it’s no surprise, Captain Cuts, as you coined him, being at the heart of it. The A23 corridor is one of the busiest corridors in London and has a high BPH for good reason - even in the 80’s & 90’s when bus travel was lower, it regularly had a large number of routes running along it especially south of Brixton where they’d be usually at least 7 routes along Brixton Hill and even more throughout Streatham Hill & Streatham. I agree that right now, extending the 57 to Brixton isn’t an option because of the congestion it has to face. I think a N57 at night wouldn’t be bad though I think your reservations are understandable as well. I'd agree with your statement that the A23 is one of the busiest bus corridors in London (and probably the UK) from Kennington to Streatham, but heading towards E&C the corridor definitely dies down from my experiences. I think the 415s extension breathed new life into it, certainly I wouldn't remove it nowadays, but I do notice the 333 does get pretty quiet between Kennington & Elephant whilst the 133/155 are obviously busier. To me as a non local I can respect that it's probably not as a broad view as someone who is local. Obviously the main attraction is the Victoria Line just like Seven Sisters is from the Hertford Road corridor and obviously rush hour volumes aren't quite what they once were. As I mentioned the 333 does give a useful round the corner link from Brixton Hill area to Stockwell and from Brixton to Clapham Road but it doesn't really need to go to Elephant & Castle hence my suggestion of extending the 118 as far as Kennington in replacement. There was a previous suggestion on here to withdraw the 415 and reroute the 3 to Elephant & Castle, I don't if that is a serious proposal. No offence to you but I know South London like the back of my hand and I don't really need advice from local 'experts'. 😂
|
|