|
Post by COBO on Dec 19, 2021 23:23:21 GMT
So couldn’t the N86 run alongside Crossrail? Whats the point when you already have the 25,86 and 425. See my other post too about traffic hotspots. I guess so but what about to act as relief for the 25, 86, 425 and Crossrail.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 19, 2021 23:46:40 GMT
Whats the point when you already have the 25,86 and 425. See my other post too about traffic hotspots. I guess so but what about to act as relief for the 25, 86, 425 and Crossrail. The X86 idea is just a solution looking for a problem IMO.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 20, 2021 3:05:38 GMT
Had an idea that the 432 could be extended to Elmers End Green direct via Elmers End Road, Birkbeck and Elmers End Station.
Direct link between Elmers End and Crystal Palace New link between Elmers End/Birkbeck/Anerley (Croydon Road) and West Norwood/Brixton Set down at alighting point (stop H), pick up stop G
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 20, 2021 6:47:02 GMT
Had an idea that the 432 could be extended to Elmers End Green direct via Elmers End Road, Birkbeck and Elmers End Station. Direct link between Elmers End and Crystal Palace New link between Elmers End/Birkbeck/Anerley (Croydon Road) and West Norwood/Brixton Set down at alighting point (stop H), pick up stop G Yes I have suggested that before, it could use the former 289 stand on the green and curtail the 249 at Crystal Palace to pay for it if some more stand space can be sorted out there.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Dec 20, 2021 7:55:31 GMT
So couldn’t the N86 run alongside Crossrail? No one is talking about the N86, people are saying, rightfully IMO, that there is little point of a X86 when TfL Rail currently exists and even more so when Crossrail is running. Crossrail is the X86 essentially. In being a fast service along that corridor, albeit with a slightly higher fare
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Dec 20, 2021 8:39:36 GMT
Whats the point when you already have the 25,86 and 425. See my other post too about traffic hotspots. I guess so but what about to act as relief for the 25, 86, 425 and Crossrail. Why when the current rail rail services don’t have any relief? Also how did it go from X86 to N86.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 20, 2021 10:00:12 GMT
Had an idea that the 432 could be extended to Elmers End Green direct via Elmers End Road, Birkbeck and Elmers End Station. Direct link between Elmers End and Crystal Palace New link between Elmers End/Birkbeck/Anerley (Croydon Road) and West Norwood/Brixton Set down at alighting point (stop H), pick up stop G Fully agree with this, something I’ve been suggesting for years
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 20, 2021 11:09:26 GMT
Had an idea that the 432 could be extended to Elmers End Green direct via Elmers End Road, Birkbeck and Elmers End Station. Direct link between Elmers End and Crystal Palace New link between Elmers End/Birkbeck/Anerley (Croydon Road) and West Norwood/Brixton Set down at alighting point (stop H), pick up stop G Yes I have suggested that before, it could use the former 289 stand on the green and curtail the 249 at Crystal Palace to pay for it if some more stand space can be sorted out there. I would've thought that maybe instead of cutting the 249 back it could always extend down to Norwood Junction instead of the 312 extending to Crystal Palace & the 363 extending to Norwood Junction. Would this be as effective or would links be missed out on?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 20, 2021 11:16:00 GMT
Yes I have suggested that before, it could use the former 289 stand on the green and curtail the 249 at Crystal Palace to pay for it if some more stand space can be sorted out there. I would've thought that maybe instead of cutting the 249 back it could always extend down to Norwood Junction instead of the 312 extending to Crystal Palace & the 363 extending to Norwood Junction. Would this be as effective or would links be missed out on? The 249 would miss out Crystal Palace completely then if I'm understanding you correctly? The 312 extension to Crystal Palace would certainly be useful.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 20, 2021 11:18:52 GMT
I would've thought that maybe instead of cutting the 249 back it could always extend down to Norwood Junction instead of the 312 extending to Crystal Palace & the 363 extending to Norwood Junction. Would this be as effective or would links be missed out on? The 249 would miss out Crystal Palace completely then if I'm understanding you correctly? The 312 extension to Crystal Palace would certainly be useful. Confused the 249 & 417 just then! Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 20, 2021 11:26:20 GMT
The 249 would miss out Crystal Palace completely then if I'm understanding you correctly? The 312 extension to Crystal Palace would certainly be useful. Confused the 249 & 417 just then! Sorry.
I suppose if the 432 was extended to Elmers End the 363 could be extended to Anerley thus creating space for the 312 at Crystal Palace but it would mean another route down Anerley Hill that isn't really needed just adding to the cost of it all. If more stand space could be found at Crystal Palace for the 249 and 312, the 249 savings and sell off the Anerley Station stand should pay for the 312 extension and the 432 to Elmers End.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 20, 2021 11:36:21 GMT
Confused the 249 & 417 just then! Sorry.
I suppose if the 432 was extended to Elmers End the 363 could be extended to Anerley thus creating space for the 312 at Crystal Palace but it would mean another route down Anerley Hill that isn't really needed just adding to the cost of it all. If more stand space could be found at Crystal Palace for the 249 and 312, the 249 savings and sell off the Anerley Station stand should pay for the 312 extension and the 432 to Elmers End. I think I'd be pushing it here a bit in terms of fantasy, but the other option could be diverting the 249 into William Booth Road serving the new development round there with it perhaps somehow terminating in Apple Yard, I suppose it would serve the development however it would probably overcompensate for demand & Anerley might be a bigger pull than there.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 20, 2021 15:15:39 GMT
Confused the 249 & 417 just then! Sorry.
I suppose if the 432 was extended to Elmers End the 363 could be extended to Anerley thus creating space for the 312 at Crystal Palace but it would mean another route down Anerley Hill that isn't really needed just adding to the cost of it all. If more stand space could be found at Crystal Palace for the 249 and 312, the 249 savings and sell off the Anerley Station stand should pay for the 312 extension and the 432 to Elmers End. There is no need to cut back the 249 and sell off the stand at Anerley
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 20, 2021 20:12:20 GMT
I would've thought that maybe instead of cutting the 249 back it could always extend down to Norwood Junction instead of the 312 extending to Crystal Palace & the 363 extending to Norwood Junction. Would this be as effective or would links be missed out on? The 249 would miss out Crystal Palace completely then if I'm understanding you correctly? The 312 extension to Crystal Palace would certainly be useful. Pointless really because 157 & 410 already run between Crystal Palace and Norwood Junction and provide enough capacity. I don’t see what would be achieved by getting rid of Anerley Station stand. If anything 3 & 227 should stand in the bus station but do not because of lack of space. Nothing else needs to serve Anerley otherwise will be overloaded.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 20, 2021 20:34:12 GMT
The 249 would miss out Crystal Palace completely then if I'm understanding you correctly? The 312 extension to Crystal Palace would certainly be useful. Pointless really because 157 & 410 already run between Crystal Palace and Norwood Junction and provide enough capacity. I don’t see what would be achieved by getting rid of Anerley Station stand. If anything 3 & 227 should stand in the bus station but do not because of lack of space. Nothing else needs to serve Anerley otherwise will be overloaded. Yes the 157 and 410 probably are adequate although the 312 would give a direct link between Addiscombe and Woodside to Crystal Palace as the tram extension has been dropped. Anerley is really just an overflow stand for Crystal Palace. The 157,358 and 432 are more than adequate for Anerley and terminating the 249 at Crystal Palace would give better interchange with other routes. All things considered I would say the loss of the 249 to Anerley in exchange for the 312 and 432 extensions would be a better use of resources but unless more stand space can be created at Crystal Palace it's not likely to happen.
|
|