|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 21, 2024 9:14:34 GMT
Could it be viable to retain the 407’s current frequency & once split have it perform a double run to serve Wallington Station, with the 410 cut back to West Croydon & possibly extended on its northern end? That’s quite a long double run and completely unnecessary as the 127/157 both connect Carshalton with Wallington. It does provide Sutton with a a faster link to Wallington as the 151 & S4 are both quite indirect
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 21, 2024 9:15:57 GMT
That’s quite a long double run and completely unnecessary as the 127/157 both connect Carshalton with Wallington. It does provide Sutton with a a faster link to Wallington as the 151 & S4 are both quite indirect There is also the 154 which stops a short walk away from Wallington Station. Either way it’s a long double run for very little benefit.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 21, 2024 12:37:59 GMT
I think the 407 cut is far too harsh and I don't think the SL7 should be further increased as it creates a rather inbalanced picture IMO. Leaving the 403 as is and removing the 410 west of Croydon removes some excess capacity and in any case, something like the 433 could be extended to Sutton with the 407 becoming a Croydon to Caterham route or keep the existing 407 from Sutton but split it at Purley with the 443 as a Croydon to Caterham route keeping a more proportioned overlap between the two routes I disagree with the 410 going to South Croydon Garage - Brighton Road still has plenty of capacity despite the 166 moving to Pampisford Road (wrongly IMO, 312 should move over instead) and I'd rather it finish at Croydon instead as the core of the 410 is Croydon to Crystal Palace. If the 433 is extended to Sutton, the 410 can take it's spot Could it be viable to retain the 407’s current frequency & once split have it perform a double run to serve Wallington Station, with the 410 cut back to West Croydon & possibly extended on its northern end? I don’t see the need for the 407 to perform such a double run as southlondon413 mentioned The 410’s primary purpose is Crystal Palace to Croydon and I don’t see a need to extend it to Dulwich as per your earlier suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 21, 2024 12:49:32 GMT
Could it be viable to retain the 407’s current frequency & once split have it perform a double run to serve Wallington Station, with the 410 cut back to West Croydon & possibly extended on its northern end? I don’t see the need for the 407 to perform such a double run as southlondon413 mentioned The 410’s primary purpose is Crystal Palace to Croydon and I don’t see a need to extend it to Dulwich as per your earlier suggestion. The main reason for the 407 to perform the double run is to keep the Wallington-Croydon links maintained by the 410, though this could also be done by extending/rerouting another single deck route in its place like the 433 as previously suggested.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 21, 2024 13:01:42 GMT
I don’t see the need for the 407 to perform such a double run as southlondon413 mentioned The 410’s primary purpose is Crystal Palace to Croydon and I don’t see a need to extend it to Dulwich as per your earlier suggestion. The main reason for the 407 to perform the double run is to keep the Wallington-Croydon links maintained by the 410, though this could also be done by extending/rerouting another single deck route in its place like the 433 as previously suggested. Croydon to Wallington is already linked by train, 154 & 157 and the 410 doesn’t load anywhere near the 154 or 157 between the two places. If something must go on the Sutton to Croydon corridor, that should be the only choice because keeping the 407 & SL7 as is will still provide enough capacity and the 157 isn’t much difference time wise between Croydon & Wallington. The only loss of link would be from Wallington to the section between Plough Lane & Epsom Road
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 21, 2024 13:07:19 GMT
I don’t see the need for the 407 to perform such a double run as southlondon413 mentioned The 410’s primary purpose is Crystal Palace to Croydon and I don’t see a need to extend it to Dulwich as per your earlier suggestion. The main reason for the 407 to perform the double run is to keep the Wallington-Croydon links maintained by the 410, though this could also be done by extending/rerouting another single deck route in its place like the 433 as previously suggested. I can understand your thinking about the 407 doing a double run to Wallington but I think there would be outrage from people using stops not served by the SL7.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 21, 2024 14:26:10 GMT
The main reason for the 407 to perform the double run is to keep the Wallington-Croydon links maintained by the 410, though this could also be done by extending/rerouting another single deck route in its place like the 433 as previously suggested. I can understand your thinking about the 407 doing a double run to Wallington but I think there would be outrage from people using stops not served by the SL7. Isn’t there a similar already occurring though on the other end of the SL7 with the 285? The 285 takes a couple different routes that the SL7 doesn’t take and it also has a double run to serve the Sainsburys in Hampton. I do think the SL7 could serve one additional stop between Teddington & Hatton Cross.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 21, 2024 14:36:05 GMT
I can understand your thinking about the 407 doing a double run to Wallington but I think there would be outrage from people using stops not served by the SL7. Isn’t there a similar already occurring though on the other end of the SL7 with the 285? The 285 takes a couple different routes that the SL7 doesn’t take and it also has a double run to serve the Sainsburys in Hampton. I do think the SL7 could serve one additional stop between Teddington & Hatton Cross. I wouldn’t describe the Hampton Sainsburys stop as a double run as the 285 passes by on its route. The 216 serving the Tesco in Sunbury is a double run, the S3 running up to Sainsbury’s North Cheam is a double run but I wouldn’t refer the 285 as a double run
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 21, 2024 14:55:12 GMT
Isn’t there a similar already occurring though on the other end of the SL7 with the 285? The 285 takes a couple different routes that the SL7 doesn’t take and it also has a double run to serve the Sainsburys in Hampton. I do think the SL7 could serve one additional stop between Teddington & Hatton Cross. I wouldn’t describe the Hampton Sainsburys stop as a double run as the 285 passes by on its route. The 216 serving the Tesco in Sunbury is a double run, the S3 running up to Sainsbury’s North Cheam is a double run but I wouldn’t refer the 285 as a double run Yeah the 216 & S3 definitely take longer double runs in order to serve different Sainsbury’s but the 285 does still go in & back out of the Hampton Sainsbury’s. I think the 290 serving the same Sainsbury’s is definitely a double run considering the fact that it runs on Twickenham Road.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 21, 2024 15:34:45 GMT
I wouldn’t describe the Hampton Sainsburys stop as a double run as the 285 passes by on its route. The 216 serving the Tesco in Sunbury is a double run, the S3 running up to Sainsbury’s North Cheam is a double run but I wouldn’t refer the 285 as a double run Yeah the 216 & S3 definitely take longer double runs in order to serve different Sainsbury’s but the 285 does still go in & back out of the Hampton Sainsbury’s. I think the 290 serving the same Sainsbury’s is definitely a double run considering the fact that it runs on Twickenham Road. The 285 doesn't double run via the Sainsbury's - a double run (to me anyway) would be to run along the same road twice in both directions without terminating. The 285 doesn't do this at Sainsbury's - from Hampton Road East, it enters and exits the Sainsbury's at the same junction then continues onto Uxbridge Road rather than heading back down Hampton Road East and vice versa. The 290's routing to and from Sainsbury's is definitely a double run
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 21, 2024 15:43:06 GMT
Yeah the 216 & S3 definitely take longer double runs in order to serve different Sainsbury’s but the 285 does still go in & back out of the Hampton Sainsbury’s. I think the 290 serving the same Sainsbury’s is definitely a double run considering the fact that it runs on Twickenham Road. The 285 doesn't double run via the Sainsbury's - a double run (to me anyway) would be to run along the same road twice in both directions without terminating. The 285 doesn't do this at Sainsbury's - from Hampton Road East, it enters and exits the Sainsbury's at the same junction then continues onto Uxbridge Road rather than heading back down Hampton Road East and vice versa. The 290's routing to and from Sainsbury's is definitely a double run That is exactly how I understand a double run to be as well. There are plenty of examples across the TfL network but the 285 definitely isn’t one.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 21, 2024 16:59:21 GMT
The 285 doesn't double run via the Sainsbury's - a double run (to me anyway) would be to run along the same road twice in both directions without terminating. The 285 doesn't do this at Sainsbury's - from Hampton Road East, it enters and exits the Sainsbury's at the same junction then continues onto Uxbridge Road rather than heading back down Hampton Road East and vice versa. The 290's routing to and from Sainsbury's is definitely a double run That is exactly how I understand a double run to be as well. There are plenty of examples across the TfL network but the 285 definitely isn’t one. I believe the route with the most double runs is the 224, which it has 4 (Twyford Abbey Road, Park Royal ASDA, Central Middlesex Hospital & Brent Park superstores). The Alperton Sainsbury’s even used to be a double run when the route ran to Wembley Stadium thankfully it was cut back when the 440 was extended to enable residents in Park Royal a much more direct link to Wembley. The 224 is the way it is now because it was extended to St Raphael’s in 2011 due to the withdrawal of the PR2.
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Feb 21, 2024 17:01:20 GMT
I think the 407 cut is far too harsh and I don't think the SL7 should be further increased as it creates a rather inbalanced picture IMO. Leaving the 403 as is and removing the 410 west of Croydon removes some excess capacity and in any case, something like the 433 could be extended to Sutton with the 407 becoming a Croydon to Caterham route or keep the existing 407 from Sutton but split it at Purley with the 443 as a Croydon to Caterham route keeping a more proportioned overlap between the two routes I disagree with the 410 going to South Croydon Garage - Brighton Road still has plenty of capacity despite the 166 moving to Pampisford Road (wrongly IMO, 312 should move over instead) and I'd rather it finish at Croydon instead as the core of the 410 is Croydon to Crystal Palace. If the 433 is extended to Sutton, the 410 can take it's spot Could it be viable to retain the 407’s current frequency & once split have it perform a double run to serve Wallington Station, with the 410 cut back to West Croydon & possibly extended on its northern end? I’m confused about what the point of this speculation is. What’s wrong with the 410 going to Wallington ? It and the 407 both load decently and are established.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Feb 21, 2024 19:51:29 GMT
I think the 407 cut is far too harsh and I don't think the SL7 should be further increased as it creates a rather inbalanced picture IMO. Leaving the 403 as is and removing the 410 west of Croydon removes some excess capacity and in any case, something like the 433 could be extended to Sutton with the 407 becoming a Croydon to Caterham route or keep the existing 407 from Sutton but split it at Purley with the 443 as a Croydon to Caterham route keeping a more proportioned overlap between the two routes I disagree with the 410 going to South Croydon Garage - Brighton Road still has plenty of capacity despite the 166 moving to Pampisford Road (wrongly IMO, 312 should move over instead) and I'd rather it finish at Croydon instead as the core of the 410 is Croydon to Crystal Palace. If the 433 is extended to Sutton, the 410 can take it's spot Removing the 410 between Wallington and Croydon without replacement doesn't make any sense (and doing that would be much more harsh than reducing the 407's frequency in coordination with an increase on the SL7), it's just more cost effective to replace it with something that uses higher capacity buses at a lower frequency, such as the 403. My idea to send the 410 down to TC is not about capacity on Brighton Road, it is to provide a bus service through Old Town, which in my opinion is more suited to smaller single deckers (as opposed to double deckers) due to Southbridge Road being narrow and parked cars often causing problems. If TfL really wanted to save money, the 410 could be extended all the way down to Old Lodge Lane, the Croydon to Caterham route extended to Norwood Junction over the 312 (with the added bonus of double deckers) and the 312 withdrawn entirely. I agree that the 166 going via Pampisford Road is wrong, I would've just increased the 405 to 5bph and extended it back to West Croydon, which would adequately serve Pampisford Road. Maybe the 439 could have also been rerouted between the Collonades and Purley via Waddon Way and Pampisford Road to provide some new links.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 21, 2024 20:14:54 GMT
Regarding the 407 split specifically, I wonder if it would have been a better use of resources to extend the 407 to Shrublands to create a Sutton-Shrublands route (which I believe is still shorter than the current 407), introduce the proposed 443 to now run between Caterham & Thornton Heath via the current route to West Croydon & 198 to Thornton Heath, & withdraw the 198. It is worth mentioning the 198 & 407 both conveniently have 5bph.
|
|