|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 21, 2024 20:17:46 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. The 198 links Shirley thou with Mayday which would be a link that shouldn't be broken. If I was to join the 407 with anything it would be Addington Village to better match demand.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 21, 2024 20:37:25 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. The 198 links Shirley thou with Mayday which would be a link that shouldn't be broken. If I was to join the 407 with anything it would be Addington Village to better match demand. There is same stop interchange between the restructured 407 & the extended 443 or any of the 60,64,109,250 & 289 in West Croydon Bus station.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 21, 2024 22:58:34 GMT
The 198 links Shirley thou with Mayday which would be a link that shouldn't be broken. If I was to join the 407 with anything it would be Addington Village to better match demand. There is same stop interchange between the restructured 407 & the extended 443 or any of the 60,64,109,250 & 289 in West Croydon Bus station. That doesn’t justify removing the link from Mayday to Shirley however. Besides, the 198 has worked perfectly well in its current form for a long time - the 433 is probably the best suited route if you want to create an east to west link
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 22, 2024 9:03:19 GMT
Seeing as there is demand for the Shirley-Mayday link, I’ve decided to revise my proposals a bit:
407: Still revised to operate between Sutton & Shrublands. 198: Still withdrawn 443: Still introduced but no longer with the extension between West Croydon & Thornton Heath. 119: Withdrawn between East Croydon & Colonnades Way. Diverted to Thornton Heath via the 198. This keeps the Shirley-Mayday link as been requested. 466: Rerouted between South Croydon & Purley via Warham Road/Denning Ave & Purley Way. To help maintain links lost from the 119. 312: Extended to Purley Lodge as proposed & converted to full double deck operation. This maintains capacity to demand on the Brighton Road corridor.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 22, 2024 9:29:36 GMT
Seeing as there is demand for the Shirley-Mayday link, I’ve decided to revise my proposals a bit: 407: Still revised to operate between Sutton & Shrublands. 198: Still withdrawn 443: Still introduced but no longer with the extension between West Croydon & Thornton Heath. 119: Withdrawn between East Croydon & Colonnades Way. Diverted to Thornton Heath via the 198. This keeps the Shirley-Mayday link as been requested. 466: Rerouted between South Croydon & Purley via Warham Road/Denning Ave & Purley Way. To help maintain links lost from the 119. 312: Extended to Purley Lodge as proposed & converted to full double deck operation. This maintains capacity to demand on the Brighton Road corridor. A low bridge rules out double deckers on the 312 to Old Lodge Lane. I think it would be better to extend the 403 to Sutton replacing the 407.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 22, 2024 10:02:35 GMT
Seeing as there is demand for the Shirley-Mayday link, I’ve decided to revise my proposals a bit: 407: Still revised to operate between Sutton & Shrublands. 198: Still withdrawn 443: Still introduced but no longer with the extension between West Croydon & Thornton Heath. 119: Withdrawn between East Croydon & Colonnades Way. Diverted to Thornton Heath via the 198. This keeps the Shirley-Mayday link as been requested. 466: Rerouted between South Croydon & Purley via Warham Road/Denning Ave & Purley Way. To help maintain links lost from the 119. 312: Extended to Purley Lodge as proposed & converted to full double deck operation. This maintains capacity to demand on the Brighton Road corridor. A low bridge rules out double deckers on the 312 to Old Lodge Lane. I think it would be better to extend the 403 to Sutton replacing the 407. Yeah I looked at the low bridge in question to me at first it didn’t quite seem low enough to prevent DD’s from going underneath it but after doing some research yeah it is too low for DD’s to pass. You could still have DD workings between Purley & Norwood Junction & 2 or 3bph SD workings running the full length to Purley Lodge. Regardless I wonder if the 312 will still see short DD workings between either South Croydon/Purley & Norwood Junction after being extended.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 22, 2024 10:20:17 GMT
A low bridge rules out double deckers on the 312 to Old Lodge Lane. I think it would be better to extend the 403 to Sutton replacing the 407. Yeah I looked at the low bridge in question to me at first it didn’t quite seem low enough to prevent DD’s from going underneath it but after doing some research yeah it is too low for DD’s to pass. You could still have DD workings between Purley & Norwood Junction & 2 or 3bph SD workings running the full length to Purley Lodge. Regardless I wonder if the 312 will still see short DD workings between either South Croydon/Purley & Norwood Junction after being extended. Edit: You could also extend the 312 only as far as Purley & convert to double deck operation then extend the 359 to Purley Old Lodge instead.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 22, 2024 10:56:06 GMT
Yeah I looked at the low bridge in question to me at first it didn’t quite seem low enough to prevent DD’s from going underneath it but after doing some research yeah it is too low for DD’s to pass. You could still have DD workings between Purley & Norwood Junction & 2 or 3bph SD workings running the full length to Purley Lodge. Regardless I wonder if the 312 will still see short DD workings between either South Croydon/Purley & Norwood Junction after being extended. Edit: You could also extend the 312 only as far as Purley & convert to double deck operation then extend the 359 to Purley Old Lodge instead. The 359 is only every 45 minutes now and doesn't go into Croydon so I don't think that would be well received, I think it would have been better just to keep the current 455 between Old Lodge Lane and West Croydon. I wouldn't be surprised if double deckers do still make appearances on the 312 if TC get short of single deckers.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 22, 2024 12:50:59 GMT
Yeah I looked at the low bridge in question to me at first it didn’t quite seem low enough to prevent DD’s from going underneath it but after doing some research yeah it is too low for DD’s to pass. You could still have DD workings between Purley & Norwood Junction & 2 or 3bph SD workings running the full length to Purley Lodge. Regardless I wonder if the 312 will still see short DD workings between either South Croydon/Purley & Norwood Junction after being extended. Edit: You could also extend the 312 only as far as Purley & convert to double deck operation then extend the 359 to Purley Old Lodge instead. Personally I think your making far too many changes just to achieve one thing - if you want something that crosses Croydon and replaces the 407 between Croydon & Sutton, the 433 is the best option personally - similar frequency, single deckers shouldn’t be overwhelmed due to the SL7’s presence and doesn’t involve changing other routes that work fine The 359 is way too infrequent for Old Lodge Lane and doesn’t serve Croydon either and the earlier idea about diverting the 466 via the 119 & Purley Way will suddenly leave that part of Purley Way with potentially too much capacity now the 289 is double deck (rightly so) and the 439 is set to be introduced so we need to see how the 439 does before even beginning to get crayons out and draw lines on maps
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 22, 2024 13:21:01 GMT
Edit: You could also extend the 312 only as far as Purley & convert to double deck operation then extend the 359 to Purley Old Lodge instead. Personally I think your making far too many changes just to achieve one thing - if you want something that crosses Croydon and replaces the 407 between Croydon & Sutton, the 433 is the best option personally - similar frequency, single deckers shouldn’t be overwhelmed due to the SL7’s presence and doesn’t involve changing other routes that work fine The 359 is way too infrequent for Old Lodge Lane and doesn’t serve Croydon either and the earlier idea about diverting the 466 via the 119 & Purley Way will suddenly leave that part of Purley Way with potentially too much capacity now the 289 is double deck (rightly so) and the 439 is set to be introduced so we need to see how the 439 does before even beginning to get crayons out and draw lines on maps I did also come up with an alternative idea of sending the 407 to Addington Village but via the 466 instead, then withdrawing the 466 between East Croydon & Addington & diverting to Norwood Junction, replacing the 312 in it’s entirety. I wonder if the 433 could be extended to Purley Lodge via Pamphisford Road, it does become a bit of a bizzare route but it would enable the 166 to keep its current routing on Brighton Road.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 22, 2024 14:15:43 GMT
Personally I think your making far too many changes just to achieve one thing - if you want something that crosses Croydon and replaces the 407 between Croydon & Sutton, the 433 is the best option personally - similar frequency, single deckers shouldn’t be overwhelmed due to the SL7’s presence and doesn’t involve changing other routes that work fine The 359 is way too infrequent for Old Lodge Lane and doesn’t serve Croydon either and the earlier idea about diverting the 466 via the 119 & Purley Way will suddenly leave that part of Purley Way with potentially too much capacity now the 289 is double deck (rightly so) and the 439 is set to be introduced so we need to see how the 439 does before even beginning to get crayons out and draw lines on maps I did also come up with an alternative idea of sending the 407 to Addington Village but via the 466 instead, then withdrawing the 466 between East Croydon & Addington & diverting to Norwood Junction, replacing the 312 in it’s entirety. I wonder if the 433 could be extended to Purley Lodge via Pamphisford Road, it does become a bit of a bizzare route but it would enable the 166 to keep its current routing on Brighton Road. But again, I don't think you need to make so many changes - if you simply extend the 433 to Sutton, you free up a stand space and have no need to introduce the 443. I don't see a need in withdrawing the 466 east of Croydon even if I don't exactly agree with it being every 8 minutes Again, the 312 doesn't need replacing and the 166 could be kept on Brighton Road, as it should IMO, by making a tweak to the current proposals and simply having the 312 run via Pampisford Road instead. Yes, the higher frequency is a little mismatched but it at least means, you get a much more like for like replacement for the 455, breaking few links. The section between South Croydon & South Croydon Bus Garage isn't that well used on the 312, especially when Brighton Road has a number of frequent options that continue to Purley and the 166 certainly does load better on Brighton Road
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 22, 2024 14:31:51 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. I personally think dropping the 407 to 3bph is far harsher because all what will happen is demand to syphon away as people will decide to not bother waiting 20 minutes when they can either walk to a SL7 stop or seek alternative methods. The 410 shadows the 407 from Croydon to Wallington Green and the only people who lose a link to Wallington is anyone on the section between Plough Lane & Epsom Road - that said, I do wonder how many go to Wallington from this particular section as they do have links to Sutton and Croydon (even if it's a dump, still has many more options) and the 410, in my personal experience, has never loaded much on this section. Extending the 433 & cutting the 410 back to Croydon allows a more balanced corridor IMO - had the SL7 not been bumped up to it's current frequency, I'd of extended something to cover the 410 as I've long thought it should be cut back to Croydon regardless but with the SL7 now a very frequent and useful option, I do think the corridor needs a little tweaking. I'm not totally against your 403 idea in all fairness but if it comes with the 407 reducing it's frequency, then I can't back it. Regarding Old Town, there is the original option of diverting the 433 into Old Town (I know I keep mentioning the 433 but it has a lot of potential to cover several different options, though not all at once). One thing for sure is I'd be against any extension of the 410 to Old Lodge Lane and withdrawal of the 312 were that ever to be proposed as I don't think there would be much benefit and the 410 really should concentrate on being a Croydon to Crystal Palace route. Regarding the 166, I can't fathom why they didn't just leave it on Brighton Road and allow the 312 to follow the old 455 routing fully from Croydon to Old Lodge Lane. Yes the frequency is higher than the 455 but you might actually attract some of those car users along Pampisford Road to the bus if something more frequent ran along there than the 166 & 405 and more importantly, all current 455 links would remain as they were but just under the 312
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Feb 23, 2024 16:02:47 GMT
This forum is very balanced towards South London isn't anyone from West London a member!!!
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 23, 2024 16:29:02 GMT
This forum is very balanced towards South London isn't anyone from West London a member!!! It’s more because the long awaited Sutton/Croydon changes are going ahead next week. We do talk about west London routes too.
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Feb 23, 2024 16:41:31 GMT
This forum is very balanced towards South London isn't anyone from West London a member!!! Perhaps more people on this forum live in or are familar with South London vs other areas, plenty of variety on this forum of course but it must be the most discussed as a whole for a reason.
|
|