|
Post by COBO on Feb 25, 2024 4:33:58 GMT
Yeah the 493 might be too difficult to deck but a frequency increase would be very useful. The 170 can be added to the list as well its frequency cut it got was absurd. Perhaps swap the 87/170 termini after Wandsworth? few days ago I was on 95 TE going towards Southall plus 105 and 95 follows each other to Southall no issue same for 195 440 was decker COVID times few year ago saw VW turning right into Madeley Road I believe it's down to operators and TFL to make them deckers Trees and the residents on Madeley Road are the reasons why the 112 can't be double deck in it's current routing.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Feb 25, 2024 7:05:31 GMT
N509
Running between Feltham Leisure West and Aldwych
via: Air Park Way Route 90 to Feltham High Street Route 235 to Brentford High Road N9 to Aldwych
Purpose: To help out the N9 and link Feltham with Central London.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 25, 2024 8:53:09 GMT
Yeah the 493 might be too difficult to deck but a frequency increase would be very useful. The 170 can be added to the list as well its frequency cut it got was absurd. Perhaps swap the 87/170 termini after Wandsworth? The 170 can't be decked because of the low bridge on Lombard Road in Battersea and swapping the 87 & 170 west of Wandsworth would screw up the 87's reliability because of the traffic choked West Hill in conjunction with the 87 serving Central London whereas the 170's routing is better built to cope even with the traffic on Lombard Road & Battersea Bridge You could also reroute the 170 via the 49/319/345 between Clapham Junction & Battersea Bridge so that it can be decked. Then extend either the 39 or 219 to Battersea Bridge Southside via the 170’s LOR. The 19’s stand can take 4 buses.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 25, 2024 9:25:56 GMT
The 170 can't be decked because of the low bridge on Lombard Road in Battersea and swapping the 87 & 170 west of Wandsworth would screw up the 87's reliability because of the traffic choked West Hill in conjunction with the 87 serving Central London whereas the 170's routing is better built to cope even with the traffic on Lombard Road & Battersea Bridge You could also reroute the 170 via the 49/319/345 between Clapham Junction & Battersea Bridge so that it can be decked. Then extend either the 39 or 219 to Battersea Bridge Southside via the 170’s LOR. The 19’s stand can take 4 buses. I don't think TFL would want to send another route via the 49 when not that long ago they wanted to removed one from that stretch. Another option would be for the 170 to revert back to its old route and the 219 which can generally cope with SDsbe extend to Victoria.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 25, 2024 10:23:34 GMT
You could also reroute the 170 via the 49/319/345 between Clapham Junction & Battersea Bridge so that it can be decked. Then extend either the 39 or 219 to Battersea Bridge Southside via the 170’s LOR. The 19’s stand can take 4 buses. I don't think TFL would want to send another route via the 49 when not that long ago they wanted to removed one from that stretch. Another option would be for the 170 to revert back to its old route and the 219 which can generally cope with SDsbe extend to Victoria. Could you perhaps extend the 87 to Wimbledon instead? I believe that corridor has less traffic than the West Hill Corridor. The 219 could extend to Victoria as suggested which then means to have the 170 revised to operate between Roehampton & Vauxhall via current route to Clapham Junction & the 156 with conversion to double deck operation. The 156 could then be withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 25, 2024 10:47:20 GMT
The 170 can't be decked because of the low bridge on Lombard Road in Battersea and swapping the 87 & 170 west of Wandsworth would screw up the 87's reliability because of the traffic choked West Hill in conjunction with the 87 serving Central London whereas the 170's routing is better built to cope even with the traffic on Lombard Road & Battersea Bridge You could also reroute the 170 via the 49/319/345 between Clapham Junction & Battersea Bridge so that it can be decked. Then extend either the 39 or 219 to Battersea Bridge Southside via the 170’s LOR. The 19’s stand can take 4 buses. That isn’t really solving the problem as that route around Battersea is incredibly busy. Rerouting the 170 and sticking another route there just wouldn’t resolve the issue of the heavy loads on that section.
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Feb 25, 2024 11:14:26 GMT
I don't think TFL would want to send another route via the 49 when not that long ago they wanted to removed one from that stretch. Another option would be for the 170 to revert back to its old route and the 219 which can generally cope with SDsbe extend to Victoria. Could you perhaps extend the 87 to Wimbledon instead? I believe that corridor has less traffic than the West Hill Corridor. The 219 could extend to Victoria as suggested which then means to have the 170 revised to operate between Roehampton & Vauxhall via current route to Clapham Junction & the 156 with conversion to double deck operation. The 156 could then be withdrawn. Absolutely not to merging the 87 and 156 or extending the 219 anywhere!!
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 25, 2024 12:23:46 GMT
You could also reroute the 170 via the 49/319/345 between Clapham Junction & Battersea Bridge so that it can be decked. Then extend either the 39 or 219 to Battersea Bridge Southside via the 170’s LOR. The 19’s stand can take 4 buses. That isn’t really solving the problem as that route around Battersea is incredibly busy. Rerouting the 170 and sticking another route there just wouldn’t resolve the issue of the heavy loads on that section. Yes ironically the section with some of the busiest journeys is the section which restricts the use of SDs.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 25, 2024 12:25:32 GMT
That isn’t really solving the problem as that route around Battersea is incredibly busy. Rerouting the 170 and sticking another route there just wouldn’t resolve the issue of the heavy loads on that section. Yes ironically the section with some of the busiest journeys is the section which restricts the use of SDs. The only way to ensure demands are met would be to lower the road. Of course that is easier said then done but I’m not an engineer or town planner.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Feb 25, 2024 12:30:19 GMT
You could also reroute the 170 via the 49/319/345 between Clapham Junction & Battersea Bridge so that it can be decked. Then extend either the 39 or 219 to Battersea Bridge Southside via the 170’s LOR. The 19’s stand can take 4 buses. That isn’t really solving the problem as that route around Battersea is incredibly busy. Rerouting the 170 and sticking another route there just wouldn’t resolve the issue of the heavy loads on that section. The easiest solution would probably be to split the 170, to have a "239" between Victoria and Clapham Junction running at a higher frequency of 8bph, and a "170" between Clapham Junction and Roehampton at its existing frequency of 6bph, maybe with double deckers?
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Feb 25, 2024 12:42:20 GMT
That isn’t really solving the problem as that route around Battersea is incredibly busy. Rerouting the 170 and sticking another route there just wouldn’t resolve the issue of the heavy loads on that section. The easiest solution would probably be to split the 170, to have a "239" between Victoria and Clapham Junction running at a higher frequency of 8bph, and a "170" between Clapham Junction and Roehampton at its existing frequency of 6bph, maybe with double deckers? This would probably be the best solution outside of an frequency increase. Unfortunately the 44/170 stop on York Road has been gone towards Wandsworth for ages now (10 years??) which would’ve helped for people going from the 170’s bits of Battersea to Southside without having to go around CJ.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 25, 2024 12:58:20 GMT
That isn’t really solving the problem as that route around Battersea is incredibly busy. Rerouting the 170 and sticking another route there just wouldn’t resolve the issue of the heavy loads on that section. The easiest solution would probably be to split the 170, to have a "239" between Victoria and Clapham Junction running at a higher frequency of 8bph, and a "170" between Clapham Junction and Roehampton at its existing frequency of 6bph, maybe with double deckers? I agree this would probably work best, particularly if different frequencies are needed at each end. I would suggest though to extend both routes a bit further. One route could operate from CJ to Victoria, then continuing to Waterloo via the 507, and reversing the 3/C10 changes. And also extend the 11 to London Bridge to free up stand space at Waterloo, and provide some new links. Then the Roehampton end could extend from CJ along the south circular, to provide some new links via Clapham South and Streatham Hill, maybe terminating somewhere like Tulse Hill? Or alternatively could reroute the 156 to operate between Vauxhall and Roehampton. Then revise the 131 to follow the N87, operating between Clapham Junction and Kingston, for some new links. And maybe extend something from Tooting to Wimbledon if needed to replace the 131's capacity here?
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Feb 25, 2024 13:06:25 GMT
The easiest solution would probably be to split the 170, to have a "239" between Victoria and Clapham Junction running at a higher frequency of 8bph, and a "170" between Clapham Junction and Roehampton at its existing frequency of 6bph, maybe with double deckers? I agree this would probably work best, particularly if different frequencies are needed at each end. I would suggest though to extend both routes a bit further. One route could operate from CJ to Victoria, then continuing to Waterloo via the 507, and reversing the 3/C10 changes. And also extend the 11 to London Bridge to free up stand space at Waterloo, and provide some new links. Then the Roehampton end could extend from CJ along the south circular, to provide some new links via Clapham South and Streatham Hill, maybe terminating somewhere like Tulse Hill? Or alternatively could reroute the 156 to operate between Vauxhall and Roehampton. Then revise the 131 to follow the N87, operating between Clapham Junction and Kingston, for some new links. And maybe extend something from Tooting to Wimbledon if needed to replace the 131's capacity here? That is doing too much, just splitting the 170 in half is enough. The 3 has been pretty well off at Victoria, and the A205 traffic is very bad, part of the benefit splitting the 170 in half is to help mitigate issues with West Hill traffic and your new Roehampton route just throws that out of the window. The 131 and 156 do not need to be involved either.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 25, 2024 13:22:24 GMT
The easiest solution would probably be to split the 170, to have a "239" between Victoria and Clapham Junction running at a higher frequency of 8bph, and a "170" between Clapham Junction and Roehampton at its existing frequency of 6bph, maybe with double deckers? I agree this would probably work best, particularly if different frequencies are needed at each end. I would suggest though to extend both routes a bit further. One route could operate from CJ to Victoria, then continuing to Waterloo via the 507, and reversing the 3/C10 changes. And also extend the 11 to London Bridge to free up stand space at Waterloo, and provide some new links. Then the Roehampton end could extend from CJ along the south circular, to provide some new links via Clapham South and Streatham Hill, maybe terminating somewhere like Tulse Hill? Or alternatively could reroute the 156 to operate between Vauxhall and Roehampton. Then revise the 131 to follow the N87, operating between Clapham Junction and Kingston, for some new links. And maybe extend something from Tooting to Wimbledon if needed to replace the 131's capacity here? The 11 has just been removed east of Aldwych which many of us agreed with due to the awful traffic conditions that affected it and thus far, I’ve heard no complaints on that front with its diversion to Waterloo so I’m against changing the 11 - it should be left to settle down especially once the 211 is finally diverted to Battersea Whilst I’m not convinced about the 3, C10 & 507 changes, others have said that thus far it’s working - besides, I certainly wouldn’t extend the 170 beyond Victoria as at least the 3 runs into less traffic overall even over a Clapham Junction to Victoria 170 Roehampton to Streatham Hill or Tulse Hill via the South Circular is problematic due to the South Circular having many traffic hotspots which kills reliability on some existing routes like the P4 which only passes through two hotspots, namely Dulwich Common. Roehampton to Tulse Hill would have West Hill on the A3 (unless you run via East Putney), Battersea Rise (though I’m presume your serving Clapham Junction in which case ignore that one), The Avenue and then Streatham High Road (due to LTN) or Christchurch Road if heading to & from Tulse Hill. I don’t think there is a need to include the 156 or 131 in the equation - the network here isn’t broken and the two routes in question, from what I gather from others on here, don’t need alterations at all
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Feb 25, 2024 14:08:01 GMT
Then the Roehampton end could extend from CJ along the south circular, to provide some new links via Clapham South and Streatham Hill, maybe terminating somewhere like Tulse Hill? I really like the idea of a route running along the South Circular, but I definitely wouldn't link it to the 170 as it would be way too unreliable. Something along the lines of Clapham Junction to Catford could work in my opinion.
|
|