|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 11, 2024 21:37:19 GMT
Restructure idea for south east London: B14/R6 - TFL's proposals to go ahead as planned. 138 - Extended from Bromley North to Eltham Station via the 162. Frequency increased to every 15 minutes. 162 - Withdrawn between Eltham and Chislehurst, and instead extended to Sidcup via the 269. Converted to DDs. 269 - Withdrawn between Bromley and Sidcup, and instead extended to Orpington via the 51. 51 - Withdrawn between Orpington and Sidcup. Also extended from Woolwich to North Greenwich via the 161, providing new links from North Greenwich to the Plumstead Common area. 126 - Extended from Eltham to Woolwich via the 161, and converted to DDs. Possible diversion via Grove Park Road (instead of Dunkery Road). 161 - Revised to operate between Eltham High Street and Orpington Station, replacing part of the 61. Frequency reduced to every 15 minutes. 61 - Revised to operate between Bromley North and Ramsden Estate, with the R9 withdrawn. Possible further change - 162 to swap with the 358 to the west of Park Langley, increasing capacity between Crystal Palace and Bromley. So in summary: 51 North Greenwich - Sidcup 61 Bromley North - Ramsden Estate 126 Woolwich - Bromley South 138 Coney Hall - Eltham 161 Eltham - Orpington 162 Crystal Palace - Sidcup 269 Bexleyheath - Orpington 358 Beckenham Junction - Orpington B14 Bexleyheath - Orpington (via Wooten Green) R6 & R9 Withdrawn How many buses does North Greenwich need to terminate there? The bus station is already at capacity and has been worsened since the 180 was sent there which I found totally unnecessary. I agree with extending the 126 to Woolwich, but not at the expense of the 161. The 180 was diverted to North Greenwich due to it being extended on its eastern end at Erith, I don’t think it would have been viable to have it continue to Lewisham like it used to, despite the fact that the 177 is very busy now. The 129 is also meant to move out of North Greenwich upon the Silvertown Tunnel opening, but I think that makes it a good time to extend the 202 to North Greenwich. Perhaps the 126 should be extended to Woolwich via Well Hall Road & the A205 to the Woolwich ferry with a new stop placed to serve the Woolwich Ferry, then running down Beresford St to terminate in Woolwich. I have noticed the ferry & foot tunnel have been used more since the SL2 was introduced.
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Mar 11, 2024 22:01:51 GMT
Kings Cross Bus Changes:
274: Withdrawn between Caledonian Road and Islington Angel/ Rerouted to Highbury Barn via MacKenzie Road, Liverpool Road then Holloway Road 394: Extended to Kentish Town via 274’s current routing towards York Way Estate, following 393 towards Kentish Town/Regis Road from York Way 476: Rerouted to Kings Cross Central
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Mar 11, 2024 22:27:25 GMT
Restructure idea for south east London: B14/R6 - TFL's proposals to go ahead as planned. 138 - Extended from Bromley North to Eltham Station via the 162. Frequency increased to every 15 minutes. 162 - Withdrawn between Eltham and Chislehurst, and instead extended to Sidcup via the 269. Converted to DDs. 269 - Withdrawn between Bromley and Sidcup, and instead extended to Orpington via the 51. 51 - Withdrawn between Orpington and Sidcup. Also extended from Woolwich to North Greenwich via the 161, providing new links from North Greenwich to the Plumstead Common area. 126 - Extended from Eltham to Woolwich via the 161, and converted to DDs. Possible diversion via Grove Park Road (instead of Dunkery Road). 161 - Revised to operate between Eltham High Street and Orpington Station, replacing part of the 61. Frequency reduced to every 15 minutes. 61 - Revised to operate between Bromley North and Ramsden Estate, with the R9 withdrawn. Possible further change - 162 to swap with the 358 to the west of Park Langley, increasing capacity between Crystal Palace and Bromley. So in summary: 51 North Greenwich - Sidcup 61 Bromley North - Ramsden Estate 126 Woolwich - Bromley South 138 Coney Hall - Eltham 161 Eltham - Orpington 162 Crystal Palace - Sidcup 269 Bexleyheath - Orpington 358 Beckenham Junction - Orpington B14 Bexleyheath - Orpington (via Wooten Green) R6 & R9 Withdrawn How many buses does North Greenwich need to terminate there? The bus station is already at capacity and has been worsened since the 180 was sent there which I found totally unnecessary. I agree with extending the 126 to Woolwich, but not at the expense of the 161. The 51 going to North Greenwich is just to replace the 161 on this section, so makes no difference to capacity at the bus station. Plus I also think it would offer some more varied links to/from North Greenwich and Charlton, particularly as the 161 is quite indirect, so other routes like the 132/486 are much faster to get anyway south of Woolwich. This is though assuming that three routes are needed between North Greenwich and Woolwich (via Charlton) - or were the 161/472 sufficient before the 180 was diverted there? If so, I think the 180 might be more useful reverting to the old route west of Charlton, but terminating at Cutty Sark, providing some assistance again to the 177 here. The 472 would continue to link North Greenwich to Plumstead and Abbey Wood. Is there any need to have both the 126 and 161 between Eltham and Woolwich? The revised 126 would cover the current 161 links as far as Mottingham. Not sure if there is much demand to travel from Woolwich to Chislehurst, but I suspect a direct Woolwich-Bromley link might be more useful.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 11, 2024 23:13:39 GMT
Some changes to bus route SL6 now that I think would be beneficial and give it more of a superloop touch rather than a shadow of the existing route X68 1) Extend to Euston Bus Station (Very easy terminal to extend to, I don’t see how Russel Square is all that useful other than Bloomsbury, but extending to Euston a major terminal for workers. Even more that the 59 stand is vacant (not that I think it needs its own stand) but it could help pick up the slack from often delayed routes 1 and 68 towards South London. 2) ?? New stop at Brixton Station From what I believe, SL6 runs via Brixton on its non-stop section between Waterloo and West Norwood? Id like to propose the SL6 stop at Brixton Station as a major hotspot for people coming into Central London and for supporting the Viccy line, and the previous link left by route 59 (peaks only). 3) Run Mon-Sat service I think this route could run well beyond the peaks, and thing it could be holded with a bit more love. Maybe run at Peaks only during Saturdays, but mostly all day Mon-Fri. All days to run until 10/11PM? 4) Remodified timetable The route currently runs in the Russel Square direction only during AM ans West Croydon in PM. I’d propose it to run in both directions at all times in conjunction with Option 3. The SL6 doesn’t serve Brixton Station, it takes the 68/468 routing between Waterloo & West Norwood. It runs via Kennington & Brixton because it’s the quickest way between Elephant and Tulse Hill
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 11, 2024 23:22:06 GMT
The SL6 doesn’t serve Brixton Station, it takes the 68/468 routing between Waterloo & West Norwood. It runs via Kennington & Brixton because it’s the quickest way between Elephant and Tulse Hill I think what routing the SL6 takes is dependent on how heavy the traffic is; if there is more traffic around Brixton than Camberwell, the SL6 would go via Camberwell & vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 11, 2024 23:29:33 GMT
Some changes to bus route SL6 now that I think would be beneficial and give it more of a superloop touch rather than a shadow of the existing route X68 1) Extend to Euston Bus Station (Very easy terminal to extend to, I don’t see how Russel Square is all that useful other than Bloomsbury, but extending to Euston a major terminal for workers. Even more that the 59 stand is vacant (not that I think it needs its own stand) but it could help pick up the slack from often delayed routes 1 and 68 towards South London. 2) ?? New stop at Brixton Station From what I believe, SL6 runs via Brixton on its non-stop section between Waterloo and West Norwood? Id like to propose the SL6 stop at Brixton Station as a major hotspot for people coming into Central London and for supporting the Viccy line, and the previous link left by route 59 (peaks only). 3) Run Mon-Sat service I think this route could run well beyond the peaks, and thing it could be holded with a bit more love. Maybe run at Peaks only during Saturdays, but mostly all day Mon-Fri. All days to run until 10/11PM? 4) Remodified timetable The route currently runs in the Russel Square direction only during AM ans West Croydon in PM. I’d propose it to run in both directions at all times in conjunction with Option 3. Before the Superloop came about, I’d of flatly said no because of the unique reason it existed in the first place. However, now it’s been bundled into the Superloop family (I really don’t think it should be but that’s a different story), they may as well trial a restructure and see what comes about with it and if it’s fails, return the route back to its current state 1) This is the only bit I disagree with only because I’ve a different structure for its stopping pattern 2) The usual routing is indeed via Brixton & a stop at Brixton should be implemented as part of a restructure but I’d go further and restructure the stopping pattern north of West Norwood - West Norwood to West Croydon would remain all stops as it is now but West Norwood to Waterloo would now stop at Tulse Hill, Brixton, Oval, Kennington & Elephant whilst Waterloo to Russell Square would no longer be all stops and just be Aldwych, Holborn & Russell Square. This leaves the commuters who currently use the route relatively untouched and able to continue their journeys whilst allowing new passengers to use the service from different points. To coincide with serving Brixton, the extended pavement should be removed and the two lane bus lane reimplemented which was a big help 3) Yep, I think that’s reasonable though I’d be tempted to just make it daily. Frequency would probably have to match other Superloop routes 4) I think the timetable would have to modified to run in both directions
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 11, 2024 23:34:32 GMT
It runs via Kennington & Brixton because it’s the quickest way between Elephant and Tulse Hill I think what routing the SL6 takes is dependent on how heavy the traffic is; if there is more traffic around Brixton than Camberwell, the SL6 would go via Camberwell & vice-versa. I live in the area and believe me, 95% of the time, it’s quickest to run through Brixton than Camberwell because the corridor from Elephant to Brixton is practically 100% bus lane the whole way unlike Walworth which has a section of single carriageway. Brixton to Tulse Hill meanwhile is much lighter traffic wise compared to Herne Hill which becomes a bottleneck at times. It’s only very rarely SL6’s go via Camberwell - even when there was a diversion in Brixton recently, SL6’s still run through Brixton but up Brixton Hill instead
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Mar 12, 2024 6:33:10 GMT
How many buses does North Greenwich need to terminate there? The bus station is already at capacity and has been worsened since the 180 was sent there which I found totally unnecessary. I agree with extending the 126 to Woolwich, but not at the expense of the 161. This is though assuming that three routes are needed between North Greenwich and Woolwich (via Charlton) - or were the 161/472 sufficient before the 180 was diverted there? If so, I think the 180 might be more useful reverting to the old route west of Charlton, but terminating at Cutty Sark, providing some assistance again to the 177 here. The 472 would continue to link North Greenwich to Plumstead and Abbey Wood. TfL's cycle lane scheme for Woolwich will reduce stand capacity (and add yet more floating bus stops). The area around the Cutty Sark is to be pedestrianised and the limited stand space will be lost.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 12, 2024 7:21:01 GMT
This is though assuming that three routes are needed between North Greenwich and Woolwich (via Charlton) - or were the 161/472 sufficient before the 180 was diverted there? If so, I think the 180 might be more useful reverting to the old route west of Charlton, but terminating at Cutty Sark, providing some assistance again to the 177 here. The 472 would continue to link North Greenwich to Plumstead and Abbey Wood. TfL's cycle lane scheme for Woolwich will reduce stand capacity (and add yet more floating bus stops). The area around the Cutty Sark is to be pedestrianised and the limited stand space will be lost. Oh great, more floating bus stops. Awful things, and often quite dangerous. I’ve been nearly splattered by cyclists on the various floaters on the Portsmouth Road in Surbiton/Kingston. If stand space is to go in Woolwich, will a route need to be extended from/cut back from Woolwich? Perhaps extending the 54 to Plumstead Garage would help?
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 12, 2024 9:17:26 GMT
TfL's cycle lane scheme for Woolwich will reduce stand capacity (and add yet more floating bus stops). The area around the Cutty Sark is to be pedestrianised and the limited stand space will be lost. Oh great, more floating bus stops. Awful things, and often quite dangerous. I’ve been nearly splattered by cyclists on the various floaters on the Portsmouth Road in Surbiton/Kingston. If stand space is to go in Woolwich, will a route need to be extended from/cut back from Woolwich? Perhaps extending the 54 to Plumstead Garage would help? The 54 is already quite long & also isn’t allocated to Plumstead garage. I do however think there could be merit in extending the 178 towards Thamesmead/Abbey Wood to create some new links. Either the 99 or 301 could move to the 178’s current stand.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Mar 12, 2024 12:33:49 GMT
Oh great, more floating bus stops. Awful things, and often quite dangerous. I’ve been nearly splattered by cyclists on the various floaters on the Portsmouth Road in Surbiton/Kingston. If stand space is to go in Woolwich, will a route need to be extended from/cut back from Woolwich? Perhaps extending the 54 to Plumstead Garage would help? The 54 is already quite long & also isn’t allocated to Plumstead garage. I do however think there could be merit in extending the 178 towards Thamesmead/Abbey Wood to create some new links. Either the 99 or 301 could move to the 178’s current stand. Could the 178 perhaps extend over the 244 to Abbey Wood? Then divert the 469 via Shooters Hill to replace the rest of the 244?
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 12, 2024 12:45:28 GMT
The 54 is already quite long & also isn’t allocated to Plumstead garage. I do however think there could be merit in extending the 178 towards Thamesmead/Abbey Wood to create some new links. Either the 99 or 301 could move to the 178’s current stand. Could the 178 perhaps extend over the 244 to Abbey Wood? Then divert the 469 via Shooters Hill to replace the rest of the 244? I think Broadwaters would benefit from the 178’s double decks. Not sure further lengthening the 469 would be to its benefit however. Maybe keep the QEH end of the 244 and extend it to the new developments in Woolwich Arsenal, if stand space can be found.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 12, 2024 13:20:02 GMT
The 54 is already quite long & also isn’t allocated to Plumstead garage. I do however think there could be merit in extending the 178 towards Thamesmead/Abbey Wood to create some new links. Either the 99 or 301 could move to the 178’s current stand. Could the 178 perhaps extend over the 244 to Abbey Wood? Then divert the 469 via Shooters Hill to replace the rest of the 244? Yeah I would agree with the 178 extension to Abbey Wood via the 244, not sure the 469 needs to be increased in length as previously stated. The 469 also has a lower frequency than the 244.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Mar 12, 2024 16:06:42 GMT
Could the 178 perhaps extend over the 244 to Abbey Wood? Then divert the 469 via Shooters Hill to replace the rest of the 244? Yeah I would agree with the 178 extension to Abbey Wood via the 244, not sure the 469 needs to be increased in length as previously stated. The 469 also has a lower frequency than the 244. The 178 stand isn't suitable for the 301 as it loops the ferry roundabout and returns to pick up at Elizabeth line stop. If the 99 used the 178 stand it would miss 2 stops including a well used one in Hare Street. The simple solution for the 244 is to put deckers on the route as originally intended (and trim a few trees). The TfL scheme believes the 99 and 386 can stand in Hare Street. The 54 will have a floating bus stand in the current section of road. The two stops opposite the Elizabeth line station used by multiple routes will have to float. Will Norman madness.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 12, 2024 16:35:46 GMT
Oh great, more floating bus stops. Awful things, and often quite dangerous. I’ve been nearly splattered by cyclists on the various floaters on the Portsmouth Road in Surbiton/Kingston. If stand space is to go in Woolwich, will a route need to be extended from/cut back from Woolwich? Perhaps extending the 54 to Plumstead Garage would help? The 54 is already quite long & also isn’t allocated to Plumstead garage. I do however think there could be merit in extending the 178 towards Thamesmead/Abbey Wood to create some new links. Either the 99 or 301 could move to the 178’s current stand. Woolwich to Plumstead Station is timed as 5 minutes give or take on the 122's timetable, roughly 2-3 stops from memory & the 122's max running time is 90 minutes compared to 80 for the 54 so I don't see it causing any issues to the 54 should it be necessary to implement.
|
|