|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 13, 2024 21:56:26 GMT
Yes all of the routes you’ve mentioned above all only get stand time at one end, those 138/291/R70 were the only ones I could think of immediately. The H2/H3 also only stand in Golders Green, as do the H9/H10/H18/H19 in Harrow. H9/H10 don’t stand in Harrow they stand at Northwick Park Hospital. Correct but they still only stand in one place. I believe the used to stand in Harrow though |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 13, 2024 22:31:57 GMT
H9/H10 don’t stand in Harrow they stand at Northwick Park Hospital. Correct but they still only stand in one place. I believe the used to stand in Harrow though Yes but it doesn’t now. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Mar 13, 2024 23:01:45 GMT
Bexleyheath-Orpington changes New route: 392 Bexleyheath to Orpington Station (3bph DD) New route running via route B14 from Orpington Station to Crittals Corner, Revington Way, then route 492 from Ruxley Corner to Bexleyheath. Runs at 3bph using DDs (providing the B14/R11 route between St Mary Cray and Crittals Corner can take DDs). New stops added on Revington Way outside Foots Cray Tesco as a double run is not possible due to the banned right turn out of the Tesco. Reasoning - Provides a direct, relatively fast connection between Orpington and Bexleyheath (and also has the added benefit of reinstating the direct connection between most of the R11 route and Foots Cray Tesco). Other changes: 233 Eltham to Swanley (3bph SD) Upgraded to longer buses (partially to account for the fact it becomes the only route between Ruxley and Sidcup). 269 Bexleyheath to Bromley North (5bph DD) Withdrawn between Bexleyheath Library and Bexleyheath Town Centre as was consulted on previously. PVR reduced from 13 to 12. 492 Bexleyheath to Bluewater (3bph DD) Withdrawn between Bexleyheath Town Centre and Sidcup station. Frequency increased from 2bph to 3bph, PVR remains at 6 but crosslink with 401 removed. Sunday morning service added. B14 Bexleyheath Bus Garage to Queen Mary's Hospital (3bph SD) Withdrawn between Queen Mary's Hospital and Orpington. Diverted back to Bexleyheath Clock Tower, and then up to BX to terminate and stand. Frequency increased from 2bph to 3bph, PVR remains at 6 (5 daytime + 1 DD school extra). Sunday morning and evening service added. I’m agreeing a lot with twobellstogo this evening! I don’t see the merit in splitting the 492 - I see it a lot in Sidcup even when not on SL3 duty and it’s always busy. It’s one of those routes that does it’s job well With the introduction of the SL3, standing the 269 at Bexleyheath Library is asking for trouble. It can get extremely tight around there with the B13 and B14 also standing there. And speaking of the B14, terminating a service at a bus garage should only be used if it’s being run by the operator of the garage and should not be tendered as such. I suspect you’d have trouble finding space at Queen Mary’s Hospital as well However, I do like your 392 - not least because it would make my wife’s journey to and from work far easier and far safer! New stops on Edgington Way (not Revington) would work and there is space to do so. Bexleyheath to Orpington could do with a direct link in my opinion and the B14 is anything but direct! I also don’t see much of an issue with the routing using deckers. I’ve personally driven a decker on diversion along Chipperfield Road with no issues and I don’t see any issues along Mickleham Road either My 392 could definitely be introduced alongside the existing 492, I split up the 492 mainly because I was worried about overbussing North Cray Road. Sending the B14 up to BX was about stand space in Bexleyheath, if the 492 remains as it is now then the B14 can terminate at the Clock Tower (the 392 and B14 would replace the 269). |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 13, 2024 23:07:14 GMT
I’m agreeing a lot with twobellstogo this evening! I don’t see the merit in splitting the 492 - I see it a lot in Sidcup even when not on SL3 duty and it’s always busy. It’s one of those routes that does it’s job well With the introduction of the SL3, standing the 269 at Bexleyheath Library is asking for trouble. It can get extremely tight around there with the B13 and B14 also standing there. And speaking of the B14, terminating a service at a bus garage should only be used if it’s being run by the operator of the garage and should not be tendered as such. I suspect you’d have trouble finding space at Queen Mary’s Hospital as well However, I do like your 392 - not least because it would make my wife’s journey to and from work far easier and far safer! New stops on Edgington Way (not Revington) would work and there is space to do so. Bexleyheath to Orpington could do with a direct link in my opinion and the B14 is anything but direct! I also don’t see much of an issue with the routing using deckers. I’ve personally driven a decker on diversion along Chipperfield Road with no issues and I don’t see any issues along Mickleham Road either My 392 could definitely be introduced alongside the existing 492, I split up the 492 as I was worried about overbussing North Cray Road. Sending the B14 up to BX was about stand space in Bexleyheath, if the 492 remains as it now then the B14 can terminate at the Clock Tower (the 392 and B14 would replace the 269). The 492 is fine as it is and splitting it is a bad idea. The only thing I would do with the Crays is re-route the 233 to serve Foots Cray Tesco in both directions instead of Maidstone Road, however heading to Swanley it would need to circumnavigate the roundabout after leaving Tesco. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 14, 2024 7:58:51 GMT
My 392 could definitely be introduced alongside the existing 492, I split up the 492 as I was worried about overbussing North Cray Road. Sending the B14 up to BX was about stand space in Bexleyheath, if the 492 remains as it now then the B14 can terminate at the Clock Tower (the 392 and B14 would replace the 269). The 492 is fine as it is and splitting it is a bad idea. The only thing I would do with the Crays is re-route the 233 to serve Foots Cray Tesco in both directions instead of Maidstone Road, however heading to Swanley it would need to circumnavigate the roundabout after leaving Tesco. I’m not sure the 233 would need to serve the Foots Cray Tesco considering there is another Tesco along its route that it serves just outside Sidcup Station. The 321 doesn’t serve the same Tesco in Sidcup along its route. It would make people’s journeys, especially those heading towards Swanley, longer for not too much benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 14, 2024 8:06:34 GMT
The 492 is fine as it is and splitting it is a bad idea. The only thing I would do with the Crays is re-route the 233 to serve Foots Cray Tesco in both directions instead of Maidstone Road, however heading to Swanley it would need to circumnavigate the roundabout after leaving Tesco. I’m not sure the 233 would need to serve the Foots Cray Tesco considering there is another Tesco along its route that it serves just outside Sidcup Station. The 321 doesn’t serve the same Tesco in Sidcup along its route. It would make people’s journeys, especially those heading towards Swanley, longer for not too much benefit. The whole point of the 233 serving Tesco is the replace the R11. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 14, 2024 8:51:17 GMT
I’m not sure the 233 would need to serve the Foots Cray Tesco considering there is another Tesco along its route that it serves just outside Sidcup Station. The 321 doesn’t serve the same Tesco in Sidcup along its route. It would make people’s journeys, especially those heading towards Swanley, longer for not too much benefit. The whole point of the 233 serving Tesco is the replace the R11. The R11 doesn’t serve the Tesco though, what were you planning on doing with the R11? It’s the only direct route from the centre of Foots Cray to Queen Mary’s Hospital. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Mar 14, 2024 8:57:12 GMT
I’m not sure the 233 would need to serve the Foots Cray Tesco considering there is another Tesco along its route that it serves just outside Sidcup Station. The 321 doesn’t serve the same Tesco in Sidcup along its route. It would make people’s journeys, especially those heading towards Swanley, longer for not too much benefit. The whole point of the 233 serving Tesco is the replace the R11. What's the point of the 233 serving Foots Cray Tesco though? The 321 already runs from Sidcup to the Tesco (at a very high frequency!), the missing link to Tesco is from Orpington and the Crays, that used to be provided by the R11 doing a double run but this was removed. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 14, 2024 9:11:08 GMT
The whole point of the 233 serving Tesco is the replace the R11. What's the point of the 233 serving Foots Cray Tesco though? The 321 already runs from Sidcup to the Tesco (at a very high frequency!), the missing link to Tesco is from Orpington and the Crays, that used to be provided by the R11 doing a double run but this was removed. I thought initially the 233 was being rerouted to provide Swanley with a link to the Tesco, but any 233 users wanting a Tesco can use the one in Sidcup as previously mentioned. I agree the 321 is more than adequate in serving the Tesco. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 14, 2024 9:11:16 GMT
The whole point of the 233 serving Tesco is the replace the R11. The R11 doesn’t serve the Tesco though, what were you planning on doing with the R11? It’s the only direct route from the centre of Foots Cray to Queen Mary’s Hospital. Sorry I should have been more specific. The R11 used to serve Foots Cray, Tesco. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 14, 2024 9:13:56 GMT
The 492 is fine as it is and splitting it is a bad idea. The only thing I would do with the Crays is re-route the 233 to serve Foots Cray Tesco in both directions instead of Maidstone Road, however heading to Swanley it would need to circumnavigate the roundabout after leaving Tesco. I’m not sure the 233 would need to serve the Foots Cray Tesco considering there is another Tesco along its route that it serves just outside Sidcup Station. The 321 doesn’t serve the same Tesco in Sidcup along its route. It would make people’s journeys, especially those heading towards Swanley, longer for not too much benefit. Longer journeys… do you even know Sidcup ? Overall the 233 if it was to serve Foots Cray Tesco would be just using a different road entirely instead of the R11 double run. The 392 idea was completely mad. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 14, 2024 9:35:22 GMT
I’m not sure the 233 would need to serve the Foots Cray Tesco considering there is another Tesco along its route that it serves just outside Sidcup Station. The 321 doesn’t serve the same Tesco in Sidcup along its route. It would make people’s journeys, especially those heading towards Swanley, longer for not too much benefit. Longer journeys… do you even know Sidcup ? Overall the 233 if it was to serve Foots Cray Tesco would be just using a different road entirely instead of the R11 double run. The 392 idea was completely mad. Yes it would be longer than the 233’s current route via Maidstone Road, especially those heading towards Swanley due to the right turn out of the Tesco being banned. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 14, 2024 10:10:21 GMT
Longer journeys… do you even know Sidcup ? Overall the 233 if it was to serve Foots Cray Tesco would be just using a different road entirely instead of the R11 double run. The 392 idea was completely mad. Yes it would be longer than the 233’s current route via Maidstone Road, especially those heading towards Swanley due to the right turn out of the Tesco being banned. Not that much longer to be honest probably about 3 minutes longer… Yes I am aware of the right turn ban… go read the original post properly. Whole reason for the suggestion is that the 233 it is one the way whereas the R11 was a double run. Anyways I doubt it would be much benefit as the R11 did which shouldn’t have been removed. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 14, 2024 10:12:52 GMT
I’m not sure the 233 would need to serve the Foots Cray Tesco considering there is another Tesco along its route that it serves just outside Sidcup Station. The 321 doesn’t serve the same Tesco in Sidcup along its route. It would make people’s journeys, especially those heading towards Swanley, longer for not too much benefit. Longer journeys… do you even know Sidcup ? Overall the 233 if it was to serve Foots Cray Tesco would be just using a different road entirely instead of the R11 double run. The 392 idea was completely mad. I think what is really missed is something going to Foots Cray Tesco from the south. Maybe something could be done to extend the R1 - I wonder if it could even be terminated in a back street off the North Cray Road - I don’t particularly know those streets well - I usually just zip by on a 492! |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 14, 2024 10:14:48 GMT
Longer journeys… do you even know Sidcup ? Overall the 233 if it was to serve Foots Cray Tesco would be just using a different road entirely instead of the R11 double run. The 392 idea was completely mad. I think what is really missed is something going to Foots Cray Tesco from the south. Maybe something could be done to extend the R1 - I wonder if it could even be terminated in a back street off the North Cray Road - I don’t particularly know those streets well - I usually just zip by on a 492! The R6 would be perfect instead of scrapping it. |
|
