|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 17, 2024 15:07:58 GMT
Suggestions on another thread that the 45 may be curtailed at Camberwell Green but if it becomes any shorter it's likely to disappear completely, all a far cry from the Archway to South Kensington era. Extending the 118 to Camberwell Green or Elephant & Castle would seem the obvious solution and maybe the 59 could be rerouted to Clapham Park as was previously proposed? Another option would be rerouting the 171 from Camberwell Green to Clapham Park although the New Cross to Walworth Road link would be lost. To save me looking, can you direct me to the thread that mentions the 45 Camberwell curtailment? Thanks. It was in the Go-Ahead thread and was rumoured by one person - as I’ve said many times before, a bad change personally but I’m already resigned to them going ahead with it despite the 45 having potential at both ends |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 17, 2024 15:12:07 GMT
To save me looking, can you direct me to the thread that mentions the 45 Camberwell curtailment? Thanks. It was in the Go-Ahead thread and was rumoured by one person - as I’ve said many times before, a bad change personally but I’m already resigned to them going ahead with it despite the 45 having potential at both ends There's just as much chance thou the 45 and 118 could both be awarded tomorrow with the 45 retained for 3 years by Abellio and the 118 by Go Ahead for a 7 year term with new buses (probably ordered to co incide with Garth Road potentially opening). What I hold out for even less would be the 118 retained and upped to every 10 mins hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Mar 17, 2024 15:27:03 GMT
There isn’t anywhere for a route to stand at Bromley South Station. Yes there is a Bus Stand it is on Simpsons Road. Was supposed to be for the 126. The Ringers Road stand was only meant to be temporary 11 years later… Waste of money building it and it isn’t in use. I had a quick look at Google Street View and omg, I didn't know that Simpsons Road has its own bus stand mark! but.. it should be better off the other side of the road and it seems a narrow road after turning the corner from the roundabout! Had TfL decided not to go ahead for bus 126 to return back to Simpsons Road anymore? however, it may be difficult for bus driver need to get off the road but nowhere for bus driver to walk up for toilet or break grab etc. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Mar 17, 2024 15:34:21 GMT
Yes there is a Bus Stand it is on Simpsons Road. Was supposed to be for the 126. The Ringers Road stand was only meant to be temporary 11 years later… Waste of money building it and it isn’t in use. I had a quick look at Google Street View and omg, I didn't know that Simpsons Road has its own bus stand mark! but.. it should be better off the other side of the road and it seems a narrow road after turning the corner from the roundabout! Had TfL decided not to go ahead for bus 126 to return back to Simpsons Road anymore? however, it may be difficult for bus driver need to get off the road but nowhere for bus driver to walk up for toilet or break grab etc. I've heard that suggested before about bus driver safety about the Simpsons Road stand, there may well be other reasons as well but it seems the stand is never going to be used. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 18, 2024 10:19:25 GMT
A small change that somebody in Bexleyheath suggested is the 269 and B14 swapping routes between the Hurst Road/Penhill Road roundabout and Bexleyheath. A better service via Crook Log and Danson Road and the B14 should be adequate via Bexley with the SL3 having taken a lot of the 269 custom. That’s not a bad idea, as I think there is a lot of latent demand along Danson Road and Penhill Road catchment areas. The B14 would need to be augmented with more decker school journeys to account for Townley loadings. The one downside is that reliability of the 269 maybe impacted as it would be forced to contend with traffic along Danson Road and Penhill Road. All things considered, I would favour a small increase to the B14 perhaps to every 20 minutes daily during the daytime, introduce a full time service on Sundays, and implement fixed stops along Penhill if possible. Also keep the B14 as it is, retaining the R6. As someone else mentioned, extending the R6 to Foots Cray Tesco would be a good option. It’s ridiculous how difficult it is to get from Orpington and St Mary’s Cray to Tesco around the corner. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 18, 2024 14:54:27 GMT
A small change that somebody in Bexleyheath suggested is the 269 and B14 swapping routes between the Hurst Road/Penhill Road roundabout and Bexleyheath. A better service via Crook Log and Danson Road and the B14 should be adequate via Bexley with the SL3 having taken a lot of the 269 custom. That’s not a bad idea, as I think there is a lot of latent demand along Danson Road and Penhill Road catchment areas. The B14 would need to be augmented with more decker school journeys to account for Townley loadings. The one downside is that reliability of the 269 maybe impacted as it would be forced to contend with traffic along Danson Road and Penhill Road. All things considered, I would favour a small increase to the B14 perhaps to every 20 minutes daily during the daytime, introduce a full time service on Sundays, and implement fixed stops along Penhill if possible. Also keep the B14 as it is, retaining the R6. As someone else mentioned, extending the R6 to Foots Cray Tesco would be a good option. It’s ridiculous how difficult it is to get from Orpington and St Mary’s Cray to Tesco around the corner. Kind regards, Joel Yes I have suggested that the Tesco needed to be served but standing a route in there is difficult with the existing 321 & delivery vehicles. One option could be to keep the R6 as it is, then cut the B14 back to St Mary’s Cray, with a double run introduced to serve Foot’s Cray Tesco. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 18, 2024 19:17:23 GMT
Suggestions on another thread that the 45 may be curtailed at Camberwell Green but if it becomes any shorter it's likely to disappear completely, all a far cry from the Archway to South Kensington era. Extending the 118 to Camberwell Green or Elephant & Castle would seem the obvious solution and maybe the 59 could be rerouted to Clapham Park as was previously proposed? Another option would be rerouting the 171 from Camberwell Green to Clapham Park although the New Cross to Walworth Road link would be lost. If the 45 was to be withdrawn, the easiest solution would be to simply reroute the 40 after Camberwell to takeover the 45 LOR to Clapham Park. If the 176/185 can’t cope on the Camberwell-Dulwich Library section you could increase frequency on either route. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 18, 2024 19:36:31 GMT
Suggestions on another thread that the 45 may be curtailed at Camberwell Green but if it becomes any shorter it's likely to disappear completely, all a far cry from the Archway to South Kensington era. Extending the 118 to Camberwell Green or Elephant & Castle would seem the obvious solution and maybe the 59 could be rerouted to Clapham Park as was previously proposed? Another option would be rerouting the 171 from Camberwell Green to Clapham Park although the New Cross to Walworth Road link would be lost. If the 45 was to be withdrawn, the easiest solution would be to simply reroute the 40 after Camberwell to takeover the 45 LOR to Clapham Park. If the 176/185 can’t cope on the Camberwell-Dulwich Library section you could increase frequency on either route. I think the feeling with TFL (not me) that Brixton Hill could loose a route aswell hence the desire to remove the 45 and as a counter proposal merge with the 118. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 18, 2024 20:00:54 GMT
If the 45 was to be withdrawn, the easiest solution would be to simply reroute the 40 after Camberwell to takeover the 45 LOR to Clapham Park. If the 176/185 can’t cope on the Camberwell-Dulwich Library section you could increase frequency on either route. I think the feeling with TFL (not me) that Brixton Hill could loose a route aswell hence the desire to remove the 45 and as a counter proposal merge with the 118. TfL would still be making savings as they would remove a route on the whole 40 corridor between Dulwich & E&C, though the 176 still links these 2 places through the same routing. The 40 was quite a flexible route to change during the Central London bus consultation & I’m surprised TfL didn’t use it to help replace some routes proposed to be removed, for example rerouting it over the 12 between Camberwell & Dulwich which would have been a much better idea than extending the already unreliable 148. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 18, 2024 20:34:05 GMT
If the 45 was to be withdrawn, the easiest solution would be to simply reroute the 40 after Camberwell to takeover the 45 LOR to Clapham Park. If the 176/185 can’t cope on the Camberwell-Dulwich Library section you could increase frequency on either route. I think the feeling with TFL (not me) that Brixton Hill could loose a route aswell hence the desire to remove the 45 and as a counter proposal merge with the 118. If there is to be a 45/118 consultation, my guess is, like with many of you, that there will be a single service from Elephant and Castle to Morden (which I’d like to be called 118 but could well end up as 45), and an extension of an existing route to Clapham Park that passes through Brixton, and you’d have to say the 59 is the overwhelming favourite to do this task. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 18, 2024 20:41:29 GMT
I think the feeling with TFL (not me) that Brixton Hill could loose a route aswell hence the desire to remove the 45 and as a counter proposal merge with the 118. If there is to be a 45/118 consultation, my guess is, like with many of you, that there will be a single service from Elephant and Castle to Morden (which I’d like to be called 118 but could well end up as 45), and an extension of an existing route to Clapham Park that passes through Brixton, and you’d have to say the 59 is the overwhelming favourite to do this task. A single service could certainly be a possibility but I'm not sure it would be all the way to Elephant. Camberwell would be more likely as I think Morden to Elephant would be a bit lengthy. If it was a reality I would question thou if it could be the 250 that went instead as now its shortened to West Croydon it could probably cope with a more mins to Camberwell. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Mar 18, 2024 21:11:45 GMT
I think the feeling with TFL (not me) that Brixton Hill could loose a route aswell hence the desire to remove the 45 and as a counter proposal merge with the 118. If there is to be a 45/118 consultation, my guess is, like with many of you, that there will be a single service from Elephant and Castle to Morden (which I’d like to be called 118 but could well end up as 45), and an extension of an existing route to Clapham Park that passes through Brixton, and you’d have to say the 59 is the overwhelming favourite to do this task. I think a better option might have been merge the 45 with the 355 instead, as this would still serve Clapham Park without involving any other routes. And would mean the 355 converting to DDs. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 18, 2024 21:35:52 GMT
If there is to be a 45/118 consultation, my guess is, like with many of you, that there will be a single service from Elephant and Castle to Morden (which I’d like to be called 118 but could well end up as 45), and an extension of an existing route to Clapham Park that passes through Brixton, and you’d have to say the 59 is the overwhelming favourite to do this task. I think a better option might have been merge the 45 with the 355 instead, as this would still serve Clapham Park without involving any other routes. And would mean the 355 converting to DDs. I wasn’t particularly thinking of ‘better’, more what I think is likely to appear in the consultation, if there is to be one. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Mar 18, 2024 22:52:24 GMT
If there is to be a 45/118 consultation, my guess is, like with many of you, that there will be a single service from Elephant and Castle to Morden (which I’d like to be called 118 but could well end up as 45), and an extension of an existing route to Clapham Park that passes through Brixton, and you’d have to say the 59 is the overwhelming favourite to do this task. I think a better option might have been merge the 45 with the 355 instead, as this would still serve Clapham Park without involving any other routes. And would mean the 355 converting to DDs. If the 355 was extended to Camberwell Green or Elephant & Castle it would probably still be single deckers? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 18, 2024 23:46:04 GMT
Suggestions on another thread that the 45 may be curtailed at Camberwell Green but if it becomes any shorter it's likely to disappear completely, all a far cry from the Archway to South Kensington era. Extending the 118 to Camberwell Green or Elephant & Castle would seem the obvious solution and maybe the 59 could be rerouted to Clapham Park as was previously proposed? Another option would be rerouting the 171 from Camberwell Green to Clapham Park although the New Cross to Walworth Road link would be lost. If the 45 was to be withdrawn, the easiest solution would be to simply reroute the 40 after Camberwell to takeover the 45 LOR to Clapham Park. If the 176/185 can’t cope on the Camberwell-Dulwich Library section you could increase frequency on either route. Indeed and I even suggested this during the original consultation when it looked like the 45 was going to be removed - at least that way, all current links are retained on the 45 and, as you say, the 176 or 185 could be increased in frequency to compensate. The biggest issue with merging the 45 into the 355 or extending the 118 over the 45 with a diverted 59 taking over the Clapham Park section is there are links in the south that will be lost - a combined 45/355 means that there is no hospital link from Streatham Place surgery to Kings College Hospital or link from Brixton Hill to Streatham Place surgery or Kings College Hospital, whilst extending the 118 over the 45 means there is no link from Streatham Place surgery to Kings College Hospital as the 59 doesn't run towards Kings College Hospital which is the nearest hospital. |
|
