|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 18, 2024 23:47:26 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. This breaks two important local links and IMO, is probably the worst option unless you were going to re-route the 355 away from Kings Avenue in which case, you'd be breaking links to Balham & Brixton for those passengers |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 19, 2024 7:55:10 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If the 45 was to be withdrawn, the easiest solution would be to simply reroute the 40 after Camberwell to takeover the 45 LOR to Clapham Park.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. 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. The only links that are actually broken are those wanting to travel south of Camberwell towards Blackfriars/The City area. You could also swap the 12 & 63 termini south of Peckham Rye so that the 63 maintains the link from Dulwich to the city area. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Mar 19, 2024 10:59:25 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. This would effectively reintroduce the old 45 at far as Clerkenwell Green, so might be better using that number than 40. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Mar 19, 2024 11:06:13 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. 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. It's a question of where you make the savings though. TfL probably feel that Brixton Hill/Streatham High Road has too many services on it - the total gridlock during the LTN farce won't have changed their mind on that - and removing one can be done without too much damage. Removing the 40 south of Camberwell, over a section that has struggled for capacity in the past, doesn't achieve that. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Mar 19, 2024 11:58:01 GMT
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. It's a question of where you make the savings though. TfL probably feel that Brixton Hill/Streatham High Road has too many services on it - the total gridlock during the LTN farce won't have changed their mind on that - and removing one can be done without too much damage. Removing the 40 south of Camberwell, over a section that has struggled for capacity in the past, doesn't achieve that. I don't see any point in rerouting the 40 to Clapham Park, some heavy loadings to and from Denmark Hill Station at peak times. May as well curtail the 45 at Camberwell Green or reroute it to Peckham and curtail the 345 at Camberwell Green. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 19, 2024 12:46:59 GMT
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. It's a question of where you make the savings though. TfL probably feel that Brixton Hill/Streatham High Road has too many services on it - the total gridlock during the LTN farce won't have changed their mind on that - and removing one can be done without too much damage. Removing the 40 south of Camberwell, over a section that has struggled for capacity in the past, doesn't achieve that. The link between Brixton Hill & Kings College Hospital must be retained, but I don’t think the 118 should be extended tbh it could affect reliability. I think extending the 45 back to Clerkenwell Green, withdrawing the 40 & introducing peak extras on the 176 between Dulwich & E&C or Waterloo is optimal here if savings need to be made, as the links that are broken are minimal. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Mar 19, 2024 15:17:50 GMT
Restructure idea for inner South & South East London, including the 45 currently being discussed, and some other routes in the Greenwich area:
118 - Unchanged.
45 - Extended from Elephant & Castle to Shoreditch via the 35.
35 - Withdrawn between Shoreditch and Camberwell, and instead extended to Lewisham via the 436. Creating new links from Clapham/Brixton to Peckham/New Cross/Lewisham.
345 - Possible cut back to Camberwell, terminating at WL garage, since the revised 35 covers links to Peckham.
129/436 - Parts of both routes merged to operate between Battersea Park and North Greenwich (using either route number), via the 436 to New Cross, 177 to Greenwich and 129 to North Greenwich.
177 - Withdrawn between Peckham and Cutty Sark, and instead extended to Lewisham (restoring the former 180 links).
429 - New route operating between Lewisham Shopping Centre and Great Eastern Quay, via the 108 to North Greenwich, then through the Silvertown Tunnel and as per the 129 proposal. Providing extra capacity between Lewisham and North Greenwich (via Blackheath), since the 108 is restricted to SDs.
108 - Cut back from Lewisham, terminating at Greenwich Ikea or Charlton Station, depending on stand space. Night service renumbered N108 and kept to/from Lewisham.
|
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Mar 19, 2024 16:03:05 GMT
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. It's a question of where you make the savings though. TfL probably feel that Brixton Hill/Streatham High Road has too many services on it - the total gridlock during the LTN farce won't have changed their mind on that - and removing one can be done without too much damage. Removing the 40 south of Camberwell, over a section that has struggled for capacity in the past, doesn't achieve that. The bus congestion on Brixton and Streatham Hills is pretty bad, I was on the former a few nights ago and two 59s and two 159s, all borderline empty blocked an entire stop which led to me and a few other people missing a 250 which shot past. Most of the routes are necessary but I have never seen the 45 or 59 being consistently well used south of Brixton. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 19, 2024 16:33:27 GMT
Restructure idea for inner South & South East London, including the 45 currently being discussed, and some other routes in the Greenwich area: 118 - Unchanged. 45 - Extended from Elephant & Castle to Shoreditch via the 35. 35 - Withdrawn between Shoreditch and Camberwell, and instead extended to Lewisham via the 436. Creating new links from Clapham/Brixton to Peckham/New Cross/Lewisham. 345 - Possible cut back to Camberwell, terminating at WL garage, since the revised 35 covers links to Peckham. 129/436 - Parts of both routes merged to operate between Battersea Park and North Greenwich (using either route number), via the 436 to New Cross, 177 to Greenwich and 129 to North Greenwich. 177 - Withdrawn between Peckham and Cutty Sark, and instead extended to Lewisham (restoring the former 180 links). 429 - New route operating between Lewisham Shopping Centre and Great Eastern Quay, via the 108 to North Greenwich, then through the Silvertown Tunnel and as per the 129 proposal. Providing extra capacity between Lewisham and North Greenwich (via Blackheath), since the 108 is restricted to SDs. 108 - Cut back from Lewisham, terminating at Greenwich Ikea or Charlton Station, depending on stand space. Night service renumbered N108 and kept to/from Lewisham. I overall welcome the faster links across South London with the rerouted 35, considering how slow & unreliable the 37 & P4 are but this does break the link between Stockwell & Peckham. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Mar 19, 2024 17:00:37 GMT
Restructure idea for inner South & South East London, including the 45 currently being discussed, and some other routes in the Greenwich area: 118 - Unchanged. 45 - Extended from Elephant & Castle to Shoreditch via the 35. 35 - Withdrawn between Shoreditch and Camberwell, and instead extended to Lewisham via the 436. Creating new links from Clapham/Brixton to Peckham/New Cross/Lewisham. 345 - Possible cut back to Camberwell, terminating at WL garage, since the revised 35 covers links to Peckham. 129/436 - Parts of both routes merged to operate between Battersea Park and North Greenwich (using either route number), via the 436 to New Cross, 177 to Greenwich and 129 to North Greenwich. 177 - Withdrawn between Peckham and Cutty Sark, and instead extended to Lewisham (restoring the former 180 links). 429 - New route operating between Lewisham Shopping Centre and Great Eastern Quay, via the 108 to North Greenwich, then through the Silvertown Tunnel and as per the 129 proposal. Providing extra capacity between Lewisham and North Greenwich (via Blackheath), since the 108 is restricted to SDs. 108 - Cut back from Lewisham, terminating at Greenwich Ikea or Charlton Station, depending on stand space. Night service renumbered N108 and kept to/from Lewisham. I overall welcome the faster links across South London with the rerouted 35, considering how slow & unreliable the 37 & P4 are but this does break the link between Stockwell & Peckham. You could keep the 345 to/from Peckham if that link is well used |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Mar 19, 2024 17:28:50 GMT
Restructure idea for inner South & South East London, including the 45 currently being discussed, and some other routes in the Greenwich area: 118 - Unchanged. 45 - Extended from Elephant & Castle to Shoreditch via the 35. 35 - Withdrawn between Shoreditch and Camberwell, and instead extended to Lewisham via the 436. Creating new links from Clapham/Brixton to Peckham/New Cross/Lewisham. 345 - Possible cut back to Camberwell, terminating at WL garage, since the revised 35 covers links to Peckham. 129/436 - Parts of both routes merged to operate between Battersea Park and North Greenwich (using either route number), via the 436 to New Cross, 177 to Greenwich and 129 to North Greenwich. 177 - Withdrawn between Peckham and Cutty Sark, and instead extended to Lewisham (restoring the former 180 links). 429 - New route operating between Lewisham Shopping Centre and Great Eastern Quay, via the 108 to North Greenwich, then through the Silvertown Tunnel and as per the 129 proposal. Providing extra capacity between Lewisham and North Greenwich (via Blackheath), since the 108 is restricted to SDs. 108 - Cut back from Lewisham, terminating at Greenwich Ikea or Charlton Station, depending on stand space. Night service renumbered N108 and kept to/from Lewisham. Good ideas, I would suggest the 35 number for Shoreditch to Clapham Park, the 436 number for Lewisham to Clapham Junction and the 129 for North Greenwich to Battersea Park. Also removes the 45 and 177 from Peckham bus station creating a bit of space there. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 19, 2024 17:33:34 GMT
Restructure idea for inner South & South East London, including the 45 currently being discussed, and some other routes in the Greenwich area: 118 - Unchanged. 45 - Extended from Elephant & Castle to Shoreditch via the 35. 35 - Withdrawn between Shoreditch and Camberwell, and instead extended to Lewisham via the 436. Creating new links from Clapham/Brixton to Peckham/New Cross/Lewisham. 345 - Possible cut back to Camberwell, terminating at WL garage, since the revised 35 covers links to Peckham. 129/436 - Parts of both routes merged to operate between Battersea Park and North Greenwich (using either route number), via the 436 to New Cross, 177 to Greenwich and 129 to North Greenwich. 177 - Withdrawn between Peckham and Cutty Sark, and instead extended to Lewisham (restoring the former 180 links). 429 - New route operating between Lewisham Shopping Centre and Great Eastern Quay, via the 108 to North Greenwich, then through the Silvertown Tunnel and as per the 129 proposal. Providing extra capacity between Lewisham and North Greenwich (via Blackheath), since the 108 is restricted to SDs. 108 - Cut back from Lewisham, terminating at Greenwich Ikea or Charlton Station, depending on stand space. Night service renumbered N108 and kept to/from Lewisham. There is no need to do all that to achieve the Lewisham link for Brixton residents - simply split the 345 into two routes (345 South Kensington to Brixton & 445 Clapham Junction to Lewisham). Almost no one east of Brixton goes beyond Clapham Junction and likewise, almost no one at the South Kensington end goes beyond Clapham Junction). 345 in Brixton would stand with the P4 and could even be re-routed via the 35 & 37 from Clapham Junction to Brixton with the 35 reduced back to it's old frequency - both routes drop to every 10 or 12 minutes in order to not overdo the frequencies. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Mar 19, 2024 17:42:40 GMT
I overall welcome the faster links across South London with the rerouted 35, considering how slow & unreliable the 37 & P4 are but this does break the link between Stockwell & Peckham. You could keep the 345 to/from Peckham if that link is well used There is no if- the 345 is well used from Peckham and is quicker to Brixton than the 37. If there is any future review of Brixton routes, I'd be very surprised if the 345 was involved in any changes. |
|
|
|
Post by rift on Mar 19, 2024 17:47:12 GMT
Restructure idea for inner South & South East London, including the 45 currently being discussed, and some other routes in the Greenwich area: 118 - Unchanged. 45 - Extended from Elephant & Castle to Shoreditch via the 35. 35 - Withdrawn between Shoreditch and Camberwell, and instead extended to Lewisham via the 436. Creating new links from Clapham/Brixton to Peckham/New Cross/Lewisham. 345 - Possible cut back to Camberwell, terminating at WL garage, since the revised 35 covers links to Peckham. 129/436 - Parts of both routes merged to operate between Battersea Park and North Greenwich (using either route number), via the 436 to New Cross, 177 to Greenwich and 129 to North Greenwich. 177 - Withdrawn between Peckham and Cutty Sark, and instead extended to Lewisham (restoring the former 180 links). 429 - New route operating between Lewisham Shopping Centre and Great Eastern Quay, via the 108 to North Greenwich, then through the Silvertown Tunnel and as per the 129 proposal. Providing extra capacity between Lewisham and North Greenwich (via Blackheath), since the 108 is restricted to SDs. 108 - Cut back from Lewisham, terminating at Greenwich Ikea or Charlton Station, depending on stand space. Night service renumbered N108 and kept to/from Lewisham. I don’t understand why routes in the Woolwich and Greenwich areas need to be involved to achieve something that relates to two routes that serve Camberwell and Morden. Cutting back the 177 would also put extra pressure on the 53 which was already cut from 7.5bph a fre years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 19, 2024 17:48:33 GMT
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. It's a question of where you make the savings though. TfL probably feel that Brixton Hill/Streatham High Road has too many services on it - the total gridlock during the LTN farce won't have changed their mind on that - and removing one can be done without too much damage. Removing the 40 south of Camberwell, over a section that has struggled for capacity in the past, doesn't achieve that. If TfL does feel that, then I've very little confidence in their monitoring of routes given the corridor hasn't gotten quieter post Covid. The LTN farce was affecting Streatham High Road which the 45 runs nowhere near to and traffic along Brixton Hill & Clapham Park has escaped any LTN knock on effect Re-routing the 40 and a frequency increase on one of the 176 or 185 achieves a saving because the 45 wouldn't exist and would maintain current capacity - only a few years, there were some on here saying the 40 runs far lighter since the re-route away from London Bridge |
|
