|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 19, 2024 17:58:40 GMT
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 Thinking about it now, I would make a couple minor adjustments to my set of proposals, I would keep the 45 but extend it back to Clerkenwell Green, withdraw the 40 & introduce additional peak journeys on the 176 between Dulwich Library & either E&C or Waterloo. This does still achieve the same goal in the end though. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 19, 2024 18:07:59 GMT
I also remember when the 45 was proposed to be extended to Marble Arch, I believe the 148 was proposed to be cut to Victoria or withdrawn, though I would personally reroute the 148 into Waterloo station under this scenario, with stand space becoming available once the 211 is sent to Battersea. As with the 45’s stand, I would reroute the 113 back to Oxford Circus to create additional stand space in Marble Arch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Mar 19, 2024 18:39:17 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. The 176 and 185 would absolutely not be able to cope on their own during peak hours through Dulwich or even at certain times on the weekends. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Mar 19, 2024 18:52:00 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. My proposals aren't just in response to the 45, but also to create some new links across south London. In this case, the 129/436 merger would link the Greenwich area to areas west of Peckham. It may also help improve reliability slightly on the 177, and restore the broken links to/from Lewisham previously covered by the 180. With links from the Deptford area to Woolwich, in addition to the 53 passengers can also take rail services from Deptford or New Cross stations. I think the revised 35 idea would be particularly useful, which replaces the Lewisham end of the 436. So if you instead keep the 177 (and therefore also the 108/129) unchanged, I'm not sure what else you could do with the 436. If the 53 perhaps needs some support as you say, maybe the 436 could operate between Battersea Park and Blackheath? |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Mar 19, 2024 19:01:21 GMT
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. Well the revised 35 would cover that fast Peckham-Brixton link, so I was more asking about the demand specifically between Stockwell and Peckham. If there is demand here, you could still cut the 345 back to Camberwell (if necessary to avoid excess capacity between Camberwell-Peckham), but swap the 35/345 between Clapham Common and Brixton at the same time. Acre Lane would then lose out on the faster link to Peckham but would still have the 37. Or alternatively could cut back the 171 to avoid adding an extra route between Camberwell and Peckham? Particularly as the 12 parallels it between Elephant, Walworth, Camberwell and Peckham. Some kind of merger of the 171/172 could be a way of making some cuts without breaking too many links - effectively extending the 172 from Brockley to Bellingham and with a minor frequency increase. The only broken links then might be from Peckham to the Brockley area - though a short extension of the 78 from Nunhead to Brockley Rise could work here (via Drakefell Road)? |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 19, 2024 19:15:37 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. The 176 and 185 would absolutely not be able to cope on their own during peak hours through Dulwich or even at certain times on the weekends. That’s where you increase the frequency on the 176 & even then it still makes a saving overall. |
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Mar 19, 2024 19:18:54 GMT
Ideas for the Beckton/Barking area in relation to the SL2:SL2 - Withdrawn between North Woolwich and Barking (169 stand). To improve reliability, plus as anywhere south of Barking is unlikely to require the same frequency as the rest of the SL2. 366 - Withdrawn between Beckton and Gallions Reach DLR, and instead extended to North Woolwich Ferry - and ideally onwards to City Airport if stand space can be found. 169 - Extended from Barking to Beckton Station, via Barking Road, High Street South and Woolwich Manor Way. Replaces the 366's link from Beckton to Barking/Ilford, plus new local links from High Street South round to Barking. 262 - Withdrawn between Gallions Reach and Beckton (still double running to Beckton Bus Station), and instead extended to Barking Riverside, via the 173 then EL routes. 104 - Extended from Beckton to Gallions Reach Shopping Park. I’d rather keep the SL2 going to North Woolwich for now. I know it’s been said before, but I think getting a ferry between Barking Riverside and Thamesmead would be handy to fill the loop. Ideally it could also be future proofed to serve the future Castle Green Station in between. I think it might be more beneficial to have a new different route go between Stratford and southern Barking & Dagenham, rather than messing with the 262. And with Beckton Riverside coming soon, perhaps we could see some development there. I wouldn’t be opposed to a major route between Barking and Beckton. Though it might probably would have been better tampering with the 5 or old 87 to do that. I wouldn’t touch the 169 or 366 here. I think also about Beckton Riverside, it could spell good things for possibly revitalising the 104, or preferably, the 101 regaining it’s lost link. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 19, 2024 19:29:12 GMT
The 176 and 185 would absolutely not be able to cope on their own during peak hours through Dulwich or even at certain times on the weekends. That’s where you increase the frequency on the 176 & even then it still makes a saving overall. The 176 whenever I see it is always full. Removing the 40 insanity. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 19, 2024 19:55:23 GMT
That’s where you increase the frequency on the 176 & even then it still makes a saving overall. The 176 whenever I see it is always full. Removing the 40 insanity. Tbh if the 40 could be removed then I think it would have been in the Central London consultation. They could have kept the 12 as it is and extended the 148 go Dulwich via Dog kennel Hill I supposed which would have still removed some Walworth Road capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Mar 19, 2024 20:01:03 GMT
Ideas for the Beckton/Barking area in relation to the SL2:SL2 - Withdrawn between North Woolwich and Barking (169 stand). To improve reliability, plus as anywhere south of Barking is unlikely to require the same frequency as the rest of the SL2. 366 - Withdrawn between Beckton and Gallions Reach DLR, and instead extended to North Woolwich Ferry - and ideally onwards to City Airport if stand space can be found. 169 - Extended from Barking to Beckton Station, via Barking Road, High Street South and Woolwich Manor Way. Replaces the 366's link from Beckton to Barking/Ilford, plus new local links from High Street South round to Barking. 262 - Withdrawn between Gallions Reach and Beckton (still double running to Beckton Bus Station), and instead extended to Barking Riverside, via the 173 then EL routes. 104 - Extended from Beckton to Gallions Reach Shopping Park. I’d rather keep the SL2 going to North Woolwich for now. I know it’s been said before, but I think getting a ferry between Barking Riverside and Thamesmead would be handy to fill the loop. Ideally it could also be future proofed to serve the future Castle Green Station in between. I think it might be more beneficial to have a new different route go between Stratford and southern Barking & Dagenham, rather than messing with the 262. And with Beckton Riverside coming soon, perhaps we could see some development there. I wouldn’t be opposed to a major route between Barking and Beckton. Though it might probably would have been better tampering with the 5 or old 87 to do that. I wouldn’t touch the 169 or 366 here. I think also about Beckton Riverside, it could spell good things for possibly revitalising the 104, or preferably, the 101 regaining it’s lost link. I've often suggested before about having a new passenger ferry service here, particularly since a pier has already been opened at Barking Riverside. However without this, I don't think the SL2 can really be justified anywhere south of Barking at the moment, whether to Barking Riverside, North Woolwich or elsewhere - simply as the demand isn't as high as the much busier sections between Barking and Walthamstow. However I do think a link from North Woolwich via Barking is useful, but just not necessarily a DD or superloop service, therefore the 366 would seem more suitable, also with the option of going further to City Airport if there is demand. The point of the 169 extension is to link to Ilford as well as Barking, so the 5 corridor wouldn't really work. The 169 seems ideal to extend as it already serves both Ilford and Barking, and such as extension would offer a far more direct link than the 366 does now to/from Beckton. Regarding the 262, this is more to link to Beckton than Stratford. I think it would be useful for Barking Riverside to have some more varied links, rather than every route going via Barking Town Centre, and Beckton has a few supermarkets and the DLR which might be useful. An extension via Alfreds Way would be the best way to cover this in the short term, but eventually could divert through the Beckton Riverside development instead. This would also still leave the 101 and/or 104 to serve the development too. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 19, 2024 20:13:34 GMT
The 176 whenever I see it is always full. Removing the 40 insanity. Tbh if the 40 could be removed then I think it would have been in the Central London consultation. They could have kept the 12 as it is and extended the 148 go Dulwich via Dog kennel Hill I supposed which would have still removed some Walworth Road capacity. I don’t think extending the 148 is viable even if it’s cut back to Shepherds Bush on the other end. The 148 is already considered to be one of, if not TfL’s least reliable service & it would then pass through an additional traffic hotspot at Goose Green. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Mar 19, 2024 20:19:21 GMT
I have just seen some posts in this thread regarding making changes to the SL2. Must be a record for a route two weeks old  We must be getting to a point where pretty much every route or at least area of London has come under the spotlight for a change. |
|
|
|
Post by rift on Mar 19, 2024 21:21:37 GMT
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. My proposals aren't just in response to the 45, but also to create some new links across south London. In this case, the 129/436 merger would link the Greenwich area to areas west of Peckham. It may also help improve reliability slightly on the 177, and restore the broken links to/from Lewisham previously covered by the 180. With links from the Deptford area to Woolwich, in addition to the 53 passengers can also take rail services from Deptford or New Cross stations. I think the revised 35 idea would be particularly useful, which replaces the Lewisham end of the 436. So if you instead keep the 177 (and therefore also the 108/129) unchanged, I'm not sure what else you could do with the 436. If the 53 perhaps needs some support as you say, maybe the 436 could operate between Battersea Park and Blackheath? While the cut wasn’t ideal, anyone on Woolwich Road who needs Lewisham is likely to change onto a 129/199 or go into Woolwich and take any one of the four routes linking there and Lewisham. Services are extremely unreliable on the line from New Cross to Woolwich, and cost more as Southeastern is not on the TFL fare structure. I can see demand from areas west of Peckham to Greenwich, but a new route would be a better way to address. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 19, 2024 21:49:23 GMT
My proposals aren't just in response to the 45, but also to create some new links across south London. In this case, the 129/436 merger would link the Greenwich area to areas west of Peckham. It may also help improve reliability slightly on the 177, and restore the broken links to/from Lewisham previously covered by the 180. With links from the Deptford area to Woolwich, in addition to the 53 passengers can also take rail services from Deptford or New Cross stations. I think the revised 35 idea would be particularly useful, which replaces the Lewisham end of the 436. So if you instead keep the 177 (and therefore also the 108/129) unchanged, I'm not sure what else you could do with the 436. If the 53 perhaps needs some support as you say, maybe the 436 could operate between Battersea Park and Blackheath? While the cut wasn’t ideal, anyone on Woolwich Road who needs Lewisham is likely to change onto a 129/199 or go into Woolwich and take any one of the four routes linking there and Lewisham. Services are extremely unreliable on the line from New Cross to Woolwich, and cost more as Southeastern is not on the TFL fare structure. I can see demand from areas west of Peckham to Greenwich, but a new route would be a better way to address. If a new route was to be created from North Greenwich towards Peckham & possibly further on, I would have it use Tunnel Ave to leave North Greenwich & keep the 188 on its current routing. I’ve used both the 53 & 177 between New Cross & Woolwich, both routes often get packed out, but the 53 is usually a lot faster to Woolwich as the 177’s traffic on Trafalgar Road is worse than the 53 on Shooters Hill. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbusbro on Mar 21, 2024 14:44:01 GMT
This kinda what i was thinking my bus route starts at clapham south going up clapham common like the 249. Then it will go up towards brixton like the 37 and 35. It will then go up Loughborough junction and then towards denmark hill. then it will take a similar route to buses like the 40, 176 and 185 and go to goose green. then it will copy route 37 going up through peckham rye and up peckham bus station then it will go up towards new cross and deptford. it will finally finish at north greenwich the route will be called the 84 and the night route will go too woolwich.
|
|
