|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 28, 2024 17:46:01 GMT
Extend the 40 to lower Sydenham, via the 176 to Forest Hill then the 356 to bell green Sainsbury’s. It gives lower Sydenham a direct route to central London. Yes Lower Sydenham certainly deserves better links to the north although the 40 might be seen as excessive in addition to the 356. Outside of the extremely indirect 181 Lewisham isn’t even really linked to Lower Sydenham. I wonder if the 75 & 202 could swap routings between Sydenham & Catford.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Mar 28, 2024 18:13:28 GMT
Yes Lower Sydenham certainly deserves better links to the north although the 40 might be seen as excessive in addition to the 356. Outside of the extremely indirect 181 Lewisham isn’t even really linked to Lower Sydenham. I wonder if the 75 & 202 could swap routings between Sydenham & Catford. Bus users in Mayow Road Perry Vale and Woolstone Road would probably be up in arms about using their link to Lewisham but the current situation isn't very satisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 28, 2024 18:27:35 GMT
Outside of the extremely indirect 181 Lewisham isn’t even really linked to Lower Sydenham. I wonder if the 75 & 202 could swap routings between Sydenham & Catford. Bus users in Mayow Road Perry Vale and Woolstone Road would probably be up in arms about using their link to Lewisham but the current situation isn't very satisfactory. Perhaps introducing a new 494 route starting at Elmers End Station & running mostly via the the 194 routing to Lower Sydenham, but taking the 356’s routing between Penge & Lower Sydneham, performing a double to serve the Bell Green/Sainsbury’s, then continuing northwards towards either Lewisham or Honor Oak/New Cross, dependant on what area would benefit from this new route more.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 29, 2024 9:18:46 GMT
Yes Lower Sydenham certainly deserves better links to the north although the 40 might be seen as excessive in addition to the 356. Outside of the extremely indirect 181 Lewisham isn’t even really linked to Lower Sydenham. I wonder if the 75 & 202 could swap routings between Sydenham & Catford. However, there is a reasonable train service between the two, which probably explains why the bus link is the 181 rather than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Mar 29, 2024 10:13:32 GMT
Outside of the extremely indirect 181 Lewisham isn’t even really linked to Lower Sydenham and the station is a bit out of the way. I wonder if the 75 & 202 could swap routings between Sydenham & Catford. However, there is a reasonable train service between the two, which probably explains why the bus link is the 181 rather than anything else. There’s only two trains an hour between Lower Sydenham and Lewisham, the other two bypass Lewisham and the station is a bit out of the way anyway. Maybe the 199 could have been rerouted via Lower Sydenham to provide a direct link to Lewisham and the hospital but of course there's the low bridge to consider?
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 29, 2024 10:52:51 GMT
However, there is a reasonable train service between the two, which probably explains why the bus link is the 181 rather than anything else. There’s only two trains an hour between Lower Sydenham and Lewisham, the other two bypass Lewisham and the station is a bit out of the way anyway. Maybe the 199 could have been rerouted via Lower Sydenham to provide a direct link to Lewisham and the hospital but of course there's the low bridge to consider? The 199 could reroute after Catford Town Centre to Lower Sydenham via the 181/202. Would something need to move out though if the 199 was to stand in the Sainsbury’s?
|
|
|
Post by chibmaster on Mar 29, 2024 11:36:48 GMT
However, there is a reasonable train service between the two, which probably explains why the bus link is the 181 rather than anything else. There’s only two trains an hour between Lower Sydenham and Lewisham, the other two bypass Lewisham and the station is a bit out of the way anyway. Maybe the 199 could have been rerouted via Lower Sydenham to provide a direct link to Lewisham and the hospital but of course there's the low bridge to consider? Yh I think it would be a great idea to reroute the 199 to come to lower Sydenham following the 181 and 202 routing from Catford town centre. Gives a direct route from lower Sydenham to Lewisham and Greenwich.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 1, 2024 20:16:50 GMT
Route 481: I wonder if it would be worth reverting the route back to single deck operation & increase the frequency to 4bph. The 481 school journeys would remain double deck.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Apr 1, 2024 20:28:47 GMT
Route 481: I wonder if it would be worth reverting the route back to single deck operation & increase the frequency to 4bph. The 481 school journeys would remain double deck. I don't see the point in it reverting to single deckers, I'd just increase it to 3bph and extend it from WMH to either Brentford County Court or Osterley Tesco. Another good extension would be from Kingston to Kingston Hospital, but there isn't any stand space available there.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 1, 2024 21:04:42 GMT
Route 481: I wonder if it would be worth reverting the route back to single deck operation & increase the frequency to 4bph. The 481 school journeys would remain double deck. I don't see the point in it reverting to single deckers, I'd just increase it to 3bph and extend it from WMH to either Brentford County Court or Osterley Tesco. Another good extension would be from Kingston to Kingston Hospital, but there isn't any stand space available there. The main reason to convert the 481 back to single deck is to make savings & use the deckers on routes that need it more e.g 33. Many locals to the route also specifically asked for a higher frequency on the route & a Sunday service, rather than the route being decked.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 2, 2024 1:06:15 GMT
I don't see the point in it reverting to single deckers, I'd just increase it to 3bph and extend it from WMH to either Brentford County Court or Osterley Tesco. Another good extension would be from Kingston to Kingston Hospital, but there isn't any stand space available there. The main reason to convert the 481 back to single deck is to make savings & use the deckers on routes that need it more e.g 33. Many locals to the route also specifically asked for a higher frequency on the route & a Sunday service, rather than the route being decked. I doubt any savings made would be that much in all honesty. The current frequency and lack of Sunday service as you mention is probably whats stunts it's potential
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Apr 2, 2024 1:24:57 GMT
I don't see the point in it reverting to single deckers, I'd just increase it to 3bph and extend it from WMH to either Brentford County Court or Osterley Tesco. Another good extension would be from Kingston to Kingston Hospital, but there isn't any stand space available there. The main reason to convert the 481 back to single deck is to make savings & use the deckers on routes that need it more e.g 33. Many locals to the route also specifically asked for a higher frequency on the route & a Sunday service, rather than the route being decked. The main reason the route uses double deckers is so it can cope at school times (similar to other routes such as the 353, 412 and 467), but with some improvements to the route (frequency and operating hours), the double deckers could be quite useful throughout the day. I agree on the higher frequency but would settle for 3bph and not 4bph - there are other improvements needed much more urgently in the same areas such as frequency increases on the 267 (5bph>6bph) and 281 (6bph>8bph). The route already has a Sunday service, albeit at a poor hourly frequency, but is lacking an evening service which would be quite useful. Regarding the 33, I'd just stick a load of older hybrid double deckers on the route on a 3 year contract (at a slightly lower frequency of 6bph), and then hopefully Hammersmith Bridge will be ready to open by then and suitable electric vehicles can be ordered depending on the weight restriction on the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 2, 2024 18:54:21 GMT
The main reason to convert the 481 back to single deck is to make savings & use the deckers on routes that need it more e.g 33. Many locals to the route also specifically asked for a higher frequency on the route & a Sunday service, rather than the route being decked. The main reason the route uses double deckers is so it can cope at school times (similar to other routes such as the 353, 412 and 467), but with some improvements to the route (frequency and operating hours), the double deckers could be quite useful throughout the day. I agree on the higher frequency but would settle for 3bph and not 4bph - there are other improvements needed much more urgently in the same areas such as frequency increases on the 267 (5bph>6bph) and 281 (6bph>8bph). The route already has a Sunday service, albeit at a poor hourly frequency, but is lacking an evening service which would be quite useful. Regarding the 33, I'd just stick a load of older hybrid double deckers on the route on a 3 year contract (at a slightly lower frequency of 6bph), and then hopefully Hammersmith Bridge will be ready to open by then and suitable electric vehicles can be ordered depending on the weight restriction on the bridge. I am wondering to be fair when the 481 starts its next contract with Metroline, will it get a small frequency increase as its PVR is increasing by 1.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Apr 4, 2024 16:02:29 GMT
The main reason the route uses double deckers is so it can cope at school times (similar to other routes such as the 353, 412 and 467), but with some improvements to the route (frequency and operating hours), the double deckers could be quite useful throughout the day. I agree on the higher frequency but would settle for 3bph and not 4bph - there are other improvements needed much more urgently in the same areas such as frequency increases on the 267 (5bph>6bph) and 281 (6bph>8bph). The route already has a Sunday service, albeit at a poor hourly frequency, but is lacking an evening service which would be quite useful. Regarding the 33, I'd just stick a load of older hybrid double deckers on the route on a 3 year contract (at a slightly lower frequency of 6bph), and then hopefully Hammersmith Bridge will be ready to open by then and suitable electric vehicles can be ordered depending on the weight restriction on the bridge. I am wondering to be fair when the 481 starts its next contract with Metroline, will it get a small frequency increase as its PVR is increasing by 1. I doubt it, the extra bus has probably been added to allow the peak frequency to be restored to every 30 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Apr 4, 2024 18:16:26 GMT
I am wondering to be fair when the 481 starts its next contract with Metroline, will it get a small frequency increase as its PVR is increasing by 1. I doubt it, the extra bus has probably been added to allow the peak frequency to be restored to every 30 minutes. And I still maintain that it will be an extra school journey! (preferably both morning and afternoon, but likely just morning)
|
|