|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 2, 2020 20:15:01 GMT
In the Lewisham area I'd rather see more cacapcity added to the 208 as between Lewisham and Bromley can be very heavily used. In past times there was often 2 routes along that corridor from Lewisham to Bromley (along with the 94 now 261 via Grove Park). The 12 mins 208 is possibly not quite enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 2, 2020 20:30:27 GMT
In the Lewisham area I'd rather see more cacapcity added to the 208 as between Lewisham and Bromley can be very heavily used. In past times there was often 2 routes along that corridor from Lewisham to Bromley (along with the 94 now 261 via Grove Park). The 12 mins 208 is possibly not quite enough. I agree with that and the 320 isn't much support between Bromley and Catford. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 2, 2020 20:39:44 GMT
The problem with the 320 and the Catford to Orpington section of the 208 was that it first picks up pretty much after most people on the 208 have already boarded (ie at Stops in Catford before Lewisham Town Hall). Of course if does offer support through Downham but still feel the 320 needs to start at Lewisham to really help out.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 3, 2020 6:32:36 GMT
The problem with the 320 and the Catford to Orpington section of the 208 was that it first picks up pretty much after most people on the 208 have already boarded (ie at Stops in Catford before Lewisham Town Hall). Of course if does offer support through Downham but still feel the 320 needs to start at Lewisham to really help out. It was originally intended to extend the 199 to Bromley instead of extending the 320 to Catford but it didn't happen because of a lack of stand space. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 3, 2020 8:48:59 GMT
From a loadings point of view the 199 plan was better as It increased cacapcity between Lewisham and Bromley Market Square and reduced slightly the number of buses from Catford to TL and also some between Bromley and the crown. The 208 is route of 2 half's with high loadings from the north lighting at the Market Square and re loads again at Bromley South to Petts Wood and Orpington.
Also the 320 really was sufficient every 15 mins and now is every 12 when useage to Biggin Hill is not massive.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 3, 2020 9:46:34 GMT
From a loadings point of view the 199 plan was better as It increased cacapcity between Lewisham and Bromley Market Square and reduced slightly the number of buses from Catford to TL and also some between Bromley and the crown. The 208 is route of 2 half's with high loadings from the north lighting at the Market Square and re loads again at Bromley South to Petts Wood and Orpington. Also the 320 really was sufficient every 15 mins and now is every 12 when useage to Biggin Hill is not massive. The 199 plan was better all round, 10bph between Lewisham and Bromley, no need for the 320s awkward routing in Catford and the unnecessary extra route between there and TL, a link between Bromley Downham and Greenwich, no unnecessary frequency increase on the 320 and a more reliable service for Biggin Hill users although they would lose the link to Catford but I don't think anyone would be too upset about that. The Biggin Hill Airport turn is a particular gripe and it's become more common since the Catford extension. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 3, 2020 9:54:51 GMT
The just the issue of stand space was the problem for the 199 plan. My main issue with the 199.plan was that the 208 was only going to run from Catford to Orpington which removed the link from Bromley Common/South to Lewisham Hospital and would have left the 261 as the only link from Common/South to Lewisham.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 3, 2020 10:10:40 GMT
The just the issue of stand space was the problem for the 199 plan. My main issue with the 199.plan was that the 208 was only going to run from Catford to Orpington which removed the link from Bromley Common/South to Lewisham Hospital and would have left the 261 as the only link from Common/South to Lewisham. My understanding was that the 208 would have still gone to Lewisham but that might be wrong, if it terminated at Catford it wouldn't have been much better than the current situation. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 3, 2020 10:25:03 GMT
I have a screen shot of london bus routes from 2008 but I dont know how to upload it.
|
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Apr 3, 2020 10:49:32 GMT
I have a screen shot of london bus routes from 2008 but I dont know how to upload it. imgur.com |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Apr 3, 2020 15:44:05 GMT
On a totally different note/area, the route which never fails to astonish me is the 251.
Many moons ago, this was a quiet 'country bumpkin' type of route that took a few posh women shoppers from Mill Hill Broadway up to Hammers Lane and Totteridge Lane (I exaggerate/speak stereotypically of course but I make my point). these days, they all have cars and are nowhere to be seen, but the route is absolutely completely rammed at rush hour with working people using it is a cheap means of commuting across North London from West/East - often going from say Burnt Oak/Edgware and interchanging either at Whetstone or Arnos Grove for hopper type journeys to much further afield. So much so I have seen many buses full in rush hourand not letting people on.
Use at 10pm and the route is again deserted.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 3, 2020 19:44:41 GMT
I think there was some initial consideration to extending the 199 to Bromley South or even the Crown but was deemed a bit too long for the route. It was also going to transfer to TB.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 3, 2020 21:30:17 GMT
Throw in the 47 which often arrives at CW from Lewisham full then is fairly empty leaving. The jubilee has definetly taken usage from the 47 plus the LO. The demise of the 47 is a very sad one, it used to be such a vital trunk route to London Bridge and the city but has been killed off north of Canada Water these days. Of course it had a savage frequency reduction and now runs with 3bph on Sundays but I guess the issue is that there is such a mismatch in demand at the two ends of the route its hard to reconcile, wouldn't be surprised if it was altered at some point - I'm not a fan of cutting bus routes but I think that given TfL were hell bent on removing a Shoreditch-London Bridge on, they picked the wrong route in the 48 (although of course they then went and added the 388 to that corridor instead). I'm no expert on the night situation so I'll allow others to comment more informatively on that but as I understand the night Overground has lead to a slump in usage on the 47 at nights, but would be interested to hear more about how the N47/N199 scenario is currently working out. The 47 used to be very busy on Sundays with the markets and I seem to recall the 47A had a Sunday market hours extension to Aldgate in the 80s but that has dwindled and 3bph are probably now adequate on Sundays. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 3, 2020 21:35:13 GMT
I think there was some initial consideration to extending the 199 to Bromley South or even the Crown but was deemed a bit too long for the route. It was also going to transfer to TB. There is unused stand space at Crown Lane but it's probably seen as unnecessary mileage. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 3, 2020 21:37:48 GMT
Yes Crown Lane used to hold the 208 and 261. Tbh it's not that surprising the 47 is quiet on a Sunday as it is really a City route..
The 47A was initially daily between TB and Surrey Docks then Sunday afternoons to Aldgate via Tower Bridge.
|
|
