|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 15, 2020 18:39:40 GMT
Some "cigarette packet" calculations about possible PVR changes. 455 -11 S3 -2 80 -1 407 -5 443 +8 439 +3 434 +1 413 +2 S2 +5 312 +4 166 +1 405D(645)/470/S1 presumably no change. Net there seems to be about 4 extra PVR involved in this exercise. Quite an affordable package based on that. Been out for day so just catching up. So the 407 is being split in 2, with a reduction of 5bph to 4bph on the southern section. Can you share the thought process a to why you think the combined pvr will be +3 ... as struggling to understand. I may have missed something, as one quickly read it once |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 15, 2020 20:20:33 GMT
Worse parts seem to be:
Loss of direct bus service from Croydon town centre to Ampere Way and retail parks. Puts more pressure on the tram.
Southern end of 407 reduction in frequency and diversion away from central Croydon via Old Town.
Plenty of positives though, particularly untangling the confusing web of bus services around the back streets of Sutton.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 15, 2020 20:23:36 GMT
It doesn't mention a time frame so it will be interesting to see how quick this happens. I cant really see much opposition unless the local MPs get involved due to the roads not served by the S1 and S3 and some of the broken links to Sutton.
Basically the 407 could be split tomorrow but most are dependant on the new stand at Sutton hospital for the 80 (the 164 will probably come later) and if no stand then the S2, S4, 455, 166 and 312 are slightly tied together. The 80 could still start as an SD route as its DD conversion is not directly linked to other changes elsewhere such a freq reduction on the 93.
The 413 and S3 are both with RATP so could happen anytime but may need the Kingston tenders to release some buses for the 413.
The S2 and 439 will need tendering (ex K1 E200s would be useful) but once awarded the 439 and 434 can happen.
Or the consultation closes in 6 weeks then everything happens with the Sutton tenders in December 2022.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 15, 2020 20:33:15 GMT
Some "cigarette packet" calculations about possible PVR changes. 455 -11 S3 -2 80 -1 407 -5 443 +8 439 +3 434 +1 413 +2 S2 +5 312 +4 166 +1 405D(645)/470/S1 presumably no change. Net there seems to be about 4 extra PVR involved in this exercise. Quite an affordable package based on that. Been out for day so just catching up. So the 407 is being split in 2, with a reduction of 5bph to 4bph on the southern section. Can you share the thought process a to why you think the combined pvr will be +3 ... as struggling to understand. I may have missed something, as one quickly read it once 164 is missing but that will be introduced later. What about the S4 or is the effect on PVR neutral? |
|
|
|
Post by 725DYE on Oct 15, 2020 20:43:01 GMT
The removing back street sections makes sense to me in most cases as it makes buses easier to acsess for more people and provides a faster journey which makes it more attractive to car users, and cuts traffic And removing back street sections will reduce access to others and push others away from the bus network and into other modes of transport. I agree, certainly with the S1 changes around St Helier, which seem to have been brought about solely for the purpose of facilitating longer buses on the route. Now whilst I do agree, the S1 could do with longer buses, the existing routing seemed to be no problem for OML20240 (10.6m) which used to make regular appearances. In fact, I seem to remember OML20240 switching from mainly serving the 465 to the S1 in the latter months up until its withdrawal. With this rerouting in St Helier, I'd honestly now go to the extent of saying that the S1 has been transfromed into a mostly main road route in comparison to before where it was a bit of a mix of both.
Totally unrelated to your post, I still find it funny that many of these changes are basically circulating around making Belmont a major bus interchange when in essence it's a small zone 5 village with a couple thousand residents. Heck, it's station is on a single track line which just 3 years ao had one train an hour. It was even the 10th least used station in London!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2020 20:44:39 GMT
It doesn't mention a time frame so it will be interesting to see how quick this happens. I cant really see much opposition unless the local MPs get involved due to the roads not served by the S1 and S3 and some of the broken links to Sutton. Basically the 407 could be split tomorrow but most are dependant on the new stand at Sutton hospital for the 80 (the 164 will probably come later) and if no stand then the S2, S4, 455, 166 and 312 are slightly tied together. The 80 could still start as an SD route as its DD conversion is not directly linked to other changes elsewhere such a freq reduction on the 93. The 413 and S3 are both with RATP so could happen anytime but may need the Kingston tenders to release some buses for the 413. The S2 and 439 will need tendering (ex K1 E200s would be useful) but once awarded the 439 and 434 can happen. Or the consultation closes in 6 weeks then everything happens with the Sutton tenders in December 2022. The 413 is currently out for tender, presumably prospective operators are being asked to bid on both option i.e. retaining it as it is or an extension to Belmont. However you are right in that RATP has the edge with existing vehicles if they can negotiate the roads the S3 currently uses. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 15, 2020 20:46:13 GMT
The old 12A routing was via Selsdon. The 407 is a strange route anyway, far too indirect to be of much use for cross Croydon journeys, and splitting it allows the Caterham section to be rerouted via Old Town. I'm not sure about the 443 route number though, potential for confusion with the 433 although they won't actually come into contact they are in close proximity to each other. 402 or 437 may have been more ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 15, 2020 20:54:32 GMT
437 for the split 407 and 489 to match the 289 instead of 439.
|
|
|
|
Post by ctrh136 on Oct 15, 2020 20:56:20 GMT
It doesn't mention a time frame so it will be interesting to see how quick this happens. I cant really see much opposition unless the local MPs get involved due to the roads not served by the S1 and S3 and some of the broken links to Sutton. Basically the 407 could be split tomorrow but most are dependant on the new stand at Sutton hospital for the 80 (the 164 will probably come later) and if no stand then the S2, S4, 455, 166 and 312 are slightly tied together. The 80 could still start as an SD route as its DD conversion is not directly linked to other changes elsewhere such a freq reduction on the 93. The 413 and S3 are both with RATP so could happen anytime but may need the Kingston tenders to release some buses for the 413. The S2 and 439 will need tendering (ex K1 E200s would be useful) but once awarded the 439 and 434 can happen. Or the consultation closes in 6 weeks then everything happens with the Sutton tenders in December 2022. The 413 is currently out for tender, presumably prospective operators are being asked to bid on both option i.e. retaining it as it is or an extension to Belmont. However you are right in that RATP has the edge with existing vehicles if they can negotiate the roads the S3 currently uses. I think the only roads on that section of the S3 that require smaller buses are the roads that will no longer be served e.g. Lind Road. |
|
|
|
Post by ctrh136 on Oct 15, 2020 21:00:28 GMT
I wonder if all of these went ahead, who will get awarded the new contracts? For example, the 455 has a few more years to go on its contract, and the 413 has EXCELLENT buses, I do not want them to be withdrawn, hopefully they can get one of the new routes using those MCL's (could see the 439 getting those, at least I want them to, not hope  ). As someone suggested, I could see the 443 getting some of the 407's existing buses. Doesn't seem like a bad idea after all, but all I want is for the 2019 Croydon changes to be reverted, that was one of the worst ideas I've seen  . 455 contract was due to be awarded in about 6 months time. Also, from what I understand, 439 has only been tested for 9m length buses sadly. Not to say a 10.5m bus couldn't be tried. I'd imagine the turn onto Hayes Lane off the A22 at Kenley will be an issue for anything longer than 9m. |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Oct 15, 2020 21:04:52 GMT
Some very interesting changes proposed here. I'll begin with the routes serving the Kenley area. I have suggested many times that the 407 is cut between West Croydon and Caterham since it suffered with horrendous reliability and the 434 being extended to Caterham, I think TfL might have been reading my posts  . It's great to see these changes finally being proposed. Although I would've preferred it if the 407 and 443 changes were the other way round in terms of route numbers but that's just the enthusiast in me there, as well as reducing confusion amongst local residents when the changes kick in. Whilst it is a shame the route is being cut, I've only used the 407 to reach Sutton from south of West Croydon once in the 20 years I have been living on the route, which says a lot really. I do feel however that there is some duplication here as the X26 covers almost the entire revised 407 route, although has limited stops of course. The frequency cut compared to the 407 isn't great but then there is the train that takes you into East Croydon from Caterham... It's pleasing to see Whyteleafe and Kenley gain a third bus route in the form of the 439, which creates a new direct link to Purley Way. I personally would've preferred the 439 going via Higher Drive and Cullesden Road over the 434, if you're making a new route why not cover areas unserved than swapping a section of the 434? They'll both meet at the same place between Purley and Kenley anyway. I also worry the 439 would suffer reliability wise if there is heavy traffic on the Purley Way which is common during rush hours but one of the indirect aims of this scheme is to reduce car usage. I would've also suggested to extend the 403 to Sutton in place of the 407 instead of splitting the 407 into two, as I agree on other's points about the route being a little short currently. The withdrawal of the 455 is not a surprise, unless you're an enthusiast, nobody would travel on the 455 end to end and it goes round the houses currently. I wonder if those four new EMC's Arriva were in advance of the 312 being extended? It's sensible to extend the S4 and the interchange with the 439 at Waddon Marsh would be welcomed. I'm not a huge fan of the 166 being rerouted via the back streets of South Croydon though. |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Oct 15, 2020 21:08:11 GMT
I wonder if all of these went ahead, who will get awarded the new contracts? For example, the 455 has a few more years to go on its contract, and the 413 has EXCELLENT buses, I do not want them to be withdrawn, hopefully they can get one of the new routes using those MCL's (could see the 439 getting those, at least I want them to, not hope ). As someone suggested, I could see the 443 getting some of the 407's existing buses. Doesn't seem like a bad idea after all, but all I want is for the 2019 Croydon changes to be reverted, that was one of the worst ideas I've seen . 455 contract was due to be awarded in about 6 months time. Also, from what I understand, 439 has only been tested for 9m length buses sadly. Not to say a 10.5m bus couldn't be tried. The concern for a 10.5m SD on the 439 is Northwood Avenue and the swathes of parked cars there. Otherwise I wouldn't see an issue. Although if the routing between Purley is swapped to Higher Drive and the 434 is left as it is, then there would be an issue with longer buses turning from Firs Road into Park Road in Kenley. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 15, 2020 21:33:53 GMT
One downside of the 166 change is that the main bus stop in Purley (Downlands precinct) loses not only 3bph to Coulsdon but also the direct link to Chipstead Valley and Banstead. Crossing from that stop to the next is quite long over that massive roundabout. Similar to how it also lost the 405 in the past. On the other hand that stop now gains a service to Old Lodge Lane.
Similar to the new 413 section loses the S3 link to Sutton Station and Sutton Police station.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 15, 2020 21:54:36 GMT
And removing back street sections will reduce access to others and push others away from the bus network and into other modes of transport. I agree, certainly with the S1 changes around St Helier, which seem to have been brought about solely for the purpose of facilitating longer buses on the route. Now whilst I do agree, the S1 could do with longer buses, the existing routing seemed to be no problem for OML20240 (10.6m) which used to make regular appearances. In fact, I seem to remember OML20240 switching from mainly serving the 465 to the S1 in the latter months up until its withdrawal. With this rerouting in St Helier, I'd honestly now go to the extent of saying that the S1 has been transfromed into a mostly main road route in comparison to before where it was a bit of a mix of both.
Totally unrelated to your post, I still find it funny that many of these changes are basically circulating around making Belmont a major bus interchange when in essence it's a small zone 5 village with a couple thousand residents. Heck, it's station is on a single track line which just 3 years ao had one train an hour. It was even the 10th least used station in London!
I think we will see more schemes removing bus routes from back streets to create faster and more direct main road routes, perhaps a partial reversal of policies in the 1990s and 2000s. See also route 384. As resources get tighter they will be diverted to serve the greatest need along main roads and the max. 400/450m distance from the nearest bus stop policy may be less strictly adhered to in absolutely every residential area. Agree, Belmont is going to turn into a multi-modal interchange! |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 15, 2020 21:55:01 GMT
Right, had a bit of time to digest this and some of the subsequent comments. As a Croydon resident, and never having used a bus south of Sutton, I will restrict myself just to talking about the Croydon changes.
Firstly disappointed to see no changes/improvements to North Croydon, with all changes being in the south of the Borough. This was as expected as all the North proposals were in the currently unfeasible section of the Croydon bus study. Still I will personally benefit from a direct link to Purley, via the 312, but is regrettably a journey I no longer have a need to make via bus.
Let's look at the proposals
166/312/455. Do not think this was a great shock as it was the most advanced in the Croydon study. Wondered what would happen to 455 as the Sutton study said withdraw it west of Croydon and Croydon study said withdraw it south of Croydon ... so between the 2 there was no place for the 455. 166 reroute, can see it breaks a few journeys, and a little longer, but actually wonder if am peak journeys will end up being quicker. Something had to be rerouted. 312 extension, good for me and a extra frequency bonus for those on the Old Lodge Lane section.
407 ... only used the sevice from Croydon in either direction ... so will not bother me, and from loadings think it will inconvenience few of the passengers. Again, the 407 was for the Croydon - Caterham leg before being extended to Sutton, so would have preferred the 407 to have been retained for the leg with the longest historic connection.
Caterham/Kenley area. Do not really know all the backstreet routings down there so will generally defer to those with better knowledge, but if 9.7m bus regularly, and longer buses occasionally operate between Croydon and Crystal Palace on the 410, cant imagine there would be issues for at least 9.7m buses on this section. 439 is an interesting option as it creates new links ... being low frequency, the only concern for whoever operates it will be reliability due to traffic on the Purley Way ... think this maybe a contract that whoever wins it may regret it after 2-3 years.
Old Town routing ... well we know it will be the southern section of the 407, the new 443 diverted this way. This and the 166 change are the 2 Croydon related changes that I think will draw the most comments.
443 will I expect be a split of the 407 contract, as we already know the 439 is in the tender programme. Just need to wipe the 455 from it now.
That's all for now
|
|
). As someone suggested, I could see the 443 getting some of the 407's existing buses.
.
. It's great to see these changes finally being proposed. Although I would've preferred it if the 407 and 443 changes were the other way round in terms of route numbers but that's just the enthusiast in me there, as well as reducing confusion amongst local residents when the changes kick in. Whilst it is a shame the route is being cut, I've only used the 407 to reach Sutton from south of West Croydon once in the 20 years I have been living on the route, which says a lot really. I do feel however that there is some duplication here as the X26 covers almost the entire revised 407 route, although has limited stops of course. The frequency cut compared to the 407 isn't great but then there is the train that takes you into East Croydon from Caterham...