|
|
Post by 725DYE on Oct 20, 2020 0:23:01 GMT
Could have done 480 for the S2 keeing an 80 and 280 theme in Sutton then 489 for the S4 along side the 289 at Waddon Marsh. Operates way too close to the Metrobus 480 in that circumstance |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 20, 2020 1:35:14 GMT
Could have done 480 for the S2 keeing an 80 and 280 theme in Sutton then 489 for the S4 along side the 289 at Waddon Marsh. I personally don't see the need to renumber the S routes bar the suggestion made by SILENCED where the S2 should of become the S4 and the S4 become the 455. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Oct 20, 2020 12:02:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 20, 2020 12:21:00 GMT
Could have done 480 for the S2 keeing an 80 and 280 theme in Sutton then 489 for the S4 along side the 289 at Waddon Marsh. I personally don't see the need to renumber the S routes bar the suggestion made by SILENCED where the S2 should of become the S4 and the S4 become the 455. I'd normally be very wary of recommending renumbering but my problem with them is that 5*s and S*s are difficult to distinguish in certain fonts for people like me whose eyesight could be better, or who have reading difficulties. This is not a great issue with Johnston (which is why it is such a magnificent font) but moreso where information is being disseminated in other ways. For example, I have misread S1/51 on here in the past and have seen diversions and disruptions on the S4 described as being on the 54 on travel news! As every one of the three existing routes face some kind of alteration, this would be a sensible moment to make the change. At the very least I would lose the S4 number and not use S2. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 20, 2020 12:29:05 GMT
I personally don't see the need to renumber the S routes bar the suggestion made by SILENCED where the S2 should of become the S4 and the S4 become the 455. I'd normally be very wary of recommending renumbering but my problem with them is that 5*s and S*s are difficult to distinguish in certain fonts for people like me whose eyesight could be better, or who have reading difficulties. This is not a great issue with Johnston (which is why it is such a magnificent font) but moreso where information is being disseminated in other ways. For example, I have misread S1/51 on here in the past and have seen diversions and disruptions on the S4 described as being on the 54 on travel news! As every one of the three existing routes face some kind of alteration, this would be a sensible moment to make the change. At the very least I would lose the S4 number and not use S2. It might be worth suggesting that if you're going to reply to the consultation, as I mentioned previously I've overheard somebody in Sutton referring to the S1 as the 51. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 20, 2020 12:38:37 GMT
I can not see what the purpose of the new 439 is - it doesn't link many major destinations and is likely to be infrequent and low-capacity. It also forces the 434 to extend to Caterham, where the 407/443 is likely sufficient, while the 434 routeing - there must be an alternative solution is TFL want to serve both Northwood Avenue and Higher Drive. Waddon Marsh, like the S4, is not a very useful place to terminate, other than being able to change onto Trams. If additional capacity is needed over Purley Way, the 439 is unlikely to make much difference, converting the 289 to DD would be a better solution. If they left the 434 routing as it is and sent the 439 via Higher Drive/Cullesden Road instead, there would be more of a purpose for it as it would then be serving the proposed housing developments on Higher Drive. Currently it's just there to replace the 434 along Northwood Avenue/Oaks Way and potentially taking pressure off the 289 towards Waddon Marsh. I would've suggested extending the route to serve Valley Park or even Beddington/Pollards Hill which could increase ridership. The proposed Higher Drive routing seems like a more major road than the existing 434, so could likely take longer SDs. Perhaps a simpler solution would be to extend the 359 from Purley to serve this area? |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 20, 2020 13:55:58 GMT
One thing that has started to bug me a little, but to no great extent, why was the proposed S2 route not numbered S4, and the proposed S4 route the 455. I agree the 455 number should have been kept - this could also work contractually. The 455's existing contract at Go Ahead could take over the Waddon-Belmont route, with the recently-retained S4 reduced to St Helier-Belmont. As a result, the S2 would not need to be tendered, with only the new 439 needing to be added too the tender programme. The Waddon Marsh to Belmont route probably wouldn't be able to take the 455's existing SEs/SOEs, but this route would likely have quite a small PVR, so might be possible to source some shorter SDs. The ex-315 09reg SENs could perhaps form part of this allocation, which would be the same age as the SOEs currently used on the 455. If these changes go ahead, it will interesting to see how vehicle lengths affect some of the other routes. Will the 413's existing MCLs fit around the S3 section to Belmont, and if so, what vehicles would supplement the existing MCL allocation (or would the 413 simply have a mix of some SDEs from the S3)? The S1's minor rerouteing suggested this would allow longer vehicles to be used, so presumably the intention is to use DLE-size SDs on the route? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 20, 2020 14:02:20 GMT
The buses from the S1 could be used on the new S2 if awarded to RATP witu longer ones purchased for the S1.
|
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Oct 20, 2020 14:44:57 GMT
I personally don't see the need to renumber the S routes bar the suggestion made by SILENCED where the S2 should of become the S4 and the S4 become the 455. I'd normally be very wary of recommending renumbering but my problem with them is that 5*s and S*s are difficult to distinguish in certain fonts for people like me whose eyesight could be better, or who have reading difficulties. This is not a great issue with Johnston (which is why it is such a magnificent font) but moreso where information is being disseminated in other ways. For example, I have misread S1/51 on here in the past and have seen diversions and disruptions on the S4 described as being on the 54 on travel news! As every one of the three existing routes face some kind of alteration, this would be a sensible moment to make the change. At the very least I would lose the S4 number and not use S2. The 455 could simply have been renumbered 4SS, and this might have solved all the problems  |
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on Oct 20, 2020 15:53:29 GMT
I personally don't see the need to renumber the S routes bar the suggestion made by SILENCED where the S2 should of become the S4 and the S4 become the 455. I'd normally be very wary of recommending renumbering but my problem with them is that 5*s and S*s are difficult to distinguish in certain fonts for people like me whose eyesight could be better, or who have reading difficulties. This is not a great issue with Johnston (which is why it is such a magnificent font) but moreso where information is being disseminated in other ways. For example, I have misread S1/51 on here in the past and have seen diversions and disruptions on the S4 described as being on the 54 on travel news! As every one of the three existing routes face some kind of alteration, this would be a sensible moment to make the change. At the very least I would lose the S4 number and not use S2. Wasn't the 470 renumbered from S7 because of that? Pax at Colliers Wood couldn't tell the 57 and S7 apart? |
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Oct 20, 2020 15:54:48 GMT
I'd normally be very wary of recommending renumbering but my problem with them is that 5*s and S*s are difficult to distinguish in certain fonts for people like me whose eyesight could be better, or who have reading difficulties. This is not a great issue with Johnston (which is why it is such a magnificent font) but moreso where information is being disseminated in other ways. For example, I have misread S1/51 on here in the past and have seen diversions and disruptions on the S4 described as being on the 54 on travel news! As every one of the three existing routes face some kind of alteration, this would be a sensible moment to make the change. At the very least I would lose the S4 number and not use S2. Wasn't the 470 renumbered from S7 because of that? Pax at Colliers Wood couldn't tell the 57 and S7 apart? Yeah it was, passengers would have been on a very interesting journey getting on the S7 instead  . |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Oct 20, 2020 17:03:20 GMT
If they left the 434 routing as it is and sent the 439 via Higher Drive/Cullesden Road instead, there would be more of a purpose for it as it would then be serving the proposed housing developments on Higher Drive. Currently it's just there to replace the 434 along Northwood Avenue/Oaks Way and potentially taking pressure off the 289 towards Waddon Marsh. I would've suggested extending the route to serve Valley Park or even Beddington/Pollards Hill which could increase ridership. The proposed Higher Drive routing seems like a more major road than the existing 434, so could likely take longer SDs. Perhaps a simpler solution would be to extend the 359 from Purley to serve this area? Like I said before, I think the turning from Firs Road into Park Lane in Kenley may be an issue for longer buses. |
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Oct 20, 2020 21:18:58 GMT
The proposed Higher Drive routing seems like a more major road than the existing 434, so could likely take longer SDs. Perhaps a simpler solution would be to extend the 359 from Purley to serve this area? Like I said before, I think the turning from Firs Road into Park Lane in Kenley may be an issue for longer buses. Yes absolutely that junction would be an issue, even in an 8.8/9m enviro it would be. It’s bad enough in a car |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 21, 2020 6:37:43 GMT
Like I said before, I think the turning from Firs Road into Park Lane in Kenley may be an issue for longer buses. Yes absolutely that junction would be an issue, even in an 8.8/9m enviro it would be. It’s bad enough in a car To help support the turn could said route use Wattendon Road and then come up Hayes Lane? |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Oct 21, 2020 7:17:36 GMT
Yes absolutely that junction would be an issue, even in an 8.8/9m enviro it would be. It’s bad enough in a car To help support the turn could said route use Wattendon Road and then come up Hayes Lane? It’s not a bad idea, although parked cars on both sides of the road there could pose an issue.Wonder if TFL will consider that if the turning into Park Road fails a route test. |
|
. 
