|
Post by greenboy on May 11, 2021 6:39:32 GMT
I will say that SE London in general does have a number of useful inter borough trunk routes, that head to zone 1 or 2, the 53, 89, 177, 180, 208, 261, 286, 321, 472 etc all do a good job at filling the tube sized hole in this part of the world. While the 54, 122, 108, 161 & 202 do a fair job on the linking towns orbitally in a north/south zone 2/3/4 axis I still consider it a real shame that the 54 no longer serves Croydon : in my mind the 54 is one of the very few longish routes in London that could take a reasonable length extension, at either end. I totally agree about the 54, if anything the 289 should have been withdrawn from Elmers End............ I also think the 353 shouldn't have been removed from Croydon, it could have been rerouted via Shirley Park rather than rerouting the 466 to Addington.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on May 11, 2021 6:49:24 GMT
This is how I would improve Bromley’s connections. I would extend the 199 from Bellingham to Bromley North, giving Bromley new daytime links with Greenwich, Deptford, Surrey Quays & Canada Water. Then cut the Bromley to Catford section of the 320, as the 199 & 208 would be enough between the two I very much agree with the 199 supporting the 208 along Bromley Road rather than the 320. I always felt that if the split service 208 had to be replaced then a route should have been extended TO Bromley rather than FROM Bromley However, this proposal, valid as it is, sees the need for two services to terminate in Bromley. The obvious place is Bromley North but regardless of any facts and figures, Bromley North is full. There is (apparently) a stand down at Simpsons Road at Bromley South so that’s a possibility but there could be a wholesale raft of changes to services in Bromley that could possibly benefit the travelling public Firstly, perhaps current Bromley North services could be extended just that little bit further to meet or current stands. I’m thinking maybe the 138 could use the Plaistow Green stand and maybe the 354 could be pushed down to the old Widmore Green stand or even Chislehurst Caves? I did think that maybe the Ringers Road stand could be freed up by extending the 126 back down to Beckenham Junction. If you coupled this with the 161 being extended to the Ringers Road stand and the R7 being extended from Chislehurst to Eltham over the 162 then you could withdraw the 162 I definitely think there’s scope for improving bus services in the borough of Bromley as a whole and certainly within the town itself
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on May 11, 2021 7:02:25 GMT
Where is Widmore Green Stand is for route 354?
I don't think this is popular for route R7 extended to Eltham replace via route 162 as it only run every 30 minutes instead of every 15 minutes?. I know most of them to prefer going to Bromley, New Eltham and Eltham rather than Orpington! They can get off from route 162 or walk to get bus 61 instead.
Not sure if Beckenham Jct can able to take large SD to be enough room to stand? Do Beckenham Jct need every 10 minutes instead of Every 15 minutes?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on May 11, 2021 7:06:51 GMT
Where is Widmore Green Stand is for route 354? I don't think this is popular for route R7 extended to Eltham replace via route 162 as it only run every 30 minutes instead of every 15 minutes?. I know most of them to prefer going to Bromley, New Eltham and Eltham rather than Orpington! They can get off from route 162 or walk to get bus 61 instead. Not sure if Beckenham Jct can able to take large SD to be enough room to stand? Do Beckenham Jct need every 10 minutes instead of Every 15 minutes? There wouldn't be any problem with bigger single deckers or even double deckers at Beckenham Junction, rail replacement buses often use it.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on May 11, 2021 7:24:35 GMT
This is how I would improve Bromley’s connections. I would extend the 199 from Bellingham to Bromley North, giving Bromley new daytime links with Greenwich, Deptford, Surrey Quays & Canada Water. Then cut the Bromley to Catford section of the 320, as the 199 & 208 would be enough between the two I very much agree with the 199 supporting the 208 along Bromley Road rather than the 320. I always felt that if the split service 208 had to be replaced then a route should have been extended TO Bromley rather than FROM Bromley However, this proposal, valid as it is, sees the need for two services to terminate in Bromley. The obvious place is Bromley North but regardless of any facts and figures, Bromley North is full. There is (apparently) a stand down at Simpsons Road at Bromley South so that’s a possibility but there could be a wholesale raft of changes to services in Bromley that could possibly benefit the travelling public Firstly, perhaps current Bromley North services could be extended just that little bit further to meet or current stands. I’m thinking maybe the 138 could use the Plaistow Green stand and maybe the 354 could be pushed down to the old Widmore Green stand or even Chislehurst Caves? I did think that maybe the Ringers Road stand could be freed up by extending the 126 back down to Beckenham Junction. If you coupled this with the 161 being extended to the Ringers Road stand and the R7 being extended from Chislehurst to Eltham over the 162 then you could withdraw the 162 I definitely think there’s scope for improving bus services in the borough of Bromley as a whole and certainly within the town itself The stand in Simpson Road has been there for a while, I don't know why it's not being used? The turning area looks a bit tight to me, I don't know if that's the problem. I wonder if the 138 and 354 could be merged into one route if recovery time can be incorporated at the Coney Hall end. Maybe the 269 could be accommodated at the Ringers Road stand, very unsatisfactory at the moment with buses leaving Bromley North missing out the town centre shopping area and the 162 often getting overloaded as a result. On the subject of Bromley it's a shame the Bromley North rail link can't be put to better use, interesting video on the subject here........... youtu.be/4C2JDzIeSuM
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on May 11, 2021 7:51:59 GMT
This is how I would improve Bromley’s connections. I would extend the 199 from Bellingham to Bromley North, giving Bromley new daytime links with Greenwich, Deptford, Surrey Quays & Canada Water. Then cut the Bromley to Catford section of the 320, as the 199 & 208 would be enough between the two I very much agree with the 199 supporting the 208 along Bromley Road rather than the 320. I always felt that if the split service 208 had to be replaced then a route should have been extended TO Bromley rather than FROM Bromley However, this proposal, valid as it is, sees the need for two services to terminate in Bromley. The obvious place is Bromley North but regardless of any facts and figures, Bromley North is full. There is (apparently) a stand down at Simpsons Road at Bromley South so that’s a possibility but there could be a wholesale raft of changes to services in Bromley that could possibly benefit the travelling public Firstly, perhaps current Bromley North services could be extended just that little bit further to meet or current stands. I’m thinking maybe the 138 could use the Plaistow Green stand and maybe the 354 could be pushed down to the old Widmore Green stand or even Chislehurst Caves? I did think that maybe the Ringers Road stand could be freed up by extending the 126 back down to Beckenham Junction. If you coupled this with the 161 being extended to the Ringers Road stand and the R7 being extended from Chislehurst to Eltham over the 162 then you could withdraw the 162 I definitely think there’s scope for improving bus services in the borough of Bromley as a whole and certainly within the town itself In regards to the 320 I don’t see any reason why the Catford to Bromley Section should be cut when what we need is a route to support both the 208 and 320. As someone who is local and has used the route many of time to shop in bromley, get to college in the common and to get to a friend in biggin hill for gatherings (before rona) The Catford section has proved quite useful and has helped the 208 a lot. The route itself is starting to get heavy loads and could do with a route that also supports it especially during the peak where it can be impossible to get on with all the school loads and college loads. It’s a nice thought just not realistic 🤣
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on May 11, 2021 7:57:07 GMT
I very much agree with the 199 supporting the 208 along Bromley Road rather than the 320. I always felt that if the split service 208 had to be replaced then a route should have been extended TO Bromley rather than FROM Bromley However, this proposal, valid as it is, sees the need for two services to terminate in Bromley. The obvious place is Bromley North but regardless of any facts and figures, Bromley North is full. There is (apparently) a stand down at Simpsons Road at Bromley South so that’s a possibility but there could be a wholesale raft of changes to services in Bromley that could possibly benefit the travelling public Firstly, perhaps current Bromley North services could be extended just that little bit further to meet or current stands. I’m thinking maybe the 138 could use the Plaistow Green stand and maybe the 354 could be pushed down to the old Widmore Green stand or even Chislehurst Caves? I did think that maybe the Ringers Road stand could be freed up by extending the 126 back down to Beckenham Junction. If you coupled this with the 161 being extended to the Ringers Road stand and the R7 being extended from Chislehurst to Eltham over the 162 then you could withdraw the 162 I definitely think there’s scope for improving bus services in the borough of Bromley as a whole and certainly within the town itself In regards to the 320 I don’t see any reason why the Catford to Bromley Section should be cut when what we need is a route to support both the 208 and 320. As someone who is local and has used the route many of time to shop in bromley, get to college in the common and to get to a friend in biggin hill for gatherings (before rona) The Catford section has proved quite useful and has helped the 208 a lot. The route itself is starting to get heavy loads and could do with a route that also supports it especially during the peak where it can be impossible to get on with all the school loads and college loads. It’s a nice thought just not realistic 🤣 The idea is to extend the 199 to Bromley replacing the 320.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on May 11, 2021 8:48:39 GMT
Where is Widmore Green Stand is for route 354? Way back in the mists of time when the 227 went to Chislehurst there was a Bickley curtailment which used Chislehurst Road and Shawfield Park to turn around with a stand provided at the end of Shawfield Park. The stand has long gone now and would need to be reinstated but I’ve often thought it would be a useful curtailment to have on the 269 I take your points about frequencies as well - dropping to every half an hour mightn’t be popular with the Edgebury residents as well as losing the direct link to Bromley. Perhaps that one would need to be rethought?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on May 11, 2021 8:51:57 GMT
In regards to the 320 I don’t see any reason why the Catford to Bromley Section should be cut when what we need is a route to support both the 208 and 320. As someone who is local and has used the route many of time to shop in bromley, get to college in the common and to get to a friend in biggin hill for gatherings (before rona) The Catford section has proved quite useful and has helped the 208 a lot. The route itself is starting to get heavy loads and could do with a route that also supports it especially during the peak where it can be impossible to get on with all the school loads and college loads. It’s a nice thought just not realistic 🤣 As has been pointed out, the idea is to replace the 320 with the 199. It’s been a long time since I regularly drove the 208 and obviously travel patterns may have changed but I think there’s more benefit to the 199 providing the support to the 208 rather than the 320
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 11, 2021 9:03:49 GMT
Iv always found its Lewisham to Bromley Market Square that needs assistance (the 208 empties at the stop near McDonald's there for shoppers to Bromley) rather then Catford to Bromley Common. In that respect the 199/208 would be better and slightly reduced the number of routes between Catford and TL.
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on May 11, 2021 9:13:25 GMT
In regards to the 320 I don’t see any reason why the Catford to Bromley Section should be cut when what we need is a route to support both the 208 and 320. As someone who is local and has used the route many of time to shop in bromley, get to college in the common and to get to a friend in biggin hill for gatherings (before rona) The Catford section has proved quite useful and has helped the 208 a lot. The route itself is starting to get heavy loads and could do with a route that also supports it especially during the peak where it can be impossible to get on with all the school loads and college loads. It’s a nice thought just not realistic 🤣 As has been pointed out, the idea is to replace the 320 with the 199. It’s been a long time since I regularly drove the 208 and obviously travel patterns may have changed but I think there’s more benefit to the 199 providing the support to the 208 rather than the 320 I saw however my point being is rather than withdrawing the 320 on that section, you might as well keep it and have addition of the extended 199 to help support the two. As I said before after regular use of both routes they do get quite packed between Catford and Bromley common so even replacing one with the other isn’t going to help. Also a lot of people I know who live around the biggin hill and keston area prefer the direct link into Catford rather than changing so there is a positive in why the 320 goes to Bromley.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 11, 2021 9:17:28 GMT
Personally I think the original 1991 structure of the 208 was better with the Lewisham to Brom Comm shorts and the through buses end to end. The sectional working meant buses missed most the stops in Catford due to the standing arrangement with Lewisham Town Hall being the first pick.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 11, 2021 9:45:28 GMT
This is how I would improve Bromley’s connections. I would extend the 199 from Bellingham to Bromley North, giving Bromley new daytime links with Greenwich, Deptford, Surrey Quays & Canada Water. Then cut the Bromley to Catford section of the 320, as the 199 & 208 would be enough between the two I very much agree with the 199 supporting the 208 along Bromley Road rather than the 320. I always felt that if the split service 208 had to be replaced then a route should have been extended TO Bromley rather than FROM Bromley However, this proposal, valid as it is, sees the need for two services to terminate in Bromley. The obvious place is Bromley North but regardless of any facts and figures, Bromley North is full. There is (apparently) a stand down at Simpsons Road at Bromley South so that’s a possibility but there could be a wholesale raft of changes to services in Bromley that could possibly benefit the travelling public Firstly, perhaps current Bromley North services could be extended just that little bit further to meet or current stands. I’m thinking maybe the 138 could use the Plaistow Green stand and maybe the 354 could be pushed down to the old Widmore Green stand or even Chislehurst Caves? I did think that maybe the Ringers Road stand could be freed up by extending the 126 back down to Beckenham Junction. If you coupled this with the 161 being extended to the Ringers Road stand and the R7 being extended from Chislehurst to Eltham over the 162 then you could withdraw the 162 I definitely think there’s scope for improving bus services in the borough of Bromley as a whole and certainly within the town itself Wouldn’t withdrawing the 162 affect people doing through journeys beyond Chislehurst given the 162 runs a different way than the 161? For example, someone wanting to come from west of Bromley wanting east of Chislehurst would be forced to change buses under that idea? I’ve always thought the 126 should be turned into a Woolwich to Bromley routing and double deckers return to it especially as it would probably fare much better than an extended 161. Obviously, you’d know better than me on both these subjects above
|
|
|
Post by Paul on May 11, 2021 10:06:35 GMT
As has been pointed out, the idea is to replace the 320 with the 199. It’s been a long time since I regularly drove the 208 and obviously travel patterns may have changed but I think there’s more benefit to the 199 providing the support to the 208 rather than the 320 I saw however my point being is rather than withdrawing the 320 on that section, you might as well keep it and have addition of the extended 199 to help support the two. As I said before after regular use of both routes they do get quite packed between Catford and Bromley common so even replacing one with the other isn’t going to help. Also a lot of people I know who live around the biggin hill and keston area prefer the direct link into Catford rather than changing so there is a positive in why the 320 goes to Bromley. Your experience is obviously far more recent than mine - as I said, I haven’t regularly used that corridor in nearly 8 years! I find it surprising however, that people in Biggin Hill and Keston are using the service through to Catford. The 320s I see in Bromley are rarely carrying many people across town. Is demand genuinely high enough to warrant 3 high frequency services along Bromley Road?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on May 11, 2021 10:13:54 GMT
Wouldn’t withdrawing the 162 affect people doing through journeys beyond Chislehurst given the 162 runs a different way than the 161? For example, someone wanting to come from west of Bromley wanting east of Chislehurst would be forced to change buses under that idea? I’ve always thought the 126 should be turned into a Woolwich to Bromley routing and double deckers return to it especially as it would probably fare much better than an extended 161. Obviously, you’d know better than me on both these subjects above We’ve seen previously that inconveniencing a number of passengers by withdrawing a service is no reason not to withdraw said service. There would be alternatives available and common stops to change to these services. Obviously, changes like this aren’t made without analysis of the relevant data and I’m not privy to that but, again through mere observation, I don’t see many 162s carrying people across Bromley. Undoubtedly these journeys are being made; the question is in what volume? Extending the 126 to Woolwich is certainly an option although I would suggest the route gain deckers regardless of any extension!
|
|