|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Oct 4, 2024 10:24:53 GMT
Honestly, it's a shame they didn't consider making the old B&Q into a new bus station considering it's going to be torn down, whilst yes this would mean it's a further distance to the station, I'm sure they could find a way to get passengers there quicker, underpass or maybe a travelator perhaps? But then again, having a bus station so far up in Sutton would probably not be seen as all that great considering it's on the side where passengers usually want to get on 2/4s of the terminating Sutton routes, only the 470 and 164 could use the bus station without messing the natural Sutton circle up. Sutton is just such a sorry state for routes. B&Q is destined to become a massive set of flats as is the current Civic Centre with it planned to move to the Debenhams site in the St Nicholas, when it is partially demolished. But a bus station there would be terrible, it would really only be useful in one direction, terminating routes like the 213 and 460 would end up skipping most of the high street area and as you say it is too far from the station. Perhaps if the tram was coming to Sutton* and the station needed a rebuild to accommodate it then perhaps it would have been possible but it’s unlikely. As for services I wouldn’t say it’s a sorry state, I think there is definitely room for improvements. For example having a Sunday service on the S3 or an expanded “S” group. Perhaps taking on the E10 as a TfL service under a S5 banner, as well as the 460 given that Redhill isn’t that far from Sutton. Perhaps, off the top of my head, a new route from Worcester Park to Banstead via Lower Morden and Morden incorporating the 470 with the K5 taking on the short Colliers Wood section. Frequency increases throughout. Sadly though Sutton has and has had for a very long time the least amount of capital expenditure by TfL something that won’t change under Khan. Let’s be honest TfL only pushed through the S2/S4 changes because of the election. *The tram will never come to Sutton, not whilst Khan is the titular head of TfL. I think you might mean the 420 as the ' route that goes to Redhill that's in Sutton '?, the 460 goes from Epsom to Crawley, 420 does Sutton Bushey Road to Gatwick now or something? As for new possible S routes I think your idea of Banstead to Worcester Park whilst a good idea, the S1 serves that Banstead area purpose far, far better and would have the greater pvr in general, I personally would do this (just a suggestion, yours is still good by the way!) S6 - Motspur Park -> Belmont via Motspur Park, Worcester Park, Green Lane (The S3s current H&R, section before it reaches North Cheam / Sainsbury's), Lower Morden, Morden then replacing the 470 to Sutton Station, then extending it up to Belmont. K5 - as you said, Ham -> Collier Wood via the 470s current routing after Morden towards CW Now you may be wondering why I skipped the S5, well that's because it's previous historical connotations have placed it around the Beddington/Wallington/Mitcham area, and as I enjoy preserving route numbers, I believe if it was to be reused it should probably be in that general area, the reason why I'm not doing the same for the S6 however is that the S6 was renumbered to the 406 is 1924, rather than the S5 being absorbed by the 463 in only 2002, one could argue this S6 concept should be named the S7 considering it was the 470s original numbering too but this is different enough for it to be it's own thing in my opinion, it only shares Morden, some back roads and Sutton as compared to everything else. (This should have really been in fantasy bus routes huh? Sorry for going off topic lol) |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 4, 2024 10:47:00 GMT
B&Q is destined to become a massive set of flats as is the current Civic Centre with it planned to move to the Debenhams site in the St Nicholas, when it is partially demolished. But a bus station there would be terrible, it would really only be useful in one direction, terminating routes like the 213 and 460 would end up skipping most of the high street area and as you say it is too far from the station. Perhaps if the tram was coming to Sutton* and the station needed a rebuild to accommodate it then perhaps it would have been possible but it’s unlikely. As for services I wouldn’t say it’s a sorry state, I think there is definitely room for improvements. For example having a Sunday service on the S3 or an expanded “S” group. Perhaps taking on the E10 as a TfL service under a S5 banner, as well as the 460 given that Redhill isn’t that far from Sutton. Perhaps, off the top of my head, a new route from Worcester Park to Banstead via Lower Morden and Morden incorporating the 470 with the K5 taking on the short Colliers Wood section. Frequency increases throughout. Sadly though Sutton has and has had for a very long time the least amount of capital expenditure by TfL something that won’t change under Khan. Let’s be honest TfL only pushed through the S2/S4 changes because of the election. *The tram will never come to Sutton, not whilst Khan is the titular head of TfL. I think you might mean the 420 as the ' route that goes to Redhill that's in Sutton '?, the 460 goes from Epsom to Crawley, 420 does Sutton Bushey Road to Gatwick now or something? As for new possible S routes I think your idea of Banstead to Worcester Park whilst a good idea, the S1 serves that Banstead area purpose far, far better and would have the greater pvr in general, I personally would do this (just a suggestion, yours is still good by the way!) S6 - Motspur Park -> Belmont via Motspur Park, Worcester Park, Green Lane (The S3s current H&R, section before it reaches North Cheam / Sainsbury's), Lower Morden, Morden then replacing the 470 to Sutton Station, then extending it up to Belmont. K5 - as you said, Ham -> Collier Wood via the 470s current routing after Morden towards CW Now you may be wondering why I skipped the S5, well that's because it's previous historical connotations have placed it around the Beddington/Wallington/Mitcham area, and as I enjoy preserving route numbers, I believe if it was to be reused it should probably be in that general area, the reason why I'm not doing the same for the S6 however is that the S6 was renumbered to the 406 is 1924, rather than the S5 being absorbed by the 463 in only 2002, one could argue this S6 concept should be named the S7 considering it was the 470s original numbering too but this is different enough for it to be it's own thing in my opinion, it only shares Morden, some back roads and Sutton as compared to everything else. (This should have really been in fantasy bus routes huh? Sorry for going off topic lol) Yes I did mean the 420, old age brain fart 😂. But yes, minor tweaks and new back road links would be useful to Sutton. After all it has one of the highest car dependencies in the capital and yet TfL have done barely anything to lower this need. |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Oct 4, 2024 10:57:45 GMT
I think you might mean the 420 as the ' route that goes to Redhill that's in Sutton '?, the 460 goes from Epsom to Crawley, 420 does Sutton Bushey Road to Gatwick now or something? As for new possible S routes I think your idea of Banstead to Worcester Park whilst a good idea, the S1 serves that Banstead area purpose far, far better and would have the greater pvr in general, I personally would do this (just a suggestion, yours is still good by the way!) S6 - Motspur Park -> Belmont via Motspur Park, Worcester Park, Green Lane (The S3s current H&R, section before it reaches North Cheam / Sainsbury's), Lower Morden, Morden then replacing the 470 to Sutton Station, then extending it up to Belmont. K5 - as you said, Ham -> Collier Wood via the 470s current routing after Morden towards CW Now you may be wondering why I skipped the S5, well that's because it's previous historical connotations have placed it around the Beddington/Wallington/Mitcham area, and as I enjoy preserving route numbers, I believe if it was to be reused it should probably be in that general area, the reason why I'm not doing the same for the S6 however is that the S6 was renumbered to the 406 is 1924, rather than the S5 being absorbed by the 463 in only 2002, one could argue this S6 concept should be named the S7 considering it was the 470s original numbering too but this is different enough for it to be it's own thing in my opinion, it only shares Morden, some back roads and Sutton as compared to everything else. (This should have really been in fantasy bus routes huh? Sorry for going off topic lol) Yes I did mean the 420, old age brain fart 😂. But yes, minor tweaks and new back road links would be useful to Sutton. After all it has one of the highest car dependencies in the capital and yet TfL have done barely anything to lower this need. Boosting the PVRs of routes would probably help with that issue quite a bit, have you seen Stafford Road as of late due to Croydon Road closing? It's actually concerning in my opinion. It doesn't help that routes that used to connect into the borough (most recently, the 455) are usually brushed over or cut down slowly, the 154 used to be a 24 hour route for example, not anymore though. An example of a route that I think needs timetable rework and pvr increase would be the 157, nearly every bus is packed due to how many convenient areas it serves in the South for commuters into Central London, but other routes like the 410, 127, SL7, 164, 280, S3 and 463 (specifically at peak hours I'd say) definitely would be more reliable with a timetable rework and pvr increase. The main problem is how many backroads are in Sutton I'd say, and it's not like we have our own system as large as the R routes in Orpington or the other lettered prefix routes, Sutton's is pretty barebones with it moreso being " Get to the destination as quickly as possible but still serve the backroads that you can ". In my point of view looking at routes like the S3 and S4. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Oct 4, 2024 13:21:26 GMT
Yes I did mean the 420, old age brain fart 😂. But yes, minor tweaks and new back road links would be useful to Sutton. After all it has one of the highest car dependencies in the capital and yet TfL have done barely anything to lower this need. Boosting the PVRs of routes would probably help with that issue quite a bit, have you seen Stafford Road as of late due to Croydon Road closing? It's actually concerning in my opinion. It doesn't help that routes that used to connect into the borough (most recently, the 455) are usually brushed over or cut down slowly, the 154 used to be a 24 hour route for example, not anymore though. An example of a route that I think needs timetable rework and pvr increase would be the 157, nearly every bus is packed due to how many convenient areas it serves in the South for commuters into Central London, but other routes like the 410, 127, SL7, 164, 280, S3 and 463 (specifically at peak hours I'd say) definitely would be more reliable with a timetable rework and pvr increase. The main problem is how many backroads are in Sutton I'd say, and it's not like we have our own system as large as the R routes in Orpington or the other lettered prefix routes, Sutton's is pretty barebones with it moreso being " Get to the destination as quickly as possible but still serve the backroads that you can ". In my point of view looking at routes like the S3 and S4. Definitely agree with the 157 needing an increase, it is the fastest route between pretty much all the places it serves, and its 5bph frequency is inadequate I would say - up this to 6bph and that should be about right. For a night service along the 154/157 corridor, I'd have an "N154," which would follow the 154 roughly but would follow the 157 from Morden to Rosehill Roundabout and also Wallington to Waddon, and the 407 between Sutton and Carshalton (so that it serves Sutton properly as opposed to the 154 which avoids the town centre). I completely agree with the SL7 needing an increase too, the route is ridiculously overcrowded throughout, especially Sutton to Kingston - an increase to 5bph would be ideal (also bringing it in line with the other SL routes), and I'd also suggest tri-axle buses (which would be able to have a luggage rack without losing capacity). The 164 preferably needs double deckers before any frequency increase, and for the S3, the section between Malden Manor and Sutton is probably fine with its current frequency (a Sunday service really needs to be added though), but the section between Sutton and Belmont should ideally be replaced by the (higher frequency) 413, just as TfL themselves proposed in the consultation. With the 127, I'd be tempted to swap its routing between Tooting Broadway and Mitcham with the 355, to speed up journeys towards Tooting, of course this would be done with the 355 getting double deckers too. I think the 463 as a whole needs a rework, it seems to be a route of three sections, being incredibly busy between Coulsdon and Wallington, quite quiet onwards and then busier from Beddington Lane tram stop where it picks up passengers from the tram heading towards Pollards Hill. I'd suggest something like cutting the 463 back from Pollards Hill to Wallington, and then extending it to Sutton Bushey Road via the 157 to Carshalton, 407 to Sutton and 213/413 to Bushey Road, taking the 413s stand. I would have this run at 4bph with 10.2m buses, and the 627 could lose a bus to save money as part of this. This would provide new links from Sutton towards Woodcote and Coulsdon, and gives extra capacity to the 463 where it needs it. A new route, "S5" maybe (since the 463 was effectively a replacement for the old S5 here), can then replace the 463 between Pollards Hill and Wallington, and can be extended down through the new estates in the Carshalton Beeches area to The Oaks golf course via Stanley Park Road, Diamond Jubilee Way, Damson Way, Metcalfe Avenue (with a bus gate) and Woodmansterne Road. This would run at the 463's existing frequency of 3bph with 9m buses. Sorry for the long post by the way  |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Oct 4, 2024 13:39:45 GMT
Boosting the PVRs of routes would probably help with that issue quite a bit, have you seen Stafford Road as of late due to Croydon Road closing? It's actually concerning in my opinion. It doesn't help that routes that used to connect into the borough (most recently, the 455) are usually brushed over or cut down slowly, the 154 used to be a 24 hour route for example, not anymore though. An example of a route that I think needs timetable rework and pvr increase would be the 157, nearly every bus is packed due to how many convenient areas it serves in the South for commuters into Central London, but other routes like the 410, 127, SL7, 164, 280, S3 and 463 (specifically at peak hours I'd say) definitely would be more reliable with a timetable rework and pvr increase. The main problem is how many backroads are in Sutton I'd say, and it's not like we have our own system as large as the R routes in Orpington or the other lettered prefix routes, Sutton's is pretty barebones with it moreso being " Get to the destination as quickly as possible but still serve the backroads that you can ". In my point of view looking at routes like the S3 and S4. Definitely agree with the 157 needing an increase, it is the fastest route between pretty much all the places it serves, and its 5bph frequency is inadequate I would say - up this to 6bph and that should be about right. For a night service along the 154/157 corridor, I'd have an "N154," which would follow the 154 roughly but would follow the 157 from Morden to Rosehill Roundabout and also Wallington to Waddon, and the 407 between Sutton and Carshalton (so that it serves Sutton properly as opposed to the 154 which avoids the town centre). I completely agree with the SL7 needing an increase too, the route is ridiculously overcrowded throughout, especially Sutton to Kingston - an increase to 5bph would be ideal (also bringing it in line with the other SL routes), and I'd also suggest tri-axle buses (which would be able to have a luggage rack without losing capacity). The 164 preferably needs double deckers before any frequency increase, and for the S3, the section between Malden Manor and Sutton is probably fine with its current frequency (a Sunday service really needs to be added though), but the section between Sutton and Belmont should ideally be replaced by the (higher frequency) 413, just as TfL themselves proposed in the consultation. With the 127, I'd be tempted to swap its routing between Tooting Broadway and Mitcham with the 355, to speed up journeys towards Tooting, of course this would be done with the 355 getting double deckers too. I think the 463 as a whole needs a rework, it seems to be a route of three sections, being incredibly busy between Coulsdon and Wallington, quite quiet onwards and then busier from Beddington Lane tram stop where it picks up passengers from the tram heading towards Pollards Hill. I'd suggest something like cutting the 463 back from Pollards Hill to Wallington, and then extending it to Sutton Bushey Road via the 157 to Carshalton, 407 to Sutton and 213/413 to Bushey Road, taking the 413s stand. I would have this run at 4bph with 10.2m buses, and the 627 could lose a bus to save money as part of this. This would provide new links from Sutton towards Woodcote and Coulsdon, and give extra capacity to the 463 where it needs it. A new route, "S5" maybe (since the 463 was effectively a replacement for the old S5 here), can then replace the 463 between Pollards Hill and Wallington, and can be extended down through the new estates in the Carshalton Beeches area to The Oaks golf course via Stanley Park Road, Diamond Jubilee Way, Damson Way, Metcalfe Avenue (with a bus gate) and Woodmansterne Road. This would run at the 463's existing frequency of 3bph with 9m buses. Sorry for the long post by the way As a user the 463 I can confirm it definitely feels like it's in sections, Coulsdon to The Mount (busy), then The Mount to Woodcote (not busy), then Woodcote to Therapia Lane (busy) then Therapia Lane to Eastfields (not busy) then Eastfields to Pollards Hill (busy), id personally reintroduce the S5 between Wallington and Pollards Hill still, but look for somewhere else to extend it rather than Carshalton Beeches, I worry those roads might be too small for 9m's (the 463 itself isn't even 9m, which is a giant travesty!) Then for the 463 I would do something far more interesting, there was once a proposal for it to go to Netherne-On-The-Hill, I'd bring this to light and give them a connection to London, reducing car usage more. Id also send the 463 down to Hackbridge for a terminal, I think an entirely new route would be the best to serve for the Carshalton Beeches area, maybe name it the 454 in honour of the 154. But then again, maybe the 463 can stay how it is, it's survived this long without changes, maybe this ' S5 ' could serve Carshalton Beeches estates before moving onto Wallington and then Beddington, perhaps taking over the S4 to Waddon Marsh where the S4 could terminate at Beddington ASDA and be extended back to St Helier or even straight the way down back to Morden! |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 4, 2024 14:03:34 GMT
Definitely agree with the 157 needing an increase, it is the fastest route between pretty much all the places it serves, and its 5bph frequency is inadequate I would say - up this to 6bph and that should be about right. For a night service along the 154/157 corridor, I'd have an "N154," which would follow the 154 roughly but would follow the 157 from Morden to Rosehill Roundabout and also Wallington to Waddon, and the 407 between Sutton and Carshalton (so that it serves Sutton properly as opposed to the 154 which avoids the town centre). I completely agree with the SL7 needing an increase too, the route is ridiculously overcrowded throughout, especially Sutton to Kingston - an increase to 5bph would be ideal (also bringing it in line with the other SL routes), and I'd also suggest tri-axle buses (which would be able to have a luggage rack without losing capacity). The 164 preferably needs double deckers before any frequency increase, and for the S3, the section between Malden Manor and Sutton is probably fine with its current frequency (a Sunday service really needs to be added though), but the section between Sutton and Belmont should ideally be replaced by the (higher frequency) 413, just as TfL themselves proposed in the consultation. With the 127, I'd be tempted to swap its routing between Tooting Broadway and Mitcham with the 355, to speed up journeys towards Tooting, of course this would be done with the 355 getting double deckers too. I think the 463 as a whole needs a rework, it seems to be a route of three sections, being incredibly busy between Coulsdon and Wallington, quite quiet onwards and then busier from Beddington Lane tram stop where it picks up passengers from the tram heading towards Pollards Hill. I'd suggest something like cutting the 463 back from Pollards Hill to Wallington, and then extending it to Sutton Bushey Road via the 157 to Carshalton, 407 to Sutton and 213/413 to Bushey Road, taking the 413s stand. I would have this run at 4bph with 10.2m buses, and the 627 could lose a bus to save money as part of this. This would provide new links from Sutton towards Woodcote and Coulsdon, and give extra capacity to the 463 where it needs it. A new route, "S5" maybe (since the 463 was effectively a replacement for the old S5 here), can then replace the 463 between Pollards Hill and Wallington, and can be extended down through the new estates in the Carshalton Beeches area to The Oaks golf course via Stanley Park Road, Diamond Jubilee Way, Damson Way, Metcalfe Avenue (with a bus gate) and Woodmansterne Road. This would run at the 463's existing frequency of 3bph with 9m buses. Sorry for the long post by the way As a user the 463 I can confirm it definitely feels like it's in sections, Coulsdon to The Mount (busy), then The Mount to Woodcote (not busy), then Woodcote to Therapia Lane (busy) then Therapia Lane to Eastfields (not busy) then Eastfields to Pollards Hill (busy), id personally reintroduce the S5 between Wallington and Pollards Hill still, but look for somewhere else to extend it rather than Carshalton Beeches, I worry those roads might be too small for 9m's (the 463 itself isn't even 9m, which is a giant travesty!) Then for the 463 I would do something far more interesting, there was once a proposal for it to go to Netherne-On-The-Hill, I'd bring this to light and give them a connection to London, reducing car usage more. Id also send the 463 down to Hackbridge for a terminal, I think an entirely new route would be the best to serve for the Carshalton Beeches area, maybe name it the 454 in honour of the 154. But then again, maybe the 463 can stay how it is, it's survived this long without changes, maybe this ' S5 ' could serve Carshalton Beeches estates before moving onto Wallington and then Beddington, perhaps taking over the S4 to Waddon Marsh where the S4 could terminate at Beddington ASDA and be extended back to St Helier or even straight the way down back to Morden! The 463 has changed several times since it's introduction in 1998 - back then it was a Coulsdon, Red Lion to Wallington Station route replacing part of the old commercial Route 301 (the 301 ran from Coulsdon would then run up to Croydon via Purley & South Croydon). In 2002, it was extended to Eastfields replacing part of the S5, terminating right where the current station is by the level crossing and in 2009, it was extended to Coulsdon South Station and re-routed in Eastfields to approach via Tamworth Lane and then continue onto Pollards Hill to stand with the 152 & 255, giving us today's routing. A school journey was also introduced in 2010 and was re-numbered 633 in 2016. Going back to the 157 specifically, the route itself highlights a problem that all of South London, not just Sutton, has and that is a severe lack of east to west links. The 37 & 157 are the two notable exceptions and even then, the 37 doesn't go as far as the 157 does for obvious reasons surrounding congestion, among other things. It's something that needs to be looked into more, especially when South London relies far more on the bus network than the other three areas given the Underground only penetrates as far as Morden, Brixton & North Greenwich currently. |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Oct 4, 2024 14:09:13 GMT
As a user the 463 I can confirm it definitely feels like it's in sections, Coulsdon to The Mount (busy), then The Mount to Woodcote (not busy), then Woodcote to Therapia Lane (busy) then Therapia Lane to Eastfields (not busy) then Eastfields to Pollards Hill (busy), id personally reintroduce the S5 between Wallington and Pollards Hill still, but look for somewhere else to extend it rather than Carshalton Beeches, I worry those roads might be too small for 9m's (the 463 itself isn't even 9m, which is a giant travesty!) Then for the 463 I would do something far more interesting, there was once a proposal for it to go to Netherne-On-The-Hill, I'd bring this to light and give them a connection to London, reducing car usage more. Id also send the 463 down to Hackbridge for a terminal, I think an entirely new route would be the best to serve for the Carshalton Beeches area, maybe name it the 454 in honour of the 154. But then again, maybe the 463 can stay how it is, it's survived this long without changes, maybe this ' S5 ' could serve Carshalton Beeches estates before moving onto Wallington and then Beddington, perhaps taking over the S4 to Waddon Marsh where the S4 could terminate at Beddington ASDA and be extended back to St Helier or even straight the way down back to Morden! The 463 has changed several times since it's introduction in 1998 - back then it was a Coulsdon, Red Lion to Wallington Station route replacing part of the old commercial Route 301 (the 301 ran from Coulsdon would then run up to Croydon via Purley & South Croydon). In 2002, it was extended to Eastfields replacing part of the S5, terminating right where the current station is by the level crossing and in 2009, it was extended to Coulsdon South Station and re-routed in Eastfields to approach via Tamworth Lane and then continue onto Pollards Hill to stand with the 152 & 255, giving us today's routing. A school journey was also introduced in 2010 and was re-numbered 633 in 2016. Going back to the 157 specifically, the route itself highlights a problem that all of South London, not just Sutton, has and that is a severe lack of east to west links. The 37 & 157 are the two notable exceptions and even then, the 37 doesn't go as far as the 157 does for obvious reasons surrounding congestion, among other things. It's something that needs to be looked into more, especially when South London relies far more on the bus network than the other three areas given the Underground only penetrates as far as Morden, Brixton & North Greenwich currently. By ' this long without changes ', I did specifically mean post-2009, should have clarified that, but for a route that's as dexterous and long it's a miracle it hasn't tried to be tampered with. As for the 157, I think it could easily be justified for having a 8-10 minute schedule with the links and connections it serves and gives to the South, the 119 in my opinion is in a similar boat, but considering the fact that it's 24 hours, it's certainly got more going for it despite it having less important connections. South London needs some love really, unfortunately we're the neglected part of the city except for when it's discussing about the SL7.. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Oct 4, 2024 14:14:45 GMT
Definitely agree with the 157 needing an increase, it is the fastest route between pretty much all the places it serves, and its 5bph frequency is inadequate I would say - up this to 6bph and that should be about right. For a night service along the 154/157 corridor, I'd have an "N154," which would follow the 154 roughly but would follow the 157 from Morden to Rosehill Roundabout and also Wallington to Waddon, and the 407 between Sutton and Carshalton (so that it serves Sutton properly as opposed to the 154 which avoids the town centre). I completely agree with the SL7 needing an increase too, the route is ridiculously overcrowded throughout, especially Sutton to Kingston - an increase to 5bph would be ideal (also bringing it in line with the other SL routes), and I'd also suggest tri-axle buses (which would be able to have a luggage rack without losing capacity). The 164 preferably needs double deckers before any frequency increase, and for the S3, the section between Malden Manor and Sutton is probably fine with its current frequency (a Sunday service really needs to be added though), but the section between Sutton and Belmont should ideally be replaced by the (higher frequency) 413, just as TfL themselves proposed in the consultation. With the 127, I'd be tempted to swap its routing between Tooting Broadway and Mitcham with the 355, to speed up journeys towards Tooting, of course this would be done with the 355 getting double deckers too. I think the 463 as a whole needs a rework, it seems to be a route of three sections, being incredibly busy between Coulsdon and Wallington, quite quiet onwards and then busier from Beddington Lane tram stop where it picks up passengers from the tram heading towards Pollards Hill. I'd suggest something like cutting the 463 back from Pollards Hill to Wallington, and then extending it to Sutton Bushey Road via the 157 to Carshalton, 407 to Sutton and 213/413 to Bushey Road, taking the 413s stand. I would have this run at 4bph with 10.2m buses, and the 627 could lose a bus to save money as part of this. This would provide new links from Sutton towards Woodcote and Coulsdon, and give extra capacity to the 463 where it needs it. A new route, "S5" maybe (since the 463 was effectively a replacement for the old S5 here), can then replace the 463 between Pollards Hill and Wallington, and can be extended down through the new estates in the Carshalton Beeches area to The Oaks golf course via Stanley Park Road, Diamond Jubilee Way, Damson Way, Metcalfe Avenue (with a bus gate) and Woodmansterne Road. This would run at the 463's existing frequency of 3bph with 9m buses. Sorry for the long post by the way As a user the 463 I can confirm it definitely feels like it's in sections, Coulsdon to The Mount (busy), then The Mount to Woodcote (not busy), then Woodcote to Therapia Lane (busy) then Therapia Lane to Eastfields (not busy) then Eastfields to Pollards Hill (busy), id personally reintroduce the S5 between Wallington and Pollards Hill still, but look for somewhere else to extend it rather than Carshalton Beeches, I worry those roads might be too small for 9m's (the 463 itself isn't even 9m, which is a giant travesty!) Then for the 463 I would do something far more interesting, there was once a proposal for it to go to Netherne-On-The-Hill, I'd bring this to light and give them a connection to London, reducing car usage more. Id also send the 463 down to Hackbridge for a terminal, I think an entirely new route would be the best to serve for the Carshalton Beeches area, maybe name it the 454 in honour of the 154. But then again, maybe the 463 can stay how it is, it's survived this long without changes, maybe this ' S5 ' could serve Carshalton Beeches estates before moving onto Wallington and then Beddington, perhaps taking over the S4 to Waddon Marsh where the S4 could terminate at Beddington ASDA and be extended back to St Helier or even straight the way down back to Morden! I don't think Netherne would be a suitable extension for the 463 to be honest, a 3bph service would be overkill and it would mean nothing longer than 9m buses would ever be possible on the route. To serve Netherne, I'd suggest something like a half hourly, one bus shuttle from Netherne to Coulsdon and back (with no stand time in Coulsdon), running out of Netherne, up the A23, past Coulsdon South station, same loop of Coulsdon as the 404 does (up the A23 and then back down the high street), back past Coulsdon South station, down the A23 and into Netherne. This would almost certainly need some funding from Surrey, as it would be financially unviable otherwise. I'm actually not too sure if Netherne is even suitable for 9m buses either, so I'd suggest using something a similar size to the Solo SR's the H2/H3 use. I'm not too sure Hackbridge needs any additional routes either, the 463 going up there would probably duplicate either the 127 or 151 depending on routing, and as far as I know the new estates are within 400m of an existing 127 or 151 stop. If something replaced the S4's extension, I would definitely agree with extending the S4 from Sutton up to St Helier or Morden via the 470, this would also help the stand space issues in Sutton. I would have the 293 replace the Morden to Colliers Wood section of the 470, with additional stops added on Merantun Way near some new developments, with the route getting double deckers and the DXEs moving to the 411. This section might have low demand at the moment but this would increase with a higher frequency and more bus stops. |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Oct 4, 2024 14:24:02 GMT
As a user the 463 I can confirm it definitely feels like it's in sections, Coulsdon to The Mount (busy), then The Mount to Woodcote (not busy), then Woodcote to Therapia Lane (busy) then Therapia Lane to Eastfields (not busy) then Eastfields to Pollards Hill (busy), id personally reintroduce the S5 between Wallington and Pollards Hill still, but look for somewhere else to extend it rather than Carshalton Beeches, I worry those roads might be too small for 9m's (the 463 itself isn't even 9m, which is a giant travesty!) Then for the 463 I would do something far more interesting, there was once a proposal for it to go to Netherne-On-The-Hill, I'd bring this to light and give them a connection to London, reducing car usage more. Id also send the 463 down to Hackbridge for a terminal, I think an entirely new route would be the best to serve for the Carshalton Beeches area, maybe name it the 454 in honour of the 154. But then again, maybe the 463 can stay how it is, it's survived this long without changes, maybe this ' S5 ' could serve Carshalton Beeches estates before moving onto Wallington and then Beddington, perhaps taking over the S4 to Waddon Marsh where the S4 could terminate at Beddington ASDA and be extended back to St Helier or even straight the way down back to Morden! I don't think Netherne would be a suitable extension for the 463 to be honest, a 3bph service would be overkill and it would mean nothing longer than 9m buses would ever be possible on the route. To serve Netherne, I'd suggest something like a half hourly, one bus shuttle from Netherne to Coulsdon and back (with no stand time in Coulsdon), running out of Netherne, up the A23, past Coulsdon South station, same loop of Coulsdon as the 404 does (up the A23 and then back down the high street), back past Coulsdon South station, down the A23 and into Netherne. This would almost certainly need some funding from Surrey, as it would be financially unviable otherwise. I'm actually not too sure if Netherne is even suitable for 9m buses either, so I'd suggest using something a similar size to the Solo SR's the H2/H3 use. I'm not too sure Hackbridge needs any additional routes either, the 463 going up there would probably duplicate either the 127 or 151 depending on routing, and as far as I know the new estates are within 400m of an existing 127 or 151 stop. If something replaced the S4's extension, I would definitely agree with extending the S4 from Sutton up to St Helier or Morden via the 470, this would also help the stand space issues in Sutton. I would have the 293 replace the Morden to Colliers Wood section of the 470, with additional stops added on Merantun Way near some new developments, with the route getting double deckers and the DXEs moving to the 411. This section might have low demand at the moment but this would increase with a higher frequency and more bus stops. The 463s already are forced to use 8'9s because for some reason C won't try anything longer on them so Netherne would be an insignificant issue, but I do see your point that it would probably be overkill, as for the 463 terminating at Hackbridge, I only said Hackbridge as there would be no other stand space around Wallington unless a third stand was put up before the car park at Shotfield which.. yeah, that'd be a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 4, 2024 14:40:56 GMT
Boosting the PVRs of routes would probably help with that issue quite a bit, have you seen Stafford Road as of late due to Croydon Road closing? It's actually concerning in my opinion. It doesn't help that routes that used to connect into the borough (most recently, the 455) are usually brushed over or cut down slowly, the 154 used to be a 24 hour route for example, not anymore though. An example of a route that I think needs timetable rework and pvr increase would be the 157, nearly every bus is packed due to how many convenient areas it serves in the South for commuters into Central London, but other routes like the 410, 127, SL7, 164, 280, S3 and 463 (specifically at peak hours I'd say) definitely would be more reliable with a timetable rework and pvr increase. The main problem is how many backroads are in Sutton I'd say, and it's not like we have our own system as large as the R routes in Orpington or the other lettered prefix routes, Sutton's is pretty barebones with it moreso being " Get to the destination as quickly as possible but still serve the backroads that you can ". In my point of view looking at routes like the S3 and S4. Definitely agree with the 157 needing an increase, it is the fastest route between pretty much all the places it serves, and its 5bph frequency is inadequate I would say - up this to 6bph and that should be about right. For a night service along the 154/157 corridor, I'd have an "N154," which would follow the 154 roughly but would follow the 157 from Morden to Rosehill Roundabout and also Wallington to Waddon, and the 407 between Sutton and Carshalton (so that it serves Sutton properly as opposed to the 154 which avoids the town centre). I completely agree with the SL7 needing an increase too, the route is ridiculously overcrowded throughout, especially Sutton to Kingston - an increase to 5bph would be ideal (also bringing it in line with the other SL routes), and I'd also suggest tri-axle buses (which would be able to have a luggage rack without losing capacity). {snip} Funnily enough, I have been thinking of what more night routes are needed for a more comprehensive night bus network in London. I was toying with a N157 from Morden to Lewisham Station; an hour's clean journey time and it would only need 6 journeys each way. An entirely manageable schedule and there should be demand after the N157 follows the 75 north-east of Anarley, The Mitre. The other one I thought about was reinstating the N213 to West Croydon, but to limit duplication on Stafford Road I would instead extend it via the SL7 to West Croydon. The timings are a bit harder to pin down but total journey time from Kingston should be around 50 minutes. I did think of the N213's original indent over the 154, but this one of London's latest finishing routes so Roundshaw residents won't get too much of a raw deal. The N157 is also not too far away. Sutton to Croydon is the only link of the SL7 that isn't covered at night, but ignoring that entirely these two town centres are too big to not be connected. The 154N running almost a full year before the Northern line was operational for Night Tube shows TfL knows that as well. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 4, 2024 15:18:23 GMT
As a user the 463 I can confirm it definitely feels like it's in sections, Coulsdon to The Mount (busy), then The Mount to Woodcote (not busy), then Woodcote to Therapia Lane (busy) then Therapia Lane to Eastfields (not busy) then Eastfields to Pollards Hill (busy), id personally reintroduce the S5 between Wallington and Pollards Hill still, but look for somewhere else to extend it rather than Carshalton Beeches, I worry those roads might be too small for 9m's (the 463 itself isn't even 9m, which is a giant travesty!) Then for the 463 I would do something far more interesting, there was once a proposal for it to go to Netherne-On-The-Hill, I'd bring this to light and give them a connection to London, reducing car usage more. Id also send the 463 down to Hackbridge for a terminal, I think an entirely new route would be the best to serve for the Carshalton Beeches area, maybe name it the 454 in honour of the 154. But then again, maybe the 463 can stay how it is, it's survived this long without changes, maybe this ' S5 ' could serve Carshalton Beeches estates before moving onto Wallington and then Beddington, perhaps taking over the S4 to Waddon Marsh where the S4 could terminate at Beddington ASDA and be extended back to St Helier or even straight the way down back to Morden! I don't think Netherne would be a suitable extension for the 463 to be honest, a 3bph service would be overkill and it would mean nothing longer than 9m buses would ever be possible on the route. To serve Netherne, I'd suggest something like a half hourly, one bus shuttle from Netherne to Coulsdon and back (with no stand time in Coulsdon), running out of Netherne, up the A23, past Coulsdon South station, same loop of Coulsdon as the 404 does (up the A23 and then back down the high street), back past Coulsdon South station, down the A23 and into Netherne. This would almost certainly need some funding from Surrey, as it would be financially unviable otherwise. I'm actually not too sure if Netherne is even suitable for 9m buses either, so I'd suggest using something a similar size to the Solo SR's the H2/H3 use. I'm not too sure Hackbridge needs any additional routes either, the 463 going up there would probably duplicate either the 127 or 151 depending on routing, and as far as I know the new estates are within 400m of an existing 127 or 151 stop. If something replaced the S4's extension, I would definitely agree with extending the S4 from Sutton up to St Helier or Morden via the 470, this would also help the stand space issues in Sutton. I would have the 293 replace the Morden to Colliers Wood section of the 470, with additional stops added on Merantun Way near some new developments, with the route getting double deckers and the DXEs moving to the 411. This section might have low demand at the moment but this would increase with a higher frequency and more bus stops. If 9m SDs could fit to Netherne, perhaps the 404 could be extended to serve Cane Hill as a through route, continuing via Sir James Moody Way, Portnalls Road, Hollymeoak Road, Brighton Road and Netherne Drive? |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Oct 4, 2024 15:22:20 GMT
Definitely agree with the 157 needing an increase, it is the fastest route between pretty much all the places it serves, and its 5bph frequency is inadequate I would say - up this to 6bph and that should be about right. For a night service along the 154/157 corridor, I'd have an "N154," which would follow the 154 roughly but would follow the 157 from Morden to Rosehill Roundabout and also Wallington to Waddon, and the 407 between Sutton and Carshalton (so that it serves Sutton properly as opposed to the 154 which avoids the town centre). I completely agree with the SL7 needing an increase too, the route is ridiculously overcrowded throughout, especially Sutton to Kingston - an increase to 5bph would be ideal (also bringing it in line with the other SL routes), and I'd also suggest tri-axle buses (which would be able to have a luggage rack without losing capacity). {snip} Funnily enough, I have been thinking of what more night routes are needed for a more comprehensive night bus network in London. I was toying with a N157 from Morden to Lewisham Station; an hour's clean journey time and it would only need 6 journeys each way. An entirely manageable schedule and there should be demand after the N157 follows the 75 north-east of Anarley, The Mitre. The other one I thought about was reinstating the N213 to West Croydon, but to limit duplication on Stafford Road I would instead extend it via the SL7 to West Croydon. The timings are a bit harder to pin down but total journey time from Kingston should be around 50 minutes. I did think of the N213's original indent over the 154, but this one of London's latest finishing routes so Roundshaw residents won't get too much of a raw deal. The N157 is also not too far away. Sutton to Croydon is the only link of the SL7 that isn't covered at night, but ignoring that entirely these two town centres are too big to not be connected. The 154N running almost a full year before the Northern line was operational for Night Tube shows TfL knows that as well. IIRC the N213 was cut due to low usage, and during the 24 hr weekend days the 154 was on the lower end of the usage spectrum. A large number of the least used night buses tend to be the orbital South London x30 ones so I wouldn’t be surprised if TfL were skeptical about introducing more, I’ve seen the 157 very busy in the early morning but without the tube at Morden I doubt it picks up much custom by night. When I rode a ~12am 157 from Morden on the last Arriva day we had a nice load from Morden, following that we picked up almost nobody with other 157s similarly empty and by the time we passed West Croydon it was completely dead. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 4, 2024 15:22:33 GMT
Definitely agree with the 157 needing an increase, it is the fastest route between pretty much all the places it serves, and its 5bph frequency is inadequate I would say - up this to 6bph and that should be about right. For a night service along the 154/157 corridor, I'd have an "N154," which would follow the 154 roughly but would follow the 157 from Morden to Rosehill Roundabout and also Wallington to Waddon, and the 407 between Sutton and Carshalton (so that it serves Sutton properly as opposed to the 154 which avoids the town centre). I completely agree with the SL7 needing an increase too, the route is ridiculously overcrowded throughout, especially Sutton to Kingston - an increase to 5bph would be ideal (also bringing it in line with the other SL routes), and I'd also suggest tri-axle buses (which would be able to have a luggage rack without losing capacity). {snip} Funnily enough, I have been thinking of what more night routes are needed for a more comprehensive night bus network in London. I was toying with a N157 from Morden to Lewisham Station; an hour's clean journey time and it would only need 6 journeys each way. An entirely manageable schedule and there should be demand after the N157 follows the 75 north-east of Anarley, The Mitre. The other one I thought about was reinstating the N213 to West Croydon, but to limit duplication on Stafford Road I would instead extend it via the SL7 to West Croydon. The timings are a bit harder to pin down but total journey time from Kingston should be around 50 minutes. I did think of the N213's original indent over the 154, but this one of London's latest finishing routes so Roundshaw residents won't get too much of a raw deal. The N157 is also not too far away. Sutton to Croydon is the only link of the SL7 that isn't covered at night, but ignoring that entirely these two town centres are too big to not be connected. The 154N running almost a full year before the Northern line was operational for Night Tube shows TfL knows that as well. Have you been to Croydon and Sutton past midnight since Covid? There isn’t much of a nightlife in either place, at least in Kingston there are clubs and bars open past 2am as well as a large uni attracting students to travel into town. There isn’t any of those things in either Sutton or Croydon so there doesn’t need to be a night route connecting them. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 4, 2024 15:28:35 GMT
Funnily enough, I have been thinking of what more night routes are needed for a more comprehensive night bus network in London. I was toying with a N157 from Morden to Lewisham Station; an hour's clean journey time and it would only need 6 journeys each way. An entirely manageable schedule and there should be demand after the N157 follows the 75 north-east of Anarley, The Mitre. The other one I thought about was reinstating the N213 to West Croydon, but to limit duplication on Stafford Road I would instead extend it via the SL7 to West Croydon. The timings are a bit harder to pin down but total journey time from Kingston should be around 50 minutes. I did think of the N213's original indent over the 154, but this one of London's latest finishing routes so Roundshaw residents won't get too much of a raw deal. The N157 is also not too far away. Sutton to Croydon is the only link of the SL7 that isn't covered at night, but ignoring that entirely these two town centres are too big to not be connected. The 154N running almost a full year before the Northern line was operational for Night Tube shows TfL knows that as well. IIRC the N213 was cut due to low usage, and during the 24 hr weekend days the 154 was on the lower end of the usage spectrum. A large number of the least used night buses tend to be the orbital South London x30 ones so I wouldn’t be surprised if TfL were skeptical about introducing more, I’ve seen the 157 very busy in the early morning but without the tube at Morden I doubt it picks up much custom by night. When I rode a ~12am 157 from Morden on the last Arriva day we had a nice load from Morden, following that we picked up almost nobody with other 157s similarly empty and by the time we passed West Croydon it was completely dead. It was due to low usage and despite a strong campaign from Tom Brake in the months and years that followed the cut still went ahead. The N154 had merit on a weekend but from my own experiences it wasn’t that busy beyond Sutton. Its loss certainly isn’t talked about locally and it isn’t missed. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Oct 4, 2024 16:14:59 GMT
Definitely agree with the 157 needing an increase, it is the fastest route between pretty much all the places it serves, and its 5bph frequency is inadequate I would say - up this to 6bph and that should be about right. For a night service along the 154/157 corridor, I'd have an "N154," which would follow the 154 roughly but would follow the 157 from Morden to Rosehill Roundabout and also Wallington to Waddon, and the 407 between Sutton and Carshalton (so that it serves Sutton properly as opposed to the 154 which avoids the town centre). I completely agree with the SL7 needing an increase too, the route is ridiculously overcrowded throughout, especially Sutton to Kingston - an increase to 5bph would be ideal (also bringing it in line with the other SL routes), and I'd also suggest tri-axle buses (which would be able to have a luggage rack without losing capacity). {snip} Funnily enough, I have been thinking of what more night routes are needed for a more comprehensive night bus network in London. I was toying with a N157 from Morden to Lewisham Station; an hour's clean journey time and it would only need 6 journeys each way. An entirely manageable schedule and there should be demand after the N157 follows the 75 north-east of Anarley, The Mitre. The other one I thought about was reinstating the N213 to West Croydon, but to limit duplication on Stafford Road I would instead extend it via the SL7 to West Croydon. The timings are a bit harder to pin down but total journey time from Kingston should be around 50 minutes. I did think of the N213's original indent over the 154, but this one of London's latest finishing routes so Roundshaw residents won't get too much of a raw deal. The N157 is also not too far away. Sutton to Croydon is the only link of the SL7 that isn't covered at night, but ignoring that entirely these two town centres are too big to not be connected. The 154N running almost a full year before the Northern line was operational for Night Tube shows TfL knows that as well. I was thinking recently about a night service along the 75 too, one idea I had was an N75 from Croydon Town Centre to North Greenwich via the 75 and 129 - this would provide connections to any events at the O2 and night tube. I'm not sure about extending the (N)213 to Croydon, the link to Morden is quite important so I think an N154 or N157 would be a better idea. Two night services along this corridor would be overkill, so I would have an N154 following the 157/164 from Morden to Rosehill Roundabout, 154/164 to Sutton, 407 to Carshalton, 154 to Wallington, 157 to Waddon and 154 to West Croydon. |
|
