|
|
Post by londonbuses on Oct 4, 2024 19:05:48 GMT
The 154 received a frequency increase in (I think) 2019 to 6bph, and I would say thats about right for the route. The 157 should ideally be increased up to 6bph, which would match the 154 and would be ideal for the route. Other routes in the Sutton and Croydon areas which need increasing include the 213 and 450 which need their cuts to be reversed, the SL7 which needs to run at 5bph, and the S2 could even do with an increase to 4bph (which really shows what an improved service can do!). Some routes in the area such as the 151 and 466 are probably slightly overbussed, and could be dropped down to 5bph and 6bph respectively. I disagree about the 151, its frequency definitely matches the demand. As for the 213 it doesn’t need to be fully restored, I’d say a minor increase back to 16 would be great although right now it’s PVR is perfectly matching things. Since the schools went back I have only had one journey refuse to take passengers and that was the day of the A3 flooding so buses were delayed. Traffic has dramatically improved since Covid in the major pinch point of Worcester Park beyond exceptional events. I don’t think the SL7 needs another increase, the existing frequency is fine but it just needs to be managed better to ensure buses are actually running 15 minutes apart, too many times since the increase have I experienced large gaps or buses running very close together. The S2 could do with an increase, it is very well loaded from my experiences and 5bph would definitely be well used. I agree about the 213, I just meant that the recent cut from PVR 16 to 14 should be reversed - the 2018 PVR of 19 is no longer needed with the higher frequency SL7. I would disagree about the SL7 though, overcrowding is pretty much standard on the route throughout the day and it desperately needs the extra capacity. An increase will also give enough capacity to add some extra stops at Beddington, Hanworth and Harlington Corner. The S2 really is a perfect example of what happens when bus services are improved properly! |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 4, 2024 19:13:57 GMT
A link to Crystal Palace from the Woodside/Addiscombe area would certainly be useful and there was a suggestion of extending the 312 there via South Norwood Hill and Church Road. Could the 130 be cut back to Selhurst Park then directed right on Whitehorse Lane, then South Norwood Hill, following the 249 down Church Road to Crystal Palace? Not really advisable. Does Norwood need another route to Crystal Palace? Probably not. 157 and 410 more than suffice. The 130 provide a nice short connection not provided by any other service. Think this proposed trade off is negative. |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Oct 4, 2024 19:15:55 GMT
S2 can load well but anything above 3bph is quite a big ask
|
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Oct 4, 2024 19:16:35 GMT
A link to Crystal Palace from the Woodside/Addiscombe area would certainly be useful and there was a suggestion of extending the 312 there via South Norwood Hill and Church Road. Could the 130 be cut back to Selhurst Park then directed right on Whitehorse Lane, then South Norwood Hill, following the 249 down Church Road to Crystal Palace? I disagree about cutting back the 130, but that brings me to an idea I had about a 130 extension. If the 439 and S4 are altered and kicked off the Waddon Marsh stand, I think a 130 extension to Waddon Marsh would be a good idea, running via Brigstock Road, London Road, Canterbury Road and Purley Way. This would provide lots of new links to Croydon University Hospital and the shops on Purley Way. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Oct 4, 2024 19:18:59 GMT
Personally I always thought that 1998 proposal to switch the 157 and 197 beyond Norwood Junction was a good idea. I think CP would have done better with a link to Croydon Town centre proper as opposed to the top of the town via West Croydon and it would have allowed the 157 to be a bit shorter and run every 10 mins. The 157 definitely has a demand out of Morden and one aswell at times of day from West Croydon back to Wallington. A link to Crystal Palace from the Woodside/Addiscombe area would certainly be useful and there was a suggestion of extending the 312 there via South Norwood Hill and Church Road. That extension was quite a good idea, now the 312 is restricted to single deckers anyway due to Old Lodge Lane, it makes even more sense (since the extension would take the route under the Norwood Junction low bridge). |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Oct 4, 2024 19:19:05 GMT
Could the 130 be cut back to Selhurst Park then directed right on Whitehorse Lane, then South Norwood Hill, following the 249 down Church Road to Crystal Palace? I disagree about cutting back the 130, but that brings me to an idea I had about a 130 extension. If the 439 and S4 are altered and kicked off the Waddon Marsh stand, I think a 130 extension to Waddon Marsh would be a good idea, running via Brigstock Road, London Road, Canterbury Road and Purley Way. This would provide lots of new links to Croydon University Hospital and the shops on Purley Way. Those links are already provided by the 289 |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 4, 2024 19:27:40 GMT
I disagree about the 151, its frequency definitely matches the demand. As for the 213 it doesn’t need to be fully restored, I’d say a minor increase back to 16 would be great although right now it’s PVR is perfectly matching things. Since the schools went back I have only had one journey refuse to take passengers and that was the day of the A3 flooding so buses were delayed. Traffic has dramatically improved since Covid in the major pinch point of Worcester Park beyond exceptional events. I don’t think the SL7 needs another increase, the existing frequency is fine but it just needs to be managed better to ensure buses are actually running 15 minutes apart, too many times since the increase have I experienced large gaps or buses running very close together. The S2 could do with an increase, it is very well loaded from my experiences and 5bph would definitely be well used. I agree about the 213, I just meant that the recent cut from PVR 16 to 14 should be reversed - the 2018 PVR of 19 is no longer needed with the higher frequency SL7. I would disagree about the SL7 though, overcrowding is pretty much standard on the route throughout the day and it desperately needs the extra capacity. An increase will also give enough capacity to add some extra stops at Beddington, Hanworth and Harlington Corner. The S2 really is a perfect example of what happens when bus services are improved properly! I think the problem with the SL7 stems from poor management of the increase. It used to run like clockwork, you could count on it turning up every 30 minutes bang on the timetable or within a few minutes. I’ll turn up to a stop now and 2 are due within a few minutes and then nothing for another 20+ minutes. The worst experience was when then driver was told to hold in Cheam for 45 minutes to regulate, I took a 213 instead. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 4, 2024 19:34:00 GMT
Possibly but then the link to Thornton Heath is lost. I doubt people will be too pressed about losing Thornton Heath, they're still connected to the Sainsbury's, the 468 is fairly frequent and can take them into Thornton Heath and Crystal Palace has far more useful connections into Central London, the only thing they'd be missing out on is Thornton Heath Station but Selhurst is close enough of a bus swap for it to be a low issue. The link to Thornton Heath is useful so I wouldn't change the current 130 route. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 4, 2024 19:37:31 GMT
I agree about the 213, I just meant that the recent cut from PVR 16 to 14 should be reversed - the 2018 PVR of 19 is no longer needed with the higher frequency SL7. I would disagree about the SL7 though, overcrowding is pretty much standard on the route throughout the day and it desperately needs the extra capacity. An increase will also give enough capacity to add some extra stops at Beddington, Hanworth and Harlington Corner. The S2 really is a perfect example of what happens when bus services are improved properly! I think the problem with the SL7 stems from poor management of the increase. It used to run like clockwork, you could count on it turning up every 30 minutes bang on the timetable or within a few minutes. I’ll turn up to a stop now and 2 are due within a few minutes and then nothing for another 20+ minutes. The worst experience was when then driver was told to hold in Cheam for 45 minutes to regulate, I took a 213 instead. Wow so in effect that SL7 terminated in Cheam and then started it's journey again 45 mins later. I agree the robustness of the previous timetable hasn't continued on the current one. I do think it would struggle every 12 mins to maintain an even headway and if capacity does become an issue then a restructure would be necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 4, 2024 19:40:10 GMT
A link to Crystal Palace from the Woodside/Addiscombe area would certainly be useful and there was a suggestion of extending the 312 there via South Norwood Hill and Church Road. Could the 130 be cut back to Selhurst Park then directed right on Whitehorse Lane, then South Norwood Hill, following the 249 down Church Road to Crystal Palace? Foolishness. As someone who regularly does the 249 it provides more than enough Capacity between Upper Norwood & Crystal Palace in fact this is the most dead section of Route 249 so does not justify the 130 or any other bus route… someone suggested earlier this year to extend the a route to Upper Norwood via the 249 such a dead location to terminate a normal service… 312 to Crystal Palace is basically the 157 via Upper Norwood pretty much duplicating existing links. More fresh air buses… The 196 doesn’t exactly carry heavy loads… however the 468 definitely does and is already high in frequency which matches the demand |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Oct 4, 2024 19:42:12 GMT
I agree about the 213, I just meant that the recent cut from PVR 16 to 14 should be reversed - the 2018 PVR of 19 is no longer needed with the higher frequency SL7. I would disagree about the SL7 though, overcrowding is pretty much standard on the route throughout the day and it desperately needs the extra capacity. An increase will also give enough capacity to add some extra stops at Beddington, Hanworth and Harlington Corner. The S2 really is a perfect example of what happens when bus services are improved properly! I think the problem with the SL7 stems from poor management of the increase. It used to run like clockwork, you could count on it turning up every 30 minutes bang on the timetable or within a few minutes. I’ll turn up to a stop now and 2 are due within a few minutes and then nothing for another 20+ minutes. The worst experience was when then driver was told to hold in Cheam for 45 minutes to regulate, I took a 213 instead. How could the SL7 reliability have collapsed so quickly though with the increase? One would have thought you’d just have to carry on what you were doing already just doubled 😂 have operational conditions become more difficult coinciding with the increase? I remember a few clued up people saying the SL7 reliability will go to the dogs with a doubled frequency |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Oct 4, 2024 20:01:32 GMT
I heard somewhere the SL7 was classified as a high frequency route despite not being 5bph that could potentially be it?
|
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Oct 4, 2024 20:05:47 GMT
I agree about the 213, I just meant that the recent cut from PVR 16 to 14 should be reversed - the 2018 PVR of 19 is no longer needed with the higher frequency SL7. I would disagree about the SL7 though, overcrowding is pretty much standard on the route throughout the day and it desperately needs the extra capacity. An increase will also give enough capacity to add some extra stops at Beddington, Hanworth and Harlington Corner. The S2 really is a perfect example of what happens when bus services are improved properly! I think the problem with the SL7 stems from poor management of the increase. It used to run like clockwork, you could count on it turning up every 30 minutes bang on the timetable or within a few minutes. I’ll turn up to a stop now and 2 are due within a few minutes and then nothing for another 20+ minutes. The worst experience was when then driver was told to hold in Cheam for 45 minutes to regulate, I took a 213 instead. I agree about the reliability, it has been absolutely atrocious since the increase, and I have found myself using the 213 and 285 more than ever. Granted they have made some improvements since last year, but it is still very very poor in comparison to when it was every 30. However I think the frequency needs increasing regardless of reliability - even when the route is running well, the buses are generally always overcrowded in my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 4, 2024 20:06:28 GMT
I heard somewhere the SL7 was classified as a high frequency route despite not being 5bph that could potentially be it? Yes the timetables don't give exact times now, they just say every 14 to 16 mins or something like that. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 4, 2024 20:13:59 GMT
I think the problem with the SL7 stems from poor management of the increase. It used to run like clockwork, you could count on it turning up every 30 minutes bang on the timetable or within a few minutes. I’ll turn up to a stop now and 2 are due within a few minutes and then nothing for another 20+ minutes. The worst experience was when then driver was told to hold in Cheam for 45 minutes to regulate, I took a 213 instead. I agree about the reliability, it has been absolutely atrocious since the increase, and I have found myself using the 213 and 285 more than ever. Granted they have made some improvements since last year, but it is still very very poor in comparison to when it was every 30. However I think the frequency needs increasing regardless of reliability - even when the route is running well, the buses are generally always overcrowded in my experience. For me it really depends on the journey, if I take the bus that gets to Cheam just before 7am it’s normally very quiet but the one after 7 is a lot busier but neither are hugely overcrowded. I’ve taken the SL7 just after 5 from Kingston twice in the last week and again neither was overcrowded and were quite quiet. |
|
