|
Post by rugbyref on Sept 20, 2023 14:34:46 GMT
I always thought Route R2 should extended via R6 to St. Mary's Cray to make it easy, but TfL thought something different. For R1/R2/R3 section: I would go ahead with this one! Have no problem with it. I think it is good for local passengers. However, R3 is coming home again running via the Cheslfield Station area. :-) For B14/R6 section: I think it is about time for route B14 to have half hours of service every day! Good for the Sandway Road area as they can have more choices to go to Sidcup, Orpington or Bexleyheath. For R3 in Petts Wood: Ok, I am trying to understand this route in a different way. Now I understand why this may be a better way to service at Petts Wood, station SQ then service via coppice estate area first then service at Petts Wood, Queensway then quickly head to Locksbottom! However, Petts Wood Station has now got a new Lift making more access for wheelchar and pushchairs at either side without getting bus R3 to go another side of the railway. In All this change is def bonus for everyone. :-) Changing the GSG and Chelsfield end of the route from R1 to R3 would turn a currently reliable service into one heavily affected by traffic at Locksbottom and Petts Wood. I predict a massive drop off in reliabilty.
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Sept 20, 2023 15:02:20 GMT
Not that it would have a hope in hell of being adopted, my suggestion would be change the Locksbottom end of R3 to terminate with 336 at Sainsbury, freeing up a slot at PRU for R11 to be diverted at Glentrammon Road to serve MB, Farnborough Hill, Farnborough Village and terminate at PRU. This would mean the R11 could serve each of PRU, Orpington and Queen Mary hospitals. It would also enable driver changeover atMB, rather than block traffic in Sevenoaks Road as at present.
Changing the R3 terminus would have minimal impact on passengers, but improve reliability by avoiding the awkward right turn out of PRU.
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Sept 20, 2023 15:24:48 GMT
As a local resident I have responded to the survey. In the supplemental comments I have asked about R3 equipment, and whether we will suffer WS or ZF gearbox SEs. I also asked for (some hope!) guarantee that traffic problems in Petts Wood would never cause termination short of Green Street Green.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 20, 2023 15:40:27 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below?
R1/R3 - seem to work well as they are, and could risk reliability issues if extended further as per TFL's proposals. Probably the same for the R4 too.
R2/R8 - Might be simpler to just have one route between Biggin Hill and Orpington. The R8 isn't much different in journey times, and the unique section hardly serves any housing etc. Maybe could just have the R2, with passengers at Downe having to take the 146 then change?
R5/R10 - An hourly service could be worthwhile to give a clockface timetable for passengers. Could perhaps justify the higher PVR by incorporating Chelsfield Village into the loop, assuming an hourly service would be adequate here? Would also have the advantage of restoring a service to all of Chelsfield, plus introducing bus connections to Knockholt Station to/from nearby villages.
R6 - As a short and infrequent route, could easily be incorporated into another service, I think TFL's B14 proposal could work ok.
R7 - Chelsfield section as above. Not sure about the Chislehurst end either though, and I wonder if it might be worth diverting to Bromley instead, maybe serving some new roads on the way? Might be more useful to passengers around the local roads in Bickley. And at Chislehurst, in most cases the more frequent 61/162/273 will be preferable.
R9 - Seems to work well as a local shuttle into Orpington. I wonder though if residents at the Ramsden Estate might value a direct link beyond Orpington, such as Bromley? A restructure involving the 61/161/126 has often been suggested before.
R11 - Probably fine as it is, however another route taking over the Orpington Hospital grounds stop would allow longer SDs to be used for extra capacity, or even DDs? I also wonder if an extension further north from Sidcup to Bexleyheath would be popular?
146 - Infrequent and could have more potential if extended beyond Downe, maybe in partial replacement of the R8?
229 - Has been mentioned that the route is much busier north of Bexleyheath, so could consider splitting to better match each section to demand. As above, a revised R11 could replace it between Sidcup and Bexleyheath?
320 - Could the route maybe be more useful going via Hayes instead of Bromley Common? This would give passengers around Biggin Hill a frequent service to connect with trains at Hayes. The 246 could in turn go via Bromley Common, maybe also diverting something like the 261 via Oakley Road if more capacity is needed?
464 - Not sure if this would be worth looking at if the other Biggin Hill routes are reviewed?
51 - How reliable is this route considering the length? As an alternative to an R11 extension, could the 51 maybe curtail to Queen Marys Hospital, with the Orpington end of the 51 going to Bexleyheath instead?
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Sept 20, 2023 16:02:44 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below? R1/R3 - seem to work well as they are, and could risk reliability issues if extended further as per TFL's proposals. Probably the same for the R4 too. R2/R8 - Might be simpler to just have one route between Biggin Hill and Orpington. The R8 isn't much different in journey times, and the unique section hardly serves any housing etc. Maybe could just have the R2, with passengers at Downe having to take the 146 then change? R5/R10 - An hourly service could be worthwhile to give a clockface timetable for passengers. Could perhaps justify the higher PVR by incorporating Chelsfield Village into the loop, assuming an hourly service would be adequate here? Would also have the advantage of restoring a service to all of Chelsfield, plus introducing bus connections to Knockholt Station to/from nearby villages. R6 - As a short and infrequent route, could easily be incorporated into another service, I think TFL's B14 proposal could work ok. R7 - Chelsfield section as above. Not sure about the Chislehurst end either though, and I wonder if it might be worth diverting to Bromley instead, maybe serving some new roads on the way? Might be more useful to passengers around the local roads in Bickley. And at Chislehurst, in most cases the more frequent 61/162/273 will be preferable. R9 - Seems to work well as a local shuttle into Orpington. I wonder though if residents at the Ramsden Estate might value a direct link beyond Orpington, such as Bromley? A restructure involving the 61/161/126 has often been suggested before. R11 - Probably fine as it is, however another route taking over the Orpington Hospital grounds stop would allow longer SDs to be used for extra capacity, or even DDs? I also wonder if an extension further north from Sidcup to Bexleyheath would be popular? 146 - Infrequent and could have more potential if extended beyond Downe, maybe in partial replacement of the R8? 229 - Has been mentioned that the route is much busier north of Bexleyheath, so could consider splitting to better match each section to demand. As above, a revised R11 could replace it between Sidcup and Bexleyheath? 320 - Could the route maybe be more useful going via Hayes instead of Bromley Common? This would give passengers around Biggin Hill a frequent service to connect with trains at Hayes. The 246 could in turn go via Bromley Common, maybe also diverting something like the 261 via Oakley Road if more capacity is needed? 464 - Not sure if this would be worth looking at if the other Biggin Hill routes are reviewed? 51 - How reliable is this route considering the length? As an alternative to an R11 extension, could the 51 maybe curtail to Queen Marys Hospital, with the Orpington end of the 51 going to Bexleyheath instead? If you're thinking of making the 51 a Woolwich to Bexleyheath route then you already have the 96, 99, 301 and 422 doing that job. Adding a 5th one won't help it. If you meant having the 51 going from Orpington to Bexleyheath then that can be reviewed but I think it may be fine as it is right now.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 20, 2023 16:09:38 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below? R1/R3 - seem to work well as they are, and could risk reliability issues if extended further as per TFL's proposals. Probably the same for the R4 too. R2/R8 - Might be simpler to just have one route between Biggin Hill and Orpington. The R8 isn't much different in journey times, and the unique section hardly serves any housing etc. Maybe could just have the R2, with passengers at Downe having to take the 146 then change? R5/R10 - An hourly service could be worthwhile to give a clockface timetable for passengers. Could perhaps justify the higher PVR by incorporating Chelsfield Village into the loop, assuming an hourly service would be adequate here? Would also have the advantage of restoring a service to all of Chelsfield, plus introducing bus connections to Knockholt Station to/from nearby villages. R6 - As a short and infrequent route, could easily be incorporated into another service, I think TFL's B14 proposal could work ok. R7 - Chelsfield section as above. Not sure about the Chislehurst end either though, and I wonder if it might be worth diverting to Bromley instead, maybe serving some new roads on the way? Might be more useful to passengers around the local roads in Bickley. And at Chislehurst, in most cases the more frequent 61/162/273 will be preferable. R9 - Seems to work well as a local shuttle into Orpington. I wonder though if residents at the Ramsden Estate might value a direct link beyond Orpington, such as Bromley? A restructure involving the 61/161/126 has often been suggested before. R11 - Probably fine as it is, however another route taking over the Orpington Hospital grounds stop would allow longer SDs to be used for extra capacity, or even DDs? I also wonder if an extension further north from Sidcup to Bexleyheath would be popular? 146 - Infrequent and could have more potential if extended beyond Downe, maybe in partial replacement of the R8? 229 - Has been mentioned that the route is much busier north of Bexleyheath, so could consider splitting to better match each section to demand. As above, a revised R11 could replace it between Sidcup and Bexleyheath? 320 - Could the route maybe be more useful going via Hayes instead of Bromley Common? This would give passengers around Biggin Hill a frequent service to connect with trains at Hayes. The 246 could in turn go via Bromley Common, maybe also diverting something like the 261 via Oakley Road if more capacity is needed? 464 - Not sure if this would be worth looking at if the other Biggin Hill routes are reviewed? 51 - How reliable is this route considering the length? As an alternative to an R11 extension, could the 51 maybe curtail to Queen Marys Hospital, with the Orpington end of the 51 going to Bexleyheath instead? I'm not from the area so my view counts for nothing but I think this is way too many changes - I'm not a fan of these big structural changes that seem to inflict the provinces all the time (which probably is partly why bus transport struggles outside London among other factors). Is the Orpington network so broken that it needs this many changes not to mention the inclusion of 5 other routes that don't even serve the area?
|
|
|
Post by rift on Sept 20, 2023 16:21:26 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below? R1/R3 - seem to work well as they are, and could risk reliability issues if extended further as per TFL's proposals. Probably the same for the R4 too. R2/R8 - Might be simpler to just have one route between Biggin Hill and Orpington. The R8 isn't much different in journey times, and the unique section hardly serves any housing etc. Maybe could just have the R2, with passengers at Downe having to take the 146 then change? R5/R10 - An hourly service could be worthwhile to give a clockface timetable for passengers. Could perhaps justify the higher PVR by incorporating Chelsfield Village into the loop, assuming an hourly service would be adequate here? Would also have the advantage of restoring a service to all of Chelsfield, plus introducing bus connections to Knockholt Station to/from nearby villages. R6 - As a short and infrequent route, could easily be incorporated into another service, I think TFL's B14 proposal could work ok. R7 - Chelsfield section as above. Not sure about the Chislehurst end either though, and I wonder if it might be worth diverting to Bromley instead, maybe serving some new roads on the way? Might be more useful to passengers around the local roads in Bickley. And at Chislehurst, in most cases the more frequent 61/162/273 will be preferable. R9 - Seems to work well as a local shuttle into Orpington. I wonder though if residents at the Ramsden Estate might value a direct link beyond Orpington, such as Bromley? A restructure involving the 61/161/126 has often been suggested before. R11 - Probably fine as it is, however another route taking over the Orpington Hospital grounds stop would allow longer SDs to be used for extra capacity, or even DDs? I also wonder if an extension further north from Sidcup to Bexleyheath would be popular? 146 - Infrequent and could have more potential if extended beyond Downe, maybe in partial replacement of the R8? 229 - Has been mentioned that the route is much busier north of Bexleyheath, so could consider splitting to better match each section to demand. As above, a revised R11 could replace it between Sidcup and Bexleyheath? 320 - Could the route maybe be more useful going via Hayes instead of Bromley Common? This would give passengers around Biggin Hill a frequent service to connect with trains at Hayes. The 246 could in turn go via Bromley Common, maybe also diverting something like the 261 via Oakley Road if more capacity is needed? 464 - Not sure if this would be worth looking at if the other Biggin Hill routes are reviewed? 51 - How reliable is this route considering the length? As an alternative to an R11 extension, could the 51 maybe curtail to Queen Marys Hospital, with the Orpington end of the 51 going to Bexleyheath instead? I'm not from the area so my view counts for nothing but I think this is way too many changes - I'm not a fan of these big structural changes that seem to inflict the provinces all the time (which probably is partly why bus transport struggles outside London among other factors). Is the Orpington network so broken that it needs this many changes not to mention the inclusion of 5 other routes that don't even serve the area? I do not see any reason why the 51, 229 and 320 would need to be involved, considering two of them don’t even serve Orpington and the 51 mostly serves the high street and retail parks in Orpington instead of residential areas.
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Sept 20, 2023 16:24:50 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below? R1/R3 - seem to work well as they are, and could risk reliability issues if extended further as per TFL's proposals. Probably the same for the R4 too. R2/R8 - Might be simpler to just have one route between Biggin Hill and Orpington. The R8 isn't much different in journey times, and the unique section hardly serves any housing etc. Maybe could just have the R2, with passengers at Downe having to take the 146 then change? R5/R10 - An hourly service could be worthwhile to give a clockface timetable for passengers. Could perhaps justify the higher PVR by incorporating Chelsfield Village into the loop, assuming an hourly service would be adequate here? Would also have the advantage of restoring a service to all of Chelsfield, plus introducing bus connections to Knockholt Station to/from nearby villages. R6 - As a short and infrequent route, could easily be incorporated into another service, I think TFL's B14 proposal could work ok. R7 - Chelsfield section as above. Not sure about the Chislehurst end either though, and I wonder if it might be worth diverting to Bromley instead, maybe serving some new roads on the way? Might be more useful to passengers around the local roads in Bickley. And at Chislehurst, in most cases the more frequent 61/162/273 will be preferable. R9 - Seems to work well as a local shuttle into Orpington. I wonder though if residents at the Ramsden Estate might value a direct link beyond Orpington, such as Bromley? A restructure involving the 61/161/126 has often been suggested before. R11 - Probably fine as it is, however another route taking over the Orpington Hospital grounds stop would allow longer SDs to be used for extra capacity, or even DDs? I also wonder if an extension further north from Sidcup to Bexleyheath would be popular? 146 - Infrequent and could have more potential if extended beyond Downe, maybe in partial replacement of the R8? 229 - Has been mentioned that the route is much busier north of Bexleyheath, so could consider splitting to better match each section to demand. As above, a revised R11 could replace it between Sidcup and Bexleyheath? 320 - Could the route maybe be more useful going via Hayes instead of Bromley Common? This would give passengers around Biggin Hill a frequent service to connect with trains at Hayes. The 246 could in turn go via Bromley Common, maybe also diverting something like the 261 via Oakley Road if more capacity is needed? 464 - Not sure if this would be worth looking at if the other Biggin Hill routes are reviewed? 51 - How reliable is this route considering the length? As an alternative to an R11 extension, could the 51 maybe curtail to Queen Marys Hospital, with the Orpington end of the 51 going to Bexleyheath instead? I'm not from the area so my view counts for nothing but I think this is way too many changes - I'm not a fan of these big structural changes that seem to inflict the provinces all the time (which probably is partly why bus transport struggles outside London among other factors). Is the Orpington network so broken that it needs this many changes not to mention the inclusion of 5 other routes that don't even serve the area? Does it save money ? Two contracts merged into existing ones. Better services evenings and Sundays along the B14 which is good and better service through to Keston & Biggin Hill. But could come at the expense of reliability.
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Sept 20, 2023 16:38:48 GMT
Best focus on the actual R1/R2/R3/R6/B14 proposals and not some imaginary ones. The imaginary ones aren't happening.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 20, 2023 16:42:14 GMT
The R routes always being fiddled with. There contracts are always being interfered or altered just so they can be altered.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Sept 20, 2023 16:44:20 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below? R1/R3 - seem to work well as they are, and could risk reliability issues if extended further as per TFL's proposals. Probably the same for the R4 too. R2/R8 - Might be simpler to just have one route between Biggin Hill and Orpington. The R8 isn't much different in journey times, and the unique section hardly serves any housing etc. Maybe could just have the R2, with passengers at Downe having to take the 146 then change? R5/R10 - An hourly service could be worthwhile to give a clockface timetable for passengers. Could perhaps justify the higher PVR by incorporating Chelsfield Village into the loop, assuming an hourly service would be adequate here? Would also have the advantage of restoring a service to all of Chelsfield, plus introducing bus connections to Knockholt Station to/from nearby villages. R6 - As a short and infrequent route, could easily be incorporated into another service, I think TFL's B14 proposal could work ok. R7 - Chelsfield section as above. Not sure about the Chislehurst end either though, and I wonder if it might be worth diverting to Bromley instead, maybe serving some new roads on the way? Might be more useful to passengers around the local roads in Bickley. And at Chislehurst, in most cases the more frequent 61/162/273 will be preferable. R9 - Seems to work well as a local shuttle into Orpington. I wonder though if residents at the Ramsden Estate might value a direct link beyond Orpington, such as Bromley? A restructure involving the 61/161/126 has often been suggested before. R11 - Probably fine as it is, however another route taking over the Orpington Hospital grounds stop would allow longer SDs to be used for extra capacity, or even DDs? I also wonder if an extension further north from Sidcup to Bexleyheath would be popular? 146 - Infrequent and could have more potential if extended beyond Downe, maybe in partial replacement of the R8? 229 - Has been mentioned that the route is much busier north of Bexleyheath, so could consider splitting to better match each section to demand. As above, a revised R11 could replace it between Sidcup and Bexleyheath? 320 - Could the route maybe be more useful going via Hayes instead of Bromley Common? This would give passengers around Biggin Hill a frequent service to connect with trains at Hayes. The 246 could in turn go via Bromley Common, maybe also diverting something like the 261 via Oakley Road if more capacity is needed? 464 - Not sure if this would be worth looking at if the other Biggin Hill routes are reviewed? 51 - How reliable is this route considering the length? As an alternative to an R11 extension, could the 51 maybe curtail to Queen Marys Hospital, with the Orpington end of the 51 going to Bexleyheath instead? for me as local and I have to say none of routes above will not work at all!
|
|
|
Post by rift on Sept 20, 2023 16:49:02 GMT
I'm not from the area so my view counts for nothing but I think this is way too many changes - I'm not a fan of these big structural changes that seem to inflict the provinces all the time (which probably is partly why bus transport struggles outside London among other factors). Is the Orpington network so broken that it needs this many changes not to mention the inclusion of 5 other routes that don't even serve the area? Does it save money ? Two contracts merged into existing ones. Better services evenings and Sundays along the B14 which is good and better service through to Keston & Biggin Hill. But could come at the expense of reliability. With the B14, although its Sunday service is 2bph when compared to the current R6’s 1pbh, the last bus runs around 17:00, so I’d assume it would become an all day Sunday service should the reroute go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Sept 20, 2023 16:49:07 GMT
I am looking at R1 if go ahead, they need to look at toilet problems for drivers at either Biggin Hill Valley or St Paul's Cray. mmm, that is the question.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Sept 20, 2023 16:52:46 GMT
Changing the GSG and Chelsfield end of the route from R1 to R3 would turn a currently reliable service into one heavily affected by traffic at Locksbottom and Petts Wood. I predict a massive drop off in reliabilty. Equally, the change to the R1 means the Grovelands end could see a lack of reliability. I really think the R1, R2 and R3 changes need a rethink - it’s definitely a non starter for me I also asked for (some hope!) guarantee that traffic problems in Petts Wood would never cause termination short of Green Street Green. No such guarantees could ever be given - service requirements trump everything. Service controllers always endeavour to maintain a service from each end of the route. Guaranteeing service to one end of the route simply means the other end always suffers and that would not be acceptable. What would be in your favour though is if the new R3 continues to be run by Go Ahead at Green Street Green because that’s where changeovers would be therefore buses will now often than not get through
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Sept 20, 2023 16:53:25 GMT
I am looking at R1 if go ahead, they need to look at toilet problems for drivers at either Biggin Hill Valley or St Paul's Cray. mmm, that is the question. There’s a driver toilet at the Grovelands terminus
|
|