|
Post by greenboy on Sept 21, 2023 8:42:28 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 think your suggestion of the R5/R10 via Chelsfield Village has some merit and maybe serving Polhill Garden Centre but there will inevitably be winners and losers. The R4 evening and Sunday service is a bit of an anomaly being only hourly whilst other routes with a x20mins daytime service get a x30mins evening and Sunday service. Any faster Orpington to Bexleyheath link would have to go via North Cray and wouldn't serve Sidcup. The 492 could be rerouted to Orpington but then of course the link from North Cray to Sidcup is lost.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Sept 21, 2023 8:50:41 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 think your suggestion of the R5/R10 via Chelsfield Village has some merit and maybe serving Polhill Garden Centre but there will inevitably be winners and lovers. The R4 evening and Sunday service is a bit of an anomaly being only hourly whilst other routes with a x20mins daytime service get a x30mins evening and Sunday service. Any faster Orpington to Bexleyheath link would have to go via North Cray and wouldn't serve Sidcup. The 492 could be rerouted to Orpington but then of course the link from North Cray to Sidcup is lost. The 492 could still serve Sidcup High Street, then left towards Queen Mary Hospital rather than terminating at the Station, pass the Hospital then use the A20 to reach Crittal's Corner.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Sept 21, 2023 12:09:21 GMT
I think your suggestion of the R5/R10 via Chelsfield Village has some merit and maybe serving Polhill Garden Centre but there will inevitably be winners and lovers. The R4 evening and Sunday service is a bit of an anomaly being only hourly whilst other routes with a x20mins daytime service get a x30mins evening and Sunday service. Any faster Orpington to Bexleyheath link would have to go via North Cray and wouldn't serve Sidcup. The 492 could be rerouted to Orpington but then of course the link from North Cray to Sidcup is lost. The 492 could still serve Sidcup High Street, then left towards Queen Mary Hospital rather than terminating at the Station, pass the Hospital then use the A20 to reach Crittal's Corner. This routing would take away the North Cray estate’s link to Sidcup Station though. Whilst I’d support a direct Bexleyheath to Orpington route via North Cray, any suggestion to break the North Cray to Sidcup 492 suggestion is idiotic and shows a lack of knowledge of the area.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 21, 2023 12:19:01 GMT
The 492 could still serve Sidcup High Street, then left towards Queen Mary Hospital rather than terminating at the Station, pass the Hospital then use the A20 to reach Crittal's Corner. This routing would take away the North Cray estate’s link to Sidcup Station though. Whilst I’d support a direct Bexleyheath to Orpington route via North Cray, any suggestion to break the North Cray to Sidcup 492 suggestion is idiotic and shows a lack of knowledge of the area. I don't think anybody has suggested doing that?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 21, 2023 13:01:09 GMT
I think your suggestion of the R5/R10 via Chelsfield Village has some merit and maybe serving Polhill Garden Centre but there will inevitably be winners and lovers. The R4 evening and Sunday service is a bit of an anomaly being only hourly whilst other routes with a x20mins daytime service get a x30mins evening and Sunday service. Any faster Orpington to Bexleyheath link would have to go via North Cray and wouldn't serve Sidcup. The 492 could be rerouted to Orpington but then of course the link from North Cray to Sidcup is lost. The 492 could still serve Sidcup High Street, then left towards Queen Mary Hospital rather than terminating at the Station, pass the Hospital then use the A20 to reach Crittal's Corner. A bit time consuming though.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 21, 2023 13:58:06 GMT
Will the revised B14 have a Sunday evening service? It doesn't at the moment and the R6 which it's replacing does.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Sept 21, 2023 14:03:52 GMT
Will the revised B14 have a Sunday evening service? It doesn't at the moment and the R6 which it's replacing does. I think I read it say B14 will increase to two buses per hour match as R6 all day Sunday!.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 21, 2023 19:09:52 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. I don’t know the area, but am intrigued. How would that work for hospital trips, would it be a longer walk for passengers from the hospital entrance to the R3 bus stop?
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 21, 2023 19:18:37 GMT
If you were a resident of Maypole or Bopeep you would probably be feeling quite annoyed at this point having recently lost your R7 bus service.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 21, 2023 19:20:57 GMT
Does the R2 reach parts of Biggin Hill Valley that the double deckers on route 320 can’t get to due to road restrictions?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 21, 2023 19:29:07 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. I don’t know the area, but am intrigued. How would that work for hospital trips, would it be a longer walk for passengers from the hospital entrance to the R3 bus stop? Only slightly and it would remove the difficult right turn out of the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 21, 2023 19:36:49 GMT
Does the R2 reach parts of Biggin Hill Valley that the double deckers on route 320 can’t get to due to road restrictions? The Melody Road and East Hill section in Biggin Hill would probably be awkward for a double decker and residents probably wouldn't be too impressed either .
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 21, 2023 20:04:12 GMT
Does the R2 reach parts of Biggin Hill Valley that the double deckers on route 320 can’t get to due to road restrictions? The Melody Road and East Hill section in Biggin Hill would probably be awkward for a double decker and residents probably wouldn't be too impressed either After the fuss they made about that toilet being installed for drivers, I suspect you are right.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 21, 2023 20:12:37 GMT
The 492 could still serve Sidcup High Street, then left towards Queen Mary Hospital rather than terminating at the Station, pass the Hospital then use the A20 to reach Crittal's Corner. This routing would take away the North Cray estate’s link to Sidcup Station though. Whilst I’d support a direct Bexleyheath to Orpington route via North Cray, any suggestion to break the North Cray to Sidcup 492 suggestion is idiotic and shows a lack of knowledge of the area. I assume it's slightly cheaper going from Sidcup, but the 492 would still stop close to Bexley station on the Sidcup line.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 26, 2023 10:12:03 GMT
Tfl are doing the same thing to the R1/R2 that they did to the W12/14/549! The R2 isn't being withdrawn because the R2 isn't being withdrawn. It's the R1 being split in two and being replaced by the R2 extension and the R3
|
|