|
|
Post by paulsw2 on Jul 2, 2013 14:39:26 GMT
I live at the top of Tulse Hill and if it wasnt for the 415 I would be unable to get on a bus in the morning peak and when the schools chuck out in the afternoon.The 415 can also be full and standing after the 4th or 5th stop as well.There IS a need for the 415 as when the 2/432 are disrupted it does provide a service into Brixton. All that's need are a few extra's on the 2 or 432 between Norwood Garage and Brixton at peak/school times to solve that problem. The need for capacity is between Tulse Hill & Brixton but it will only get worse as there will be another secondary school opening soon where will the extra capacity come from then? |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jul 2, 2013 15:00:40 GMT
All that's need are a few extra's on the 2 or 432 between Norwood Garage and Brixton at peak/school times to solve that problem. The need for capacity is between Tulse Hill & Brixton but it will only get worse as there will be another secondary school opening soon where will the extra capacity come from then? Bring back the 689 then. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 2, 2013 15:15:08 GMT
I agree with decking the 152 - I remember using the route on a V reg Trident and it was well used. It was a few years back mind but surely demand hasn't changed that much since then. The 152 has been D/D on more than one occasion recently, seen them at the New Malden bus stand. Can only presume it was a stand in for a defunct S/D
There used to be times when up to six Tridents were on route at a time when Abellio were short on single deckers (and at the same time having surplus D/Ds). |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jul 2, 2013 16:45:37 GMT
If you're having to put extra resources on the 2 and 432 and bring back the 689 you're going to end up with a cost higher than the current 415 arrangement! Well believe it or not, the 415 & 689 did operate simultaneously for around 3 years! Withdrawing the 689 instead of the 415 was the wrong decision IMO, hence why we've ended up with an underused, 'useless' route. Withdrawing the 415, reintroducing the 689, and you wouldn't need to introduce extra workings on the 2 or the 432. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 2, 2013 18:19:38 GMT
All that's need are a few extra's on the 2 or 432 between Norwood Garage and Brixton at peak/school times to solve that problem. The need for capacity is between Tulse Hill & Brixton but it will only get worse as there will be another secondary school opening soon where will the extra capacity come from then? Bump up the 2 & 432 then - the 432 is the quickest route between Brixton & Crystal Palace yet runs at every 12 minutes and quite frankly should be at least every 10 minutes, if not, more frequent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 11:36:51 GMT
When I mean higher demand, I mean 57 for the 'community' of Clapham Park and new residents in the new flats built is going to be way more attractive to travel, because of the places it links, you cant just cut a route, just because you simply think it will cover a small section, passengers using the 57 from beyond Tooting may want to travel to the top of Streatham Hill, your proposal will make them change buses unnecessary. 255 wouldn't even be serving the majority of Clapham Park, actually just one bus stop in Atkins Road, so there would be no improvement for us at all. We would have to walk all the way up to New Park road bus stop, this would just anger people. Second of all, there is no need for the bus to go round in circles, when it can just cut through Sternhold av. Thirdly there is no straight left turn from Atkins road into Thornton Road, adding unnessary journey time. Omerley road is a resedential road, where I definetly dont think residents will feel happy about that. But yeah it should take the 249 stand space. The 57 doesn't serve the majority of Clapham Park though either, it serves the exact same stops as my 255 proposal and you have to walk up to New Park Road with the 57 now so surely people are angered by the 57 then? Cutting through Sternhold Avenue still leaves us with the 57 which is something I want re-routed away from Clapham Park regardless of whether my idea of extending it to Brixton is good or bad. At least this way, Pollards Hill suddenly gets a new link that could potentially be good, as not since the old 60 routing has Pollards Hill had any link further north than Streatham Hill. I've never mentioned anything about turning left from Atkins Road into Thornton Road, it turns left from Atkins Road into Kings Avenue before meeting Thornton Road at the left hand bend. Also, Atkins Road continues to the roundabout at Weir Road, Clarence Avenue & Thornton Road so technically a left hand turn is possible. As for local residents not being happy about buses down their roads, this will sound very harsh but tough. Residents in certain areas love complaining when it comes to these issues - be it residents in Hackbridge & Carshalton moaning about noisy bus brakes resulting in V reg Tridents being banned from the 157 or VLA's being banned from the 319 due to residents in Wandsworth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 11:41:19 GMT
I meant in your proposal the 255 would turn left into Kings AV, from Atkins rd, but there is no direct left turning and no 57 first stop is in Poynders Road, not New Park Road and so people are not angered by that.
The point is 255 use to serve Clapham Park from Pollards Hill to Stockwell, but why do you think they cut the route to Streatham Hill and replaced it by 50?
|
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jul 3, 2013 11:51:46 GMT
The point is 255 use to serve Clapham Park from Pollards Hill to Stockwell, but why do you think they cut the route to Streatham Hill and replaced it by 50? The 50 is a far better route!  The double deckers come in useful and it operates for longer hours than the 255. BTW you don't need to create 2 seperate posts for your post and the post you are quoting. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 3, 2013 11:53:34 GMT
I meant in your proposal the 255 would turn left into Kings AV, from Atkins rd, but there is no direct left turning and no 57 first stop is in Poynders Road, not New Park Road and so people are not angered by that. The point is 255 use to serve Clapham Park from Pollards Hill to Stockwell, but why do you think they cut the route to Streatham Hill and replaced it by 50? They wanted to double check that section, in a similar manner to how they double-decked the old 322 route (Brixton to Elephant) by extending the 196. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 4, 2013 1:07:10 GMT
I meant in your proposal the 255 would turn left into Kings AV, from Atkins rd, but there is no direct left turning and no 57 first stop is in Poynders Road, not New Park Road and so people are not angered by that. The point is 255 use to serve Clapham Park from Pollards Hill to Stockwell, but why do you think they cut the route to Streatham Hill and replaced it by 50? The 255 could be given priority to turn left directly there just like the 137, 417 & N137 can turn right directly from Atkins Road to Kings Avenue. Alternatively, just run it around the one way system - hardly adds much time. Towards Streatham, the 255 would still serve the Poynders Road stop so it makes no difference. The route was swapped with the 50 north of Streatham Hill simply because the 255 couldn't handle the loadings. My proposal does a completely different route that uses far fewer main roads. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jul 6, 2013 1:58:21 GMT
New route 374, West Croydon Station to Greenwich, Cutty Sark Via: - West Croydon
- Parson's Mead/ Handcroft Road
- Thornton Heath Pond
- Thornton Heath High Street
- Northbound -Ladbrook Road/ Ross Road/ Wharnecliffe Road/ Grange Hill to Upper Norwood (Southbound -Upper Beulah Hill & Grange Road to Thornton Heath)
- Church Road
- Crystal Palace
- Sydenham Hill/ Sydenham Rise
- Horniman Museum
- Honor Oak Park
- Chandos/ Brockley Jack
- Malpas Road/ Florence Road
- Deptford Bridge
- Deptford Station/ High Street Southbound only (Northbound via Deptford Church Street)
- Creek Road
- Greenwich, Cutty Sark
Every 15 minutes, operated by Arriva London with 03 reg DLAs.  |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 6, 2013 13:05:15 GMT
X40 A Limited stop route that runs via the A40 running from Uxbridge to St Paul's Stopping at: - Hillingdon Station
- South Greenford Station
- Perivale Bideford Avenue
- Hanger Lane Station
- Park Royal Station
- Gypsy Corner
- East Acton
- Edgware Road Staion
- Baker Street
- Regents Park Station
- Great Portland Street Station
- Warren Street Station
- Goodge Street
- Tottenham Court Road
- Holborn
- Chancery Lane
- Holborn Circus
- City Thameslink
|
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Jul 7, 2013 18:15:03 GMT
New route 374, West Croydon Station to Greenwich, Cutty Sark Via: - West Croydon
- Parson's Mead/ Handcroft Road
- Thornton Heath Pond
- Thornton Heath High Street
- Northbound -Ladbrook Road/ Ross Road/ Wharnecliffe Road/ Grange Hill to Upper Norwood (Southbound -Upper Beulah Hill & Grange Road to Thornton Heath)
- Church Road
- Crystal Palace
- Sydenham Hill/ Sydenham Rise
- Horniman Museum
- Honor Oak Park
- Chandos/ Brockley Jack
- Malpas Road/ Florence Road
- Deptford Bridge
- Deptford Station/ High Street Southbound only (Northbound via Deptford Church Street)
- Creek Road
- Greenwich, Cutty Sark
Every 15 minutes, operated by Arriva London with 03 reg DLAs. Nice route but 03reg dlas would upset Greenwich residents due to the loudness. I propose hv's or e40h's |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 7, 2013 21:04:51 GMT
New route 374, West Croydon Station to Greenwich, Cutty Sark Via: - West Croydon
- Parson's Mead/ Handcroft Road
- Thornton Heath Pond
- Thornton Heath High Street
- Northbound -Ladbrook Road/ Ross Road/ Wharnecliffe Road/ Grange Hill to Upper Norwood (Southbound -Upper Beulah Hill & Grange Road to Thornton Heath)
- Church Road
- Crystal Palace
- Sydenham Hill/ Sydenham Rise
- Horniman Museum
- Honor Oak Park
- Chandos/ Brockley Jack
- Malpas Road/ Florence Road
- Deptford Bridge
- Deptford Station/ High Street Southbound only (Northbound via Deptford Church Street)
- Creek Road
- Greenwich, Cutty Sark
Every 15 minutes, operated by Arriva London with 03 reg DLAs. Nice route but 03reg dlas would upset Greenwich residents due to the loudness. I propose hv's or e40h's You mean it would upset you, besides DLA's aren't loud especially when compared to B7TL's & Enviro 400's & 400H's. Anyway, DLA's wouldn't be used as they are too old now for existing contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Jul 7, 2013 22:35:29 GMT
Nice route but 03reg dlas would upset Greenwich residents due to the loudness. I propose hv's or e40h's You mean it would upset you, besides DLA's aren't loud especially when compared to B7TL's & Enviro 400's & 400H's. Anyway, DLA's wouldn't be used as they are too old now for existing contracts. No I mean Greenwich residents would flip if they had 03 reg dlas ps I have ridden the 03's and well they are horrendously loud |
|
