Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 12:26:10 GMT
Why is there no need for the 181 to go to Tulse Hill? At the moment the only link west from Lower Sydenham is the infrequent 356 which only goes to Forest Hill/Sydenham Hill anyway. The 181 is a ridiculously cicuitous route, nobody going from Lower Sydenham to Lewisham wants to go via Hither Green, which also misses out the hopital. How can withdrawing the 356 be a bad idea when it is replaced by more frequent and more useful routes? Why should the 322 remain as it is? Isn't a Crystal Palace, Anerley, Elmers End, Shirley link useful? You just seem to disagree with things for the sake of it. Oh well at least you liked the 354 idea Don't take this the wrong way but your 181 idea is appalling. Who cares whether the passengers want to go via Hither Green to Lewisham or not. The link to Lewisham from Lower Sydenham is there. They have a choice either stay on it or get off in Catford and wait for a 47 or 54 etc on Bromley Road. Your 356 idea is also appalling. I use the 356 quite a bit and quite a lot of people use it from Forest Hill to Penge and is well used Between Shirley & Penge. The reason I don't think much of your ideas is because your suggesting to replace other routes with others and the routes like 181 & 356 are well used like. Plus to add the 181 is one of my local routes out of the 124, 160 & 284. Do you really think I like such a ridiculous idea to get rid of the 181 from Lower Sydenham - Lewisham. The Lewisham - Sandhurst Road section is the busiest most popular section. If that link is lost then the 284 will become even busier. The 181 does not need to be diverted to Tulse Hill it may be slightly circular, but it is a well used service and Most IMPORTANTLY serves A PURPOSE and I'm very sure the People of Hither Green would not want to loose their Link in favour of ridiculous diversion idea to Tulse Hill. Plus to add there a quite a lot of Routes that are slightly circular that serve a purpose. The 300 comes to mind. Plus you sending the 199 to replace it is also ridiculous. Your asking for an unreliable service, which would probably cost more to run than the 181. The 322 is fine. The 432 is a better route to extend to Elmers End. Don't take this the wrong way but I think the current 181 is appalling, certainly no good for anything other than short journies. There would be the 354 instead of the 356 between Forest Hill and Penge so thats sorted and there is also the 194 between Shirley and Penge. The reason I suggest getting rid of the Anerley stand is that three routes are more than adequate on that section, the 157 turns right at the Robin Hood (well where it used to be) the 358 turns left and all we need is another route to go straight on to Elmers End, I'd suggest the 322 would be better than the 432 but if you think otherwise that is fine. The 180 would obviously cover the busy Lewisham to Sandhurst Rd bit of the 181 with double deckers so hows that a bad thing? And whats wrong with rerouting the 199 to Lower Sydenham? It's not exactly a long route and gives links from Lower Sydenham to Greenwich etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 12:28:29 GMT
I work in this area and something needs to be done with the stand arrangements for the 176 & the rubbish service between anerley and elmers end direct , the lack of a night service to Norwood junction, and the lack of Sunday services across large areas of Penge, Anerley & Beckenham. Possibly send the 176 the short distance to Beckenham Junction? Have a feeling though that there's no space to terminate anything else anywhere in Beckenham... There is stand space in Clifford Road, Norwood Junction |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 12:32:07 GMT
Why is there no need for the 181 to go to Tulse Hill? At the moment the only link west from Lower Sydenham is the infrequent 356 which only goes to Forest Hill/Sydenham Hill anyway. The 181 is a ridiculously cicuitous route, nobody going from Lower Sydenham to Lewisham wants to go via Hither Green, which also misses out the hopital. How can withdrawing the 356 be a bad idea when it is replaced by more frequent and more useful routes? Why should the 322 remain as it is? Isn't a Crystal Palace, Anerley, Elmers End, Shirley link useful? You just seem to disagree with things for the sake of it. Oh well at least you liked the 354 idea You might get better responses if you set out the objectives you had for making the changes, identified the deficiences you perceive with existing services and said how you would preserve popular links on services you were changing. An overview of the benefits from your scheme would also be helpful. You touched on some of that in your proposal list but just saying "the 181 is circuitous" is not a reason to hack it to bits. The 253/4 are "circuitous" if you look at the route taken between the termini but they're immensely busy services *because* of the circuit they take. Sometimes people are happy to have a direct bus that takes a little longer to get somewhere than being forced to change between high frequency routes. I don't know the routes you're referring to very well but a route like the 181 always looks well loaded when I see it in Lewisham. Now it might carry fresh air after 10 stops but somehow I doubt it. I agree with filling in the gap between Anerley and Elmers End via the obvious direct route but selecting the "best" route to do it is not easy despite a plethora of terminating services at Crystal Palace and Anerley. The recent TfL appearance in front of the Transport Committee (see separate thread) showed how TfL plan for flows and then decide which route(s) should serve them. Passengers and enthusiasts tend to start with existing routes and then fiddle about with them. This is why many public proposals are expensive because they take high frequency, high PVR routes and then extend them which instantly gives a big cost (e.g. extending route 22 to Roehampton which is apparently a public suggestion to TfL but is completely unaffordable). They may also increase the risk of unreliable operation or break established travel patterns. I believe TfL said (haven't gone back and checked) that "round the houses" routes are often very effective despite looking "illogical" on paper. The 253/254 are a bit different, I can't think of a more circuitous route in London than the 181, the 191 in the Enfield area is the only other example that comes to mind. The fact that the 181 is well loaded, I don't dispute that for a minute indeed that's why I suggested replacing the Hither Green bit with the double deck 180, doesn't mean that everything is fine and cannot be improved upon. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 31, 2013 12:54:24 GMT
Don't take this the wrong way but your 181 idea is appalling. Who cares whether the passengers want to go via Hither Green to Lewisham or not. The link to Lewisham from Lower Sydenham is there. They have a choice either stay on it or get off in Catford and wait for a 47 or 54 etc on Bromley Road. Your 356 idea is also appalling. I use the 356 quite a bit and quite a lot of people use it from Forest Hill to Penge and is well used Between Shirley & Penge. The reason I don't think much of your ideas is because your suggesting to replace other routes with others and the routes like 181 & 356 are well used like. Plus to add the 181 is one of my local routes out of the 124, 160 & 284. Do you really think I like such a ridiculous idea to get rid of the 181 from Lower Sydenham - Lewisham. The Lewisham - Sandhurst Road section is the busiest most popular section. If that link is lost then the 284 will become even busier. The 181 does not need to be diverted to Tulse Hill it may be slightly circular, but it is a well used service and Most IMPORTANTLY serves A PURPOSE and I'm very sure the People of Hither Green would not want to loose their Link in favour of ridiculous diversion idea to Tulse Hill. Plus to add there a quite a lot of Routes that are slightly circular that serve a purpose. The 300 comes to mind. Plus you sending the 199 to replace it is also ridiculous. Your asking for an unreliable service, which would probably cost more to run than the 181. The 322 is fine. The 432 is a better route to extend to Elmers End. Don't take this the wrong way but I think the current 181 is appalling, certainly no good for anything other than short journies. There would be the 354 instead of the 356 between Forest Hill and Penge so thats sorted and there is also the 194 between Shirley and Penge. The reason I suggest getting rid of the Anerley stand is that three routes are more than adequate on that section, the 157 turns right at the Robin Hood (well where it used to be) the 358 turns left and all we need is another route to go straight on to Elmers End, I'd suggest the 322 would be better than the 432 but if you think otherwise that is fine. The 180 would obviously cover the busy Lewisham to Sandhurst Rd bit of the 181 with double deckers so hows that a bad thing? And whats wrong with rerouting the 199 to Lower Sydenham? It's not exactly a long route and gives links from Lower Sydenham to Greenwich etc. In the past yes, but the 181s PVR has been increased to 12 and now has a lot more running time and the curtailments to Downham have actually reduced. Plus what rubbish do you mean Nothing good other than Short Journeys, that's because it has to deal with Perry Hill daily and that is the ONLY traffic hotspot on the route and courthill road Early mornings. Very poor excuse to divert the route to Tulse Hill just for your benefit. Bringing the 199 to Lower Sydenham will just bring the reliability down. There is no terminus apart from Hither Green Station and for the 180 hence why it should remain how it is. It is long enough and also has Greenwich High Road to deal with. ALSO the 181 was CREATED TO REPLACE THE 180. The reason it was probably cut was down to RELIABILITY. Because the 199 already has Greenwich and Deptford Traffic to deal with need I say anymore. Please think before coming up with such a poor extension idea which would probably mess up the service. There is nothing wrong with the Anerley Terminus. The 181 should stand how it is end of story. If you want a route to Tulse hill I suggest you create your own commercial one for your own benefit. Overall please think properly before coming up with such poor and rubbish ideas to change up well used bus services and South East London being the worst place for TFL train links people rely on buses, you need to think again because removing links and routes is NOT the way forward. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 14:17:48 GMT
Frankly 'METROBUS' its you that wants stop and think, most of what you've posted makes no sense whatsoever.
Your general attitude leaves much to be desired as well
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 31, 2013 14:20:53 GMT
Not many, in all honesty the 157 and 358 are quite adequate and under my idea there would be the addition of the 322 to Elmers End and Shirley Sorry have to disagree. There are sufficient passengers boarding the 249 and 432 at anerley station and the town hall stop alone to justify those services. The dense housing situated off Anerley Road , all of it social housing, means higher demand for buses. Then you have the large estate behind the anerley station stand that no bus route actually penetrates, so they all walk to the bus stand at anerley. The 176 drivers have no toilet facilities in Penge and the stand is on a main road . Local councillors have been lobbying TfL for a long time to alter it. Yeah, I'd have to agree with you regarding sufficient passengers on the 249 & 432 down to Anerley - I wouldn't extend another route down there mind but I'd happily leave the 249 to carry on to Anerley Station & extend the 432 to Elmers End via Birkbeck. The problem with Crystal Palace is there is a lack of through links - the only routes running right through Palace without terminating are the 249, 432 & 450 (N3 at night time). Thanks for letting me know about the 176 stand. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 31, 2013 14:36:19 GMT
Frankly 'METROBUS' its you that wants stop and think, most of what you've posted makes no sense whatsoever. Your general attitude leaves much to be desired as well Lol. No I don't, it is you that needs to think mate, your ideas about the 181 are total rubbish and you clearly have poorly thought about the 181 and its regular users and it is obviously putting your own narrow minded point of view first. One thing you also stated "No one wants to go through Hither Green to Lewisham" that is probably your own words. When you say no one your automatically saying everyone... This is how I can tell this is your own Narrow minded excuse of an opinion. I'm actually looking at the bigger picture by saying why it should remain as it is. Same with the 180 & 199. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 15:59:14 GMT
Frankly 'METROBUS' its you that wants stop and think, most of what you've posted makes no sense whatsoever. Your general attitude leaves much to be desired as well Lol. No I don't, it is you that needs to think mate, your ideas about the 181 are total rubbish and you clearly have poorly thought about the 181 and its regular users and it is obviously putting your own narrow minded point of view first. One thing you also stated "No one wants to go through Hither Green to Lewisham" that is probably your own words. When you say no one your automatically saying everyone... This is how I can tell this is your own Narrow minded excuse of an opinion. I'm actually looking at the bigger picture by saying why it should remain as it is. Same with the 180 & 199. Frankly I wonder about your sanity. If you don't like ideas for changing routes then don't read them, simple |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Sept 1, 2013 10:43:10 GMT
Don't take this the wrong way but I think the current 181 is appalling, certainly no good for anything other than short journies. There would be the 354 instead of the 356 between Forest Hill and Penge so thats sorted and there is also the 194 between Shirley and Penge. The reason I suggest getting rid of the Anerley stand is that three routes are more than adequate on that section, the 157 turns right at the Robin Hood (well where it used to be) the 358 turns left and all we need is another route to go straight on to Elmers End, I'd suggest the 322 would be better than the 432 but if you think otherwise that is fine. The 180 would obviously cover the busy Lewisham to Sandhurst Rd bit of the 181 with double deckers so hows that a bad thing? And whats wrong with rerouting the 199 to Lower Sydenham? It's not exactly a long route and gives links from Lower Sydenham to Greenwich etc. In the past yes, but the 181s PVR has been increased to 12 and now has a lot more running time and the curtailments to Downham have actually reduced. Plus what rubbish do you mean Nothing good other than Short Journeys, that's because it has to deal with Perry Hill daily and that is the ONLY traffic hotspot on the route and courthill road Early mornings. Very poor excuse to divert the route to Tulse Hill just for your benefit. Bringing the 199 to Lower Sydenham will just bring the reliability down. There is no terminus apart from Hither Green Station and for the 180 hence why it should remain how it is. It is long enough and also has Greenwich High Road to deal with. ALSO the 181 was CREATED TO REPLACE THE 180. The reason it was probably cut was down to RELIABILITY. Because the 199 already has Greenwich and Deptford Traffic to deal with need I say anymore. Please think before coming up with such a poor extension idea which would probably mess up the service. There is nothing wrong with the Anerley Terminus. The 181 should stand how it is end of story. If you want a route to Tulse hill I suggest you create your own commercial one for your own benefit. Overall please think properly before coming up with such poor and rubbish ideas to change up well used bus services and South East London being the worst place for TFL train links people rely on buses, you need to think again because removing links and routes is NOT the way forward. Not cool, Metrobus...not cool... |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 1, 2013 12:45:04 GMT
180 Extended from Lewisham via current 181 route (ie Hither Green) to Catford Bridge or TL if insufficient stand space there. 181 Completely revamped from a circuitous route to a useful east/west link. As now Grove Park to Lower Sydenham then via 356 to Lordship Lane, P13 to Tulse Hill and 2/432 to Brixton Station. Also maintains service levels along Tulse Hill with 415 withdrawn. 199 Withdrawn Catford town centre to TL and rerouted via 202 route to Lower Sydenham, Sainsburys. This also restores a direct link between Lower Sydenham and Lewisham. 249 Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley, uses stand space freed by the 322 and 410 322 Extended from Crystal Palace via Anerley, Elmers End and current 356 route to Shirley Monks Orchard Road 336 Rerouted via Firhill Road instead of Brookhouse Road thus keeping a link from most of Southend Lane to Catford. 352 Sunday service introduced 354 Rerouted via Marlow Road as per 356 and extended from Penge via current 356 to Sydenham Hill. Sunday service introduced 356 Route withdrawn, replaced by 332 and 354 410 Extended from Crystal Palace via 227 route to Penge Crooked Billet, using stand space vacated by 354 415 Route withdrawn, replaced by 181 and 432 432 Extended from Brixton via current 415 route to Elephant & Castle. Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley using stand space freed up by 322 and 410. Anerley stand sold for redevelopment Do like the 410 idea : the 227 could do with the extra support. Once/if the 415 gets its eastward extension, it'll undoubtedly be more useful. That being the case, the 432 could be left alone. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 1, 2013 14:15:21 GMT
There is no terminus apart from Hither Green Station and for the 180 hence why it should remain how it is. It is long enough and also has Greenwich High Road to deal with. ALSO the 181 was CREATED TO REPLACE THE 180. The reason it was probably cut was down to RELIABILITY. The 181 was introduced in the 1980s to replace the 180 to Lower Sydenham because the old 180 terminus at the station required buses to reverse - this precluded conversion to OPO. The only other realistic terminus available was the one-way system at Bell Green. However, this meant running under the low bridge in Southend Lane and consequent conversion to single deck. This would not have been acceptable on the main 180 thus the 181 was born. That said, the Lower Sydenham service was already running as a Lewisham shuttle at most times by then. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 1, 2013 18:17:30 GMT
180 Extended from Lewisham via current 181 route (ie Hither Green) to Catford Bridge or TL if insufficient stand space there. 181 Completely revamped from a circuitous route to a useful east/west link. As now Grove Park to Lower Sydenham then via 356 to Lordship Lane, P13 to Tulse Hill and 2/432 to Brixton Station. Also maintains service levels along Tulse Hill with 415 withdrawn. 199 Withdrawn Catford town centre to TL and rerouted via 202 route to Lower Sydenham, Sainsburys. This also restores a direct link between Lower Sydenham and Lewisham. 249 Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley, uses stand space freed by the 322 and 410 322 Extended from Crystal Palace via Anerley, Elmers End and current 356 route to Shirley Monks Orchard Road 336 Rerouted via Firhill Road instead of Brookhouse Road thus keeping a link from most of Southend Lane to Catford. 352 Sunday service introduced 354 Rerouted via Marlow Road as per 356 and extended from Penge via current 356 to Sydenham Hill. Sunday service introduced 356 Route withdrawn, replaced by 332 and 354 410 Extended from Crystal Palace via 227 route to Penge Crooked Billet, using stand space vacated by 354 415 Route withdrawn, replaced by 181 and 432 432 Extended from Brixton via current 415 route to Elephant & Castle. Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley using stand space freed up by 322 and 410. Anerley stand sold for redevelopment Do like the 410 idea : the 227 could do with the extra support. Once/if the 415 gets its eastward extension, it'll undoubtedly be more useful. That being the case, the 432 could be left alone. The 410 is a long enough route as it is TBH - the 227 copes between Crystal Palace & Penge. I can't see anyone from Surrey Canal going further than Elephant on the route - the Surrey Canal project involves another route, which is newly created, to start from Surrey Canal to Lewisham and with their being a need for a Lewisham to Elephant link & withdraw the 415 completely, create this new route using the vacant number from Elephant to Lewisham via Surrey Canal. The 432 can then take over the 415 between Brixton & Elephant & also extend it from Anerley to Elmers End via Birkbeck to give a far more direct link between Palace & Elmers End |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2013 18:32:37 GMT
180 Extended from Lewisham via current 181 route (ie Hither Green) to Catford Bridge or TL if insufficient stand space there. 181 Completely revamped from a circuitous route to a useful east/west link. As now Grove Park to Lower Sydenham then via 356 to Lordship Lane, P13 to Tulse Hill and 2/432 to Brixton Station. Also maintains service levels along Tulse Hill with 415 withdrawn. 199 Withdrawn Catford town centre to TL and rerouted via 202 route to Lower Sydenham, Sainsburys. This also restores a direct link between Lower Sydenham and Lewisham. 249 Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley, uses stand space freed by the 322 and 410 322 Extended from Crystal Palace via Anerley, Elmers End and current 356 route to Shirley Monks Orchard Road 336 Rerouted via Firhill Road instead of Brookhouse Road thus keeping a link from most of Southend Lane to Catford. 352 Sunday service introduced 354 Rerouted via Marlow Road as per 356 and extended from Penge via current 356 to Sydenham Hill. Sunday service introduced 356 Route withdrawn, replaced by 332 and 354 410 Extended from Crystal Palace via 227 route to Penge Crooked Billet, using stand space vacated by 354 415 Route withdrawn, replaced by 181 and 432 432 Extended from Brixton via current 415 route to Elephant & Castle. Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley using stand space freed up by 322 and 410. Anerley stand sold for redevelopment Sorry, but as a regular user of the 181 I totally disagree that it's the useless bus route you're making it out to be. It provides some important local links which is the main point of that type of small route. The only issue is that it can be terribly overcrowded. However, I'm afraid I find your choice of routing slight bizarre - I've always said Lewisham should have another link to Brixton aside the P4, however, I'm not sure particularly what your routing achieves - is there any realistic demand from Tulse Hill to Grove Park? I can understand there should be more east-west links but surely these should serve more major centres, like Lewisham/New Cross/Catford etc. - otherwise they're links that aren't particularly helpful. The capacity issues on the Hither Green section are probably best solved with another decker route rather than the 180. The route often ends up stuck in East Greenwich and I can't see how reliability would be improved by further extension to traffic-clogged Catford. To be honest a better co-ordination between the 181 and 225 - often both arrive within a couple of minutes of each other and the 225 runs behind empty. The extension has put more capacity over the section but it can't be properly utilised. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2013 18:48:29 GMT
Do like the 410 idea : the 227 could do with the extra support. Once/if the 415 gets its eastward extension, it'll undoubtedly be more useful. That being the case, the 432 could be left alone. The 410 is a long enough route as it is TBH - the 227 copes between Crystal Palace & Penge. I can't see anyone from Surrey Canal going further than Elephant on the route - the Surrey Canal project involves another route, which is newly created, to start from Surrey Canal to Lewisham and with their being a need for a Lewisham to Elephant link & withdraw the 415 completely, create this new route using the vacant number from Elephant to Lewisham via Surrey Canal. The 432 can then take over the 415 between Brixton & Elephant & also extend it from Anerley to Elmers End via Birkbeck to give a far more direct link between Palace & Elmers End Or extend the new route to Brixton and the 432 to Elephant and then withdraw the 415. Bear in mind there's no spare stand space at Elephant and I've long thought that there should be a second Lewisham - Brixton route |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Sept 1, 2013 19:10:33 GMT
Lol. No I don't, it is you that needs to think mate, your ideas about the 181 are total rubbish and you clearly have poorly thought about the 181 and its regular users and it is obviously putting your own narrow minded point of view first. One thing you also stated "No one wants to go through Hither Green to Lewisham" that is probably your own words. When you say no one your automatically saying everyone... This is how I can tell this is your own Narrow minded excuse of an opinion. I'm actually looking at the bigger picture by saying why it should remain as it is. Same with the 180 & 199. Frankly I wonder about your sanity. If you don't like ideas for changing routes then don't read them, simple Look at all this and then I get blamed for "Attitude problems". But anyway, I've got to say, extending 180 and 199 is definitely not a good idea. (1) 180 is long as it is and I don't think it needs an extension. (2) 199 shouldn't be extended to Lower Sydenham either because I don't know about others, but I myself don't see anyone wanting a link between somewhere like Greenwich to Lower Sydenham when you've got two routes to get there from Lewisham & Catford ie. 181 and 202. I personally don't think any changes should be made at LS but if 432 was extended there, that would be good seeing as its a short route and it can help out the 450 aswell. And 181 from Lewisham to Tulse Hill, I think you suggested, would definitely be unreliable because it's already had an extension to Grove Park and withdrawing it from there to somewhere else would cost loads and will need a higher PVR and if the route isn't used well for that extension, it would be a very huge loss for Metrobus (the company). Lastly, have you ever been to Lewisham because I really think you should check out the 181, its always overcrowded and its definitely not pointless as it is a link for lots of people between Lewisham, Sandhurst Road and Catford. |
|
