|
Post by routew15 on Jun 5, 2014 10:16:29 GMT
It will be interesting to see precisely where the 130 terminates along Parchmore Road. Id be quite surprised to see the 130 extension and diversion not go ahead. (Hoping the W11 and W15 get a similar consultation on their routing once works on Palmerston road Bridge is completed) I expect TfL will proceed with the 130. The money must be in the budget or else they would never have bothered to go to consultation. They'd simply have dropped the 130 extension proposal and consulted on putting the 130 and 312 back to the original routes. TfL had better consult on the W11 / W15 or else I'll be asking why not. I am worried though that I am going to lose the diverted W11 as TfL's preference will be to put everything back as it was. I fully expect the W15 to be removed from Blackhorse Road as that routing has required an extra bus and TfL will want to lose that cost. The problem though, as I've said before, is that I suspect the W15's diversion has proved popular as it links three rail services together with the Higham Hill area and Forest Rd although journey times are longer for those who want Higham Hill - Walthamstow Central (or beyond). Unfortunately TfL are not good at advertising consultations to the travelling public so response levels are low. You're not the only one who wants the W11 stay on its current route permanently. Pretty much everyone who uses the route wants it to stay the same as it is so much faster. Also I totally agree about the W15 the bus is packed from Walthamstow Bus Station then collects more people at St James Street and has to miss Blackhorse Road where tons of people are left waiting and instead have to catch the also busy 158. However I think the W15 should stay the way it is as it helps the 158. From memory the bus stops on Palmerston Road itself are not that busy (except for the Walthamstow Market bus stop) so only one route would need to operate along this road. In my opinion a new route needs to be introduced. Walthamstow Central - Palmerston Road - Higham Hill Road - Crooked Billet Roundabout - Wadham Road - Hale End Road - Wood Street - Whipps Cross Hospital - Leytonstone Station - Cathall Leisure Centre - Harrow Green - Drapers Field - Stratford International - Stratford City - Abbey Lane Estate (9/ 10.2m Single Decker Buses/ *Stagecoach London/ WH) *just a suggestion i know everything cost a lot of money but I feel this is necessary espically if more housing developments are to be built in the Higham Hill/ Blackhorse Areas. I'm hoping Waltham Forest Council support the current routing of the bus routes and also recognises that another bus route is needed.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 5, 2014 10:32:03 GMT
Sure;y it's a no brainer that the 130 and 312 should return to the original route via Spring Lane? Morland Rd and Woodside Grn have been ridiculously overbussed during the diversion. The 197 is extremely busy during school times & the peaks - when I was at Croydon College between 2005-2008, I used to wait specifically for the 312 as you could not get on the 197 at Norwood Junction so there is some merit to having a second bus service along that stretch. Yes there will still be all three routes along Portland Road but I don't think Woodside Green needed all three, the 197 is a bit quieter on that section now since Tramlink opened. Be nice to get a bus direct from Norwood Junction to Addiscombe again and the 130 becomes a lot more attractive to Shirley and New Addington without the long detour. I think the link between Norwood Junction and Thornton Heath is long overdue although I agree with your point in another post that it would be better via SN Hill and Whitehorse Lane, presumably it will have to be diverted that way when football is on anyway?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 5, 2014 18:54:25 GMT
You're not the only one who wants the W11 stay on its current route permanently. Pretty much everyone who uses the route wants it to stay the same as it is so much faster. Also I totally agree about the W15 the bus is packed from Walthamstow Bus Station then collects more people at St James Street and has to miss Blackhorse Road where tons of people are left waiting and instead have to catch the also busy 158. However I think the W15 should stay the way it is as it helps the 158. From memory the bus stops on Palmerston Road itself are not that busy (except for the Walthamstow Market bus stop) so only one route would need to operate along this road. In my opinion a new route needs to be introduced. Walthamstow Central - Palmerston Road - Higham Hill Road - Crooked Billet Roundabout - Wadham Road - Hale End Road - Wood Street - Whipps Cross Hospital - Leytonstone Station - Cathall Leisure Centre - Harrow Green - Drapers Field - Stratford International - Stratford City - Abbey Lane Estate (9/ 10.2m Single Decker Buses/ *Stagecoach London/ WH) *just a suggestion i know everything cost a lot of money but I feel this is necessary espically if more housing developments are to be built in the Higham Hill/ Blackhorse Areas. I'm hoping Waltham Forest Council support the current routing of the bus routes and also recognises that another bus route is needed. Well I've not canvassed opinions from anyone but there are decent numbers boarding and alighting on the W11 amended route. The recent roadworks in Hoe St have wrecked reliability but they're done now so things might calm down. I agree about the W15. The problem is how do you serve Palmerston Road. Your proposed route is nice but very long and therefore very expensive and won't get funded. I've wondered what sort of small route you might run via Palmerston Road and it's not easy to work out given there are no obvious candidates to run along there and where would they terminate? Harking back to the early days of the W routes perhaps you just run WWCS to Higham Hill via Palmerston Rd about every 20 mins to give a service but not the main one which would remain the amended W15?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 14, 2014 14:24:44 GMT
Extension to Thornton Heath showing as from 4 October 2014 with the rerouting near Woodside back to Spring Lane 4 weeks earlier (also route 312 for the latter item) - Source LOTS.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 14, 2014 15:00:55 GMT
Extension to Thornton Heath showing as from 4 October 2014 with the rerouting near Woodside back to Spring Lane 4 weeks earlier (also route 312 for the latter item) - Source LOTS. About time too, Park Road will be very interesting!
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 15, 2014 13:04:53 GMT
Spring Lane bridge is now reopen so why haven't the 130 and 312 already been returned to their normal routes?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 15, 2014 17:04:13 GMT
Spring Lane bridge is now reopen so why haven't the 130 and 312 already been returned to their normal routes? Lead times for revised schedules, staff side consultation, refreshing driver knowledge of the old route (given it was closed for years), checking bus stops are accurate and provided with up to date timetables, getting schedules to TfL for uploading to systems and revisions to I-Bus / Countdown. Just guessing on all of that but there's no such thing as an instant change these days.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Aug 26, 2014 20:49:08 GMT
Route 130 returning to Thornton Heath (it operated there until ca 1982/83) has been on the cards for some time now. I remember Londonbusroutes.net touting 18 May '13 as a possible start date!
Route 312 seems a trivial route now. I know it has gone out for retender, but I think it could be withdrawn and replaced by an extension of route 197 to South Croydon and/or route 412 to Norwood Junction.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 26, 2014 22:01:56 GMT
Route 130 returning to Thornton Heath (it operated there until ca 1982/83) has been on the cards for some time now. I remember Londonbusroutes.net touting 18 May '13 as a possible start date! Route 312 seems a trivial route now. I know it has gone out for retender, but I think it could be withdrawn and replaced by an extension of route 197 to South Croydon and/or route 412 to Norwood Junction. The 412 idea is one which has been mentioned before and I agree with. The 197 idea would not work though because what then replaces the 312 through Addiscombe?
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Aug 27, 2014 7:44:20 GMT
I don't know why 312 was cut down to Norwood Junction in the first place, can someone tell me the reason why? 312 is short and should be extended before it gets cut down. I say a chance 312 to relieve 75 to Catford (bit unlikely but a shot).
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 27, 2014 11:09:58 GMT
I don't know why 312 was cut down to Norwood Junction in the first place, can someone tell me the reason why? 312 is short and should be extended before it gets cut down. I say a chance 312 to relieve 75 to Catford (bit unlikely but a shot). The 312 was cut back to Norwood Junction when the 197 was extended to Peckham instead. I would think the 75 is adequate between Norwood Junction and Catford, the 312 could be extended up South Norwood Hill and then via Church Road to Crystal Palace.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 27, 2014 11:29:25 GMT
I don't know why 312 was cut down to Norwood Junction in the first place, can someone tell me the reason why? 312 is short and should be extended before it gets cut down. I say a chance 312 to relieve 75 to Catford (bit unlikely but a shot). A complete guess on my part but I wonder if the 197 and 312 were rejigged to deal with unreliability. AIUI the old 312 crossed Croydon Town Centre on its way to Peckham and I just wonder if traffic conditions in Croydon made the route unreliable. Rejigging the 197 to *start* in Croydon and up to Peckham with the 312 just being a local cross Croydon service probably improved reliability overall and meant a better service. Looking back at the history both the 197 and 312 had frequency reductions in 2000 which also suggests to me that LT took the view that patronage was declining in the area. As I say - an utter guess and if someone *knows* the real reason feel free to correct my ramblings.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 27, 2014 11:42:46 GMT
I don't know why 312 was cut down to Norwood Junction in the first place, can someone tell me the reason why? 312 is short and should be extended before it gets cut down. I say a chance 312 to relieve 75 to Catford (bit unlikely but a shot). A complete guess on my part but I wonder if the 197 and 312 were rejigged to deal with unreliability. AIUI the old 312 crossed Croydon Town Centre on its way to Peckham and I just wonder if traffic conditions in Croydon made the route unreliable. Rejigging the 197 to *start* in Croydon and up to Peckham with the 312 just being a local cross Croydon service probably improved reliability overall and meant a better service. Looking back at the history both the 197 and 312 had frequency reductions in 2000 which also suggests to me that LT took the view that patronage was declining in the area. As I say - an utter guess and if someone *knows* the real reason feel free to correct my ramblings. Both routes lost some custom when Tramlink opened, particularly the 312. Of course many 197's go to and from South Croydon Garage out of service anyway. I think it was just that the 197 was a very short route from Croydon to Norwood Junction and extending it to Peckham also gives a slightly quicker journey time from Croydon.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 27, 2014 20:48:53 GMT
I don't know why 312 was cut down to Norwood Junction in the first place, can someone tell me the reason why? 312 is short and should be extended before it gets cut down. I say a chance 312 to relieve 75 to Catford (bit unlikely but a shot). A complete guess on my part but I wonder if the 197 and 312 were rejigged to deal with unreliability. AIUI the old 312 crossed Croydon Town Centre on its way to Peckham and I just wonder if traffic conditions in Croydon made the route unreliable. Rejigging the 197 to *start* in Croydon and up to Peckham with the 312 just being a local cross Croydon service probably improved reliability overall and meant a better service. Looking back at the history both the 197 and 312 had frequency reductions in 2000 which also suggests to me that LT took the view that patronage was declining in the area. As I say - an utter guess and if someone *knows* the real reason feel free to correct my ramblings. My recollection is that it was a case of matching demand to capacity and frequency. The northern end of the 312 remained busy but its southern section had been more badly affected by Tramlink than the 197 along Morland Road, possibly due to the Addiscombe tramstop. Joining the 197 with the northern bit of the 312 maintained most links and matched service levels, while allowing reductions on the rump 312.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 28, 2014 15:29:49 GMT
A complete guess on my part but I wonder if the 197 and 312 were rejigged to deal with unreliability. AIUI the old 312 crossed Croydon Town Centre on its way to Peckham and I just wonder if traffic conditions in Croydon made the route unreliable. Rejigging the 197 to *start* in Croydon and up to Peckham with the 312 just being a local cross Croydon service probably improved reliability overall and meant a better service. Looking back at the history both the 197 and 312 had frequency reductions in 2000 which also suggests to me that LT took the view that patronage was declining in the area. As I say - an utter guess and if someone *knows* the real reason feel free to correct my ramblings. My recollection is that it was a case of matching demand to capacity and frequency. The northern end of the 312 remained busy but its southern section had been more badly affected by Tramlink than the 197 along Morland Road, possibly due to the Addiscombe tramstop. Joining the 197 with the northern bit of the 312 maintained most links and matched service levels, while allowing reductions on the rump 312. But the 197 and 312 are both every 12mins.
|
|