|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Sept 6, 2014 21:57:38 GMT
There was a low bridge in Addiscombe (where the trams now cross) that was why the 12A and 12B (Sundays) also 289 was SMS then LS operated when the bridge was removed it then made it possible for double deck operation (I believe last day of 12B had an L running) to be replaced by 312 after operated by L's Also if I remember correctly it ran it two overlapping sections PM-TC and Norwood Junction-Selsdon (with a couple of journeys to Riddlesdown for school kids) I remember a TC driver telling me that the worst thing they did with the 12A/B was re-extending them from Forest Hill to Peckham as reliability simply dropped. The only reason they had to make the extension was because they cut the 12 back from Penge to Dulwich and replaced it with the 176 (which doesn't serve Peckham) and, for some odd reason, the 78 got sent through to Forest Hill, though I suspect that was more to do with stand space at Dulwich. Moz I suppose the 176 covered the frequency between Forest Hill and Penge and the 78 combined with the 12A/B between Peckham and Forest Hill. The 176 extension was required to keep the central London connections east of Dulwich Library. Personally cutting back the 78 to Peckham Rye at the time and increasing the 312 (now the 197)'s frequency to compensate was a mistake. A second route starting from Forest Hill would have maintained a more reliable service for those living between Forest Hill and Dulwich travelling to Peckham. |
|
|
|
Post by moz on Sept 7, 2014 0:06:25 GMT
As a long term (until a few months ago) East Dulwich resident, I think the current situation as regards buses in the area is actually quite good compared to what we had in the past. The 12 always suffered reliability issues and during RM days it wasn't uncommon to see four or five of them leapfrogging their way up Barry Road towards Dulwich, usually followed by a 12A and a 78 (or 12AA, or P78, or 78A, or 7P8 or whatever was on the front of an LS). The 185 seemed to be the main dogsbody and I really can't remember seeing an empty one once, on Saturdays for a while you had the ridiculous 185A which was mainly there to keep 185s company - from behind. The first major change was when the 40 got rerouted to the Plough along with the full time extension of the 176 to Oxford Circus that really kicked things off. As for something starting from Forest Hill, I suppose you could send the 40 down there to terminate, but then I'd want either the 176 or 197 to be rerouted to avoid Forest Hill and it's terrible junction by going straight over Sydenham Hill and Kirkdale.
Moz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 16:00:31 GMT
Surprise surprise.... Dear Sir or Madam, Earlier this year we consulted on a proposal to extend route 130 from Norwood Junction to Thornton Heath. We also consulted on proposals to return routes 130 and 312 to their original routeings via Spring Lane which was closed to buses in 2010 because of a weight restriction on the railway bridge. We received 14 responses from stakeholders and 427 responses from members of the public. After considering all the responses and the views expressed we have decided to proceed with our proposals and plan to extend route 130 to Thornton Heath, and return routes 130 and 312 to Spring Lane from 14 February 2015. For more details including a full consultation report and our response to the main issues raised please visit: consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/bus-service-proposal-routes-130-312-spring-lane |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 19, 2014 16:33:06 GMT
Surprise surprise.... Dear Sir or Madam, Earlier this year we consulted on a proposal to extend route 130 from Norwood Junction to Thornton Heath. We also consulted on proposals to return routes 130 and 312 to their original routeings via Spring Lane which was closed to buses in 2010 because of a weight restriction on the railway bridge. We received 14 responses from stakeholders and 427 responses from members of the public. After considering all the responses and the views expressed we have decided to proceed with our proposals and plan to extend route 130 to Thornton Heath, and return routes 130 and 312 to Spring Lane from 14 February 2015. For more details including a full consultation report and our response to the main issues raised please visit: consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/bus-service-proposal-routes-130-312-spring-laneYou beat me to it by 5 minutes. We clearly got the E Mail about the same time! One interesting item is the request for the 130 to run to the Hospital. TfL estimate this as costing £260k pa. The document also says that the diversion of the 130 has cost £200k pa. Therefore serving the hospital would only have a further £60k budgetary impact but the extension to the hospital has been dismissed as not sufficiently beneficial. Seems odd to have incurred £200k a year for a pointless diversion (document says the capacity was never needed on the roads served temporarily) but not to support improved hospital access and possibly relieve other routes / interchange pressure in Central Croydon. Look also at the sums being saved on the New Addington package of changes - that could easily fund the extension. I know business case analysis will look at the whole £260K cost vs benefit but it does seem rather odd not to have filled in the obvious gap. If you are at Norwood Junction there is no direct bus to the hospital despite the relatively short distance involved. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 19, 2014 16:50:02 GMT
Surprise surprise.... Dear Sir or Madam, Earlier this year we consulted on a proposal to extend route 130 from Norwood Junction to Thornton Heath. We also consulted on proposals to return routes 130 and 312 to their original routeings via Spring Lane which was closed to buses in 2010 because of a weight restriction on the railway bridge. We received 14 responses from stakeholders and 427 responses from members of the public. After considering all the responses and the views expressed we have decided to proceed with our proposals and plan to extend route 130 to Thornton Heath, and return routes 130 and 312 to Spring Lane from 14 February 2015. For more details including a full consultation report and our response to the main issues raised please visit: consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/bus-service-proposal-routes-130-312-spring-laneYou beat me to it by 5 minutes. We clearly got the E Mail about the same time! One interesting item is the request for the 130 to run to the Hospital. TfL estimate this as costing £260k pa. The document also says that the diversion of the 130 has cost £200k pa. Therefore serving the hospital would only have a further £60k budgetary impact but the extension to the hospital has been dismissed as not sufficiently beneficial. Seems odd to have incurred £200k a year for a pointless diversion (document says the capacity was never needed on the roads served temporarily) but not to support improved hospital access and possibly relieve other routes / interchange pressure in Central Croydon. Look also at the sums being saved on the New Addington package of changes - that could easily fund the extension. I know business case analysis will look at the whole £260K cost vs benefit but it does seem rather odd not to have filled in the obvious gap. If you are at Norwood Junction there is no direct bus to the hospital despite the relatively short distance involved. Could the issue be that stand space proved too difficult to find in the immediate area surrounding Mayday Hospital (or Croydon University Hospital if you prefer) as I'd doubt the route would be extended to West Croydon given the bus station works. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 19, 2014 18:28:59 GMT
Could the issue be that stand space proved too difficult to find in the immediate area surrounding Mayday Hospital (or Croydon University Hospital if you prefer) as I'd doubt the route would be extended to West Croydon given the bus station works. I'd hope that if that was the issue, and I accept it's not easy from looking at Google Streetview, that TfL would state that. However they've said there are not enough benefits to support the extra cost. Doing some very rough and ready maths there would be approximately 22150 journeys in a year if the route was extended on current frequencies. For a cost of £260k pa for the extension you're talking about an average £11 extra cost per trip. We don't know what the assumed trip and revenue generation would be but it would only need 8 extra fare paying passengers per bus at £1.50 a go to cover the cost. I appreciate life is more complex than this because of effects on other routes and demand is not spread evenly. I am sure there would be additional benefits on the top for a range of people that would help make the case. I'd love to see the numbers for the potential extension to the same level as has been done for the New Addington changes. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Dec 20, 2014 2:46:13 GMT
I'm not surprised that the report mentions about the 197's recent reliability issues, plus 108 responses of the route not being frequent enough.
If the good people of Woodside Green think this is an issue, I wonder what people especially on the Peckham to Forest Hill section consider it as much of an issue, considering the 12 running along part of the route?
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 20, 2014 7:16:27 GMT
Surprise surprise.... Dear Sir or Madam, Earlier this year we consulted on a proposal to extend route 130 from Norwood Junction to Thornton Heath. We also consulted on proposals to return routes 130 and 312 to their original routeings via Spring Lane which was closed to buses in 2010 because of a weight restriction on the railway bridge. We received 14 responses from stakeholders and 427 responses from members of the public. After considering all the responses and the views expressed we have decided to proceed with our proposals and plan to extend route 130 to Thornton Heath, and return routes 130 and 312 to Spring Lane from 14 February 2015. For more details including a full consultation report and our response to the main issues raised please visit: consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/bus-service-proposal-routes-130-312-spring-laneI'm amazed that they needed a consultation to tell them that, the 130 and 312 should have been returned to Spring Lane as soon as the work on the bridge was completed. I would suggest that the 197 be increased to every 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by Danny on Feb 14, 2015 11:40:37 GMT
I didnt know that the extension started today, it was a suprise to see a 130 in Thornton Heath!
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Feb 14, 2015 18:44:56 GMT
I didnt know that the extension started today, it was a suprise to see a 130 in Thornton Heath! With Palace being at home today, what diversionary route is being used? The consultation response was a bit vague about this. |
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Feb 14, 2015 20:02:22 GMT
I didnt know that the extension started today, it was a suprise to see a 130 in Thornton Heath! With Palace being at home today, what diversionary route is being used? The consultation response was a bit vague about this. Terminate at Norwood Junction, on the 312 stand. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 14, 2015 20:12:20 GMT
With Palace being at home today, what diversionary route is being used? The consultation response was a bit vague about this. Terminate at Norwood Junction, on the 312 stand. And this wouldn't need to happen if they picked the route I suggested when they first constructed the idea - run direct via South Norwood Hill and Whitehorse Lane. Having been to watch Palace in the past, I knew that part of Park Road gets closed on match days whilst the surrounding side roads become rammed solid. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 15, 2015 8:55:52 GMT
Terminate at Norwood Junction, on the 312 stand. And this wouldn't need to happen if they picked the route I suggested when they first constructed the idea - run direct via South Norwood Hill and Whitehorse Lane. Having been to watch Palace in the past, I knew that part of Park Road gets closed on match days whilst the surrounding side roads become rammed solid. I agree that would be a more logical route and it's a bit daft if the service to Thornton Heath is going to be suspended every time Crystal Palace are at home, obviously Whitehorse Lane gets congested but the 468 seems to manage without being suspended or diverted. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Feb 15, 2015 15:33:49 GMT
And this wouldn't need to happen if they picked the route I suggested when they first constructed the idea - run direct via South Norwood Hill and Whitehorse Lane. Having been to watch Palace in the past, I knew that part of Park Road gets closed on match days whilst the surrounding side roads become rammed solid. I agree that would be a more logical route and it's a bit daft if the service to Thornton Heath is going to be suspended every time Crystal Palace are at home, obviously Whitehorse Lane gets congested but the 468 seems to manage without being suspended or diverted. Then again, in real terms, how many times a year will this actually happen? If Palace stay in the Premier League, they'll have 19 home games. On average, maybe another 6 in cups? We're only talking 25 times, for a couple of hours, out of 364 days. I assume the routeing via Park Road provides a more convenient link at other times along Selhurst Road where there are some small shops. And if the altenative routeing suggested is clear there's no reason it couldn't divert that way. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Feb 15, 2015 15:55:12 GMT
As a long term (until a few months ago) East Dulwich resident, I think the current situation as regards buses in the area is actually quite good compared to what we had in the past. The 12 always suffered reliability issues and during RM days it wasn't uncommon to see four or five of them leapfrogging their way up Barry Road towards Dulwich, usually followed by a 12A and a 78 (or 12AA, or P78, or 78A, or 7P8 or whatever was on the front of an LS). The 185 seemed to be the main dogsbody and I really can't remember seeing an empty one once, on Saturdays for a while you had the ridiculous 185A which was mainly there to keep 185s company - from behind. The first major change was when the 40 got rerouted to the Plough along with the full time extension of the 176 to Oxford Circus that really kicked things off. As for something starting from Forest Hill, I suppose you could send the 40 down there to terminate, but then I'd want either the 176 or 197 to be rerouted to avoid Forest Hill and it's terrible junction by going straight over Sydenham Hill and Kirkdale. Moz The 185A had two uses. It maintained capacity on Saturdays between Forest Hill and East Dulwich as the 176 terminated at Goose Green at weekends and kept a connection to the Elephant as well as added capacity between Forest Hill and Lewisham. I'd be against any removal of the 176 and 197 to Forest Hill, the 197 in particular is at it's busiest between Peckham and Forest Hill. |
|
