|
Post by sid on Feb 15, 2015 16:29:56 GMT
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. I can't see why going via Park Road should be more convenient, of course many Palace fans might want to use the 130 to get to and from the ground.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 15, 2015 16:34:33 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. I think the 176 could use the unofficial Forest Hill bypass without causing too much hardship, nobody seems to complain about the P4 skirting round Forest Hill. I'd be inclined to extend the 12 to Forest Hill, at least alternate journeys, as the 197 is not very reliable.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 15, 2015 16:36:25 GMT
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. I think the 176 could use the unofficial Forest Hill bypass without causing too much hardship, nobody seems to complain about the P4 skirting round Forest Hill. I'd be inclined to extend the 12 to Forest Hill, at least alternate journeys, as the 197 is not very reliable. The P4 goes via Side Roads to get to Forest Hill, cannot exactly serve Forest Hill Station.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 15, 2015 16:43:02 GMT
I think the 176 could use the unofficial Forest Hill bypass without causing too much hardship, nobody seems to complain about the P4 skirting round Forest Hill. I'd be inclined to extend the 12 to Forest Hill, at least alternate journeys, as the 197 is not very reliable. The P4 goes via Side Roads to get to Forest Hill, cannot exactly serve Forest Hill Station. That's what I mean it misses out the shopping area and station
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 15, 2015 16:46:19 GMT
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. I can't see why going via Park Road should be more convenient, of course many Palace fans might want to use the 130 to get to and from the ground. Any route which goes near a Sports Stadium will always be affected when games are on. Might have to be cut to Norwood Junction due to Driver hours... No Point putting the 130 in Disruption to go few stops down the Road then come back through it, during a Football Match...
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 15, 2015 16:50:13 GMT
The P4 goes via Side Roads to get to Forest Hill, cannot exactly serve Forest Hill Station. That's what I mean it misses out the shopping area and station Indeed, but the P4 was not designed to Serve Forest Hill Station. The 122 already provides that Link from Lewisham & Forest Hill, the P4 is a quicker version of the 122 & 185.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 15, 2015 17:12:32 GMT
I can't see why going via Park Road should be more convenient, of course many Palace fans might want to use the 130 to get to and from the ground. Any route which goes near a Sports Stadium will always be affected when games are on. Might have to be cut to Norwood Junction due to Driver hours... No Point putting the 130 in Disruption to go few stops down the Road then come back through it, during a Football Match... The 130 will probably be diverted via South Norwood Hill and Whitehorse Lane when there is a game at Selhurst Park so it may as well go that way all the time
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 15, 2015 17:19:12 GMT
I can't see why going via Park Road should be more convenient, of course many Palace fans might want to use the 130 to get to and from the ground. Any route which goes near a Sports Stadium will always be affected when games are on. Might have to be cut to Norwood Junction due to Driver hours... No Point putting the 130 in Disruption to go few stops down the Road then come back through it, during a Football Match... If you send it via South Norwood Hill and Whitehorse Lane, it won't be as badly disrupted - traffic around Selhurst Park is nothing like traffic around Craven Cottage. Curtailing it at Norwood Junction makes it more difficult for those trying to reach Thornton Heath.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 18:27:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 22, 2015 21:30:52 GMT
I think the issue is that there is not yet full integration of "live bus departures" info on the new style TfL website. Old style Countdown has been updated to show the amended routes for the 130 and 312. What often happens is that the Countdown route stop list has both old and new stops in it but at the route change date the departures data only shows at the stops on the amended route. I suspect TfL concentrate on keeping the old system up to date and catches up on the new website afterwards. What happens on the old site is that a couple of weeks after the route change the old stops are removed. I think it might be the case that the route map page on the new style website will then update using the updated Countdown info. That's a guess on my part. Personally I much prefer the old Countdown format and am dreading the day we're forced to use the new website because it is less flexible and more cumbersome to use than the old Countdown pages. TfL's Digital Blog recently said they are aiming to switch the old system off soon but they got a torrent of complaints saying the info on the new style pages was inaccurate - it would show buses as being due at a stop when they had actually departed. This means there is some sort of system lag between what I-Bus is recording and TfL being able to display it. That, of course, is utterly useless if the info is wrong and a route is low frequency - can you imagine missing a bus by less than 2 minutes and having up to an hour to wait because the TfL website was inaccurate?
|
|
|
Post by eggmiester on Feb 23, 2015 0:07:05 GMT
Any route which goes near a Sports Stadium will always be affected when games are on. Might have to be cut to Norwood Junction due to Driver hours... No Point putting the 130 in Disruption to go few stops down the Road then come back through it, during a Football Match... If you send it via South Norwood Hill and Whitehorse Lane, it won't be as badly disrupted - traffic around Selhurst Park is nothing like traffic around Craven Cottage. Curtailing it at Norwood Junction makes it more difficult for those trying to reach Thornton Heath. There are similar arrangements in place affecting other routes that pass football or other sporting stadiums like the 424 that curtails short when there's football at Fulham, the 486 and 380 divert away from Charlton church lane when there's football at The Valley, there's a regular diversion around white hart lane in Tottenham as well as one in the Wembley area when there's large events at the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 23, 2015 0:32:37 GMT
If you send it via South Norwood Hill and Whitehorse Lane, it won't be as badly disrupted - traffic around Selhurst Park is nothing like traffic around Craven Cottage. Curtailing it at Norwood Junction makes it more difficult for those trying to reach Thornton Heath. There are similar arrangements in place affecting other routes that pass football or other sporting stadiums like the 424 that curtails short when there's football at Fulham, the 486 and 380 divert away from Charlton church lane when there's football at The Valley, there's a regular diversion around white hart lane in Tottenham as well as one in the Wembley area when there's large events at the stadium. Indeed, and that's why I find it baffling that the 130 cant be diverted along the routing I mentioned. The 424 terminating short is sensible because it terminates at Craven Cottage on a side street.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 21:04:06 GMT
There are similar arrangements in place affecting other routes that pass football or other sporting stadiums like the 424 that curtails short when there's football at Fulham, the 486 and 380 divert away from Charlton church lane when there's football at The Valley, there's a regular diversion around white hart lane in Tottenham as well as one in the Wembley area when there's large events at the stadium. Indeed, and that's why I find it baffling that the 130 cant be diverted along the routing I mentioned. The 424 terminating short is sensible because it terminates at Craven Cottage on a side street. And I just found the reason why, as it will serve a previous unserved area all here..... consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/bus-service-proposal-routes-130-312-spring-lane/user_uploads/routes-130-312-issues-raised-report.pdf
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 24, 2015 21:45:25 GMT
I had a feeling that reason would be mentioned. The problem is though that the Portland Road area now has no direct link to the 196 whereas the 130 terminated with the 196 providing the link and extending it via South Norwood Hill would of retained the link. Furthermore, they've allowed the extension to go ahead without having a plan for match days at Selhurst Park which I find very strange.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 22:40:39 GMT
I had a feeling that reason would be mentioned. The problem is though that the Portland Road area now has no direct link to the 196 whereas the 130 terminated with the 196 providing the link and extending it via South Norwood Hill would of retained the link. Furthermore, they've allowed the extension to go ahead without having a plan for match days at Selhurst Park which I find very strange. There is still a direct link between the 130 and the 196, buses towards Thornton Heath still serve the Grosvenor Road stop at Norwood Junction
|
|