|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 16, 2014 20:54:47 GMT
Or extend routes 111 or 285 from Kingston to Chessington. Tip: Do you mind using the quote button so people can know who you are talking. I'm using a phone so it is complicated. As for your ideas, the 111 is long enough. Last time I went on there, it took about 2 hours doing the whole route. The 285 should for Teddington but, the X65 should still. I use a phone and it's not hard for me to quote people's posts. By the way, is there any chance you can provide reasons for your ideas or are you going to ignore my post again? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 21:05:36 GMT
I'm using a phone so it is complicated. As for your ideas, the 111 is long enough. Last time I went on there, it took about 2 hours doing the whole route. The 285 should for Teddington but, the X65 should still. I use a phone and it's not hard for me to quote people's posts. By the way, is there any chance you can provide reasons for your ideas or are you going to ignore my post again? Basically for connections. |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Sept 16, 2014 21:20:32 GMT
201 to Camberwell Green and operated by Q to help with 68 and 468 loadings a bit and for it to see WHYs in the future  227 Streatham to TB helping a bit off 358 and solving that Valley Road crisis... (going via Crown Lane and Streatham Common North) 315 to Herne Hill compensating 201's stand loss (via Peabody Estate) 415 - withdrawn and replaced by PVR increase by 3 432 (BACK TO PREVIOUS PVR ) and 133 to compensate for loss. 690's journeys to be crosslinked with 2 to compensate (I'd rather say 432 but why if it's loss? It'd make no sense but if Arriva retained it I'd definitely say 432 instead, or 176 but it's a bit far off for 690) 432 to Vauxhall via 2 to help a bit and make it a bit more used and lengthier A new school route (preferably to be 633) running from Elmers End Green (1 jny) and Crystal Palace to Elephant & Castle (also compensating for loss of 415) via 358 to CP, 322 to Gipsy Hill (so it doesn't parallel 3 the entire time literally) and via 3 to Brixton where it would follow 133 to E&C. PVR of 2, crosslinked with 3 using 64reg hybrids at QB lol (not that it would literally happen but any spare ol' bus at QB anyway). ( ^ that is what I hope for in reality ^ ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 21:23:32 GMT
Decision to serve local stops in the Northolt area takes some weight off the 140. Should an express route be used to alleviate local ones? To me that seems to undermine the purpose of them. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 16, 2014 21:27:58 GMT
I use a phone and it's not hard for me to quote people's posts. By the way, is there any chance you can provide reasons for your ideas or are you going to ignore my post again? Basically for connections. 'Basically for connections' could mean anything! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 21:29:49 GMT
Basically for connections. 'Basically for connections' could mean anything! For better connections to other areas in London, mostly. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 16, 2014 21:32:03 GMT
201 to Camberwell Green and operated by Q to help with 68 and 468 loadings a bit and for it to see WHYs in the future 227 Streatham to TB helping a bit off 358 and solving that Valley Road crisis... 315 to Herne Hill compensating 201's stand loss (via Peabody Estate) 415 - withdrawn and replaced by PVR increase by 3 432 (BACK TO PREVIOUS PVR ) and 133 to compensate for loss. 690's journeys will be crosslinked with 2 to compensate (I'd rather say 432 but why if it's loss? It'd make no sense but if Arriva retained it I'd definitely say 432 instead, or 176 but it's a bit far off for 690) 432 to Vauxhall via 2 to help a bit and make it a bit more used and lengthier A new school route (preferably to be 633) running from Elmers End Green (1 jny) and Crystal Palace to Elephant & Castle (also compensating for loss of 415) via 358 to CP, 322 to Gipsy Hill (so it doesn't parallel 3 the entire time literally) and via 3 to Brixton where it would follow 133 to E&C. PVR of 2, crosslinked with 3 using 64reg hybrids at QB lol (not that it would literally happen but any spare ol' bus at QB anyway). ( ^ that is what I hope for in reality ^ ) A 12m bus might struggle to make the turn from Leigham Court Road to Valley Road. Also, what's the 'Valley Road crisis'? |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Sept 16, 2014 21:52:23 GMT
201 to Camberwell Green and operated by Q to help with 68 and 468 loadings a bit and for it to see WHYs in the future 227 Streatham to TB helping a bit off 358 and solving that Valley Road crisis... 315 to Herne Hill compensating 201's stand loss (via Peabody Estate) 415 - withdrawn and replaced by PVR increase by 3 432 (BACK TO PREVIOUS PVR ) and 133 to compensate for loss. 690's journeys will be crosslinked with 2 to compensate (I'd rather say 432 but why if it's loss? It'd make no sense but if Arriva retained it I'd definitely say 432 instead, or 176 but it's a bit far off for 690) 432 to Vauxhall via 2 to help a bit and make it a bit more used and lengthier A new school route (preferably to be 633) running from Elmers End Green (1 jny) and Crystal Palace to Elephant & Castle (also compensating for loss of 415) via 358 to CP, 322 to Gipsy Hill (so it doesn't parallel 3 the entire time literally) and via 3 to Brixton where it would follow 133 to E&C. PVR of 2, crosslinked with 3 using 64reg hybrids at QB lol (not that it would literally happen but any spare ol' bus at QB anyway). ( ^ that is what I hope for in reality ^ ) A 12m bus might struggle to make the turn from Leigham Court Road to Valley Road. Also, what's the 'Valley Road crisis'? Oh I forgot to say direct via 249 and 417 and not just 417. My bad!  The 'Valley Road ''crisis''' happened to be lack of services in Valley Road area. Where 249 and 315 are the only routes going there (Yes I do know 417 goes there too! But wasn't mentioned in the article, though). Some guy complained of that and happening to see 'ghost buses' just run on Streatham Common North (the 'ghost bus' is 133 dead runs if you haven't noticed). I'll bring the article for evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Sept 16, 2014 22:33:21 GMT
Decision to serve local stops in the Northolt area takes some weight off the 140. Should an express route be used to alleviate local ones? To me that seems to undermine the purpose of them. Reasonable point. I suggested it as a way of providing an express service from the Northolt-Harrow area to Heathrow, rather than helping out that local section of the route, a bit like the X68 south of West Norwood. Thinking again it would attract local traffic to/from Harrow town centre too, which would bog down journey times further for longer distance passengers. So I'd probably cut it down to Northolt Park and South Harrow only. Stirling Corner-Barnet would stay all-stops to keep a local facility linking the Barnet area directly in to Edgware and the hospital. Most of the route along there is quite sparse anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Sept 16, 2014 22:49:50 GMT
I might upset some people but when it comes to extensions/cuts/withdrawls, could we have a rule where people MUST state the reason as to why they are making that change in the first place. 'rockorange' - any chance you can read the above and then adhere to it rather than drawing lines on maps please? How about this thread is left to complete fantasy (North Greenwich to Heathrow via that routing is total pie in the sky) and simple lines on maps while the other 'New Routes' thread can be serious proposals with reasoning? That way, those who have no interest in fantasy proposals can ignore this thread while those wanting (and proposing) serious options can stick to the other thread. Lest we forget, this thread is clearly marked 'Fantasy' and as such I don't take the proposals in here particularly seriously |
|
|
|
Post by bigbaddom1981 on Sept 16, 2014 22:59:45 GMT
'rockorange' - any chance you can read the above and then adhere to it rather than drawing lines on maps please? How about this thread is left to complete fantasy (North Greenwich to Heathrow via that routing is total pie in the sky) and simple lines on maps while the other 'New Routes' thread can be serious proposals with reasoning? That way, those who have no interest in fantasy proposals can ignore this thread while those wanting (and proposing) serious options can stick to the other thread. Lest we forget, this thread is clearly marked 'Fantasy' and as such I don't take the proposals in here particularly seriously I suppose vjaska is just saying that even fantasy ideas need some reasoning as anyone can list a number of locations. It comes across as just throwing dots on a map. So without any explanation, how can you then have a discussion about it? I totally agree about using correct threads for more purposeful suggestions. I regularly use the most recent posts, so if i just scroll past the posts of just stops, just a waste really as I enjoy a healthy discussion on here! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 7:32:36 GMT
A 12m bus might struggle to make the turn from Leigham Court Road to Valley Road. Also, what's the 'Valley Road crisis'? I do not know if it is different, but I once saw a bendy bus going down Valley Road. I am not sure how it affects bus sizes, but when there have been problems on the High Road and buses have been diverted between Streatham Common North and Streatham Hill it seemed to me in the past that Arriva tended to prefer just going via Leigham Court Road whilst London General would use Valley Road. The 'Valley Road ''crisis''' happened to be lack of services in Valley Road area. Where 249 and 315 are the only routes going there (Yes I do know 417 goes there too! But wasn't mentioned in the article, though). Some guy complained of that and happening to see 'ghost buses' just run on Streatham Common North (the 'ghost bus' is 133 dead runs if you haven't noticed). I'll bring the article for evidence. Those buses do not travel on Valley Road though, only pass by the end of it. Although I would agree there is an issue with services in that area. I remember reading about a council report that said that the Valley Road area is the worst served part of Lambeth, but that was not in the Streatham Guardian article about the 133 "ghost bus". Between the busy corridors of Streatham High Road and Norwood Road there is only the 249 along Streatham Common North, the 417 running north west to south-east and the 315 running through the middle. But both the 417 and 249 miss the main shopping centre of Streatham (and West Norwood for the other side of Leigham Court Road) whilst the 315 is infrequent. And even at the Streatham Hill end there is only the P13 crossing between those two corridors. What I think would be useful is something from Streatham Common North that turns into Valley Road, then Gleneldon Road and Stanthorpe Road but unlike the 315 will continue up the High Road to connect the area with the shops. Also one of the ideas I have posted here several times of switching the 255 and 315 between St Leonards and Balham would mean the 315, for those at the northern end of Valley Road, would get to serve the main shopping area too. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 17, 2014 9:51:30 GMT
A 12m bus might struggle to make the turn from Leigham Court Road to Valley Road. Also, what's the 'Valley Road crisis'? I do not know if it is different, but I once saw a bendy bus going down Valley Road. I am not sure how it affects bus sizes, but when there have been problems on the High Road and buses have been diverted between Streatham Common North and Streatham Hill it seemed to me in the past that Arriva tended to prefer just going via Leigham Court Road whilst London General would use Valley Road. The 'Valley Road ''crisis''' happened to be lack of services in Valley Road area. Where 249 and 315 are the only routes going there (Yes I do know 417 goes there too! But wasn't mentioned in the article, though). Some guy complained of that and happening to see 'ghost buses' just run on Streatham Common North (the 'ghost bus' is 133 dead runs if you haven't noticed). I'll bring the article for evidence. Those buses do not travel on Valley Road though, only pass by the end of it. Although I would agree there is an issue with services in that area. I remember reading about a council report that said that the Valley Road area is the worst served part of Lambeth, but that was not in the Streatham Guardian article about the 133 "ghost bus". Between the busy corridors of Streatham High Road and Norwood Road there is only the 249 along Streatham Common South, the 417 running north west to south-east and the 315 running through the middle. But both the 417 and 249 miss the main shopping centre of Streatham (and West Norwood for the other side of Leigham Court Road) whilst the 315 is infrequent. And even at the Streatham Hill end there is only the P13 crossing between those two corridors. What I think would be useful is something from Streatham Common North that turns into Valley Road, then Gleneldon Road and Stanthorpe Road but unlike the 315 will continue up the High Road to connect the area with the shops. Also one of the ideas I have posted here several times of switching the 255 and 315 between St Leonards and Balham would mean the 315, for those at the northern end of Valley Road, would get to serve the main shopping area too. An Artic has a much better turning circle than a 12m Citaro - I could be wrong regarding 12m buses making the turn but the traffic island is quite wide at the Leigham Court Road lights with Valley Road. To solve this 'Valley Road crisis', could a diverted 255 work via Streatham Common North Side, Valley Road & Gleneldon Road/Stanthorpe Road before continuing onto its current route - that way, the 315 can remain on its current routing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 10:20:49 GMT
To solve this 'Valley Road crisis', could a diverted 255 work via Streatham Common North Side, Valley Road & Gleneldon Road/Stanthorpe Road before continuing onto its current route - that way, the 315 can remain on its current routing. That is a great idea, it is not a long loop, so should not be too disruptive or expensive, and does not break many links. Apart from the local loop in Pollard's Hill and on Stanford Way/Road there are parallel routes for anyone wanting to get to Streatham Hub, and the link from the extension through eastern Balham is still quite new so not an established one. |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Sept 17, 2014 16:05:58 GMT
To solve this 'Valley Road crisis', could a diverted 255 work via Streatham Common North Side, Valley Road & Gleneldon Road/Stanthorpe Road before continuing onto its current route - that way, the 315 can remain on its current routing. That is a great idea, it is not a long loop, so should not be too disruptive or expensive, and does not break many links. Apart from the local loop in Pollard's Hill and on Stanford Way/Road there are parallel routes for anyone wanting to get to Streatham Hub, and the link from the extension through eastern Balham is still quite new so not an established one. I don't think it'd be solved with actually 255 going around the loop. Think of it, three routes to Streatham (without directly serving A23 for at least along between the Church and Hill Stn section. And three to Norwood area (West Norwood / Crown Point). What would solve the problem is an extension of route 133, helping off 249 and making passengers use 133 rather than 315. ( Article for those interested) A new route would be better but would cost more money, but by making 133's dead run a service would be good, not that it would happen. A route directly serving the A23 for at least until Streatham Hill Station to go to West Norwood (or Crown Point where people can change for a 196/468 if they can bother to, well anyway 249 and 417 are well used and many passengers get off there from what I remember). So a route serving A23 for most would solve this problem. IMO the 255 wouldn't solve that much of a problem and is a bit infrequent. |
|
