|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Sept 17, 2014 19:48:23 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... (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via Crown Lane and Streatham Common North) 315 to Herne Hill compensating 201's stand loss (via Peabody Estate) 415 - withdrawn and replaced by PVR increase by 3 432 (BACK TO PREVIOUS PVR ) and 133 to compensate for loss. 690's journeys to be crosslinked with 2 to compensate (I'd rather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 ^ ) That aint gonna happen, The 201 is going to Abellio soon!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 19:57:39 GMT
Do you think it would be a good idea to divert either the 15, 115 or 135 to run via The Highway? Or is there no demand?
|
|
|
|
Post by stubag on Sept 17, 2014 20:22:58 GMT
I can remember my brothers school giving out maps of Herne Hill about 5 years ago that had 68A on it rather than the 468 and a 500 series route that has never existed - I really do wonder where they get their info from. Yeah but I mean...surely Kingston Uni would have the common sense to put information about all their routes lol. Maybe its just me. To be fair, the KU5 only runs on Wednesday's, and I was never in on that day last year. So I don't know. I'll be moving closer to the area, so I'll have a chance to take a snap of it! I'll get a picture for you of all the OFJ uni shuttles! I'll try and play with the blinds of one in the yard over the weekend  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 20:36:56 GMT
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. Why do all buses to Streatham have to serve that section of the High Road? And vjaska's suggestion would still see the 255 running between St Leonard's church and Streatham Hill station, it would only be the short section between Streatham Common North and St Leonard's it would miss, literally two stops northbound and three stops southbound, and with alternatives just around the corner for all but the one outside and opposite Tesco. The 249 does not need any help between the High Road and Crown Point. Streatham Common North is lightly populated with the common on one side then just one looping residential street off it when it becomes Crown Lane. A 133 extension is not needed as it would make the route unreliable; there is very little demand for a route from Streatham Common North (or elsewhere in Streatham) for Knight's Hill; a terminus at the Norwood bus depot would see it stop too short of the centre of West Norwood; and it would be too much of a loop for anyone from West Norwood to use it. For Streatham it would be just as quick to wait for the infrequent 315, and for no one will use it for Brixton over going directly via Tulse Hill. Even in the Streatham Guardian article no one is actually asking for a 133 extension, they just want to be able to catch the light running buses as they are already going to and from the High Road. And what happens if Arriva loses the 133 contract? A lot of buses have dead running, you cannot keep extending routes to the next depot along whenever another operator takes over. There were no calls for a 133 extension to Norwood when it was run by London General. As I said on another thread recently, the main use of the 315 is for people to get to their local town centre rather than between them. I have been on many full buses from Balham that have significantly emptied out by St Leonard's, but then pick up a lot of people at the top of Gleneldon Road once it crosses the High Road. The flows in this part of south London are mostly radial along the main A-road corridors, there is no big demand for people travelling between Streatham and West Norwood. When people in West Norwood want to go to the cinema or larger shops their focus is mainly towards Brixton, not Streatham. And Streatham is a much bigger place so apart from B&Q there are little leisure or shopping attractions in West Norwood where there is no local equivalent or better. Including a larger Homebase by Streatham Common station. So there is almost no demand from the Streatham Common North area south of Leigham Court Road for West Norwood. The 255 suggestion would be far more useful as it would serve Valley Road and the streets leading off it with a High Road connection, a 133 extension would not solve the "Valley Road crisis" as those in the middle will still be just as far from a bus route. And for them needing to walk to Streatham Common North would not be worth the effort, time, and cost when it would be just as quick and free to walk to the High Road directly. The only downside is that ideally it is the area by Sunnyhill primary school and the Valley Road surgery at the centre of that area, and where the old dairy has been replaced by new housing development, which could really do with a proper High Road connection and not just the 315. If possible it would be better if a rerouted 255 could use Sunnyhill Road instead of Gleneldon and Stanthorpe Road although I think it would be too narrow with parked cars. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 22:27:42 GMT
Sorry to spark a new discussion, but with road workings in Sternhold Av (Streatham Hill), isnt it better for the 255 to serve New Park Road, rather than follow the 50 in its original route. With the Clapham park project and new flats being built on New Park road, it would give a quick link to Balham. Also there could be more stops between Belthorn Crescent and Balham High road, making the route more accescible for people living on the Molly Huggins Estate etc. I know residents in Weir Road and Old Devonshire road signed a petition against it, but it will benefit everyone in the area. Loads of people still walk from the Balham section up to weir road, even now the 255 is in service.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 18, 2014 22:47:42 GMT
Sorry to spark a new discussion, but with road workings in Sternhold Av (Streatham Hill), isnt it better for the 255 to serve New Park Road, rather than follow the 50 in its original route. With the Clapham park project and new flats being built on New Park road, it would give a quick link to Balham. Also there could be more stops between Belthorn Crescent and Balham High road, making the route more accescible for people living on the Molly Huggins Estate etc. I know residents in Weir Road and Old Devonshire road signed a petition against it, but it will benefit everyone in the area. Loads of people still walk from the Balham section up to weir road, even now the 255 is in service. I think everyone will agree that more bus stops are needed along Old Devonshire Road & Weir Road but until the residents stop moaning, it won't happen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 5:34:42 GMT
The 323 could do with an extension. Somewhere in Central London. Perhaps Bank?
|
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Sept 19, 2014 5:41:58 GMT
Route 239
Lower Sydenham
Sydenham
Wells Park Road
Lordship Lane
East Dulwich
Camberwell
Walworth
Elephant and Castle
Waterloo
Aldwych
Operator: maybe Stagecoach
Frequency maybe 5-10 minutes
Would help frequency around Sydenham and better links with an option to go to Holborn
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 19, 2014 8:38:46 GMT
The 323 could do with an extension. Somewhere in Central London. Perhaps Bank? There was a plan several years ago to add a short extension on from Mile End to Portelet Road to improve access to that area. As with so many such plans it was stopped due to funding cuts. There has been no suggestion that it will be revived. I fail to see the point of extending a single deck route like the 323 in to Central London when you look at the volume of demand on the Whitechapel Road. Buses would be stupidly overloaded. Sometimes it is sensible to have short local feeder routes to support local travel and to keep them insulated from the worst traffic problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Sept 19, 2014 10:15:23 GMT
Route 239 Lower Sydenham Sydenham Wells Park Road Lordship Lane East Dulwich Camberwell Walworth Elephant and Castle Waterloo Aldwych Operator: maybe Stagecoach Frequency maybe 5-10 minutes Would help frequency around Sydenham and better links with an option to go to Holborn The 176 more or less has these links already. And at a high frequency too. |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Sept 19, 2014 18:56:40 GMT
I've been planning this, it'd be useful one day in life. The blue font indicates a 'why-not?' further extension, it may benefit. It may parallel some parts of routes, but would be useful, as a SD route at the least.
Route 433;
Crystal Palace Parade / West Norwood Rosendale / Herne Hill - London Bridge* / Stratford City, via:
Gipsy Hill, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Turney Road (direct via Rosendale Road on return), Croxted Road, Norwood Road, Herne Hill, Denmark Hill, Camberwell Road, Walworth Road, Elephant & Castle, Newington Causeway, Borough High Street, London Bridge, Eastcheap, East Smithfield, The Highway, Butcher Row, East India Dock Road, Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach, Stratford High Street, Great Eastern Road?, Leyton Road, Montifichet (Avenue?), Stratford City Bus Station.
The length of the full may be crazy, but the length (in full of course) rivals the length of 111 and 246's. Herne Hill to Stratford City should approximately be 9-10 miles. Crystal Palace to London Bridge should be around 7-8 miles too.
Frequency; M-F 10 minutes, Saturday 30 minutes, Sunday no service
What's ya thoughts about this? This could do with some minor relieveing with 68/468, especially in the peaks. And could help off the loadings with the City routes from E&C entering London Bridge (also in the peaks too). And from London Bridge to Stratford City, would create a 'faster, but more traffic chance' link to Stratford. Was thinking for this to be a DD route, but after Herne Hill would be a bit wrecked for a DD chance. At West Norwood Rosendale, it would use that abandoned bus stand. Crystal Palace Parade however, would be either the bus station on either side (don't think there is much space) or a circle around Crystal Palace via Gipsy Hill, then via 3 back down, and so on via Sth Croxted Road. Herne Hill would be the 201 stand. London Bridge would be a hard one, it'd be the 43's stand I guess haha. Stratford City shouldn't be out of space yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 19, 2014 19:50:46 GMT
I've been planning this, it'd be useful one day in life. The blue font indicates a 'why-not?' further extension, it may benefit. It may parallel some parts of routes, but would be useful, as a SD route at the least. Route 433; Crystal Palace Parade / West Norwood Rosendale / Herne Hill - London Bridge* / Stratford City, via: Gipsy Hill, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Turney Road (direct via Rosendale Road on return), Croxted Road, Norwood Road, Herne Hill, Denmark Hill, Camberwell Road, Walworth Road, Elephant & Castle, Newington Causeway, Borough High Street, London Bridge, Eastcheap, East Smithfield, The Highway, Butcher Row, East India Dock Road, Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach, Stratford High Street, Great Eastern Road?, Leyton Road, Montifichet (Avenue?), Stratford City Bus Station. The length of the full may be crazy, but the length (in full of course) rivals the length of 111 and 246's. Herne Hill to Stratford City should approximately be 9-10 miles. Crystal Palace to London Bridge should be around 7-8 miles too. Frequency; M-F 10 minutes, Saturday 30 minutes, Sunday no service What's ya thoughts about this? This could do with some minor relieveing with 68/468, especially in the peaks. And could help off the loadings with the City routes from E&C entering London Bridge (also in the peaks too). And from London Bridge to Stratford City, would create a 'faster, but more traffic chance' link to Stratford. Was thinking for this to be a DD route, but after Herne Hill would be a bit wrecked for a DD chance. At West Norwood Rosendale, it would use that abandoned bus stand. Crystal Palace Parade however, would be either the bus station on either side (don't think there is much space) or a circle around Crystal Palace via Gipsy Hill, then via 3 back down, and so on via Sth Croxted Road. Herne Hill would be the 201 stand. London Bridge would be a hard one, it'd be the 43's stand I guess haha. Stratford City shouldn't be out of space yet. I like that proposal, some parts of the route would be useful, but I think the whole route would be far too long length and timewise, even more so than the 111 which is at 15 miles. Also keeping in mind those routes are situated further away from Central London than your proposed 433 so congestion would be relatively common with this route. Perhaps it would be best for your 433 route to be Elephant Castle - Stratford City, this would be long enough but capable I think, and since it would be a trunk route I would say increase the M-F frequency to 6-8 mins  |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Sept 19, 2014 20:02:54 GMT
I've been planning this, it'd be useful one day in life. The blue font indicates a 'why-not?' further extension, it may benefit. It may parallel some parts of routes, but would be useful, as a SD route at the least. Route 433; Crystal Palace Parade / West Norwood Rosendale / Herne Hill - London Bridge* / Stratford City, via: Gipsy Hill, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Turney Road (direct via Rosendale Road on return), Croxted Road, Norwood Road, Herne Hill, Denmark Hill, Camberwell Road, Walworth Road, Elephant & Castle, Newington Causeway, Borough High Street, London Bridge, Eastcheap, East Smithfield, The Highway, Butcher Row, East India Dock Road, Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach, Stratford High Street, Great Eastern Road?, Leyton Road, Montifichet (Avenue?), Stratford City Bus Station. The length of the full may be crazy, but the length (in full of course) rivals the length of 111 and 246's. Herne Hill to Stratford City should approximately be 9-10 miles. Crystal Palace to London Bridge should be around 7-8 miles too. Frequency; M-F 10 minutes, Saturday 30 minutes, Sunday no service What's ya thoughts about this? This could do with some minor relieveing with 68/468, especially in the peaks. And could help off the loadings with the City routes from E&C entering London Bridge (also in the peaks too). And from London Bridge to Stratford City, would create a 'faster, but more traffic chance' link to Stratford. Was thinking for this to be a DD route, but after Herne Hill would be a bit wrecked for a DD chance. At West Norwood Rosendale, it would use that abandoned bus stand. Crystal Palace Parade however, would be either the bus station on either side (don't think there is much space) or a circle around Crystal Palace via Gipsy Hill, then via 3 back down, and so on via Sth Croxted Road. Herne Hill would be the 201 stand. London Bridge would be a hard one, it'd be the 43's stand I guess haha. Stratford City shouldn't be out of space yet. I like that proposal, some parts of the route would be useful, but I think the whole route would be far too long length and timewise, even more so than the 111 which is at 15 miles. Also keeping in mind those routes are situated further away from Central London than your proposed 433 so congestion would be relatively common with this route. Perhaps it would be best for your 433 route to be Elephant Castle - Stratford City, this would be long enough but capable I think, and since it would be a trunk route I would say increase the M-F frequency to 6-8 mins Then maybe a 443 down the river for the southern plan of 433?  And maybe a frequency of 15 mins M-F and 20 on Sats with no Sunday service. And MPD operation lol. Thanks for your thoughts though |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 19, 2014 20:18:17 GMT
I've been planning this, it'd be useful one day in life. The blue font indicates a 'why-not?' further extension, it may benefit. It may parallel some parts of routes, but would be useful, as a SD route at the least. Route 433; Crystal Palace Parade / West Norwood Rosendale / Herne Hill - London Bridge* / Stratford City, via: Gipsy Hill, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Turney Road (direct via Rosendale Road on return), Croxted Road, Norwood Road, Herne Hill, Denmark Hill, Camberwell Road, Walworth Road, Elephant & Castle, Newington Causeway, Borough High Street, London Bridge, Eastcheap, East Smithfield, The Highway, Butcher Row, East India Dock Road, Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach, Stratford High Street, Great Eastern Road?, Leyton Road, Montifichet (Avenue?), Stratford City Bus Station. The length of the full may be crazy, but the length (in full of course) rivals the length of 111 and 246's. Herne Hill to Stratford City should approximately be 9-10 miles. Crystal Palace to London Bridge should be around 7-8 miles too. Frequency; M-F 10 minutes, Saturday 30 minutes, Sunday no service What's ya thoughts about this? This could do with some minor relieveing with 68/468, especially in the peaks. And could help off the loadings with the City routes from E&C entering London Bridge (also in the peaks too). And from London Bridge to Stratford City, would create a 'faster, but more traffic chance' link to Stratford. Was thinking for this to be a DD route, but after Herne Hill would be a bit wrecked for a DD chance. At West Norwood Rosendale, it would use that abandoned bus stand. Crystal Palace Parade however, would be either the bus station on either side (don't think there is much space) or a circle around Crystal Palace via Gipsy Hill, then via 3 back down, and so on via Sth Croxted Road. Herne Hill would be the 201 stand. London Bridge would be a hard one, it'd be the 43's stand I guess haha. Stratford City shouldn't be out of space yet. As much as Stratford to Crystal Palace is an interesting link, it would be way too long in practice hitting many traffic hotspots along the way. Crystal Palace to London Bridge could work though but that would mean forfitting part of Rosendale Road as Park Hall Road can't use buses that have more than 8 passengers aboard - out of service buses can use the road as I've seen N run 249's, 417's & 432's up to Anerley & Palace via that route in the past. Deckers should manage Rosendale Road with no issues as both bridges are high enough to take deckers and length won't be an issue as coaches used to stand up on Rosendale Road by the steel railway bridge.. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 19, 2014 20:39:46 GMT
I've been planning this, it'd be useful one day in life. The blue font indicates a 'why-not?' further extension, it may benefit. It may parallel some parts of routes, but would be useful, as a SD route at the least. Route 433; Crystal Palace Parade / West Norwood Rosendale / Herne Hill - London Bridge* / Stratford City, via: Gipsy Hill, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Turney Road (direct via Rosendale Road on return), Croxted Road, Norwood Road, Herne Hill, Denmark Hill, Camberwell Road, Walworth Road, Elephant & Castle, Newington Causeway, Borough High Street, London Bridge, Eastcheap, East Smithfield, The Highway, Butcher Row, East India Dock Road, Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach, Stratford High Street, Great Eastern Road?, Leyton Road, Montifichet (Avenue?), Stratford City Bus Station. The length of the full may be crazy, but the length (in full of course) rivals the length of 111 and 246's. Herne Hill to Stratford City should approximately be 9-10 miles. Crystal Palace to London Bridge should be around 7-8 miles too. Frequency; M-F 10 minutes, Saturday 30 minutes, Sunday no service What's ya thoughts about this? This could do with some minor relieveing with 68/468, especially in the peaks. And could help off the loadings with the City routes from E&C entering London Bridge (also in the peaks too). And from London Bridge to Stratford City, would create a 'faster, but more traffic chance' link to Stratford. Was thinking for this to be a DD route, but after Herne Hill would be a bit wrecked for a DD chance. At West Norwood Rosendale, it would use that abandoned bus stand. Crystal Palace Parade however, would be either the bus station on either side (don't think there is much space) or a circle around Crystal Palace via Gipsy Hill, then via 3 back down, and so on via Sth Croxted Road. Herne Hill would be the 201 stand. London Bridge would be a hard one, it'd be the 43's stand I guess haha. Stratford City shouldn't be out of space yet. I think it is far too long and far too much at risk of encountering serious traffic problems. Imagine if the Blackwall Tunnel had problems? - a daily occurrence. I think it would be very hard to schedule efficiently if it ran Stratford City - Norwood / Crystal Palace. I am not convinced by the very wide differential in frequencies. You seem to be forgetting that weekends are very busy. No Sunday service into Stratford City? - err hello?! If it had to run with single deckers it would be horrendously overloaded if trying to run through the City / Walworth Road. I agree with previous comments that this is possibly two or three routes. I'd also be tempted to run the route via Southwark Bridge to give a new link from the Walworth area into Monument / Tower Hill part of the City. I'd also be tempted to run via Canary Wharf and Leamouth. Crystal Palace - Camberwell Green single decks 15 peaks and interpeak / 20 evenings and Sundays Herne Hill - Canary Wharf / Canning Town double decks - this would give the eastwards link from Canary Wharf to Canning Town that's missing. It'd also give a South London - Canary Wharf bus lost when the 40 was chopped. 12 peaks and interpeak / 15 Sats / 20 evenings and Sundays Stratford City - Elephant and Castle double decks. This could go via London Bridge or could go via Tower Bridge and Tooely St to part relieve the RV1 which is overloaded because of the crowds from Fenchurch St and London Bridge. 15 peaks and interpeak / 20 evenings and Sundays Now OK my split service is much more resource intensive but is likely to be more reliable and avoids running single deckers where, in time, double deckers would be required. There are also plenty of garages and operators that could run any of the services with reasonable efficiency. Unfortunately all the routes are at risk of encountering horrible peak traffic at some point. |
|
