|
Post by TB123 on May 15, 2020 11:45:13 GMT
Be a bad idea given that the 264 through to the hospital is a very well used link. More demand for the 264 to St George's than the 333 hence the current route structure. I'd argue there is untapped demand east of Tooting where a 333 extension could be very ideal whereas the 280 already does the hospital part of the 264 between Mitcham & Tooting. For example Mitcham Lane & Southcroft Road residents would surely be referred to St George's for most things unless it's a particular issue that another hospital is equipped to deal with. Ideally you'd send down both routes - but there's a lot of people in parts of Croydon like Mitcham Road that either work at St George's or have appointments there. Those are useful links and hence why usage surged on the 264 after it was extended there in 2003.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on May 15, 2020 11:47:55 GMT
41 extended to Walthamstow Central via Blackhorse Road and st james street 4 extended back to Waterloo I think I'd send the 41 via the N73 route instead of duplicating the 230. It'd provide a daytime round-the-corner link at the Bell.
Do you mean extending the 4 from Blackfriars (via Stamford Street?), or would you divert it via its old route? Either way I'd love the 4 to be reinstated to Waterloo, out of all the central London cuts that's the one that has messed up my journeys the most.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 15, 2020 11:50:46 GMT
I'd argue there is untapped demand east of Tooting where a 333 extension could be very ideal whereas the 280 already does the hospital part of the 264 between Mitcham & Tooting. For example Mitcham Lane & Southcroft Road residents would surely be referred to St George's for most things unless it's a particular issue that another hospital is equipped to deal with. Ideally you'd send down both routes - but there's a lot of people in parts of Croydon like Mitcham Road that either work at St George's or have appointments there. Those are useful links and hence why usage surged on the 264 after it was extended there in 2003. Ideally you would run both routes there - one way of doing that would be to extend the 264 to the Summerstown area by Plough Lane and diverting the 264 via the 493 to Blackhorse Road, then up Fountain Road and along Garrett Lane to Summerstown which means it serves the hospital in both directions with no change to the Croydon bound routing at the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on May 15, 2020 12:06:14 GMT
Be a bad idea given that the 264 through to the hospital is a very well used link. More demand for the 264 to St George's than the 333 hence the current route structure. I'd argue there is untapped demand east of Tooting where a 333 extension could be very ideal whereas the 280 already does the hospital part of the 264 between Mitcham & Tooting. For example Mitcham Lane & Southcroft Road residents would surely be referred to St George's for most things unless it's a particular issue that another hospital is equipped to deal with. Croydon University Hospital refers people to St George's Hospital as the are both part of the South West London NHS Region as part of Wandsworth and Croydon. Lambeth is in the South East Region, so there should not be many (any?) cases of referral. The links the 264 provides are more important than those of the 333 in this case. It was a link campaigned hard for when it was introduced in 2003 and imagine there would be uproar from Croydon if it was stopped. If you look on the front pages of the St. George's website, you will see it specifically mentioned CUH, a sign they are closely linked.
|
|
|
Post by northlondonbuses on May 15, 2020 12:13:45 GMT
41 extended to Walthamstow Central via Blackhorse Road and st james street 4 extended back to Waterloo I think I'd send the 41 via the N73 route instead of duplicating the 230. It'd provide a daytime round-the-corner link at the Bell.
Do you mean extending the 4 from Blackfriars (via Stamford Street?), or would you divert it via its old route? Either way I'd love the 4 to be reinstated to Waterloo, out of all the central London cuts that's the one that has messed up my journeys the most.
Yh i agree with the 41 as the route is a bit short so it should go via the N73 and i feel the old 4 Route was perfect as it was cause right now the 4 is technically useless past Finsbury park
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on May 15, 2020 12:43:41 GMT
Ideally you'd send down both routes - but there's a lot of people in parts of Croydon like Mitcham Road that either work at St George's or have appointments there. Those are useful links and hence why usage surged on the 264 after it was extended there in 2003. Ideally you would run both routes there - one way of doing that would be to extend the 264 to the Summerstown area by Plough Lane and diverting the 264 via the 493 to Blackhorse Road, then up Fountain Road and along Garrett Lane to Summerstown which means it serves the hospital in both directions with no change to the Croydon bound routing at the hospital. That could work - but I'm not sure it would come anywhere near covering the £700,000 per annum that scheme would cost unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 15, 2020 12:54:11 GMT
Ideally you'd send down both routes - but there's a lot of people in parts of Croydon like Mitcham Road that either work at St George's or have appointments there. Those are useful links and hence why usage surged on the 264 after it was extended there in 2003. Ideally you would run both routes there - one way of doing that would be to extend the 264 to the Summerstown area by Plough Lane and diverting the 264 via the 493 to Blackhorse Road, then up Fountain Road and along Garrett Lane to Summerstown which means it serves the hospital in both directions with no change to the Croydon bound routing at the hospital. I take it you mean Blackhaw Road rather than Blackhorse Road.
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on May 15, 2020 13:53:36 GMT
London Mayor retained by Sadiq Khan with existing promises. Amendments to quality of services due to Government implementation of Fiscal Distancing (150520)
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on May 15, 2020 14:09:42 GMT
With regards to the G1 and 315 could the 315 be extended to St. George’s hospital to West Norwood (still serving Balham station) with the G1 could be extended from Green Lane to Croydon at the same time converted to double decker
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on May 15, 2020 14:14:42 GMT
With regards to the G1 and 315 could the 315 be extended to St. George’s hospital to West Norwood (still serving Balham station) with the G1 could be extended from Green Lane to Croydon at the same time converted to double decker Anything more than 9m length on the G1 is a tight fit and would be unlikely to pass a risk assessment, so double decks would be very unlikely. Also, why extend the route to Croydon? Firstly, you'd cut it back in the name of reliability - extending it again such a distance would wipe out any sort of reliability benefits. There's also plenty of capacity between Green Lane and Croydon on the 50, 109 and 250.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on May 15, 2020 14:29:59 GMT
With regards to the G1 and 315 could the 315 be extended to St. George’s hospital to West Norwood (still serving Balham station) with the G1 could be extended from Green Lane to Croydon at the same time converted to double decker There's already the 155 from Balham to Tooting which runs with double deckers to deal with demand along there and people can change to the 315 at Balham. The 315's SENs would be overwhelmed by demand leaving Tooting.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 15, 2020 14:37:51 GMT
A B9TL engine's too big to fit in the engine bay of the B7TLs....not to mention those units ended production a few years ago. If any B7TLs were to be re-engined the ideal unit would be a 6.7L Cummins unit like what's used in the MMC E400 Smart hybrids. Could it be possible those VLAs received an exhaust modification which may account for them sounding different? I cant see any reason why it cannot fit, as the engine bay area is the same size. As with normal engine conversion, many ancillaries would have to be changed and engine mounts fabricated to suit. Although these days the cost would far outweigh doing a conversion. It is almost as bad as the vantage hybrids, cost wise makes little sense. If we didn't have the throw away culture of buses in London, this could have been done. Engine conversions in London seems to have gone. The days of re-engine Fleetlines, Routemasters, Leyland Nationals have come a cropper.
There would also be the new exhaust system to be fitted, which being euro6 and combined with the suggested B9TL unit would require a larger bay. I believe the most recent large scale re-engining of London-based buses were the company owned batches of Go-Ahead's B7TLs, them fitted with refurbished euro4 spec'd engines with improved turbos.
|
|
|
Post by northlondonbuses on May 15, 2020 14:43:32 GMT
210 to Edgware via Hendon magistrates court it will improve links as there is no direct link from finsbury park/Highgate to Edgware Btw it will still serve Brent Cross Shopping Centre This extension will also save money for people commuting to Finsbury Park from Edgware
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 15, 2020 14:51:34 GMT
With regards to the G1 and 315 could the 315 be extended to St. George’s hospital to West Norwood (still serving Balham station) with the G1 could be extended from Green Lane to Croydon at the same time converted to double decker As TB123 says, The G1 would be far too long in that form and be dreadfully unreliable - it also cannot take longer single deckers due to the terminus in Battersea so double deckers would be wholly out of the question whilst the 155 already links Balham & St George's Hospital together. The only bit I'm slightly different on is that I wouldn't say the Green Lane to Croydon corridor entirely has sufficient capacity - the 50 & 250 certainly do but the 109 is a different story.
|
|
|
Post by ian on May 16, 2020 11:05:12 GMT
210 to Edgware via Hendon magistrates court it will improve links as there is no direct link from finsbury park/Highgate to Edgware Btw it will still serve Brent Cross Shopping Centre This extension will also save money for people commuting to Finsbury Park from Edgware Do you mean going up the Edgware Road from Brent Cross? If there is any demand from Edgware to Finsbury Park (not sure if there is?) I would have thought maybe an extension on 221 from TL to FPark might be better?
|
|