Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 9:21:20 GMT
Give the 80 a extension down to Reigate, extra bus and additional 25 minutes on the timetable. I'd also like to see a route between Croydon and Orpington. The Croydon to Orpington route would be great for tthose areas. It would be good if they scrapped the T33, and extended the 353 via the T33, and increased the 353 PVR |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 11:09:49 GMT
The Croydon to Orpington route would be great for tthose areas. It would be good if they scrapped the T33, and extended the 353 via the T33, and increased the 353 PVR That could work. |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Sept 29, 2014 11:29:32 GMT
The Croydon to Orpington route would be great for tthose areas. It would be good if they scrapped the T33, and extended the 353 via the T33, and increased the 353 PVR 353 actually did used to go there with a PVR of 4 DDs before being replaced by T33 in May 2000. There might have been a reason other than the new tram system [too]? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 29, 2014 11:44:01 GMT
The Croydon to Orpington route would be great for tthose areas. It would be good if they scrapped the T33, and extended the 353 via the T33, and increased the 353 PVR If you did that, the 353 would have go to SD due to the moany Selsdon Vale residents. I'd run the 353 along Coombe Lane & Coombe Road - patronage may not be great along here due to Tramlink already being there but it could be useful for anyone wanting to go beyond Addington Village. The T33 would be left as it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 11:55:41 GMT
It would be good if they scrapped the T33, and extended the 353 via the T33, and increased the 353 PVR 353 actually did used to go there with a PVR of 4 DDs before being replaced by T33 in May 2000. There might have been a reason other than the new tram system [too]? Yes the 353 did go there, however It would be good to do Croydon to Orpington for £1.45 |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Sept 29, 2014 23:07:45 GMT
N53 Marylebone to Plumstead via 453 and 53. Frequency every 10 mins weekday mornings/nights, 8 mins on weekend mornings/nights. 53/N53 converted to Bendy operation.
37's night service rerouted and extended to Richmond via 337.
Every ex-bendy route reconverted back to bendy operation (except 453 as 53 will be bendy).
P4 PVR increase to 8 minutes from current 12.
Would like N550 and N551 to merge again but they're quite fine I think
Maybe an N321 would have been awesome paralleling N21, like N28/N31 situation frequency could/would occur if that actually happened, the new N21 timetable put that to bed I guess.....
474's night service renumbered N101 and extended to Wanstead
N7 extension to Rayners Lane via H12 to happen to life
106 extended to Aldgate and converted to 24-hour (it's already 23-hour, an hour is not too much at some points)
482 converted to 24-hour (it's also 23-hour)
Re-route 274 from Agar Grove so it can take DDs
NX26 - night service for X26 and extended to T4 via T5 and Cargo Area
N9 - extend to HT5 via T4 and Cargo Area
|
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Sept 30, 2014 8:43:41 GMT
N53 Marylebone to Plumstead via 453 and 53. Frequency every 10 mins weekday mornings/nights, 8 mins on weekend mornings/nights. 53/N53 converted to Bendy operation. Every ex-bendy route reconverted back to bendy operation (except 453 as 53 will be bendy). There is honestly no point of your N53 idea when both the 53 & 453 are 24-hour buses. Creating a new bus route that runs over both routes would be pointless (I guess if it was some sort of express service, it would bring some benefits but maybe not). And why would you bring back bendy buses?? Especially after they took them away for good reasons. Its bad enough we have LTs being able to let people on for free again. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 30, 2014 12:51:31 GMT
If Surrey Canal Road Station was to ever open: Route 199 extended to Surrey Canal Road Station via Bermondsey Station, St James's Road, Catlin Street and South Bermondsey Station. An advantage for this is that the 199 would provide a link between the Surrey Canal Development and Lewisham as there was supposed to be a new route introduced to serve Surrey Canal and Lewisham but 199's a short route so it can do the job instead. I quite like that proposal as the 199 is indeed not an overally long route and brings the revelant link that was to be included for the Surrey Canal development. I can now see all the people who want the 199 to Bromley North go up in arms at your proposal lool. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 30, 2014 12:55:10 GMT
If Surrey Canal Road Station was to ever open: Route 199 extended to Surrey Canal Road Station via Bermondsey Station, St James's Road, Catlin Street and South Bermondsey Station. An advantage for this is that the 199 would provide a link between the Surrey Canal Development and Lewisham as there was supposed to be a new route introduced to serve Surrey Canal and Lewisham but 199's a short route so it can do the job instead. During the recent London Open House weekend the Surrey Canal site was open. One of my Twitter contacts tweeted the following - station may open in 2.5-3.5 years time. - possible extension of route 168 to SCR - possible diversion of route 381 to SCR via Commercial Way - possible extension of route 199 to SCR via "a convoluted route" but not described in detail - possible extension of route 197 to SCR These are all still tentative ideas but show that thinking is still going on about how to serve the area by bus. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 30, 2014 13:00:00 GMT
If Surrey Canal Road Station was to ever open: Route 199 extended to Surrey Canal Road Station via Bermondsey Station, St James's Road, Catlin Street and South Bermondsey Station. An advantage for this is that the 199 would provide a link between the Surrey Canal Development and Lewisham as there was supposed to be a new route introduced to serve Surrey Canal and Lewisham but 199's a short route so it can do the job instead. During the recent London Open House weekend the Surrey Canal site was open. One of my Twitter contacts tweeted the following - station may open in 2.5-3.5 years time. - possible extension of route 168 to SCR - possible diversion of route 381 to SCR via Commercial Way - possible extension of route 199 to SCR via "a convoluted route" but not described in detail - possible extension of route 197 to SCR These are all still tentative ideas but show that thinking is still going on about how to serve the area by bus. So the 415 proposal is now dropped? Personally, I think the extensions of the 168 & 197 could cause reliability issues but I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 30, 2014 13:16:22 GMT
During the recent London Open House weekend the Surrey Canal site was open. One of my Twitter contacts tweeted the following - station may open in 2.5-3.5 years time. - possible extension of route 168 to SCR - possible diversion of route 381 to SCR via Commercial Way - possible extension of route 199 to SCR via "a convoluted route" but not described in detail - possible extension of route 197 to SCR These are all still tentative ideas but show that thinking is still going on about how to serve the area by bus. So the 415 proposal is now dropped? Personally, I think the extensions of the 168 & 197 could cause reliability issues but I could be wrong. Who knows? I suspect a load of things are "in the mix" at different points in time. Wasn't the 225 and a brand new route also under consideration with the 415? I think this just shows that it is difficult to determine where the demand will come from. As we've discussed before and seen with recent TfL changes there is a definite preference for extending routes rather than altering services where journey links are broken and the business case gets difficult. Therefore you can see why the 168, 197 and 199 might be in scope as they're all extensions and give access from a range of directions. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 30, 2014 13:45:04 GMT
Extend the 197 and 194 to South Croydon Bus Garage! I always see buses running empty after finishing on the 197 heading to TC for i think refuelling. And i think this is the same case with the 194 Wouldn't this make 312 pointless except for the 312 going via Addiscombe (or whereever it was back when Spring Lane was open)? That would make 312 look like 197A  . Good thinking though  The 194 and 197 go OOS back to TC for driver changeovers. Years ago both the 12A (as it was then) and 197 both went to South Croydon Garage with the latter going onto Caterham Valley. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 30, 2014 13:53:07 GMT
Wouldn't this make 312 pointless except for the 312 going via Addiscombe (or whereever it was back when Spring Lane was open)? That would make 312 look like 197A . Good thinking though A way to solve this is to merge the 312 & 412 together so it's runs from Norwood Junction to Purley via the 312 to South Croydon and then the 412 to Purley. That would allow the 197 to be extended to South Croydon Garage. Diverting the 194 to South Croydon Garage puts pressure on the East Croydon routes that run to West Croydon Bus Station so would prefer that to remain as it is. There was a proposal to merge the 312 and 412 into one route but it didn't happen for some reason |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 30, 2014 13:59:14 GMT
It would be good if they scrapped the T33, and extended the 353 via the T33, and increased the 353 PVR That could work. Extend the 353 back to Croydon via the 466 route. Reroute the 466 to Shrublands. Withdraw the 198, extend the 194 to TH maintaining links to Mayday and extend the 64 to Thornton Heath High Street |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 30, 2014 14:05:35 GMT
A way to solve this is to merge the 312 & 412 together so it's runs from Norwood Junction to Purley via the 312 to South Croydon and then the 412 to Purley. That would allow the 197 to be extended to South Croydon Garage. Diverting the 194 to South Croydon Garage puts pressure on the East Croydon routes that run to West Croydon Bus Station so would prefer that to remain as it is. There was a proposal to merge the 312 and 412 into one route but it didn't happen for some reason It didn't happen because local politicians decided it wasn't needed and most likely, they then wern't prepared to discuss it. |
|
