|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 13, 2014 17:26:40 GMT
There is no quick easy way by rail or road from the Plumstead / Woolwich areas to Bromley. I think this is a link that is needed. It took me over 90 mins doing this trip yesterday. Obvious way would be to withdraw 126 between Eltham Church and Southend Crescent, and instead extend at least to Woolwich via Well Hall Road/Academy Road, and possibly onward to Plumstead Common via 53, to terminate on the old 53 stand on the Common. The 51 & 54 go very close to Bromley. 126 is not the right route as it is fine as it is, but a new service altogether linking Bromley & Woolwich. If the 161 wasn't so long extending it to Bromley South via the 269 would be a good idea. Also TFL are introducing 500 more buses so a link like this could be introduced |
|
|
|
Post by jrussa on Dec 13, 2014 18:12:44 GMT
Extend 108 during the nights to Crystal Palace via Route 181 to Catford and then Route 202 to Crystal Palace.
Extend Route N55 to Loughton
Extend Route 308 or 425 to Tottenham Hale or Tottenham Swan or divert Route 230 to Stratford from Bakers Arms
** If Route 230 is diverted, extend Route W11 to Forest Gate (Hampton Road) via Upper Walthamstow and Whipps X.
Route W11 should go via Hoe Street, The Bell, Forest Road, Shernhall Road, Havant Road (towards Forest Gate) and Wyatt's Lane (towards Chingford), Wood Street, Fyfield Road, Bisterne Avenue, Forest Rise, Lea Bridge Road (Whipps X Roundabout), Route 257 to Harrow Green, via Harrow Green Road, and Route 58 to Forest Gate Station and left onto Hampton Road
Benefits:
- Provides assistance to Routes 212 (Shernhall Rd area), Route 275 (Forest Road to Walthamstow via Bell), Route 257 (Whipps X to Harrow Green)
- New connections
- Harrow Road (in Leytonstone) will have a bus service.
- Alternative route to Route 58 between Walthamstow and Forest Gate
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 18:17:49 GMT
Extend 108 during the nights to Crystal Palace via Route 181 to Catford and then Route 202 to Crystal Palace. Extend Route N55 to Loughton Extend Route 308 or 425 to Tottenham Hale or Tottenham Swan or divert Route 230 to Stratford from Bakers Arms ** If Route 230 is diverted, extend Route W11 to Forest Gate (Hampton Road) via Upper Walthamstow and Whipps X. Route W11 should go via Hoe Street, The Bell, Forest Road, Shernhall Road, Havant Road (towards Forest Gate) and Wyatt's Lane (towards Chingford), Wood Street, Fyfield Road, Bisterne Avenue, Forest Rise, Lea Bridge Road (Whipps X Roundabout), Route 257 to Harrow Green, via Harrow Green Road, and Route 58 to Forest Gate Station and left onto Hampton Road Benefits: - Provides assistance to Routes 212 (Shernhall Rd area), Route 275 (Forest Road to Walthamstow via Bell), Route 257 (Whipps X to Harrow Green) - New connections - Harrow Road (in Leytonstone) will have a bus service. - Alternative route to Route 58 between Walthamstow and Forest Gate Like the N108 suggestion. Useful.. Would give Lower Sydenham a night route I'm still hoping TfL will see sense and put a night route to Norwood and even better for me to Dartford. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 13, 2014 19:03:03 GMT
Route W11 should go via Hoe Street, The Bell, Forest Road, Shernhall Road, Havant Road (towards Forest Gate) and Wyatt's Lane (towards Chingford), Wood Street, Fyfield Road, Bisterne Avenue, Forest Rise, Lea Bridge Road (Whipps X Roundabout), Route 257 to Harrow Green, via Harrow Green Road, and Route 58 to Forest Gate Station and left onto Hampton Road Benefits: - Provides assistance to Routes 212 (Shernhall Rd area), Route 275 (Forest Road to Walthamstow via Bell), Route 257 (Whipps X to Harrow Green) - New connections - Harrow Road (in Leytonstone) will have a bus service. - Alternative route to Route 58 between Walthamstow and Forest Gate But but that proposal doesn't put the W11 on the *right* bit of Forest Road!   I have to say I am not convinced that the 212 and 275 need that much help. Yes they can be busy in the peaks but I don't really see that minibuses every 10 minutes will give that much support if they are also supposed to be helping out the 257 and the 58. Assuming there is a surplus of demand then the last thing you do to relieve it is create a load of new links and put on small buses if you could sensibly run bigger buses! I know there's a height restriction at Wood St but that's the only one on your proposed route. Many years ago when LT did do a consultation on buses in Walthamstow the W11 was going to run across the Central to Walthamstow Village. I think my idea for replacing the lost W11 service is to extend the 397 on from Sainsburys via the W11 along Billet Road then down the W15 through Higham Hill Road and then along to the Bell and up to Walthamstow Central. I'd increase the frequency to x20 from x30 and add some earlier and later journeys. That's a modest increase but the 397 is fairly busy at the Chingford end and this would bring some new links and capacity to Higham Hill and (selfishly) give me a service back even if not a mega frequent one. I've deliberately avoided putting more buses through Priory Court even though it is busy in the peaks because the roads are quite narrow with lots of chichanes, humps and parked vehicles. I'd use the spare stand space at Sainsburys for a new route to Stratford City via Billet, Wadham Road, Hale End Road, Forest Road, Wood Street, Whipps Cross, Hospital, James Lane, Leytonstone station and over the 339 to Stratford City. I'd curtail the 339 back to Stratford City or divert to Leyton ASDA. The new service would be every 20 mins daily. I haven't yet worked out a sensible option for replacing the lost capacity from the diverted W15 route via Blackhorse Road for people from Higham Hill and at Blackhorse Road. By putting the new / revised services at 20 min headways it gives some scope for later enhancement without overloading the costs. Also the 339 proposal would use spare funding for the "non extension" from Leytonstone to Whipps Cross. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 23:16:06 GMT
Obvious way would be to withdraw 126 between Eltham Church and Southend Crescent, and instead extend at least to Woolwich via Well Hall Road/Academy Road, and possibly onward to Plumstead Common via 53, to terminate on the old 53 stand on the Common. The 51 & 54 go very close to Bromley. 126 is not the right route as it is fine as it is, but a new service altogether linking Bromley & Woolwich. If the 161 wasn't so long extending it to Bromley South via the 269 would be a good idea. Also TFL are introducing 500 more buses so a link like this could be introduced I remember when the 161 did that before they cut it back to Chislehurst War Memorial. Although it terminated at Bromley North. It should not have been cut back in my view. Leyland Titan all the way with People smoking upstairs those were the day's. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 14, 2014 4:00:50 GMT
The 51 & 54 go very close to Bromley. 126 is not the right route as it is fine as it is, but a new service altogether linking Bromley & Woolwich. If the 161 wasn't so long extending it to Bromley South via the 269 would be a good idea. Also TFL are introducing 500 more buses so a link like this could be introduced I remember when the 161 did that before they cut it back to Chislehurst War Memorial. Although it terminated at Bromley North. It should not have been cut back in my view. Leyland Titan all the way with People smoking upstairs those were the day's. I agree with the Leyland Titan part but not the smoking or keeping it running to Bromley. Having done the 161 end to end, I can see why it was cut back to Chislehurst. Personally, I'd have a new route between Woolwich & Bromley instead. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 8:26:27 GMT
How about extending the 205 to Bromley By Bow?  |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 14, 2014 10:30:27 GMT
How about extending the 205 to Bromley By Bow? I don't see what benefits that would bring. Especially for Stagecoach, as they funded the 205 extension from Mile End to Bow Church to win the route from Metroline... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 10:31:28 GMT
I remember when the 161 did that before they cut it back to Chislehurst War Memorial. Although it terminated at Bromley North. It should not have been cut back in my view. Leyland Titan all the way with People smoking upstairs those were the day's. I agree with the Leyland Titan part but not the smoking or keeping it running to Bromley. Having done the 161 end to end, I can see why it was cut back to Chislehurst. Personally, I'd have a new route between Woolwich & Bromley instead. I'd extend the 126 and decker it, if I was trying to solve that problem. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 14, 2014 11:02:33 GMT
Obvious way would be to withdraw 126 between Eltham Church and Southend Crescent, and instead extend at least to Woolwich via Well Hall Road/Academy Road, and possibly onward to Plumstead Common via 53, to terminate on the old 53 stand on the Common. The 51 & 54 go very close to Bromley. 126 is not the right route as it is fine as it is, but a new service altogether linking Bromley & Woolwich. If the 161 wasn't so long extending it to Bromley South via the 269 would be a good idea. Also TFL are introducing 500 more buses so a link like this could be introduced I'd disagree - in my view, the 126 would be the right route because it would give a relatively direct link between the two points. I don't see that a whole new route could be justified. Getting to Bromley from Woolwich etc is one of those journeys that takes far more time and effort than it should, and even travelling via Central London is not a realistic option. The 126 did of course make this connection (as did the 269!) in the mid to late 80s. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 11:03:44 GMT
How about extending the 205 to Bromley By Bow? I don't see what benefits that would bring. Especially for Stagecoach, as they funded the 205 extension from Mile End to Bow Church to win the route from Metroline... I meant it as a joke actually. But now that I think about it, it could be a benefit without adding that much distance to the route. Or better yet (as a joke) how about extending it via the 8 to Roman Road Grove Road? |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 14, 2014 11:15:30 GMT
I don't see what benefits that would bring. Especially for Stagecoach, as they funded the 205 extension from Mile End to Bow Church to win the route from Metroline... I meant it as a joke actually. But now that I think about it, it could be a benefit without adding that much distance to the route. Or better yet (as a joke) how about extending it via the 8 to Roman Road Grove Road? Better yet, you could extend the route to Bromley-By-Bow via Stratford Make it loop round. It would actually bring some benefits  And nice profile picture btw. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 12:31:58 GMT
I meant it as a joke actually. But now that I think about it, it could be a benefit without adding that much distance to the route. Or better yet (as a joke) how about extending it via the 8 to Roman Road Grove Road? Better yet, you could extend the route to Bromley-By-Bow via Stratford Make it loop round. It would actually bring some benefits And nice profile picture btw. That's an awesome loop, it would actually bring benefits if it went to Stratford after going to Bromley By Bow, so Mile End-Bow Church-Bromley By Bow-Stratford. Thanks. One interesting thing about this particular picture is that it was taken when 12321 had just entered service. If you look closely, the number plate reads 'SN14 CSZ' when in fact it was meant to be 'SK14 CSZ'. It has since been changed. |
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Dec 14, 2014 19:35:54 GMT
Extend either 322,417 or 410 to Lower Sydenham via the 202 from Crystal Palace
Extend 172 or P12 from Brockley Rise to Sydenham Station or Lower Sydenham following 122 then through to follow route 75 at Woolstone Road and then follow 356 then 202 and 450 and make 172 24 hours
New route 438 Lower Sydenham to Trafalgar Square
Lower Sydenham
Sydenham
Wells Park Road
Sydenham Hill
Lordship Lane
East Dulwich
Camberwell
Oval
Vauxhall
Lambeth Bridge
Westminster
Trafalgar Square
if not
Extend 199 to Sydenham or Upper Sydenham following 202 and avoid serving Catford Bus Garage
Convert 202 to Double Decker
Increase frequency of 356 to 15 minutes and 20 minute on Sundays and late evenings or convert to Double door single decker on peak hours
Extend 63 to Crystal Palace and make it 24 hour withdraw N63
Divert 363 to serve
Wells Park Road
Kirkdale
Sydenham Road
Lower Sydenham
Catford
Lewisham
AND FROM Elephant and Castle to Aldwych
Either 2 or 3 of these options should happen
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 14, 2014 20:01:16 GMT
The 51 & 54 go very close to Bromley. 126 is not the right route as it is fine as it is, but a new service altogether linking Bromley & Woolwich. If the 161 wasn't so long extending it to Bromley South via the 269 would be a good idea. Also TFL are introducing 500 more buses so a link like this could be introduced I'd disagree - in my view, the 126 would be the right route because it would give a relatively direct link between the two points. I don't see that a whole new route could be justified. Getting to Bromley from Woolwich etc is one of those journeys that takes far more time and effort than it should, and even travelling via Central London is not a realistic option. The 126 did of course make this connection (as did the 269!) in the mid to late 80s. The 126 is not particularly long as it stands : seems a route ripe for extension. The 269 in the mid 80s was a rather epic route : if today, anyone suggested a route from Woolwich to Bromley via Plumstead, Abbey Wood, Erith, Bexleyheath, Bexley, Sidcup and Chislehurst, it would be dismissed as way too long |
|
