|
Post by M1104 on Oct 13, 2014 9:59:39 GMT
What would replace the 118 between North Mitcham and Morden? That's quite a lot of residential ground to reroute the 118 away from, especially as it's the only route to serve the whole of Manor Way, Commonside East and Wandle Road....all heavily residential areas. I think you've misunderstood me, the 118 would retain its current route between Morden and Streatham Common. My mistake on that part, I should have read it properly. However, there is still a large part of North Mitcham that would miss out on a direct bus link into the main chunk of Streatham, for the retails, Odeon cinema, etc. It would also mean that the 118 would lose that 'convenient interchange' with other bus routes like the 45, 159 and P13.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 13, 2014 10:06:45 GMT
I think you've misunderstood me, the 118 would retain its current route between Morden and Streatham Common. My mistake on that part. However, there is still a large part of North Mitcham that would miss out on a direct bus link into the main chunk of Streatham, for the retails, Odeon cinema, etc. It would also mean that the 118 would lose that 'convenient interchange' with other bus routes like the 45, 159 and P13. Yes there would be a few links lost, just a question of whether any such inconveniences are outweighed by the benefits? I've always thought Streatham Vale towards Upper Norwood etc was an obvious missing link.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 10:20:06 GMT
We need to start seeing logic and commitments from politicians as we head towards elections not moans and wish lists. The logical thing to do would be to improve the Thameslink loop, and perhaps isolate it from the main network, even made into a high frequency tramlink style service. I understand people want a direct link to the City, but what use is that line running every 30 mins at a weekend, when more local trips are made ?[/quote] The loop itself can support a 4 train per hour service in each direction, the only slight problem is the single track through Wimbledon station due to Tramlink taking over platform 10. It offers little resilience but is possible, and with extra London Bridge services in the peak already reaches 7tph through the section on a morning. North of the loop the main problem is at Herne Hill where it crosses the Victoria to Bromley South mainline on flat junctions. It would need a total and very expensive rebuild of the station for grade separation to provide extra capacity towards Blackfriars. However following the completion of works at London Bridge additional capacity will be available there or terminating services. And it is proposed to extend the current peak services to run half-hourly both ways around the loop, but only at peak times. It sounds as though the main focus at the moment is on the Crystal Palace branch and a half-hourly service to Norwood Junction via Tulse Hill during the day. The weekend frequency is a combination of what they choose to run, and the disruption caused by the weekend Thameslink works, not infrastructure. Although I have no idea why people are discussing the Thameslink service when Shawcross never made any complaint about it. Her only concerns with the rail services were the peak frequency between Streatham Hill and Victoria, the lack of bus connections at Streatham Common, and at Streatham station, the only one on the Thameslink route, the lack of disabled access.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 10:21:43 GMT
We clearly have different interpretations of the situation. That is all. It is not an interpretation but a matter of fact, so if you do not wish to either prove or retract you claims that I am wrong then how do I make an official complaint? I am happy to just discuss things, that is the point of a forum, but it is completely unacceptable for you to post vague nonsense, putting my reputation under question, and then say I should just accept your untruths as a valid interpretation. But I am not going to be bullied by you so will follow your advice and ask it be stopped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 10:24:35 GMT
I think you've misunderstood me, the 118 would retain its current route between Morden and Streatham Common. My mistake on that part, I should have read it properly. However, there is still a large part of North Mitcham that would miss out on a direct bus link into the main chunk of Streatham, for the retails, Odeon cinema, etc. It would also mean that the 118 would lose that 'convenient interchange' with other bus routes like the 45, 159 and P13. I have to agree, the 118 is fine the way it is and I don't think the residents of North Mitcham would be too happy to hear that there main link to catch trains from Streatham and buses into Central London would be going
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 13, 2014 11:02:43 GMT
My mistake on that part, I should have read it properly. However, there is still a large part of North Mitcham that would miss out on a direct bus link into the main chunk of Streatham, for the retails, Odeon cinema, etc. It would also mean that the 118 would lose that 'convenient interchange' with other bus routes like the 45, 159 and P13. I have to agree, the 118 is fine the way it is and I don't think the residents of North Mitcham would be too happy to hear that there main link to catch trains from Streatham and buses into Central London would be going But surely people from North Mitcham would be more likely to head for Morden or Mitcham Junction to get trains Central London?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 13, 2014 11:14:56 GMT
Well actually it is irrelevant because Brixton to Croydon is different to Bexleyheath to North Greenwich - they have different needs and wants. It maybe the case that Bexleyheath and North Greenwich requires three bus links because it can provide good unique links whereas the 60 wouldn't really do provide those kind of links The 118 maybe is indirect but not everyone wants to change bus (especially with the 201 which isn't exactly reliable) and as I mention, many people use it from Brixton to Mitcham so I don't see the need to break the link. So in a nutshell your objections are that there should not be three routes between Croydon and Brixton and the fact that many people apparently travel on the 118 between Mitcham and Brixton even though it isn't the quickest way of doing so? There is also the 355 of course. The 201 of course changed operator on Saturday so maybe the service will be more reliable. This is the same 355 that is regularly packed and also jams up in Tooting Broadway. As has been mentioned by 'busenthusiast56', many people use the 118 beyond Streatham Common to the main shopping area in Streatham and Streatham Hill. I don't disagree with a link from those areas to Crystal Palace (if via the 417, it actually may benefit that route very much) but the 118 is certainly not the choice to make that link.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 13, 2014 11:23:24 GMT
That's what I thought it helps the 417 out and gives a useful east/west link
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 13, 2014 11:51:40 GMT
We clearly have different interpretations of the situation. That is all. It is not an interpretation but a matter of fact, so if you do not wish to either prove or retract you claims that I am wrong then how do I make an official complaint? I am happy to just discuss things, that is the point of a forum, but it is completely unacceptable for you to post vague nonsense, putting my reputation under question, and then say I should just accept your untruths as a valid interpretation. But I am not going to be bullied by you so will follow your advice and ask it be stopped. I have deleted all of my previous posts in this thread. If that still presents you with a problem then please complain to the moderators of the group.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 13, 2014 11:55:54 GMT
That's what I thought it helps the 417 out and gives a useful east/west link Your 118 proposal to Crystal Palace could work if the 133 was extended to Mitcham, thus in line with the N133. This could however put a strain on the 133 unless adequate frequency, running times, etc. is adjusted accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 13, 2014 12:11:22 GMT
That's what I thought it helps the 417 out and gives a useful east/west link Your 118 proposal to Crystal Palace could work if the 133 was extended to Mitcham, thus in line with the N133. This could however put a strain on the 133 on this adequate frequency, running times, etc. is adjusted accordingly. Yes although that would involve another route along Streatham Vale so might not be very cost effective. The 60 could be extended to Crystal Palace instead but it makes for a long and unsatisfactory shaped route and I thought a link between the Upper Norwood and Mitcham areas was desirable.
|
|
|
Post by moz on Oct 13, 2014 15:54:13 GMT
East/West links could be better and one radical idea I had was to extend the 60 to Brixton and reroute the 118 via the 249/417 routes to Crystal Palace if some stand space could be found. I would suggest withdrawing the 60 south of TC and extending the 312 to Old Coulsdon but there would be uproar about the loss of the link to Mayday Hospital. Perhaps the 463 could be rerouted via Streatham Vale and terminate at Norbury. Extending the 45 to Streatham Common would provide the Kings College Hospital link I'm afraid I don't see the logic in extending the 60 to Brixton and re-routing the 118 to Crystal Palace. Brixton does not need another route to Croydon after the 109 & 250 whilst the 109 only needs help from Streatham Station southwards which the 60 wouldn't solve as it runs via Streatham Vale & Pollards Hill. The 118 also sees quite a number of people using it between Mitcham & Brixton which is the only route that provides this link - in fact, the 118 may be the best route to link Streatham & Kings College together rather than the 45 which provides an important service to Clapham Park. I agree on the 118 extension, send it via the 45 to Camberwell Green and it could stand in the garage. Also, new links and it gives the 45 more of a fighting chance along its' southern section in the peaks. Moz
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 13, 2014 16:30:32 GMT
I'm afraid I don't see the logic in extending the 60 to Brixton and re-routing the 118 to Crystal Palace. Brixton does not need another route to Croydon after the 109 & 250 whilst the 109 only needs help from Streatham Station southwards which the 60 wouldn't solve as it runs via Streatham Vale & Pollards Hill. The 118 also sees quite a number of people using it between Mitcham & Brixton which is the only route that provides this link - in fact, the 118 may be the best route to link Streatham & Kings College together rather than the 45 which provides an important service to Clapham Park. I agree on the 118 extension, send it via the 45 to Camberwell Green and it could stand in the garage. Also, new links and it gives the 45 more of a fighting chance along its' southern section in the peaks. Moz I don't think another route between Brixton and Camberwell can be justified
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 13, 2014 17:52:00 GMT
I agree on the 118 extension, send it via the 45 to Camberwell Green and it could stand in the garage. Also, new links and it gives the 45 more of a fighting chance along its' southern section in the peaks. Moz I don't think another route between Brixton and Camberwell can be justified Streatham does need a link to Kings College and extending the 118 to Camberwell Green wouldn't be much hassle for the route unlike the 45 which only puts pressure on it but removes the very useful and very well used link to Clapham Park from Brixton Hill & Brixton.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 13, 2014 18:53:12 GMT
I don't think another route between Brixton and Camberwell can be justified Streatham does need a link to Kings College and extending the 118 to Camberwell Green wouldn't be much hassle for the route unlike the 45 which only puts pressure on it but removes the very useful and very well used link to Clapham Park from Brixton Hill & Brixton. Another option would be to extend the 201 to Camberwell Green maybe via Milkwood Road reintroducing a bus service for the first time in many a year
|
|