|
|
Post by sw11simon on Oct 16, 2014 22:01:49 GMT
I live on route 44 and it actually generally has capacity from Wandsworth to Victoria. It's a good few years since I was at Merton but even then, Garratt Lane had peak capacity issues and there was talk of increasing frequency on the 44 or 270 - so I suspect it is for that (finally.)
I drove the 185 for a few months, albeit in 2011/12, and I rarely had capacity issues. There is a major problem through Dulwich in the morning peak where the 176/185 both tend to be full until Denmark Hill Station and Victoria to Camberwell can be very busy going south, but only drastically if there's a gap in the 36/436.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Oct 16, 2014 23:09:12 GMT
That's great news for the 415!, I don't know why I'm so happy for it. I personally would've liked it to be extended to Whitechapel from Bricklayers Arms via Tower Bridge and Aldgate. Regardless, at least it has more of a purpose now  |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 17, 2014 0:10:35 GMT
Brilliant news development on route 415 - this extension provides an excellent link for the Old Kent, New Cross area to connect Brixton which is needed. Finally, the route has more of a purpose. I wonder how many buses will the 415 need now. Maybe the extra buses needed will be delayed, and we might see some Volvos/Tridents on the route for a while  ...although maybe not. Based on what they did for the 49 they may install 415 blinds on some 09 reg E400s. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 17, 2014 0:15:34 GMT
I wonder how many buses will the 415 need now. Maybe the extra buses needed will be delayed, and we might see some Volvos/Tridents on the route for a while ...although maybe not. Based on what they did for the 49 they may install 415 blinds on some 09 reg E400s. Hopefully, some Tridents escape onto the route lol. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 17, 2014 0:26:54 GMT
I live on route 44 and it actually generally has capacity from Wandsworth to Victoria. It's a good few years since I was at Merton but even then, Garratt Lane had peak capacity issues and there was talk of increasing frequency on the 44 or 270 - so I suspect it is for that (finally.) I drove the 185 for a few months, albeit in 2011/12, and I rarely had capacity issues. There is a major problem through Dulwich in the morning peak where the 176/185 both tend to be full until Denmark Hill Station and Victoria to Camberwell can be very busy going south, but only drastically if there's a gap in the 36/436. I'm always a bit loathe to argue with people who see routes regularly! In terms of the 44 I had it on good authority that it was doing very well into Victoria and I had a former employee who commuted on it. I agree though that there have been long standing problems / moans on the Garrett Lane corridor so that makes sense. We also had a recent political campaign about the Dulwich area you also raise. TfL have clearly opted to boose the 185 over the 176 but perhaps the QIC extension gave them more commercial leverage? My view of the 185 has tended to be more at the Victoria end where it loads very very well in the PM peak despite there hardly being a shortage of buses from Victoria to Camberwell. Recognising the "blunt" nature of annual patronage stats the 44 has put on 717K extra jnys since 2006 when it was rerouted. In the same time period the 185 has added over 900K pas jnys. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Oct 17, 2014 4:26:21 GMT
Wow, Some good changes here.
When I was based at QB and had to travel to Victoria to do the C2 or C10, the main journey was to go to Battersea Park and get the 44. Almost everytime I got on it seems quite busy so the increase in frequency is a good thing imo. The route does seem unreliable as times as there were a few occasions when I would wait for it and one would turn up showing Battersea Park Station. Another time I waited 15 minutes for it and picked up my bus on the C2, 5 minutes late.
The 359 is a big change but whenever I do the T33 and I see a 412 at Selsdon, I hardly see more than 5 passengers on board, even in the evening rush hour. Still, I think its a great idea as I like to think that there must be some demand for passengers between Purley and Addington.
I'm also surprised about the 133 evening frequency to every 8 minutes. I don't know any routes that have such a frequency at that time of the night.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 17, 2014 7:22:04 GMT
Wow, Some good changes here. When I was based at QB and had to travel to Victoria to do the C2 or C10, the main journey was to go to Battersea Park and get the 44. Almost everytime I got on it seems quite busy so the increase in frequency is a good thing imo. The route does seem unreliable as times as there were a few occasions when I would wait for it and one would turn up showing Battersea Park Station. Another time I waited 15 minutes for it and picked up my bus on the C2, 5 minutes late. The 359 is a big change but whenever I do the T33 and I see a 412 at Selsdon, I hardly see more than 5 passengers on board, even in the evening rush hour. Still, I think its a great idea as I like to think that there must be some demand for passengers between Purley and Addington. I'm also surprised about the 133 evening frequency to every 8 minutes. I don't know any routes that have such a frequency at that time of the night. [/quote It's only the mon to Fri evening service that's being increased not the night service. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 17, 2014 10:35:19 GMT
Brilliant news development on route 415 - this extension provides an excellent link for the Old Kent, New Cross area to connect Brixton which is needed. Finally, the route has more of a purpose. Ideally I'd like to see it extended even further to New Cross, maybe even Lewisham. But sadly traffic on the A2 wouldn't help the route. I wonder how many buses will the 415 need now. Maybe the extra buses needed will be delayed, and we might see some Volvos/Tridents on the route for a while ...although maybe not. I always thought that extending the 168 to New Cross would be a good idea, but seeing as 168 to Chalk Farm seems to be more common than the proper terminus it may as well stay as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Oct 17, 2014 12:12:17 GMT
Ideally I'd like to see it extended even further to New Cross, maybe even Lewisham. But sadly traffic on the A2 wouldn't help the route. I wonder how many buses will the 415 need now. Maybe the extra buses needed will be delayed, and we might see some Volvos/Tridents on the route for a while ...although maybe not. I always thought that extending the 168 to New Cross would be a good idea, but seeing as 168 to Chalk Farm seems to be more common than the proper terminus it may as well stay as it is. I had that idea too. But again, traffic on the A2 would cause more havoc on the route. |
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Oct 19, 2014 23:54:13 GMT
future 382 - extended to Millbrook Park from MHE Is there a definite date on this extension yet or not, and do any routes currently serve Millbrook Park? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 20, 2014 9:09:43 GMT
future 382 - extended to Millbrook Park from MHE Is there a definite date on this extension yet or not, and do any routes currently serve Millbrook Park? Not that I know of. It won't be a long extension as Millbrook Park is the new housing on former MOD land near Mill Hill East. A few months ago I was looking at TfL's comments on the developer's proposals and they were scathing about the design of the place as the road layout made bus operation difficult. I think there was a suggestion that the developer thought a bus service would "lower the tone" of their nice premium development.  Nonetheless the developer is required to fork out money via a S106 agreement and some of that goes to TfL. The local assembly member, Mr Dismore, has been banging on (and on and on and on) at Boris about the times of the tubes and buses at Mill Hill East. Apparently both leave at the same time meaning 15 minute waits to reach Finchley Central. He wants the buses retimed and I think Boris has said this has to wait for a revised schedule that incorporates the Millbrook Park extension. Quite why an Assembly member is rewriting bus timetables I know not. Checking back I see that Boris said TfL will be consulting on the proposed extension before the end of 2014 so we might be a minimum of 6 months away from there being an extension in service. |
|
|
|
Post by fg49 on Oct 20, 2014 21:37:09 GMT
The 44 needs a 6-7 minute peak frequency IMO. I've stopped taking it to school because of the unreliablity (most mornings) and larger crowds. Battersea Park Road and Garratt Lane are definetly the busiest sections, I imagine it will continue to get busier too. I hope this 8min freq actually helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 21, 2014 19:11:04 GMT
That I do agree with, it definitely will have a more of a purpose. Now, hopefully they look at my extension to Streatham via Leigham Vale & Valley Road lool. I like that extension idea. There are a lot of properties down those roads and while some bus routes are close by (which is what TfL would argue) I can see the merit of a direct bus link straight through. Perhaps if the bus ran down to Streatham Common station to give a link into the main line into Victoria? Val Shawcross would like that one. Whether the 415 is the right route to extend is open to debate but there don't seem to be any real issues as the bridges are high enough for a bus to get under although road width looks tight in a few places. The roads are physically wide enough but existing parked cars would make it extremely difficult for buses to negotiate with oncoming traffic. Leigham Vale in particular is bad enough when cars are trying to negotiate with other cars along by that school. |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Oct 27, 2014 21:19:51 GMT
According to londonbusroutes.net, states thay route 44's PVR will be increased to 20 and route 185's PVR will be increased to 24.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 27, 2014 21:59:14 GMT
According to londonbusroutes.net, states thay route 44's PVR will be increased to 20 and route 185's PVR will be increased to 24. 'MrEdd' was nearly bang on with his prediction - currently the 44 has a PVR of 17 and the 185 has a PVR of 20 so the 44 rises by 3 and 185 rises by 4. |
|
...although maybe not.
Nonetheless the developer is required to fork out money via a S106 agreement and some of that goes to TfL. 