|
|
Post by ronnie on Jul 23, 2024 8:28:34 GMT
The 20 zones on the 155 are ridiculous, wide open roads especially between Elephant and Clapham North where it’s just crawling. I haven’t used N155 since they placed all the cams, that route could easily speed most of the way but now I’m guessing they’ve had to slow down tediously at multiple points in fear of the cameras As a fairly regular user of the N22 I am in a position to say that most drivers on those journeys I used were more than happy to drive along at around 25 - 30mph through the 20mph zones. They needed to do this to keep time; on the one occasion a (possibly unfamiliar) driver was in charge we stuck rigidly to 20mph all the way from Fulwell and were already a few minutes late by Richmond. Yes there are cameras along that stretch. What they are set to I don't know, neither do I know the 2024 interpretation of the rules. 50 years earlier when I was a regular on the N98 (Victoria - Romford at that time) the 30mph limit was universally disregarded to the extent that when police were around they actually waved night buses through red lights at times. The theory being that these are professionally-driven vehicles moving Londoners to a tight timetable. Think people only slow down for the cameras. Everywhere else it’s 30 |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jul 23, 2024 11:43:42 GMT
As a fairly regular user of the N22 I am in a position to say that most drivers on those journeys I used were more than happy to drive along at around 25 - 30mph through the 20mph zones. They needed to do this to keep time; on the one occasion a (possibly unfamiliar) driver was in charge we stuck rigidly to 20mph all the way from Fulwell and were already a few minutes late by Richmond. Yes there are cameras along that stretch. What they are set to I don't know, neither do I know the 2024 interpretation of the rules. 50 years earlier when I was a regular on the N98 (Victoria - Romford at that time) the 30mph limit was universally disregarded to the extent that when police were around they actually waved night buses through red lights at times. The theory being that these are professionally-driven vehicles moving Londoners to a tight timetable. Think people only slow down for the cameras. Everywhere else it’s 30 Ive even seen police cars down down 20 roads at 30 in London, would be a bit holier than thou of the police to stop drivers when they’re literally doing it themselves, because the speed limit is FAR too low for the natural speed of the road |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 23, 2024 12:09:02 GMT
The 20 zones on the 155 are ridiculous, wide open roads especially between Elephant and Clapham North where it’s just crawling. I haven’t used N155 since they placed all the cams, that route could easily speed most of the way but now I’m guessing they’ve had to slow down tediously at multiple points in fear of the cameras The funny thing is up until last year the narrower parts of Balham was still 30mph, as was Upper Tooting Road and High Street Colliers Wood |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 23, 2024 21:48:17 GMT
Was that during the peak or off-peak? Should the 132 be amended to run non-stop between Kidbrooke and North Greenwich anyway? This was during peaks but I have by now used most buses between 7am and 8:30am; have been squashed against the door quite a few times both early (7am) and the post 8am ones. What the 132 needs in the morning is a school route to the st Mary Magdalene Coe school in North Greenwich; at least one bus is fully rammed as it’s full of school students. So either a school route or (better) one additional bus journey in the morning In the evenings the 132 usually leaves North Greenwich completely rammed ; at times taking 4-5 min to board (and it’s a free for all!). People even get left behind at times so an enhanced frequency would be a big help. Doesn’t help that it’s only every 10 min, quickly dropping to 12 and then 15 min The next few weeks won’t be representative owing to school holidays Perhaps it's the time to jack up the 132 to every 8 minutes Mon-Sat and every 12 mins evenings and Sundays. The 486 used to have these frequencies before a contract renewal in 2019 when it was shaved. There is an argument to be made that previous passenger volume that was on the 486 has transferred to the 132. Basing it off your observations though, the 132 has generated this demand of its own accord. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jul 23, 2024 22:20:50 GMT
This was during peaks but I have by now used most buses between 7am and 8:30am; have been squashed against the door quite a few times both early (7am) and the post 8am ones. What the 132 needs in the morning is a school route to the st Mary Magdalene Coe school in North Greenwich; at least one bus is fully rammed as it’s full of school students. So either a school route or (better) one additional bus journey in the morning In the evenings the 132 usually leaves North Greenwich completely rammed ; at times taking 4-5 min to board (and it’s a free for all!). People even get left behind at times so an enhanced frequency would be a big help. Doesn’t help that it’s only every 10 min, quickly dropping to 12 and then 15 min The next few weeks won’t be representative owing to school holidays Perhaps it's the time to jack up the 132 to every 8 minutes Mon-Sat and every 12 mins evenings and Sundays. The 486 used to have these frequencies before a contract renewal in 2019 when it was shaved. There is an argument to be made that previous passenger volume that was on the 486 has transferred to the 132. Basing it off your observations though, the 132 has generated this demand of its own accord. Realistically you need 8 min during peaks. Rest of the day every 10 min is fine, but needs to be every 10 min till 8pm or so, then every 12 min after that. Currently it drops to every 12 min post 7pm and every 15 min after 8pm which is somewhat inadequate |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 24, 2024 4:17:48 GMT
This was during peaks but I have by now used most buses between 7am and 8:30am; have been squashed against the door quite a few times both early (7am) and the post 8am ones. What the 132 needs in the morning is a school route to the st Mary Magdalene Coe school in North Greenwich; at least one bus is fully rammed as it’s full of school students. So either a school route or (better) one additional bus journey in the morning In the evenings the 132 usually leaves North Greenwich completely rammed ; at times taking 4-5 min to board (and it’s a free for all!). People even get left behind at times so an enhanced frequency would be a big help. Doesn’t help that it’s only every 10 min, quickly dropping to 12 and then 15 min The next few weeks won’t be representative owing to school holidays Perhaps it's the time to jack up the 132 to every 8 minutes Mon-Sat and every 12 mins evenings and Sundays. The 486 used to have these frequencies before a contract renewal in 2019 when it was shaved. There is an argument to be made that previous passenger volume that was on the 486 has transferred to the 132. Basing it off your observations though, the 132 has generated this demand of its own accord. It's only the North Greenwich end of the 132 that needs a frequency increase, the Bexleyheath end of the route is pretty quiet. Peak hour short workings between North Greenwich and Eltham would be the obvious solution and the ex Red Arrow SEe's would be ideal, they could be operated from MG if it's being electrified. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jul 24, 2024 11:24:05 GMT
Perhaps it's the time to jack up the 132 to every 8 minutes Mon-Sat and every 12 mins evenings and Sundays. The 486 used to have these frequencies before a contract renewal in 2019 when it was shaved. There is an argument to be made that previous passenger volume that was on the 486 has transferred to the 132. Basing it off your observations though, the 132 has generated this demand of its own accord. It's only the North Greenwich end of the 132 that needs a frequency increase, the Bexleyheath end of the route is pretty quiet. Peak hour short workings between North Greenwich and Eltham would be the obvious solution and the ex Red Arrow SEe's would be ideal, they could be operated from MG if it's being electrified. I would agree and that section definitely needs support This is one instance where having garage at the other end (bexleyheath) is unhelpful. During peaks multiple buses get turned at sun-in-the-sands (3 in the morning peak, 3 in the evening peak was common) so leaves the section which needs most capacity with less buses further exacerbating the situation |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 24, 2024 11:42:16 GMT
Perhaps it's the time to jack up the 132 to every 8 minutes Mon-Sat and every 12 mins evenings and Sundays. The 486 used to have these frequencies before a contract renewal in 2019 when it was shaved. There is an argument to be made that previous passenger volume that was on the 486 has transferred to the 132. Basing it off your observations though, the 132 has generated this demand of its own accord. It's only the North Greenwich end of the 132 that needs a frequency increase, the Bexleyheath end of the route is pretty quiet. Peak hour short workings between North Greenwich and Eltham would be the obvious solution and the ex Red Arrow SEe's would be ideal, they could be operated from MG if it's being electrified. Could the 161 perhaps divert to run direct between North Greenwich and Eltham (following the 132)? Then extend the 126 from Eltham to Woolwich (with a DD conversion), the 180/472 might be adequate between North Greenwich and Woolwich. Or alternatively could reroute the SL4 to serve both North Greenwich and Eltham, rather than via Blackheath? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 24, 2024 12:05:40 GMT
It's only the North Greenwich end of the 132 that needs a frequency increase, the Bexleyheath end of the route is pretty quiet. Peak hour short workings between North Greenwich and Eltham would be the obvious solution and the ex Red Arrow SEe's would be ideal, they could be operated from MG if it's being electrified. Could the 161 perhaps divert to run direct between North Greenwich and Eltham (following the 132)? Then extend the 126 from Eltham to Woolwich (with a DD conversion), the 180/472 might be adequate between North Greenwich and Woolwich. Or alternatively could reroute the SL4 to serve both North Greenwich and Eltham, rather than via Blackheath? Whilst I agree with the 126 idea, it’s rather excessive to start changing routes to bolster capacity on one particular route when you can simply increase the frequency of the 132 across the route or implement short workings at the North Greenwich end. |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Jul 24, 2024 12:42:30 GMT
It's only the North Greenwich end of the 132 that needs a frequency increase, the Bexleyheath end of the route is pretty quiet. Peak hour short workings between North Greenwich and Eltham would be the obvious solution and the ex Red Arrow SEe's would be ideal, they could be operated from MG if it's being electrified. I would agree and that section definitely needs support This is one instance where having garage at the other end (bexleyheath) is unhelpful. During peaks multiple buses get turned at sun-in-the-sands (3 in the morning peak, 3 in the evening peak was common) so leaves the section which needs most capacity with less buses further exacerbating the situation This is a similar situation with the 188 too where although the garage is on the North Greenwich end, the driver changeover point is on the TCR end (Waterloo, Old Vic) therefore multiple buses get turned to Greenwich or Deptford leaving North Greenwich without a service. This mostly happens during the peaks. I had the experience of waiting nearly over an hour at North Greenwich for a 188 last month in which none turned up because they were all being curtailed at Greenwich. Though I must say the route's operation was much better under Q. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 24, 2024 13:48:46 GMT
I would agree and that section definitely needs support This is one instance where having garage at the other end (bexleyheath) is unhelpful. During peaks multiple buses get turned at sun-in-the-sands (3 in the morning peak, 3 in the evening peak was common) so leaves the section which needs most capacity with less buses further exacerbating the situation This is a similar situation with the 188 too where although the garage is on the North Greenwich end, the driver changeover point is on the TCR end (Waterloo, Old Vic) therefore multiple buses get turned to Greenwich or Deptford leaving North Greenwich without a service. This mostly happens during the peaks. I had the experience of waiting nearly over an hour at North Greenwich for a 188 last month in which none turned up because they were all being curtailed at Greenwich. Though I must say the route's operation was much better under Q. Wouldn't be surprised if the 188 moves back to Q again for the new contract (or NX), as part of a reshuffle to fit the 99/269/401 at BX |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 24, 2024 15:50:26 GMT
It's only the North Greenwich end of the 132 that needs a frequency increase, the Bexleyheath end of the route is pretty quiet. Peak hour short workings between North Greenwich and Eltham would be the obvious solution and the ex Red Arrow SEe's would be ideal, they could be operated from MG if it's being electrified. I would agree and that section definitely needs support This is one instance where having garage at the other end (bexleyheath) is unhelpful. During peaks multiple buses get turned at sun-in-the-sands (3 in the morning peak, 3 in the evening peak was common) so leaves the section which needs most capacity with less buses further exacerbating the situation Yes I've seen quite a few Sun in the Sands turns at peak times and I can't help thinking the 132 would be better operated from MG, Bexley Village turns probably wouldn't matter too much. An immediate solution would be peak hour extras between NG and Eltham. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 24, 2024 15:57:54 GMT
It's only the North Greenwich end of the 132 that needs a frequency increase, the Bexleyheath end of the route is pretty quiet. Peak hour short workings between North Greenwich and Eltham would be the obvious solution and the ex Red Arrow SEe's would be ideal, they could be operated from MG if it's being electrified. Could the 161 perhaps divert to run direct between North Greenwich and Eltham (following the 132)? Then extend the 126 from Eltham to Woolwich (with a DD conversion), the 180/472 might be adequate between North Greenwich and Woolwich. Or alternatively could reroute the SL4 to serve both North Greenwich and Eltham, rather than via Blackheath? Possibly although it might be easier just to extend the 126 to North Greenwich but the quick fix solution would be peak hour extras between NG and Eltham from MG. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 24, 2024 16:06:13 GMT
I would agree and that section definitely needs support This is one instance where having garage at the other end (bexleyheath) is unhelpful. During peaks multiple buses get turned at sun-in-the-sands (3 in the morning peak, 3 in the evening peak was common) so leaves the section which needs most capacity with less buses further exacerbating the situation Yes I've seen quite a few Sun in the Sands turns at peak times and I can't help thinking the 132 would be better operated from MG, Bexley Village turns probably wouldn't matter too much. An immediate solution would be peak hour extras between NG and Eltham. Is the 132 restricted to running from BX with the pantograph technology? Or could it move to MG once electrified, perhaps still with top-up charges at BX garage while terminating at Bexleyheath? |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 24, 2024 16:43:55 GMT
Yes I've seen quite a few Sun in the Sands turns at peak times and I can't help thinking the 132 would be better operated from MG, Bexley Village turns probably wouldn't matter too much. An immediate solution would be peak hour extras between NG and Eltham. Is the 132 restricted to running from BX with the pantograph technology? Or could it move to MG once electrified, perhaps still with top-up charges at BX garage while terminating at Bexleyheath? I suppose the pantograph buses could be moved to the 99,269 or 401 with standard electrics used on the 132 at MG. |
|
