|
|
Post by sid on Jun 11, 2015 15:08:50 GMT
I'll post gradually on this thread, as I have a lot of thoughts, but as night services have been mentioned, I'll start there. People have mentioned above that places such as Orpington, Chislehurst, Welling etc. are quiet at night, and that's true : compared to many parts of London, South East London's nightlife is rather spread out across a wider area. You could make a case for Blackheath/Greenwich, Bexleyheath, Bromley, Bluewater and of course North Greenwich having a more organised night scene, but even they pale compared to places like Kingston, which is very much a magnet for South West London at night. Makes serving the area more difficult. We have 132 and 486 coming soon as Fri-Sat night services, I think reasonable cases can be made for night services on 96, 161, 261, 269, 422. Otherwise, I'd say the night network is OK. The day network is another thing altogether, I'll get to that in due course. Just because an area is quite at night doesn't mean it doesn't need a night service, local residents obviously have to travel if they want a good night out. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 11, 2015 15:12:19 GMT
That would be nice. I wouldn't mind a once in a while crack at the N199  An extension of the (N)321 to Orpington is a good idea - although I agree that whole part of SE London is pretty quiet at night. A night service on the 54,75,122 & 227 would be good. Beckenham has quite a lively night life at weekends, with a huge demand for mini cabs currently. As many have suggested previously, an extension of either the 249 or 432 to Elmers End and the extension of the 176 to Anerley Stn via Croydon Rd & Anerley Rd would be good - getting rid of current stand arrangements at Penge Croydon Rd. Personally I would like the 2 to get back to Crystal Palace. I think an N54 through to Croydon could be justified Fri/Sat nights but I'm not sure about the rest of the week. As for the 75 I think rerouting the N47 to Croydon would be the better option. I'd agree about the 176,249 and 432 but I'm not sure that there is a case for returning the 2 to Crystal Palace? |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Jun 11, 2015 17:57:45 GMT
It may well just be down the road, but will increase journey times. The N199 is going to be slightly longer than the current N47, I imagine it will be 23 Miles so it should remain with the current terminus. It does not need to go further to go back on itself by an extension to Sidcup... The 321 already provides enough service. Well we'll just have to agree to differ, Connors suggestion of extending the N321 to Orpington is an alternative idea I'd remind you that there is no need for it. Why suggest a meek & mild proposal in response to the suggestion that nothing is needed. Sidcup certainly needs no additional night routes and you certainly would not get any Sidcup to Orpington traffic. I'll post gradually on this thread, as I have a lot of thoughts, but as night services have been mentioned, I'll start there. People have mentioned above that places such as Orpington, Chislehurst, Welling etc. are quiet at night, and that's true : compared to many parts of London, South East London's nightlife is rather spread out across a wider area. You could make a case for Blackheath/Greenwich, Bexleyheath, Bromley, Bluewater and of course North Greenwich having a more organised night scene, but even they pale compared to places like Kingston, which is very much a magnet for South West London at night. Makes serving the area more difficult. We have 132 and 486 coming soon as Fri-Sat night services, I think reasonable cases can be made for night services on 96, 161, 261, 269, 422. Otherwise, I'd say the night network is OK. The day network is another thing altogether, I'll get to that in due course. This strikes me as all that is needed. Couldn't comment on most of them, but a night-time 96 strikes me as wasteful & after 8pm the 269 is empty. I also think we're alright for daytime services really. I'm not sure there would be many complaints... I just think some minor tweaks to ease access to QEH and Darenth Valley might be considered useful for persons in the south of the borough to get you but with a well positioned hub in Bexleyheath everything is possible with only one connection. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 11, 2015 18:33:50 GMT
Well we'll just have to agree to differ, Connors suggestion of extending the N321 to Orpington is an alternative idea I'd remind you that there is no need for it. Why suggest a meek & mild proposal in response to the suggestion that nothing is needed. Sidcup certainly needs no additional night routes and you certainly would not get any Sidcup to Orpington traffic. I'll post gradually on this thread, as I have a lot of thoughts, but as night services have been mentioned, I'll start there. People have mentioned above that places such as Orpington, Chislehurst, Welling etc. are quiet at night, and that's true : compared to many parts of London, South East London's nightlife is rather spread out across a wider area. You could make a case for Blackheath/Greenwich, Bexleyheath, Bromley, Bluewater and of course North Greenwich having a more organised night scene, but even they pale compared to places like Kingston, which is very much a magnet for South West London at night. Makes serving the area more difficult. We have 132 and 486 coming soon as Fri-Sat night services, I think reasonable cases can be made for night services on 96, 161, 261, 269, 422. Otherwise, I'd say the night network is OK. The day network is another thing altogether, I'll get to that in due course. This strikes me as all that is needed. Couldn't comment on most of them, but a night-time 96 strikes me as wasteful & after 8pm the 269 is empty. I also think we're alright for daytime services really. I'm not sure there would be many complaints... I just think some minor tweaks to ease access to QEH and Darenth Valley might be considered useful for persons in the south of the borough to get you but with a well positioned hub in Bexleyheath everything is possible with only one connection. Why not? I used to live in Sidcup and I'd have found a nightime link to Orpington useful on occasions and there's plenty of industry along Sevenoaks Way, presumably some of them have a night shift? |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jun 11, 2015 19:05:39 GMT
I'll post gradually on this thread, as I have a lot of thoughts, but as night services have been mentioned, I'll start there. People have mentioned above that places such as Orpington, Chislehurst, Welling etc. are quiet at night, and that's true : compared to many parts of London, South East London's nightlife is rather spread out across a wider area. You could make a case for Blackheath/Greenwich, Bexleyheath, Bromley, Bluewater and of course North Greenwich having a more organised night scene, but even they pale compared to places like Kingsthon, which is very much a magnet for South West London at night. Makes serving the area more difficult. We have 132 and 486 coming soon as Fri-Sat night services, I think reasonable cases can be made for night services on 96, 161, 261, 269, 422. Otherwise, I'd say the night network is OK. The day network is another thing altogether, I'll get to that in due course. Just because an area is quite at night doesn't mean it doesn't need a night service, local residents obviously have to travel if they want a good night out. Sidcup is lucky to even have a Night Service in my opinion. At least there is a link to somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Jun 11, 2015 19:42:53 GMT
I'd remind you that there is no need for it. Why suggest a meek & mild proposal in response to the suggestion that nothing is needed. Sidcup certainly needs no additional night routes and you certainly would not get any Sidcup to Orpington traffic. This strikes me as all that is needed. Couldn't comment on most of them, but a night-time 96 strikes me as wasteful & after 8pm the 269 is empty. I also think we're alright for daytime services really. I'm not sure there would be many complaints... I just think some minor tweaks to ease access to QEH and Darenth Valley might be considered useful for persons in the south of the borough to get you but with a well positioned hub in Bexleyheath everything is possible with only one connection. Why not? I used to live in Sidcup and I'd have found a nightime link to Orpington useful on occasions and there's plenty of industry along Sevenoaks Way, presumably some of them have a night shift? Inclined to agree with TL1. Most of Sevenoaks Way is retail. Little by way of nightlife. Most people I've ever encountered in Orpington seriously late are people returning from London, not other parts of the South East. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 19:58:19 GMT
That would be nice. I wouldn't mind a once in a while crack at the N199 An extension of the (N)321 to Orpington is a good idea - although I agree that whole part of SE London is pretty quiet at night. A night service on the 54,75,122 & 227 would be good. Beckenham has quite a lively night life at weekends, with a huge demand for mini cabs currently. As many have suggested previously, an extension of either the 249 or 432 to Elmers End and the extension of the 176 to Anerley Stn via Croydon Rd & Anerley Rd would be good - getting rid of current stand arrangements at Penge Croydon Rd. Personally I would like the 2 to get back to Crystal Palace. The 227 night service as much I would like it would be duplicated by N3 meaning that it will have it's sevice cut however the people in Park Langley will be without a night bus unless if you make the 358 a night route and Park Langley is quite isolated by itself, the 75 had a night service however was deemed to be underused so was cut which I think it should as will give Norwood Junction a night service linking Lewisham to Croydon two popular towns in South London and 54 extended through the 289 to Croydon giving Addiscombe a much needed night services, all for the 249 and/or 432 being extended to Elmers End giving the whole of Elmers End Road high frequency routes which run the whole day however stand space may be an issue as when 75 was diverted to Elmers End it was quite chocoblocked, therefore one of these routes may have to use the old stand on Elmers End Green, 176 I'm all for but reliability and the route is already long as it is and they already have train links to London and are in short distance to Crystal Palace and the 3 and the 2 same issue all for it but will be too long, reliability and the 432 already duplicates it so will give the route no use. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 12, 2015 12:19:38 GMT
An extension of the (N)321 to Orpington is a good idea - although I agree that whole part of SE London is pretty quiet at night. A night service on the 54,75,122 & 227 would be good. Beckenham has quite a lively night life at weekends, with a huge demand for mini cabs currently. As many have suggested previously, an extension of either the 249 or 432 to Elmers End and the extension of the 176 to Anerley Stn via Croydon Rd & Anerley Rd would be good - getting rid of current stand arrangements at Penge Croydon Rd. Personally I would like the 2 to get back to Crystal Palace. The 227 night service as much I would like it would be duplicated by N3 meaning that it will have it's sevice cut however the people in Park Langley will be without a night bus unless if you make the 358 a night route and Park Langley is quite isolated by itself, the 75 had a night service however was deemed to be underused so was cut which I think it should as will give Norwood Junction a night service linking Lewisham to Croydon two popular towns in South London and 54 extended through the 289 to Croydon giving Addiscombe a much needed night services, all for the 249 and/or 432 being extended to Elmers End giving the whole of Elmers End Road high frequency routes which run the whole day however stand space may be an issue as when 75 was diverted to Elmers End it was quite chocoblocked, therefore one of these routes may have to use the old stand on Elmers End Green, 176 I'm all for but reliability and the route is already long as it is and they already have train links to London and are in short distance to Crystal Palace and the 3 and the 2 same issue all for it but will be too long, reliability and the 432 already duplicates it so will give the route no use. I think the N3 is probably fine as it is so not much case for a night service on the 227 or 358. The 75 could be covered by rerouting the N47 from Catford town centre via the 75 route to Croydon. I would also suggest extending the N176 from Penge to Croydon via the 197 route giving a night service to the Woodside area. I would extend the 363 from Crystal Palace via Church Road and South Norwood Hill to Norwood Junction, there should be space on the Grosvenor Road stand with the 130 gone. The stand space at Crystal Palace could be used for the 249 with the 432 extended to Elmers End Tesco, I would also have the 432 doing a small double run via Crystal Palace bus station for easier interchange with other routes. It would seem logical to extend the daytime 176 to the then vacated Anerley Station stand and do away with the problematical Penge stand. I would return the 54 to Croydon, should never have been removed from there, but going via the current 312 route through Addiscombe. The 312 could be withdrawn with the 289 rerouted to Norwood Junction and the 197 extended to South Croydon Garage. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 12, 2015 12:22:05 GMT
Just because an area is quite at night doesn't mean it doesn't need a night service, local residents obviously have to travel if they want a good night out. Sidcup is lucky to even have a Night Service in my opinion. At least there is a link to somewhere. By the same logic it could then be said that a lot of areas are lucky to have a night service. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 12, 2015 13:44:32 GMT
The 227 night service as much I would like it would be duplicated by N3 meaning that it will have it's sevice cut however the people in Park Langley will be without a night bus unless if you make the 358 a night route and Park Langley is quite isolated by itself, the 75 had a night service however was deemed to be underused so was cut which I think it should as will give Norwood Junction a night service linking Lewisham to Croydon two popular towns in South London and 54 extended through the 289 to Croydon giving Addiscombe a much needed night services, all for the 249 and/or 432 being extended to Elmers End giving the whole of Elmers End Road high frequency routes which run the whole day however stand space may be an issue as when 75 was diverted to Elmers End it was quite chocoblocked, therefore one of these routes may have to use the old stand on Elmers End Green, 176 I'm all for but reliability and the route is already long as it is and they already have train links to London and are in short distance to Crystal Palace and the 3 and the 2 same issue all for it but will be too long, reliability and the 432 already duplicates it so will give the route no use. I think the N3 is probably fine as it is so not much case for a night service on the 227 or 358. The 75 could be covered by rerouting the N47 from Catford town centre via the 75 route to Croydon. I would also suggest extending the N176 from Penge to Croydon via the 197 route giving a night service to the Woodside area. I would extend the 363 from Crystal Palace via Church Road and South Norwood Hill to Norwood Junction, there should be space on the Grosvenor Road stand with the 130 gone. The stand space at Crystal Palace could be used for the 249 with the 432 extended to Elmers End Tesco, I would also have the 432 doing a small double run via Crystal Palace bus station for easier interchange with other routes. It would seem logical to extend the daytime 176 to the then vacated Anerley Station stand and do away with the problematical Penge stand. I would return the 54 to Croydon, should never have been removed from there, but going via the current 312 route through Addiscombe. The 312 could be withdrawn with the 289 rerouted to Norwood Junction and the 197 extended to South Croydon Garage. I'd suspect the 54's service would get worse considering the works at Lewisham and traffic in Catford & Addiscombe. It could be looked at once the Lewisham works end but I can't see much changing to help it's case. The 197 extension should go ahead regardless but I'd leave the 312 as it is - the 289 is terribly unreliable whereas the 312 is very reliable. At least Long Lane has the tram as a solid alternative to the 289. Having said what I said, the best way for a 54 to reach Croydon would be via Sandilands rather than Addiscombe. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 12, 2015 14:13:08 GMT
I think the N3 is probably fine as it is so not much case for a night service on the 227 or 358. The 75 could be covered by rerouting the N47 from Catford town centre via the 75 route to Croydon. I would also suggest extending the N176 from Penge to Croydon via the 197 route giving a night service to the Woodside area. I would extend the 363 from Crystal Palace via Church Road and South Norwood Hill to Norwood Junction, there should be space on the Grosvenor Road stand with the 130 gone. The stand space at Crystal Palace could be used for the 249 with the 432 extended to Elmers End Tesco, I would also have the 432 doing a small double run via Crystal Palace bus station for easier interchange with other routes. It would seem logical to extend the daytime 176 to the then vacated Anerley Station stand and do away with the problematical Penge stand. I would return the 54 to Croydon, should never have been removed from there, but going via the current 312 route through Addiscombe. The 312 could be withdrawn with the 289 rerouted to Norwood Junction and the 197 extended to South Croydon Garage. I'd suspect the 54's service would get worse considering the works at Lewisham and traffic in Catford & Addiscombe. It could be looked at once the Lewisham works end but I can't see much changing to help it's case. The 197 extension should go ahead regardless but I'd leave the 312 as it is - the 289 is terribly unreliable whereas the 312 is very reliable. At least Long Lane has the tram as a solid alternative to the 289. Having said what I said, the best way for a 54 to reach Croydon would be via Sandilands rather than Addiscombe. The 54 could just be returned to Croydon by its original route without any changes to other routes but I was thinking on a give and take basis. I think one single deck 289 every 15 minutes is poor provision for Long Lane and for many it is quite a walk to the tram stop. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 15:54:50 GMT
I'd suspect the 54's service would get worse considering the works at Lewisham and traffic in Catford & Addiscombe. It could be looked at once the Lewisham works end but I can't see much changing to help it's case. The 197 extension should go ahead regardless but I'd leave the 312 as it is - the 289 is terribly unreliable whereas the 312 is very reliable. At least Long Lane has the tram as a solid alternative to the 289. Having said what I said, the best way for a 54 to reach Croydon would be via Sandilands rather than Addiscombe. The 54 could just be returned to Croydon by its original route without any changes to other routes but I was thinking on a give and take basis. I think one single deck 289 every 15 minutes is poor provision for Long Lane and for many it is quite a walk to the tram stop. Not forgetting it's not long a walk as 367 has a stop at the end of Long Lane where it mets Croydon Road however this bit of the route is kind of wirl-winded and also 194 at Elmers End if you can walk that long and the closest tram stop Arena or Woodside depending what side is like 5-10 mins is not long but then it also does serve the Stroud Green Estate also off it either way the route should just be extended to Croydon and help out the 289 and giving new links to the area but best time should be after Lewisham Gateway works but I don't know when that will finish or when crossrail is done building in Woolwich as it will give Croydon a link by bus to a Crossrail station but that is until 2018. Also the 289 should get double deckers and/or extra frequency increase. |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Jun 12, 2015 16:59:59 GMT
I have yet to be convinced there is a case for any change beyond "large place x should be linked with large place y because they are both large".
If anything, I'd be interested to wait & see what adjustments are made in light of Crossrail. I'd certainly like to see the 244 double-decked (already one of the most heavily used SD routes in London) and then some firmer links for those in the south of Bexley to North Greenwich which are already well used in times of Southeastern meltdown (common enough).
|
|
|
|
Post by 700101 on Jun 13, 2015 3:00:29 GMT
Wonder if any buses will be extended in Lewisham when the Lewisham Gateway project is finished
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jun 13, 2015 5:21:02 GMT
Wonder if any buses will be extended in Lewisham when the Lewisham Gateway project is finished The Lewisham Gateway project is not all that tbh. If a Westfield Shopping Centre was being built I would imagine TFL would be planning anything possible to terminate there lol, probably even the P13 lol. The only thing I would be more than happy to see is a new Route 218: Bromley Common, Crown Lane - North Greenwich assisting the 108 & 208s high demand and the 320 withdrawn to Bromley North. |
|
