|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 14, 2021 0:56:59 GMT
Going off topic here - That turn is probably worse than where the D8 turns from Bazley Street into East India Dock Road. I honestly don't know who on earth thought that turn on the D8 would be acceptable, the fact its right by the lights means that when a bus tries to make it, it either needs to wait forever or it will block traffic coming the other way when it tries to force its way in which causes traffic and many angry drivers. South Newham proposals have always been a hot steaming pile of crap! The super stand for the 304 at Custom House barely looks like it can handle one route, let alone the proposed 3 at one point from TfL and a double run of the 300. I'm a little gutted that the 300 didn't get extended to Stratford City via Manor Park & Wanstead Park. The new links it would have created would have been a great addition to the network; but as soon as TfL realised they were extending the 300 and paralleling Crossrail simultaneously, it was quietly dropped. While on about routes from the East Ham area to Stratford, something really should have been done about the Plashet Road corridor while they were at this. I believe the 238 and 104 are now in second place and third place respectively for pax per mile and that corridor between Stratford and Upton Park is probably the cause for most of it, a third route is desperately needed down there. The 104 and 238 at Stratford are just total disaster zones heading down there, I feel sorry for anyone who tries to board at the Stratford Broadway stop as I've not had a bus stop there in months now as they're always at full capacity leaving the bus station. Maybe the 304 when introduced should actually run to Stratford City via Wanstead Park as you suggest? It will certainly provide the East Ham area with an alternative to at least the 238 while also being comparable in time taken to reach Stratford as well. There's no real need for a third route on Portway/Plashet Road, onward travel eastbound of Green Street is more less overkill. The easy fix is to up the 238's frequency, maybe 7.5bph weekdays and likely 5bph Sundays and evenings. I've totally forgotten about the deprivation of resources along that corridor once the 304 is introduced. The view is that the 304 will siphon passengers off to the Lizzie line at Custom House, so the reduced passenger flow of the 104 from the Lonsdale Avenue area will in theory be suffice for the reduced capacity along Portway. I don't believe that obviously and did initially say something akin to that when the Crossrail plans first came out. Obviously I as well as other members were focused more of the 25 castration than anything!  |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 14, 2021 10:14:33 GMT
Wouldn't it be better for the 101 to be diverted to Custom House from Beckton given its being cut back and the 104 kept as it is? (Not local so feel free to correct)
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 14, 2021 11:56:13 GMT
I wonder if the Haringay paper will include the rumoured N210 proposal which seem to along the lines of Brent Cross to Moorgate. The fact it would go to Moorgate would suggest it would take on all or part of the current (N)271 which was proposed to be withdrawn at night previously.
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 14, 2021 16:47:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gareth on Jan 14, 2021 17:00:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 14, 2021 17:07:05 GMT
It's working for me okay. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 14, 2021 17:07:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 14, 2021 19:06:33 GMT
The short R9 would have been replaced by the 208. Might have just worked if the 208 had still only started at Catford on Orpington journeys.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 14, 2021 22:45:48 GMT
The short R9 would have been replaced by the 208. Might have just worked if the 208 had still only started at Catford on Orpington journeys. It would of left the Ramsden Estate with a less reliable route as their main link though - people would probably of switched to the car rather than bother with the 20 minute indirect 353. The R9 as it is with its higher frequency and very short length is perfect for linking the Ramsden Estate with Orpington. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jan 15, 2021 0:18:31 GMT
The short R9 would have been replaced by the 208. Might have just worked if the 208 had still only started at Catford on Orpington journeys. It would of left the Ramsden Estate with a less reliable route as their main link though - people would probably of switched to the car rather than bother with the 20 minute indirect 353. The R9 as it is with its higher frequency and very short length is perfect for linking the Ramsden Estate with Orpington. I maintain the R9 model would be perfect for the section of the R7 between Orpington and Chelsfield. The R7 gets caught up in a lot of traffic elsewhere on the route and the rural end can suffer. Delays on that end of the route are virtually non-existent so running an R9-type service looks like a neat solution to keeping a regular, reliable service there over that particular section of the route |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 15, 2021 11:42:58 GMT
Perhaps route R9 could be merged with the R2, with a frequency of every 15 minutes? Both routes are relatively short and overlap within Orpington.
Or another possibility with the R9 could involve splitting the lengthly route 358. This would allow the Bromley to Orpington section to use DDs, providing extra capacity - this section could go via Tower Road to Orpington Station, then take over the R9 to Orpington Station.
Also, maybe route R7 could be reduced to operate between Chislehurst and Orpington only (using the R2's Walnut Centre stand)? The Chelsfield terminus is very rural, and might not require a service of every 30 minutes. Could the Chelsfield Village section be incorporated into the R5/R10 loop. Would no longer serve Rushmore Hill - instead continuing from the Halstead double run via Badgers Mount, Knockholt Station, Chelsfield Village and along the R7 route back to Orpington. The R1 could be extended from Green Street Green to serve Pratt's Bottom.
Or maybe instead split the R5/R10 to provide two non-circular routes, both between Orpington and Halstead or Badgers Mount. One via Green Street Green, Hazelwood, Cudham and Knockholt Pound - and the other via Chelsfield Village, Knockholt Station and Rushmore Hill (the latter could be an extension of the R8)
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 15, 2021 11:54:19 GMT
Perhaps route R9 could be merged with the R2, with a frequency of every 15 minutes? Both routes are relatively short and overlap within Orpington. Or another possibility with the R9 could involve splitting the lengthly route 358. This would allow the Bromley to Orpington section to use DDs, providing extra capacity - this section could go via Tower Road to Orpington Station, then take over the R9 to Orpington Station. Also, maybe route R7 could be reduced to operate between Chislehurst and Orpington only (using the R2's Walnut Centre stand)? The Chelsfield terminus is very rural, and might not require a service of every 30 minutes. Could the Chelsfield Village section be incorporated into the R5/R10 loop. Would no longer serve Rushmore Hill - instead continuing from the Halstead double run via Badgers Mount, Knockholt Station, Chelsfield Village and along the R7 route back to Orpington. The R1 could be extended from Green Street Green to serve Pratt's Bottom. Or maybe instead split the R5/R10 to provide two non-circular routes, both between Orpington and Halstead or Badgers Mount. One via Green Street Green, Hazelwood, Cudham and Knockholt Pound - and the other via Chelsfield Village, Knockholt Station and Rushmore Hill (the latter could be an extension of the R8) R2 does not warrant a frequency of 4bph to Biggin Hill. I'd be surprised if demand even warrants 1bph. 358 being split is a no no given a key aim of the service to provide links from North Bromley to Princess Royal. Also, there's no additional stand space in Bromley for 2 extra services. Splitting the R5/10 was looked into but would be extremely expensive. These routes as they are, struggle to be viable but are "socially nessceary" hence why they are provided with the bare minimum service. I wouldn't fiddle with the R8 either, as the review suggests a similar arrangement of interworking was looked at but it was just not viable. There could be scope for splitting the R7, although I'm not 100% sure whether a 2bph Orpington to Chelsfield service could be provided with 1 bus reliably. Prats Bottom does not warrant any additional service, so it simply could not justify any expenditure, least of all such enormous expenditure on extending the R1 (250k P.A) |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 15, 2021 12:47:23 GMT
Perhaps route R9 could be merged with the R2, with a frequency of every 15 minutes? Both routes are relatively short and overlap within Orpington. Or another possibility with the R9 could involve splitting the lengthly route 358. This would allow the Bromley to Orpington section to use DDs, providing extra capacity - this section could go via Tower Road to Orpington Station, then take over the R9 to Orpington Station. Also, maybe route R7 could be reduced to operate between Chislehurst and Orpington only (using the R2's Walnut Centre stand)? The Chelsfield terminus is very rural, and might not require a service of every 30 minutes. Could the Chelsfield Village section be incorporated into the R5/R10 loop. Would no longer serve Rushmore Hill - instead continuing from the Halstead double run via Badgers Mount, Knockholt Station, Chelsfield Village and along the R7 route back to Orpington. The R1 could be extended from Green Street Green to serve Pratt's Bottom. Or maybe instead split the R5/R10 to provide two non-circular routes, both between Orpington and Halstead or Badgers Mount. One via Green Street Green, Hazelwood, Cudham and Knockholt Pound - and the other via Chelsfield Village, Knockholt Station and Rushmore Hill (the latter could be an extension of the R8) R2 does not warrant a frequency of 4bph to Biggin Hill. I'd be surprised if demand even warrants 1bph. 358 being split is a no no given a key aim of the service to provide links from North Bromley to Princess Royal. Also, there's no additional stand space in Bromley for 2 extra services. Splitting the R5/10 was looked into but would be extremely expensive. These routes as they are, struggle to be viable but are "socially nessceary" hence why they are provided with the bare minimum service. I wouldn't fiddle with the R8 either, as the review suggests a similar arrangement of interworking was looked at but it was just not viable. There could be scope for splitting the R7, although I'm not 100% sure whether a 2bph Bromley to Chelsfield service could be provided with 1 bus reliably. Prats Bottom does not warrant any additional service, so it simply could not justify any expenditure, least of all such enormous expenditure on extending the R1 (250k P.A) Indeed there is no way 4bph on the R2 could be justified, it's often empty as it is and I've wondered about reducing the R2 to hourly and extending the R8 to Melody Road with buses interworking and providing a regular hourly headway on the R8. I suspect the 358 will be split at some point now there is hopper fare for PRU. I assume you meant Orpington to Chelsfield regarding the R7, it would be a bit tight with one bus providing a half hourly service, probably just about doable if it didn't go to Orpington Station? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 15, 2021 12:56:06 GMT
Those links wouldn't be lost thou if the 358 still terminated at PRU.
|
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Jan 15, 2021 13:04:16 GMT
Those links wouldn't be lost thou if the 358 still terminated at PRU. I would do Crystal Palace to PRU (SD) and extend the R9 to Bromley via route 358, making it DD. |
|
