|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 5, 2016 8:22:44 GMT
208/320 is a good example between Bromley Common & Catford. Esp on Sundays. I often see them running together. The 208 desperately needs to be increased to a 10 minute headway in my opinion. How routes like the 269 get a bus every 10 minutes while the 208 remains at 12 is beyond me. Even with the 320 'helping out' since it's extension to Catford, the 208 can get absolutely rammed before it even reaches Catford, and remains so all the way to Bromley. I've been saying for a long time the 320 is now quite pointless and should be restored back to Bromley North. The timings of the 208 & 320 are very poor, it is not uncommon for the 320 to arrive two minutes after the 208 on Bromley Road towards Bromley by then the 208 has taken all the people, same thing coming back in the other direction. A new route 218 running between North Greenwich - Bromley Common, Crown Lane via the 108 & 208 would solve this overcrowding issue on both the 108 & 208 and create new links to North Greenwich, problem solved. Quite appalling that there is only one bus service serving Lewisham to North Greenwich.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 5, 2016 8:30:45 GMT
The 208 desperately needs to be increased to a 10 minute headway in my opinion. How routes like the 269 get a bus every 10 minutes while the 208 remains at 12 is beyond me. Even with the 320 'helping out' since it's extension to Catford, the 208 can get absolutely rammed before it even reaches Catford, and remains so all the way to Bromley. I've been saying for a long time the 320 is pretty pointless and should be restored back to Bromley North. The timings of the 208 & 320 are very poor, it is not uncommon for the 320 to arrive two minutes after the 208 on Bromley Road towards Bromley by then the 208 has taken all the people. A new route 218 running between North Greenwich - Bromley Common, Crown Lane via the 108 & 208 would solve this overcrowding issue on both the 108 & 208 and create new links, problem solved. I agree that the 320 to Catford is pretty useless and the 208 needs help right through to Lewisham. I don't agree with the 218 idea though, the 54 is more than adequate between Bellingham and Blackheath, the 199 needs to be extended to Bromley as originally planned but it didn't happen because no suitable stand space could be found.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 5, 2016 8:40:00 GMT
I've been saying for a long time the 320 is pretty pointless and should be restored back to Bromley North. The timings of the 208 & 320 are very poor, it is not uncommon for the 320 to arrive two minutes after the 208 on Bromley Road towards Bromley by then the 208 has taken all the people. A new route 218 running between North Greenwich - Bromley Common, Crown Lane via the 108 & 208 would solve this overcrowding issue on both the 108 & 208 and create new links, problem solved. I agree that the 320 to Catford is pretty useless and the 208 needs help right through to Lewisham. I don't agree with the 218 idea though, the 54 is more than adequate between Bellingham and Blackheath, the 199 needs to be extended to Bromley as originally planned but it didn't happen because no suitable stand space could be found. Ok here goes. The 54 does not serve North Greenwich, it serves Woolwich. So is a silly comparison. Use common sense... The 199 shouldn't be extended to Bromley as this route always has reliability issues hence why it is getting a PVR +2. The 108 & 208 both suffer from overcrowding, common sense introduce a new double decker service running every 12 minutes covering the busiest sections problem solved, also Catford, Downham & Bromley are linked to North Greenwich, the 108 gets the much needed assistance as it cannot be double decked.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 5, 2016 8:59:01 GMT
I agree that the 320 to Catford is pretty useless and the 208 needs help right through to Lewisham. I don't agree with the 218 idea though, the 54 is more than adequate between Bellingham and Blackheath, the 199 needs to be extended to Bromley as originally planned but it didn't happen because no suitable stand space could be found. Ok here goes. The 54 does not serve North Greenwich, it serves Woolwich. So is a silly comparison. Use common sense... The 199 shouldn't be extended to Bromley as this route always has reliability issues hence why it is getting a PVR +2. The 108 & 208 both suffer from overcrowding, common sense introduce a new double decker service running every 12 minutes covering the busiest sections problem solved, also Catford, Downham & Bromley are linked to North Greenwich, the 108 gets the much needed assistance as it cannot be double decked. No how about you use some common sense? Two routes between Southend Pond and Blackheath would be ridiculous, Lewisham town centre is clogged up with buses as it is. An extension of the B16 to North Greenwich would solve overcrowding there.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 5, 2016 9:20:08 GMT
Ok here goes. The 54 does not serve North Greenwich, it serves Woolwich. So is a silly comparison. Use common sense... The 199 shouldn't be extended to Bromley as this route always has reliability issues hence why it is getting a PVR +2. The 108 & 208 both suffer from overcrowding, common sense introduce a new double decker service running every 12 minutes covering the busiest sections problem solved, also Catford, Downham & Bromley are linked to North Greenwich, the 108 gets the much needed assistance as it cannot be double decked. No how about you use some common sense? Two routes between Southend Pond and Blackheath would be ridiculous, Lewisham town centre is clogged up with buses as it is. An extension of the B16 to North Greenwich would solve overcrowding there. Exactly what is ridiculous about another route covering Blackheath & Southend Lane? There are plenty of examples where more than one route covers a section of another, it is common in the network. So what does your point justify here? 36, 185, 436 124, 126 136, 436 229, 469 I'm sure there are plenty other examples, awaits the next excuse post... Please don't bother as I find them pretty pathetic anyways and quite tired of seeing the same things from you lol. Lewisham will be fine once the gateway project has finished. What would the B16 do to help the 108 & 208?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2016 9:33:58 GMT
119,194 & 198 in Shirley every time I see them they're together and when you miss them you'll have to wait around another 10 mins.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 5, 2016 9:43:54 GMT
No how about you use some common sense? Two routes between Southend Pond and Blackheath would be ridiculous, Lewisham town centre is clogged up with buses as it is. An extension of the B16 to North Greenwich would solve overcrowding there. Exactly what is ridiculous about another route covering Blackheath & Southend Lane? There are plenty of examples where more than one route covers a section of another, it is common in the network. So what does your point justify here? 36, 185, 436 124, 126 136, 436 229, 469 I'm sure there are plenty other examples, awaits the next excuse post... Please don't bother as I find them pretty pathetic anyways and quite tired of seeing the same things from you lol. Lewisham will be fine once the gateway project has finished. What would the B16 do to help the 108 & 208? The B16 will obviously provide extra buses between Blackheath and North Greenwich. If a link from Bromley to North Greenwich is really needed an extension of the 129 that somebody else suggested would be far better, more direct route via Greenwich and serving a far more popular passenger objective than Blackheath.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 5, 2016 9:56:43 GMT
Exactly what is ridiculous about another route covering Blackheath & Southend Lane? There are plenty of examples where more than one route covers a section of another, it is common in the network. So what does your point justify here? 36, 185, 436 124, 126 136, 436 229, 469 I'm sure there are plenty other examples, awaits the next excuse post... Please don't bother as I find them pretty pathetic anyways and quite tired of seeing the same things from you lol. Lewisham will be fine once the gateway project has finished. What would the B16 do to help the 108 & 208? The B16 will obviously provide extra buses between Blackheath and North Greenwich. If a link from Bromley to North Greenwich is really needed an extension of the 129 that somebody else suggested would be far better, more direct route via Greenwich and serving a far more popular passenger objective than Blackheath. Lol you just make yourself look silly... I thought you said Lewisham was overcrowded? So now you suggest to extend the 129 to Bromley rather pathetic now really. Hardly, just a waste of resources, you then have 3 Routes from Eltham - North Greenwich one which is low frequency and then double deckers to run for a section which is underused, can just divert the 132 via Royal Standard which won't help either as that will already be full up of people from Eltham. The larger amount of users get on the 108 & 208 in Lewisham, hence the new route covering those busy sections which is the purpose for it, can in fact reduce the frequency of the 108 as well. Don't think so really as Lewisham has the 180 & 199 linking Greenwich Town Centre. The O2 is a popular venue.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 5, 2016 10:19:07 GMT
The B16 will obviously provide extra buses between Blackheath and North Greenwich. If a link from Bromley to North Greenwich is really needed an extension of the 129 that somebody else suggested would be far better, more direct route via Greenwich and serving a far more popular passenger objective than Blackheath. Lol you just make yourself look silly... I thought you said Lewisham was overcrowded? So now you suggest to extend the 129 to Bromley rather pathetic now really. Hardly, just a waste of resources, you then have 3 Routes from Eltham - North Greenwich one which is low frequency and then double deckers to run for a section which is underused, can just divert the 132 via Royal Standard which won't help either as that will already be full up of people from Eltham. The larger amount of users get on the 108 & 208 in Lewisham, hence the new route covering those busy sections which is the purpose for it, can in fact reduce the frequency of the 108 as well. Don't think so really as Lewisham has the 180 & 199 linking Greenwich Town Centre. The O2 is a popular venue. Do you have to turn everything into an argument, for pitys sake grow up!
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Apr 5, 2016 11:54:25 GMT
I've been saying for a long time the 320 is pretty pointless and should be restored back to Bromley North. The timings of the 208 & 320 are very poor, it is not uncommon for the 320 to arrive two minutes after the 208 on Bromley Road towards Bromley by then the 208 has taken all the people. A new route 218 running between North Greenwich - Bromley Common, Crown Lane via the 108 & 208 would solve this overcrowding issue on both the 108 & 208 and create new links, problem solved. I agree that the 320 to Catford is pretty useless and the 208 needs help right through to Lewisham. I don't agree with the 218 idea though, the 54 is more than adequate between Bellingham and Blackheath, the 199 needs to be extended to Bromley as originally planned but it didn't happen because no suitable stand space could be found. 'TL1' and 'sid' you both make valid points, there is no need to resort to arguing and point scoring as it will get you both nowhere and will only escalate further and clog up the thread so let's keep discussions civilised I won't go as far as saying the 320 is useless, it still provides considerable assistance to the 208 even if it reaches as far as Catford and it wouldn't be wise to withdraw the Biggin Hill leg so I guess Catford is the sensible terminus for the 320. Regarding the 218, although it would be a useful route in that it would provide assistance where needed, it would be superfluous along the majority of the route as there would be unnecessary overlaps, the 54 would be affected the most. Extending the 199 would be the sensible solution and surely stand space can be found in Bromley, Ravensbourne Road and Ringer's Road have adequate space to accommodate a bus stand. To solve overcrowding issues on the 108 and 208, the 108 should receive a full allocation of full size SDs and a frequency increase, perhaps at a push extend the 484 to North Greenwich over the 108 (especially knowing that the 484 can take 10.2m SDs). The 208 and 320 should also receive a frequency increase to x8 and x10 mins respectively, additionally their timings could be adjusted to enable a more consistent headway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2016 12:22:10 GMT
I agree that the 320 to Catford is pretty useless and the 208 needs help right through to Lewisham. I don't agree with the 218 idea though, the 54 is more than adequate between Bellingham and Blackheath, the 199 needs to be extended to Bromley as originally planned but it didn't happen because no suitable stand space could be found. 'TL1' and 'sid' you both make valid points, there is no need to resort to arguing and point scoring as it will get you both nowhere and will only escalate further and clog up the thread so let's keep discussions civilised I won't go as far as saying the 320 is useless, it still provides considerable assistance to the 208 even if it reaches as far as Catford and it wouldn't be wise to withdraw the Biggin Hill leg so I guess Catford is the sensible terminus for the 320. Regarding the 218, although it would be a useful route in that it would provide assistance where needed, it would be superfluous along the majority of the route as there would be unnecessary overlaps, the 54 would be affected the most. Extending the 199 would be the sensible solution and surely stand space can be found in Bromley, Ravensbourne Road and Ringer's Road have adequate space to accommodate a bus stand. To solve overcrowding issues on the 108 and 208, the 108 should receive a full allocation of full size SDs and a frequency increase, perhaps at a push extend the 484 to North Greenwich over the 108 (especially knowing that the 484 can take 10.2m SDs). The 208 and 320 should also receive a frequency increase to x8 and x10 mins respectively, additionally their timings could be adjusted to enable a more consistent headway. Good suggestions, definantly a thread that I feel I need to participate in as I used to regularly drive the 208 and now I regularly drive the 484. I have made the suggestion a few weeks back about the 484 extension to North Greenwich. There is photographic evidence on the net somewhere of DP192 (which I believe is a 10.8metre dart) on the 484 in the tight part of the route when Go-Agead operated it. This is proof they can operate it and as a professional driver I do believe that with careful and professional driving you could get a new C10 MMC around the route. These new buses are actually fully blinded for the 484, a persuational tactic which I have tried recently, but a point blank refusal of 'we arent allowed anything longer on the 484 than its current buses is all that I am met with. As much as the route can seem long I do feel that at times it resembles a magic roundabout affair and could help out with this relatively short extension. The 208 has long been the trunk route between Bromley and Lewisham. I also drove the 261 at the same time and as much as the famous 'the 261 is quicker than the 208 by a few minutes' argument reigns, it isnt the same view shared by the regulars. The 199 is the best option to Bromley as this doesnt bring another route into the already overcrowded Lewisham.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 5, 2016 12:35:38 GMT
I agree that the 320 to Catford is pretty useless and the 208 needs help right through to Lewisham. I don't agree with the 218 idea though, the 54 is more than adequate between Bellingham and Blackheath, the 199 needs to be extended to Bromley as originally planned but it didn't happen because no suitable stand space could be found. 'TL1' and 'sid' you both make valid points, there is no need to resort to arguing and point scoring as it will get you both nowhere and will only escalate further and clog up the thread so let's keep discussions civilised I won't go as far as saying the 320 is useless, it still provides considerable assistance to the 208 even if it reaches as far as Catford and it wouldn't be wise to withdraw the Biggin Hill leg so I guess Catford is the sensible terminus for the 320. Regarding the 218, although it would be a useful route in that it would provide assistance where needed, it would be superfluous along the majority of the route as there would be unnecessary overlaps, the 54 would be affected the most. Extending the 199 would be the sensible solution and surely stand space can be found in Bromley, Ravensbourne Road and Ringer's Road have adequate space to accommodate a bus stand. To solve overcrowding issues on the 108 and 208, the 108 should receive a full allocation of full size SDs and a frequency increase, perhaps at a push extend the 484 to North Greenwich over the 108 (especially knowing that the 484 can take 10.2m SDs). The 208 and 320 should also receive a frequency increase to x8 and x10 mins respectively, additionally their timings could be adjusted to enable a more consistent headway. Exactly, nobody has to be right or wrong it is just a matter of opinion. I agree with most of what you've said but I wouldn't think extending the 484 to North Greenwich would be justified. The 108 should generally be adequate from Lewisham especially with full size single deckers and with the B16 extended from Kidbrooke, preferably with double deckers, that should provide an adequate level of service between Blackheath and North Greenwich.
|
|
|
Post by TB141 on Apr 5, 2016 12:47:08 GMT
I've been saying for a long time the 320 is pretty pointless and should be restored back to Bromley North. The timings of the 208 & 320 are very poor, it is not uncommon for the 320 to arrive two minutes after the 208 on Bromley Road towards Bromley by then the 208 has taken all the people. A new route 218 running between North Greenwich - Bromley Common, Crown Lane via the 108 & 208 would solve this overcrowding issue on both the 108 & 208 and create new links, problem solved. I agree that the 320 to Catford is pretty useless and the 208 needs help right through to Lewisham. I don't agree with the 218 idea though, the 54 is more than adequate between Bellingham and Blackheath, the 199 needs to be extended to Bromley as originally planned but it didn't happen because no suitable stand space could be found. Surely the 126 stand on Ringers Road is more than big enough?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 5, 2016 13:39:41 GMT
'TL1' and 'sid' you both make valid points, there is no need to resort to arguing and point scoring as it will get you both nowhere and will only escalate further and clog up the thread so let's keep discussions civilised I won't go as far as saying the 320 is useless, it still provides considerable assistance to the 208 even if it reaches as far as Catford and it wouldn't be wise to withdraw the Biggin Hill leg so I guess Catford is the sensible terminus for the 320. Regarding the 218, although it would be a useful route in that it would provide assistance where needed, it would be superfluous along the majority of the route as there would be unnecessary overlaps, the 54 would be affected the most. Extending the 199 would be the sensible solution and surely stand space can be found in Bromley, Ravensbourne Road and Ringer's Road have adequate space to accommodate a bus stand. To solve overcrowding issues on the 108 and 208, the 108 should receive a full allocation of full size SDs and a frequency increase, perhaps at a push extend the 484 to North Greenwich over the 108 (especially knowing that the 484 can take 10.2m SDs). The 208 and 320 should also receive a frequency increase to x8 and x10 mins respectively, additionally their timings could be adjusted to enable a more consistent headway. Good suggestions, definantly a thread that I feel I need to participate in as I used to regularly drive the 208 and now I regularly drive the 484. I have made the suggestion a few weeks back about the 484 extension to North Greenwich. There is photographic evidence on the net somewhere of DP192 (which I believe is a 10.8metre dart) on the 484 in the tight part of the route when Go-Agead operated it. This is proof they can operate it and as a professional driver I do believe that with careful and professional driving you could get a new C10 MMC around the route. These new buses are actually fully blinded for the 484, a persuational tactic which I have tried recently, but a point blank refusal of 'we arent allowed anything longer on the 484 than its current buses is all that I am met with. As much as the route can seem long I do feel that at times it resembles a magic roundabout affair and could help out with this relatively short extension. The 208 has long been the trunk route between Bromley and Lewisham. I also drove the 261 at the same time and as much as the famous 'the 261 is quicker than the 208 by a few minutes' argument reigns, it isnt the same view shared by the regulars. The 199 is the best option to Bromley as this doesnt bring another route into the already overcrowded Lewisham. Well they must be concerned about using 10.8m buses on the 484 otherwise I suspect you wouldn't of been met with such resistance. As I said before, the extension to North Greenwich would make it too long IMO as it's fairly lengthy as it is and the 10.2m buses would probably get swamped along side the 108's buses. Also, I feel the 484 should be extended at the other end to provide the southern section of Old Kent Road with an important link to King's College Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 5, 2016 13:43:45 GMT
Personally, I think the 320 should remain running beyond Bromley but maybe with two options to implement:
Retime the two routes or extend the 320 to Lewisham providing adequate stand space can be found. I don't believe that would overcrowde Lewisham and the extra length could be compensated by not serving the Catford Bridge area which is horrific traffic wise as well as tightening up the time needed between Bromley Common & Biggin Hill.
|
|