So it's pretty normal to have ideas to help improve the transport network, whether it be extra vehicles, joining links that aren't there, or perhaps slimming down routes that could be losing money. In practice everyone has their own extremes and minimalism to this practice, and some can feasibly work whilst some could need a revision at best.
I can only speak for what I'm local to, and after saying what I've just said I'd be a hypocrite to mention something outside my boundary. Example: Extend 258 over the 395 there wasn't a need for a brand new route to replace 398's Greenford section. Now that I've branded myself as a hypocrite, that's an idea I've harvested from someone else.
Unlike the me of the past, where I'd have ideas for a lot of things, I've succumbed to accepting what I have dear, and gripping my knife in cold blood whenever I receive news of a downgrade in my area. A la 468 frequency cut and 250 cut to West Croydon.
Many of my ideas can be viewed on my Flickr photostreams, my main (through this album) and my newer photostream because I'm a cheapskate. As well as that, my coined 433 idea is one of the first blog posts I've made. I won't link them, if you want to read them you search them... baka.
So now this epilogue of fooling you into only one photo in my main's album since I deleted a lot of stuff and giving you the option of my reviewing my wildest dreams I present you another one, though I'll add as much nuance as I can and give explanations where possible. Disclaimer: I'll add some ideas I've curated on my own. Oh the shock. Jokes aside:
The barren of killing 45
 |
| 2580 (YY67GZA), Gresham Road, Brixton King's Cross no more |
Whilst it might be on it's way to withdrawal, joining the 48 in a lackluster plan for saving resources (allocated fare-evadable vehicles nonetheless), there are new doors opened up for the 45 to improve the network if need be:
- Extending it to Clapham Junction, et cetera
- Extending it to Aldgate/London Bridge
And then withdrawing it or fusing it with 333... I have some popcorn I'm eating that suggestion to. I don't mind being guilty of fusing 45 with 355.
Whilst it's saving grace from 35's massive frequency boost (from every 10 to every 7-8) is the important link to King's College Hospital in Camberwell. Don't wanna claim improvements of hospital links then cut one don't we? Anyways, something that I believe was unsuccessfully campaigned if not, wished to be extended just a little further to Streatham to secure the link. A Lambeth hospital for Lambeth residents. I mean, there is Croydon University Hospital but I don't have to spell it out for you. Fun facts, it's name of Mayday dropping in 2002 yet maps had it somewhere around the 2010s. Quite a long time to update the afterfact.
So how about taking that fact in mind, and whilst on the subject of the not-so-out-of-question suggestion of fusing 118, expand on it.
 |
| Don't lose a section, but still replace it |
Aside from the local GP along Streatham Place that refers to King's College, the 45 is an underdog relief for would-be-355 passengers, deterred from 355 being packed as usual and TfL ignoring it's deserved re-conversion to double decks. Please notice it senpai. Whilst as I explored, 45 aides the 35. So here's how I would try to solve the question with no correct answer:
Reroute 118 at Streatham Hill via Thornton Avenue, King's Avenue, (Atkins Road and Poynders Road), Streatham Place, Brixton Hill then as per 45 to Camberwell Green, using what I believed to be a stand on Wyndham Road or Medlar Street... possibly could be made but cutting costs is the goal here.
This retains the Clapham Park-King's College link whilst opening up new links along Thornton Avenue which is within walk or hopper, whilst also giving Streatham the hospital link it could've done with years ago. Whilst 45 and 118's frequencies are 1 bus an hour apart, upping 118's to match 45's every 10 still is in the green zone of saving resources, thanks to the parallel they share north of Christchurch Road.
Slight disadvantage is Thornton Road being overbussed with 50 and partially the 255. Could be remedied by sending 50 via current 57, i.e Streatham Place and then Streatham Hill. The traffic lights at the intersection with Streatham Place/Christchurch Road and Streatham Hill/Brixton Hill being a pain to say the least for Streatham-bound vehicles turning into Streatham Hill. Enough that only one extra bus should be needed to instead divert 57 to Brixton, relinking Wimbledon (and south-west of it) back to Brixton.
The art of aiding 109:
 |
| 2503 (YY64TZC), Streatham High Road |
As for this, I've only started this post as I've been inspired by acknowledging 64's less trafficated southern portion, and throwing it to the wayside on the northern side for the art of aiding 109 to help it's lonely Norbury section swiftly yeeted by 60 for Pollards Hill whilst 50 catered Thornton Heath and 250 caters Green Lane/Parchmore Road specifically.
 |
| The seeds we added thus far |
It is feasible, it adds to it's length for sure, and a cost saving can be made. The best southern alternative from Thornton Heath is... nothing but 64 unless you plan on rerouting 198 away from aiding 250.
Just for fun I've roughly estimated sending 64 to High Street (+3) and 198 to Streatham (+4). Incurring 1 extra than just sending 64 to Streatham.
- 133's every 4 min or 159's peak every 5 min frequency would skyrocket resources
- G1 and P13 are both long enough and have small vehicles
 |
| Thornton Heath - Norbury - Streatham |
Going back to 64. It takes around 6 buses to extend it the 3 miles to Streatham. For reference we'll say St Leonard's Church since Streatham Station is plenty with 60/133/159/P13 happy there and 133's old stand can be easily re-flagged. It equally takes away 6 buses from 109's PVR to reduce it's frequency from every 6 to match 64's frequency of every 7-8, in combination providing an every 3-4 service linking Croydon and Streatham directly through Norbury. Albeit through the detriment north of Streatham to Brixton losing 2 bph worth of capacity. It could be remedied by swapping 118's northern terminus out for the more frequent 57 making it 1 bph loss in total.
Or perhaps we could leave 64 at it's 11 mile length and instead introduce a new cross-Croydon route that happens to pass through Norbury. Perhaps extending 433 would be well if Selsdon Vale residents don't kick up a fuss by removing stop flags when double decks kept going on it. Let's assume Purley as a destination, historically a 109 terminus and dialling 60's frequency back from every 10 to every 12 is plausible. Even at an every 10 minute frequency it does take more resources factoring the reduction to 109's frequency to save every little penny that matters. Take into account a possible 60 freq reduction (-3 PVR), it's only 10 extra buses of fuel and driver pay.
Whereas with 64 there's only a penalty of requiring one extra bus when you factor reducing 109's frequency.
 |
| Three variations of 59 All paralleled the 109 |
How about separating the stoppers and the long-distance journeys? That's something I do advocate, there's enough to count on one hand in the capital whilst other cities do have more. I've also covered it as you can see on the right. Even if scheduled to have more stops than necessary and actually becoming slower than normal services (ahem 607), the illusion is enough to do part of the job, you just need to expand on it from there. Better bus priority means faster buses meaning you beat the opposition rather than succumbing to it. Time and time again it's said and I'll say it here, to beat the car it must be more attractive than the car.
Continuing on, as I've reflected in the pic, to achieve it without adding resources, it requires slimming down as high as 2.8 buses per hour from the combination of 59 (-2.5), 109 (-2.5), 133 (-2), 159 (-2.8) and 250 (-1.7) to break even and use less resources overall. From a PVR of 134 to a PVR of 125.
It wasn't always lonely
The proud replacement of trams 16/18 with a PVR as high as 88, eventually stooping to an every 10-12 frequency, a sheer half of it's current frequency. It had company. Throughout the 50s and 60s the route 50 was it's support, being extended from it's measly Embankment (peaks) and Stockwell to Streatham Hill. It was cut back to Streatham Station and extended to replace 133 into the form it has today.
Another parallel was the first incarnation of 115 (Wallington via Streatham and Croydon Colonnade to Whyteleafe), by today's standards a low frequency route. Swiftly killed into pieces in 1981 with 289 taking the Colonnade portion to it's Beckenham Junction portofolio. This would've been the last 109 has seen support, except it's own shorts (Brixton to Purley and Trafalgar Square to Croydon).
The culmination of night
 |
| Julian Walker DLA313 (Y513UGC), the final leg to Basin The change that killed N159 |
Whilst the night network continues to be simplified by removing shorts on routes slowly but surely, whilst retaining the same PVR. I can only name N3 off the top of my head, every 15 to Crystal Palace but is now every 20 full-route. I'm not particularly advocating it but let's test the limits to this:
N109 extension from Oxford Circus to Marble Arch and frequency boosted from every 20 (Fri/Sat nights & Sat/Sun mornings) to every 12 and every 30 (Sunday-Thursday nights & Monday-Friday mornings) to every 15... in order to withdraw 159.
In the past N159 alone provided Streatham (from Central, not City) with a frequency of every 10 all nights, any further south was a stagnant every half hour. The split into N64/N109 improved the Croydon stretch by upping it one bus per hour on weekend nights, in synchronisation with 159's every 20 min frequency all nights as of current. Whilst Thornton Heath reaped more benefits from N64's half hourly.
 |
| Spreadsheet link below |
Next, a suggestion I've made before but I'll keep it short. Rerouting N250 as per 64 to New Addington. Whether the night capacity of N109/159 needs looking at is something I have no statement to back on, though if N250 is on the weaker side, at least save two buses by painlessly combining it with 64's night portion. Two wrongs don't make a right, but perhaps the wrong can be balanced by a right...
Conclusione (epilepsy warning)
Spreadsheet where I've thrown numbers in cells can be viewed here.
 |
| Refreshes every 50 centiseconds |
* 118 on long-term diversion away from Wandle Road due to bridge works on London Road since 23 April 2019, instead using Morden Road with temporary 718 covering it.
For the sake of cutting down costs it is within the realm of possibility. Reliability? I'm not part of the same group who threw 88 and 112 to the wayside for ending the C2 and 611, whilst masquerading an improved network, which it is but at what cost... that, has it's answer.
Thanks for making it to the end, for finding this of some use, to pass the time or whatnot. Ideas are nice, it's how we advance for the sake of the future, I just like drawing them on the maps, and slap some numbers to it. Numbers make stuff professional. In any case, hope you enjoyed it and stay safe!
No comments:
Post a Comment