Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2018 20:15:25 GMT
I don't personally see how an X140 will speed up journey times. Try creating bus priority traffic lights and the need for an express 140 will vanish. Reducing the frequency wont help either. I was on the "N140" the other day and the bus was so full, the driver had to leave passengers behind. The passenger flows at Heathrow are unique and the current timetables don’t take that into account. The same applies to early journeys on the N9. I’ve seen 140’s running in pairs as late as midnight because of late running caused by sheer numbers.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 17, 2018 21:46:38 GMT
I don't personally see how an X140 will speed up journey times. Try creating bus priority traffic lights and the need for an express 140 will vanish. Reducing the frequency wont help either. I was on the "N140" the other day and the bus was so full, the driver had to leave passengers behind. I completely agree about the X140. I would cut the 140 to Hayes & Harlington as per the proposals to improve reliability and shorten the route. Using a slightly reduced frequency but not by much. Then re-route the 90 from Harlington to Heathrow Airport, to partially replace the southern end of the 140, continuing to relieve the Northolt-Hayes section. Reroute the H98 to operate from Hayes End to Feltham, going via the existing 90 from Harlington to Feltham. Convert to DD. Adjust the H32 extension to suitably provide the Hounslow to Hayes link as needed. Restore the 223 to Harrow.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 17, 2018 21:49:34 GMT
I see the 306 as the most pointless hash. The 391 has already dropped to every 15 mins and is coping. If cacapcity becomes and issue then a DD conversion can happen. The 218 can replace the 266 on its own if it uses DDs. There's no issue with cacapcity of the 266 section but mroe the length that makes it unreliable. Exactly re the 306/391. It’s a big indication to eventually cut the 391. TfL don’t want bus duplication over tube/rail lines and the 306 routeing ticks their boxes. I’m not sure I understand what you mean about the 218 replacing the 266 as it will take the 440 route between Acton and North Acton but yes it is a rather pointless ‘token’ route. I think TFL should merge the 218/306 ideas to one route, from Sands End to North Acton. Via the 391 to Hammersmith then via the 266. Then adjust or extend another route to provide the links around the West Acton area (as served by the proposed 218).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2018 22:23:03 GMT
Exactly re the 306/391. It’s a big indication to eventually cut the 391. TfL don’t want bus duplication over tube/rail lines and the 306 routeing ticks their boxes. I’m not sure I understand what you mean about the 218 replacing the 266 as it will take the 440 route between Acton and North Acton but yes it is a rather pointless ‘token’ route. I think TFL should merge the 218/306 ideas to one route, from Sands End to North Acton. Via the 391 to Hammersmith then via the 266. Then adjust or extend another route to provide the links around the West Acton area (as served by the proposed 218). Agreed and I would leave the 440 alone to achieve this but TfL are too stubborn to consider that their unfounded ‘genius’ of a link from Chiswick to Acton Main Line is not that important when you consider they are the ones banging on about the hopper fare. Not only that but it would seem that AML isn’t even going to achieve more than 2tph if reports are to be believed 😂
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 17, 2018 22:44:36 GMT
I think TFL should merge the 218/306 ideas to one route, from Sands End to North Acton. Via the 391 to Hammersmith then via the 266. Then adjust or extend another route to provide the links around the West Acton area (as served by the proposed 218). Agreed and I would leave the 440 alone to achieve this but TfL are too stubborn to consider that their unfounded ‘genius’ of a link from Chiswick to Acton Main Line is not that important when you consider they are the ones banging on about the hopper fare. Not only that but it would seem that AML isn’t even going to achieve more than 2tph if reports are to be believed 😂 Acton Main Line should get 4 tph all day M-S in the post Dec 2019 Crossrail timetable. It will have the lowest service level for suburban stops in West London but be on a par with Heathrow T4 (also 4 tph). No one knows at this point what the Sunday timetable will be like given Network Rail's historic track access rights which can close one pair of tracks west of Paddington to allow for routine inspections and maintenance. Clearly up to 10 tph off peak can't be fitted in one pair of tracks alongside GWR fast services and HEX.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2018 23:04:07 GMT
Agreed and I would leave the 440 alone to achieve this but TfL are too stubborn to consider that their unfounded ‘genius’ of a link from Chiswick to Acton Main Line is not that important when you consider they are the ones banging on about the hopper fare. Not only that but it would seem that AML isn’t even going to achieve more than 2tph if reports are to be believed 😂 Acton Main Line should get 4 tph all day M-S in the post Dec 2019 Crossrail timetable. It will have the lowest service level for suburban stops in West London but be on a par with Heathrow T4 (also 4 tph). No one knows at this point what the Sunday timetable will be like given Network Rail's historic track access rights which can close one pair of tracks west of Paddington to allow for routine inspections and maintenance. Clearly up to 10 tph off peak can't be fitted in one pair of tracks alongside GWR fast services and HEX. Fair enough but still shite if the 440 is supposed to be the ‘messiah’ imho
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 17, 2018 23:48:29 GMT
I don't personally see how an X140 will speed up journey times. Try creating bus priority traffic lights and the need for an express 140 will vanish. Reducing the frequency wont help either. I was on the "N140" the other day and the bus was so full, the driver had to leave passengers behind. I disagree about the X140 not being quicker. The amount of time spent at loads of stops shouldn’t be underestimated, especially for a route as long as the 140. A comparable example is the X26 and 285 between Heathrow and Kingston (as the journey lengths are similar), and I’ve made this journey quite a few times. The X26 parallels the 285 for nearly all of the journey between Kingston and Heathrow except for a small deviation where the X26 follows the 481’s lone section just outside Kingston. When travelling between those two places I usually take the slower 285 as its a really enjoyable route but it takes around 1hr 40 minutes, so when I made that journey about three weeks ago I just couldn’t be bothered and just took the X26 instead (luckily I timed it right and only had to wait 3 minutes) and it only took around 45. That’s how much of a difference it made. We overtook 3 285’s on the way to Heathrow, so I personally disagree and think the X140 will be a massively improved/quicker journey. On another topic if the ‘N’140s are as busy as you say, I would definitely not like to be one of those people who are left behind and have to wait another half an hour for the next one, that’s a long while to wait especially when it’s at night and you just want to get home.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Aug 18, 2018 8:45:14 GMT
278 going ahead at 15/20 min frequency. Possibly the only novel route to come out of it. Looking forward to seeing that start. Like others though, I am sceptical of the Heathrow changes, and of the 427's pruning. Took a while writing my proposal for the 223 turning it into a circular route with the H17, checking the running times and such. No doubt a waste of time.
I wonder whether most responders just responded to their own particular route changes, and marked the others as 'no comment/neither for/against', that would explain the large number of people seeming ambivalent.
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Aug 18, 2018 13:16:53 GMT
278 going ahead at 15/20 min frequency. Possibly the only novel route to come out of it. Looking forward to seeing that start. Like others though, I am sceptical of the Heathrow changes, and of the 427's pruning. Took a while writing my proposal for the 223 turning it into a circular route with the H17, checking the running times and such. No doubt a waste of time. I wonder whether most responders just responded to their own particular route changes, and marked the others as 'no comment/neither for/against', that would explain the large number of people seeming ambivalent. The idea of a circular route sounds great, but there has been word going around that TFL aren’t too keen on circular route services. And as for the 223’s cutback (which I too am strongly against 😤) where will it stand at Northwick Park Hospital? Will it share the stands with the H14 or with the 186, or will the route have a new stand to itself?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 18, 2018 13:30:38 GMT
278 going ahead at 15/20 min frequency. Possibly the only novel route to come out of it. Looking forward to seeing that start. Like others though, I am sceptical of the Heathrow changes, and of the 427's pruning. Took a while writing my proposal for the 223 turning it into a circular route with the H17, checking the running times and such. No doubt a waste of time. I wonder whether most responders just responded to their own particular route changes, and marked the others as 'no comment/neither for/against', that would explain the large number of people seeming ambivalent. The idea of a circular route sounds great, but there has been word going around that TFL aren’t too keen on circular route services. And as for the 223’s cutback (which I too am strongly against 😤) where will it stand at Northwick Park Hospital? Will it share the stands with the H14 or with the 186, or will the route have a new stand to itself? I think a circular route would be a much better idea, TfL don't seem too keen on any innovative ideas!
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Aug 18, 2018 13:46:35 GMT
The idea of a circular route sounds great, but there has been word going around that TFL aren’t too keen on circular route services. And as for the 223’s cutback (which I too am strongly against 😤) where will it stand at Northwick Park Hospital? Will it share the stands with the H14 or with the 186, or will the route have a new stand to itself? I think a circular route would be a much better idea, TfL don't seem too keen on any innovative ideas! Seems as if they're too keen on promoting their hopper fare
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 18, 2018 14:30:18 GMT
278 going ahead at 15/20 min frequency. Possibly the only novel route to come out of it. Looking forward to seeing that start. Like others though, I am sceptical of the Heathrow changes, and of the 427's pruning. Took a while writing my proposal for the 223 turning it into a circular route with the H17, checking the running times and such. No doubt a waste of time. I wonder whether most responders just responded to their own particular route changes, and marked the others as 'no comment/neither for/against', that would explain the large number of people seeming ambivalent. The idea of a circular route sounds great, but there has been word going around that TFL aren’t too keen on circular route services. And as for the 223’s cutback (which I too am strongly against 😤) where will it stand at Northwick Park Hospital? Will it share the stands with the H14 or with the 186, or will the route have a new stand to itself? It's certainly a much better idea than cutting it but it's not my preferred choice. I'd of extended the 395 to Northwick Park Hospital to provide a far more direct link from South Harrow and allow the 223 to stand in the 395's place.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 18, 2018 15:07:27 GMT
The idea of a circular route sounds great, but there has been word going around that TFL aren’t too keen on circular route services. And as for the 223’s cutback (which I too am strongly against 😤) where will it stand at Northwick Park Hospital? Will it share the stands with the H14 or with the 186, or will the route have a new stand to itself? It's certainly a much better idea than cutting it but it's not my preferred choice. I'd of extended the 395 to Northwick Park Hospital to provide a far more direct link from South Harrow and allow the 223 to stand in the 395's place. My prefered option would be to not introduce the X140. But otherwise, this would be the best solution. I would also route the 395 via the back of the hospital, as I don't think this section is used enough to need a DD service of higher frequency. With the 186 terminating with the H14.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Aug 19, 2018 20:17:43 GMT
For a number years in the noughties I used to travel from work on the 140 from Harrow Weald to Hayes Grapes. Even back then it was a killer journey and I’d often fall asleep along the way. I can’t imagine how long that journey would take today. I would have loved an x140 back then! I think it’s a great idea and could do something similar to the 607. I would have gone a step further and sent the x140 down the Hayes By-Pass straight into Heathrow, but to miss out Hayes and Harlington station would create uproar 😂
I think West London has done best out of the 3 areas. Useful new links will be created in Ruislip, Acton and eventually Ealing. West London also gains an all day express route. When was the last time TfL created one of those?
The one change that I strongly disagree with is the 427 diversion. I think the diversion is useful and needed, but the part I disagree with is the 207 being alone between Southall and Shepherds Bush with no frequency increase. Not sure what TfL are smoking, but they probably know something I don’t. I guess much of the magical new revenue they expect Crossrail to bring is from hoards of West Londoners choosing to use Hayes, Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing and Acton Main Line stations and demand to drop on the 207 in relation to that. With those cuts, I wouldn’t like to be traveling between Southall and Acton by bus during peak hours.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 19, 2018 20:33:40 GMT
I think West London has done best out of the 3 areas. Useful new links will be created in Ruislip, Acton and eventually Ealing. West London also gains an all day express route. When was the last time TfL created one of those? It's undoubtedly done best out of the three areas:I'd almost speculate on the home addresses of some of the people proposing the changes! Imo it's also done best out of Crossrail, including a lot of people beyond the Greater London boundary. As I've expressed on another forum over the years, I think TfL will live to regret the extension to Reading. It's those passengers that'll get all the publicity whinging about insufficient or slow services when they should never be the target audience. Yes, a tiny area of S.E. London will benefit from Crossrail, and I suspect some will be starting journeys 'the wrong way' in order to access Woolwich, in particular, due to the gross inadequacies of other rail routes in the area.
|
|