Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018 17:33:44 GMT
Will the 140 receive a frequency decrease alongside the launch of the X140? Yes, down to every 8 MF peaks. I believe the expected X140 frequency has dropped too...
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 4, 2018 17:40:55 GMT
Will the 140 receive a frequency decrease alongside the launch of the X140? Yes, down to every 8 MF peaks. I believe the expected X140 frequency has dropped too... What was that about "improving buses in Outer London"? I could have sworn a London deputy mayor was on the telly talking about this recently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018 17:45:47 GMT
Yes, down to every 8 MF peaks. I believe the expected X140 frequency has dropped too... What was that about "improving buses in Outer London"? I could have sworn a London deputy mayor was on the telly talking about this recently. Couldn't agree more. Whilst I understand why TfL are dropping the 140, a trunk route with such clear passenger behaviour as it has the 140 must run at the same frequency, if not better, alongside the X140.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 4, 2018 18:00:57 GMT
Couldn't agree more. Whilst I understand why TfL are dropping the 140, a trunk route with such clear passenger behaviour as it has the 140 must run at the same frequency, if not better, alongside the X140. Going by the mess they've turned the 25 into I wouldn't be surprised to see them employ that tactic to some other large routes which are starting to need more resources pumped into them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018 22:02:21 GMT
I’m not a fan of the current X140 idea. I would actually keep the 140 as is. You could have an X140 but run it non stop from Heathrow to Yeading via the A312 every 30 mins. Possibly with a couple of extra trips at busy times. And run it all the way through to Harrow Weald.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Dec 4, 2018 22:18:16 GMT
I’m not a fan of the current X140 idea. I would actually keep the 140 as is. You could have an X140 but run it non stop from Heathrow to Yeading via the A312 every 30 mins. Possibly with a couple of extra trips at busy times. And run it all the way through to Harrow Weald. I would probably extend the X140 even further, maybe towards Edgware or even Barnet. I always felt there should be a North London equivalent of the X26
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018 22:39:46 GMT
I’m not a fan of the current X140 idea. I would actually keep the 140 as is. You could have an X140 but run it non stop from Heathrow to Yeading via the A312 every 30 mins. Possibly with a couple of extra trips at busy times. And run it all the way through to Harrow Weald. I would probably extend the X140 even further, maybe towards Edgware or even Barnet. I always felt there should be a North London equivalent of the X26 Perhaps start it at T5, then run it via T4 round to Central, then up to Harrow Weald. I wouldn't go further than that. I would have it at every 12-15mins
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Dec 4, 2018 22:49:55 GMT
I’m not a fan of the current X140 idea. I would actually keep the 140 as is. You could have an X140 but run it non stop from Heathrow to Yeading via the A312 every 30 mins. Possibly with a couple of extra trips at busy times. And run it all the way through to Harrow Weald. Instead of the 140/X140 proposals, I would instead reduce the 140 frequency and cut back to Hayes & Harlington as intended. Then reroute the 90 to Heathrow, continuing links as far as Northolt. And reroute the H98 to Feltham to replace the 90. Allows the 140 to be cut for reliability, without introducing the X140 idea.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Dec 4, 2018 22:52:58 GMT
I’m not a fan of the current X140 idea. I would actually keep the 140 as is. You could have an X140 but run it non stop from Heathrow to Yeading via the A312 every 30 mins. Possibly with a couple of extra trips at busy times. And run it all the way through to Harrow Weald. Instead of the 140/X140 proposals, I would instead reduce the 140 frequency and cut back to Hayes & Harlington as intended. Then reroute the 90 to Heathrow, continuing links as far as Northolt. And reroute the H98 to Feltham to replace the 90. Allows the 140 to be cut for reliability, without introducing the X140 idea. And what about the Hayes to Hounslow link?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 4, 2018 23:53:40 GMT
I’m not a fan of the current X140 idea. I would actually keep the 140 as is. You could have an X140 but run it non stop from Heathrow to Yeading via the A312 every 30 mins. Possibly with a couple of extra trips at busy times. And run it all the way through to Harrow Weald. Instead of the 140/X140 proposals, I would instead reduce the 140 frequency and cut back to Hayes & Harlington as intended. Then reroute the 90 to Heathrow, continuing links as far as Northolt. And reroute the H98 to Feltham to replace the 90. Allows the 140 to be cut for reliability, without introducing the X140 idea. Why on earth would you reduce the frequency on a route that has more than doubled its patronage over the last 18 years? It put on over 1m extra pass jnys in 2016/17 alone. Patronage has gone up every year except one (2006/7) so the 140 is a MASSIVE success story for TfL (and Metroline). It beggars believe that TfL are doing what they are proposing to do to the route. It's insanity IMO. No commercial operator would wreck a route like the 140 in the way TfL are proposing. They might add a genuine express service *over and above* the core stopping service given demand is so strong. I really think TfL are going to get an enormous shock when they get round to introducing their mad 140/X140 idea - the public are going to go mad. The planned service south of Hayes and Harlington, including the 278, is useless. I really would not fiddle with the 90 and H98 in the way you suggest. These are long established and popular links. The 90's patronage has gone up 180% in 18 years with strong consistent growth year by year. The H98 is not quite as good a performer but it remains a busy route - I certainly would not break the Hayes to Hounslow link. Forcing people to change buses on the Bath Road to the 222 or 81 makes no sense given that those two routes are also very busy and have seen huge growth too (140% on the 222 and 192% on the 81).
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Dec 5, 2018 0:30:03 GMT
Will the 140 receive a frequency decrease alongside the launch of the X140? It will as it'll be cut short and these buses will probably be used on the X140, yet there will need to be a few more buses to top it up I know I’m probably alone here but I do think the 140 proposal is a good idea. Extra capacity is definitely needed on that route, and I believe that that route couldn’t be left alone to suffer post-Crossrail. This route has been absolutely bucking the general decline trend and is getting busier year on year on year so something needs to be done to it eventually. Imo the change can be judged to be a success or not on the numbers, like with the 83/483. The 83 (pre 483 split) peaked at 12.6 million journeys a year, and one can infer whether the 83 change can be a success or not if the combined usage of the two split routes are greater than before, which they are, but with a tiny bit of educated estimating. I estimate the combined patronage of the 83 and 483 for 2017/18 to be around 14.1 million had it have been measured under the old method. Therefore there’s more people using the 83/483 in its form now rather than a big 83, so therefore I can infer this change to be a success. If the revised 140/X140 does the same (ie has a combined usage greater than before and relieves the capacity, which I hope it will) then it will have made the change worthwhile imo.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 5, 2018 0:46:24 GMT
It will as it'll be cut short and these buses will probably be used on the X140, yet there will need to be a few more buses to top it up I know I’m probably alone here but I do think the 140 proposal is a good idea. Extra capacity is definitely needed on that route, and I believe that that route couldn’t be left alone to suffer post-Crossrail. This route has been absolutely bucking the general decline trend and is getting busier year on year on year so something needs to be done to it eventually. Imo the change can be judged to be a success or not on the numbers, like with the 83/483. The 83 (pre 483 split) peaked at 12.6 million journeys a year, and one can infer whether the 83 change can be a success or not if the combined usage of the two split routes are greater than before, which they are, but with a tiny bit of educated estimating. I estimate the combined patronage of the 83 and 483 for 2017/18 to be around 14.1 million had it have been measured under the old method. Therefore there’s more people using the 83/483 in its form now rather than a big 83, so therefore I can infer this change to be a success. If the revised 140/X140 does the same (ie has a combined usage greater than before and relieves the capacity, which I hope it will) then it will have made the change worthwhile imo. Actually, I agreed with the 140 proposal but with a slight twist - the X140 should run along The Parkway and double run into Hayes via Pump Lane with the width restriction removed earlier than planned (it was planned to be removed if the H32 ended up extended through the new Southall development) before back onto The Parkway up to the Target Roundabout rather than use the same roads and leave the 140 & 278 to the core section and leave the 140's frequency intact.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 5, 2018 10:53:19 GMT
It will as it'll be cut short and these buses will probably be used on the X140, yet there will need to be a few more buses to top it up I know I’m probably alone here but I do think the 140 proposal is a good idea. Extra capacity is definitely needed on that route, and I believe that that route couldn’t be left alone to suffer post-Crossrail. This route has been absolutely bucking the general decline trend and is getting busier year on year on year so something needs to be done to it eventually. Imo the change can be judged to be a success or not on the numbers, like with the 83/483. The 83 (pre 483 split) peaked at 12.6 million journeys a year, and one can infer whether the 83 change can be a success or not if the combined usage of the two split routes are greater than before, which they are, but with a tiny bit of educated estimating. I estimate the combined patronage of the 83 and 483 for 2017/18 to be around 14.1 million had it have been measured under the old method. Therefore there’s more people using the 83/483 in its form now rather than a big 83, so therefore I can infer this change to be a success. If the revised 140/X140 does the same (ie has a combined usage greater than before and relieves the capacity, which I hope it will) then it will have made the change worthwhile imo. You're easy to please! I should hope that a brand new link between two main areas would generate patronage. The greater worry with the 483 is that it's had a frequency cut since it was launched which suggests to me that it has not met its forecast patronage levels and thus TfL decided it was over resourced. This despite the fact that it inherited a long existing link with high patronage from the 83! I've only used the 483 once on its new section to Harrow but it was not exactly oversubscribed despite being when the schools were kicking out. I'd also ask the question as to how many passengers are now forced to change between the 83 and 483 to complete local journeys and how many have been lost compared to a scenario where the 83 continued unchanged. Of course we don't know what TfL assumed or had modelled because they refuse to tell people. The problem I foresee with the 140 / X140 is that I'd guess (again no info from TfL) that a lot of people making shortish local trips will suffer a lower frequency because the 140 frequency is being cut. Some will gain if their trips perfectly coincide with the X140's stopping pattern *or* they are willing / able to walk a longer distance to reach a X140 stop rather than wait for a 140. I don't see how longer access times to / from stops are an upside unless the X140 is going to run at hyper speed to offset the longer walk time and longer average wait time (given we're told the planned X140 frequency has now been cut). The mess that is access to Heathrow if you are in or around Hayes under the new service arrangement is also a concern. If 140s were empty at Hayes and Harlington, rather than packed full, then I could understand turning them there. However decanting large numbers of people to crush inside X140s or having to wait for a 278 if you want to reach a stop the X140 won't serve is not the way you treat your existing passengers. I think TfL are secretly hoping people will take to Crossrail instead but they'd be mad to do that if they are using PAYG - £6 to go one stop into the airport! I just cannot see a commercial operator acting like TfL are acting with respect to a service like the 140. It's a genuine "jewel in the crown" route that deserves better than it will get under TfL's plans. There is an obvious market for a well run express route across the NW London quadrant but not at the cost of worsening the stopping 140. If you want to see a vision of the future then look at how TfL are "managing" the 207/427/607 corridor!
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 5, 2018 13:49:03 GMT
It will as it'll be cut short and these buses will probably be used on the X140, yet there will need to be a few more buses to top it up I know I’m probably alone here but I do think the 140 proposal is a good idea. Extra capacity is definitely needed on that route, and I believe that that route couldn’t be left alone to suffer post-Crossrail. This route has been absolutely bucking the general decline trend and is getting busier year on year on year so something needs to be done to it eventually. Imo the change can be judged to be a success or not on the numbers, like with the 83/483. The 83 (pre 483 split) peaked at 12.6 million journeys a year, and one can infer whether the 83 change can be a success or not if the combined usage of the two split routes are greater than before, which they are, but with a tiny bit of educated estimating. I estimate the combined patronage of the 83 and 483 for 2017/18 to be around 14.1 million had it have been measured under the old method. Therefore there’s more people using the 83/483 in its form now rather than a big 83, so therefore I can infer this change to be a success. If the revised 140/X140 does the same (ie has a combined usage greater than before and relieves the capacity, which I hope it will) then it will have made the change worthwhile imo. Alternatively to your logic, this subject can also be looked at from a different perspective with regards to the 'success' of ideas such as splitting routes and creating two overlapping ones if you are to analyse each route alone regardless of their overlapping counterparts and vice versa. For instance, although the 83 was a lengthy route at a not too dissimilar frequency to its current one, the addition of the 483 lead to a rise to ~13 BPH along the common section. I can't remember what the BPH figure was for the 83 before the change, but I assume it was slightly lower than it is now. Therefore, patronage is now distributed 'evenly' across two routes which provide slightly more BPH than the 83 did alone, resulting in a less busy 83. The 83 is just an example I highlighted and I'm actually indifferent to TFL's 83/483 idea. However, I completely disagree with TFL's 140/x140 proposal. This is purely based on the fact that the 140 already provides sufficient capacity along its routing to and from Heathrow, there is even scope for a frequency increase to cater for overcrowding. The 140 has been doing a perfect job serving Heathrow so why should it be fiddled with? An express route to compensate is completely unnecessary, although the introduction of the new 278 might be somewhat seen as an alternative it could still be introduced alongside as an additional new route albeit via a different routing to provide new links to and from Heathrow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 14:53:55 GMT
I know I’m probably alone here but I do think the 140 proposal is a good idea. Extra capacity is definitely needed on that route, and I believe that that route couldn’t be left alone to suffer post-Crossrail. This route has been absolutely bucking the general decline trend and is getting busier year on year on year so something needs to be done to it eventually. Imo the change can be judged to be a success or not on the numbers, like with the 83/483. The 83 (pre 483 split) peaked at 12.6 million journeys a year, and one can infer whether the 83 change can be a success or not if the combined usage of the two split routes are greater than before, which they are, but with a tiny bit of educated estimating. I estimate the combined patronage of the 83 and 483 for 2017/18 to be around 14.1 million had it have been measured under the old method. Therefore there’s more people using the 83/483 in its form now rather than a big 83, so therefore I can infer this change to be a success. If the revised 140/X140 does the same (ie has a combined usage greater than before and relieves the capacity, which I hope it will) then it will have made the change worthwhile imo. The problem I foresee with the 140 / X140 is that I'd guess (again no info from TfL) that a lot of people making shortish local trips will suffer a lower frequency because the 140 frequency is being cut. Some will gain if their trips perfectly coincide with the X140's stopping pattern *or* they are willing / able to walk a longer distance to reach a X140 stop rather than wait for a 140. I don't see how longer access times to / from stops are an upside unless the X140 is going to run at hyper speed to offset the longer walk time and longer average wait time (given we're told the planned X140 frequency has now been cut). The mess that is access to Heathrow if you are in or around Hayes under the new service arrangement is also a concern. If 140s were empty at Hayes and Harlington, rather than packed full, then I could understand turning them there. However decanting large numbers of people to crush inside X140s or having to wait for a 278 if you want to reach a stop the X140 won't serve is not the way you treat your existing passengers. I think TfL are secretly hoping people will take to Crossrail instead but they'd be mad to do that if they are using PAYG - £6 to go one stop into the airport! Exactly the problem I foresee. The loading patterns on the route are very clear. Each bus unloads at stations then fills up at the following stops before unloading at the next station.
I live on the 140 route and my local stop is one stop south of South Harrow Station. Between the hours of 0630 and 0830 I cannot board ANY 140s that arrive, with the majority of these people on-board having boarded SINCE Northolt Station. At the next stop at South Harrow Station, about half the bus alight to use the Piccadilly Line. Buses then fill up at the in-between stops in to Harrow, where almost all alight. Now to my continued surprise there are just as many people that then board in Harrow for Wealdstone and The Weald.
Yes, the X140 WILL be great use and will help the 140s overcrowding, especially in the evening peaks south from Harrow, however MOST will not break their habits and wait at further bus stops for the 140 down the line where they almost certainly will not be able to board.
|
|