|
Post by Hassaan on Jun 29, 2019 11:33:18 GMT
The 207 (and other parallel "normal" routes) will struggle too as the passengers who need the intermediate stops will have no other choice. Having been on the 427 a few times recently I really think losing that will cause a lot of issues trying to board other buses in the area. Last Sunday even after 2230 my bus had most seats taken when I boarded at Ealing Broadway towards Southall. It is a shame because that South Road to The Broadway link is also really required and Ealing council have been wanting it since at least 2011 (paragraph 21.45 in the 2011 Borough Bus Review, several other interesting bits in there). I use both the 207 and 427 regularly and I agree that the 427 cut is a nonesense. Both routes are very well used and at peak hours there's no chance the 207 will be able to pick up all the slack. The 207 recently had a frequency cut down from 12bph to 10bph, perhaps this is TfL adressing superfluous capacity on the Uxbridge Road the short term but I really think the frequency cut was nonsenscial and uncalled for. Sadly, I don't think the 207's frequency will increase when the 427 is cut which is a crying shame really. The 607 should also get a frequency increase when the 427 is cut although that is unlikely to happen.
Hassan, I have a question for you. Were you suprised when you found out about the 427 cut? I have to say since the 207 reverted to conventionals I always had a sneaking suspicion there'd be some rationalisation
I was surprised as I was expecting it to still reach Ealing Broadway, or at the very least Ealing Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 29, 2019 11:42:40 GMT
I use both the 207 and 427 regularly and I agree that the 427 cut is a nonesense. Both routes are very well used and at peak hours there's no chance the 207 will be able to pick up all the slack. The 207 recently had a frequency cut down from 12bph to 10bph, perhaps this is TfL adressing superfluous capacity on the Uxbridge Road the short term but I really think the frequency cut was nonsenscial and uncalled for. Sadly, I don't think the 207's frequency will increase when the 427 is cut which is a crying shame really. The 607 should also get a frequency increase when the 427 is cut although that is unlikely to happen.
Hassan, I have a question for you. Were you suprised when you found out about the 427 cut? I have to say since the 207 reverted to conventionals I always had a sneaking suspicion there'd be some rationalisation
I was surprised as I was expecting it to still reach Ealing Broadway, or at the very least Ealing Hospital. Especially with NHS cuts, loosing a key connection to Ealing Hospital will be a blow for many who use the 427 to reach the hospital. I think its sad that the connection to Uxbridge will be lost, of I'm trying to get to Uxbridge and there's a long wait for the 607, I just bail and get the 427. It'll be very sad to see that choice lost and the poor 607 will struggle even more, the route is in desparate need of a frequency increase
|
|
|
Post by busman on Aug 16, 2019 12:16:03 GMT
So the cat is now out of the bag with the awards of the 218 and 278! This raises questions about some of the linked changes to other routes. We’ve seen that the 301 has been introduced in South East London without changes to any existing services, so a cut back of the 140 or 266 can’t be assumed.
Hammersmith: The intro of the 218 without a cutback of the 266 doesn’t make any sense due to the amount of overlap between the two. However the single deck 218 alone between Hammersmith and Acton won’t be sufficient. As the 306 hasn’t been awarded, it seems that the plan is to introduce the 218 alongside the existing 266. Does anyone else think that the 306 should be single deck and the 218 should be decked instead? I’ve seen packed Hammersmith bound 266’s enter Acton High Street and they don’t empty out until the Hammersmith area. Will a single decker cope?
Heathrow: The 140 can be so busy to and from Heathrow, I think its sensible for the 278 to be introduced before the implementation of the 140/X140 change. Similar to the 301, the 278 will create some interesting new direct links and an early roll out will allow passengers to get familiar with the new route ahead of more major changes.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 16, 2019 12:22:46 GMT
So the cat is now out of the bag with the awards of the 218 and 278! This raises questions about some of the linked changes to other routes. We’ve seen that the 301 has been introduced in South East London without changes to any existing services, so a cut back of the 140 or 266 can’t be assumed. Hammersmith: The intro of the 218 without a cutback of the 266 doesn’t make any sense due to the amount of overlap between the two. However the single deck 218 alone between Hammersmith and Acton won’t be sufficient. As the 306 hasn’t been awarded, it seems that the plan is to introduce the 218 alongside the existing 266. Does anyone else think that the 306 should be single deck and the 218 should be decked instead? I’ve seen packed Hammersmith bound 266’s enter Acton High Street and they don’t empty out until the Hammersmith area. Will a single decker cope? Heathrow: The 140 can be so busy to and from Heathrow, I think its sensible for the 278 to be introduced before the implementation of the 140/X140 change. Similar to the 301, the 278 will create some interesting new direct links and an early roll out will allow passengers to get familiar with the new route ahead of more major changes. I think the 306 is spinning off an existing contract so that's why it wasnt awarded. As for the 278, if you give it time to bed in then chances are the new link will prove too popular to allow the 140 to then be cut which TfL probably don't want
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 16, 2019 12:27:10 GMT
So the cat is now out of the bag with the awards of the 218 and 278! This raises questions about some of the linked changes to other routes. We’ve seen that the 301 has been introduced in South East London without changes to any existing services, so a cut back of the 140 or 266 can’t be assumed. Hammersmith: The intro of the 218 without a cutback of the 266 doesn’t make any sense due to the amount of overlap between the two. However the single deck 218 alone between Hammersmith and Acton won’t be sufficient. As the 306 hasn’t been awarded, it seems that the plan is to introduce the 218 alongside the existing 266. Does anyone else think that the 306 should be single deck and the 218 should be decked instead? I’ve seen packed Hammersmith bound 266’s enter Acton High Street and they don’t empty out until the Hammersmith area. Will a single decker cope? Heathrow: The 140 can be so busy to and from Heathrow, I think its sensible for the 278 to be introduced before the implementation of the 140/X140 change. Similar to the 301, the 278 will create some interesting new direct links and an early roll out will allow passengers to get familiar with the new route ahead of more major changes. I think the 306 is spinning off an existing contract so that's why it wasnt awarded. As for the 278, if you give it time to bed in then chances are the new link will prove too popular to allow the 140 to then be cut which TfL probably don't want wonder where 306 will end up V, S or RP.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 16, 2019 12:30:36 GMT
I think the 306 is spinning off an existing contract so that's why it wasnt awarded. As for the 278, if you give it time to bed in then chances are the new link will prove too popular to allow the 140 to then be cut which TfL probably don't want wonder where 306 will end up V, S or RP. I think the 306 will most likely be from V, it will likely be split from the 391 contract. V will have space from the 27 and cut to the 391.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 16, 2019 12:32:04 GMT
So the cat is now out of the bag with the awards of the 218 and 278! This raises questions about some of the linked changes to other routes. We’ve seen that the 301 has been introduced in South East London without changes to any existing services, so a cut back of the 140 or 266 can’t be assumed. Hammersmith: The intro of the 218 without a cutback of the 266 doesn’t make any sense due to the amount of overlap between the two. However the single deck 218 alone between Hammersmith and Acton won’t be sufficient. As the 306 hasn’t been awarded, it seems that the plan is to introduce the 218 alongside the existing 266. Does anyone else think that the 306 should be single deck and the 218 should be decked instead? I’ve seen packed Hammersmith bound 266’s enter Acton High Street and they don’t empty out until the Hammersmith area. Will a single decker cope? Heathrow: The 140 can be so busy to and from Heathrow, I think its sensible for the 278 to be introduced before the implementation of the 140/X140 change. Similar to the 301, the 278 will create some interesting new direct links and an early roll out will allow passengers to get familiar with the new route ahead of more major changes. Regarding the 218 & 306, I think a better solution would be to retain the 440 along its existing West Acton routeing, with the 218 not introduced. The 306 would then extend from Acton Vale to North Acton via the 266.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 16, 2019 12:44:13 GMT
So the cat is now out of the bag with the awards of the 218 and 278! This raises questions about some of the linked changes to other routes. We’ve seen that the 301 has been introduced in South East London without changes to any existing services, so a cut back of the 140 or 266 can’t be assumed. Hammersmith: The intro of the 218 without a cutback of the 266 doesn’t make any sense due to the amount of overlap between the two. However the single deck 218 alone between Hammersmith and Acton won’t be sufficient. As the 306 hasn’t been awarded, it seems that the plan is to introduce the 218 alongside the existing 266. Does anyone else think that the 306 should be single deck and the 218 should be decked instead? I’ve seen packed Hammersmith bound 266’s enter Acton High Street and they don’t empty out until the Hammersmith area. Will a single decker cope? Heathrow: The 140 can be so busy to and from Heathrow, I think its sensible for the 278 to be introduced before the implementation of the 140/X140 change. Similar to the 301, the 278 will create some interesting new direct links and an early roll out will allow passengers to get familiar with the new route ahead of more major changes. Regarding the 218 & 306, I think a better solution would be to retain the 440 along its existing West Acton routeing, with the 218 not introduced. The 306 would then extend from Acton Vale to North Acton via the 266. I agree with you. I also think the 218 would be a better candidate to extend to Wembley as it not only links Acton and Wembley, but also links Hammersmith to Wembley albeit at the expense of a Eest Acton-Wembley link
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Aug 16, 2019 13:12:39 GMT
So the cat is now out of the bag with the awards of the 218 and 278! This raises questions about some of the linked changes to other routes. We’ve seen that the 301 has been introduced in South East London without changes to any existing services, so a cut back of the 140 or 266 can’t be assumed. Hammersmith: The intro of the 218 without a cutback of the 266 doesn’t make any sense due to the amount of overlap between the two. However the single deck 218 alone between Hammersmith and Acton won’t be sufficient. As the 306 hasn’t been awarded, it seems that the plan is to introduce the 218 alongside the existing 266. Does anyone else think that the 306 should be single deck and the 218 should be decked instead? I’ve seen packed Hammersmith bound 266’s enter Acton High Street and they don’t empty out until the Hammersmith area. Will a single decker cope? Heathrow: The 140 can be so busy to and from Heathrow, I think its sensible for the 278 to be introduced before the implementation of the 140/X140 change. Similar to the 301, the 278 will create some interesting new direct links and an early roll out will allow passengers to get familiar with the new route ahead of more major changes. Who is to say these new routes are not being introduced alongside the cutbacks to the other routes?
|
|
|
Post by busman on Aug 16, 2019 13:54:10 GMT
Another point I forgot to mention was the new 427 award. The contract renews with an unconfirmed PVR. I know there is local opposition to diverting the route at Southall without replacement and the change was “under review”. If the 427 diversion does go ahead in April it would be 6-12 months ahead of the Elizabeth Line core opening. It would seem rather odd to divert the 427 at that point, so I wonder if a compromise has been reached. Does anyone know the bidding variations for the 427 tender?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 16, 2019 17:34:35 GMT
I think Ealing Broadway would be a good compromise but stand space is a massive issue. I do think thou the 207/607 would struggle without the 427. They both have their own passengers already. The Uxbridge Road really is like the 25/86/425 combo.
I doubt the 427 could be withdrawn before Crossrail opens so Abellio will possibly have to start the contract on the basis that they get 6 weeks notice as to when the change can go ahead. Not sure though how existing buses for the 278 can be sourced thou from the 427 as there is no concrete date as to the change happening or happening at all.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 16, 2019 17:49:06 GMT
I think Ealing Broadway would be a good compromise but stand space is a massive issue. I do think thou the 207/607 would struggle without the 427. They both have their own passengers already. The Uxbridge Road really is like the 25/86/425 combo. I doubt the 427 could be withdrawn before Crossrail opens so Abellio will possibly have to start the contract on the basis that they get 6 weeks notice as to when the change can go ahead. Not sure though how existing buses for the 278 can be sourced thou from the 427 as there is no concrete date as to the change happening or happening at all. They've cut the 25 before Crossrail opens so they'll do the 427. Not to mention the 427 already has its part of Crossrail running while the 25 didn't at all.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Aug 16, 2019 18:32:17 GMT
I think Ealing Broadway would be a good compromise but stand space is a massive issue. I do think thou the 207/607 would struggle without the 427. They both have their own passengers already. The Uxbridge Road really is like the 25/86/425 combo. I doubt the 427 could be withdrawn before Crossrail opens so Abellio will possibly have to start the contract on the basis that they get 6 weeks notice as to when the change can go ahead. Not sure though how existing buses for the 278 can be sourced thou from the 427 as there is no concrete date as to the change happening or happening at all. They've cut the 25 before Crossrail opens so they'll do the 427. Not to mention the 427 already has its part of Crossrail running while the 25 didn't at all. No form of the Elizabeth Line is running until the core opens. Until then there will be no modal shift into Southall Station. Still it wouldn’t surprise me if the axe did swing prematurely.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 16, 2019 18:55:39 GMT
I think Ealing Broadway would be a good compromise but stand space is a massive issue. I do think thou the 207/607 would struggle without the 427. They both have their own passengers already. The Uxbridge Road really is like the 25/86/425 combo. I doubt the 427 could be withdrawn before Crossrail opens so Abellio will possibly have to start the contract on the basis that they get 6 weeks notice as to when the change can go ahead. Not sure though how existing buses for the 278 can be sourced thou from the 427 as there is no concrete date as to the change happening or happening at all. The 427 cut is set to go ahead prior to Crossrail as Eastlondoner62 says, TfL weren't deterred by the absence of Crossrail when cutting back the 25, and the same logic is taking place now with the Crossrail West London changes going ahead on 7th December.
The purge of the Uxbridge Road corridor continues: The 207 got a cut from 12bph to 10bph on renewal date The 427 has 7.5 bph
The 483 got a cut from 7.5 bph to 6bph not so long ago
That's a total of 12bph slyly removed from the Uxbridge Road. I'm a local, and every bus I see during the AM peaks heading towards Ealing Broadway is carrying standing loads. The 207 is already struggling as a result of its frequency cut with painfully long dwell times, and chronic overcrowding. There isn't enough bus capacity to pick up the slack from the 427, I would love to think the 207 could get a temporary frequency increase until Crossrail opens but I'm a realist and I know that's not going to happen. I feel sorry for passengers who'll be being left behind. Broadly speaking the 427 is well used as a connection to rail services at Ealing Broadway, with huge numbers disembarking at Ealing Broadway, many of whom got on in Hillingdon. I think that potentially the 427 could work as a Crossrail feeder, although I'm sure some 427 passengers would still like a direct link to Ealing Broadway for the Central/District lines rather than having to change twice. I'll get shot for saying this, but as an Ealing resident, I do think that demand will fall on the Uxbridge Road once Crossrail opens, PVR cuts in moderation may have been sensible but the loss of 12bph is ludicrous, and will mean there is insufficient bus capacity along there during the peaks
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 16, 2019 18:59:28 GMT
I think Ealing Broadway would be a good compromise but stand space is a massive issue. I do think thou the 207/607 would struggle without the 427. They both have their own passengers already. The Uxbridge Road really is like the 25/86/425 combo. I doubt the 427 could be withdrawn before Crossrail opens so Abellio will possibly have to start the contract on the basis that they get 6 weeks notice as to when the change can go ahead. Not sure though how existing buses for the 278 can be sourced thou from the 427 as there is no concrete date as to the change happening or happening at all. They've cut the 25 before Crossrail opens so they'll do the 427. Not to mention the 427 already has its part of Crossrail running while the 25 didn't at all. Which form of Crossrail is currently running? Answer: none of it.
TfL Rail already existed Liverpool Street-Shenfield when the 25 was cutback. When the 427 gets cutback, all that'll be running is TfL Rail Heathrow-Paddington. However, as I'm sure you know, TfL Rail is just a temporary facade adopted by TfL since they've taken over the LS-Shenfield and Paddington-Heathrow lines, no significant alterations to frequencies or stopping paterns have been made under TfL Rail
|
|