|
Post by ServerKing on Jul 7, 2017 20:12:20 GMT
I really quite like the 278 proposal, a new and direct link between Ruislip and Heathrow, I personally though would've made the 306 go via the A4 and Gunnersbury Avenue to Ealing Broadway but then again traffic is an issue, shouldn't really be too difficult to install stops along that section though.... Was shocked about the plans for extending the 112 to Osterley 60 capacity buses for the E10.... I predicted this 2 years ago
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Jul 7, 2017 20:22:37 GMT
Only had a quick, brief look at this, the 427 Change is a bad move in my opinion. When the WCML is out for whatever reason, you need all the capacity you can get along the Uxbridge Rd, only last night, I got caught up in a signal failure, every westbound 207, 427 & 607 were heaving! 2 hrs after I boarded a 607 at Ealing Bdy, I reached Uxbridge!
When I got more time, I'll take a thorough look at these proposals.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jul 7, 2017 20:29:34 GMT
With the 140/X140, I rather they cut the Harrow to Harrow Weald end and maintain the Heathrow end. Then have the X140 start from Harrow Weald stopping only at Wealdstone town centre, Harrow and Wealdstone station and station road, Harrow then run as they suggested but then non-stop from Yeading white hart to Heathrow via A312 and M4. I feel X140 would be more useful if it also served Harrow and Wealdstone station for those taking the train down from the north to connect with the X140
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jul 7, 2017 20:34:41 GMT
Only had a quick, brief look at this, the 427 Change is a bad move in my opinion. When the WCML is out for whatever reason, you need all the capacity you can get along the Uxbridge Rd, only last night, I got caught up in a signal failure, every westbound 207, 427 & 607 were heaving! 2 hrs after I boarded a 607 at Ealing Bdy, I reached Uxbridge! When I got more time, I'll take a thorough look at these proposals. mate, unless you have $400 down the back of the couch, it's time to ditch Photobucket and find another Image Hosting site
|
|
|
Post by TNL33036 on Jul 7, 2017 20:43:40 GMT
I really quite like the 278 proposal, a new and direct link between Ruislip and Heathrow, I personally though would've made the 306 go via the A4 and Gunnersbury Avenue to Ealing Broadway but then again traffic is an issue, shouldn't really be too difficult to install stops along that section though.... Was shocked about the plans for extending the 112 to Osterley 60 capacity buses for the E10.... I predicted this 2 years ago Thought DLAs were too old for a new contract? Nevertheless that would make quite a difference to mini E200s on the route In regards to the 112 that's quite an extension, I do wonder if the 112 will convert to DDs in the next contract though....
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 7, 2017 20:56:40 GMT
Only had a quick, brief look at this, the 427 Change is a bad move in my opinion. When the WCML is out for whatever reason, you need all the capacity you can get along the Uxbridge Rd, only last night, I got caught up in a signal failure, every westbound 207, 427 & 607 were heaving! 2 hrs after I boarded a 607 at Ealing Bdy, I reached Uxbridge! When I got more time, I'll take a thorough look at these proposals. Do you mean the GWML? I can't see why the service out of Euston being up the spout would affect the Uxbridge Road corridor. You have, of course, highlighted a long standing and growing weakness in the bus network. TfL are taking out so much resilience that when things do fail or there is a strike people will not be able to get anywhere. At that point brown stuff will hit the fan. I can't wait for the next Tube strike and people finding out how many buses and links have been ripped out of Zone 1.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 7, 2017 21:03:13 GMT
With a reduction from every 7-8 to every 10 mins and loosing probably about 40 of route the PVR of the 427 could drop quite substantially. I have to say of you are at one of the 607 stops or an easy walk to one I can easily see most opting to take the 607 over the 427 from Uxbridge etc to Ealing so the loss of the link won't be too hard on many.
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Jul 7, 2017 21:58:19 GMT
Only had a quick, brief look at this, the 427 Change is a bad move in my opinion. When the WCML is out for whatever reason, you need all the capacity you can get along the Uxbridge Rd, only last night, I got caught up in a signal failure, every westbound 207, 427 & 607 were heaving! 2 hrs after I boarded a 607 at Ealing Bdy, I reached Uxbridge! When I got more time, I'll take a thorough look at these proposals. Do you mean the GWML? I can't see why the service out of Euston being up the spout would affect the Uxbridge Road corridor. You have, of course, highlighted a long standing and growing weakness in the bus network. TfL are taking out so much resilience that when things do fail or there is a strike people will not be able to get anywhere. At that point brown stuff will hit the fan. I can't wait for the next Tube strike and people finding out how many buses and links have been ripped out of Zone 1. Aye, yes I did, it's been a long day!
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Jul 7, 2017 22:06:48 GMT
At one point the number 218 suggested that it would run to Roehampton and would effectively replace the current short workings on the 72. Interesting the 391 is loosing a bus per hour and staying SD. I know the Fulham section is going but surely the high demand for the route that has resulted in calls for a DD conversion was also between Hammersmith and Richmond so I think reducing the frequency to every 15 mins could be a bad move. The 391 is often relatively quiet, starting at Richmond, the section to Manor Circus has multiple bus routes, so won't make any difference here. Manor Circus to Kew Gardens station is along a road with horrible parking, in blunt terms if you can afford a house in this area, probably going to use District or Overground towards Hammersmith. From Kew Gardens to near Chiswick Roundabout competing with high frequency double decks on 65. From Chiswick to Hammersmith there are high frequency routes nearby (and District line) so it tends to get those who don't want to walk to faster parallel alternatives. It is clearly being altered to a low frequency infil route, rather than a trunk route. I am suprised the 94 which had a one year contract extension hasn't been altered considering how it it overlaps many of the changed routes Although not part of this consultation, somebody must have looked at 65 frequency to have extended the 112 by duplicating 65s northern section, I suspect there is a provisional change for the Richmond-Twickenham area which will follow. It makes no sense to continue to have multiple 55 capacity routes running Manor Circus -Richmond-St Margaret's-Twickenham now that the weight limit of Richmond bridge is higher and it can take double decks. An expensive 10 car train scheme with frequency increases is currently being implemented in the area which could cause a similar mode shift. If I have read the final low emissions corridor correctly (Chiswick-Hammersmith-Kensington) then any route via Hammersmith seems to need euroVI buses once it starts, at the moment virtually no routes in Hammersmith use euroVI so clearly there is some fleet thinking going on here. But I haven't yet got my head around what is the hidden agenda behind this first phase of west London changes. Perhaps subsequent night bus changes and links to night tubes rather than current duplicating them might make things clearer. Incidentally I am not convinced the 140 and X140 changes really gain very much. The problem with the Twickenham-Richmond corridor is this: Where do you put the routes? Yes hopper ticket, but it would cause numbers to fall if everyone has to leave the bus at Twickenham and hop onto one double decker. As many have said before, yes there might be a train from Whitton to Richmond, but if it is more convenient to get a bus that takes a bit longer but from the front door, and it's cheaper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 22:07:15 GMT
I will predict the 278 will be won by Abellio (HS) - using buses made spare from 427 frequency reduction
RATP Dev I predict will obtain the 218 (PK) & 306 (V)
Metroline the X140 (HD)
The bus stop panels say the H32 is a 24 hour route daily. Yet the consultation doesn't say anything about a Sun-Thur night operation, so I presume the panels are incorrect. That's a shame as I would have thought it would be viable all week.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jul 7, 2017 22:35:30 GMT
The 391 is often relatively quiet, starting at Richmond, the section to Manor Circus has multiple bus routes, so won't make any difference here. Manor Circus to Kew Gardens station is along a road with horrible parking, in blunt terms if you can afford a house in this area, probably going to use District or Overground towards Hammersmith. From Kew Gardens to near Chiswick Roundabout competing with high frequency double decks on 65. From Chiswick to Hammersmith there are high frequency routes nearby (and District line) so it tends to get those who don't want to walk to faster parallel alternatives. It is clearly being altered to a low frequency infil route, rather than a trunk route. I am suprised the 94 which had a one year contract extension hasn't been altered considering how it it overlaps many of the changed routes Although not part of this consultation, somebody must have looked at 65 frequency to have extended the 112 by duplicating 65s northern section, I suspect there is a provisional change for the Richmond-Twickenham area which will follow. It makes no sense to continue to have multiple 55 capacity routes running Manor Circus -Richmond-St Margaret's-Twickenham now that the weight limit of Richmond bridge is higher and it can take double decks. An expensive 10 car train scheme with frequency increases is currently being implemented in the area which could cause a similar mode shift. If I have read the final low emissions corridor correctly (Chiswick-Hammersmith-Kensington) then any route via Hammersmith seems to need euroVI buses once it starts, at the moment virtually no routes in Hammersmith use euroVI so clearly there is some fleet thinking going on here. But I haven't yet got my head around what is the hidden agenda behind this first phase of west London changes. Perhaps subsequent night bus changes and links to night tubes rather than current duplicating them might make things clearer. Incidentally I am not convinced the 140 and X140 changes really gain very much. The problem with the Twickenham-Richmond corridor is this: Where do you put the routes? Yes hopper ticket, but it would cause numbers to fall if everyone has to leave the bus at Twickenham and hop onto one double decker. As many have said before, yes there might be a train from Whitton to Richmond, but if it is more convenient to get a bus that takes a bit longer but from the front door, and it's cheaper. Whitton to Richmond by train is actually 2 trains every 30 minutes; the standard interval between the peaks is xx20, xx23, xx50, xx53 but if you time it well, the xx20 and xx50 take 7 minutes, while the xx23 and xx53 take 10 minutes. Good luck getting close to that by bus (although in the morning peak things are marginally better, generally gaps of 10 minutes and 20 minutes).
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jul 7, 2017 23:20:03 GMT
Quick glance: I love the 278 idea.
I see my baby 218 has resurfaced. I didn't think it was such a hot idea but with the 306 helping out it shouldn't be too bad. The 266 needed a shave as it is a monstrous route to operate - best of luck to Metroline in a few weeks.
I would like to know what they propose to use for the 112. Looks like a nifty link.
H32 to H&H is a great idea and will mean no need for DDs on the H98. I hope this goes forward.
I hope this is an opportunity to make the 95 DD - especially with the new developpments in White City.
More when I have time.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 7, 2017 23:26:40 GMT
I promise you, I will stop infiltrating into other areas with my views Route 440The changes here seem to make sense in making it a more direct route but providing as many links as it currently does as possible with the 218 filling in the West Acton area. Route 266Although it provides many important links, it makes sense to cut part of it due to it's reliability in serving many heavily traffic filled areas just like the 83 did. Route 218The replacement through West Acton of the 440 and a good idea although it does seem rather short and bar the West Acton section, pretty much duplicates the 266. An extension to Brrok Green or Chiswick Park (stand space permitting) may of given further uniqueness that was also useful. Route 391A cross Hammersmith link removed that was potentially useful and thus has now been relegated to an 'also ran' route that in it's proposed form, looks prone to being withdrawn at some point. Route 306I do like this idea as it takes over the 266's southern section however I think TfL have misunderstood something here as even an every 10 minute single decker route may struggle to bolster an every 12 minutes double deck 306 especially given how bad traffic can be in Hammersmith & Fulham Broadway. As snoggle mentioned, TfL are clearly struggling for stand space as it otherwise seems a very odd place to terminate a bus from the south. Route 112I'm against this extension and also the separate proposal to re-route via Madeley Road simply because the 112's reliability is poor due to the A406's unpredictable traffic conditions and a further extension along the 65 would be a waste especially given the 65 needs assistance of it's own which couldn't be guaranteed by the 112. Madeley Road is also a problem with parked cars not to mention turning right off the A406. There are better candidates to do this extension instead like the E9 for example. Route 427Oh dear, once again TfL falls into the trap of Crossrail replacing bus routes - it really won't. The 427's cut is way too hefty - the rumoured cutback to Ealing Broadway had far more justification than this and it leaves it as some sort of third rate Uxbridge Road route. I'd of been more sympathetic if they extended on from Southall down towards Hounslow - heck even Norwood Green would of brought some new links to the table. One of the worst changes so far proposed Route H32I like this idea a lot as I've always felt the H32 had a bit more to offer once it reached Southall. Hopefully, this Southall Waterside development goes as planned as then this new development has a direct link to Hayes & Harlington as well as the removal of the width restriction on Pump Lane - maybe then, TfL will consider re-routing the X140 via The Parkway Route 95Another idea I like as it makes the 95 a bit quicker in the Lady Margaret Road area although it still has escaped a double decker conversion and this leads to a fear of mine - the new routing for the 95 & E5 are more direct & quicker than the busy 105 which could lead to overcrowded single deckers - now this can't be helped on the E5 which I don't see being as a big an issue anyway but on the 95 - I can see serious problems arising here. Route E5Again, I support this change in conjunction with the 95's above change. Routes 120 & E10I support the frequency increase on the 120 - it's already a busy route and will only get busier once Crossrail arrives. As for the E10, longer single deckers & a frequency increase should be a welcome upgrade providing those narrow parts of the route are ok with it all. Route 140I sadly do support this - in an ideal world where politicians had balls and significantly cut congestion, this route would be fine but I do think a restructure would improve it's reliability. The interesting thing will be stand space at Hayes & Harlington. Route X140If I'm being honest, quite underwhelming. It's great that it runs direct to South Harrow from Harrow and from Bath Road to Heathrow Airport but really, it needed more direct sections than just those two. Seeing as Pump Lane may gain the H32 which would probably lead to the width restriction being removed, the X140 could run via The Parkway, Pump Lane, Hayes & Harlington, and then follow the 195 back to The Parkway and then run along Bath Road. Route 218I think this is a good idea bringing brand new links between Hayes & Harlington and Hillingdon/Ickenham/Ruislip. I think every 12 minutes is a fair refection given that anything more than 10 minutes on the Hillingdon/Ickenham/Ruislip section would be overkill and of course, if it is popular, will probably be increase to every 10 minutes. The U2 also gets some assistance along Long Lane. Route 223A sad consequence of making room for the X140 - if a bit more imagination was used, the 223 could of remained at Harrow and the X140 terminated elsewhere such as at..........Northwick Park Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 7, 2017 23:43:07 GMT
I think that all the proposals should go ahead. When will this Southall Waterside residential development be complete? Unless my eyes are deceiving me but were is the proposals for the E1?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 23:51:03 GMT
112. This will become a nightmare to run. When West London clogs up, it will have the A4 and the A406 to contend with. TfL will save much money on Metroline missing performance here I think.
391. Relegated to a low frequency service is a bit sad, but will be much easier to run. Maybe it could be extended from Richmond to Hampton Court via R68 , with R70 running to Kew Retail Park and withdraw the R68 ?
440. Missed opportunity to send to Wembley. Perhaps in future ? Makes sense to route direct at Chiswick Park.
H32. Nice extension , hope it goes 24/7.
140/x140. Broadly in support, but i would like to know how frequent the x140 will be.
218/266/306. Hope the 218 & 306 get awarded to same operator as the service between Hammersmith and Acton will need to be tightly controlled to ensure even running.
278. A great route idea but would like it to be 24/7.
|
|