|
Post by thesquirrels on Jul 9, 2017 21:11:58 GMT
A few thoughts having had time to digest it all. 140/X140/278 All seems reasonable to me, useful link to Ruislip although the X140 should continue to Harrow & Wealdstone to maintain the Heathrow connection to the WCML. A night service on the 278 would be difficult to justify if the current N140 continues unaltered. 218/266/306 I can understand the lengthy 266 being curtailed but the 218 is a ridiculously short route. A brainwave I had was to extend the 270, which is fairly short in its current form, as per the 220 to Hammersmith then over the current 266 route to Acton High Street using the former route 70 stand. This assists the 220 on the busy Hammersmith to Putney section and gives Acton a useful link into south west London. The 306 can then do Sands End to North Acton and possibly on to Central Middlesex Hospital? Acton Vale is a ridiculous place to terminate it. The remaining bit of the 391 could possibly be merged with another route? The H37 would have been ideal but obviously the frequencies don't match up. Presumably the N266 will continue to Hammersmith? 427 Reductions on parallel bus services are inevitable when new rail links open, I'd have rather kept it to Ealing Broadway or at least Ealing Hospital. 440 I agree with that and as previously mentioned an extension to Wembley would be useful. 95/112/E5/H32 These all seem good although I'd suggest the 95 should be double decked. 223 I think this is outrageous, has a section of route ever been proposed for withdrawl before purely so another route can use the stand space? Extending the X140 to H&W would solve the problem anyway. Your 270 proposal would cause it to be unreliable - just because a route is short does not mean it has to be extended. The 218 does have some potential to be extended elsewhere in the future but the 270 should be left alone personally. The N266 will run as per the current 266 so from Hammersmith to Brent Cross Shopping Centre. I agree with you on the other changes apart from the 112 which is the worst candidate of any Ealing route to extend due to the A406 which absolutely cripples it's reliability. There are far better choices for an extension to Osterley such as the E9 which would create new links but also does not come with a massive headache like the A406. Agreed re. the 112, the extension puts it up there with fellow NCR route 232 in terms of length potential for service problems - it will be especially prone to disruption if the A4/M4 goes down. If the A40 goes to pieces the de facto alternative is the A4, so the 112 will now have to deal with both, as well as the A406 linking the two. That said, after an awful period for the 232 Metroline seem to have just about nailed it - highways works at Clockhouse and Henly's Corner have definitely helped. Neasden and Wood Green are still problem spots, though. That said, I think the 112/232 would give the Piccadilly Line a good run for its money on a clear evening with a tight connection at Brent Cross. South Ealing to Arnos Grove, anyone game?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 9, 2017 21:44:41 GMT
Another possible idea would be to operate the 218 from North Acton to Sands End (the 391 is currently every 15 mins with SD so every 12 with SD should still cope) and extend the 209 from Hammersmith to Acton Vale or Acton high Street to create new links. Alternatively if Hammersmith Bridge ever gets sorted then DD the 218 (running as planned N Acton to Hammersmith) and extend it to Mortlake to remove the very high freq SD 209 with a more moderate 10 mins DD serving and axe the 306 and re extend the 391 to Sands End.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 9, 2017 22:12:27 GMT
Another possible idea would be to operate the 218 from North Acton to Sands End (the 391 is currently every 15 mins with SD so every 12 with SD should still cope) and extend the 209 from Hammersmith to Acton Vale or Acton high Street to create new links. Alternatively if Hammersmith Bridge ever gets sorted then DD the 218 (running as planned N Acton to Hammersmith) and extend it to Mortlake to remove the very high freq SD 209 with a more moderate 10 mins DD serving and axe the 306 and re extend the 391 to Sands End. Or just have the 218 run between Central Middlesex Hospital and Sands End via the what is the 440 now to Acton, the 266 in it's current form to Hammersmith and the 391 in it's current form to Sands End. Using double decks because no way single decks can handle the routing between Acton and Sands End especially when the District Line is down (which is often). Plus the 266 really struggles during peaks between Acton and Hammersmith. This routing will still link Acton with Central Middlesex and creates new links between Acton and Fulham.
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jul 10, 2017 9:40:01 GMT
I'm filling in the consultation, and route H98 is included in the 'how often do you use these routes' section. Am I missing a change to this route that is going to happen soon?
|
|
|
Post by ben on Jul 10, 2017 10:05:39 GMT
Nothing afair? Its probably just because between Hayes Angel and Harlington Corner it'll be paralleled by the new route 278
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 10, 2017 10:53:39 GMT
A few thoughts having had time to digest it all. 140/X140/278 All seems reasonable to me, useful link to Ruislip although the X140 should continue to Harrow & Wealdstone to maintain the Heathrow connection to the WCML. A night service on the 278 would be difficult to justify if the current N140 continues unaltered. 218/266/306 I can understand the lengthy 266 being curtailed but the 218 is a ridiculously short route. A brainwave I had was to extend the 270, which is fairly short in its current form, as per the 220 to Hammersmith then over the current 266 route to Acton High Street using the former route 70 stand. This assists the 220 on the busy Hammersmith to Putney section and gives Acton a useful link into south west London. The 306 can then do Sands End to North Acton and possibly on to Central Middlesex Hospital? Acton Vale is a ridiculous place to terminate it. The remaining bit of the 391 could possibly be merged with another route? The H37 would have been ideal but obviously the frequencies don't match up. Presumably the N266 will continue to Hammersmith? 427 Reductions on parallel bus services are inevitable when new rail links open, I'd have rather kept it to Ealing Broadway or at least Ealing Hospital. 440 I agree with that and as previously mentioned an extension to Wembley would be useful. 95/112/E5/H32 These all seem good although I'd suggest the 95 should be double decked. 223 I think this is outrageous, has a section of route ever been proposed for withdrawl before purely so another route can use the stand space? Extending the X140 to H&W would solve the problem anyway. Your 270 proposal would cause it to be unreliable - just because a route is short does not mean it has to be extended. The 218 does have some potential to be extended elsewhere in the future but the 270 should be left alone personally. The N266 will run as per the current 266 so from Hammersmith to Brent Cross Shopping Centre. I agree with you on the other changes apart from the 112 which is the worst candidate of any Ealing route to extend due to the A406 which absolutely cripples it's reliability. There are far better choices for an extension to Osterley such as the E9 which would create new links but also does not come with a massive headache like the A406.
The end to end running time for the 270 would only be in the region of one hour twenty minutes so I don't see that being a problem but I do agree that the E9 would probably be a better option for the Osterley extension.
|
|
|
Post by iranair747 on Jul 10, 2017 17:20:59 GMT
I don't like the 112 proposal at all, that change will lead it to more traffic along the A4 and reduce reliability throughout on an already congested corridor
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 10, 2017 19:04:03 GMT
Not sure if it's been updated or Wether I just didn't see it but it says the X140 will run every 12 mins and every 15 on Sundays. That's quite frequent for an X Route.
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Jul 10, 2017 20:27:05 GMT
Having had more of a read through these proposals, here's a few of my thoughts:
112: As others have said, It'd become dreadfully unreliable and I would imagine a real knightmare to operate. Due to the A406, I'd leave it as it is and extend somthing else, namely either the E1 or E9.
427: Still think it's a bad idea to chop it that much and with a frequency decrease, TfL say there will be less demand, it may just be me but surely they are contradicting themselves, in that there would be more demand required along the Uxbridge Rd to get passengers to/from Stations such as Southall, Hanwell, Ealing etc
H32: Sounds like an intresting proposal once the Southall Waterside development is completed, I'll be intrested to see what they do with the road layout along Pump Lane though.
E10: A very busy route which I believe has deserved bigger buses for a long time, presumably the stand at Islip Manor would have to be remodelled to allow bigger vehicles to turn.
X140: Excellent idea, Can see the route benefitting a lot of folk in the Harrow, Northolt & Yeading areas. I mentioned an limited stop 140 on a thread a while ago, The 2 changes I'd possibly make are to extend it to Harrow & Wealdstone (as others have mentioned) and to have it run via the M4 spur and via Shepiston Lane ommiting Harlington Corner and the 'Freeflow Heathrow' scheme.
140: Disagree with cutting it at Hayes, it'd cause a lot of inconvenience to passengers along this busy route who require not only the Airport but other stops along the route not served by the X140. The majority of people travelling to/from the Airport will just want to get there, as they will be heading to/from work so time will be at a premium or those with luggage, the last thing these will want to be doing is lugging all that off one bus and onto another at a busy stop, such as Hayes Station.
278: I like the sound of this route, however, as I disagree with the 140 proposal, I'd personally extend the H98 instead. Along the Uxbridge Rd, I'd divert it up Angel Lane/Morgan's Lane so serve it's current terminus along Kingsway and along the West Drayton Rd back along the Uxbridge Rd and via the proposed 278 route to Ruislip. That way the H98 would finally get it's double decker allocation, Only thing is Long Lane during the rush hour can be a right mare, can often take up to 45 min to get from the Uxbridge Rd to the Master Brewer juction on a bad day.
223: Seems a waste to cut it at Northwick Park just to make space for the X140, don't use it that often, but could be extended to Rayners Lane or North Harow to keep the Harrow connection?
I suppose Crossrail's selling point is that East/West gets easier access to the West End and the Canary Wharf areas, all these bus route changes are designed to get passengers to the nearest Crossrail Station. However it might just be me but, if for example I lived a stones throw from Hillingson station, I wouldn't spend 30-40min on a 278 bus getting to Hayes for another 34min Crossrail journey to Canary Wharf, when a 40min tube journey on the Met/Jubilee lines would get me almost half way to Canary Wharf by the time I've alighted from the 278 bus.
I might be looking at it in the wrong way, but that's my take on it!
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 10, 2017 21:53:41 GMT
Having had more of a read through these proposals, here's a few of my thoughts: 112: As others have said, It'd become dreadfully unreliable and I would imagine a real knightmare to operate. Due to the A406, I'd leave it as it is and extend somthing else, namely either the E1 or E9. 427: Still think it's a bad idea to chop it that much and with a frequency decrease, TfL say there will be less demand, it may just be me but surely they are contradicting themselves, in that there would be more demand required along the Uxbridge Rd to get passengers to/from Stations such as Southall, Hanwell, Ealing etc H32: Sounds like an intresting proposal once the Southall Waterside development is completed, I'll be intrested to see what they do with the road layout along Pump Lane though. E10: A very busy route which I believe has deserved bigger buses for a long time, presumably the stand at Islip Manor would have to be remodelled to allow bigger vehicles to turn. X140: Excellent idea, Can see the route benefitting a lot of folk in the Harrow, Northolt & Yeading areas. I mentioned an limited stop 140 on a thread a while ago, The 2 changes I'd possibly make are to extend it to Harrow & Wealdstone (as others have mentioned) and to have it run via the M4 spur and via Shepiston Lane ommiting Harlington Corner and the 'Freeflow Heathrow' scheme. 140: Disagree with cutting it at Hayes, it'd cause a lot of inconvenience to passengers along this busy route who require not only the Airport but other stops along the route not served by the X140. The majority of people travelling to/from the Airport will just want to get there, as they will be heading to/from work so time will be at a premium or those with luggage, the last thing these will want to be doing is lugging all that off one bus and onto another at a busy stop, such as Hayes Station. 278: I like the sound of this route, however, as I disagree with the 140 proposal, I'd personally extend the H98 instead. Along the Uxbridge Rd, I'd divert it up Angel Lane/Morgan's Lane so serve it's current terminus along Kingsway and along the West Drayton Rd back along the Uxbridge Rd and via the proposed 278 route to Ruislip. That way the H98 would finally get it's double decker allocation, Only thing is Long Lane during the rush hour can be a right mare, can often take up to 45 min to get from the Uxbridge Rd to the Master Brewer juction on a bad day. 223: Seems a waste to cut it at Northwick Park just to make space for the X140, don't use it that often, but could be extended to Rayners Lane or North Harow to keep the Harrow connection? I suppose Crossrail's selling point is that East/West gets easier access to the West End and the Canary Wharf areas, all these bus route changes are designed to get passengers to the nearest Crossrail Station. However it might just be me but, if for example I lived a stones throw from Hillingson station, I wouldn't spend 30-40min on a 278 bus getting to Hayes for another 34min Crossrail journey to Canary Wharf, when a 40min tube journey on the Met/Jubilee lines would get me almost half way to Canary Wharf by the time I've alighted from the 278 bus. I might be looking at it in the wrong way, but that's my take on it! I agree and I can't imagine people will be embarking on long bus journeys to get to Crossrail rather than use the nearest station.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Jul 10, 2017 22:18:48 GMT
The purposes of the 278 seem to be threefold - provide a replacement between Hayes and Heathrow Central for an all stops 140, and satisfy two local authority aspirations - a service along Long Lane, and a direct Heathrow bus from somewhere other than Uxbridge. Very few people will use it end to end, but along its length it will provide many overlapping local journeys. Hopefully a bit of bus priority along Long lane will reduce journey times; I understand it used to be one of those 3-lane urban highways in parts once?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 10, 2017 23:00:58 GMT
I am still working my way through this lot of proposals but the 112 seems to be superficially good until you consider the traffic conditions that can and do occur all too frequently. I'd extend the E1, at its planned reduced frequency, down there. It provides cross Ealing links, frees up stand space at EB and should be less exposed to traffic conditions. I also don't understand the quoted stand issues as a check on Streetview shows a multi vehicle TfL stand on the link road adjacent to Tescos. Buses could also run up past Sky, and subject to agreement, turn at a large roundabout shown under construction on Streetview, just past the Sky shuttle bus stand. OK there wouldn't be a common stop with the H28 but that's hardly a crisis is it?
Views on the rest when I've thought some more.
Also worth noting that the U5's AM peak enhancement kicks in this September which rather suggests someone, somewhere got their calculations wrong or demand has gone bananas since the double deck conversion.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 10, 2017 23:13:31 GMT
Having had more of a read through these proposals, here's a few of my thoughts: 427: Still think it's a bad idea to chop it that much and with a frequency decrease, TfL say there will be less demand, it may just be me but surely they are contradicting themselves, in that there would be more demand required along the Uxbridge Rd to get passengers to/from Stations such as Southall, Hanwell, Ealing etc X140: Excellent idea, Can see the route benefitting a lot of folk in the Harrow, Northolt & Yeading areas. I mentioned an limited stop 140 on a thread a while ago, The 2 changes I'd possibly make are to extend it to Harrow & Wealdstone (as others have mentioned) and to have it run via the M4 spur and via Shepiston Lane ommiting Harlington Corner and the 'Freeflow Heathrow' scheme. 140: Disagree with cutting it at Hayes, it'd cause a lot of inconvenience to passengers along this busy route who require not only the Airport but other stops along the route not served by the X140. The majority of people travelling to/from the Airport will just want to get there, as they will be heading to/from work so time will be at a premium or those with luggage, the last thing these will want to be doing is lugging all that off one bus and onto another at a busy stop, such as Hayes Station. 223: Seems a waste to cut it at Northwick Park just to make space for the X140, don't use it that often, but could be extended to Rayners Lane or North Harow to keep the Harrow connection? I suppose Crossrail's selling point is that East/West gets easier access to the West End and the Canary Wharf areas, all these bus route changes are designed to get passengers to the nearest Crossrail Station. However it might just be me but, if for example I lived a stones throw from Hillingson station, I wouldn't spend 30-40min on a 278 bus getting to Hayes for another 34min Crossrail journey to Canary Wharf, when a 40min tube journey on the Met/Jubilee lines would get me almost half way to Canary Wharf by the time I've alighted from the 278 bus. I might be looking at it in the wrong way, but that's my take on it! TfL's logic seems to be that E-W jnys transfer to Crossrail and access is via enhanced N-S routes reaching stations. Problem with that is that the Crossrail service pattern is skip stop in West London rather than all stations. Therefore travel between adjacent stns is impossible without going *two* stops and travelling back on yourself. How they reconcile this stopping pattern with "reduced demand on the Uxbridge Road" I know not. Most Crossrail stations are away from the main Uxbridge Road "drag" and there is a vast amount of housing and retail on or near that corridor. I think the 427 decision is ludicrous. Still not sure about this 140/X140 thing. The impact in Harrow town centre is undesirable given the effect on the 223. I agree that a short extension beyond Harrow Town Centre might help matters. The only people who have "overbussed" Harrow - Northwick Park is TfL. The buses don't turn up out of nowhere of their own volition. I just wish they'd tell the truth that it is stand space that's the issue. Even if they extended the X140 to H&W is there stand space there? I'm not sure there is. Like you I am not convinced about the impact of cross Hayes traffic of turning the 140 there and assuming people are on the X140, jumping on Crossrail or waiting for a 278. Part of the attractiveness of the 140 is that it is a long yet high frequency service. Anyone else would be turning this into a bigger success story. TfL, though, break out their hammers and start smashing it to bits. I can't conceive why you'd do this. No commercial operator would - look at all the highly successful longer urban routes there are run by the stand out commercial bus companies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 6:59:50 GMT
TfL have an opportunity to revise some of these plans , and I hope they do this time through listening to the consultation responses. The west side stations aren't opening until 2019 earliest , so I'd imagine things will remain as they are at the moment for almost two more years.
|
|
|
Post by Lewis J.N. on Jul 12, 2017 9:33:22 GMT
TfL's logic seems to be that E-W jnys transfer to Crossrail and access is via enhanced N-S routes reaching stations. Problem with that is that the Crossrail service pattern is skip stop in West London rather than all stations. Therefore travel between adjacent stns is impossible without going *two* stops and travelling back on yourself. How they reconcile this stopping pattern with "reduced demand on the Uxbridge Road" I know not. Most Crossrail stations are away from the main Uxbridge Road "drag" and there is a vast amount of housing and retail on or near that corridor. I think the 427 decision is ludicrous. Still not sure about this 140/X140 thing. The impact in Harrow town centre is undesirable given the effect on the 223. I agree that a short extension beyond Harrow Town Centre might help matters. The only people who have "overbussed" Harrow - Northwick Park is TfL. The buses don't turn up out of nowhere of their own volition. I just wish they'd tell the truth that it is stand space that's the issue. Even if they extended the X140 to H&W is there stand space there? I'm not sure there is. Like you I am not convinced about the impact of cross Hayes traffic of turning the 140 there and assuming people are on the X140, jumping on Crossrail or waiting for a 278. Part of the attractiveness of the 140 is that it is a long yet high frequency service. Anyone else would be turning this into a bigger success story. TfL, though, break out their hammers and start smashing it to bits. I can't conceive why you'd do this. No commercial operator would - look at all the highly successful longer urban routes there are run by the stand out commercial bus companies. I couldn't agree with you more - as a regular user of the 140 I've been of the opinion that an express variant has been needed for a while, but not at the expense of the original route. The 140 is a ridiculously busy route, you can pretty much guarantee a relatively full bus at any time of day (most obviously peaks and Saturday/Sunday mid-afternoons) and no kind of frequency increase alongside the X140 probably won't help this. TFL have been insistent to not spend any more money on the 140 by not giving it the frequency increase that it really needs but are now not really solving the issue by spending more money! I would personally increase the frequency of the 140 but leave the route as it is - have the X140 running parallel (in fact as 140s stand in Harrow Weald garage itself they leave the main on-road stand there free). Travelling to Heathrow on the 140 before wasn't particularly pleasant because of the ageing VPs (egg my house if you must but I'm a new-bus bod ) but with the new VWHs the route presents a very attractive option to cross West London, if a little time-consuming. Might I add though: the 105 is longer and has to deal with Southall traffic but they're not cutting that! The other option to the outcome of this change is that the X140 takes all the 140 passengers, 607-style, and renders the 140 a pointless stub-route. I'd be curious to the result. What would be VERY nice would be if the X140 could divert Harrow-South Harrow via a certain school with near-enough 1500 students to help alleviate that stress because that can be fairly mental.
|
|