|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 7, 2018 7:13:35 GMT
I thought the 27 couldn't use them because of roads around Paddington.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 7, 2018 7:30:39 GMT
I thought the 27 couldn't use them because of roads around Paddington. I think that might be a myth?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 7, 2018 8:34:07 GMT
Not sure, as I would have thought the 27 would have been an ideal route for them in TFL's eyes. Might explain why the 7, 23 and 36 were not converted either.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 7, 2018 9:41:02 GMT
Not sure, as I would have thought the 27 would have been an ideal route for them in TFL's eyes. Might explain why the 7, 23 and 36 were not converted either. There are restrictions elsewhere on those routes west of Paddington.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 8, 2018 6:33:18 GMT
I thought the 27 couldn't use them because of roads around Paddington. I think I heard the 205 route has been successfully tested for LTs. The issue could be west of Paddington, towards Bayswater?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 8, 2018 8:19:41 GMT
The 7, 23 (and 159 at the time) I think was the turns around Sussex Gardens/Norfolk Place.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jul 8, 2018 11:56:37 GMT
The 7, 23 (and 159 at the time) I think was the turns around Sussex Gardens/Norfolk Place. The situation there in the evenings is diabolical for bus operation, let alone LTs. When I was last there in the evening in May, there was a stand-off between my eastbound 36 and a westbound 27 that swung round into Praed Street and proceeded for 20/30 yards or so before meeting the 36 virtually head-on. The south side of Praed Street was totally occupied by parked cars, the 36 driver was determined not to encroach one inch onto the pavement and eventually the (very professional) 27 driver inched his way past our stationary bus without touching one of the cars. This must have taken a good five minutes and at least didn't result in a fight or bad words between the drivers, unlike with a 7 and 27 decades ago which I witnessed and fisticuffs were employed! (the conductors joined in too for good measure)
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 8, 2018 12:30:15 GMT
The 7, 23 (and 159 at the time) I think was the turns around Sussex Gardens/Norfolk Place. The situation there in the evenings is diabolical for bus operation, let alone LTs. When I was last there in the evening in May, there was a stand-off between my eastbound 36 and a westbound 27 that swung round into Praed Street and proceeded for 20/30 yards or so before meeting the 36 virtually head-on. The south side of Praed Street was totally occupied by parked cars, the 36 driver was determined not to encroach one inch onto the pavement and eventually the (very professional) 27 driver inched his way past our stationary bus without touching one of the cars. This must have taken a good five minutes and at least didn't result in a fight or bad words between the drivers, unlike with a 7 and 27 decades ago which I witnessed and fisticuffs were employed! (the conductors joined in too for good measure) The FOI request (which dates back to 2014) gave 'Multiple residents parking bays on section of route between Westbourne Terrace and North Pole would require shortening or removing' as the reason for the 7 and 23 failing the route test. I wonder if there's any worth in someone doing a similar request now - things must have developed since 2014, with other routes being considered as vehicles become spare.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 8, 2018 15:18:29 GMT
Could make sense for the 23 if joined with the 10 to make it LT safe.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 8, 2018 15:46:30 GMT
Could make sense for the 23 if joined with the 10 to make it LT safe. Would it? When TfL was trying to merge the 10 and 23 they were remove the LTs from the route.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2018 15:55:32 GMT
Could make sense for the 23 if joined with the 10 to make it LT safe. Would it? When TfL was trying to merge the 10 and 23 they were remove the LTs from the route. I think they were simply removing both routes from Oxford Street rather than LT’s being the reason.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 8, 2018 15:58:56 GMT
Would it? When TfL was trying to merge the 10 and 23 they were remove the LTs from the route. I think they were simply removing both routes from Oxford Street rather than LT’s being the reason. But weren’t they also removing the LTs because they wouldn’t get round the Paddington to Ladbroke Grove section of the 10/23 combo?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 8, 2018 18:22:40 GMT
Whilst I would guess the new 218 would have used the stand the 266 currently does being a straight replacement since there is no space for the 27 in the bus station I wonder where the 391 would stand if it get cut to Hammersmith.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 9, 2018 15:52:50 GMT
Whilst I would guess the new 218 would have used the stand the 266 currently does being a straight replacement since there is no space for the 27 in the bus station I wonder where the 391 would stand if it get cut to Hammersmith. The 218 and 391 will probably share the 266's stand space as they both have or will have lower frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 9, 2018 15:55:15 GMT
I'm intrigued to know the Richmond changes as they mention the 391. Ironic that both the 27 and 391 could be facing changes since the 391 replaced part of the 27 and now will be supporting the withdrawal of the 27 to Hammersmith.
I can imagine the Richmond changes are that more routes will terminate at the bus station (likely saving the amount of routes running to Manor Circus to turn/stand). It's been rumoured the 493 is being cut to the bus station with maybe the H37. To create space the H22 and 419 may be joined.
|
|