|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 19, 2020 13:40:46 GMT
I might be wrong, especially as there isn’t a map of the updated changes, but doesn’t the revised 110 run via the low bridge in St Margarets which would make it unsuitable for deckers? All in all the changes aren’t a surprise and IMHO are quite reasonable in light of the Hammersmith Bridge fiasco and TfLs financial scenario. The H22 extension is good for local residents in the borough of Hounslow, but I was hoping that stand space would be available for a short extension of the 195. Ealing borough patients have been waiting too long for a direct link and the E8 extension via the hospital never materialised. I would have thought consideration would have been given to decking the 490 especially as we will probably still need to socially distance on buses at that time, not to mention the loss of capacity at the Richmond end and usual demands on the current route. Not sure I’d call the changes reasonable - a longer & unreliable 110, unnecessary cut to the busy H37, 493 no longer serving Richmond Station - I accept that finances aren’t good but if we carry ignoring public transport & passengers concerns which are the last to be thought about, people will not bother using it and the poor, young & vulnerable will be left behind as per usual. On a network that makes a loss of £600m a year (or about £100,000 every hour of the daytime service), and that is with normal pre-Covid fares, you have to be realistic. Yes some will find it harder to travel, but it is a lot of money to ask other Londoners to subsidise. You are basically asking every family in London to contribute £150 per year. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 19, 2020 22:53:50 GMT
The H22 extension is good for local residents in the borough of Hounslow, but I was hoping that stand space would be available for a short extension of the 195. Ealing borough patients have been waiting too long for a direct link and the E8 extension via the hospital never materialised. I would have thought consideration would have been given to decking the 490 especially as we will probably still need to socially distance on buses at that time, not to mention the loss of capacity at the Richmond end and usual demands on the current route. Its such a shame we've never had that bus link to West Middlesex Hospital as it would be so useful for those of us in the borough who get referrals there as I have had in the past. Having to change to the 267 with its poor frequency is a pain and even though I like the E8 extension I do think it would be better off terminating at West Mids than Hounslow as that would provide a unique link whilst London Road has the 235 and 237 - which can have frequency increases if needed to cover the loss of the E8. I agree an Ealing area link to West Mid Hospital would be useful. If stand space is available at the hospital, extending the E2 a short distance from Brentford could provide this. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 19, 2020 23:00:04 GMT
I think the revised 110 might run out of V, rather than AV. The existing 110 has a smaller PVR than the 391, plus this combined route could also replace the 306 at V when lost. However, with the route changes not going ahead until December, quite a few routes in the area are up for tender before then, so may affect where space is available.
I think the extended 110 will have a slightly higher PVR than the existing 110/391 combined, with the 110 section being increased in frequency. The new allocation could be the existing YX17 DLEs from the 110 and YX68 DLEs from the 391, plus the 5 68reg DLEs from the 283's PVR cut - these can cover a possible PVR increase as mentioned, as well as replacing the 2 60reg DLEs currently on the 391.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 19, 2020 23:19:14 GMT
Regarding the capacity between Richmond and Twickenham, instead of adding a few extra peak journeys on the 490, I think the 490 should simply be converted to DDs instead, and was a mistake not to convert it earlier on contract renewal. This would also cover the 110 being diverted away from Staines Road.
Separately, following the semi-permanent Hammersmith Bridge changes, I think the 190 should also be DD converted. With the 33 and 419 curtailed at Castelnau, there are fewer routes along the full length of the Hammersmith-Richmond corridor. The 190 is possibly the most direct route along this section too, so increasing capacity could reduce overcrowding due to previous 33/419 passengers using the 190.
Another set of changes could even also be to reduce the routes around West Brompton. The 74 could be re-extended back to Roehampton over the 430, and possibly cut back at the Baker Street end, with duplication to Hyde Park Corner by the 2 & 13 - with the 190 then extended to South Kensington in place of the 430.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 23:37:53 GMT
Regarding the capacity between Richmond and Twickenham, instead of adding a few extra peak journeys on the 490, I think the 490 should simply be converted to DDs instead, and was a mistake not to convert it earlier on contract renewal. This would also cover the 110 being diverted away from Staines Road. Separately, following the semi-permanent Hammersmith Bridge changes, I think the 190 should also be DD converted. With the 33 and 419 curtailed at Castelnau, there are fewer routes along the full length of the Hammersmith-Richmond corridor. The 190 is possibly the most direct route along this section too, so increasing capacity could reduce overcrowding due to previous 33/419 passengers using the 190. Another set of changes could even also be to reduce the routes around West Brompton. The 74 could be re-extended back to Roehampton over the 430, and possibly cut back at the Baker Street end, with duplication to Hyde Park Corner by the 2 & 13 - with the 190 then extended to South Kensington in place of the 430. Totally agree with the double deck option on the 490. I was trying to come up with an alternative regarding the 290 . I think the 290 could be more useful going via Stanies Road. Sixth Cross Road only has two bus stops in each direction. The 481 serves that stretch with useful links to Teddington, Kingston and Whitton (albeit indirectly). Stanies Road is busier than Hampton Road, which has the high frequency 267,281 and R70 into Twickenham. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 20, 2020 7:57:33 GMT
Not sure I’d call the changes reasonable - a longer & unreliable 110, unnecessary cut to the busy H37, 493 no longer serving Richmond Station - I accept that finances aren’t good but if we carry ignoring public transport & passengers concerns which are the last to be thought about, people will not bother using it and the poor, young & vulnerable will be left behind as per usual. On a network that makes a loss of £600m a year (or about £100,000 every hour of the daytime service), and that is with normal pre-Covid fares, you have to be realistic. Yes some will find it harder to travel, but it is a lot of money to ask other Londoners to subsidise. You are basically asking every family in London to contribute £150 per year. Do we know that the proposals will save money? |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 20, 2020 9:08:04 GMT
On a network that makes a loss of £600m a year (or about £100,000 every hour of the daytime service), and that is with normal pre-Covid fares, you have to be realistic. Yes some will find it harder to travel, but it is a lot of money to ask other Londoners to subsidise. You are basically asking every family in London to contribute £150 per year. Do we know that the proposals will save money? What we do know if we don't change anything we will continue losing money |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 20, 2020 11:42:15 GMT
Do we know that the proposals will save money? What we do know if we don't change anything we will continue losing money And you'll lose money when more passengers walk away and use other methods. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jun 20, 2020 13:00:51 GMT
I remember southlondonbus saying that there are plans that the 110 and 111 swapping western ends I.e 110 going to Heathrow and the 111 being curtailed at Hounslow Bus Station. So it could be possible seeing the 110 be running between Heathrow and Hammersmith via current 111 to Hounslow, 110 to Twickenham, Richmond Bridge and the current 391 to Hammersmith. I wonder if that’s still going ahead and I wonder if there will a DD conversion. The 110/111 proposal was a few years back. V have been very unlucky. The 10 was withdrawn, with most of its drivers transferred onto the 391 and 306. Both are now leaving, with a few extra duties on the new extended 110, if it is even run from V. Not the first time in its history, as it was mothballed in the late 90’s after the 27 was lost to Centrewest (X). Neighbours AH and X are again benefiting from V’s misfortunes. I hope a new contract win , or a displaced route as a result of win elsewhere, will revive it’s fortunes. Just a small historical point - the mothballing of V in 1996 was nothing to do with the loss of the 27. The mothballing coincided with the loss of the 190 - a minor loss, but I guess they already had spare garage space and losing the 190 just tipped the balance. The 27 wasn't lost until Nov 2000, by which time V had already reopened to help with the takeup of the 49. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jun 21, 2020 12:26:25 GMT
Do we know that the proposals will save money? What we do know if we don't change anything we will continue losing money I'd much rather fares went up and cuts I've previously suggested such as removal of the Red Arrow Routes, with the C1 extended to Waterloo and many others, they are good starting points that don't revolve around cutting others. Fares should maybe slide up to £1.90 for buses for adults and £0.40 for children which continues to have the hopper. Maybe even removing night tube all together would be a more sustainable option as well as putting all current consultations on hold. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 21, 2020 18:19:05 GMT
What we do know if we don't change anything we will continue losing money I'd much rather fares went up and cuts I've previously suggested such as removal of the Red Arrow Routes, with the C1 extended to Waterloo and many others, they are good starting points that don't revolve around cutting others. Fares should maybe slide up to £1.90 for buses for adults and £0.40 for children which continues to have the hopper. Maybe even removing night tube all together would be a more sustainable option as well as putting all current consultations on hold. Back in the days when we had the RV1 I did think the route was vulnerable to a potential merger with the 507 which I think would have been a sensible way to link London Bridge to Victoria and save TfL some money. When TfL halved the RV1’s frequency it became clear this wouldn’t occur. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 21, 2020 22:55:27 GMT
I'd much rather fares went up and cuts I've previously suggested such as removal of the Red Arrow Routes, with the C1 extended to Waterloo and many others, they are good starting points that don't revolve around cutting others. Fares should maybe slide up to £1.90 for buses for adults and £0.40 for children which continues to have the hopper. Maybe even removing night tube all together would be a more sustainable option as well as putting all current consultations on hold. Back in the days when we had the RV1 I did think the route was vulnerable to a potential merger with the 507 which I think would have been a sensible way to link London Bridge to Victoria and save TfL some money. When TfL halved the RV1’s frequency it became clear this wouldn’t occur. Though it wouldn't affect the RV1 withdrawal, this suggested Victoria-London Bridge could perhaps be achieved by extending route 381 from County Hall to Victoria? This would provide additional capacity on the 507 section by using DDs, while introducing further links from the Millbank area beyond Waterloo. I don't think there are any physical restrictions along the 507 that would prevent it using DDs. Though the 521 is restricted eastbound only by using the Kingsway tunnel - could the 521 be rationalised to go via Aldywch in both directions, allowing DDs to operate for added capacity? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 21, 2020 23:39:10 GMT
Back in the days when we had the RV1 I did think the route was vulnerable to a potential merger with the 507 which I think would have been a sensible way to link London Bridge to Victoria and save TfL some money. When TfL halved the RV1’s frequency it became clear this wouldn’t occur. Though it wouldn't affect the RV1 withdrawal, this suggested Victoria-London Bridge could perhaps be achieved by extending route 381 from County Hall to Victoria? This would provide additional capacity on the 507 section by using DDs, while introducing further links from the Millbank area beyond Waterloo. I don't think there are any physical restrictions along the 507 that would prevent it using DDs. Though the 521 is restricted eastbound only by using the Kingsway tunnel - could the 521 be rationalised to go via Aldywch in both directions, allowing DDs to operate for added capacity? The 507, and in particular, the 521, are commuter routes purposely designed to be as short as possible to get people from two different rail terminals to areas of work - both area also prone to hitting heavy traffic so why make the 381 even longer? The 507 has used double deckers before when the Artics were temporarily withdrawn as a result of a few catching fire but the nature of each route means neither arguably needs them and really, they should of kept their Artics which make much more sense for busy and short shuttle like routes like the 507 & 521. It's way too early to see what the lasting damage is from Covid in terms of patronage. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 21, 2020 23:41:43 GMT
I'd much rather fares went up and cuts I've previously suggested such as removal of the Red Arrow Routes, with the C1 extended to Waterloo and many others, they are good starting points that don't revolve around cutting others. Fares should maybe slide up to £1.90 for buses for adults and £0.40 for children which continues to have the hopper. Maybe even removing night tube all together would be a more sustainable option as well as putting all current consultations on hold. Back in the days when we had the RV1 I did think the route was vulnerable to a potential merger with the 507 which I think would have been a sensible way to link London Bridge to Victoria and save TfL some money. When TfL halved the RV1’s frequency it became clear this wouldn’t occur. The 507 & RV1 were different routes - the RV1 was originally marketed as a tourist route and as a result of the constant works, it exclusively became one unlike the days of the EA class Citaros where the route would be regularly packed during the peaks with commuters. The 507 meanwhile is designed as a commuter route bringing people from two different rail terminals to areas of work. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 22, 2020 11:32:39 GMT
A plea to Andy Byford: make your first act 'bring back maps'. Not only is this an appallingly badly drafted document but it is basically incomprehensible, describing changes that are happening in relation to changes that aren't. Maps have never been easier or cheaper to produce, use them. 'A picture paints a thousand words' might be a cliche but it's fundamentally true.
|
|
