|
|
Post by sid on Oct 30, 2018 17:18:54 GMT
The 493 change just removes a section that only existed for stand space reasons.
I can't help thinking that the 419 number should be used for the merged 110/419 to reduce confusion, surely many people will still expect the 110 to go to Twickenham?
The H22 change reduces over bussing between Twickenham and Richmond although as previously mentioned the 490 could probably do with double deckers?
The H37 reduction shouldn't be a problem with the revised 110/419 serving St Margarets.
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 30, 2018 17:57:45 GMT
Slightly bemused by remarks from TfL that the 493 is a "very long route". Isn't it just the same route as when it started? Another Ken era new route subject to TfL fiddling. The 493 is quite long for a relatively recent route - 85 minutes end to end off peak I think when many are around the hour mark. It has already been tweaked between Tooting and Wimbledon to remove it from some of the congestion through South Wimbledon. I have cause to use it at the Wimbledon end from time to time and it can be pretty unreliable. It can also get surprisingly busy. |
|
|
|
Post by deppy42 on Oct 30, 2018 19:05:29 GMT
The 493 change just removes a section that only existed for stand space reasons. I can't help thinking that the 419 number should be used for the merged 110/419 to reduce confusion, surely many people will still expect the 110 to go to Twickenham? The H22 change reduces over bussing between Twickenham and Richmond although as previously mentioned the 490 could probably do with double deckers? The H37 reduction shouldn't be a problem with the revised 110/419 serving St Margarets. The H37 reduction will be a nightmare!!!! The problem with overcrowding on the route is the section from Old Isleworth to St Margarets, The additional 110 diverted via St Margarets Station will make no difference. The reduction along the route will only make matters worse. Currently during the morning peak passengers are routinely left at stops along the northern section of St Margarets Rd due to overcrowding. There is actually more space on the H37 at St Margarets as commuters exit the bus at St Margarets Station, The very stop the new 110 will commence assisting the H37. At least I am guaranteed a seat! |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 30, 2018 19:19:54 GMT
The 493 change just removes a section that only existed for stand space reasons. I can't help thinking that the 419 number should be used for the merged 110/419 to reduce confusion, surely many people will still expect the 110 to go to Twickenham? The H22 change reduces over bussing between Twickenham and Richmond although as previously mentioned the 490 could probably do with double deckers? The H37 reduction shouldn't be a problem with the revised 110/419 serving St Margarets. The H37 reduction will be a nightmare!!!! The problem with overcrowding on the route is the section from Old Isleworth to St Margarets, The additional 110 diverted via St Margarets Station will make no difference. The reduction along the route will only make matters worse. Currently during the morning peak passengers are routinely left at stops along the northern section of St Margarets Rd due to overcrowding. There is actually more space on the H37 at St Margarets as commuters exit the bus at St Margarets Station, The very stop the new 110 will commence assisting the H37. At least I am guaranteed a seat! Will it? I'm not necessarily doubting you but there are so many 'end of the world' forecasts on here about frequency reductions that rarely come to fruition that it's hard to take them seriously. I'm by no means a regular user of the H37 but the current frequency does seem rather generous, certainly outside of peak hours. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Oct 30, 2018 19:20:41 GMT
The 493 change just removes a section that only existed for stand space reasons. I can't help thinking that the 419 number should be used for the merged 110/419 to reduce confusion, surely many people will still expect the 110 to go to Twickenham? The H22 change reduces over bussing between Twickenham and Richmond although as previously mentioned the 490 could probably do with double deckers? The H37 reduction shouldn't be a problem with the revised 110/419 serving St Margarets. The H37 reduction will be a nightmare!!!! The problem with overcrowding on the route is the section from Old Isleworth to St Margarets, The additional 110 diverted via St Margarets Station will make no difference. The reduction along the route will only make matters worse. Currently during the morning peak passengers are routinely left at stops along the northern section of St Margarets Rd due to overcrowding. There is actually more space on the H37 at St Margarets as commuters exit the bus at St Margarets Station, The very stop the new 110 will commence assisting the H37. At least I am guaranteed a seat! I hope you take part in the consultation and appraise TfL of the situation - it's exactly that sort of detail they need to be made aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Oct 30, 2018 19:30:19 GMT
Aside from the H37 which I think is absolute lunacy, these aren’t too bad. The H37 is absolutely renowned for chronic overcrowding and I hope the ‘assistance’ it’s being given will actually be useful.
I honestly didn’t think these changes would be too bad as I saw in a diagram (just wish I could remember the source) of all the boroughs in London and I seem to recall the Richmond area would be getting a 2% increase in bus capacity? (And Croydon/Sutton something like 10%?) So I do think there are some genuine improvements in this (apart from my H37 reservations) rather than awful cuts just being dressed up as improvements (like the Central London one).
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 30, 2018 19:39:46 GMT
TfL’s slogan is all journeys matter but they remove a link from West Middlesex Hospital. Who’s idea was that?
|
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Oct 30, 2018 19:44:34 GMT
Overall, not bad changes at all although the 110 is being changed for nth time. Yet another volte face by TfL by unravelling the 110 extension to West Middlesex Hospital. How many route change reversals is that now? The rerouting of the 110 towards Richmond is quite clever but it does remove the 110 from serving Twickenham which it has done for a long time. It also places yet more stress and strain on the overloaded 490. Unless they stick deckers on the 490 this looks short sighted to me. I am surprised the R68 wasn't in scope for hacking around but perhaps TfL don't want to overly enrage Kew and Richmond residents? I think the revised 110 will be too long and prone to delays especially on the A316. I guess the 969 will also be killed as a result of these changes as the new 110 will give a service to areas currently a bit far away from other routes. I haven't used the H37 in a long time but I am surprised that TfL wish to cut its frequency every day of the week. Equally I expected the weekend night service to be at risk. To be honest a weekend night 110 on its revised routeing would probably be far more beneficial. Slightly bemused by remarks from TfL that the 493 is a "very long route". Isn't it just the same route as when it started? Another Ken era new route subject to TfL fiddling. Given how much the 110 is being changed, and considering previous restructures of the route, I think the 419 could be a more suitable number. As the entire existing 419 routeing is retained, and is simply extended from Richmond. While the 110 will be rerouted around Whitton, cut back from West Middlesex, then extended to Richmond, then along the 419 line of route. Converting the 490 to DD would definitely be a good idea, and is up for tender vert soon. Also, reliability on the revised 110 could perhaps be improved by swapping routeing with either the 209 or 190? I hope TfL have sense and award the 490 with double deckers for its next contract. The route will really need the capacity now the H22 is being rerouted. |
|
|
|
Post by 15002 on Oct 30, 2018 19:45:32 GMT
Aside from the H37 which I think is absolute lunacy, these aren’t too bad. The H37 is absolutely renowned for chronic overcrowding and I hope the ‘assistance’ it’s being given will actually be useful. I honestly didn’t think these changes would be too bad as I saw in a diagram (just wish I could remember the source) of all the boroughs in London and I seem to recall the Richmond area would be getting a 2% increase in bus capacity? (And Croydon/Sutton something like 10%?) So I do think there are some genuine improvements in this (apart from my H37 reservations) rather than awful cuts just being dressed up as improvements (like the Central London one). I’m curious, TFL was supposed to use the resources from cutting services in Central London to improve outer London, yet they are cutting the H37’s PVR and frequency?  |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 30, 2018 20:40:52 GMT
Aside from the H37 which I think is absolute lunacy, these aren’t too bad. The H37 is absolutely renowned for chronic overcrowding and I hope the ‘assistance’ it’s being given will actually be useful. I honestly didn’t think these changes would be too bad as I saw in a diagram (just wish I could remember the source) of all the boroughs in London and I seem to recall the Richmond area would be getting a 2% increase in bus capacity? (And Croydon/Sutton something like 10%?) So I do think there are some genuine improvements in this (apart from my H37 reservations) rather than awful cuts just being dressed up as improvements (like the Central London one). The H37 gets a frequency cut yet is always busy, the 110 & 419 becomes a longer, redirected 110 that will be hit by more traffic and no longer serves Twickenham or the hospital & the H22 is cut away from Richmond altogether - from where I am, it's cuts dressed up as improvements very much so. The only change where you can see logical thinking in is the 493 due to it's length, long running time & the fact it serves a number of traffic hotspots. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 30, 2018 21:19:43 GMT
I wonder if there is a feeling that the 110 will provide a more direct link from Hounslow to Richmond then the current H22 and therefore will support the H37 in end to end Hounslow to Richmond journies as opposed to how the H22 would be passed over to take the more direct H37.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Oct 30, 2018 22:35:53 GMT
Aside from the H37 which I think is absolute lunacy, these aren’t too bad. The H37 is absolutely renowned for chronic overcrowding and I hope the ‘assistance’ it’s being given will actually be useful. I honestly didn’t think these changes would be too bad as I saw in a diagram (just wish I could remember the source) of all the boroughs in London and I seem to recall the Richmond area would be getting a 2% increase in bus capacity? (And Croydon/Sutton something like 10%?) So I do think there are some genuine improvements in this (apart from my H37 reservations) rather than awful cuts just being dressed up as improvements (like the Central London one). The H37 gets a frequency cut yet is always busy, the 110 & 419 becomes a longer, redirected 110 that will be hit by more traffic and no longer serves Twickenham or the hospital & the H22 is cut away from Richmond altogether - from where I am, it's cuts dressed up as improvements very much so. The only change where you can see logical thinking in is the 493 due to it's length, long running time & the fact it serves a number of traffic hotspots. I’m with you. Extending a route from Hammersmith with a loop from Hounslow to West Midddlesex seems crazy to me. It has no chance to run to a timetable. Why ditch the H22 between Twickenham to Richmond too. Makes little sense and makes the route irrelevant in reality |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 30, 2018 22:53:50 GMT
I think the reason is the same as many in the c london cuts; spare capacity between Richmond and Twickenham.
|
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Oct 30, 2018 23:08:53 GMT
I think the reason is the same as many in the c london cuts; spare capacity between Richmond and Twickenham. Personally I would love to see where this spare capacity is during the peaks, the buses up and down the corridor are rammed to the point where people on certain sections of route get left behind (Sixth Cross Road-Twickenham Green for example) |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 30, 2018 23:47:58 GMT
I think the reason is the same as many in the c london cuts; spare capacity between Richmond and Twickenham. Personally I would love to see where this spare capacity is during the peaks, the buses up and down the corridor are rammed to the point where people on certain sections of route get left behind (Sixth Cross Road-Twickenham Green for example) Exactly - some people on here seem to just wonder into an area and declare it empty or has spare capacity whilst also ignoring what locals or those who use the services are actually saying. This sort of thing is getting incredibly boring to listen to on here - it's one thing to have a view which is fine but when it's said as if it's the absolute truth or fact, it's incredibly disturbing. |
|
