Routes 110, 419, 493, H22 and H37

[Deleted]

Dec 13, 2020 14:42:29 GMT evergreenadam said:

Dec 13, 2020 14:00:59 GMT @busenthusiast56 said:

I have always said they should build a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge and convert the current one to pedestrian/cyclists only. Unfortunately the list of restrictions related to grade 2 listing means every step has to be monitored and approved so construction can take longer.

There is absolutely no way that a new road bridge is going to built alongside the existing one without property acquisition and demolition which alone would cost tens of millions.

On the bridge approach from Castelnau there is only parkland so that could easily be reclaimed without much cost. On the Hammersmith side there is an access road with parking for some housing, again that could be reclaimed. If there was an issue CPOs would resolve it really easily. Construction costs could be reduced by adding a small toll, no more than 50p a crossing, which would be affordable for the majority of users in the area.

[greenboy]

I don't know if this has been suggested before but wouldn't it have been simpler for the public to understand to have extended the 391 to Hounslow and axe the 110 rather than rerouting the 110 to Hammersmith and axing the 391?

[thekbq14]

Dec 13, 2020 15:13:50 GMT greenboy said:

I don't know if this has been suggested before but wouldn't it have been simpler for the public to understand to have extended the 391 to Hounslow and axe the 110 rather than rerouting the 110 to Hammersmith and axing the 391?

They really should have I don't know tfl's obsession with numbers first the 13/82 fiasco now this. Guess why this was done because it was meant to be an extension of the 110 over the 419 route but that didn't go happen with Hammersmith Bridge so they diverted it over the 391. And the 391 became a bit of a loss cause after getting withdrawn between Sands End and Hammersmith and a frequency decrease and it's DD extra spares being withdrawn. But just seems like they were hellbent on extending the 110 to Hammersmith also keeping that number in the Whitton area too.

[greenboy]

Dec 19, 2020 18:53:18 GMT thekbq14 said:

Dec 13, 2020 15:13:50 GMT greenboy said:

I don't know if this has been suggested before but wouldn't it have been simpler for the public to understand to have extended the 391 to Hounslow and axe the 110 rather than rerouting the 110 to Hammersmith and axing the 391?

They really should have I don't know tfl's obsession with numbers first the 13/82 fiasco now this. Guess why this was done because it was meant to be an extension of the 110 over the 419 route but that didn't go happen with Hammersmith Bridge so they diverted it over the 391. And the 391 became a bit of a loss cause after getting withdrawn between Sands End and Hammersmith and a frequency decrease and it's DD extra spares being withdrawn. But just seems like they were hellbent on extending the 110 to Hammersmith also keeping that number in the Whitton area too.

You're probably right and TfL really need to get their act together on things like this, surely the priority should always be what is easier for passengers rather than what they think looks nicer and the 13/82 fiasco is a perfect example.

[paulo]

Dec 19, 2020 19:06:15 GMT greenboy said:

Dec 19, 2020 18:53:18 GMT thekbq14 said:

They really should have I don't know tfl's obsession with numbers first the 13/82 fiasco now this. Guess why this was done because it was meant to be an extension of the 110 over the 419 route but that didn't go happen with Hammersmith Bridge so they diverted it over the 391. And the 391 became a bit of a loss cause after getting withdrawn between Sands End and Hammersmith and a frequency decrease and it's DD extra spares being withdrawn. But just seems like they were hellbent on extending the 110 to Hammersmith also keeping that number in the Whitton area too.

You're probably right and TfL really need to get their act together on things like this, surely the priority should always be what is easier for passengers rather than what they think looks nicer and the 13/82 fiasco is a perfect example.

I would love to know how many passengers called out the driver in the past week when the 110 failed to turn right out of Powder Mill Lane. I don’t get why the change was deemed necessary.

[vjaska]

Dec 19, 2020 19:06:15 GMT greenboy said:

Dec 19, 2020 18:53:18 GMT thekbq14 said:

They really should have I don't know tfl's obsession with numbers first the 13/82 fiasco now this. Guess why this was done because it was meant to be an extension of the 110 over the 419 route but that didn't go happen with Hammersmith Bridge so they diverted it over the 391. And the 391 became a bit of a loss cause after getting withdrawn between Sands End and Hammersmith and a frequency decrease and it's DD extra spares being withdrawn. But just seems like they were hellbent on extending the 110 to Hammersmith also keeping that number in the Whitton area too.

You're probably right and TfL really need to get their act together on things like this, surely the priority should always be what is easier for passengers rather than what they think looks nicer and the 13/82 fiasco is a perfect example.

Except that’s not correct when it comes to the 13/82 - the number 13 was retained because many people including stakeholders repeatedly told TfL that they wanted their link to Central London from the Finchley Road corridor retained and TfL decided to be clever by renumbering the 82 as the 13 as TfL’s original idea was to simply remove the 13 including the number so it had nothing to do with the 13 “looking nicer”

[thelondonthing]

I don't really understand the argument that it would have been 'better' to keep the 391 route number.

TfL would have had to explain that the 110 was being withdrawn, that part of the route (Hounslow to Powder Mill Lane) was being replaced by a different service (391), which would be connected to the former 110 by a new extension between Powder Mill Lane and Richmond, and that the rest of the 391 would remain.

Instead, they chose to retain the 110 number and route to Powder Mill Lane, extend it to Richmond via a new line of route, and then replace the 391 from there.

Neither of these is a particularly elegant solution in terms of trying to explain it to passengers. I don't really see how either of them is 'better' than the other - there are obvious downsides to both of them in trying to clearly communicate to passengers what the final route is. TfL chose one solution; some people were always going to be aggrieved that the other option wasn't selected, but I don't personally think either option was ideal, or even materially better than the other.

If TfL had decided to call it the 391 from Hammersmith to Hounslow via Richmond, there would no doubt have been people complaining that it was a poor choice, and those people would have have been equally justified in their criticisms as those who disapprove of the decision to call it the 110. TfL was d*mned either way, but a decision had to be made, and they made it. In my opinion, their choice was just as right and wrong as the alternative.

[redexpress]

Dec 19, 2020 20:34:49 GMT thelondonthing said:

I don't really understand the argument that it would have been 'better' to keep the 391 route number.

TfL would have had to explain that the 110 was being withdrawn, that part of the route (Hounslow to Powder Mill Lane) was being replaced by a different service (391), which would be connected to the former 110 by a new extension between Powder Mill Lane and Richmond, and that the rest of the 391 would remain.

Instead, they chose to retain the 110 number and route to Powder Mill Lane, extend it to Richmond via a new line of route, and then replace the 391 from there.

Neither of these is a particularly elegant solution in terms of trying to explain it to passengers. I don't really see how either of them is 'better' than the other - there are obvious downsides to both of them in trying to clearly communicate to passengers what the final route is. TfL chose one solution; some people were always going to be aggrieved that the other option wasn't selected, but I don't personally think either option was ideal, or even materially better than the other.

If TfL had decided to call it the 391 from Hammersmith to Hounslow via Richmond, there would no doubt have been people complaining that it was a poor choice, and those people would have have been equally justified in their criticisms as those who disapprove of the decision to call it the 110. TfL was d*mned either way, but a decision had to be made, and they made it. In my opinion, their choice was just as right and wrong as the alternative.

There is a crucial difference between the two. The new combined route covers all* of the former 391 route, but does not cover all of the former 110 route. There would therefore be much less scope for confusion if the 391 number had been used, as you eliminate the risk of someone getting on the bus and expecting it to go where it used to go. As it is, people will be getting on a 110 expecting it to go to Twickenham, and will be in for a nasty surprise.

If, on the other hand, the route had been numbered 391, people boarding along the former 110 route would not automatically assume that it will go the same way as the 110. And people boarding along the former 391 route would still have a bus that takes them everywhere* the 391 used to go, so no issues there. As a general rule, extending a route causes less disruption to existing passengers than diverting it.

(*) - obviously I'm talking about the 391 as it was a couple of weeks ago, not going back to before its curtailment to Hammersmith.

[thelondonthing]

Dec 19, 2020 21:11:41 GMT redexpress said:

Dec 19, 2020 20:34:49 GMT thelondonthing said:

I don't really understand the argument that it would have been 'better' to keep the 391 route number.

TfL would have had to explain that the 110 was being withdrawn, that part of the route (Hounslow to Powder Mill Lane) was being replaced by a different service (391), which would be connected to the former 110 by a new extension between Powder Mill Lane and Richmond, and that the rest of the 391 would remain.

Instead, they chose to retain the 110 number and route to Powder Mill Lane, extend it to Richmond via a new line of route, and then replace the 391 from there.

Neither of these is a particularly elegant solution in terms of trying to explain it to passengers. I don't really see how either of them is 'better' than the other - there are obvious downsides to both of them in trying to clearly communicate to passengers what the final route is. TfL chose one solution; some people were always going to be aggrieved that the other option wasn't selected, but I don't personally think either option was ideal, or even materially better than the other.

If TfL had decided to call it the 391 from Hammersmith to Hounslow via Richmond, there would no doubt have been people complaining that it was a poor choice, and those people would have have been equally justified in their criticisms as those who disapprove of the decision to call it the 110. TfL was d*mned either way, but a decision had to be made, and they made it. In my opinion, their choice was just as right and wrong as the alternative.

There is a crucial difference between the two. The new combined route covers all* of the former 391 route, but does not cover all of the former 110 route. There would therefore be much less scope for confusion if the 391 number had been used, as you eliminate the risk of someone getting on the bus and expecting it to go where it used to go. As it is, people will be getting on a 110 expecting it to go to Twickenham, and will be in for a nasty surprise.

If, on the other hand, the route had been numbered 391, people boarding along the former 110 route would not automatically assume that it will go the same way as the 110. And people boarding along the former 391 route would still have a bus that takes them everywhere* the 391 used to go, so no issues there. As a general rule, extending a route causes less disruption to existing passengers than diverting it.

(*) - obviously I'm talking about the 391 as it was a couple of weeks ago, not going back to before its curtailment to Hammersmith.

That's a fair point, and I can't argue with it.

But similarly, there would be people along the 110 route between Hounslow and Powder Mill Lane waiting for a 110 to come, while being passed by several 391s, unaware that they could have boarded them. There would be people waiting along the withdrawn section of the 110 between Powder Mill Lane and Twickenham/West Middlesex Hospital waiting for a 110, unaware that the route no longer operated there. There would be people trying to get from Heathfield to West Middlesex Hospital who would be totally baffled by the whole thing, with no understanding that they'd now have to take two buses to complete their journey. And there would be people mistakenly believing that the 391 had simply replaced the 110 all the way to Twickenham, then running through to Richmond and Hammersmith.

You're quite right in what you say, but the broader point is that - regardless of which option was chosen, whether numbering the route 110 or 391 - some passengers, somewhere, would not have understood what was going on. That's why I say that TfL was d*mned either way; no matter which decision they made, some people will have been confused by the changes.

There was no ideal solution here, and it's pure guesswork for you, me and everyone else to suggest that a smaller or larger number of passengers would have been confused by numbering the route 110 or 391 - that's a matter of opinion on which we all lack the hard data to prove a position one way or the other. All we can say with certainty is that both options were imperfect; both options would have created confusion for some people; neither option was optimal; one option had to be chosen.

And TfL would always be criticised for not choosing the other option.


Edit: It still amuses and baffles me that the forum software insists on censoring the word "d*mned".

[southlondonbus]

Maybe they should have done what they did in the 80s and 90s and withdraw the current routes and replace with a new number like with the 91 (391/H91) 94 (261 and part 208 replacement) 26 (326) etc.

[Deleted]

I think what TFL should have done is this:
391 kept as it is
Current 110 between Hounslow and Richmond, Manor Circus kept but renamed H22, as the route is the H22 after St Margaret's
Current H22 renamed 110 as it is the same between Whitton and WMH

this would create less confusion, particularly as 391 is kept and the current 110 route in the direction of Hounslow is very misleading, as it goes on the A315 for a long way before it turns off

[thelondonthing]

Dec 31, 2020 8:06:42 GMT @buses1350 said:

I think what TFL should have done is this:
391 kept as it is
Current 110 between Hounslow and Richmond, Manor Circus kept but renamed H22, as the route is the H22 after St Margaret's
Current H22 renamed 110 as it is the same between Whitton and WMH

this would create less confusion, particularly as 391 is kept and the current 110 route in the direction of Hounslow is very misleading, as it goes on the A315 for a long way before it turns off

But the current/revised 110 is still the 'old' 110 between Hounslow and Hospital Bridge. The section of the existing H22 that it takes over is only between Richmond Bridge ('north' side) and Manor Circus. Why would it be better to redesignate the route as H22 when it only follows a tiny section of the 'old' H22, and doesn't go to Twickenham? How would this be less confusing? And how would it be less confusing for passengers in Whitton to suddenly find that the new H22 now goes to Richmond and Hounslow in the opposite direction to the way it previously travelled, and follows a completely different route to Hounslow?

And the revised H22 is still the 'old' H22 between Hounslow and Twickenham - the majority of the route, even with its diversion to West Middlesex Hospital. Why would it be less confusing to renumber it as 110, and for passengers to have to adjust to this 'new' 110 following a completely different route between Hospital Bridge and Hounslow? 

I keep seeing people putting forward their 'better' ideas for what TfL should have done, and confidently stating that their way would "create less confusion" - but the reality is that these alternative proposals would simply create new and different flavours of confusion.

[southlondonbus]

Dec 31, 2020 8:06:42 GMT @buses1350 said:

I think what TFL should have done is this:
391 kept as it is
Current 110 between Hounslow and Richmond, Manor Circus kept but renamed H22, as the route is the H22 after St Margaret's
Current H22 renamed 110 as it is the same between Whitton and WMH

this would create less confusion, particularly as 391 is kept and the current 110 route in the direction of Hounslow is very misleading, as it goes on the A315 for a long way before it turns off

The 391 or 419 had to go thou in tfl's eyes so they could free up space at the bus station for the 493.

[vjaska]

Dec 31, 2020 8:06:42 GMT @buses1350 said:

I think what TFL should have done is this:
391 kept as it is
Current 110 between Hounslow and Richmond, Manor Circus kept but renamed H22, as the route is the H22 after St Margaret's
Current H22 renamed 110 as it is the same between Whitton and WMH

this would create less confusion, particularly as 391 is kept and the current 110 route in the direction of Hounslow is very misleading, as it goes on the A315 for a long way before it turns off

If anything, that creates more confusion not less as the majority of the 110 & H22 routings haven't changed. The 391 also wouldn't of been retained as the point of the proposal was to remove a few bus routes from Manor Circus in Richmond hence the 391 withdrawal, H22 diversion at Twickenham and 493 cutback to Richmond Bus Station

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2020 11:13:59 GMT thelondonthing said:

Dec 31, 2020 8:06:42 GMT @buses1350 said:

I think what TFL should have done is this:
391 kept as it is
Current 110 between Hounslow and Richmond, Manor Circus kept but renamed H22, as the route is the H22 after St Margaret's
Current H22 renamed 110 as it is the same between Whitton and WMH

this would create less confusion, particularly as 391 is kept and the current 110 route in the direction of Hounslow is very misleading, as it goes on the A315 for a long way before it turns off

But the current/revised 110 is still the 'old' 110 between Hounslow and Hospital Bridge. The section of the existing H22 that it takes over is only between Richmond Bridge ('north' side) and Manor Circus. Why would it be better to redesignate the route as H22 when it only follows a tiny section of the 'old' H22, and doesn't go to Twickenham? How would this be less confusing? And how would it be less confusing for passengers in Whitton to suddenly find that the new H22 now goes to Richmond and Hounslow in the opposite direction to the way it previously travelled, and follows a completely different route to Hounslow?

And the revised H22 is still the 'old' H22 between Hounslow and Twickenham - the majority of the route, even with its diversion to West Middlesex Hospital. Why would it be less confusing to renumber it as 110, and for passengers to have to adjust to this 'new' 110 following a completely different route between Hospital Bridge and Hounslow? 

I keep seeing people putting forward their 'better' ideas for what TfL should have done, and confidently stating that their way would "create less confusion" - but the reality is that these alternative proposals would simply create new and different flavours of confusion.

The reason why I suggested what I suggested is because the current 110 follows around 1/3 of the old 110, but the current H22 follows around 2/3 of the old 110. Unfortunately TFL aren't going to please everyone with their changes, ultimately I think that the 110, H22 and 391 were fine as they were before December 12.