|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 7, 2021 16:29:12 GMT
It could've always been something layered like the 82 restructured to run between Marble Arch & North Finchley, the 13 between Victoria & Golders Green & the 113 between Oxford Circus & Edgware. Something like this could have worked, keeping two shorter routes with an overlap, rather than the combined revised 13. I think I had previously suggested having one route from Golders Green to Victoria, and the other from North Finchley to Baker Street. Then maybe cut the 113 back out of central London to improve reliability. Or another option might have been something similar to the old 13 retained, possibly continuing to Waterloo, maintaining the link from the Finchley Road corridor to Oxford Circus and the West End, if needed. Then instead swap the 139 to go to Victoria in place of the 13/82. Even with the changes that went ahead, I think the renumberings could have been far less complicated, by going in line with the contract awards at the time. The 13 number might have been a better fit for the revised 139, still running between Golders Green and the West End, but simply diverted via West Hampstead, and a short extension to Waterloo. This could have continued on the existing 13 contract at the time without any number change - then retain the 82 number for the Tower Transit contract, and withdraw the 139. Won't comment on the proposals in itself other than you shouldn't cut the 113 because it has quite an established commuter flow, I believe 2100 journeys per day were broken when the 113 was rerouted to Marble Arch alone in 2009 and you would confuse people more by sending the 13 via West Hampstead than keeping it on the current LOR especially when the bus turns onto Rossmore Road! I agree with the other points such as keeping the 82. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 7, 2021 16:37:54 GMT
Something like this could have worked, keeping two shorter routes with an overlap, rather than the combined revised 13. I think I had previously suggested having one route from Golders Green to Victoria, and the other from North Finchley to Baker Street. Then maybe cut the 113 back out of central London to improve reliability. Or another option might have been something similar to the old 13 retained, possibly continuing to Waterloo, maintaining the link from the Finchley Road corridor to Oxford Circus and the West End, if needed. Then instead swap the 139 to go to Victoria in place of the 13/82. Even with the changes that went ahead, I think the renumberings could have been far less complicated, by going in line with the contract awards at the time. The 13 number might have been a better fit for the revised 139, still running between Golders Green and the West End, but simply diverted via West Hampstead, and a short extension to Waterloo. This could have continued on the existing 13 contract at the time without any number change - then retain the 82 number for the Tower Transit contract, and withdraw the 139. Won't comment on the proposals in itself other than you shouldn't cut the 113 because it has quite an established commuter flow, I believe 2100 journeys per day were broken when the 113 was rerouted to Marble Arch alone in 2009 and you would confuse people more by sending the 13 via West Hampstead than keeping it on the current LOR especially when the bus turns onto Rossmore Road! I agree with the other points such as keeping the 82. I take your point about the 113, I wonder how far north passengers tend to travel from into Central London? I've previously considered if it could be split if reliability were an issue, curtailed from the south at Brent Cross shopping centre, maybe with an overlap as far as Finchley Road? The A41 can get quite congested, and EW is far from central London if there are any major gaps in the service. With my idea of the 13 diverting via West Hampstead (had it merged with the 139 rather than the 82) - I'm not sure this would be any more confusing that what happened, with the 13 going to Victoria instead of Aldwych. Most regular passengers on the Finchley Road corridor would have been aware of the 82 & 113 also being available at the time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2021 16:39:07 GMT
414 - extended from Marble Arch to Baker Street via 74.
74 - withdrawn between Baker Street and Marble Arch. Extended to Roehampton via 430. Slight frequency increase to compensate for the loss of the 430.
190 - extended to South Kensington via route 430.
430 - withdrawn, replaced by 74 and 190
|
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 7, 2021 16:52:54 GMT
Won't comment on the proposals in itself other than you shouldn't cut the 113 because it has quite an established commuter flow, I believe 2100 journeys per day were broken when the 113 was rerouted to Marble Arch alone in 2009 and you would confuse people more by sending the 13 via West Hampstead than keeping it on the current LOR especially when the bus turns onto Rossmore Road! I agree with the other points such as keeping the 82. I take your point about the 113, I wonder how far north passengers tend to travel from into Central London? I've previously considered if it could be split if reliability were an issue, curtailed from the south at Brent Cross shopping centre, maybe with an overlap as far as Finchley Road? The A41 can get quite congested, and EW is far from central London if there are any major gaps in the service. With my idea of the 13 diverting via West Hampstead (had it merged with the 139 rather than the 82) - I'm not sure this would be any more confusing that what happened, with the 13 going to Victoria instead of Aldwych. Most regular passengers on the Finchley Road corridor would have been aware of the 82 & 113 also being available at the time. will probably be better at answering this than myself but I don't think there are reliability issues on the 113. I think this is an unnecessary split of a well established route. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 7, 2021 17:07:50 GMT
414 - extended from Marble Arch to Baker Street via 74. 74 - withdrawn between Baker Street and Marble Arch. Extended to Roehampton via 430. Slight frequency increase to compensate for the loss of the 430. 190 - extended to South Kensington via route 430. 430 - withdrawn, replaced by 74 and 190 Other then needing the stand space, TFL probably wouldn't replace the 74 to Baker Street. They would just leave it to the 2, 13 etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2021 17:57:51 GMT
414 - extended from Marble Arch to Baker Street via 74. 74 - withdrawn between Baker Street and Marble Arch. Extended to Roehampton via 430. Slight frequency increase to compensate for the loss of the 430. 190 - extended to South Kensington via route 430. 430 - withdrawn, replaced by 74 and 190 Other then needing the stand space, TFL probably wouldn't replace the 74 to Baker Street. They would just leave it to the 2, 13 etc. Tbh I think the 414 could be finished within 2 years, there's hardly any point of it, it doesn't really have any unique links apart from Marble Arch to Fulham Broadway and Putney Bridge |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 7, 2021 18:12:30 GMT
Other then needing the stand space, TFL probably wouldn't replace the 74 to Baker Street. They would just leave it to the 2, 13 etc. Tbh I think the 414 could be finished within 2 years, there's hardly any point of it, it doesn't really have any unique links apart from Marble Arch to Fulham Broadway and Putney Bridge I don't think the 414 has ever had a great deal of purpose quite honestly. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 7, 2021 18:22:25 GMT
Tbh I think the 414 could be finished within 2 years, there's hardly any point of it, it doesn't really have any unique links apart from Marble Arch to Fulham Broadway and Putney Bridge I don't think the 414 has ever had a great deal of purpose quite honestly. It was basically support for the 14 and 16 back in 2002 in readiness for the C Charge. That said there is nothing to say it won't take on another role if the rumoured Putney changes go ahead. The 414 is quicker between S Ken and Putney then the 74, the 414 doesn't run beyond to Marble Arch so I'd say a Marble Arch to Roehampton route is doable as opposed to a Baker Street to Roehampton which probably wouldn't be now. 190 could be extended to S Ken and the 430 discontinued. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 7, 2021 18:24:39 GMT
I don't think the 414 has ever had a great deal of purpose quite honestly. It was basically support for the 14 and 16 back in 2002 in readiness for the C Charge. That said there is nothing to say it won't take on another role if the rumoured Putney changes go ahead. Must say lots of routes were introduced back in 2002 to support the Congestion Charge, the 332, 414, 436 |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 7, 2021 18:26:40 GMT
It was basically support for the 14 and 16 back in 2002 in readiness for the C Charge. That said there is nothing to say it won't take on another role if the rumoured Putney changes go ahead. Must say lots of routes were introduced back in 2002 to support the Congestion Charge, the 332, 414, 436 332 was 2007, kind of as a way to drop the 16 slightly and DD the northern section of the 316. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2021 18:30:48 GMT
I don't think the 414 has ever had a great deal of purpose quite honestly. That said there is nothing to say it won't take on another role if the rumoured Putney changes go ahead. Are you talking about the 485 change or am I thinking of something else? |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Nov 7, 2021 18:52:45 GMT
It was basically support for the 14 and 16 back in 2002 in readiness for the C Charge. That said there is nothing to say it won't take on another role if the rumoured Putney changes go ahead. Must say lots of routes were introduced back in 2002 to support the Congestion Charge, the 332, 414, 436 The 148, 360, 388, 453 were also introduced around that time to provide extra public transport capacity and new links in Central London. Congestion Charge revenues were to contribute to improvements to the Underground, making up for years of neglect and deferred renewal. However the improvements would take time to come on stream and putting on extra buses was an easy, quick and relatively cheap way of increasing public transport capacity in the interim. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 7, 2021 18:57:18 GMT
Tbh I think the 414 could be finished within 2 years, there's hardly any point of it, it doesn't really have any unique links apart from Marble Arch to Fulham Broadway and Putney Bridge I don't think the 414 has ever had a great deal of purpose quite honestly. That is one of the most silliest things you’ve mentioned on here |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 7, 2021 19:00:42 GMT
Must say lots of routes were introduced back in 2002 to support the Congestion Charge, the 332, 414, 436 The 148, 360, 388, 453 were also introduced around that time to provide extra public transport capacity and new links in Central London. Congestion Charge revenues were to contribute to improvements to the Underground, making up for years of neglect and deferred renewal. However the improvements would take time to come on stream and putting on extra buses was an easy, quick and relatively cheap way of increasing public transport capacity in the interim. There was also the 205 and 705 at the same time. The 205 thrived whereas the 705 was withdrawn pretty quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 7, 2021 19:09:07 GMT
The 148, 360, 388, 453 were also introduced around that time to provide extra public transport capacity and new links in Central London. Congestion Charge revenues were to contribute to improvements to the Underground, making up for years of neglect and deferred renewal. However the improvements would take time to come on stream and putting on extra buses was an easy, quick and relatively cheap way of increasing public transport capacity in the interim. There was also the 205 and 705 at the same time. The 205 thrived whereas the 705 was withdrawn pretty quickly. Wasn’t the 705 linked to the SL1 & SL2? |
|
