|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 6, 2021 18:25:38 GMT
Here's an idea: Route N14: Night version of the 14. Of the 4bph on the service, 2bph would terminate at Putney Heath whilst 2bph would continue onto Sutton via Route (N)93 to North Cheam, Sainsbury's then via Route 213 to Sutton. Brings better night bus provision to Cheam Village and a direct Central London link into areas that the N93 serves. The route would run as Tottenham Court Road - Putney Heath/Sutton. Route N93: Discontinued. Thoughts? I agree and I'd run the other 2bph to Kingston replacing the N85. Surely that would make it a bit complex? Unless you numbered one leg N85 and the other N93. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 6, 2021 18:27:55 GMT
Here's an idea: Route N14: Night version of the 14. Of the 4bph on the service, 2bph would terminate at Putney Heath whilst 2bph would continue onto Sutton via Route (N)93 to North Cheam, Sainsbury's then via Route 213 to Sutton. Brings better night bus provision to Cheam Village and a direct Central London link into areas that the N93 serves. The route would run as Tottenham Court Road - Putney Heath/Sutton. Route N93: Discontinued. Thoughts? Cheam Village doesn’t really need a night service to central London, it’s a very small community and it is easy enough to take the N44 and change to the N213 directly through Sutton. In Morden the hope is that the N154 will resume on weekends at some point creating a further direct link though Morden to Sutton and again it would be an easy change to the N213 in Sutton. If an additional night service is needed in Cheam there is a far greater argument for the X26 to be 24 hour. It would be better used as well. That's fair enough and if I'm honest I only suggested it to continue to Sutton because some people deemed it underserved in terms of night buses, certainly saw it on here and also whilst North Cheam is I suppose a terminus would it be more useful maybe not to terminate it in Sutton?
southlondonbus could the N213 only be underused because of the fact it doesn't head into Central London or many places of demand at night? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 6, 2021 18:46:33 GMT
Cheam Village doesn’t really need a night service to central London, it’s a very small community and it is easy enough to take the N44 and change to the N213 directly through Sutton. In Morden the hope is that the N154 will resume on weekends at some point creating a further direct link though Morden to Sutton and again it would be an easy change to the N213 in Sutton. If an additional night service is needed in Cheam there is a far greater argument for the X26 to be 24 hour. It would be better used as well. That's fair enough and if I'm honest I only suggested it to continue to Sutton because some people deemed it underserved in terms of night buses, certainly saw it on here and also whilst North Cheam is I suppose a terminus would it be more useful maybe not to terminate it in Sutton? southlondonbus could the N213 only be underused because of the fact it doesn't head into Central London or many places of demand at night? Kingston and Sutton are both quite big pulls for nights out pre covid.l |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Dec 6, 2021 18:57:20 GMT
That's fair enough and if I'm honest I only suggested it to continue to Sutton because some people deemed it underserved in terms of night buses, certainly saw it on here and also whilst North Cheam is I suppose a terminus would it be more useful maybe not to terminate it in Sutton? southlondonbus could the N213 only be underused because of the fact it doesn't head into Central London or many places of demand at night? Kingston and Sutton are both quite big pulls for nights out pre covid.l Sutton isn’t a big night life spot anymore. The theatre has closed and there are no nightclubs here anymore. So beyond 1am when the bars have closed it’s dead, even the kebab shop opposite my flat doesn’t open beyond midnight now when up until the pandemic it did 2am on a Friday/Saturday. Kingston is still and Croydon is the other but without a doubt Sutton isn’t anymore. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2021 22:50:32 GMT
If the Bakerloo line gets shut completely:
453 - extended to Paddington (332 terminus, doing the 1 way loop via Praed Street). Cut back to New Cross Gate to improve reliability.
46 - will have to be extended back to Lancaster Gate due to stand space (I preferred the 46 when it went to Lancaster Gate anyway)
|
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Dec 6, 2021 23:12:55 GMT
If the Bakerloo line gets shut completely: 453 - extended to Paddington (332 terminus, doing the 1 way loop via Praed Street). Cut back to New Cross Gate to improve reliability. 46 - will have to be extended back to Lancaster Gate due to stand space (I preferred the 46 when it went to Lancaster Gate anyway) About what about the north end like would be like 18 extend to Harrow & Wealdstone via 182 and N18 as it follows the Bakerloo Line from Baker Street but miss out Kenton South Kenton North Wembley Harlesden Queen's Park Kilburn Park Maida Vale and Warwick Avenue |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2021 23:32:52 GMT
If the Bakerloo line gets shut completely: 453 - extended to Paddington (332 terminus, doing the 1 way loop via Praed Street). Cut back to New Cross Gate to improve reliability. 46 - will have to be extended back to Lancaster Gate due to stand space (I preferred the 46 when it went to Lancaster Gate anyway) About what about the north end like would be like 18 extend to Harrow & Wealdstone via 182 and N18 as it follows the Bakerloo Line from Baker Street but miss out Kenton South Kenton North Wembley Harlesden Queen's Park Kilburn Park Maida Vale and Warwick Avenue Not really needed, the Overground covers most of it. It could be okay as it is in areas like Maida Vale because St John's Wood is near enough plus there are buses to connect with central London |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 7, 2021 0:44:02 GMT
If the Bakerloo line gets shut completely: 453 - extended to Paddington (332 terminus, doing the 1 way loop via Praed Street). Cut back to New Cross Gate to improve reliability. 46 - will have to be extended back to Lancaster Gate due to stand space (I preferred the 46 when it went to Lancaster Gate anyway) About what about the north end like would be like 18 extend to Harrow & Wealdstone via 182 and N18 as it follows the Bakerloo Line from Baker Street but miss out Kenton South Kenton North Wembley Harlesden Queen's Park Kilburn Park Maida Vale and Warwick Avenue You don't seem to understand despite numerous people mentioning so - your proposals are generally unviable due to the length and traffic hotspots they hit. The 18 is already a lengthy route in today's climate without extending it further. |
|
|
|
Post by secretbu5dude on Dec 7, 2021 13:19:23 GMT
About what about the north end like would be like 18 extend to Harrow & Wealdstone via 182 and N18 as it follows the Bakerloo Line from Baker Street but miss out Kenton South Kenton North Wembley Harlesden Queen's Park Kilburn Park Maida Vale and Warwick Avenue You don't seem to understand despite numerous people mentioning so - your proposals are generally unviable due to the length and traffic hotspots they hit. The 18 is already a lengthy route in today's climate without extending it further. That stretch between Paddington and Baker Street is a nightmare in itself 😵 |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 8, 2021 18:48:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 8, 2021 21:33:04 GMT
Does this replace the H37? Because if so the frequencies don't match up and would not come close to catering for the demand in Isleworth and St Margarets. If it doesn't replace the H37 then it simply follows the H37 in its entirety which isn't a good use of resources. I don't even mind the idea of the route if I'm honest if its a replacement of the H37 and thus a high frequency SD route. You'd be providing a few new links and it would be well used in Hounslow and Isleworth. I think the 337 benefits from avoiding the Richmond Station area as its fairly quick-in quick-out in Richmond for a route that suffers a lot from traffic anyway. Putting it up to the station is leaving it to the mercy of Kew Road which is jammed both directions daily. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 9, 2021 19:37:22 GMT
Does this replace the H37? Because if so the frequencies don't match up and would not come close to catering for the demand in Isleworth and St Margarets. If it doesn't replace the H37 then it simply follows the H37 in its entirety which isn't a good use of resources. I don't even mind the idea of the route if I'm honest if its a replacement of the H37 and thus a high frequency SD route. You'd be providing a few new links and it would be well used in Hounslow and Isleworth. I think the 337 benefits from avoiding the Richmond Station area as its fairly quick-in quick-out in Richmond for a route that suffers a lot from traffic anyway. Putting it up to the station is leaving it to the mercy of Kew Road which is jammed both directions daily. No. Frequencies would be reduced on the H37 or just left as it is - could the route do with some assistance? Also, it serves WMH, which the H37 does not. I see about the 337. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 9, 2021 20:34:07 GMT
Does this replace the H37? Because if so the frequencies don't match up and would not come close to catering for the demand in Isleworth and St Margarets. If it doesn't replace the H37 then it simply follows the H37 in its entirety which isn't a good use of resources. I don't even mind the idea of the route if I'm honest if its a replacement of the H37 and thus a high frequency SD route. You'd be providing a few new links and it would be well used in Hounslow and Isleworth. I think the 337 benefits from avoiding the Richmond Station area as its fairly quick-in quick-out in Richmond for a route that suffers a lot from traffic anyway. Putting it up to the station is leaving it to the mercy of Kew Road which is jammed both directions daily. No. Frequencies would be reduced on the H37 or just left as it is - could the route do with some assistance? Also, it serves WMH, which the H37 does not. I see about the 337. But there's a difference between assisting a route on a certain section and duplicating it entirely (besides the Blenheim Centre and WMH sections). If nothing else I agree with your idea of a double run to WMH, and would propose the H37 do so to give St Margarets and Richmond a direct link. Only downside to that is Twickenham Road traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 9, 2021 20:35:58 GMT
No. Frequencies would be reduced on the H37 or just left as it is - could the route do with some assistance? Also, it serves WMH, which the H37 does not. I see about the 337. But there's a difference between assisting a route on a certain section and duplicating it entirely (besides the Blenheim Centre and WMH sections). If nothing else I agree with your idea of a double run to WMH, and would propose the H37 do so to give St Margarets and Richmond a direct link. Only downside to that is Twickenham Road traffic. I would say H37 is too high frequency for that job. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 9, 2021 20:41:21 GMT
But there's a difference between assisting a route on a certain section and duplicating it entirely (besides the Blenheim Centre and WMH sections). If nothing else I agree with your idea of a double run to WMH, and would propose the H37 do so to give St Margarets and Richmond a direct link. Only downside to that is Twickenham Road traffic. I would say H37 is too high frequency for that job. Well Richmond has fairly half baked links to local hospitals, and I'd support either/both the H37 or 371 to go out of their way to serve WMH and Kingston Hospital respectively, as both of which serve Richmond/environs patients. |
|
