|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 9, 2021 20:47:15 GMT
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. As long as the SDO 371 DD journeys are not withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Dec 10, 2021 21:22:31 GMT
I have only just realised how short the 414 has become, possibly in the cards for one of Central London’s least amount of bus stops served route excluding the 100, 507/521 and X68
Personally I know it has just been fiddled with, and I mention this change so much theres nothing to reply too however 👀
A 414 extended to Hampstead Heath via the current 274 and then route 168 can produce a key link from South Ken and Fulham to North West London. Personally I think this would be a lot more popular than the current 274
And for the 274, as have said before the 476 to replace it from Upper Street all the way to Pratt Street and just terminate at Mornington Crescent, which also would be very popular.
And for the planned 1, just to run between Camden Town and Canada Water, as the north of Waterloo is not really that popular past the Roundhouse, which is walking distance from Camden Town Station or Chalk Farm Station but has no stand space since Morrisons was rebuilt and the new one is still being built
274 would be split into two existing routes in this case, the 414 and the 476
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2021 21:26:17 GMT
I have only just realised how short the 414 has become, possibly in the cards for one of Central London’s least amount of bus stops served route excluding the 100, 507/521 and X68 Personally I know it has just been fiddled with, and I mention this change so much theres nothing to reply too however 👀 A 414 extended to Hampstead Heath via the current 274 and then route 168 can produce a key link from South Ken and Fulham to North West London. Personally I think this would be a lot more popular than the current 274 And for the 274, as have said before the 476 to replace it from Upper Street all the way to Pratt Street and just terminate at Mornington Crescent, which also would be very popular. And for the planned 1, just to run between Camden Town and Canada Water, as the north of Waterloo is not really that popular past the Roundhouse, which is walking distance from Camden Town Station or Chalk Farm Station but has no stand space since Morrisons was rebuilt and the new one is still being built 274 would be split into two existing routes in this case, the 414 and the 476 Wouldn't the 414 be too long though?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 10, 2021 21:54:32 GMT
I have only just realised how short the 414 has become, possibly in the cards for one of Central London’s least amount of bus stops served route excluding the 100, 507/521 and X68 Personally I know it has just been fiddled with, and I mention this change so much theres nothing to reply too however 👀 A 414 extended to Hampstead Heath via the current 274 and then route 168 can produce a key link from South Ken and Fulham to North West London. Personally I think this would be a lot more popular than the current 274 And for the 274, as have said before the 476 to replace it from Upper Street all the way to Pratt Street and just terminate at Mornington Crescent, which also would be very popular. And for the planned 1, just to run between Camden Town and Canada Water, as the north of Waterloo is not really that popular past the Roundhouse, which is walking distance from Camden Town Station or Chalk Farm Station but has no stand space since Morrisons was rebuilt and the new one is still being built 274 would be split into two existing routes in this case, the 414 and the 476 Certainly some merit in extending the 414 at least to Camden Town and the 476 to Mornington Crescent, little point in it just duplicating the 73 to Kings Cross as it does now. The only slight problem is the no left turn from Liverpool Road at Islington. I think the 1 would be the best option for Hampstead Heath though as it's an exact replacement for the 168 as far as Bricklayers Arms although if the 24 ever did get axed then the 414 could perhaps go that way to Hampstead Heath?
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on Dec 11, 2021 4:13:45 GMT
To save money why not withdraw route 283 and renumber as route 72? Reason the 72 now runs from Hammersmith Bridge to East Acton but many routes duplicate from Hammersmith to Wood Lane and onwards to East Acton.
If you run the route via 283 route you are not losing the link down the back streets of Shepherds Bush also you still have the night element to Roehampton, furthermore when Hammersmith Bridge reopens (if ever) only add about 5-10 minutes on the current route
|
|
|
Post by greg on Dec 12, 2021 18:27:02 GMT
I have only just realised how short the 414 has become, possibly in the cards for one of Central London’s least amount of bus stops served route excluding the 100, 507/521 and X68 Personally I know it has just been fiddled with, and I mention this change so much theres nothing to reply too however 👀 A 414 extended to Hampstead Heath via the current 274 and then route 168 can produce a key link from South Ken and Fulham to North West London. Personally I think this would be a lot more popular than the current 274 And for the 274, as have said before the 476 to replace it from Upper Street all the way to Pratt Street and just terminate at Mornington Crescent, which also would be very popular. And for the planned 1, just to run between Camden Town and Canada Water, as the north of Waterloo is not really that popular past the Roundhouse, which is walking distance from Camden Town Station or Chalk Farm Station but has no stand space since Morrisons was rebuilt and the new one is still being built 274 would be split into two existing routes in this case, the 414 and the 476 Certainly some merit in extending the 414 at least to Camden Town and the 476 to Mornington Crescent, little point in it just duplicating the 73 to Kings Cross as it does now. The only slight problem is the no left turn from Liverpool Road at Islington. I think the 1 would be the best option for Hampstead Heath though as it's an exact replacement for the 168 as far as Bricklayers Arms although if the 24 ever did get axed then the 414 could perhaps go that way to Hampstead Heath? Yeah you are right and @buses1350 too, but yes I think the 414 to Camden and 476 to Mornington Crescent are the best options The turn banned in Angel for the 476 could be solved by a double run down City Road and back from City and Islington College And one minor suggestion, a cut back to the 74 to Marble Arch if the 414 was to (speculation) extended, as they duplicate to South Ken and Park Road is already over bussed as it is.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 12, 2021 18:30:59 GMT
Certainly some merit in extending the 414 at least to Camden Town and the 476 to Mornington Crescent, little point in it just duplicating the 73 to Kings Cross as it does now. The only slight problem is the no left turn from Liverpool Road at Islington. I think the 1 would be the best option for Hampstead Heath though as it's an exact replacement for the 168 as far as Bricklayers Arms although if the 24 ever did get axed then the 414 could perhaps go that way to Hampstead Heath? Yeah you are right and @buses1350 too, but yes I think the 414 to Camden and 476 to Mornington Crescent are the best options The turn banned in Angel for the 476 could be solved by a double run down City Road and back from City and Islington College And one minor suggestion, a cut back to the 74 to Marble Arch if the 414 was to (speculation) extended, as they duplicate to South Ken and Park Road is already over bussed as it is. Or just extend the 74 to Camden and leave the 414 be.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Dec 12, 2021 18:42:29 GMT
Yeah you are right and @buses1350 too, but yes I think the 414 to Camden and 476 to Mornington Crescent are the best options The turn banned in Angel for the 476 could be solved by a double run down City Road and back from City and Islington College And one minor suggestion, a cut back to the 74 to Marble Arch if the 414 was to (speculation) extended, as they duplicate to South Ken and Park Road is already over bussed as it is. Or just extend the 74 to Camden and leave the 414 be. Yes could do, but firstly: The 414 is a lot shorter in length since its huge cut back to Marble Arch, thats about 1/4 of the route withdrawn, its got a lower frequency similar to the 274’s so no overbussing, and its a daily service which is better as there is definitely no night demand. I think if the 74 was to be extended to Camden, so would the N74 which would be too much. Also deadruns from Camden to X could be made easier
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 12, 2021 18:46:45 GMT
Or just extend the 74 to Camden and leave the 414 be. Yes could do, but firstly: The 414 is a lot shorter in length since its huge cut back to Marble Arch, thats about 1/4 of the route withdrawn, its got a lower frequency similar to the 274’s so no overbussing, and its a daily service which is better as there is definitely no night demand. I think if the 74 was to be extended to Camden, so would the N74 which would be too much. Also deadruns from Camden to X could be made easier A 74 from AF (potentially the 14/74/414 could swap stands if needed) to Camden is not unworkable and the N74 does not need to be extended to Camden because there are some daytime routes that extend further than their night time counterparts. The 136 goes beyond Peckham to E&C daily which the N136 doesn't do as the 136 was extended after its incarnation.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 12, 2021 18:55:50 GMT
In reality the 414 is to be discontinued and the 74 reduced again in frequency.
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Dec 14, 2021 10:14:21 GMT
Yes could do, but firstly: The 414 is a lot shorter in length since its huge cut back to Marble Arch, thats about 1/4 of the route withdrawn, its got a lower frequency similar to the 274’s so no overbussing, and its a daily service which is better as there is definitely no night demand. I think if the 74 was to be extended to Camden, so would the N74 which would be too much. Also deadruns from Camden to X could be made easier A 74 from AF (potentially the 14/74/414 could swap stands if needed) to Camden is not unworkable and the N74 does not need to be extended to Camden because there are some daytime routes that extend further than their night time counterparts. The 136 goes beyond Peckham to E&C daily which the N136 doesn't do as the 136 was extended after its incarnation. 74 used to be Putney to Cardenden
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Dec 14, 2021 10:14:59 GMT
A 74 from AF (potentially the 14/74/414 could swap stands if needed) to Camden is not unworkable and the N74 does not need to be extended to Camden because there are some daytime routes that extend further than their night time counterparts. The 136 goes beyond Peckham to E&C daily which the N136 doesn't do as the 136 was extended after its incarnation. 74 used to be Putney to Cardenden Camden Town
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 14, 2021 17:53:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 14, 2021 18:53:16 GMT
These proposals are obviously well thought through but there's a few issues I've identified. - Think the 33 and 371 will become too long from these changes. The 33 is slammed with Upper Richmond Road and you're adding to that Fulwell, Hampton Hill and a pretty indirect route in Hampton. The 371 also has plenty of delays in its current form to deal with, and you're adding to that Hogarth Roundabout and Chiswick High Road. - The 190 change wouldn't really be worth it, as by and large you're putting it along established corridors that cater for their demand well at the moment in the 195 and 267. Also the new roads in West Ealing are not wide enough for buses, particularly Raymond Avenue/Woodstock Avenue. - If I remember correctly the H28 proposal received serious backlash at its initial release. Also you're leaving Wood Lane unserved. - I don't think the problem with the 27's low demand to CBP was the lack of a bus stop at the southern entrance, it was that the links east of the park were already covered by the District Line, so most park employees would just make the short walk to Gunnersbury Station. The park is already roughly linked with the Acton/East Acton area from the 70 so this wouldn't be providing much new. - Whilst I agree that the 110 probably needs to be looked at again regarding length/reliability, imo rerouting it to Grove Park is not the solution. Grove Park is already linked to Richmond by the 190 so all this would provide is a link to Kew Bridge (where Chiswick Station is served by the same line anyway) and a new link to Kew which I don't think would receive enough patronage. - I don't mind the idea of the 437/493 changes, however there is a possibility of overcrowding on the less frequent 437 serving the busy Roehampton-East Sheen link. I'd probably up the frequency to 12 during peaks and 15 all other times. I'd also rather the 437 serve St Margarets, which whilst duplicating the H37 to Isleworth would still create new links.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 14, 2021 18:56:01 GMT
I'm a bit dubious as to whether a good reason of justifying your 281 change is to avoid Rugby Match traffic.
In some scenarios it would make more sense, it might've been a slightly better option on say the 130 when the extension was proposed to divert it round Grangewood Lane rather than Park Road because of Selhurst Park Stadium, but it is very well scenario based and I don't think the 281 would need it.
|
|