|
|
Post by sleckdeck on Jan 16, 2022 20:45:28 GMT
18: Withdrawn between Sudbury and Wembley triangle. Extend to Kings Cross. 27: Re-extend back to Chiswick Business Park, TFL did Hounslow council dirty there. 33: Convert to DD with the 65’s SPs 371: Convert to DD with BCE’s and existing VH’s. 237: Withdrawn between Hounslow Heath and Hounslow Bell corner. Possibly given an LT allocation as a result. 267: Extended to Teddington Broad street. May require conventionals however. H22: Withdrawn between Twickenham and West Middlesex hospital. Either extended to Richmond again or remanded at Twickenham. 481: Extended to Brentford County Court via 267. Frequency increased to 4bph. This is totally implausible! What would replace the 18 to Sudbury, and it doesn't need to be extended to King's Cross. The 371 is fine with SD's, two DD's (actually 5 atm) are allocated for school journeys where the most demand is. The Chiswick High Road was deemed to be overbussed, and you can't just add a route to a corridor as TfL did the local council 'dirty'! The 267 doesn't need an extension, and where would it stand anyway? Same goes for the 237, there is no spare stand space at the Bell. And the H22; hospital links are solid gold right now (hence why I am always saying that Richmond NEEDS a direct hospital link). Is there enough demand for the 481 to be increased as it has just gone from 45 to 87 capacity buses? As a frequenter on the 18, a lot of the passengers who make long distance journeys usually walk to Kings Cross. The route has been running a lot better after the PVR cut with odd gap sometimes. The 92 and 182 can cover the 18, but even then just cutting the route to Wembley and Euston may increase reliability. The 267 could do with an extension during the school period, or perhaps a school route in form of the 267 could run between Chiswick and Teddington. It can stand where the rail replacement buses normally stand. The 267 already links the hospital, and the H22 is usually empty after twickenham. The reason I ask for it to return to Richmond is because the R70 and R68 have become ridiculously overcrowded due to the withdrawal. The demand for Twickenham to Richmond is why it would have been smarter to leave the H22 as it is between twickenham and manor circus and then send the 481 to Brentford to relieve the terrible congestion on the 267. The 267 is overly exposed on that corridor and usually will carry crush loads by Park Road. It would also create new links from Brentford to Whitton. It would be helpful knowing what SWR is like. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 16, 2022 22:36:09 GMT
18: Withdrawn between Sudbury and Wembley triangle. Extend to Kings Cross. 27: Re-extend back to Chiswick Business Park, TFL did Hounslow council dirty there. 33: Convert to DD with the 65’s SPs 371: Convert to DD with BCE’s and existing VH’s. 237: Withdrawn between Hounslow Heath and Hounslow Bell corner. Possibly given an LT allocation as a result. 267: Extended to Teddington Broad street. May require conventionals however. H22: Withdrawn between Twickenham and West Middlesex hospital. Either extended to Richmond again or remanded at Twickenham. 481: Extended to Brentford County Court via 267. Frequency increased to 4bph. Whilst I agree with the two double deck conversions, there are no spare VH's for the 371 to do this under the current plans. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 16, 2022 23:01:59 GMT
18: Withdrawn between Sudbury and Wembley triangle. Extend to Kings Cross. 27: Re-extend back to Chiswick Business Park, TFL did Hounslow council dirty there. 33: Convert to DD with the 65’s SPs 371: Convert to DD with BCE’s and existing VH’s. 237: Withdrawn between Hounslow Heath and Hounslow Bell corner. Possibly given an LT allocation as a result. 267: Extended to Teddington Broad street. May require conventionals however. H22: Withdrawn between Twickenham and West Middlesex hospital. Either extended to Richmond again or remanded at Twickenham. 481: Extended to Brentford County Court via 267. Frequency increased to 4bph. - If the 18 were to terminate anywhere in Wembley it would be Wembley Central (this involves re-jigging a number of routes), as Wembley Triangle misses out on a large portion of the town centre. But the 18 still carries a lot of cross-Wembley traffic and from what I've seen the existing arrangement simply works. - In my view the 371 doesn't have consistent high demand or capacity problems to warrant a full allocation of DDs. A few double decker workings are certainly needed for Grey Court students and some peak loadings. The 371 is well used but it's not at breaking point. - Easy fix if the 237 is to be cut back to Bell Corner (which given the reliability problems it suffers I think it should) is to send the E8 to Hounslow Heath instead. - The 267 isn't needed in Teddington. - Sending the H22 back to Richmond is something I'd welcome, by and large it carries fresh air up the Twickenham Road (similar to its predecessor on that section the 110). |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 16, 2022 23:07:10 GMT
18: Withdrawn between Sudbury and Wembley triangle. Extend to Kings Cross. 27: Re-extend back to Chiswick Business Park, TFL did Hounslow council dirty there. 33: Convert to DD with the 65’s SPs 371: Convert to DD with BCE’s and existing VH’s. 237: Withdrawn between Hounslow Heath and Hounslow Bell corner. Possibly given an LT allocation as a result. 267: Extended to Teddington Broad street. May require conventionals however. H22: Withdrawn between Twickenham and West Middlesex hospital. Either extended to Richmond again or remanded at Twickenham. 481: Extended to Brentford County Court via 267. Frequency increased to 4bph. This is totally implausible! What would replace the 18 to Sudbury, and it doesn't need to be extended to King's Cross. The 371 is fine with SD's, two DD's (actually 5 atm) are allocated for school journeys where the most demand is. The Chiswick High Road was deemed to be overbussed, and you can't just add a route to a corridor as TfL did the local council 'dirty'! The 267 doesn't need an extension, and where would it stand anyway? Same goes for the 237, there is no spare stand space at the Bell. And the H22; hospital links are solid gold right now (hence why I am always saying that Richmond NEEDS a direct hospital link). Is there enough demand for the 481 to be increased as it has just gone from 45 to 87 capacity buses? The H22 doesn't really provide any unique links to WMH, and for most of its route it's quicker to get the 481 there. It's only there to support the 267. |
|
|
|
Post by sleckdeck on Jan 16, 2022 23:20:45 GMT
This is totally implausible! What would replace the 18 to Sudbury, and it doesn't need to be extended to King's Cross. The 371 is fine with SD's, two DD's (actually 5 atm) are allocated for school journeys where the most demand is. The Chiswick High Road was deemed to be overbussed, and you can't just add a route to a corridor as TfL did the local council 'dirty'! The 267 doesn't need an extension, and where would it stand anyway? Same goes for the 237, there is no spare stand space at the Bell. And the H22; hospital links are solid gold right now (hence why I am always saying that Richmond NEEDS a direct hospital link). Is there enough demand for the 481 to be increased as it has just gone from 45 to 87 capacity buses? The H22 doesn't really provide any unique links to WMH, and for most of its route it's quicker to get the 481 there. It's only there to support the 267. It doesn’t even support the 267, most people end up squashing onto a 267 even if an H22 turns up first. Personally I think the 267 would be just fine with the H22 being sent back to Richmond or even being curtailed at twickenham |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 17, 2022 1:58:03 GMT
This is totally implausible! What would replace the 18 to Sudbury, and it doesn't need to be extended to King's Cross. The 371 is fine with SD's, two DD's (actually 5 atm) are allocated for school journeys where the most demand is. The Chiswick High Road was deemed to be overbussed, and you can't just add a route to a corridor as TfL did the local council 'dirty'! The 267 doesn't need an extension, and where would it stand anyway? Same goes for the 237, there is no spare stand space at the Bell. And the H22; hospital links are solid gold right now (hence why I am always saying that Richmond NEEDS a direct hospital link). Is there enough demand for the 481 to be increased as it has just gone from 45 to 87 capacity buses? The H22 doesn't really provide any unique links to WMH, and for most of its route it's quicker to get the 481 there. It's only there to support the 267. One option would be to split the 493, curtail it to Roehampton and have a route start from Putney Heath and run to West Middlesex Hospital via the current 493 routing to Richmond, then follow the H37 and then 267 to the hospital giving that Richmond link? |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 17, 2022 9:37:05 GMT
The H22 doesn't really provide any unique links to WMH, and for most of its route it's quicker to get the 481 there. It's only there to support the 267. One option would be to split the 493, curtail it to Roehampton and have a route start from Putney Heath and run to West Middlesex Hospital via the current 493 routing to Richmond, then follow the H37 and then 267 to the hospital giving that Richmond link? I'd support this. The new route idea creates new links and makes the 493 much more reliable for it's busy eastern end. You are losing the East Sheen-Wimbledon link but there is that bit of overlap between the two routes for interchange. I'd potentially put the new route further up to Osterley to give Old Isleworth a link to Syon Lane Station and provide general southbound capacity for the new development. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Jan 17, 2022 17:07:59 GMT
The H22 doesn't really provide any unique links to WMH, and for most of its route it's quicker to get the 481 there. It's only there to support the 267. One option would be to split the 493, curtail it to Roehampton and have a route start from Putney Heath and run to West Middlesex Hospital via the current 493 routing to Richmond, then follow the H37 and then 267 to the hospital giving that Richmond link? I like that (hence why I suggested something similar a couple months ago!) It would also give a nice cross-Richmond link and free up a stand space in Richmond, which could be used to cut the 490 back and deck it. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Jan 17, 2022 17:10:04 GMT
One option would be to split the 493, curtail it to Roehampton and have a route start from Putney Heath and run to West Middlesex Hospital via the current 493 routing to Richmond, then follow the H37 and then 267 to the hospital giving that Richmond link? I'd support this. The new route idea creates new links and makes the 493 much more reliable for it's busy eastern end. You are losing the East Sheen-Wimbledon link but there is that bit of overlap between the two routes for interchange. I'd potentially put the new route further up to Osterley to give Old Isleworth a link to Syon Lane Station and provide general southbound capacity for the new development. For East Sheen to Wimbledon: According to Journey Planner, it's quicker to walk to Mortlake and get the train via Clapham, or simply to cycle. On the bus it's as fast currently to get the 337/93 so I can't see that being a problem. Also agree with you on Osterley. |
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on Jan 20, 2022 0:17:20 GMT
Have to admit, whilst the 466 does get busy at school times, I've never seen it get so busy it must require a frequency of every 8 minutes. I mean, a couple of school journeys along the 466 would surely cover the school demand and allow the route to drop to either every 10 or 12 minutes (15 is too harsh a drop). I struggle to see how the 466 is busier than the 37 even at school loading time, try riding that one through Dulwich yet it remains stuck on every 10 minutes and it has demand that stretches right through the peaks, into the evenings and even at night due to it linking several night hot spots up. The 312 going to Old Lodge Lane via Brighton Road is going to give it more assistance in the future too not to mention it's gained added help from the 60's frequency increase & 407 double decking. To be honest, it’s not really a question either you or I can answer properly - I’m going to know a lot more about the 466 peak loadings than you are, but you will know a lot more about the 37 than I will. I suspect the conclusion here is live and let live! I've always thought a school route "666" from Old Coulsdon through Stoat Nests Road, Purley, Pampisford Road, East Croydon, Addiscombe Road, Upper Shirley Road to Addington Village could work to separate busy school loadings and generic commuter traffic on the 466/405 routes etc. From there serving majority of the schools in the Southern Croydon area, could even be extended back on itself or diverted instead via Lloyd Park to/at Addington Village if need be to serve schools there as well. Or even extend the 612 to Addington Village/Lloyd Park to cover the changes here also, however I don't know how the timetables will line up for the school times. |
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on Jan 20, 2022 0:21:15 GMT
I'd support this. The new route idea creates new links and makes the 493 much more reliable for it's busy eastern end. You are losing the East Sheen-Wimbledon link but there is that bit of overlap between the two routes for interchange. I'd potentially put the new route further up to Osterley to give Old Isleworth a link to Syon Lane Station and provide general southbound capacity for the new development. For East Sheen to Wimbledon: According to Journey Planner, it's quicker to walk to Mortlake and get the train via Clapham, or simply to cycle. On the bus it's as fast currently to get the 337/93 so I can't see that being a problem. Also agree with you on Osterley. How busy is the 493 between East Sheen and Wimbledon. I know it's a busy route especially for it being SD but like being said there are faster alternatives out there and again like said does feel like after Roehampton to Richmond, that's a more quieter section of the route and tfl can easily shout hopper fare for the 337/33. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 20, 2022 22:08:13 GMT
For East Sheen to Wimbledon: According to Journey Planner, it's quicker to walk to Mortlake and get the train via Clapham, or simply to cycle. On the bus it's as fast currently to get the 337/93 so I can't see that being a problem. Also agree with you on Osterley. How busy is the 493 between East Sheen and Wimbledon. I know it's a busy route especially for it being SD but like being said there are faster alternatives out there and again like said does feel like after Roehampton to Richmond, that's a more quieter section of the route and tfl can easily shout hopper fare for the 337/33. Whenever I've tried to catch a 493 from Southfields into Wimbledon, it's been pretty much standing room only. I couldn't say where they all got on but I don't think they all boarded south of Tibbetts Corner. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 20, 2022 22:37:37 GMT
For East Sheen to Wimbledon: According to Journey Planner, it's quicker to walk to Mortlake and get the train via Clapham, or simply to cycle. On the bus it's as fast currently to get the 337/93 so I can't see that being a problem. Also agree with you on Osterley. How busy is the 493 between East Sheen and Wimbledon. I know it's a busy route especially for it being SD but like being said there are faster alternatives out there and again like said does feel like after Roehampton to Richmond, that's a more quieter section of the route and tfl can easily shout hopper fare for the 337/33. The Roehampton to East Sheen link is unique and well used. They can try cutting it back to East Sheen but the only stand available would be Queens Road. At which point you may as well run it into Richmond. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 23, 2022 10:19:31 GMT
Would a simpler way of solving the Highgate stand problem be to extend the 271 to Brent Cross and the 143 to Finsbury Park and withdraw the 210?
Obviously it would restrict the Finsbury Park section to single deckers, although the 210 used to be single deckers and the 143 frequency could be increased.
Seems a far simpler solution to me but I'm sure there must be arguments against it.
|
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jan 23, 2022 10:47:50 GMT
Would a simpler way of solving the Highgate stand problem be to extend the 271 to Brent Cross and the 143 to Finsbury Park and withdraw the 210? Obviously it would restrict the Finsbury Park section to single deckers, although the 210 used to be single deckers and the 143 frequency could be increased. Seems a far simpler solution to me but I'm sure there must be arguments against it. There were some past suggestions by some members to extend the N271 to Brent Cross via the 210 routing |
|
