|
Post by greenboy on Nov 1, 2023 6:43:03 GMT
Restructure idea including several routes discussed recently: 11 - Extended from Fulham Broadway to Hammersmith via the 211. 211 - Withdrawn, replaced by revised routes 11 and 49. 49 - Revised to operate between White City and Vauxhall, via current route from White City to Chelsea, then Kings Road to Sloane Square, and the 452 to Vauxhall. Links Chelsea to Battersea in place of the 211 (though serving the Power Station by Chelsea Bridge only). 452 - Withdrawn between Vauxhall and Sloane Square (though could continue to terminate near Victoria Coach Station if stand space is unavailable). Rerouted at Ladbroke Grove Sainsburys to extend via the 18 to Harlesden (Craven Park) - no longer serving Kensal Rise. To support the 18, and cover the missing local link between Kensal Green and Ladbroke Grove / Notting Hill. 156 - Withdrawn between Vauxhall and Clapham Junction, and instead extended to South Kensington via the 49. 436 - Extended from Battersea Park to Clapham Junction via the 156. 24 - Extended from Pimlico (serving Lupus Street in both directions) via Chelsea Bridge to Battersea Power Station. C1 - Withdrawn, replaced by revised routes 49, 360 and C3, plus existing routes to/from Knightsbridge. C3 - Extended from Earls Court to White City via the C1. 360 - Diverted between Pimlico and Sloane Square via the C10 to Victoria, then Eaton Square. Also extended from South Kensington Station (no longer serving Exhibition Road) to Hammersmith via the C1 to Earls Court Station, then the A4 (serving new stops near West Kensington and Barons Court). C10 - Diverted between Millbank and Victoria more directly via Horseferry Road, fully covering the 507. 3 - Removed from Victoria, and restored back to terminate near Trafalgar Square. I wouldn't be surprised if the 11 does get returned to Hammersmith and the 211 withdrawn at some future date and your 49 and 156 suggestion is a reasonable alternative. The 452 to Harlesden would be useful and I wonder if it might be better rerouted to Victoria via HPC to support the 52, the round the corner link at Knightsbridge doesn't seem very well used. I don't think TfL would sanction the 24 to BPS as it would take custom away from the tube, is the 360 practical along the A4 with the siting of bus stops? I'm open minded about the other proposals but if the 3 were removed from Victoria it would probably be rerouted to Old Kent Road Tesco replacing the 415 as was proposed previously.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 4, 2023 14:35:19 GMT
Some ideas for West London:
Chiswick/Mortlake area
190 - Diverted in the Chiswick area via Staveley Road, Burlington Lane, Chiswick Station, Sutton Court Road and Chiswick High Road (instead of via Hogarth Roundabout). To provide a direct link to Hammersmith from the area around Chiswick Station. Converted to DDs, and increased to every 12 minutes. Also extended from West Brompton to South Kensington via the 430.
N190 - New night route introduced from Richmond to South Kensington as above, then continuing to Trafalgar Square. Route N97 withdrawn.
272 - Diverted between Chiswick High Road and Chiswick Station via Chiswick Lane, Hogarth Roundabout, double run to Edensor Road, and Burlington Lane back to line of route. Swapping with the 190 above, and linking the area around Hogarth Roundabout to Chiswick Station.
E3 - Withdrawn between Chiswick and Turnham Green, replaced by changes to the 190/272. Instead extended to Hammersmith (direct via King Street), providing a direct link to the area around The Avenue.
209 - Extended from Mortlake (double running to Avondale Road) to Hammersmith via the 533. Increased to every 12-15 minutes. Route 533 withdrawn.
485 - Amended in the Putney area to connect to the District line, either a double run to Putney Bridge, or diverted via East Putney. Increased to every 12-15 minutes. Route 378 withdrawn - from Mortlake can use the 337 from Upper Richmond Road.
H91 - Could divert via the A4 between Hammersmith and Gunnersbury.
Putney & Richmond areas
H37 - Withdrawn.
33 - Revised to operate between Castelnau and Hounslow (Bleinheim Centre), via current route to Richmond Town Centre, then Richmond Station and Twickenham Bridge to St Margarets Road, and via the H37 to Hounslow. Longer 11.5m SDs introduced. 24-hour service as per the revised route.
391 - Re-introduced from Hammersmith to Fulwell, via the 110 to Richmond then the 33. Using DDs at about every 10 minutes.
110 - Rerouted over the 419 as originally proposed, operating between Hounslow and Castelnau, via Richmond and Mortlake.
419 - Withdrawn.
265 - Withdrawn between Putney Bridge and Barnes Station, instead extended to Castelnau replacing part of the 419.
22 - Extended from Putney Common to Roehampton (Bessborough Road) via the 265. N22 - Mostly kept unchanged, but diverted between Twickenham and Fulwell via the current 33.
283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge (north side) replacing the 72.
72 - Extended from Hammersmith Station to Roehampton (Danebury Avenue), via Fulham Palace Road, then the 430. 24-hour service as per the revised route. Converted to DDs.
430 - Withdrawn. N74 - Replaced by a 24-hour service on the 74.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 4, 2023 20:58:51 GMT
Some ideas for West London: Chiswick/Mortlake area190 - Diverted in the Chiswick area via Staveley Road, Burlington Lane, Chiswick Station, Sutton Court Road and Chiswick High Road (instead of via Hogarth Roundabout). To provide a direct link to Hammersmith from the area around Chiswick Station. Converted to DDs, and increased to every 12 minutes. Also extended from West Brompton to South Kensington via the 430. N190 - New night route introduced from Richmond to South Kensington as above, then continuing to Trafalgar Square. Route N97 withdrawn. 272 - Diverted between Chiswick High Road and Chiswick Station via Chiswick Lane, Hogarth Roundabout, double run to Edensor Road, and Burlington Lane back to line of route. Swapping with the 190 above, and linking the area around Hogarth Roundabout to Chiswick Station. E3 - Withdrawn between Chiswick and Turnham Green, replaced by changes to the 190/272. Instead extended to Hammersmith (direct via King Street), providing a direct link to the area around The Avenue. 209 - Extended from Mortlake (double running to Avondale Road) to Hammersmith via the 533. Increased to every 12-15 minutes. Route 533 withdrawn. 485 - Amended in the Putney area to connect to the District line, either a double run to Putney Bridge, or diverted via East Putney. Increased to every 12-15 minutes. Route 378 withdrawn - from Mortlake can use the 337 from Upper Richmond Road. H91 - Could divert via the A4 between Hammersmith and Gunnersbury. Putney & Richmond areasH37 - Withdrawn. 33 - Revised to operate between Castelnau and Hounslow (Bleinheim Centre), via current route to Richmond Town Centre, then Richmond Station and Twickenham Bridge to St Margarets Road, and via the H37 to Hounslow. Longer 11.5m SDs introduced. 24-hour service as per the revised route. 391 - Re-introduced from Hammersmith to Fulwell, via the 110 to Richmond then the 33. Using DDs at about every 10 minutes. 110 - Rerouted over the 419 as originally proposed, operating between Hounslow and Castelnau, via Richmond and Mortlake. 419 - Withdrawn. 265 - Withdrawn between Putney Bridge and Barnes Station, instead extended to Castelnau replacing part of the 419. 22 - Extended from Putney Common to Roehampton (Bessborough Road) via the 265. N22 - Mostly kept unchanged, but diverted between Twickenham and Fulwell via the current 33. 283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge (north side) replacing the 72. 72 - Extended from Hammersmith Station to Roehampton (Danebury Avenue), via Fulham Palace Road, then the 430. 24-hour service as per the revised route. Converted to DDs. 430 - Withdrawn. N74 - Replaced by a 24-hour service on the 74. All sounds good to me, I think a double run via Putney Bridge Station would be the best option for the 485 as I don't think passengers would stay on board to East Putney for the tube. I would keep the N74 at Roehampton to maintain the Central London link, possibly even to Kingston replacing the 85 night service?
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Nov 4, 2023 22:09:08 GMT
One issue is the number of regular users on the 33 who would be forced to change buses. It's quite busy across Richmond with decent numbers using it between Sheen / Barnes and East Richmond / Twickenham. I would rather see the 33 converted to DD with a slight reduction to perhaps 6bph base headway with peak extras more or less as now. That manages the capacity whilst saving a few buses which might be used elsewhere and should not become an issue unless Hammersmith Bridge reopens with a SD-only weight limit. Even so if other SD routes cross the bridge the 33 can remain DD and turn at Castelnau. If those pesky NIMBYs who don't want anyone peeking into their homes from atop a DD will allow!
72 cannot extend back along its original LOR south of Hammersmith until the bridge is open and again whether it is SD or DD would then be determined by any weight restriction.
N22 is actually well enough used along the Fulwell - Hampton Road - King Street stretch (for example my regular trip can pick up 10 - 15 people along that stretch alone) so diverting it via the 33 makes no sense. It would also require one additional bus to allow for the increased running time; about 8 more minutes each way. The N33 already covers this section and no additional capacity is required.
H37 must be SD because of the low bridge at Isleworth station. The old 37 route which avoided it can no longer be used because of one-way roads and turn bans. 11.5m vehicles will have issues through Isleworth village where the turns are very tight. I would perhaps keep the H37 but project it to East Sheen stand rather than Manor Circus. This does lose the direct step-off-step-on connection at Richmond station but the walk from Waitrose is only a few minutes and it would ease some of the significant congestion in the station / Richmond Circus / Manor Circus area.
485 cannot turn right at East Putney into High Street. This was the originally-proposed route when it was to run to Waterside via Wandsworth. The LOR adopted making a circuit of Waterside in both directions is helpful to residents there and allows the right turn at Putney Church.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 5, 2023 14:09:14 GMT
One issue is the number of regular users on the 33 who would be forced to change buses. It's quite busy across Richmond with decent numbers using it between Sheen / Barnes and East Richmond / Twickenham. I would rather see the 33 converted to DD with a slight reduction to perhaps 6bph base headway with peak extras more or less as now. That manages the capacity whilst saving a few buses which might be used elsewhere and should not become an issue unless Hammersmith Bridge reopens with a SD-only weight limit. Even so if other SD routes cross the bridge the 33 can remain DD and turn at Castelnau. If those pesky NIMBYs who don't want anyone peeking into their homes from atop a DD will allow! 72 cannot extend back along its original LOR south of Hammersmith until the bridge is open and again whether it is SD or DD would then be determined by any weight restriction. N22 is actually well enough used along the Fulwell - Hampton Road - King Street stretch (for example my regular trip can pick up 10 - 15 people along that stretch alone) so diverting it via the 33 makes no sense. It would also require one additional bus to allow for the increased running time; about 8 more minutes each way. The N33 already covers this section and no additional capacity is required. H37 must be SD because of the low bridge at Isleworth station. The old 37 route which avoided it can no longer be used because of one-way roads and turn bans. 11.5m vehicles will have issues through Isleworth village where the turns are very tight. I would perhaps keep the H37 but project it to East Sheen stand rather than Manor Circus. This does lose the direct step-off-step-on connection at Richmond station but the walk from Waitrose is only a few minutes and it would ease some of the significant congestion in the station / Richmond Circus / Manor Circus area. 485 cannot turn right at East Putney into High Street. This was the originally-proposed route when it was to run to Waterside via Wandsworth. The LOR adopted making a circuit of Waterside in both directions is helpful to residents there and allows the right turn at Putney Church. The problem is that Hammersmith Bridge is very unlikely to be able to take DDs. So if the 33 were to convert to DDs now, it would inevitably have to downgrade back to SDs again which would see a lot of opposition. I suppose your idea of keeping the 33 curtailed to Castelnau could work, but passengers around East Sheen would probably want their Hammersmith link restored. While I appreciate the passengers travelling across Richmond, SWR is a good alternative for many of these journeys, and splitting the 33 is the only realistic way to increase capacity. This would at least allow the Fulwell-Richmond section to upgrade to DDs and relieve overcrowding, with the Castelnau end still increasing slightly with full-length SDs as used on the H37. The only other alternative would be to extend the 337 from Richmond to Fulwell, but this may suffer from reliability issues. My suggestion for the 72 was to merge with part of the 430, and so would divert away from Hammersmith Bridge permanently, and wouldn't serve the former line of route around Roehampton (with the idea to eventually extend the revised 265 from Castelnau to Hammersmith). Diverting the N22 was linked to the 33/391/H37 changes. But if Fulwell needs both night routes via Richmond, could keep the N22 as it is, then instead add a night service to my 391 proposal instead of the N190 idea. So operating from Fulwell via the 33 to Richmond, 110 to Hammersmith and N97 to Trafalgar Square? This would also offer a night alternative to the District Line's Richmond branch, and offer some relief to the N9 along Chiswick High Road. I am aware of the restrictions with the H37, and my revised 33 replacing it would keep the current H37 route through Isleworth, and continue to directly serve Richmond Station. It would use Twickenham Bridge instead of Richmond Bridge (no longer serving St Margarets Station) - so from Isleworth the route would approach Richmond Town Centre from the north, serving the station then turning east onto Sheen Road.
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Nov 5, 2023 15:12:04 GMT
Maybe you only use it at school time. I really cannot see the need for the 62 to follow it up to Romford I specifically avoid it at school times. There is certainly the need for a second route, if not the 62 then something terminating at Chadwell Heath coming from the Romford direction. I think some sort of contender for this could be the 165. Likely a stupid idea, but it would link Chadwell Heath beyond Romford. TfL and other organisations had also considered doing things with the 165 and 365, such as switching the southern termini. We’d end up with the 165 (Chadwell Heath - Beam Park), and the 365 (Havering Park - Rainham). Rainham town keeps its direct connection to Hornchurch via the 372. I don’t know if there’s enough stand space for the 368 to share with this alternate 165 at Chadwell Heath though.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 5, 2023 15:25:39 GMT
One issue is the number of regular users on the 33 who would be forced to change buses. It's quite busy across Richmond with decent numbers using it between Sheen / Barnes and East Richmond / Twickenham. I would rather see the 33 converted to DD with a slight reduction to perhaps 6bph base headway with peak extras more or less as now. That manages the capacity whilst saving a few buses which might be used elsewhere and should not become an issue unless Hammersmith Bridge reopens with a SD-only weight limit. Even so if other SD routes cross the bridge the 33 can remain DD and turn at Castelnau. If those pesky NIMBYs who don't want anyone peeking into their homes from atop a DD will allow! 72 cannot extend back along its original LOR south of Hammersmith until the bridge is open and again whether it is SD or DD would then be determined by any weight restriction. N22 is actually well enough used along the Fulwell - Hampton Road - King Street stretch (for example my regular trip can pick up 10 - 15 people along that stretch alone) so diverting it via the 33 makes no sense. It would also require one additional bus to allow for the increased running time; about 8 more minutes each way. The N33 already covers this section and no additional capacity is required. H37 must be SD because of the low bridge at Isleworth station. The old 37 route which avoided it can no longer be used because of one-way roads and turn bans. 11.5m vehicles will have issues through Isleworth village where the turns are very tight. I would perhaps keep the H37 but project it to East Sheen stand rather than Manor Circus. This does lose the direct step-off-step-on connection at Richmond station but the walk from Waitrose is only a few minutes and it would ease some of the significant congestion in the station / Richmond Circus / Manor Circus area. 485 cannot turn right at East Putney into High Street. This was the originally-proposed route when it was to run to Waterside via Wandsworth. The LOR adopted making a circuit of Waterside in both directions is helpful to residents there and allows the right turn at Putney Church. The problem is that Hammersmith Bridge is very unlikely to be able to take DDs. So if the 33 were to convert to DDs now, it would inevitably have to downgrade back to SDs again which would see a lot of opposition. I suppose your idea of keeping the 33 curtailed to Castelnau could work, but passengers around East Sheen would probably want their Hammersmith link restored. While I appreciate the passengers travelling across Richmond, SWR is a good alternative for many of these journeys, and splitting the 33 is the only realistic way to increase capacity. This would at least allow the Fulwell-Richmond section to upgrade to DDs and relieve overcrowding, with the Castelnau end still increasing slightly with full-length SDs as used on the H37. The only other alternative would be to extend the 337 from Richmond to Fulwell, but this may suffer from reliability issues. My suggestion for the 72 was to merge with part of the 430, and so would divert away from Hammersmith Bridge permanently, and wouldn't serve the former line of route around Roehampton (with the idea to eventually extend the revised 265 from Castelnau to Hammersmith). Diverting the N22 was linked to the 33/391/H37 changes. But if Fulwell needs both night routes via Richmond, could keep the N22 as it is, then instead add a night service to my 391 proposal instead of the N190 idea. So operating from Fulwell via the 33 to Richmond, 110 to Hammersmith and N97 to Trafalgar Square? This would also offer a night alternative to the District Line's Richmond branch, and offer some relief to the N9 along Chiswick High Road. I am aware of the restrictions with the H37, and my revised 33 replacing it would keep the current H37 route through Isleworth, and continue to directly serve Richmond Station. It would use Twickenham Bridge instead of Richmond Bridge (no longer serving St Margarets Station) - so from Isleworth the route would approach Richmond Town Centre from the north, serving the station then turning east onto Sheen Road. I can see where your coming from combining the 2 sections of routes which are restricted to SD (Hounslow to Richmond and Richmond to Hammersmith. The main issues would be firstly the length of a combined route and previously the H37 was a bit more frequent being up to every 6 mins compared with 8 mins for the 33.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 5, 2023 17:23:22 GMT
One issue is the number of regular users on the 33 who would be forced to change buses. It's quite busy across Richmond with decent numbers using it between Sheen / Barnes and East Richmond / Twickenham. I would rather see the 33 converted to DD with a slight reduction to perhaps 6bph base headway with peak extras more or less as now. That manages the capacity whilst saving a few buses which might be used elsewhere and should not become an issue unless Hammersmith Bridge reopens with a SD-only weight limit. Even so if other SD routes cross the bridge the 33 can remain DD and turn at Castelnau. If those pesky NIMBYs who don't want anyone peeking into their homes from atop a DD will allow! 72 cannot extend back along its original LOR south of Hammersmith until the bridge is open and again whether it is SD or DD would then be determined by any weight restriction. N22 is actually well enough used along the Fulwell - Hampton Road - King Street stretch (for example my regular trip can pick up 10 - 15 people along that stretch alone) so diverting it via the 33 makes no sense. It would also require one additional bus to allow for the increased running time; about 8 more minutes each way. The N33 already covers this section and no additional capacity is required. H37 must be SD because of the low bridge at Isleworth station. The old 37 route which avoided it can no longer be used because of one-way roads and turn bans. 11.5m vehicles will have issues through Isleworth village where the turns are very tight. I would perhaps keep the H37 but project it to East Sheen stand rather than Manor Circus. This does lose the direct step-off-step-on connection at Richmond station but the walk from Waitrose is only a few minutes and it would ease some of the significant congestion in the station / Richmond Circus / Manor Circus area. 485 cannot turn right at East Putney into High Street. This was the originally-proposed route when it was to run to Waterside via Wandsworth. The LOR adopted making a circuit of Waterside in both directions is helpful to residents there and allows the right turn at Putney Church. The problem is that Hammersmith Bridge is very unlikely to be able to take DDs. So if the 33 were to convert to DDs now, it would inevitably have to downgrade back to SDs again which would see a lot of opposition. I suppose your idea of keeping the 33 curtailed to Castelnau could work, but passengers around East Sheen would probably want their Hammersmith link restored. While I appreciate the passengers travelling across Richmond, SWR is a good alternative for many of these journeys, and splitting the 33 is the only realistic way to increase capacity. This would at least allow the Fulwell-Richmond section to upgrade to DDs and relieve overcrowding, with the Castelnau end still increasing slightly with full-length SDs as used on the H37. The only other alternative would be to extend the 337 from Richmond to Fulwell, but this may suffer from reliability issues. My suggestion for the 72 was to merge with part of the 430, and so would divert away from Hammersmith Bridge permanently, and wouldn't serve the former line of route around Roehampton (with the idea to eventually extend the revised 265 from Castelnau to Hammersmith). Diverting the N22 was linked to the 33/391/H37 changes. But if Fulwell needs both night routes via Richmond, could keep the N22 as it is, then instead add a night service to my 391 proposal instead of the N190 idea. So operating from Fulwell via the 33 to Richmond, 110 to Hammersmith and N97 to Trafalgar Square? This would also offer a night alternative to the District Line's Richmond branch, and offer some relief to the N9 along Chiswick High Road. I am aware of the restrictions with the H37, and my revised 33 replacing it would keep the current H37 route through Isleworth, and continue to directly serve Richmond Station. It would use Twickenham Bridge instead of Richmond Bridge (no longer serving St Margarets Station) - so from Isleworth the route would approach Richmond Town Centre from the north, serving the station then turning east onto Sheen Road. I think we can say almost certainly that double deckers will never cross Hammersmith Bridge again and I like your idea for the 33 Castelnau to Hounslow and the 72 to Roehampton via Putney which gives a link to Hammersmith from Putney High Street.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 5, 2023 17:27:34 GMT
The problem is that Hammersmith Bridge is very unlikely to be able to take DDs. So if the 33 were to convert to DDs now, it would inevitably have to downgrade back to SDs again which would see a lot of opposition. I suppose your idea of keeping the 33 curtailed to Castelnau could work, but passengers around East Sheen would probably want their Hammersmith link restored. While I appreciate the passengers travelling across Richmond, SWR is a good alternative for many of these journeys, and splitting the 33 is the only realistic way to increase capacity. This would at least allow the Fulwell-Richmond section to upgrade to DDs and relieve overcrowding, with the Castelnau end still increasing slightly with full-length SDs as used on the H37. The only other alternative would be to extend the 337 from Richmond to Fulwell, but this may suffer from reliability issues. My suggestion for the 72 was to merge with part of the 430, and so would divert away from Hammersmith Bridge permanently, and wouldn't serve the former line of route around Roehampton (with the idea to eventually extend the revised 265 from Castelnau to Hammersmith). Diverting the N22 was linked to the 33/391/H37 changes. But if Fulwell needs both night routes via Richmond, could keep the N22 as it is, then instead add a night service to my 391 proposal instead of the N190 idea. So operating from Fulwell via the 33 to Richmond, 110 to Hammersmith and N97 to Trafalgar Square? This would also offer a night alternative to the District Line's Richmond branch, and offer some relief to the N9 along Chiswick High Road. I am aware of the restrictions with the H37, and my revised 33 replacing it would keep the current H37 route through Isleworth, and continue to directly serve Richmond Station. It would use Twickenham Bridge instead of Richmond Bridge (no longer serving St Margarets Station) - so from Isleworth the route would approach Richmond Town Centre from the north, serving the station then turning east onto Sheen Road. I can see where your coming from combining the 2 sections of routes which are restricted to SD (Hounslow to Richmond and Richmond to Hammersmith. The main issues would be firstly the length of a combined route and previously the H37 was a bit more frequent being up to every 6 mins compared with 8 mins for the 33. The H37 has already been reduced to every 7-8 minutes. I think this took place when the 110 was rerouted via Richmond? Also Richmond-Hounslow would be about the same length as Richmond-Fulwell.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 6, 2023 23:20:30 GMT
They are banned thou from the route unfortunately otherwise I think it would go DD now especially after other busy SDs routes have converted recently like the 80, 200, 203 and next year the 289. The difference is - there's no resident objections on those routes. Unfortunately, there are some on Royal Crescent (apparently they didn't want both local routes decked, so 295 (a much better candidate for decking) was decked) so that hinders the chances 316 goes decker. I do think you could get away with diverting 295 away though, although I will make a post on that on another thread. This is a good point actually. While it seems TFL can't increase capacity any more on that section via Latimer Road Station, it would be possibly to work around this to increase capacity on the rest of the 316. Swapping the 228/316 between Ladbroke Grove and Shepherds Bush would be an obvious option, though as you say looking at the 295 might work well. Perhaps the 295 could divert at Shepherds Bush to take over the 72 to East Acton, also increasing capacity there? Then have an SD route from Ladbroke Grove to Hammersmith Bridge (North Side) - with the intention of eventually extending across the river - and therefore allowing the 316 to convert to DDs in its current form.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 7, 2023 9:11:04 GMT
The difference is - there's no resident objections on those routes. Unfortunately, there are some on Royal Crescent (apparently they didn't want both local routes decked, so 295 (a much better candidate for decking) was decked) so that hinders the chances 316 goes decker. I do think you could get away with diverting 295 away though, although I will make a post on that on another thread. This is a good point actually. While it seems TFL can't increase capacity any more on that section via Latimer Road Station, it would be possibly to work around this to increase capacity on the rest of the 316. Swapping the 228/316 between Ladbroke Grove and Shepherds Bush would be an obvious option, though as you say looking at the 295 might work well. Perhaps the 295 could divert at Shepherds Bush to take over the 72 to East Acton, also increasing capacity there? Then have an SD route from Ladbroke Grove to Hammersmith Bridge (North Side) - with the intention of eventually extending across the river - and therefore allowing the 316 to convert to DDs in its current form. I might be wrong but I think there is a problem about double deckers on the Holland Park end of Ladbroke Grove but your suggestion of changing the 72 and 295 might have some merit. That said I'm not sure double deckers are quite as essential on the 316 as some people claim, would passengers go upstairs in significant numbers?
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Nov 10, 2023 2:03:45 GMT
Barking and Dagenham and Havering changes: Chadwell Heath: 62 extended to Grange Hill via the 362. Gives Hainault a much more frequent route to Chadwell Heath providing a better frequency in areas where there is poor public transport ie near Hainault Forest
396 extended to Chadwell Heath via 362. Replaces the 362
368 extended to Marks Gate to make stand space for the 396 at Chadwell Heath
362 withdrawn because the frequency is very low.
Rainham changes 252 withdrawn between Airfield Way and Hornchurch. Rerouted to Rainham Abbey Wood Lane via Southend Road and then the 165. Providing Upper Rainham Road a link to Rainham.
256 extended from Miramar Way to Elm Park station via 252. To maintain lost links on the 252
372 extended to Romford Brewery via 165.
165 withdrawn, replaced by the 252 and 372. Simplifies the Romford, Elm Park to Rainham corridor
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 10, 2023 9:21:05 GMT
387:
Running between Southall and Wembley Park via:
South Road Route 195 to Hanwell Broadway Uxbridge Road Church Road Hanwell Station Greenford Avenue Ruislip Road East Route E5 to Teignmouth Gardens Route 297 to Bilton Road Manor Farm Road Bridgewater Road Ealing Road Priory Gardens Hanger Lane Gyratory North Circular Road Route 112 to Stonebridge Park Harrow Road Brentfield Hillside Brentfield Road Neasden Temple North Circular Road Route 16 to Neasden Shopping Centre Neasden Lane Birse Cresent Neasden Underpass Blackbird Hill Forty Lane Forty Avenue Brook Avenue
Purpose: To link Perivale and Greenford Avenue with Ealing Hospital, to link Alperton with Southall and to help out the 297.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Nov 10, 2023 12:02:32 GMT
I specifically avoid it at school times. There is certainly the need for a second route, if not the 62 then something terminating at Chadwell Heath coming from the Romford direction. I think some sort of contender for this could be the 165. Likely a stupid idea, but it would link Chadwell Heath beyond Romford. TfL and other organisations had also considered doing things with the 165 and 365, such as switching the southern termini. We’d end up with the 165 (Chadwell Heath - Beam Park), and the 365 (Havering Park - Rainham). Rainham town keeps its direct connection to Hornchurch via the 372. I don’t know if there’s enough stand space for the 368 to share with this alternate 165 at Chadwell Heath though. If you're sending the 165 to Chadwell Heath you might want to extend the 368 to King George Hospital via the 173. However I don't think that the 165 is the best route to extend to Chadwell Heath, I reckon people from there want Ilford, Barking or Romford
|
|
|
Post by secretbu5dude on Nov 10, 2023 13:35:33 GMT
387: Running between Southall and Wembley Park via: South Road Route 195 to Hanwell Broadway Uxbridge Road Church Road Hanwell Station Greenford Avenue Ruislip Road East Route E5 to Teignmouth Gardens Route 297 to Bilton Road Manor Farm Road Bridgewater Road Ealing Road Priory Gardens Hanger Lane Gyratory North Circular Road Route 112 to Stonebridge Park Harrow Road Brentfield Hillside Brentfield Road Neasden Temple North Circular Road Route 16 to Neasden Shopping Centre Neasden Lane Birse Cresent Neasden Underpass Blackbird Hill Forty Lane Forty Avenue Brook Avenue Purpose: To link Perivale and Greenford Avenue with Ealing Hospital, to link Alperton with Southall and to help out the 297. I'm guessing DD's? How often would this run?
|
|