|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 26, 2023 18:48:14 GMT
But this route is surely intended for end to end that purpose? The only difference to the 86 here is the bit to Barking, which has the 5? The 86s line of route is near the 128s line of route and the hopper fare means people can always just take one of many buses from Romford Station. It isn't intended for end-to-end purposes. I've already mentioned the purpose of it in my first comment. Particularly, only Ilford to Goodmayes are within walking distance of the 128, and while it's true that you can just take the 86 to Romford Station and get another one to the hospital, in the perspective of a non-enthusiastic, would you rather switch over buses or take one bus straight there? If you look in that perspective everyone would like everywhere to be linked to everywhere, but that's simply not possible. We're not talking about just one route from Romford Station to Queens to connect onto from the 86, we're looking at the 5, 175, 365, 498, 499, 128, 496 and 193. Ilford to Barking does not need another bus service, the corridor is intensely used however we have the EL1 running at every 5 minutes and the 169 running at every 10 minutes. The SL2 will be coming in too which will be providing plenty of capacity along that corridor, there is also the 366 weaving in and out. There is no need at all for another bus service linking Ilford and Barking, the key there is a few at a high frequency which has worked very well all these years. As you say, Ilford to Goodmayes is within distance of the 128. Goodmayes you have the EL3 which goes to King George Hospital and the 362 and 173 from Chadwell Heath. The 173 also goes to Becontree Heath where you have the 175, 128 and 5 as well if for whatever reason you don't want to use the 86. If the 86 needs any support all I'd do is probably send the 368 down London Road to Romford Station at most, Queen's has the links it needs to the various areas within its catchment area.
|
|
|
Post by Trafalgax on Dec 26, 2023 20:03:07 GMT
It isn't intended for end-to-end purposes. I've already mentioned the purpose of it in my first comment. Particularly, only Ilford to Goodmayes are within walking distance of the 128, and while it's true that you can just take the 86 to Romford Station and get another one to the hospital, in the perspective of a non-enthusiastic, would you rather switch over buses or take one bus straight there? If you look in that perspective everyone would like everywhere to be linked to everywhere, but that's simply not possible. We're not talking about just one route from Romford Station to Queens to connect onto from the 86, we're looking at the 5, 175, 365, 498, 499, 128, 496 and 193. Ilford to Barking does not need another bus service, the corridor is intensely used however we have the EL1 running at every 5 minutes and the 169 running at every 10 minutes. The SL2 will be coming in too which will be providing plenty of capacity along that corridor, there is also the 366 weaving in and out. There is no need at all for another bus service linking Ilford and Barking, the key there is a few at a high frequency which has worked very well all these years. As you say, Ilford to Goodmayes is within distance of the 128. Goodmayes you have the EL3 which goes to King George Hospital and the 362 and 173 from Chadwell Heath. The 173 also goes to Becontree Heath where you have the 175, 128 and 5 as well if for whatever reason you don't want to use the 86. If the 86 needs any support all I'd do is probably send the 368 down London Road to Romford Station at most, Queen's has the links it needs to the various areas within its catchment area. Residents have asked for a connection to Queen’s Hospital, not King George Hospital, hence why I proposed the route in the first place. Those routes you mentioned don't link London Road to the hospital, therefore would be no benefit for the people and I'm not so sure about the capacity issues you mentioned. I doubt one more route that's would be every 10 to 12 minutes would hurt that section too much, besides, Barking isn't exactly a quiet station.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 26, 2023 22:38:01 GMT
If you look in that perspective everyone would like everywhere to be linked to everywhere, but that's simply not possible. We're not talking about just one route from Romford Station to Queens to connect onto from the 86, we're looking at the 5, 175, 365, 498, 499, 128, 496 and 193. Ilford to Barking does not need another bus service, the corridor is intensely used however we have the EL1 running at every 5 minutes and the 169 running at every 10 minutes. The SL2 will be coming in too which will be providing plenty of capacity along that corridor, there is also the 366 weaving in and out. There is no need at all for another bus service linking Ilford and Barking, the key there is a few at a high frequency which has worked very well all these years. As you say, Ilford to Goodmayes is within distance of the 128. Goodmayes you have the EL3 which goes to King George Hospital and the 362 and 173 from Chadwell Heath. The 173 also goes to Becontree Heath where you have the 175, 128 and 5 as well if for whatever reason you don't want to use the 86. If the 86 needs any support all I'd do is probably send the 368 down London Road to Romford Station at most, Queen's has the links it needs to the various areas within its catchment area. Residents have asked for a connection to Queen’s Hospital, not King George Hospital, hence why I proposed the route in the first place. Those routes you mentioned don't link London Road to the hospital, therefore would be no benefit for the people and I'm not so sure about the capacity issues you mentioned. I doubt one more route that's would be every 10 to 12 minutes would hurt that section too much, besides, Barking isn't exactly a quiet station. However just because you ask doesn't mean it needs to be provided. I'd ideally like a link straight from Barking to Oxford Circus, I can probably ask a few residents and they'd agree with me but I doubt any such route would be used on a daily. London Road is close enough to Queens Hospital to a point you could actually walk to Queens from a considerable portion of the road which begs the question of why you'd introduce a route all the way to Barking and Ilford which the 86 already goes to Ilford and the 62 goes to Barking from one end and the 5 from the other end just so a small portion of London Road benefits when they've already got a bus roughly every 7 minutes and then a plethora of options to choose from to get to Queens. You're right in the fact Barking Station is very popular, but I don't see why people from the 86s corridor will be flocking to Barking Station when they've got Ilford Station. If they desperately want the District Line they can make the change at Whitechapel. The SL2 will soon be providing the Barking to Ilford link in an express form which will allow the EL1 to cater a bit more towards the localised trips within Ilford Lane. I looked into the Development paper carried out in 2016 about the provision required for both King George and Queens Hospitals in the local area content.tfl.gov.uk/review-bus-access-queens-and-king-george-hospitals.pdfThe figure shows a relatively low usage for services provided by Queens from Barking and Ilford and generally you can see that the usage levels for Queens come predominantly from the eastern side of the hospital. The document also rightly states that many patients in this area opt to use King George Hospital instead, the 128 itself provides enough coverage for a lot of this area. The paper also makes note of the fact that Chadwell Heath sees higher usage towards Queens compared to other neighbouring areas, but the 173 provides a quick link to Becontree Heath where you can change for three different bus routes towards the hospital and that usage (at the time of the paper) was expected to fall as the majority of users were staff working between sites and that as services are rationalised that this need would drop. With BHR and Barts Trust merging services there's an increasing likelihood that patients in the Barking and Ilford areas will actually be sent more towards Whipps Cross and Newham Hospitals which would place Queens in a better position to handle patients from further out in Essex. I don't always sing to TfL's praises, but I think they've actually done extremely well with providing links to Queens Hospital which prevent every bus being sent there yet providing a very good Geographical cover of the area, the only thing I would probably say could be improved is the N15 being rerouted through the hospital as South Street is mostly walking distance from Romford Station but I think it will be interesting to see the views of locals on that through a consultation.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Dec 27, 2023 0:45:25 GMT
Residents have asked for a connection to Queen’s Hospital, not King George Hospital, hence why I proposed the route in the first place. Those routes you mentioned don't link London Road to the hospital, therefore would be no benefit for the people and I'm not so sure about the capacity issues you mentioned. I doubt one more route that's would be every 10 to 12 minutes would hurt that section too much, besides, Barking isn't exactly a quiet station. However just because you ask doesn't mean it needs to be provided. I'd ideally like a link straight from Barking to Oxford Circus, I can probably ask a few residents and they'd agree with me but I doubt any such route would be used on a daily. London Road is close enough to Queens Hospital to a point you could actually walk to Queens from a considerable portion of the road which begs the question of why you'd introduce a route all the way to Barking and Ilford which the 86 already goes to Ilford and the 62 goes to Barking from one end and the 5 from the other end just so a small portion of London Road benefits when they've already got a bus roughly every 7 minutes and then a plethora of options to choose from to get to Queens. You're right in the fact Barking Station is very popular, but I don't see why people from the 86s corridor will be flocking to Barking Station when they've got Ilford Station. If they desperately want the District Line they can make the change at Whitechapel. The SL2 will soon be providing the Barking to Ilford link in an express form which will allow the EL1 to cater a bit more towards the localised trips within Ilford Lane. I looked into the Development paper carried out in 2016 about the provision required for both King George and Queens Hospitals in the local area content.tfl.gov.uk/review-bus-access-queens-and-king-george-hospitals.pdfThe figure shows a relatively low usage for services provided by Queens from Barking and Ilford and generally you can see that the usage levels for Queens come predominantly from the eastern side of the hospital. The document also rightly states that many patients in this area opt to use King George Hospital instead, the 128 itself provides enough coverage for a lot of this area. The paper also makes note of the fact that Chadwell Heath sees higher usage towards Queens compared to other neighbouring areas, but the 173 provides a quick link to Becontree Heath where you can change for three different bus routes towards the hospital and that usage (at the time of the paper) was expected to fall as the majority of users were staff working between sites and that as services are rationalised that this need would drop. With BHR and Barts Trust merging services there's an increasing likelihood that patients in the Barking and Ilford areas will actually be sent more towards Whipps Cross and Newham Hospitals which would place Queens in a better position to handle patients from further out in Essex. I don't always sing to TfL's praises, but I think they've actually done extremely well with providing links to Queens Hospital which prevent every bus being sent there yet providing a very good Geographical cover of the area, the only thing I would probably say could be improved is the N15 being rerouted through the hospital as South Street is mostly walking distance from Romford Station but I think it will be interesting to see the views of locals on that through a consultation. Not sure about sending the N15 via Queens Hospital to be honest, outside of normal visiting hours and shift changes there wouldn't be many people going in/out of Queens apart from those going to the Emergency Unit. If there was to be a new route between Queens Hospital and Barking, it would probably be better to run a route similar to what was proposed a few years ago, running every 20 minutes as follows: Barking Riverside Thames View Estate Goresbrook Village Becontree Dagenham Heathway Oxlow Lane Roneo Corner Romford Station Romford Market Queens Hospital
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Dec 27, 2023 14:17:48 GMT
With BHR and Barts Trust merging services there's an increasing likelihood that patients in the Barking and Ilford areas will actually be sent more towards Whipps Cross and Newham Hospitals which would place Queens in a better position to handle patients from further out in Essex. I don't always sing to TfL's praises, but I think they've actually done extremely well with providing links to Queens Hospital which prevent every bus being sent there yet providing a very good Geographical cover of the area, the only thing I would probably say could be improved is the N15 being rerouted through the hospital as South Street is mostly walking distance from Romford Station but I think it will be interesting to see the views of locals on that through a consultation. I think that Barking really should have better links to Newham Hospital. It’s just a bit hard with the 238 and 287 taking up stand space, so no other routes can really serve it. The 304 could be an option, with an increased frequency on the 101? I doubt it. At least Ilford has the 147 to serve that hospital. I wouldn’t mind seeing the N15 pulled from South Street. Though I guess you do have the 128 from the west serving the hospital at night.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 27, 2023 15:08:58 GMT
With BHR and Barts Trust merging services there's an increasing likelihood that patients in the Barking and Ilford areas will actually be sent more towards Whipps Cross and Newham Hospitals which would place Queens in a better position to handle patients from further out in Essex. I don't always sing to TfL's praises, but I think they've actually done extremely well with providing links to Queens Hospital which prevent every bus being sent there yet providing a very good Geographical cover of the area, the only thing I would probably say could be improved is the N15 being rerouted through the hospital as South Street is mostly walking distance from Romford Station but I think it will be interesting to see the views of locals on that through a consultation. I think that Barking really should have better links to Newham Hospital. It’s just a bit hard with the 238 and 287 taking up stand space, so no other routes can really serve it. The 304 could be an option, with an increased frequency on the 101? I doubt it. At least Ilford has the 147 to serve that hospital. I wouldn’t mind seeing the N15 pulled from South Street. Though I guess you do have the 128 from the west serving the hospital at night. I think Newham Hospital generally tends to get away as the 5 is only a short walk away and the walk is really easy. So anyone who does need Newham Hospital tends to just use that route, but I do agree having a route that goes into the grounds or at least to Prince Regent Lane would be helpful. An easy way to mitigate the 238 or 287 would be to send a route to Fair Cross to create stand space at Barking Station but the bigger question is how you would go about creating such link. You could potentially just extend the 376 to Barking but it would be a pretty looney way of getting to the hospital considering how indirect he route is.
|
|
|
Post by ucm131 on Jan 1, 2024 7:14:05 GMT
I proposed that 120 Extended from Northolt towards Harrow - Linkage between Hounslow + Southall to Harrow, Another alternative for Harrow residents to connect to the Elizabeth line aside from 140/Sl7/483 (Through Southall). The route will go through Roxeth after South Harrow, providing more capacity along the way aside from the 395 and to differ routing demands for the 140.
To facilitate the 120 extension, 111 will be rerouted to terminate at Southall rather than Heathrow Airport (To relieve demand between Southall and Hounslow after 120's Harrow Extension), and the routing between Hounslow and Heathrow Airport will be replaced by a new route (391) for the section between Hounslow and Heathrow Airport With Double Deckers and similar frequency as the 111.
The new 111 also connects Hanworth and Hampton towards the Elizabeth Line while retaining links to the piccadilly line at Hounslow East, and control 111's reliability and improve passenger flow between Hounslow, Heston and Cranford from the new 391 due to 111's massive length of 15 miles (Which I don't think any other route aside 358 topping this record) which may induce overcrowding on the 111. Depending on Demand for Hanworth's passenger flow towards Heathrow Airport, 285/490 Frequencies will be improved to facilitate this change.
|
|
|
Post by Dad91 on Jan 1, 2024 18:21:41 GMT
I proposed that 120 Extended from Northolt towards Harrow - Linkage between Hounslow + Southall to Harrow, Another alternative for Harrow residents to connect to the Elizabeth line aside from 140/Sl7/483 (Through Southall). The route will go through Roxeth after South Harrow, providing more capacity along the way aside from the 395 and to differ routing demands for the 140. To facilitate the 120 extension, 111 will be rerouted to terminate at Southall rather than Heathrow Airport (To relieve demand between Southall and Hounslow after 120's Harrow Extension), and the routing between Hounslow and Heathrow Airport will be replaced by a new route (391) for the section between Hounslow and Heathrow Airport With Double Deckers and similar frequency as the 111. The new 111 also connects Hanworth and Hampton towards the Elizabeth Line while retaining links to the piccadilly line at Hounslow East, and control 111's reliability and improve passenger flow between Hounslow, Heston and Cranford from the new 391 due to 111's massive length of 15 miles (Which I don't think any other route aside 358 topping this record) which may induce overcrowding on the 111. Depending on Demand for Hanworth's passenger flow towards Heathrow Airport, 285/490 Frequencies will be improved to facilitate this change. if proposed this extension 490 need big Frequency increase and Decker improves routes plus 111 very busy route
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jan 1, 2024 18:32:25 GMT
I proposed that 120 Extended from Northolt towards Harrow - Linkage between Hounslow + Southall to Harrow, Another alternative for Harrow residents to connect to the Elizabeth line aside from 140/Sl7/483 (Through Southall). The route will go through Roxeth after South Harrow, providing more capacity along the way aside from the 395 and to differ routing demands for the 140. To facilitate the 120 extension, 111 will be rerouted to terminate at Southall rather than Heathrow Airport (To relieve demand between Southall and Hounslow after 120's Harrow Extension), and the routing between Hounslow and Heathrow Airport will be replaced by a new route (391) for the section between Hounslow and Heathrow Airport With Double Deckers and similar frequency as the 111. The new 111 also connects Hanworth and Hampton towards the Elizabeth Line while retaining links to the piccadilly line at Hounslow East, and control 111's reliability and improve passenger flow between Hounslow, Heston and Cranford from the new 391 due to 111's massive length of 15 miles (Which I don't think any other route aside 358 topping this record) which may induce overcrowding on the 111. Depending on Demand for Hanworth's passenger flow towards Heathrow Airport, 285/490 Frequencies will be improved to facilitate this change. There's no need to mess around with the 111, just extend the 427 from Southall to Hounslow to provide support to the 120. The 490 needs to be decked (with the 490 and R70 swapping stands in Richmond once the Manor Circus works are complete), but can retain its current frequency.
|
|
|
Post by Dad91 on Jan 2, 2024 14:13:50 GMT
I proposed that 120 Extended from Northolt towards Harrow - Linkage between Hounslow + Southall to Harrow, Another alternative for Harrow residents to connect to the Elizabeth line aside from 140/Sl7/483 (Through Southall). The route will go through Roxeth after South Harrow, providing more capacity along the way aside from the 395 and to differ routing demands for the 140. To facilitate the 120 extension, 111 will be rerouted to terminate at Southall rather than Heathrow Airport (To relieve demand between Southall and Hounslow after 120's Harrow Extension), and the routing between Hounslow and Heathrow Airport will be replaced by a new route (391) for the section between Hounslow and Heathrow Airport With Double Deckers and similar frequency as the 111. The new 111 also connects Hanworth and Hampton towards the Elizabeth Line while retaining links to the piccadilly line at Hounslow East, and control 111's reliability and improve passenger flow between Hounslow, Heston and Cranford from the new 391 due to 111's massive length of 15 miles (Which I don't think any other route aside 358 topping this record) which may induce overcrowding on the 111. Depending on Demand for Hanworth's passenger flow towards Heathrow Airport, 285/490 Frequencies will be improved to facilitate this change. There's no need to mess around with the 111, just extend the 427 from Southall to Hounslow to provide support to the 120. The 490 needs to be decked (with the 490 and R70 swapping stands in Richmond once the Manor Circus works are complete), but can retain its current frequency. 427 extension towards Houslow to help 120 good idea. Where in Hounslow you suggest to extended 427 the 490 getting busy route need to be changed
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 2, 2024 16:04:29 GMT
I proposed that 120 Extended from Northolt towards Harrow - Linkage between Hounslow + Southall to Harrow, Another alternative for Harrow residents to connect to the Elizabeth line aside from 140/Sl7/483 (Through Southall). The route will go through Roxeth after South Harrow, providing more capacity along the way aside from the 395 and to differ routing demands for the 140. To facilitate the 120 extension, 111 will be rerouted to terminate at Southall rather than Heathrow Airport (To relieve demand between Southall and Hounslow after 120's Harrow Extension), and the routing between Hounslow and Heathrow Airport will be replaced by a new route (391) for the section between Hounslow and Heathrow Airport With Double Deckers and similar frequency as the 111. The new 111 also connects Hanworth and Hampton towards the Elizabeth Line while retaining links to the piccadilly line at Hounslow East, and control 111's reliability and improve passenger flow between Hounslow, Heston and Cranford from the new 391 due to 111's massive length of 15 miles (Which I don't think any other route aside 358 topping this record) which may induce overcrowding on the 111. Depending on Demand for Hanworth's passenger flow towards Heathrow Airport, 285/490 Frequencies will be improved to facilitate this change. There's no need to mess around with the 111, just extend the 427 from Southall to Hounslow to provide support to the 120. The 490 needs to be decked (with the 490 and R70 swapping stands in Richmond once the Manor Circus works are complete), but can retain its current frequency. Alternatively could perhaps swap the 120/H32 routeings between Southall and Hounslow, and with the revised H32 (via Norwood Green) increased in frequency. Maybe could also extend the H32 from Southall to somewhere like Ealing Hospital, providing some new links via Heston?
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Jan 3, 2024 11:52:55 GMT
There's no need to mess around with the 111, just extend the 427 from Southall to Hounslow to provide support to the 120. The 490 needs to be decked (with the 490 and R70 swapping stands in Richmond once the Manor Circus works are complete), but can retain its current frequency. Alternatively could perhaps swap the 120/H32 routeings between Southall and Hounslow, and with the revised H32 (via Norwood Green) increased in frequency. Maybe could also extend the H32 from Southall to somewhere like Ealing Hospital, providing some new links via Heston? Agree- perhaps H32 or 482 to Ealing Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by ucm131 on Jan 3, 2024 12:55:18 GMT
If 120 and H32 Gets swapped then my whole Harrow extension Idea gets collapsed because of realiabilty and overlengthy for the 120 and it won't be able to support the 482 with the new demands.
I thought the H32 was planned to extend to H&H through the new Southall Development?
And as for why chopping up the 111 into 2 and diverting into Southall, I saw previous records of other routes (Notably 36 83 and 104 and 207) getting chopped up by 2 because of it's length and prone ability for delays for the entire route. I thought 111's main objective was Heston, Lampton and Cranford to Heathrow/Hounslow, and Hampton and Hanworth to Hounslow/Kingston. Similar to 483 for Going to Harrow at Ealing Hospital rather than ending at Wembley by creating unique links from Hanger Lane or Ealing to Harrow, I thought of the same for Hanworth to Southall for the Elizabeth line, while retaining the existing link towards Hounslow East for the Piccadilly Line, as well as supporting the future new developments at Southall, whilst the new route can be more reliable for 111's Hounslow to Heathrow end. I want to hear your opinions if you prefer that 111 should not split into 2, because I'm not sure whether the reliability of 427 could be affected on Uxbridge Road, as London is prone to congestions.
I do agree that 490 really needs a deck considering travelling abroad has resumed since covid,
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 3, 2024 14:44:40 GMT
If 120 and H32 Gets swapped then my whole Harrow extension Idea gets collapsed because of realiabilty and overlengthy for the 120 and it won't be able to support the 482 with the new demands. I thought the H32 was planned to extend to H&H through the new Southall Development? And as for why chopping up the 111 into 2 and diverting into Southall, I saw previous records of other routes (Notably 36 83 and 104 and 207) getting chopped up by 2 because of it's length and prone ability for delays for the entire route. I thought 111's main objective was Heston, Lampton and Cranford to Heathrow/Hounslow, and Hampton and Hanworth to Hounslow/Kingston. Similar to 483 for Going to Harrow at Ealing Hospital rather than ending at Wembley by creating unique links from Hanger Lane or Ealing to Harrow, I thought of the same for Hanworth to Southall for the Elizabeth line, while retaining the existing link towards Hounslow East for the Piccadilly Line, as well as supporting the future new developments at Southall, whilst the new route can be more reliable for 111's Hounslow to Heathrow end. I want to hear your opinions if you prefer that 111 should not split into 2, because I'm not sure whether the reliability of 427 could be affected on Uxbridge Road, as London is prone to congestions. I do agree that 490 really needs a deck considering travelling abroad has resumed since covid, Regarding the 111, you've fallen into the trap of merely looking at miles rather than the actual traffic conditions along said route and other factors. You mention the 36 - that only ran the full length on Sundays and possibly evenings but otherwise, was ran into two overlapping sections with one eventually re-numbered as the 436. 207 was a similar case - ran in two overlapping sections but also had the limited stopping 607 existing as the full length run. The 104 meanwhile wasn't split because of reliability but because of creating new links in conjunction with Crossrail. Now I'm not a local to the 111 by any means but I've rode it a number of times over the years and there are quite a few sections that have little congestion as well as a few bits that do but certainly less than the 36, 83 & 207 all encounter. Again, not local but I must admit, I don't really understand the idea of swapping the 120 & H32 myself - H32 is designed more as a shorter, local service that comes off the beaten track between Heston & Southall whereas the 120 is the main route through the Northolt to Southall corridor and it might be better to simply increase the 120's frequency if it's capacity is an issue rather than needlessly swapping routes
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 3, 2024 17:49:06 GMT
If 120 and H32 Gets swapped then my whole Harrow extension Idea gets collapsed because of realiabilty and overlengthy for the 120 and it won't be able to support the 482 with the new demands. I thought the H32 was planned to extend to H&H through the new Southall Development? And as for why chopping up the 111 into 2 and diverting into Southall, I saw previous records of other routes (Notably 36 83 and 104 and 207) getting chopped up by 2 because of it's length and prone ability for delays for the entire route. I thought 111's main objective was Heston, Lampton and Cranford to Heathrow/Hounslow, and Hampton and Hanworth to Hounslow/Kingston. Similar to 483 for Going to Harrow at Ealing Hospital rather than ending at Wembley by creating unique links from Hanger Lane or Ealing to Harrow, I thought of the same for Hanworth to Southall for the Elizabeth line, while retaining the existing link towards Hounslow East for the Piccadilly Line, as well as supporting the future new developments at Southall, whilst the new route can be more reliable for 111's Hounslow to Heathrow end. I want to hear your opinions if you prefer that 111 should not split into 2, because I'm not sure whether the reliability of 427 could be affected on Uxbridge Road, as London is prone to congestions. I do agree that 490 really needs a deck considering travelling abroad has resumed since covid, Regarding the 111, you've fallen into the trap of merely looking at miles rather than the actual traffic conditions along said route and other factors. You mention the 36 - that only ran the full length on Sundays and possibly evenings but otherwise, was ran into two overlapping sections with one eventually re-numbered as the 436. 207 was a similar case - ran in two overlapping sections but also had the limited stopping 607 existing as the full length run. The 104 meanwhile wasn't split because of reliability but because of creating new links in conjunction with Crossrail. Now I'm not a local to the 111 by any means but I've rode it a number of times over the years and there are quite a few sections that have little congestion as well as a few bits that do but certainly less than the 36, 83 & 207 all encounter. Again, not local but I must admit, I don't really understand the idea of swapping the 120 & H32 myself - H32 is designed more as a shorter, local service that comes off the beaten track between Heston & Southall whereas the 120 is the main route through the Northolt to Southall corridor and it might be better to simply increase the 120's frequency if it's capacity is an issue rather than needlessly swapping routes Bizarrely it was actually only on Saturdays the 36 had a through service, but your right end to end points of old routes didn't necessarily mean it ran that long all day every day. The latter days of the 21 to Sidcup in reality Monday to Fridays buses from Foots Cray only went to Lewisham. The 137 in its final year only went from Crystal Palace to Clapham Common and no doubt LT soon realised 2 person operation was rather wasted on a local service. As for the 111 it was proposed in 2003 to switch it with the 110 which might have found a few end to end Twickenham to Heathrow passengers who knows.
|
|