|
|
Post by redexpress on Apr 22, 2020 21:09:20 GMT
One that was mentioned on the forum not too long ago - in 1998 the 166 would have been rerouted to Caterham-on-the-Hill, with the 412 extended to Chipstead Valley in its place. The section between Chipstead and Epsom was in those days covered by Epsom Buses' commercial 498. Residents of Chipstead Valley protested, so the original 166 was reprieved (and merged with the 498), while the 466 was born to cover Caterham-on-the-Hill instead.
In contractual terms the 466 was operated on what was supposed to be the "166" contract, while the 166 was operated as part of the 412 contract. The latter two routes were then split up (in contractual terms) upon retendering in 2003.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 22, 2020 21:11:27 GMT
I wonder what the objections were? Maybe the reduced frequency on the Norwood Junction end although it would be offset by being double decked? The frequency would probably be a bit excessive on the Purley via Selsdon section. The 412 has since been removed from West Croydon anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Apr 22, 2020 21:14:37 GMT
I wonder what the objections were? Maybe the reduced frequency on the Norwood Junction end although it would be offset by being double decked? The frequency would probably be a bit excessive on the Purley via Selsdon section. The 412 has since been removed from West Croydon anyway. I seem to remember that the main objections were from 412 users who would lose their direct link to West Croydon and the shops - although, as you point out, they've gone on to lose that link anyway! |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 22, 2020 21:17:56 GMT
Plus some objected to just the 466 being the only route from between TC and Swan and Sugar Loaf to East Croydon. Back then after a shaky start with Arriva, the 466 was perceived as being unreliable.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses2018 on Apr 22, 2020 21:20:07 GMT
TFL should have not touched the Finchley Road Routes and in turn the 139 could have been extended to elsewhere in NW London
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 22, 2020 21:38:43 GMT
Anyone remember the proposal to extend the 129 to Peckham via Convoy's Wharf? That one lingered on for ages. 15 years later I don't believe any of those houses have been yet been built IIRC, there was a bus only right turn from Peckham Road into the development that was built - I’m sure Peckham Road had markings dictating the turn. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 22, 2020 22:21:31 GMT
Not quite "not to be" but the original split of route 10 was planned to be slightly different to what happened.
The 10 would have been Archway to Notting Hill, using RMs on the existing Metroline contract
And the 390 would have been Hammersmith to King's Cross, on a new contract awarded to First using low floor deckers
Obviously when this happened it was with the numbers swapped round.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 22, 2020 22:44:20 GMT
The 10/390 (whichever way) was initially only to Marble Arch. It was about a year later that the NHG extension was planned but you are kind of right. It was initially planned with the 10 from Hammersmith to Kings X, later though to be the other way round due to the new '10' being awarded to First with OPO buses and and the existing contract and RMs Archway to Marble Arch and it mane felt it saved blinds etc to keep the Archway section as the 10.
I know there weren't many numbers lower to choose from but is there any reason behind '390'. The 430 was chosen for the history of the 30 to Roehampton and 333, 363, 436 have the 133, 63, 36 association same with 2/432 but where does the '390' fit with the 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 22, 2020 23:08:34 GMT
The 10/390 (whichever way) was initially only to Marble Arch. It was about a year later that the NHG extension was planned but you are kind of right. It was initially planned with the 10 from Hammersmith to Kings X, later though to be the other way round due to the new '10' being awarded to First with OPO buses and and the existing contract and RMs Archway to Marble Arch and it mane felt it saved blinds etc to keep the Archway section as the 10. I know there weren't many numbers lower to choose from but is there any reason behind '390'. The 430 was chosen for the history of the 30 to Roehampton and 333, 363, 436 have the 133, 63, 36 association same with 2/432 but where does the '390' fit with the 10. 396 would have been a better number if it wasn't already in use, on account of the old 196 association with Kings Cross to Tufnell Park routeing via York Way |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 22, 2020 23:24:24 GMT
I thought 218 as it's lower and runs alongside the 18 between Euston and Warren St but I think there was a SCC 218 in Kingston still. 135 could have been considered as there had been a route from Marble Arch to Archway.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Apr 23, 2020 8:31:34 GMT
I thought 218 as it's lower and runs alongside the 18 between Euston and Warren St but I think there was a SCC 218 in Kingston still. 135 could have been considered as there had been a route from Marble Arch to Archway. 218 Kingston to Staines I would return 73 to original route Stoke Newington to Hammersmith I dont know why it was changed to Victoria And 76 Tottenham Garage ( 7 Sisters) to Victoria via Waterloo. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 23, 2020 8:56:16 GMT
It changed so that the 73 could be shortened and to maintain a routes from the full length of Oxford Street to Victoria with the withdrawal of the 500 route. End of the street had the 2 group and Oxford Circus had the 25 but the full length wasn't linked to Victoria.
I still don't really know why the 73 and 390 swapped thou. Whilst there was a slight saving switching the routes to Victoria in terms of freq, the Archway section gained an increase it didn't really need.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 23, 2020 10:47:00 GMT
I thought 218 as it's lower and runs alongside the 18 between Euston and Warren St but I think there was a SCC 218 in Kingston still. 135 could have been considered as there had been a route from Marble Arch to Archway. 218 Kingston to Staines I would return 73 to original route Stoke Newington to Hammersmith I dont know why it was changed to Victoria And 76 Tottenham Garage ( 7 Sisters) to Victoria via Waterloo. Stoke Newington to Hammersmith is far too long in today's climate - you can't simply rewind the clock back to LT days. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 23, 2020 10:57:14 GMT
Here's an interesting one - I don't believe it ever got to consultation stage. When the 405 was awarded to Metrobus in 2003, it was proposed to reroute it via Purley Way, Waddon and Pampisford Road, as well the car park of Tesco in Purley - yet continuing to have the same trip cycle time of 2hrs using 6 buses. Obviously never gonna work, and most of the Metrobus team knew this. When they route tested it, the Metrobus guys were proven right - there was no way it would reliably work with that routing in a 2hr trip cycle, nor did the 10m Darts fit in the car park at Tesco. So in the end, the route was routed via Warham Road and Pampisford Road instead of going via Purley Way - an arrangement that continues to this day. Interestingly when the 405 moved over, it was amongst the worst ten performing low-frequency routes in London under Connex operation. Within a few months of Metrobus operation, it was in the top ten for performance - partly helped by one of our senior managers keeping an eye on things whilst drinking in their favourite pub along the route!  |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 23, 2020 11:05:40 GMT
I noticed around 2001-2003 when previously non london routes came back into the fold that TFL looked at how they could have more unique sections within London. The 406 to Teddington was potentially going to be one, the 293 via Garth Road and the 405 via Pampisford Road.
|
|
