|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 23, 2020 18:57:18 GMT
The 207/607 were to be cut back to Shepherds Bush station but that never happened. That's still not out the picture last I heard. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Apr 23, 2020 19:17:52 GMT
The 207/607 were to be cut back to Shepherds Bush station but that never happened. That's still not out the picture last I heard. What’s the current situation with the 207/607? |
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Apr 23, 2020 22:42:01 GMT
The 385 would be good supplementing the 430 The proposed 385 was later introduced as route 430 Ah, I thought the 385 was going to go via N74 route so would've been good supplementing the current 430 if it did |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 24, 2020 2:08:52 GMT
The 3 was supposed to have been rerouted to Russell Square.
The 23 was supposed to have been withdrawn between Marble Arch and Aldwych. Rerouted to Wembley at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 24, 2020 4:33:20 GMT
A U11 was supposed to have been created the single decks at UX even have blinds for it.
The N7 was supposed to be extended from Northolt to Rayners Lanes. The double deckers at PA have destination blinds for Rayners Lane.
The N85 was supposed to be extended from Kingston to Chessington but N65 went in it's place.
|
|
|
|
Post by localet44 on Apr 24, 2020 7:17:37 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! Of course the 312 and 412 were originally one route from February 1984 as the 12A operating from Forest Hill to Purley [Old Lodge Lane] via Selsdon [normally in sections]. It was replaced by the 312/412 in September 1990. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 24, 2020 7:36:45 GMT
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! Of course the 312 and 412 were originally one route from February 1984 as the 12A operating from Forest Hill to Purley [Old Lodge Lane] via Selsdon [normally in sections]. It was replaced by the 312/412 in September 1990. In the days of the 12A only half the service went to Selsdon/Purley. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 24, 2020 13:47:21 GMT
The 3 was supposed to have been rerouted to Russell Square. The 23 was supposed to have been withdrawn between Marble Arch and Aldwych. Rerouted to Wembley at the same time. Very sensible ideas in my eyes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 13:52:27 GMT
That's still not out the picture last I heard. What’s the current situation with the 207/607? Probably funding problems (might be wrong) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 13:56:26 GMT
The 129 was supposed to be extended to Peckham but never happened.
The E10 was supposed to be extended to Chiswick Business Park which was replaced instead by extending the 70 and extended to Osterley, subject to consultation but now the E1 is proposed which I prefer to be honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 24, 2020 15:59:01 GMT
The 113 and 159 was supposed to have swapped destinations.
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 26, 2020 5:30:10 GMT
The U1 was supposed to have been extended from Ruislip to somewhere in South Ruislip.
|
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 26, 2020 5:42:39 GMT
There were plans to extend the 3 beyond Crystal Palace down the hill to Anerley Station and on the other end via Charing Cross Road to Tottenham Court Road. I think route 3 was going to be extended to Russell Square via TCR and former route 10. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 26, 2020 5:48:59 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. What it did incidentally mean though was that route 390 was the only RM/RML route entirely in Greater London (deliberate disclaimer to exclude any London Country routes) numbered above 300. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 26, 2020 5:50:54 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 The King's Cross - Tufnell Park section had been covered by route 239 until 1982. I believe the number 239 was vacant in 2003. Pity it wasn't reused then. In addition to the number 390 distinction I just mentioned, it meant that this section of route was opo in 1971 but crew in 2003! |
|
