Routes and service changes that weren't to be

[COBO]

Apr 27, 2020 22:25:14 GMT M1199 said:

Apr 26, 2020 5:30:10 GMT COBO said:

The U1 was supposed to have been extended from Ruislip to somewhere in South Ruislip.

That was back in 2007/8, when the U1 only went as far as Hillingdon Hospital, the planned extension was something like:
Ruislip Station
Pembroke Road
Ruislip Manor Station
Victoria Road
Sidmouth Drive
West End Road
Ruislip Gardens Station
Station Approach
South Ruislip Station
Victoria Road
Terminating at Stonefield Way.

Whether it was planned to run via the one way loop round Stonefield Way or turn at the roundabount is something I guess we'll never know. I got the planned route on a list of proposed changes document that was being handed out at the time from the Travel information place that they used to have in Uxbridge Station, but it's buried deep somewhere up in the loft!

Seem to remember the extension didn't go ahead due to issues along Sidmouth Drive.

At the same time as the U1, the U10 was originally planned to be extended to Uxbridge Industrial Estate, following the 58 (now 3) to Cowley Mill Road, Ashley Road, Arundel Road to Sailsbury Road. Then heading back towards Uxbridge via Wallingford Road and Cowley Mill Road. Pretty sure that was scrapped cause there wasn't anywhere for a stand on Sailsbury Road and the left turn from Wallingford Road onto Cowley Mill Road was rather tight. (Which has since been modified)

Found a pic on Flickr of what the blind display would of looked like.

www.flickr.com/photos/royalmailman/35787577824/in/faves-62959794@N06/

Incidentally the DMC's also had South Ruislip 'Stonefield Way' on their blinds for the U1


With hindsight, it was probably a good job that the U10 extension and the proposed route U11 (which I've never seen any info about, apart from what's on the DE blindsets) never went ahead, as the Industrial Estate is a shadow of its former self, but it is ironic that with UE on Wallingford Road, buses would now have a place to stand!

That could have been an useful link.

[Deleted]

May 3, 2020 22:01:26 GMT COBO said:

Wasn’t it proposed that the TfL routes that cross into Hertfordshire and Debden I.e the 20, 142, 258, 549 and etc was going to be removed from Debden and Hertfordshire because the support for those routes was going to be cut?

Think the 167 was cut back from Debden.

[15002]

May 3, 2020 22:09:34 GMT @dannyb said:

May 3, 2020 22:01:26 GMT COBO said:

Wasn’t it proposed that the TfL routes that cross into Hertfordshire and Debden I.e the 20, 142, 258, 549 and etc was going to be removed from Debden and Hertfordshire because the support for those routes was going to be cut?

Think the 167 was cut back from Debden.

It was indeed back in 2017 (Jeez that was a long time ago lol) Now it only runs from Ilford to Loughton.

[COBO]

May 3, 2020 22:09:34 GMT @dannyb said:

May 3, 2020 22:01:26 GMT COBO said:

Wasn’t it proposed that the TfL routes that cross into Hertfordshire and Debden I.e the 20, 142, 258, 549 and etc was going to be removed from Debden and Hertfordshire because the support for those routes was going to be cut?

Think the 167 was cut back from Debden.

Yes it did but wasn’t the other routes going to be cut from Debden because the support was going to be cut?

[DT 11]

Apr 22, 2020 15:01:17 GMT lonmark said:

I remember for Bus Route 199 was planned to extended to Bromley North. But now route 320 was chosen for extended to Catford bridge.

web.archive.org/web/20040915025229/http://www.londonbusroutes.net:80/changes.htm

The 208 was also planned to be cut to Catford at the same time but was dropped.

[DT 11]

Apr 22, 2020 15:04:36 GMT TB123 said:

Apr 22, 2020 15:01:17 GMT lonmark said:

I remember for Bus Route 199 was planned to extended to Bromley North. But now route 320 was chosen for extended to Catford bridge.

web.archive.org/web/20040915025229/http://www.londonbusroutes.net:80/changes.htm

Goodness I remember that proposal. That went on for ages. I seem to remember a lack of layover space in Bromley North stopping it from proceeding hence why the 320 was chosen. I still think the 199 would have been the better one to extend. I think the plan was to move the 199 to TB and the 208 to TL. Which based on the schedules proposed would have made sense.

Both the 199 & 208 Running to Lewisham would have been better than the 320 looping the Catford Gryratory.

[ronnie]

As part of the IOD changes the 135 would have followed the D7 after serving Canary Wharf (heading towards crossharbour). This would have left spindrift avenue without a bus service. Thankfully the 135 was sent that way (the old D3 route) as there is a big nhs centre there

[lonmark]

May 3, 2020 22:12:17 GMT DT 11 said:

Apr 22, 2020 15:01:17 GMT lonmark said:

I remember for Bus Route 199 was planned to extended to Bromley North. But now route 320 was chosen for extended to Catford bridge.

web.archive.org/web/20040915025229/http://www.londonbusroutes.net:80/changes.htm

The 208 was also planned to be cut to Catford at the same time but was dropped.

Thank god. If this happened in the past, then I won't be happy to get change in Catford in the night! I always change from DLR to bus 208 or to DLR from bus 208 for my journeys.

[southlondonbus]

I liked the idea of the 199 extending to Bromley North not happy with the 208 only between Catford and Orpington as it would have broken a Bromley South/Common link to Lewisham Hospital and would have left the 261 alone between Bromley common and Lewisham.

[I-Azusio-I]

1. This never went out to public consultation AFAIK but there appeared to be plans for N207 to be re-routed to Trafalgar Square in 2019.
The buses at GW came with "N207 Trafalgar Square" blinds before they received Oxford Circus and Holborn inserts: flic.kr/p/2frq1dc / flic.kr/p/2f1Wey1

2. From the original plans for Greenwich gyratory, there was the proposal or consideration of extending 129 and 286 to a new terminus off of the Creek Road and Norman Road junction which was dependent on the town centre's pedestrianisation (which seems to be a stop-start thing at the moment).
greenwichwire.co.uk/2011/05/23/greenwich-council-urged-286-bus-cut-to-fund-gyratory/
This supposed new terminus must have been either on Norman Road itself, Horseferry Place, Norway Street or what is now New Capital Quay.

3. Route 225's extension to Bellingham Station.
councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s52340/Downham%20Note.pdf

4. Route 315's proposed extension to Peabody Hill Estate in Tulse Hill which went as far as consultation stage but was rejected by residents.
The route record from 2016 includes details of the proposed routing.

[ilovelondonbuses]

Wasn’t there a proposal mooted to extend night route N109 to Marble Arch?

[southlondonbus]

Mar 10, 2024 18:32:21 GMT ilovelondonbuses said:

Wasn’t there a proposal mooted to extend night route N109 to Marble Arch?

Yes there was. I'd imagine it was to do with the (N) and day 159 being cut back to Oxford Circus.

[londonbuses]

Another change that wasn't to be is the 413/S3 changes from the Sutton/Croydon consultation - these changes were very good but I suspect they didn't go ahead because they financially weren't worth it.

[southlondonbus]

Mar 10, 2024 18:18:57 GMT I-Azusio-I said:

1. This never went out to public consultation AFAIK but there appeared to be plans for N207 to be re-routed to Trafalgar Square in 2019.
The buses at GW came with "N207 Trafalgar Square" blinds before they received Oxford Circus and Holborn inserts: flic.kr/p/2frq1dc / flic.kr/p/2f1Wey1

2. From the original plans for Greenwich gyratory, there was the proposal or consideration of extending 129 and 286 to a new terminus off of the Creek Road and Norman Road junction which was dependent on the town centre's pedestrianisation (which seems to be a stop-start thing at the moment).
greenwichwire.co.uk/2011/05/23/greenwich-council-urged-286-bus-cut-to-fund-gyratory/
This supposed new terminus must have been either on Norman Road itself, Horseferry Place, Norway Street or what is now New Capital Quay.

3. Route 225's extension to Bellingham Station.
councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s52340/Downham%20Note.pdf

4. Route 315's proposed extension to Peabody Hill Estate in Tulse Hill which went as far as consultation stage but was rejected by residents.
The route record from 2016 includes details of the proposed routing.

The N207 was mentioned in the not quite consultation in regards to removing buses from Oxford Street (7, 94, 98 to Marble Arch, 10/23 etc) when it said it was going to run via Park Lane and Piccadilly to TSQ to maintain a West End link which would have lost when the 23, 94, N7 were lost beyond Marble Arch.

[southlondon413]

Mar 10, 2024 20:49:07 GMT londonbuses said:

Another change that wasn't to be is the 413/S3 changes from the Sutton/Croydon consultation - these changes were very good but I suspect they didn't go ahead because they financially weren't worth it.

I suspect it has more to do with the continued delays to the new hospital up there. I reckon it will be revisited in the future if and when hospital construction starts. At the moment it is still in the planning stages with a design not even signed off.