|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 19, 2022 13:49:40 GMT
Until May 1991 the 37 ran from Peckham to Hounslow garage Way back in 1930s went even further to Hounslow Heath along Staines Road The “long” 37 is deceptive precisely because as others explained it was operated in sections. A delay in Herne Hill or Brixton wouldn’t affect the Hounslow section and vice versa. London General got both the 37 & 337 which reflected a bit of an early bias because London United also had the 220 chopped to create the 270 (London General) , the 72 lost its Tolworth section (265 London General), and the 295 was reallocated from London United to London General in 1992 , although the latter may have been a tender loss. I think the 37 even operated from different garages (latterly AV for one section and SW for Putney to Peckham section). |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 19, 2022 13:54:02 GMT
The “long” 37 is deceptive precisely because as others explained it was operated in sections. A delay in Herne Hill or Brixton wouldn’t affect the Hounslow section and vice versa. London General got both the 37 & 337 which reflected a bit of an early bias because London United also had the 220 chopped to create the 270 (London General) , the 72 lost its Tolworth section (265 London General), and the 295 was reallocated from London United to London General in 1992 , although the latter may have been a tender loss. I think the 37 even operated from different garages (latterly AV for one section and SW for Putney to Peckham section). NX had an allocation at one time and did the full route to Hounslow. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 19, 2022 14:39:18 GMT
The “long” 37 is deceptive precisely because as others explained it was operated in sections. A delay in Herne Hill or Brixton wouldn’t affect the Hounslow section and vice versa. London General got both the 37 & 337 which reflected a bit of an early bias because London United also had the 220 chopped to create the 270 (London General) , the 72 lost its Tolworth section (265 London General), and the 295 was reallocated from London United to London General in 1992 , although the latter may have been a tender loss. I think the 37 even operated from different garages (latterly AV for one section and SW for Putney to Peckham section). The Stockwell element was beforehand at Clapham (CA), abeit temporarily |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 19, 2022 14:59:05 GMT
Until May 1991 the 37 ran from Peckham to Hounslow garage Way back in 1930s went even further to Hounslow Heath along Staines Road The “long” 37 is deceptive precisely because as others explained it was operated in sections. A delay in Herne Hill or Brixton wouldn’t affect the Hounslow section and vice versa. Yes but the overlapping sections though were still longer than the current 37 & 337 - AFAIK, it was Hounslow to Clapham Junction and Peckham to Richmond (some journeys did the current 37 between Peckham & Putney only) which if plonked into today's world and the current traffic conditions, would be difficult to operate especially in a post Hammersmith Bridge closure world so the Hounslow section would have to be worry about the A205 as apposed to now as a H37, which has far less to worry about and has grown really well over the years into a handy link. I would be against a 37 going to Richmond nowadays because the route has so much traffic on it both on the additional section and the current 37 west of Clapham Common and at various spots along the eastern section. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 19, 2022 18:00:07 GMT
Until May 1991 the 37 ran from Peckham to Hounslow garage Way back in 1930s went even further to Hounslow Heath along Staines Road The “long” 37 is deceptive precisely because as others explained it was operated in sections. A delay in Herne Hill or Brixton wouldn’t affect the Hounslow section and vice versa. Even when operated in sections there were still a few through journeys, AV doing some mornings trips through to Peckham with SW doing some through to Hounslow from evenings. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 29, 2023 8:39:42 GMT
195 could certainly do with some double deckers or some assistance over the Hayes to Southall unique section, based on observations of the loadings on Saturdays.
Have always thought the H28 should be extended to Hayes to provide a direct link from Cranford Village and Heston, terminating at Bulls’s Bridge falls short of a major traffic destination.
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jan 29, 2023 9:29:38 GMT
195 could certainly do with some double deckers or some assistance over the Hayes to Southall unique section, based on observations of the loadings on Saturdays. Have always thought the H28 should be extended to Hayes to provide a direct link from Cranford Village and Heston, terminating at Bulls’s Bridge falls short of a major traffic destination. the 195 needs to be fully double decked not just some and especially if the 427 gets removed between Southall and Acton. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 4, 2023 10:48:09 GMT
Extend route 116 to Heathrow Terminal 5 via Stanwell. I would imagine there would be a reasonable level of demand for a TfL service between Stanwell and Terminal 5 given the lower fares than the non-TfL operators. It might stand a chance of paying for itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Mar 4, 2023 12:15:47 GMT
Extend route 116 to Heathrow Terminal 5 via Stanwell. I would imagine there would be a reasonable level of demand for a TfL service between Stanwell and Terminal 5 given the lower fares than the non-TfL operators. It might stand a chance of paying for itself. I think this is a sound proposal - I would also suggest that the two cargo bus stops (Cargo Centre & Stirling Road) are also served. I don't have numbers but not surprisingly many Stanwell residents are employed at LHR, to include cargo - this would save them having to use the 203 and then walking across one of the footbridges across the Duke of Northumberland's River to get to the Cargo Village. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 4, 2023 12:55:02 GMT
Extend route 116 to Heathrow Terminal 5 via Stanwell. I would imagine there would be a reasonable level of demand for a TfL service between Stanwell and Terminal 5 given the lower fares than the non-TfL operators. It might stand a chance of paying for itself. I think this is a sound proposal - I would also suggest that the two cargo bus stops (Cargo Centre & Stirling Road) are also served. I don't have numbers but not surprisingly many Stanwell residents are employed at LHR, to include cargo - this would save them having to use the 203 and then walking across one of the footbridges across the Duke of Northumberland's River to get to the Cargo Village. Indeed, if Stanwell was inside the Greater London area I’m sure it would have a better bus service, including to the airport. How well used are those two stops? I’m not local and probably wouldn’t be there at the right times when shifts change over. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 4, 2023 12:56:02 GMT
Extend route 116 to Heathrow Terminal 5 via Stanwell. I would imagine there would be a reasonable level of demand for a TfL service between Stanwell and Terminal 5 given the lower fares than the non-TfL operators. It might stand a chance of paying for itself. What happened to the former Abellio Surrey route that ran from Heathrow T2 & 3 via T5 to Staines and beyond? |
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Mar 4, 2023 13:40:55 GMT
I think this is a sound proposal - I would also suggest that the two cargo bus stops (Cargo Centre & Stirling Road) are also served. I don't have numbers but not surprisingly many Stanwell residents are employed at LHR, to include cargo - this would save them having to use the 203 and then walking across one of the footbridges across the Duke of Northumberland's River to get to the Cargo Village. Indeed, if Stanwell was inside the Greater London area I’m sure it would have a better bus service, including to the airport. How well used are those two stops? I’m not local and probably wouldn’t be there at the right times when shifts change over. Yes, good point re Stanwell services and I'd overlooked the fact that Stanwell outside London.. .How well used are those two stops? That's a very good question, I rarely use 482/490 so not enough knowledge to comment but I suspect not currently high usage. On this question does anyone know if data is available of pax uplift by Bus Stop? TfL must have the data...and one would assume they'd model this data to in making decisions such as the recent 427 re-routing / curtailment. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 4, 2023 13:41:47 GMT
Extend route 116 to Heathrow Terminal 5 via Stanwell. I would imagine there would be a reasonable level of demand for a TfL service between Stanwell and Terminal 5 given the lower fares than the non-TfL operators. It might stand a chance of paying for itself. What happened to the former Abellio Surrey route that ran from Heathrow T2 & 3 via T5 to Staines and beyond? I took a photo of Carlone Buses route 442 in January 2017 and noted that the route had commenced on 31st December 2016 as "a part replacement for the withdrawn Staines-Terminal 5 section of route 446". Prior to this there had been a 441 route which operated between Heathrow Airport Central and Englefield Green via T5, Staines and Egham but I cannot remember when this was withdrawn. Between T5 and Egham it largely duplicated First Berkshire's route 8 which still operates.  Carlone Buses by Julian Walker, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 4, 2023 14:03:54 GMT
Extend route 116 to Heathrow Terminal 5 via Stanwell. I would imagine there would be a reasonable level of demand for a TfL service between Stanwell and Terminal 5 given the lower fares than the non-TfL operators. It might stand a chance of paying for itself. Stanwell residents already have the Carlone Buses 442 and Diamond Bus 555 to get them to and from the Airport. TfL's remit does not extend to undercutting existing services outside the Greater London area. |
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Mar 4, 2023 14:07:34 GMT
Extend route 116 to Heathrow Terminal 5 via Stanwell. I would imagine there would be a reasonable level of demand for a TfL service between Stanwell and Terminal 5 given the lower fares than the non-TfL operators. It might stand a chance of paying for itself. A very sound proposal. Especially with ULEZ issues. Only issue i see is Carlone objecting , although their route delves deeper into Stanwell plus TfL have agreed to the double decking of the 203. The issue with the latter is also the inadequate frequency. Should really be four an hour. |
|
