|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 11, 2022 20:16:24 GMT
I just cant see how the rest of the new 214 could cope with SDs. Camden Town to Oxford Circus struggled with the C2 all those years ago with SDs not to mention Victoria to Pimlico has some busy journeys on the 24 which again I doubt can't suffice with SDs. Even without the 12 and 94 down Regent Street I can see it massive overloaded if it arrives first. Yes, I agree. The absurdity is that the 214 can already get totally overloaded just around Kentish Town and Camden Town (and other parts of the existing but soon not to be) route, let alone going through the heart of the West End! It still seems the 24/88/205/214 changes are simply to find something for the 205 to do if the section between King's X and Paddington is considered superfluous. I still think make the 205 either Euston or Kings X to Mile End and the 214 Highate Village to Kings Cross would be simpler.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 11, 2022 21:08:45 GMT
You may well be right that the 205 could simply be terminated at Kings Cross, but that would not 'simplify' the network! Equally you would generate fewer headlines if you didn't make the other changes or axe a route, never mind axing a historic route such as the 24! Or am I being horrible, cynical or not understanding of TfLs reasons for these changes?
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jul 11, 2022 21:09:58 GMT
Yes, I agree. The absurdity is that the 214 can already get totally overloaded just around Kentish Town and Camden Town (and other parts of the existing but soon not to be) route, let alone going through the heart of the West End! It still seems the 24/88/205/214 changes are simply to find something for the 205 to do if the section between King's X and Paddington is considered superfluous. I still think make the 205 either Euston or Kings X to Mile End and the 214 Highate Village to Kings Cross would be simpler. It's weird that TfL consider the busy western end of the 205 superfluous but ignore the 30
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jul 11, 2022 21:12:46 GMT
You may well be right that the 205 could simply be terminated at Kings Cross, but that would not 'simplify' the network! Equally you would generate fewer headlines if you didn't make the other changes or axe a route, never mind axing a historic route such as the 24! Or am I being horrible, cynical or not understanding of TfLs reasons for these changes? You've hit the nail on the head, what many of us have been saying from the beginning. If they said were axing the 414, 430 and 507 it would generate minimal headlines compared to the widespread reaction we have seen to this consultation.
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Jul 12, 2022 7:11:01 GMT
Well the 205 follows the Circle Line from Paddington to Liverpool Street that why there rerouting the 205 and the 18 is covering Paddington to Euston so if there taking the 205 from Paddington they need to extend 18 to King's Cross
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jul 12, 2022 7:45:04 GMT
Well the 205 follows the Circle Line from Paddington to Liverpool Street that why there rerouting the 205 and the 18 is covering Paddington to Euston so if there taking the 205 from Paddington they need to extend 18 to King's Cross Why do they? Just because the 205 duplicates part of the Circle doesn’t mean it needs to be replaced! You are making it sound like there must be a duplicate bus service covering that line. TfL are pretty much forcing people onto trains so extending the 18 would go against this.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 12, 2022 7:53:14 GMT
Well the 205 follows the Circle Line from Paddington to Liverpool Street that why there rerouting the 205 and the 18 is covering Paddington to Euston so if there taking the 205 from Paddington they need to extend 18 to King's Cross Why do they? Just because the 205 duplicates part of the Circle doesn’t mean it needs to be replaced! You are making it sound like there must be a duplicate bus service covering that line. TfL are pretty much forcing people onto trains so extending the 18 would go against this. To me the 205 change creates a conundrum, with the tube drivers regularly going on strike, what on earth will now be picking up the slack? The 205 usually is rammed on strike days, so much so people can’t board etc and now it’ll only go as far as Kings Cross! Personally I think the prospect of getting everyone onto the tube whilst I can understand how much of a benefit it is to TFLs pockets I really think that it’ll start to backfire, as I can’t see a lot of these strikes ending soon. One of the things I did think could always happen is we go back to strikes in 2014/2015 where more strike extras are sourced from outside of London in order to aid the network on strike days, because frankly I think the last few strikes have had so little help on the part of TFL, the one in early June I think the only extras that were handed out were a measly 4 buses for the 29 IIRC, (think some might’ve been provided for the 2?) but this is seriously a far cry from when TFL used to source a whole variety of buses in order to help support the network on strike days.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 12, 2022 7:54:38 GMT
It still seems the 24/88/205/214 changes are simply to find something for the 205 to do if the section between King's X and Paddington is considered superfluous. I still think make the 205 either Euston or Kings X to Mile End and the 214 Highate Village to Kings Cross would be simpler. It's weird that TfL consider the busy western end of the 205 superfluous but ignore the 30 Completely agree & if the 30 was say cutback to Baker Street that would then allow for something like the 113 to hopefully sensibly continue going to Marble Arch.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 12, 2022 8:02:57 GMT
Although there is overlap between the 205 and the Circle/H&C lines the western end of the route is still well used providing convenient and accessible links along the Euston Road especially between railway termini. For instance, people with luggage looking to head to Euston to catch a train will find the 205 much more convenient than going to Euston Square given the former means far less walking. I don't think four bus routes are needed between Warren Street and Baker Street (there are five from Great Portland St to Baker Street as you chuck the 453 into the mix too) but the 205 shouldn't be messed with. From my experience the 30 is pretty dead west of King's Cross and whilst hacking it back would break that round the corner link to Marble Arch I think its a far better option than cutting back the 205.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 12, 2022 8:44:05 GMT
Why do they? Just because the 205 duplicates part of the Circle doesn’t mean it needs to be replaced! You are making it sound like there must be a duplicate bus service covering that line. TfL are pretty much forcing people onto trains so extending the 18 would go against this. To me the 205 change creates a conundrum, with the tube drivers regularly going on strike, what on earth will now be picking up the slack? The 205 usually is rammed on strike days, so much so people can’t board etc and now it’ll only go as far as Kings Cross! Personally I think the prospect of getting everyone onto the tube whilst I can understand how much of a benefit it is to TFLs pockets I really think that it’ll start to backfire, as I can’t see a lot of these strikes ending soon. One of the things I did think could always happen is we go back to strikes in 2014/2015 where more strike extras are sourced from outside of London in order to aid the network on strike days, because frankly I think the last few strikes have had so little help on the part of TFL, the one in early June I think the only extras that were handed out were a measly 4 buses for the 29 IIRC, (think some might’ve been provided for the 2?) but this is seriously a far cry from when TFL used to source a whole variety of buses in order to help support the network on strike days. TfL's current funding does not allow for hiring in extras on strike days. Other operators don't provide their buses and drivers for free!
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 12, 2022 9:43:30 GMT
Well the 205 follows the Circle Line from Paddington to Liverpool Street that why there rerouting the 205 and the 18 is covering Paddington to Euston so if there taking the 205 from Paddington they need to extend 18 to King's Cross The 18 isn't really a sufficient replacement, it doesn't stop close enough to Paddington station, even for those able to walk this involves crossing the Westway for eastbound journeys. Even if the 18 were to divert via Bishops Bridge Road, this would still be too far from the main station concourse for some passengers.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jul 13, 2022 18:57:07 GMT
If they were that desperate wouldn't it have been easier to reroute the 205 to Marble Arch (the 30 is still busy, just not as much as the 205), reroute the 18 via Old Marylebone Road, Sussex Gardens, S't Mary's Hospital, Eastbourne Terrace (Paddington Stn) and Bishops Bridge Road. (Thats a detour of Paddington but it would be very popular and won't add too much extra time Id say about only 6-7 minutes. The section on the 18 between Edgware Road Station and Paddington isnt exactly that popular, its just the central end of the Westway. If needed, the 332 can just be extended to Marylebone. They can vacate the 453 out of Marylebone and let it stand at Baker Street and turn to LOR again at Old Marylebone Town Hall. Then cut the 30 to King's Cross, or go to Highgate Village via the 214 (Imo a very U shaped route though pre-2022 route 23 example)
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 13, 2022 19:03:42 GMT
If they were that desperate wouldn't it have been easier to reroute the 205 to Marble Arch (the 30 is still busy, just not as much as the 205), reroute the 18 via Old Marylebone Road, Sussex Gardens, S't Mary's Hospital, Eastbourne Terrace (Paddington Stn) and Bishops Bridge Road. (Thats a detour of Paddington but it would be very popular and won't add too much extra time Id say about only 6-7 minutes. The section on the 18 between Edgware Road Station and Paddington isnt exactly that popular, its just the central end of the Westway. If needed, the 332 can just be extended to Marylebone. They can vacate the 453 out of Marylebone and let it stand at Baker Street and turn to LOR again at Old Marylebone Town Hall. Then cut the 30 to King's Cross, or go to Highgate Village via the 214 (Imo a very U shaped route though pre-2022 route 23 example) A stop doesn’t have to be popular to be useful. How do you extend the 332 to Marylebone?
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jul 13, 2022 19:13:52 GMT
If they were that desperate wouldn't it have been easier to reroute the 205 to Marble Arch (the 30 is still busy, just not as much as the 205), reroute the 18 via Old Marylebone Road, Sussex Gardens, S't Mary's Hospital, Eastbourne Terrace (Paddington Stn) and Bishops Bridge Road. (Thats a detour of Paddington but it would be very popular and won't add too much extra time Id say about only 6-7 minutes. The section on the 18 between Edgware Road Station and Paddington isnt exactly that popular, its just the central end of the Westway. If needed, the 332 can just be extended to Marylebone. They can vacate the 453 out of Marylebone and let it stand at Baker Street and turn to LOR again at Old Marylebone Town Hall. Then cut the 30 to King's Cross, or go to Highgate Village via the 214 (Imo a very U shaped route though pre-2022 route 23 example) A stop doesn’t have to be popular to be useful. How do you extend the 332 to Marylebone? What?? If a stop is very rarely used, and its the last two-three stops before terminus, Id say its safe to say a cut for a little savings (what TFL is desperate for) could be done. Also in the scneario of the 453, the first stop towards Deptford would still be Old Marylebone Town Hall so I don't see why not. The 453's last stop towards Marylebone is solely served by the 453 so for interchange everyone alights at Baker Street Station anyway. As a a local, you'd also witness how difficult it can be for a 453 driver to navigate across three busy filled up lanes to turn onto Great Central Street from its Baker street bus stop on Lane 1. It'd be clear to see why the 453 doesn't stop at Gloucester Place like tje rest of the other bus routes, but stops at Old Marylebone Town Hall towards Deptford. Its just a simple short cut, similar to the 46 from Lancaster Gate to Paddington. And as for the 332, its not that hard. From Edgware Road Station, it can just turn left onto the 18 routing to Marylebone. Towards Brent Park, it would do the same and just navigate the roundabout back onto Kilburn Road. It just means it wouldnt directly serve Paddington Station (not that it did anyway, it stands on Bishops Bridge Road).
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 13, 2022 19:26:31 GMT
A stop doesn’t have to be popular to be useful. How do you extend the 332 to Marylebone? What?? If a stop is very rarely used, and its the last two-three stops before terminus, Id say its safe to say a cut for a little savings (what TFL is desperate for) could be done. Also in the scneario of the 453, the first stop towards Deptford would still be Old Marylebone Town Hall so I don't see why not. The 453's last stop towards Marylebone is solely served by the 453 so for interchange everyone alights at Baker Street Station anyway. As a a local, you'd also witness how difficult it can be for a 453 driver to navigate across three busy filled up lanes to turn onto Great Central Street from its Baker street bus stop on Lane 1. It'd be clear to see why the 453 doesn't stop at Gloucester Place like tje rest of the other bus routes, but stops at Old Marylebone Town Hall towards Deptford. Its just a simple short cut, similar to the 46 from Lancaster Gate to Paddington. And as for the 332, its not that hard. From Edgware Road Station, it can just turn left onto the 18 routing to Marylebone. Towards Brent Park, it would do the same and just navigate the roundabout back onto Kilburn Road. It just means it wouldnt directly serve Paddington Station (not that it did anyway, it stands on Bishops Bridge Road). So not an extension but a diversion. Just because a stop is rare doesn’t mean it isn’t useful.
|
|