|
Post by danorak on Jun 3, 2022 14:32:51 GMT
Not ploughed through all the comments on the various threads as there's so much of it, so this may have already been mentioned.
Is the left turn from Tooley Street into the London Bridge station forecourt actually doable in a bus? I'm not sure it is. If it isn't, I assume the 47 will have to continue to Borough Station to turn.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 3, 2022 14:52:08 GMT
Not ploughed through all the comments on the various threads as there's so much of it, so this may have already been mentioned. Is the left turn from Tooley Street into the London Bridge station forecourt actually doable in a bus? I'm not sure it is. If it isn't, I assume the 47 will have to continue to Borough Station to turn. No I don't think a bus would be able to do that turn, maybe the 47 will turn round at Borough Station and come back? Should be enough room in the bus station with the 43,388 and 521 gone. Alternatively there is an unused stand in Nabraska Street or at least there was the last time I was there.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jun 4, 2022 2:38:10 GMT
I can't see the 135 having much success combined with the 242, it basically follows the Overground from Shadwell to Dalston Junction, which is a huge chunk of the new route. It's circuitous and running via Commercial Street (which as other members have noted, is a lightly used section as is) takes it away from much of the 135's existing commuter core deeper in the City. Besides taking the 259 away from Kings Cross, which I believe will disrupt some commuting patterns, the 349 changes don't look all that bad (happy to be corrected though). However I would expect the 259 to receive a reasonable PVR increase. They probably think the 259 just shadows the Piccadilly Line. There will be quite a reduction of buses with route 254 being withdrawn from the area too. In other news, I now feel all the more strongly that route 214 should have moved to RA instead of route 153. Maybe route 214 will move to RA with route 153 returning to NP in exchange?
|
|
|
Post by theexplorer on Jun 7, 2022 19:39:22 GMT
Overall the changes are pretty terrible but the ones that seem the most bizarre to me are the 100 and D3 changes, reminds me of the current 23 where two sections of a route were just stuck together forming an almost U-shaped route without thinking about longer journeys. A better option to mitigate the withdrawal of the D7 could've been to withdraw the 15 between Blackwall and Limehouse and then send it to Crossharbour via the 135/277 to Canary Wharf and then the proposed D3 routing, or alternatively extend the 15 from Blackwall to Leamouth if suitable for deckers and restructure the D3 to run between Bethnal Green and Crossharbour (of course ideally the D7 shouldn't be withdrawn but that's another matter) One thing I'm wondering about is is there enough stand space at Homerton Hospital for the 236? Presumably the 135 will take the 242 stand but where will the 236 stand, the only option I can think of is extending the 394's stand but I'm not sure if there's enough space there D7 rerouted from Island Gardens via 277 to Crossharbour then via D6 to Blackwall then via D3 to Leamouth. Fulfill the Leamouth-Crossharbour link. D7 also cut to Limehouse, Burdett Road. D3 then still runs from Leamouth to Shadwell and let the 100 stil be extended to Bethnal Green.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 7, 2022 21:40:10 GMT
I haven’t seen any confirmation that the 214 would operate with double deckers, so no idea if sufficient capacity would be provided.
A big problem with this consultation is that no information on potential frequencies or loadings has been provided, it’s very much about route structures only.
Interesting that the 88 is not included on the list of 12 minute minimum frequency routes, but this could just be an omission.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 7, 2022 21:56:56 GMT
I haven’t seen any confirmation that the 214 would operate with double deckers, so no idea if sufficient capacity would be provided. A big problem with this consultation is that no information on potential frequencies or loadings has been provided, it’s very much about route structures only. Interesting that the 88 is not included on the list of 12 minute minimum frequency routes, but this could just be an omission. I suspect that the 24 and 88 will stay as they are, the 214 rerouted via the 46 to Barts and the 46 and 205 terminate in Camden Town, the 205 could use the former 88 stand.
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jul 4, 2022 18:28:12 GMT
Revisitng these proposals, seems a bit wasteful to keep the 30 from KX - Marble Arch when the 205 is far busier. The 30 should be diverted to Paddington. If TfL are still obsessing over Oxford Street the 390 can be diverted via the 30 to replace it but I think that would be a terrible idea - on brand for TfL though
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 5, 2022 6:46:06 GMT
Revisitng these proposals, seems a bit wasteful to keep the 30 from KX - Marble Arch when the 205 is far busier. The 30 should be diverted to Paddington. If TfL are still obsessing over Oxford Street the 390 can be diverted via the 30 to replace it but I think that would be a terrible idea - on brand for TfL though Yes, I do wonder how the 30 has escaped their attention for so long.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jul 6, 2022 0:10:17 GMT
The 30 could have replaced the 390 to Victoria on 390s current routing from Warren Street With the current 390 rerouted between Euston and Victoria via 14 to TCR, then to Trafalgar Square and then the 24 to Pimlico. 88 proposal goes ahead 27 extended to PHF in replacement? No changes to 214 or id say possibly a 388 between Camden and Stratford would be something unique rather than the 388/78 which could be easier with a 242/78 merge
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 6, 2022 9:03:14 GMT
The 30 could have replaced the 390 to Victoria on its current routing With the current 390 rerouted between Euston and Victoria via 14 to TCR, then to Trafalgar Square and then the 24 to Pimlico. 88 proposal goes ahead 27 extended to PHF in replacement? No changes to 214 or id say possibly a 388 between Camden and Stratford would be something unique rather than the 388/78 which could be easier with a 242/78 merge What would you replace the 390 between Hyde Park Corner and TCR? If you remove the 390 between Hyde Park Corner and TCR and it has no replacement then you lose that round a corner link between Park Lane and Oxford Circus.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jul 6, 2022 11:08:08 GMT
The 30 could have replaced the 390 to Victoria on its current routing With the current 390 rerouted between Euston and Victoria via 14 to TCR, then to Trafalgar Square and then the 24 to Pimlico. 88 proposal goes ahead 27 extended to PHF in replacement? No changes to 214 or id say possibly a 388 between Camden and Stratford would be something unique rather than the 388/78 which could be easier with a 242/78 merge What would you replace the 390 between Hyde Park Corner and TCR? If you remove the 390 between Hyde Park Corner and TCR and it has no replacement then you lose that round a corner link between Park Lane and Oxford Circus. The 30, sorry it didnt seem clear. The 30 rerouted to Victoria via the current 390 from Warren Street. Then personally Id reroute the 205 to Marble Arch via the 30 from Baker Street. This link is very handy and the 18/27 is still suffice to Paddington Station from Warren Street or Euston if you walk through Drummond Street which what most people do especially people visiting shops who arent from London
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 10, 2022 14:11:24 GMT
So now that the consultation has been concluded. What's everyone's thoughts on this. Also how many of these plans do you think will press on and why?
Let's hear this
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 10, 2022 14:37:17 GMT
So now that the consultation has been concluded. What's everyone's thoughts on this. Also how many of these plans do you think will press on and why? Let's hear this I can see the 24/88 remaining the same and the 205 shortened to maybe Euston to Mile End. The 31 remaining with likely the 113 staying the same but the 189 cut to Baker Street. 11/14 becoming the new numbers for the revised 414 and 507 and possibly a compromise with a drop freq 430 and 74 with the cut to Marble Arch. Everything else including the 12 I can see going ahead.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Aug 10, 2022 15:15:00 GMT
After analysing the changes for the past few months, I don’t mind if they do go ahead. Most of them are good compromises in regards to falling demand and a difficult financial situation that TfL are in. Although the 78/388 change is the most mind boggling one to me at the moment. So now that the consultation has been concluded. What's everyone's thoughts on this. Also how many of these plans do you think will press on and why? Let's hear this I can see the 24/88 remaining the same and the 205 shortened to maybe Euston to Mile End. The 31 remaining with likely the 113 staying the same but the 189 cut to Baker Street. 11/14 becoming the new numbers for the revised 414 and 507 and possibly a compromise with a drop freq 430 and 74 with the cut to Marble Arch. Everything else including the 12 I can see going ahead. I agree with most of this. However, I think route 414 and 507 numbers will be retained along with the new night routes associated with those routes. I hope as you say that routes 24, 88 and 214 are retained in their current form. But I think route 24 will be withdrawn with all the changes surrounding it happening. Routes 74/N74 I can see definitely going with the revised routes 414/N414 and routes 430/N430 expected to cover most of its existing route. Some predictions Route 507/N507 will be a single decker route. Retaining its existing electric vehicles Route 214 will replace most of the 88 route between Trafalgar Square and Parliament Hill Fields as a single decker route. Retaining its existing electrics. The route could move to either Waterloo garage or Stockwell garage.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 10, 2022 16:53:09 GMT
So now that the consultation has been concluded. What's everyone's thoughts on this. Also how many of these plans do you think will press on and why? Let's hear this Can see the D7 cut 100% going ahead as the majority of the route is going to be covered. Not sure about the 135 /242 and if it goes ahead I wonder which number will survive? maybe the 242 N242 is the better choice.
|
|