|
Post by greenboy on Aug 11, 2022 8:55:11 GMT
I can see the 332 being withdrawn instead of the 332, breaks fewer links and one of the 16/316 extended to Brent Park to replace the 332. I agree with others the 24 may be saved given the uproar the change has caused, I suspect TFL purposely proposed withdrawing the iconic 24 to provoke a reaction. At a push I could see a fudge with the changes to routes in Chelsea, residents there successfully blocked a proposed Crossrail 2 station and the previous 11/19/22/311 proposal though this may make TFL even more determined to go ahead (no pun intended!) with the proposals. The 24 I feel are one of those "untouchable" routes that will give TFL a headache if it's tampered with in any shape or form. As for the 16 or 316 being extended via the 332 to Brent Park. It's sort of returning back to it's origins again which I have to ask was the 332 created to relieve the pressure off the 16 in the Edgware Road to Cricklewood corridor? I don't think any route is untouchable at the moment, a few years ago any suggestion of withdrawing the 12 would have been laughed at. I don't go along with the idea that the 24 route should be set in stone forevermore but equally I wouldn't advocate changing it for the sake of it as TfL appear to be proposing at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Aug 11, 2022 8:56:47 GMT
I do hope that the 16 save as it so important I can't lose my links in to Central London as I use a lot to Victoria when I get the train to Brighton if one route on the A5 have to go it need to be the 332 it can easy replace by 16 and 32
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 11, 2022 9:03:20 GMT
I do hope that the 16 save as it so important I can't lose my links in to Central London as I use a lot to Victoria when I get the train to Brighton if one route on the A5 have to go it need to be the 332 it can easy replace by 16 and 32 TfL are not obligated to retain links because they have existed for many years! You will have a replacement service yes you might have to change buses but you will still get to Victoria.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 11, 2022 9:24:07 GMT
A simpler alternative to replace the D7 could be to restructure the D6/D7 into one new route. This would operate from Ash Grove to Poplar via the D6, then round the D7 loop to terminate at Canary Wharf.
The 277 in its present form would then cover all other D7 links, between Mile End and Island Gardens via Westferry. And with Crossharbour no longer served by the D6, the D8 would still be available via Canary Wharf to get to Blackwall/Poplar (and the 277 from Crossharbour to Mile End).
Contractually, this revised D6/D7 route would need to be on the current D6 contract, as the D7's contract is due to expire soon. The issue already raised with similar proposals is that a modified D6 would need the extra capacity of DDs - however I think this could be worked around.
With the 26 up for tender soon, it's possible that the contract could not be renewed, with the revised 26 to Victoria taking over the contract of one of the withdrawn routes. Or alternatively, the 26 could be renewed but using LTs made available from other changes (e.g. route 11). In either case, the 26's E40Hs would then be mostly reallocated to my revised D6, with others covering the 388 extension. Then HCT could perhaps move the D6's E200s to a route such as the W19 to increase capacity, with its shorter E200s maybe replacing Solos on the 309?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 11, 2022 10:36:48 GMT
I can see the 332 being withdrawn instead of the 332, breaks fewer links and one of the 16/316 extended to Brent Park to replace the 332. I agree with others the 24 may be saved given the uproar the change has caused, I suspect TFL purposely proposed withdrawing the iconic 24 to provoke a reaction. At a push I could see a fudge with the changes to routes in Chelsea, residents there successfully blocked a proposed Crossrail 2 station and the previous 11/19/22/311 proposal though this may make TFL even more determined to go ahead (no pun intended!) with the proposals. I assume you mean the 332 being withdrawn instead of the 16. You've put "the 332 being withdrawn instead of the 332" lol. As for someone that works at W, I do think a route will be removed from Edgware Road. I can see a Brent Park - Victoria route happening, (pre-1997 coming back), but I think one of the following will happen: 1. Route 16 gets withdrawn, the 332 gets diverted away from Paddington and gets extended to Victoria and *possibly* the 32 extended to Paddington via Maida Hill and the 6, 98 and 23 changes don't go ahead as I think those ones TFL didn't think through. I will be very intrigued to see what alternative TFL will have with the 23 as I honestly can't see it going back to Aldwych. 2. Route 332 gets withdrawn and the 16 is retained but takes over the remainder of the current 332 contract, and gets extended to Brent Park, then becoming a Brent Park - Victoria route (pre-1997). I'm literally just waiting till when this consultation report is out, I just know it ain't going to look pretty. Sorry, yes I meant the 332 being withdrawn instead of the 16. Withdrawing the 332 seems a better option as it would lead to fewer broken links, ideally it would be rerouted via Maida Hill as was proposed a few years back which would achieve TFL's aim of reducing Edgware Road-Kilburn to two routes. Whatever happens I think its the end of the line for the 16's contract, perhaps some renumbering may go on. On your point about the 23 to Aldwych I really don't think that link is worth saving, the 6 is so lightly used along there I don't see the value in sending the 23 all the way to Aldwych, think it could stop at Trafalgar Square. With the endless messing with the 23 leaving the route a shadow of its former self I wouldn't rule out the route being withdrawn altogether in the near future with the 452 diverted to Westbourne Park and one of the 7/70 taking over the routing between Ladbroke Grove and Westbourne Grove. Another thought is whether TFL might change their minds with what to do with the 189. If the 31 is saved then the 113 and 189 are cut back at their southern ends I wonder if TFL could look to alter the southern end of the 189 give they feel its superfluous south of Kilburn.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 11, 2022 10:53:58 GMT
I suspect some of the more high profile routes will be 'saved' in some form although I can't see much of a case for saving the 12, the 148 proposal does make sense. I wouldn't be surprised if the 31 is reprieved and the 113 as far as Baker Street Station with the 189 withdrawn and replaced by changes to other routes at the northern end. Hopefully something better than the 135/242 merger which won't offer much in the way of savings. I wouldn't be surprised if the 211 stays as it is with something else (rerouted 306?) doing the Battersea PS link. The rest will probably go ahead pretty much as proposed. I really hope the 211 is saved but can't see what else TFL would send to Battersea in its place unless there's a significant rethink of the Chelsea area proposals. 211 to Battersea has another 436 style failure written all over it.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 11, 2022 10:57:15 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. 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. The 78 and 388 situation is an interesting one as the 388 has changed destinations more time than I could think. Think a far better solution to the 78/388 change would be to have the 78 run from Shoreditch-Nunhead via London Bridge and the 388 Liverpool Street-Stratford. I don't think there's significant demand for the new links the 388 extension would cause and it isn't worth the operational headache such a long route would be. Only problem with that is it would break the Hackney-London Bridge link, though TFL were prepared to do when they proposed withdrawing the 48.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 11, 2022 11:05:00 GMT
I suspect some of the more high profile routes will be 'saved' in some form although I can't see much of a case for saving the 12, the 148 proposal does make sense. I wouldn't be surprised if the 31 is reprieved and the 113 as far as Baker Street Station with the 189 withdrawn and replaced by changes to other routes at the northern end. Hopefully something better than the 135/242 merger which won't offer much in the way of savings. I wouldn't be surprised if the 211 stays as it is with something else (rerouted 306?) doing the Battersea PS link. The rest will probably go ahead pretty much as proposed. I really hope the 211 is saved but can't see what else TFL would send to Battersea in its place unless there's a significant rethink of the Chelsea area proposals. 211 to Battersea has another 436 style failure written all over it. It would seem simpler to keep the 211 as it is and withdraw the 507. The 306 could be rerouted from Fulham Broadway via the 11 to Sloane Square and then to Battersea Power Station with the 28 rerouted via Sands End. Wasn't the 436 extension paid for by the Battersea Power Station development?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 11, 2022 11:36:58 GMT
I do hope that the 16 save as it so important I can't lose my links in to Central London as I use a lot to Victoria when I get the train to Brighton if one route on the A5 have to go it need to be the 332 it can easy replace by 16 and 32 TfL are not obligated to retain links because they have existed for many years! You will have a replacement service yes you might have to change buses but you will still get to Victoria. Firstly, he never mentioned anything about they must retain links that are years old and secondly, you do realise when links are removed or even made more difficult by having to change buses, it’s not uncommon for people suddenly look for alternatives like taxis or lifts. This is absolutely the wrong thing to encourage IMO
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 11, 2022 12:24:14 GMT
The 78 and 388 situation is an interesting one as the 388 has changed destinations more time than I could think. Think a far better solution to the 78/388 change would be to have the 78 run from Shoreditch-Nunhead via London Bridge and the 388 Liverpool Street-Stratford. I don't think there's significant demand for the new links the 388 extension would cause and it isn't worth the operational headache such a long route would be. Only problem with that is it would break the Hackney-London Bridge link, though TFL were prepared to do when they proposed withdrawing the 48. Or perhaps keep it as it is currently, like 90% of these proposals aren't very well thought out
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 11, 2022 12:28:27 GMT
The 78 and 388 situation is an interesting one as the 388 has changed destinations more time than I could think. Think a far better solution to the 78/388 change would be to have the 78 run from Shoreditch-Nunhead via London Bridge and the 388 Liverpool Street-Stratford. I don't think there's significant demand for the new links the 388 extension would cause and it isn't worth the operational headache such a long route would be. Only problem with that is it would break the Hackney-London Bridge link, though TFL were prepared to do when they proposed withdrawing the 48. You could scrap the 388 Liverpool Street to Stratford and instead extend the 241 from Stratford City to Liverpool Street giving the route some purpose. I have suggested extending the 241 over this route many times so hopefully one day it might happen 😬
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 11, 2022 13:27:59 GMT
Think a far better solution to the 78/388 change would be to have the 78 run from Shoreditch-Nunhead via London Bridge and the 388 Liverpool Street-Stratford. I don't think there's significant demand for the new links the 388 extension would cause and it isn't worth the operational headache such a long route would be. Only problem with that is it would break the Hackney-London Bridge link, though TFL were prepared to do when they proposed withdrawing the 48. You could scrap the 388 Liverpool Street to Stratford and instead extend the 241 from Stratford City to Liverpool Street giving the route some purpose. I have suggested extending the 241 over this route many times so hopefully one day it might happen 😬 Wouldn't that merely give you guys at the Custom House end a route that has far more potential to be unreliable especially when the 388 currently runs from London Bridge to Hackney Wick and getting through the City at times can be a pain. You did say before, correctly IMO, that simply merging routes for the sake of it is pointless and can be detrimental.
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Aug 11, 2022 15:49:35 GMT
So what would happen if 23 goes back it old rerouting but via Green Park as 9 won't cope on it own so if another route need down that way it maybe be 390 or 73 that would/could go back to Hammersmith as the old 10 did and this would bring back King's Cross to Hammersmith link
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 11, 2022 16:07:05 GMT
So what would happen if 23 goes back it old rerouting but via Green Park as 9 won't cope on it own so if another route need down that way it maybe be 390 or 73 that would/could go back to Hammersmith as the old 10 did and this would bring back King's Cross to Hammersmith link Tfl clearly think the 9 is sufficient now and don't have any plans for a replacement on the Hyde Park to Hammersmith section.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Aug 11, 2022 16:20:55 GMT
So what would happen if 23 goes back it old rerouting but via Green Park as 9 won't cope on it own so if another route need down that way it maybe be 390 or 73 that would/could go back to Hammersmith as the old 10 did and this would bring back King's Cross to Hammersmith link The 9 has support from the 27 between Hammersmith and High Street Kensington, and from the 52 between Kensington and Hyde Park Corner, as well as from other routes for short distances. Clearly TfL doesn't think another route is needed.
|
|