|
Post by COBO on Apr 21, 2021 13:51:45 GMT
Why create a new route to Pinner when you could easily just extend the H12 to Sudbury which already goes to Pinner. The H12 could also provide round the corner links between South Harrow and Sudbury that can’t be achieved by the Piccadilly Line. The H12 could connect people on Harrow Road and Sudbury with Sudbury Town Station. Where would the new route go? Could the stand in Pinner have another route? Also there are many places where tube and bus routes duplicate each other. You could go to on Piccadilly Line from South Harrow to Ruislip or Ruislip Manor or Eastcote or Rayners Lane or Sudbury Town or Alperton or Park Royal and there also bus routes in South Harrow that go to the same places as the Piccadilly Line from South Harrow so what is wrong with a little duplication to Sudbury. I don’t think that the 226 going via North Acton is long. Because the H12 is fine as it is and doesn't need extending. The route could start in Pinner Green, with the last stop being West End Lane. Drivers would turn at the roundabout by Tesco and pick up passengers on the same stop going towards Pinner, without stopping inbetween (I know this is inconvenient but there isn't enough space at Pinner where the 183 stands). The route would then follow the H12 to Pinner, 183 to the junction of Marsh Lane/Rayners Lane, Rayners Lane (the road, then the station, giving people on Rayners Lane a bus for the first time), 398 to South Harrow then your H12 proposal. Also adding another bus to the A40 would be chaos particularly in rushhour where there is enough traffic as it is. Well I disagree I think that H12 could do with a little extension to Sudbury and that little extension won’t harm it. I would still pick other the H12 extension to Sudbury other your new route because why a create a new route when the H12 could easily extended. With the H12 extension even need to create a new stand as a stand has been created at Sudbury Town Station. I don’t think that a little extension to Sudbury Town will harm the H12. The thing with your route is that it follows the H12 to Pinner. Does the H12 really need another route following it and you have to create a new stand at Pinner Green.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2021 14:36:14 GMT
Because the H12 is fine as it is and doesn't need extending. The route could start in Pinner Green, with the last stop being West End Lane. Drivers would turn at the roundabout by Tesco and pick up passengers on the same stop going towards Pinner, without stopping inbetween (I know this is inconvenient but there isn't enough space at Pinner where the 183 stands). The route would then follow the H12 to Pinner, 183 to the junction of Marsh Lane/Rayners Lane, Rayners Lane (the road, then the station, giving people on Rayners Lane a bus for the first time), 398 to South Harrow then your H12 proposal. Also adding another bus to the A40 would be chaos particularly in rushhour where there is enough traffic as it is. Well I disagree I think that H12 could do with a little extension to Sudbury and that little extension won’t harm it. I would still pick other the H12 extension to Sudbury other your new route because why a create a new route when the H12 could easily extended. With the H12 extension even need to create a new stand as a stand has been created at Sudbury Town Station. I don’t think that a little extension to Sudbury Town will harm the H12. The thing with your route is that it follows the H12 to Pinner. Does the H12 really need another route following it and you have to create a new stand at Pinner Green. It wouldn't really since it provides a new route between Pinner and Rayner's Lane whilst it provides only duplicates the H12 between Rayner's Lane and South Harrow on Eastcote Lane
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 21, 2021 15:54:03 GMT
Please don't move the 260s problems to the 226! The A40 & A406 is bad enough in the peaks let's not wreck the 226 Well something needs to be done because the 226 is a busy route. Besides the 226 already crosses the A406/A40 at Hanger Lane so what the deal is. The issue is when the 226 has to suffer through the traffic, yes it crosses the A40 and A406 but why should it be one to suffer. I don't understand why the frequency can't be increased or it receive longer SDs.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 21, 2021 16:03:41 GMT
A few alterations from my lost post on here: 142: withdrawn between Colindale Superstores and Brent Cross. 186: withdrawn between Edgware and Brent Cross. Extended from Northwick Park Hospital to Westway Cross via Watford Road, Sudbury Court Drive, Greenford Road, route 92 to Greenford Station and 395 to Westway Cross. To link Greenford with Northwick Park Hospital and Edgware. 288: withdrawn between Edgware Way and Broadfields. Diverted to Brent Cross via route 186 to Brent Cross. Converted to double deck. To maintain links lost by route 186. 292: extended from Colindale Superstore to Brent Cross via route 142. To maintain links lost by the 142. 303: extended from Edgware via route 288 to Broadfields. To maintain links lost by route 288. 426: a new route running between Sudbury and Hammersmith via route 18 to Stonebridge Park, 440 to Central Middlesex Hospital, 487 to North Acton, 266 to Acton and 218 to Hammersmith. Linking Sudbury and Wembley to Central Middlesex Hospital and Park Royal to Hammersmith. Using double deckers. 440: withdrawn between Stonebridge Park and Wembley Stadium. Rerouted between Gypsy Corner and Acton via route 218. To link West Acton with Central Middlesex Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 21, 2021 16:44:22 GMT
Well something needs to be done because the 226 is a busy route. Besides the 226 already crosses the A406/A40 at Hanger Lane so what the deal is. The issue is when the 226 has to suffer through the traffic, yes it crosses the A40 and A406 but why should it be one to suffer. I don't understand why the frequency can't be increased or it receive longer SDs. The 226 could have a frequency increase and bigger single deckers but I feel like the 226 deserves more. I just think that double decking the 226 and rerouting it via North Acton and route 483 it could help out the 483 and create a new link between Ealing and the Park Royal leisure complex as well as providing additional capacity for the 226.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 21, 2021 16:45:10 GMT
Well I disagree I think that H12 could do with a little extension to Sudbury and that little extension won’t harm it. I would still pick other the H12 extension to Sudbury other your new route because why a create a new route when the H12 could easily extended. With the H12 extension even need to create a new stand as a stand has been created at Sudbury Town Station. I don’t think that a little extension to Sudbury Town will harm the H12. The thing with your route is that it follows the H12 to Pinner. Does the H12 really need another route following it and you have to create a new stand at Pinner Green. It wouldn't really since it provides a new route between Pinner and Rayner's Lane whilst it provides only duplicates the H12 between Rayner's Lane and South Harrow on Eastcote Lane It just seems like it massively duplicates the H12.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 21, 2021 17:14:24 GMT
The issue is when the 226 has to suffer through the traffic, yes it crosses the A40 and A406 but why should it be one to suffer. I don't understand why the frequency can't be increased or it receive longer SDs. The 226 could have a frequency increase and bigger single deckers but I feel like the 226 deserves more. I just think that double decking the 226 and rerouting it via North Acton and route 483 it could help out the 483 and create a new link between Ealing and the Park Royal leisure complex as well as providing additional capacity for the 226. But you completely make a retrograde step there - if you put routes through more traffic conditions it will become unreliable and be more likely to bunch so crowds build up. I know you're a fan of making proposals but I do not get this - when the 83 went to Ealing the 226 was far more reliable and it provides a reliable route between West London & North London (more reliable than the 83 & 260) yet your entire proposal takes this away. If Park Royal Leisure Complex required a link to Ealing Broadway, oh guess what! You could introduce an entire new route and run it over that as it helps the 483 out. Or you could even re increase the 483 to 6bph.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 21, 2021 18:02:03 GMT
A new route running between Ealing Broadway and Acton.
Via The Broadway The Mall Route 483 to Hanger Lane Western Avenue Gypsy Corner Victoria Road North Acton Station Wales Farm Road Route 266 to Acton High Street Market Place Horn Lane
Purpose: To link Ealing and Acton to Park Royal leisure complex. To also assist the 483 between Ealing Broadway and Hanger Lane.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Apr 21, 2021 18:10:57 GMT
A new route running between Ealing Broadway and Acton. Via The Broadway The Mall Route 483 to Hanger Lane Western Avenue Gypsy Corner Victoria Road North Acton Station Wales Farm Road Route 266 to Acton High Street Market Place Horn Lane Purpose: To link Ealing and Acton to Park Royal leisure complex. To also assist the 483 between Ealing Broadway and Hanger Lane. I lost many time you have put so many suggestions for your own idea of change to the bus routes. Please calm down and don't take the personal off from everyone. They do have own options but no need to go on and on. You can put many idea here for your West London area.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 21, 2021 18:14:44 GMT
A new route running between Ealing Broadway and Acton. Via The Broadway The Mall Route 483 to Hanger Lane Western Avenue Gypsy Corner Victoria Road North Acton Station Wales Farm Road Route 266 to Acton High Street Market Place Horn Lane Purpose: To link Ealing and Acton to Park Royal leisure complex. To also assist the 483 between Ealing Broadway and Hanger Lane. I lost many time you have put so many suggestions for your own idea of change to the bus routes. Please calm down and don't take the personal off from everyone. They do have own options but no need to go on and on. You can put many idea here for your West London area. I assume you're referencing me here - I only disagreed with it because the 226 has an established passenger base that causes it to be so busy - this was not anything personal at his ideas as I do like a few of them.
|
|
|
Post by someone on May 20, 2021 15:22:32 GMT
Perhaps the 335 should extend to serve Sidcup Road and Eltham Station.
|
|
|
Post by someone on May 20, 2021 15:56:02 GMT
Route 129 extension to Brockley Station: NORTH GREENWICH STATION (C) Millennium Village/Oval Square (MC)
... National Maritime Museum (G) Greenwich Town Centre/Nelson Road (E) Greenwich Town Centre/Cutty Sark (C)
Greenwich High Road/Royal Hill (K) Greenwich Station (P) Greenwich High Road (no letter) Miller House (X) Greenwich High Road/Blackheath Road (W) Deptford Bridge (T) Florence Road/New Cross Road (new stop, G) Florence Road/New Cross Road (new stop, H) Malpas Road (new stop, J) BROCKLEY STATION (new stop, BD) Alternative extension to Blackheath Village: NORTH GREENWICH STATION (C) Millennium Village/Oval Square (MC) ... National Maritime Museum (G) Greenwich Town Centre/Nelson Road (E)
Greenwich Town Centre/Cutty Sark (C) Greenwich High Road/Royal Hill (K) Greenwich Station (L) Ashburnham Grove (A) Greenwich South Street/Blackheath Road (B) Lewisham Road (J) Wat Tyler Road (K) Greenwich Park/Chesterfield Gate (no letter) The Clarendon Hotel (J) ROYAL PARADE (no letter)
|
|
|
Post by someone on May 20, 2021 17:44:51 GMT
Route 380: Planned extension: Lewisham to Eltham Station
Route after extension (travelling towards the extension) BELMARSH PRISON (G) Goldfinch Road (H) ... Lewisham Station (H) Molesworth Street (Q)
Lewisham Clock Tower (R) Lewisham Centre (X) Longbridge Way (no letter) Thornford Road (no letter) Theodore Road (B) George Lane (C)
Duncrievie Road (D) Torridon Road/Hither Green Lane (E) Brownhill Road (F) Sandhurst Road/St Andrew's Church (K)
Minard Road (L) Sandhurst Road/Verdant Lane (no letter) Parkcroft Road (J) Baring Road (V) Woodyates Road (K) Horn Park Lane (EL) Sidcup Road (EM) Westhorne Avenue/Eltham Road (EN) Eltham Hill/Westhorne Avenue (EK) Vand**e Cross (no letter) Sherard Road (Y) Eltham Church/Well Hall Road (F) Eltham Station/Lassa Road (no letter) ELTHAM STATION (no letter)
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 21, 2021 10:52:17 GMT
Did someone just censor the NAME OF A FLAMING BUS STOP? (Vand**e Cross in my previous post) Why are you so angry over this? It's an automated system that can't differentiate.
|
|
|
Post by someone on May 21, 2021 10:58:34 GMT
Why are you so angry over this? It's an automated system that can't differentiate. Yeah, you're right, I suppose. And Proboards is a bit old, so.. I'll let it off the hook. Also, don't you think it's a good extension? (Not pressuring you or anything, just asking as this thread is a bit barren...)
|
|