The London Bus Page In Exile

Friday 16 February 2007

By Request – The 7

Filed under: Companies, Routes, Service Changes — londonbuspageinexile @ 9:06 pm

First Dennis Trident TNA 32952 (W952 ULL) at Elgin Avenue on 28th August 2005.jpg A comment made a couple of days ago asked if I’d profile the 7, as it’s been in the news lately, so here goes.

You last heard about the 7 from me the day it lost its RMLs, 2nd July 2004, and since then it’s been just another anonymous OPO route with unremarkable Dennis Tridents like TNA 32952 (W952 ULL) – although one individual took it upon himself to deplete the route’s stock by setting fire to Westbourne Park garage, a crime for which he got no punishment whatsoever. However, it’s just been awarded to Metroline for takeup in June or July this year. OPO conversion had been introduced midway through its five-year contract, and to be fair it was almost one-manned at the start of it.

Metroline’s joy at winning such an important route caught swiftly in their throat with the news that they have lost the 24, one of the most important central London routes and one stocked with brand new vehicles; although not speculating about from which garage they could operate the 7 (none are within five miles of any point on the route!), Holloway will soon have some space! Still, there will be four or five months separating the 7 and 24 changeovers, not to mention that each contract bid specifies an operating garage, so we can worry about that when the time comes. The vehicles will comprise Scania N270UDs with East Lancs Olympus bodywork.

Advertisements

55 Comments »

  1. Like I’ve said in another comment about the blinds / LED blinds on buses and bus types, to keep london buses the same, they should, like I’ve said before, one type of double decker and one type of single decker with one basic london bus livery. London Buses are just going to pot.

    Comment by Richard — Friday 16 February 2007 @ 10:05 pm

  2. Would anyone like to cast their mind back 10 years – London Buses, perhaps then, could be said to be “just going to pot”……the improvements, & general quality, since then are beyond measure. ALL of the credit for this must go to TfL. It seems to me that just because TfL are the administration that will always be linked to the withdrawal of The Routemaster Bus, they will never be able to “do anything right” in the eyes of bloggers on this site. Perhaps because i’ve driven buses in other parts of the country(NOT a million miles away from London) which have a dire bus service, I can appreciate the quality of the service(compared to 10 years ago) that London has today. I wish I could afford to hire a minibus to take the moaners on this site to the Mid-Sussex town where I drive buses………..now, this place really is “just going to pot”!!!

    Comment by I'm The Daddy Now.... — Saturday 17 February 2007 @ 8:01 am

  3. #2

    Being an exiled Northerner, I can totally understand where you are coming from.

    Despite all the complaints I see and hear, the public transport system in London still appears unbelievably good to me.

    Buses in particular impress me, unless it happens to be the one that I am driving.

    Comment by Dave. (Admits to being a Bus Driver in London) — Saturday 17 February 2007 @ 9:46 am

  4. #1. That would be rubbish. All operators with the same buses. How would they cascade them? For example, Arriva hates tridents, and no one else really likes VDLs (except East Thames). So operators would have a massive argument over which bus they should all have. Bus body builders would probably go bust, as London is the biggest UK market for new vehicles. …and… there’s almost no variation with liveries at all now, why would anyone want the same with the type of buses??

    Comment by Arriva436 — Saturday 17 February 2007 @ 10:37 am

  5. Arriva has Tridents too, at their Southend, Luton & Ware(?) garages. Richard, i thought you were joking about that comment!

    Comment by Martin — Saturday 17 February 2007 @ 11:00 am

  6. Matt, surely KX is within five miles of Russell Square?

    Comment by Steve — Saturday 17 February 2007 @ 12:52 pm

  7. Right. Here goes my take on the subject. The 7 used to be my favorite Routemaster route, a leisurely ride throught the nice suburbs of North Kensington, before encountering the more important area’s of Ladbroke Grove and Paddington. In my view it should be cut back to Oxford Circus, and extended to Acton, recreating the links lost in the 1980’s.

    Despite running almost past Westborne Park, the route was never run that efficiently and the East Acton leg in particular often suffered. However, it still comes as a shock that First have lost the 7, especially as I have my serious doubts as to whether Metroline will do any better.

    #6. KX would definitely be the best location for Metroline to run the route from, and I would have thought that there would be enough space there.

    #2. London buses are generally a lot better than they were 10 years ago, however I am still of the view that there have been a lot of retrograde steps in the last 2-3 years, and not just the Routemaster debate.

    I think that TfL have done a fantastic job since they set up in 2000, though I believe that alot of the good work done is in danger of being undone.

    Spending some time away from London, I can tell you that London has by far the best bus network in the UK. The information at bus stops is excellent, despite the sometimes vauge ‘every 5 to 15 minutes’ which occurs on some routes (maybe this is a slight exageration!!) Countdown is generally pretty accurate, and this is hopefully soon going to be improved by the eagerly awaited ibus project.

    The tube is also a lot better than popular belief in my view, although the PPP is (a predicted) fiasco. Contrast this with areas out of London where ‘a bus every 30 minutes’ is advertised as if it is absolutely amazing, and information at bus stops is non existant.

    It’s true that you don’t know what you’ve got till its gone!!

    Comment by GJ — Saturday 17 February 2007 @ 3:39 pm

  8. I thank the bloggers #3, #7, & #4 for recognising that our friends @ TfL do do something right sometimes(!). London is the ONLY place in the UK where you can catch a bus(without looking at the timetable first)….catch the wrong bus….get off….catch another one….get off again, cross the road….& catch another bus back to where you started from – all within 15 MINUTES!!! In most places in this country, that carelessness would take up several hours of your day!

    Comment by I'm The Daddy Now.... — Saturday 17 February 2007 @ 6:00 pm

  9. You know what I love about this blog format? That I can just make the merest hint at a subject and the commenters will fill in the rest. It certainly makes my life easier when it when it comes to controversial issues – my heart’s just not in arguing the toss all day any more. So my thanks go to all contributors for taking an interest and having an opinion, whether I agree with it or not; it’s still allowed.
    Regarding Kings Cross, I don’t think it’s big enough for a route the size of the 7 without chucking something else out.

    Comment by londonbuspageinexile — Saturday 17 February 2007 @ 9:24 pm

  10. Just wondering if Metroline really wanted to keep the 24. Can it be confirmed that they tendered for the route? And, if so, that their tender price was pitched at a level that they would not expect to be beaten?
    MJ

    Comment by Morris — Sunday 18 February 2007 @ 12:05 am

  11. I believe the allocation for the 7 is most likely to go to one of the Perivale garages, unless Metroline are going to re-open Harlesden (sorry Park Royal!) again. I think this is unlikely though, as buses would have to go the long way via Victoria Road, as there is a low bridge in Old Oak Common Lane that has already de-roofed at least one of Willesden’s VPL’s! (183 i think)

    #1; it would be a very boring scene with just one bus type, and imagine if they picked a crap one like the Enviro400, we’d be stuck with them for years! Besides virtually all the liveries are the same now anyway. That’s one good thing TfL has done, and i wholeheartedly agree that we are very lucky to have them, seeing the mess that bus operations outside London are (and i know Londoners bitch about fare rises, but in the provinces they’re really expensive!)

    The London bus scene is still interesting, and although quality seems to be dipping, at least there’s a lot going on, and it’s always interesting comparing the operators. My money is on London Central/General as the best. Would be interesting to see what everyone else thinks………

    Comment by ejc — Sunday 18 February 2007 @ 12:53 am

  12. The 7 will be operated from Perivale (not the ex-Thorpes one).

    Comment by Terry Brown — Sunday 18 February 2007 @ 12:57 pm

  13. #5, Arriva did have some very early tridents, and never bought any since, so obviously don’t like them. i think one got sold.

    Comment by Arriva436 — Sunday 18 February 2007 @ 7:29 pm

  14. to #5 & #13

    they look like trident but what they are is Volvo or Daf chassis with an Alexander Dennis ALX400 body.

    Comment by Richard — Sunday 18 February 2007 @ 9:28 pm

  15. #10: apparently Metroline were keen to be getting rid of the route, after reliability levels on the 24 fell rapidly. This was due to the amount of bendy buses on the 29 and 38 (around the Tottenham Court Road area especially) causing various traffic problems, holding up the 24’s.

    Metroline even declined the offer made by TfL to extend the route 24 contract to a further 2 years for good performance.

    Comment by *insert coin* — Sunday 18 February 2007 @ 11:50 pm

  16. #15. Seriously??? That absolutely amazes me! I always thought that the 24 was one of Metroline’s better run routes. Still it just goes to show the major problems bendy buses cause in central London. They are sutiable for Red Arrow routes ONLY!!

    Comment by GJ — Monday 19 February 2007 @ 12:34 am

  17. Metroline couldn’t re open the old Harlesden / Park Royal depot, even if they wanted to (comment 11). NCP Challenger are soon to move in for their upcoming workings on the 440, E6 and E11

    Comment by ANDREW WEBB — Monday 19 February 2007 @ 7:54 am

  18. #15 & #16, i usd to work on the line of the 24, and always thought it was horribly unreliable. There would often be no buses for ages, and then a huge clump, usually 5 or 6, would arrive at once. I once waited 30 minutes for one in the freezing cold, while 9 went past in the other direction.

    It seems Metroline knew they weren’t doing very well, and tried to make up for it by always allocating their newest buses to it, subsequently depriving other routes of new buses; 4, 17, 43, 271 etc, etc….

    Comment by ejc — Monday 19 February 2007 @ 11:51 am

  19. Has the turn at Tottenham Court Road (Centrpoint Bus stand) become easier since the 14’s extension?

    I understand congestion at Tottenham Court Rd was one the key reasons the 14 was extended – so where would/could the 242 go if they want to get rid of buses standing at Centrepoint altogether.

    Maybe they should ban bendy buses from curtailing at Tottenham Court Road full stop? Admittidly this would probably have bad effects on service – particularly on the 29 whereby they’d have to go to Trafalgar Square which means the Wood Green end could be starved in times of heavy traffic. The 38 I suppose could use Piccadilly Circus more perhaps

    I’m not sure, just brainstorming! Any ideas?

    Comment by Russell — Monday 19 February 2007 @ 5:05 pm

  20. #14. Not the ones that used to do the 38 in Luton, the ones that used to be in Southend, and the ones up North somewhere, they’re definately Tridents.

    Comment by Arriva436 — Monday 19 February 2007 @ 6:35 pm

  21. #18 Obviously I was wrong about the 24!! Having never acually used the service, I take what you say as true, as I was only going on when I saw them whilst waiting for other routes along Whitehall.

    #19 Could they not terminate the 242 at Red Lion Square, send the 98 up to Russell Square, and maybe cut the 7 back to Oxford Circus?? I would also like to see the 14 go up to Euston, though I know how congested it is there aswell!!

    Again, I’m just suggesting what I would like to see. The good thing about this is that we all have different idea’s and can have an interesting discussion/ debate. It’s great!!

    Comment by GJ — Monday 19 February 2007 @ 7:08 pm

  22. #15 Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the Victoria – Oxford Circus section of the 73 was a Red-Arrow route? Seriously though, I’ve never really understood the reasoning behind the choice of routes for articulated buses in London. I hope I’m not OT if I ask for your ideas on which routes are obvious choices for them.

    As an ex-pat Londoner, I also think buses in London have generally improved over the last ten years and I welcome the trend to 7 day a week routes with simple route patterns.

    I notice that almost all commentators clarify their remarks with “the best Bus System in the UK”. London and the UK still have a long way to go to catch up with systems in Holland or Germany, for example. But a start has been made and that must be a good thing

    Just a last thought, #19 why not extend the 7 & 13 back to their traditional terminal at London Bridge and get rid of the red arrows?

    Comment by IsarSteve — Monday 19 February 2007 @ 10:24 pm

  23. #19, 21; a simple but small solution would be to remove the traffic island at the junction with Oxford Street, and let the 176’s turn left directly without having to go under Centrepoint. This would have the added benefit of cutting a minute or so off the journey time of an already over-subscribed route.

    With so many bendies going round TCRS (25,29,38,73) the obvious solution would be to get rid of them altogether!

    The 73 could be cut back to Oxford Circus, relieving some overcrowding, and the 390 could be diverted to Victoria in its place, maintaining the King’s Cross- Victoria link. In place of the 390, the C2 could be extended west (and potentially re-numbered 135 as was mooted a few years ago), but i think it would make more sense to go all the way to Shepherd’s Bush, as the western leg of the 390 is under used in my opinion, and the 94 and 148 frequently overcrowded. But don’t get me started! I have so many ideas for potential route changes in my head…. ahh, if only i had Mr Hendys job!

    Comment by ejc — Tuesday 20 February 2007 @ 12:19 am

  24. Quote 17 is incorrect as Metroline won the E6, not NCP, and will operate from the old Thorpes garage (Perivale West).

    Comment by Chris — Tuesday 20 February 2007 @ 6:21 pm

  25. #23 certainly gives food for thought. I’m surprised that the 24 and 29 ever finish their southbound journeys. They have to encounter the southern end of Gower Street, trying to turn into a congested New Oxford Street, then in the counter flow bus lane in Charing Cross Road waiting at a set of lights which always seems to be on red despite it being green northbound. Then they get stuck behind the bendies on the 38 and 73 turning right at Cambridge Circus when the lights only let one bus through at a time, and then the congestion at Trafalgar Square.

    The solution? Make New Oxford Street buses only to let buses overtake those waiting at bus stops. Retime the southbound lights in Charing Cross Road. Introduce a right turn filter at Cambridge Circus. This would allow Trafalgar Square to be sufferable.

    A bit radical maybe – pity that Street Management and Buses aren’t under the control of the same body (joke!).

    Comment by mt — Tuesday 20 February 2007 @ 7:58 pm

  26. #22. No part of the 73 is a Red Arrow route. There are only 2 Red Arrow routes, the 507 (Waterloo-Victoria) and the 521 (Waterloo-London Bridge.) The reasoning for the choice of routes on which bendy buses operate is the most busy routes where ‘increasing the frequency of double deckers would be ineffective.’ As to which routes I think that they are sutible for, I would say none, except the short Red Arrow routes where they are excellent. The reason for this is because I expect a seat when I travel (is this not too much to ask??)

    #23. Am I right in believing that the C2 is set to become a 24 hour route?? If so, it would make sense to re-number it 135, as it would be extremely strance to see a night bus with a prefix of something other than an N!!

    Instead of doing away with the Red Arrows, I would rather see another couple of routes added between points which are not easy to reach by tube.

    Comment by GJ — Tuesday 20 February 2007 @ 9:09 pm

  27. #26; the C2 is going 24 hour from june under the C2 number. I suggest 135 because the old 135 shared large portions if its route with the C2. The only other obvious number would be 342, being the lowest number available ending in a 2!

    The Red Arrow routes are a problem. The way i see it, you could quite easily get rid of the bendies, with a few extensions and a couple of new routes to cater for the demand they have obviously generated. Although quite a few of the routes (the 18 and 29 spring to mind) coped just about ok with standard LWB double deckers. But the real question is what to do with the Red Arrow routes.

    The 507 would be the easiest to deal with. If you were going to take bendies off the 436, the PVR of the 36 and 185 could be increased and the 136 extended from Peckham to Victoria (like the old 36B). The 507 could be re-numbered 357, double decked and extended to Paddington via the withdrawn 436. I think this might work, but if anyone knows any better, please correct me!!

    The 521 is more of a problem however. Although high-frequency double-deckers might cope during the weekday rush hour, the question is what would they do the rest of the time? I cannot imagine any route needing up to 20 spare buses during the daytimes or sundays. Does anyone have a solution (that doesn’t involve bendies or a peak hours only route)? I would love to hear some thoughts on this….!

    Comment by ejc — Wednesday 21 February 2007 @ 12:34 am

  28. #26 #22 My reference to the 73 as a Red-Arrow route was meant tongue-in-cheek.

    To clarify, when the 73 was re-routed to Victoria in the 1990s it replaced the 500, the original Red-Arrow route which had been introduced in April 1966. Previously there hadn’t been a Victoria via Marble Arch to Oxford Circus route (and no Victoria Line!!), the 25 (today’s 8) giving the only connection between these two points.

    I think the 25 was the worst choice for a bendy-bus route and I honestly don’t know why the route really needs to be so long.

    As #23 mentioned previously, I think the 390 as a Victoria-Kings-Cross Archway route could work well with Bendy-Buses.

    Comment by IsarSteve — Wednesday 21 February 2007 @ 8:21 am

  29. ooh er… in the previous entry I wrote today’s 8, but after posting a strange face with a smile appeared.

    It should have read “the 25 today’s route 8…”

    Comment by IsarSteve — Wednesday 21 February 2007 @ 8:46 am

  30. Sorry #28, i meant this as a solution to completely getting rid of the bendies! I don’t think the 390 would cope as a bendy route, as the roads between King’s Cross- Tufnell Park- Archway are quite narrow and twisty. Keep the 390 double-deck please!!

    Comment by ejc — Wednesday 21 February 2007 @ 4:46 pm

  31. #27 And what will they re-number the Walthamstow 357?? The C2 is to be 24hr so i think thats ok, its not being extended to be made a ‘Night bus’ (yes TfL state the difference between night bus and a 24hr route) In that case the U3 or A10 should be made 24hr (airport link.) In all this, the Tridents originally for the 25 will be moved AGAIN!!

    Comment by Martin — Thursday 22 February 2007 @ 12:23 am

  32. #31, ok 457 then!!

    Comment by ejc — Thursday 22 February 2007 @ 10:33 am

  33. #15 – my understanding, albeit without solid evidence, was that Metroline were not offered the 2 year extension on route 24 as mileage and QSI performance was poor. However, sometimes operators will turn down a 2 year extension if the existing contract is not profitable and take their chances on winning the route back with a better contract.

    Comment by Simon — Thursday 22 February 2007 @ 11:13 am

  34. #28. Sorry, didnt realise your comments about the 73 were tongue in cheek!! I agree with you, in my opinion the 25 is the worst bendy bus route, its constantly stuffed!! Mind you, I dont really use the 38/73, so maybe they are worse?

    The 25 is a very long route, but there is no reason why it shouldnt be this long. Ok, there is the congestion factor but it is an impotant trunk route with many through travellers. You could maybe argue to cut the route at Stratford, but then all the people in Ilford and Forest Gate have lost their direct link to central London.

    There is no way the route that you suggest for the 390 would cope with bendies. It would never manage the twists and turns between Kings Cross and Archway, as #30 said.

    #27. Why do you want to get rid of the bendies and red arrow routes?? I think that they are very useful routes, and the bendies are suited to them perfectly.

    Totally agree with you about getting rid of the 436, extending the 136 to Victoria (creating a mini trunk route.) Then all you have to do is extend the 507 to Paddington, and you have easily replaced the 436 in a much more useful way in my opinion

    Comment by GJ — Thursday 22 February 2007 @ 12:14 pm

  35. #34, the 25 could be split to run a basic Stratford- Oxford Circus service. A new route (425 maybe?) could take over the Ilford- Stratford section, and provide the necessary back up as far as Aldgate. An additional benefit could be extending it to London Bridge via the 40 which gets quite busy on this stretch.
    I agree with what you say about the 436/507. But if the Red Arrow routes are to work properly then bendies need to be got rid of on all other routes, as the streets of London are too small for so many of these very long buses as New Oxford Street demonstrates (i was stuck on an 8 for 15 minutes last night because of a bendy jam there).

    Going back to the question of congestion at Tottenham Court Road, #21 suggests cutting the 7 back to Oxford Circus, and diverting the 98 in its place, this would make good sense, as the Red Lion Square- TCR section is well covered (8,19,25,38,55).
    In addition to this the 10 could be re-structured to run Euston- Great Portland Street- Oxford Circus, instead of via Tottenham Court Road as it shadows the 73 and 390 between Marble Arch and King’s Cross anyway. The 242 could be diverted onto High Holborn, stand on St. Giles High Street and return via Bloomsbury Way as per route 1 creating a loop that would relieve congestion on New Oxford Street.

    Comment by ejc — Thursday 22 February 2007 @ 2:14 pm

  36. #34 & #35. I know it’s way in the future, but when Crossrail eventually happens, it will probably kill off the 25 as we know it now. That will probably be the best time to localise/sectionalise it.

    Coming back to where we started, I think it would be better for the 7 and many other routes, to cross the centre of London and terminate on the opposite edge of town. e.g. 2’s Baker Street, 38’s, /73’s Victoria. and as I’ve previously mentioned, 7’s & 13’s at London Bridge. IMO, TCR shouldn’t be a terminal as such, but more of curtailment point only..

    Just a last thought, the 390 could also be curtailed at KX, with an extension of the 41 from Archway to KX giving links to parts of North London, still badly served (Crouch End).

    Comment by IsarSteve — Thursday 22 February 2007 @ 2:32 pm

  37. #36 IF crossrail ever happens (of which I have serious doubts), I think there will be major changes/ reductions around the areas where the stations will be. However, this will be a mistake. Go back to the Jubillee line extention and also Tramlink. Here. many bus passengers were expected to switch to the Tube/Tram, and despite the success of these projects, buses still remained popular, and many services had to be re-enhansed (If that makes sense!)

    The reason for this is that buses provide a different service to Light/Heavy rail, and therefore will always be popular. In my opinion, it is a mistake to reduce services before there has been a proper evaluation of passenger movements after the introduction of a new train or tram route.

    Comment by GJ — Tuesday 27 February 2007 @ 5:19 pm

  38. The 136 then would be too long (Grove Park to Victoria is a long way, especially as it is HORRIBLE getting between Lewisham and Catford). Perhaps a frequency increase on the 36 and 136 would be better. I also think that the 25 should be curtailed at Stratford and that the 86 should have a huge frequency increase (or a 425 from Ilford to somewhere in London, Aldgate, Mile End?? (further than Stratford, anyway)). I also think that in the Bromley area, the 227 should be diverted via the 162 from Beckenham Junction to Bromley and be converted to Double-Deck. Then divert the 162 to repalce the 138 to Coney Hall, and have a new route between Grove Park? and Beckanham Juction via the current 227.

    Comment by Chris — Monday 5 March 2007 @ 8:57 pm

  39. Hi… This is my 1st post on here, been casually observing for a few months… i think Im a rare breed… a 17 yr old QSi. Going back to the subject of the 24, having worked on it many times, I can safely say that it was one of my preferred routes, as it gave me something to look forward to every 10 [approx] minutes!! The Enviro has to be one of the best looking buses Metroline have ever used, especially in their “attempt at an update” livery, with the lighter blue, which actually suited it alot better.

    Comment by Jay — Monday 19 March 2007 @ 11:51 pm

  40. hey they should bring back circular routes to provide a constant through link but put them to work on high frequency routes to run aside example.. say 425 aldgate-limehouse-poplar-canning town along route 115 then plaistow along route 69 then stratford-bow-mile end-whitechapel- and back to aldgate along route 25 and make it a pay before you board route but no bendies tell me what you think

    Comment by koe — Saturday 24 March 2007 @ 5:57 am

  41. #40 Apart from ’round the corner connections for Plaistow, which by the way, has an Underground Station anyway, as well as perhaps saving stand time. What would be the benefits of these “Frying Pan” shaped routes?? You can’t just cap the current 25 at Stratford, there has to be a (quite a long) overlap. As previously mentioned by #35, a London Bridge extension would also be desirable, as Aldgate IMO isn’t that central.
    Was your idea just off-the-cuff or can you elaborate?

    Comment by IsarSteve — Saturday 24 March 2007 @ 5:28 pm

  42. To be honest, I dont think that circular routes are that great, except on the London/Kent/Surrey/Essex/Heartfordshire borders where the routes cover rural areas. In Greater London, prople want a direct route to a certain point.

    Comment by GJ — Saturday 24 March 2007 @ 9:49 pm

  43. #40 no my idea was for example to make a new two way circular bus route to overlap route 25 from aldgate to stratford then overlap route 69 to canning town then overlap route 115 back to aldgate but to run in both directions providing a circular bi-directional bus service over busy parts of two bus routes the 25 and the 115 and provding a circular service for newham and tower hamlets and too keep the route 25 as it is now does no one think this would work ??

    Comment by koe — Sunday 25 March 2007 @ 10:46 pm

  44. I don’t know if circular routes can really work in London, although I am by no means an expert.

    I tend to think that people like their buses to go from A to B then back to A by exactly the same route.

    The complaints we get on Route 280/155 on the Tooting Broadway – St. George’s Hospital – Tooting Broadway loop, when people are informed they have to leave the Bus and reboard when it departs the Terminus.

    Some nice drivers have allowed people to wait with them, only for RPI’s to board and hit the passenger with a £20 penalty fare as their PrePay Oyster had not been validated on that journey.

    “Customer Service” It’s what TfL is all about 😛 .

    Comment by Dave. (Admits to being a Bus Driver in London) — Monday 26 March 2007 @ 9:43 pm

  45. I personally love Bendy Buses. There is nothing wrong them, I like route 73. All buses are good!!!

    The 25 might be long, but its a very good connection. Eventually it is getting hepl by 205, when route 205 is extending to Mile End Station.

    The number 7 should extend from East Acton. It is not really a good destination on that road called Brunel Road.

    The 98 should discontinue. Allow route 6 divert from Aldwaych, and go along all of Oxford Street, then go Holborn, The Red Lion and possibly extend to Clerkenwell Green via route 55

    Route 73 should extend to Tottenham Hale Station becasue the bus garage is in Lee Valley, and most buses has to go past Tottenham Hale Station. Create a new bus stop on Angel Road (flyover)

    Route 25 during night should extend to Becontree Heath Bus Station via 128/ 150 route. Becoming N25. Still using Articulated Buses

    Route C10 should extend to Oxford Circus via Grovesnor Road, Green Park Sattion, Berkeley Square, Park Lane, Marble Arch, Portman Street/ square &* Wigmore Street

    Route 390 should discontinue. Divert 94 from Piccadilly and extend to Kings Cross

    Route 521 should extend from Waterloo Station to Kennignton Oval via Elpehant & Kennington Road

    Route 507 should extend to Paddington Station as been said on comment #27, via 436 route.

    Route 436 should terminate at Marble Arch or Victoria. Also extend from Lewisham to Grove Park via 136 route.

    Route 136 should discontinue.

    Route 69 should go back to London City Airprt

    Route 101 should go back to North Woolwich

    Route 474 should discontinue

    Route 172 should extned from Saint Pauls Station to Highbury & Islington Station via King Edward Street, Moorgate Station, City Road, Old Street Station, Old Street, Gowsell Road, Upper Street & Highbury Corner. Terminating at The Square at Highbury & Islington.

    Also divert from New Cross Station via Lewisham Way & Wickham Lane. Then turn left on Brockley Road to go to Brockley Rise via Crofton Park Station.

    For any of my other suggestions, go on http://www.freewebs.com/londonbuses/

    Comment by Theo — Monday 9 April 2007 @ 8:13 pm

  46. Lets start an N25 community!

    Comment by deema — Sunday 7 October 2007 @ 11:54 pm

  47. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5176719938

    Comment by deema — Sunday 7 October 2007 @ 11:54 pm

  48. I think route 133 should extend from Liverpool Street to Shoreditch and from Streatham to Mitcham via Norbury. Route 133 has done the Streatham to Liverpool route for so long how it’s time for a change.

    Comment by Ryan — Sunday 22 November 2009 @ 5:11 pm

  49. I think route 118 needs to be extended from Brixton becuase the route is way to short maybe it could get Elephant & Castle via Stockwell then down South Lambeth Road also via Vauxhall the along where the 344 runs the terminate at Elephant & Castle.

    Comment by Ryan — Wednesday 25 November 2009 @ 10:00 pm

  50. I think route 333 should be extended from Tooting Broadway to Merton Bus Garage with more buses running along Merton to help routes 57 and 131 with shoppers from Merton to Tooting.

    Comment by Ryan — Thursday 24 December 2009 @ 4:05 pm

  51. I think route N133 should be extended from Liverpool Street to Hackney Wick to as a night bus for route 388.

    Comment by Ryan — Saturday 23 January 2010 @ 11:15 am

  52. I think route 436 should be diverted at Marble Arch then to terminate at Notting Hill Gate because the 36 alredy covers the route to Paddington.

    Comment by Ryan — Thursday 8 April 2010 @ 7:47 pm

  53. i agree about the 133 being used as the night service bus for the 388,great thinking

    Comment by kings heath builders — Saturday 25 September 2010 @ 6:30 pm

  54. I just could not leave your site before suggesting that I actually loved the usual information an individual supply for your guests? Is going to be back ceaselessly to inspect new posts

    Comment by direct to consumer — Thursday 12 July 2012 @ 7:28 am

  55. 264 should be extended to Putney Bridge and go to Quality Line with 24 Enviro 400’s.

    Comment by Tom — Monday 13 August 2012 @ 11:22 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: