Good Hope Hospital

[Kevin]

Considering the near enough constant calls for a proper replacement to the 68A/C, especially the link to Good Hope Hospital.... Apparently extending the 907 just beyond Sutton Town centre isn't an option, so how about any of these?

• Extend the 119 from Sutton through Boldmere, New Oscott, Perry Common to Kingstanding (along with an increase in frequency
• Adjust the 604 so it better serves the hospital and covers more of Boldmere / Perry Common (also with a bit of an increased frequency)

Yes? No?

[Nathan4775]

Considering the near enough constant calls for a proper replacement to the 68A/C, especially the link to Good Hope Hospital.... Apparently extending the 907 just beyond Sutton Town centre isn't an option, so how about any of these?

• Extend the 119 from Sutton through Boldmere, New Oscott, Perry Common to Kingstanding (along with an increase in frequency
• Adjust the 604 so it better serves the hospital and covers more of Boldmere / Perry Common (also with a bit of an increased frequency)

Yes? No?

Just think of the 604 in my head, possibly the 604 could be re-routed to serve the Hospital A+E, but would have to look at the current 604 route.

Wouldn't the 119 do the same as the 66A except turning off somewere in Perry Common to get to the Circle

[Ossie]

I think you'll find that the 604 already serves Good Hope quite well, Nathan, in that it actually goes up Bedford Road (the side of the hospital), not past the A&E but past the entrance to the Sheldon Unit and the other main buildings there.

Rotala have pulled back on the 119 frequency in recent times and it's now down to hourly to Asda - at one point, I think it was quarter-hourly to Falcon Lodge. 

Nevertheless, I take Kevin's point about accessing Good Hope from the Boldmere / Kingstanding areas without changing in Sutton, and maybe increasing the 604's frequency is a possibility (I think it's still hourly), but it's a very tortuous route and goes all over the place at the moment.  Extending the 119 west of the Sutton Town centre to Kingstanding by a more direct route than the 604 takes could also help.

Conversely, I'd like to see the 71 diverted away from Good Hope, down Reddicap Hill and direct onto Coleshill Road, or alternatively one or any of the 71 /119 / 604 diverted straight up Rectory Road under the railway bridge* (the way the 119 originally used to go) - both of which then avoid Riland Road.  That's because the congestion in (the narrow) Riland Road, with nine routes traversing it, is getting beyond a joke at times .....

* the bridge is too low for D/D operated routes, I think.

[Kevin]

The problem with the 604 at the moment is that it isn't really meant as a route to link Good Hope, I see it more as a route to connect all the well off outskirts of Sutton to the town centre, such as along Monmouth Drive and Banners Gate (even though the 77 already serves Banners gate more often and more directly). The other side of Sutton is a mess but never mind

I say the 66A should be rerouted to cover Sutton Park and Clifton Road, then the 604 can run more direct out of Sutton. Perhaps once on Monmouth drive it can continue up to the end then down to New Oscott, further down to Perry Common and then as reverse of it's current route up to the Circle.

[Lukeee]

If it weren't for the fact this involves two operators I would withdraw the 66A and extend the 119 to cover the 66A route at an every 30 Min frequency.

[andy]

I think you'll find that the 604 already serves Good Hope quite well, Nathan, in that it actually goes up Bedford Road (the side of the hospital), not past the A&E but past the entrance to the Sheldon Unit and the other main buildings there.

Rotala have pulled back on the 119 frequency in recent times and it's now down to hourly to Asda - at one point, I think it was quarter-hourly to Falcon Lodge. 

Nevertheless, I take Kevin's point about accessing Good Hope from the Boldmere / Kingstanding areas without changing in Sutton, and maybe increasing the 604's frequency is a possibility (I think it's still hourly), but it's a very tortuous route and goes all over the place at the moment.  Extending the 119 west of the Sutton Town centre to Kingstanding by a more direct route than the 604 takes could also help.

Conversely, I'd like to see the 71 diverted away from Good Hope, down Reddicap Hill and direct onto Coleshill Road, or alternatively one or any of the 71 /119 / 604 diverted straight up Rectory Road under the railway bridge* (the way the 119 originally used to go) - both of which then avoid Riland Road.  That's because the congestion in (the narrow) Riland Road, with nine routes traversing it, is getting beyond a joke at times .....

* the bridge is too low for D/D operated routes, I think.

Riland Road is over bussed. The reason so many buses use it isn't only the bridge on Rectory Road, it's also the need to end up facing the right way on the Parade, otherwise the 71 could go straight up and turn right at the top like the 68 used to.

The 71 will never cut Hollyfield Road and the Hospital out because too many people need it for the Hospital from East Birmingham. Also the left turn onto Coleshill Road at the Reddicap crossroads would be pretty impractical for full length single deckers. I've never understood though why the 914 can't take that route and go straight across the lights, as you also have the 904 and 115 serving most of the same places for anyone along that route that needs the Hospital.

Basically the 68 has never been effectively absorbed into anything and NX must realise this as they have made yet more changes to the 638 which has effectively retraced a large section of the 68. They should have just reworked the 68 in the first place.

[nx4737]

I think you'll find that the 604 already serves Good Hope quite well, Nathan, in that it actually goes up Bedford Road (the side of the hospital), not past the A&E but past the entrance to the Sheldon Unit and the other main buildings there.

Rotala have pulled back on the 119 frequency in recent times and it's now down to hourly to Asda - at one point, I think it was quarter-hourly to Falcon Lodge. 

Nevertheless, I take Kevin's point about accessing Good Hope from the Boldmere / Kingstanding areas without changing in Sutton, and maybe increasing the 604's frequency is a possibility (I think it's still hourly), but it's a very tortuous route and goes all over the place at the moment.  Extending the 119 west of the Sutton Town centre to Kingstanding by a more direct route than the 604 takes could also help.

Conversely, I'd like to see the 71 diverted away from Good Hope, down Reddicap Hill and direct onto Coleshill Road, or alternatively one or any of the 71 /119 / 604 diverted straight up Rectory Road under the railway bridge* (the way the 119 originally used to go) - both of which then avoid Riland Road.  That's because the congestion in (the narrow) Riland Road, with nine routes traversing it, is getting beyond a joke at times .....

* the bridge is too low for D/D operated routes, I think.

Riland Road is over bussed. The reason so many buses use it isn't only the bridge on Rectory Road, it's also the need to end up facing the right way on the Parade, otherwise the 71 could go straight up and turn right at the top like the 68 used to.

The 71 will never cut Hollyfield Road and the Hospital out because too many people need it for the Hospital from East Birmingham. Also the left turn onto Coleshill Road at the Reddicap crossroads would be pretty impractical for full length single deckers. I've never understood though why the 914 can't take that route and go straight across the lights, as you also have the 904 and 115 serving most of the same places for anyone along that route that needs the Hospital.

Basically the 68 has never been effectively absorbed into anything and NX must realise this as they have made yet more changes to the 638 which has effectively retraced a large section of the 68. They should have just reworked the 68 in the first place.

I'm sure the 110 has been diverted under that bridge on several occasions without any issues?

Maybe just removing some of the parked cars from Riland road would help...

[John]

I can't see why the 71 can go up Rectory Road, and right at the end onto Coleshill Street, then turn left at the end onto Mill Street, stopping at the stop at the top of the hill, as it will always be operated by single deckers.

[andy]

I can't see why the 71 can go up Rectory Road, and right at the end onto Coleshill Street, then turn left at the end onto Mill Street, stopping at the stop at the top of the hill, as it will always be operated by single deckers.

But then it has to do the full loop of Mill Street and South Parade to be facing the right way, adding time to the journey. Also the parked cars on the left going up Rectory Road after the bridge are just as bad as Riland Road the 68 was always getting stuck there.

[andy]

I'm sure the 110 has been diverted under that bridge on several occasions without any issues?

Maybe just removing some of the parked cars from Riland road would help...

It has been in emergencies but never as an official diversion.

I once very precariously took one of the ex Bee Line Northern Counties bodied Volvos under there when there had been a serious accident on the Riland Road junction. I inched under it slap bang in the middle with lookouts and it went through fine, but I don't think you can do it on only one side of the road, hence no routing of deckers up there as it would continuously get clipped.

Those Volvos were the tallest deckers we ever had I was bricking it!

[nx4737]

I'm sure the 110 has been diverted under that bridge on several occasions without any issues?

Maybe just removing some of the parked cars from Riland road would help...

It has been in emergencies but never as an official diversion.

I once very precariously took one of the ex Bee Line Northern Counties bodied Volvos under there when there had been a serious accident on the Riland Road junction. I inched under it slap bang in the middle with lookouts and it went through fine, but I don't think you can do it on only one side of the road, hence no routing of deckers up there as it would continuously get clipped.

Those Volvos were the tallest deckers we ever had I was bricking it!

Last time I was on a B9 that was diverted under that bridge the driver didn't seem to slow down at all, so after reading your post, I guess that decker is lucky to still have it's roof  ;D

[andy]

I'm sure the 110 has been diverted under that bridge on several occasions without any issues?

Maybe just removing some of the parked cars from Riland road would help...

It has been in emergencies but never as an official diversion.

I once very precariously took one of the ex Bee Line Northern Counties bodied Volvos under there when there had been a serious accident on the Riland Road junction. I inched under it slap bang in the middle with lookouts and it went through fine, but I don't think you can do it on only one side of the road, hence no routing of deckers up there as it would continuously get clipped.

Those Volvos were the tallest deckers we ever had I was bricking it!

Last time I was on a B9 that was diverted under that bridge the driver didn't seem to slow down at all, so after reading your post, I guess that decker is lucky to still have it's roof  ;D

I think the B9's might be a bit more generous the old NC's. The problem is the steep gradient meaning you have more room going up than coming down. The railway bridge in Lichfield on the old 112 route was the same with NC Olympians and Metrobuses yet was fine with an ECW Olympian.