Rate my exercise

As mentioned, eating usually makes a bigger contribution to weight loss than exercise. I stayed at a weight in the 180s (at 5'5") for a decade, despite working out (and hard) most days of the week. I kept working out about that same amount while losing weight; I just ate less. Starting at your weight, I was in the 120s in just under a year.

With an hour to invest, you may find that you will get a larger total calorie burn by doing steady state exercise for that hour, continuously, at whatever intensity you can sustain for the entire time period and still feel good/energetic for the rest of your day (after maybe just a few minutes of "whew" feeling right after the exercise), not exhausted or fatigued all day afterward. (Working out to the point of fatigue tends to sap calories out of your daily life activity level, because you rest more/do less in daily life.)

If you're not able to exercise continuously, intervals are fine as you build up your endurance.

Keep in mind that when you do intervals, only the active part is calorie-burning exercise. For example, with your biking 7 x (2' on, 30" off), that's 14 minutes of cycling and 3.5 minutes of rest. (If you go hard during the 2', easy but still cycling 30", then it's 14 minutes at the higher calorie level, 3.5 at the lower level).

If you're using a heart rate monitor (HRM) to estimate calories, it will probably over-estimate calories for this type of exercise, especially if you're relatively new to working out: Your heart rate drops slowly during the "off" segments (especially true if you're relatively new to exercise), making your HRM think you're still working harder than you really are during those periods.

HIIT (which I know you said you aren't doing yet) tends to be over-rated if your main objective is maximizing calorie expenditure. In particular, the so-called "afterburn" from HIIT is underwhelming, when you do the arithmetic. Multiple-times-a-week HIIT is also over-rated for building fitness. (If it were fabulous for fitness, Olympic athletes would do HIIT every day. They don't. Yes, I know some. ).

The most important thing in choosing an exercise routine is to find something you enjoy doing. When we enjoy exercise (ideally enjoy it so much we'd do it even if it weren't good for us), we'll do it regularly, because we want to. If we don't enjoy our exercise, we're more likely to avoid or back-burner it every time there's the slightest excuse for doing so. A theoretically less effective exercise, done regularly, burns more calories and creates more fitness than a theoretically perfect exercise that we put off and avoid doine.

Keep in mind that lots of things count as calorie burning exercise, and can contribute to building fitness: Anything from walking to swimming, martial arts to dancing, gardening to carpentry, tennis to cycling, will burn calories, and many of those things will improve strength, coordination, flexibility and cardiovascular capability.

Best wishes for great success!

If you intend using your exercise to create your deficit then it's incredibly inefficient to do intervals, you are "wasting" a whole load of time with your recovery periods.
The miraculous calorie burns people think they get from interval work is normally due to failing to understand quite how inaccurate and limited HRMs are for calorie estimates.

As an example I'm currently doing a lot of technical interval work on an indoor bike (winter training for fitness and performance reasons) and an hour of really taxing intervals that leaves me completely knackered gives me an average power output/calorie burn that I could easily maintain for far longer and almost no fatigue if I was doing steady state.

Apart from that there's no reason to flit from elliptical to rower to bike in the same session, another time waster.

More effective for calorie burns (IMHO a bit of a sad and unlikely to be sustainable goal but the question you asked) would be long duration moderate pace cardio of a type you can endure.