|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 7, 2021 6:35:57 GMT
*promises a new rail line* *introduces route to feed rail line* *rail line doesn't open on time* *claims nobody is using it so will withdraw the route* *Rail line still isn't open* So the 497 could potentially come and go, while the 304 still hasn't seen service at all. You have hit the nail on the head. For a 18 minute journey, introduction might have been better nearer to the opening of Crossrail. I remember when 301 was introduced a few mentioned low passenger numbers, fastest bus from Thamesmead & Abbey Wood to Bexleyheath a link that has been needed for a long time the 401 just could not cope. The 301 has got even busier in the last 12 months. Wait until the 472 & B11 are removed from Bentham Road and 472 from Nathan Way. The route will be even busier.
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Sept 7, 2021 7:50:04 GMT
The 497 is an impressively unnecessary bus route, introduced before its raison d'être (Crossrail) was launched.
It really only benefits a new estate within easy walking distance of Harold Wood station and a tiny gap between existing routes along Chatteris Avenue, where maybe 100 homes were formerly (just) over 400m from the bus network.
It was introduced without support from the local council, runs out of service for much of its operational length and is too infrequent to be more convenient than existing higher frequency routes.
It is, as the consultation says, a route being operated extremely effectively for the benefit of almost no passengers.
If its potentially brief life proves anything, it's that TfL should never introduce a feeder route before there's something to feed.
It won't be missed.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Sept 7, 2021 7:55:56 GMT
I feel like they are just taking the proverbial with their consultation 'process' now! This is the one Heidi TGI Friday was banging on about on Sunday Politics as a rebuttal to the suggestion that outer London wasn't actually getting improved services because of the loss of the 384 on the Barnet roads. I guess she thinks we all have short memories.
If it's designed as a Crossrail feeder, maybe actually wait for Crossrail to open before wielding the axe?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 7, 2021 8:00:59 GMT
I feel like they are just taking the proverbial with their consultation 'process' now! This is the one Heidi TGI Friday was banging on about on Sunday Politics as a rebuttal to the suggestion that outer London wasn't actually getting improved services because of the loss of the 384 on the Barnet roads. I guess she thinks we all have short memories. If it's designed as a Crossrail feeder, maybe actually wait for Crossrail to open before wielding the axe? For all intents and purposes Crossrail is open now as far as Harold Wood is concerned. There's 6 trains per hour most of the day so I can't see suddenly lots more passengers coming out of the woodwork thr day the central section opens.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 7, 2021 8:27:01 GMT
I feel like they are just taking the proverbial with their consultation 'process' now! This is the one Heidi TGI Friday was banging on about on Sunday Politics as a rebuttal to the suggestion that outer London wasn't actually getting improved services because of the loss of the 384 on the Barnet roads. I guess she thinks we all have short memories. If it's designed as a Crossrail feeder, maybe actually wait for Crossrail to open before wielding the axe? For all intents and purposes Crossrail is open now as far as Harold Wood is concerned. There's 6 trains per hour most of the day so I can't see suddenly lots more passengers coming out of the woodwork thr day the central section opens. Perhaps this should be more of a case of sending someone out onto buses and consulting passengers as to what they believe should be done to improve the service before withdrawing it (I remember using the H3 6 years ago and a TFL member of staff asking passengers what they believed could be done with the service, one of my main suggestions being improving the frequency of the service), perhaps an increase in frequency to make it somewhat more turn-up-and-go than currently listed, and I'm sure that could be fit in on it's current PVR given that buses have stand time for 24 minutes at the Harold Hill end? I'm also confused why a 497 stand couldn't be built at the Gooshays Drive terminus?
One of the suggestions I remember reading about on the 382 extension into Millbrook Park was sychronising them with the Northern Line service more given that the 382 has the exact same frequency as the Northern Line down to Mill Hill East, could this potentially be a bit more of a "helping hand" to attract custom?
|
|
|
Post by dannyl1989 on Sept 7, 2021 17:05:01 GMT
It is completely an unnecessary route. As someone who lives on King's Park, I barely see any passengers on it. It usually stands on the estate empty.
The thing is, it runs every 30mins and 60mins in the evening. Unless one is outside Harold Wood Station, no one gets on it - it is quicker to walk.
More people use the 256 to travel to Harold Hill and the 294 goes near to Dagnam Park Square. They are more frequent and quicker.
Extending it to Dagnam Park Square won't make any difference in my opinion. Somewhere like Upminster could potentially, especially if the TFL rail is down, it could provide links for the c2c at Upminster.
I reckon it's on its way out.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Sept 7, 2021 21:04:33 GMT
Have to agree with the above post an in service extension to Dagnam Park Drive is probably not going to make much difference.
I do wonder if a diversion to Collier Row might be worth considering. Turning left (instead of turning right) into Hilldene Avenue, Straight Road, Lower Bedfords Road, Chase Cross Road, Collier Row Road. Last stop White Hart Lane could be used as bus stand.
I’d imagine this could be done with the existing PVR of 2 but I’m not familiar with road conditions in Havering.
|
|
|
Post by dannyl1989 on Sept 8, 2021 11:04:42 GMT
Have to agree with the above post an in service extension to Dagnam Park Drive is probably not going to make much difference. I do wonder if a diversion to Collier Row might be worth considering. Turning left (instead of turning right) into Hilldene Avenue, Straight Road, Lower Bedfords Road, Chase Cross Road, Collier Row Road. Last stop White Hart Lane could be used as bus stand. I’d imagine this could be done with the existing PVR of 2 but I’m not familiar with road conditions in Havering. I like the Collier Row idea. I always thought a route from Harold Hill direct to Collier Row would be beneficial, saves having to go into Romford to change or using the 499 and having to walk. I don't think a PVR of 2 would be enough though. Traffic can be bad in Collier Row.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 8, 2021 11:29:02 GMT
Obviously the pandemic hasn't helped but I can't help thinking that that TfL have made a gaffe with this route, what were they anticipating? Kings Park on the old hospital site is within walking distance of the station and people from Harold Hill will surely just use the 256 or 294 to the station? I can't imagine many people waiting around for a half hourly service. A regular service to Upminster or a new link to Collier Row or even Rainham would surely have been more beneficial?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 8, 2021 15:55:30 GMT
Obviously the pandemic hasn't helped but I can't help thinking that that TfL have made a gaffe with this route, what were they anticipating? Kings Park on the old hospital site is within walking distance of the station and people from Harold Hill will surely just use the 256 or 294 to the station? I can't imagine many people waiting around for a half hourly service. A regular service to Upminster or a new link to Collier Row or even Rainham would surely have been more beneficial? I suppose the answer may be buried in the network development paper for Harold Hill that mentioned the plans to introduce the 497! content.tfl.gov.uk/review-of-bus-services-in-harold-hill.pdfI have never been to Harold Hill so am not well placed to comment on this, but from a look at Google Maps, it seems to me that Chatteris Avenue should be decent bus territory but a x30 frequency is never going to be enough to change people's journeys. And Kings Park is way too close to Tesco and the station for anyone to wait for a x30 bus. Maybe the resource would be better spent tweaking other services to cover any missing links in a more attractive way.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 8, 2021 16:19:32 GMT
Obviously the pandemic hasn't helped but I can't help thinking that that TfL have made a gaffe with this route, what were they anticipating? Kings Park on the old hospital site is within walking distance of the station and people from Harold Hill will surely just use the 256 or 294 to the station? I can't imagine many people waiting around for a half hourly service. A regular service to Upminster or a new link to Collier Row or even Rainham would surely have been more beneficial? I suppose the answer may be buried in the network development paper for Harold Hill that mentioned the plans to introduce the 497! content.tfl.gov.uk/review-of-bus-services-in-harold-hill.pdfI have never been to Harold Hill so am not well placed to comment on this, but from a look at Google Maps, it seems to me that Chatteris Avenue should be decent bus territory but a x30 frequency is never going to be enough to change people's journeys. And Kings Park is way too close to Tesco and the station for anyone to wait for a x30 bus. Maybe the resource would be better spent tweaking other services to cover any missing links in a more attractive way. The frequency is the biggest thing I take from it, had their been two separate routes running through King's Park both every 30 minutes serving different areas beyond, then maybe there might be more usage even before Crossrail. A 15-20 minute 497 on it's own might get some custom in though I do think it does need to offer some other links as well as an outsider looking in
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 8, 2021 16:35:06 GMT
From the options available it does not look like they are willing to contemplate a PVR increase, so an increase in frequency which would probably make a difference will not be on the cards, unless they squeeze the stand time and don’t extend it in service to Dagnam Park Square.
Could the route be shortened in order to operate more frequently through King’s Park?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 8, 2021 16:58:28 GMT
From the options available it does not look like they are willing to contemplate a PVR increase, so an increase in frequency which would probably make a difference will not be on the cards, unless they squeeze the stand time and don’t extend it in service to Dagnam Park Square. Could the route be shortened in order to operate more frequently through King’s Park? Someone else will be better placed than me to do the maths on this, but on such a short route, maybe the layover at the northern end could be eliminated with the service revised to run as a circular (I know TfL frown on such things these days) and a x20 frequency introduced? It could run via Gooshays Drive, Trowbridge Road and Chippenham Road to Chatteris Avenue. That would also bring it closer to the Health Centre and Lidl. I suppose it depends on whether there is a toilet at Harold Hill station.
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Sept 8, 2021 17:07:56 GMT
From the options available it does not look like they are willing to contemplate a PVR increase, so an increase in frequency which would probably make a difference will not be on the cards, unless they squeeze the stand time and don’t extend it in service to Dagnam Park Square. Could the route be shortened in order to operate more frequently through King’s Park? Someone else will be better placed than me to do the maths on this, but on such a short route, maybe the layover at the northern end could be eliminated with the service revised to run as a circular (I know TfL frown on such things these days) and a x20 frequency introduced? It could run via Gooshays Drive, Trowbridge Road and Chippenham Road to Chatteris Avenue. That would also bring it closer to the Health Centre and Lidl. I suppose it depends on whether there is a toilet at Harold Hill station. This idea seems to make a lot more sense than tfls idea of livening up dead journeys but I can still see it hardly being used .
|
|
|
Post by dannyl1989 on Sept 8, 2021 22:59:16 GMT
From the options available it does not look like they are willing to contemplate a PVR increase, so an increase in frequency which would probably make a difference will not be on the cards, unless they squeeze the stand time and don’t extend it in service to Dagnam Park Square. Could the route be shortened in order to operate more frequently through King’s Park? Someone else will be better placed than me to do the maths on this, but on such a short route, maybe the layover at the northern end could be eliminated with the service revised to run as a circular (I know TfL frown on such things these days) and a x20 frequency introduced? It could run via Gooshays Drive, Trowbridge Road and Chippenham Road to Chatteris Avenue. That would also bring it closer to the Health Centre and Lidl. I suppose it depends on whether there is a toilet at Harold Hill station. This makes sense too. I am not sure if there are toilets at Harold Wood Station. Usually the 497 only stands outside the station for a few minutes, as the stand is an active bus stop for the 256 and 294 and the alighting stop for the 496. That's why drivers usually stop within King's Park either before they reach Harold Wood Station or after leaving it.
|
|