|
Post by cl54 on Feb 4, 2023 9:14:14 GMT
Tbh going to see the 271 at the Highgate stand on it's last day of service is like leaving a uni assignment to the last day before the deadline. We all knew the 271 was being withdrawn, so there were plenty of other days to ride the 271 and visit the stand. Not only that but delaying roadworks by 1 day just for enthusiasts reasons to visit a stand is silly, I'm sure that these roadworks were planned a long time ago but if they delayed then it gives them a longer backlog, just like if you delay completing an assignment you'll have more to complete in the coming days Any enthusiasts issues are by the by, it's fare paying passengers that should be the priority and if anyone thinks it's ok to withdraw services (or parts of) at the drop of a hat and with little or no explanation then hey ho! It happens every day. networkmanagementcc.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 4, 2023 9:31:04 GMT
Any enthusiasts issues are by the by, it's fare paying passengers that should be the priority and if anyone thinks it's ok to withdraw services (or parts of) at the drop of a hat and with little or no explanation then hey ho! It happens every day. networkmanagementcc.blogspot.com/Be nice if TfL kept the public informed through social media platforms and posters on stops where applicable.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 4, 2023 9:36:22 GMT
Be nice if TfL kept the public informed through social media platforms and posters on stops where applicable. This is the case with every route though so why are you getting particularly worked up about this 271 issue specifically?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 4, 2023 9:38:34 GMT
Be nice if TfL kept the public informed through social media platforms and posters on stops where applicable. This is the case with every route though so why are you getting particularly worked up about this 271 issue specifically? The 271 is the most recent example and it seems you're the one getting worked up.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 4, 2023 9:45:57 GMT
Here's Roger French's take on the Highgate Village terminus which closes after tomorrow, it is one of his favourite terminals. busandtrainuser.com/2023/02/02/my-favourite-london-bus-terminus-terminates-tomorrow/===================================== And here is my tribute to the 271 and its predecessors: The terminus at Highgate Village came into use on 10th December 1939, when the no. 11 tram was replaced by the 611 trolleybus. The 271 is the direct successor of both these routes and remains pretty much unchanged until it is withdrawn completely after Friday 3rd February. The 611 trolleybus was a consistently high earner for London Transport's tram and trolleybus department, but was something of a headache to operate. Difficulties in securing a suitable terminus in Highgate Village, and opposition to plans to run along North Road and North Hill to North Finchley, delayed its introduction and the steepness of Highgate Hill meant the route had to be operated with specially-adapted trolleybuses. Tram 11 had terminated in a stub in Highgate High Street; while this was fine for the trams as the driver just changed ends and the tram went back the way it came, trolleybuses needed a turning circle! London Transport posited three plans: a loop via Southwood Lane, Castle Yard and North Road; extending the route along North Road and constructing a turning circle 60 yards north of the junction with Castle Yard; and extending the route to North Finchley via North Road and North Hill (with corresponding reductions on routes 517/617). However all these extensions took the route over the London County Council boundary, and were all objected to by Middlesex County Council, Hornsey Metropolitan Borough Council and Highgate School, the latter citing dangers to school children - all the proposals involved trolleybuses passing the school. Eventually London Transport managed to secure a site at the junction of Highgate High Street and The Grove, close to the tram terminus and just within the London County Council boundary (presumably this involved the expense of compulsory purchase and demolition of property on the corner), and built a terminus large enough to hold two trolleybuses. This terminus is still used by the 611's successor, the 271 bus, today. Having been planned for 4th September 1938, tram 11 was finally replaced on 10th December 1939; it was the last tram route to operate in North London aside from the three routes which used the Kingsway Subway in Holborn. As for North Road and North Hill, it would be February 1973 before they saw a bus service, when the 143 was diverted via Highgate Village instead of Archway Road. Parts of Highgate Hill are as steep as 1 in 10, so the Ministry of Transport required all trolleybuses using the hill to be fitted with run-back and coasting brakes. London Transport had to order a fleet of trolleybuses specifically for the route, the J3 and L1 classes. They were ordered before the extension to North Finchley was dropped so there were more than needed; however a related proposal to reduce routes 517/617 also had to be dropped, so the surplus buses were used on other routes at Highgate. Occasionally this meant that, when a 611 needed to be substituted at short notice, there was no J3 or L1 vehicle available and another type had to be used. When this happened the northbound journey would be curtailed at Archway Station and the vehicle would pick up its southbound time from there, and lost mileage would be incurred. Even at the end, London Transport seemed unsure about what to do with the route. In 1957 the route was considered for trial running of Routemaster buses, but this was dropped as it would have meant a long period of dual trolleybus and motor bus operation at Highgate Depot. From then on it was continually proposed for early conversion, but London Transport never seemed sure when to schedule it, or why it should be converted early; was it to remove the requirement for "special vehicles", to even out the number of buses required at each stage of the trolleybus-to-motor bus conversion, or because the route was "self-contained" - there was no working onto and off other routes, otherwise a very common feature of trolleybus operation? In the event the route was replaced by bus 271 after Tuesday 19th July 1960. Highgate's other routes were not converted until 31st January 1961, apart from the 627 which survived until 25th April 1961. Initially, HT only had sixteen Routemasters allocated for the 271 which had a PVR on weekdays of 15, and as an extra vehicle was required on Saturdays one Routemaster was borrowed from Shepherd's Bush and operated with running number HT 116. This practice was no longer necessary after January 1961. The 271 had an experimental allocation of crew-operated Atlanteans (the XA class) from 1st December 1966 until 9th July 1966, after which it reverted to Routemaster operation but this time with of the longer RML version. These lasted until 15th January 1971; the following day the routes was converted to driver-only operation with DMS vehicles, one of the first routes in London to be converted to One-Man (sic) Operation using double-deckers. HT was also renamed from Highgate to Holloway Garage at around this time, following the closure of the old Holloway (J) Bus Garage the previous year - the housing development Cornwallis Square now occupies most of the site. The 271 (and its tram and trolleybus predecessors) have always been operated by HT, apart from a couple of spells elsewhere. From 22nd September 1990 until 24th May 1991 it was operated from the now-closed Chalk Farm (CF) Garage; it also changed from M Metrobus to T Titan operation during this period. From 25th September 1993 until 26th April 1996 it was contracted out to London Suburban Bus and operated from a base in Edmonton - it returned to HT when London Suburban Bus was bought out by MTL London. The route's terminals have been pretty consistent too; it has never operated north of Highgate Village, except on Sundays from 6th June 1987 to 2nd February 1991 when it was extended on Sundays to Hendon Central Station, replacing the 143 on that day. The short extension from Finsbury Square to Liverpool Street first appeared only from 16th May 1992, initially at weekends only, and its history has been chequered since. The route was cut back to Finsbury Square at all times from 18th June 2011 when Liverpool Street Bus Station was closed for Crossrail construction work - this was expected to last five years but in the event, it would never return. Recalling the 271 and its Highgate Village Terminus: Metroline's TP51 (V751 HBY) on stand, 26th May 2011. Highgate Village by Julian Walker, on Flickr A small correction. XAs were introduced to the 271 on 1st December 1965 and were replaced by RMLs on 10th July 1966. Between April 1966 and July 1966 some Country Bus XFs were swapped with XAs for comparison. Thank you for the date correction. I knew the XF Fleetlines had been trialled on the 67 but I didn't know they had also appeared on the 271. The XFs were in Country Division green so must have looked very odd in North London! For those who don't know, the eight XFs were purchased for London Country route 424 at East Grinstead Garage. Whilst they were operated in London (for comparison purposes) eight red XAs were loaned to East Grinstead. The fuel economy and general reliability of the XFs was superior to the XAs and probably influenced London Transport's decision to purchase Fleetlines, in the form of the DMS, as its standard double-decker in the 1970s. The XFs remained in service with London Country until the last one was withdrawn at the end of 1981, by which time it was the last former London Transport vehicle operated by London Country. XF1 and XF3 have been preserved.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Feb 4, 2023 9:49:12 GMT
Be nice if TfL kept the public informed through social media platforms and posters on stops where applicable. This is the case with every route though so why are you getting particularly worked up about this 271 issue specifically? I am amazed people are getting so worked up over this. If I am not mistaken the forum has been full of ideas in recent months of extending routes or cutting routes here there and everywhere but the minute TfL implements a change there is outrage because the service was disrupted the day before being cut completely. It is not like passengers were left stranded.
As for information at stops TfL has given up - For the east London changes last year it was a simply poster at stops directing people online! I imagine the same happened for the 271 changes! Anyone would think we lived in the modern online world One thing I will say is they need to give more notice to changes instead of a few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by T.R. on Feb 4, 2023 10:54:04 GMT
Early days I know, but I wonder how the 21 and 263 will be faring.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 4, 2023 12:55:30 GMT
This is the case with every route though so why are you getting particularly worked up about this 271 issue specifically? I am amazed people are getting so worked up over this. If I am not mistaken the forum has been full of ideas in recent months of extending routes or cutting routes here there and everywhere but the minute TfL implements a change there is outrage because the service was disrupted the day before being cut completely. It is not like passengers were left stranded.
As for information at stops TfL has given up - For the east London changes last year it was a simply poster at stops directing people online! I imagine the same happened for the 271 changes! Anyone would think we lived in the modern online world One thing I will say is they need to give more notice to changes instead of a few weeks. I’ve already mentioned that it’s not a case of being worked up so would be nice if that phrase is dropped - it’s not acceptable to not have information about the closure. You say they should give more notice to changes and someone mentioned that roadworks are agreed in advance so this could of been done when the changes to the routes publicity was installed at stops - TfL have posted one day stuff at bus stops even in recent times
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Feb 4, 2023 13:50:27 GMT
I am amazed people are getting so worked up over this. If I am not mistaken the forum has been full of ideas in recent months of extending routes or cutting routes here there and everywhere but the minute TfL implements a change there is outrage because the service was disrupted the day before being cut completely. It is not like passengers were left stranded.
As for information at stops TfL has given up - For the east London changes last year it was a simply poster at stops directing people online! I imagine the same happened for the 271 changes! Anyone would think we lived in the modern online world One thing I will say is they need to give more notice to changes instead of a few weeks. I’ve already mentioned that it’s not a case of being worked up so would be nice if that phrase is dropped - it’s not acceptable to not have information about the closure. You say they should give more notice to changes and someone mentioned that roadworks are agreed in advance so this could of been done when the changes to the routes publicity was installed at stops - TfL have posted one day stuff at bus stops even in recent times Quite, if roadworks are agreed in advance, would it really be so difficult to start one day later when the stand is permanently closed to minimise disruption to the service? Badly planned and unannounced roadworks are a major blight on bus punctuality and reliability. Transport Focus research has shown a lack of information about disruption is a particular gripe for passengers. This stuff needs to be handled better. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if this was bad communication: the contractor gets told the stand closes on 3 February and assumes that was the day they could start.
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Feb 4, 2023 13:58:04 GMT
The TfL website is also not the most intuitive when it comes to viewing passenger notices. Redirecting people to the website for further details is fine, as long as it isn't a maze to get the information required.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 4, 2023 14:06:06 GMT
I’ve already mentioned that it’s not a case of being worked up so would be nice if that phrase is dropped - it’s not acceptable to not have information about the closure. You say they should give more notice to changes and someone mentioned that roadworks are agreed in advance so this could of been done when the changes to the routes publicity was installed at stops - TfL have posted one day stuff at bus stops even in recent times Quite, if roadworks are agreed in advance, would it really be so difficult to start one day later when the stand is permanently closed to minimise disruption to the service? Badly planned and unannounced roadworks are a major blight on bus punctuality and reliability. Transport Focus research has shown a lack of information about disruption is a particular gripe for passengers. This stuff needs to be handled better. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if this was bad communication: the contractor gets told the stand closes on 3 February and assumes that was the day they could start. Yes because crews are scheduled and equipment is moved. Delaying it just means they move onto the next job and the one they skipped goes down the list if it just routine maintenance or a new hook-up. It may seem like just moving it back a day is simple but it isn’t. It can cost a lot of money, especially if the authority only gives a small window to do them. But for the millionth time there was another route covering the same stretch so nobody was likely left behind or inconvenienced.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 4, 2023 14:45:12 GMT
I’ve already mentioned that it’s not a case of being worked up so would be nice if that phrase is dropped - it’s not acceptable to not have information about the closure. You say they should give more notice to changes and someone mentioned that roadworks are agreed in advance so this could of been done when the changes to the routes publicity was installed at stops - TfL have posted one day stuff at bus stops even in recent times Quite, if roadworks are agreed in advance, would it really be so difficult to start one day later when the stand is permanently closed to minimise disruption to the service? Badly planned and unannounced roadworks are a major blight on bus punctuality and reliability. Transport Focus research has shown a lack of information about disruption is a particular gripe for passengers. This stuff needs to be handled better. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if this was bad communication: the contractor gets told the stand closes on 3 February and assumes that was the day they could start. I think you've probably hit the nail on head about a mix up over the date, it's just too much of a coincidence. And yes the lack of information generally from TfL is appalling in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 4, 2023 17:32:55 GMT
Early days I know, but I wonder how the 21 and 263 will be faring. I went to Holloway today (I'm still a sucker for a first day) and the 21 seemed to be running alright with Well spaced intervals. Good loadings as expected as its effectively inherited the 271 crowd heading down to Essex Road/Hoxton. Had to tell a man who was trying to get to Highgate Village that he needed the 263 from the other side of the road. New timetables for the 263 but nothing for the 21 at either Camden Road to Nag's Head.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Feb 4, 2023 18:38:20 GMT
Quite, if roadworks are agreed in advance, would it really be so difficult to start one day later when the stand is permanently closed to minimise disruption to the service? Badly planned and unannounced roadworks are a major blight on bus punctuality and reliability. Transport Focus research has shown a lack of information about disruption is a particular gripe for passengers. This stuff needs to be handled better. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if this was bad communication: the contractor gets told the stand closes on 3 February and assumes that was the day they could start. I think you've probably hit the nail on head about a mix up over the date, it's just too much of a coincidence. And yes the lack of information generally from TfL is appalling in this day and age. Photo on the Londoner FB shows Thames Water work’s opposite the stand preventing buses being able to turn off the stand! So don’t seem to be a mix up!
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 4, 2023 19:01:08 GMT
Quite, if roadworks are agreed in advance, would it really be so difficult to start one day later when the stand is permanently closed to minimise disruption to the service? Badly planned and unannounced roadworks are a major blight on bus punctuality and reliability. Transport Focus research has shown a lack of information about disruption is a particular gripe for passengers. This stuff needs to be handled better. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if this was bad communication: the contractor gets told the stand closes on 3 February and assumes that was the day they could start. I think you've probably hit the nail on head about a mix up over the date, it's just too much of a coincidence. And yes the lack of information generally from TfL is appalling in this day and age. Once again, as I've mentioned it's not the local council or the contractor's business, nor would they care whether a bus route is being withdrawn the next day. TfL posted it on their website, like they do for everything else so what's the problem here?
|
|