|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 18, 2018 21:39:52 GMT
I liked the 271 stand, it was somewhat unique. However I do prefer this new one as it's far more practical, the previous stand was in such a restricted space and it was not uncommon for the stand to overflow with some 271s standing on the side of Highgate High Street. Yes I can see that can happen. The current stand still has a very old London Transport glass cabinet to display the timetables and notices. Must be a rare survivor and likely to go with this change although the locals might ensure it's preserved given it *is* Highgate after all! Doubt it, Becontree Heath bus station lost its giant London Transport roundel and would likely never be used now as the stand/station is demolished.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 18, 2018 21:51:36 GMT
I can't help feeling TfL is going to find it rather more difficult to 'remove a large tree' in that part of London than they've bargained for.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 18, 2018 21:56:01 GMT
Perhaps now the 210 is DD and the hopper fare maybe it will be chopped to Archway.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 18, 2018 22:38:08 GMT
Very interesting results. I suspect funding prevented the originally proposed scheme being implemented rather than anything else. Arguably the final scheme is better than the originally proposed scheme. As for funding with Oxford Street not going ahead and CS11 delayed, there should be plenty of funds!
I do think however I need to go back to school as clearly my English and Maths need improving. I was taught that a majority meant over 50%, but reading the consultation report it seems that 47% and 43% are a majority. Maybe I am miss-interpreting some clever wording and my English is not good enough.
I will be sad to see the old stand go, it's losing a bit of history. I am unconvinced the stand could not be improved to allow proper accessibility or for a new stop on Highgate High Street. I have never regarded the bus type an issue, many routes have restrictions which limit the type of buses that can be used. Here it just means that the Volvo B5LT chassis can't be used, but I am sure a new MMC would have no issues getting around the stand.
Now I wonder long it will take for TfL to undertake the changes, particularly given the comment about finances. Which will come first, these changes or the works to allow the 274 to go fully DD? Bets please!!
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 18, 2018 23:18:18 GMT
Perhaps now the 210 is DD and the hopper fare maybe it will be chopped to Archway. Erm why would it? Regardless of this Hopper nonsense, have you seen how busy the 210 gets to and from Finsbury Park? I suspect you haven't hence the suggestion...
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 18, 2018 23:43:30 GMT
I will be sad to see the old stand go, it's losing a bit of history. I am unconvinced the stand could not be improved to allow proper accessibility or for a new stop on Highgate High Street. I have never regarded the bus type an issue, many routes have restrictions which limit the type of buses that can be used. Here it just means that the Volvo B5LT chassis can't be used, but I am sure a new MMC would have no issues getting around the stand. The problem is that Metroline do not seem interested in ordering MMC's and even if they did, they'd most likely stick with the B5LH chassis which produces an overhang on all three main bodies (MCV, MMC & Gemini3). I don't think TfL could ever turn around to Metroline and dictate their bus ordering policy on the basis of one stand compared to something like narrow roads for example which is a far harder issue to overcome. I understand the sentiment about the current stand and I agree it's a nice one having used it myself.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 19, 2018 1:25:38 GMT
Very interesting results. I suspect funding prevented the originally proposed scheme being implemented rather than anything else. Arguably the final scheme is better than the originally proposed scheme. As for funding with Oxford Street not going ahead and CS11 delayed, there should be plenty of funds! I do think however I need to go back to school as clearly my English and Maths need improving. I was taught that a majority meant over 50%, but reading the consultation report it seems that 47% and 43% are a majority. Maybe I am miss-interpreting some clever wording and my English is not good enough. I will be sad to see the old stand go, it's losing a bit of history. I am unconvinced the stand could not be improved to allow proper accessibility or for a new stop on Highgate High Street. I have never regarded the bus type an issue, many routes have restrictions which limit the type of buses that can be used. Here it just means that the Volvo B5LT chassis can't be used, but I am sure a new MMC would have no issues getting around the stand. Now I wonder long it will take for TfL to undertake the changes, particularly given the comment about finances. Which will come first, these changes or the works to allow the 274 to go fully DD? Bets please!! I know people are fond of the old stand but I really can't see how you could fit two MMCs on there without breaching H&S. Remember that even the E40H has grown by a few inches. Looking at the second stand (i.e. the offside one), a TE just fits into the cage with virtually no space to spare. If you extend the rear end of the cage it will stick out onto South Grove. If you extend it at the front you will make it impossible for pedestrians to cross the stand safely. It may be physically possible to fit bigger buses on there, but not with the current obsession with risk reduction.
Yes, Metroline could probably use the older TEHs on the route for now, but eventually they will need to be replaced, and there is no new DD on the market that will fit (safely) on the stand. Might as well get this issue sorted out once and for all, and that's what TfL are doing. Well if they can find enough cash down the back of the sofa. And if no-one chains themselves to the big tree that's due to be pulled down...
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 19, 2018 9:12:10 GMT
I think this has been suggested before but what about extending the 214 to Archway in place of the 271? Obviously more stand space would have to be found at Archway but it removes the need for bus stands in Highgate Village.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 9:36:07 GMT
I think this has been suggested before but what about extending the 214 to Archway in place of the 271? Obviously more stand space would have to be found at Archway but it removes the need for bus stands in Highgate Village. Will probably bust the electric schedules ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 9:37:13 GMT
I can't help feeling TfL is going to find it rather more difficult to 'remove a large tree' in that part of London than they've bargained for. Just look how difficult it is proving to even trim to trees on the 274, and TfL have had a year for that, and it's still looking like a further 10+weeks ...
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 19, 2018 10:47:45 GMT
I think this has been suggested before but what about extending the 214 to Archway in place of the 271? Obviously more stand space would have to be found at Archway but it removes the need for bus stands in Highgate Village. I'm not sure that capacity between Highgate Village and Archway is the main issue. I think the main reason for the 271 to serve the Village is to maintain a number of direct links, particularly to the Whittington, otherwise it could easily be cut back to Archway without replacement.
Just before TfL released the consultation report I was thinking of a scheme to withdraw the 271 completely:
- 21 diverted to Holloway, with a frequency increase on the 141 to maintain capacity at Newington Green (I think an enhanced 141 would be a better use of resources over this corridor anyway).
- 143 and 263 swap routeings through Highgate, so that the 263 maintains most of the links to the Whittington. N20 could be diverted via Highgate Village as well, given that the 43 and 134 provide an adequate service to the Highgate Station area.
Obviously the 214 would still need to terminate at Highgate Village with this scheme, although I was thinking that a stand for single-deck electric buses might be less objectionable than a stand for DDs, especially as fewer trees would be affected.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jul 19, 2018 12:19:40 GMT
I think this has been suggested before but what about extending the 214 to Archway in place of the 271? Obviously more stand space would have to be found at Archway but it removes the need for bus stands in Highgate Village. I'm not sure that capacity between Highgate Village and Archway is the main issue. I think the main reason for the 271 to serve the Village is to maintain a number of direct links, particularly to the Whittington, otherwise it could easily be cut back to Archway without replacement.
Just before TfL released the consultation report I was thinking of a scheme to withdraw the 271 completely:
- 21 diverted to Holloway, with a frequency increase on the 141 to maintain capacity at Newington Green (I think an enhanced 141 would be a better use of resources over this corridor anyway).
- 143 and 263 swap routeings through Highgate, so that the 263 maintains most of the links to the Whittington. N20 could be diverted via Highgate Village as well, given that the 43 and 134 provide an adequate service to the Highgate Station area.
Obviously the 214 would still need to terminate at Highgate Village with this scheme, although I was thinking that a stand for single-deck electric buses might be less objectionable than a stand for DDs, especially as fewer trees would be affected.
That sounds interesting, but can someone in the know confirm that the vast majority of 21s currently make it through to Newington Green, particularly in the peak? It'd be hopeless if every other bus got curtailed at Old Street or Finsbury Square or, alternatively, they started getting cut back at the Lewisham end.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 19, 2018 13:16:41 GMT
I'm not sure that capacity between Highgate Village and Archway is the main issue. I think the main reason for the 271 to serve the Village is to maintain a number of direct links, particularly to the Whittington, otherwise it could easily be cut back to Archway without replacement. Just before TfL released the consultation report I was thinking of a scheme to withdraw the 271 completely: - 21 diverted to Holloway, with a frequency increase on the 141 to maintain capacity at Newington Green (I think an enhanced 141 would be a better use of resources over this corridor anyway). - 143 and 263 swap routeings through Highgate, so that the 263 maintains most of the links to the Whittington. N20 could be diverted via Highgate Village as well, given that the 43 and 134 provide an adequate service to the Highgate Station area.
Obviously the 214 would still need to terminate at Highgate Village with this scheme, although I was thinking that a stand for single-deck electric buses might be less objectionable than a stand for DDs, especially as fewer trees would be affected.
That sounds interesting, but can someone in the know confirm that the vast majority of 21s currently make it through to Newington Green, particularly in the peak? It'd be hopeless if every other bus got curtailed at Old Street or Finsbury Square or, alternatively, they started getting cut back at the Lewisham end. From my observations, though not as regular as other people, most make it through at peaks though I've also seen a few Hoxton, Baring Street turns before.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jul 19, 2018 13:49:02 GMT
That sounds interesting, but can someone in the know confirm that the vast majority of 21s currently make it through to Newington Green, particularly in the peak? It'd be hopeless if every other bus got curtailed at Old Street or Finsbury Square or, alternatively, they started getting cut back at the Lewisham end. From my observations, though not as regular as other people, most make it through at peaks though I've also seen a few Hoxton, Baring Street turns before. That destination brings back memories! When the 76 got experimentally operated by Atlanteans back in the ice age, that was where the one I travelled on was terminating, from the Victoria direction.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 19, 2018 15:26:43 GMT
My feeling is that, despite TfL saying it would require an extra bus, the 271 will end up being extended to the 234 terminus possibly even partly out of service. They'll offset the cost by reducing the frequency. I just cannot see Highgate residents agreeing to felling a mature tree for a bus service many of them don't seem to want.
|
|