|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 11, 2015 20:30:22 GMT
Park Road, Edmonton. Last regular use I believe was when the 34 was sectionalised for NCR upgrade works in the 1990s. There is a 12"9' railway bridge on the road so I doubt there is much use for it now.\
Enfield Lock Station. Have seen 121s curtailed to said destination in the not distant past but not sure if they use the stand here or run to Smeaton Road and turn round the tower - think the main reason has been to avoid the thick of Enfield Island Village when things have been "lively" there.
edit: pipped to it on both!
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 5, 2015 23:12:54 GMT
The current 13/N13 is not being retained, but the contract is staying and the new ammended route will be run by London Sovereign, but renumbered 13. So in effect the 139 contract and number is being removed. Yes I know so it should remain as the 139. A far simpler way of saving money and reducing buses along Oxford Street would be just to withdraw the 139 without replacement apart from extending the 13 to Waterloo and leave everything else as it is. West Hampstead would lose its direct link to the west end, but it has the tube, and are both the 139 and 189 really needed along Abbey Road? Not from my observations. Far better to make reductions there and not along the far busier Finchley Road. I'd like to see the stink kicked up locally in NW6 when it was found out that West End Lane was losing its bus link to Central London "to reduce buses along Oxford Street". Is that fallout really the better of all evils here?
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 4, 2015 21:14:35 GMT
Potters Bar was a WOB stronghold until the turn of the millennium and Ms on the 82 were still growling up and down the A41 with them until their withdrawal from the route in 2001. I think that was the last regular appearance of WOB on TfL routes though the 310A/84/242 commercial routes definitely threw some up later than that on a semi-regular basis, though YOB was becoming the norm even on the older buses by then. Then Potters Bar won the 263 back the following year. M substitutions for low floors weren't unheard of for the first year or so, leading to this in 2003! www.flickr.com/photos/cheeky_barstard/4801973654/ (not my photo - I had a foggy memory of seeing it from Archway Bridge so went digging on flickr)
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 4, 2015 20:33:53 GMT
I'd be willing to put money on one of the independent operators local to Harlow/Epping/the Abbey (whoever they are now.. I've given up trying to keep track!) wanting to have a go on this route once Arriva vacates, irregularly if not necessarily a full hourly replacement. Possibly not lucrative enough to try to win it in a 'bus war' (cf. 240/250 corridor and others), but for want of any service at all somebody may well decide it worth a punt.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 4, 2015 19:18:56 GMT
As TFL will go full steam ahead with these proposals regardless, I guess it's best we wait and see how they turn out rather than just speculating and presuming what will happen. We never know these proposals may turn out to be just fine....a part of me is curious to know how the 113 and 139 will cope with the withdrawal of the 13, but hey who knows until we witness the outcome. I'm sure TFL will rectify any significant issues if they arise rather than being completely ignorant about it. What I really want to know is what the heck will happen to the 13 number, new route maybe?. Surely such a number can't be left out of London's bus system for a long time!. Is Leon Daniels a superstitious man, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 4, 2015 7:47:21 GMT
I have no issue with whole scale changes. In fact I welcome creative thinking.... But this has got number 5 / 87 and 174 / 374 written all over it. What will happen is that despite opposition TfL will steam roll ahead. A few years down the line in true 5/87, 174/374 style TfL will be forced to acknowledge the crush loadings. There'll be lots of "we're reviewing the capacity", then some roadside loadings monitoring. The initial steps will be small remedial ideas, an extra few peak trips here and there, timetable changes to address "punctuality" etc etc. Eventually they'll talk about extending something to cover up the mess made (a few years down the line of course). Whether any extensions come to fruition will be another story, just like the 5 and 238 saga. Alas, history is set to repeat itself! The scheme I think of with these proposals is the one centred around the 135 withdrawal in 2000. The 135 ran from Archway via the 134 to Kentish Town, then via the C2 to Oxford Circus. Compensation was by way of a minor enhancement to the 134 and extending the 88 north from Oxford Circus to Camden, albeit routed via Warren Street - it cut capacity down Albany Street by over 60%, and between Kentish Town and Archway by about 15-20%, even with the enhancements to the 134. This was just before the boom years that TfL's bus services have experienced really kicked in. The proposals worked, at the time, but things were always tight, especially with the darts on the C2 maintaining the Camden - Albany Street - West End link on their own. The 88, in turn, never carried great numbers north of Oxford Circus initially though that has changed more recently. The upshot has been that the C2 has had to be double decked and the 134 has had to have extra trips inserted incrementally as the years have gone by, but it still struggles in the peaks. That the northern line - improved as it was with the introduction of the 1995 stock at around the same time - runs parallel to the vast majority of the route hasn't been of enormous consequence, the numbers just kept growing. I wonder if TfL will be forced to react to these new plans in a similar fashion in due course.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 3, 2015 21:31:26 GMT
I need to do a bit more analysis but a rough and ready check of annual patronage and capacity numbers gives the following. Route 13 Demand - 5.4m Capacity - 8.1m Route 82 Demand - 8.4m Capacity - 8.9m Route 113 Demand - 5.1m Capacity - 5.8m Route 139 Demand - 3.9m Capacity - 7.9m Route 189 Demand - 4.9m Capacity - 8.2m Clearly you have to be very careful with the numbers as they are annualised and can't pick up detailed loadings at stop level or by day of the week / time of day. Clearly TfL have taken the view that they can bump a lot of the 13's demand on to the 139 with the 82 and 113 picking up specific demand on the Finchley Road which the rerouted 139 won't deal with. Given the 113 has little capacity overhead you can see why it is being increased to take up the 13's slack. What is quite interesting is that the performance of all of these routes is pretty good relative to their targets, the 13 being worst and 113 being exceptionally good. I haven't specifically looked at frequencies yet but I get a sense this package of changes will make things very very tight indeed. There won't be much "slack" if there is growth on the corridor. I've certainly seen very well loaded 13s in the peak and big queues at stops on Finchley Road, including outside Finchley Road and Swiss Cottage tube stations! I still think this is a great big "con trick" in that it is nothing much to do with changing demand - all the routes have been modest increases in recent years - and everything to do with Oxford Street and facilitating NB4L conversions. The 113 has had a lot of 'padding' put into the timetable in the last few years without any noticeable increase in traffic levels on the A41 so the good reliability figures for that route would not surprise me. It goes without saying that it does also miss the bulk of the town traffic vs the 139/189/13. The outer stretch is certainly busier than it used to be, and a lot of the 50mph bits have been dropped to 40, but I'm not sure that accounts for an extra 10-15 minutes running time from Edgware to the edge of the West End. It was achievable well inside an hour off peak 15 years ago. Certainly the days of Metros spanking it down Watford/Hendon Way flat out are long gone (tbf I think the c.2000 timetable was probably still tuned to the performance of the Lances!). Does the routeing from Childs Hill to Baker Street via West Hampstead incur a time penalty vs the Finchley Road? Shiny NBfLs aside this will have a bearing on whether passengers from GG will lump the 139 going into town. Off peak I'd think it is probably slower but even the bus lane on Finchley Road is often slow going at peak times with NX coaches thrown into the mix, especially southbound in the AM peak around Frognal - having commuted it by bicycle I can confirm that weaving the wall of traffic in all three lanes is hard work.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 3, 2015 21:05:59 GMT
Slightly facetious, but..
"Our Tube modernisation plan means journeys are more reliable, many lines now have a better service. We’ve also introduced new, longer trains on many lines."
*TfL enhances direct bus service between Edgware, Hendon and Central London*
I need to see someone about this cough.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 1, 2015 23:12:35 GMT
A night route around the Becontree station area linking largely residential areas that are currently without buses long before the last Tubes have arrived from central London. Maybe the 62 or 145 perhaps, and maybe even a half-hourly 364 all night too. Would be good for shift workers... I think it is about time the area to the south of Wood Lane - 'deep' Dagenham if you like - got some 24 hour coverage. The 145 would work nicely linking into the N15 at Martins Corner for Central London, and give Gale Street/Heathway/Dagenham Village a link into the network - these areas are currently a fair walk from the one route at present. Heathway tube is busy from the first train of the morning with shift workers and I doubt the demand suddenly appears at 4:30am.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Feb 24, 2015 19:26:08 GMT
my opinion: 121 - The Enfield island village people has to either walk or take a taxi, which is quite unfair. 75 - restore this as it is useful from the south east to south london at night, while now we have to take it all the way to central london then swap for a 2nd leg ride. "The Enfield island village people" sounds a bit like a tribute act coming to the bars and clubs of North London/SE herts soon. I agree that the 121 should have a 24 hour service - it gets to almost 22 hours at weekends as it is. Perhaps some resources could be swapped from the N91 when the Piccadilly Line goes 24 hours at weekends as the two routes share a fair bit of common ground. It also restores the old N29 facility down the Southbury Road which was lost when the bendies were introduced (one reason why later 121 journeys were added, tbf) I'd like to see the W7 get an all night service, especially once the 24 hour tube comes in. People would use it.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Feb 22, 2015 8:05:57 GMT
Extend the 12 back to Notting hill from Oxford circus to solve the bayswater road issue. I miss that connection. I to have realised the sometimes faulty reliability along sections of both routes 10 & 390 but surely using the buses from both routes and combining them will make a more reliable and structured service? The problem is traffic has dramatically increased to such an extent that merging routes back together could have a detrimental impact. The 12 idea is an idea I had a few years back that would give the 148 much needed assistance but could impact on the 12's reliability. I suppose you could run the 12 in it's old sections again - would more or less match the lost capacity of the 390 west of Marble Arch and operationally you could contain the damage when Oxford Street goes into 'operation stack'. Though in the current TfL climate you would need a new number for one of the legs. I gather 392 is available..
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Feb 21, 2015 22:47:56 GMT
Metros, hands down. Titans were fine buses in their own right but just didn't pique my interest. But I grew up deep in Leaside/London Northern territory so I have a clear bias to declare.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Feb 21, 2015 20:31:36 GMT
The big hole in the Night network around Ruislip has always stood out to me. The predecessor to the N7/N23 ran out to the edges in the late 80s/early 90s then there was a biurification of the Uxbridge Road night route (N89 then) that vanished without replacement. Is there just no demand?
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Feb 21, 2015 19:20:36 GMT
The 390. Just extend the 10 back to archway and use the previous NB4Ls from the 390 to provide between kings cross and archway. The old full length 10 had appalling reliability problems. You'd have to recycle most of the buses saved from the 390 just to have a robust enough schedule, then there's the matter of lost capacity down Bayswater Road. Not something I'd want to see happen.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Feb 18, 2015 0:16:23 GMT
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the 149 was lost to Go Ahead, why do you not see it going to another operator? I just don't see the logic in saying that to be honest I dont believe Arriva are on this big free fall that everyone seems to imply! The 149 is an important route for Arriva and there are some routes you can't see Arriva losing, 149 being one, 29/243/76/73/38 are just some that will will always be Arriva or whoever the owner is! In my heart of hearts the 149 is an Arriva/Leaside route through and through, but my mind tells me Go-Ahead could take it at the next tender round and I wouldn't be in the faintest bit surprised. I would somehow be more surprised if the 279 was ever lost to Go-Ahead. Maybe it's the fact that the route passes E, maybe it is all the silly early and super-late buses that run WX-Ponders only, those little things which make it Enfield Garage's route and that would go if Arriva lost it. I regard the 121 in a similar light.
|
|