Route 357 & C2

[Deleted]

Created a new thread as it seems likely that routes 357 & C2 are being discontinued.

Any ideas on how the northbound of route 357 can be replaced. Rumours that the 158 will be extended to Chingford Hatch to retain the link.

When it comes to the C2 what route/s will cover the Parliment Hil Fields section?

[Eastlondoner62]

All the information about the C2 can be found here

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-c2-88/

[vjaska]

Oct 30, 2018 23:30:32 GMT @stevenevill said:

Created a new thread as it seems likely that routes 357 & C2 are being discontinued.

Any ideas on how the northbound of route 357 can be replaced. Rumours that the 158 will be extended to Chingford Hatch to retain the link.

When it comes to the C2 what route/s will cover the Parliment Hil Fields section?

A consultation regarding the C2 with the 88 extendeded to Parliament Hill Fields to cover the lost section was closed about a month ago - consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-c2-88/

Might be best to just wait & see what happens instead regarding the 357.

[snoggle]

Oct 30, 2018 23:30:32 GMT @stevenevill said:

Any ideas on how the northbound of route 357 can be replaced. Rumours that the 158 will be extended to Chingford Hatch to retain the link.

Why on earth would TfL send the 158 to Chingford Hatch at a frequency of every 7-8 minutes when the 357 is every 15 mins at best? Whoever is spreading that "rumour" is clueless. It also doesn't do anything to replace the 357 south of the Billet roundabout.

To be honest I'm very keen to understand what is going on with the 357 as I actually use the service but there is no point in endlessly trying to discuss it. We just have to wait for TfL to publish either a tender result or a consultation on its removal. As things stand they may be waiting for the "WW Central Bus Stops" consultation to conclude formally [1] before finalising the contract for the 357 as it will almost certainly require one less bus. Furthermore there are extensive road works on Whipps Cross Rd and at Whipps Cross roundabout which may also be causing issues about stand space and run times. If you look at the evening schedule you'll see the 357 has very long stand times at each termini - if not serving the bus stn saves enough time then a whole bus could be taken off the evening PVR too. Until some of the uncertainty falls away it might be difficult for TfL to award a viable contract - possibly to a new operator.

"Be patient" Omm Omm Omm. (beware of giant spiders) [2]

[1] yes I know it's a foregone conclusion given WF council have let the cat out of the bag and the bus stops are half built but this is TfL and formal process we are talking about.
[2] that's a 70s Doctor Who reference for the youngsters who may think I'm even more silly than usual.

[ADH45258]

Oct 31, 2018 0:34:26 GMT snoggle said:

Oct 30, 2018 23:30:32 GMT @stevenevill said:

Any ideas on how the northbound of route 357 can be replaced. Rumours that the 158 will be extended to Chingford Hatch to retain the link.

Why on earth would TfL send the 158 to Chingford Hatch at a frequency of every 7-8 minutes when the 357 is every 15 mins at best? Whoever is spreading that "rumour" is clueless. It also doesn't do anything to replace the 357 south of the Billet roundabout.

To be honest I'm very keen to understand what is going on with the 357 as I actually use the service but there is no point in endlessly trying to discuss it. We just have to wait for TfL to publish either a tender result or a consultation on its removal. As things stand they may be waiting for the "WW Central Bus Stops" consultation to conclude formally [1] before finalising the contract for the 357 as it will almost certainly require one less bus. Furthermore there are extensive road works on Whipps Cross Rd and at Whipps Cross roundabout which may also be causing issues about stand space and run times. If you look at the evening schedule you'll see the 357 has very long stand times at each termini - if not serving the bus stn saves enough time then a whole bus could be taken off the evening PVR too. Until some of the uncertainty falls away it might be difficult for TfL to award a viable contract - possibly to a new operator.

"Be patient" Omm Omm Omm. (beware of giant spiders) [2]

[1] yes I know it's a foregone conclusion given WF council have let the cat out of the bag and the bus stops are half built but this is TfL and formal process we are talking about.
[2] that's a 70s Doctor Who reference for the youngsters who may think I'm even more silly than usual.

The other issue with the 158 is that it does not connect to Walthamstow Central.

The only solution I can think of would be to extend the W11 to Chingford Hatch, possibly with a frequency increase or use of slightly longer SDs, but with a double run to Chingford Hall Estate. This is not ideal, as journey times would be longer than the 357. However, passengers can already use the more direct 212/W16 from Chingford Hatch, or the 34/97/215 from other points along the route.

I wouldn't even be surprised to see the 357 withdrawn without replacement, or even retendered using SDs all week.

The Whipps Cross section may not need replacement. The 20/230/257/W15/W19 parallel to Whipps Cross, with the W15/W19 also following the Sunday service into the hospital grounds. The W16 also directly links Whipps Cross to Chingford Hatch. However, is a link is needed from Whipps Cross towards Crooked Billet, perhaps the 215 could be extended from Walthamstow in place?

[southlondonbus]

Out of interest can the 357 be completed with just one change of bus? Looks to me like you could have to change twice to get from Chingford Hatch to Whipps Cross.

[thesquirrels]

Oct 31, 2018 9:08:07 GMT southlondonbus said:

Out of interest can the 357 be completed with just one change of bus? Looks to me like you could have to change twice to get from Chingford Hatch to Whipps Cross.

212 to Central then 20/W15 should do it. 

[vjaska]

Oct 31, 2018 9:08:07 GMT southlondonbus said:

Out of interest can the 357 be completed with just one change of bus? Looks to me like you could have to change twice to get from Chingford Hatch to Whipps Cross.

The 212 to Walthamstow & then the 20, 230 or 257 covers it though the 357 leaves people on the side of the road where the hospital is located and without having to cross the busy Lea Bridge Road.

[snoggle]

Oct 31, 2018 7:58:15 GMT ADH45258 said:

The other issue with the 158 is that it does not connect to Walthamstow Central.

The only solution I can think of would be to extend the W11 to Chingford Hatch, possibly with a frequency increase or use of slightly longer SDs, but with a double run to Chingford Hall Estate. This is not ideal, as journey times would be longer than the 357. However, passengers can already use the more direct 212/W16 from Chingford Hatch, or the 34/97/215 from other points along the route.

I wouldn't even be surprised to see the 357 withdrawn without replacement, or even retendered using SDs all week.

The Whipps Cross section may not need replacement. The 20/230/257/W15/W19 parallel to Whipps Cross, with the W15/W19 also following the Sunday service into the hospital grounds. The W16 also directly links Whipps Cross to Chingford Hatch. However, is a link is needed from Whipps Cross towards Crooked Billet, perhaps the 215 could be extended from Walthamstow in place?

The 158 is overbussed outside of peak times - certainly at the Blackhorse Lane / Billet Rd end of things. It is paralleled by the 58 from South Grove to Crownfield Rd and the short bit onwards to Stratford is not that heavily used. Peak times it is very busy as are all routes linking into tube and rail stations in the borough and towards Stratford.

I can't see the point in extending the W11 as it would either mean double the amount of buses going down side roads to Chingford Hall Estate or not serving that estate. CT Plus no longer have a surplus of E20Ds that could have been deployed on an extension. I don't see TfL spending money on extra vehicles in order to part replace an existing route.

The W16 does not serve Chingford Hatch (it turns at Larkshall Rd roundabout) nor does it serve Whipps Cross (it turns at Shernhall Street). The W16 is also now a busy route that is hopelessly oversubscribed in the peaks / school times so expecting it to take up any slack is rather meaningless IMO. In a completely different thread I set out some thoughts on how TfL could serve Chingford Hatch from the Mount if the 357 was to go. They still involve more resource on either the W16 or 444.

Have you used the W15 or W19 regularly between Walthamstow and Whipps Cross? Do you have idea how busy those routes are and how dreadfully unreliable the W15 can be?

The biggest problem with buses on the Walthamstow to Chingford Mount section is the utterly hopeless scheduling. I use that corridor regularly and I am fed up with three buses (97, 215 and 357) all coming at once but with a 10 minute gap in front of them because the 97's timekeeping is, to be frank, useless. If you happen to get on whichever bus is first in the bunch then you will find it very well loaded - that can be a 357 or 215 just as much as a 97. I'm sort of ignoring the 34 because it has its own distinct set of passengers heading to Tesco / IKEA and Edmonton. That's the bit that is very busy. It does give useful extra capacity as far as the Billet. I now find that I can quite easily wait 10 minutes off peak if I'm going to Sainsburys near the old Stadium. Given a theoretical 15 bph that should NOT happen. The flaw is TfL's unwillingness or inability to force operators to schedule sensible headways and for TfL themselves to properly integrate the bph numbers to give balanced headways across the routes in question.

If TfL are getting rid of the 357 I have to ask why they have not put out a consultation to that effect. They could and should have linked it into a wider proposal linked to the "bus stops" consultation. I remain convinced that the bus stop change is going to have significant adverse effects on the 34/215 and also the 69. Not putting the 97 in particular through the bus station is so mindboggingly stupid that I struggle to conceive how TfL have even put the proposal out for consultation. As a minimum the 69 should serve the new stops on the Hoe St bridge to give people towards Leyton High Road a full choice of departures from one stop.

I wonder whether you are a local and actually use the routes in question? If not then I'm not really minded to consider your ideas about alternatives very seriously because you don't really understand where the buses go, how people use or what the demand and scheduling issues are. Sorry but I think I know a bit more about Waltham Forest's buses having used them for 35 years.

[vjaska]

Oct 31, 2018 13:52:50 GMT snoggle said:

Oct 31, 2018 7:58:15 GMT ADH45258 said:

The other issue with the 158 is that it does not connect to Walthamstow Central.

The only solution I can think of would be to extend the W11 to Chingford Hatch, possibly with a frequency increase or use of slightly longer SDs, but with a double run to Chingford Hall Estate. This is not ideal, as journey times would be longer than the 357. However, passengers can already use the more direct 212/W16 from Chingford Hatch, or the 34/97/215 from other points along the route.

I wouldn't even be surprised to see the 357 withdrawn without replacement, or even retendered using SDs all week.

The Whipps Cross section may not need replacement. The 20/230/257/W15/W19 parallel to Whipps Cross, with the W15/W19 also following the Sunday service into the hospital grounds. The W16 also directly links Whipps Cross to Chingford Hatch. However, is a link is needed from Whipps Cross towards Crooked Billet, perhaps the 215 could be extended from Walthamstow in place?

I wonder whether you are a local and actually use the routes in question? If not then I'm not really minded to consider your ideas about alternatives very seriously because you don't really understand where the buses go, how people use or what the demand and scheduling issues are. Sorry but I think I know a bit more about Waltham Forest's buses having used them for 35 years.

Absolutely agree, it would be great if people could stop wandering into places and phrasing what should be a mere opinion as something that is factual because it's incredibly boring now.

[sid]

Oct 31, 2018 7:58:15 GMT ADH45258 said:

Oct 31, 2018 0:34:26 GMT snoggle said:

Why on earth would TfL send the 158 to Chingford Hatch at a frequency of every 7-8 minutes when the 357 is every 15 mins at best? Whoever is spreading that "rumour" is clueless. It also doesn't do anything to replace the 357 south of the Billet roundabout.

To be honest I'm very keen to understand what is going on with the 357 as I actually use the service but there is no point in endlessly trying to discuss it. We just have to wait for TfL to publish either a tender result or a consultation on its removal. As things stand they may be waiting for the "WW Central Bus Stops" consultation to conclude formally [1] before finalising the contract for the 357 as it will almost certainly require one less bus. Furthermore there are extensive road works on Whipps Cross Rd and at Whipps Cross roundabout which may also be causing issues about stand space and run times. If you look at the evening schedule you'll see the 357 has very long stand times at each termini - if not serving the bus stn saves enough time then a whole bus could be taken off the evening PVR too. Until some of the uncertainty falls away it might be difficult for TfL to award a viable contract - possibly to a new operator.

"Be patient" Omm Omm Omm. (beware of giant spiders) [2]

[1] yes I know it's a foregone conclusion given WF council have let the cat out of the bag and the bus stops are half built but this is TfL and formal process we are talking about.
[2] that's a 70s Doctor Who reference for the youngsters who may think I'm even more silly than usual.

The other issue with the 158 is that it does not connect to Walthamstow Central.

The only solution I can think of would be to extend the W11 to Chingford Hatch, possibly with a frequency increase or use of slightly longer SDs, but with a double run to Chingford Hall Estate. This is not ideal, as journey times would be longer than the 357. However, passengers can already use the more direct 212/W16 from Chingford Hatch, or the 34/97/215 from other points along the route.

I wouldn't even be surprised to see the 357 withdrawn without replacement, or even retendered using SDs all week.

The Whipps Cross section may not need replacement. The 20/230/257/W15/W19 parallel to Whipps Cross, with the W15/W19 also following the Sunday service into the hospital grounds. The W16 also directly links Whipps Cross to Chingford Hatch. However, is a link is needed from Whipps Cross towards Crooked Billet, perhaps the 215 could be extended from Walthamstow in place?

Extending the W11 sounds like a good idea to me, also provides a round the corner link from Chingford Hall Estate to Chingford Hatch. I agree that the Whipps Cross bit probably doesn't need replacing.

*I don't live in the area though so I probably don't know what I'm talking about!

[ADH45258]

Oct 31, 2018 13:52:50 GMT snoggle said:

Oct 31, 2018 7:58:15 GMT ADH45258 said:

The other issue with the 158 is that it does not connect to Walthamstow Central.

The only solution I can think of would be to extend the W11 to Chingford Hatch, possibly with a frequency increase or use of slightly longer SDs, but with a double run to Chingford Hall Estate. This is not ideal, as journey times would be longer than the 357. However, passengers can already use the more direct 212/W16 from Chingford Hatch, or the 34/97/215 from other points along the route.

I wouldn't even be surprised to see the 357 withdrawn without replacement, or even retendered using SDs all week.

The Whipps Cross section may not need replacement. The 20/230/257/W15/W19 parallel to Whipps Cross, with the W15/W19 also following the Sunday service into the hospital grounds. The W16 also directly links Whipps Cross to Chingford Hatch. However, is a link is needed from Whipps Cross towards Crooked Billet, perhaps the 215 could be extended from Walthamstow in place?

The 158 is overbussed outside of peak times - certainly at the Blackhorse Lane / Billet Rd end of things. It is paralleled by the 58 from South Grove to Crownfield Rd and the short bit onwards to Stratford is not that heavily used. Peak times it is very busy as are all routes linking into tube and rail stations in the borough and towards Stratford.

I can't see the point in extending the W11 as it would either mean double the amount of buses going down side roads to Chingford Hall Estate or not serving that estate. CT Plus no longer have a surplus of E20Ds that could have been deployed on an extension. I don't see TfL spending money on extra vehicles in order to part replace an existing route.

The W16 does not serve Chingford Hatch (it turns at Larkshall Rd roundabout) nor does it serve Whipps Cross (it turns at Shernhall Street). The W16 is also now a busy route that is hopelessly oversubscribed in the peaks / school times so expecting it to take up any slack is rather meaningless IMO. In a completely different thread I set out some thoughts on how TfL could serve Chingford Hatch from the Mount if the 357 was to go. They still involve more resource on either the W16 or 444.

Have you used the W15 or W19 regularly between Walthamstow and Whipps Cross? Do you have idea how busy those routes are and how dreadfully unreliable the W15 can be?

The biggest problem with buses on the Walthamstow to Chingford Mount section is the utterly hopeless scheduling. I use that corridor regularly and I am fed up with three buses (97, 215 and 357) all coming at once but with a 10 minute gap in front of them because the 97's timekeeping is, to be frank, useless. If you happen to get on whichever bus is first in the bunch then you will find it very well loaded - that can be a 357 or 215 just as much as a 97. I'm sort of ignoring the 34 because it has its own distinct set of passengers heading to Tesco / IKEA and Edmonton. That's the bit that is very busy. It does give useful extra capacity as far as the Billet. I now find that I can quite easily wait 10 minutes off peak if I'm going to Sainsburys near the old Stadium. Given a theoretical 15 bph that should NOT happen. The flaw is TfL's unwillingness or inability to force operators to schedule sensible headways and for TfL themselves to properly integrate the bph numbers to give balanced headways across the routes in question.

If TfL are getting rid of the 357 I have to ask why they have not put out a consultation to that effect. They could and should have linked it into a wider proposal linked to the "bus stops" consultation. I remain convinced that the bus stop change is going to have significant adverse effects on the 34/215 and also the 69. Not putting the 97 in particular through the bus station is so mindboggingly stupid that I struggle to conceive how TfL have even put the proposal out for consultation. As a minimum the 69 should serve the new stops on the Hoe St bridge to give people towards Leyton High Road a full choice of departures from one stop.

I wonder whether you are a local and actually use the routes in question? If not then I'm not really minded to consider your ideas about alternatives very seriously because you don't really understand where the buses go, how people use or what the demand and scheduling issues are. Sorry but I think I know a bit more about Waltham Forest's buses having used them for 35 years.

Sounds to me from this as though the best option would be simply not to withdraw the 357. How well used is the 357? If it has some spare capacity, perhaps a small PVR cut or full conversion to SDs may be a bettee solution. Or otherwise a full DD operation including Sundays, as other routes link from Walthamstow into the hospital grounds (e.g. W12, W15)

[snoggle]

Nov 1, 2018 8:55:24 GMT ADH45258 said:

Sounds to me from this as though the best option would be simply not to withdraw the 357. How well used is the 357? If it has some spare capacity, perhaps a small PVR cut or full conversion to SDs may be a bettee solution. Or otherwise a full DD operation including Sundays, as other routes link from Walthamstow into the hospital grounds (e.g. W12, W15)

It is clearly not the busiest route on the network. It never has been even stretching back to when it was the 97A and reached Chingford Station. However it can and does carry decent loads if it turns up at the right time to mop up a big queue of people. I was on one the other week which caught schools and college traffic and it was nearly full. That would take pressure off the 97 which is typically well loaded all the time. I've also been on and seen many fully loaded peak time 357 buses. That's why it is run with double deckers. A long time ago it was run with Leyland Nationals.

The problem is that TfL have changed the "mantra" and now it expects buses to be "full" (whatever that means) to justify their existence. That appears again in the recent Richmond consultation. On that basis every route could be endangered in London because no normal route ever runs with maximum loadings on every departure. Some school routes may be an exception to that scenario but they are not typical. To be frank it is ridiculous to expect every bus to be "full" all day, every day. It never happens.

If it wasn't for the peak time loadings I'd be minded to convert the 357 to single decker and run it on to Leytonstone Stn and then the 339 to Stratford City. I'm still determined to kill the overlong 339! I suspect that a direct route from Whipps Cross and parts of Leytonstone to Stratford City would give the route a bit of a fillip.

An alternative would be to keep it double deck but cut it to every 20 mins M-S but schedule it jointly with the 215 between Walthamstow Central and Chingford Mount to give a x10/x15 headway each day. That increases the likelihood of increased loadings over the common section.

[ADH45258]

Nov 1, 2018 13:54:50 GMT snoggle said:

Nov 1, 2018 8:55:24 GMT ADH45258 said:

Sounds to me from this as though the best option would be simply not to withdraw the 357. How well used is the 357? If it has some spare capacity, perhaps a small PVR cut or full conversion to SDs may be a bettee solution. Or otherwise a full DD operation including Sundays, as other routes link from Walthamstow into the hospital grounds (e.g. W12, W15)

It is clearly not the busiest route on the network. It never has been even stretching back to when it was the 97A and reached Chingford Station. However it can and does carry decent loads if it turns up at the right time to mop up a big queue of people. I was on one the other week which caught schools and college traffic and it was nearly full. That would take pressure off the 97 which is typically well loaded all the time. I've also been on and seen many fully loaded peak time 357 buses. That's why it is run with double deckers. A long time ago it was run with Leyland Nationals.

The problem is that TfL have changed the "mantra" and now it expects buses to be "full" (whatever that means) to justify their existence. That appears again in the recent Richmond consultation. On that basis every route could be endangered in London because no normal route ever runs with maximum loadings on every departure. Some school routes may be an exception to that scenario but they are not typical. To be frank it is ridiculous to expect every bus to be "full" all day, every day. It never happens.

If it wasn't for the peak time loadings I'd be minded to convert the 357 to single decker and run it on to Leytonstone Stn and then the 339 to Stratford City. I'm still determined to kill the overlong 339! I suspect that a direct route from Whipps Cross and parts of Leytonstone to Stratford City would give the route a bit of a fillip.

An alternative would be to keep it double deck but cut it to every 20 mins M-S but schedule it jointly with the 215 between Walthamstow Central and Chingford Mount to give a x10/x15 headway each day. That increases the likelihood of increased loadings over the common section.

The 357 could actually be ideal to extend over the northern part of the 339, possibly terminating at Stratford City.

Then cut the 339 back to the N205 at Leyton (Drapers Field*). And extend the shortened 339 from Shadwell to Aldgate via the 100.

This would allow the 100 to be withdrawn, without making the 339 too long or unreliable, offering new links around the Shadwell area. Also, the 339 already uses SDs short enough for the routeing around Wapping.

*Rather than terminating at Drapers Field, the revised 339 could possibly instead serve the Chobham Manor development.

[capitalomnibus]

Nov 1, 2018 14:46:26 GMT ADH45258 said:

Nov 1, 2018 13:54:50 GMT snoggle said:

It is clearly not the busiest route on the network. It never has been even stretching back to when it was the 97A and reached Chingford Station. However it can and does carry decent loads if it turns up at the right time to mop up a big queue of people. I was on one the other week which caught schools and college traffic and it was nearly full. That would take pressure off the 97 which is typically well loaded all the time. I've also been on and seen many fully loaded peak time 357 buses. That's why it is run with double deckers. A long time ago it was run with Leyland Nationals.

The problem is that TfL have changed the "mantra" and now it expects buses to be "full" (whatever that means) to justify their existence. That appears again in the recent Richmond consultation. On that basis every route could be endangered in London because no normal route ever runs with maximum loadings on every departure. Some school routes may be an exception to that scenario but they are not typical. To be frank it is ridiculous to expect every bus to be "full" all day, every day. It never happens.

If it wasn't for the peak time loadings I'd be minded to convert the 357 to single decker and run it on to Leytonstone Stn and then the 339 to Stratford City. I'm still determined to kill the overlong 339! I suspect that a direct route from Whipps Cross and parts of Leytonstone to Stratford City would give the route a bit of a fillip.

An alternative would be to keep it double deck but cut it to every 20 mins M-S but schedule it jointly with the 215 between Walthamstow Central and Chingford Mount to give a x10/x15 headway each day. That increases the likelihood of increased loadings over the common section.

The 357 could actually be ideal to extend over the northern part of the 339, possibly terminating at Stratford City.

Then cut the 339 back to the N205 at Leyton (Drapers Field*). And extend the shortened 339 from Shadwell to Aldgate via the 100.

This would allow the 100 to be withdrawn, without making the 339 too long or unreliable, offering new links around the Shadwell area. Also, the 339 already uses SDs short enough for the routeing around Wapping.

*Rather than terminating at Drapers Field, the revised 339 could possibly instead serve the Chobham Manor development.

Still pointless, scrap the 357 if it is to run in its current form