|
Post by M1104 on Mar 13, 2020 18:24:15 GMT
The 152 passes 'near enough' both ends of the 200
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 14, 2020 10:00:28 GMT
That's a lot of changes just to remove a route from a stand - the easy solution is to simply extend the 271 to Highgate Wood to stand with the 234 rather than making wholesale changes that break links. The main purpose would be cutting costs, solving the stand problem would just be an added bonus. I think a frequency reduction on the 210 would be a better way of cutting costs if the axe needs to fall. It is a good fast orbital link across north London and is well used, sending it round the houses in Finchley or forcing a change in Highgate will take that benefit away. It is also a popular link between the two of London's principal Jewish centres, i.e. Golders Green and Stamford Hill (with a change to the 253 at FPK), which would be broken, though I accept the change between 253/271 could be done at Holloway instead. The deckers are most needed at the Finsbury Park end for the railhead flows - this is one of the main drivers behind the original decision to double deck the route, and the 143 would not provide that. I actually think a 271 to Brent Cross via the 210 would be a great route in itself, providing good orbital and radial links across north London, but trashing the 210 and the well used and established links there is too high a price to pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Mar 14, 2020 10:12:21 GMT
The main purpose would be cutting costs, solving the stand problem would just be an added bonus. I think a frequency reduction on the 210 would be a better way of cutting costs if the axe needs to fall. It is a good fast orbital link across north London and is well used, sending it round the houses in Finchley or forcing a change in Highgate will take that benefit away. It is also a popular link between the two of London's principal Jewish centres, i.e. Golders Green and Stamford Hill (with a change to the 253 at FPK), which would be broken, though I accept the change between 253/271 could be done at Holloway instead. The deckers are most needed at the Finsbury Park end for the railhead flows - this is one of the main drivers behind the original decision to double deck the route, and the 143 would not provide that. I actually think a 271 to Brent Cross via the 210 would be a great route in itself, providing good orbital and radial links across north London, but trashing the 210 and the well used and established links there is too high a price to pay for it. I wasn't quite suggesting trashing the 210, the Brent Cross to Archway link would remain but with the 271. It's a fair point about single deckers maybe being inadequate for Finsbury Park and maybe the 143 deserves double deckers although I think there are some environmental issues somewhere on the route? Anyway the fact that TfL no longer seem interested in changing the 271 stand in Highgate Village suggests that they perhaps have something up their sleeve? BTW I know it won't suit everyone but Finchley Road & Frognal to Stamford Hill can be done in about 45 minutes for £1.50 off peak on LO with a change at Hackney Central/Downs.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Mar 14, 2020 18:51:38 GMT
The 210 passes the termini of the 143 and C11.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 14, 2020 20:01:08 GMT
The 210 passes the termini of the 143 and C11. The 210 shares the Brent Cross terminus with the 143 and C11 rather than passing it, does that count?
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Mar 14, 2020 20:45:14 GMT
The main purpose would be cutting costs, solving the stand problem would just be an added bonus. I think a frequency reduction on the 210 would be a better way of cutting costs if the axe needs to fall. It is a good fast orbital link across north London and is well used, sending it round the houses in Finchley or forcing a change in Highgate will take that benefit away. It is also a popular link between the two of London's principal Jewish centres, i.e. Golders Green and Stamford Hill (with a change to the 253 at FPK), which would be broken, though I accept the change between 253/271 could be done at Holloway instead. The deckers are most needed at the Finsbury Park end for the railhead flows - this is one of the main drivers behind the original decision to double deck the route, and the 143 would not provide that. I actually think a 271 to Brent Cross via the 210 would be a great route in itself, providing good orbital and radial links across north London, but trashing the 210 and the well used and established links there is too high a price to pay for it. The 210 already had a frequency reduction a couple of years ago. I don't think it should be cut any further. In fact it could do with an extra trip or two at school times. Aside from school flows it seems to cope OK but it does get busy at times, and not just at the Finsbury Park end. I'd say the middle of the route (Golders Green - Archway) is probably the busiest section of the route overall.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Mar 14, 2020 21:23:10 GMT
The 210 passes the termini of the 143 and C11. The 210 shares the Brent Cross terminus with the 143 and C11 rather than passing it, does that count? I know it does. However, not only did I see little point in disclosing that there's a shared terminus as I assumed everyone knows this but I felt it makes little difference, for instance before I stated that the 120/H32 share a southern terminus but didn't see the need to do so in future posts ok.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 14, 2020 23:41:53 GMT
The 210 shares the Brent Cross terminus with the 143 and C11 rather than passing it, does that count? I know it does. However, not only did I see little point in disclosing that there's a shared terminus as I assumed everyone knows this but I felt it makes little difference, for instance before I stated that the 120/H32 share a southern terminus but didn't see the need to do so in future posts ok. Apologies for being pedantic, just curious as to whether sharing a terminus counts as passing it or not.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Mar 14, 2020 23:58:43 GMT
The 54 and 75 used to be a good one when both terminated in Croydon and Woolwich while meeting midroute briefly at Catford, Rushey Green.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Mar 15, 2020 12:08:16 GMT
I know it does. However, not only did I see little point in disclosing that there's a shared terminus as I assumed everyone knows this but I felt it makes little difference, for instance before I stated that the 120/H32 share a southern terminus but didn't see the need to do so in future posts ok. Apologies for being pedantic, just curious as to whether sharing a terminus counts as passing it or not. Its alright, no harm done
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 15, 2020 15:59:54 GMT
102 and H3
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Mar 15, 2020 16:06:28 GMT
47 and 199 share a southern terminus of TL and the 47 passes the 199's northern terminus of Canada Water.
|
|
|
Post by londoner7104 on Oct 3, 2022 20:27:21 GMT
If TFL go ahead with changes to the 476, the 341 would pass both its termini at Northumberland Park and Newington Green.
|
|
123ToLondon
Driver
Enter your message here...
Posts: 176
|
Post by 123ToLondon on Oct 3, 2022 20:51:21 GMT
Near enough 145 passes 364
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Oct 3, 2022 21:27:52 GMT
The 60, 166, 407, 466 and, technically speaking the N68 pass both terminuses of the 412 in Purley and in Croydon Town Centre.
The 466 also passes both terminuses of the 359 and 433. The 64 used to pass both terminuses of the 433 until it was cut back from West Croydon to Croydon Town Centre. The same also goes for the 109 and 250. The R2 also passes both terminuses of the R8, though it doesn't go into Orpington Bus Station.
|
|