|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Feb 9, 2023 16:35:48 GMT
A Chingford Mount to Ponders End link can be useful, though I think the only routes that can perform this link is either extending the 377 or the W16 or diverting the 357. Diverting the 215 will break journey's for the Yardley estate users. The main support of the 313 from my experiences is needed from Chingford station itself, buses are often left being well filled during the peaks. I do find it inadequate for a 20 minute service to provide a inter town centre link. It wasn't until recently the 313 converted to double deck LT operation. Wonder if this could work: Withdraw the 349 between Stamford Hill and Tottenham Town Hall, then reroute to Walthamstow via the 230 or possibly 123 to Bell Corner and the 34 to Walthamstow. The northern end would either be extended to Enfield Town or Chingford station, the former giving Enfield and Edmonton a link to Walthamstow, whilst the latter gives Edmonton a link to Chingford and supports the 313. Alternatively the W6 could be extended to Chingford as it has been suggested before. I wouldn't extend the 377 because of its low frequency and no Sunday service. Extending the W16 isn't bad although I doubt there would be demand from Leytonstone to Ponders End/Enfield. Besides the W16 doesn't serve Walthamstow town centre so might not be the best route to extend. Diverting the 357 could work, I'd probably use one of two options: 1. Withdraw between Crooked Billet and Chingford Hatch, extend via 34 and 102 to Edmonton Green; Extend the 158 to Chingford Hatch 2. Withdraw between Chingford Mount and Chingford Hatch, extend via 215 and 313 to Enfield; Extend the 158 to Chingford Hatch As others have said, diverting the W8 via the 34's route to Walthamstow seems a much more simplified way of creating a direct Enfield Town and Edmonton Green link from Walthamstow. Having a route from via Tottenham will be indirect and unlikely to generate a benefit of a direct service. The only support I think the 313 really needs needs is a peak frequency increase to at least 15 minutes, creating a more turn up and go service whilst providing additional capacity at the same time from Chingford station. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 26, 2024 11:40:57 GMT
Is there a way to actually have the 34 run to St James Street in service as opposed to having it dead run there. The 34 is already quite long & runs through traffic on the N-Circular quite a lot. I think extending something like the 215 or 257 to clear stand space is more realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Mar 26, 2024 11:43:59 GMT
Is there a way to actually have the 34 run to St James Street in service as opposed to having it dead run there. The 34 is already quite long & runs through traffic on the N-Circular quite a lot. I think extending something like the 215 or 257 to clear stand space is more realistic. That I know. One of the reasons I didn't go with the 215 is because it doesn't run as frequent as compared to the other routes in the area |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 26, 2024 11:44:05 GMT
Is there a way to actually have the 34 run to St James Street in service as opposed to having it dead run there. The 34 is already quite long & runs through traffic on the N-Circular quite a lot. I think extending something like the 215 or 257 to clear stand space is more realistic. Running the 34 through to St James Street in service would have a somewhat minimal impact on reliability and running times I suspect. The additional dwell times wouldn't likely exceed 1-2 minutes. Sounds a good idea to me, as does 'livening up' the SL2 which I believe stands in that vicinity. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Mar 26, 2024 12:25:56 GMT
The 34 is already quite long & runs through traffic on the N-Circular quite a lot. I think extending something like the 215 or 257 to clear stand space is more realistic. Running the 34 through to St James Street in service would have a somewhat minimal impact on reliability and running times I suspect. The additional dwell times wouldn't likely exceed 1-2 minutes. Sounds a good idea to me, as does 'livening up' the SL2 which I believe stands in that vicinity. If it only took 1-2 mins extra running time I wouldn’t have any problem with it, however I have noticed a couple times there being traffic on the approach to the bus station from St James St. Regardless of which route is extended to St James St, I wonder if it is worth diverting the 275 to Leyton where it can simply stand in the bus garage, this frees up stand space at St James St. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on May 18, 2024 9:59:02 GMT
My Barnet to Chingford and Chingford to Stratford Superloop 2 Routes Proposal
This is part 3 of my series on what can improve the current Superloop network—this time jumping to the proposed routes between Barnet and Chingford and Chingford to Stratford
The idea of having a Superloop service between Chingford and Stratford via Walthamstow and Leyton sounds like a good idea on paper. It has however been criticised for its viability mainly on the grounds of a lack of overtaking facilities on the A112, and questionable stand space at Chingford station. This is if both routes from Barnet and Stratford terminate there. Other notes are from where resources are being invested rather than improving wider connectivity between local areas as well as bus priority measures and capacity.
Part 1: Restructure the proposed Harrow to Barnet Superloop 2 route to operate from Enfield Retail Park instead
The currently proposed Harrow to Barnet Superloop 2 route could operate from Enfield Retail Park instead. This involves extending the route to Enfield Retail Park via the proposed Barnet to Chingford route through Oakwood station, Enfield Town before terminating at Enfield Retail Park.
Enfield Retail Park was chosen rather than Enfield Town due to the limited standing space at Enfield Town. In particular, turning back buses coming from the west. There are many potential benefits of this restructuring including, supporting new housing developments taking place at Enfield Retail Park with up to 1,000 new homes expected, new wider connectivity to town centres of Edgware and Harrow directly from Enfield Town. These links aren’t currently provided.
For the Chingford to Enfield Retail Park section. The proposals will be in part 2 below.
Part 2: Extension of Route 215 to Stratford City, Restructuring of Route 357 to operate between Ponders End and Stratford City and Route 97’s frequency reduction
Rather than having a corridor invested by implementing a Superloop service, an investment into local stopping services could be a much better use of resources whilst delivering capacity and service quality. Under this, an extension of the 215 route from Walthamstow to Stratford City could enable more buses on the corridor between Walthamstow and Stratford City. Its 20-minute service will enable joint coordinated 5-minute intervals alongside the restructuring of the 357 route (details below) and the 97 routes' reduction in frequency to every 10 minutes. Whilst a frequency reduction on the 97 may be one of the drawbacks, there is a significant upgrade on the Chingford Hatch to Stratford City corridor from 7.5bph to 12bph overall.
The 357 route that currently operates between Chingford Hatch and Whipps Cross has once more been criticised for its use of resources with mainly low usage as well as paralleling other routes that are much better utilised of resources when used in service.
Rather than having it withdrawn entirely, the route could be restructured to operate from Ponders End to Stratford City whilst delivering benefits at the same time. The new service will operate at a new 20-minute service whilst continuing to operate every 30 minutes on Sundays and evenings. The reduced frequency is to enable coordination of even 5-minute intervals between Chingford Hatch and Stratford as explained above. With this restructuring, local benefits also include directly connecting Ponders End and Chingford Mount for the first time whilst coordinating a larger service corridor.
Stand space at Enfield bus garage could be utilised for turning back 357 services or Enfield Retail Park. This is only dependent on the tender outcome of the route.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 18, 2024 10:11:36 GMT
My Barnet to Chingford and Chingford to Stratford Superloop 2 Routes ProposalPart 2: Extension of Route 215 to Stratford City, Restructuring of Route 357 to operate between Ponders End and Stratford City and Route 97’s frequency reduction
Rather than having a corridor invested by implementing a Superloop service, an investment into local stopping services could be a much better use of resources whilst delivering capacity and service quality. Under this, an extension of the 215 route from Walthamstow to Stratford City could enable more buses on the corridor between Walthamstow and Stratford City. Its 20-minute service will enable joint coordinated 5-minute intervals alongside the restructuring of the 357 route (details below) and the 97 routes' reduction in frequency to every 10 minutes. Whilst a frequency reduction on the 97 may be one of the drawbacks, there is a significant upgrade on the Chingford Hatch to Stratford City corridor from 7.5bph to 12bph overall. The 357 route that currently operates between Chingford Hatch and Whipps Cross has once more been criticised for its use of resources with mainly low usage as well as paralleling other routes that are much better utilised of resources when used in service. Rather than having it withdrawn entirely, the route could be restructured to operate from Ponders End to Stratford City whilst delivering benefits at the same time. The new service will operate at a new 20-minute service whilst continuing to operate every 30 minutes on Sundays and evenings. The reduced frequency is to enable coordination of even 5-minute intervals between Chingford Hatch and Stratford as explained above. With this restructuring, local benefits also include directly connecting Ponders End and Chingford Mount for the first time whilst coordinating a larger service corridor. Stand space at Enfield bus garage could be utilised for turning back 357 services or Enfield Retail Park. This is only dependent on the tender outcome of the route. I'll only comment on the Stratford to Chingford proposals. However I agree with you in the fact that this corridor is a perfect example of what does not need an express service. While the flow between Walthamstow and Stratford is huge, it's not one where people can express their way down as there's stable demand at nearly all stops throughout. It's very similar to why the EL1 and 169 continue to carry healthy loads between Barking and Ilford and also why an express route along the 5 between Barking and Becontree Heath is unlikely to work as all stops are of importance. The only qualm I may have with this 357 is that at every 20 minutes it will probably prove to become a quite unreliable route running between Ponders End all the way to Stratford. The 215 at every 20 minutes will also be a low frequency route that becomes susceptible to unreliability. The way Low frequency routes are controlled which is to time and not to headway will probably mean that any flare ups result in buses going completely missing as late running buses will be more susceptible to vigorous controlling to get them back on time, while high frequency routes can often have their times adjusted as long as headway and EWT levels are met. I think that in the end while I do think these new links would be good I'd just probably extend the 215 or 357 on their own down to Stratford at 10 minute intervals rather than both of them at 20 minute intervals with the other route in the equation being left as it is. I'd probably lean towards the 215 ever so slightly as I think it's a lot less susceptible to traffic heading to the campsite but either route would be a good option to extend. |
|
ZiyQ
Conductor
I always end up saying too much - beware of the waffle posts taking up an entire thread’s page…
Posts: 118
Member is Online
|
Post by ZiyQ on May 20, 2024 19:22:53 GMT
ZiyQ Thanks for the feedback. I must say, it's graceful having another North London companion knowledgeable on routes and services. We are quite quiet up here 😉. What I could've mentioned was using the current Enfield Retail Park stands often used by curtailing services. Not to mention of course not dumping people on the A10, rather terminating at at Baird Road Stop Q before starting it's journey westbound by picking up at GCR Stop J. Interchanges to other services are at available for A10 services northbound to Turkey Street or Waltham Cross by a 217 or the 317. The whole choice of terminating the route there was mainly on grounds of a lack of standing space in Enfield Town for westbound services, unless a new stand is installed, there is isn't much of a choice to continue. I do agree with your other point regarding the 313 being the only route on the A110 as well as running often at capacity during the peaks. However I think there's a slight hesitation on stand space at Chingford station. For only one stand a service can run up to 15 minutes at most without requiring more. If TfL are proposing this Barnet to Chingford service, I'm curious to see as how the layout will process being it will likely run every 12 minutes looking at other services. The 357 was one of the options, though it can certainly continue to serve Chingford Hatch whilst extending to Stratford if any upgrades are needed along the corridor and addressing reliability. You could also extend the 377 to somewhere south of Chingford requiring a much limited amount of resources if any such link from Ponders End are established. Once more, even this idea has its own drawbacks on its low half hourly frequency and considerable risk of traffic proness. Time for another nice long reply. It's nice to know that there's other people out there, not just me as the sole bus enthusiast in all of North London  . Although Enfield Retail Park might be the best option for the route to terminate at - if Ponders End had suitable stand space that was not the bus garage, it would have been better for the extended route to go there. However, Enfield Retail Park does not offer much in the way of useful connections - almost all of what the 217 provides is already provided by the 217 and 317, whereas Ponders End has the more useful 279, 349 and 491, which offer a lot better links North and South. Perhaps my argument was slightly biased in my experiences of walking down Baird Road and the A10 to the retail park after sunset, although that's just personal opinion that I just find the area quite bleak and not very useful to end such an important express route - though Ponders End isn't much better either  . Possibly, a new stand could be created near the current Ponders End Park bus stop, where there could be just enough room to squeeze in a few bus stands for the Superloop route, though I'm not sure of how realistic that is. I had thought one bus stand could only accommodate a service of up to 20 minutes (such as the 313), so getting 4 or so new bus stands in at Chingford seems quite impossible for 2 Superloop routes. The 377 might be an okay option to extend, but the 357 would be a lot better down that corridor with its higher frequency (plus the 377 might be getting an extension to Brimsdown via Nags Head Road and Mollison Avenue soon). Though I think timings would be quite important on all the proposed routes, and bunching of the 357, 313, 97 and 215 prevented to provide an even frequency on all corridors, which would be quite a nightmare for controllers. Am I correct in assuming that the 357 would be extended via the 257 route? |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on May 20, 2024 22:13:27 GMT
ZiyQ Thanks for the feedback. I must say, it's graceful having another North London companion knowledgeable on routes and services. We are quite quiet up here 😉. What I could've mentioned was using the current Enfield Retail Park stands often used by curtailing services. Not to mention of course not dumping people on the A10, rather terminating at at Baird Road Stop Q before starting it's journey westbound by picking up at GCR Stop J. Interchanges to other services are at available for A10 services northbound to Turkey Street or Waltham Cross by a 217 or the 317. The whole choice of terminating the route there was mainly on grounds of a lack of standing space in Enfield Town for westbound services, unless a new stand is installed, there is isn't much of a choice to continue. I do agree with your other point regarding the 313 being the only route on the A110 as well as running often at capacity during the peaks. However I think there's a slight hesitation on stand space at Chingford station. For only one stand a service can run up to 15 minutes at most without requiring more. If TfL are proposing this Barnet to Chingford service, I'm curious to see as how the layout will process being it will likely run every 12 minutes looking at other services. The 357 was one of the options, though it can certainly continue to serve Chingford Hatch whilst extending to Stratford if any upgrades are needed along the corridor and addressing reliability. You could also extend the 377 to somewhere south of Chingford requiring a much limited amount of resources if any such link from Ponders End are established. Once more, even this idea has its own drawbacks on its low half hourly frequency and considerable risk of traffic proness. Time for another nice long reply. It's nice to know that there's other people out there, not just me as the sole bus enthusiast in all of North London . Although Enfield Retail Park might be the best option for the route to terminate at - if Ponders End had suitable stand space that was not the bus garage, it would have been better for the extended route to go there. However, Enfield Retail Park does not offer much in the way of useful connections - almost all of what the 217 provides is already provided by the 217 and 317, whereas Ponders End has the more useful 279, 349 and 491, which offer a lot better links North and South. Perhaps my argument was slightly biased in my experiences of walking down Baird Road and the A10 to the retail park after sunset, although that's just personal opinion that I just find the area quite bleak and not very useful to end such an important express route - though Ponders End isn't much better either . Possibly, a new stand could be created near the current Ponders End Park bus stop, where there could be just enough room to squeeze in a few bus stands for the Superloop route, though I'm not sure of how realistic that is. I had thought one bus stand could only accommodate a service of up to 20 minutes (such as the 313), so getting 4 or so new bus stands in at Chingford seems quite impossible for 2 Superloop routes. The 377 might be an okay option to extend, but the 357 would be a lot better down that corridor with its higher frequency (plus the 377 might be getting an extension to Brimsdown via Nags Head Road and Mollison Avenue soon). Though I think timings would be quite important on all the proposed routes, and bunching of the 357, 313, 97 and 215 prevented to provide an even frequency on all corridors, which would be quite a nightmare for controllers. Am I correct in assuming that the 357 would be extended via the 257 route? I believe there was a slight confusion when mentioning 'extending via the 257'. Rather extending the 257 northwards the OP mentioned. Once again didn't describe it's routing, just curtailing the 357 to Chingford Hatch before continuing to Ponders End via the line of routings of routes 215 and 313. It's really of my opinion TfL should revisit the idea of coordinating services as branches or short workings to provide an even frequency on a strategic corridor where demands the highest whilst maintaining links at the same time. It's a shame as the 406/418 is as far as I know are the only services that are coordinated to provide an even frequency along the corridor whilst having there own unique routings as the same time where demands matched. There are many routes having sections that doesn't need such a high frequency resulting in buses with fresh air where I'd argue those resources can be invested most needed. Though in the end, this is TfL who argues it's on the lines of 'simplifying' user experiences despite large costs involved. Neither at least makes some efforts to coordinate existing services running parallel on trunk routes that seem to run in bunches rather evenly spaced I'm sure users would much prefer and can rely simpler: 253/254? 217/231 on Saturdays, Evenings and Sundays? 43/134? 121/307? |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Jul 7, 2024 9:18:42 GMT
Proposed changes to routes 215 & 379:
215: Withdrawn between Lea Valley Road & Lea Valley Campsite, extended to Waltham Cross via the 313 to Ponders End & 279 to Waltham Cross. Enables some useful new links & gives the 279 an additional support route between Ponders End & Waltham Cross.
379: Extended to Lea Valley Campsite via the 215.
The only disadvantage of all of these changes is that part of Sewardstone Road would no longer have a bus service.
|
|
|
|
Post by randomy on Jul 7, 2024 11:22:42 GMT
Proposed changes to routes 215 & 379: 215: Withdrawn between Lea Valley Road & Lea Valley Campsite, extended to Waltham Cross via the 313 to Ponders End & 279 to Waltham Cross. Enables some useful new links & gives the 279 an additional support route between Ponders End & Waltham Cross. 379: Extended to Lea Valley Campsite via the 215. The only disadvantage of all of these changes is that part of Sewardstone Road would no longer have a bus service. I think an extension of the 215 or 379 via Sewardstone and Waltham Abbey would be better as it would give Sewardstone a bus service |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 7, 2024 12:33:55 GMT
Proposed changes to routes 215 & 379: 215: Withdrawn between Lea Valley Road & Lea Valley Campsite, extended to Waltham Cross via the 313 to Ponders End & 279 to Waltham Cross. Enables some useful new links & gives the 279 an additional support route between Ponders End & Waltham Cross. 379: Extended to Lea Valley Campsite via the 215. The only disadvantage of all of these changes is that part of Sewardstone Road would no longer have a bus service. Not local but from an outsider looking in, the 379 is the wrong route to be modifying - it’s purpose is to provide a link from Chingford to the Yardley Lane Estate and whilst this would remain intact, the higher frequency, the removal of the long standing link from Lea Valley Campsite to places south of Chingford and the vast majority of the London section of Sewardstone Road losing any bus link at all makes it a non starter. I’m also unconvinced that the 279 needs extra assistance north of Ponders End - the 121 runs alongside for a decent chunk and I think the busier parts of the 279 coincide with that route and south of Ponders End. randomy suggestion was good but TfL wouldn’t entertain any new extension running beyond the London boundary. |
|
kaya
Cleaner
Posts: 17
|
Post by kaya on Jul 7, 2024 15:27:36 GMT
Proposed changes to routes 215 & 379: 215: Withdrawn between Lea Valley Road & Lea Valley Campsite, extended to Waltham Cross via the 313 to Ponders End & 279 to Waltham Cross. Enables some useful new links & gives the 279 an additional support route between Ponders End & Waltham Cross. 379: Extended to Lea Valley Campsite via the 215. The only disadvantage of all of these changes is that part of Sewardstone Road would no longer have a bus service. What is the point/purpose of extending the 379 to Lea Valley Campsite? The route is fine as it is (serving people through estates) |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 7, 2024 15:59:42 GMT
Proposed changes to routes 215 & 379: 215: Withdrawn between Lea Valley Road & Lea Valley Campsite, extended to Waltham Cross via the 313 to Ponders End & 279 to Waltham Cross. Enables some useful new links & gives the 279 an additional support route between Ponders End & Waltham Cross. 379: Extended to Lea Valley Campsite via the 215. The only disadvantage of all of these changes is that part of Sewardstone Road would no longer have a bus service. Seems good to me, I don't know how many people travel to the campsite from Walthamstow but Chingford is nearer for rail connections. |
|
ZiyQ
Conductor
I always end up saying too much - beware of the waffle posts taking up an entire thread’s page…
Posts: 118
Member is Online
|
Post by ZiyQ on Jul 7, 2024 18:37:44 GMT
Proposed changes to routes 215 & 379: 215: Withdrawn between Lea Valley Road & Lea Valley Campsite, extended to Waltham Cross via the 313 to Ponders End & 279 to Waltham Cross. Enables some useful new links & gives the 279 an additional support route between Ponders End & Waltham Cross. 379: Extended to Lea Valley Campsite via the 215. The only disadvantage of all of these changes is that part of Sewardstone Road would no longer have a bus service. Not local but from an outsider looking in, the 379 is the wrong route to be modifying - it’s purpose is to provide a link from Chingford to the Yardley Lane Estate and whilst this would remain intact, the higher frequency, the removal of the long standing link from Lea Valley Campsite to places south of Chingford and the vast majority of the London section of Sewardstone Road losing any bus link at all makes it a non starter. I’m also unconvinced that the 279 needs extra assistance north of Ponders End - the 121 runs alongside for a decent chunk and I think the busier parts of the 279 coincide with that route and south of Ponders End. randomy suggestion was good but TfL wouldn’t entertain any new extension running beyond the London boundary. The 279 definitely gets a lot busier North of Ponders End, and I think that shorts between Waltham Cross and Ponders End did operate a while ago. However, I wouldn't say it would necessitate an extra bus route at the expense of many people along Sewardstone Road losing a link south of Chingford. I would say that the 313 more so requires extra capacity on the solo section, which is hindered by a lack of stand space at Chingford bus station. A 215 extension to Waltham Cross would provide a lot of new links, however it is a shame that TfL are so unwilling to fund cross-border services due to the current funding structure, with both the county and London being unwilling to fund any route. I would definitely say that the 215 extension via Waltham Abbey would prove quite popular, and would be the best-case scenario. |
|
. Possibly, a new stand could be created near the current Ponders End Park bus stop, where there could be just enough room to squeeze in a few bus stands for the Superloop route, though I'm not sure of how realistic that is. I had thought one bus stand could only accommodate a service of up to 20 minutes (such as the 313), so getting 4 or so new bus stands in at Chingford seems quite impossible for 2 Superloop routes. The 377 might be an okay option to extend, but the 357 would be a lot better down that corridor with its higher frequency (plus the 377 might be getting an extension to Brimsdown via Nags Head Road and Mollison Avenue soon). Though I think timings would be quite important on all the proposed routes, and bunching of the 357, 313, 97 and 215 prevented to provide an even frequency on all corridors, which would be quite a nightmare for controllers. Am I correct in assuming that the 357 would be extended via the 257 route?
