18ARustee
Conductor
Security Supervisor
Posts: 78 
|
Post by 18ARustee on May 19, 2024 15:16:23 GMT
You are basing that on your assumptions! Just because the option is somewhat limited, that doesn't make it less valid. If you recall TfL wanted to pedestrianise parts of Oxford Street, which Westminster council rejected. The curtailing of routes was to gradually phase that in. Now that it's not going to happen, best to look at other options
|
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on May 19, 2024 15:59:24 GMT
You are basing that on your assumptions! Just because the option is somewhat limited, that doesn't make it less valid. If you recall TfL wanted to pedestrianise parts of Oxford Street, which Westminster council rejected. The curtailing of routes was to gradually phase that in. Now that it's not going to happen, best to look at other options I assume you are replying to my post, it’s hard to tell when you don’t quote. It was one of Khan’s 2016 election pledges to pedestrianise Oxford Street but that original plan was scrapped. A revised plan is going ahead as far as I am aware. www.westminster.gov.uk/news/oxford-street-plans-given-go-ahead-two-third-residents-visitors-and-businessesWhat you have to appreciate is it’s generally much quicker to walk and the Elizabeth line has been a game changer and changed how people travel to this part of London. The hopper fare exists for those who want to use buses and I still don’t buy the argument some people can’t change buses. If I can’t even catch a single bus locally to Stratford then why should buses spend ages crawling along Oxford Street. |
|
18ARustee
Conductor
Security Supervisor
Posts: 78
|
Post by 18ARustee on May 19, 2024 19:04:48 GMT
I do appreciate TfL wanting to reduce routes going through Oxford Street. However, not everyone is able to hop on hop off. I think either of the following would/could prove beneficial. Route 8 - extended to Marble Arch. Providing a through route along the Oxford Street corridor. Route 94 - rerouted via Oxford Circus to Holborn. The 98 already being overcrowded at times, could use the help from either. Not suggesting both routes to be altered, but one of them. Not being able to hop on and off is a really weak argument for extending routes and could apply along lots of corridors! No one would really travel end to end along the Oxford Street corridor. You have to consider how much extra time this would add to routes and the increased cost of extra buses that would be needed for the new PVR. You seem to want to undo changes to the network and this is unlikely to happen. Well I do disagree with your statement, and I said earlier my reasons. Each to their own. |
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on May 19, 2024 19:05:26 GMT
I think I've said this before but extend the 50 to Victoria or at least Vauxhall since it would give croydon and streatham some new connections and would give croydon a connection to central london As others said, it would be too long to Victoria. Vauxhall is mainly an interchange area and will highly likely not appeal to Croydon residents who have multiple trains into Central London and Streatham residents who have multiple train stations that run into Central London as well as interchange with the Victoria Line in Brixton. I agree with Victoria being too long, and it already being served by places that are on the 50 route with it being much quicker through the train (Croydon, Thornton Heath, Norbury, Streatham, Streatham Hill, even in Clapham (Changing at Vauxhall through the Northern line at South, Common, North or changing at CLJ through Clapham High Street). Vauxhall on the other hand is doable, as it is not that far from the current terminus Stockwell, and has less direct links on the current 50 LOR, only from Clapham Common when it overlaps with the 88. Even though Vauxhall is mainly an interchange area especially for those changing from SWR Metro services/or local buses around Nine Elms (Wandsworh Road)/Battersea/Kennington for the Victoria line mainly. With these links pretty much already there for Croydon residents either through changing at CLJ or Victoria. However, I disagree as it's not just for those wanting to go into Central London. The 360/452 gives onward connections more into West London as well which can be awkward/slow to do from Croydon through changing at Victoria for the District/Circle line. I also see with the plans of Vauxhall maybe slowly changing one day too, with the council plans to make it have a "High Street", as well as the constant new apartment buildings in that area, (They probably will want to go into Central London but more people will require more links to somewhere) also the one or two local attractions nearby there as well. However one thing I will agree is I don't see there being much end to end usage between Vauxhall to Croydon, unlike Brixton to Croydon for comparison which is nearby, the alternative for this requires you going through Victoria in Zone 1, and then coming back on yourself to reach Brixton. Whilst Vauxhall to Croydon is pretty straight forward just a switch at CLJ and with both journeys having fast trains. Apart from passengers wanting a direct journey which I can see for those living on the line of route, those wanting a cheaper journey, and bus enthusiasts. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on May 19, 2024 20:08:54 GMT
Ironically both sections have simila tube journeys, Northern and Victoria on the south and Victoria and Northern on the North section. I think for that reason it doesn't necessarily carry people very far. Despite its length its arguably more a route for local travel. Yes perfect haha! The 88 is the closest route by yard to me and I don’t use it as a long distance route primarily because the Tube is there. Having live on the northern end, it is busy as of my observation and I always thought thats because Parliament Hill is not connected by the Tube other than the Overground at Gospel Oak coming from the south east. And then the issues at Kentish Town Station. I agree that the southern end is definitely quieter. Could operate with single deckers if they really wanted to -- but I'm not complaining about the extra capacity! |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on May 19, 2024 20:15:40 GMT
You are basing that on your assumptions! Just because the option is somewhat limited, that doesn't make it less valid. If you recall TfL wanted to pedestrianise parts of Oxford Street, which Westminster council rejected. The curtailing of routes was to gradually phase that in. Now that it's not going to happen, best to look at other options The Tory-run Westminster Council at the time supported those plans! They were pretty much jointly in charge of it alongside TfL. They then pulled their support at the eleventh hour. Then did nothing barring the Marble Arch Mound and the new Labour administration has watered it back to wider pavements (though very much welcome). Same story at the end of the day, the businesses and shoppers who are pretty much unanimous in support for pedestrianisation aren't the ones who can vote for the council, and it's the residents who don't want traffic to be diverted into Mayfair and Fitzrovia. The current scheme being implemented actually does have some bus priority measures with more of Oxford Street becoming bus (and taxi) only during daytime hours. That's very much welcome, but to be quite honest, the main reason behind why it takes an eternity on the 390 to go east to west for example is the traffic lights.
|
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on May 19, 2024 20:26:20 GMT
No this isn’t really needed. If someone wanted to travel by via bus from Croydon to Victoria, it’s not too hard to take either the 468 or SL6 to West Norwood then get on an empty 2 at West Norwood. The 50 is long enough as it is. Whereas Norbury probably would suit a link further into town but as all its routes begin in Croydon it's not possible. With this I agree, and especially would be nice to have an extra route between Norbury and Croydon, as the 109 is very busy in this section. Always thought either an extension of the 64 to Streatham or diversion of the 60 through London Road, will fill this gap, allow onward connects south of Croydon Town Centre, whilst giving extra capacity on that section. However both routes are already long and busy as they are at the moment and will either need stand space (64), or cover in another route being diverted/extended (60) respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on May 19, 2024 20:44:33 GMT
I have wondered why Victoria Embankment only has the N551 as a bus route. I did think the 388 would have been rerouted from Blackfriars to serve there, and then either terminate at Westminster or Victoria Coach Station? From my understanding there's not really much of a bus demand on that section. As it's essentially just a big dual carriageway which is used as a bypass for cars wanting to avoid roads like the Strand and Whitehall in particular which are very busy. With the District/Circle line and Riverboats providing the direct transport links to that part of London, and if you really want to get a bus Strand and Whitehall are not a far walk at all. Westminster is a walk away and the District/Circle line also serves Victoria for the coach station as well, so won't be needed and stand space/demand is another question you'll have to think about. The 388 used to serve Embankment, funny enough but that was more of a happy coincidence, as when the route was terminating at Blackfriars there was roadworks linked with Blackfriars station/Thameslink at the time around 2008, which lead to a diversion for it to turn around and this went down Embankment but originally it was doing this as a dead run, but this instead got livened up and was actually popular from my understanding. But this was only temporary and once the roadworks at Blackfriars were done the route was withdrawn back to Blackfriars in 2012. Shortly after it got extended from Hackney Wick to Stratford City and since then there's been a constant change in it's southern terminus. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on May 20, 2024 7:27:18 GMT
I have wondered why Victoria Embankment only has the N551 as a bus route. I did think the 388 would have been rerouted from Blackfriars to serve there, and then either terminate at Westminster or Victoria Coach Station? From my understanding there's not really much of a bus demand on that section. As it's essentially just a big dual carriageway which is used as a bypass for cars wanting to avoid roads like the Strand and Whitehall in particular which are very busy. With the District/Circle line and Riverboats providing the direct transport links to that part of London, and if you really want to get a bus Strand and Whitehall are not a far walk at all. Westminster is a walk away and the District/Circle line also serves Victoria for the coach station as well, so won't be needed and stand space/demand is another question you'll have to think about. The 388 used to serve Embankment, funny enough but that was more of a happy coincidence, as when the route was terminating at Blackfriars there was roadworks linked with Blackfriars station/Thameslink at the time around 2008, which lead to a diversion for it to turn around and this went down Embankment but originally it was doing this as a dead run, but this instead got livened up and was actually popular from my understanding. But this was only temporary and once the roadworks at Blackfriars were done the route was withdrawn back to Blackfriars in 2012. Shortly after it got extended from Hackney Wick to Stratford City and since then there's been a constant change in it's southern terminus. The 388 was extended to Embankment because of the closure of Blackfriars Underground during the rebuilding work. Initially to Temple, but the buses continued to Embankment to stand and turn which led to the suggestion (I believe this came from CT Plus themselves) that buses operate to and from Embankment Station in service. You mention that it is basically a dual-carriage bypass, I wonder if there is scope for a cross-centre fast bus route along the corridor, or is that just a waste of resources when there is the District Line? |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on May 20, 2024 17:39:24 GMT
From my understanding there's not really much of a bus demand on that section. As it's essentially just a big dual carriageway which is used as a bypass for cars wanting to avoid roads like the Strand and Whitehall in particular which are very busy. With the District/Circle line and Riverboats providing the direct transport links to that part of London, and if you really want to get a bus Strand and Whitehall are not a far walk at all. Westminster is a walk away and the District/Circle line also serves Victoria for the coach station as well, so won't be needed and stand space/demand is another question you'll have to think about. The 388 used to serve Embankment, funny enough but that was more of a happy coincidence, as when the route was terminating at Blackfriars there was roadworks linked with Blackfriars station/Thameslink at the time around 2008, which lead to a diversion for it to turn around and this went down Embankment but originally it was doing this as a dead run, but this instead got livened up and was actually popular from my understanding. But this was only temporary and once the roadworks at Blackfriars were done the route was withdrawn back to Blackfriars in 2012. Shortly after it got extended from Hackney Wick to Stratford City and since then there's been a constant change in it's southern terminus. The 388 was extended to Embankment because of the closure of Blackfriars Underground during the rebuilding work. Initially to Temple, but the buses continued to Embankment to stand and turn which led to the suggestion (I believe this came from CT Plus themselves) that buses operate to and from Embankment Station in service. You mention that it is basically a dual-carriage bypass, I wonder if there is scope for a cross-centre fast bus route along the corridor, or is that just a waste of resources when there is the District Line? CS3 showed up after the 388 left. It's still a fast east west route for sure, but the 2x1 lane layout now handicaps it slightly. There's not enough demand on it in itself for it to be attractive to walk down to the Embankment at say Wesminster to go to Cannon Street (at Upper Thames Street) but why not for a longer distance express route out east? The main issue is that traffic to get on/off the Embankment out in the west, Horse Guards Avenue/Northumberland Avenue and the end of the Embankment itself can get quite congested. Horse Guards Avenue usually being the best bet for less traffic. |
|
ZiyQ
Conductor
I always end up saying too much - beware of the waffle posts taking up an entire thread’s page…
Posts: 113
|
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 YX18KVJ (DLE30221) on May 28, 2024 20:25:15 GMT
D6:Extended from Ash Grove to Newington Green via route 236 up to Dalston Lane,then via Dalston Junction and Balls Pond Road,then turning off onto Mildmay Park,then route 141 to Newington Green using the old 21 bus stand.Converted permanently to DD operation using the 242 electrics and E40H city's.PVR increased to 17
236: Rerouted after Broadway Market via Lansdowne Drive and Richmond Road.The route would no longer serve Pownall Road and Trederwen Road,the D6 will serve these roads instead
104:Extended from Stratford to Stratford City Bus Station via Stratford High Street,Warton Road (the N205 only section),and Montfitchet Road
238: Extended to Mile End via the 25/425
242/N242:Withdrawn
308: Withdrawn between Homerton Hospital and Clapton Pond, rerouted via route 242 to Dalston Junction,the PVR increased to 19 and converted to 24h service.
425: Rerouted between Homerton Hospital and Kenninghall road via Chatsworth Road instead of Urswick Road
149 (2 options): Withdrawn between Shoreditch and London Bridge and rerouted to Aldgate via Commercial Street
OR
Rerouted between Shoreditch and Bank Station via Aldgate and Fenchurch Street.24h service renumbered N149 retaining it's current routing
The (N)308 and N149 will act as the N242 replacement,but from Liverpool Street onwards, passengers must use the N8 between TCR and Liverpool Street
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 28, 2024 21:59:43 GMT
D6:Extended from Ash Grove to Newington Green via route 236 up to Dalston Lane,then via Dalston Junction and Balls Pond Road,then turning off onto Mildmay Park,then route 141 to Newington Green using the old 21 bus stand.Converted permanently to DD operation using the 242 electrics and E40H city's.PVR increased to 17 236: Rerouted after Broadway Market via Lansdowne Drive and Richmond Road.The route would no longer serve Pownall Road and Trederwen Road,the D6 will serve these roads instead 242/N242:Withdrawn 308: Withdrawn between Homerton Hospital and Clapton Pond, rerouted via route 242 to Dalston Junction,the PVR increased to 19 and converted to 24h service. 425: Rerouted between Homerton Hospital and Kenninghall road via Chatsworth Road instead of Urswick Road 149 (2 options): Withdrawn between Shoreditch and London Bridge and rerouted to Aldgate via Commercial Street OR Rerouted between Shoreditch and Bank Station via Aldgate and Fenchurch Street.24h service renumbered N149 retaining it's current routing The (N)308 and N149 will act as the N242 replacement,but from Liverpool Street onwards, passengers must use the N8 between TCR and Liverpool Street Could you give some reasons as to why your suggesting these changes so it helps everyone to understand the reasoning behind them? |
|
|
|
Post by YX18KVJ (DLE30221) on May 28, 2024 22:07:44 GMT
D6:Extended from Ash Grove to Newington Green via route 236 up to Dalston Lane,then via Dalston Junction and Balls Pond Road,then turning off onto Mildmay Park,then route 141 to Newington Green using the old 21 bus stand.Converted permanently to DD operation using the 242 electrics and E40H city's.PVR increased to 17 236: Rerouted after Broadway Market via Lansdowne Drive and Richmond Road.The route would no longer serve Pownall Road and Trederwen Road,the D6 will serve these roads instead 242/N242:Withdrawn 308: Withdrawn between Homerton Hospital and Clapton Pond, rerouted via route 242 to Dalston Junction,the PVR increased to 19 and converted to 24h service. 425: Rerouted between Homerton Hospital and Kenninghall road via Chatsworth Road instead of Urswick Road 149 (2 options): Withdrawn between Shoreditch and London Bridge and rerouted to Aldgate via Commercial Street OR Rerouted between Shoreditch and Bank Station via Aldgate and Fenchurch Street.24h service renumbered N149 retaining it's current routing The (N)308 and N149 will act as the N242 replacement,but from Liverpool Street onwards, passengers must use the N8 between TCR and Liverpool Street Could you give some reasons as to why your suggesting these changes so it helps everyone to understand the reasoning behind them? 149/242/308/425:The 242 is pretty convoluted around Homerton and it stop short of Liverpool Street since it's cutback.The backstreets of Homerton, Chatsworth Road,and Commercial Street can all gain a more frequent bus service than the current 242.Though for the 149, I'm unsure as it is one of the busiest routes in London,so maybe the 78 or 135 can be rerouted instead D6:I feel the route can be even more popular with an extension,and Newington Green is the perfect spot for it to go.It would provide a quicker journey time than the 236 would,and in it's current form it is a bit short (but useful) |
|
. 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?