ZiyQ
Conductor
I am new here, but I have a lot to say about London's buses - perhaps too much sometimes...
Posts: 79
|
Post by ZiyQ on Aug 28, 2024 23:50:59 GMT
Want to sound out some thoughts from people local to Enfield and the A10 corridor for a small change: Divert the 231 via Enfield Retail Park in both directions - towards Enfield Chase, the 231 will serve Southbury Road, Baird Road, Crown Road, Great Cambridge Road & back to line of current route at Southbury Road and towards Turnpike Lane, the 231 will serve Great Cambridge Road, Crown Road, Baird Road, Southbury Road & back to line of route at Great Cambridge Road. I find it unusual that unlike the 317, the 231 completely skips the retail park despite the two routes making similar movements at the A10 junction, albeit running in opposite directions away from Enfield. This change would allow 217 passengers at the Crown Road stops which can be busy from my admittedly limited observations to also use the 231 as well as similar for people at these stops to not just rely on the 317 to Enfield. The 231's max running time is currently only 42 minutes end to end and this diversion shouldn't even take it beyond an hour end to end I’ve honestly thought about this too much in the past, so I might have to spill quite a lot of information: - There should ideally be another route through Enfield Retail Park, and the 231 would likely be the cheapest (and most likely) to be rerouted. The 317’s frequency mostly discourages people from Enfield Town from going to the retail park (and the walk down Baird Road isn’t too great either).
- However, one of the 231’s main purposes is to give Enfield Town a fast link to Turnpike Lane and beyond, with the hopper fare. The through route through Southbury Road can get very busy in office and school start and end times - the route seems to gradually fill up Southbound / empty out Northbound throughout the Southbury Road section. I feel that many of these commuters would be inconvenienced by the longer journey times with the diversion. It would be a fine balance between giving Retail Park users higher frequency links and giving most of the other users a ~5 minute extra journey time. There can also be some traffic on the junctions with Great Cambridge Road / Crown Road and the turn to / from Great Cambridge Road and Southbury Road, but that could be fixed with a quick traffic light change.
- I don’t see the Retail Park stops being too busy most of the time, so capacity shouldn’t be a problem. I think the main objective here is to make the Retail Park a more attractive place to go to with the bus, which would therefore drive up its demand as a shopping destination.
- Instead of duplicating existing links (even if the higher frequency of the 231 to Enfield Town would be great), perhaps another route could be extended, which would allow more people to easily get to the Retail Park and would inconvenience no one with extra journey times - my first thoughts would either be:
- The 327, going through local roads around Enfield Wash and then terminating outside a new bus stand outside the Morrisons.
- The 349, terminating at the existing stand on Dearsley Road (which it already sometimes does).
- Both ideas would only require an extra bus or 2, but I have to admit that they both have their flaws.
- Whilst diverting the 231 is a good idea in itself (which I also would like to happen), its effects on existing passengers are just too big to ignore, and an extension of another suitable would be most ideal.
- (On another note, the 617 and 629 school only bus stop on Great Cambridge Road could finally have an actual route stopping on there)
- This post has gotten far too long - I should probably stop soon
|
|
frank
Conductor
Posts: 68
|
Post by frank on Aug 29, 2024 13:15:41 GMT
Want to sound out some thoughts from people local to Enfield and the A10 corridor for a small change: Divert the 231 via Enfield Retail Park in both directions - towards Enfield Chase, the 231 will serve Southbury Road, Baird Road, Crown Road, Great Cambridge Road & back to line of current route at Southbury Road and towards Turnpike Lane, the 231 will serve Great Cambridge Road, Crown Road, Baird Road, Southbury Road & back to line of route at Great Cambridge Road. I find it unusual that unlike the 317, the 231 completely skips the retail park despite the two routes making similar movements at the A10 junction, albeit running in opposite directions away from Enfield. This change would allow 217 passengers at the Crown Road stops which can be busy from my admittedly limited observations to also use the 231 as well as similar for people at these stops to not just rely on the 317 to Enfield. The 231's max running time is currently only 42 minutes end to end and this diversion shouldn't even take it beyond an hour end to end I’ve honestly thought about this too much in the past, so I might have to spill quite a lot of information: - There should ideally be another route through Enfield Retail Park, and the 231 would likely be the cheapest (and most likely) to be rerouted. The 317’s frequency mostly discourages people from Enfield Town from going to the retail park (and the walk down Baird Road isn’t too great either).
- However, one of the 231’s main purposes is to give Enfield Town a fast link to Turnpike Lane and beyond, with the hopper fare. The through route through Southbury Road can get very busy in office and school start and end times - the route seems to gradually fill up Southbound / empty out Northbound throughout the Southbury Road section. I feel that many of these commuters would be inconvenienced by the longer journey times with the diversion. It would be a fine balance between giving Retail Park users higher frequency links and giving most of the other users a ~5 minute extra journey time. There can also be some traffic on the junctions with Great Cambridge Road / Crown Road and the turn to / from Great Cambridge Road and Southbury Road, but that could be fixed with a quick traffic light change.
- I don’t see the Retail Park stops being too busy most of the time, so capacity shouldn’t be a problem. I think the main objective here is to make the Retail Park a more attractive place to go to with the bus, which would therefore drive up its demand as a shopping destination.
- Instead of duplicating existing links (even if the higher frequency of the 231 to Enfield Town would be great), perhaps another route could be extended, which would allow more people to easily get to the Retail Park and would inconvenience no one with extra journey times - my first thoughts would either be:
- The 327, going through local roads around Enfield Wash and then terminating outside a new bus stand outside the Morrisons.
- The 349, terminating at the existing stand on Dearsley Road (which it already sometimes does).
- Both ideas would only require an extra bus or 2, but I have to admit that they both have their flaws.
- Whilst diverting the 231 is a good idea in itself (which I also would like to happen), its effects on existing passengers are just too big to ignore, and an extension of another suitable would be most ideal.
- (On another note, the 617 and 629 school only bus stop on Great Cambridge Road could finally have an actual route stopping on there)
- This post has gotten far too long - I should probably stop soon
I think your response ziyq is informative, insightful and well considered. Thanks. I personally would leave the 231 for the reasons you stated. The 327, I've always wondered if the route be given an additional task. The retail park extension you propose could is an intersting idea. I had a different thought: Increase to every 30 mins and add a Sunday afternoon service. Remove the loop and run the service as: Waltham Cross, Bullsmoor Ln, Elsinge Rd, Turkey St, Hertford Rd, Caterhatch Ln, Baker St, Lancaster Rd, Lavender Hill, Chase Farm Hospital. This would provide a direct link to Chase Farm Hospital from the Waltham Cross, Turkey St, Enfield Highway and Caterhatch areas (or generally anything NE of the Hospital). As well as add a bit more connectivity to the south for the Turkey St area.
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Aug 29, 2024 13:40:48 GMT
I’ve honestly thought about this too much in the past, so I might have to spill quite a lot of information: - There should ideally be another route through Enfield Retail Park, and the 231 would likely be the cheapest (and most likely) to be rerouted. The 317’s frequency mostly discourages people from Enfield Town from going to the retail park (and the walk down Baird Road isn’t too great either).
- However, one of the 231’s main purposes is to give Enfield Town a fast link to Turnpike Lane and beyond, with the hopper fare. The through route through Southbury Road can get very busy in office and school start and end times - the route seems to gradually fill up Southbound / empty out Northbound throughout the Southbury Road section. I feel that many of these commuters would be inconvenienced by the longer journey times with the diversion. It would be a fine balance between giving Retail Park users higher frequency links and giving most of the other users a ~5 minute extra journey time. There can also be some traffic on the junctions with Great Cambridge Road / Crown Road and the turn to / from Great Cambridge Road and Southbury Road, but that could be fixed with a quick traffic light change.
- I don’t see the Retail Park stops being too busy most of the time, so capacity shouldn’t be a problem. I think the main objective here is to make the Retail Park a more attractive place to go to with the bus, which would therefore drive up its demand as a shopping destination.
- Instead of duplicating existing links (even if the higher frequency of the 231 to Enfield Town would be great), perhaps another route could be extended, which would allow more people to easily get to the Retail Park and would inconvenience no one with extra journey times - my first thoughts would either be:
- The 327, going through local roads around Enfield Wash and then terminating outside a new bus stand outside the Morrisons.
- The 349, terminating at the existing stand on Dearsley Road (which it already sometimes does).
- Both ideas would only require an extra bus or 2, but I have to admit that they both have their flaws.
- Whilst diverting the 231 is a good idea in itself (which I also would like to happen), its effects on existing passengers are just too big to ignore, and an extension of another suitable would be most ideal.
- (On another note, the 617 and 629 school only bus stop on Great Cambridge Road could finally have an actual route stopping on there)
- This post has gotten far too long - I should probably stop soon
I think your response ziyq is informative, insightful and well considered. Thanks. I personally would leave the 231 for the reasons you stated. The 327, I've always wondered if the route be given an additional task. The retail park extension you propose could is an intersting idea. I had a different thought: Increase to every 30 mins and add a Sunday afternoon service. Remove the loop and run the service as: Waltham Cross, Bullsmoor Ln, Elsinge Rd, Turkey St, Hertford Rd, Caterhatch Ln, Baker St, Lancaster Rd, Lavender Hill, Chase Farm Hospital. This would provide a direct link to Chase Farm Hospital from the Waltham Cross, Turkey St, Enfield Highway and Caterhatch areas (or generally anything NE of the Hospital). As well as add a bit more connectivity to the south for the Turkey St area. That’s a good idea for the extension of the 327 because of the new links created that you mentioned in your last paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Aug 29, 2024 14:13:30 GMT
I’ve honestly thought about this too much in the past, so I might have to spill quite a lot of information: - There should ideally be another route through Enfield Retail Park, and the 231 would likely be the cheapest (and most likely) to be rerouted. The 317’s frequency mostly discourages people from Enfield Town from going to the retail park (and the walk down Baird Road isn’t too great either).
- However, one of the 231’s main purposes is to give Enfield Town a fast link to Turnpike Lane and beyond, with the hopper fare. The through route through Southbury Road can get very busy in office and school start and end times - the route seems to gradually fill up Southbound / empty out Northbound throughout the Southbury Road section. I feel that many of these commuters would be inconvenienced by the longer journey times with the diversion. It would be a fine balance between giving Retail Park users higher frequency links and giving most of the other users a ~5 minute extra journey time. There can also be some traffic on the junctions with Great Cambridge Road / Crown Road and the turn to / from Great Cambridge Road and Southbury Road, but that could be fixed with a quick traffic light change.
- I don’t see the Retail Park stops being too busy most of the time, so capacity shouldn’t be a problem. I think the main objective here is to make the Retail Park a more attractive place to go to with the bus, which would therefore drive up its demand as a shopping destination.
- Instead of duplicating existing links (even if the higher frequency of the 231 to Enfield Town would be great), perhaps another route could be extended, which would allow more people to easily get to the Retail Park and would inconvenience no one with extra journey times - my first thoughts would either be:
- The 327, going through local roads around Enfield Wash and then terminating outside a new bus stand outside the Morrisons.
- The 349, terminating at the existing stand on Dearsley Road (which it already sometimes does).
- Both ideas would only require an extra bus or 2, but I have to admit that they both have their flaws.
- Whilst diverting the 231 is a good idea in itself (which I also would like to happen), its effects on existing passengers are just too big to ignore, and an extension of another suitable would be most ideal.
- (On another note, the 617 and 629 school only bus stop on Great Cambridge Road could finally have an actual route stopping on there)
- This post has gotten far too long - I should probably stop soon
I think your response ziyq is informative, insightful and well considered. Thanks. I personally would leave the 231 for the reasons you stated. The 327, I've always wondered if the route be given an additional task. The retail park extension you propose could is an intersting idea. I had a different thought: Increase to every 30 mins and add a Sunday afternoon service. Remove the loop and run the service as: Waltham Cross, Bullsmoor Ln, Elsinge Rd, Turkey St, Hertford Rd, Caterhatch Ln, Baker St, Lancaster Rd, Lavender Hill, Chase Farm Hospital. This would provide a direct link to Chase Farm Hospital from the Waltham Cross, Turkey St, Enfield Highway and Caterhatch areas (or generally anything NE of the Hospital). As well as add a bit more connectivity to the south for the Turkey St area. Much links to Chase Farm Hospital can already be conducted with a hopper fare interchange at Baker Street. A user from Hertford Road or Carterhatch wishing to travel to Chase Farm can change to the W8. Both routes are fairly frequent, so there isn't really such case to implement another service in place. The 327 arguably in addition has been killed by TfL themselves, from the refusal to allocate an additional PVR which would've retained its half-hourly frequency to the temporary timetable to hourly as of recent. It's surprising by me to see the service surviving despite duplicating close distance from other services.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 29, 2024 14:40:36 GMT
I think your response ziyq is informative, insightful and well considered. Thanks. I personally would leave the 231 for the reasons you stated. The 327, I've always wondered if the route be given an additional task. The retail park extension you propose could is an intersting idea. I had a different thought: Increase to every 30 mins and add a Sunday afternoon service. Remove the loop and run the service as: Waltham Cross, Bullsmoor Ln, Elsinge Rd, Turkey St, Hertford Rd, Caterhatch Ln, Baker St, Lancaster Rd, Lavender Hill, Chase Farm Hospital. This would provide a direct link to Chase Farm Hospital from the Waltham Cross, Turkey St, Enfield Highway and Caterhatch areas (or generally anything NE of the Hospital). As well as add a bit more connectivity to the south for the Turkey St area. Much links to Chase Farm Hospital can already be conducted with a hopper fare interchange at Baker Street. A user from Hertford Road or Carterhatch wishing to travel to Chase Farm can change to the W8. Both routes are fairly frequent, so there isn't really such case to implement another service in place. The 327 arguably in addition has been killed by TfL themselves, from the refusal to allocate an additional PVR which would've retained its half-hourly frequency to the temporary timetable to hourly as of recent. It's surprising by me to see the service surviving despite duplicating close distance from other services. Presumably because it's cheap to run and parts of Elsinge Estate and Turkey Street are more than 400m from other services. Every time I'm in Waltham Cross, it still sees some usage so presumably people are using it?
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Aug 29, 2024 19:56:22 GMT
A no from me - if you re-create this link, divert the 3 back to Oxford Circus and use something else to serve Horseferry Road & Victoria. Extending the 432 just duplicates the 3 over too big a section between Morval Road & Lambeth Bridge especially as both routes also meet at Crystal Palace. For me, the 432 should be left alone at the northern end and at the southern end, explore extending it to Elmers End via Birkbeck for a much more direct link between Elmers End & Palace and to connect Palace and places further north to the tram at Birkbeck rather than rely on the 227 at Beckenham Road which is longer distance journey than to Birkbeck I have an eyewateringly complicated, but finely balanced, scheme that involves the 3 and 59 as an extension of my earlier ideas around the 4/17/133 and 344. When it ended up involving the 299, it suggested it may be a little too elaborate! Without going into full details, my preferred option involved a localised version of the 36 from Queens Park to Victoria then onwards via the old 507 to Waterloo, with the C10 being straightened out. The 36 would become Paddington to Lewisham with a 211/436 combination running from Peckham to Fulham Broadway. The 11 would replace the 211 to Hammersmith. I really like that idea! Where did you then plan to send the 3? Also very curious to see how the 299 could ever get involved in this.
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Aug 30, 2024 15:13:06 GMT
New single decker route from Stratford International to Poplar it will run via current 108 route then at way it get the 108 rerouted via the A12 and same time reoute to Stratford Bus station so this would let the 108 a faster route make go double deck when the new Sliver town tunnel opens
|
|
|
Post by rift on Aug 30, 2024 21:17:05 GMT
New single decker route from Stratford International to Poplar it will run via current 108 route then at way it get the 108 rerouted via the A12 and same time reoute to Stratford Bus station so this would let the 108 a faster route make go double deck when the new Sliver town tunnel opens Wouldn’t it be easier to revert the 108/D8 changes, but keeping the same Stratford terminals? Any idea that has the 108 going on the A12 again has my support though.
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Aug 30, 2024 23:06:20 GMT
Since the ambiguity of the 18's contract has sparked discussion on potential cutbacks/pvr changes etc, I propose a few changes to help the 18 run a little more reliably.
18 - Cut back between Sudbury and Willesden Junction, only running between Willesden Junction Station and Euston.
220 - Extended from Willesden Junction to Craven Park to free up space for the 18 to stand at Willesden Junction although, if there is enough stand space at Willesden Junction, this change would not need to happen
182 - Withdrawn between Wembley Triangle and Brent Cross and extended to Kensal Rise via current route 18. This would retain some of the lost connections between Sudbury and Kensal Rise and support the 18 more.
92 - Withdrawn between Wembley Triangle and Brent Park IKEA and extended via current route 182 to Brent Cross. This will make sure Sudbury and Wembley are still connected to Brent Cross with passengers being able to change at these areas for the 182 if they require places beyond Subury e.g. Harrow and Northwick Park
H17 - Extended from Wembley Central to Brent Park IKEA. As the H17 currently does shadow the 92 between Sudbury Hill and Wembley, extending it will retain the connections that would otherwise be lost with a diverted 92.
Let me know what you think of these changes.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Aug 31, 2024 13:11:32 GMT
New single decker route from Stratford International to Poplar it will run via current 108 route then at way it get the 108 rerouted via the A12 and same time reoute to Stratford Bus station so this would let the 108 a faster route make go double deck when the new Sliver town tunnel opens Wouldn’t it be easier to revert the 108/D8 changes, but keeping the same Stratford terminals? Any idea that has the 108 going on the A12 again has my support though. Speaking as someone who's had to use the 108 home for 10+ years after some late nights in south-east London, I can tell you there's little alighting and boarding at night on the Crisp Street section. I am keen for the 108 to revert to the A12 as I believe it was the better routing than what is has currently, both day and night.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 31, 2024 14:50:49 GMT
I believe the 108 and D8 swapped routes so that a double decker route could serve a new? School along the A12.
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Aug 31, 2024 15:10:05 GMT
Since the ambiguity of the 18's contract has sparked discussion on potential cutbacks/pvr changes etc, I propose a few changes to help the 18 run a little more reliably. 18 - Cut back between Sudbury and Willesden Junction, only running between Willesden Junction Station and Euston. 220 - Extended from Willesden Junction to Craven Park to free up space for the 18 to stand at Willesden Junction although, if there is enough stand space at Willesden Junction, this change would not need to happen 182 - Withdrawn between Wembley Triangle and Brent Cross and extended to Kensal Rise via current route 18. This would retain some of the lost connections between Sudbury and Kensal Rise and support the 18 more. 92 - Withdrawn between Wembley Triangle and Brent Park IKEA and extended via current route 182 to Brent Cross. This will make sure Sudbury and Wembley are still connected to Brent Cross with passengers being able to change at these areas for the 182 if they require places beyond Subury e.g. Harrow and Northwick Park H17 - Extended from Wembley Central to Brent Park IKEA. As the H17 currently does shadow the 92 between Sudbury Hill and Wembley, extending it will retain the connections that would otherwise be lost with a diverted 92. Let me know what you think of these changes. I would have left the 18 and 220 as it is but I’m in support of your 92 and 182 changes, although another alternative could be sending the 182 to Ladbroke Grove, Sainsbury's. Moreover, I would have extended the 16 to Sudbury and extended the 440 to St Raphael’s Estate instead of extending the H17 so that the north part of Kilburn High Road and Cricklewood can have a direct link to Wembley Central and to make space for the 232 terminating at Brent Park Superstores. By the 440 extending to St Raphael’s Estate, there will be a direct link between Wembley Stadium Station and St Raphael’s Estate.
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Aug 31, 2024 15:58:42 GMT
I believe the 108 and D8 swapped routes so that a double decker route could serve a new? School along the A12. The 108/D8 swap was for multiple reasons, but not so that Bow School would be served by double deckers.
The double deckers were intended to support growth further south on the Isle of Dogs, and the rerouting better connected the school to its catchment area.
D8 – would be rerouted to serve Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach (replacing route 108) and rerouted to Stratford bus station.
This would create new connections to Bow School, better connecting it to the forecast catchment area west of the school. Diverting the route at Stratford would permit us to convert the route to double deck vehicles, allowing capacity to be maintained along the Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach Road.
Major development is planned in the Isle of Dogs around South Quay and in Canary Wharf. Both are served by the D8. This suggests double deck buses would be more appropriate on the route in future. However, a low bridge along Carpenters Road (Stratford) currently prevents this.
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Aug 31, 2024 19:14:08 GMT
Since the ambiguity of the 18's contract has sparked discussion on potential cutbacks/pvr changes etc, I propose a few changes to help the 18 run a little more reliably. 18 - Cut back between Sudbury and Willesden Junction, only running between Willesden Junction Station and Euston. 220 - Extended from Willesden Junction to Craven Park to free up space for the 18 to stand at Willesden Junction although, if there is enough stand space at Willesden Junction, this change would not need to happen 182 - Withdrawn between Wembley Triangle and Brent Cross and extended to Kensal Rise via current route 18. This would retain some of the lost connections between Sudbury and Kensal Rise and support the 18 more. 92 - Withdrawn between Wembley Triangle and Brent Park IKEA and extended via current route 182 to Brent Cross. This will make sure Sudbury and Wembley are still connected to Brent Cross with passengers being able to change at these areas for the 182 if they require places beyond Subury e.g. Harrow and Northwick Park H17 - Extended from Wembley Central to Brent Park IKEA. As the H17 currently does shadow the 92 between Sudbury Hill and Wembley, extending it will retain the connections that would otherwise be lost with a diverted 92. Let me know what you think of these changes. I would have left the 18 and 220 as it is but I’m in support of your 92 and 182 changes, although another alternative could be sending the 182 to Ladbroke Grove, Sainsbury's. Moreover, I would have extended the 16 to Sudbury and extended the 440 to St Raphael’s Estate instead of extending the H17 so that the north part of Kilburn High Road and Cricklewood can have a direct link to Wembley Central and to make space for the 232 terminating at Brent Park Superstores. By the 440 extending to St Raphael’s Estate, there will be a direct link between Wembley Stadium Station and St Raphael’s Estate. Extending the 440 might make it a very long route so I think it should stay as it is. If a connection between Wembley Stadium and St Raphaels Estate is needed, H17 wouldn't be a bad contender to extend there at all as it is already relatively very short and would mirror the current 92 routing between Sudbury and St Raphaels. Where do you think would be a good area to extend the 182 down to if the 92 were to replace it?
|
|
|
Post by YX18KVJ (DLE30221) on Aug 31, 2024 19:40:32 GMT
I would have left the 18 and 220 as it is but I’m in support of your 92 and 182 changes, although another alternative could be sending the 182 to Ladbroke Grove, Sainsbury's. Moreover, I would have extended the 16 to Sudbury and extended the 440 to St Raphael’s Estate instead of extending the H17 so that the north part of Kilburn High Road and Cricklewood can have a direct link to Wembley Central and to make space for the 232 terminating at Brent Park Superstores. By the 440 extending to St Raphael’s Estate, there will be a direct link between Wembley Stadium Station and St Raphael’s Estate. Extending the 440 might make it a very long route so I think it should stay as it is. If a connection between Wembley Stadium and St Raphaels Estate is needed, H17 wouldn't be a bad contender to extend there at all as it is already relatively very short and would mirror the current 92 routing between Sudbury and St Raphaels. Where do you think would be a good area to extend the 182 down to if the 92 were to replace it? Extending the 182 to Old Oak Common could be a good idea. Assuming with the 92 change you'll increase the frequency as it's current one is not at all good enough to replace that section of the frequent 182.
|
|