|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Oct 11, 2024 12:37:45 GMT
Withdrawing the SL8 is an automatic no-no. Ealing-Uxbridge would have no direct link anymore, not even via train. |
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Oct 11, 2024 14:22:39 GMT
Withdrawing the SL8 is an automatic no-no. Ealing-Uxbridge would have no direct link anymore, not even via train. Fair enough, would curtailing the SL8 to Ealing Broadway or Acton justify it for the new proposed superloop route in your opinion? There would be 2 superloop buses in Ealing Broadway and 2 superloop buses in Uxbridge too. SL8: Ealing Broadway - Uxbridge New Proposed Superloop Route: Ealing Broadway - Hendon New Proposed Superloop 2: Uxbridge - Euston |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 11, 2024 15:18:26 GMT
Withdrawing the SL8 is an automatic no-no. Ealing-Uxbridge would have no direct link anymore, not even via train. Fair enough, would curtailing the SL8 to Ealing Broadway or Acton justify it for the new proposed superloop route in your opinion? There would be 2 superloop buses in Ealing Broadway and 2 superloop buses in Uxbridge too. SL8: Ealing Broadway - Uxbridge New Proposed Superloop Route: Ealing Broadway - Hendon New Proposed Superloop 2: Uxbridge - Euston I don't think there is any justification in curtailing the SL8 at all - since it's creation in 1990 as the 607, it has always run from either Shepherds Bush or, more recently, White City, to Uxbridge with just increases to frequency and a Sunday service. It has been hugely successful and any curtailment breaks any long distance journeys between Shepherds Bush & Acton to destinations beyond Hayes especially with no 427 east of Southall to back up anymore. I personally think your Euston to Uxbridge route is unnecessary but that's my personal view |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Oct 11, 2024 17:43:40 GMT
Fair enough, would curtailing the SL8 to Ealing Broadway or Acton justify it for the new proposed superloop route in your opinion? There would be 2 superloop buses in Ealing Broadway and 2 superloop buses in Uxbridge too. SL8: Ealing Broadway - Uxbridge New Proposed Superloop Route: Ealing Broadway - Hendon New Proposed Superloop 2: Uxbridge - Euston I don't think there is any justification in curtailing the SL8 at all - since it's creation in 1990 as the 607, it has always run from either Shepherds Bush or, more recently, White City, to Uxbridge with just increases to frequency and a Sunday service. It has been hugely successful and any curtailment breaks any long distance journeys between Shepherds Bush & Acton to destinations beyond Hayes especially with no 427 east of Southall to back up anymore. I personally think your Euston to Uxbridge route is unnecessary but that's my personal view I feel like a short White City-King’s Cross route running via Westway could work as a cheaper alternative to the tube there. I think the western part after White City is definitely unneeded & the SL8 needs to remain as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Oct 12, 2024 19:18:17 GMT
I don't think there is any justification in curtailing the SL8 at all - since it's creation in 1990 as the 607, it has always run from either Shepherds Bush or, more recently, White City, to Uxbridge with just increases to frequency and a Sunday service. It has been hugely successful and any curtailment breaks any long distance journeys between Shepherds Bush & Acton to destinations beyond Hayes especially with no 427 east of Southall to back up anymore. I personally think your Euston to Uxbridge route is unnecessary but that's my personal view I feel like a short White City-King’s Cross route running via Westway could work as a cheaper alternative to the tube there. I think the western part after White City is definitely unneeded & the SL8 needs to remain as it is. I have mentioned it many times but someone made a great point about the Oxford Tube already doing this, and for that reason I agree, perhaps a Westway route isn’t needed. I’ve also come to reality and realised the only valuable thing the 18 can do is have an increased PVR and more shorts introduced, just like the 38. There are quite a few services that cut short to Baker Street in the peak, but I do think perhaps the shorts on the 18 should really be a service running from Euston to Harlesden, Jubilee Clock during the peaks and all other services continuining on to Sudbury. Thoughts anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Oct 12, 2024 23:48:49 GMT
Changes to routes 46, 187, 268 and C11:
C11: withdrawn between Estelle Road and Archway Station, diverted to King’s Cross Station replacing route 46.
Will be renumbered 46 and run between Brent Cross, Shopping Centre and King’s Cross.
(Will seemingly do an indirect loop (much faster to walk or use 31 - 4 stops)) from Prirmose Hill to Camden, but a connectful one).
187: withdrawn between Swiss Cottage and 02 Centre, diverted to Golders Green via route 268.
46: withdrawn between Mansfield Road and Bart’s Hospital, diverted to Archway via route C11. Possible extension to Haringey Heartlands via route 41.
Renumbered 446.
268: withdrawn
46: King’s Cross to Brent Cross, Shopping Ctr
187: Golders Green to Park Royal, Cent Mid Hosp
446: Archway/Haringey Heartlands to Paddington
Links not being replaced:
King’s Cross - Bart’s use 17 instead
SJW to 02 - use 13/113 instead
Belsize Village to 02 - nothing 02 is being knocked down for flats
|
|
|
|
Post by london23 on Oct 13, 2024 8:47:28 GMT
I know there is the hopper fare scheme but I think it would be good the 229 was rerouted at Sidcup police station and extended to Foots Cray as I know it would probably be to congested at Tesco with the 321 to create a new link as none of the buses that run down where we live in Chaucer Road and the 229,269 and B14 all run to Queen Marys Hospital.
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 13, 2024 8:55:37 GMT
I know there is the hopper fare scheme but I think it would be good the 229 was rerouted at Sidcup police station and extended to Foots Cray as I know it would probably be to congested at Tesco with the 321 to create a new link as none of the buses that run down where we live in Chaucer Road and the 229,269 and B14 all run to Queen Marys Hospital. Pointless change especially as Foots Cray Tesco has no space. Change at Carlton Road which what people have been doing for years… |
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Oct 13, 2024 12:11:39 GMT
Changes to routes 46, 187, 268 and C11: C11: withdrawn between Estelle Road and Archway Station, diverted to King’s Cross Station replacing route 46. Will be renumbered 46 and run between Brent Cross, Shopping Centre and King’s Cross. (Will seemingly do an indirect loop (much faster to walk or use 31 - 4 stops)) from Prirmose Hill to Camden, but a connectful one). 187: withdrawn between Swiss Cottage and 02 Centre, diverted to Golders Green via route 268. 46: withdrawn between Mansfield Road and Bart’s Hospital, diverted to Archway via route C11. Possible extension to Haringey Heartlands via route 41. Renumbered 446. 268: withdrawn 46: King’s Cross to Brent Cross, Shopping Ctr 187: Golders Green to Park Royal, Cent Mid Hosp 446: Archway/Haringey Heartlands to Paddington Links not being replaced: King’s Cross - Bart’s use 17 instead SJW to 02 - use 13/113 instead Belsize Village to 02 - nothing 02 is being knocked down for flats I understand and agree that 46 needs a split but mixing C11 with it and splitting C11 doesn’t justify it. 187 doesn’t need to be changed either. As you’re probably aware, people are wanting a Swiss Cottage to Muswell Hill full-day bus service. So I would’ve done: 46: St Bart’s Hospital - Finchley Road, O2 Centre (diverted via 268 route from Rosslyn Hill) 240: Edgware - Hampstead Heath [South End Green] (extended to Hampstead Heath Station) 268: Paddington - Muswell Hill 603: WithdrawnSo here, the 268 serves half of the 46’s route (between Paddington and Hampstead) then goes up to Muswell Hill from there, mean-whilst the 46 also goes half its route from St Bart’s Hospital to Rosslyn Hill then diverts through 268’s current way from Haverstock Hill to Finchley Road, O2 Centre and with that, you can use the 240 to replace 268’s withdrawn section between Golders Green and Haverstock Hill (better enough that the 240 will be serving Royal Free Hospital and connecting locations further north such as Mill Hill and Hendon towards Hampstead Station) and with that, the 603 school bus doesn’t need to exist anymore since the proposed 268 will do the job and will even start from Paddington. So there’s no need to change the other Swiss Cottage routes such as 187 and C11. They are fine as they are, especially C11. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 13, 2024 13:09:23 GMT
Changes to routes 46, 187, 268 and C11: C11: withdrawn between Estelle Road and Archway Station, diverted to King’s Cross Station replacing route 46. Will be renumbered 46 and run between Brent Cross, Shopping Centre and King’s Cross. (Will seemingly do an indirect loop (much faster to walk or use 31 - 4 stops)) from Prirmose Hill to Camden, but a connectful one). 187: withdrawn between Swiss Cottage and 02 Centre, diverted to Golders Green via route 268. 46: withdrawn between Mansfield Road and Bart’s Hospital, diverted to Archway via route C11. Possible extension to Haringey Heartlands via route 41. Renumbered 446. 268: withdrawn 46: King’s Cross to Brent Cross, Shopping Ctr 187: Golders Green to Park Royal, Cent Mid Hosp 446: Archway/Haringey Heartlands to Paddington Links not being replaced: King’s Cross - Bart’s use 17 instead SJW to 02 - use 13/113 instead Belsize Village to 02 - nothing 02 is being knocked down for flats I don't ever really comment on changes so this will be my first criticism in a very long time but these changes aren't brilliant.
For one I'm dubious about the 46s BELs fitting around certain bits of the C11 particularly between Parliament Hill Fields and Archway. Yes DELs do very occasionally appear on the C11 but they're occasional for a reason and the DEs aren't exactly tackling that section of the route especially well!
The 268 owing to the traffic it faces up Heath Street and Hampstead High Street should be really left as a shorter route. Merging the 187 and 268 would be a terrible idea given the 187 faces a fair bit of congestion as is elsewhere on the route, particularly in the Harlesden area which the 260 and 266 also suffer from. I appreciate most of this is due to HS2 works but this neck of the woods isn't well known for being the most free-flowing traffic wise and so I would be dubious about extending the 187 given the longer distance journeys created by the extension are already possible on the Overground to the Royal Free, and most people living in Warwick Avenue or St John's Wood would be more than likely referred to St Mary's rather than the Royal Free, but hospital catchment areas are above my pay grade so I couldn't say for certain.
The 46 alteration would be a terrible idea, obviously not everyone will use the Tube to destinations on the 139/189 from West Hampstead, Kilburn or Brent Cross but these routes have existed for a long time and therefore have established a passenger base before all the relevant increases in frequencies on the MML and the JLE in 1999. What you're doing here is introducing a brand new route to King's Cross, a link which for many years has been catered for by Thameslink and the Met (from Finchley Road), at the expense of faster through journeys from Finchley Road towards Archway and Parliament Hill and are instead diverting existing C11 passengers the long way round through Hampstead Village. The only way these changes might make sense is if it co incided with a Hampstead Village to West Hampstead link, but again, to relieve the C11 and given the aforementioned development occurring at the O2, a through road from the O2 Centre through to Blackburn Road would be a more sensible idea, as you'd then provide a faster link and can then use the old West End Green stand for a 268 extension.
Very dubious about the necessity for a 446 extension to Haringey Heartlands too, this link will be catered for by the 91 extension which will parallel the 41 as far as Crouch End, and I cannot see any journey patterns from North West London which would warrant an entire bus route to be extended there. Anyone making a journey from that neck of the woods towards destinations served by your proposed 446 is using the Overground from Harringay Green Lanes more than likely. The 310 has provided an excess of capacity through to Hornsey Rise too, I imagine it has relieved the 41 and 210 a fair bit given the 41 can be standing room only from Crouch End towards Archway during the AM peaks, but again, any issues with capacity would be better addressed by upping the 41 frequency as if there's a gap in service on a shorter-SD "446" (no chance BELs would fit), it would get overwhelmed. Archway Station Stop G isn't known for being quiet!
|
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 13, 2024 14:02:32 GMT
Changes to routes 46, 187, 268 and C11: C11: withdrawn between Estelle Road and Archway Station, diverted to King’s Cross Station replacing route 46. Will be renumbered 46 and run between Brent Cross, Shopping Centre and King’s Cross. (Will seemingly do an indirect loop (much faster to walk or use 31 - 4 stops)) from Prirmose Hill to Camden, but a connectful one). 187: withdrawn between Swiss Cottage and 02 Centre, diverted to Golders Green via route 268. 46: withdrawn between Mansfield Road and Bart’s Hospital, diverted to Archway via route C11. Possible extension to Haringey Heartlands via route 41. Renumbered 446. 268: withdrawn 46: King’s Cross to Brent Cross, Shopping Ctr 187: Golders Green to Park Royal, Cent Mid Hosp 446: Archway/Haringey Heartlands to Paddington Links not being replaced: King’s Cross - Bart’s use 17 instead SJW to 02 - use 13/113 instead Belsize Village to 02 - nothing 02 is being knocked down for flats I don't ever really comment on changes so this will be my first criticism in a very long time but these changes aren't brilliant.
For one I'm dubious about the 46s BELs fitting around certain bits of the C11 particularly between Parliament Hill Fields and Archway. Yes DELs do very occasionally appear on the C11 but they're occasional for a reason and the DEs aren't exactly tackling that section of the route especially well!
The 268 owing to the traffic it faces up Heath Street and Hampstead High Street should be really left as a shorter route. Merging the 187 and 268 would be a terrible idea given the 187 faces a fair bit of congestion as is elsewhere on the route, particularly in the Harlesden area which the 260 and 266 also suffer from. I appreciate most of this is due to HS2 works but this neck of the woods isn't well known for being the most free-flowing traffic wise and so I would be dubious about extending the 187 given the longer distance journeys created by the extension are already possible on the Overground to the Royal Free, and most people living in Warwick Avenue or St John's Wood would be more than likely referred to St Mary's rather than the Royal Free, but hospital catchment areas are above my pay grade so I couldn't say for certain.
The 46 alteration would be a terrible idea, obviously not everyone will use the Tube to destinations on the 139/189 from West Hampstead, Kilburn or Brent Cross but these routes have existed for a long time and therefore have established a passenger base before all the relevant increases in frequencies on the MML and the JLE in 1999. What you're doing here is introducing a brand new route to King's Cross, a link which for many years has been catered for by Thameslink and the Met (from Finchley Road), at the expense of faster through journeys from Finchley Road towards Archway and Parliament Hill and are instead diverting existing C11 passengers the long way round through Hampstead Village. The only way these changes might make sense is if it co incided with a Hampstead Village to West Hampstead link, but again, to relieve the C11 and given the aforementioned development occurring at the O2, a through road from the O2 Centre through to Blackburn Road would be a more sensible idea, as you'd then provide a faster link and can then use the old West End Green stand for a 268 extension.
Very dubious about the necessity for a 446 extension to Haringey Heartlands too, this link will be catered for by the 91 extension which will parallel the 41 as far as Crouch End, and I cannot see any journey patterns from North West London which would warrant an entire bus route to be extended there. Anyone making a journey from that neck of the woods towards destinations served by your proposed 446 is using the Overground from Harringay Green Lanes more than likely. The 310 has provided an excess of capacity through to Hornsey Rise too, I imagine it has relieved the 41 and 210 a fair bit given the 41 can be standing room only from Crouch End towards Archway during the AM peaks, but again, any issues with capacity would be better addressed by upping the 41 frequency as if there's a gap in service on a shorter-SD "446" (no chance BELs would fit), it would get overwhelmed. Archway Station Stop G isn't known for being quiet!
I agree with most of these comments, but I do think a restructure around the Hampstead area would be useful. I would suggest to reroute the C11 to cover the Hampstead to Highgate link that has been requested by locals - going via Gospel Oak would also cover more demand than following the 603. This would also cover some other new links, such as from West Hampstead to Hampstead. So between Swiss Cottage and Hampstead Heath, I would suggest to swap the 46 and C11 routeings. Then also diverting the C11 between Parliament Hill and Archway to go via Highgate Village. And the 214 diverting away from Parliament Hill to go via Dartmouth Park Hill to get to Highgate Village - this would also allow DDs to be introduced. The 88 would continue to link Parliament Hill to Camden Town. If you wanted to shorten the 46, it's often been suggested before to reroute the 268 to take over the section to Paddington, and the 46 then curtailed to terminate at Finchley Road. Or you could also consider just cutting the 46 back at the other end to Kings Cross, and the 214 rerouted to take over the section to St Barts. Another route could cover Kings Cross to Moorgate (perhaps a split of the 205?). I also think a new link would be useful from Camden Town to the new developments at Canal Reach (in Kings Cross). I thought about diverting the 46 or 214 this way, however it would require an awkward double run to serve Camden Town if going from the Kentish Town direction to Agar Grove. Maybe the 394 extension could just continue further west? Or alternatively a new route coming from the Primrose Hill direction (serving new roads there). For example, the C11 could be split, with one route from Brent Cross to Swiss Cottage as present, then continuing to Kings Cross via Primrose Hill, Camden Town, Agar Grove and York Way. Then a new route introduced covering the links mentioned above, from West Hampstead (West End Green) to Archway via Swiss Cottage, Hampstead, Gospel Oak and Highgate Village, and potentially continuing further beyond Archway. Maybe even taking over the 210 to Finsbury Park - with the 210/310 then rationalised to operate as one DD route to Stamford Hill via Holloway? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Oct 13, 2024 15:08:08 GMT
I know there is the hopper fare scheme but I think it would be good the 229 was rerouted at Sidcup police station and extended to Foots Cray as I know it would probably be to congested at Tesco with the 321 to create a new link as none of the buses that run down where we live in Chaucer Road and the 229,269 and B14 all run to Queen Marys Hospital. Pointless change especially as Foots Cray Tesco has no space. Change at Carlton Road which what people have been doing for years… Whilst changing at Carlton Road isn’t difficult, people do value a direct link. Adding a terminating route to Tesco probably isn’t the best idea but running the B14 down there and back would provide the same link the OP describes and also restore the link between Tesco and St Paul’s Cray |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 13, 2024 15:38:21 GMT
I don't ever really comment on changes so this will be my first criticism in a very long time but these changes aren't brilliant.
For one I'm dubious about the 46s BELs fitting around certain bits of the C11 particularly between Parliament Hill Fields and Archway. Yes DELs do very occasionally appear on the C11 but they're occasional for a reason and the DEs aren't exactly tackling that section of the route especially well!
The 268 owing to the traffic it faces up Heath Street and Hampstead High Street should be really left as a shorter route. Merging the 187 and 268 would be a terrible idea given the 187 faces a fair bit of congestion as is elsewhere on the route, particularly in the Harlesden area which the 260 and 266 also suffer from. I appreciate most of this is due to HS2 works but this neck of the woods isn't well known for being the most free-flowing traffic wise and so I would be dubious about extending the 187 given the longer distance journeys created by the extension are already possible on the Overground to the Royal Free, and most people living in Warwick Avenue or St John's Wood would be more than likely referred to St Mary's rather than the Royal Free, but hospital catchment areas are above my pay grade so I couldn't say for certain.
The 46 alteration would be a terrible idea, obviously not everyone will use the Tube to destinations on the 139/189 from West Hampstead, Kilburn or Brent Cross but these routes have existed for a long time and therefore have established a passenger base before all the relevant increases in frequencies on the MML and the JLE in 1999. What you're doing here is introducing a brand new route to King's Cross, a link which for many years has been catered for by Thameslink and the Met (from Finchley Road), at the expense of faster through journeys from Finchley Road towards Archway and Parliament Hill and are instead diverting existing C11 passengers the long way round through Hampstead Village. The only way these changes might make sense is if it co incided with a Hampstead Village to West Hampstead link, but again, to relieve the C11 and given the aforementioned development occurring at the O2, a through road from the O2 Centre through to Blackburn Road would be a more sensible idea, as you'd then provide a faster link and can then use the old West End Green stand for a 268 extension.
Very dubious about the necessity for a 446 extension to Haringey Heartlands too, this link will be catered for by the 91 extension which will parallel the 41 as far as Crouch End, and I cannot see any journey patterns from North West London which would warrant an entire bus route to be extended there. Anyone making a journey from that neck of the woods towards destinations served by your proposed 446 is using the Overground from Harringay Green Lanes more than likely. The 310 has provided an excess of capacity through to Hornsey Rise too, I imagine it has relieved the 41 and 210 a fair bit given the 41 can be standing room only from Crouch End towards Archway during the AM peaks, but again, any issues with capacity would be better addressed by upping the 41 frequency as if there's a gap in service on a shorter-SD "446" (no chance BELs would fit), it would get overwhelmed. Archway Station Stop G isn't known for being quiet!
I agree with most of these comments, but I do think a restructure around the Hampstead area would be useful. I would suggest to reroute the C11 to cover the Hampstead to Highgate link that has been requested by locals - going via Gospel Oak would also cover more demand than following the 603. This would also cover some other new links, such as from West Hampstead to Hampstead. So between Swiss Cottage and Hampstead Heath, I would suggest to swap the 46 and C11 routeings. Then also diverting the C11 between Parliament Hill and Archway to go via Highgate Village. And the 214 diverting away from Parliament Hill to go via Dartmouth Park Hill to get to Highgate Village - this would also allow DDs to be introduced. The 88 would continue to link Parliament Hill to Camden Town. If you wanted to shorten the 46, it's often been suggested before to reroute the 268 to take over the section to Paddington, and the 46 then curtailed to terminate at Finchley Road. Or you could also consider just cutting the 46 back at the other end to Kings Cross, and the 214 rerouted to take over the section to St Barts. Another route could cover Kings Cross to Moorgate (perhaps a split of the 205?). I also think a new link would be useful from Camden Town to the new developments at Canal Reach (in Kings Cross). I thought about diverting the 46 or 214 this way, however it would require an awkward double run to serve Camden Town if going from the Kentish Town direction to Agar Grove. Maybe the 394 extension could just continue further west? Or alternatively a new route coming from the Primrose Hill direction (serving new roads there). For example, the C11 could be split, with one route from Brent Cross to Swiss Cottage as present, then continuing to Kings Cross via Primrose Hill, Camden Town, Agar Grove and York Way. Then a new route introduced covering the links mentioned above, from West Hampstead (West End Green) to Archway via Swiss Cottage, Hampstead, Gospel Oak and Highgate Village, and potentially continuing further beyond Archway. Maybe even taking over the 210 to Finsbury Park - with the 210/310 then rationalised to operate as one DD route to Stamford Hill via Holloway? Except rerouting the C11 would mean diverting it through traffic-ridden Hampstead Village, which I argued against doing in my previous comments. You are also making the C11 even more convoluted by diverting it through Highgate! I'm not an expert on the 214 by any means but I think a re-allocation of resources in the Highgate area would be a better way of addressing the issue at hand, perhaps a diversion of the 234 to Parliament Hill Fields and then onto the Royal Free from Highgate Wood co-inciding with a rerouting of the 263 along the Archway Road which would better match demand along North Hill and would make the 263 slightly more reliable. You would then be able to cut the 214 back to Parliament Hill Fields where it would then be appropriate to use double deckers.
I still don't think an extension of the 268 to Paddington is a good idea no matter how much you or fellow users here will try and gloss it up to be, I recall reading a tender spec a few years ago from the Arriva The Shires days where drivers are warned about the congestion faced on the 268 up Hampstead High Street. The route has more than enough to deal with at present, I fail to see which new links would be created by diverting the 268 to Paddington which wouldn't be better made using the existing 13 from Golders Green and you would be dropping the frequency from Finchley Road to Paddington from every 10 or so minutes during the peaks to every 15. I suspect if the 205 were ever to be tampered with for reliability reasons it would be a hacking back from Bow Church to Mile End, given I believe it was Stagecoach who requested the extension for operational purposes.
I have no idea about what would be best to serve Canal Reach given I'm not local but transport from my recollection is OK in the area given the Caledonian Road isn't a million miles away, nor is the 274 which links the area to Camden anyway (and arguably provides an oversupply of capacity), and obviously you've got the 390 serving the development from York Way. I question the necessity for a 394 extension anyway, obviously this is a TFL proposal but I rather feel a 476 extension would be more useful and use resources far more efficiently given it is well known that the 476 is fairly light loadings wise until Angel owing to the King's Cross Station stop outside the station not being served by the route.
Before alternative suggestions are made surrounding the 210/310 it would be best to see how popular cross-Finsbury Park journeys actually are on the 310, because I'm not entirely convinced that they are especially popular and when the suggestions were made for a 210 extension to Stamford Hill, it was at a time where the Overground was in a far worse state than it is now, much more infrequent and unreliable with less capacity, alongside there being no walkway between Hackney Central and Hackney Downs. Given Stamford Hill isn't the only place where people who live within the Jewish Community in Golders Green go in that neck of the woods (there are also Jewish communities in Stoke Newington and Tottenham, albeit in slightly fewer numbers), I imagine most people either drive or use the Overground (GOBLIN or NLL then Lea Valley Lines). But if cross-Finsbury Park journeys do prove popular, I would suggest a 210 diversion through the Sobell Centre and along Seven Sisters Road, with Hanley Road left unserved and the W3/W7 to handle journeys made as far as Stapleton Hall Road.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 13, 2024 16:22:55 GMT
I agree with most of these comments, but I do think a restructure around the Hampstead area would be useful. I would suggest to reroute the C11 to cover the Hampstead to Highgate link that has been requested by locals - going via Gospel Oak would also cover more demand than following the 603. This would also cover some other new links, such as from West Hampstead to Hampstead. So between Swiss Cottage and Hampstead Heath, I would suggest to swap the 46 and C11 routeings. Then also diverting the C11 between Parliament Hill and Archway to go via Highgate Village. And the 214 diverting away from Parliament Hill to go via Dartmouth Park Hill to get to Highgate Village - this would also allow DDs to be introduced. The 88 would continue to link Parliament Hill to Camden Town. If you wanted to shorten the 46, it's often been suggested before to reroute the 268 to take over the section to Paddington, and the 46 then curtailed to terminate at Finchley Road. Or you could also consider just cutting the 46 back at the other end to Kings Cross, and the 214 rerouted to take over the section to St Barts. Another route could cover Kings Cross to Moorgate (perhaps a split of the 205?). I also think a new link would be useful from Camden Town to the new developments at Canal Reach (in Kings Cross). I thought about diverting the 46 or 214 this way, however it would require an awkward double run to serve Camden Town if going from the Kentish Town direction to Agar Grove. Maybe the 394 extension could just continue further west? Or alternatively a new route coming from the Primrose Hill direction (serving new roads there). For example, the C11 could be split, with one route from Brent Cross to Swiss Cottage as present, then continuing to Kings Cross via Primrose Hill, Camden Town, Agar Grove and York Way. Then a new route introduced covering the links mentioned above, from West Hampstead (West End Green) to Archway via Swiss Cottage, Hampstead, Gospel Oak and Highgate Village, and potentially continuing further beyond Archway. Maybe even taking over the 210 to Finsbury Park - with the 210/310 then rationalised to operate as one DD route to Stamford Hill via Holloway? Except rerouting the C11 would mean diverting it through traffic-ridden Hampstead Village, which I argued against doing in my previous comments. You are also making the C11 even more convoluted by diverting it through Highgate! I'm not an expert on the 214 by any means but I think a re-allocation of resources in the Highgate area would be a better way of addressing the issue at hand, perhaps a diversion of the 234 to Parliament Hill Fields and then onto the Royal Free from Highgate Wood co-inciding with a rerouting of the 263 along the Archway Road which would better match demand along North Hill and would make the 263 slightly more reliable. You would then be able to cut the 214 back to Parliament Hill Fields where it would then be appropriate to use double deckers.
I still don't think an extension of the 268 to Paddington is a good idea no matter how much you or fellow users here will try and gloss it up to be, I recall reading a tender spec a few years ago from the Arriva The Shires days where drivers are warned about the congestion faced on the 268 up Hampstead High Street. The route has more than enough to deal with at present, I fail to see which new links would be created by diverting the 268 to Paddington which wouldn't be better made using the existing 13 from Golders Green and you would be dropping the frequency from Finchley Road to Paddington from every 10 or so minutes during the peaks to every 15. I suspect if the 205 were ever to be tampered with for reliability reasons it would be a hacking back from Bow Church to Mile End, given I believe it was Stagecoach who requested the extension for operational purposes.
I have no idea about what would be best to serve Canal Reach given I'm not local but transport from my recollection is OK in the area given the Caledonian Road isn't a million miles away, nor is the 274 which links the area to Camden anyway (and arguably provides an oversupply of capacity), and obviously you've got the 390 serving the development from York Way. I question the necessity for a 394 extension anyway, obviously this is a TFL proposal but I rather feel a 476 extension would be more useful and use resources far more efficiently given it is well known that the 476 is fairly light loadings wise until Angel owing to the King's Cross Station stop outside the station not being served by the route.
Before alternative suggestions are made surrounding the 210/310 it would be best to see how popular cross-Finsbury Park journeys actually are on the 310, because I'm not entirely convinced that they are especially popular and when the suggestions were made for a 210 extension to Stamford Hill, it was at a time where the Overground was in a far worse state than it is now, much more infrequent and unreliable with less capacity, alongside there being no walkway between Hackney Central and Hackney Downs. Given Stamford Hill isn't the only place where people who live within the Jewish Community in Golders Green go in that neck of the woods (there are also Jewish communities in Stoke Newington and Tottenham, albeit in slightly fewer numbers), I imagine most people either drive or use the Overground (GOBLIN or NLL then Lea Valley Lines). But if cross-Finsbury Park journeys do prove popular, I would suggest a 210 diversion through the Sobell Centre and along Seven Sisters Road, with Hanley Road left unserved and the W3/W7 to handle journeys made as far as Stapleton Hall Road.
I am aware that traffic can be bad through Hampstead Village - however an extended 268 to Paddington would still be a lot shorter than the current 46. Also the C11 could be split as I suggested - which could allow the section through Hampstead and Highgate to be run more reliably. Maybe just from West Hampstead to Archway, with the 143 extended to Finsbury Park instead? For the Brent Cross end of the C11, you could consider rerouteing to Kings Cross via Primrose Hill as I suggested - or alternatively terminate near Swiss Cottage and extend at the other end (for example to Mill Hill East). I'm not sure about your suggestion for the 210, as that would remove the local link from Archway to Crouch Hill. I do agree though that it's best to wait to see how the 310's trial period goes. If it isn't well used, you could argue to withdraw it without replacement. And regarding the Overground, this only helps with shorter journeys between South Tottenham, Crouch Hill and Upper Holloway - while the 310 is primarily intended for passengers requesting an end-to-end link to Golders Green. If there is the demand for journeys towards Stamford Hill, I think a diversion of the 210 via Holloway would be the best option (and another route covering the current section via Crouch Hill). By allowing DDs to be used, this would remove any excess capacity where the 210/310 overlap (rationalising into one route) - it's been mentioned that the 210 is adequate between Golders Green and Archway. And offer a more useable service beyond Finsbury Park with the capacity of DDs at the 210's current frequent (rather than the 310's every 20, and no service in the evenings), also supporting the busy 253/254 east of Holloway. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 13, 2024 18:33:31 GMT
Except rerouting the C11 would mean diverting it through traffic-ridden Hampstead Village, which I argued against doing in my previous comments. You are also making the C11 even more convoluted by diverting it through Highgate! I'm not an expert on the 214 by any means but I think a re-allocation of resources in the Highgate area would be a better way of addressing the issue at hand, perhaps a diversion of the 234 to Parliament Hill Fields and then onto the Royal Free from Highgate Wood co-inciding with a rerouting of the 263 along the Archway Road which would better match demand along North Hill and would make the 263 slightly more reliable. You would then be able to cut the 214 back to Parliament Hill Fields where it would then be appropriate to use double deckers.
I still don't think an extension of the 268 to Paddington is a good idea no matter how much you or fellow users here will try and gloss it up to be, I recall reading a tender spec a few years ago from the Arriva The Shires days where drivers are warned about the congestion faced on the 268 up Hampstead High Street. The route has more than enough to deal with at present, I fail to see which new links would be created by diverting the 268 to Paddington which wouldn't be better made using the existing 13 from Golders Green and you would be dropping the frequency from Finchley Road to Paddington from every 10 or so minutes during the peaks to every 15. I suspect if the 205 were ever to be tampered with for reliability reasons it would be a hacking back from Bow Church to Mile End, given I believe it was Stagecoach who requested the extension for operational purposes.
I have no idea about what would be best to serve Canal Reach given I'm not local but transport from my recollection is OK in the area given the Caledonian Road isn't a million miles away, nor is the 274 which links the area to Camden anyway (and arguably provides an oversupply of capacity), and obviously you've got the 390 serving the development from York Way. I question the necessity for a 394 extension anyway, obviously this is a TFL proposal but I rather feel a 476 extension would be more useful and use resources far more efficiently given it is well known that the 476 is fairly light loadings wise until Angel owing to the King's Cross Station stop outside the station not being served by the route.
Before alternative suggestions are made surrounding the 210/310 it would be best to see how popular cross-Finsbury Park journeys actually are on the 310, because I'm not entirely convinced that they are especially popular and when the suggestions were made for a 210 extension to Stamford Hill, it was at a time where the Overground was in a far worse state than it is now, much more infrequent and unreliable with less capacity, alongside there being no walkway between Hackney Central and Hackney Downs. Given Stamford Hill isn't the only place where people who live within the Jewish Community in Golders Green go in that neck of the woods (there are also Jewish communities in Stoke Newington and Tottenham, albeit in slightly fewer numbers), I imagine most people either drive or use the Overground (GOBLIN or NLL then Lea Valley Lines). But if cross-Finsbury Park journeys do prove popular, I would suggest a 210 diversion through the Sobell Centre and along Seven Sisters Road, with Hanley Road left unserved and the W3/W7 to handle journeys made as far as Stapleton Hall Road.
I am aware that traffic can be bad through Hampstead Village - however an extended 268 to Paddington would still be a lot shorter than the current 46. Also the C11 could be split as I suggested - which could allow the section through Hampstead and Highgate to be run more reliably. Maybe just from West Hampstead to Archway, with the 143 extended to Finsbury Park instead? For the Brent Cross end of the C11, you could consider rerouteing to Kings Cross via Primrose Hill as I suggested - or alternatively terminate near Swiss Cottage and extend at the other end (for example to Mill Hill East). I'm not sure about your suggestion for the 210, as that would remove the local link from Archway to Crouch Hill. I do agree though that it's best to wait to see how the 310's trial period goes. If it isn't well used, you could argue to withdraw it without replacement. And regarding the Overground, this only helps with shorter journeys between South Tottenham, Crouch Hill and Upper Holloway - while the 310 is primarily intended for passengers requesting an end-to-end link to Golders Green. If there is the demand for journeys towards Stamford Hill, I think a diversion of the 210 via Holloway would be the best option (and another route covering the current section via Crouch Hill). By allowing DDs to be used, this would remove any excess capacity where the 210/310 overlap (rationalising into one route) - it's been mentioned that the 210 is adequate between Golders Green and Archway. And offer a more useable service beyond Finsbury Park with the capacity of DDs at the 210's current frequent (rather than the 310's every 20, and no service in the evenings), also supporting the busy 253/254 east of Holloway. Yes I'm sure it may be shorter but as I've mentioned, there is the frequency issue that would need to be addressed (the 268 at the moment seems to cope reasonably well at its existing frequency) and so there would be no need to increase the frequency to Golders Green, not to mention it wouldn't be possible based on the bus station already having capacity issues (and that's with the peculiar standing arrangement with the 310). Personally I'd rather keep the 46 as is, and that any cutbacks necessary be done on the Bart's Hospital section of the route to be supplemented by another route.
It shouldn't really matter if the link to Crouch Hill is lost, most passengers on the 210 past Hornsey Rise are either coming or going from Finsbury Park, yes you will pick people up on Hanley Road but the 210 is still within walking distance from Crouch Hill Station to Hornsey Rise and the Hanley Road stop on Hornsey Road. Granted it might be slightly inconvenient if you are catching the Overground from Crouch Hill but compromises in this instance would need to be made as what we have got with both the 210 and the 310 is an oversupply of capacity on a route that copes fine as is. Maybe a slightly more conveniently placed eastbound stop at Archway would be helpful in that case for passengers wishing to interchange for the GOBLIN, but how that is done I'm not entirely sure.
Yes the 310 might exist for end to end journeys from Golders Green but the point I was trying to make more broadly was that not all journeys will start from Golders Green, nor will they all end in Stamford Hill. There will be people who are closer to West Hampstead/Hampstead Heath/Finchley Road and Frognal and their journeys may not end in Stamford Hill but rather end in Tottenham or Stoke Newington, to which a train journey would be a great deal more convenient for.
|
|
