|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 28, 2021 10:00:42 GMT
Not just that but the clogged up junction from the B106 onto Colney Hatch Lane. I do think it would be sensible to keep the 102s routing to a local service because of the congestion yes. I know this was about ten years ago but I definitely went to Brent Cross from Palmers Green on the 102 (starting near AD) in 2 and a bit hours. Return including half an hour shopping. The journey would've been less than an hour. I know it was the 102 as it was DD and Arriva moquette. I know traffic conditions could have worsened and this was in the middle of the day (I can't remember the day of the week) but still. That was probably a really bad off day but the 102 does run into lots of traffic hotspots so I'm glad TFL are reviewing it. In all honesty like with the 25 I was very surprised this wasn't reviewed in 2002-2003. I would question whether it took 2 hours to Palmers Green (I don't doubt there are probably times where the route e2e has taken 2 hours) and as I mentioned it's good TFL are looking into it because the route as a result of the Bounds Green LTNs is only going to become more congested and as I've mentioned before it can either be solved by swapping the 102/144 routings between Muswell Hill & Silver Street or by cutting the 102 back to GG and having something replace it to Brent Cross which would probably be difficult unless another route in the area was reviewed (232 split?)?
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 28, 2021 10:08:03 GMT
Not just that but the clogged up junction from the B106 onto Colney Hatch Lane. I do think it would be sensible to keep the 102s routing to a local service because of the congestion yes. Ofcourse it's the same. The 144 would become Brent Cross to Edmonton Green via Wood Green and the 102 simply shortened like has happend to many routes. I think it would be simpler to keep the Brent Cross to Edmonton route as the 102 personally as TFL aren't suddenly changing the 263 to the 271 & is probably far simpler than what happened on the Finchley Road with the 13/82/113.
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 28, 2021 10:55:09 GMT
I know this was about ten years ago but I definitely went to Brent Cross from Palmers Green on the 102 (starting near AD) in 2 and a bit hours. Return including half an hour shopping. The journey would've been less than an hour. I know it was the 102 as it was DD and Arriva moquette. I know traffic conditions could have worsened and this was in the middle of the day (I can't remember the day of the week) but still. That was probably a really bad off day but the 102 does run into lots of traffic hotspots so I'm glad TFL are reviewing it. In all honesty like with the 25 I was very surprised this wasn't reviewed in 2002-2003. I would question whether it took 2 hours to Palmers Green (I don't doubt there are probably times where the route e2e has taken 2 hours) and as I mentioned it's good TFL are looking into it because the route as a result of the Bounds Green LTNs is only going to become more congested and as I've mentioned before it can either be solved by swapping the 102/144 routings between Muswell Hill & Silver Street or by cutting the 102 back to GG and having something replace it to Brent Cross which would probably be difficult unless another route in the area was reviewed (232 split?)? No, it was there and back in 2 and a bit hours. I mean, if I left Palmers Green at 1130, I would have most certainly been back in Palmers Green by 2pm. It was very quick. Loved it
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 28, 2021 11:31:04 GMT
That was probably a really bad off day but the 102 does run into lots of traffic hotspots so I'm glad TFL are reviewing it. In all honesty like with the 25 I was very surprised this wasn't reviewed in 2002-2003. I would question whether it took 2 hours to Palmers Green (I don't doubt there are probably times where the route e2e has taken 2 hours) and as I mentioned it's good TFL are looking into it because the route as a result of the Bounds Green LTNs is only going to become more congested and as I've mentioned before it can either be solved by swapping the 102/144 routings between Muswell Hill & Silver Street or by cutting the 102 back to GG and having something replace it to Brent Cross which would probably be difficult unless another route in the area was reviewed (232 split?)? No, it was there and back in 2 and a bit hours. I mean, if I left Palmers Green at 1130, I would have most certainly been back in Palmers Green by 2pm. It was very quick. Loved it Now that makes sense. I thought you meant in one direction.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Dec 28, 2021 14:02:08 GMT
Rather then swapping the routings between Muswell Hill and Edmonton Green, surely it would be easier to explain it as the 144 extended from M Hill to Brent Cross and route 102 withdrawn between M Hill and Brent Cross. But that isn't the same thing. I presume if the two routes do swap their routings between Muswell Hill & Great Cambridge Road Roundabout, it's to do with some sort of reliability measure most likely because of the A406 on Brownlow Road and the fact the 144 is half the length of the 102 and it's routing is less intense between Muswell Hill & Great Cambridge Road Roundabout in comparison. Yep, they take completely different routes between Muswell Hill and Edmonton. In saying that, the net output of any wholesale area changes will result in a PVR reduction. I’m not sure a simple swapping of line of route will help TfL gets where it needs to go. I would have thought that such a change would be linked to cuts or removals of other routes in the area.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 28, 2021 14:11:24 GMT
But that isn't the same thing. I presume if the two routes do swap their routings between Muswell Hill & Great Cambridge Road Roundabout, it's to do with some sort of reliability measure most likely because of the A406 on Brownlow Road and the fact the 144 is half the length of the 102 and it's routing is less intense between Muswell Hill & Great Cambridge Road Roundabout in comparison. Yep, they take completely different routes between Muswell Hill and Edmonton. In saying that, the net output of any wholesale area changes will result in a PVR reduction. I’m not sure a simple swapping of line of route will help TfL gets where it needs to go. I would have thought that such a change would be linked to cuts or removals of other routes in the area. What would they remove though? There's not much you can particularly remove in Muswell Hill but I do think if the 102/144 are involved then I think even as a crayonista it's obvious what it would entail and that would be swapping the routings. I personally see quite a bit of merit in them, I would on the whole support them and especially at school kickout times on Priory Road the 144 can be quite bogged down, and AFAIK the 102 is slightly more frequent than the 144 so maybe having an extra journey or two would solve overcrowding problems on Priory Road. Issues would arise thou in that the 102 would have an extra 10 minutes running time as a result, so this really is a 2 edged sword.
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 28, 2021 14:32:48 GMT
Yep, they take completely different routes between Muswell Hill and Edmonton. In saying that, the net output of any wholesale area changes will result in a PVR reduction. I’m not sure a simple swapping of line of route will help TfL gets where it needs to go. I would have thought that such a change would be linked to cuts or removals of other routes in the area. What would they remove though? There's not much you can particularly remove in Muswell Hill but I do think if the 102/144 are involved then I think even as a crayonista it's obvious what it would entail and that would be swapping the routings. I personally see quite a bit of merit in them, I would on the whole support them and especially at school kickout times on Priory Road the 144 can be quite bogged down, and AFAIK the 102 is slightly more frequent than the 144 so maybe having an extra journey or two would solve overcrowding problems on Priory Road. Issues would arise thou in that the 102 would have an extra 10 minutes running time as a result, so this really is a 2 edged sword. It is marginal, but yes, the 102 is more frequent. The 102 is every 8 minutes with a PVR of 26. The 144 is every 8-9 mins with a PVR of 16+1 (16 normally but 1 bus off 29 in AM peak). Going back to busman's post, if cuts were to be involved, could this be workable? (Also drawing in the 192 capacity issues here) 102 rerouted via 144 between Muswell Hill and Silver Street 329 rerouted at Palmers Green to run to Muswell Hill 192 cut to Edmonton Green New route 392 Tottenham Hale to Turnpike Lane (5bph DD) running via 192 to Edmonton Green, 102 to AD and 329 to Turnpike Lane.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 28, 2021 15:52:43 GMT
What would they remove though? There's not much you can particularly remove in Muswell Hill but I do think if the 102/144 are involved then I think even as a crayonista it's obvious what it would entail and that would be swapping the routings. I personally see quite a bit of merit in them, I would on the whole support them and especially at school kickout times on Priory Road the 144 can be quite bogged down, and AFAIK the 102 is slightly more frequent than the 144 so maybe having an extra journey or two would solve overcrowding problems on Priory Road. Issues would arise thou in that the 102 would have an extra 10 minutes running time as a result, so this really is a 2 edged sword. It is marginal, but yes, the 102 is more frequent. The 102 is every 8 minutes with a PVR of 26. The 144 is every 8-9 mins with a PVR of 16+1 (16 normally but 1 bus off 29 in AM peak). Going back to busman 's post, if cuts were to be involved, could this be workable? (Also drawing in the 192 capacity issues here) 102 rerouted via 144 between Muswell Hill and Silver Street 329 rerouted at Palmers Green to run to Muswell Hill 192 cut to Edmonton Green New route 392 Tottenham Hale to Turnpike Lane (5bph DD) running via 192 to Edmonton Green, 102 to AD and 329 to Turnpike Lane. I think that would cause more problems than it solves in terms of money.
Nothing would be solved regarding capacity issues on the 192 particularly, I think the 392 would still struggle, the best solution to that is swapping the 192/W8 terminis.
I do wonder what will be entailed in the review of Muswell Hill but again I don't know how much could realistically could be done. I think it would be silly messing around with the 329 as well given that that has a strong passenger flow from Enfield/Winchmore Hill into Wood Green.
I think these are quite foolish changes and especially when you draw into what you would in effect be doing to the 329 I think you would be better parking these to one side and just swapping the 102/144 routings. Remember that the 144 is a really busy service anyway as is the 102.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Dec 28, 2021 17:35:10 GMT
But that isn't the same thing. I presume if the two routes do swap their routings between Muswell Hill & Great Cambridge Road Roundabout, it's to do with some sort of reliability measure most likely because of the A406 on Brownlow Road and the fact the 144 is half the length of the 102 and it's routing is less intense between Muswell Hill & Great Cambridge Road Roundabout in comparison. Yep, they take completely different routes between Muswell Hill and Edmonton. In saying that, the net output of any wholesale area changes will result in a PVR reduction. I’m not sure a simple swapping of line of route will help TfL gets where it needs to go. I would have thought that such a change would be linked to cuts or removals of other routes in the area. The rumour surrounding Routes 102 and 144 does also involve Routes 24 and 603 as it's mainly around the Highgate and Muswell Hill areas. I speculate that once the 24 is restructured as it's currently under microscope. It could be revised to run from Hampstead Heath / Swiss Cottage to Edmonton Green via the 102 routing from Muswell Hill replacing Route 603 at the same time. Route 102 on the other hand may reroute to Wood Green / Turnpike Lane replacing Routes 144 Muswell Hill routing. Not sure on the N102 service, it's possible it can follow the rerouting to Wood Green.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 28, 2021 18:02:43 GMT
Yep, they take completely different routes between Muswell Hill and Edmonton. In saying that, the net output of any wholesale area changes will result in a PVR reduction. I’m not sure a simple swapping of line of route will help TfL gets where it needs to go. I would have thought that such a change would be linked to cuts or removals of other routes in the area. The rumour surrounding Routes 102 and 144 does also involve Routes 24 and 603 as it's mainly around the Highgate and Muswell Hill areas. I speculate that once the 24 is restructured as it's currently under microscope. It could be revised to run from Hampstead Heath / Swiss Cottage to Edmonton Green via the 102 routing from Muswell Hill replacing Route 603 at the same time. Route 102 on the other hand may reroute to Wood Green / Turnpike Lane replacing Routes 144 Muswell Hill routing. Not sure on the N102 service, it's possible it can follow the rerouting to Wood Green. I know you're related to an Enfield Transport Group but I doubt that'll be what happens. I'm not saying that because I don't want it to, I'm just saying that because the 24/603 segment was thought about before the 102/144 and as a result I do think it might be involving the 268 as well, perhaps a 24 extension to GG, a 268 diversion to Muswell Hill & the 603 discontinued.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 28, 2021 19:07:27 GMT
Yep, they take completely different routes between Muswell Hill and Edmonton. In saying that, the net output of any wholesale area changes will result in a PVR reduction. I’m not sure a simple swapping of line of route will help TfL gets where it needs to go. I would have thought that such a change would be linked to cuts or removals of other routes in the area. The rumour surrounding Routes 102 and 144 does also involve Routes 24 and 603 as it's mainly around the Highgate and Muswell Hill areas. I speculate that once the 24 is restructured as it's currently under microscope. It could be revised to run from Hampstead Heath / Swiss Cottage to Edmonton Green via the 102 routing from Muswell Hill replacing Route 603 at the same time. Route 102 on the other hand may reroute to Wood Green / Turnpike Lane replacing Routes 144 Muswell Hill routing. Not sure on the N102 service, it's possible it can follow the rerouting to Wood Green. Wow after 110 years the 24 could be changing.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 28, 2021 19:21:17 GMT
The rumour surrounding Routes 102 and 144 does also involve Routes 24 and 603 as it's mainly around the Highgate and Muswell Hill areas. I speculate that once the 24 is restructured as it's currently under microscope. It could be revised to run from Hampstead Heath / Swiss Cottage to Edmonton Green via the 102 routing from Muswell Hill replacing Route 603 at the same time. Route 102 on the other hand may reroute to Wood Green / Turnpike Lane replacing Routes 144 Muswell Hill routing. Not sure on the N102 service, it's possible it can follow the rerouting to Wood Green. Wow after 110 years the 24 could be changing. Indeed but how it changes, well could either be drastic or minor.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 28, 2021 19:47:32 GMT
Wow after 110 years the 24 could be changing. Indeed but how it changes, well could either be drastic or minor. I'd say minor at the HH end. I can't see the Pimlico end being touched.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2021 20:47:58 GMT
I'm late lol. What's this stuff I'm hearing about the 102 and 144. Hearing that they're gonna swap routes which would be pointless tbh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2021 20:48:54 GMT
I'm late lol. What's this stuff I'm hearing about the 102 and 144. Hearing that they're gonna swap routes which would be pointless tbh. I'm also bare confused about the 24. What's that about?!
|
|