|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 28, 2021 21:01:57 GMT
How about this for an idea:
24 Cut back to Camden Town 102 Cut back to Golders Green 268 Rerouted to Muswell Hill via 603 210 Frequency reduced to 5bph New 5bph DD route Brent Cross to King's Cross (route 102 to GG, then 268 to Hampstead Heath then 24 to Camden finally 46 to King's Cross) Numbered 48
Maybe could this happen too? 46 cut back to King's Cross, with route 48 extended to St Bart's in its place
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 28, 2021 21:04:13 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?! In short: - There is a supposed Muswell Hill bus network development paper.
- 102/144 routings could be swapped as 144 routing is less congested.
- In this paper, the 24 and 603 are also rumoured to be brought into the equation. Why we do not know.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Dec 28, 2021 21:20:41 GMT
How about this for an idea: 24 Cut back to Camden Town 102 Cut back to Golders Green 268 Rerouted to Muswell Hill via 603 210 Frequency reduced to 5bph New 5bph DD route Brent Cross to King's Cross (route 102 to GG, then 268 to Hampstead Heath then 24 to Camden finally 46 to King's Cross) Numbered 48 Maybe could this happen too? 46 cut back to King's Cross, with route 48 extended to St Bart's in its place Knowing TFL are currently are going a process of reducing bus services that duplicates large sections of tube or rail services. I can't see your 48 idea happening
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 28, 2021 21:22:09 GMT
I'm also bare confused about the 24. What's that about?! In short: - There is a supposed Muswell Hill bus network development paper.
- 102/144 routings could be swapped as 144 routing is less congested.
- In this paper, the 24 and 603 are also rumoured to be brought into the equation. Why we do not know.
It seemed to stem from TFLs improvements to hospital links. I think the 102/144 would have had something to do with North Middlesex Hospital and I'm assuming the 24/603 were to do with the Royal Free.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 28, 2021 23:38:52 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. Not really. I'd like to be able to see Golders Green/East Finchley linked into Wood Green, it's been a link that has been missed for a while
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 28, 2021 23:42:59 GMT
How about this for an idea: 24 Cut back to Camden Town 102 Cut back to Golders Green 268 Rerouted to Muswell Hill via 603 210 Frequency reduced to 5bph New 5bph DD route Brent Cross to King's Cross (route 102 to GG, then 268 to Hampstead Heath then 24 to Camden finally 46 to King's Cross) Numbered 48 Maybe could this happen too? 46 cut back to King's Cross, with route 48 extended to St Bart's in its place The 210 suggestion is definitely a WTF moment for me. The service whilst it can be quite lightly loaded in the daytime has a lot of custom along Highgate Hill, leaving Finsbury Park & Brent Cross during the peaks which would as a result not be tended to if the service dropped in frequency. Also that's not to mention that especially going up Highgate Hill passengers can sometimes be left behind, so please can we not see any further reductions to the service. Especially when you consider the removal of the 271 providing support for the rammed 143 & 210, I think it would be sensible to leave it be at its current frequency but an off peak frequency reduction to 5bph might be a more sensible idea. The 102 suggestion I would agree with however I do think something would need to replace the link from Brent Cross to Temple Fortune, perhaps if we were back when TFL were thinking of withdrawing the 460 & extending the 245 in its place I'd have imagined that the 460 might've been diverted to Brent Cross, which in all honesty mightn't have been the worst idea, however the 460s ultimately key role is to link in North London with the train & facilities at Cricklewood & the tube at Willesden Green and I do think in that regard the 460 plays a vital role linking in communities.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 28, 2021 23:47:25 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?! This discussion has stemmed in from TFL answering VMH2537s FOI regarding discussions surrounding TFL looking into Highgate/Muswell Hill, and they mentioned that the 24/603 were being looked into. I then bought up that I have previously read somewhere suggestions about diverting the 268 to Muswell Hill, which could potentially involve the 24 perhaps replacing the link into GG.
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 29, 2021 9:48:20 GMT
How about this for an idea: 24 Cut back to Camden Town 102 Cut back to Golders Green 268 Rerouted to Muswell Hill via 603 210 Frequency reduced to 5bph New 5bph DD route Brent Cross to King's Cross (route 102 to GG, then 268 to Hampstead Heath then 24 to Camden finally 46 to King's Cross) Numbered 48 Maybe could this happen too? 46 cut back to King's Cross, with route 48 extended to St Bart's in its place The 210 suggestion is definitely a WTF moment for me. The service whilst it can be quite lightly loaded in the daytime has a lot of custom along Highgate Hill, leaving Finsbury Park & Brent Cross during the peaks which would as a result not be tended to if the service dropped in frequency. Also that's not to mention that especially going up Highgate Hill passengers can sometimes be left behind, so please can we not see any further reductions to the service. Especially when you consider the removal of the 271 providing support for the rammed 143 & 210, I think it would be sensible to leave it be at its current frequency but an off peak frequency reduction to 5bph might be a more sensible idea. The 102 suggestion I would agree with however I do think something would need to replace the link from Brent Cross to Temple Fortune, perhaps if we were back when TFL were thinking of withdrawing the 460 & extending the 245 in its place I'd have imagined that the 460 might've been diverted to Brent Cross, which in all honesty mightn't have been the worst idea, however the 460s ultimately key role is to link in North London with the train & facilities at Cricklewood & the tube at Willesden Green and I do think in that regard the 460 plays a vital role linking in communities. I see that. How about a 232 split (as previously suggested by VMH2537)? The 232 would be cut back to Brent Cross and decked. 102 similarly cut to Golders Green. The 143 would be diverted direct via East End Road and decked too. New route 342 (5bph SD) would run from St Raphael's to East Finchley via route 232 to Brent Cross, 102 to Temple Fortune, then onto Finchley Central then current 143 to East Finchley Station. Route 268 would also be extended to Brent Cross, via route 102.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 29, 2021 10:47:33 GMT
The 210 suggestion is definitely a WTF moment for me. The service whilst it can be quite lightly loaded in the daytime has a lot of custom along Highgate Hill, leaving Finsbury Park & Brent Cross during the peaks which would as a result not be tended to if the service dropped in frequency. Also that's not to mention that especially going up Highgate Hill passengers can sometimes be left behind, so please can we not see any further reductions to the service. Especially when you consider the removal of the 271 providing support for the rammed 143 & 210, I think it would be sensible to leave it be at its current frequency but an off peak frequency reduction to 5bph might be a more sensible idea. The 102 suggestion I would agree with however I do think something would need to replace the link from Brent Cross to Temple Fortune, perhaps if we were back when TFL were thinking of withdrawing the 460 & extending the 245 in its place I'd have imagined that the 460 might've been diverted to Brent Cross, which in all honesty mightn't have been the worst idea, however the 460s ultimately key role is to link in North London with the train & facilities at Cricklewood & the tube at Willesden Green and I do think in that regard the 460 plays a vital role linking in communities. I see that. How about a 232 split (as previously suggested by VMH2537)? The 232 would be cut back to Brent Cross and decked. 102 similarly cut to Golders Green. The 143 would be diverted direct via East End Road and decked too. New route 342 (5bph SD) would run from St Raphael's to East Finchley via route 232 to Brent Cross, 102 to Temple Fortune, then onto Finchley Central then current 143 to East Finchley Station. Route 268 would also be extended to Brent Cross, via route 102. These proposals aren't getting any better, I'm really sorry! You're now underbussing the North Cricklewood Section, overbussing East End Road when all it needs is a 5bph DD service, no adequate stand space for the 342 etc, overbussing Temple Fortune, I think this is better off left to locals.
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 29, 2021 10:50:49 GMT
I see that. How about a 232 split (as previously suggested by VMH2537 )? The 232 would be cut back to Brent Cross and decked. 102 similarly cut to Golders Green. The 143 would be diverted direct via East End Road and decked too. New route 342 (5bph SD) would run from St Raphael's to East Finchley via route 232 to Brent Cross, 102 to Temple Fortune, then onto Finchley Central then current 143 to East Finchley Station. Route 268 would also be extended to Brent Cross, via route 102. These proposals aren't getting any better, I'm really sorry! You're now underbussing the North Cricklewood Section, overbussing East End Road when all it needs is a 5bph DD service, no adequate stand space for the 342 etc, I think this is better off left to locals. There is stand space on the forecourt of East Finchley station but okay, I'll leave it. (Considering I've never even been to Finchley)
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 29, 2021 10:57:40 GMT
These proposals aren't getting any better, I'm really sorry! You're now underbussing the North Cricklewood Section, overbussing East End Road when all it needs is a 5bph DD service, no adequate stand space for the 342 etc, I think this is better off left to locals. There is stand space on the forecourt of East Finchley station but okay, I'll leave it. (Considering I've never even been to Finchley) There's a tiny bit but it's not any good because it's very narrow.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Dec 29, 2021 12:06:48 GMT
Not local but wouldn't plunging the 102 into Wood Green decrease its reliability? Yes it would but (and capitalomnibus can correct me on this) Bounds Green/Palmers Green/Durnsford Road especially during peak hours can be traffic filled anyway so it might make a slight improvement in that regard however as you have mentioned Wood Green can be quite congested especially at the junction with the A105 off the A504 and also the A10 can be quite chocabloc as well but then there were concerns about the 144s status quo service in terms of reliability so it's a two way street. However this would provide handy links across North London to Wood Green, Turnpike Lane, Hornsey etc.
I do wonder whether the other rather controversial option would be cutting the 102 back to GG but then having something replacing it to Brent Cross. Though I initially disagreed with a user on this when they suggested a slightly weird proposal, I would question whether the introduction of the 112 & hopper fare has meant people are now interchanging from a 102 at the same stop by Henlys Corner to then complete their journey to Brent X rather than going the convoluted way via North Cricklewood. What would have replaced it would be a different story and I don't think any route in Brent Cross would be able to furfill the role nor any in GG.
The problem with Brownlow Rd and Durnsford Rd is down to the side roads closed off, and people cutting away from the A406 at Colney Hatch Lane and rejoining it at Brownlow Rd. The delays are mostly always towards Edmonton Green or on the 184 towards Barnet. Also the traffic light phasing is regularly changed to short phases at times to accommodate the A406 which in turn causes heavy delays on Brownlow Rd. I cannot see any journey time improvement if the 102 went via the 144 route. As the 144 has heavy delays around Hornsey on school peak time and also the tailbacks on Wood Green High Rd at times.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 29, 2021 12:27:07 GMT
Yes it would but (and capitalomnibus can correct me on this) Bounds Green/Palmers Green/Durnsford Road especially during peak hours can be traffic filled anyway so it might make a slight improvement in that regard however as you have mentioned Wood Green can be quite congested especially at the junction with the A105 off the A504 and also the A10 can be quite chocabloc as well but then there were concerns about the 144s status quo service in terms of reliability so it's a two way street. However this would provide handy links across North London to Wood Green, Turnpike Lane, Hornsey etc.
I do wonder whether the other rather controversial option would be cutting the 102 back to GG but then having something replacing it to Brent Cross. Though I initially disagreed with a user on this when they suggested a slightly weird proposal, I would question whether the introduction of the 112 & hopper fare has meant people are now interchanging from a 102 at the same stop by Henlys Corner to then complete their journey to Brent X rather than going the convoluted way via North Cricklewood. What would have replaced it would be a different story and I don't think any route in Brent Cross would be able to furfill the role nor any in GG.
The problem with Brownlow Rd and Durnsford Rd is down to the side roads closed off, and people cutting away from the A406 at Colney Hatch Lane and rejoining it at Brownlow Rd. The delays are mostly always towards Edmonton Green or on the 184 towards Barnet. Also the traffic light phasing is regularly changed to short phases at times to accommodate the A406 which in turn causes heavy delays on Brownlow Rd. I cannot see any journey time improvement if the 102 went via the 144 route. As the 144 has heavy delays around Hornsey on school peak time and also the tailbacks on Wood Green High Rd at times. I've always found it to be pretty slow towards Brent X as well but I suppose this is unfortunately the issue with LTNs in that Brownlow Road can't cope with extra traffic because of how narrow it is and ultimately it gets bad whenever there is a 102/184/299 loading and unloading passengers at the Bowes Road stops.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Dec 29, 2021 14:18:41 GMT
In short: - There is a supposed Muswell Hill bus network development paper.
- 102/144 routings could be swapped as 144 routing is less congested.
- In this paper, the 24 and 603 are also rumoured to be brought into the equation. Why we do not know.
It seemed to stem from TFLs improvements to hospital links. I think the 102/144 would have had something to do with North Middlesex Hospital and I'm assuming the 24/603 were to do with the Royal Free. TFL recently did a Hospital review in the Enfield borough a few years back. The only schemes that were proposed and implemented were the introduction of the 456 route aswell a frequency increase on Route 491 to 5bph. The 491's scheme did not last long as it was rerouted away from the hospital grounds significantly increasing the running time due to the congestions on Gloucester Road. Hence on why it currently runs only 3bph.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2021 21:15:50 GMT
I'm also bare confused about the 24. What's that about?! This discussion has stemmed in from TFL answering VMH2537s FOI regarding discussions surrounding TFL looking into Highgate/Muswell Hill, and they mentioned that the 24/603 were being looked into. I then bought up that I have previously read somewhere suggestions about diverting the 268 to Muswell Hill, which could potentially involve the 24 perhaps replacing the link into GG. So the 268 would replace the 603 basically to go to Muswell Hill and the 24 would replace the current 268 link between Hampstead and Golders Green. In terms of the 102/144 the 102 will still continue to Brent Cross but via Wood Green instead of Bounds Green whilst the 144 goes via Bounds Green but would still terminate at Muswell Hill. Am I correct?
|
|