|
Post by busman on Dec 31, 2021 8:03:19 GMT
These ideas seem quite reasonable to me if the 43 and 234 are adequate north of Muswell Hill? It might be better retaining the 134 number and retiring the 102? The new route might be better going via Adelaide Road and the C11 route to serve Swiss Cottage better with the C11 going via Belize Avenue? Don't know whether the C11 should be thrown into this but unfortunately in regards to the 46 change this is the issue I'm afraid and that is it is quite a difficult route to split in terms of routings being retained & I don't imagine if the new service to Muswell Hill requires an 8 minute long SD frequency if it were to be retained on current frequencies, it suits a 15-20 minute frequency more. I'd call that a waste of resources. Bringing the 46 into the mix actually wouldn’t be in line with what TfL have done previously. They seem to prefer making changes in one local area at a time rather than making a series of interlinked changes in multiple areas. Perhaps there isn’t a need for a brand new route. An extension of the 234 to Finchley Road via the 603 to Hampstead Heath then via the 268 might be another option to consider. The 603 and 268 could be withdrawn, with onward connections to Golders Green maintained by the 13 and 210. The 268 largely parallels the Northern Line anyway, so Golders Green - Belsize Park passengers will still have a direct connection between those areas. However, the net PVR saving would probably be zero as it would probably need 8 vehicles or more to cover such an extension.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 31, 2021 10:48:10 GMT
Don't know whether the C11 should be thrown into this but unfortunately in regards to the 46 change this is the issue I'm afraid and that is it is quite a difficult route to split in terms of routings being retained & I don't imagine if the new service to Muswell Hill requires an 8 minute long SD frequency if it were to be retained on current frequencies, it suits a 15-20 minute frequency more. I'd call that a waste of resources. Bringing the 46 into the mix actually wouldn’t be in line with what TfL have done previously. They seem to prefer making changes in one local area at a time rather than making a series of interlinked changes in multiple areas. Perhaps there isn’t a need for a brand new route. An extension of the 234 to Finchley Road via the 603 to Hampstead Heath then via the 268 might be another option to consider. The 603 and 268 could be withdrawn, with onward connections to Golders Green maintained by the 13 and 210. The 268 largely parallels the Northern Line anyway, so Golders Green - Belsize Park passengers will still have a direct connection between those areas. However, the net PVR saving would probably be zero as it would probably need 8 vehicles or more to cover such an extension. But now you break a hospital link to Golders Green that the 268 provides. The 24 or 240 would have to replace that and there can be a crowd of people park & riding into Hampstead from Golders Hill Park/Golders Green on the 268 so in that respect it would be a retrogade step.
Unfortunately you don't realise the value of these links until they are ultimately gone & personally though a lot of speculation has been stirred up surrounding the 24/102/144/268/603 I don't imagine it'll be as bad as people are anticipating. Some cards have previously been laid & I'm only going off that and especially with the 102/268 ultimately these changes will likely create new journeys and therefore more revenue.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Dec 31, 2021 11:51:36 GMT
Bringing the 46 into the mix actually wouldn’t be in line with what TfL have done previously. They seem to prefer making changes in one local area at a time rather than making a series of interlinked changes in multiple areas. Perhaps there isn’t a need for a brand new route. An extension of the 234 to Finchley Road via the 603 to Hampstead Heath then via the 268 might be another option to consider. The 603 and 268 could be withdrawn, with onward connections to Golders Green maintained by the 13 and 210. The 268 largely parallels the Northern Line anyway, so Golders Green - Belsize Park passengers will still have a direct connection between those areas. However, the net PVR saving would probably be zero as it would probably need 8 vehicles or more to cover such an extension. But now you break a hospital link to Golders Green that the 268 provides. The 24 or 240 would have to replace that and there can be a crowd of people park & riding into Hampstead from Golders Hill Park/Golders Green on the 268 so in that respect it would be a retrogade step.
Unfortunately you don't realise the value of these links until they are ultimately gone & personally though a lot of speculation has been stirred up surrounding the 24/102/144/268/603 I don't imagine it'll be as bad as people are anticipating. Some cards have previously been laid & I'm only going off that and especially with the 102/268 ultimately these changes will likely create new journeys and therefore more revenue.
Circling back to the potential 102/144 swap I personally would leave those two routes as it is only because of the Wood Green hotspot and the 144 can recover quickly whereas if the 102 was to go down there it would then have to deal with that hotspot on top of the Henlys Corner hotspot as well. What's your thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 31, 2021 12:15:59 GMT
But now you break a hospital link to Golders Green that the 268 provides. The 24 or 240 would have to replace that and there can be a crowd of people park & riding into Hampstead from Golders Hill Park/Golders Green on the 268 so in that respect it would be a retrogade step.
Unfortunately you don't realise the value of these links until they are ultimately gone & personally though a lot of speculation has been stirred up surrounding the 24/102/144/268/603 I don't imagine it'll be as bad as people are anticipating. Some cards have previously been laid & I'm only going off that and especially with the 102/268 ultimately these changes will likely create new journeys and therefore more revenue.
Circling back to the potential 102/144 swap I personally would leave those two routes as it is only because of the Wood Green hotspot and the 144 can recover quickly whereas if the 102 was to go down there it would then have to deal with that hotspot on top of the Henlys Corner hotspot as well. What's your thoughts on this? I think personally the 102/144 swap is one that will have no conclusive answer, I myself believe it is a good idea as ultimately it creates new connections across North London & I would say where the 144 goes is potentially of more interest than where the 102 goes. However, what has been highlighted by many people on here including yourself is that the 144 can regularly trip up at somewhere like Wood Green or along the Great Cambridge Road. So I'm afraid it's just going to be a never ending debate, for what purpose the swap will take place in an age of cuts, well I don't know. Perhaps making the 102 section between Muswell Hill & Edmonton Green more reliable? I suppose another positive as I previously mentioned is the 102 having a very slightly higher frequency than the 144 in the peak hours, providing just that bit more capacity needed between Muswell Hill & Wood Green during the peak hours as school kickout can mean overcrowded 144s. There are numerous schools down there and I've called for just that bit more support for it previously.
I do think however it might be worth cutting the 102 back to Golders Green because from what I have seen a lot of people tend to leave the 102 at Henlys Corner and interchange onto a 112/232 because the 102 goes the long winded away round North Cricklewood/Golders Green/Clitterhouse, but obviously having something replace it on that section. Now, what replaces it is the harder task, a 232 split could be an option but ultimately depending on the way it is split, the St Raphael's section would mean SDs, therefore losing capacity, and I doubt any of the services in Golders Green would be appropriate for the job (I certainly can't see the 83/139/183/328 being extended and the 240 would be far too infrequent). A 226 split might not be adequate either (as I know it was listed as a possibility for the service in the OOC documents) and I can't see many Brent X routes being adequate for the job either (The 142, 182, 186, 266 would be firmly off the table because of length), the 189 wouldn't be any good double backing on itself, same with the C11. Then pretty much everything is wiped off the table.
Had it not have been for the 112 extension to North Finchley, I'd have said providing it received a decking which it definitely needs, that probably could take on the role and provide adequate enough capacity. But then Temple Fortune loses its link into Brent X, and as I've said previously, the 460 would the better one to send there on the basis of providing a Brent X service, but then the problem arises in North London losing links to Cricklewood/Willesden as a result of the loss of the service.
Then nothing is solved in effect
Back to speculation..........
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Dec 31, 2021 13:26:21 GMT
Circling back to the potential 102/144 swap I personally would leave those two routes as it is only because of the Wood Green hotspot and the 144 can recover quickly whereas if the 102 was to go down there it would then have to deal with that hotspot on top of the Henlys Corner hotspot as well. What's your thoughts on this? I think personally the 102/144 swap is one that will have no conclusive answer, I myself believe it is a good idea as ultimately it creates new connections across North London & I would say where the 144 goes is potentially of more interest than where the 102 goes. However, what has been highlighted by many people on here including yourself is that the 144 can regularly trip up at somewhere like Wood Green or along the Great Cambridge Road. So I'm afraid it's just going to be a never ending debate, for what purpose the swap will take place in an age of cuts, well I don't know. Perhaps making the 102 section between Muswell Hill & Edmonton Green more reliable? I suppose another positive as I previously mentioned is the 102 having a very slightly higher frequency than the 144 in the peak hours, providing just that bit more capacity needed between Muswell Hill & Wood Green during the peak hours as school kickout can mean overcrowded 144s. There are numerous schools down there and I've called for just that bit more support for it previously.
I do think however it might be worth cutting the 102 back to Golders Green because from what I have seen a lot of people tend to leave the 102 at Henlys Corner and interchange onto a 112/232 because the 102 goes the long winded away round North Cricklewood/Golders Green/Clitterhouse, but obviously having something replace it on that section. Now, what replaces it is the harder task, a 232 split could be an option but ultimately depending on the way it is split, the St Raphael's section would mean SDs, therefore losing capacity, and I doubt any of the services in Golders Green would be appropriate for the job (I certainly can't see the 83/139/183/328 being extended and the 240 would be far too infrequent). A 226 split might not be adequate either (as I know it was listed as a possibility for the service in the OOC documents) and I can't see many Brent X routes being adequate for the job either (The 142, 182, 186, 266 would be firmly off the table because of length), the 189 wouldn't be any good double backing on itself, same with the C11. Then pretty much everything is wiped off the table.
Had it not have been for the 112 extension to North Finchley, I'd have said providing it received a decking which it definitely needs, that probably could take on the role and provide adequate enough capacity. But then Temple Fortune loses its link into Brent X, and as I've said previously, the 460 would the better one to send there on the basis of providing a Brent X service, but then the problem arises in North London losing links to Cricklewood/Willesden as a result of the loss of the service.
Then nothing is solved in effect
Back to speculation.......... In regards to the Temple fortune link, directly you would lose the link to brent Cross, indirectly you would still have the 210 from Golders Green. The 102/144 is a tricky one as there's pros and cons on both ends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2022 9:20:54 GMT
There are so many permutations if the 102 and 144 are altered, with different opportunities arising. I suspect the impact could be far reaching beyond Muswell Hill and Highgate. My suggestions: 43 - Extended to North Finchley. No change to frequency (!) 46 - Withdrawn 102 - Diverted at Muswell Hill to Camden Town via route 134. No change to frequency. 134 - Withdrawn 144 - Extended to Brent Cross via route 102 268 – Diverted at Swiss Cottage and extended to Paddington via route 46. No change to frequency, potentially review for double deck conversion (not sure if there are any restrictions preventing this from happening). New route – Muswell Hill to St Barts Hospital – Via route 603 to Swiss Cottage, then route 268 to Belsize Park, route 168 into Hampstead Heath Station, then via route 46 to St Barts Hospital. Single Deck, matching frequency of the 46. 603 - Withdrawn I've thrown a grenade into the north London network, now ducking for cover Sorry but I cannot have the 134 withdrawn!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2022 9:25:20 GMT
Link to the map of my 475 idea between North Woolwich and Aldborough Hatch. I do believe this is a route that will definitely work. I hope to receive some feedback. wikiroutes.info/en/idea/52402
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 1, 2022 12:25:03 GMT
There are so many permutations if the 102 and 144 are altered, with different opportunities arising. I suspect the impact could be far reaching beyond Muswell Hill and Highgate. My suggestions: 43 - Extended to North Finchley. No change to frequency (!) 46 - Withdrawn 102 - Diverted at Muswell Hill to Camden Town via route 134. No change to frequency. 134 - Withdrawn 144 - Extended to Brent Cross via route 102 268 – Diverted at Swiss Cottage and extended to Paddington via route 46. No change to frequency, potentially review for double deck conversion (not sure if there are any restrictions preventing this from happening). New route – Muswell Hill to St Barts Hospital – Via route 603 to Swiss Cottage, then route 268 to Belsize Park, route 168 into Hampstead Heath Station, then via route 46 to St Barts Hospital. Single Deck, matching frequency of the 46. 603 - Withdrawn I've thrown a grenade into the north London network, now ducking for cover Sorry but I cannot have the 134 withdrawn!! The 134 is definitely a valuable service to North Londoners, I concur.
I'd also hate to see the 268 withdrawn given how busy it can be on weekends and in peak hours with all the leisure/work travel it has.
|
|
js11
Cleaner
Posts: 24
|
Post by js11 on Jan 3, 2022 17:51:25 GMT
91: Extended to Hornsey Station, Wood Green or Turnpike Lane Station (if there is any space) to regain the LT’s and remove the roundabout and replace it with lights.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jan 3, 2022 17:56:17 GMT
91: Extended to Hornsey Station, Wood Green or Turnpike Lane Station (if there is any space) to regain the LT’s and remove the roundabout and replace it with lights. The LTs have been redeployed so they couldn’t come back to the 91.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 3, 2022 18:03:08 GMT
91: Extended to Hornsey Station, Wood Green or Turnpike Lane Station (if there is any space) to regain the LT’s and remove the roundabout and replace it with lights. Despite the LTs not coming back, the idea of the 91 running to Wood Green or at least Turnpike Lane has been discussed and has merit. I'd support it going as far as Turnpike Lane, as stand space could be an issue at Wood Green, and it adds more traffic. With Turnpike Lane one route can be moved out to stand on West Green Road.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 3, 2022 18:30:26 GMT
91: Extended to Hornsey Station, Wood Green or Turnpike Lane Station (if there is any space) to regain the LT’s and remove the roundabout and replace it with lights. Can you explain why the LT’s should be regained given there is almost no advantage at all in doing so?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2022 20:59:25 GMT
91: Extended to Hornsey Station, Wood Green or Turnpike Lane Station (if there is any space) to regain the LT’s and remove the roundabout and replace it with lights. There's no point. 41 does the job.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 3, 2022 22:40:28 GMT
91: Extended to Hornsey Station, Wood Green or Turnpike Lane Station (if there is any space) to regain the LT’s and remove the roundabout and replace it with lights. There's no point. 41 does the job. The 41 could do with support as it is a busy service and throughout the pandemic has only continued to be. To me it would be far more useful than Crouch End & uses an existing stand on Ducketts Green.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2022 23:17:54 GMT
There's no point. 41 does the job. The 41 could do with support as it is a busy service and throughout the pandemic has only continued to be. To me it would be far more useful than Crouch End & uses an existing stand on Ducketts Green. I guess it wouldn't be bad but I only see it going as far as Hornsey. Wood Green and Turnpike Lane are packed plus the 91 is never returning to LT type allocation.
|
|