|
Post by ADH45258 on Dec 7, 2023 17:57:32 GMT
Some ideas to improve links around Barnet: 1. Extending the 299 to Barnet won't form a direct link to Southgate. I'd argue a journey on the 125/382 to Hampden Square and changing to the 184 will still end up more direct than your proposal. 2. The whole purpose of the 326 serving Dollis Valley estate is to allow a direct link to New Barnet and High Barnet, it's specially designed to cater for users from the estate. Whilst you propose replacing it with the 184, you effectively break the direct New Barnet link that's unique and establishes the 326's purpose. 3. We need to also acknowledge there's the local demand for users who need to reach Walthamstow on a route that's been well-established for decades. I don't think it would be wise to suddenly break those journeys over the SL1 being introduced. Remember the SL1's purpose wasn't just to form faster journeys, but to form additional capacity. There are many ongoing developments such as Meridian Water alongside growing populations in Walthamstow and Edmonton where more services are required to cater for the new demand. The 34 is already at capacity in the peaks, especially between Edmonton and Walthamstow, so I'm glad more services are invested in that corridor. Though if we are going back to the Barnet area, what I would personally find more useful is extending the 34 to Arkley Hotel for Barnet Hospital to be accessed. Assuming there is demand for a direct Barnet-Southgate link, perhaps the 184 could divert to serve Southgate (adjust some other routes in the area to maintain links as required)? Or maybe could just introduce a new route here alongside the current network, roughly via the 307 to Cockfosters then 298? Regarding the 34, the SL1 is not replacing the 34 at Walthamstow, but just maintains links for journeys towards Palmers Green and Arnos Grove. I mentioned that a new route would replace the 34 between Edmonton (Angel Corner) and Walthamstow Central, offering some new links from Walthamstow to Edmonton Green, and beyond to somewhere like Ponders End or Enfield. Also with the 34 being reduced in frequency following the SL1 introduction, this could also allow a higher frequency at the Walthamstow if needed. Perhaps a split of the indirect 191 could work here, to introduce some new links across the Lea Valley? One route could go from Enfield to Walthamstow, as the current 191 to Edmonton Green (via Southbury and Ponders End), then down to Angel Corner and taking over the 34 to Walthamstow Central. And another route covering the Enfield - Carterhatch - Brimsdown section, then continuing east to somewhere near Chingford?
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Dec 7, 2023 20:46:09 GMT
1. Extending the 299 to Barnet won't form a direct link to Southgate. I'd argue a journey on the 125/382 to Hampden Square and changing to the 184 will still end up more direct than your proposal. 2. The whole purpose of the 326 serving Dollis Valley estate is to allow a direct link to New Barnet and High Barnet, it's specially designed to cater for users from the estate. Whilst you propose replacing it with the 184, you effectively break the direct New Barnet link that's unique and establishes the 326's purpose. 3. We need to also acknowledge there's the local demand for users who need to reach Walthamstow on a route that's been well-established for decades. I don't think it would be wise to suddenly break those journeys over the SL1 being introduced. Remember the SL1's purpose wasn't just to form faster journeys, but to form additional capacity. There are many ongoing developments such as Meridian Water alongside growing populations in Walthamstow and Edmonton where more services are required to cater for the new demand. The 34 is already at capacity in the peaks, especially between Edmonton and Walthamstow, so I'm glad more services are invested in that corridor. Though if we are going back to the Barnet area, what I would personally find more useful is extending the 34 to Arkley Hotel for Barnet Hospital to be accessed. Perhaps a split of the indirect 191 could work here, to introduce some new links across the Lea Valley? One route could go from Enfield to Walthamstow, as the current 191 to Edmonton Green (via Southbury and Ponders End), then down to Angel Corner and taking over the 34 to Walthamstow Central. And another route covering the Enfield - Carterhatch - Brimsdown section, then continuing east to somewhere near Chingford? This has been suggested before but the W8 can be rerouted to serve Walthamstow and have the W6 sent to Picketts Lock to replace it.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 8, 2023 9:03:36 GMT
Following the discussion about the 132 on another thread...
126 Extended from Eltham to Bexleyheath, possibly double decked and reallocated to BX with the 51 moving back to MB?.
132 Withdrawn between Eltham Southend Crescent and Bexleyheath, increased to 8bph and possibly up to 10bph at peak times, reallocated to MG.
486 Converted to EP operation using buses from the 132.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Dec 8, 2023 10:55:20 GMT
Following the discussion about the 132 on another thread... 126 Extended from Eltham to Bexleyheath, possibly double decked and reallocated to BX with the 51 moving back to MB?. 132 Withdrawn between Eltham Southend Crescent and Bexleyheath, increased to 8bph and possibly up to 10bph at peak times, reallocated to MG. 486 Converted to EP operation using buses from the 132. 126 too long to run well. 132 is OK and very popular. 486 new contract due soon.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 8, 2023 11:44:23 GMT
Following the discussion about the 132 on another thread... 126 Extended from Eltham to Bexleyheath, possibly double decked and reallocated to BX with the 51 moving back to MB?. 132 Withdrawn between Eltham Southend Crescent and Bexleyheath, increased to 8bph and possibly up to 10bph at peak times, reallocated to MG. 486 Converted to EP operation using buses from the 132. 126 too long to run well. 132 is OK and very popular. 486 new contract due soon. The 126 wouldn't be too long and the problems with the 132 have been discussed in another thread. It's very popular at the North Greenwich end of the route, less so at the Bexleyheath end of route and operating it from BX means the regular Sun in the Sands turns are inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Dec 8, 2023 12:27:21 GMT
1. Extending the 299 to Barnet won't form a direct link to Southgate. I'd argue a journey on the 125/382 to Hampden Square and changing to the 184 will still end up more direct than your proposal. 2. The whole purpose of the 326 serving Dollis Valley estate is to allow a direct link to New Barnet and High Barnet, it's specially designed to cater for users from the estate. Whilst you propose replacing it with the 184, you effectively break the direct New Barnet link that's unique and establishes the 326's purpose. 3. We need to also acknowledge there's the local demand for users who need to reach Walthamstow on a route that's been well-established for decades. I don't think it would be wise to suddenly break those journeys over the SL1 being introduced. Remember the SL1's purpose wasn't just to form faster journeys, but to form additional capacity. There are many ongoing developments such as Meridian Water alongside growing populations in Walthamstow and Edmonton where more services are required to cater for the new demand. The 34 is already at capacity in the peaks, especially between Edmonton and Walthamstow, so I'm glad more services are invested in that corridor. Though if we are going back to the Barnet area, what I would personally find more useful is extending the 34 to Arkley Hotel for Barnet Hospital to be accessed. Assuming there is demand for a direct Barnet-Southgate link, perhaps the 184 could divert to serve Southgate (adjust some other routes in the area to maintain links as required)? Or maybe could just introduce a new route here alongside the current network, roughly via the 307 to Cockfosters then 298? Regarding the 34, the SL1 is not replacing the 34 at Walthamstow, but just maintains links for journeys towards Palmers Green and Arnos Grove. I mentioned that a new route would replace the 34 between Edmonton (Angel Corner) and Walthamstow Central, offering some new links from Walthamstow to Edmonton Green, and beyond to somewhere like Ponders End or Enfield. Also with the 34 being reduced in frequency following the SL1 introduction, this could also allow a higher frequency at the Walthamstow if needed. Perhaps a split of the indirect 191 could work here, to introduce some new links across the Lea Valley? One route could go from Enfield to Walthamstow, as the current 191 to Edmonton Green (via Southbury and Ponders End), then down to Angel Corner and taking over the 34 to Walthamstow Central. And another route covering the Enfield - Carterhatch - Brimsdown section, then continuing east to somewhere near Chingford? Once again, it is ill conceived and over-exaggerated with this Meridan Water nonsense, just like another poster keeps on going on about Beam Park. If the trains to Meridian Water hardly has much footfall, the buses going to Angel Road Superstores, aka Northumberland Park Tesco, aka Lea Valley Tesco, aka Edmonton Ikea, aka Tottenham Ikea, hardly has much footfall either. They are now even quieter since Ikea went. A bit busy when there is an event at Drumsheds, otherwise not much goes on there now.
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Dec 8, 2023 12:37:22 GMT
What is a pity is so many buses run dead to PB it must be annoying for people who want to travel there from Barnet to see empty buses all day out of service. Potters Bar seemed like a bit of a dead town when I was there recently. Students are catered for by private contracts. It has a decent train service. So I can see why bus patronage has dropped.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 8, 2023 17:38:24 GMT
Following the discussion about the 132 on another thread... 126 Extended from Eltham to Bexleyheath, possibly double decked and reallocated to BX with the 51 moving back to MB?. 132 Withdrawn between Eltham Southend Crescent and Bexleyheath, increased to 8bph and possibly up to 10bph at peak times, reallocated to MG. 486 Converted to EP operation using buses from the 132. The best solution I think is extra short workings Eltham Station to North Greenwich on the 132. I’d prefer the 126 to extend to Woolwich rather than Bexleyheath, and maybe do this via Westmount Road/Rochester Way/Well Hall Roundabout/161.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 8, 2023 19:04:50 GMT
Following the discussion about the 132 on another thread... 126 Extended from Eltham to Bexleyheath, possibly double decked and reallocated to BX with the 51 moving back to MB?. 132 Withdrawn between Eltham Southend Crescent and Bexleyheath, increased to 8bph and possibly up to 10bph at peak times, reallocated to MG. 486 Converted to EP operation using buses from the 132. The best solution I think is extra short workings Eltham Station to North Greenwich on the 132. I’d prefer the 126 to extend to Woolwich rather than Bexleyheath, and maybe do this via Westmount Road/Rochester Way/Well Hall Roundabout/161. Yes I wouldn't disagree with you although short workings go against TfL dogma and I think the only way to eliminate the dreaded Sun in the Sands turn is to operate the route from MG.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 8, 2023 19:11:50 GMT
The best solution I think is extra short workings Eltham Station to North Greenwich on the 132. I’d prefer the 126 to extend to Woolwich rather than Bexleyheath, and maybe do this via Westmount Road/Rochester Way/Well Hall Roundabout/161. Yes I wouldn't disagree with you although short workings go against TfL dogma and I think the only way to eliminate the dreaded Sun in the Sands turn is to operate the route from MG. Stuff dogma let’s do short workings 😂
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 8, 2023 19:43:02 GMT
Yes I wouldn't disagree with you although short workings go against TfL dogma and I think the only way to eliminate the dreaded Sun in the Sands turn is to operate the route from MG. Stuff dogma let’s do short workings 😂 In a logical world that would happen with say an extra 3 bph running between Eltham and N Greenwich to help with the crowds.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Dec 8, 2023 19:46:21 GMT
Following the discussion about the 132 on another thread... 126 Extended from Eltham to Bexleyheath, possibly double decked and reallocated to BX with the 51 moving back to MB?. 132 Withdrawn between Eltham Southend Crescent and Bexleyheath, increased to 8bph and possibly up to 10bph at peak times, reallocated to MG. 486 Converted to EP operation using buses from the 132. The best solution I think is extra short workings Eltham Station to North Greenwich on the 132. I’d prefer the 126 to extend to Woolwich rather than Bexleyheath, and maybe do this via Westmount Road/Rochester Way/Well Hall Roundabout/161. I think they should have sent the SL4 to Eltham (instead of Grove Park), also adding stops at North Greenwich. For the SL4's links, could just extend the 335 to Grove Park, and/or the 202 to North Greenwich?
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Dec 9, 2023 5:30:54 GMT
Some ideas to improve links around Barnet:299 - Extended from Cockfosters to Barnet via the 384, introducing a direct link between Barnet and Southgate, and a slight increase in capacity between Barnet and Cockfosters. Terminating at Quinta Drive as the 384 did previously. 84B (non-TFL) - Withdrawn. Revised 384 below offers a more frequent TFL service between Barnet and Potters Bar, maintaining links to High Barnet Station and Barnet Hospital. I don't think an hourly service is sufficient in linking two major towns close by to each other. 384 - Restructured to operate between Edgware and Potters Bar. Via existing route from Edgware to Arkley, direct to Barnet Hospital, then Tinder Road, Chesterfield Road, Mays Lane, Underhill, Barnet Hill and High Barnet Station back to Barnet Town Centre, then Hadley Green, Kitts End Road and Baker Street to Potters Bar Station, either terminating there or continuing round to the bus garage. 184 - With the revised 384 serving Chesterfield Road in Barnet, cut back slightly to terminate within the Dollis Valley Estate. 326 - Double run to the Dollis Valley Estate removed, making the route more direct. 389/399 - Merged to operate as one route, allowing passengers in the Hadley Wood area to travel beyond The Spires, particularly to High Barnet Station. Also revised to serve Western Way as a double run, then continuing to restore a service to some of the local roads around Lyonsdown Road, terminating at New Barnet Station (with all stand time taken there). Option to also increase frequency or operating hours slightly. 34 - With the SL1 being introduced, withdrawn between Walthamstow and Edmonton, revised to terminate at Meridian Water. New route introduced to replace the Walthamstow end, offering some new links across the Lea Valley, perhaps via Edmonton Green and onwards to the north (similar structure to the 140/278/SL9 changes). Similar things to some of these were suggested to TfL when the 84 and 384 were withdrawn, but they refused - 299, 377 or 389/399 to take over the withdrawn parts of the 384 and a TfL bus to PB. TfL see the 384 as a shuttle from Edgware to JCoSS now so they wouldn't send it to PB anyway. Maybe others know how the 84B is doing now since the timetable change removed one of the Underhill loops, but a lot of people gave up on it because the buses simply weren't turning up. If there is only one route it needs to go via PB Hospital and Church Road - we don't have the 'luxury' of a second route via Kitts End and Baker Street any more sadly since the 383 was withdrawn. I see that the 384 is also on diversion eastbound away from Salisbury Road but not via the old routing, so also missing out The Avenue and the local primary schools. I believe Salisbury Road collapsed. Currently buses can't go through the width restriction on Mays Lane, so your idea for the 384 and 184 would not work. If I ever win Euromillions I might try to fund some improvements to buses in this area because they've only got worse since the first decade of this century.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Dec 9, 2023 17:43:40 GMT
Some ideas to improve links around Barnet: Similar things to some of these were suggested to TfL when the 84 and 384 were withdrawn, but they refused - 299, 377 or 389/399 to take over the withdrawn parts of the 384 and a TfL bus to PB. TfL see the 384 as a shuttle from Edgware to JCoSS now so they wouldn't send it to PB anyway. Maybe others know how the 84B is doing now since the timetable change removed one of the Underhill loops, but a lot of people gave up on it because the buses simply weren't turning up. If there is only one route it needs to go via PB Hospital and Church Road - we don't have the 'luxury' of a second route via Kitts End and Baker Street any more sadly since the 383 was withdrawn. I see that the 384 is also on diversion eastbound away from Salisbury Road but not via the old routing, so also missing out The Avenue and the local primary schools. I believe Salisbury Road collapsed. Currently buses can't go through the width restriction on Mays Lane, so your idea for the 384 and 184 would not work. If I ever win Euromillions I might try to fund some improvements to buses in this area because they've only got worse since the first decade of this century. All of this makes sense regarding Potters Bar and Dollis Valley. I wonder though if TFL could at least extent something like the 383 up to the Greater London border, providing a regular service to the area around Hadley Green? Not sure though where buses could turn around or stand. Or could a more frequent 399 be looked into, at least extending operating hours to the whole day? Also I think a direct Barnet-Southgate link should still be possible, though I can see that using the 384's routeing via Cockfosters would be too indirect. Could either amend some existing routes so the 184 goes via Southgate, or just introduce a new route (roughly via the 307 then 298)?
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Dec 9, 2023 18:15:14 GMT
Regarding the 34, the SL1 is not replacing the 34 at Walthamstow, but just maintains links for journeys towards Palmers Green and Arnos Grove. I mentioned that a new route would replace the 34 between Edmonton (Angel Corner) and Walthamstow Central, offering some new links from Walthamstow to Edmonton Green, and beyond to somewhere like Ponders End or Enfield. Also with the 34 being reduced in frequency following the SL1 introduction, this could also allow a higher frequency at the Walthamstow if needed. Perhaps a split of the indirect 191 could work here, to introduce some new links across the Lea Valley? One route could go from Enfield to Walthamstow, as the current 191 to Edmonton Green (via Southbury and Ponders End), then down to Angel Corner and taking over the 34 to Walthamstow Central. And another route covering the Enfield - Carterhatch - Brimsdown section, then continuing east to somewhere near Chingford? Once again, it is ill conceived and over-exaggerated with this Meridan Water nonsense, just like another poster keeps on going on about Beam Park. If the trains to Meridian Water hardly has much footfall, the buses going to Angel Road Superstores, aka Northumberland Park Tesco, aka Lea Valley Tesco, aka Edmonton Ikea, aka Tottenham Ikea, hardly has much footfall either. They are now even quieter since Ikea went. A bit busy when there is an event at Drumsheds, otherwise not much goes on there now. My suggestions weren't really about Meridian Water specifically, but generally to improve links across the Lea Valley. But even so, I think a lot more redevelopments are planned in the area? With the 34, Meridian Water would be a convenient place to terminate around that area, plus linking Meridian Water to North Middlesex Hospital. But also offering an overlap with the new Walthamstow-Enfield route for interchange.
|
|