|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 7, 2024 10:53:47 GMT
Since SL1 was introduced I see the route getting descent Passengers 34 passengers using SL1 to get place's quicker. Route been useful.hope we see more Superloop near future. The only thing I don’t like about SL1 is that it stops at Ravenside Trading Estate because firstly, it’s likely to get into an accident went it tries to get into the flyover and secondly, the route waits there for a few minutes before it changes lane to get to the flyover safely. I hope TFL consider removing SL1 from stopping there soon. Disagree with this, it is an important connection as the Meridian Water developments increase in popularity |
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Feb 7, 2024 11:01:27 GMT
The only thing I don’t like about SL1 is that it stops at Ravenside Trading Estate because firstly, it’s likely to get into an accident went it tries to get into the flyover and secondly, the route waits there for a few minutes before it changes lane to get to the flyover safely. I hope TFL consider removing SL1 from stopping there soon. Disagree with this, it is an important connection as the Meridian Water developments increase in popularity Safety is more important that connections. Plus Silver Street is only like 3/4 stops away from Meridian Water. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 7, 2024 11:09:39 GMT
Disagree with this, it is an important connection as the Meridian Water developments increase in popularity Safety is more important that connections. Plus Silver Street is only like 3/4 stops away from Meridian Water. If there are issues with that the SL1 could simply follow the 34/444 to Silver Street so that it doesn’t need to change over to the flyover. That stop is well used by SL1 users & should not be removed. |
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Feb 7, 2024 11:28:59 GMT
Safety is more important that connections. Plus Silver Street is only like 3/4 stops away from Meridian Water. If there are issues with that the SL1 could simply follow the 34/444 to Silver Street so that it doesn’t need to change over to the flyover. That stop is well used by SL1 users & should not be removed. The SL1 is supposed to use the flyovers to speed up the journey otherwise it would meaningless and the 34 can possibly catch up with it. One SL1 driver couldn’t use the flyover after Meridian Water because of that bus stop but this may have happened more than once. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 7, 2024 12:36:17 GMT
If there are issues with that the SL1 could simply follow the 34/444 to Silver Street so that it doesn’t need to change over to the flyover. That stop is well used by SL1 users & should not be removed. The SL1 is supposed to use the flyovers to speed up the journey otherwise it would meaningless and the 34 can possibly catch up with it. One SL1 driver couldn’t use the flyover after Meridian Water because of that bus stop but this may have happened more than once. The SL1 still wouldn’t serve the 3 stops between Meridian Water & Silver St that the 34 serves. Plus the SL1 still uses other flyovers safely, the difference between it taking the flyover & the 34/444’s routing is minimal. The connections to Meridian Water are more important many people specifically asked for the SL1 to stop there & tfl listened for once. |
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Feb 7, 2024 19:22:13 GMT
107 to Potters Bar? Are we forgetting that PB is beyons the TfL boundary and they are most reluctant to do anything even a mete outside their territory. Which is why parts of Monken Hadley (inside the TfL area) are so poorly served now that the 84 has gone. That used to be a "red bus" route until TfL or their predecessors spat the dummy and gave it away because more than half of it was in Hertfordshire.
The other routes running to Potters Bar are historic links that have been lucky to survive. Don't expect new ones under the TfL banner no matter how desirable they might be.
There is clearly an issue with the 21 reaching Holloway. Many of us said there would be. The 271 stand in Highgate was unsustainable in the face of increasing NIMBY pressure but it could have been extended northwards to a better spot. It may yet be time to bring that route back and undo the changes its withdrawal precipitated.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 7, 2024 19:59:59 GMT
107 to Potters Bar? Are we forgetting that PB is beyons the TfL boundary and they are most reluctant to do anything even a mete outside their territory. Which is why parts of Monken Hadley (inside the TfL area) are so poorly served now that the 84 has gone. That used to be a "red bus" route until TfL or their predecessors spat the dummy and gave it away because more than half of it was in Hertfordshire. The other routes running to Potters Bar are historic links that have been lucky to survive. Don't expect new ones under the TfL banner no matter how desirable they might be. There is clearly an issue with the 21 reaching Holloway. Many of us said there would be. The 271 stand in Highgate was unsustainable in the face of increasing NIMBY pressure but it could have been extended northwards to a better spot. It may yet be time to bring that route back and undo the changes its withdrawal precipitated. Tbh I'm not sure there have been too many issues with the 21. There always seems to be an even spacing of buses on Holloway Road and there haven't been any horror about no buses turning as far as I'm aware. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 7, 2024 21:15:20 GMT
107 to Potters Bar? Are we forgetting that PB is beyons the TfL boundary and they are most reluctant to do anything even a mete outside their territory. Which is why parts of Monken Hadley (inside the TfL area) are so poorly served now that the 84 has gone. That used to be a "red bus" route until TfL or their predecessors spat the dummy and gave it away because more than half of it was in Hertfordshire. The other routes running to Potters Bar are historic links that have been lucky to survive. Don't expect new ones under the TfL banner no matter how desirable they might be. There is clearly an issue with the 21 reaching Holloway. Many of us said there would be. The 271 stand in Highgate was unsustainable in the face of increasing NIMBY pressure but it could have been extended northwards to a better spot. It may yet be time to bring that route back and undo the changes its withdrawal precipitated. Tbh I'm not sure there have been too many issues with the 21. There always seems to be an even spacing of buses on Holloway Road and there haven't been any horror about no buses turning as far as I'm aware. The only real issue I’ve had with the 21 reroute is that I’ve noticed 141’s have gotten significantly busier since the reroute took place. I have video evidence of this too as I filmed 2 141’s running together just after Old St in early December 2023. One was half full, the other was full to the point where the driver wouldn’t be able to let anymore people on. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 7, 2024 21:38:15 GMT
Tbh I'm not sure there have been too many issues with the 21. There always seems to be an even spacing of buses on Holloway Road and there haven't been any horror about no buses turning as far as I'm aware. The only real issue I’ve had with the 21 reroute is that I’ve noticed 141’s have gotten significantly busier since the reroute took place. I have video evidence of this too as I filmed 2 141’s running together just after Old St in early December 2023. One was half full, the other was full to the point where the driver wouldn’t be able to let anymore people on. I would say that issue could be solved still with a couple more southbound journeys in the morning peak. Maybe even just Newington Green to Moorgate so they can go back and do another 2 journeys for efficency. I don't honestly think it's a good use of resources to go back to 7 days a week having the 21 supporting. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 7, 2024 21:55:14 GMT
The only real issue I’ve had with the 21 reroute is that I’ve noticed 141’s have gotten significantly busier since the reroute took place. I have video evidence of this too as I filmed 2 141’s running together just after Old St in early December 2023. One was half full, the other was full to the point where the driver wouldn’t be able to let anymore people on. I would say that issue could be solved still with a couple more southbound journeys in the morning peak. Maybe even just Newington Green to Moorgate so they can go back and do another 2 journeys for efficency. I don't honestly think it's a good use of resources to go back to 7 days a week having the 21 supporting. Maybe have them run between Wood Green & Finsbury Square, considering that the additional peak journeys are I believe operated from WN, while the rest of the journeys are from AD. Interestingly from what I’ve noticed from the London Bridge Stop (M Specifically), only the 141 & 149 tend to fill up massively. Not much else really fills up there significantly. I’m surprised that TfL didn’t consider diverting the 43 onto the 271 though considering how much the 43 paralleled the 271, both run in Old St & run the same route from Highbury & Islington to Archway. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses184 on Feb 7, 2024 22:17:57 GMT
Since SL1 was introduced I see the route getting descent Passengers 34 passengers using SL1 to get place's quicker. Route been useful.hope we see more Superloop near future. The only thing I don’t like about SL1 is that it stops at Ravenside Trading Estate because firstly, it’s likely to get into an accident went it tries to get into the flyover and secondly, the route waits there for a few minutes before it changes lane to get to the flyover safely. I hope TFL consider removing SL1 from stopping there soon. Should never have stopped there imo. The 34 can cover that section easily as it's still quick enough. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 7, 2024 22:29:18 GMT
The only thing I don’t like about SL1 is that it stops at Ravenside Trading Estate because firstly, it’s likely to get into an accident went it tries to get into the flyover and secondly, the route waits there for a few minutes before it changes lane to get to the flyover safely. I hope TFL consider removing SL1 from stopping there soon. Should never have stopped there imo. The 34 can cover that section easily as it's still quick enough. Sorry still disagree the SL1’s stop there is very useful. Don’t forget the 34 did receive a reduction in frequency & is very busy a lot of the time. Plus the Meridian Water developments are only going to grow with time. There was even consideration of extending the 476 & W3 there. W3 would create some nice new links but the 476 has a lot of the same links as the 341 so that probably I wouldn’t extend. |
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Feb 8, 2024 0:21:55 GMT
107 to Potters Bar? Are we forgetting that PB is beyons the TfL boundary and they are most reluctant to do anything even a mete outside their territory. Which is why parts of Monken Hadley (inside the TfL area) are so poorly served now that the 84 has gone. That used to be a "red bus" route until TfL or their predecessors spat the dummy and gave it away because more than half of it was in Hertfordshire. The other routes running to Potters Bar are historic links that have been lucky to survive. Don't expect new ones under the TfL banner no matter how desirable they might be. There is clearly an issue with the 21 reaching Holloway. Many of us said there would be. The 271 stand in Highgate was unsustainable in the face of increasing NIMBY pressure but it could have been extended northwards to a better spot. It may yet be time to bring that route back and undo the changes its withdrawal precipitated. Well if the 107 extended to Potters Bar at least it would be closer to the bus garage. But you’re certainly right about the 21 having issues with reaching Holloway. I’m thinking that if they manage to get 21 back to Newington Green, if possible, 17 should extend to North Finchley via Highgate Village and 263 is rerouted via Highgate Station then 234 is curtailed back to East Finchley. The reason I’m saying that the 17 should extend is because TFL don’t want 4 buses running from Holloway to Archway through Holloway Road and that’s why these changes have happened in the first place. Genuinely, the only option is to extend the 17. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 8, 2024 5:34:39 GMT
107 to Potters Bar? Are we forgetting that PB is beyons the TfL boundary and they are most reluctant to do anything even a mete outside their territory. Which is why parts of Monken Hadley (inside the TfL area) are so poorly served now that the 84 has gone. That used to be a "red bus" route until TfL or their predecessors spat the dummy and gave it away because more than half of it was in Hertfordshire. The other routes running to Potters Bar are historic links that have been lucky to survive. Don't expect new ones under the TfL banner no matter how desirable they might be. There is clearly an issue with the 21 reaching Holloway. Many of us said there would be. The 271 stand in Highgate was unsustainable in the face of increasing NIMBY pressure but it could have been extended northwards to a better spot. It may yet be time to bring that route back and undo the changes its withdrawal precipitated. Tbh I'm not sure there have been too many issues with the 21. There always seems to be an even spacing of buses on Holloway Road and there haven't been any horror about no buses turning as far as I'm aware. I agree, the 21 seems to be operated very well and I'm not aware of any complaints about the route. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 8, 2024 7:43:55 GMT
107 to Potters Bar? Are we forgetting that PB is beyons the TfL boundary and they are most reluctant to do anything even a mete outside their territory. Which is why parts of Monken Hadley (inside the TfL area) are so poorly served now that the 84 has gone. That used to be a "red bus" route until TfL or their predecessors spat the dummy and gave it away because more than half of it was in Hertfordshire. The other routes running to Potters Bar are historic links that have been lucky to survive. Don't expect new ones under the TfL banner no matter how desirable they might be. There is clearly an issue with the 21 reaching Holloway. Many of us said there would be. The 271 stand in Highgate was unsustainable in the face of increasing NIMBY pressure but it could have been extended northwards to a better spot. It may yet be time to bring that route back and undo the changes its withdrawal precipitated. Well if the 107 extended to Potters Bar at least it would be closer to the bus garage. But you’re certainly right about the 21 having issues with reaching Holloway. I’m thinking that if they manage to get 21 back to Newington Green, if possible, 17 should extend to North Finchley via Highgate Village and 263 is rerouted via Highgate Station then 234 is curtailed back to East Finchley. The reason I’m saying that the 17 should extend is because TFL don’t want 4 buses running from Holloway to Archway through Holloway Road and that’s why these changes have happened in the first place. Genuinely, the only option is to extend the 17. Still see nothing wrong with rerouting the 43 through Highgate Village. The 17 only makes it as far as Holloway Nags Head before taking a different route so I wouldn’t extend that. The 43 meanwhile makes it as far as Highbury & Islington & even if you keep its current route through Angel, it still gets Old St & the City. The 263 can still remain on its old route while the 234 is rerouted via the 134 to Archway. |
|
