|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 24, 2021 8:30:46 GMT
I fear for the 43 - scope (not that I like or support) for it to be cut back to Moorgate Finsbury square (overlap from nags head to H&I and then again from old street to London Bridge with the new 21) The 21 will also become the only route to serve both terminals of 2 separate train / dlr / tube routes (bank & lewisham for DLR, new cross and h&i fir overground!) The 21 however does not serve New Cross Station that is served by 53 177 225 & 453.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Nov 24, 2021 9:53:49 GMT
I raised this in my response. I suggested introducing an N263 from Barnet Hospital to Moorgate and cutting the N20 back to N Finchley. I'm somewhat going to agree but I'll probably put this here (as a local): - Divert the N20 between Basing Way & North Finchley via Squires Lane & Great North Road and between Archway & Highgate Wood via Highgate Village with the N271 not introduced. And I say this because entering the estates especially at night time is probably safer to do so not on the main road (for example the Oak Lane Estates I think punters would feel safer not entering on the A1000 and instead perhaps entering round the back) and then you serve a larger variety of people at night, certainly more than the N20 does anyway. Then you can serve all the housing around the Finchley Lido area, almost all housing up to Chandos Avenue is within walking distance of the N20 and the estates would be within the walking distance of the revised N20. To me I think this is sensible because the N20 hasn't exactly been busy between Finchley Central & North Finchley in recent years and there is the N13. Is East Finchley that rough?
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Nov 24, 2021 13:06:12 GMT
I'm somewhat going to agree but I'll probably put this here (as a local): - Divert the N20 between Basing Way & North Finchley via Squires Lane & Great North Road and between Archway & Highgate Wood via Highgate Village with the N271 not introduced. And I say this because entering the estates especially at night time is probably safer to do so not on the main road (for example the Oak Lane Estates I think punters would feel safer not entering on the A1000 and instead perhaps entering round the back) and then you serve a larger variety of people at night, certainly more than the N20 does anyway. Then you can serve all the housing around the Finchley Lido area, almost all housing up to Chandos Avenue is within walking distance of the N20 and the estates would be within the walking distance of the revised N20. To me I think this is sensible because the N20 hasn't exactly been busy between Finchley Central & North Finchley in recent years and there is the N13. Is East Finchley that rough? No. Also makes sense for a night service near the Finchley Memorial Hospital with the shift changes.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 24, 2021 13:23:22 GMT
Is East Finchley that rough? No. Also makes sense for a night service near the Finchley Memorial Hospital with the shift changes. Do shifts change in the middle of the night? When I was last in hospital the night shift went from about 11pm to 7am
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 24, 2021 16:19:27 GMT
Is East Finchley that rough? No. Also makes sense for a night service near the Finchley Memorial Hospital with the shift changes. East Finchley is not rough like South London but in some places especially where the proposed N271 is meant to run I don't think I'd feel comfortable waiting at a bus stop for.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 24, 2021 18:09:06 GMT
There are some good ideas with these proposals, but the revised 21 could be quite unreliable, and I think generally some changes could improve the proposals overall. Also, with TFL having to make cuts, I'm not sure the N271 is worth introducing, particularly beyond Highgate. Does the section along New North Road need to keep a night service either, especially as it only goes as far as Finsbury Square towards Central London, and the 43 & 76 available for some journeys? 143 - Retain via Highgate Village, but convert to DDs, and extend to Highbury Barn. 143D and 643 withdrawn or merged into the schedule, following the extra capacity available. 263 - Cut back to operate between Archway and Barnet Hospital (via Highgate Station). 271 - Withdrawn as planned. 21 - Rerouted to Holloway as planned, but cut back at the other end to either New Cross Gate or Deptford Bridge. 453 - Rerouted to Lewisham to replace the 21. Also provides a direct link from Lewisham to the West End. N453 - Night service extended to Bexleyheath, replacing the N21. Option for the revised 21 to operate 24 hours if needed. Cutting the 271 to Archway is a bit much. What you can do is change the Eastern terminus to Newington Green/Dalston Junction I assume you mean the 263 to Archway? In my proposal, the 143 (with a DD conversion) would take over the section to Highbury Barn. This would shorten the 263, while maintaining links between Highgate Village and Highbury & Islington. TFL's proposals would break the link from Highgate Village towards Finchley Central (hence why the 143D is getting replaced by new school route 620). So I think it would make more sense to swap the 143/263 termini, rather than swapping the routeings through Highgate - plus also giving an opportunity for a much-needed DD conversion of the 143.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Nov 24, 2021 18:51:16 GMT
Cutting the 271 to Archway is a bit much. What you can do is change the Eastern terminus to Newington Green/Dalston Junction I assume you mean the 263 to Archway? In my proposal, the 143 (with a DD conversion) would take over the section to Highbury Barn. This would shorten the 263, while maintaining links between Highgate Village and Highbury & Islington. TFL's proposals would break the link from Highgate Village towards Finchley Central (hence why the 143D is getting replaced by new school route 620). So I think it would make more sense to swap the 143/263 termini, rather than swapping the routeings through Highgate - plus also giving an opportunity for a much-needed DD conversion of the 143. Is route 143 cleared for double deck working? Also the 143 has a lower frequency than the 263 it would replace, which might be a problem. A previous poster said that usage of the 263 boomed when the route was extended to Highbury & Islington but it’s not clear how far north those passengers travel to.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Nov 24, 2021 18:57:08 GMT
I assume you mean the 263 to Archway? In my proposal, the 143 (with a DD conversion) would take over the section to Highbury Barn. This would shorten the 263, while maintaining links between Highgate Village and Highbury & Islington. TFL's proposals would break the link from Highgate Village towards Finchley Central (hence why the 143D is getting replaced by new school route 620). So I think it would make more sense to swap the 143/263 termini, rather than swapping the routeings through Highgate - plus also giving an opportunity for a much-needed DD conversion of the 143. Is route 143 cleared for double deck working? Also the 143 has a lower frequency than the 263 it would replace, which might be a problem. Not round the Long Lane/Squires Lane section. The route was converted to single-deck midibus at the same time it was rerouted that way in 1991 so double-deckers have never operated that section.
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Nov 24, 2021 22:40:44 GMT
I fear for the 43 - scope (not that I like or support) for it to be cut back to Moorgate Finsbury square (overlap from nags head to H&I and then again from old street to London Bridge with the new 21) The 21 will also become the only route to serve both terminals of 2 separate train / dlr / tube routes (bank & lewisham for DLR, new cross and h&i fir overground!) The 21 however does not serve New Cross Station that is served by 53 177 225 & 453. It’s a slight “stretch” as the southbound 21 just about passes the front entrance / tangential to new cross station!
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 24, 2021 22:49:32 GMT
The 21 however does not serve New Cross Station that is served by 53 177 225 & 453. It’s a slight “stretch” as the southbound 21 just about passes the front entrance / tangential to new cross station! It’s close enough for me : I’ve used (eg) 21, 436 to get to New Cross station.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 24, 2021 23:01:03 GMT
I agree these changes would be awful, making both the "1" and 21 way too long for modern times. There is already too much traffic on the roads and usually around Highbury corner and Holloway road there can be chaos especially when arsenal play, the drivers of the 21 do not need that at all. I thought routes like the 341 were bad enough with how long it is. Agreed the 341 is 100+ minutes and yet people still are suggesting it to be extended further into Meridian Water! I prefer longer routes than shorter routes. Some routes despite short can be more unreliable than longer routes as there is no where on the route to make up time. This can be done on certain long routes. We have been stumbled with too many short routes over the years, many as the product to make tendering attractive, but has over the years only gone on to be worse off for the tax payer imo. Routes like 436, 453, 476 should have been demerged years ago after the bendy bus era ended.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 24, 2021 23:21:04 GMT
Agreed the 341 is 100+ minutes and yet people still are suggesting it to be extended further into Meridian Water! I prefer longer routes than shorter routes. Some routes despite short can be more unreliable than longer routes as there is no where on the route to make up time. This can be done on certain long routes. We have been stumbled with too many short routes over the years, many as the product to make tendering attractive, but has over the years only gone on to be worse off for the tax payer imo. Routes like 436, 453, 476 should have been demerged years ago after the bendy bus era ended. We ended up with short routes because of traffic congestion as well so if we going down that road, at least tell the whole story. If you de-merge the 453 for example, are you actually suggesting running a 53 from Marylebone to Plumstead would be better in this day and age? Of course it wouldn't - times have changed since the 80's. Funny how provincial operators can run short routes without much issue as well
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 24, 2021 23:31:30 GMT
Agreed the 341 is 100+ minutes and yet people still are suggesting it to be extended further into Meridian Water! I prefer longer routes than shorter routes. Some routes despite short can be more unreliable than longer routes as there is no where on the route to make up time. This can be done on certain long routes. We have been stumbled with too many short routes over the years, many as the product to make tendering attractive, but has over the years only gone on to be worse off for the tax payer imo. Routes like 436, 453, 476 should have been demerged years ago after the bendy bus era ended. I think a lot of drivers prefer longer routes and fewer rounders and as you say this reliability thing is a myth, the real reason for shortening routes is route tendering.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 25, 2021 0:39:35 GMT
I prefer longer routes than shorter routes. Some routes despite short can be more unreliable than longer routes as there is no where on the route to make up time. This can be done on certain long routes. We have been stumbled with too many short routes over the years, many as the product to make tendering attractive, but has over the years only gone on to be worse off for the tax payer imo. Routes like 436, 453, 476 should have been demerged years ago after the bendy bus era ended. We ended up with short routes because of traffic congestion as well so if we going down that road, at least tell the whole story. If you de-merge the 453 for example, are you actually suggesting running a 53 from Marylebone to Plumstead would be better in this day and age? Of course it wouldn't - times have changed since the 80's. Funny how provincial operators can run short routes without much issue as well OMG not Marylebone to Plumstead, that would be way too long and unworkable
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 25, 2021 4:22:15 GMT
I prefer longer routes than shorter routes. Some routes despite short can be more unreliable than longer routes as there is no where on the route to make up time. This can be done on certain long routes. We have been stumbled with too many short routes over the years, many as the product to make tendering attractive, but has over the years only gone on to be worse off for the tax payer imo. Routes like 436, 453, 476 should have been demerged years ago after the bendy bus era ended. I think a lot of drivers prefer longer routes and fewer rounders and as you say this reliability thing is a myth, the real reason for shortening routes is route tendering. It isn't a myth, why do you think the reshaping plan occurred which was long before tendering came in where many routes where shortened - the trouble was it wasn't as successful as later attempts because it probably was trying to do too much in one go with OMO, new buses that proved unreliable and difficult to maneuver.
|
|