|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 4, 2022 19:02:32 GMT
In most of the cases the link would have to be built partly or wholly on non-railway-owned land which would render the cost prohibitive, and would be a waste of resources when there is a perfectly acceptable walking route at street level. Hackney Downs/Hackney Central is an exception as it could be fitted onto railway land and connected the ends of two platforms at ground level, so was relatively inexpensive. Even in a case like Shadwell, where there is a DLR and Overground Station in very close proximity, a proposal to build a single interchange station came to nothing because the cost would have been prohibitive and the business case could not be made. The compromise was to open a new exit at Shadwell Overground which shortened the walking route to and from the DLR - there are street works in the pipeline which will further improve this walking route. Sadly, London's railway history, and the way the early development of the network was largely left to private enterprise and competing companies, has left us with a legacy of separated stations and missed opportunities for interchanges. The line between Gospel Oak and Barking is a case study of that legacy. The Victoria Line by contrast, with its many examples of cross-platform interchanges with other lines, shows what is possible when integration is central to the planning process. In some ways I agree with you on interchange the private railways had disallowed certain cases of interchanges as fear of lost customers and poaching. However I have to say there was more radical expansion on the railways in London in terms of private ownership. It has become virtually stagnant under public ownership. The only true full all line creation on the Underground on public ownership is Victoria line. On the central it is just an tunnel extension between Liverpool Street and Leyton and Leytonstone to Newbury Park. The rest of it being extensions alongside or taking over British Railway tracks. Piccadilly has not had not much done either apart from the Heathrow extension and running over existing Metropolitan to Uxbridge Jubilee practically taking over Metropolitan line tracks then from St. Johns Wood new tunnels all the way to Stratford. The northern a joke of a section to Nine Elms, tiny extension it High Barnet and also Mill Hill East District - virtually no change, in fact it has been reduced by other lines running on its tracks Hammersmith & City, just a creation of using other existing tracks Circle - same as above, creation of using existing tracks. Bakerloo - no change, in fact a reduction as in the District Metropolitan - same as above, no change, reduction on other lines created onto its tracks. The DLR well that could be considered as progress, but it is not really a tube train I think it is a shame that there has hardly been much progress of building new tunnels and tracks in nearly 100 years. Also one of the downfalls is that many of these private firms building these lines believe it is a licence to print money and charge way over the top and take forever. Crossrail, Jubliee line extension is testimony to this. That's an interesting take. I suspect what happened was that after the turn of the last (20th Century), the railways lost their virtual monopoly as a mode with the development of cheap electric trams, buses and lorries. After the First World War there was an enormous number of surplus road vehicles, and also a large number of demobbed servicemen able to drive them, so it was easy to set up as a road haulier or busman. The rail network as we see it now was essentially completed by 1914. There was some work in the 1920s and 1930s, the latter being Government supported as an employment support measure. The Second World War brought this to a halt but some of it was picked up again in the late 1940s. Post-war, the emphasis moved very decisively to road-building, which in the UK was almost universally seen as the future of transport. The railways, having been run into the ground with no investment or routine renewal, were taken into Government control (as was London Transport) and entered a state of managed decline. However the Victoria Line did manage to get built, as London Transport used Cost-Benefit Analysis to show that there wider economic and social benefits to be gained. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 4, 2022 20:54:28 GMT
Bar religious holidays where people from Asian cultures in London come to shop & celebrate on Ilford Lane, the traffic is somewhat bearable. On religious holidays, you can be delayed up to 25 mins, barely traversing 100 feet. The 179 has Woodford Green at school times which snarls up, South Woodford town centre, Charlie Brown's roundabout and the A12 as traffic hotspots before it gets to Ilford. Unfortunately the 179 was pulled out of Barking for a reason, it was just too unreliable in length. However that doesn't mean the demand from Ilford Lane to Gants Hill doesn't exist, it just means the 179 isn't up to the task anymore. I do not buy that with the 179 at all. It is not that long a route, other routes like the 102, 123 go through worst trouble-spots and do not get chopped. I would say it was more down to First controlling the route at the time and letting buses run in pairs and not turning them when it was obvious they would never make back the time. Countless times I remember buses running in 2 or 3 to Chingford then going back to Barking together. Even after the route was cut back to Ilford it did not even solve much. They pavement narrowing to discourage parking did not work and made things worse. Newham tried the same thing with Green Street and in the end it held buses up far longer, especially in evenings as people parked on double yellows and did not care. It's not about how long a route is but about the congestion it faces along the route, do not get bogged down by miles. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 4, 2022 21:05:38 GMT
Bar religious holidays where people from Asian cultures in London come to shop & celebrate on Ilford Lane, the traffic is somewhat bearable. On religious holidays, you can be delayed up to 25 mins, barely traversing 100 feet. The 179 has Woodford Green at school times which snarls up, South Woodford town centre, Charlie Brown's roundabout and the A12 as traffic hotspots before it gets to Ilford. Unfortunately the 179 was pulled out of Barking for a reason, it was just too unreliable in length. However that doesn't mean the demand from Ilford Lane to Gants Hill doesn't exist, it just means the 179 isn't up to the task anymore. I do not buy that with the 179 at all. It is not that long a route, other routes like the 102, 123 go through worst trouble-spots and do not get chopped. I would say it was more down to First controlling the route at the time and letting buses run in pairs and not turning them when it was obvious they would never make back the time. Countless times I remember buses running in 2 or 3 to Chingford then going back to Barking together. Even after the route was cut back to Ilford it did not even solve much. They pavement narrowing to discourage parking did not work and made things worse. Newham tried the same thing with Green Street and in the end it held buses up far longer, especially in evenings as people parked on double yellows and did not care. I'm surprised how long the 102 has lasted for, if you'd have asked me in 2002 or 2003 I'd have probably said it would've been a prime example of something that would be restructured.
As for Green Street, yes that area really is a mess traffic wise. Upton Park is pretty bad as well and there are lots of people living in an area like East Ham or Upton Park & there not being enough road space to accommodate everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Jan 4, 2022 21:59:34 GMT
I do not buy that with the 179 at all. It is not that long a route, other routes like the 102, 123 go through worst trouble-spots and do not get chopped. I would say it was more down to First controlling the route at the time and letting buses run in pairs and not turning them when it was obvious they would never make back the time. Countless times I remember buses running in 2 or 3 to Chingford then going back to Barking together. Even after the route was cut back to Ilford it did not even solve much. They pavement narrowing to discourage parking did not work and made things worse. Newham tried the same thing with Green Street and in the end it held buses up far longer, especially in evenings as people parked on double yellows and did not care. It's not about how long a route is but about the congestion it faces along the route, do not get bogged down by miles. In addition to that, it can be to the way how the operator (in that case with the 179 it's Stagecoach) manages the traffic along the route and the way they control the route.
Just to add few things about sending the 179 back to Barking, the boardings at the first 3 stops of the 179 in Ilford have now been established well enough (even before the Ilford Station stop being closed for the Crossrail works) to the point you either make a detour from Ilford Lane though the town centre via Winston Way and then into Cranbrook Road towards Chingford which will add a bit to the jounrey time or loss the common stops with the 123 in the town centre for Woodford Avenue (or even with other routes to Gants Hill) to save some time going towards Chingford.
All in all, I would be happy to see a direct Gants Hill to Barking link once again, but not at the expense of leaving the already long and busy 123 as the only route linking the full length of the Woodford Avenue to the Hainault Street end of Ilford Town Centre.
|
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 4, 2022 22:18:10 GMT
It's not about how long a route is but about the congestion it faces along the route, do not get bogged down by miles. In addition to that, it can be to the way how the operator (in that case with the 179 it's Stagecoach) manages the traffic along the route and the way they control the route.
Just to add few things about sending the 179 back to Barking, the boardings at the first 3 stops of the 179 in Ilford have now been established well enough (even before the Ilford Station stop being closed for the Crossrail works) to the point you either make a detour from Ilford Lane though the town centre via Winston Way and then into Cranbrook Road towards Chingford which will add a bit to the jounrey time or loss the common stops with the 123 in the town centre for Woodford Avenue (or even with other routes to Gants Hill) to save some time going towards Chingford.
All in all, I would be happy to see a direct Gants Hill to Barking link once again, but not at the expense of leaving the already long and busy 123 as the only route linking the full length of the Woodford Avenue to the Hainault Street end of Ilford Town Centre.
Perhaps you could extend the 396 down to Barking or something. Barking T Centre has plenty of stand space so that would be no issue.
In terms of what would be the most interesting, probably divert the EL2 back to Ilford, cut the EL1 in frequency (work in tandem frequency wise), extend either one to Gants Hill & then extend the 238 to Becontree Heath. I do think that would be the biggest money maker but that's only because the 238 would likely attract a lot of custom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 4, 2022 22:42:48 GMT
It's not about how long a route is but about the congestion it faces along the route, do not get bogged down by miles. In addition to that, it can be to the way how the operator (in that case with the 179 it's Stagecoach) manages the traffic along the route and the way they control the route.
Just to add few things about sending the 179 back to Barking, the boardings at the first 3 stops of the 179 in Ilford have now been established well enough (even before the Ilford Station stop being closed for the Crossrail works) to the point you either make a detour from Ilford Lane though the town centre via Winston Way and then into Cranbrook Road towards Chingford which will add a bit to the jounrey time or loss the common stops with the 123 in the town centre for Woodford Avenue (or even with other routes to Gants Hill) to save some time going towards Chingford.
All in all, I would be happy to see a direct Gants Hill to Barking link once again, but not at the expense of leaving the already long and busy 123 as the only route linking the full length of the Woodford Avenue to the Hainault Street end of Ilford Town Centre.
In all fairness if the 123 if left as the only route linking Woodford Avenue to Hainault Street it would be no different to how the 169 was left the only route running the full length of the far busier Ilford Lane corridor to Hainault Street instead. There's not many options, sending a single decker route down Ilford Lane would be a total mess even if it was providing extra capacity because if it ever is the first bus to arrive it'd just be held at stops for so long to a point the route would become terribly unreliable. The 123 heading down is a no go, this pretty much just leaves the 179 as a route terminating in Ilford that can run south to Barking through the dense Ilford Lane corridor. Even the EL1 struggles extremely at the stops because of how long dwell times can get so any single decker route would just be made unreliable and by that point you're better off not extending the route. You could deck either the 296 and 396 and send one of them down instead, but that obviously warrants a whole fleet of deckers being deployed on the routes. One option that is more "out there" would be a split of the 366. Beckton to Gants Hill the current 366 route, but heading straight on Ilford Lane and heading to Gants Hill. With another route running Barking to Redbridge with single deckers and following the current 366 route. Interestingly the replacement stand for the London Road stand has 5 spaces. You only need 2 spaces for the 169. I wonder if TfL have plans for the rest of the spaces or whether they'll just be used for the short turns that take place. Am wondering when that stand will finally come to use. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Jan 4, 2022 22:57:14 GMT
In addition to that, it can be to the way how the operator (in that case with the 179 it's Stagecoach) manages the traffic along the route and the way they control the route.
Just to add few things about sending the 179 back to Barking, the boardings at the first 3 stops of the 179 in Ilford have now been established well enough (even before the Ilford Station stop being closed for the Crossrail works) to the point you either make a detour from Ilford Lane though the town centre via Winston Way and then into Cranbrook Road towards Chingford which will add a bit to the jounrey time or loss the common stops with the 123 in the town centre for Woodford Avenue (or even with other routes to Gants Hill) to save some time going towards Chingford.
All in all, I would be happy to see a direct Gants Hill to Barking link once again, but not at the expense of leaving the already long and busy 123 as the only route linking the full length of the Woodford Avenue to the Hainault Street end of Ilford Town Centre.
Perhaps you could extend the 396 down to Barking or something. Barking T Centre has plenty of stand space so that would be no issue.
In terms of what would be the most interesting, probably divert the EL2 back to Ilford, cut the EL1 in frequency (work in tandem frequency wise), extend either one to Gants Hill & then extend the 238 to Becontree Heath. I do think that would be the biggest money maker but that's only because the 238 would likely attract a lot of custom.
A good thing in theory to extend the 396 to Barking but then you already have the EL3 going to King George Hospital from Barking |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 5, 2022 1:19:04 GMT
I do not buy that with the 179 at all. It is not that long a route, other routes like the 102, 123 go through worst trouble-spots and do not get chopped. I would say it was more down to First controlling the route at the time and letting buses run in pairs and not turning them when it was obvious they would never make back the time. Countless times I remember buses running in 2 or 3 to Chingford then going back to Barking together. Even after the route was cut back to Ilford it did not even solve much. They pavement narrowing to discourage parking did not work and made things worse. Newham tried the same thing with Green Street and in the end it held buses up far longer, especially in evenings as people parked on double yellows and did not care. It's not about how long a route is but about the congestion it faces along the route, do not get bogged down by miles. I agree, but the congestion on the 179 is was not that bad. It used to had stupid running time and very tight stand time. At the time it was cut back IIRC that having the 179 with the other EL routes and 169 would have been over-bussing Ilford Lane. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Jan 5, 2022 19:29:28 GMT
It's not about how long a route is but about the congestion it faces along the route, do not get bogged down by miles. I agree, but the congestion on the 179 is was not that bad. It used to had stupid running time and very tight stand time. At the time it was cut back IIRC that having the 179 with the other EL routes and 169 would have been over-bussing Ilford Lane. Out of curiosity do you by any chance know what the stand time was for the 179 under it's First London/Capital days. I know it had a PVR of 7 when the Dennis Arrows (God I miss those P-PLE buses) were on the route and then when it got it's Plaxton tridents it went to 11 buses in 2001 |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 6, 2022 23:42:59 GMT
I agree, but the congestion on the 179 is was not that bad. It used to had stupid running time and very tight stand time. At the time it was cut back IIRC that having the 179 with the other EL routes and 169 would have been over-bussing Ilford Lane. Out of curiosity do you by any chance know what the stand time was for the 179 under it's First London/Capital days. I know it had a PVR of 7 when the Dennis Arrows (God I miss those P-PLE buses) were on the route and then when it got it's Plaxton tridents it went to 11 buses in 2001 I sure if I remember it was 7 mins one end and 11 at the next. I would have to dig out old timetable for that where I used to work out the pvr etc. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jan 7, 2022 2:14:39 GMT
Metroline does a deal with RATP and gives AH, G, UX, WJ, EW and HD to RATP 😂
Tower Transit sell LI to GAL 😂
Controversial I know 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jan 7, 2022 2:31:02 GMT
Metroline does a deal with RATP and gives AH, G, UX, WJ, EW and HD to RATP 😂 Tower Transit sell LI to GAL 😂 Controversial I know 😂 Will that be Ligal? |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jan 7, 2022 7:03:10 GMT
Metroline does a deal with RATP and gives AH, G, UX, WJ, EW and HD to RATP 😂 Tower Transit sell LI to GAL 😂 Controversial I know 😂 Will that be Ligal? Ligal? I don’t know. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 7, 2022 7:21:29 GMT
Metroline does a deal with RATP and gives AH, G, UX, WJ, EW and HD to RATP 😂 Tower Transit sell LI to GAL 😂 Controversial I know 😂 Will that be Ligal? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 8, 2022 3:47:30 GMT
Arriva finally sold, to an existing transport operator that would cut it up or to a new entity that would keep the company the same as it is, but get rid of more of the lost making operations. More cuts to bus routes in London, now also hitting the outskirts harder Khan still begging for more money for TfL Next bailout option is no money or let central government take control Another fiasco with crossrail further delaying its opening More stupid crazy protests with another new menace type eco warrior group More people desert buses in London TfL gets rid of the QIC and bonus payment scheme for operators to save money and just give a re-worked standard contract price Elon Musk develops a Tesla bus Electric LED monitor blinds become the new standard More strikes on buses and trains due to rising costs post covid freezing wages Two outcomes I could see are: 1. Arriva sold to Comfort DelGro, who then divest Arriva London to RATP or Abellio, or even Transdev on a return to London. There may be 1 buyer for north London garages and another for south London garages. 2. Arriva sold to Transdev, who then divest Arriva Yorkshire to Go-Ahead. I was going to add Bolton but that is more likely to be overtaken by events surrounding franchising |
|
