|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 15, 2024 14:51:38 GMT
The 357 does have quite a long section between Chingford Mount and Walthamstow which has no other links to Whipps Cross for the Hospital however carries just over 1m a year which it could be questioned are they using the unique links or have simply boarded it as it arrived for a 212 or various others routes. The 357 was proposed for withdrawal but the consultation didn't go ahead so not sure if there were any mitigating changes proposed to other routes. Either they would have gone for broke and just an outright withdrawal with the hopper fare and routes 97/212/215/444/W16 all given as alternatives to use and change elsewhere in Walthamstow or the 215 could have been extended from Walthamstow to Whipps Cross which would have covered most the 357 links between Whipps Cross and Chingford Mount. Perhaps the 257 could be extended to Chingford Mount and then the 357 can be withdrawn. Can't believe we are still having these discussions. The 357 provides unique round-the-corner and hospital links and also supports other routes, especially the 97 and 215 between Walthamstow Central and Chingford Mount. It isn't going away. In any case, there's a frequency imbalance. The 257 runs twice as frequently as the 357. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Apr 15, 2024 14:53:39 GMT
I always thought there were too many buses on the Whipps Cross-Walthamstow Corridor. What does the 357 actually do that other existing routes don’t already do? The 414 could also go with a frequency increase on the 14. You must be a psychic was literally about to post these , but even with a slight frequency increase I think 14 would be ok as during the day anyway a lot of 414s carrying not a lot of custom wouldn't say fresh air but not as much . The old 97A seems to be timed to duplicate other routes so a 97 turns up then a 357 turns up 🤷🏻♂️ but tfl must think it worthy as more useful routes (48) have gone . I also think the D8 seems to carry fresh air nowadays and doesn't justify DD buses and if anything should be rerouted via Devons Road and the 108 return during the daytime to the A12 would speed things up again and make the D8 have a purpose . The 108 provides a 24-hour service to a more densely populated area - I think overall though we decried the change (perhaps because we wanted a bit of Citaro thrash on the A12), it was a positive change to the network that has worked well. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Apr 15, 2024 15:02:12 GMT
The 357 does have quite a long section between Chingford Mount and Walthamstow which has no other links to Whipps Cross for the Hospital however carries just over 1m a year which it could be questioned are they using the unique links or have simply boarded it as it arrived for a 212 or various others routes. The 357 was proposed for withdrawal but the consultation didn't go ahead so not sure if there were any mitigating changes proposed to other routes. Either they would have gone for broke and just an outright withdrawal with the hopper fare and routes 97/212/215/444/W16 all given as alternatives to use and change elsewhere in Walthamstow or the 215 could have been extended from Walthamstow to Whipps Cross which would have covered most the 357 links between Whipps Cross and Chingford Mount. Perhaps the 257 could be extended to Chingford Mount and then the 357 can be withdrawn. Is there no thread safe from route change ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 15, 2024 15:04:05 GMT
Perhaps the 257 could be extended to Chingford Mount and then the 357 can be withdrawn. Can't believe we are still having these discussions. The 357 provides unique round-the-corner and hospital links and also supports other routes, especially the 97 and 215 between Walthamstow Central and Chingford Mount. It isn't going away. In any case, there's a frequency imbalance. The 257 runs twice as frequently as the 357. The 357’s round corner link from even directly in the Hospital isn’t particularly unique as it’s shared with the W15/W19 in the hospital grounds, as well as the 20/230/257 from the main road. I wonder if though the W15 could divert to Chingford Mount at Walthamstow where the full 357 route would be replicated at all times, even the bit that goes into the hospital grounds. Yes the W15 has an 8 minute frequency but at single deck capacity while the 357 is 15 mins at DD capacity. Then extend the 257 to Highams Hill to replace the W15. |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Apr 15, 2024 15:12:46 GMT
Can't believe we are still having these discussions. The 357 provides unique round-the-corner and hospital links and also supports other routes, especially the 97 and 215 between Walthamstow Central and Chingford Mount. It isn't going away. In any case, there's a frequency imbalance. The 257 runs twice as frequently as the 357. The 357’s round corner link from even directly in the Hospital isn’t particularly unique as it’s shared with the W15/W19 in the hospital grounds, as well as the 20/230/257 from the main road. I wonder if though the W15 could divert to Chingford Mount at Walthamstow where the full 357 route would be replicated at all times, even the bit that goes into the hospital grounds. Yes the W15 has an 8 minute frequency but at single deck capacity while the 357 is 15 mins at DD capacity. Then extend the 257 to Highams Hill to replace the W15. W15 is too long as it is , if I remember pre COVID and no money tfl , there was a plan to have a W17 I think or 18 (don't quote me on the number ) run from Hackney to Whipps Cross and a W15 from Higham Hill to Leytonstone but the plan was shelved , there has been a post on the forum somewhere about it but if anything just a total withdrawal, more used links have been cut with little to no replacement (48) so hopper fare should save the day . |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 15, 2024 15:13:24 GMT
Perhaps the 257 could be extended to Chingford Mount and then the 357 can be withdrawn. Frequency would probably be too high. The 357 is every 15 mins. Yes, not to mention I imagine reliability could be an issue as the whole 257 corridor is one awful slog, especially trying to get through Leytonstone at times. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Apr 15, 2024 17:29:23 GMT
I’d expect to see the 45, 357, 414 mentioned however calling routes useless just for being indirect is a bit dramatic. Exactly this! The 325 looks useless as a route from Prince Regent station to Beckton the long way around but is not designed for end to end journeys. There are probably lots of routes like this is London. I would nominate the current 25 City Thameslink terminal as useless. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 15, 2024 17:42:36 GMT
heres some: 42 takes a big detour from camberwell to east dulwich sainsburys the rest of the route would be ok if it wasnt for the traffic P13 takes like 40 mins to get from tulse hill to peckham and takes the most useless ever where it feels it like your going in circles 45 aint bad its just became useless after they got rid of the kings cross section back in 2019 P5 is useless and should be withdrawn The East Dulwich end of the 42 isn't very busy, the route could perhaps be increased to x10mins north of Camberwell with only alternate buses to East Dulwich? I agree that the 45 is pretty useless in its current form, various alternatives have been suggested on here but what's wrong with the P5 and P13? Old favourites the 357 and 414 have also had subsequent mentions, I think the best suggestion for replacing the 357 has been to extend the 20 from Walthamstow to Chingford Mount. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 15, 2024 18:29:58 GMT
heres some: 42 takes a big detour from camberwell to east dulwich sainsburys the rest of the route would be ok if it wasnt for the traffic P13 takes like 40 mins to get from tulse hill to peckham and takes the most useless ever where it feels it like your going in circles 45 aint bad its just became useless after they got rid of the kings cross section back in 2019 P5 is useless and should be withdrawn The East Dulwich end of the 42 isn't very busy, the route could perhaps be increased to x10mins north of Camberwell with only alternate buses to East Dulwich? I agree that the 45 is pretty useless in its current form, various alternatives have been suggested on here but what's wrong with the P5 and P13? Old favourites the 357 and 414 have also had subsequent mentions, I think the best suggestion for replacing the 357 has been to extend the 20 from Walthamstow to Chingford Mount. You could reroute the 484 between Denmark Hill & Goose Green via the 42’s LOR & have it perform a double run to serve East Dulwich Sainsbury’s. The 42 could then be cut back to Camberwell or even extend from Camberwell to Clapham Park via the 45’s LOR, with the 45 withdrawn. I don’t agree with extending the 20 to Chingford Mount. If the W16 simply served Whipps Cross Hospital, the 357 wouldn’t be needed anymore, the W16 would provide links from the Hospital to Chingford area but via a much more direct routing. You could swap the W16 & W19 between Leytonstone & Leyton, including having the W19 perform the small hail & ride section that the W16 does near Bakers Arms. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 15, 2024 19:34:57 GMT
I’d expect to see the 45, 357, 414 mentioned however calling routes useless just for being indirect is a bit dramatic. Exactly this! The 325 looks useless as a route from Prince Regent station to Beckton the long way around but is not designed for end to end journeys. There are probably lots of routes like this is London. I would nominate the current 25 City Thameslink terminal as useless. Holborn Station would be better for onward connections at the very least. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 15, 2024 19:42:51 GMT
Exactly this! The 325 looks useless as a route from Prince Regent station to Beckton the long way around but is not designed for end to end journeys. There are probably lots of routes like this is London. I would nominate the current 25 City Thameslink terminal as useless. Holborn Station would be better for onward connections at the very least. I think you could swap the 25 & 133 termini, or simply revert the 133 back to Liverpool st. |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Apr 15, 2024 19:58:54 GMT
Annoying in another way... the 44/355 Street products and 270's Smart Hybrids are so sluggish and it is irritating getting stuck behind them on the 280 with a WHV which can and will accelerate a million times faster without them in front. I believe WH241 also mentioned how annoying the Streetdecks were on the 262/473 pulling out of stops whilst driving.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 15, 2024 20:39:05 GMT
Holborn Station would be better for onward connections at the very least. I think you could swap the 25 & 133 termini, or simply revert the 133 back to Liverpool st. I wonder how much London Bridge to High Holborn/Holborn Station the 133 is now carrying or whether most switched to 17 which picks up at the bus station and runs to Chancery Lane. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Apr 15, 2024 21:23:01 GMT
I’d expect to see the 45, 357, 414 mentioned however calling routes useless just for being indirect is a bit dramatic. I always thought there were too many buses on the Whipps Cross-Walthamstow Corridor. What does the 357 actually do that other existing routes don’t already do? The 414 could also go with a frequency increase on the 14. The 414 can fill up at the first stop at Marble Arch at times! Yes, yes, it surprised me too. It isn't as useless as usually portrayed. These passengers also don't board the 137 suggesting they are going beyond Knightsbridge likely to South Ken and beyond (they arrive decently full at South Ken with most continuing onwards plus more passengers boarding there), would be link broken unnecessarily imo to force a change at Knightsbridge. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Apr 15, 2024 21:27:13 GMT
Route 357, useless and annoying.
|
|
