|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 12, 2024 11:24:26 GMT
Even if routes like the SL1 are well used, I'm not sure there is much advantage in having a Superloop service where the majority of the route is along a fast road like the North Circular - as all-stops services will be quite fast anyway. For the same reason, I'm not sure some of the Superloop 2 proposals are needed, such as those along the 66 and 112 corridors. TFL also stated that the main purpose of the Superloop is to link major town centres in outer London, while the only examples of these on the SL1 and SL10 are Walthamstow and Harrow respectively. With both of these routes, I think a better solution would be to restructure the stopping services to cover the links and capacity required. Something like the following for example: 334 - Renumbering of the SL1, serving all stops. 34 - Withdrawn between Walthamstow and Edmonton. 191 - Withdrawn between Brimsdown and Enfield, and instead extended from Edmonton Green to Walthamstow, via Fore Street to Angel Corner then the 34 (introducing new links from Walthamstow up the Lea Valley). 391 - New route between Edmonton Green and Brimsdown, via the W8 to Enfield then the 191. W8 - Withdrawn. 329 extended to Chase Farm, and the W6 extended to Picketts Lock. 183 - Withdrawn between Pinner and Harrow. SL10 withdrawn (no replacement at the Finchley end). 373 - New route from Pinner to Brent Cross, via the 183 to Kenton, then Draycott Avenue, Woodcock Hill, The Mall, Kingsbury Circle, 183 again to West Hendon Broadway and the 142 to Brent Cross. To be fair, I'd say it's unfair to say that ' TFL also stated that the main purpose of the Superloop is to link major town centres in outer London, while the only examples of these on the SL1 and SL10 ' when in those areas, they would be considered major town centres for the area. Not every route is going to be blessed like the SL7 where it runs through the heart of three boroughs, an airport, and said boroughs surrounding smaller towns. The SL5 imo is the worst offender, yes a fast connection between Croydon and Bromley is great, but it doesn't connect any of the surrounding areas to either of those places either, it's more like hail and ride up until just before Eden Park. If they moved it to go through Beckenham first then it would be slightly better for sure, but Sadiq wouldn't like the prospect of a fast route that could be better than, or rival the Tramlink (that desperately needs any help it can get). IIRC, the SL5 has probably been the most successful in that people are already suggesting that the route needs a capacity boost so true, the lack of a link to Beckenham hasn’t affected anything. |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Sept 12, 2024 11:30:02 GMT
To be fair, I'd say it's unfair to say that ' TFL also stated that the main purpose of the Superloop is to link major town centres in outer London, while the only examples of these on the SL1 and SL10 ' when in those areas, they would be considered major town centres for the area. Not every route is going to be blessed like the SL7 where it runs through the heart of three boroughs, an airport, and said boroughs surrounding smaller towns. The SL5 imo is the worst offender, yes a fast connection between Croydon and Bromley is great, but it doesn't connect any of the surrounding areas to either of those places either, it's more like hail and ride up until just before Eden Park. If they moved it to go through Beckenham first then it would be slightly better for sure, but Sadiq wouldn't like the prospect of a fast route that could be better than, or rival the Tramlink (that desperately needs any help it can get). IIRC, the SL5 has probably been the most successful in that people are already suggesting that the route needs a capacity boost so true, the lack of a link to Beckenham hasn’t affected anything. Some people just seem to think if it doesn't go through major towns of the area, it's not a good or needed route, but the SL5 is the perfect counterargument as it loads consistently and ever since, the 119 has felt far more manageable to ride too which proves it not only did it's job in connecting the two boroughs, but also alleviates pressure off it's stopping service counterpart, and really, that's all it needs to do. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 12, 2024 11:47:16 GMT
Even if routes like the SL1 are well used, I'm not sure there is much advantage in having a Superloop service where the majority of the route is along a fast road like the North Circular - as all-stops services will be quite fast anyway. For the same reason, I'm not sure some of the Superloop 2 proposals are needed, such as those along the 66 and 112 corridors. TFL also stated that the main purpose of the Superloop is to link major town centres in outer London, while the only examples of these on the SL1 and SL10 are Walthamstow and Harrow respectively. With both of these routes, I think a better solution would be to restructure the stopping services to cover the links and capacity required. Something like the following for example: 334 - Renumbering of the SL1, serving all stops. 34 - Withdrawn between Walthamstow and Edmonton. 191 - Withdrawn between Brimsdown and Enfield, and instead extended from Edmonton Green to Walthamstow, via Fore Street to Angel Corner then the 34 (introducing new links from Walthamstow up the Lea Valley). 391 - New route between Edmonton Green and Brimsdown, via the W8 to Enfield then the 191. W8 - Withdrawn. 329 extended to Chase Farm, and the W6 extended to Picketts Lock. 183 - Withdrawn between Pinner and Harrow. SL10 withdrawn (no replacement at the Finchley end). 373 - New route from Pinner to Brent Cross, via the 183 to Kenton, then Draycott Avenue, Woodcock Hill, The Mall, Kingsbury Circle, 183 again to West Hendon Broadway and the 142 to Brent Cross. So you would withdraw two routes even if they were successful? That’s a very odd way to approach a network especially when you’re proposing to then mess with a bunch of others The changes I proposed for the 183 and 191/W8 are intended to introduce various new links, not necessarily in response to the Superloop. My point was that if a Superloop route provides little advantage to a standard service using the same fast roads, you may as well remove the express element so that passengers at intermediate stops can use that service as well. I think express services in outer North London would be more successful by going further out than the North Circular, taking in more town centres at Edgware, Barnet, Enfield and Chingford. TFL's proposed routes for Superloop 2 should have just formed part of the original loop in the first place (instead of via Finchley). |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 12, 2024 11:50:43 GMT
IIRC, the SL5 has probably been the most successful in that people are already suggesting that the route needs a capacity boost so true, the lack of a link to Beckenham hasn’t affected anything. Some people just seem to think if it doesn't go through major towns of the area, it's not a good or needed route, but the SL5 is the perfect counterargument as it loads consistently and ever since, the 119 has felt far more manageable to ride too which proves it not only did it's job in connecting the two boroughs, but also alleviates pressure off it's stopping service counterpart, and really, that's all it needs to do. I think the SL5 has just taken custom away from the 119. The only way I could see it going via Beckenham is if it ran non stop between Bromley and Croydon although possibly with one intermediate stop at Shortlands. Anything else would take custom away from Tramlink. |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Sept 12, 2024 12:14:58 GMT
Some people just seem to think if it doesn't go through major towns of the area, it's not a good or needed route, but the SL5 is the perfect counterargument as it loads consistently and ever since, the 119 has felt far more manageable to ride too which proves it not only did it's job in connecting the two boroughs, but also alleviates pressure off it's stopping service counterpart, and really, that's all it needs to do. I think the SL5 has just taken custom away from the 119. The only way I could see it going via Beckenham is if it ran non stop between Bromley and Croydon although possibly with one intermediate stop at Shortlands. Anything else would take custom away from Tramlink. That's why, to me personally the SL5 will only extend east or west, not north or south to other towns, and judging by what Sadiq wants to do it and the SL7, I think he realises this too. Unfortunately with the Tramlink, something like the 725 won't happen again as the competition with the Tramlink would be too great and the 194 does the job pretty well itself, even if it doesn't go to the station proper. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 12, 2024 13:20:25 GMT
I think the SL5 has just taken custom away from the 119. The only way I could see it going via Beckenham is if it ran non stop between Bromley and Croydon although possibly with one intermediate stop at Shortlands. Anything else would take custom away from Tramlink. That's why, to me personally the SL5 will only extend east or west, not north or south to other towns, and judging by what Sadiq wants to do it and the SL7, I think he realises this too. Unfortunately with the Tramlink, something like the 725 won't happen again as the competition with the Tramlink would be too great and the 194 does the job pretty well itself, even if it doesn't go to the station proper. Thou with Tram fares the same as bus I wouldn't imagine many now would switch to the bus from the tram, even a SL route picking up at Beckenham Junction probably isn't going to achieve a quicker ride then the tram. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Sept 12, 2024 13:49:28 GMT
Hold on just a minute there player (Teddy Long's famous line in wwe). The SL1 is definitely warranted. It has reduced my journeys on the 34 by 20 minutes and has offered a new link from Walthamstow and Finchley. I can confirm that bus has been welcomed with open arms. The SL10 on the other hand *crickets noise* Even if routes like the SL1 are well used, I'm not sure there is much advantage in having a Superloop service where the majority of the route is along a fast road like the North Circular - as all-stops services will be quite fast anyway. For the same reason, I'm not sure some of the Superloop 2 proposals are needed, such as those along the 66 and 112 corridors. TFL also stated that the main purpose of the Superloop is to link major town centres in outer London, while the only examples of these on the SL1 and SL10 are Walthamstow and Harrow respectively. With both of these routes, I think a better solution would be to restructure the stopping services to cover the links and capacity required. Something like the following for example: 334 - Renumbering of the SL1, serving all stops. 34 - Withdrawn between Walthamstow and Edmonton. 191 - Withdrawn between Brimsdown and Enfield, and instead extended from Edmonton Green to Walthamstow, via Fore Street to Angel Corner then the 34 (introducing new links from Walthamstow up the Lea Valley). 391 - New route between Edmonton Green and Brimsdown, via the W8 to Enfield then the 191. W8 - Withdrawn. 329 extended to Chase Farm, and the W6 extended to Picketts Lock. 183 - Withdrawn between Pinner and Harrow. SL10 withdrawn (no replacement at the Finchley end). 373 - New route from Pinner to Brent Cross, via the 183 to Kenton, then Draycott Avenue, Woodcock Hill, The Mall, Kingsbury Circle, 183 again to West Hendon Broadway and the 142 to Brent Cross. And that my friend is where I'll disagree with you. As much as the 34 uses the NCR and has some fast sections. It does still dip off into the local roads especially around Edmonton (North Middlesex Hospital), whereas the SL1 cuts out the middle stops to get to some places in line of the 34 faster. Now the downside is when the NCR is down which then it reverses into the 34 being the smart choice to take. |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Sept 12, 2024 13:52:08 GMT
That's why, to me personally the SL5 will only extend east or west, not north or south to other towns, and judging by what Sadiq wants to do it and the SL7, I think he realises this too. Unfortunately with the Tramlink, something like the 725 won't happen again as the competition with the Tramlink would be too great and the 194 does the job pretty well itself, even if it doesn't go to the station proper. Thou with Tram fares the same as bus I wouldn't imagine many now would switch to the bus from the tram, even a SL route picking up at Beckenham Junction probably isn't going to achieve a quicker ride then the tram. Just compared on Google Maps, there is a singular minute difference give or take (25 for Tramlink, 24 for Driving, so I'd estimate about 28 for Superloop if accounting for stops) so I'm sure at some points of the day it would be faster, but overall it would probably take a few minutes more accounting for traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Sept 12, 2024 13:54:05 GMT
Some people just seem to think if it doesn't go through major towns of the area, it's not a good or needed route, but the SL5 is the perfect counterargument as it loads consistently and ever since, the 119 has felt far more manageable to ride too which proves it not only did it's job in connecting the two boroughs, but also alleviates pressure off it's stopping service counterpart, and really, that's all it needs to do. I think the SL5 has just taken custom away from the 119. The only way I could see it going via Beckenham is if it ran non stop between Bromley and Croydon although possibly with one intermediate stop at Shortlands. Anything else would take custom away from Tramlink. It definitely has. A few weeks back I did a little test by letting one 119 go in front around Bromley and the SL5 was 10 minutes behind. Another 119 came and the SL5 came 2 minutes after in which I managed to catch up with the original 119 at Croydon |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Sept 12, 2024 14:05:29 GMT
I think the SL5 has just taken custom away from the 119. The only way I could see it going via Beckenham is if it ran non stop between Bromley and Croydon although possibly with one intermediate stop at Shortlands. Anything else would take custom away from Tramlink. It definitely has. A few weeks back I did a little test by letting one 119 go in front around Bromley and the SL5 was 10 minutes behind. Another 119 came and the SL5 came 2 minutes after in which I managed to catch up with the original 119 at Croydon And this is why the SL5 is great for what it does. I just hope the possible extension into Sutton doesn't jeopardise its reliability as the A232 can be a slog to travel down at quite a few points of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 12, 2024 16:22:28 GMT
So you would withdraw two routes even if they were successful? That’s a very odd way to approach a network especially when you’re proposing to then mess with a bunch of others The changes I proposed for the 183 and 191/W8 are intended to introduce various new links, not necessarily in response to the Superloop. My point was that if a Superloop route provides little advantage to a standard service using the same fast roads, you may as well remove the express element so that passengers at intermediate stops can use that service as well. I think express services in outer North London would be more successful by going further out than the North Circular, taking in more town centres at Edgware, Barnet, Enfield and Chingford. TFL's proposed routes for Superloop 2 should have just formed part of the original loop in the first place (instead of via Finchley). But your point was countered by someone who rides the SL1 regularly and is happy with it so we should treat what they say seriously |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 12, 2024 17:59:20 GMT
It definitely has. A few weeks back I did a little test by letting one 119 go in front around Bromley and the SL5 was 10 minutes behind. Another 119 came and the SL5 came 2 minutes after in which I managed to catch up with the original 119 at Croydon And this is why the SL5 is great for what it does. I just hope the possible extension into Sutton doesn't jeopardise its reliability as the A232 can be a slog to travel down at quite a few points of the day. Yes making the route longer could end up requiring a more padded timetable like with the SL7. |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Sept 12, 2024 20:51:57 GMT
And this is why the SL5 is great for what it does. I just hope the possible extension into Sutton doesn't jeopardise its reliability as the A232 can be a slog to travel down at quite a few points of the day. Yes making the route longer could end up requiring a more padded timetable like with the SL7. And the SL7 itself is quite unreliable, I often see two bunching near Waddon or Carshalton when I go around there. Bunching on the SL5 wouldn't be horrific per say as the 119 still will be there to help and aid out like it has done for its existence between Croydon and Bromley, but I would expect to see it's passenger numbers slightly increase. |
|
|
|
Post by lj61nwc on Sept 12, 2024 21:08:07 GMT
Yes making the route longer could end up requiring a more padded timetable like with the SL7. And the SL7 itself is quite unreliable, I often see two bunching near Waddon or Carshalton when I go around there. Bunching on the SL5 wouldn't be horrific per say as the 119 still will be there to help and aid out like it has done for its existence between Croydon and Bromley, but I would expect to see it's passenger numbers slightly increase. I have a feeling it would thrive even more under 5 bph (high frequency route therefore now headway based instead of timetable) with the right management from control. Despite the slight unreliability, the pax numbers are still increasing in numbers as the months go on. I believe the 1 year anniversary of the changes was recently so would be nice to see a comparison of numbers on the route (and the affect on the existing corridors) |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Sept 12, 2024 21:13:53 GMT
And the SL7 itself is quite unreliable, I often see two bunching near Waddon or Carshalton when I go around there. Bunching on the SL5 wouldn't be horrific per say as the 119 still will be there to help and aid out like it has done for its existence between Croydon and Bromley, but I would expect to see it's passenger numbers slightly increase. I have a feeling it would thrive even more under 5 bph (high frequency route therefore now headway based instead of timetable) with the right management from control. Despite the slight unreliability, the pax numbers are still increasing in numbers as the months go on. I believe the 1 year anniversary of the changes was recently so would be nice to see a comparison of numbers on the route (and the affect on the existing corridors) I absolutely agree, would C have enough space for the additional buses though? (Id suspect they come from the 200 in this scenario as the 200 slowly regains it's Me's) I'm not quite sure on the current capacity of C despite living so close to it lol. |
|
