|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2024 0:20:46 GMT
I would also be in favour of removing the 279’s current stand at Manor House, due to the fact that it has to U-Turn on a busy main road when departing towards Waltham Cross. Let's hope the new ESs can make the turn alright. They should be fine as LTs I think have done it on the 259. Already been done with the demonstrator last year. They are not that much different from the DW's that go on the route in terms of steering. The turn is a piece of pee in a LT, I doubt much buses would have a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2024 0:23:09 GMT
I would also be in favour of removing the 279’s current stand at Manor House, due to the fact that it has to U-Turn on a busy main road when departing towards Waltham Cross. There is a bus stand on Portland Rise not too far away if the main stand in Manor House is an issue. That is the 141 and 341 stand for curtailments to Gloucester Drive. This cannot be used for the 279, due to a banned right turn from Green Lanes into Seven Sisters Rd. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2024 0:26:54 GMT
Due to zoning, Manor House is a massive railhead and bus routes from there during the peak hours can be rammed. Leave the 279 alone. If I recall the 279 use to run up to Holloway quite earlier in the past and was then cut to Manor House? Or Finsbury Park before Manor House? Is there a specific reason why it cuts short- while the stand is a bit awkward with the U turn and works just fine - the 254 on LTs does it often. Only issue is the only time a route can curtail to Manor House is if its the 254/279 coming from the North/East. I don’t think Ive ever seen a 253/259 curtailment to Manor House and not the 29/141/341 either. Would there not be merit in extending the 279 3 stops further on a road with not much congestion (bus lane) to Finsbury Park Station?? There is a stand on Isledon Road aswell. IIRC the 254 when started was curtailing at Manor House, but then the 254 and 279 had switch stands. I am struggling to remember why. It has been like this nearly 20 years now. The 253's have curtailed at Manor House but very rare, bus would need to be around 90 minutes late for that! Manor House is NOT an official turn on the 29. Pointless when you have Finsbury Park and Harringey turns nearby. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2024 0:35:01 GMT
Was the introduction of the 254 a part of why the 279 was fully cut from Holloway, or were the 2 events unrelated? I would by no means want to have the corridor between Seven Sisters and Manor House with the solo 259, which is why I suggested extending the 149, which could save some money whilst also providing a bit more capacity North of Edmonton Green (whilst I know money isn't too much of an issue on TfL's end now, it could help move the budget to more useful bus routes than the 349). Any of the 149 / 259 / 279 could take a slight frequency increase, if things were to get too busy, and if reliability is a concern, the 149 could be cut to Liverpool Street, which whilst it would require a change to continue to London Bridge for most journeys, most links are not broken through the 388 to London Bridge Bus Station and the 35 and 47 just outside it. On another point, the 279 would benefit a lot from an extension to Finsbury Park as greg had said, with the Manor House terminus not allowing easy interchange to other buses such as the 29, due to the approximately 200 metre walk to the nearest 29 bus stop, and the large U-turn required to turn the 279 around, with Manor House also not providing nearly enough onward connections as Finsbury Park. Though I have a question that I'm unsure of how others would react to - would the A10 corridor benefit from a parallel bus route along Watermead Way, once the Meridian Water development has been completed - say, from Edmonton Green, up the North Circular, through part of the Meridian Water development, down Watermead Way, through Tottenham Hale and onward to Seven Sisters and beyond? I think it might work if appropriate bus priority measures are installed along Watermead Way (especially Southbound), and could benefit from being a much higher-speed bus service through faster roads (avoiding a lot of 20mph speed limits). No the 254 was unrelated and took place in May 2003. In effect the 253 was already operated as two overlapping sections (Euston-Hackney and Holloway-Aldgate) and the introduction of the 254 merely formalised that arrangement. I'm not convinced extending the 279 to Finsbury Park would be worthwhile. Finsbury Park is congested and such an extension would be time-consuming, and when journeys operated to Holloway they were generally under-used beyond Manor House. The 259 provides an alternative for most journeys. I agree, would be pointless for not much people to go for the few stops. The masses normally head for the Piccadilly line or connecting Green Lanes services. A small amount may get 253/254/259 to Holloway and beyond. |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jun 13, 2024 12:03:56 GMT
N242 and N277. Crossharbour to Tottenham Court Road. Send the N38 to Homerton Hosp and the N55 should be adequate IMO between Walthamstow and Clapton especially when you have the N26 and N73 also at Walthamstow to Central London Troouble is the N55 does NOT go to Walthamstow Central. N38 to Homerton is pointless and if it goes over the 242/N242 route then LT's are going to get into problems on Clapton Park estate as it is unsuitable. N242 and N277 hardly much to merge since they only share a few stops on Graham Rd Walthamstow to Lea Bridge Road is hardly a link that needs to be given at night though. Lea Bridge Road is residential housing, industrial land a Ice rink. There is literally nothing there. Bakers Arms is like a 5 minute walk and the N55 still served Hoe Street, so I don’t think its an issue. I hear you about the LT issue in the Homerton area, but routes like the N68, N133 who all use different buses from their counterpart and it causes no issues. I know CT only have LTs but could always be run from another garage or so. As for the N242/N277, its putting two routes together. The N242’s routing with the N277’s routing IMO would be a very popular route from TCR to Crossharbour, yes they share stops on Graham Road only but the two together would be brilliant. N242 seems a waste of resources and the N277 has potential rather than just extending to Angel over night especially via a routing that IMO doesnt need it |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jun 13, 2024 12:17:27 GMT
Troouble is the N55 does NOT go to Walthamstow Central. N38 to Homerton is pointless and if it goes over the 242/N242 route then LT's are going to get into problems on Clapton Park estate as it is unsuitable. N242 and N277 hardly much to merge since they only share a few stops on Graham Rd Walthamstow to Lea Bridge Road is hardly a link that needs to be given at night though. Lea Bridge Road is residential housing, industrial land a Ice rink. There is literally nothing there. Bakers Arms is like a 5 minute walk and the N55 still served Hoe Street, so I don’t think its an issue. I hear you about the LT issue in the Homerton area, but routes like the N68, N133 who all use different buses from their counterpart and it causes no issues. I know CT only have LTs but could always be run from another garage or so. As for the N242/N277, its putting two routes together. The N242’s routing with the N277’s routing IMO would be a very popular route from TCR to Crossharbour, yes they share stops on Graham Road only but the two together would be brilliant. N242 seems a waste of resources and the N277 has potential rather than just extending to Angel over night especially via a routing that IMO doesnt need it Walthamstow to LBR is a well used link and it would not be wise to sever that night link. On the weekend there will be people making that journey from Walthamstow Central after alighting the Vic line. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 13, 2024 13:14:15 GMT
Troouble is the N55 does NOT go to Walthamstow Central. N38 to Homerton is pointless and if it goes over the 242/N242 route then LT's are going to get into problems on Clapton Park estate as it is unsuitable. N242 and N277 hardly much to merge since they only share a few stops on Graham Rd Walthamstow to Lea Bridge Road is hardly a link that needs to be given at night though. Lea Bridge Road is residential housing, industrial land a Ice rink. There is literally nothing there. Bakers Arms is like a 5 minute walk and the N55 still served Hoe Street, so I don’t think its an issue. I hear you about the LT issue in the Homerton area, but routes like the N68, N133 who all use different buses from their counterpart and it causes no issues. I know CT only have LTs but could always be run from another garage or so. As for the N242/N277, its putting two routes together. The N242’s routing with the N277’s routing IMO would be a very popular route from TCR to Crossharbour, yes they share stops on Graham Road only but the two together would be brilliant. N242 seems a waste of resources and the N277 has potential rather than just extending to Angel over night especially via a routing that IMO doesnt need it The N133 doesn't have any restrictions so it's not the same as the N242's issue in Homerton |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2024 15:59:38 GMT
Could just get rid of the 365 by replacing it with a 248 from Cranham to Havering Park, a 175 to 'Beam Park', 165 sent back via Hornchurch Road and the 372 extended to Romford with a better frequency or merge the 365 with the 165 (Havering Park to Rainham) that follows the 365 route from Havering Park to Elm Park and then just do the standard 165 routing to Rainham this would bring faster journeys for those in Rainham and 24 hour service to them Still with that Beam Park nonsense  |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2024 16:07:04 GMT
Troouble is the N55 does NOT go to Walthamstow Central. N38 to Homerton is pointless and if it goes over the 242/N242 route then LT's are going to get into problems on Clapton Park estate as it is unsuitable. N242 and N277 hardly much to merge since they only share a few stops on Graham Rd Walthamstow to Lea Bridge Road is hardly a link that needs to be given at night though. Lea Bridge Road is residential housing, industrial land a Ice rink. There is literally nothing there. Bakers Arms is like a 5 minute walk and the N55 still served Hoe Street, so I don’t think its an issue. I hear you about the LT issue in the Homerton area, but routes like the N68, N133 who all use different buses from their counterpart and it causes no issues. I know CT only have LTs but could always be run from another garage or so. As for the N242/N277, its putting two routes together. The N242’s routing with the N277’s routing IMO would be a very popular route from TCR to Crossharbour, yes they share stops on Graham Road only but the two together would be brilliant. N242 seems a waste of resources and the N277 has potential rather than just extending to Angel over night especially via a routing that IMO doesnt need it People do go to Walthamstow via Lea Bridge Rd and also from Walthamstow towards Hackney Central/Clapton. If it is NOT broke do NOT try to take the crayons out to fix it. To you it may seem so. I did nights some years ago driving these routes over this corridor and can assure you, that measures that you think because it may earn a medal does nothing for the general public than inconvience them. Homerton does not require that much buses going to it in the night, a N38 would be an overkill and stupid. People would rather get a N55 to Hackney Well St from TCR then the N277, much quicker wasting time doing the current N242 to go up to Dalston, then back down to Hackney etc |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2024 16:07:28 GMT
Lets be fair, do you really think Hall would of prioritised buses either? I know she bizarrely hired a RM to spread her anti ULEZ message but what makes you think buses suddenly would of shot to the top of the list under her? The trouble is being anti motorist can have a detrimental effect on buses aswell. The Streatham LTN must be the best example of that coupled with buses having to run only 20mph and bus lanes becoming cycle lanes. Iv felt more in recent times alot of Kens good work got undone by Ken. How can Ken's work be undone by Ken? |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Jun 13, 2024 21:15:45 GMT
The trouble is being anti motorist can have a detrimental effect on buses aswell. The Streatham LTN must be the best example of that coupled with buses having to run only 20mph and bus lanes becoming cycle lanes. Iv felt more in recent times alot of Kens good work got undone by Ken. How can Ken's work be undone by Ken? Who's Ken anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Jun 13, 2024 21:18:04 GMT
Could just get rid of the 365 by replacing it with a 248 from Cranham to Havering Park, a 175 to 'Beam Park', 165 sent back via Hornchurch Road and the 372 extended to Romford with a better frequency or merge the 365 with the 165 (Havering Park to Rainham) that follows the 365 route from Havering Park to Elm Park and then just do the standard 165 routing to Rainham this would bring faster journeys for those in Rainham and 24 hour service to them That all sounds very complicated. What would replace the 365 through Orchard Village? |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2024 22:11:13 GMT
How can Ken's work be undone by Ken? Who's Ken anyway? I guess he meant Ken Livingstone and that it was undone by Khan |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Jun 14, 2024 7:11:21 GMT
Could just get rid of the 365 by replacing it with a 248 from Cranham to Havering Park, a 175 to 'Beam Park', 165 sent back via Hornchurch Road and the 372 extended to Romford with a better frequency or merge the 365 with the 165 (Havering Park to Rainham) that follows the 365 route from Havering Park to Elm Park and then just do the standard 165 routing to Rainham this would bring faster journeys for those in Rainham and 24 hour service to them That all sounds very complicated. What would replace the 365 through Orchard Village? I don’t really think that the 365 should be removed. Yes it’s timetable I’ve heard is questionable but the problem is not resolved by removing the route. Also outside of the very infrequent & indirect 193, the 365 is the only route the Elm Park/Hornchurch area serving the Queens Hospital. I do wonder though how the 365 routing will change upon it being extended to the Beam Park Developments. If it’s removed from the Orchard Village area maybe the 287 could reroute through there going towards Barking only. |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Jun 14, 2024 9:31:08 GMT
That all sounds very complicated. What would replace the 365 through Orchard Village? I don’t really think that the 365 should be removed. Yes it’s timetable I’ve heard is questionable but the problem is not resolved by removing the route. Also outside of the very infrequent & indirect 193, the 365 is the only route the Elm Park/Hornchurch area serving the Queens Hospital. I do wonder though how the 365 routing will change upon it being extended to the Beam Park Developments. If it’s removed from the Orchard Village area maybe the 287 could reroute through there going towards Barking only. The only problem is that would remove the link from Orchard Village up to Romford, and the quicker link to the District Line at Elm Park. If anything, the 365 could just do with a tweak to the timetable- the route is just off its targets set by TfL- the recent increase in EWT may just be down to the works that were taking place on North Street in Romford. I think the 165, 247, 252, 294 and 365 are probably best left as they are. As a frequent user of the routes in and around Romford there's not really that much excess capacity between Romford and Collier Row at the busier times and every one of the routes goes in a completely different direction once it arrives at Collier Row. |
|
