|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 23, 2024 16:08:11 GMT
Mergers almost always involve 'thinning out' a section of route. The 1/168/188 changes led to a combined PVR saving of around 13. And from reports I've heard, not a particularly good service on the newly merged 1 as a result. I wonder how much of that is down to the HS2 works vs the actual route structure. GAL are something of experts at running reliable cross-city routes like the 36, 88 so I daren't say it'll settle down. Although the budgetary situation leading to the 1/188 merger is never ideal, hopefully with TfL recording a revenue surplus these days will be put behind us....at least for now. |
|
ZiyQ
Conductor
I always end up saying too much - beware of the waffle posts taking up an entire thread’s page…
Posts: 118
|
Post by ZiyQ on Apr 23, 2024 16:08:48 GMT
It might seem slightly unusual, but the 149 and 349 could be worthwhile routes to merge back into one route. Because of the high number of bus lanes (and other bus priority measures) along the route, the 149 is able to reach quite good levels of punctuality, especially for a Central London bus route, so an extension from Edmonton Green to Ponders End should not affect reliability too much (even though the 149 might become quite a long route). In fact, if I remember correctly, the 149 was cut back to Edmonton Green in 2004 mostly for articulated operation, as Enfield Bus Garage supposedly could not fit articulated buses (which has long since reverted), and the corridor between Ponders End and Edmonton Green can get ridiculously busy at times, so the 149's extra frequency would help.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 23, 2024 16:13:24 GMT
And from reports I've heard, not a particularly good service on the newly merged 1 as a result. I wonder how much of that is down to the HS2 works vs the actual route structure. GAL are something of experts at running reliable cross-city routes like the 36, 88 so I daren't say it'll settle down. Although the budgetary situation leading to the 1/188 merger is never ideal, hopefully with TfL recording a revenue surplus these days will be put behind us....at least for now. The reports was before the works at Euston I should add and I don't think Go-Ahead are to blame here as I agree they do their best with the 88 (the 36's routing isn't as taxing so not counting that) and did what they could with the 11's old routing - I think TfL are to blame for merging the 1 & 168 in all honesty rather than exploring other options but I'd imagine I'm in a minority of 1 on that. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 23, 2024 16:17:03 GMT
I wonder how much of that is down to the HS2 works vs the actual route structure. GAL are something of experts at running reliable cross-city routes like the 36, 88 so I daren't say it'll settle down. Although the budgetary situation leading to the 1/188 merger is never ideal, hopefully with TfL recording a revenue surplus these days will be put behind us....at least for now. The reports was before the works at Euston I should add and I don't think Go-Ahead are to blame here as I agree they do their best with the 88 (the 36's routing isn't as taxing so not counting that) and did what they could with the 11's old routing - I think TfL are to blame for merging the 1 & 168 in all honesty rather than exploring other options but I'd imagine I'm in a minority of 1 on that. I think merging the 1/188 was probably done in good faith given the financial situation. Of course it wasn't ideal, but it was a rock and a hard place. The whole situation with buses in central and parts of inner London needs a complete rethink as the whole picture has changed so drastically in the last 10 years with so many competing modes of travel like Lime Bikes and accompanying demands for road space. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 23, 2024 16:19:41 GMT
It’s not necessarily for the sake of it in the case, I was suggesting it as an alternative to the 388 being extended to Peckham that was initially proposed, which I think is a better idea than that proposal. Because the 388 suggestion didn’t go ahead though I’m happy to leave the 78/363 the way they are now though. The 388 proposal from TfL wasn't a great one though - would of left existing 78 customers with a long wielding route at the mercy of traffic around Tower Bridge and whatever obstacles the 388 would have to go through. What I mean by sake of it is if the only reason the merging is being done is just to save money or free up a stand space, it is pretty doing it for the sake of it rather than doing it for the benefit of passengers. My overall point is that a merged 78/363 would likely cause fewer (but still definitely some issues), than the 78/388 being merged. The 388 proposal also comes with the separate issue that nothing replaces the 78 between Peckham/Nunhead & I would imagine the P12 wouldn’t be able to operate on its own. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 23, 2024 16:22:38 GMT
The 388 proposal from TfL wasn't a great one though - would of left existing 78 customers with a long wielding route at the mercy of traffic around Tower Bridge and whatever obstacles the 388 would have to go through. What I mean by sake of it is if the only reason the merging is being done is just to save money or free up a stand space, it is pretty doing it for the sake of it rather than doing it for the benefit of passengers. My overall point is that a merged 78/363 would likely cause fewer (but still definitely some issues), than the 78/388 being merged. The 388 proposal also comes with the separate issue that nothing replaces the 78 between Peckham/Nunhead & I would imagine the P12 wouldn’t be able to operate on its own. Espeically now the P12 has gone to being a low-frequency route (5bph to 4bph) |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 23, 2024 16:23:52 GMT
The reports was before the works at Euston I should add and I don't think Go-Ahead are to blame here as I agree they do their best with the 88 (the 36's routing isn't as taxing so not counting that) and did what they could with the 11's old routing - I think TfL are to blame for merging the 1 & 168 in all honesty rather than exploring other options but I'd imagine I'm in a minority of 1 on that. I think merging the 1/188 was probably done in good faith given the financial situation. Of course it wasn't ideal, but it was a rock and a hard place. The whole situation with buses in central and parts of inner London needs a complete rethink as the whole picture has changed so drastically in the last 10 years with so many competing modes of travel like Lime Bikes and accompanying demands for road space. I remember in the past I suggested that the 1 should have ran the full length of the 168 with the 415 diverted to Canada Water, so that the reliability is improved, though this comes with the issue that Grange Road loses its direct link into central London. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 23, 2024 16:37:32 GMT
It might seem slightly unusual, but the 149 and 349 could be worthwhile routes to merge back into one route. Because of the high number of bus lanes (and other bus priority measures) along the route, the 149 is able to reach quite good levels of punctuality, especially for a Central London bus route, so an extension from Edmonton Green to Ponders End should not affect reliability too much (even though the 149 might become quite a long route). In fact, if I remember correctly, the 149 was cut back to Edmonton Green in 2004 mostly for articulated operation, as Enfield Bus Garage supposedly could not fit articulated buses (which has long since reverted), and the corridor between Ponders End and Edmonton Green can get ridiculously busy at times, so the 149's extra frequency would help. I don’t think this would work, the 149 I think might still become too unreliable to operate. I think diverting the 279 to Stamford Hill as initially proposed, which is shorter than running to Manor House, but keeping the same PVR as it has now, therefore increasing the frequency on the route overall. The 259 would be left as it is & not restructured to run between Holloway & Ponders End. |
|
ZiyQ
Conductor
I always end up saying too much - beware of the waffle posts taking up an entire thread’s page…
Posts: 118
|
Post by ZiyQ on Apr 23, 2024 16:53:13 GMT
It might seem slightly unusual, but the 149 and 349 could be worthwhile routes to merge back into one route. Because of the high number of bus lanes (and other bus priority measures) along the route, the 149 is able to reach quite good levels of punctuality, especially for a Central London bus route, so an extension from Edmonton Green to Ponders End should not affect reliability too much (even though the 149 might become quite a long route). In fact, if I remember correctly, the 149 was cut back to Edmonton Green in 2004 mostly for articulated operation, as Enfield Bus Garage supposedly could not fit articulated buses (which has long since reverted), and the corridor between Ponders End and Edmonton Green can get ridiculously busy at times, so the 149's extra frequency would help. I don’t think this would work, the 149 I think might still become too unreliable to operate. I think diverting the 279 to Stamford Hill as initially proposed, which is shorter than running to Manor House, but keeping the same PVR as it has now, therefore increasing the frequency on the route overall. The 259 would be left as it is & not restructured to run between Holloway & Ponders End. That could work, though I'm unsure about leaving the 259 on a solo section from Seven Sisters to Amhurst Park, with the Seven Sisters to Stamford Hill corridor already having quite a high frequency without the 243. Traffic doesn't seem too bad North of Edmonton Green, and I think the 149 wasn't cut from Ponders End due to poor reliability (but that was 2004 and a new cycle lane has been built along the road) - I don't think the 149 would suffer too much, but it could sometimes as well, but would save a decent level of buses without stripping anywhere of too many buses |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 23, 2024 17:29:19 GMT
As a local to the 1 and 88, might I add that the 1 has not been anywhere near the best of successes. The new 1 has very good links however it is crazy long, and its crazy nature means it is often delayed or bunching. And although not their fault, the 1 has not ran its intended route, not even a single day since it began as Hampstead Heath to Canada Water.
This is because of the roadworks at Mornington Crescent, and quite oftenly the protests at Southampton Row/Aldwych.
The random roadworks that close access for buses to get to Euston Bus Station so the 1 diverts between Holborn and Camden via TCR and Warren Street and the 91 loops Warren Street
The closure of Canada Water Bus Station
Extensive roadworks at Chalk Farm Road
Im sure there are probably some other issues south of the route around Bermondsey and Rotherhithe.
So merging routes definitely doesnt work for all, but in some instances it isn’t the worst of ideas. A trunk route fantasy idea I had (cannot because of low bridge at Finsbury Park) would be a merger of the 4/W3 between Blackfriars and Northumberland Park, with the 236 replacing the 4’s route to Archway.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 23, 2024 17:31:51 GMT
It might seem slightly unusual, but the 149 and 349 could be worthwhile routes to merge back into one route. Because of the high number of bus lanes (and other bus priority measures) along the route, the 149 is able to reach quite good levels of punctuality, especially for a Central London bus route, so an extension from Edmonton Green to Ponders End should not affect reliability too much (even though the 149 might become quite a long route). In fact, if I remember correctly, the 149 was cut back to Edmonton Green in 2004 mostly for articulated operation, as Enfield Bus Garage supposedly could not fit articulated buses (which has long since reverted), and the corridor between Ponders End and Edmonton Green can get ridiculously busy at times, so the 149's extra frequency would help. London Bridge to Ponders End would definitely be too long. But I think what you could do is extend the 349 as far as Dalston Junction, and with a frequency increase, then reroute the 149 to Wood Green via the 243. And the 242 could replace the rest of the 243 to Waterloo, maybe with the 67 restored to Aldgate. Separately, if the 279 were to be shortened in some way, I wonder if rerouteing it to terminate at Tottenham Hale could work? This would introduce a local link to the A10 corridor. The 259/341 might be sufficient to/from Manor House. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 23, 2024 17:35:03 GMT
As a local to the 1 and 88, might I add that the 1 has not been anywhere near the best of successes. The new 1 has very good links however it is crazy long, and its crazy nature means it is often delayed or bunching. And although not their fault, the 1 has not ran its intended route, not even a single day since it began as Hampstead Heath to Canada Water. This is because of the roadworks at Mornington Crescent, and quite oftenly the protests at Southampton Row/Aldwych. The random roadworks that close access for buses to get to Euston Bus Station so the 1 diverts between Holborn and Camden via TCR and Warren Street and the 91 loops Warren Street The closure of Canada Water Bus Station Extensive roadworks at Chalk Farm Road Im sure there are probably some other issues south of the route around Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. So merging routes definitely doesnt work for all, but in some instances it isn’t the worst of ideas. A trunk route fantasy idea I had (cannot because of low bridge at Finsbury Park) would be a merger of the 4/W3 between Blackfriars and Northumberland Park, with the 236 replacing the 4’s route to Archway. The W3 is also much more frequent than the 4. The W3 works well as it is, especially at the Finsbury Park end where it acts as a feeder for an area which doesn't have good rail links, and acts as a useful east-west route across Haringey. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Apr 23, 2024 18:03:08 GMT
As a local to the 1 and 88, might I add that the 1 has not been anywhere near the best of successes. The new 1 has very good links however it is crazy long, and its crazy nature means it is often delayed or bunching. And although not their fault, the 1 has not ran its intended route, not even a single day since it began as Hampstead Heath to Canada Water. This is because of the roadworks at Mornington Crescent, and quite oftenly the protests at Southampton Row/Aldwych. The random roadworks that close access for buses to get to Euston Bus Station so the 1 diverts between Holborn and Camden via TCR and Warren Street and the 91 loops Warren Street The closure of Canada Water Bus Station Extensive roadworks at Chalk Farm Road Im sure there are probably some other issues south of the route around Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. So merging routes definitely doesnt work for all, but in some instances it isn’t the worst of ideas. A trunk route fantasy idea I had (cannot because of low bridge at Finsbury Park) would be a merger of the 4/W3 between Blackfriars and Northumberland Park, with the 236 replacing the 4’s route to Archway. The W3 is also much more frequent than the 4. The W3 works well as it is, especially at the Finsbury Park end where it acts as a feeder for an area which doesn't have good rail links, and acts as a useful east-west route across Haringey. The more sensible merger would be the 73 and 476; although frequencies are a question mark. Has often been debated on this forum (not local so feel free to disagree!) |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 23, 2024 19:00:24 GMT
Mergers almost always involve 'thinning out' a section of route. The 1/168/188 changes led to a combined PVR saving of around 13. And from reports I've heard, not a particularly good service on the newly merged 1 as a result. That's a bit harsh considering Eversholt Street and other roads around Euston have been closed since November, and the 168 would've faced the same delays regardless. Maybe I am a bit biased but I believe the 1 merger isn't all that bad as it creates more direct journeys than it breaks. My non-enthusiast friends living in the Surrey Quays area are now opting for the 1 to central London and Camden because of this very reason; if the bus links are desirable, people will use it. By the way, the Overground from Enfield snakes very close to Dalston so wouldn't be surprised if there are some bus journeys emulating this trip. I personally favour extending the 67 to New Southgate, Oakleigh Road North via the 221 and 34 instead of merging the 67 and 329 together, but that's just me. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 23, 2024 21:23:06 GMT
And from reports I've heard, not a particularly good service on the newly merged 1 as a result. That's a bit harsh considering Eversholt Street and other roads around Euston have been closed since November, and the 168 would've faced the same delays regardless. Maybe I am a bit biased but I believe the 1 merger isn't all that bad as it creates more direct journeys than it breaks. My non-enthusiast friends living in the Surrey Quays area are now opting for the 1 to central London and Camden because of this very reason; if the bus links are desirable, people will use it. By the way, the Overground from Enfield snakes very close to Dalston so wouldn't be surprised if there are some bus journeys emulating this trip. I personally favour extending the 67 to New Southgate, Oakleigh Road North via the 221 and 34 instead of merging the 67 and 329 together, but that's just me. Not to mention the 168 wasn't exactly a short route. From Bricklayers Arms down the OKR was probably half the journey to Canada Water anyways. Even current length is less then many other routes in terms of mileage and minutes. |
|
