|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 23, 2024 21:42:46 GMT
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 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. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 23, 2024 21:48:44 GMT
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 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 23, 2024 21:52:48 GMT
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 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. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 23, 2024 22:00:18 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. Where exactly is it on Portland Rise? I never knew there was one there. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 24, 2024 0:54:00 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. As I mentioned in my earlier follow up post, my reports were pre Euston works. The 168 would of suffered too but the distance from Bricklayers Arms to Canada Water as apposed to Old Kent Road Tesco is far greater both in terms of traffic & routing. Old Kent Road Tesco is only a further two stops down the road whereas the 1 has plenty more stops to serve before even reaching Surrey Quays, let alone Canada Water. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 24, 2024 5:10:05 GMT
The 1/168 was a perfect example, reduce overbussing whilst retaining existing links, well apart from a short section of Old Kent Road. An added bonus is that it also provides a link to Camden Town from SE London. The alternative would have been to reduce the 168 to Hampstead Heath to Holborn.
It would be too long but if the 87 and 91 were merged it would provide a link from Euston and King's Cross to Westminster and beyond and reduce bus congestion along The Strand whilst also saving a few buses.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 24, 2024 5:21:44 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. Yes the 149/349 change was for the artics that have long since gone and the 149 could return to Ponders End Garage, in fact the 149 could be cut back to Liverpool Street. It could be argued though that the extra capacity of the 349 is needed north of Seven Sisters for tube passengers. |
|
djs76
Conductor
Posts: 94
|
Post by djs76 on Apr 24, 2024 5:57:04 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. Yes the 149/349 change was for the artics that have long since gone and the 149 could return to Ponders End Garage, in fact the 149 could be cut back to Liverpool Street. It could be argued though that the extra capacity of the 349 is needed north of Seven Sisters for tube passengers. I think the Overground has taken a fair bit of custom from the buses between Seven Sisters and Edmonton Green, and further north from there. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 24, 2024 8:18:41 GMT
Could a merger of the H14/H17 work? The 223 now duplicates the H14 between Harrow View & Northwick Park Hospital & is a much better option to merge with the H17 than the 258.
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 24, 2024 8:24:16 GMT
Could a merger of the H14/H17 work? The 223 now duplicates the H14 between Harrow View & Northwick Park Hospital & is a much better option to merge with the H17 than the 258. Frequency differential is different (6bph vs 4bph) and it means Hatch End, a quite large residential neighbourhood loses it's direct link to the Hospital, a totally backwards move. The 182 is around a mile from the main shopping parade of Hatch End, you could extend the 182 along there but it would mean a much slower journey to the Hospital from Hatch End. Places like Hatch End already need better bus services with more direct links as it is, never mind less. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 24, 2024 8:57:12 GMT
Could a merger of the H14/H17 work? The 223 now duplicates the H14 between Harrow View & Northwick Park Hospital & is a much better option to merge with the H17 than the 258. Frequency differential is different (6bph vs 4bph) and it means Hatch End, a quite large residential neighbourhood loses it's direct link to the Hospital, a totally backwards move. The 182 is around a mile from the main shopping parade of Hatch End, you could extend the 182 along there but it would mean a much slower journey to the Hospital from Hatch End. Places like Hatch End already need better bus services with more direct links as it is, never mind less. I think the 223 may be extended further up the road to Oxhey Lane in the future. Tbh I would have preferred the H17 been extended up north rather than the 223 & it could convert to DD operation which would be beneficial as it loads quite well in Harrow. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 24, 2024 11:37:55 GMT
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 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 24, 2024 14:22:27 GMT
There is a bus stand on Portland Rise not too far away if the main stand in Manor House is an issue. Where exactly is it on Portland Rise? I never knew there was one there. is your friend  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. As I mentioned in my earlier follow up post, my reports were pre Euston works. The 168 would of suffered too but the distance from Bricklayers Arms to Canada Water as apposed to Old Kent Road Tesco is far greater both in terms of traffic & routing. Old Kent Road Tesco is only a further two stops down the road whereas the 1 has plenty more stops to serve before even reaching Surrey Quays, let alone Canada Water. I didn't see you address that in a previous post before writing, sorry for that. As much as it isn't an ideal situation given the previous scope in the TfL: Super Broke era, this is one of those changes that make sense. The 436 being diverted to terminate at Battersea Park was an example of saving resources with very little benefit for passengers. GAL and its drivers have the expertise to run cross-city routes like TB123 has said, including the 108 which is run pretty well given the immense challenges that's unique to it. I get I'm not going to convince you that the 1 and 168 should've been left alone, but given the amount of garbage in the central London consultation a couple years ago this is a marked improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 24, 2024 14:43:41 GMT
Where exactly is it on Portland Rise? I never knew there was one there. is your friend As I mentioned in my earlier follow up post, my reports were pre Euston works. The 168 would of suffered too but the distance from Bricklayers Arms to Canada Water as apposed to Old Kent Road Tesco is far greater both in terms of traffic & routing. Old Kent Road Tesco is only a further two stops down the road whereas the 1 has plenty more stops to serve before even reaching Surrey Quays, let alone Canada Water. I didn't see you address that in a previous post before writing, sorry for that. As much as it isn't an ideal situation given the previous scope in the TfL: Super Broke era, this is one of those changes that make sense. The 436 being diverted to terminate at Battersea Park was an example of saving resources with very little benefit for passengers. GAL and its drivers have the expertise to run cross-city routes like TB123 has said, including the 108 which is run pretty well given the immense challenges that's unique to it. I get I'm not going to convince you that the 1 and 168 should've been left alone, but given the amount of garbage in the central London consultation a couple years ago this is a marked improvement. No worries and I certainly agree with you that Go-Ahead do as best a job as possible with the likes of the 88 and the old 11 routing in the centre of town and the 108 that you mention. Maybe I'll be convinced when I finally get a chance to actually sample the extended 1 myself, I'll certainly post either way whenever that happens  |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 24, 2024 14:51:35 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. 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. |
|
