|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 3, 2014 22:00:21 GMT
Extend the 123 by diverting at South Woodford along the North Circular to the A10 and up via the M25 to Potters Bar via St Albans. Pave over along the old 123 route so Snoggle has to walk  What is this? Be horrible to Snoggle week?   Anyway send the 123 up the M11 and then round the M25 for maximum fun value.   I do intend, at some point, to try to snap the 123 coming up the A406 but with the big Charlie Brown's flyovers and M11 / A406 traffic lanes as the backdrop. There is a sloped path up the side of the big concrete wall that should allow a photo to be taken but the angle of the light is very difficult because of the way the road bends at the point. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 3, 2014 22:10:31 GMT
If we are all driving into the the world of fantasy, why don't we let TFL takeover Green Line Coaches routes and let is go on our oyster to Legoland? ;-) but on a serious note would a TFL takeover of the commuter coach service be a good idea? I think I'd argue not because it would lead to inefficiencies. Much of the commuter coach trade is balanced by the coaches doing tours and hire contract work between the peaks. Costs would inevitably go up and I'm not sure whether TfL can legitimatly operate express coaches because it's state funded and the market is fully open to competition. It also has a limit on the geographic scope of its operation and commuter coaches are nearly always from places outside London into the City and Westminster / Victoria. The Green Lines to Windsor and Bracknell and the 757 to Luton Airport are perhaps honourable exceptions with two way flows. I don't think commuter coach travel has "failed" so there's no need for TfL to intervene. I like the fact that TfL has tidied things up with coach stops and some route numbering but I don't think much more is needed. Some nice centralised info on the TfL website would be good but I guess the view is that it is for the operators to advertise their services. The one thing that does need attention but where there are no obvious answers is Victoria Coach Station and how you deal with ever expanding services. Having seen the Route Masters episode about VCS again it reminded me how stupidly busy the place now is. |
|
|
|
Post by theexplorer on Sept 3, 2014 22:36:35 GMT
If we are all driving into the the world of fantasy, why don't we let TFL takeover Green Line Coaches routes and let is go on our oyster to Legoland? ;-) but on a serious note would a TFL takeover of the commuter coach service be a good idea? I think I'd argue not because it would lead to inefficiencies. Much of the commuter coach trade is balanced by the coaches doing tours and hire contract work between the peaks. Costs would inevitably go up and I'm not sure whether TfL can legitimatly operate express coaches because it's state funded and the market is fully open to competition. It also has a limit on the geographic scope of its operation and commuter coaches are nearly always from places outside London into the City and Westminster / Victoria. The Green Lines to Windsor and Bracknell and the 757 to Luton Airport are perhaps honourable exceptions with two way flows. I don't think commuter coach travel has "failed" so there's no need for TfL to intervene. I like the fact that TfL has tidied things up with coach stops and some route numbering but I don't think much more is needed. Some nice centralised info on the TfL website would be good but I guess the view is that it is for the operators to advertise their services. The one thing that does need attention but where there are no obvious answers is Victoria Coach Station and how you deal with ever expanding services. Having seen the Route Masters episode about VCS again it reminded me how stupidly busy the place now is. Perhaps your right, I just think that as TFL service area expands into the commuter belt that maybe TFL should have some control over some of the Green Line Coaches but leave the airport coachs and longer routes like the Medway towns or Oxford to the various couches companys. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 22:39:21 GMT
I think I'd argue not because it would lead to inefficiencies. Much of the commuter coach trade is balanced by the coaches doing tours and hire contract work between the peaks. Costs would inevitably go up and I'm not sure whether TfL can legitimatly operate express coaches because it's state funded and the market is fully open to competition. It also has a limit on the geographic scope of its operation and commuter coaches are nearly always from places outside London into the City and Westminster / Victoria. The Green Lines to Windsor and Bracknell and the 757 to Luton Airport are perhaps honourable exceptions with two way flows. I don't think commuter coach travel has "failed" so there's no need for TfL to intervene. I like the fact that TfL has tidied things up with coach stops and some route numbering but I don't think much more is needed. Some nice centralised info on the TfL website would be good but I guess the view is that it is for the operators to advertise their services. The one thing that does need attention but where there are no obvious answers is Victoria Coach Station and how you deal with ever expanding services. Having seen the Route Masters episode about VCS again it reminded me how stupidly busy the place now is. Perhaps your right, I just think that as TFL service area expands into the commuter belt that maybe TFL should have some control over some of the Green Line Coaches but leave the airport coachs and longer routes like the Medway towns or Oxford to the various couches companys. Sorry ... I have to ask ... are you a London Council tax payer? |
|
|
|
Post by theexplorer on Sept 3, 2014 22:40:41 GMT
Perhaps your right, I just think that as TFL service area expands into the commuter belt that maybe TFL should have some control over some of the Green Line Coaches but leave the airport coachs and longer routes like the Medway towns or Oxford to the various couches companys. Sorry ... I have to ask ... are you a London Council tax payer? Why do you ask? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 22:45:34 GMT
Sorry ... I have to ask ... are you a London Council tax payer? Why do you ask? Because you either :- a) are not b) love paying local taxes c) have so much money you dont know what to do with it and you love London tax payers giving benefits to those that pay nothing |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 3, 2014 22:46:00 GMT
Extend the 215 during the summer extension to Waltham Cross Bus Station via Sewardstone, Waltham Abbey & Eleanor Cross Road (if length is an issue, it can miss out Waltham Abbey via Meridan Way). The reason why I've suggested this is the Lea Valley Campsite brings buses from Harlow, Chingford & Walthamstow but not Waltham Cross which is the nearest town to the north west - anyone in this direction it seems would have to travel into London and then get the tube to Walthamstow and then a 215 to reach the campsite.
I've no idea how loadings are, whether there would be any patronage along my suggested route or even if the extension would work outside the seasonal period that the 215 serves the campsite but I'm sure someone will tell me if it's viable or not lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 22:49:19 GMT
Extend the 215 during the summer extension to Waltham Cross Bus Station via Sewardstone, Waltham Abbey & Eleanor Cross Road (if length is an issue, it can miss out Waltham Abbey via Meridan Way). The reason why I've suggested this is the Lea Valley Campsite brings buses from Harlow, Chingford & Walthamstow but not Waltham Cross which is the nearest town to the north west - anyone in this direction it seems would have to travel into London and then get the tube to Walthamstow and then a 215 to reach the campsite. I've no idea how loadings are, whether there would be any patronage along my suggested route or even if the extension would work outside the seasonal period that the 215 serves the campsite but I'm sure someone will tell me if it's viable or not lol. I think this is a really good idea. Waltham Abbey deserves TFL services. Not lots of services but, maybe 2 or 3 or something like that. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbaddom1981 on Sept 3, 2014 22:49:28 GMT
Extend the 215 during the summer extension to Waltham Cross Bus Station via Sewardstone, Waltham Abbey & Eleanor Cross Road (if length is an issue, it can miss out Waltham Abbey via Meridan Way). The reason why I've suggested this is the Lea Valley Campsite brings buses from Harlow, Chingford & Walthamstow but not Waltham Cross which is the nearest town to the north west - anyone in this direction it seems would have to travel into London and then get the tube to Walthamstow and then a 215 to reach the campsite. I've no idea how loadings are, whether there would be any patronage along my suggested route or even if the extension would work outside the seasonal period that the 215 serves the campsite but I'm sure someone will tell me if it's viable or not lol. I notice a lot of campers use the W8 towards the Lea Valley Leisure Complex |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 3, 2014 22:58:24 GMT
Because you either :- a) are not b) love paying local taxes c) have so much money you dont know what to do with it and you love London tax payers giving benefits to those that pay nothing Apologies for a mini rantette from me. TfL is NOT majority funded by London council tax payers. The council tax precept for TfL raises £6m per annum. TfL's finance comes from a) Fares revenue (measured in the billions of £s) b) Charges such as parking fines, congestion charge, LEZ fees etc c) Revenue Grant from the Government d) A share of business rates devolved from Government to TfL e) Capital Grant from the Government f) Private sector contributions from advertising, the Community Infrastructure levy, S106 payments and specific Crossrail levy funding The above can be found in the TfL Business Plan and Annual Reports. While I completely understand the underlying concern about TfL not splashing money outside of Greater London when there is so much to be done inside Greater London the truth on TfL funding is that the people with a right to complain are farepayers and *all* taxpayers whether in London, Swansea, Yeovil or Aberdeen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 22:59:56 GMT
Cannot for the life of me why everyone seems to want all routes extended to Caterham station? It is already served by a regular route. Has anyone actually had the common sense to think WHERE these buses are going to stand??? Evidently not Actually, i have, Right outside the station where the 409 stands, they can move the taxi stand to the side road near Waitrose The 466 could go there, the 434 can stand where the 407 is. The taxi stand where the bus stop is also. So what would happen when you have two 466's, a 409 and then a 400 trying to pull in the bus stop? There is insufficient space |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 23:06:08 GMT
The 466 would be useful but as you mention, stand space is an issue - personally, the 434 is fine as it is, from my observations, it hardly carries much between Purley & Whyteleaf though I'm not a regular on the route. In the mornings, if the trains aren't working, the route would be packed,as it goes past ALL stations between Purley and Caterham. thats why i thought of a Caterham Station Extension for it whereas the 407 goes past 2 (Whyteleafe south and Caterham) Yes... But the 407 stops within a two minute walk from Kenley Station & Whyteleafe? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 3, 2014 23:07:46 GMT
Extend the 215 during the summer extension to Waltham Cross Bus Station via Sewardstone, Waltham Abbey & Eleanor Cross Road (if length is an issue, it can miss out Waltham Abbey via Meridan Way). The reason why I've suggested this is the Lea Valley Campsite brings buses from Harlow, Chingford & Walthamstow but not Waltham Cross which is the nearest town to the north west - anyone in this direction it seems would have to travel into London and then get the tube to Walthamstow and then a 215 to reach the campsite. I've no idea how loadings are, whether there would be any patronage along my suggested route or even if the extension would work outside the seasonal period that the 215 serves the campsite but I'm sure someone will tell me if it's viable or not lol. Err you seem to have forgotten about TGM's 505 service from Harlow to Chingford. It's not the best service in the world but least it is still there but doesn't take Oyster. In the past the 505 ran to Walthamstow but got hacked back. Going even further back we used to have the remnants of Green Line routes out of Walthamstow which ran via Sewardstone and another out via Epping. Despite being long standing services the post deregulation decay that afflicted Essex and parts of Herts plus the antics with the ownership of London Country North East killed the routes off. The 215 can load very well with campsite visitors. It's not unusual to see crowds of Germans waiting for it at Walthamstow Bus Station. Similarly there can be full loads into Walthamstow at odd times like 1000 on a Sunday morning. If the 215 were to be extended then you can wave goodbye to the 505 thus breaking one of the few bus links from Greater London to Harlow. If TfL were to be drowning in cash then I might be more tempted to do something with the 379 and run that up to Waltham Abbey / Waltham Cross while retaining the local routing through the Yardley Lane estate. I suspect the optimal option would be to run a limited hours hourly service from Walthamstow to Waltham Cross - possibly by extending 1 bph on the 215 in the same manner as the 166 runs on from Banstead to Epsom. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 3, 2014 23:22:17 GMT
Extend the 215 during the summer extension to Waltham Cross Bus Station via Sewardstone, Waltham Abbey & Eleanor Cross Road (if length is an issue, it can miss out Waltham Abbey via Meridan Way). The reason why I've suggested this is the Lea Valley Campsite brings buses from Harlow, Chingford & Walthamstow but not Waltham Cross which is the nearest town to the north west - anyone in this direction it seems would have to travel into London and then get the tube to Walthamstow and then a 215 to reach the campsite. I've no idea how loadings are, whether there would be any patronage along my suggested route or even if the extension would work outside the seasonal period that the 215 serves the campsite but I'm sure someone will tell me if it's viable or not lol. Err you seem to have forgotten about TGM's 505 service from Harlow to Chingford. It's not the best service in the world but least it is still there but doesn't take Oyster. In the past the 505 ran to Walthamstow but got hacked back. Going even further back we used to have the remnants of Green Line routes out of Walthamstow which ran via Sewardstone and another out via Epping. Despite being long standing services the post deregulation decay that afflicted Essex and parts of Herts plus the antics with the ownership of London Country North East killed the routes off. The 215 can load very well with campsite visitors. It's not unusual to see crowds of Germans waiting for it at Walthamstow Bus Station. Similarly there can be full loads into Walthamstow at odd times like 1000 on a Sunday morning. If the 215 were to be extended then you can wave goodbye to the 505 thus breaking one of the few bus links from Greater London to Harlow. If TfL were to be drowning in cash then I might be more tempted to do something with the 379 and run that up to Waltham Abbey / Waltham Cross while retaining the local routing through the Yardley Lane estate. I suspect the optimal option would be to run a limited hours hourly service from Walthamstow to Waltham Cross - possibly by extending 1 bph on the 215 in the same manner as the 166 runs on from Banstead to Epsom. I never forgot the 505 - I mentioned that the campsite brings buses from Chingford & Harlow. The 505 doesn't serve Waltham Cross & the 215 doesn't serve Chingford so why would the 505 be hacked away again when they'd only be duplicating each other along Sewardstone Road? Thanks for the other bits though. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 3, 2014 23:46:18 GMT
Err you seem to have forgotten about TGM's 505 service from Harlow to Chingford. It's not the best service in the world but least it is still there but doesn't take Oyster. In the past the 505 ran to Walthamstow but got hacked back. Going even further back we used to have the remnants of Green Line routes out of Walthamstow which ran via Sewardstone and another out via Epping. Despite being long standing services the post deregulation decay that afflicted Essex and parts of Herts plus the antics with the ownership of London Country North East killed the routes off. The 215 can load very well with campsite visitors. It's not unusual to see crowds of Germans waiting for it at Walthamstow Bus Station. Similarly there can be full loads into Walthamstow at odd times like 1000 on a Sunday morning. If the 215 were to be extended then you can wave goodbye to the 505 thus breaking one of the few bus links from Greater London to Harlow. If TfL were to be drowning in cash then I might be more tempted to do something with the 379 and run that up to Waltham Abbey / Waltham Cross while retaining the local routing through the Yardley Lane estate. I suspect the optimal option would be to run a limited hours hourly service from Walthamstow to Waltham Cross - possibly by extending 1 bph on the 215 in the same manner as the 166 runs on from Banstead to Epsom. I never forgot the 505 - I mentioned that the campsite brings buses from Chingford & Harlow. The 505 doesn't serve Waltham Cross & the 215 doesn't serve Chingford so why would the 505 be hacked away again when they'd only be duplicating each other along Sewardstone Road? Thanks for the other bits though. Oops - read too quickly  . I'd still question why Waltham Cross has to be linked from the campsite. Foreign visitors seem very happy to use the bus to connect with the tube. In terms of the 505 I just think any TfL funded competition through Sewardstone would render the parallel commercial service unviable. I only see the 505 occasionally and it doesn't carry big loads at the Chingford end of things. Experience tells us that commercial routes can't stand up to the competitive pressure of a low fare subsidised TfL route. What would be interesting is if TFM threw in the towel with the 505 and whether TfL would do anything in respect of service north of Yardley Lane / Campsite. My betting is that TfL would do nothing as the Greater London boundary is just metres away from the 215's Yardley Lane stand. The houses north of the border are within walking distance of the terminus. Beyond that then it is Essex County Council's problem. |
|
. I'd still question why Waltham Cross has to be linked from the campsite. Foreign visitors seem very happy to use the bus to connect with the tube. In terms of the 505 I just think any TfL funded competition through Sewardstone would render the parallel commercial service unviable. I only see the 505 occasionally and it doesn't carry big loads at the Chingford end of things. Experience tells us that commercial routes can't stand up to the competitive pressure of a low fare subsidised TfL route. What would be interesting is if TFM threw in the towel with the 505 and whether TfL would do anything in respect of service north of Yardley Lane / Campsite. My betting is that TfL would do nothing as the Greater London boundary is just metres away from the 215's Yardley Lane stand. The houses north of the border are within walking distance of the terminus. Beyond that then it is Essex County Council's problem.