|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 20, 2018 6:19:52 GMT
My feeling is that, despite TfL saying it would require an extra bus, the 271 will end up being extended to the 234 terminus possibly even partly out of service. They'll offset the cost by reducing the frequency. I just cannot see Highgate residents agreeing to felling a mature tree for a bus service many of them don't seem to want. Would there be stand space for the 234 and 271 there? Otherwise the 234 could potentially be cut back to East Finchley? There is possibly stand space outside the Station for 1 vehicle. Links to Highgate would be maintained by the 263 and 134.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 20, 2018 6:37:42 GMT
I think this has been suggested before but what about extending the 214 to Archway in place of the 271? Obviously more stand space would have to be found at Archway but it removes the need for bus stands in Highgate Village. I'm not sure that capacity between Highgate Village and Archway is the main issue. I think the main reason for the 271 to serve the Village is to maintain a number of direct links, particularly to the Whittington, otherwise it could easily be cut back to Archway without replacement.
Just before TfL released the consultation report I was thinking of a scheme to withdraw the 271 completely:
- 21 diverted to Holloway, with a frequency increase on the 141 to maintain capacity at Newington Green (I think an enhanced 141 would be a better use of resources over this corridor anyway).
- 143 and 263 swap routeings through Highgate, so that the 263 maintains most of the links to the Whittington. N20 could be diverted via Highgate Village as well, given that the 43 and 134 provide an adequate service to the Highgate Station area.
Obviously the 214 would still need to terminate at Highgate Village with this scheme, although I was thinking that a stand for single-deck electric buses might be less objectionable than a stand for DDs, especially as fewer trees would be affected.
Some good ideas, but I think the 21 is quite long already and may not be the best route to partially replace the 271. The 143 also has a useful link from Highgate to Finchley Central, so I would leave the 143/263 as they are. An alternative could be to extend the W5 to Highbury & Islington (or Highbury Barn). Or even a new routeing to directly serve Drayton Park Station. I would instead use the 43 to partly replace the 271 (which may be controversial), by diverting between Highbury & Islington and Old Street via the 271. - The 205/214 would continue links from Angel towards Old Street and Moorgate/Liverpool Street. - The 4 would link Angel to St Paul's (close to Bank/Monument) - The 153 would continue links from Angel towards Holloway - The hopper fare can be used for any other broken links.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 20, 2018 10:06:30 GMT
I'm not sure that capacity between Highgate Village and Archway is the main issue. I think the main reason for the 271 to serve the Village is to maintain a number of direct links, particularly to the Whittington, otherwise it could easily be cut back to Archway without replacement.
Just before TfL released the consultation report I was thinking of a scheme to withdraw the 271 completely:
- 21 diverted to Holloway, with a frequency increase on the 141 to maintain capacity at Newington Green (I think an enhanced 141 would be a better use of resources over this corridor anyway).
- 143 and 263 swap routeings through Highgate, so that the 263 maintains most of the links to the Whittington. N20 could be diverted via Highgate Village as well, given that the 43 and 134 provide an adequate service to the Highgate Station area.
Obviously the 214 would still need to terminate at Highgate Village with this scheme, although I was thinking that a stand for single-deck electric buses might be less objectionable than a stand for DDs, especially as fewer trees would be affected.
Some good ideas, but I think the 21 is quite long already and may not be the best route to partially replace the 271. The 143 also has a useful link from Highgate to Finchley Central, so I would leave the 143/263 as they are. An alternative could be to extend the W5 to Highbury & Islington (or Highbury Barn). Or even a new routeing to directly serve Drayton Park Station. I would instead use the 43 to partly replace the 271 (which may be controversial), by diverting between Highbury & Islington and Old Street via the 271. - The 205/214 would continue links from Angel towards Old Street and Moorgate/Liverpool Street. - The 4 would link Angel to St Paul's (close to Bank/Monument) - The 153 would continue links from Angel towards Holloway - The hopper fare can be used for any other broken links. Sorry but withdrawing the 43 from the Angel without replacement just wouldn't work. You'd be breaking far too many well-used links. The 153, as an infrequent, round-the-houses single-deck route, would be totally inadequate as a replacement for Angel - Holloway. Also there would be a loss of capacity over the very busy Highbury Corner - Holloway section, which is why I suggested the 21 should run as far as Holloway. I agree the 21 is already quite long, although Holloway isn't much further north than Newington Green.
Losing the direct link between Highgate Village and Finchley Central seems a relatively small price to pay to maintain the direct hospital links. I do like the idea of using the W5 to open up new territory around Drayton Park, although I wonder whether the route could cope with a long extension given it isn't the most reliable route as it is.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 20, 2018 11:43:14 GMT
I would instead use the 43 to partly replace the 271 (which may be controversial), by diverting between Highbury & Islington and Old Street via the 271. - The 205/214 would continue links from Angel towards Old Street and Moorgate/Liverpool Street. - The 4 would link Angel to St Paul's (close to Bank/Monument) - The 153 would continue links from Angel towards Holloway - The hopper fare can be used for any other broken links. Sorry but withdrawing the 43 from the Angel without replacement just wouldn't work. You'd be breaking far too many well-used links. The 153, as an infrequent, round-the-houses single-deck route, would be totally inadequate as a replacement for Angel - Holloway. Also there would be a loss of capacity over the very busy Highbury Corner - Holloway section, which is why I suggested the 21 should run as far as Holloway. I agree the 21 is already quite long, although Holloway isn't much further north than Newington Green.
You would have a riot on your hands Mr DW135 if you were to smash the 43 in the way you propose. I always find the 43 to be ridiculously busy between Angel, H&I and then up the Holloway Rd. Even the short section from Holloway Rd Tube to the Nags Head area is extremely busy with loads of people waiting and buses being full / well loaded on arrival. Also faffing around with buses in the Archway area is probably not sensible given the furore over the bus stop changes there. I think a lot of people twigged how underhand, or being generous "unclear", that whole "consultation" process was. They will therefore be far more likely to argue about and object to future changes in the area. That same reaction would also apply to Islington residents that rely on the 43. Witness the prolonged mess and debate over changes to the Highbury Corner gyratory. I'd also be more than a bit loathe to start breaking links on a long route that serves Moorfield Eye Hospital and provides very useful connectivity for people.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 20, 2018 11:52:43 GMT
Sorry but withdrawing the 43 from the Angel without replacement just wouldn't work. You'd be breaking far too many well-used links. The 153, as an infrequent, round-the-houses single-deck route, would be totally inadequate as a replacement for Angel - Holloway. Also there would be a loss of capacity over the very busy Highbury Corner - Holloway section, which is why I suggested the 21 should run as far as Holloway. I agree the 21 is already quite long, although Holloway isn't much further north than Newington Green.
You would have a riot on your hands Mr DW135 if you were to smash the 43 in the way you propose. I always find the 43 to be ridiculously busy between Angel, H&I and then up the Holloway Rd. Even the short section from Holloway Rd Tube to the Nags Head area is extremely busy with loads of people waiting and buses being full / well loaded on arrival. Also faffing around with buses in the Archway area is probably not sensible given the furore over the bus stop changes there. I think a lot of people twigged how underhand, or being generous "unclear", that whole "consultation" process was. They will therefore be far more likely to argue about and object to future changes in the area. That same reaction would also apply to Islington residents that rely on the 43. Witness the prolonged mess and debate over changes to the Highbury Corner gyratory. I'd also be more than a bit loathe to start breaking links on a long route that serves Moorfield Eye Hospital and provides very useful connectivity for people. The 43 is well used over that section to put it mildly, I see this on a regular basis. TfL would do well to leave that part of the 43 routing well alone. If TfL were to consult on this, they would have a lot of objections and unhappy people. I suppose having said that if there were really to have such a consultation they would just ignore the objections and push the scheme through like most other consultations!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 11:55:14 GMT
You would have a riot on your hands Mr DW135 if you were to smash the 43 in the way you propose. I always find the 43 to be ridiculously busy between Angel, H&I and then up the Holloway Rd. Even the short section from Holloway Rd Tube to the Nags Head area is extremely busy with loads of people waiting and buses being full / well loaded on arrival. Also faffing around with buses in the Archway area is probably not sensible given the furore over the bus stop changes there. I think a lot of people twigged how underhand, or being generous "unclear", that whole "consultation" process was. They will therefore be far more likely to argue about and object to future changes in the area. That same reaction would also apply to Islington residents that rely on the 43. Witness the prolonged mess and debate over changes to the Highbury Corner gyratory. I'd also be more than a bit loathe to start breaking links on a long route that serves Moorfield Eye Hospital and provides very useful connectivity for people. The 43 is well used over that section to put it mildly, I see this on a regular basis. TfL would do well to leave that part of the 43 routing well alone. If TfL were to consult on this, they would have a lot of objections and unhappy people. I suppose having said that if there were really to have such a consultation they would just ignore the objections and push the scheme through like most other consultations! MINISTER!!!
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 4, 2018 10:36:12 GMT
Very interesting results. I suspect funding prevented the originally proposed scheme being implemented rather than anything else. Arguably the final scheme is better than the originally proposed scheme. As for funding with Oxford Street not going ahead and CS11 delayed, there should be plenty of funds! I do think however I need to go back to school as clearly my English and Maths need improving. I was taught that a majority meant over 50%, but reading the consultation report it seems that 47% and 43% are a majority. Maybe I am miss-interpreting some clever wording and my English is not good enough. I will be sad to see the old stand go, it's losing a bit of history. I am unconvinced the stand could not be improved to allow proper accessibility or for a new stop on Highgate High Street. I have never regarded the bus type an issue, many routes have restrictions which limit the type of buses that can be used. Here it just means that the Volvo B5LT chassis can't be used, but I am sure a new MMC would have no issues getting around the stand. Now I wonder long it will take for TfL to undertake the changes, particularly given the comment about finances. Which will come first, these changes or the works to allow the 274 to go fully DD? Bets please!! That is consultations for you, these days the minority always almost wins.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 5, 2018 9:30:58 GMT
I have never regarded the bus type an issue, many routes have restrictions which limit the type of buses that can be used. Here it just means that the Volvo B5LT chassis can't be used, but I am sure a new MMC would have no issues getting around the stand. I don't know by how much the TEs fit at the stand, but MMCs are slightly longer than the original Enviro 400.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 5, 2018 11:29:36 GMT
Would the 13 reg TEHs coming off the 113 not be perfect for the route. Hybrid but still to the same length as the original TEs.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 5, 2018 12:00:33 GMT
Would the 13 reg TEHs coming off the 113 not be perfect for the route. Hybrid but still to the same length as the original TEs. The lengths are: The TEH’s would be 0.1m bigger than the original - all SWB Euro III & IV models including hybrids are 10.1m whilst all SWB Euro V models including hybrids are 10.2m so a minimal difference.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 5, 2018 12:30:31 GMT
Would the 13 reg TEHs coming off the 113 not be perfect for the route. Hybrid but still to the same length as the original TEs. The 113 uses 60/61 reg TEHs not 13 reg TEHs. It's the 32 that uses 13 reg TEHs.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 5, 2018 14:44:37 GMT
Would the 13 reg TEHs coming off the 113 not be perfect for the route. Hybrid but still to the same length as the original TEs. The 113's TEHs will be used on the 266. The 332's 15reg MMC TEHs could be more ideal for the 271 due to allocation size. Could swap with the 271's VWHs - Metroline could also avoid introducing Volvos at W by moving the 332 to PV or WJ. Both of these are close to Brent Park, and have space from the 18, 79 and 228. WJ might be more ideal and Bakerloo/Overground can be used for changeovers at Brondesbury, Kilburn High Road or Paddington.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 5, 2018 15:02:41 GMT
Would the 13 reg TEHs coming off the 113 not be perfect for the route. Hybrid but still to the same length as the original TEs. The 113's TEHs will be used on the 266. The 332's 15reg MMC TEHs could be more ideal for the 271 due to allocation size. Could swap with the 271's VWHs - Metroline could also avoid introducing Volvos at W by moving the 332 to PV or WJ. Both of these are close to Brent Park, and have space from the 18, 79 and 228. WJ might be more ideal and Bakerloo/Overground can be used for changeovers at Brondesbury, Kilburn High Road or Paddington. I don’t think they’re going to move the 332 simply to avoid introducing a type - they’l look at a number of options such as cost & operational feasibility over worrying a type. I don’t see the 332 losing its buses nor do I see it moving, especially to WJ who may lose land to Network Rail.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 5, 2018 17:02:12 GMT
The 113's TEHs will be used on the 266. The 332's 15reg MMC TEHs could be more ideal for the 271 due to allocation size. Could swap with the 271's VWHs - Metroline could also avoid introducing Volvos at W by moving the 332 to PV or WJ. Both of these are close to Brent Park, and have space from the 18, 79 and 228. WJ might be more ideal and Bakerloo/Overground can be used for changeovers at Brondesbury, Kilburn High Road or Paddington. I don’t think they’re going to move the 332 simply to avoid introducing a type - they’l look at a number of options such as cost & operational feasibility over worrying a type. I don’t see the 332 losing its buses nor do I see it moving, especially to WJ who may lose land to Network Rail. With some recent losses at Metroline, including the 18 and 228, there probably is enough space for the remaining WJ routes elsewhere if necessary, mostly using the space at G, PA and PV.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 5, 2018 17:56:04 GMT
I don’t think they’re going to move the 332 simply to avoid introducing a type - they’l look at a number of options such as cost & operational feasibility over worrying a type. I don’t see the 332 losing its buses nor do I see it moving, especially to WJ who may lose land to Network Rail. With some recent losses at Metroline, including the 18 and 228, there probably is enough space for the remaining WJ routes elsewhere if necessary, mostly using the space at G, PA and PV. Like I said, there are other factors in play such as cost & feasibility - if Metroline thought it was better, they'd probably already started transferring routes(s) away.
|
|