|
Post by ThinLizzy on Aug 5, 2018 19:05:40 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. I don't see why they would do that though- garages can run under capacity perfectly well....
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 5, 2018 21:30:21 GMT
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. I don't see why they would do that though- garages can run under capacity perfectly well.... Could be a safer option for running the remaining routes in the long term if there is a risk of the site being given to Network Rail. No other routes are going to move in due to this. I could see the 187/206/226/295 all moving to PA or PV, with other routes there going to G.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 5, 2018 21:47:09 GMT
I don't see why they would do that though- garages can run under capacity perfectly well.... Could be a safer option for running the remaining routes in the long term if there is a risk of the site being given to Network Rail. No other routes are going to move in due to this. I could see the 187/206/226/295 all moving to PA or PV, with other routes there going to G. Does G even have the room for the routes at PV or PA? We don't really know if any routes are going to move to WJ.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 6, 2018 8:21:15 GMT
Could be a safer option for running the remaining routes in the long term if there is a risk of the site being given to Network Rail. No other routes are going to move in due to this. I could see the 187/206/226/295 all moving to PA or PV, with other routes there going to G. Does G even have the room for the routes at PV or PA? We don't really know if any routes are going to move to WJ. Neither PA or PV are currently at full capacity. Plus G will be losing the 207 (large PVR), and may not be full at the moment either.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 6, 2018 8:29:13 GMT
Does G even have the room for the routes at PV or PA? We don't really know if any routes are going to move to WJ. Neither PA or PV are currently at full capacity. Plus G will be losing the 207 (large PVR), and may not be full at the moment either. But Metroline might want that space at G to gain routes. The E3, E10 and E11 are up for tender next year. How many buses can PA can hold? How much more can PA hold?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2018 20:10:38 GMT
And back to the 271 ...
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Aug 12, 2018 21:02:44 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2018 21:08:44 GMT
What is the relevance of moving routes between G, PA & PV with the 271 Highgate consultation?
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Aug 12, 2018 22:50:11 GMT
What is the relevance of moving routes between G, PA & PV with the 271 Highgate consultation? Couldn’t put it better myself the talk about moving routes if it has to go anywhere please post in the Metroline thread please be mindful however peoples livelihoods could be affected.
|
|
|
Post by T.R. on Oct 9, 2018 11:59:19 GMT
Finally an outcome. See below:
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 9, 2018 12:53:28 GMT
Finally an outcome. See below: That's interesting, but no surprise. Also suggests other consultations might have the plug pulled on them in order to save money. I wonder how they're now going to get Hybrids onto the route, the only solution I can think of is to get TEHs onto it from somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 9, 2018 12:55:04 GMT
Finally an outcome. See below: Ho ho ho. So over 2 years worth of consultation effort and money spent to achieve nothing.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 9, 2018 13:34:14 GMT
Finally an outcome. See below: Ho ho ho. So over 2 years worth of consultation effort and money spent to achieve nothing. The revised proposals always felt like a non-starter, but the phrase "We are currently looking to identify alternative options for the 271 bus route" suggests that this has further to run. Route changes may now come into play.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 9, 2018 13:56:08 GMT
The revised proposals always felt like a non-starter, but the phrase "We are currently looking to identify alternative options for the 271 bus route" suggests that this has further to run. Route changes may now come into play. I agree it's not finished. Problem is that TfL have very few options as stand space is scarce at Archway now. The obvious thing is simply to lose the 271 on Highgate Hill and turn it at Archway if that could be sensibly achieved. I can't see TfL turning the 271 further south as it would take out too much capacity on Holloway Road. The problem that TfL have is that any cut to anything in Highgate will just create a load of furore from locals. Any more bungling at Archway brings out even more opposition and adverse comment. You also have the Whittington Hospital and cutting links to that will also be badly received given local campaigners want *more* links.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 9, 2018 18:35:08 GMT
The revised proposals always felt like a non-starter, but the phrase "We are currently looking to identify alternative options for the 271 bus route" suggests that this has further to run. Route changes may now come into play. I agree it's not finished. Problem is that TfL have very few options as stand space is scarce at Archway now. The obvious thing is simply to lose the 271 on Highgate Hill and turn it at Archway if that could be sensibly achieved. I can't see TfL turning the 271 further south as it would take out too much capacity on Holloway Road. The problem that TfL have is that any cut to anything in Highgate will just create a load of furore from locals. Any more bungling at Archway brings out even more opposition and adverse comment. You also have the Whittington Hospital and cutting links to that will also be badly received given local campaigners want *more* links. The only option they may have to go with is to extend it to Highgate Wood via the 143 & 603 routing - of course, that means spending money which is the total opposite to TfL's current mantra.
|
|