|
Post by ronnie on Jun 19, 2018 18:16:17 GMT
This will ensure I would have done 277 end to end - although not in the fashion I would have liked ... the 277+341 was a useful way of getting from IoD to the Tottenham Asda using hopper with 1 change. No longer though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 19:42:45 GMT
I wish TfL would consider more short workings like the 25
Could have done Highbury - Mile End shorts and every other bus on to Isle Of Dogs for example.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jun 19, 2018 19:47:46 GMT
TP446 will know better than me but I expect them to be in the new Metroline contract. TfL's past position on this was just a small number of extra peak direction trips over the whole route and not a general increase in frequency. There is section in upcoming bus changes on TfL website, it says 3 extra peak one way, one other direction in evening peak. So presumably thats it for extras, 4 one way peak workings, nothing off peak tfl.gov.uk/modes/buses/permanent-bus-changesI'm unsure whether that even qualifies as token mitigation.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 19, 2018 20:13:21 GMT
I wish TfL would consider more short workings like the 25 Could have done Highbury - Mile End shorts and every other bus on to Isle Of Dogs for example.
They wouldn’t be able to stand at Highbury though. One option would of been to cut the 263 back to Holloway & divert the 277 to Highbury Barn which would of retained some sort of link or even worse case scenario, build a new stand on Canonbury Road and have Crossharbour bound 277’s run down to Essex Road and then run up to Balls Pond Road - certainly better than curtailing the route at Dalston Junction.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 19, 2018 21:41:12 GMT
Or just leave Highbury corner as a roundabout would be even better.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Jun 19, 2018 22:26:15 GMT
This will ensure I would have done 277 end to end - although not in the fashion I would have liked ... the 277+341 was a useful way of getting from IoD to the Tottenham Asda using hopper with 1 change. No longer though Tottenham Asda? In Bruce Grove? Change to a 149 or 243 in Dalston, no?
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Jun 19, 2018 22:29:26 GMT
I wish TfL would consider more short workings like the 25 Could have done Highbury - Mile End shorts and every other bus on to Isle Of Dogs for example.
They wouldn’t be able to stand at Highbury though. One option would of been to cut the 263 back to Holloway & divert the 277 to Highbury Barn which would of retained some sort of link or even worse case scenario, build a new stand on Canonbury Road and have Crossharbour bound 277’s run down to Essex Road and then run up to Balls Pond Road - certainly better than curtailing the route at Dalston Junction. The turn from the eastern section of St. Paul's Road into Highbury Grove (up to the Barn) and vice versa is banned - it is a 110deg turn in quite a tight space. It is certainly a strange (and grim) time when the 277 is being chopped along what was once one of its busiest sections.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 19, 2018 22:48:04 GMT
Or just leave Highbury corner as a roundabout would be even better. Accident black spot, there have been calls to redesign it for years.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 19, 2018 22:53:21 GMT
That's a good point, I was thinking of local journeys east from H&I but with the improved LO service maybe the 30 is sufficient now? I agree that bus services cannot be run just in case the rail service goes wrong. Dare I say though, do you not think the 337 is a route for people to use if the District line goes up the swanney? That’s the only time I’d say the route gets busy and the reason why it runs with DDs, I could be wrong though. I suspect the 337 would be double deck anyway although it doesn't seem a particularly busy route nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jun 19, 2018 23:22:18 GMT
Dare I say though, do you not think the 337 is a route for people to use if the District line goes up the swanney? That’s the only time I’d say the route gets busy and the reason why it runs with DDs, I could be wrong though. I suspect the 337 would be double deck anyway although it doesn't seem a particularly busy route nowadays. My thoughts exactly, it does unsurprisingly though get very busy when the District line is suspended / engineering works seeing as it pretty much parallels it, hence why I made that point. And I absolutely get the point about a route not needing to be rammed full to warrant a DD, a perfect example is the 316 and 72, if DD’ed I wouldn’t say the vehicles would be packed full seeing as they only fill singles, but my god it needs the relief of DDs for them to function properly. But that’s why I make the point, as it’s been said that capacity shouldn’t be there *in case* something goes wrong, but I think the 337 is a case of just that, it’s the only time it sees any real demand imho. The 493 carries more per annum than the 337 and that’s the SD route!!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 19, 2018 23:37:45 GMT
I suspect the 337 would be double deck anyway although it doesn't seem a particularly busy route nowadays. My thoughts exactly, it does unsurprisingly though get very busy when the District line is suspended / engineering works seeing as it pretty much parallels it, hence why I made that point. And I absolutely get the point about a route not needing to be rammed full to warrant a DD, a perfect example is the 316 and 72, if DD’ed I wouldn’t say the vehicles would be packed full seeing as they only fill singles, but my god it needs the relief of DDs for them to function properly. But that’s why I make the point, as it’s been said that capacity shouldn’t be there *in case* something goes wrong, but I think the 337 is a case of just that, it’s the only time it sees any real demand imho. The 493 carries more per annum than the 337 and that’s the SD route!! I've used the 337 many times and it does get busy outside of the District Line not running - not super busy but enough to warrant double deckers. Extra capacity does not get introduced so it can be a back up to a railway line - the predecessor to the 337 was the 37 which was double deck and the 337 since introduction has always been double deck and the first number of years was when the 33 was also double deck. The 493 would probably be a double decker route but most likely, it has obstacles preventing that such as residents, a tight turn or an overhead restriction.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 19, 2018 23:43:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 20, 2018 7:55:52 GMT
Could the 337 not merge with the H37 then. I guess thou the intense freq on the H37 would not be required and it would be more costly to run a 6 mins SD service then an 11-12 min DD service.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 20, 2018 8:21:13 GMT
Could the 337 not merge with the H37 then. I guess thou the intense freq on the H37 would not be required and it would be more costly to run a 6 mins SD service then an 11-12 min DD service. I suspect that if it weren't for the low bridge at Isleworth the 337 would have gone to Hounslow from the outset and there would never have been an H37. I seem to recall the western end of the old 37 being much busier back then, the 337 is duplicated by the railway line between Richmond and Clapham Junction so is mainly going to be used for local journeys.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 20, 2018 8:36:41 GMT
The 460 change seems logical to me, is there really any need for the 245,260 and 460 between Golders Green and Cricklewood? If cuts have to be made this seems a sensible way of going about it.
I don't agree with removing the 277 from Highbury Corner though.
In the good old days when the North London Line fell down regularly, the 277 was a very useful back-up between Highbury & Islington and Dalston/Hackney. However now that the service is vastly improved under London Overground (and there is also a second line as far as Dalston) the surplus capacity is no longer necessary. Under Ken Livingstone's Mayoralty the strategy was to increase bus capacity as a quick and immediate way of improving overall public transport capacity. A start was made to long-overdue Improvements to rail reliability, frequency and capacity, but these would take several years to reach fruition. During that period, it was accepted that when rail transport failed there would be extra capacity on buses to pick up some of the slack. I know this will be a contentious view and I am expecting to get shot down for it, but with those rail improvements now having come on stream and with a need for economies, that extra capacity "just in case" is no longer justified. IIRC I remember Ken saying that he was going to make the buses better when he could not get his hands on the Underground during the first mayoral term. At the time he was at heads with eh labour government due to the fact that he went as an independent.
|
|