|
Post by snoggle on Sept 22, 2018 13:20:27 GMT
In regards to the South London Changes you are wrong. How nice of you to be so "to the point". You will note that the context of my remarks was about linking to Crossrail. You can't link to something that doesn't exist. TfL justified all these changes on the basis that they were needed *for Crossrail* and not for other local transport needs. Therefore, IMO, I am perfectly correct to make the observations I made. If TfL have set out a whole load of other justification for these changes then fine you would be right. Such additional context is extremely thin when it comes to the SE London changes - the 180 extension to new housing is about the only example. The others are the 497 in NE London and the 278 and H32 proposals in West London. Everything else is about getting people to / from Crossrail services and in anticipation of changing travel patterns (less service into North Greenwich from Thamesmead).
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 22, 2018 13:39:20 GMT
This was my view on the Elizabeth Line thread a month ago - I still hold to this, although the politics may interfere.
Looking solely at the SE London bus changes, I'm not sure today's announcement changes a great deal in that neck of the woods. Crossrail being delayed won't make any difference to the need to double deck the 178 and 291, and the road layout change in Woolwich makes the 161 change inevitable. The 129 change actually enables better access to the Jubilee Line from west of Greenwich and Crossrail will do nothing to mitigate the broken links on the 180. The 472 change might be an issue, but I would expect the 301 to be popular even without Crossrail because of its wider benefits. The 469 will still improve links to National Rail from Upper Belvedere. The only issue really may be with vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 22, 2018 14:08:43 GMT
In regards to the South London Changes you are wrong. How nice of you to be so "to the point". You will note that the context of my remarks was about linking to Crossrail. You can't link to something that doesn't exist. TfL justified all these changes on the basis that they were needed *for Crossrail* and not for other local transport needs. Therefore, IMO, I am perfectly correct to make the observations I made. If TfL have set out a whole load of other justification for these changes then fine you would be right. Such additional context is extremely thin when it comes to the SE London changes - the 180 extension to new housing is about the only example. The others are the 497 in NE London and the 278 and H32 proposals in West London. Everything else is about getting people to / from Crossrail services and in anticipation of changing travel patterns (less service into North Greenwich from Thamesmead). Again you are wrong. Stick to knowing the 123 as no one else can mention otherwise... The 301 may not exist yet. I do know the demand for many of the routes in the Bexleyheath area as well as South East London where there are few train services so it will not be a waste before the Crossrail begins. There is a lot of demand for Abbey Wood already and the 301 will provide the fastest link. There are also a lot of people who use the 229 or 401 through to Thamesmead. The 301 is also going to also serve some Schools.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Sept 22, 2018 16:20:19 GMT
And Chris Grayling's fingerprints nowhere near it (for once.)
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 22, 2018 16:28:35 GMT
Again you are wrong. Stick to knowing the 123 as no one else can mention otherwise... Goodness me. You really don't like to have to deal with contrary opinions do you? I was very careful to set the context of my comments. Your context was different to mine. If you go back and read what I said you will see that I actually did NOT disagree with your points. The context was ALWAYS about how TfL framed the proposals. I made no comment WHATSOEVER about the 301 being unneccessary in the context of schools or anything else. I said it was a waste of money in the context of not linking to Crossrail as it won't be running for another year. You should know by now that I am very particular about how I state things. I am more than aware that I am pretty clueless about demand on buses in many areas of London which is why I don't come out with wild comments or ideas. I always set a context. Now hopefully that is that. If you still wish to argue with me take it to DM please.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 22, 2018 18:32:53 GMT
I have just looked back at the proposed changes. To my mind there is NO point at all in rerouting umpteen services to serve Custom House station where the reason for so doing, Crossrail, is not running. You are simply dumping people in the middle of nowhere and forcing them on the DLR or a second or third bus in order to reach the Jubilee Line. No one is going to thank TfL for doing that. If TfL want to introduce the 301 on its own then fine if they wish to throw money away. However if they try to bring it in alongside the 129, 180 and 472 proposals then, again, that's ridiculous because the underlying reason for potential travel pattern changes, Crossrail, will not be running and people will still want the old service patterns and frequencies in operation. Reducing links into North Greenwich from Thamesmead and Woolwich will go down like a lead balloon. Even in my most cynical moments I can't see TfL being quite so perverse as to deliberately worsen bus services while there is no "replacement" rail service. The political reaction, mostly from Labour councils, will not be good. In regards to the South London Changes you are wrong. The 301 is going to be well used even with the Crossrail delayed. The 472 reduction is the only downfall here, but TFL will just use the 301 as an excuse and hopper fare. The 301 is going to be faster than the 229 to Abbey Wood & Thamesmead & the 401 to Thamesmead. There will be a lot of people using this service probably within 2 months of it being the introduced. The 472 is needed and will assist the 229 which is pretty much full up before you even reach the Boiler House. Hmmm....not sure. The 401 gets a lot of school traffic at the Bexleyheath end. The 301 will offer considerable assistance here. By virtue of it replacing other services, the Thamesmead-Woolwich section will do pretty well I think. The rest of it pre-Elizabeth line? I think it may struggle for patronage. But time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Oct 6, 2018 19:12:42 GMT
Work needs to be done for the 291 to go double deck, so may not happen. They include change of operator routes so can't be avoided. Not the 180, 129 and 469. The 178 & 291 will have to go DD in December. The 472 will probably have to change in December, unless TfL are willing to pay for extra buses to keep the current routing. Same with the B11. The 301 can probably be deferred with no problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2018 19:24:52 GMT
Work needs to be done for the 291 to go double deck, so may not happen. Not the 180, 129 and 469. The 178 & 291 will have to go DD in December. The 472 will probably have to change in December, unless TfL are willing to pay for extra buses to keep the current routing. Same with the B11. The 301 can probably be deferred with no problems. Yeah. I heard it failed the route test in a double. Passed in a short single. That will be a huge issue now as all the buses have already been delivered for it and all the contracts are signed.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Oct 6, 2018 19:57:35 GMT
Seems to be a lot of S.E. stuff on the wrong thread i.e. this one!
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 7, 2018 1:43:53 GMT
They include change of operator routes so can't be avoided. Not the 180, 129 and 469. The 178 & 291 will have to go DD in December. The 472 will probably have to change in December, unless TfL are willing to pay for extra buses to keep the current routing. Same with the B11. The 301 can probably be deferred with no problems. The 472 does not have to change in December, it would just start its new contract in it's current form.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 13, 2018 19:28:23 GMT
I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but LBR.net is suggesting the E10 will now be the route that'll be extended to Osterley
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 13, 2018 19:34:20 GMT
I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but LBR.net is suggesting the E10 will now be the route that'll be extended to Osterley Sort of makes sense in that a cross Ealing local route was always going to be more sensible. Furthermore the vehicle size and frequency (assuming the use of larger buses) is about right relative to the 112 proposal. Could create some interesting cross Ealing travel demand. The incremental PVR of 3 buses (on the new contract) at a 15 min headway (as the proposed increase has been scrapped) gives a round trip time of 45 mins Ealing to Osterley which is probably just about do-able assuming no traffic disasters. The E10 will become really quite a long route which means people at the extremeties will be at greater risk of curtailments if there are incidents that delay the service. That could leave 30 min gaps in the service. Abellio may have quite a job on the hands in future once the Osterley traffic builds up.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 13, 2018 19:34:25 GMT
I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but LBR.net is suggesting the E10 will now be the route that'll be extended to Osterley That would explain the PVR increase on the new contract
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Oct 13, 2018 21:18:38 GMT
I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but LBR.net is suggesting the E10 will now be the route that'll be extended to Osterley That would explain the PVR increase on the new contract Typically from the time that LU lose it to Abellio which would have brought it closer to its current Hounslow Heath garage
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 13, 2018 22:22:33 GMT
Let me guess the E10 is probably going the same way where the planned 112 extension was suppose to go via the 65 and the A4. A busy single deck route following a busy double deck route that's a great idea. Couldn't they have extended the E1 instead.
|
|