|
Post by sid on Aug 10, 2018 11:04:16 GMT
The 88 is going to become the new 24 then - a route of two separate parts whenever disruptions, planned or not-so-planned, occur in the West End. Stockwell garage at least have had 'form' in attempting to deal with such situations when they ran the 24. If ever the one company contract system was shown to have major flaws, then it's this sort of thing. How much better to run the route from two garages, one north, one south. No, I don't mean bring Northumberland Park into it, I mean run it from HT as well. The same happens on the 36 at times of disruption.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 10, 2018 11:09:31 GMT
I have suggested this on multiple occasions. Would be a simple contract number swap (similar to the 350/U5), with the C2 operated by NP and the 214 put out to tender. This is probably the best solution, unless: - The C2 is kept as a DD route, with the extension beyond Regent Street to be more useful in central London. Could reverse previous changes and be restored to Victoria, or even be routed towards Aldwych or the City to replace broken links from the 15/23. - The C2 is withdrawn, replaced by an extended 27 from Camden to PHF, 134 rerouted from Warren Street to Oxford Circus, and 88 diverted via Albany Street. Where do you propose a high PVR route like the 134 stand if it were sent to Oxford Circus? When the 15 was curtailed to Regent Street, you'd often see a bus standing on Regent Street southbound after the stand for two buses is already full. The high PVR of the 134 is mostly due to the length of the route. The 134 is about every 6 minutes in the peak, while the C2 (currently terminating at Regent Street) is about every 7 minutes in the peak, so not much difference. Outside of the peak, the 134 and C2 have quite similar frequencies (not taking into account the upcoming reduction to the C2).
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 10, 2018 11:13:55 GMT
The 88 is going to become the new 24 then - a route of two separate parts whenever disruptions, planned or not-so-planned, occur in the West End. Stockwell garage at least have had 'form' in attempting to deal with such situations when they ran the 24. If ever the one company contract system was shown to have major flaws, then it's this sort of thing. How much better to run the route from two garages, one north, one south. No, I don't mean bring Northumberland Park into it, I mean run it from HT as well. The same happens on the 36 at times of disruption. Not to the extent of any route that passes through Trafalgar Square, Whitehall and Westminster, not forgetting planned closures of Regent Street on Sundays these days - it was more these planned ones that I was focussing on, the unplanned have to take care of themselves, but it's better to have robust contingency plans, although I realise it's now considered unpatriotic or somesuch not to wing it - no plans, no deal, hooray!
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Aug 10, 2018 11:28:24 GMT
The 88 is going to become the new 24 then - a route of two separate parts whenever disruptions, planned or not-so-planned, occur in the West End. Stockwell garage at least have had 'form' in attempting to deal with such situations when they ran the 24. If ever the one company contract system was shown to have major flaws, then it's this sort of thing. How much better to run the route from two garages, one north, one south. No, I don't mean bring Northumberland Park into it, I mean run it from HT as well. This is what I was somewhat saying earlier where the 88 could possibly have short runs between Parliament Hill fields and Oxford Circus[1]...if the route ran in two parts for the duration. On the other hand, perhaps the 88 could divert via Victoria Street into Victoria then Park Lane and Oxford Street if and when possible. [1] - using the Victoria Line to travel between there and SW
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 10, 2018 11:50:02 GMT
The same happens on the 36 at times of disruption. Not to the extent of any route that passes through Trafalgar Square, Whitehall and Westminster, not forgetting planned closures of Regent Street on Sundays these days - it was more these planned ones that I was focussing on, the unplanned have to take care of themselves, but it's better to have robust contingency plans, although I realise it's now considered unpatriotic or somesuch not to wing it - no plans, no deal, hooray! I think Go Ahead have plenty of experience of dealing with these situations, if necessary drivers can be sent by tube to Oxford Circus to maintain a service on the northern end of the 88 in fact it wouldn't be much different to the current C2 being operated by QB.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 10, 2018 12:17:27 GMT
The 88 is going to become the new 24 then - a route of two separate parts whenever disruptions, planned or not-so-planned, occur in the West End. Stockwell garage at least have had 'form' in attempting to deal with such situations when they ran the 24. If ever the one company contract system was shown to have major flaws, then it's this sort of thing. How much better to run the route from two garages, one north, one south. No, I don't mean bring Northumberland Park into it, I mean run it from HT as well. This is what I was somewhat saying earlier where the 88 could possibly have short runs between Parliament Hill fields and Oxford Circus[1]...if the route ran in two parts for the duration. On the other hand, perhaps the 88 could divert via Victoria Street into Victoria then Park Lane and Oxford Street if and when possible. [1] - using the Victoria Line to travel between there and SW Not sure if the same has happened to the 88 before, but the 453 has often been diverted via Tottenham Court Road or via Waterloo to maintain a through route. Depending on where disruptions are, there are diversion routes available, but obviously the diversion will end up very congested and affect reliability at both ends of the route.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Aug 10, 2018 12:21:13 GMT
This is what I was somewhat saying earlier where the 88 could possibly have short runs between Parliament Hill fields and Oxford Circus[1]...if the route ran in two parts for the duration. On the other hand, perhaps the 88 could divert via Victoria Street into Victoria then Park Lane and Oxford Street if and when possible. [1] - using the Victoria Line to travel between there and SW Not sure if the same has happened to the 88 before, but the 453 has often been diverted via Tottenham Court Road or via Waterloo to maintain a through route. Depending on where disruptions are, there are diversion routes available, but obviously the diversion will end up very congested and affect reliability at both ends of the route. Yes the 88 has been along that diversionary routing before. As you said there are options on diversions which are dependent on the area and level of disruptions.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Aug 10, 2018 12:46:58 GMT
Where do you propose a high PVR route like the 134 stand if it were sent to Oxford Circus? When the 15 was curtailed to Regent Street, you'd often see a bus standing on Regent Street southbound after the stand for two buses is already full. The high PVR of the 134 is mostly due to the length of the route. The 134 is about every 6 minutes in the peak, while the C2 (currently terminating at Regent Street) is about every 7 minutes in the peak, so not much difference. Outside of the peak, the 134 and C2 have quite similar frequencies (not taking into account the upcoming reduction to the C2). The 134 is 8 miles long with a high PVR; compare that to the 492 which is 14 miles long and a much lower PVR which renders your point void. The reason why everyone is in broad agreement with the 88 being rerouted over the whole of the C2 is that it already serves Oxford Circus. Your idea involves rerouting the 134 and extending the 27, whereas the consultation only refers to extending the 88. Bus changes don't happen overnight. It takes a lot of planning/administration work behind the scenes to make these sorts of changes happen. Even with the upcoming C2 slash in frequency, I'm sure TfL would've want it done yesterday but that still takes a good few weeks to rework rotas etc. before any change can happen. Bringing it back to your scenario, it'll require more work and more revenue to change both the 27 and 134, and we all know how cash-strapped TfL is right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2018 20:50:09 GMT
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with 'losing' the C2, since the cutback from Victoria, I actually agree that that the C2 & 88 merger is a sensible idea. I have been on the C2 on the shoulder peak from Parliament Hill to Great Portland Street and it carried 9 people.
With a large number of routes facing a frequency cut to match demand, I'd be far more inclined to go back to the midi-bus era of small and often, as opposed to large and occasionally. Maintaining the current level of service but with capacity matching-sized vehicles. HOWEVER that option would involve higher PVRs and hence far more money so sadly a big NO NO.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 12, 2018 23:37:34 GMT
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with 'losing' the C2, since the cutback from Victoria, I actually agree that that the C2 & 88 merger is a sensible idea. I have been on the C2 on the shoulder peak from Parliament Hill to Great Portland Street and it carried 9 people. With a large number of routes facing a frequency cut to match demand, I'd be far more inclined to go back to the midi-bus era of small and often, as opposed to large and occasionally. Maintaining the current level of service but with capacity matching-sized vehicles. HOWEVER that option would involve higher PVRs and hence far more money so sadly a big NO NO. As you say higher PVRs and more drivers makes it a "no no". However I'm not remotely convinced that's the answer either. As I've said before no one seems to understand why patronage is falling. If TfL *do* understand they aren't telling anyone. You can't fix a problem until you know what it is. TfL are trying to "fix" the bus network without a diagnosis of its failings / weaknesses that have eroded demand. Some will be outside their control but not everything. I see nothing that gives any reassurance that the "right" decisions are being made for the "right" reasons.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 12, 2018 23:49:31 GMT
With a large number of routes facing a frequency cut to match demand, I'd be far more inclined to go back to the midi-bus era of small and often, as opposed to large and occasionally. Maintaining the current level of service but with capacity matching-sized vehicles. HOWEVER that option would involve higher PVRs and hence far more money so sadly a big NO NO. Hopefully, we shall never have to revisit that era ever again and leave the midi buses to the midi bus style routes as apposed to more major routes
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 13, 2018 5:57:45 GMT
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with 'losing' the C2, since the cutback from Victoria, I actually agree that that the C2 & 88 merger is a sensible idea. I have been on the C2 on the shoulder peak from Parliament Hill to Great Portland Street and it carried 9 people. With a large number of routes facing a frequency cut to match demand, I'd be far more inclined to go back to the midi-bus era of small and often, as opposed to large and occasionally. Maintaining the current level of service but with capacity matching-sized vehicles. HOWEVER that option would involve higher PVRs and hence far more money so sadly a big NO NO. I agree about the C2, I think it's the sort of route that would benefit from 'Gold' standard electric single deckers with plush seating, might entice a few people back from Uber and the like. Also extending it to Highgate Village would allow the busier 214 to be curtailed at PHF and double decked.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Aug 13, 2018 12:13:50 GMT
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with 'losing' the C2, since the cutback from Victoria, I actually agree that that the C2 & 88 merger is a sensible idea. I have been on the C2 on the shoulder peak from Parliament Hill to Great Portland Street and it carried 9 people. With a large number of routes facing a frequency cut to match demand, I'd be far more inclined to go back to the midi-bus era of small and often, as opposed to large and occasionally. Maintaining the current level of service but with capacity matching-sized vehicles. HOWEVER that option would involve higher PVRs and hence far more money so sadly a big NO NO. I agree about the C2, I think it's the sort of route that would benefit from 'Gold' standard electric single deckers with plush seating, might entice a few people back from Uber and the like. Also extending it to Highgate Village would allow the busier 214 to be curtailed at PHF and double decked. Is there any reason why the 214 can't go double deck? I've used the route mainly from Camden southbound but have done an end-to-end totally by chance last year and saw no physical restrictions to accommodating deckers. Am I right too assume it's an appeasement to the residents of Highgate?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 13, 2018 12:15:34 GMT
I agree about the C2, I think it's the sort of route that would benefit from 'Gold' standard electric single deckers with plush seating, might entice a few people back from Uber and the like. Also extending it to Highgate Village would allow the busier 214 to be curtailed at PHF and double decked. Is there any reason why the 214 can't go double deck? I've used the route mainly from Camden southbound but have done an end-to-end totally by chance last year and saw no physical restrictions to accommodating deckers. Am I right too assume it's an appeasement to the residents of Highgate? Trees in Highgate are the problem, just single deck the C2 and extend that there instead.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 13, 2018 12:58:12 GMT
Is there any reason why the 214 can't go double deck? I've used the route mainly from Camden southbound but have done an end-to-end totally by chance last year and saw no physical restrictions to accommodating deckers. Am I right too assume it's an appeasement to the residents of Highgate? Trees in Highgate are the problem, just single deck the C2 and extend that there instead.
I have heard that the residents are preventing the trees from being pruned.
|
|