|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 8, 2019 18:14:17 GMT
Could work but with loss of the 8 and 25 I think the current freq is needed from Oxford Circus when heading east.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 8, 2019 18:23:50 GMT
With concerns on both the 55 terminating at Walthamstow and excess capacity on route 38, perhaps route 56 could be utilised as part of a solution - which parallels parts of both routes. Reduce the 38's frequency, with all workings continuing to Clapton (could involve some Hackney workings being extended) - removes excess capacity and simplifies the route by removing short workings. Reduce the 55's frequency slightly to enable vehicles to stand at Walthamstow Central without any short workings. If needed, this could also involve other Walthamstow routes being altered to terminate at St James Street or Leyton bus garage. Increase the frequency on route 56, partly compensating for both of the above, replacing some capacity along Lea Bridge Road, and along the Angel-Clapton corridor. Some peak hour short workings between Victoria and Piccadilly Circus would be needed if the 38 frequency was reduced. I would have thought the slight frequency increase to Walthamstow Central could be justified providing there is enough stand space.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 8, 2019 20:04:31 GMT
So how is the network coping following the cuts? Any capacity issues? Not heard much commentary apart from about overcrowding on route 35.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 8, 2019 20:18:20 GMT
So how is the network coping following the cuts? Any capacity issues? Not heard much commentary apart from about overcrowding on route 35. From a purely personal perspective, the shortened 53 is a nuisance. I tend to use it in the evenings and I don't feel entirely at ease waiting at Lower Marsh. The stop's dingy, under an ill-lit bridge, right by a pub. There's a lot of people who seem to change there now. Can't comment on the other routes as I don't use them.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 8, 2019 21:09:23 GMT
As expected the 40 isn't carrying much to Clerkenwell Green. Silly terminus.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jul 8, 2019 21:32:28 GMT
As expected the 40 isn't carrying much to Clerkenwell Green. Silly terminus. Was only ever a suitable terminus for scheduled peak hour extras on routes from the east of there e.g. the 55. Just because TfL manage to identify somewhere within the broadly central area that will allow a bus (maybe even two) to tarry away a few minutes doesn't necessarily make it an ideal spot for the purpose.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2019 23:16:34 GMT
So how is the network coping following the cuts? Any capacity issues? Not heard much commentary apart from about overcrowding on route 35. You won't hear much commentary because bus users don't have the same voice that other modes of transport have - London Travelwatch does nowhere near enough.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2019 23:17:55 GMT
As expected the 40 isn't carrying much to Clerkenwell Green. Silly terminus. Should of left the 45 going and then diverted it at Holborn Circus towards Oxford Street to at least allow 25 passengers to continue on a more useful place with the 40 remaining unchanged as it was.
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Jul 8, 2019 23:59:44 GMT
As expected the 40 isn't carrying much to Clerkenwell Green. Silly terminus. Should of left the 45 going and then diverted it at Holborn Circus towards Oxford Street to at least allow 25 passengers to continue on a more useful place with the 40 remaining unchanged as it was. Personally, I wouldn't have sent the 45 to Oxford Street. Although it may benefit those on the 25 to an extent, I just feel like it would duplicate a lot of existing links, and wouldn't provide anything unique (1). Personally, I would've just sent the 45 to Clerkenwell Green, in place of the 40, and left the 40 as it is. Besides, considering the 8 does practically serve the eastern end of Oxford Street, at it's TCR terminus, is there much point in sending the 45 to Oxford Street? (1) Places such as Brixton, Camberwell, Elephant & Castle all have existing links to most places between Holborn Circus and Oxford Circus.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 9, 2019 2:28:20 GMT
Should of left the 45 going and then diverted it at Holborn Circus towards Oxford Street to at least allow 25 passengers to continue on a more useful place with the 40 remaining unchanged as it was. Personally, I wouldn't have sent the 45 to Oxford Street. Although it may benefit those on the 25 to an extent, I just feel like it would duplicate a lot of existing links, and wouldn't provide anything unique (1). Personally, I would've just sent the 45 to Clerkenwell Green, in place of the 40, and left the 40 as it is. Besides, considering the 8 does practically serve the eastern end of Oxford Street, at it's TCR terminus, is there much point in sending the 45 to Oxford Street? (1) Places such as Brixton, Camberwell, Elephant & Castle all have existing links to most places between Holborn Circus and Oxford Circus. Apparently, there is demand from Oxford Circus eastwards which no route from the Holborn Circus end covers and which the 25 used to do which was where my thinking came from Equally, sending it to Clerkenwell Green would of been a fair compromise.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 9, 2019 4:28:15 GMT
So how is the network coping following the cuts? Any capacity issues? Not heard much commentary apart from about overcrowding on route 35. Routes like the 12,35,149,172,343 and 453 are noticeably busier which is to be expected. The only real overcrowding I've seen is at peak times at Waterloo following the loss of the 4 and 171 and I think there's a case for the 171 to still go to Holborn during peak hours although the capacity clearly isn't needed off peak. London Bridge to Elephant & Castle also gets overcrowded at peak times following the loss of the 40 on that section and some peak hour enhancements there wouldn't go amiss.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 9, 2019 8:42:44 GMT
So how is the network coping following the cuts? Any capacity issues? Not heard much commentary apart from about overcrowding on route 35. Routes like the 12,35,149,172,343 and 453 are noticeably busier which is to be expected. The only real overcrowding I've seen is at peak times at Waterloo following the loss of the 4 and 171 and I think there's a case for the 171 to still go to Holborn during peak hours although the capacity clearly isn't needed off peak. London Bridge to Elephant & Castle also gets overcrowded at peak times following the loss of the 40 on that section and some peak hour enhancements there wouldn't go amiss. Is it possible to say whether the peak capacity from Waterloo is insufficient for demand to Holborn or Fleet Street or both? I can’t imagine the 172s are well loaded now they only run a few stops north to Aldwych. If you are going to use resources to send it over Waterloo Bridge, might as well have it go somewhere useful that soaks up the crowds. I am curious as to how well the 343s load between Elephant and London Bridge, especially as they don’t go over London Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 9, 2019 9:33:57 GMT
Routes like the 12,35,149,172,343 and 453 are noticeably busier which is to be expected. The only real overcrowding I've seen is at peak times at Waterloo following the loss of the 4 and 171 and I think there's a case for the 171 to still go to Holborn during peak hours although the capacity clearly isn't needed off peak. London Bridge to Elephant & Castle also gets overcrowded at peak times following the loss of the 40 on that section and some peak hour enhancements there wouldn't go amiss. Is it possible to say whether the peak capacity from Waterloo is insufficient for demand to Holborn or Fleet Street or both? I can’t imagine the 172s are well loaded now they only run a few stops north to Aldwych. If you are going to use resources to send it over Waterloo Bridge, might as well have it go somewhere useful that soaks up the crowds. I am curious as to how well the 343s load between Elephant and London Bridge, especially as they don’t go over London Bridge. I would say the peak hour capacity from Waterloo to Holborn and Fleet Street is insufficient but that's only from my random observations. Another idea would be extending the 172 to Holborn Station using the old 171 stand, it's only one stop further but it would be so much more useful. A radical idea for the 171 would be a Mon-Fri peak hour only extension from Elephant & Castle to Aldwych and onto Mansion House compensating for the loss of the 4 on that section. I know such extensions go against TfL policy but off peak other routes are more than adequate. I've noticed the 343 being busier north of Elephant & Castle but I've not been on the new section via Tower Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 9, 2019 10:12:00 GMT
So Fleet Street is missing the 4 and 172 cacapcity at peak hours thou it did gain use 341 as some compensation.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 9, 2019 16:04:18 GMT
Routes like the 12,35,149,172,343 and 453 are noticeably busier which is to be expected. The only real overcrowding I've seen is at peak times at Waterloo following the loss of the 4 and 171 and I think there's a case for the 171 to still go to Holborn during peak hours although the capacity clearly isn't needed off peak. London Bridge to Elephant & Castle also gets overcrowded at peak times following the loss of the 40 on that section and some peak hour enhancements there wouldn't go amiss. Is it possible to say whether the peak capacity from Waterloo is insufficient for demand to Holborn or Fleet Street or both? I can’t imagine the 172s are well loaded now they only run a few stops north to Aldwych. If you are going to use resources to send it over Waterloo Bridge, might as well have it go somewhere useful that soaks up the crowds. I am curious as to how well the 343s load between Elephant and London Bridge, especially as they don’t go over London Bridge. I think perhaps having only every other 172 continue to Holborn would help alleviate overcrowding on other buses on Kingsway whilst it avoids overbussing Kingsway too much. I should imagine the 68/188 are carrying crush loads now as a result of the 171 cut
|
|