|
Post by redexpress on Jan 6, 2019 20:50:22 GMT
Well it’s not particularly fair on the people who use it between Turnpike Lane Station and Stamford Hill Broadway. Most of the stops between those two places are only served solely by the 67, so I’m sure they’ll be well chuffed that they won’t have a direct bus to Central London anymore! With no other alternative by public transport other than to change at Dalston Junction, they’ll just switch to Uber or use their cars more cos I wouldn’t be bothered to wait to change over. To once be able sit on a direct bus to Zone 1 to then have to wait in the freezing cold or rain would not appeal to me one bit. The 67 hasn’t even really had a fall in patronage it’s remained really consistent. Yes that's a fair point although there is always going to be an element of coercing people off buses and onto the tube/LO with TfL running everything. Except that the 67 barely parallels the LO. I sometimes use the 67 for trips such as Turnpike Lane to Haggerston or Shoreditch - by tube or LO this requires two changes, including changing at Highbury & Islington which is already over-congested as an interchange. If TfL really wanted to "coerce" people off buses and onto the Overground on this corridor they'd withdraw the 149 without replacement [this is not a serious suggestion before anyone freaks out].
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 6, 2019 21:21:08 GMT
Yes that's a fair point although there is always going to be an element of coercing people off buses and onto the tube/LO with TfL running everything. Except that the 67 barely parallels the LO. I sometimes use the 67 for trips such as Turnpike Lane to Haggerston or Shoreditch - by tube or LO this requires two changes, including changing at Highbury & Islington which is already over-congested as an interchange. If TfL really wanted to "coerce" people off buses and onto the Overground on this corridor they'd withdraw the 149 without replacement [this is not a serious suggestion before anyone freaks out]. It does between Dalston Junction and Shoreditch, clearly TfL deemed four routes excessive so take your pick which one you want to lose. I have to say that what I've seen of the 242 it is absolutely dead between Liverpool Street and St Pauls.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 6, 2019 21:24:54 GMT
Except that the 67 barely parallels the LO. I sometimes use the 67 for trips such as Turnpike Lane to Haggerston or Shoreditch - by tube or LO this requires two changes, including changing at Highbury & Islington which is already over-congested as an interchange. If TfL really wanted to "coerce" people off buses and onto the Overground on this corridor they'd withdraw the 149 without replacement [this is not a serious suggestion before anyone freaks out]. It does between Dalston Junction and Shoreditch, clearly TfL deemed four routes excessive so take your pick which one you want to lose. I have to say that what I've seen of the 242 it is absolutely dead between Liverpool Street and St Pauls. He said barely as apposed to not paralleling at all
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 8, 2019 12:41:48 GMT
I thought it had been said on the Arriva thread that the potentially shortened 19 and 67 would gain them. That could allow the current hybrids to maybe move to the 106 allowing the 2013 DWs to be used for maybe the 128 or 197. Also the 466 will need new buses come 2020 thou previously it had been assumed it was withdrawn in conjunction with changes to the 130 and 312 but seems to have survived. It hasn’t been confirmed where LT’s are going other than the 55 will no doubt take some for its diversion to Walthamstow Central. That is if the 48 doesn't get a stay of execution, there is another option on the table with route 48, 67, 242.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 8, 2019 18:11:03 GMT
I thought it had been said on the Arriva thread that the potentially shortened 19 and 67 would gain them. That could allow the current hybrids to maybe move to the 106 allowing the 2013 DWs to be used for maybe the 128 or 197. Also the 466 will need new buses come 2020 thou previously it had been assumed it was withdrawn in conjunction with changes to the 130 and 312 but seems to have survived. It hasn’t been confirmed where LT’s are going other than the 55 will no doubt take some for its diversion to Walthamstow Central. If all central London changes go ahead as planned, the 55 will not need very many top ups. The frequency of the 55 will be unchanged, and the extension is Walthamstow is not very long (plus the short section along High Road Leyton would be withdrawn). Possibly only about 2 extra LTs would be needed, and these could possibly come from the 8's PVR cut to reduce shuffling LTs between operators. I would suggest to keep most of the 48's LTs at Arriva, but move to AR for the 149, which is due to get quite a significant frequency increase as part of the changes, from 7bhp to 10bhp, and will need a lot of top-up LTs, given how high the PVR is already.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 8, 2019 18:24:03 GMT
It hasn’t been confirmed where LT’s are going other than the 55 will no doubt take some for its diversion to Walthamstow Central. That is if the 48 doesn't get a stay of execution, there is another option on the table with route 48, 67, 242. Oh good grief. More fiddling and faffing. What's the point of going to consultation if you change your mind about what you want to do? Fine, if after the consultation results have been reviewed, that you *cancel* your consulted on plans but to continue optioneering is a bit ridiculous IMO. The logical thing to do really is probably to trim the 242 back to Dalston Junction or Shoreditch and leave the other routes alone. TfL have progressively ruined the 242 to the point where its access to Central London is pretty pointless.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 8, 2019 18:27:10 GMT
I would suggest to keep most of the 48's LTs at Arriva, but move to AR for the 149, which is due to get quite a significant frequency increase as part of the changes, from 7bhp to 10bhp, and will need a lot of top-up LTs, given how high the PVR is already. Err no it won't. The 149 is already every 5-6 mins in the peaks so all TfL are proposing is to run the M-F peak service during the M-F interpeak period and Sat shopping hours. That requires more drivers but not more buses. Evenings and Sundays are being cut on the 149 which, IMO, is nuts (especially Sunday daytimes).
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jan 8, 2019 20:22:16 GMT
That is if the 48 doesn't get a stay of execution, there is another option on the table with route 48, 67, 242. Oh good grief. More fiddling and faffing. What's the point of going to consultation if you change your mind about what you want to do? Fine, if after the consultation results have been reviewed, that you *cancel* your consulted on plans but to continue optioneering is a bit ridiculous IMO. The logical thing to do really is probably to trim the 242 back to Dalston Junction or Shoreditch and leave the other routes alone. TfL have progressively ruined the 242 to the point where its access to Central London is pretty pointless. Do you know what I thought EXACTLY that yesterday when I happened to be looking at those proposals yesterday, when I mentioned about the Stamford Hill residents potentially getting the huff when they lose their Central London service in the form of the 67. The 242 is now completely pointless and absolutely dead now it’s got a completely parallel rail alternative, so just cut that back to Dalston instead (although the route would now be incredibly short) and have done with it. TfL saves money by cutting a route that no one actually uses anymore instead of a route that so many people do, and at the same time the 67 users are kept happy. Bingo!!! I hope they come to their senses and do that instead but I doubt it. I also hope what capitalomnibus means by what he said is that the 48 won’t go after all, which I hope it won’t as it’s nonsensical withdrawing a really really busy route, the 55 is already close to creaking at the seams as it is so no one can expect it to then take all the 48 passengers as well ... well except TfL. If it were to do that it would need a significant frequency increase. So I hope they’ve now realised that they do need to go back to the drawing board with that idea (as I don’t remember reading the 55 will get an increase in compensation).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 20:29:11 GMT
Oh good grief. More fiddling and faffing. What's the point of going to consultation if you change your mind about what you want to do? Fine, if after the consultation results have been reviewed, that you *cancel* your consulted on plans but to continue optioneering is a bit ridiculous IMO. The logical thing to do really is probably to trim the 242 back to Dalston Junction or Shoreditch and leave the other routes alone. TfL have progressively ruined the 242 to the point where its access to Central London is pretty pointless. Do you know what I thought EXACTLY that yesterday when I happened to be looking at those proposals yesterday, when I mentioned about the Stamford Hill residents potentially getting the huff when they lose their Central London service in the form of the 67. The 242 is now completely pointless and absolutely dead now it’s got a completely parallel rail alternative, so just cut that back to Dalston instead (although the route would now be incredibly short) and have done with it. TfL saves money by cutting a route that no one actually uses anymore instead of a route that so many people do, and at the same time the 67 users are kept happy. Bingo!!! I hope they come to their senses and do that instead but I doubt it. I also hope what capitalomnibus means by what he said is that the 48 won’t go after all, which I hope it won’t as it’s nonsensical withdrawing a really really busy route, the 55 is already close to creaking at the seams as it is so no one can expect it to then take all the 48 passengers as well ... well except TfL. If it were to do that it would need a significant frequency increase. So I hope they’ve now realised that they do need to go back to the drawing board with that idea (as I don’t remember reading the 55 will get an increase in compensation). i agree the 48 always seems rammed when I see it. On Saturday it was running pretty much full from Waltmastow Central on Saturday afternoon, passengers boarding a extended 55 at Bakers Arm wouldn't stand a chance.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jan 8, 2019 20:46:28 GMT
Do you know what I thought EXACTLY that yesterday when I happened to be looking at those proposals yesterday, when I mentioned about the Stamford Hill residents potentially getting the huff when they lose their Central London service in the form of the 67. The 242 is now completely pointless and absolutely dead now it’s got a completely parallel rail alternative, so just cut that back to Dalston instead (although the route would now be incredibly short) and have done with it. TfL saves money by cutting a route that no one actually uses anymore instead of a route that so many people do, and at the same time the 67 users are kept happy. Bingo!!! I hope they come to their senses and do that instead but I doubt it. I also hope what capitalomnibus means by what he said is that the 48 won’t go after all, which I hope it won’t as it’s nonsensical withdrawing a really really busy route, the 55 is already close to creaking at the seams as it is so no one can expect it to then take all the 48 passengers as well ... well except TfL. If it were to do that it would need a significant frequency increase. So I hope they’ve now realised that they do need to go back to the drawing board with that idea (as I don’t remember reading the 55 will get an increase in compensation). i agree the 48 always seems rammed when I see it. On Saturday it was running pretty much full from Waltmastow Central on Saturday afternoon, passengers boarding a extended 55 at Bakers Arm wouldn't stand a chance. Yes exactly right, withdrawing that route is like withdrawing the 250 and telling all of those people to use the 109 instead. Or indeed withdrawing the 357 and telling those people to use the already overloaded 97. There’s physically not enough capacity for that to be possible!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 8, 2019 21:39:33 GMT
i agree the 48 always seems rammed when I see it. On Saturday it was running pretty much full from Waltmastow Central on Saturday afternoon, passengers boarding a extended 55 at Bakers Arm wouldn't stand a chance. Yep - there are regular long queues for the 48 at Walthamstow. I confess I haven't been down Lea Bridge Road in a long while but there was always a healthy demand for buses on that stretch even with three frequent routes and you certainly used to get people who waited for a 48 from Hackney onwards wanting Walthamstow. I've done the route enough times to observe that but that was pre Hopper ticket which may have changed things a tad.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 9, 2019 1:07:32 GMT
Oh good grief. More fiddling and faffing. What's the point of going to consultation if you change your mind about what you want to do? Fine, if after the consultation results have been reviewed, that you *cancel* your consulted on plans but to continue optioneering is a bit ridiculous IMO. The logical thing to do really is probably to trim the 242 back to Dalston Junction or Shoreditch and leave the other routes alone. TfL have progressively ruined the 242 to the point where its access to Central London is pretty pointless. The 242 is now completely pointless and absolutely dead now it’s got a completely parallel rail alternative, so just cut that back to Dalston instead (although the route would now be incredibly short) and have done with it. If it's so called 'completely pointless' you wouldn't be suggesting to still keep it even in a shorter form? The 242 has clearly suffered and the cutbacks to it only that make that even worse but it isn't completely pointless - I'm sure the residents around the back roads near Homerton Hospital would testify to that. Someone suggested a while ago instead to divert it towards London Bridge instead, especially if the 48 gets withdrawn which I suspect will sadly still happen or even, if it would prove useful & feasible, extending the route beyond Homerton Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 9, 2019 1:30:05 GMT
The 242 is now completely pointless and absolutely dead now it’s got a completely parallel rail alternative, so just cut that back to Dalston instead (although the route would now be incredibly short) and have done with it. If it's so called 'completely pointless' you wouldn't be suggesting to still keep it even in a shorter form? The 242 has clearly suffered and the cutbacks to it only that make that even worse but it isn't completely pointless - I'm sure the residents around the back roads near Homerton Hospital would testify to that. Someone suggested a while ago instead to divert it towards London Bridge instead, especially if the 48 gets withdrawn which I suspect will sadly still happen or even, if it would prove useful & feasible, extending the route beyond Homerton Hospital. The clever thing to do with the 242 would be to loop it round via Richmond Road, Queensbridge Road, Hackney Road and tack it onto the D6 making a Homerton Hospital - Dalston - Mile End - Isle of Dogs service using double deckers. That would give new links and double deck the D6. Clearly not going to happen because it's Inner London and the D6 has a newish contract with single deckers but a bit of foresight could have created something genuinely useful.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jan 9, 2019 8:45:23 GMT
The 242 is now completely pointless and absolutely dead now it’s got a completely parallel rail alternative, so just cut that back to Dalston instead (although the route would now be incredibly short) and have done with it. If it's so called 'completely pointless' you wouldn't be suggesting to still keep it even in a shorter form? The 242 has clearly suffered and the cutbacks to it only that make that even worse but it isn't completely pointless - I'm sure the residents around the back roads near Homerton Hospital would testify to that. Someone suggested a while ago instead to divert it towards London Bridge instead, especially if the 48 gets withdrawn which I suspect will sadly still happen or even, if it would prove useful & feasible, extending the route beyond Homerton Hospital. Okay sorry I should have been clearer, the Central London section is completely pointless, and that’s the section I think should be cut back. The 48 and 67 still have a lot of heavy loads running into Zone 1, but the 242 certainly doesn’t anymore mostly thanks to the Overground. But imo that’s the route TfL should be fiddling with, rather than the 67/48
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 9, 2019 9:24:58 GMT
If it's so called 'completely pointless' you wouldn't be suggesting to still keep it even in a shorter form? The 242 has clearly suffered and the cutbacks to it only that make that even worse but it isn't completely pointless - I'm sure the residents around the back roads near Homerton Hospital would testify to that. Someone suggested a while ago instead to divert it towards London Bridge instead, especially if the 48 gets withdrawn which I suspect will sadly still happen or even, if it would prove useful & feasible, extending the route beyond Homerton Hospital. Okay sorry I should have been clearer, the Central London section is completely pointless, and that’s the section I think should be cut back. The 48 and 67 still have a lot of heavy loads running into Zone 1, but the 242 certainly doesn’t anymore mostly thanks to the Overground. But imo that’s the route TfL should be fiddling with, rather than the 67/48 Certainly from what I've seen of the 242 it's pretty dead especially west of Liverpool Street and rerouting it to Aldgate should give it a bit more purpose. Presumably it won't be getting LT's because of the tight sections at the Homerton end?
|
|