Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 20:51:22 GMT
Knowing TfL they probably already had plans for its LTs elsewhere! look at the 20 /388 situation where cuts planned for one route should have released buses for the other.
If the 48 is saved I guess it could convert to conventional buses if available but guess that would mean the tender needing to be renegotiated with Arriva.
Meanwhile every 48 I see at Liverpool Street is packed / no seats left with a fair bunch standing at peak hours. This is not a fresh air carrying route! Same when I see it loading at Walthamstow! would be madness if this route is cut.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 9, 2019 21:07:15 GMT
Walthamstow though would simply be transferring to the 55 at a higher frequency potentially and would still take you to Shoreditch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 21:39:56 GMT
Walthamstow though would simply be transferring to the 55 at a higher frequency potentially and would still take you to Shoreditch. But as mentioned before buses leave the first stop fully loaded before even getting to the first 55 stop even a higher frequency buses will struggle if the 48 is cut.
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Apr 9, 2019 22:44:30 GMT
Walthamstow though would simply be transferring to the 55 at a higher frequency potentially and would still take you to Shoreditch. But as mentioned before buses leave the first stop fully loaded before even getting to the first 55 stop even a higher frequency buses will struggle if the 48 is cut. The 55 is the “saviour” for so many routes - 25 on the western end, 48 on the eastern! It’s not as if we had empty buses trundling about on the 55!
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 22, 2019 11:28:32 GMT
Could the 156 not become fully routemaster because the N87 is partly routemaster and that goes past where the N87 goes? Furthermore, route 156 was introduced in 1983 to replace the western section of route 77a, now 87. So as LTs work route 87 they would be logical for route 156 too.
|
|
|
Post by george on Apr 22, 2019 11:34:36 GMT
Could the 156 not become fully routemaster because the N87 is partly routemaster and that goes past where the N87 goes? Furthermore, route 156 was introduced in 1983 to replace the western section of route 77a, now 87. So as LTs work route 87 they would be logical for route 156 too. Please no!!
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 22, 2019 16:10:35 GMT
Could the 156 not become fully routemaster because the N87 is partly routemaster and that goes past where the N87 goes? Where would the routemasters come from?
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Apr 22, 2019 18:42:10 GMT
Could the 156 not become fully routemaster because the N87 is partly routemaster and that goes past where the N87 goes? Where would the routemasters come from? The 159 cuts once they happen
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 22, 2019 18:49:38 GMT
Where would the routemasters come from? The 159 cuts once they happen The plan is to move the LTs released from the 159 cut to the 415. The 415 has a lower TVR than the 156 and so doesn’t need many buses to convert to full LT operation. On the other hand, there wouldn’t be enough LTs for the 156 and I think part LT allocations dont work, they just create confusion for passengers in terms of boarding.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 22, 2019 20:15:26 GMT
I'm going to ask a properly unbiased question here. Once open boarding is eliminated ( in theory) from LTs, what advantage can be said to be gained from conversion of a route to LT, ignoring ownership of the vehicle being retained by TFL?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 20:37:03 GMT
I'm going to ask a properly unbiased question here. Once open boarding is eliminated ( in theory) from LTs, what advantage can be said to be gained from conversion of a route to LT, ignoring ownership of the vehicle being retained by TFL? I personally can't see how they will stop open boarding on the routes in central London especially as they had to move the VHRs from the 13/139 as passengers tried boarding via the rear doors.
Maybe they should try and push the LTs out to less busy suburban routes a reverse of what they did in the early 80s when they needed to get more Routemasters onto central London routes.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 22, 2019 20:42:45 GMT
I'm going to ask a properly unbiased question here. Once open boarding is eliminated ( in theory) from LTs, what advantage can be said to be gained from conversion of a route to LT, ignoring ownership of the vehicle being retained by TFL? I personally can't see how they will stop open boarding on the routes in central London especially as they had to move the VHRs from the 13/139 as passengers tried boarding via the rear doors.
Maybe they should try and push the LTs out to less busy suburban routes a reverse of what they did in the early 80s when they needed to get more Routemasters onto central London routes.
The issue there is the fact the LTs aren't as confined as to Central routes as was initially the plan. Their "influence" if you like reaches all the way to Fulwell in the day along with Becontree Heath.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 22, 2019 20:43:28 GMT
I'm going to ask a properly unbiased question here. Once open boarding is eliminated ( in theory) from LTs, what advantage can be said to be gained from conversion of a route to LT, ignoring ownership of the vehicle being retained by TFL? None. Allowing the ownership point then it allows TfL to keep NB4Ls in service for the length of their asset life. It may also defer new vehicle purchase costs on one or two contracts. I suspect none of this is particularly material to be honest in the context of an annual network subsidy of circa £750m. The bigger worry is what inflation will be given that £750m subsidy is fixed and thus each year costs will rise meaning the network has to get smaller to contain the subsidy level. The only hope is that fares will be allowed to rise thus possibly giving a bit more revenue (provided it is not offset by patronage decline).
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 22, 2019 21:13:38 GMT
I'm going to ask a properly unbiased question here. Once open boarding is eliminated ( in theory) from LTs, what advantage can be said to be gained from conversion of a route to LT, ignoring ownership of the vehicle being retained by TFL? None. Allowing the ownership point then it allows TfL to keep NB4Ls in service for the length of their asset life. It may also defer new vehicle purchase costs on one or two contracts. I suspect none of this is particularly material to be honest in the context of an annual network subsidy of circa £750m. The bigger worry is what inflation will be given that £750m subsidy is fixed and thus each year costs will rise meaning the network has to get smaller to contain the subsidy level. The only hope is that fares will be allowed to rise thus possibly giving a bit more revenue (provided it is not offset by patronage decline). If Sadiq Khan is prepared to prove he's not Jeremy Corbyn and admit that circumstances have changed enough for him to reconsider his bus fares freeze policy (he doesn't have to say he was even a teeny weeny bit wrong at the time to promise it) then there may be some hope of increased revenue: after all, a switch to Uber or the tube/NR isn't going to work, although there might be a loss of a few ablebodied short distance passengers at first. It all pales into insignificance beside the loss pf passengers to the combination of increased journey times and, in the central area particularly, all the faffing around having to change buses because of network changes.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 22, 2019 21:27:54 GMT
I wonder if in time LTs would then end up doing odd workings on certain non-LT routes, in the same way double-deckers are often used on single decker routes.
|
|