|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 14, 2013 22:27:03 GMT
I can't say I'm surprised.
In 2010 when the 15 was cut, I thought they should have just extended the 436 to Paddington Basin as no one really goes to Paddington Basin.
I don't see the point of it going to Paddington Basin. I think it travels in a C shape in Central London tbh. The usage in Paddington is quite low I've noticed a few times.
You can get to Paddington faster by taking a 148 then 36/436 from Westminster than using the 159, but people would want Paddington from Piccadilly and beyond.
I honestly think though if this does happen the N159 should return but running as far as Paddington Basin to retain the link, maybe it would be too long.
Extend the N64 to Oxford Circus and have the N159 run from Streatham - Paddington Basin.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 14, 2013 22:47:27 GMT
A member recently said that nominated routes may be altered so as to make it possible to accommodate the LT class. So far it looks like this route may be the first example. The 88 may not be far behind with possible alterations around the John Islip Street area.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 14, 2013 22:59:26 GMT
Seems like TfL are really gunning for route 159 to be a NB4L route at any cost. This curtailment is definitely going to be happen. Watch this curtailment come into place on the same day 159 is converted to NB4Ls. I was never a fan of Paddington Basin. The route is already long enough and there is always a lot of traffic from Piccadilly all the way to Paddington which made the route unreliable at times. As other said, if Paddington Basin link is really needed, route 436 should be extended. The 159 has never really been unreliable, it's been very well run throughout the years. You and others who've have suggested just extend the 436 to Paddington Basin is missing the point - the 159 was extended to Paddington Basin to remove the 15 from Oxford Street and to maintain a route that helps the 23 as 'Steve80' mentioned. Cutting this link puts more pressure on the already busy 23 and extending the 436 does nothing to help.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 15, 2013 7:38:07 GMT
I'm not surprised at this, although I was expecting a general change in the area in few years as part of crossrail.
Seems fairly obvious that the corridor is over bussed as solution is use existing space on other routes. Guess it also allows route to be suitable for NB4L so think we could see more of these tweaks in coming months
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 15, 2013 12:00:01 GMT
I'm not surprised at this, although I was expecting a general change in the area in few years as part of crossrail. Seems fairly obvious that the corridor is over bussed as solution is use existing space on other routes. Guess it also allows route to be suitable for NB4L so think we could see more of these tweaks in coming months Over bussed or not, there are people who use this link as suggested by others. The 23 will now take the burden and be the only link from Trafalgar Square to Paddington, a route that is busy enough as it is. I've stated before that routes should not be tweaked just to allow a certain vehicle to run - it's just another example of how the NBfL program has gone beyond a farce. They should of known how long the vehicles could be without being detrimental to existing routes when planning the bus.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 15, 2013 13:08:22 GMT
I'm not surprised at this, although I was expecting a general change in the area in few years as part of crossrail. Seems fairly obvious that the corridor is over bussed as solution is use existing space on other routes. Guess it also allows route to be suitable for NB4L so think we could see more of these tweaks in coming months Over bussed or not, there are people who use this link as suggested by others. The 23 will now take the burden and be the only link from Trafalgar Square to Paddington, a route that is busy enough as it is. I've stated before that routes should not be tweaked just to allow a certain vehicle to run - it's just another example of how the NBfL program has gone beyond a farce. They should of known how long the vehicles could be without being detrimental to existing routes when planning the bus. In fairness to TfL, we don't actually know that this change is being proposed to make the route compatible with the NB4L. Does anyone know which bit of route beyond Marble Arch would be problematic, if any? It may well be that TfL has decided to prune the route for the reasons they've given. And as I've said in another place, it's an unfortunate fact of operating life that routes get changed to suit the vehicles operating them. You can go back to the days of Merlins and DMSs for obvious examples (rerouting the 197 around east Croydon, the 229 around Blendon, or even the B12 in Bexleyheath to allow a different type of midibus). Now, I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong - I'm agnostic on the NB4L - simply that it's nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Nov 15, 2013 14:10:12 GMT
The 159 extension to Paddington Basin was never a good idea in the first place in my opinion. The route was already long enough as it was, and was simply done so that the 15 could be severed back to Oxford Circus (and now Trafalgar Square) in order to drive down the number of buses using Oxford Street. Incidently, the reduction in buses on Oxford Street has not sped up journey times as the space has simply been filled by an increased number of taxi's.
I would not be against cutting the 159 back to Marble Arch again but I agree that with no replacement, the 23 will just become busier especially as it has recently had a frequency cut.
Personally, I would cut the 137 back to Marble Arch as well and potentially increase it down into Streatham. I would then restore the 15 back to Paddington.
I would not like to comment as to whether this change has been proposed to facilitate the use of LT's, however I would not be surprised. To my observations, for a long route (by Central London standards) the 159 is run pretty well with a lot less turns than other routes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 16, 2013 1:59:12 GMT
Over bussed or not, there are people who use this link as suggested by others. The 23 will now take the burden and be the only link from Trafalgar Square to Paddington, a route that is busy enough as it is. I've stated before that routes should not be tweaked just to allow a certain vehicle to run - it's just another example of how the NBfL program has gone beyond a farce. They should of known how long the vehicles could be without being detrimental to existing routes when planning the bus. In fairness to TfL, we don't actually know that this change is being proposed to make the route compatible with the NB4L. Does anyone know which bit of route beyond Marble Arch would be problematic, if any? It may well be that TfL has decided to prune the route for the reasons they've given. And as I've said in another place, it's an unfortunate fact of operating life that routes get changed to suit the vehicles operating them. You can go back to the days of Merlins and DMSs for obvious examples (rerouting the 197 around east Croydon, the 229 around Blendon, or even the B12 in Bexleyheath to allow a different type of midibus). Now, I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong - I'm agnostic on the NB4L - simply that it's nothing new. I've mentioned several times on here that the Praed Street turn is very tight in a Olympus at the moment and there are other roads that look decidedly narrow. Yes, the 436 used Artics through there but Artics have a very good turning circle. The reasons that TfL have given don't seem to stack up - the 159 is a reliable route and buses have been turned short of their terminus (mainly the Streatham end) on the route for years yet these things didn't seem to effect it when they decided to replace the 15's section with the 159. The cynic in me says it's for NBfL's rather than the reasons they gave and if that's true, why not just say, "We would like to cut the 159 back to Marble Arch to allow NBfL's to be operated on the route". At least that would be the honest thing to do!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 16, 2013 10:40:14 GMT
The 159 extension to Paddington Basin was never a good idea in the first place in my opinion. The route was already long enough as it was, and was simply done so that the 15 could be severed back to Oxford Circus (and now Trafalgar Square) in order to drive down the number of buses using Oxford Street. Incidently, the reduction in buses on Oxford Street has not sped up journey times as the space has simply been filled by an increased number of taxi's. I would not be against cutting the 159 back to Marble Arch again but I agree that with no replacement, the 23 will just become busier especially as it has recently had a frequency cut. Personally, I would cut the 137 back to Marble Arch as well and potentially increase it down into Streatham. I would then restore the 15 back to Paddington. I would not like to comment as to whether this change has been proposed to facilitate the use of LT's, however I would not be surprised. To my observations, for a long route (by Central London standards) the 159 is run pretty well with a lot less turns than other routes. There is no point in hacking the 137 back to Marble Arch. That will annoy a great many people by stopping short of a key traffic objective. It's the only bus linking Oxford St to Sloane St / Sloane Square which is a nasty awkward tube journey (depending where on Oxford St you want to be) so having a direct bus link makes sense. Your point about taxis is well made but, of course, the shop keepers are happy to have taxis clogging up Oxford St as rich high spending people use taxis. We can't have "commoners" arriving by nasty smelly buses. I expect the 159 is being consulted on to see what reaction there is. If TfL don't get a barrage of complaints they'll remove the 159 without replacement. If there are moans some sop will be invented which costs less than the current cost of the 159. The sop will then be quietly withdrawn in 18-24 months. Classic, long standing tactic used by LT and TfL for many years. The lack of reference to the NB4L will be because TfL do not want to establish the principle of consulting about vehicle type conversions as it would allow politicians to moan even more about the bus. There are probably commercial things going on too so that will be used as the reason for saying nothing. I am pretty convinced TfL want to convert the 159 to get the bus into South London and losing the Paddington section removes the woe of a very tight turn and it reduces the number of vehicles and "conductors" that have to be funded. I leave it to others to decide for themselves if sacrificing links in the bus network is worthwhile in order to employ people to guard an open platform and bark health and safety messages at passengers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 18:28:24 GMT
Could it be an indirect consequence of budget freeze & LT introduction ? Trimming down high pvr routes and redistribution amongst hard pressed inner / suburban routes is something i expect tfl would consider. The enhancements made by Red Ken in conjunction with the now defunct west London congestion charge could be vulnerable? Most have already commented about the bizarre route 452.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Nov 20, 2013 8:34:54 GMT
Suggestions of a curtailment to allow LTs to be allocated are nothing more than mere conspiracy!
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Nov 21, 2013 1:56:29 GMT
Could it be an indirect consequence of budget freeze & LT introduction ? Trimming down high pvr routes and redistribution amongst hard pressed inner / suburban routes is something i expect tfl would consider. The enhancements made by Red Ken in conjunction with the now defunct west London congestion charge could be vulnerable? Most have already commented about the bizarre route 452. I have commented about the 452 before. Must look at the annual patronage levels to see if it really is useful to people. Personally, I really can't see the point of it. And Wandsworth road station seems a bizarre terminus to me!
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Nov 21, 2013 1:56:45 GMT
Could it be an indirect consequence of budget freeze & LT introduction ? Trimming down high pvr routes and redistribution amongst hard pressed inner / suburban routes is something i expect tfl would consider. The enhancements made by Red Ken in conjunction with the now defunct west London congestion charge could be vulnerable? Most have already commented about the bizarre route 452. I have commented about the 452 before. Must look at the annual patronage levels to see if it really is useful to people. Personally, I really can't see the point of it. And Wandsworth road station seems a bizarre terminus to me!
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Nov 21, 2013 4:37:55 GMT
Could it be an indirect consequence of budget freeze & LT introduction ? Trimming down high pvr routes and redistribution amongst hard pressed inner / suburban routes is something i expect tfl would consider. The enhancements made by Red Ken in conjunction with the now defunct west London congestion charge could be vulnerable? Most have already commented about the bizarre route 452. I have commented about the 452 before. Must look at the annual patronage levels to see if it really is useful to people. Personally, I really can't see the point of it. And Wandsworth road station seems a bizarre terminus to me! Having driven the 452 a few times, the route is definitely useful. I only did the late shifts but I found the buses to be well used especially at Sloane Square, Knightsbridge and Notting Hill. Ladbroke Grove and Battersea can also get busy as well. In saying this, I do wonder if many passengers actually use the route from end to end. I noticed that when approaching Knightsbridge (towards Wandsworth Road) there isn't many passengers on board, and when heading towards Kensal Rise, lots of the passengers get off at the first stop in Knightsbridge (Sloane Street) before many getting on at the second stop. Makes me wonder if it was really worth it to reduce the frequency on the 52 and 137 and create the 452. Personally, I think it was for the best as it give passengers more direct links e.g Battersea to Notting Hill, etc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2013 20:44:54 GMT
I was never convinced the 159 was the right candidate to be extended to Paddington in the first place. Additional capacity between Paddington and Trafalgar Square is a 'nice to have', but not an essential. In an area with not infrequent bus jams duplicate and lightly used capacity is not an economic use of resources.
|
|