|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 14, 2014 17:51:24 GMT
why not run the N136 from Oxford Circus to Elephant via the 148 from Victoria then over the new route to Peckham then down to Chislehurst. Or run it via the 12/453 routeing to Elephant then extend the 36 at nights to Lewisham to maintain the Victoria - Lewisham link. A N436 would create confusion as at Victoria the 436 will go to Paddington whereas the N436 will go to Oxo. North Peckham does not need two night routes. The N343 is enough. I agree though N436 will confuse many. I don't think it should be re-routed as many are used to using it. I say keep it as N136 or give it number N100, a new identity as not to confuse people with the 36, 136, 343 & 436.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 14, 2014 17:55:47 GMT
Or re-number it N536, thus keeping confusion away from the 136 and 436 and at the same time maintaining the '...36' pattern.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 14, 2014 17:55:53 GMT
Then I think keep it as it is. The N68 diverts off to Tott Ct Rd rather than Euston and the N113 diverts to Trafalgar Sq rather than Marble Arch.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 14, 2014 18:29:38 GMT
Or re-number it N536, thus keeping confusion away from the 136 and 436 and at the same time maintaining the '...36' pattern. I think that will confuse people as well, 36, 136, 436, N536, it doesn't add up. Most people are used to the N136 and I think it should remain as the N136 currently covers the full 136 apart from Peckham/Grove Park Bus Stations. If extended further, it should just be made very clear to 343/N343 users that the N136 will not serve North Peckham & Walworth. Leaflets through doors and signs on bus stops, even iBus can be used to promote such information, at least for a year after the change. I personally think it would be a waste of money to replace all timetables, bus sop tiles and Catford would probably have to get all the ALX 400 blinds replaced as well.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 14, 2014 19:02:45 GMT
why not run the N136 from Oxford Circus to Elephant via the 148 from Victoria then over the new route to Peckham then down to Chislehurst. Or run it via the 12/453 routeing to Elephant then extend the 36 at nights to Lewisham to maintain the Victoria - Lewisham link. A N436 would create confusion as at Victoria the 436 will go to Paddington whereas the N436 will go to Oxo. I'm sorry but cutting the service level through Vauxhall is not a good idea. There is a fair amount of night life in that area and a x20 service at weekend on the 36 / 436 corridor won't suffice. Whatever does transpire you have to hope someone sits down with the timetables and schedules buses to run at even headways on the overlapped section - the current pattern is utterly dreadful. I also think far too many people are exaggerating the impact of changing a service number. I know people can be very "out of it" at night but the side effect of that is that they ask people or bus drivers which bus is which and where they're going. If people can cope with a night bus that covers most but not all of the day 436 and which starts at Oxford Circus and which is numbered the N136 I am sure they can also cope with one numbered N436. Yes there will be a learning curve but there will also be one with the revised 136 running beyond Peckham. I think we need to credit most people with more than a gram of intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by moz on Jan 14, 2014 19:10:58 GMT
If renumbering is on the cards then have done with it and call it the N552. As for the terminating stop at Elephant for the 136 I still think there is a call for a round-the-corner bus from New Kent Road into Newington Causeway as it can't be fun for someone with limited mobility to move between there and London Road. Send the 136 to London Road (new link, may relieve slight pressure on the Tabernacle stop as people coming from the Westminster/Waterloo direction know the 136 will be a 'fresh' empty bus) and send the 363 round to Newington Causeway (new link, stops people risking themselves by running across two 3x3 lane roads).
Moz
|
|
|
Route 136
Jan 14, 2014 19:12:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Jan 14, 2014 19:12:58 GMT
Although a brilliant idea with the 432 extension, would there be sufficient funds leftover for the 168 extension? Surely the 432 extension would more or less eat up the funding from the 415. Problem also with the reduced capacity along Tulse Hill If the 432 was boosted properly with the change, there would be no reduced capacity. I'd certainly support the 432 being extended over the 415 and removing the 415 altogether but not an extension of the 168. The 168 is long enough as it is without extending it further. The 136 was the best option they had. As for this 'N136' to 'N436' change, I do think it's not needed but I can see why they've proposed to change it - when the 136 is extended to Elephant via North Peckham, it moves away from its night route & 95% of the time, TfL like to keep day & night route numbers grouped together - that's the only explanation I can come to. I don't think though that the number 'N436' is anymore more confusing than 'N136' - if anything, a completely different number like 'N100' is far more confusing.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 14, 2014 19:23:44 GMT
why not run the N136 from Oxford Circus to Elephant via the 148 from Victoria then over the new route to Peckham then down to Chislehurst. Or run it via the 12/453 routeing to Elephant then extend the 36 at nights to Lewisham to maintain the Victoria - Lewisham link. A N436 would create confusion as at Victoria the 436 will go to Paddington whereas the N436 will go to Oxo. I'm sorry but cutting the service level through Vauxhall is not a good idea. There is a fair amount of night life in that area and a x20 service at weekend on the 36 / 436 corridor won't suffice. Whatever does transpire you have to hope someone sits down with the timetables and schedules buses to run at even headways on the overlapped section - the current pattern is utterly dreadful. I also think far too many people are exaggerating the impact of changing a service number. I know people can be very "out of it" at night but the side effect of that is that they ask people or bus drivers which bus is which and where they're going. If people can cope with a night bus that covers most but not all of the day 436 and which starts at Oxford Circus and which is numbered the N136 I am sure they can also cope with one numbered N436. Yes there will be a learning curve but there will also be one with the revised 136 running beyond Peckham. I think we need to credit most people with more than a gram of intelligence. "I know people can be very "out of it" at night but the side effect of that is that they ask people or bus drivers which bus is which and where they're going." This is a good point, but if that's the case why renumber it? If people can ask drivers questions, then N436 prefix is just a waste of time money can be saved at the same time. Problem also with the reduced capacity along Tulse Hill If the 432 was boosted properly with the change, there would be no reduced capacity. I'd certainly support the 432 being extended over the 415 and removing the 415 altogether but not an extension of the 168. The 168 is long enough as it is without extending it further. The 136 was the best option they had. As for this 'N136' to 'N436' change, I do think it's not needed but I can see why they've proposed to change it - when the 136 is extended to Elephant via North Peckham, it moves away from its night route & 95% of the time, TfL like to keep day & night route numbers grouped together - that's the only explanation I can come to. I don't think though that the number 'N436' is anymore more confusing than 'N136' - if anything, a completely different number like 'N100' is far more confusing. The 136 moving away from the N136 is not that bad as many Night Routes do not actually follow the full day version. The N47 comes to minds. The 136, 343, N136, N343 was what I had in mind. 136 extended to Elephant via the 343, some may assume the N136 does the same board it and will eventually realise they are on the wrong bus and need to be on a N343. This is why people should read bus stop timetables. N436 will be no different, will confuse a lot more people. N100 gives it a new identity, but as you say would confuse people
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 14, 2014 19:38:56 GMT
Or re-number it N536, thus keeping confusion away from the 136 and 436 and at the same time maintaining the '...36' pattern. I think that will confuse people as well, 36, 136, 436, N536, it doesn't add up. Most people are used to the N136 and I think it should remain as the N136 currently covers the full 136 apart from Peckham/Grove Park Bus Stations. If extended further, it should just be made very clear to 343/N343 users that the N136 will not serve North Peckham & Walworth. Leaflets through doors and signs on bus stops, even iBus can be used to promote such information, at least for a year after the change. I personally think it would be a waste of money to replace all timetables, bus sop tiles and Catford would probably have to get all the ALX 400 blinds replaced as well. Catford may already have plans to replace blinds in connection with the 75.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 14, 2014 22:31:18 GMT
Catford may already have plans to replace blinds in connection with the 75. Think there was already a plan to replace the Enviro400 blinds to add 54 and 75. I don't know if they have Elephant and Castle on them either so that would need to be done at too. I'm guessing TfL may arrange events so that the relevant numbers and destinations in relation to the 136 are added on to the same blindsets as the 54 and 75.
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 15, 2014 0:39:45 GMT
If the 432 was boosted properly with the change, there would be no reduced capacity. I'd certainly support the 432 being extended over the 415 and removing the 415 altogether but not an extension of the 168. The 168 is long enough as it is without extending it further. The 136 was the best option they had. As for this 'N136' to 'N436' change, I do think it's not needed but I can see why they've proposed to change it - when the 136 is extended to Elephant via North Peckham, it moves away from its night route & 95% of the time, TfL like to keep day & night route numbers grouped together - that's the only explanation I can come to. I don't think though that the number 'N436' is anymore more confusing than 'N136' - if anything, a completely different number like 'N100' is far more confusing. How do you boost the 432 appropriately on that section without over bussing the rest of the route, that's the thing? I'm quite in favour of running short workings on routes over the busiest sections - such as running peak buses on the 343 to Peckham only, likewise for the 63. However, the 415 essentially serves that function anyway, and adding Elephant - Tulse Hill shorts on the 432 would mean you'd essentially just have a pointless renumbering. I agree the 168 is quite long already, and the link down to the Old Kent Road is fairly well used - a diversion down the 343 routing would remove a lot of capacity between Waterloo and Old Kent Road, and would probably result in overcrowding on the 172 (which is already very busy). My impression was that the 168 was an extension proposal as opposed to a re-routing, thus from Old Kent Road to Albany Road and then via 343 route to Peckham. I think to serve the purpose of this proposal, the 168 would have been a better option overall as it would have been a bus starting in Peckham and running into North Peckham empty - guaranteeing capacity, although it would obviously be more expensive and make the route rather long. The 415 is either going to also have to go this way, or will have to loop around Elephant to serve the busiest stops. I still hold by my earlier comments that the 136 may well arrive in North Peckham pretty loaded already in the morning peak and possibly provide relief to the 53/453/171/63/363 with people staying on the 136 until Elephant... not the aim of the proposal (although if it balances out correctly it could be a good thing for the 63 which suffers similar loading problems). As far as the night route number goes, I am trying to think of a day and N prefixed route that differs significantly in this way from central London. I can't... From central London it will not meet the 136 until almost Peckham, whilst it will meet the 436 at Victoria and then follow its route entirely to Lewisham. To me, changing to the N436 is quite logical and I think if it remained numbered N136 would end up with a lot of night time passengers (more likely to be irregular travellers) ending up in the wrong place.
|
|
|
Route 136
Jan 15, 2014 0:56:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Jan 15, 2014 0:56:23 GMT
With the 343 now having something proposed to help out its overcrowding and it being mentioned in a report with which the 109 was also mentioned as another route with an overcrowding issue, does anyone expect a similar proposal or any proposal at all to arise to help out the 109?
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 15, 2014 0:58:02 GMT
How do you boost the 432 appropriately on that section without over bussing the rest of the route, that's the thing? I'm quite in favour of running short workings on routes over the busiest sections - such as running peak buses on the 343 to Peckham only, likewise for the 63. However, the 415 essentially serves that function anyway, and adding Elephant - Tulse Hill shorts on the 432 would mean you'd essentially just have a pointless renumbering. I agree the 168 is quite long already, and the link down to the Old Kent Road is fairly well used - a diversion down the 343 routing would remove a lot of capacity between Waterloo and Old Kent Road, and would probably result in overcrowding on the 172 (which is already very busy). My impression was that the 168 was an extension proposal as opposed to a re-routing, thus from Old Kent Road to Albany Road and then via 343 route to Peckham. I think to serve the purpose of this proposal, the 168 would have been a better option overall as it would have been a bus starting in Peckham and running into North Peckham empty - guaranteeing capacity, although it would obviously be more expensive and make the route rather long. The 415 is either going to also have to go this way, or will have to loop around Elephant to serve the busiest stops. I still hold by my earlier comments that the 136 may well arrive in North Peckham pretty loaded already in the morning peak and possibly provide relief to the 53/453/171/63/363 with people staying on the 136 until Elephant... not the aim of the proposal (although if it balances out correctly it could be a good thing for the 63 which suffers similar loading problems). As far as the night route number goes, I am trying to think of a day and N prefixed route that differs significantly in this way from central London. I can't... From central London it will not meet the 136 until almost Peckham, whilst it will meet the 436 at Victoria and then follow its route entirely to Lewisham. To me, changing to the N436 is quite logical and I think if it remained numbered N136 would end up with a lot of night time passengers (more likely to be irregular travellers) ending up in the wrong place. I believe the 47 and N47 presently differs from Monument northbound into town. Beforehand (a few years ago) there was the regular confusion of the 77 and N77 going different ways, despite the routes being well established during the 90s. As a driver of the N77 I had often experienced passengers asking me why it's going a different direction after Clapham Junction (them wanting Earlsfield and Tooting whereas I was going towards Southfields and Wimbledon) I personally believe the N136 should be renumbered to avoid another 77/N77 confusion. If N436 is confirmed to be the new number perhaps ibus initially could make a brief preset announcement prior to Victoria informing punters to change to the 36 if they want Hyde Park, Marble Arch, Edgeware Road and Paddington.
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 15, 2014 8:50:16 GMT
A thought on the night routes, and one which one of our BX/NX colleagues may be able to answer, but do any passengers get confused with the N21 expecting it to go to North London not south? This is in fact another route I can think of that does not serve some residential areas during the night which it serves during the day.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 15, 2014 10:22:08 GMT
A thought on the night routes, and one which one of our BX/NX colleagues may be able to answer, but do any passengers get confused with the N21 expecting it to go to North London not south? This is in fact another route I can think of that does not serve some residential areas during the night which it serves during the day. You can ask that question about almost any "N" prefixed route. Do people get on a daytime 38 and expect it to go to Walthamstow Central? The 55 to Woodford, the 73 to Walthamstow, the 76 to Northumberland Park, the 26 to Chingford? etc etc. People cope don't they? It's not as if London's network is run by clapped out Dennis Darts with no blinds and held together with duct tape a la West Midlands. Our buses have blinds which are nearly always set properly, we have bus stops that show the route numbers and timetables at every stop and we have Countdown too. A proportion of stops also have shelters with spider maps on them. All of this gives people access to information to give them a fighting chance of knowing where buses go. Sorry but I still think people are making a mountain out of a molehill over renumbering the N136.
|
|