|
Post by londontravel on Feb 9, 2014 17:41:28 GMT
The morning is bad and if a 108 and 422 arrive together people go for the 108 ( if you can get on as its usually overcrowded ) as it is quicker . Have seen it where a 422 turned up then 108 , everyone went to the 108 couldn't get on then tried to go to get a 422 and the bus had pulled away before them
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2014 18:20:19 GMT
I dont think withdrawing the T32 is a good idea, despite its usage, I would think that either reducing the frequency, or reducing the bus size
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 9, 2014 19:39:19 GMT
Route 129 could be withdrawn ( as it's only benefit is for people in the Greenwich peninsula in the rush hour as every other bus route is full ) and double deck and extend route 202 to North Greenwich via the 108 . This would give relief between blackheath - north greenwich as people don't like using the 422 in rush hour due to traffic on woolwich road and it gives new links to catford and crystal palace. Just before Snoggle disappears off into the woods with his gun, when the bus gate at the foot of Westcombe Hill was opened, the original intention was for the 422 to take the same route as the 108 to North Greenwich. However this met with strong opposition from Blackwall Lane residents who would have gone from 3 buses down to 1. I can't comment on the AM peak but certainly in the evening peak, there's nothing to choose between the 108 and 422 timewise between North and East Greenwich. While the traffic along Woolwich Road can be slow, the 108 gets caught in Peartree Way. < walk > < Click > Boom! < Splat > < Thud > < Sound of sirens > < Sound of cheering from certain forum members >
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Feb 18, 2014 23:54:59 GMT
I'd scrap the Harrow Road - Queen's Park section of the 36. Honestly, what's the point? From my experiences, the route is not exactly crowded when used in that section, and the route is TOO long anyway? I'm sure this will save money somehow.
Or better yet, scrap the 436, and replace it with the 36 so that this route runs from Lewisham - Paddington (or maybe if I'm going a bit TOO far with this, the route can go a little further to Harrow Road). Spare buses from the 436 can be used for the new 36 route (which I'm sure WILL be necessary) and/or be used to replace older buses in the company wherever suitable *looks at East London*
There! Money saved!
*Silently waits for the retaliation from other forum members*
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 19, 2014 9:00:26 GMT
I'd scrap the Harrow Road - Queen's Park section of the 36. Honestly, what's the point? From my experiences, the route is not exactly crowded when used in that section, and the route is TOO long anyway? I'm sure this will save money somehow. Or better yet, scrap the 436, and replace it with the 36 so that this route runs from Lewisham - Paddington (or maybe if I'm going a bit TOO far with this, the route can go a little further to Harrow Road). Spare buses from the 436 can be used for the new 36 route (which I'm sure WILL be necessary) and/or be used to replace older buses in the company wherever suitable *looks at East London* There! Money saved! *Silently waits for the retaliation from other forum members* In all honesty the 36 may be lightly used between Harrow Road & Queens Park, but why have the 36 terminate in the middle of nowhere. I think the Queens Park terminus is perfect and should remain. I would leave the 36 & 436 how they are as both routes are busy in the AM / PM peak and scrapping those awful bendy buses have made the passenger loads on both routes even out more. If you scrap the 436, the 36 & 436 PVRs would have to be merged giving a PVR a silly PVR of 65 and scheduled shorts to Paddington. I would leave both routes as they are tbh.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 19, 2014 10:13:59 GMT
I'd scrap the Harrow Road - Queen's Park section of the 36. Honestly, what's the point? From my experiences, the route is not exactly crowded when used in that section, and the route is TOO long anyway? I'm sure this will save money somehow. Or better yet, scrap the 436, and replace it with the 36 so that this route runs from Lewisham - Paddington (or maybe if I'm going a bit TOO far with this, the route can go a little further to Harrow Road). Spare buses from the 436 can be used for the new 36 route (which I'm sure WILL be necessary) and/or be used to replace older buses in the company wherever suitable *looks at East London* There! Money saved! *Silently waits for the retaliation from other forum members* You say the 36 is too long and then you say extend it over the 436 to Lewisham, I'm a bit confused there. Personally, I'd leave both routes alone.
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Feb 19, 2014 10:33:11 GMT
I'd scrap the Harrow Road - Queen's Park section of the 36. Honestly, what's the point? From my experiences, the route is not exactly crowded when used in that section, and the route is TOO long anyway? I'm sure this will save money somehow. Or better yet, scrap the 436, and replace it with the 36 so that this route runs from Lewisham - Paddington (or maybe if I'm going a bit TOO far with this, the route can go a little further to Harrow Road). Spare buses from the 436 can be used for the new 36 route (which I'm sure WILL be necessary) and/or be used to replace older buses in the company wherever suitable *looks at East London* There! Money saved! *Silently waits for the retaliation from other forum members* You say the 36 is too long and then you say extend it over the 436 to Lewisham, I'm a bit confused there. Personally, I'd leave both routes alone. I don't see the point of extending the 36 over the 436 anyways I think the route is ok as it is. The 436 can be busy from Lewisham and has plenty of people for the duration of the journey same with the 36
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Feb 19, 2014 10:59:31 GMT
I'd scrap the Harrow Road - Queen's Park section of the 36. Honestly, what's the point? From my experiences, the route is not exactly crowded when used in that section, and the route is TOO long anyway? I'm sure this will save money somehow. Or better yet, scrap the 436, and replace it with the 36 so that this route runs from Lewisham - Paddington (or maybe if I'm going a bit TOO far with this, the route can go a little further to Harrow Road). Spare buses from the 436 can be used for the new 36 route (which I'm sure WILL be necessary) and/or be used to replace older buses in the company wherever suitable *looks at East London* There! Money saved! *Silently waits for the retaliation from other forum members* You say the 36 is too long and then you say extend it over the 436 to Lewisham, I'm a bit confused there. Personally, I'd leave both routes alone. I basically meant scrap the 36 route as it is and rename the 436 to 36. Kinda like how it used to be.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Feb 19, 2014 13:52:39 GMT
You say the 36 is too long and then you say extend it over the 436 to Lewisham, I'm a bit confused there. Personally, I'd leave both routes alone. I basically meant scrap the 36 route as it is and rename the 436 to 36. Kinda like how it used to be. I have to agree with you. The 36 is like a less useful variant of the 436 (similarly, the 453 is a less useful variant of the 53). I would scrap the 436 and have the 36 run between Lewisham Shopping Centre; and scrap the 453 and have the 53 running between Plumstead Common and Oxford Circus. And raise the PVRs of both routes obviously!
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Feb 19, 2014 14:07:34 GMT
One of the advantages of having split overlapping routes is that if some sort of incident happened on one end, Lewisham Way or Harrow Road for example, the other end would not be too affected as the appropriate route wouldn't reach that far.
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Feb 19, 2014 14:10:19 GMT
I basically meant scrap the 36 route as it is and rename the 436 to 36. Kinda like how it used to be. I have to agree with you. The 36 is like a less useful variant of the 436 (similarly, the 453 is a less useful variant of the 53). I would scrap the 436 and have the 36 run between Lewisham Shopping Centre; and scrap the 453 and have the 53 running between Plumstead Common and Oxford Circus. And raise the PVRs of both routes obviously! The 453 is well used and not less useful either so I think it should be kept. The 453 is basically needed to relieve overcrowdings off the 53. If the 453 was to be withdrawn, the 53 could possibly become unreliable and prone to lots of curtailments. If you withdraw the 453, what route would replace the Oxford Circus - Marylebone section?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 19, 2014 14:12:51 GMT
I basically meant scrap the 36 route as it is and rename the 436 to 36. Kinda like how it used to be. I have to agree with you. The 36 is like a less useful variant of the 436 (similarly, the 453 is a less useful variant of the 53). I would scrap the 436 and have the 36 run between Lewisham Shopping Centre; and scrap the 453 and have the 53 running between Plumstead Common and Oxford Circus. And raise the PVRs of both routes obviously! The 36/436 is basically the 36 running in two overlapping sections, neither route is useless imo. I don't see what would be achieved by extending the 36 to Lewisham and withdrawing the 436 as both routes are equally busy. The 53/453 are fine, it would probably cost Stagecoach more to run if the 53 was cut to Plumstead Common as drivers would have to be ferried to Plumstead Common, better for it to run light into the garage so drivers can start and finish at that point. Your Plumstead Common idea will not achieve anything but increase costs. You may notice also routes that stand on company property are often retained by operators, probably due to the fact costs can be kept much lower. The 436 & 453 certainly are not useless and do help out the originals during the peaks.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Feb 19, 2014 14:16:20 GMT
I basically meant scrap the 36 route as it is and rename the 436 to 36. Kinda like how it used to be. Think there's a reason for the overlapping split routes, like the 36/436, 53/453, 253/254, 68/468 - to provide extra capacity and better reliability over the common section, and to avoid excessively long running times. The old 53 used to be quite unreliable and was always absolutely rammed. Look at the 38. It has the highest PVR in London and is run from West to East London. With the right running times, it's run quite well. It just goes to show that this type of thing can work for busy routes. Why have a bus route serve a section that people hardly use? It's literally a waste. And besides, if people want to travel further than Paddington, there's always the Bakerloo Line and/or other routes. I basically meant scrap the 36 route as it is and rename the 436 to 36. Kinda like how it used to be. I have to agree with you. The 36 is like a less useful variant of the 436 (similarly, the 453 is a less useful variant of the 53). I would scrap the 436 and have the 36 run between Lewisham Shopping Centre; and scrap the 453 and have the 53 running between Plumstead Common and Oxford Circus. And raise the PVRs of both routes obviously! The 453 is actually something I wouldn't get rid of, although I can see where you're coming from. I guess cutting back the 53 to Plumstead Common would make some sense. I personally don't like the fact that the route takes the long way around to Woolwich from Plumstead Station.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 19, 2014 14:21:40 GMT
Think there's a reason for the overlapping split routes, like the 36/436, 53/453, 253/254, 68/468 - to provide extra capacity and better reliability over the common section, and to avoid excessively long running times. The old 53 used to be quite unreliable and was always absolutely rammed. Look at the 38. It has the highest PVR in London and is run from West to East London. With the right running times, it's run quite well. It just goes to show that this type of thing can work for busy routes. Why have a bus route serve a section that people hardly use? It's literally a waste. And besides, if people want to travel further than Paddington, there's always the Bakerloo Line and/or other routes. I have to agree with you. The 36 is like a less useful variant of the 436 (similarly, the 453 is a less useful variant of the 53). I would scrap the 436 and have the 36 run between Lewisham Shopping Centre; and scrap the 453 and have the 53 running between Plumstead Common and Oxford Circus. And raise the PVRs of both routes obviously! The 453 is actually something I wouldn't get rid of, although I can see where you're coming from. I guess cutting back the 53 to Plumstead Common would make some sense. I personally don't like the fact that the route takes the long way around to Woolwich from Plumstead Station. The 53 serving the back streets of Plumstead is actually a great advantage for such a route. If buses are late PD turn them at Woolwich and run them light to PD so the bus is on time to return back to Central London and this is one of the reasons the 53 is run quite well. If it followed all other routes then it would be slightly more difficult to run. Cutting it to Plumstead Common is just a waste of such a historic service.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 19, 2014 14:33:57 GMT
Good question, but the answer is almost every route in London has a section that Is lightly used in either 1 or both directions. The link is there if needed by anyone.
Examples 124: Eltham - Mottingham 36: Peckham - New Cross 284: Grove Park - Grove Park Cemetery 160: Sidcup - New Eltham 261: Bromley South - PRH
|
|