|
Post by Connor on Feb 19, 2014 14:38:08 GMT
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 If the 453 was to be withdrawn, the 53 could possibly become unreliable and prone to lots of curtailments.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? Several routes could be rerouted to replace the Marylebone to Oxford Street section. You could divert the 139/189 or the 6/98 at Edgware Road to Marylebone, then via the current 453 to Oxford Circus. The Marylebone end of the 453 is nowhere as well used as the Woolwich end of the 53 basically; thats my reasoning for removing the 453 and bumping up the 53 PVR.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Feb 19, 2014 14:51:51 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 But if you're trying to save money, surely it would make sense to cut these sections back if possible.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 19, 2014 14:53:48 GMT
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 If the 453 was to be withdrawn, the 53 could possibly become unreliable and prone to lots of curtailments.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? Several routes could be rerouted to replace the Marylebone to Oxford Street section. You could divert the 139/189 or the 6/98 at Edgware Road to Marylebone, then via the current 453 to Oxford Circus. The Marylebone end of the 453 is nowhere as well used as the Woolwich end of the 53 basically; thats my reasoning for removing the 453 and bumping up the 53 PVR. There really isn't any need after 11 years since the 453 was introduced. It may be lightly used in that section, but at least the link is there for those who need it, it is also the most direct link to Marylebone. IMO the 53 service has settled over the last 11 years and does not need changing at all as well as the 453.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 19, 2014 14:55:33 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 But if you're trying to save money, surely it would make sense to cut these sections back if possible. Not really no because important valuable bus links will be lost.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Feb 19, 2014 14:57:07 GMT
Several routes could be rerouted to replace the Marylebone to Oxford Street section. You could divert the 139/189 or the 6/98 at Edgware Road to Marylebone, then via the current 453 to Oxford Circus. The Marylebone end of the 453 is nowhere as well used as the Woolwich end of the 53 basically; thats my reasoning for removing the 453 and bumping up the 53 PVR. There really isn't any need after 11 years since the 453 was introduced. It may be lightly used in that section, but at least the link is there for those who need it, it is also the most direct link to Marylebone. IMO the 53 service has settled over the last 11 years and does not need changing at all as well as the 453. Really doesn't make sense to have the overcrowded Woolwich section of the 53, and the lightly used Marylebone section of the 453, and leave things as they are, just because you think things on the 53 have 'settled'! But OK... But if you're trying to save money, surely it would make sense to cut these sections back if possible. Not really no because important valuable bus links will be lost. Kinda contradicting yourself there mate. If they are 'important' and 'valuable' links, then they wouldn't be lightly used! The solution is to have those sections removed and if only needed, have it replaced by a lower frequent route. For example, the lightly used Plumstead to Plumstead Common section doesn't need to be served by a high frequency route like the 53, a lower frequency route like the 96 or 422 could be diverted to replace that section, also creating new links, while making the 53 more reliable.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 19, 2014 15:12:07 GMT
There really isn't any need after 11 years since the 453 was introduced. It may be lightly used in that section, but at least the link is there for those who need it, it is also the most direct link to Marylebone. IMO the 53 service has settled over the last 11 years and does not need changing at all as well as the 453. Really doesn't make sense to have the overcrowded Woolwich section of the 53, and the lightly used Marylebone section of the 453, and leave things as they are, just because you think things on the 53 have 'settled'! But OK... Why change things again when both services have generally operated well for the last 11 years? In all honesty I would reduce the frequency of the 453 slightly and increase the AM / PM frequency on the 53, the Woolwich section is not just overcrowded but it starts from the very first stop in Whitehall, by the time a bus arrives in Elephant & Castle / New Kent Road it is full all the way until Woolwich Arsenal Station, I have done the journey many times before during the Peak and a few times around 10pm.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Feb 19, 2014 15:15:12 GMT
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. Again, the Lewisham end of the 436 is much much busier than the Queens Park section of the 36; that's my reasoning behind removing the current 36 and renumbering the 436. The New Cross terminus of the 36 is not ideal as I know the majority of people then board another bus to continue to Lewisham at least. The part of the 36 north of Paddington could be removed without replacement, taking usage into account. The end result would be a frequent route, well used along the entire length.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 19, 2014 15:22:35 GMT
Not really no because important valuable bus links will be lost. Kinda contradicting yourself there mate. If they are 'important' and 'valuable' links, then they wouldn't be lightly used! The solution is to have those sections removed and if only needed, have it replaced by a lower frequent route. For example, the lightly used Plumstead to Plumstead Common section doesn't need to be served by a high frequency route like the 53, a lower frequency route like the 96 or 422 could be diverted to replace that section, also creating new links, while making the 53 more reliable. Not contradicting myself at all tbh. Does it matter if the link is lightly or heavily used as well as frequency? I personally don't think so tbh as there are quite a lot of important links that are lightly used regardless of the frequency. Route 284: Grove Park Cemetery - Grove Park - serves a the Cemetery and the route is well used on Mother's Day as many go their to visit loved ones. Most of the time it is lightly used, but is a valuable link in Grove Park for some. I will say again, it may probably cost more to run the 53 to Plumstead Common simply because all stand time would have to be taken there and drivers ferried rather than running empty into the garage. What sense does it make to cut the 53 to Plumstead Common, there is no common sense in this at all, but just making Stagecoach's job more difficult than it is now, and the stand time for the 53 is quite lengthy so it is more sensible to stand in PD.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 19, 2014 15:28:13 GMT
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. Again, the Lewisham end of the 436 is much much busier than the Queens Park section of the 36; that's my reasoning behind removing the current 36 and renumbering the 436. The New Cross terminus of the 36 is not ideal as I know the majority of people then board another bus to continue to Lewisham at least. The part of the 36 north of Paddington could be removed without replacement, taking usage into account. The end result would be a frequent route, well used along the entire length. Why cut the 36 to Paddington? It is used Between Queens Park & Paddington isn't it. The users who use it will loose out, regardless of how lightly used it is, have you thought about that? I don't think so. It anything I think the 50 should be withdrawn between Streatham Hill and divert the 57 to Stockwell to replace it, tell me your views on this I'm sure it will be a different story.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Feb 19, 2014 15:34:49 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 38 is hardly a straightforward route that has been easy to get right. There really isn't any need after 11 years since the 453 was introduced. It may be lightly used in that section, but at least the link is there for those who need it, it is also the most direct link to Marylebone. IMO the 53 service has settled over the last 11 years and does not need changing at all as well as the 453. Really doesn't make sense to have the overcrowded Woolwich section of the 53, and the lightly used Marylebone section of the 453, and leave things as they are, just because you think things on the 53 have 'settled'! But OK... Not really no because important valuable bus links will be lost. Kinda contradicting yourself there mate. If they are 'important' and 'valuable' links, then they wouldn't be lightly used! The solution is to have those sections removed and if only needed, have it replaced by a lower frequent route. For example, the lightly used Plumstead to Plumstead Common section doesn't need to be served by a high frequency route like the 53, a lower frequency route like the 96 or 422 could be diverted to replace that section, also creating new links, while making the 53 more reliable. I think it has been well established that the 53's service benefits enormously without much cost from not terminating at Plumstead Common. Its easy to suggest 'withdrawing lightly used parts of routes' but these nearly always are not at the very end of the route. They are still used in not insignificant numbers, are in important section balancing a route out (usually these routes have tidal flows which does not allow for the segment to be removed, and/or that sit bang in the middle of a very well used route and themselves have their moments. I'd challenge you to provide a genuinely, lightly used service that would not be missed by significant numbers of people, that exists at the end of a route. The 'poor relation' segments of routes have a significance that extends beyond mere passenger loadings at certain times of the day relative to the rest of the route.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Feb 19, 2014 15:58:01 GMT
Why cut the 36 to Paddington? It is used Between Queens Park & Paddington isn't it. The users who use it will loose out, regardless of how lightly used it is, have you thought about that? I don't think so. You have already the Bakerloo linking Queens Park to Paddington, the 187 serving the unique section along Fernhead Road, plenty of routes in the area running into Central London (the 6, 18, 414...). I do understand your point, but 36 really isn't the right route to be running down those quiet backroads behind Maida Hill, for the sake of a few people's convenience. Specially given the demand on the 436 on its southern section, where extra buses would come in useful. It anything I think the 50 should be withdrawn between Streatham Hill and divert the 57 to Stockwell to replace it, tell me your views on this I'm sure it will be a different story. Obviously, I'd object to that, given the high usage of the 50 along the whole route (the Croydon to Clapham Common link is particularly well used by students). Also, excluding the Streatham - Stockwell section of the 50, the 57 is still a good 4 miles longer than the 50. You of all people should object to such a silly suggestion, given how much you harp on about reliability and 'stability' and traffic!
|
|
|
Post by RM5chris on Feb 19, 2014 16:21:25 GMT
MODS MSG
Play nicely please - there is no need to trade insults with each other. If you do wish to insult and argue with each other use the PM system.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Feb 19, 2014 20:07:37 GMT
MODS MSG Play nicely please - there is no need to trade insults with each other. If you do wish to insult and argue with each other use the PM system. Preferably not at all. If only you could embed youtube vids (or I knew how...) www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWCm3pfHum4
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2014 1:15:40 GMT
Sorry to go off topic but I see a few posts suggesting the 53 be cut back to Plumstead common. I can remember when the RM's stood on the common in the 80's. The crews used to all go into Tony's cafe for tea and bacon sarnies! I have not been over to the far side of the common recently so I don't know if Tony's is still open, as this could have a negative impact on this plan?!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 17:07:34 GMT
Sorry to go off topic but I see a few posts suggesting the 53 be cut back to Plumstead common. I can remember when the RM's stood on the common in the 80's. The crews used to all go into Tony's cafe for tea and bacon sarnies! I have not been over to the far side of the common recently so I don't know if Tony's is still open, as this could have a negative impact on this plan?!!! LOL! Thats a good reason to cut back, so the crew can grab something decent to eat! pmsl
|
|