Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2014 12:14:48 GMT
If you look at timetables from the 1980's , many routes operated in sections, providing enhanced service over busier sections. It would be an interesting experiment to reintroduce a cross London high frequency route to see what happens
|
|
|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Feb 28, 2014 12:35:43 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?!!! The Cafe is still open LOL I live just around the corner from it.....
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 28, 2014 15:43:57 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 Think more healthy eating workshops could be introduced at Garages. Why open a McDonalds next to PD, such a foolish thing to do imo, should have opened a Gym there instead.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 19, 2014 0:15:44 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. I'm sorry, but your suggestion of removing the well-established part of the 36 between Paddington - Queens Park is ridiculous. As a regular user of the 36, I always witness healthy usage within this section, especially during peak hours. Queens Park as a terminus is an important link, enabling the connection to and from Harrow Road, Bayswater, Paddington and vice versa. There will obviously be times when parts of the route are lightly used, just as parts of every other bus route in London sometimes are, it's completely normal.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 19, 2014 10:33:15 GMT
I assume the idea would be to replace the Queens Park section with another route?
If that can be done satifactorily I would agree with running the full service Paddington to Lewisham either as route 36 or 436.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Mar 19, 2014 10:53:37 GMT
I assume the idea would be to replace the Queens Park section with another route? If that can be done satifactorily I would agree with running the full service Paddington to Lewisham either as route 36 or 436. Maybe reroute the 18 via Paddington, Edgware Road?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 19, 2014 12:19:13 GMT
I assume the idea would be to replace the Queens Park section with another route? If that can be done satifactorily I would agree with running the full service Paddington to Lewisham either as route 36 or 436. Maybe reroute the 18 via Paddington, Edgware Road? Then Paddington to Queens Park would be overbussed, plus from what I've heard the 18 has regular service gaps. 36 is fine how it is, I don't know why so many people wish to see such silly route changes that will not benefit anyone, the 36 is a very useful South to North Bus route and the historic Queens Park section should be left alone, and imo more routes like that are needed, similar to the 148. I know I've said a few times the 160 should be cut to Eltham, but my reason for it is poorly run and the most poor bus service in my area.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 19, 2014 12:34:49 GMT
It would mean more buses on the busy NX to Lewisham section and if another routes replaces the 36 to Queens Park then whats the problem? Nothing is set in stone, routes do need to be changed from time to time, in fact thats the whole point of this thread isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Mar 19, 2014 12:35:31 GMT
Maybe reroute the 18 via Paddington, Edgware Road? Then Paddington to Queens Park would be overbussed. 36 is fine how it is, I don't know why so many people wish to see such silly route changes that will no benefit anyone, the 36 is a very useful South to North Bus route and the historic Queens Park section should be left alone, and imo more routes like that are needed, similar to the 148. The route is too long. If anyone actually wants to travel all the way from South to North London are really better off getting the local tube and train services. Suppose someone had to commute from Peckham to Harrow Road everyday. Chances are they'd prefer getting the train/tube than one straight (busy) bus all the way there every rush hour. Its far quicker. And suppose people travel back home beyond Paddington. The Underground still offers a quicker link to the 36's respectable via points, namely Royal Oak and Queens Park. The main point is that cutting the route back will require less buses, therefore saving money.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 19, 2014 12:57:25 GMT
Then Paddington to Queens Park would be overbussed. 36 is fine how it is, I don't know why so many people wish to see such silly route changes that will no benefit anyone, the 36 is a very useful South to North Bus route and the historic Queens Park section should be left alone, and imo more routes like that are needed, similar to the 148. The route is too long. If anyone actually wants to travel all the way from South to North London are really better off getting the local tube and train services. Suppose someone had to commute from Peckham to Harrow Road everyday. Chances are they'd prefer getting the train/tube than one straight (busy) bus all the way there every rush hour. Its far quicker. And suppose people travel back home beyond Paddington. The Underground still offers a quicker link to the 36's respectable via points, namely Royal Oak and Queens Park. The main point is that cutting the route back will require less buses, therefore saving money. Sorry I don't agree The 36 isn't too long, only takes 1 hour end to end roughly and NX run it quite well, only 9 miles long. Also we need to understand, not everyone likes to take train and some prefer to take the bus so the chances are not every person will take the train, some people do not like the tube as it is too busy, the Paddington - Queens Park section of the 36 is used by many of the residents, leaving this section. There is a BIG difference Bakerloo line only stops at train stations, whereas the 36 actually stops at bus stops and for some easier to access. There is no direct train link to Harrow Road from Peckham. We also need to remember that Tube links in South London are very limited and more people make bus journeys. Cutting the 36 wouldn't really save money imo, but making a replacement bus route would effectively cost even more. It is unlikely to happen so people need to stop dreaming
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 19, 2014 13:05:53 GMT
NX to QP takes a lot more than an hour nowadays
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Mar 19, 2014 16:28:27 GMT
So are people now suggesting that the 436 should be axed and the 36 should be cut back to Paddington or am I wrong? If so, then I think the 436 should remain. The 36 and 436 are both fine as they are and they both help each out in terms of crowding. Both routes are also well used.
There are much more routes out there worth axing or extending other than 36 or 436 IMO.
EDIT - Now that I've read everyone's posts properly, then I think it makes sense for 36 to be cut back to Paddington. I don't think there's any demand for the 36 around Queens Park and there are other routes which go to Paddington from there which can connect you to the 36.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 19, 2014 16:50:36 GMT
So are people now suggesting that the 436 should be axed and the 36 should be cut back to Paddington or am I wrong? If so, then I think the 436 should remain. The 36 and 436 are both fine as they are and they both help each out in terms of crowding. Both routes are also well used. There are much more routes out there worth axing or extending other than 36 or 436 IMO. EDIT - Now that I've read everyone's posts properly, then I think it makes sense for 36 to be cut back to Paddington. I don't think there's any demand for the 36 around Queens Park and there are other routes which go to Paddington from there which can connect you to the 36. But there ain't other routes that goes from Paddington to Queens Park, the 36 is the only route that goes from Paddington to Queens Park and there is demand.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 19, 2014 17:26:43 GMT
I assume the idea would be to replace the Queens Park section with another route? If that can be done satifactorily I would agree with running the full service Paddington to Lewisham either as route 36 or 436. Maybe reroute the 18 via Paddington, Edgware Road? I've used the 18 today on the bit you want to re-route. There were people at every stop (bar one) from Warren St to Prince of Wales and people alighted at many stops. That was off peak. I think you can guarantee that it would be vastly busier in the peaks. You touch route 18 at your peril - the 2nd busiest route in London. Ditto for the 36 - 20th busiest route. Both are very long established corridors with established levels of demand. London Transport faffed about with the 36's corridor over the years and I'd expect that if they felt that the Queens Park bit could be abolished or transferred to another route they'd have done it by now. Creating route 414 would have given TfL to chance to lose the Queens Park section or fiddle about with it but TfL decided to serve a different corridor. Ditto with the 332. Both routes are recent creations and could have gone via any old corridor including via Queens Park, Maida Hill and Harrow Road.
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Mar 19, 2014 18:04:17 GMT
So are people now suggesting that the 436 should be axed and the 36 should be cut back to Paddington or am I wrong? If so, then I think the 436 should remain. The 36 and 436 are both fine as they are and they both help each out in terms of crowding. Both routes are also well used. There are much more routes out there worth axing or extending other than 36 or 436 IMO. EDIT - Now that I've read everyone's posts properly, then I think it makes sense for 36 to be cut back to Paddington. I don't think there's any demand for the 36 around Queens Park and there are other routes which go to Paddington from there which can connect you to the 36. But there ain't other routes that goes from Paddington to Queens Park, the 36 is the only route that goes from Paddington to Queens Park and there is demand. Then surely the 332 can be re-routed via route 36 towards Queens Park, then turn onto Carlton Vale and then onto Kilburn High Road? I wonder what could also be done about 436 as it is well used.
|
|