|
Route 160
Apr 12, 2014 11:10:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 12, 2014 11:10:59 GMT
I wonder if a push came to a shove about the 160, will it be able to go to another operator? If so then TL (Stagecoach) could probably be likely as they ran the route well and Catford Bridge isn't far from them. 273 could move to TB to make space for 160. But then again, I can't see DT closing especially as they have recently retained the 428 and B12 and there would be no-where else to move those routes. They have a few routes like 492 and B13 coming up for tender soon aswell. I don't think TfL contracted routes are forming much of a priority for Arriva KtS south of the river. My reasons are all the emphasis is on improving Northfleet routes and buses. 414,480,490,495,498,499,477 have all received new buses and slightly improved timetables in some cases. Huge investment under way around Ebbsfleet will need at least two new routes. Now looking ahead, NF will run out of space. DT is the only other option. So i predict a gradual exit from TfL work for DT. GY could easily become TGM. Unlike DT, GY are doing alright and don't have the same problems as DT so I don't see them becoming TGM. Only issue surrounding GY is the ability to expand though there should be land available in Purfleet.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Apr 12, 2014 11:54:59 GMT
I don't think TfL contracted routes are forming much of a priority for Arriva KtS south of the river. My reasons are all the emphasis is on improving Northfleet routes and buses. 414,480,490,495,498,499,477 have all received new buses and slightly improved timetables in some cases. Huge investment under way around Ebbsfleet will need at least two new routes. Now looking ahead, NF will run out of space. DT is the only other option. So i predict a gradual exit from TfL work for DT. GY could easily become TGM. Unlike DT, GY are doing alright and don't have the same problems as DT so I don't see them becoming TGM. Only issue surrounding GY is the ability to expand though there should be land available in Purfleet. I am struggling to find the route performance information but I imagine that GY's alright running, alongside the remarkable upturn in the performance on the 492 are all contributors to the headline statistic that AKT aren't that bad. You'll also note they are the second worst operator of low frequency routes based upon early running. I have noticed the investment that has gone into NF and I imagine that is set to continue. Just because DT have retained the B15 and 428 does not mean that they won't lose everything else over the next five years... I imagine the 492 would be rich pickings for Metrobus given their experience with running low frequency routes at a distance well or London Central given the proximity of the BX garage. It is much more likely to change hands given that its fleet of DWs are not going to see another contract out (unlike the 428 and B15) but like everything else at this garage...
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 12, 2014 11:58:32 GMT
I can't comment enough on the 160, the most unreliable bus service I have ever come across and has been the case for 7.5 years. The curtailments to Hither Green may as well become the new terminus, seems to be even more common in the School holidays and peak times the service is just turned left right and centre and imo I think DT just don't care about the route. Plus the amount of single deckers that have appeared on the Route recently is a joke imo. I think double decker routes should not be awarded to low cost operators who cannot provide the required double decker types for dd routes. Out of all the routes in the TFL network operated with double Deckers, the 160 is now officially the route with the most single decker workings. 4024 is on it right now. The route needs to return to it's rightful operator which is Selkent sooner rather than later imo. I personally couldn't care less if Arriva got rid of DT after the 286 goes, would teach the company as a whole to look after their routes better and I'm not even being biased the 160 is actually a joke., 126/162 are two failed DT routes which have become better under MB. Surprised to see the 160 is a low frequency route - but be careful what you wish for Arriva Kent Thameside rank higher than both Metrobus and Selkent in the latest TfL low frequency performance reports here :- www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/quarterly-frequency-on-time.pdfSo why would TfL take action against the company ranked 3rd of 21? PS - can you please show me the report that makes the 160 "Officially the route with the most single decker workings" - from my experience Metrobus are not too hot on this themselves. Not having seen the amended contract ... who is to say that the additional vehicle on the 160 is not officially a single deck? I don't know where those figures are derived from but I'd much rather rely on a Selkent or Metrobus operated service than an AKT one. I also seem to see quite a few AKT buses being hauled by a tow truck
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 12, 2014 12:23:19 GMT
Unlike DT, GY are doing alright and don't have the same problems as DT so I don't see them becoming TGM. Only issue surrounding GY is the ability to expand though there should be land available in Purfleet. I am struggling to find the route performance information but I imagine that GY's alright running, alongside the remarkable upturn in the performance on the 492 are all contributors to the headline statistic that AKT aren't that bad. You'll also note they are the second worst operator of low frequency routes based upon early running. I have noticed the investment that has gone into NF and I imagine that is set to continue. Just because DT have retained the B15 and 428 does not mean that they won't lose everything else over the next five years... I imagine the 492 would be rich pickings for Metrobus given their experience with running low frequency routes at a distance well or London Central given the proximity of the BX garage. It is much more likely to change hands given that its fleet of DWs are not going to see another contract out (unlike the 428 and B15) but like everything else at this garage... Probably not beyond the realms of possibility for Go Ahead to take over all AKT's Dartford routes and operate them from BX and MB? Shades of history repeating itself from when Metrobus took over routes from Kentish Bus's struggling Deptford garage years ago.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 12, 2014 12:55:38 GMT
Surprised to see the 160 is a low frequency route - but be careful what you wish for Arriva Kent Thameside rank higher than both Metrobus and Selkent in the latest TfL low frequency performance reports here :- www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/quarterly-frequency-on-time.pdfSo why would TfL take action against the company ranked 3rd of 21? PS - can you please show me the report that makes the 160 "Officially the route with the most single decker workings" - from my experience Metrobus are not too hot on this themselves. Not having seen the amended contract ... who is to say that the additional vehicle on the 160 is not officially a single deck? I don't know where those figures are derived from but I'd much rather rely on a Selkent or Metrobus operated service than an AKT one. I also seem to see quite a few AKT buses being hauled by a tow truck To be fair, I've seen many Go-Ahead London & Arriva London vehicles on tow trucks in Brixton so that can't be really used to justify anything about Dartford. Rather than see Dartford fail & close unlike others who probably would be delighted it went, I'd like to see Arriva plough some money into it - not tons but enough to get it to a decent standard. The 160 would probably have to move on (Stagecoach being my preferred destination as they did a good job before), but I'd reckon they could operate the other routes and win a couple of routes that are easier for them to operate reliability. The drivers at DT are a friendly bunch and do a good job and I'd like to see it continue for them - plough some money into the maintenance side and DT could easily improve.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 12, 2014 15:15:58 GMT
No, that is a bad idea. 160 is useful and provides a more shorter link between Catford and Eltham alongside 124 (but that route seems to go round and round). 160 just needs to be more reliable and if DT can't achieve that then they might aswell give it to Stagecoach who can. Judging from LVF, there's one SD (4005) on the route which is not helpful especially for a route that just got a PVR increase. I hoped people might be able to tell I wasn't being entirely serious. On a slightly more serious note it should be possible to diagnose the reason for delays and curtailments. Then TfL can decide what to do in terms of the route structure, frequency or the operator. It's not a route I've used so I've no great insight as to its woes. A look at the bus map suggests to me that it's a bit of a "not one thing or the other" route. By that I mean it has some local diversions down back roads and then has to do the inter urban bit between town centres like Eltham, Chislehurst and Catford. I suspect this compromise route structure doesn't help the reliability but I'm guessing. I'm not sure when the 160 will appear on the "Snoggle" tour de London by bus but I'll be sure to report back.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 12, 2014 17:36:35 GMT
I can't comment enough on the 160, the most unreliable bus service I have ever come across and has been the case for 7.5 years. The curtailments to Hither Green may as well become the new terminus, seems to be even more common in the School holidays and peak times the service is just turned left right and centre and imo I think DT just don't care about the route. Plus the amount of single deckers that have appeared on the Route recently is a joke imo. I think double decker routes should not be awarded to low cost operators who cannot provide the required double decker types for dd routes. Out of all the routes in the TFL network operated with double Deckers, the 160 is now officially the route with the most single decker workings. 4024 is on it right now. The route needs to return to it's rightful operator which is Selkent sooner rather than later imo. I personally couldn't care less if Arriva got rid of DT after the 286 goes, would teach the company as a whole to look after their routes better and I'm not even being biased the 160 is actually a joke., 126/162 are two failed DT routes which have become better under MB. Surprised to see the 160 is a low frequency route - but be careful what you wish for Arriva Kent Thameside rank higher than both Metrobus and Selkent in the latest TfL low frequency performance reports here :- www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/quarterly-frequency-on-time.pdfSo why would TfL take action against the company ranked 3rd of 21? PS - can you please show me the report that makes the 160 "Officially the route with the most single decker workings" - from my experience Metrobus are not too hot on this themselves. Not having seen the amended contract ... who is to say that the additional vehicle on the 160 is not officially a single deck? Lol, It's the 160 I'm on about not Arriva Kent Thameside as a whole, The 160/492 must be the most poor run ART routes across DT/GY. It is officially the route with the most single decker workings now. I was informed earlier in the week, MB & C should no longer be using single deckers on double decker routes, you may notice some EX 261 Scanias have been reinstated at MB and C. The 160 has had single Deckers for the last 4 days, as far as I'm aware I've heard no other reports of any routes with single decker workings recently. Today - 4005 11/04/14 - 4023, 4024, 4029 10/04/14 - 3991 09/04/14 - 3994
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Apr 12, 2014 19:57:57 GMT
I have been on the Route 160 end to end and I notice a gap in the service although they have T's I have seen its quite empty around the Sidcup and Chislehurst Area but as it gets the Eltham the bus fills up more untill it gets to Catford I personally think it could go to Stagecoach so the reliability can get better and also the route goes round in circles around the Chislehurst area as it after it gets to the War Memorial and the Route 314 is there it goes through a residential area then it meets back and some more until it gets not very far after Eltham but there is a room for improvement.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 12, 2014 20:10:59 GMT
I don't think the diversion via Sangley Road, Sandhurst Road and Verdant Lane helped the 160. Every time I go along Verdant Lane, there seems to be a long tailback towards the South Circular, sometimes as far as Hazelbank Road. When I used to travel to Catford every day via Brownhill Road many moons ago, it was always busy but generally kept moving. The Chislehurst end seems a bit odd too: it may have changed recently but I often used to see the 160 and 162 in convoy, with no-one on the 160 and the 162 packed.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 12, 2014 20:16:45 GMT
I don't know where those figures are derived from but I'd much rather rely on a Selkent or Metrobus operated service than an AKT one. I also seem to see quite a few AKT buses being hauled by a tow truck To be fair, I've seen many Go-Ahead London & Arriva London vehicles on tow trucks in Brixton so that can't be really used to justify anything about Dartford. Rather than see Dartford fail & close unlike others who probably would be delighted it went, I'd like to see Arriva plough some money into it - not tons but enough to get it to a decent standard. The 160 would probably have to move on (Stagecoach being my preferred destination as they did a good job before), but I'd reckon they could operate the other routes and win a couple of routes that are easier for them to operate reliability. The drivers at DT are a friendly bunch and do a good job and I'd like to see it continue for them - plough some money into the maintenance side and DT could easily improve. I appreciate that all operators suffer breakdowns but it does seem to me that AKT suffer more than most. I am open minded about whether DT should close or not, presumably if it did staff would be redeployed elsewhere, but I've heard suggestions that the whole operation is run on a shoestring buget and that is the impression that I get. Maybe if they gave up the 160 they could manage the 428, 492 and B12,13 and 15 ok?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 12, 2014 20:23:13 GMT
I don't think the diversion via Sangley Road, Sandhurst Road and Verdant Lane helped the 160. Every time I go along Verdant Lane, there seems to be a long tailback towards the South Circular, sometimes as far as Hazelbank Road. When I used to travel to Catford every day via Brownhill Road many moons ago, it was always busy but generally kept moving. The Chislehurst end seems a bit odd too: it may have changed recently but I often used to see the 160 and 162 in convoy, with no-one on the 160 and the 162 packed. I agree about the diversion via Sangley Rd etc to help the 124 out, that route really needs bigger buses but North Downham Estate is the problem there. All it has done is make the 160 slower and leave Brownhill Rd to make do with the 202.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 14, 2014 6:44:00 GMT
Week 1 Day 1: 3983, 3989 on Route 160
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Apr 14, 2014 7:29:33 GMT
I think it def TfL want to get rid of DD on route 160 and will get SD from ex-286 once pass over to London Central.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 14, 2014 8:48:22 GMT
I think it def TfL want to get rid of DD on route 160 and will get SD from ex-286 once pass over to London Central. It's got nothing to do with TfL - Arriva Kent Thameside allocate their buses daily, not TfL.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 14, 2014 9:50:22 GMT
I think it def TfL want to get rid of DD on route 160 and will get SD from ex-286 once pass over to London Central. Where did you get this information from? It would have been single deck operated when last tendered in that case. It does carry quite a bit of school traffic and so needs double deckers.
|
|