London Bus Route 62

[Eastlondoner62]

I think I have had enough of this   This route seriously needs a capacity upgrade, and now seeing as the Schools are starting again the problem is going to get worse. Considering that this route has one scheduled Double Deck working, but it's pretty normal to see the Double Deck working stick on the route for the whole day and it's also normal to see up to 4 DDs on the route in one day. I don't see why they can't convert the route to DD operation. Looking at some data the 62 is actually more used than quite a handful of other routes which use Double Deckers some being the 26, 388, 61, 66, 370, 372, 160, 492, 387, 287, 275, 460, 474, 241, 240, 415, 127, 125, 269, 107, 340, 330, 99, D7, 154, 175, 498,   etc

I have tried complaining to TFL, but all I get is one of their famous Templated responses saying that they will investigate it when the contract comes up for renewal. I really hope they do something about this route, considering they have converted routes such as the 372, 370, 66, 129.

[vjaska]

Sept 1, 2014 12:52:31 GMT Eastlondoner62 said:

I think I have had enough of this   This route seriously needs a capacity upgrade, and now seeing as the Schools are starting again the problem is going to get worse. Considering that this route has one scheduled Double Deck working, but it's pretty normal to see the Double Deck working stick on the route for the whole day and it's also normal to see up to 4 DDs on the route in one day. I don't see why they can't convert the route to DD operation. Looking at some data the 62 is actually more used than quite a handful of other routes which use Double Deckers some being the 26, 388, 61, 66, 370, 372, 160, 492, 387, 287, 275, 460, 474, 241, 240, 415, 127, 125, 269, 107, 340, 330, 99, D7, 154, 175, 498,   etc

I have tried complaining to TFL, but all I get is one of their famous Templated responses saying that they will investigate it when the contract comes up for renewal. I really hope they do something about this route, considering they have converted routes such as the 372, 370, 66, 129.

It's all about money I'm afraid. It would of been nice if TfL's budget wasn't wasted on the NBfL and extra cycle provisions and used instead to convert busy single decker routes to double decker operation. I know that decking the 62 wouldn't benefit me but it certainly would bring more benefits to the people who use it than the NBfL has brought.

I will say though, the 66 & 370 do deserve to be decker routes as from experience and my observations, both routes can get busy - the 129 is a temporary conversion and was done because of a lack of spare single deckers but again, it is a busy route.

[Eastlondoner62]

Sept 1, 2014 13:22:22 GMT vjaska said:

Sept 1, 2014 12:52:31 GMT Eastlondoner62 said:

I think I have had enough of this   This route seriously needs a capacity upgrade, and now seeing as the Schools are starting again the problem is going to get worse. Considering that this route has one scheduled Double Deck working, but it's pretty normal to see the Double Deck working stick on the route for the whole day and it's also normal to see up to 4 DDs on the route in one day. I don't see why they can't convert the route to DD operation. Looking at some data the 62 is actually more used than quite a handful of other routes which use Double Deckers some being the 26, 388, 61, 66, 370, 372, 160, 492, 387, 287, 275, 460, 474, 241, 240, 415, 127, 125, 269, 107, 340, 330, 99, D7, 154, 175, 498,   etc

I have tried complaining to TFL, but all I get is one of their famous Templated responses saying that they will investigate it when the contract comes up for renewal. I really hope they do something about this route, considering they have converted routes such as the 372, 370, 66, 129.

It's all about money I'm afraid. It would of been nice if TfL's budget wasn't wasted on the NBfL and extra cycle provisions and used instead to convert busy single decker routes to double decker operation. I know that decking the 62 wouldn't benefit me but it certainly would bring more benefits to the people who use it than the NBfL has brought.

I will say though, the 66 & 370 do deserve to be decker routes as from experience and my observations, both routes can get busy - the 129 is a temporary conversion and was done because of a lack of spare single deckers but again, it is a busy route.

The Scanias on the 177 are going to be homeless at the end of this year, maybe some could go BK. Or maybe go to WH to displace some E40Ds to BK

[sid]

Sept 1, 2014 13:22:22 GMT vjaska said:

Sept 1, 2014 12:52:31 GMT Eastlondoner62 said:

I think I have had enough of this   This route seriously needs a capacity upgrade, and now seeing as the Schools are starting again the problem is going to get worse. Considering that this route has one scheduled Double Deck working, but it's pretty normal to see the Double Deck working stick on the route for the whole day and it's also normal to see up to 4 DDs on the route in one day. I don't see why they can't convert the route to DD operation. Looking at some data the 62 is actually more used than quite a handful of other routes which use Double Deckers some being the 26, 388, 61, 66, 370, 372, 160, 492, 387, 287, 275, 460, 474, 241, 240, 415, 127, 125, 269, 107, 340, 330, 99, D7, 154, 175, 498,   etc

I have tried complaining to TFL, but all I get is one of their famous Templated responses saying that they will investigate it when the contract comes up for renewal. I really hope they do something about this route, considering they have converted routes such as the 372, 370, 66, 129.

It's all about money I'm afraid. It would of been nice if TfL's budget wasn't wasted on the NBfL and extra cycle provisions and used instead to convert busy single decker routes to double decker operation. I know that decking the 62 wouldn't benefit me but it certainly would bring more benefits to the people who use it than the NBfL has brought.

I will say though, the 66 & 370 do deserve to be decker routes as from experience and my observations, both routes can get busy - the 129 is a temporary conversion and was done because of a lack of spare single deckers but again, it is a busy route.

Its not about money its about TFL knowing best! The 62 is one of a few routes that need double deckers and the NBFL has been done ad nauseam

[snoggle]

Sept 1, 2014 13:59:45 GMT sid said:

Sept 1, 2014 13:22:22 GMT vjaska said:

It's all about money I'm afraid. It would of been nice if TfL's budget wasn't wasted on the NBfL and extra cycle provisions and used instead to convert busy single decker routes to double decker operation. I know that decking the 62 wouldn't benefit me but it certainly would bring more benefits to the people who use it than the NBfL has brought.

I will say though, the 66 & 370 do deserve to be decker routes as from experience and my observations, both routes can get busy - the 129 is a temporary conversion and was done because of a lack of spare single deckers but again, it is a busy route.

Its not about money its about TFL knowing best! The 62 is one of a few routes that need double deckers and the NBFL has been done ad nauseam

So Stagecoach can run the route with double deckers for the same amount of money as single deckers despite double deckers being heavier and using more fuel? Of course it is about money - both Stagecoach wanting to be properly remunerated for running a higher capacity service that costs more to run and TfL being clear they have the budget to pay the extra costs. Nothing comes for free.

The OP should contact his London Assembly member and send in a relevant Mayor's Question about the route - any constituent can do that. That would force TfL (who write the responses on transport questions) to provide a response and then we can see if they are considering route 62 for double decking or not.

[sid]

Sept 1, 2014 15:34:35 GMT snoggle said:

Sept 1, 2014 13:59:45 GMT sid said:

Its not about money its about TFL knowing best! The 62 is one of a few routes that need double deckers and the NBFL has been done ad nauseam

So Stagecoach can run the route with double deckers for the same amount of money as single deckers despite double deckers being heavier and using more fuel? Of course it is about money - both Stagecoach wanting to be properly remunerated for running a higher capacity service that costs more to run and TfL being clear they have the budget to pay the extra costs. Nothing comes for free.

The OP should contact his London Assembly member and send in a relevant Mayor's Question about the route - any constituent can do that. That would force TfL (who write the responses on transport questions) to provide a response and then we can see if they are considering route 62 for double decking or not.

Stagecoach do run a few double deckers now, if the whole route was upgraded the cost of extra fuel would be peanuts to TFL

[ThinLizzy]

Sept 1, 2014 15:52:32 GMT sid said:

Sept 1, 2014 15:34:35 GMT snoggle said:

So Stagecoach can run the route with double deckers for the same amount of money as single deckers despite double deckers being heavier and using more fuel? Of course it is about money - both Stagecoach wanting to be properly remunerated for running a higher capacity service that costs more to run and TfL being clear they have the budget to pay the extra costs. Nothing comes for free.

The OP should contact his London Assembly member and send in a relevant Mayor's Question about the route - any constituent can do that. That would force TfL (who write the responses on transport questions) to provide a response and then we can see if they are considering route 62 for double decking or not.

Stagecoach do run a few double deckers now, if the whole route was upgraded the cost of extra fuel would be peanuts to TFL

DDs only run on the route to ensure there's enough single decks available for the 366. I'm sure that if the Versas were more reliable and didn't spend so much time parked up in the yard at BK then there would be less DDs on the 62. As a regular user of the 62, I'd suggest the single decks seem fine most of the time- I've never been left behind at my regular stop when waiting for a 62, at all different times of the day. 

At the end of the day, it is all about money, money which TfL doesn't have to burn any more. I'm sure there was a more substantial business case for converting the 66, 287, 370 and 372 to double deck operation particularly with regards to off-peak travel patterns. Additionally, unlike the routes you listed previously, the 62 has the District Line for support at Becontree, Upney and Barking along with other bus routes along the majority of its length serving the same areas. 

[snoggle]

Sept 1, 2014 15:52:32 GMT sid said:

Sept 1, 2014 15:34:35 GMT snoggle said:

So Stagecoach can run the route with double deckers for the same amount of money as single deckers despite double deckers being heavier and using more fuel? Of course it is about money - both Stagecoach wanting to be properly remunerated for running a higher capacity service that costs more to run and TfL being clear they have the budget to pay the extra costs. Nothing comes for free.

The OP should contact his London Assembly member and send in a relevant Mayor's Question about the route - any constituent can do that. That would force TfL (who write the responses on transport questions) to provide a response and then we can see if they are considering route 62 for double decking or not.

Stagecoach do run a few double deckers now, if the whole route was upgraded the cost of extra fuel would be peanuts to TFL

And you know that how? Do you work in Stagecoach's commercial department?

The point, as I am sure you appreciate, is that there is an existing contract with an existing cost. It funds 1 double deck on the 62. I assume Stagecoach carry the extra cost of sometimes running others on the basis that a DD is better than not running any bus. The extra cost is presumably less than the penalty of not having a single deck run. That's rational behaviour. However a full scale conversion may require a new schedule as dwell times may increase and DDs *do* use more fuel. Therefore Stagecoach (or anyone else) would want to recost the route and TfL would have to agree to a variation. That's the system we have. As we have seen before conversions and cascades are not necessarily straightforward and there are all sorts of issues as to whether buses are available, are affordable if leased and also if TfL will even allow them to be run (pressure to get rid of older poorer euro spec vehicles).

I don't doubt for a second that the 62 is very busy - I've seen some of the territory it serves when riding on other routes in the area. However I expect TfL have a very long list of demands for conversions. Looking at my spreadsheet of patronage and capacity (with all its limitations!) then the 62 is certainly a potential candidate for a conversion as it only has a tiny positive margin of capacity exceeding patronage (on an annual basis). A reasonable working back of those annual numbers would lead you to conclude that there is a very high possibility that severe overcrowding will occur on journeys at busy times. TfL will have the boarding info by stop from the Oyster data plus the running time info from I-Bus so will know what's going on with heavy loadings and long dwell times.

[sid]

This forum is a place to bat a few ideas about, I don't think an in depth analysis of TFL finances is really needed.

Another idea for the 62 is to reroute it at Chadwell Heath to Romford, a useful new link and also helps the 86, and extend the 368 to Marks Gate and if we're really pushing the boat out onward to Collier Row and maybe even Harold Hill?

[Eastlondoner62]

Sept 1, 2014 16:52:38 GMT sid said:

This forum is a place to bat a few ideas about, I don't think an in depth analysis of TFL finances is really needed.

Another idea for the 62 is to reroute it at Chadwell Heath to Romford, a useful new link and also helps the 86, and extend the 368 to Marks Gate and if we're really pushing the boat out onward to Collier Row and maybe even Harold Hill?

Although I have dreamed of this change for years, this will certainly require a lot of shuffling that TFL isn't probably worried about. It's normal for the 62 to severely overcrowd at Martins Corner where it crosses the 5 as you have quite a few schools around that area and it's normal for people at the stop to expect being left behind. 

[Deleted]

Sept 1, 2014 13:26:36 GMT Eastlondoner62 said:

Sept 1, 2014 13:22:22 GMT vjaska said:

It's all about money I'm afraid. It would of been nice if TfL's budget wasn't wasted on the NBfL and extra cycle provisions and used instead to convert busy single decker routes to double decker operation. I know that decking the 62 wouldn't benefit me but it certainly would bring more benefits to the people who use it than the NBfL has brought.

I will say though, the 66 & 370 do deserve to be decker routes as from experience and my observations, both routes can get busy - the 129 is a temporary conversion and was done because of a lack of spare single deckers but again, it is a busy route.

The Scanias on the 177 are going to be homeless at the end of this year, maybe some could go BK. Or maybe go to WH to displace some E40Ds to BK

Why remove the E400s from WH which are contracted for routes 104,158,238??  

[Deleted]

Sept 1, 2014 12:52:31 GMT Eastlondoner62 said:

I think I have had enough of this   This route seriously needs a capacity upgrade, and now seeing as the Schools are starting again the problem is going to get worse. Considering that this route has one scheduled Double Deck working, but it's pretty normal to see the Double Deck working stick on the route for the whole day and it's also normal to see up to 4 DDs on the route in one day. I don't see why they can't convert the route to DD operation. Looking at some data the 62 is actually more used than quite a handful of other routes which use Double Deckers some being the 26, 388, 61, 66, 370, 372, 160, 492, 387, 287, 275, 460, 474, 241, 240, 415, 127, 125, 269, 107, 340, 330, 99, D7, 154, 175, 498,   etc

I have tried complaining to TFL, but all I get is one of their famous Templated responses saying that they will investigate it when the contract comes up for renewal. I really hope they do something about this route, considering they have converted routes such as the 372, 370, 66, 129.

I am shocked the 26 is mentioned, I would assume being a Central London route it would carry a good load. The 241 I do agree could managed with Single Deckers.


I am surprised the 541 is run using DD when it could easily use SD.   But then I spouse Crossrail are paying so TFL don't care. 

[snoggle]

Sept 1, 2014 16:52:38 GMT sid said:

This forum is a place to bat a few ideas about, I don't think an in depth analysis of TFL finances is really needed.

Another idea for the 62 is to reroute it at Chadwell Heath to Romford, a useful new link and also helps the 86, and extend the 368 to Marks Gate and if we're really pushing the boat out onward to Collier Row and maybe even Harold Hill?

You're the person who suggested TfL could easily afford it. I was merely responding to that and pointing out that life is more complex than TfL just shelling out pound notes on a whim to run some double deckers. And now we have some costly ideas without any apparent justification being "batted around". I expect routes in and around Chadwell Heath are all in scope of TfL's review of services in connection with Crossrail coming in 2018.

I can do an in depth of TfL's finances if you would like one. I can assure you that what I wrote before is in no way such an analysis and I'll write what I wish to in response to your posts. The moderators can decide if they like it or not.

[snoggle]

Sept 1, 2014 19:49:18 GMT @dan said:

I am shocked the 26 is mentioned, I would assume being a Central London route it would carry a good load. The 241 I do agree could managed with Single Deckers.

I am surprised the 541 is run using DD when it could easily use SD.   But then I spouse Crossrail are paying so TFL don't care. 

The 26 has had virtually no growth over 13 years. Patronage has fluctuated but the figure for last year is only 6,108 more than the number in 1999/2000. I suspect the 55 has taken the brunt of whatever growth there has been in South Hackney plus the growth of cycling in Hackney will have depressed patronage.

[snoggle]

I see from Londonbusroutes.net that the 62 gets a new timetable for reliability and a couple of extra peak jnys from next Monday. Basic frequency is unchanged though.