|
Post by 15002 on Mar 18, 2019 21:25:01 GMT
Or for frequencies to be the same off-peak. Now I know vjaska is a big fan of a ‘standardised’ network, as it makes it easier to understand. And yes I agree with it too, that’s definitely how it works in most provincial fleets, I haven’t come across any provincial routes that are enhanced in peak times. However in London, there are routes with enhanced peak frequencies. 104, H14 and the 521 I can think of off the top of my head, the latter route increased massively in the peaks and there are a lot more routes than just those three. The fact that the H14 used to be a single deck route, got double decked and with that STILL needs an enhanced peak frequency shows just how much that route must have struggled when it was single decker. Yes I would definitely say routes off peak should have broadly similar frequencies to peak ones, for standardisation purposes, but I don’t think slight off peak-to-peak variances should do too much harm, and save some money in the process. Take for example the 62 as I recently rode it. I’m presuming by Eastlondoner62 ’s username he uses it too quite a lot, so he should probably be able to give an insight too. I rode the 62 at around noon, so off peak, and every single bus I saw on it was absolutely dead. However although I’ve not seen them, I don’t doubt that 62 peak loadings are rather more heavy. So really would a 12 or 15 minute frequency on the 62 off peak really make much difference or the route harder to understand? Although yes there probably is the question of would the saving be pretty much negligible that there’s no point in what I’ve just said. Thoughts please The 62 is used a lot by commuters who need to get to local train stations or school children that need to get to school. It passes or goes close to loads of schools, off the top of my head: Gascoigne Primary, St Margaret's Primary, Eastbury Primary and Secondary, Barking Abbey, Jo Richardson Secondary, Sydney Russell Secondary, Chadwell Heath Academy, St Edwards Academy, The Warren School and I'm sure I've forgotten more Back when it was a single decker route you'd miss bus after bus just attempting to get on. Even when a double decker did turn up it'd often be rammed to the doors and during the school rush they still are. Similar happens with the commuting flow, especially in the mornings as the route is used to link the houses it passes to Barking station, Upney Station, Becontree Station and Chadwell Heath Station. It will probably get worse when/if Crossrail opens properly. However outside the peaks the route can manage with a single decker quite easily, it's mostly just used by people who need to get to the closest Town Centre for errands. Route 173 is similar, although now it's gone DD you'll rarely see a crowded bus. The exception to this is the 368, back when it was an SD route it would only be chronically overloaded when the service was in a state - if it was operating fine it would manage well. However luckily upon Tender TfL future proofed it for Crossrail and the DDs seem to have released a lot of suppressed demand on the route and now like the 62 during the peaks you often find DDs loaded to bursting. I can vouch for the 62 being packed in the mornings. I remember when the 62 used to be my local route going to secondary school, I always used to either go on a really packed bus in the morning or even miss a bus or two due to how packed the bus got. Although I agree it can definitely handle single deckers off peak although having said that, I’m still glad it converted to double deckers back in 2016 368 was twice as worse than the 62 and imo gets way more packed off peak than the 62, don’t think it could handle using single deckers ever again unlike the 62 and even the 173 too.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 18, 2019 21:28:23 GMT
The 62 is used a lot by commuters who need to get to local train stations or school children that need to get to school. It passes or goes close to loads of schools, off the top of my head: Gascoigne Primary, St Margaret's Primary, Eastbury Primary and Secondary, Barking Abbey, Jo Richardson Secondary, Sydney Russell Secondary, Chadwell Heath Academy, St Edwards Academy, The Warren School and I'm sure I've forgotten more Back when it was a single decker route you'd miss bus after bus just attempting to get on. Even when a double decker did turn up it'd often be rammed to the doors and during the school rush they still are. Similar happens with the commuting flow, especially in the mornings as the route is used to link the houses it passes to Barking station, Upney Station, Becontree Station and Chadwell Heath Station. It will probably get worse when/if Crossrail opens properly. However outside the peaks the route can manage with a single decker quite easily, it's mostly just used by people who need to get to the closest Town Centre for errands. Route 173 is similar, although now it's gone DD you'll rarely see a crowded bus. The exception to this is the 368, back when it was an SD route it would only be chronically overloaded when the service was in a state - if it was operating fine it would manage well. However luckily upon Tender TfL future proofed it for Crossrail and the DDs seem to have released a lot of suppressed demand on the route and now like the 62 during the peaks you often find DDs loaded to bursting. I can vouch for the 62 being packed in the mornings. I remember when the 62 used to be my local route going to secondary school, I always used to either go on a really packed bus in the morning or even miss a bus or two due to how packed the bus got. Although I agree it can definitely handle single deckers off peak although having said that, I’m still glad it converted to double deckers back in 2016 368 was twice as worse than the 62 and imo gets way more packed off peak than the 62, don’t think it could handle using single deckers ever again unlike the 62 and even the 173 too. I used to use the 368 commuting to school back in SD days and it wasn't usually overcrowded, if it was it was a result of the gap in the service - which happened all too frequently which probably explains why it looked like a packed route back in SD days. But yeah no way would you be able to use SDs on the 368 or 62 again now. Just shows what happens when you give some routes a little TLC, they actually gain more people using them instead of abandoning them.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Mar 18, 2019 21:39:35 GMT
Or for frequencies to be the same off-peak. Now I know vjaska is a big fan of a ‘standardised’ network, as it makes it easier to understand. And yes I agree with it too, that’s definitely how it works in most provincial fleets, I haven’t come across any provincial routes that are enhanced in peak times. However in London, there are routes with enhanced peak frequencies. 104, H14 and the 521 I can think of off the top of my head, the latter route increased massively in the peaks and there are a lot more routes than just those three. The fact that the H14 used to be a single deck route, got double decked and with that STILL needs an enhanced peak frequency shows just how much that route must have struggled when it was single decker. Yes I would definitely say routes off peak should have broadly similar frequencies to peak ones, for standardisation purposes, but I don’t think slight off peak-to-peak variances should do too much harm, and save some money in the process. Take for example the 62 as I recently rode it. I’m presuming by Eastlondoner62 ’s username he uses it too quite a lot, so he should probably be able to give an insight too. I rode the 62 at around noon, so off peak, and every single bus I saw on it was absolutely dead. However although I’ve not seen them, I don’t doubt that 62 peak loadings are rather more heavy. So really would a 12 or 15 minute frequency on the 62 off peak really make much difference or the route harder to understand? Although yes there probably is the question of would the saving be pretty much negligible that there’s no point in what I’ve just said. Thoughts please The 62 is used a lot by commuters who need to get to local train stations or school children that need to get to school. It passes or goes close to loads of schools, off the top of my head: Gascoigne Primary, St Margaret's Primary, Eastbury Primary and Secondary, Barking Abbey, Jo Richardson Secondary, Sydney Russell Secondary, Chadwell Heath Academy, St Edwards Academy, The Warren School and I'm sure I've forgotten more Back when it was a single decker route you'd miss bus after bus just attempting to get on. Even when a double decker did turn up it'd often be rammed to the doors and during the school rush they still are. Similar happens with the commuting flow, especially in the mornings as the route is used to link the houses it passes to Barking station, Upney Station, Becontree Station and Chadwell Heath Station. It will probably get worse when/if Crossrail opens properly. However outside the peaks the route can manage with a single decker quite easily, it's mostly just used by people who need to get to the closest Town Centre for errands. Route 173 is similar, although now it's gone DD you'll rarely see a crowded bus. The exception to this is the 368, back when it was an SD route it would only be chronically overloaded when the service was in a state - if it was operating fine it would manage well. However luckily upon Tender TfL future proofed it for Crossrail and the DDs seem to have released a lot of suppressed demand on the route and now like the 62 during the peaks you often find DDs loaded to bursting. Yes I can definitely see what you’ve said being the case. I presume judging by what you’ve just said the 62 still had decker workings even when it was officially single decker ran? Occasional DDs on a single deck route would be rammed from so many people getting left behind, obviously mow being run fully with deckers the loads should be spread more evenly as people hopefully don’t get left behind so much. Yes I heard that about the 368, now the service is decked and ran far more reliably under Arriva, it’s obviously been seen as far more attractive by people so much so double deckers are now full up in the peaks despite being single decked before. The 62 and 368 are very similar routes too, only having very few areas where the two routes aren’t running together. The 173 is definitely an oddity. On said say I rode the 62, I very deliberately boarded a 173 at around 7:50am to see how crowded it gets in its ‘busiest’ time (as I had read on here before about 173 loadings being light the majority of the time) and I have to say no oncoming 173s were very busy at all. It’s actually hard to see why it was decked in the first place, but I presume it’s to do with the Dagenham corridor where the 174 and 175 parallel it as I can imagine demand being very heavy along that road due to the nearby school(s) (certainly got that impression at the 175 I boarded at Dagenham heatheay station was rammed to the rafters with mostly school children), so if either of the 174/5 doesn’t turn up the 173 probably bears the brunt of it. Having said that 173 is doing very well now with its double deckers, it’s one of those rare routes where patronage is increasing significantly (and has done) every single year, so definitely expect the 173 to be considerably busier than now in a few years time EDIT: the 173’s increasing yearly loadings is definitely testament to what you said in the post immediately above this, the routes been given TLC and some investment and now more people are using it. The route is now carrying half a million more people a year now with DDs than what it did with SDs, so even that route would probably now struggle hugely with SDs. And besides, reversing it back to SD would undoubtedly damage its promising growth.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 18, 2019 21:48:06 GMT
The 62 is used a lot by commuters who need to get to local train stations or school children that need to get to school. It passes or goes close to loads of schools, off the top of my head: Gascoigne Primary, St Margaret's Primary, Eastbury Primary and Secondary, Barking Abbey, Jo Richardson Secondary, Sydney Russell Secondary, Chadwell Heath Academy, St Edwards Academy, The Warren School and I'm sure I've forgotten more Back when it was a single decker route you'd miss bus after bus just attempting to get on. Even when a double decker did turn up it'd often be rammed to the doors and during the school rush they still are. Similar happens with the commuting flow, especially in the mornings as the route is used to link the houses it passes to Barking station, Upney Station, Becontree Station and Chadwell Heath Station. It will probably get worse when/if Crossrail opens properly. However outside the peaks the route can manage with a single decker quite easily, it's mostly just used by people who need to get to the closest Town Centre for errands. Route 173 is similar, although now it's gone DD you'll rarely see a crowded bus. The exception to this is the 368, back when it was an SD route it would only be chronically overloaded when the service was in a state - if it was operating fine it would manage well. However luckily upon Tender TfL future proofed it for Crossrail and the DDs seem to have released a lot of suppressed demand on the route and now like the 62 during the peaks you often find DDs loaded to bursting. Yes I can definitely see what you’ve said being the case. I presume judging by what you’ve just said the 62 still had decker workings even when it was officially single decker ran? Occasional DDs on a single deck route would be rammed from so many people getting left behind, obviously mow being run fully with deckers the loads should be spread more evenly as people hopefully don’t get left behind so much. Yes I heard that about the 368, now the service is decked and ran far more reliably under Arriva, it’s obviously been seen as far more attractive by people so much so double deckers are now full up in the peaks despite being single decked before. The 62 and 368 are very similar routes too, only having very few areas where the two routes aren’t running together. The 173 is definitely an oddity. On said say I rode the 62, I very deliberately boarded a 173 at around 7:50am to see how crowded it gets in its ‘busiest’ time (as I had read on here before about 173 loadings being light the majority of the time) and I have to say no oncoming 173s were very busy at all. It’s actually hard to see why it was decked in the first place, but I presume it’s to do with the Dagenham corridor where the 174 and 175 parallel it as I can imagine demand very heavy along that road due to the nearby school(s) (certainly got that impression at the 175 I boarded at Dagenham heatheay station was rammed to the rafters with mostly school children), so if either of the 174/5 doesn’t turn up the 173 probably bears the brunt of it. Having said that 173 is doing very well now with its double deckers, it’s one of those rare routes where patronage is increasing significantly (and has done) every single year, so definitely expect the 173 to be considerably busier than now in a few years time EDIT: the 173’s increasing yearly loadings is definitely testament to what you said in the post immediately above this, the routes been given TLC and some investment and now more people are using it. The route is now carrying half a million more people a year now with DDs than what it did with SDs, so even that route would probably now struggle hugely with SDs. And besides, reversing it back to SD would undoubtedly damage its promising growth. The last route specification for the 173 didn't actually specify Double Deckers, however it did specify an increase to 10.8m Single Deckers londonbuses.co.uk/Tender-specs/173.pdfThat seems to me like at that time it would have been sufficient enough, at risk of sounding like parrot it can certainly not go back to using Single Deckers again, no matter how much DX seem to insist on that route using them!
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Mar 18, 2019 21:50:53 GMT
Yes I can definitely see what you’ve said being the case. I presume judging by what you’ve just said the 62 still had decker workings even when it was officially single decker ran? Occasional DDs on a single deck route would be rammed from so many people getting left behind, obviously mow being run fully with deckers the loads should be spread more evenly as people hopefully don’t get left behind so much. Yes I heard that about the 368, now the service is decked and ran far more reliably under Arriva, it’s obviously been seen as far more attractive by people so much so double deckers are now full up in the peaks despite being single decked before. The 62 and 368 are very similar routes too, only having very few areas where the two routes aren’t running together. The 173 is definitely an oddity. On said say I rode the 62, I very deliberately boarded a 173 at around 7:50am to see how crowded it gets in its ‘busiest’ time (as I had read on here before about 173 loadings being light the majority of the time) and I have to say no oncoming 173s were very busy at all. It’s actually hard to see why it was decked in the first place, but I presume it’s to do with the Dagenham corridor where the 174 and 175 parallel it as I can imagine demand very heavy along that road due to the nearby school(s) (certainly got that impression at the 175 I boarded at Dagenham heatheay station was rammed to the rafters with mostly school children), so if either of the 174/5 doesn’t turn up the 173 probably bears the brunt of it. Having said that 173 is doing very well now with its double deckers, it’s one of those rare routes where patronage is increasing significantly (and has done) every single year, so definitely expect the 173 to be considerably busier than now in a few years time EDIT: the 173’s increasing yearly loadings is definitely testament to what you said in the post immediately above this, the routes been given TLC and some investment and now more people are using it. The route is now carrying half a million more people a year now with DDs than what it did with SDs, so even that route would probably now struggle hugely with SDs. And besides, reversing it back to SD would undoubtedly damage its promising growth. The last route specification for the 173 didn't actually specify Double Deckers, however it did specify an increase to 10.8m Single Deckers londonbuses.co.uk/Tender-specs/173.pdfThat seems to me like at that time it would have been sufficient enough, at risk of sounding like parrot it can certainly not go back to using Single Deckers again, no matter how much DX seem to insist on that route using them! I wonder why it got decked then if SDs were specified. Maybe to do with Arriva being able to use existing stock on it, hence giving a cheaper bid rather than sourcing new single deckers which would have probably made the tender more expensive? That discovery has stumped me slightly lol
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Mar 18, 2019 22:02:33 GMT
I can vouch for the 62 being packed in the mornings. I remember when the 62 used to be my local route going to secondary school, I always used to either go on a really packed bus in the morning or even miss a bus or two due to how packed the bus got. Although I agree it can definitely handle single deckers off peak although having said that, I’m still glad it converted to double deckers back in 2016 368 was twice as worse than the 62 and imo gets way more packed off peak than the 62, don’t think it could handle using single deckers ever again unlike the 62 and even the 173 too. I used to use the 368 commuting to school back in SD days and it wasn't usually overcrowded, if it was it was a result of the gap in the service - which happened all too frequently which probably explains why it looked like a packed route back in SD days. But yeah no way would you be able to use SDs on the 368 or 62 again now. Just shows what happens when you give some routes a little TLC, they actually gain more people using them instead of abandoning them. Has there been a considerable increase in housing stock along, or near to, the 173 which might help explain the successive hikes in usage?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 18, 2019 22:07:40 GMT
I used to use the 368 commuting to school back in SD days and it wasn't usually overcrowded, if it was it was a result of the gap in the service - which happened all too frequently which probably explains why it looked like a packed route back in SD days. But yeah no way would you be able to use SDs on the 368 or 62 again now. Just shows what happens when you give some routes a little TLC, they actually gain more people using them instead of abandoning them. Has there been a considerable increase in housing stock along, or near to, the 173 which might help explain the successive hikes in usage? Most of the houses on the 173 have been established for many years, however Barking Riverside is just around the corner from the A13s Movers Lane exit.
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Mar 19, 2019 18:00:49 GMT
Is route 388 still expected to get a frequency reduction because in the TfL bus changes document it does not say as I have seen it is expected to get on to cover Route 20 when it goes to CT Plus. Can anyone tell me why it is not in the document
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 19, 2019 18:41:08 GMT
Is route 388 still expected to get a frequency reduction because in the TfL bus changes document it does not say as I have seen it is expected to get on to cover Route 20 when it goes to CT Plus. Can anyone tell me why it is not in the document When is the document ever accurate? The 388 will receive a cut - londonbusroutes mentions it’s because of 20mph limits introduced.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Mar 19, 2019 22:00:39 GMT
Is route 388 still expected to get a frequency reduction because in the TfL bus changes document it does not say as I have seen it is expected to get on to cover Route 20 when it goes to CT Plus. Can anyone tell me why it is not in the document It’s been taken out!!!! It definitely was in there because I recently made a thing of it just saying ‘We’re changing the frequency’ without a reason. I wonder why they did that ...
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Mar 19, 2019 23:03:06 GMT
Is route 388 still expected to get a frequency reduction because in the TfL bus changes document it does not say as I have seen it is expected to get on to cover Route 20 when it goes to CT Plus. Can anyone tell me why it is not in the document It’s been taken out!!!! It definitely was in there because I recently made a thing of it just saying ‘We’re changing the frequency’ without a reason. I wonder why they did that ... Associated changes in connection with the 48 withdrawal proposal?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 19, 2019 23:13:52 GMT
It’s been taken out!!!! It definitely was in there because I recently made a thing of it just saying ‘We’re changing the frequency’ without a reason. I wonder why they did that ... Associated changes in connection with the 48 withdrawal proposal? This brings up the question on what on earth the 20 will use, seems very late in the day to go backwards on this.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 19, 2019 23:49:10 GMT
Is route 388 still expected to get a frequency reduction because in the TfL bus changes document it does not say as I have seen it is expected to get on to cover Route 20 when it goes to CT Plus. Can anyone tell me why it is not in the document It’s been taken out!!!! It definitely was in there because I recently made a thing of it just saying ‘We’re changing the frequency’ without a reason. I wonder why they did that ... Because it is part of the Central London bus consultation. TfL have not published the result of this consultation so cutting services, albeit just frequencies at this point, is a tad premature. Don't be shocked to see an interim announcement sneaked out on Thursday or Friday saying TfL confirm the 388's frequency reduction with some supporting stats to justify their decision even though it's a fait accompli - unless CT Plus's take up of the 20 has been postponed because TfL can't get a consultation result published. CT Plus won't be able to run route 20 unless some deckers are released within their fleet OR they have to hire some vehicles from somewhere to fill the gap until the 388's frequency can be cut to release the vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 20, 2019 0:38:14 GMT
Associated changes in connection with the 48 withdrawal proposal? This brings up the question on what on earth the 20 will use, seems very late in the day to go backwards on this. londonbusroutes is still showing the change as of now: "Temporary timetable withdrawn and new timetable introduced to improve reliability following introduction of 20mph speed limits along the route, with Monday to Saturday daytime service reduced to every 12 minutes. PVR changed to 16"
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 20, 2019 4:29:31 GMT
It’s been taken out!!!! It definitely was in there because I recently made a thing of it just saying ‘We’re changing the frequency’ without a reason. I wonder why they did that ... Because it is part of the Central London bus consultation. TfL have not published the result of this consultation so cutting services, albeit just frequencies at this point, is a tad premature. Don't be shocked to see an interim announcement sneaked out on Thursday or Friday saying TfL confirm the 388's frequency reduction with some supporting stats to justify their decision even though it's a fait accompli - unless CT Plus's take up of the 20 has been postponed because TfL can't get a consultation result published. CT Plus won't be able to run route 20 unless some deckers are released within their fleet OR they have to hire some vehicles from somewhere to fill the gap until the 388's frequency can be cut to release the vehicles. The fortnightly bus changes document (according to preamble) covers permanent frequency changes, but not change of Operator, not change of timetable (except school route timetables), not new buses. So TfL can weasel out of it by having undeclared “temporary” frequency changes or permanent timetable changes. Not really what enthusiasts want to here, and not really in the spirit of having the notice of changes. But TfL seem to do their own thing and there is no effective regulator clamping down. The new buses may be parked somewhere secure, so wouldn’t read too much into fact not been seen out and about, don’t need one of the identical new batch to familiarise drivers, and route learning could be in another vehicle. Be interesting to see what announcements (more likely to be quietly updating) happens
|
|