|
Post by george on Nov 12, 2019 21:09:18 GMT
do you have a source by any chance? The link provided by snowman is the source To be honest thought it was strange people on here saying it was permanent when all Tfl pages were saying it's temporary.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Nov 12, 2019 21:13:13 GMT
TfL have now added the details of 18 cut (TfL describe it as timetable change), seems no change to AM or PM peak service (so I can’t see why PVR would change as the P is peak) And change to N277..... for one night only. (Why this is in permanent changes list is beyond me) tfl.gov.uk/modes/buses/permanent-bus-changesComparing the current and new timetables on londonbusroutes.net, there certainly is a change to the peak frequencies, especially in the pm when the route will run x5 mins instead of x4 mins. The am peak service is still x4 mins towards Euston, but mostly x5 mins towards Sudbury (with a few shorter intervals). How TfL can call this "no change" I don't know. I wonder if they’re banking on people not noticing. Not that that makes it right as it is very misleading. The 18 is very lucky in the sense that its frequency is so huge a small reduction from every x4 min to every x5 min will barely be noticeable, probably won’t be at all tbh. Probably the same in the peaks. What will be noticeable though is how many more people will be squeezed onto the buses in the peaks as multiple vehicles of 70-seats will be replaced by air, dispersing those people that would have been on them to the fewer buses that still are.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 12, 2019 22:20:54 GMT
The link provided by snowman is the source To be honest thought it was strange people on here saying it was permanent when all Tfl pages were saying it's temporary. The source who said it was permanent has been right on a number of things in the past - to be fair, no one can ever have a 100% success rate
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 13, 2019 6:01:31 GMT
Looks like the 159 cut wasnt permanent after all as its returning to Marble Arch next week. A few more changes were added during the evening Various routes returned to normal in Westminster area due to roadworks finishing Number of cross border Surrey routes in Kingston area getting amended timetables tfl.gov.uk/modes/buses/permanent-bus-changes
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 13, 2019 16:13:02 GMT
Looks like the 159 cut wasnt permanent after all as its returning to Marble Arch next week. I do remember TFL stating it wasn’t permanent. It is funny the 148 is still terminating at Shepherds Bush, I don’t remember any Consultation being released about that cut being permanent.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 13, 2019 21:10:20 GMT
To be honest thought it was strange people on here saying it was permanent when all Tfl pages were saying it's temporary. The source who said it was permanent has been right on a number of things in the past - to be fair, no one can ever have a 100% success rate I mean it wouldn’t surprise me, TfL did use this skulduggery for the 8 and 15 cutbacks, cut them back temporarily, let demand die off then consult on a permanent cutback. I’m glad the 159 is returning though as the 94 is struggling as the sole Regent Street-Oxford Street link, at least the 159 can help to mop up some of that demand.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 13, 2019 21:23:14 GMT
Who knows if the 94 will survive anyways now with it suggested Oxford Street will drop to only 4 routes.
|
|
|
Post by george on Nov 13, 2019 21:27:32 GMT
Who knows if the 94 will survive anyways now with it suggested Oxford Street will drop to only 4 routes. The 94 needs to keep serving oxford street, one of the busiest routes on the street. Obviously the powers that be will make will have the final say.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Nov 13, 2019 21:37:15 GMT
Who knows if the 94 will survive anyways now with it suggested Oxford Street will drop to only 4 routes. I can’t remember who it was who said this but I agree with the point that it’d be very stupid to cut an electric double deck route from the area they’re trying hardest to lower emissions. Mind you if so many of their questionable decisions in the past has anything to go by... But for me the fact electrics have been ordered and the quantity is quite telling the 94 will remain as is imo. Electric buses are like concrete if you like once you set them up where you want them there’s no going back lol. Not without significant difficulty anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 13, 2019 21:39:56 GMT
Who knows if the 94 will survive anyways now with it suggested Oxford Street will drop to only 4 routes. I can’t remember who it was who said this but I agree with the point that it’d be very stupid to cut an electric double deck route from the area they’re trying hardest to lower emissions. Mind you if so many of their questionable decisions in the past has anything to go by... But for me the fact electrics have been ordered and the quantity is quite telling the 94 will remain as is imo. Electric buses are like concrete if you like once you set them up where you want them there’s no going back lol. Not without significant difficulty anyway. TfL consulted on it a while back, they already came to a decision about the 4 routes that will remain.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 13, 2019 21:46:52 GMT
I can’t remember who it was who said this but I agree with the point that it’d be very stupid to cut an electric double deck route from the area they’re trying hardest to lower emissions. Mind you if so many of their questionable decisions in the past has anything to go by... But for me the fact electrics have been ordered and the quantity is quite telling the 94 will remain as is imo. Electric buses are like concrete if you like once you set them up where you want them there’s no going back lol. Not without significant difficulty anyway. TfL consulted on it a while back, they already came to a decision about the 4 routes that will remain. In the Crossrail West London consultation, TfL said the 427 was to be cutback yet it’s been saved for now judging by the order of new smarts for the 278. I think the 94 is still at risk, but the risk has been reduced. The big hurdle was the start of the new contract, when you would have expected less electrics to be ordered for the route, but instead, 29 buses have been ordered - 94 has a PVR of 25. I would have thought the cutback could have gone ahead to release buses for the 306 bus now they’re coming from the 18 instead. The 94 has survived this major hurdle so can breathe a sigh of relief, of course TfL could still cut the route back in future, but it seems illogical to do so now 29 BYDs have been ordered for the route and will be in service. Contract renewal date was a huge opportunity to cut back the 94, the golden opportunity to cut it back yet it was squandered.
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Nov 13, 2019 21:49:42 GMT
I can’t remember who it was who said this but I agree with the point that it’d be very stupid to cut an electric double deck route from the area they’re trying hardest to lower emissions. Mind you if so many of their questionable decisions in the past has anything to go by... But for me the fact electrics have been ordered and the quantity is quite telling the 94 will remain as is imo. Electric buses are like concrete if you like once you set them up where you want them there’s no going back lol. Not without significant difficulty anyway. TfL consulted on it a while back, they already came to a decision about the 4 routes that will remain. Good luck for any cutbacks for the 94 to Marble Arch to actually happen as Westminster Council are involved in creating the new stand for the 94 in Marble Arch and it is the same group of people who have dropped the plans to pedestrianise Oxford Street
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Nov 13, 2019 21:49:57 GMT
I can’t remember who it was who said this but I agree with the point that it’d be very stupid to cut an electric double deck route from the area they’re trying hardest to lower emissions. Mind you if so many of their questionable decisions in the past has anything to go by... But for me the fact electrics have been ordered and the quantity is quite telling the 94 will remain as is imo. Electric buses are like concrete if you like once you set them up where you want them there’s no going back lol. Not without significant difficulty anyway. TfL consulted on it a while back, they already came to a decision about the 4 routes that will remain. Obviously not my decision this but I think the 7 should be curtailed at Marble Arch over the 94. The 94 runs much further beyond Oxford Street than the 7. Do you think if that was still their intention to trim the 94 back to MA, they would have done an H37 or 440 and ordered the appropriate amount of buses for the new PVR? Especially for buses that can’t just be easily transferred somewhere else if there becomes a surplus. That’s the bit I can’t get over. Anyway time will tell
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 13, 2019 22:00:05 GMT
TfL consulted on it a while back, they already came to a decision about the 4 routes that will remain. Obviously not my decision this but I think the 7 should be curtailed at Marble Arch over the 94. The 94 runs much further beyond Oxford Street than the 7. Do you think if that was still their intention to trim the 94 back to MA, they would have done an H37 or 440 and ordered the appropriate amount of buses for the new PVR? Especially for buses that can’t just be easily transferred somewhere else if there becomes a surplus. That’s the bit I can’t get over. Anyway time will tell Couldn’t agree more, keeping the 7 to only go as far as Oxford Circus is a waste. The 7s leadings leave a Marble Arch are very good as buses do leave very busy and well loaded, but the 94 is rammed leaving Marble Arch and these loadings are prett much unrivalled by any other route. Another route which I’d rather see trimmed back to Marble Arch than the 94 is fresh air carrying route known as the 6. I honestly think in the short term the 94 will be fine. This side of the mayoral election I can’t see it being cut back, and with the opening date on Crossrail up in the air, there won’t be sufficient capacity on the Central Line to take the pressure.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 13, 2019 22:38:37 GMT
Looks like the 159 cut wasnt permanent after all as its returning to Marble Arch next week. I do remember TFL stating it wasn’t permanent. It is funny the 148 is still terminating at Shepherds Bush, I don’t remember any Consultation being released about that cut being permanent. Like I said, the information came from a good source who has been right on a number of things in the past.
|
|