Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 0:23:12 GMT
"In addition it takes account of improved services on the Tube, the potential impact new developments may have and the aspirations of our stakeholders, for example the impact of bus traffic in the West End, including Oxford Street." There's a cleverly-worded statement if I ever saw one.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 4, 2015 7:47:21 GMT
I have no issue with whole scale changes. In fact I welcome creative thinking.... But this has got number 5 / 87 and 174 / 374 written all over it. What will happen is that despite opposition TfL will steam roll ahead. A few years down the line in true 5/87, 174/374 style TfL will be forced to acknowledge the crush loadings. There'll be lots of "we're reviewing the capacity", then some roadside loadings monitoring. The initial steps will be small remedial ideas, an extra few peak trips here and there, timetable changes to address "punctuality" etc etc. Eventually they'll talk about extending something to cover up the mess made (a few years down the line of course). Whether any extensions come to fruition will be another story, just like the 5 and 238 saga. Alas, history is set to repeat itself! The scheme I think of with these proposals is the one centred around the 135 withdrawal in 2000. The 135 ran from Archway via the 134 to Kentish Town, then via the C2 to Oxford Circus. Compensation was by way of a minor enhancement to the 134 and extending the 88 north from Oxford Circus to Camden, albeit routed via Warren Street - it cut capacity down Albany Street by over 60%, and between Kentish Town and Archway by about 15-20%, even with the enhancements to the 134. This was just before the boom years that TfL's bus services have experienced really kicked in. The proposals worked, at the time, but things were always tight, especially with the darts on the C2 maintaining the Camden - Albany Street - West End link on their own. The 88, in turn, never carried great numbers north of Oxford Circus initially though that has changed more recently. The upshot has been that the C2 has had to be double decked and the 134 has had to have extra trips inserted incrementally as the years have gone by, but it still struggles in the peaks. That the northern line - improved as it was with the introduction of the 1995 stock at around the same time - runs parallel to the vast majority of the route hasn't been of enormous consequence, the numbers just kept growing. I wonder if TfL will be forced to react to these new plans in a similar fashion in due course.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Mar 4, 2015 9:23:26 GMT
"In addition it takes account of improved services on the Tube, the potential impact new developments may have and the aspirations of our stakeholders, for example the impact of bus traffic in the West End, including Oxford Street." There's a cleverly-worded statement if I ever saw one. Considering private traffic has been banned from Oxford Street for some years, are we now going to ban buses as well? As pavements have been widened, there are now parts where it's impossible for one bus to overtake another.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Mar 4, 2015 9:29:12 GMT
A rather good idea can actually be found here suggesting the following: The diverting of the 13 and/or 139 via Regents Park would provide a link between Regents Park and Finchley Road and/or Abbey Road (and Aldwych or Waterloo) which would've created some more useful links as well as reducing the number of buses along Oxford Street. The idea of banning taxis and tuk-tuks is also a good idea, as Oxford Street is already congested enough without them. If TfL just want to waste our money with even more LTs then why not just put them on the 13 and 82 instead of wrecking the network. Surely history has taught us that 'radical network changes' rarely work? In my honest opinion, the 13 should also be extended eastbound too, to London Bridge, connecting Charring Cross, Cannon Street and London Bridge with one bus. As it was 'til 1970, when the 513 Red Arrow was introduced
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 4, 2015 10:30:58 GMT
The N13 goes from x15 at weekends to zero with only 2 bph on the N82 and 2 on the N139. The Finchley Road loses 2 bph at night at weekends. And now for some sections Strand to Oxford Circus - joint frequency on 13/139 halved in future Oxford Circus to Selfridges - down from 24.5bph in the peaks to 17.5bph Selfridges to Baker St - from 40.5 bph to 36.5bph in the peaks, 35.5bph to 30.5bph Sat daytimes, 23bph to 20bph on Sundays Baker St - Finchley Rd - Fortune Green Road - from 24 bph to 20bph in the peaks, 20.5 bph to 15 bph on Sats daytimes Fortune Green Road - Golders Green - from 25.5bph to 17.5bph in the peaks, from 22 bph to 15 bph on Sats daytimes, from 15 bph to 10 bph Sun daytimes Are some of these figures with the current 113 frequency?. I'm pretty sure the 113 will gain a frequency increase as part of the scheme, it certainly should do as it will pick up former 13 users northbound (towards Fortune Green) between Oxford Circus and Bond Street, and southbound (towards Oxford Circus) between Fortune Green and Baker Street, on top of the current 113 users. I have gone back and checked. I have used the uprated frequencies for the 113 on all of the relevant sections for the future position. Obviously I've used current frequencies for the present situation. The fundamental point is that at peaks and daytimes the 13 provides 8 buses per hour. Where the 113 replaces it the 113 only gains 4 extra bph at peaks and 3.5 bph off peak daytimes. You're losing approximately 320 pax per hour capacity as a result. TfL are expecting the demand to redistribute itself over the remaining services. I see from another group that Sovereign are apparently getting the 139 in compensation for losing the 13. That comment has come from someone who would definitely know what was going on.
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Mar 4, 2015 10:40:18 GMT
I see from another group that Sovereign are apparently getting the 139 in compensation for losing the 13. That comment has come from someone who would definitely know what was going on. Ie it's already been decided
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 4, 2015 10:49:28 GMT
Ie it's already been decided More likely that a commercial position has been agreed with the relevant companies and the final outcome depends on the consultation. I do understand the cynicism about the consultation process but I suspect this consultation may get a rougher ride than many. There are many people who will be affected and some of the areas traversed are not without influential people who get at the right people in TfL or politically. I suspect that might be why there have been rumours swirling round about this change for years - TfL have taken a long time to get a scheme they think will work. The easier answer is simply to take out resource or at least redistribute it if there is a genuine need to offer more capacity on the 113 for example. I suspect the bigger problem for TfL is that they can't really take much peak resource out or else they'd have done so already. I also fail to see why TfL won't or can't run a service down Park Lane and along Piccadilly to serve Aldwych / Waterloo / London Bridge thereby avoiding the dreaded Oxford Street. If they retained the 13 but shoved the 139 down that way is that going to cause any great heartache? At least then Abbey Road and Finchley Road would both have services to Park Lane and to Oxford Circus.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 4, 2015 11:09:17 GMT
Are some of these figures with the current 113 frequency?. I'm pretty sure the 113 will gain a frequency increase as part of the scheme, it certainly should do as it will pick up former 13 users northbound (towards Fortune Green) between Oxford Circus and Bond Street, and southbound (towards Oxford Circus) between Fortune Green and Baker Street, on top of the current 113 users. I have gone back and checked. I have used the uprated frequencies for the 113 on all of the relevant sections for the future position. Obviously I've used current frequencies for the present situation. The fundamental point is that at peaks and daytimes the 13 provides 8 buses per hour. Where the 113 replaces it the 113 only gains 4 extra bph at peaks and 3.5 bph off peak daytimes. You're losing approximately 320 pax per hour capacity as a result. TfL are expecting the demand to redistribute itself over the remaining services. I see from another group that Sovereign are apparently getting the 139 in compensation for losing the 13. That comment has come from someone who would definitely know what was going on. I though Soveriegn might get the 139, I can't see how the 13 could just be taken away from them without some sort of compensation. Presumably TfL are in effect withdrawing the 139 and extending the 13 to Waterloo and rerouting it via West Hampstead but as far as the public are convcerned the 139 number will remain to avoid mass confusion.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 4, 2015 11:25:32 GMT
Are some of these figures with the current 113 frequency?. I'm pretty sure the 113 will gain a frequency increase as part of the scheme, it certainly should do as it will pick up former 13 users northbound (towards Fortune Green) between Oxford Circus and Bond Street, and southbound (towards Oxford Circus) between Fortune Green and Baker Street, on top of the current 113 users. I have gone back and checked. I have used the uprated frequencies for the 113 on all of the relevant sections for the future position. Obviously I've used current frequencies for the present situation. The fundamental point is that at peaks and daytimes the 13 provides 8 buses per hour. Where the 113 replaces it the 113 only gains 4 extra bph at peaks and 3.5 bph off peak daytimes. You're losing approximately 320 pax per hour capacity as a result. TfL are expecting the demand to redistribute itself over the remaining services. I see from another group that Sovereign are apparently getting the 139 in compensation for losing the 13. That comment has come from someone who would definitely know what was going on. It may as well stay as 13, so London Sovereign do not have to change blinds, just add Inserts for Waterloo, West Hampstead and other turns.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Mar 4, 2015 11:34:11 GMT
I have gone back and checked. I have used the uprated frequencies for the 113 on all of the relevant sections for the future position. Obviously I've used current frequencies for the present situation. The fundamental point is that at peaks and daytimes the 13 provides 8 buses per hour. Where the 113 replaces it the 113 only gains 4 extra bph at peaks and 3.5 bph off peak daytimes. You're losing approximately 320 pax per hour capacity as a result. TfL are expecting the demand to redistribute itself over the remaining services. I see from another group that Sovereign are apparently getting the 139 in compensation for losing the 13. That comment has come from someone who would definitely know what was going on. It may as well stay as 13, so London Sovereign do not have to change blinds, just add Inserts for Waterloo, West Hampstead and other turns. Silly as either way, new blinds/inserts will be needed.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 4, 2015 11:39:48 GMT
I have gone back and checked. I have used the uprated frequencies for the 113 on all of the relevant sections for the future position. Obviously I've used current frequencies for the present situation. The fundamental point is that at peaks and daytimes the 13 provides 8 buses per hour. Where the 113 replaces it the 113 only gains 4 extra bph at peaks and 3.5 bph off peak daytimes. You're losing approximately 320 pax per hour capacity as a result. TfL are expecting the demand to redistribute itself over the remaining services. I see from another group that Sovereign are apparently getting the 139 in compensation for losing the 13. That comment has come from someone who would definitely know what was going on. It may as well stay as 13, so London Sovereign do not have to change blinds, just add Inserts for Waterloo, West Hampstead and other turns. Mass confusion though when people unexpectedly get taken via West Hampstead
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 11:48:55 GMT
Confirmation that London Sovereign are getting the 139 using the current VHs and a top up order. The 139 will effectively still be within the Metroline contract, but just under operation by London Sovereign, so at the next point of Tender, it can still be lost to Metroline rather ironically.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 4, 2015 11:55:41 GMT
The 139 will effectively still be within the Metroline contract, but just under operation by London Sovereign, so at the next point of Tender, it can still be lost to Metroline rather ironically. Source? How can the full route be contracted to two different operators? Will take that conspiracy theory as a Pinch of Salt unless someone else can confirm otherwise
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 4, 2015 12:03:13 GMT
Another thing is replacing the N13 with a new 24hr 82 which of course goes nowhere near the popular night spots Piccadilly Circus etc. Regardless of the daytime changes the N13 should still remain (with a new route number if need be) as the 24hr 82 service is a poor alternative.
Will the 13 number ever be reused or will it just be left vacant in view of its unlucky connotations? We shall see.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 4, 2015 12:13:38 GMT
The 139 will effectively still be within the Metroline contract, but just under operation by London Sovereign, so at the next point of Tender, it can still be lost to Metroline rather ironically. Source? How can the full route be contracted to two different operators? Will take that conspiracy theory as a Pinch of Salt unless someone else can confirm otherwiseDear God can we please stop the "TL1 vs David21" baiting and battles! I've had enough - take it off group and knock lumps off each other there. Have you never heard of the term called "subcontracting"? Perfectly possible and legal for a contract to be with one company who then ask another to carry out the work for them. We've had numerous instances of subcontracting on TfL routes in the past when short term fixes have been necessary. We've also had routes novated (transferred) from one operator to another. Again perfectly OK if the parties are all agreed.
|
|