|
Post by RM5chris on Mar 4, 2015 18:03:57 GMT
MODS MSG: -
We have received complaints about members behaviour yet again.
Please stop trying to score points off of each other and/or pick each others posts to bits as certain members do not like each other. If you wish to do this do so via the PM system so that the rest of us don't have to skip/skim through the bickering.
The Management team are currently deciding upon which action will be taken.
(I would also echo Steve80s post above which was made whilst I was typing mine!)
RM5Chris TBF Moderation Team
BACK TO TOPIC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 18:06:38 GMT
In attempt to provoke some reasoned debate on the topic (which this forum is somewhat lacking at the moment, but that's another matter!), here is my analysis of the situation presented in the consultations.
Firstly, I don't understand what these proposals are trying to achieve.
If the objective is primarily to reduce the number of buses down Oxford St, then the effects of this are going to be relatively limited. You'll have the peak 113 running at a higher headway than the current 13 runs down Oxford St, therefore meaning the only reduction would be on the 189s (between Marble Arch and Oxford Circus). The only reasons for the range of changes would therefore basically be an elaborate scheme just to free stand space at Marble Arch, which could quite simply be achieved by extending 30/113 to somewhere like Lancaster Gate, or (perhaps more begrudgingly so) sending the 159 back to Paddington Basin. Cutting the 13 from Oxford St and then sending the 113 down there on a higher peak frequency will actually slightly increase the number of buses bearing a "13" of some sort down Oxford Street.
If the objective is partly to reduce the number of buses down the Strand/Regent St, then cutting the 13 back to Oxford Circus. With all the other cutbacks in the area, there should theoretically be enough stand space in the area. You'd maintain the capacity around Finchley Road this way, and the 189 could still be cut back if necessary through the measures listed above.
If the objective is to reduce the number of buses down the Finchley Road corridor then that seems like a flawed plan in itself. It also begs the question of why a large mitigating increase on the 113 is needed to counter-balance this, and raises a question of why the 13 wouldn't just be reduced in frequency.
If the objective is to reduce the number of buses round Baker St/Swiss Cottage then that seems a lost cause in itself, as it is pretty much an inevitability of the demand from the 139/189 and 13/82/113 corridors.
I would have thought, personally, swapping the termini of the 82 and 113 (so the 113 ran to Victoria, and the 82 ran to Oxford Circus) would have been a better plan if these changes must happen - then most links provided by the 13 would be covered on the same routing, and the only lost link would be Victoria on the upper section of the 82. Mitigating increases could then be spread across the two routes to counterbalance.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 4, 2015 19:01:34 GMT
As TFL will go full steam ahead with these proposals regardless, I guess it's best we wait and see how they turn out rather than just speculating and presuming what will happen.
We never know these proposals may turn out to be just fine....a part of me is curious to know how the 113 and 139 will cope with the withdrawal of the 13, but hey who knows until we witness the outcome. I'm sure TFL will rectify any significant issues if they arise rather than being completely ignorant about it.
What I really want to know is what the heck will happen to the 13 number, new route maybe?. Surely such a number can't be left out of London's bus system for a long time!.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 4, 2015 19:18:56 GMT
As TFL will go full steam ahead with these proposals regardless, I guess it's best we wait and see how they turn out rather than just speculating and presuming what will happen. We never know these proposals may turn out to be just fine....a part of me is curious to know how the 113 and 139 will cope with the withdrawal of the 13, but hey who knows until we witness the outcome. I'm sure TFL will rectify any significant issues if they arise rather than being completely ignorant about it. What I really want to know is what the heck will happen to the 13 number, new route maybe?. Surely such a number can't be left out of London's bus system for a long time!. Is Leon Daniels a superstitious man, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 4, 2015 20:51:44 GMT
In attempt to provoke some reasoned debate on the topic (which this forum is somewhat lacking at the moment, but that's another matter!), here is my analysis of the situation presented in the consultations. Firstly, I don't understand what these proposals are trying to achieve. If the objective is primarily to reduce the number of buses down Oxford St, then the effects of this are going to be relatively limited. You'll have the peak 113 running at a higher headway than the current 13 runs down Oxford St, therefore meaning the only reduction would be on the 189s (between Marble Arch and Oxford Circus). The only reasons for the range of changes would therefore basically be an elaborate scheme just to free stand space at Marble Arch, which could quite simply be achieved by extending 30/113 to somewhere like Lancaster Gate, or (perhaps more begrudgingly so) sending the 159 back to Paddington Basin. Cutting the 13 from Oxford St and then sending the 113 down there on a higher peak frequency will actually slightly increase the number of buses bearing a "13" of some sort down Oxford Street. If the objective is partly to reduce the number of buses down the Strand/Regent St, then cutting the 13 back to Oxford Circus. With all the other cutbacks in the area, there should theoretically be enough stand space in the area. You'd maintain the capacity around Finchley Road this way, and the 189 could still be cut back if necessary through the measures listed above. If the objective is to reduce the number of buses down the Finchley Road corridor then that seems like a flawed plan in itself. It also begs the question of why a large mitigating increase on the 113 is needed to counter-balance this, and raises a question of why the 13 wouldn't just be reduced in frequency. If the objective is to reduce the number of buses round Baker St/Swiss Cottage then that seems a lost cause in itself, as it is pretty much an inevitability of the demand from the 139/189 and 13/82/113 corridors. I would have thought, personally, swapping the termini of the 82 and 113 (so the 113 ran to Victoria, and the 82 ran to Oxford Circus) would have been a better plan if these changes must happen - then most links provided by the 13 would be covered on the same routing, and the only lost link would be Victoria on the upper section of the 82. Mitigating increases could then be spread across the two routes to counterbalance. I'm not sure about the logic of increasing the 113, I've not been up the top end of the route recently but I would have thought the current levels of service to Edgware were adequate? I seem to recall years ago alternate journeys terminated at Mill Hill Apex Corner. I can forsee too many buses at Edgware, too many buses between Golders Green and West Hampstead and not enough buses through Swiss Cottage and past Lords cricket ground. If the 82 and 113 swap southern termini then the 13 should continue (extended to North Finchley) and the 82 be withdrawn............goodness me this is getting complicated! Buses along Oxford Street could be reduced by withdrawing the 139 and either returning the 159 to West Hampstead, it would be about the same length as the current 36 route, or as I suggested previously extending the 74 from Baker Street to West Hampstead.
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Mar 4, 2015 21:36:42 GMT
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 Limebourne operated the C3 on behalf of London General and the G1 on behalf of Arriva, Blue Triangle operated the 492 on behalf of London Central and the 367 on behalf of Arriva- so it does happen... Perhaps all of Arriva London's recently lost routes are just subcontracted and they really still have them? We'll just have to see what happens, when it happens TBH all the London bus route numbers should be reviewed and 'defragmented' to use an old IT term, as there are so many gaps... 239, 304, 374 spring to mind as vacant route numbers yet we have routes numbering into the 500's (if you include stuff like the 528)
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 4, 2015 22:17:41 GMT
I know it would be confusing but I would like to see a high number c London route renumbered 13 like the 390 or 453 if the 13 is withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 4, 2015 22:20:26 GMT
Lots reported a further 30 VWHs on order. I guess the plans will not free up any buses for the 168 now and the 113 and possibly 139 and 82 may need PVR increased due to the extension of the 139 so the remind 7 or so would be for those routes directly or indirectly.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 4, 2015 22:52:54 GMT
As TFL will go full steam ahead with these proposals regardless, I guess it's best we wait and see how they turn out rather than just speculating and presuming what will happen. We never know these proposals may turn out to be just fine....a part of me is curious to know how the 113 and 139 will cope with the withdrawal of the 13, but hey who knows until we witness the outcome. I'm sure TFL will rectify any significant issues if they arise rather than being completely ignorant about it. What I really want to know is what the heck will happen to the 13 number, new route maybe?. Surely such a number can't be left out of London's bus system for a long time!. Is Leon Daniels a superstitious man, I wonder? Lol who knows, he would've withdrawn the 139 otherwise....oh wait that has a '13' in it too....
|
|
|
Post by moz on Mar 4, 2015 22:53:28 GMT
Seems like a done deal, really. However, if TfL are happy to cut such long standing links then could I suggest ignoring all the proposals barring the 13/N13 withdrawal, extending the 2 to Golders Green (adds max 35 mins to total journey time either way) and restructuring the N2 to run Crystal Palace - North Finchley (via current N2 to Victoria then 82) instead of bringing in the night 82. I'm sure N will have plenty of space for the increased PVR!
Also, there'd be a free stand at Marylebone that another route could use instead.
*cough* 159 *cough*
Moz
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 4, 2015 23:22:00 GMT
I know it would be confusing but I would like to see a high number c London route renumbered 13 like the 390 or 453 if the 13 is withdrawn. That wouldn't be so bad if a decent amount of time was allowed to elapse before any renumbering exercise. If a route has to be renumbered, then I would like it to be something like the C2 or the RV1. No, I don't like letter prefixes lol
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 5, 2015 0:52:29 GMT
I know it would be confusing but I would like to see a high number c London route renumbered 13 like the 390 or 453 if the 13 is withdrawn. That wouldn't be so bad if a decent amount of time was allowed to elapse before any renumbering exercise. If a route has to be renumbered, then I would like it to be something like the C2 or the RV1. No, I don't like letter prefixes lol I'm not keen on prefixes either, I'd like to see the C2 renumbered 13 after the proposals take place. It's quite strange that a main unlocal route like the C2 has a prefix, same for the C1/C10/P13/W3, as opposed to the C11/P5/P12 for instance.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2015 1:01:37 GMT
That wouldn't be so bad if a decent amount of time was allowed to elapse before any renumbering exercise. If a route has to be renumbered, then I would like it to be something like the C2 or the RV1. No, I don't like letter prefixes lol I'm not keen on prefixes either, I'd like to see the C2 renumbered 13 after the proposals take place. It's quite strange that a main unlocal route like the C2 has a prefix, same for the C1/C10/P13/W3, as opposed to the C11/P5/P12 for instance. I've never understood why the C2 is ok but routes like the 45A, 68A and 77A were not ok and had to be renumbered
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 5, 2015 1:08:06 GMT
I know it would be confusing but I would like to see a high number c London route renumbered 13 like the 390 or 453 if the 13 is withdrawn. That wouldn't be so bad if a decent amount of time was allowed to elapse before any renumbering exercise. If a route has to be renumbered, then I would like it to be something like the C2 or the RV1. No, I don't like letter prefixes lol Personally, I like letter prefixes but as long as the letter matches the purpose or area of the route. So ones like the P4 & P5 I'd consider re numbering but others like the P12 & P13 would remain. The B & U routes are probably the best example of a prefix lettered group of routes where they all serve Bexleyheath and Uxbridge respectively.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 1:10:25 GMT
Lots reported a further 30 VWHs on order. I guess the plans will not free up any buses for the 168 now and the 113 and possibly 139 and 82 may need PVR increased due to the extension of the 139 so the remind 7 or so would be for those routes directly or indirectly. Indeed there are another 30 VWHs on order.
|
|