|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 11, 2015 21:23:13 GMT
When I was growing up these were routes in used to go to school on. The were operated by London & country which became part of the Arriva empire. What struck me as odd now is that they provided quite a chunk of route through London running to Raynes Park providing links not provided by any LT route such as Sutton to Raynes Park. We're they LT funded at all does anybody know. In 1999 the 445 was withdrawn and in 2000 the a Raynes Park to Sutton section was withdrawn. Was this when a Tfl support withdrawn. I know now the route is a Metro bus commercial contract that didn't accept any London tickets at all but back then the accepted all LT tickets between Raynes Park band Banstead/Victoria and provided the main service between Sutton and Banstead.
I was surprised when the reduction happened that TFL did not provide a replacement such as say Raynes Park to Belmont.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 11, 2015 23:30:06 GMT
When I was growing up these were routes in used to go to school on. The were operated by London & country which became part of the Arriva empire. What struck me as odd now is that they provided quite a chunk of route through London running to Raynes Park providing links not provided by any LT route such as Sutton to Raynes Park. We're they LT funded at all does anybody know. In 1999 the 445 was withdrawn and in 2000 the a Raynes Park to Sutton section was withdrawn. Was this when a Tfl support withdrawn. I know now the route is a Metro bus commercial contract that didn't accept any London tickets at all but back then the accepted all LT tickets between Raynes Park band Banstead/Victoria and provided the main service between Sutton and Banstead. I was surprised when the reduction happened that TFL did not provide a replacement such as say Raynes Park to Belmont. What follows is a complete guess. I suspect that any cutbacks were the result of British Bus and then Arriva owned London and Country slowly imploding in the Crawley area. Let's be honest they let a decent network slowly collapse because there was not enough return to satisfy the new owners / stock market. I can't say whether the routes received any direct subsidy from LT but it sounds like they worked under what was called Section 3/2 rules which permitted Travelcard and Bus Pass acceptance. This meant that some payment went from LT to London & Country but how reliable the numbers were is anybody's guess. Although Oyster was not a factor back then there has been a progressive removal of the old Section 3/2, now London Local Service Agreement (LLSA), form of working thus removing TfL ticket acceptance from non TfL services. The other thing to consider, again a guess, is that LT was transferred into TfL during 2000 and there were massive policy changes coming on stream with Ken as Mayor. The priority was probably not on peripheral cross boundary links and much more on Central London bus improvements and the introduction of low floor accessible buses. As we are now 15 years on and there has been no obvious campaign to restore lost links it rather strikes me that the Sutton to Raynes Park link was not well used - possibly because people didn't know if Travelcards were accepted. We had the same in Waltham Forest with the Thamesway cross boundary services - they weren't very well used due to low frequencies and lack of understanding that TCs and Bus passes were accepted. The success of the W19 (over the old 551 route) shows what can be done with a more frequent and comprehensive service. Having dug out my old 1999 Sutton Bus Guide I see the 420/440 was largely duplicated by the 164 between South Merton and Sutton. It's only the end bit to Raynes Park that was not replaced by anything. I guess if you wanted to try to restore the link then the only "simple" option is to run the S4 on from St Helier to Morden and then Raynes Park. It wouldn't be mega frequent but there is no relatively cheap way of providing the link from the Sutton / Rose Hill corridor and the S4 meanders both sides of the main drag from Sutton to Morden. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 12, 2015 9:14:57 GMT
That's sort of what I thought as well. With the 405 it was different as it provided a unique section in London past Coulsdon south where as the 420/440 were duplicated between South Merton and Sutton by the 164, Sutton and Belmont by the 80 and the S1 to Banstead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 19:52:30 GMT
Well the chances of that I believe are low know because I believe that the 420 in London is not usedd reguarly so will probably get cut just like what happened to the 409. The reasons why I think these buses were unpopular because there are many Tfl duplicates of the same routes, which I think is a shame as I would love to get on these routes from London straight down to Surrey. Also Tfl buses are cheaper aswell, plus the fact that I believe that these routes are not advertised as much and are quite low on frequency so people won't know if these routes even serve pass. I remember a case on the tram when the 409 was running and I remember that a lot people kept shout a "Blue Bus !!!" etc. and among the like of that.
|
|
