|
Post by snoggle on Jul 8, 2016 15:55:44 GMT
A wrong decision on the 436. Noteworthy that a fair number of route 36 buses are going to be resting in the garage between peaks and we're still going to have a grossly overbussed section north of Paddington. When you look at the percentages supporting the 436 proposal you have to ask how on earth TfL can proceed with such low levels of support - nowhere near 50% of respondents supporting. I bet there will be more than 50% of route 436 users in Central London and Lewisham who will be moaning when this change comes in. I suspect this one is not going to be easy for TfL. Never had an issue with the 452 extension idea. Perhaps now we might get 1 or 2 tender awards announced?
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jul 8, 2016 16:57:35 GMT
Not a fan of the decision either, breaking a useful Lewisham - West End link, however perhaps with Sadiq Khan's bus hopper ticket there's more of a case for this to actually work. I'm not sure how much demand there is for the Battersea Park and Nine Elms fellows (more expensive housing I bet ) wanting to go to the likes of Peckham or Lewisham, but here we are. It may be so that many 436 users at the south end of the route mostly use the 436 to get to the nearest tube stations (Oval for the City, Vauxhall for the West End...) - I hear that Lewisham to Victoria and beyond isn't really as popular as one might imagine, going by the consultation report - more people agreed with the proposals than those in disagreement. Battersea Park seems like an abrupt terminus for the route - the 436 might gain new character if it went on for a bit longer, Wandsworth, maybe? One thing's for sure - 15 buses per hour from Paddington - Queen's Park in the peaks is super-overkill, seeing as it's never heaving under the current timetable. All in all, I don't think the 436 was the right route to chop. 185 might have been better. Does anyone even take that route from Lewisham all the way to Victoria? I wonder if the EHs and WHVs will switch to the 36 for the time being, leaving most of those dull 36 Es to the 436's new contract.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2016 17:12:27 GMT
Wrong decision on the 436 - if anything the 185 is a better candidate though personally, I wouldn't divert either route to Battersea Park.
As for the frequency increase, I think why it's excessive is because there will be extra pressure on the 2 which is a very busy route from Marble Arch all the way to West Norwood and whilst there is a frequency overkill beyond Paddington (short workings could remedy that), helping out the 2 should be a priority personally.
As for the surplus vehicles, the 213 will probably receive E's from the 36 with the 36 taking the EH's & WHV's and retaining some E's if needed.
|
|
|
Post by kermit463 on Jul 8, 2016 17:16:14 GMT
Wrong decision on the 436 - if anything the 185 is a better candidate though personally, I wouldn't divert either route to Battersea Park. As for the frequency increase, I think why it's excessive is because there will be extra pressure on the 2 which is a very busy route from Marble Arch all the way to West Norwood and whilst there is a frequency overkill beyond Paddington (short workings could remedy that), helping out the 2 should be a priority personally. As for the surplus vehicles, the 213 will probably receive E's from the 36 with the 36 taking the EH's & WHV's and retaining some E's if needed. I don't want to see any more E's on the 213 lol. Send over some WVL's instead lol
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 8, 2016 17:29:49 GMT
All in all, I don't think the 436 was the right route to chop. 185 might have been better. Does anyone even take that route from Lewisham all the way to Victoria? Probably not from Lewisham but i would imagine it's still useful from the Dulwich and Forest Hill areas.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jul 8, 2016 17:39:19 GMT
326 respondents and 37% support , not sure in what universe that looks like a representation of users of the 436. What's done is done the consultation was publicised and ran for long enough just a shame more 36/436 passengers didn't respond.
Did it not occur to Tfl in all of this that the 'decline' in the 36/436 maybe down to continued traffic and delays caused by the Victoria station upgrade works, Crossrail, Lewisham Gateway and CS5. It is beyond stupid to think passengers will not find an alternative to unreliable services.
A scenraio that could be very funny in the next 5-10 years would be to see patronage boom again on the 36 and usage on the 436 to popular to amend that, resulting in another route having to supplement the 36.
On the publicised point - I'm a strong believer that there could be better publicity of consultations, a scrolling message should appear on the ibus display as follows "Consultation on route changes see tfl.gov.uk for more" coupled with a voice over from Ms Hignett "A public consultation is open on changes to this route see tfl.gov.uk for more information"
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 8, 2016 18:01:49 GMT
On the publicised point - I'm a strong believer that there could be better publicity of consultations, a scrolling message should appear on the ibus display as follows "Consultation on route changes see tfl.gov.uk for more" coupled with a voice over from Ms Hignett "A public consultation is open on changes to this route see tfl.gov.uk for more information" Oh dear I appear to have sent a Direct Twitter Message to "someone important" about this.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 8, 2016 19:45:18 GMT
326 respondents and 37% support , not sure in what universe that looks like a representation of users of the 436. What's done is done the consultation was publicised and ran for long enough just a shame more 36/436 passengers didn't respond. Did it not occur to Tfl in all of this that the ' decline' in the 36/436 maybe down to continued traffic and delays caused by the Victoria station upgrade works, Crossrail, Lewisham Gateway and CS5. It is beyond stupid to think passengers will not find an alternative to unreliable services. A scenraio that could be very funny in the next 5-10 years would be to see patronage boom again on the 36 and usage on the 436 to popular to amend that, resulting in another route having to supplement the 36. On the publicised point - I'm a strong believer that there could be better publicity of consultations, a scrolling message should appear on the ibus display as follows "Consultation on route changes see tfl.gov.uk for more" coupled with a voice over from Ms Hignett "A public consultation is open on changes to this route see tfl.gov.uk for more information" TfL don't listen, they are pompous and there consultations just basically say we ARE doing it unless there is a significant protest or intervention from government or MP's nothing would stop them.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 8, 2016 21:09:59 GMT
It didn't mention about the frequency reduction on the 436 but I guess that's part of the package so will happen. With the reduction and loosing about a third of the route I can see a reduction of about 10 or so buses. Some will move onto the 36 to increase the peak freq to every 4 mins. What is the current 36 peak freq?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 9, 2016 1:34:15 GMT
It didn't mention about the frequency reduction on the 436 but I guess that's part of the package so will happen. With the reduction and loosing about a third of the route I can see a reduction of about 10 or so buses. Some will move onto the 36 to increase the peak freq to every 4 mins. What is the current 36 peak freq? Currently, it's every 6 minutes
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 9, 2016 9:55:23 GMT
It didn't mention about the frequency reduction on the 436 but I guess that's part of the package so will happen. With the reduction and loosing about a third of the route I can see a reduction of about 10 or so buses. Some will move onto the 36 to increase the peak freq to every 4 mins. What is the current 36 peak freq? According to Londonbusroutes.net the PVR on the 36 is 34 buses at a x6 headway giving a round trip time of 204 minutes. A peak freq of 5 mins will need 41 buses (7 extra) and one of 4 mins will need 51 (17 extra). This assumes the same round trip time. Chopping the 436 to bits and reducing its frequency will most likely free up a substantial number of buses. Present PVR is 33, RTT is 198 mins. Chopping Vauxall - Paddington removes about 1 hour round trip time. Running to Battersea Park Station only adds about 20 mins run time. Assuming similar stand times we're looking at a revised RTT of about 160 mins. At a frequency of x7-8mins this means a PVR of 21 buses. The reduction on the 436 is therefore 12 buses or so. Therefore the proposed scheme actually needs 5 *extra* buses compared to today's 36/436 but I expect there will be some scheduling efficiencies that will pull that down a bit. Obviously the 452 proposals also need extra buses - probably about 4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2016 10:06:46 GMT
I thought, as the number suggests, that the 436 was originally bought in to support the 36 as it was too long and busy... so replaced it between New Cross and Lewisham.
Now they are diverting it away from the central-most part of the route. THAT'S where I'm confused. I imagine that with this is another step aimed at removing more buses from the central London area in prep for Crossrail... this is why I'm fairly certain they didn't use the 185 for this as it only goes as far as Victoria anyway.
As for the lack of support... TfL have an answer for everything if they are that determined to go ahead with restructuring.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 9, 2016 18:36:34 GMT
I thought, as the number suggests, that the 436 was originally bought in to support the 36 as it was too long and busy... so replaced it between New Cross and Lewisham. Now they are diverting it away from the central-most part of the route. THAT'S where I'm confused. I imagine that with this is another step aimed at removing more buses from the central London area in prep for Crossrail... this is why I'm fairly certain they didn't use the 185 for this as it only goes as far as Victoria anyway. As for the lack of support... TfL have an answer for everything if they are that determined to go ahead with restructuring. Basically part of the old 36 was renumbered 436. The Queens Park section is overbused as it is and stand space is limited.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 9, 2016 18:53:36 GMT
Back in 2003 it was every 12 mins from Queens park to New Cross Gate so quite an increase by default really as I don't think that section has every warranted anything more frequent.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Jul 9, 2016 20:07:43 GMT
Back in 2003 it was every 12 mins from Queens park to New Cross Gate so quite an increase by default really as I don't think that section has every warranted anything more frequent. The Queens Park end got a service that matched demand quite well - every 12 minutes off peak on weekdays, and also during the evenings and on Sundays, but a much more frequent service of every 6-7 minutes ran during peaks; from personal experience the buses loaded well as far as the Harrow Road. Saturdays were x10. web.archive.org/web/20021203024533/http://www.londonbusroutes.net/details.htmI do think that 12-15bph all day north of Paddington is a gross oversupply and a waste of resources. I don't see why half of buses can't be turned at Paddington for parts of the day.
|
|