|
|
Post by paulsw2 on Feb 17, 2016 22:11:25 GMT
Reading a few threads recently I have noticed a few people saying routes are not heavily loaded off peak so would it be a good idea to reintroduce peak hour journeys
Open to all discuss
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 17, 2016 22:48:35 GMT
I totally I have always thought that Monday to Friday or Saturday or peak extensions would be far more cost effective at providing capacity where it's need.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 17, 2016 23:11:30 GMT
Previously London's bus network was rife with peak hour extensions, however TFL weren't fond of this practice and it has slowly diminished, they proceeded to standardise destinations instead. I am also not a fan of peak only extensions, if particular sections aren't as well loaded out of the peaks then simply reduce the off-peak frequency to reflect usage.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 17, 2016 23:14:53 GMT
Previously London's bus network was rife with peak hour extensions, however TFL weren't fond of this practice and it has slowly diminished, they proceeded to standardise destinations instead. I am also not a fan of peak only extensions, if particular sections aren't as well loaded out of the peaks then simply reduce the off-peak frequency to reflect usage. ...... is the right answer.  |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 18, 2016 15:22:41 GMT
Reading a few threads recently I have noticed a few people saying routes are not heavily loaded off peak so would it be a good idea to reintroduce peak hour journeys Open to all discuss Yes, I thought the 159 to Paddington for example was justified at peak times even if it wasn't off peak. |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Feb 18, 2016 18:05:09 GMT
Reading a few threads recently I have noticed a few people saying routes are not heavily loaded off peak so would it be a good idea to reintroduce peak hour journeys Open to all discuss Is the inference to save on staffing costs by redistributing labour onto the peak extras? The problem is that additional peak services requires a higher PVR buses, so would end up costing a lot more. |
|
|
|
Post by T.R. on Feb 19, 2016 14:38:33 GMT
Reading a few threads recently I have noticed a few people saying routes are not heavily loaded off peak so would it be a good idea to reintroduce peak hour journeys Open to all discuss Is the inference to save on staffing costs by redistributing labour onto the peak extras? The problem is that additional peak services requires a higher PVR buses, so would end up costing a lot more. This. Some routes (eg 25,29,38,65,43,109 to name a few) come benefit from a lower off-peak frequency but this would mean having buses sat idle outside the peaks (much like on some rail lines). (Not that I'm against peak extras...) |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 4, 2016 19:05:25 GMT
Another peak hour extension (if it can't be justified 7 days a week?) that would be useful is the 12 to Forest Hill, the 197 struggles at busy times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 19:14:53 GMT
My Peak Hour extension would be route 221 extension to Stanmore to support route 142.
|
|
|
|
Post by eggmiester on Apr 2, 2016 22:24:52 GMT
Not so much extensions but some routes have peak hour short runs with one or two also still having 'garage journeys'.
One example would be route 436 has several buses that are scheduled to run short starting at NX to Paddington and same in return (terminating at NX instead of running to Lewisham).
|
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Apr 2, 2016 23:02:29 GMT
Not so much extensions but some routes have peak hour short runs with one or two also still having 'garage journeys'. One example would be route 436 has several buses that are scheduled to run short starting at NX to Paddington and same in return (terminating at NX instead of running to Lewisham).The 7 is to have something like this from Oxford Circus to Paddington soon due to the Bakerloo Line closure until later this year. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2016 23:05:04 GMT
172 from Brockley Rise to Forest Hill Station during peak hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 3, 2016 0:17:47 GMT
172 from Brockley Rise to Forest Hill Station during peak hours. Out of curiosity, why? Can the 122 not cope? I wouldn't have thought Forest Hill attracts more rail commuters given all trains that stop there also stop at Honor Oak Park which looks to be within walking distance of Brockley Rise. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Apr 3, 2016 1:00:17 GMT
172 from Brockley Rise to Forest Hill Station during peak hours. Personally, this should be a permanent extension as I believe Forest Hill would be a useful extension for the 172, it could even be extended further to Lower Sydenham...again, permanent |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Apr 3, 2016 2:13:05 GMT
172 from Brockley Rise to Forest Hill Station during peak hours. Out of curiosity, why? Can the 122 not cope? I wouldn't have thought Forest Hill attracts more rail commuters given all trains that stop there also stop at Honor Oak Park which looks to be within walking distance of Brockley Rise. That's what I was thinking. The 122/185 does a good enough job as far as I know. Tie that with the Overground and Southern services and there's no real need for the extension. I wonder how many 172 extension proposals this forum has seen.... |
|
