|
Post by vjaska on Feb 14, 2017 19:13:52 GMT
Ashford & London are hardly comparable though given London's population is way higher and any minibus route would simply be swamped depending on the area - we still have a fair number of feeder routes and it should be praised that these routes now run for longer and are more frequent. What needs to be tackled is when locals start making up ridiculous reasons for not allowing bus routes to run along certain roads, not hark back to a failed 1990's policy. I don't think it was a failed policy at all, the 28 and 31 conversion for example was a great success even though it came in for a lot of criticism. The high frequency of the 'bread vans' attracted a lot of new custom to the routes and subsequently they were converted back to double deckers at a higher frequency than had been the case previously. Residents are entitled to object to buses, some objections are ridiculous and some are quite reasonable and they need to be judged individually. Certainly 'bread vans' are far less likely to be met with such objections. I think that there is plenty of potential for small buses in London on certain routes serving narrow residential roads but obviously not on trunk routes. The 28 & 31 conversions were a clear failure - two busy routes started suffering from leaving many people behind because the minibuses were woefully inadequate to meet demand - not my words but from staff from Centrewest and people who used the route during the 90's. Eventually, sense was seen and they gained deckers. I didn't say residents aren't entitled to object but most of the time, they come up with daft reasons which halts many good routings and extensions at the detriment of the people who would use that service.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 14, 2017 19:26:16 GMT
Ashford & London are hardly comparable though given London's population is way higher and any minibus route would simply be swamped depending on the area - we still have a fair number of feeder routes and it should be praised that these routes now run for longer and are more frequent. What needs to be tackled is when locals start making up ridiculous reasons for not allowing bus routes to run along certain roads, not hark back to a failed 1990's policy. Yes swamped depending on the area I'm not talking about taking E200's of a route and just over bussing it with sprinters but more little local roads like the ones you would get residents complaining about and ones not so easily accessible by the average single deck with a few sprinters or even solos and say a 20 minute frequency like the Hampstead garden suburbs routes or even the 394 but on a smaller scale connect to the Stations , shops etc or places that are over bussed but under used like Blackwall DLR or Leamouth , yes it is of course a good thing we have routes that run later and longer but in some cases it's just a waste you have double deck buses running around outside peaks carrying fresh air , another thing aswell which would be good would be contracts to be won with say double decks during days but at less busier times single decks of a another routes PVR save fuel put costs down etc apart from the 357 are there any routes that have contracts like this ? I think there would be a potential there for some saving . There may be potential for a small number of minibus operated routes. However if you look at the usual "Noise, crime, thieves, lower the tone, vandals, ugh poor people, litter" themes of complaints it is about residents being outrageous snobs about the people use buses and what they do rather than the vehicles so much. Therefore minibuses, even posh ones, won't stop the complaints. If people are determined to be ignorant and self centred there is very little a bus company or TfL can do about it. The other thing to bear in mind is that the long term history of almost every bus route in London and / or small bus conversion is that over time usage does grow. This then means you have pressures about the ability of small buses to cope with that growth. What do you do - run more small buses with the cost of more drivers / garage space or risk the wrath of locals and run bigger buses but at a lower frequency. If you've convinced the "moaners" to accept a minibus operated route they may be upset if single deckers like E20Ds turn up. Given how London's contracted network now works each route has specific vehicles allocated to it (a bit of a generalisation but you know what I mean). I can't see it being very cost effective to have a mixed fleet with double decks rolled out in the peaks only and then have the palaver of swapping them over and possibly have smaller buses sitting unoccupied at the height of the peaks. That doesn't make much sense to me. I know people criticise TfL's vehicle deployment but we can and do get surges in patronage and having larger vehicles, where feasible, allows the network to cope with difficulties on specific services where others overlap. I'd be very happy to see a whole pile of infill services added to the TfL network. I think they're needed. However someone, somewhere has to be the advovate for such services and to stand up and fight the inevitable resistance. The only example I can think of where "supporters" outweighed "moaners" was the 324 - people who wanted the route went out of their way to shout louder than a smallish group of residents who didn't want buses. If only the same had happened for all the routes - 306, 498 extension, 499 extension, U5 extension, 323 extension - that have fallen by the wayside. TfL and local authorities and *councillors* need to be the advocates for extra services. No one else will do it. However I expect it will snow in hell before such a positive approach is taken.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 14, 2017 20:12:00 GMT
I don't think it was a failed policy at all, the 28 and 31 conversion for example was a great success even though it came in for a lot of criticism. The high frequency of the 'bread vans' attracted a lot of new custom to the routes and subsequently they were converted back to double deckers at a higher frequency than had been the case previously. Residents are entitled to object to buses, some objections are ridiculous and some are quite reasonable and they need to be judged individually. Certainly 'bread vans' are far less likely to be met with such objections. I think that there is plenty of potential for small buses in London on certain routes serving narrow residential roads but obviously not on trunk routes. The 28 & 31 conversions were a clear failure - two busy routes started suffering from leaving many people behind because the minibuses were woefully inadequate to meet demand - not my words but from staff from Centrewest and people who used the route during the 90's. Eventually, sense was seen and they gained deckers. I didn't say residents aren't entitled to object but most of the time, they come up with daft reasons which halts many good routings and extensions at the detriment of the people who would use that service. I don't know how you can say that the 28/31 were a failure, the minibuses offered more capacity per hour than the big buses did and they were often full as well. At least with minibuses there would be another along soon after. They restored confidence in the service and the increased loadings meant big buses returning at a higher frequency. Yes there are some daft reasons for objecting to buses and also some very reasonable ones which is why I suggested each case should be judged on its own merits.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 14, 2017 20:21:25 GMT
Ashford & London are hardly comparable though given London's population is way higher and any minibus route would simply be swamped depending on the area - we still have a fair number of feeder routes and it should be praised that these routes now run for longer and are more frequent. What needs to be tackled is when locals start making up ridiculous reasons for not allowing bus routes to run along certain roads, not hark back to a failed 1990's policy. Yes swamped depending on the area I'm not talking about taking E200's of a route and just over bussing it with sprinters but more little local roads like the ones you would get residents complaining about and ones not so easily accessible by the average single deck with a few sprinters or even solos and say a 20 minute frequency like the Hampstead garden suburbs routes or even the 394 but on a smaller scale connect to the Stations , shops etc or places that are over bussed but under used like Blackwall DLR or Leamouth , yes it is of course a good thing we have routes that run later and longer but in some cases it's just a waste you have double deck buses running around outside peaks carrying fresh air , another thing aswell which would be good would be contracts to be won with say double decks during days but at less busier times single decks of a another routes PVR save fuel put costs down etc apart from the 357 are there any routes that have contracts like this ? I think there would be a potential there for some saving . Yes the 394 would seem a good choice, the 404 in Coulsdon would be another possibility at an increased frequency and maybe serving Tollys Lane estate as well which is probably unsuitable for anything bigger. Interesting idea about replacing double deckers with single deckers in the evening on quiet routes. The 412 springs to mind although I'm not sure if TC would have sufficient spare single deckers in the evening. Years ago there was a plan to tender some routes separately in the evening but in the end it wasn't proceeded with unfortunately. Maybe a route like the 412 could be operated cheaper in the evening by Abellio or Quality Line with single deckers? Just a random example, there must be numerous other possibilities, the 269 for example?
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Feb 14, 2017 20:22:09 GMT
Yes swamped depending on the area I'm not talking about taking E200's of a route and just over bussing it with sprinters but more little local roads like the ones you would get residents complaining about and ones not so easily accessible by the average single deck with a few sprinters or even solos and say a 20 minute frequency like the Hampstead garden suburbs routes or even the 394 but on a smaller scale connect to the Stations , shops etc or places that are over bussed but under used like Blackwall DLR or Leamouth , yes it is of course a good thing we have routes that run later and longer but in some cases it's just a waste you have double deck buses running around outside peaks carrying fresh air , another thing aswell which would be good would be contracts to be won with say double decks during days but at less busier times single decks of a another routes PVR save fuel put costs down etc apart from the 357 are there any routes that have contracts like this ? I think there would be a potential there for some saving . There may be potential for a small number of minibus operated routes. However if you look at the usual "Noise, crime, thieves, lower the tone, vandals, ugh poor people, litter" themes of complaints it is about residents being outrageous snobs about the people use buses and what they do rather than the vehicles so much. Therefore minibuses, even posh ones, won't stop the complaints. If people are determined to be ignorant and self centred there is very little a bus company or TfL can do about it. The other thing to bear in mind is that the long term history of almost every bus route in London and / or small bus conversion is that over time usage does grow. This then means you have pressures about the ability of small buses to cope with that growth. What do you do - run more small buses with the cost of more drivers / garage space or risk the wrath of locals and run bigger buses but at a lower frequency. If you've convinced the "moaners" to accept a minibus operated route they may be upset if single deckers like E20Ds turn up. Given how London's contracted network now works each route has specific vehicles allocated to it (a bit of a generalisation but you know what I mean). I can't see it being very cost effective to have a mixed fleet with double decks rolled out in the peaks only and then have the palaver of swapping them over and possibly have smaller buses sitting unoccupied at the height of the peaks. That doesn't make much sense to me. I know people criticise TfL's vehicle deployment but we can and do get surges in patronage and having larger vehicles, where feasible, allows the network to cope with difficulties on specific services where others overlap. I'd be very happy to see a whole pile of infill services added to the TfL network. I think they're needed. However someone, somewhere has to be the advovate for such services and to stand up and fight the inevitable resistance. The only example I can think of where "supporters" outweighed "moaners" was the 324 - people who wanted the route went out of their way to shout louder than a smallish group of residents who didn't want buses. If only the same had happened for all the routes - 306, 498 extension, 499 extension, U5 extension, 323 extension - that have fallen by the wayside. TfL and local authorities and *councillors* need to be the advocates for extra services. No one else will do it. However I expect it will snow in hell before such a positive approach is taken. Very valid points to be fair when you put it like that , but I ment for example a route like 173 using the spare buses for example of the 325 during the evening's and on Sundays when loadings are lower would this not make a saving of such on the contracts as less fuel usage and preserving the double decks to last a bit longer etc ? Would there not be a benefit there ?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 14, 2017 20:52:06 GMT
The 28 & 31 conversions were a clear failure - two busy routes started suffering from leaving many people behind because the minibuses were woefully inadequate to meet demand - not my words but from staff from Centrewest and people who used the route during the 90's. Eventually, sense was seen and they gained deckers. I didn't say residents aren't entitled to object but most of the time, they come up with daft reasons which halts many good routings and extensions at the detriment of the people who would use that service. I don't know how you can say that the 28/31 were a failure, the minibuses offered more capacity per hour than the big buses did and they were often full as well. At least with minibuses there would be another along soon after. They restored confidence in the service and the increased loadings meant big buses returning at a higher frequency. Easy - I listened to people who were far more in the know such as Centrewest staff. It's also not guaranteed that one would come after - traffic would straight away tear that notion up and at least a decker has more capacity when one turned up even if delayed. I don't know where you got the notion of that they restored confidence in the service - more likely people sought alternatives instead. As for the high frequencies, big buses returned during the time when passenger numbers soared so higher frequencies were always going to happen regardless.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 14, 2017 21:07:39 GMT
I don't know how you can say that the 28/31 were a failure, the minibuses offered more capacity per hour than the big buses did and they were often full as well. At least with minibuses there would be another along soon after. They restored confidence in the service and the increased loadings meant big buses returning at a higher frequency. Easy - I listened to people who were far more in the know such as Centrewest staff. It's also not guaranteed that one would come after - traffic would straight away tear that notion up and at least a decker has more capacity when one turned up even if delayed. I don't know where you got the notion of that they restored confidence in the service - more likely people sought alternatives instead. As for the high frequencies, big buses returned during the time when passenger numbers soared so higher frequencies were always going to happen regardless. Different people in Centrewest will have different opinions, I heard plenty of positivity about it from Messrs Daniels and Hendy, ok you might say they are a tad biased but the fact is that the minibuses offered more capacity per hour than the big buses had previously so I can't see how it wasn't anything but an improvement. Anyway nobody is advocating any conversions like that now just smaller buses and more of them in residential areas and roads that are unsuitable for bigger buses.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 15, 2017 0:02:56 GMT
Interesting idea about replacing double deckers with single deckers in the evening on quiet routes. The 412 springs to mind although I'm not sure if TC would have sufficient spare single deckers in the evening. Years ago there was a plan to tender some routes separately in the evening but in the end it wasn't proceeded with unfortunately. Well, in the provinces during the 1990's this was very common. For example, Basingstoke (Stagecoach Hampshire Bus) ran it's daytime network with a bit of everything, mainly double deck - but evenings and Sundays was almost exclusively Dash bodied Dennis Darts (certainly no double deck - the odd appearance of a Volvo B10M here and there though). That's something I've been used to for a long time. I can see the merits in tendering evenings separately. The main ones that strike me are putting buses with favorable rates of fuel consumption on routes, and also the angle of putting more 'nippier' vehicles onto a route to reduce running times and maybe reduce PVR. I would agree that regular double decking of some evening routes, with not many people on board and a lot of fuel being used, isn't the best use of resources. However I can see a few downsides too........if tendered separately, could there be an imbalance across operators.....ie one operator with too many evening shifts to make efficient full duty lengths out of, while another has not enough evenings to balance out duties*? What could be the remedy.....either part time evening duties or offering out evenings as overtime? Also, there could be the business of loads of extra trips of dead mileage as daytime services finish on a route and evening buses commence. Also would there be enough single deck daytime buses (say), not used in the evening part of their route to take up work on other routes? * - this situation has one solution, used in the provinces where the bulk of the service is provided between 07:00 and 19:00.....12 hour shifts on a four day week As for the 173 example with the 325 buses, I thought this did happen! I saw a single decker on the 173 yesterday at about 21:50 (didn't catch number as was too far back)......EDIT, checked LVF history but doesn't seem to be there, unless it was ENL69 which has been out and about this evening.....
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 15, 2017 2:08:18 GMT
I honestly don't think that minibuses can provide a means of reliable public transport in London, let alone operate on local routes at a low frequency.
Minibuses aren't that much smaller than the shortest SDs at 8.8/9m that the former can be a substitute for. For a city like London, these vehicles are unacceptable as the ever-increasing population demands SWB SDs as the smallest form of vehicles at a relatively modest frequency, the extent of which is dependent on the ridership of the particular route, no matter what perspective this is looked at from Minibuses shouldn't be considered for a such a large scale city. Why run a route with Minibuses at a high frequency when SWD SDs can be utilised at a lower frequency? Likewise the case of having Minibus routes with low frequencies is negligible and pointless given how dense London's bus network is, with scope to increase its density even further.
In addition, the only logical way of combating routes with a dynamic shift in patronage is to adjust their frequencies to reflect the changes of passenger flow, rather than resorting to having routes unnecessarily operated by both SDs and DDs.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 15, 2017 2:26:06 GMT
In addition, the only logical way of combating routes with a relatively dynamic shift in patronage is to adjust their frequencies to reflect the changes of passenger flow, rather than resorting to having routes unnecessarily operated by both SDs and DDs. Yes indeed - been done before - when I was on the Jubilee line, there was a major push into the understanding of 'tidal flow', which was basically maximum number of trains heading from central London towards Canary Wharf in the AM peak, and the reverse in the PM peak. In essence it was something like this (simplified), out of 40 trains in the morning peak, 30 of them head eastbound*.....using turnaround times and short trips to get the service even for the off peak (and peak time extra trains put back in the depots)....evening trips the same in reverse. The same logic could indeed be used on the buses. * - again being simple and not using real life timetables, the idea was to use most trains in the optimum direction in the AM peak, and an acceptable level in the other - so for example, 2 min service on the eastbound, but a 5 min service on the westbound, as tidal flow had most workings on the eastbound.......
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 15, 2017 9:20:04 GMT
I honestly don't think that minibuses can provide a means of reliable public transport in London, let alone operate on local routes at a low frequency. Minibuses aren't that much smaller than the shortest SDs at 8.8/9m that the former can be a substitute for. For a city like London, these vehicles are unacceptable as the ever-increasing population demands SWB SDs as the smallest form of vehicles at a relatively modest frequency, the extent of which is dependent on the ridership of the particular route, no matter what perspective this is looked at from Minibuses shouldn't be considered for a city like London. Why run a route with Minibuses at a high frequency when SWD SDs can be utilised at a lower frequency? Likewise the case of having Minibus routes with low frequencies is negligible and a pointless given how dense London's bus network is, with scope to increase its density even further. In addition, the only logical way of combating routes with a relatively dynamic shift in patronage is to adjust their frequencies to reflect the changes of passenger flow, rather than resorting to having routes unnecessarily operated by both SDs and DDs. I don't think anybody is advocating a mass conversion of double deck routes but there certainly is potential for a few minibus routes, some of the Orpington routes for example.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 15, 2017 11:29:09 GMT
I honestly don't think that minibuses can provide a means of reliable public transport in London, let alone operate on local routes at a low frequency. Minibuses aren't that much smaller than the shortest SDs at 8.8/9m that the former can be a substitute for. For a city like London, these vehicles are unacceptable as the ever-increasing population demands SWB SDs as the smallest form of vehicles at a relatively modest frequency, the extent of which is dependent on the ridership of the particular route, no matter what perspective this is looked at from Minibuses shouldn't be considered for a city like London. Why run a route with Minibuses at a high frequency when SWD SDs can be utilised at a lower frequency? Likewise the case of having Minibus routes with low frequencies is negligible and a pointless given how dense London's bus network is, with scope to increase its density even further. In addition, the only logical way of combating routes with a relatively dynamic shift in patronage is to adjust their frequencies to reflect the changes of passenger flow, rather than resorting to having routes unnecessarily operated by both SDs and DDs. I don't think anybody is advocating a mass conversion of double deck routes but there certainly is potential for a few minibus routes, some of the Orpington routes for example. The R routes vehicle should certainly not be downgraded to minibuses from the vehicles they currently use.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 15, 2017 14:06:28 GMT
I don't think anybody is advocating a mass conversion of double deck routes but there certainly is potential for a few minibus routes, some of the Orpington routes for example. The R routes vehicle should certainly not be downgraded to minibuses from the vehicles they currently use. Why? The frequency would obviously be increased.
|
|
|
Post by Danny on Feb 17, 2017 14:22:59 GMT
Looks like these buses suffer from a lack of leg room
[tweet][/tweet]
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 17, 2017 16:57:49 GMT
Looks like these buses suffer from a lack of leg room [tweet][/tweet] And the previous tweet from the same person suggests that the service was not running well - gaps and bunching and passengers not at all happy. High frequency is all very well but you have to run it properly.
|
|