|
Post by redexpress on May 23, 2017 11:32:08 GMT
I'd be slightly annoyed if I was a Surrey resident and my bus services were cut to a minimal level whilst the county were funding a route every 30 mins daily between Leatherhead and Dorking. I still think if TFL do not wish to fund it south of Leatherhead (and quite rightly) the Surrey section should maybe drop to every hour with maybe no late evening service so that the money could be better spent on services around the whole county. It even as it pretty much duplicates the 71 in London scale back the entire route a bit. Do we know how much SCC are actually contributing to the 465? They're obviously not covering the entire cost of operating the extension to Dorking. If they didn't fund the 465 they'd have to fund a replacement of some sort. Presumably they've come to the conclusion that they get better value for money from funding the 465. Not sure if turning half the service at Leatherhead would result in a huge saving - that would depend on whether an efficient schedule can be devised.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 23, 2017 13:05:38 GMT
I'd be slightly annoyed if I was a Surrey resident and my bus services were cut to a minimal level whilst the county were funding a route every 30 mins daily between Leatherhead and Dorking. I still think if TFL do not wish to fund it south of Leatherhead (and quite rightly) the Surrey section should maybe drop to every hour with maybe no late evening service so that the money could be better spent on services around the whole county. It even as it pretty much duplicates the 71 in London scale back the entire route a bit. Do we know how much SCC are actually contributing to the 465? They're obviously not covering the entire cost of operating the extension to Dorking. If they didn't fund the 465 they'd have to fund a replacement of some sort. Presumably they've come to the conclusion that they get better value for money from funding the 465. Not sure if turning half the service at Leatherhead would result in a huge saving - that would depend on whether an efficient schedule can be devised. This is from the minutes of the full council in March 2017. I did find an old 2015 document that lists the routes that SCC fully or partially funded. Interestingly several cross boundary TfL route that run into Surrey are part funded by SCC. The 235, 290, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 418, 464, 466, K3 and S1 seem to be the ones that aren't. I assume that those routes further east which have only small incursions into Surrey are sufficiently robust as to not require SCC funding. I also suspect the 405/6/18 are sufficiently "commercial" or too expensive for SCC to fund in any meaningful way. It does seem to be the Staines / Kingston / Epsom arc that gets SCC £250k funding and I can't imagine the 465 eats up a massive slice of that so we may be talking in the few tens of thousands of pounds to keep the 465 going south of Leatherhead. That seems pretty cheap to me although SCC's budget, like every local authority, is under horrendous pressure.
|
|
|
Route 465
May 23, 2017 13:52:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by twobellstogo on May 23, 2017 13:52:54 GMT
Ah : thank you, snoggle. I had been looking for that list of routes that were/weren't funded by SCC for ages!
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on May 23, 2017 14:31:40 GMT
Do we know how much SCC are actually contributing to the 465? They're obviously not covering the entire cost of operating the extension to Dorking. If they didn't fund the 465 they'd have to fund a replacement of some sort. Presumably they've come to the conclusion that they get better value for money from funding the 465. Not sure if turning half the service at Leatherhead would result in a huge saving - that would depend on whether an efficient schedule can be devised. This is from the minutes of the full council in March 2017. I did find an old 2015 document that lists the routes that SCC fully or partially funded. Interestingly several cross boundary TfL route that run into Surrey are part funded by SCC. The 235, 290, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 418, 464, 466, K3 and S1 seem to be the ones that aren't. I assume that those routes further east which have only small incursions into Surrey are sufficiently robust as to not require SCC funding. I also suspect the 405/6/18 are sufficiently "commercial" or too expensive for SCC to fund in any meaningful way. It does seem to be the Staines / Kingston / Epsom arc that gets SCC £250k funding and I can't imagine the 465 eats up a massive slice of that so we may be talking in the few tens of thousands of pounds to keep the 465 going south of Leatherhead. That seems pretty cheap to me although SCC's budget, like every local authority, is under horrendous pressure. Thanks! I can see why SCC deem the 465 to be good value for money. Looking at the prices they're paying for tendered bus services elsewhere in the county, they'd probably end up paying more for a lower level of service if the 465 wasn't there. I think the timing of when routes were absorbed into the TfL network is a factor in whether SCC contribute financially or not. None of the routes that were taken on in the wake of Arriva's final retrenchment in 2001 have any SCC funding - just as well, given how much it was costing them to replace the rest of Arriva's network. The 293 was given up by Arriva a bit earlier, and initially taken on by SCC alone, which may explain why it still receives SCC funding when the 406/418 don't.
|
|
|
Post by ben on May 24, 2017 20:40:09 GMT
As mentioned requested before, a scan of the timetable included in the route leaflet. Really was an excellent time for clear and useful publicity - even the timetable is of the normal pattern instead of the modern departure-time-only style. As a bonus, a scan of the 726 route from the same period. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Route 465
May 25, 2017 0:43:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by busman on May 25, 2017 0:43:48 GMT
As mentioned requested before, a scan of the timetable included in the route leaflet. Really was an excellent time for clear and useful publicity - even the timetable is of the normal pattern instead of the modern departure-time-only style. As a bonus, a scan of the 726 route from the same period. View AttachmentView AttachmentI don't remember that Sunday extension on the 465 to Goodwyns! Didn't the 726 once go beyond Bromley to Dartford? I like how the leaflet talks about where to purchase bus passes, before telling the reader that bus passes are not valid on the 726 😁
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 25, 2017 1:01:24 GMT
As mentioned requested before, a scan of the timetable included in the route leaflet. Really was an excellent time for clear and useful publicity - even the timetable is of the normal pattern instead of the modern departure-time-only style. As a bonus, a scan of the 726 route from the same period. View AttachmentView AttachmentI don't remember that Sunday extension on the 465 to Goodwyns! Didn't the 726 once go beyond Bromley to Dartford? I like how the leaflet talks about where to purchase bus passes, before telling the reader that bus passes are not valid on the 726 😁 Indeed, the 726 used to run from Dartford to Heathrow before being cut back to Bromley and then Croydon.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on May 25, 2017 5:04:21 GMT
As mentioned requested before, a scan of the timetable included in the route leaflet. Really was an excellent time for clear and useful publicity - even the timetable is of the normal pattern instead of the modern departure-time-only style. As a bonus, a scan of the 726 route from the same period. View AttachmentView AttachmentThat 726 is different to today's X26 as it ran via Hampton Court, not Teddington Interesting note about travelcards, and needing to pay top up with passes, and the £1.40 fare. With Inflation would be about £3 now
|
|
|
Post by bookd on May 25, 2017 22:29:15 GMT
If I remember rightly the 726 (to serve Heathrow) was a diversion of part of the 725 which for many years ran from Gravesend to Windsor. Along with most Green Line routes it was curtailed at the ends partly due to staff shortages but mainly because increasing traffic made timekeeping impossible.
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on May 26, 2017 20:45:20 GMT
I don't remember that Sunday extension on the 465 to Goodwyns! Didn't the 726 once go beyond Bromley to Dartford? I like how the leaflet talks about where to purchase bus passes, before telling the reader that bus passes are not valid on the 726 😁 Indeed, the 726 used to run from Dartford to Heathrow before being cut back to Bromley and then Croydon. Was the 50km rule that gave a stop to the X26 going beyond Bromley. Would have meant Tacho's would have had to be used. Was more then likely used as an excuse to try and cut it back.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on May 28, 2017 9:51:34 GMT
That 726 map is stunning 🙈 I wish they'd bring them back 😧
|
|
|
Post by ben on May 28, 2017 15:16:04 GMT
Its no secret that the 726 was held in low regard, no doubt LT/TfL would have bumped it off for any semi-plausible excuse had it seemed believable enough. I heard Traffic was a big factor beyond Croyden but its not my neck of the woods so can't comment. Tramlink probably provided a good reason to axe Croyden - Bromley.
|
|
|
Route 465
May 28, 2017 17:45:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by sid on May 28, 2017 17:45:33 GMT
Its no secret that the 726 was held in low regard, no doubt LT/TfL would have bumped it off for any semi-plausible excuse had it seemed believable enough. I heard Traffic was a big factor beyond Croyden but its not my neck of the woods so can't comment. Tramlink probably provided a good reason to axe Croyden - Bromley. Inevitably such services are expensive to run which is probably why we haven't seen anymore of them. The Dartford section was withdrawn shortly before the opening of Bluewater.
|
|
|
Route 465
May 28, 2017 20:11:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by Dillon95 on May 28, 2017 20:11:33 GMT
Its no secret that the 726 was held in low regard, no doubt LT/TfL would have bumped it off for any semi-plausible excuse had it seemed believable enough. I heard Traffic was a big factor beyond Croyden but its not my neck of the woods so can't comment. Tramlink probably provided a good reason to axe Croyden - Bromley. It would be nice to have the Bromley to Croydon section still though. The 119 isn't very direct, and getting the tram from Beckenham Junction obviously requires a change. To get there you have to get the 162 which takes half an hour, comes every 20 min (and that's in the day) and is always full up.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 28, 2017 20:50:36 GMT
Its no secret that the 726 was held in low regard, no doubt LT/TfL would have bumped it off for any semi-plausible excuse had it seemed believable enough. I heard Traffic was a big factor beyond Croyden but its not my neck of the woods so can't comment. Tramlink probably provided a good reason to axe Croyden - Bromley. ISTR that TfL tried pretty hard to kill off the 726 without replacement. However there was a pretty ferocious reaction which is why we eventually ended up with a curtailed X26 instead. And TfL would no dout love to kill that off too if they could. It is the busiest TfL bus service that only runs at x30 in peak periods - about 5 times busier (over a year) than other half hourly routes.
|
|