|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 19, 2020 20:14:53 GMT
Loadings weren't reaching or exceeding capacity as if the bus was picking up at Stratford or Brixton for example in rush hour, but it was definitely popular with punters. I believe TfL missed a trick by not leaving the 388 along the Embankment. My belief is they didn't want to route to eventually reach Trafalgar Square as terminating at Embankment is too tantalizingly close to a main transport, leisure/entertainment objective. Indeed I was one of those punters making use of the 388 at Embankment and it'd get to half of seating capacity before we left the first stop. There is appetite for a route along the Embankment and I'm still of the opinion that the 388 was the perfect candidate for it. Currently, I don't believe if the 4 was extended there in the same vein, it would be as popular but still utilized nonetheless. That's fair enough definitely agree with you about if there was a route the could of made it work that's currently running right now 388 would of made sense, like I said in a previous thread seems like the route lost a bit of it's identity and Tfl don't know what to do with it now since the Embankment/Elephant and Castle withdrawal of the route. Also adds something with unique to the route. I agree with the 4 not being as popular coming from that direction. Similar with the suggestion of the 3 but that might bring up a restored Brixton to Embankment link from the old 109 and linking it with other places in Central London, so could work with the 159 taking up the Brixton to Westminster section. I believe patronage for Embankment is more linear from the east or west. But like said loadings is a big thing if to make an extension worthwhile. It would have been a good edition to the bus network if the 388 at its current Stratford City terminus, would run along Blackfriars, the Embankment and up to Trafalgar Square. It would have given a day link from there to Shoreditch, Cambridge Heath and Hackney Wick and would have given east London a somewhat indirect but quick link into the City & central London. There would've also been a prospect of the route going 24/7 as pre Covid and specifically when it went to Elephant, last buses were really well used in both directions. Alas, TfL wants the identity (and mainly resources) of the 388 to still be that relief route to the 8 they introduced in 2003. Despite the different incarnations this route has taken in the past 12 years, what's pretty evident is that the 388 has potential to grow if TfL stop fiddling with it.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 19, 2020 18:16:49 GMT
This is a good question as this is something I've always thought about as it is odd when you look at a major road like Embankment in Central London but when you look at it, it make sense, it's happened in the past with the most recent example being the 388 going down to Embankment due to works at Blackfriars and no suitable place to terminate it as late as 2012. I'm actually not too sure on loadings for this part as I would of been too young to remember so can't comment on that but this could of been either a reason to extend more routes there and tfl were cheap with it or what I think sadly might of happened not enough passengers to make it viable long time running there. Realistically with the state Tfl and bus travel numbers are at right now I'm not sure if it will happen in the near future, also with Embankment, Westminster, Charing Cross, Waterloo and Blackfriars are all in walking distance with the Circle and District lines, and even riverboat services serving it and I don't think tfl would want to duplicate at this point. You also got to question who will use it as there's not much in Embankment baring parks which can be accessed from the places above, bars which will be closed now and more popular during the night time and it's riverside view which to me is an underappreciated feature in London. It's also a dual carriageway so will be hard to serve like where is the traffic and passengers coming from also the Cycle Superhighway there has jacked the inside lanes for buses so will be harder for them to stop and more traffic. If it is ever to happen I think it will be best done by a new route coming from the west from Chelsea Embankment, Grosvenor Road and Millbank as some sort of north side version of the old RV1 or something and yes even though there is the 360, 170, 24 and 87 briefly serving some of these roads it's for short intervals and could link the whole embankment up for a bus route but personally I think this is more fantasy then reality especially with traffic in that part of London. But the views on this route especially if DD would be nice The 388 was extended along Embankment when Blackfriars Station was closed for rebuilding, to enable passengers to access Temple, the next station along. Originally Temple Station was the last stop, but as the buses continued beyond Embankment Station to turn it was decided to operate there in service (it may have been CT Plus drivers that suggested this). Loadings were never high along this section and the route was cut back to Blackfriars once more shortly after Blackfriars Underground reopened. Loadings weren't reaching or exceeding capacity as if the bus was picking up at Stratford or Brixton for example in rush hour, but it was definitely popular with punters. I believe TfL missed a trick by not leaving the 388 along the Embankment. My belief is they didn't want to route to eventually reach Trafalgar Square as terminating at Embankment is too tantalizingly close to a main transport, leisure/entertainment objective. Indeed I was one of those punters making use of the 388 at Embankment and it'd get to half of seating capacity before we left the first stop. There is appetite for a route along the Embankment and I'm still of the opinion that the 388 was the perfect candidate for it. Currently, I don't believe if the 4 was extended there in the same vein, it would be as popular but still utilized nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 19, 2020 13:03:17 GMT
Consecutive routes operating along the same road(s) {Snipped to avoid thread clogging} Here's a favourite one of mine people seem to miss completely: W12, W13 and W14 running together along George Street in South Woodford.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 13, 2020 19:04:02 GMT
It's ironic that another lockdown is currently occurring and some hideous behaviour by some drivers have come to the fore again. I attempted to go home in Romford earlier this morning after being locked in a toilet. After using my bank card to jimmy the door free and failing, it damaged the chip and made the only card I carried faulty. I wasn't aware of that until I attempted to board the bus home. The distress was enough for me to be sent home early. It was enough for my best friend to come all the way to Romford to help free me. All this though didn't matter to the driver of LT412 who flat out denied me entry on the bus. He didn't ask about the faulty card, told me I couldn't get on and then asked my best friend to tap on as some sort of petty divide and conquer move. I've been the N15 nigh on every night for the past 8 years; it's without a doubt the route I use the most whether I'm off or working night shifts. Despite this driver seeing me & knowing who I am (i.e. a regular user who doesn't give problems) no compassion was shown. I also asked for a yellow ticket and he said "No, you're not coming on". If it wasn't for my best friend intervening saying the situation is silly, I would have walked home for close to 2 hours instead of the 15 minutes we did before he attempted to get me on LT406. I had lost hope at this point, but was very thankful to him and the driver of LT406 who recognised me and let me on before my friend fully explained my bank card situation. I don't know if he picked me up cause of my visible distress or quite simply I needed assistance when I normally don't ask for it, but I am thankful to him regardless. And to the driver of LT412 that departed Romford circa 03:10 today, well I'm sure he'll be winning the GAL Customer Service award in no time... Well I suppose strictly speaking the driver was correct........just about anywhere else in the UK you could have paid cash. Interesting that you used the word strictly. Strictly speaking, the driver should have let me on if I had no other means to pay if it's late at night. I didn't and don't regularly have physical cash on me, it's too much of a reason to spend frivolously. Digression over, if as a regular user who hasn't had any issues with that particular driver until early this morning; he should have used his discretion in that situation and he didn't. As I've posted on a few months ago to a similar dilemma, I know the N15 drivers talk about me & have identified myself when the Barking & Dagenham Post did an article on two RR night bus drivers. And I'm not badmouthing all of them, there are a couple drivers who'd actually strike a conversation with me as a board. I also thank the driver when I board and wish them a good day/evening/night as I alight. Strictly speaking the driver left me stranded and if it wasn't for my friend, I'd have walked the 3 or 4 miles home.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 13, 2020 16:28:12 GMT
It's ironic that another lockdown is currently occurring and some hideous behaviour by some drivers have come to the fore again. I attempted to go home in Romford earlier this morning after being locked in a toilet. After using my bank card to jimmy the door free and failing, it damaged the chip and made the only card I carried faulty. I wasn't aware of that until I attempted to board the bus home.
The distress was enough for me to be sent home early. It was enough for my best friend to come all the way to Romford to help free me. All this though didn't matter to the driver of LT412 who flat out denied me entry on the bus. He didn't ask about the faulty card, told me I couldn't get on and then asked my best friend to tap on as some sort of petty divide and conquer move. I've been the N15 nigh on every night for the past 8 years; it's without a doubt the route I use the most whether I'm off or working night shifts. Despite this driver seeing me & knowing who I am (i.e. a regular user who doesn't give problems) no compassion was shown. I also asked for a yellow ticket and he said "No, you're not coming on".
If it wasn't for my best friend intervening saying the situation is silly, I would have walked home for close to 2 hours instead of the 15 minutes we did before he attempted to get me on LT406. I had lost hope at this point, but was very thankful to him and the driver of LT406 who recognised me and let me on before my friend fully explained my bank card situation. I don't know if he picked me up cause of my visible distress or quite simply I needed assistance when I normally don't ask for it, but I am thankful to him regardless.
And to the driver of LT412 that departed Romford circa 03:10 today, well I'm sure he'll be winning the GAL Customer Service award in no time...
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 13, 2020 15:23:46 GMT
30- Only Metroline route to serve East London. N29- Most frequent night service (every 10 minutes). 29 & 67- Only routes terminating at Wood Green that doesn’t serve Tottenham. 67,267,313 and the ELT routes are the only routes operated by LT’s not to serve Central London. The N15 is also has a 10 minute frequency every night of the week.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 31, 2020 15:26:59 GMT
And I can't really see the 148 being that long really. It is probably feasible as Goldhawk Road and westwards to Acton Green isn't that heavy with traffic. That's very unlikely however with allocation swaps and readjusted frequencies for the whole of Acton to Camberwell; capacity would be focused on the Bayswater Road corridor and very superfluous everywhere else. The 94 with its recent electric buses is fine holistically as a route, barring the day service curtailed to Marble Arch and the night one carrying on to Piccadilly Circus. Been on a few 94N journeys since January with N94 blinds on. What's more important and keeping to the relevance of this thread is that Marble Arch does not have the space for TfL to be cutting loads of routes at. The 414 snip seems prime for a little extension, like possibly to Queen's Park via the 36 and the 36 then truncated in the Paddington area. Acton Green to Camberwell would be lengthy in my view and it would be the Acton Green end suffering as a result when things go wrong. Operationally the extended route would be cut at both ends; westbound from S and indiscriminately pulling buses from Camberwell and Elephant. Personally the 94 and 148 should stand as separate routes as they have handy links unique to both routes. In terms of extending the 148 to Acton Green though, it's not impossible but highly improbable as a notion.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 31, 2020 11:20:06 GMT
The 148 is one of those routes that's busy any time of the day or night. Should it be extended over the 94 in some form, none of the 148's original routing should be lost as a recompense for this extension. I can't see it being Acton Green to Camberwell Green. And I can't really see the 148 being that long really. It is probably feasible as Goldhawk Road and westwards to Acton Green isn't that heavy with traffic. That's very unlikely however with allocation swaps and readjusted frequencies for the whole of Acton to Camberwell; capacity would be focused on the Bayswater Road corridor and very superfluous everywhere else. The 94 with its recent electric buses is fine holistically as a route, barring the day service curtailed to Marble Arch and the night one carrying on to Piccadilly Circus. Been on a few 94N journeys since January with N94 blinds on. What's more important and keeping to the relevance of this thread is that Marble Arch does not have the space for TfL to be cutting loads of routes at. The 414 snip seems prime for a little extension, like possibly to Queen's Park via the 36 and the 36 then truncated in the Paddington area.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 29, 2020 17:38:16 GMT
I wondering about that the 148 being extended to Acton Green replacing the 94 myself and they might even take it further to Chiswick Business Park so that the LTs are retained. If the 94 and 148 are merged into one route I would think the BCEs will be used, probably Acton Green to Westminster or could even be rerouted via the 507 to Waterloo. The 148 is one of those routes that's busy any time of the day or night. Should it be extended over the 94 in some form, none of the 148's original routing should be lost as a recompense for this extension.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 27, 2020 17:49:44 GMT
The day I stop staring at Google Maps is the day I stop living! Thanks for the list, I was right the first time with my thinking that Newham tops the list. Interesting that Prince Regent isn't listed as a facility but the now demolished Becontree Heath bus station is on the list.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 27, 2020 16:27:21 GMT
Here's something I've been thinking of...
Newham and Southwark are the boroughs with the most bus stations located within their principality. Newham's bus stations are Beckton, Canning Town, Prince Regent, Stratford and Stratford City. Southwark also tied at five with Canada Water, Crystal Palace, London Bridge, Peckham and Waterloo bus stations.
Anyone please feel to correct me if I'm wrong, and also feel free to add on to the info about boroughs with no bus stations under TfL ownership. Right now, the only borough I can identify with none is Kensington & Chelsea.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 15, 2020 10:27:07 GMT
Who keeps telling you this stuff? he may have gotten this information from the tabloids slow news day I guess I've said it before and I'll say it again: if only all the news stories were like this!! Thank you ServerKing Palpatine, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 12, 2020 17:34:05 GMT
RE first paragraph, my sentiment entirely RE second paragraph, well do recall LTs are the only 12m deckers going in London. It’s entirely subjective, but on routes such as the four which I mentioned, there aren’t any LTs in any of the areas along those routes. (Of course excl N8, N21 and N87). So it’ll be a novelty there, as majority of LTs are zone 1 bound. Besides, from my experiences on the 51, it could do with them capacity wise... but that’s a very specific example and I’ll leave that for the locals to decide LT’s are not 12m but 11.2m & TA1 is the only 12m bus for TfL service and to add further, LT’s have a lower overall capacity compared to other deckers so the 51 wouldn’t be gaining but losing capacity in that situation. Stop it, you're hurting the 108, 507 and 521's feelings! I think you meant to say only double decker running with 12m buses as Scanias on the 293 and 358 predate Red Arrow's 09 plate Mercs which have now been cast to the 108.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 12, 2020 10:28:24 GMT
This looks a good idea - obviously TfL have access to the data unlike the folks commenting here - and if 8bph is only needed to match demand then a cutback seems logical. After all, the bus network has to be responsive to travel patterns - especially so in these difficult times. Cutting it back to Marble Arch generates savings of at least £1 million P.A and still provides appropriate capacity to Maida Hill on the 6s, plus there's the hopper fare as the longest truncated 414 trip would be less than an hour. But I daren't say a wider review is underway of the Putney-Kensington/London corridor - some harmonisation of the routes along there wouldn't go amiss, especially with a restructured 414. As with many corridors in inner London. See that's the thing, TfL normally say screw Joe & Jenny Public and actually state passenger volume figures in consultations. To my knowledge, this is the first time they've skipped pure data and simply said buses per hour, which can rounded up or down depending on the narrative they're trying to achieve. It's a smarter way to get less flack, don't say crucial stuff like how many journeys will be broken etc. and make the cut more rational by making it less relatable to passengers. The problem with the 414 is that it isn't as frequent as the routes it shadows, and doesn't receive appropriate patronage in central London due to the actual fleet itself. Northbound at Marble Arch, I've been witness to this as people let the bus go to wait for the 6, and likewise southbound around the South Kensington area waiting in lieu of the 14. A few years ago I was mentioning the same thing when other members noticed people were letting buses go to use the 253 down to Hackney in the Lower Clapton area; the reason for the sudden hysteria being an upgrade to LTs from VLWs. It sounds silly but who's going to board a bus that's 11 years old and offers no unique links instead of one that's 2-3 years old where it doesn't sound like it's going to break down at any time throughout its journey? There's way too many alternatives east of Fulham Broadway really to ever have to rely on this route, and no uproar will occur from the 414 being cut at Marble Arch from most stakeholder groups north of Marble Arch.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 22, 2020 5:19:50 GMT
I think the N5 and N20 were made around the Northern Line and the N550/N551 with the DLR although I might be wrong The N550 & N551 were created in 2008 from the N50 which ran Trafalgar Square to Gallions Reach Retail Park via Isle of Dogs - presumably in 2008, they decided operationally it wasn't ideal and split it into two routes with the N550 serving Isle of Dogs and terminating at Canning Town whilst the N551 stays on the A13 and then heads towards Gallions Reach. From what I can tell, the only major difference between the N50 & N550/N551 was that the N50 ran via Victoria Embankment rather than Strand & Fleet Street up to Blackfriars From publicity documents back then, the N50 was broken into two routes to add capacity in the Docklands area and to quicken journey times to Beckton from central London. The original N50 ran upwards of 75 minutes, which is pretty unattractive for an end journey to Beckton or Gallions Reach for example when there's options like the N15 to Canning Town and a change to the 474 which would undoubtedly be quicker than the N50. To add to what Redexpress has said, the N550 was essentially a shortened version of the N50 when it was routed via Victoria Embankment. The N551 retained the routing eastbound of Canning Town, used to mirror the N50 from Aldgate to Mansion House at the start and the filler gaps of the Highway and East India Dock Road to facilitate quicker journey times. Of course, endless utility works and new road layouts have changed things in central London for the N550 and N551; the former for the worse cause buses did use to pick up passengers along the Embankment and at Blackfriars. The N551 fares a bit better being rerotued via Wormwood Street, which essentially gives a link from Liverpool Street to Canning Town and sees a noticeable amount of passengers use the bus than when the N551 was routed via Leadenhall Street and Cornhill.
|
|