|
Post by enviroPB on Mar 2, 2020 13:48:39 GMT
It goes a little way to stemming cuts, but what's more favourable & financially lucrative are things like Crossrail being operational and increased patronage on buses in particular which is tumbling like mountain rocks. What TfL is doing to have bus usership increase in 2021-22 as per their business plan without relying on Crossrail remains to be seen; but when for example they push forward with plans to decimate the 25 losing millions of journeys for the sake of saving circa 20 buses off a PVR is silly to me. Real bus priority is making bus lanes operational for a longer time and not killing valuable links that generate patronage, such as the 53 picking up at Whitehall instead of County Hall. Why don't TfL take a book out of Go Ahead's Brighton division and name buses in London after notable people in the capital? I'd open the floor for individuals who are alive as well as deceased, and have Joe & Jenny Public vote for their choices which will get users more involved with the bus network. Saving 20 buses will be a saving of around £4m a year ... and besides you can't look at the 25s passenger numbers in isolation without looking at the 425s. If they could do anything to get Crossrail open any sooner I imagine they would. Surely it is down to operators if they wish to name vehicles ... not TfL? As you've requested, I've had a look at the patronage figures and I still won't accept 5 million less passengers since the City Thameslink cull on the 25 has transferred into a 2 million increase on the 425 during the same time. All the 3 million displaced didn't suddenly hop onto the 8, barely 250,000 increase in 18/19. I don't know how much each bus passenger journey costs on average but I do know all those displaced passengers will not wilfully jump on the already packed Tube services because TfL chop up useful bus services. Let's be honest, most of those passengers have found alternatives to the transport network altogether, namely cycling and private hire cars such as Uber. Omitting maybe the 301 and the decking of the 178 as they haven't had associated Crossrail cuts to introduce them, TfL should've held up on all Elizabeth Line changes (particularly in west London) as they're ruining bus services and ultimately losing money for the sake of saving a few bob from PVR cuts. It just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Feb 29, 2020 8:47:37 GMT
This sponsorship deal does nothing to add value to the network already in place apart from add a couple million to the piggy bank. It'd be an acceptable argument if TfL said it wanted to increase contactless payments on the cusp of closing ticket offices perhaps, but that event has happened years ago. There's nothing to suggest either that this partnership with Google can potentially improve ticket barrier technology already in place across the Tube network. All this article says is "Hey, why don't we use the yellow reader as advertising space", nothing to shout about really. Surely it is better than saying we have to find another £2m of cuts. It goes a little way to stemming cuts, but what's more favourable & financially lucrative are things like Crossrail being operational and increased patronage on buses in particular which is tumbling like mountain rocks. What TfL is doing to have bus usership increase in 2021-22 as per their business plan without relying on Crossrail remains to be seen; but when for example they push forward with plans to decimate the 25 losing millions of journeys for the sake of saving circa 20 buses off a PVR is silly to me. Real bus priority is making bus lanes operational for a longer time and not killing valuable links that generate patronage, such as the 53 picking up at Whitehall instead of County Hall. Why don't TfL take a book out of Go Ahead's Brighton division and name buses in London after notable people in the capital? I'd open the floor for individuals who are alive as well as deceased, and have Joe & Jenny Public vote for their choices which will get users more involved with the bus network.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Feb 28, 2020 16:43:14 GMT
This sponsorship deal does nothing to add value to the network already in place apart from add a couple million to the piggy bank. It'd be an acceptable argument if TfL said it wanted to increase contactless payments on the cusp of closing ticket offices perhaps, but that event has happened years ago. There's nothing to suggest either that this partnership with Google can potentially improve ticket barrier technology already in place across the Tube network.
All this article says is "Hey, why don't we use the yellow reader as advertising space", nothing to shout about really.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Feb 25, 2020 10:33:17 GMT
I agree - Some depots may have just given up and not run the last service, at least they got it going, as faults do happen. At least its not First Essex who on several occasions were not operating the last few services on Route 100 around Grays/Lakeside, where it is especially important, being more of a rural community with less links etc. I remember Ensign actually stepped in and operated the last few services on the 100 a couple times (For free may I add). On other forums First Essex seem notorious for being disliked for stuff like this as well as all their cuts/cheapness. Though I've never used them so can't give my opinion on that. That reminds me of the time in 2012 when I got on a 58 when the bus really wasn't for for service, back door not operational and an incessant pitching noise which I assume was related to the former. What made that trip exceptional was it was the last 58 service to Walthamstow, and given the driver was about 5 minutes late I assume he was trying to fix the problem on his own. He likely called the controller and he was advised to stick it out, and I was appreciative of that. Ain't no way First was going to get a bus to East Ham from LI at 12:45am on such short notice!
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Feb 23, 2020 23:15:58 GMT
No difference from here ... Probably 75+% of the posts are pure speculation ... fake news rules supreme in the bus enthusiast world .... if your speculation get repeating more than twice, it has to be accepted as fact .... and whoo betide any descending voices! Take 312 tender award ... virtually every site I have seen says the retained part is the 7 X 15-reg EMCs. As far as I am aware this has not been confirmed, and will be shocked if this is the case ... OK, in preparation for being shocked! This hobby and the forum is starting to become very frustratingly unbearable. People are so arrogant about on were they get there information. I joined this forum to be with like minded people because I couldn't talk about buses anywhere else. I liked it because we talked about buses but now the hobby and this has become unbearable. I've been on this forum a long time so I've been learning thing and interacting with people on this forum for a long time. But now it's like speaking to some people is like banging my head agaisnt the wall. Most of the good people with valuable information have gone. Now most people on this forum and the hobby are just speculating. This forum is just full of arguments and people getting over each other. The hobby and the forum is not how it used be. So many people think that there speculation is right. I just don't know what to do about this hobby and forum anymore. I feel like I don't want to share bus information with like minded people. This hobby is not making me happy anymore and I just don't know what to do? How do I know the information that people tell me is 100%? Honestly, I don't think people know how to wait [till they have something meaningful to say] anymore so they feel obliged to say anything, even if it's wrong. Not trying to showcase my particular experience but I did legitimately wait a good 10 years or more to have the guts to sign up to this forum. I was absorbing the wealth of knowledge on here and it probably didn't hurt studying how to phrase my points with press examples here and official documents there. The important thing is that I was patient; from what I've been reading recently, some are not willing to wait for whispers to become concrete fact just so they can be 'first' to report on a topic. That's where the rift comes in with over-obnoxious enthusiasts isolating those in the industry by making them out to be fakes, and rightly so those members in that position walk away as they and their precious info aren't being taken seriously over what's lies at the crux of it. I'm just replying to one of the questions you've asked, hopefully it helps for you. 1. Don't trust anything! If someone tells you what appears to be fact, check it against trusted sources like LOTS & LBR or indeed the TfL website. If you still feel iffy about what's said, 2. Look at the quality of a member's post to see if it is a fairly presumptuous fact or not. Even if that member tends to be jovial, they'd normally state that. A serious member will always label their clout of their views as a disclaimer to their words. 3. Don't be afraid to ask a member directly (preferably through private messaging) exactly where their source is coming from. Should their info be very solid, there would be solid evidence to come with it. The person in question should be able to produce some sort of evidence or at least give a reference point for you to enquire. Failing that, 4. Hit that report button. All members are fully entitled to report a post that feels disingenuous. In the 5 years I've been part of this forum I've only reported 2 posts, and quelle surprise the members are no longer on this forum. That is due to their uncontrollable verbal diarrhoea to the point where they get threatening or abusive towards others. If you feel that a post isn't being truthful, report it. My last bit of advice is to meet up with some enthusiasts in real life so you can not only put names to faces, so that you can also create a real-life friend so you can talk about this very subject with. Personally I tend to do my enthusiast activities alone and only interact with other enthusiasts on contract changeover days, but there's no stopping you from bucking that trend so you can enjoy your hobby with other like minded people.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Feb 16, 2020 19:08:48 GMT
Pretty shocked and saddened by this news. I knew Caroline Flack from watching CBBC's TMI programme on Saturday mornings. Having grown up in the Caribbean till I was 12, we had tv shows mostly influenced by America where Saturday morning kids tv is a big thing. I only felt a similar vibe when watching her, Sam & Mark on TMI and somehow I was comforted when she was on screen.
Haven't avidly watched her since then but obviously have seen her in drips and drabs as she's been scattered over tv be it presenting or in panel shows, but she was a great presenter who was multi-talented and her great personality shone through every broadcast she's ever done. There are definitely lessons to be learnt about the welfare of those vulnerable on social media and figures in the public eye and how all parties (mainly media) deal with people who are struggling mentally; but for now, rest in peace Caroline and sending my love to her family & friends in this difficult time.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Feb 11, 2020 15:50:06 GMT
Dagenham Heathway doesn’t have a night service easily solved by making the 174 24hrs to Harold hill and the N86 rerouted to Upminster station via Hornchurch creating 24 hr linksfHornchurch and Upminster I keep seeing these areas mentioned but just wonder how much demand there would be for a night service? I definitely think a night route to Upminster would benefit Tube staff and cleaners at the Cranham depot. I believe you can access the depot from Upminster station so there may be no need to have a possibly rerouted N86 follow the 248 routing up to Cranham. It'd be cost effective to implement that change and have a 24 hour 174 run to Marsh Way for Tesco warehouse workers, who currently fill the bus to seating capacity on the last scheduled journey to Harold Hill on any given night.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 26, 2020 14:55:45 GMT
There's no other way to describe this consultation than simply a sh*t show. I am rather aware of most of these changes as the late, great Snoggle created the Bus Network Development Papers thread some years ago which had South Newham proposals devised in 2016. Unlike like the schemes in Colindale or Tower Hamlets for example, TfL keep changing how they want the bus network to look in the Beckton & Royal Docks area, and I suspect I know why. So, before Crossrail was a thing, it was proposed that the 325 was decked and sent to Royal Albert Dock or the 101 rerouted at East Ham Manor Way and sent there via a new bus-only bridge. Considering there's a half-built bridge in Beckton already, it's probably not best to chuck more money on half-arsed infrastructure projects. There was a proposal to send the 101 via Royal Albert Way instead to the new ABP development in Royal Albert Docks, much more cost effective. But Crossrail came and the 104 was to be sent to Beckton, so it was also considered (and favoured) to go to Royal Albert Docks instead of the 101. Now to this rubbish today and it seems they've ditched the idea of the the bus only bridge! They likely didn't secure funding for it, which is a shame as their research suggests that a route serving RAD from the east would generate more bus passenger journeys. But obviously the cheaper 325 option was chosen. I know in my heart of hearts TfL keep flip flopping on South Newham because of the Custom House stand (or lack of) situation. I believe Newham council owns the proposed land on which TfL hopes to stand the 304 and 241, but for whatever reason they won't give the land/approve work to construct the stand. Newham council are also mostly critical of the Crossrail related changes in their borough as they're not in favour of broken links this new Custom House interchange will create, so I sense a standoff from both parties here. The mere fact TfL are sending the 241 to Royal Wharf instead of Prince Regent is a goodwill gesture on their part, the 330 can easily run into the Wharf and out again without the extra 1 or 2 increase in PVR. Oh, and I wonder if the peak time for routes serving out-of-town shopping parks is the same as peak time for other conventional routes, cause I don't need to mention seeing 101 and 262 buses loaded very close to seating capacity at 10:30 on a Sunday morning heading to Gallions Reach. Honestly the 101 withdrawal on its own is a rational proposal and would be accepted if it needed to serve another development, but to have it be one of six routes stand at Beckton bus station is absolutely absurd. Six routes at the bus station but the 366 trundling along alone in east Beckton is considered sufficient by TfL?! Spent more than 3 hours trying to compose this post, and I am still pretty lost for words really. So disappointed with this tripe. Just went passed the proposed stand at Custom House which has been cleared and most of the Crossrail hoarding removed so work could be starting soon. Also just arrived at Gallions Reach just seen 20 plus passengers board at 262 to Stratford and one arrive for East Beckton full downstairs. There is about 20 or so passengers waiting for a 101 or 366. TfL were very quick to erect the Pontoon Dock stand last year when they were hopeful of the Lizzie line starting in full in May August December, albeit it is much easier to construct the 330's stand than the one at Custom House. I just have a funny feeling they would have plopped the stand there already when they had workers doing up the new entrance at Custom House; why have two bouts of construction [costs] incurred when everything can be done in one go? It's somewhat rare that everyone is in unanimous agreement that if savings are to be made in Gallions Reach, then surely scale back the 101 and probably increase the the 262's PVR to 7-8bph during the week and definitely 5bph on Sundays to mitigate excess wait times on the 366. I live in Barking and catching the 366 there to Beckton is barely punctual to put it lightly. Leaving the 366 to plunder the retail parks of Beckton alone will lead to a shattering of its already fragile reliability, especially during weekends. Assuming local people cotton onto this consultation (which I suspect they will through the Newham Recorder & Newham Mag*) then Transport for London will have a fight on their hands to keep the 262 the way it is. *The Newham Magazine is delivered free to residents every fortnight month and has quite a wide array of local issues discussed. There's no way editors won't stick this steaming heap of a consultation in for all Newham residents to see.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 26, 2020 14:24:37 GMT
Does anyone know the official LOR for the emergency LO-T Replacement? My bus yesterday morning (LK54 FWL) went via East Ham and picked up there whereas my bus in the afternoon (PJ02RDZ) went via Romford Road and the A406 alongside a Southern Transit E400 city The offical line of route is via East Ham station to pick up (towards Walthamstow) or set down (towards Barking) and then continuing towards Woodgrange Park. This is a modified LOR though, the original routing was via the A406 and Romford Road direct. My hunch is that TfL likely sent the out of date route to Southern Transit for them to be traversing the A406 unprompted as I'm not aware of any road closures in East Ham occurring yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 25, 2020 23:09:53 GMT
There's no other way to describe this consultation than simply a poo show. I am rather aware of most of these changes as the late, great Snoggle created the Bus Network Development Papers thread some years ago which had South Newham proposals devised in 2016. Unlike like the schemes in Colindale or Tower Hamlets for example, TfL keep changing how they want the bus network to look in the Beckton & Royal Docks area, and I suspect I know why. So, before Crossrail was a thing, it was proposed that the 325 was decked and sent to Royal Albert Dock or the 101 rerouted at East Ham Manor Way and sent there via a new bus-only bridge. Considering there's a half-built bridge in Beckton already, it's probably not best to chuck more money on half-arsed infrastructure projects. There was a proposal to send the 101 via Royal Albert Way instead to the new ABP development in Royal Albert Docks, much more cost effective. But Crossrail came and the 104 was to be sent to Beckton, so it was also considered (and favoured) to go to Royal Albert Docks instead of the 101. Now to this rubbish today and it seems they've ditched the idea of the the bus only bridge! They likely didn't secure funding for it, which is a shame as their research suggests that a route serving RAD from the east would generate more bus passenger journeys. But obviously the cheaper 325 option was chosen. I know in my heart of hearts TfL keep flip flopping on South Newham because of the Custom House stand (or lack of) situation. I believe Newham council owns the proposed land on which TfL hopes to stand the 304 and 241, but for whatever reason they won't give the land/approve work to construct the stand. Newham council are also mostly critical of the Crossrail related changes in their borough as they're not in favour of broken links this new Custom House interchange will create, so I sense a standoff from both parties here. The mere fact TfL are sending the 241 to Royal Wharf instead of Prince Regent is a goodwill gesture on their part, the 330 can easily run into the Wharf and out again without the extra 1 or 2 increase in PVR. Oh, and I wonder if the peak time for routes serving out-of-town shopping parks is the same as peak time for other conventional routes, cause I don't need to mention seeing 101 and 262 buses loaded very close to seating capacity at 10:30 on a Sunday morning heading to Gallions Reach. Honestly the 101 withdrawal on its own is a rational proposal and would be accepted if it needed to serve another development, but to have it be one of six routes stand at Beckton bus station is absolutely absurd. Six routes at the bus station but the 366 trundling along alone in east Beckton is considered sufficient by TfL?! Spent more than 3 hours trying to compose this post, and I am still pretty lost for words really. So disappointed with this tripe.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 17, 2020 10:45:25 GMT
N188 to Camden would be good. I think Hampstead Heath has enough with the N5 and N24. That said thou with the Night jubilee and Overground at Canada water the area has quite alot of night routes which may end up up for review. 3 routes now from CW is quite excessive so I'd look to maybe restore the N47 to its former routing at both ends as the night LO has taken alot of the Shoreditch traffic from the (N)47. Or an N129 from N Greenwich to Lewisham then maybe replacing the N199. Please, God no! I've been a regular along the Jamaica Road corridor since 2012 and I don't want to go back to the days of waiting ages for the old N47 at London Bridge to see the bus arrive jam packed and leave without picking up any passengers. The 24 hour 47 has added much needed capacity to the north Bemrnondsey area [at weekends] and is still relatively well used when compared to other 24 hour night routes. A night bus doesn't need to be over capacity to be deemed a success; TfL had that view at the turn of the century up till the Olympics, thank the heavens they left some of the PVR increases on the N15 and old N35 for example after the games ended in September 2012. redexpress' N188 idea does sound really lucrative. I'm sure Joe and Jenny Public would love a direct route from the two busy night hubs of Camden and Elephant & Castle especially at weekends, and it'd likely be quicker than the Night Tube where passengers at Elephant would currently have to go to Waterloo to catch the train at weekends.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 14, 2020 21:37:38 GMT
I want to ask any drivers of their overall experience or approval of smart hybrids. This is spurred on by drivers on the 330 & 474 (I suspect) constantly revving the engine so the engine doesn't cut out. This is in comparison to my journeys on the N207's micro hybrids where stop/start is noticeable; had to rack my brain last night to remember when I last heard WH's hybrids stop/start, not even at bus stops! My hunch is that bus drivers grow slowly less fond of it as time goes on. I think it may be the case the drivers are doing this on purpose as with most hybrid buses the heating goes cold when the engine cuts out. So they are spitefully doing this. Some do this with the E40H restarting the engine when it cuts out via the button, or on the LT some deliberately putting it into diesel mode. Figured there was a reason stop/start wasn't happening all the sudden! It seems drivers too have to face what passengers face when the engine cuts off and so it the heating/cooling. Never knew we had that in common
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 14, 2020 14:21:10 GMT
I want to ask any drivers of their overall experience or approval of smart hybrids. This is spurred on by drivers on the 330 & 474 (I suspect) constantly revving the engine so the engine doesn't cut out. This is in comparison to my journeys on the N207's micro hybrids where stop/start is noticeable; had to rack my brain last night to remember when I last heard WH's hybrids stop/start, not even at bus stops! My hunch is that bus drivers grow slowly less fond of it as time goes on.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 10, 2020 22:35:58 GMT
I have a problem or two with this article: its ambiguity suggests that Sadiq Khan got rid of the conductors and having the rear door open whilst driving, which is all Boris's doing. Naughty Mr Osbourne, showing predilections in your newspaper article when journalism should be impartial! It's the beginning of the end for LTs, that much is certain. What's the point in having 3 door buses when they aren't fully utilised? They will be withdrawn en masse should Khan win another mayoral term, pending some molehill issue in the media that he will capitalise on respond to. And as for this "successful trial" on the 8; I believe the route was successfully pulled back from TCR, saw a lower patronage than normal and TfL successfully stretched data which is not like-for-like. It was Sadiq Khan that got rid of conductors and consequently the open platform. I don't think three door buses have been a success regardless of the type of bus, ie bendybus as well, but I think the LT will be with us for some time yet. Gosh, 2016 seems like an eon away! I disagree, in terms of passenger flow and reducing dwell times, open boarding has been a success. Where TfL want to be stringent in having open boarding but not enforcing revenue protection is where the downfall lies. It's pointless to have LTs or bendies and not have a strong deterrent like inspector checks every other day to fend the fare evaders off, cause the vast majority of [fare paying] customers will be appreciative of open boarding and the benefits it brings.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 10, 2020 21:47:06 GMT
I have a problem or two with this article: its ambiguity suggests that Sadiq Khan got rid of the conductors and having the rear door open whilst driving, which is all Boris's doing. Naughty Mr Osbourne, showing predilections in your newspaper article when journalism should be impartial! It's the beginning of the end for LTs, that much is certain. What's the point in having 3 door buses when they aren't fully utilised? They will be withdrawn en masse should Khan win another mayoral term, pending some molehill issue in the media that he will capitalise on respond to. And as for this "successful trial" on the 8; I believe the route was successfully pulled back from TCR, saw a lower patronage than normal and TfL successfully stretched data which is not like-for-like.
|
|