|
Post by riverside on Jan 30, 2016 16:29:43 GMT
In 1980 I worked as a trainee at the Bus Communications Office at Baker Street. One of the jobs I was given to do was to compile a list of all the routes that had more than 10 'code red assault type situations' in a year. A code red would be when a driver contacted the communications office to say they needed assistance from the police. The list just gives route numbers, so you can not identify if particular sections or areas of routes were the scenes of threatening situations. Here is the Top (Bottom?)20! Route Number Number of Assault Type Situations 36/36a/36b 144 37 144 207 125 15 111 73 109 253 109 77/77a/77c 108 53 103 2/2b 82 12 73 28 71 25 68 52 66 88 65 171 65 16/16a 63 18/18a 63 30 57 243/243a 56 3 55 When I worked at Stamford Brook Garage as a conductor on route 27 the northern end of the route between Camden Town and Archway rarely gave any problems. Although a poorer area compared to other parts of the route, late night you tended to just get friendly drunks, who took awhile to get their money out of their pockets but would always pay their fares. When they were completely sozzled they would ask you to just take the correct amount out of the fistful of coins in their hands. Late night Saturday in salubrious Richmond was different. Duty 14 was the last duty of the day and arrived back at the garage at about 1am. After persistent trouble in Richmond an unofficial practice for this duty was followed by most if not all crews. On the last journey from Teddington Station the bus would cross Richmond Bridge and then stop at the traffic lights before turning left into the town centre. There was no bus stop here but passengers were politely told that they could either alight here or wait till the next stop which would be at Richmond Station. It would be explained that this was to ensure that the yobs coming out of clubs such as Cheeky Pete's did not get on the bus and cause trouble. All the passengers I dealt with accepted this situation. All of the saloon lights would then be turned off and the bus would drive past the two stops in Richmond town centre as if out of service. You can argue whether this was the right or wrong thing to do but it did avoid assault type situations. Most people would not have thought of Richmond as the rough end of the route. Ok by day but not late Saturday night. Archway, Kentish and Camden Towns were fine at any time. It would be interesting to research how many of the 1980 "bad" routes were crew operated. Most, if not all, I'd venture to suggest. Crew workings were always notorious for appearing in the assault statistics. The conductors were effectively forced into confrontation. I'll sound like some sort of "reverse snob" but I'm not remotely surprised that the "posh" bits of a route were more troublesome when people had a chance to get tanked up / off their face. The one time I was assaulted it was by people who were later found to be from a posh private school. The attack was completely unprovoked. I was just out for a walk in a pleasant part of the area near where I lived. All the popular nonsense about poor areas being dens of iniquity really isn't right in my experience. Most people are decent and honest - as your "drunks paying their fare" reference shows. Yes there are rough areas but they tend to be because people are living in poor quality housing with few amenities and not because everyone is a criminal or their children are delinquents. You are right Snoggle the list was very heavily skewed to crew routes. The highest OPO route was the 44 with 35 'assault type situations'. It shared joint 28th position with the 22/22A. The latter was OPO but the figures for it were not separated out from its parent route. The next OPO route to feature was in 58th position and was your local 123! I back what you say about people having misconceptions about 'poor' areas. Again I am going back a considerable time but I remember an incident on the buses that really shook up people in my part of West London. At Riverside garage the 'rough' route was considered to be the 266. The route that was considered to be the 'safest' was the 72, which the most senior staff used to tend to work on. It was a route that had quite a number of long serving,formidable female conductresses who you would cross at your peril. In about 1977, however, a terrible event occurred at the East Acton (Du Cane Road) stand where a young male conductor was seriously stabbed. He very nearly died, losing lots of blood and when recovered had to be transferred to light duties. The man who carried out the attack had serious mental health issues. Often it is not the area that is the problem but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. These recollections also show that even years ago there were sadly serious outbreaks of violence on London's buses. In the early 1970s a conductor from Merton on the 77 or 77a was killed carrying out his duties. I think there was a complete sympathy strike on the day of his funeral. In 2016 a flat fare means there are no arguments about how much a passenger should be charged. CCTV monitors passenger behaviour. The top decks of Metrobuses and Titan were often in a terrible state with graffiti and window etchings in the 1980s. Nowadays the problem isn't anything like as bad because of CCTV. By and large I feel that London buses are very safe regardless of the area you are travelling through. The recent racist incidents on the 206 and 149 stood out because of their rareness. The inside of a bus is one of the few shared spaces where all types of Londoners get along together reasonably well. I do accept that there are isolated cases of regular anti social behaviour in specific places like the incidents quoted in Slade Green. It is up to TfL, the bus companies and the police to stamp out such behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jan 30, 2016 15:56:29 GMT
Reversing the theme of this thread I wonder if the 295 is the route that has grown the most. Starting off in June 1967 it shuttled between East Acton and Hammersmith Broadway on Mondays to Fridays till 19.30 with an allocation of 4 RMs and a running time of 14 minutes. Today it is an integral part of the inner West London network running between Ladbroke Grove(Sainsbury's) and Clapham Junction 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. At one time it even ran on to Westbourne Park at the Ladbroke Grove end and Battersea Park Station at the other. Certainly as a small schoolboy in 1967 I would not have predicted that it would blossom into a busy trunk route.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jan 27, 2016 15:30:35 GMT
In 1980 I worked as a trainee at the Bus Communications Office at Baker Street. One of the jobs I was given to do was to compile a list of all the routes that had more than 10 'code red assault type situations' in a year. A code red would be when a driver contacted the communications office to say they needed assistance from the police. The list just gives route numbers, so you can not identify if particular sections or areas of routes were the scenes of threatening situations. Here is the Top (Bottom?)20!
Route Number Number of Assault Type Situations 36/36a/36b 144 37 144 207 125 15 111 73 109 253 109 77/77a/77c 108 53 103 2/2b 82 12 73 28 71 25 68 52 66 88 65 171 65 16/16a 63 18/18a 63 30 57 243/243a 56 3 55
When I worked at Stamford Brook Garage as a conductor on route 27 the northern end of the route between Camden Town and Archway rarely gave any problems. Although a poorer area compared to other parts of the route, late night you tended to just get friendly drunks, who took awhile to get their money out of their pockets but would always pay their fares. When they were completely sozzled they would ask you to just take the correct amount out of the fistful of coins in their hands. Late night Saturday in salubrious Richmond was different. Duty 14 was the last duty of the day and arrived back at the garage at about 1am. After persistent trouble in Richmond an unofficial practice for this duty was followed by most if not all crews. On the last journey from Teddington Station the bus would cross Richmond Bridge and then stop at the traffic lights before turning left into the town centre. There was no bus stop here but passengers were politely told that they could either alight here or wait till the next stop which would be at Richmond Station. It would be explained that this was to ensure that the yobs coming out of clubs such as Cheeky Pete's did not get on the bus and cause trouble. All the passengers I dealt with accepted this situation. All of the saloon lights would then be turned off and the bus would drive past the two stops in Richmond town centre as if out of service. You can argue whether this was the right or wrong thing to do but it did avoid assault type situations. Most people would not have thought of Richmond as the rough end of the route. Ok by day but not late Saturday night. Archway, Kentish and Camden Towns were fine at any time.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jan 18, 2016 12:26:38 GMT
Before bendy buses were introduced, the 12 used to run between Notting Hill Gate - Peckham & Oxford Circus - Dulwich Library (I think) When thw world was in B&W, the 12 ran from Harlesden Willesden Junction to Dulwich the Plough, and Oxford Circus to TC garage. At one time it ran from 6(!) garages with a PVR of 120. Attached is a copy of a 1958 timetable from Ian Armstrong's bus route web page. View AttachmentOn a Sunday when the 49 took over the Shepherds Bush to Harlesden section the 12 ran all the way through from the garage at Wells Road in Shepherds Bush to South Croydon Garage. Ironically on that day of the week neither of those two garages operated on the route.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 13, 2015 15:56:00 GMT
At present there seems to be a flurry of route proposals from TfL. The E9, 436/452 and 110/E8/H28 are all out to official consultation, whilst the enthusiast grapevine has flagged up changes relating to the the 83/483 and new 239. Yet still there seems to be no official consultation about changes to the 424/485. I wonder why TfL is stalling for so long. Are any changes in temporary abeyance or have they been abandoned? As both routes are relatively minor have TfL prioritised consulting on more major changes? I know patience is a virtue but this is a long wait.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 13, 2015 9:52:29 GMT
That is the plan to terminate at Danebury avenue then allowing the 72 to go back to its old frequency. Thanks for confirming that.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 12, 2015 9:52:36 GMT
Would there be enough stand space at Roehampton? (Not local to the area) I get the impression we'll see more of these type of proposals over the next couple of years. If I read this proposal correctly then the 239 will in effect be a projection of the 72 'shorts' from Hammersmith to Acton Vale. This should not lead then to any additional buses using the Bessborough Road stand on the Alton East Estate. TfL could consider terminating the 239 at the Danebury Avenue stand on the Alton West Estate so as to give people with mobility problems a more convenient service to Hammersmith.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 10, 2015 14:00:37 GMT
Like Danorak I am very surprised by the proposal to route the proposed extended double decked E8 via Amhurst Gardens. It is a very ordinary residential road. Maybe TfL think that because it is a relatively small road the residents will not have the numerical muscle to get up a head of steam to protest against the proposals. There does not seem to be too much benefit for the residents either as they have not far to walk to London Road to get a bus to Hounslow. They will gain a new link to Ealing but this will probably not be enough to recompense for the perceived inconvenience of extra buses along their road. Usually when these proposals come up I do not have great sympathy with the objectors but this might be a time when their concerns need to be listened to very carefully. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I think what TfL are doing is picking the nearest available road suitable for buses that also allows the E8 to serve the hospital all at the same time. As an outsider, I personally don't see the issue for Amhurst Gardens - they get a more frequent and direct service to Hounslow, a new link beyond Brentford and their link to the local hospital is preserved. Lots of other areas would give their right arm & leg for that. I understand what you are saying and the thinking behind TfL's plans but I really do question the suitability of Amhurst Gardens for such a route. I think TfL are putting forward a proposal that is for their convenience. If Amhurst Gardens is considered so suitable for a fairly intensive double deck service then the same logic could be used to solve another capacity problem in the local area. The H37 would benefit from being double deck. The problem is the railway bridge at the northern end of St. John's Road. This could easily be avoided by diverting the H37 by the old 37 route that was used for decades ( I can certainly remember RMLs negotiating it) via Loring Road and Linkfield Road to access London Road. It would instantly solve capacity problems and would use roads that saw bus use for decades. Having said that given the nature of the roads I could quite understand the residents would not be too happy about the H37 using this route. I understand that it is not easy to serve West Middlesex Hospital on a route between Ealing and Hounslow but it looks to me that the residents of Amhurst Gardens will end up having to pay the price of the wider public having better connections. I suppose that's life but I cannot help having some sympathy for their predicament.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 10, 2015 12:25:35 GMT
Like Danorak I am very surprised by the proposal to route the proposed extended double decked E8 via Amhurst Gardens. It is a very ordinary residential road. Maybe TfL think that because it is a relatively small road the residents will not have the numerical muscle to get up a head of steam to protest against the proposals. There does not seem to be too much benefit for the residents either as they have not far to walk to London Road to get a bus to Hounslow. They will gain a new link to Ealing but this will probably not be enough to recompense for the perceived inconvenience of extra buses along their road. Usually when these proposals come up I do not have great sympathy with the objectors but this might be a time when their concerns need to be listened to very carefully. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 8, 2015 10:08:12 GMT
I suspect the 483 proposal will be edited to be extended to Ealing Hospital as I can't see the sense in dropping the section especially as there would likely be a massive backlash. I'm also not convinced by the 112 being extended for two reasons: 1) Whilst the 83 is quieter west of Ealing, I've still found it to be quite busy personally - enough for single deckers to be overcrowded. 2) There are a number of traffic hotspots - Neasden, Hanger Lane, Brent Cross that screw up the route quite badly from experience. If you extended it to Ealing Hospital, then your adding in Uxbridge Road where I've encountered heavy traffic in the past. I've done the 83 end to end on numerous occasions - it's loooong lol. On a serious note, I can see why it's would be split as it's meets lot of traffic but I'm torn on how beneficial it would be. Like you Vjaska I am not convinced by the 112 being extended to Ealing Hospital but if it does happen then TfL would be mad not to double deck the route.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 7, 2015 18:28:21 GMT
According to the BrentfordTW8.com website the new Metroline garage at Brentford is to be incorporated into a futuristic looking redevelopment called Capital Interchange Way. The location is by Lionel Road near to the new planned Brentford Stadium.Parts of the development will be 22 storeys high and include 350 new homes and a car showroom. The report refers to a new bus 'depot' for Metroline so maybe it's going to operate a 100% all electric fleet or else trolleybuses are returning to West London! The same report also states that the Commerce Road site 'could' be used for a new school, although on other threads people have suggested luxury flats to be more likely. If these plans come to fruition it is going to be one of the most impressive new garages for a long time
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 3, 2015 12:54:30 GMT
From londonbusroutes.net. I didn't think H&F had such power over a bus route. Brook Green is a good stand as well, won't this just increase congestion in the bus station? What possible harm can the 72 do terminating at Brook Green? This is a long established stand that used to have a large number of routes terminating there in the days of short workings. I accept that with the opening of the large Tesco at Brook Green things have changed but I still cannot see how one Enviro200 parked on the stand causes any problems.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Oct 18, 2015 16:19:39 GMT
Why are many councils nowadays so prejudiced against buses? The current site of Hounslow Garage is a good example of land use. It is near the main shopping area so is able to efficiently bring passengers to where they want to go. The buses then have a space where they can then turn around and take the passengers home. If the garage were to disappear then the amount of dead running to distant bases would not be good for the environment. Where would terminating buses for Hounslow then stand? The present garage has been on its site for years. I have never heard anyone in the area say that it is a terrible place to have a bus garage. As usual some town hall planner comes up with far fetched ideas without thinking through the repercussions for passengers. Hopefully as some people have already indicated on this thread it is not the actual bus garage that is threatened but adjacent land. Moving AV bus garage would be another example of the seeming going trend that subjugates the needs of passengers to the demands of other interest groups in our society.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Oct 17, 2015 12:21:24 GMT
I have not got the reliability statistics to hand for the 485 but I should think they are not too bad. Whenever I have observed or used the route it seems to be running to time. Obviously this is a limited impression. The schedule has a generous 15 minutes recovery time (for a route that takes 30 minutes end to end), at both Hammersmith and Wandsworth. Apart from when the Hammersmith gyratory system becomes choked the route should perform reasonably well.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Oct 16, 2015 10:49:56 GMT
The fact that New York and Paris can run Christmas Day services rather puts London to shame. Nobody expects a full Sunday service to operate, such a level of service never operated in the past when LT ran buses on Christmas Day. A reduced Sunday service should be sufficient but not on every single route. Somehow in the past LT managed to publicise services. Nowadays there are many more ways to get information to the public so I don't think publicity should be a problem.
|
|