|
Post by danorak on Dec 9, 2019 16:12:34 GMT
With the exception of the Hammersmith/Kensington link to Marble Arch there really is little purpose to the route of the 23 as the 27/28/295/328 all provide quicker alternatives. I'm guessing TFL weighed up thou usegse and felt 2 routes are needed between HPC and Hammersmith otherwise they would have simply axed the 10 and said the 9/73/390 provide enough capacity and the hopper fare. Thou that would leave a gap thou between the 9 and 390 to complete the old 10 so possibly another reason it survived. The 23 could have simply been withdrawn between MA and Aldwych. A modest frequency increase on the 9 and the 23 can be cut back to Marble Arch or rerouted somewhere else. I said at the time that the 23 is a route designed for operational convenience rather than the needs of passengers. You would use the 27 rather than the 23 for most of the 'new' journey opportunities. I am surprised it has survived.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 9, 2019 16:29:20 GMT
I don't disagree with the arrangement and it makes more sense then simply having the 10 and 23 terminating at Marble Arch with each routes taking no much longer then 30 mins.
Another option could be to divert the 414 at Edgware Road to Westbourne Park and withdraw the 23. Or put another way divert the 23 at Knightsbridge to Putney Bridge as the 23 is soon to start a new contract and the 414 is up for renewal next year.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Dec 9, 2019 16:34:00 GMT
A modest frequency increase on the 9 and the 23 can be cut back to Marble Arch or rerouted somewhere else. I said at the time that the 23 is a route designed for operational convenience rather than the needs of passengers. You would use the 27 rather than the 23 for most of the 'new' journey opportunities. I am surprised it has survived. Part of it was probably to increase competition as well. In its previous form X was really the only properly viable garage to run it, so which would probably have resulted in a more ‘complacent’ bid. By rerouting to Hammersmith it opened it up to lots of other potential operators, V mainly but also QB. Although the incumbent kept the route, no doubt they would have had a much bigger run for their money to try and retain it than they otherwise would have done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 16:49:54 GMT
I said at the time that the 23 is a route designed for operational convenience rather than the needs of passengers. You would use the 27 rather than the 23 for most of the 'new' journey opportunities. I am surprised it has survived. Part of it was probably to increase competition as well. In its previous form X was really the only properly viable garage to run it, so which would probably have resulted in a more ‘complacent’ bid. By rerouting to Hammersmith it opened it up to lots of other potential operators, V mainly but also QB. Although the incumbent kept the route, no doubt they would have had a much bigger run for their money to try and retain it than they otherwise would have done. Maybe.. but if it was competition TfL was after, extending the 23 to Wembley away from its terminus at X would have brought Metroline firmly into the fold as well. As it stood, it was always very unlikely to move operators.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 9, 2019 16:58:24 GMT
Could have been operated by an East London operator when it went to Liverpool Street. Same as how the 205 was previously operated by Metroline AE, BW.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Dec 9, 2019 18:34:58 GMT
Attempting to get further operator bids for a route should not be a reason for TfL to propose radical changes to that route.The tail shouldn't wag the dog.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 9, 2019 19:20:26 GMT
I said at the time that the 23 is a route designed for operational convenience rather than the needs of passengers. You would use the 27 rather than the 23 for most of the 'new' journey opportunities. I am surprised it has survived. Part of it was probably to increase competition as well. In its previous form X was really the only properly viable garage to run it, so which would probably have resulted in a more ‘complacent’ bid. By rerouting to Hammersmith it opened it up to lots of other potential operators, V mainly but also QB. Although the incumbent kept the route, no doubt they would have had a much bigger run for their money to try and retain it than they otherwise would have done. I doubt if increasing competition has anything to do with it, the alternative would have been two separate routes the 10 and 23 both terminating at Marble Arch.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 9, 2019 19:54:28 GMT
The lack of a common stop for Askew Road really is lamentable. If TfL can send the 533 via the Upper Bus Station then surely they can do the same for the 218. I have to say if I am getting a bus home from Hammersmith now, having a common stop towards Acton, Chiswick, Kew Bridge, and Brentford is quite useful. I expect it will happen in time. Probably when they decide to get rid of the ailing 23 which often leaves Hammersmith close to empty. The overbusing on Park Lane is digusting. Because the road is a vital conduit it has many routes running along it. However, since being vandalise routes like the 6, 23 and 137 have all been tampered with and lost patronage. There is little justification for such a high service level on the road. The 23 has seen better usage between HPC and Hammersmith but it's still not as well used as the 9, in part because it doesn't go to any popular destinations. The round the corner link to Park Lane is hardly neede and is provided (from Knightsbridge) by the 74 and 137 anyway.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 9, 2019 19:55:44 GMT
Went on the 306 earlier only a very short trip from Acton old town to First Avenue bus was packed, 306 on the other hand was pretty much empty obviously far to early to really talk about loadings on the route but just an early observation. Previously suggested the idea of the 27 terminating at the low bus station but someone said it wouldn't work as you would still need king street for a common stop to change for routes down Chiswick High Road, not sure what the problem was with changing at Hammersmith bus station but anyhow. Before Hammersmith Bridge closure and the changes with all the routes I'm sure TfL would have decided to terminate the route at the bus station rather than Hammersmith Grove but obviously at the time there was no space. Ironically buses on route 27 have been standing at the Lower Bus Station over the last few weeks, maybe the Hammersmith Grove stand was out of action. It is due to the ongoing roadworks
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 9, 2019 20:04:26 GMT
Part of it was probably to increase competition as well. In its previous form X was really the only properly viable garage to run it, so which would probably have resulted in a more ‘complacent’ bid. By rerouting to Hammersmith it opened it up to lots of other potential operators, V mainly but also QB. Although the incumbent kept the route, no doubt they would have had a much bigger run for their money to try and retain it than they otherwise would have done. Maybe.. but if it was competition TfL was after, extending the 23 to Wembley away from its terminus at X would have brought Metroline firmly into the fold as well. As it stood, it was always very unlikely to move operators. Whilst extending the 23 up to Wembley is far from perfect, and I can see that at the expense of a link to Oxford Street it's not the best but it's far better than the botched mess of the 23 we have now. The route has lost purpose, skirting the western edge of the ULEZ means is serves few popular destinations and the destinations it does serve are better reached using other routes in both circumstances. I would like to see a route from Oxford Street which heads down to Notting Hill Gate before turning down Church Street to Kensington then on to Hammersmith and perhaps beyond to Chiswick. Whilst it does duplicate the 27, the great thing about it is that it relives the struggling 94 which regularly leaves Marble Arch packed to the doors, it also provides a link between Kensington and Oxford St lost by the withdrawal of the 10, and adds bus capacity where it's needed. Only downside is over busing Church Street; some may argue the road is already over used with the existence of the 452.
|
|
|
Post by george on Dec 9, 2019 21:17:45 GMT
Looking on social media (twitter) I have only seen one negative tweet about all these changes this weekend, that was about the 140/X140 change. All in all I'm sure TfL will be pretty pleased about that
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Dec 9, 2019 21:46:04 GMT
Part of it was probably to increase competition as well. In its previous form X was really the only properly viable garage to run it, so which would probably have resulted in a more ‘complacent’ bid. By rerouting to Hammersmith it opened it up to lots of other potential operators, V mainly but also QB. Although the incumbent kept the route, no doubt they would have had a much bigger run for their money to try and retain it than they otherwise would have done. Maybe.. but if it was competition TfL was after, extending the 23 to Wembley away from its terminus at X would have brought Metroline firmly into the fold as well. As it stood, it was always very unlikely to move operators. Attempting to get further operator bids for a route should not be a reason for TfL to propose radical changes to that route.The tail shouldn't wag the dog. Part of it was probably to increase competition as well. In its previous form X was really the only properly viable garage to run it, so which would probably have resulted in a more ‘complacent’ bid. By rerouting to Hammersmith it opened it up to lots of other potential operators, V mainly but also QB. Although the incumbent kept the route, no doubt they would have had a much bigger run for their money to try and retain it than they otherwise would have done. I doubt if increasing competition has anything to do with it, the alternative would have been two separate routes the 10 and 23 both terminating at Marble Arch. I agree an increase in competition would definitely have not been TfLs main incentive to reroute the 23 to Hammersmith. HOWEVER, in times where tender prices are (99% of the time) the deciding factor over who to award a route to, it must have crossed their minds at some point that there would subsequently be more competitive tender prices rerouting the route to where it is today. I agree with busaholic its definitely the tail wagging the dog if this had some weight to the decision. I can very well see Metroline maybe trying to have a stab at getting the 14 now it’s been rerouted to Russell Square. Very close proximity to KC garage, and now the 214’s gone there’s a hole there. QB could also enter the fray for it too seeing as they’re now seemingly very keen to seek work not necessarily close to the garage. I’m pretty sure the 14 won’t be just Go-Aheads to play for come next tender. X may also want to have an attempt at the 74 seeing as the 13 is very near to it, AND they are also branching out to further out routes winning the C3 which is quite some distance away.
|
|
|
Post by george on Dec 9, 2019 22:07:42 GMT
Maybe.. but if it was competition TfL was after, extending the 23 to Wembley away from its terminus at X would have brought Metroline firmly into the fold as well. As it stood, it was always very unlikely to move operators. Attempting to get further operator bids for a route should not be a reason for TfL to propose radical changes to that route.The tail shouldn't wag the dog. I doubt if increasing competition has anything to do with it, the alternative would have been two separate routes the 10 and 23 both terminating at Marble Arch. I agree an increase in competition would definitely have not been TfLs main incentive to reroute the 23 to Hammersmith. HOWEVER, in times where tender prices are (99% of the time) the deciding factor over who to award a route to, it must have crossed their minds at some point that there would subsequently be more competitive tender prices rerouting the route to where it is today. I agree with busaholic its definitely the tail wagging the dog if this had some weight to the decision. I can very well see Metroline maybe trying to have a stab at getting the 14 now it’s been rerouted to Russell Square. Very close proximity to KC garage, and now the 214’s gone there’s a hole there. QB could also enter the fray for it too seeing as they’re now seemingly very keen to seek work not necessarily close to the garage. I’m pretty sure the 14 won’t be just Go-Aheads to play for come next tender. X may also want to have an attempt at the 74 seeing as the 13 is very near to it, AND they are also branching out to further out routes winning the C3 which is quite some distance away. If Abellio had enough space then they could have easily done a joint bid discount with all the routes that are currently in 756 tranche. I can't see the 14 or 22 leaving soon but who knows. I can see TT and RATP bidding for the 74, Abellio bidding for the 430 and Abellio and RATP bidding for the 337.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Dec 9, 2019 23:41:53 GMT
Maybe.. but if it was competition TfL was after, extending the 23 to Wembley away from its terminus at X would have brought Metroline firmly into the fold as well. As it stood, it was always very unlikely to move operators. Attempting to get further operator bids for a route should not be a reason for TfL to propose radical changes to that route.The tail shouldn't wag the dog. I doubt if increasing competition has anything to do with it, the alternative would have been two separate routes the 10 and 23 both terminating at Marble Arch. I agree an increase in competition would definitely have not been TfLs main incentive to reroute the 23 to Hammersmith. HOWEVER, in times where tender prices are (99% of the time) the deciding factor over who to award a route to, it must have crossed their minds at some point that there would subsequently be more competitive tender prices rerouting the route to where it is today. I agree with busaholic its definitely the tail wagging the dog if this had some weight to the decision. I can very well see Metroline maybe trying to have a stab at getting the 14 now it’s been rerouted to Russell Square. Very close proximity to KC garage, and now the 214’s gone there’s a hole there. QB could also enter the fray for it too seeing as they’re now seemingly very keen to seek work not necessarily close to the garage. I’m pretty sure the 14 won’t be just Go-Aheads to play for come next tender. X may also want to have an attempt at the 74 seeing as the 13 is very near to it, AND they are also branching out to further out routes winning the C3 which is quite some distance away. Other than Waterloo, there are no Central London garages, so if a Central London route is diverted away from CL, it is highly likely to attract more competition .. do not think there in anything subversive in this decision.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 9, 2019 23:50:31 GMT
I agree an increase in competition would definitely have not been TfLs main incentive to reroute the 23 to Hammersmith. HOWEVER, in times where tender prices are (99% of the time) the deciding factor over who to award a route to, it must have crossed their minds at some point that there would subsequently be more competitive tender prices rerouting the route to where it is today. I agree with busaholic its definitely the tail wagging the dog if this had some weight to the decision. I can very well see Metroline maybe trying to have a stab at getting the 14 now it’s been rerouted to Russell Square. Very close proximity to KC garage, and now the 214’s gone there’s a hole there. QB could also enter the fray for it too seeing as they’re now seemingly very keen to seek work not necessarily close to the garage. I’m pretty sure the 14 won’t be just Go-Aheads to play for come next tender. X may also want to have an attempt at the 74 seeing as the 13 is very near to it, AND they are also branching out to further out routes winning the C3 which is quite some distance away. Other than Waterloo, there are no Central London garages, so if a Central London route is diverted away from CL, it is highly likely to attract more competition .. do not think there in anything subversive in this decision. Kings Cross garage is also in Central London.
|
|