|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 19:53:13 GMT
No room at Crystal Palace the 3 and 227s are standing on the parade. uote author=" Whitherminter" source="/post/413485/thread" timestamp="1516639196"]I mean, Crystal Palace to Anerly are not that far from each other. The route has 5 stops in common with the 157 & 358 so I'd hardly call it excessive. Both the 249 and 432 are well used from 'Anerly Station' when people get off the LO to get to Crystal Palace at late nights. Even if you were to find space at Crystal Palace to cut the 432, what would be the point? You're hardly saving much time or money. [/quote] 3 and 227 normally stand inside the bus station but the limited space there is the only reason the Anerley Station stand was built. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jan 22, 2018 21:15:44 GMT
No the 3 and 227 are standing on the parade. quote author=" sid" source="/post/413537/thread" timestamp="1516650793"] No room at Crystal Palace the 3 and 227s are standing on the parade. uote author=" Whitherminter" source="/post/413485/thread" timestamp="1516639196"]I mean, Crystal Palace to Anerly are not that far from each other. The route has 5 stops in common with the 157 & 358 so I'd hardly call it excessive. Both the 249 and 432 are well used from 'Anerly Station' when people get off the LO to get to Crystal Palace at late nights. Even if you were to find space at Crystal Palace to cut the 432, what would be the point? You're hardly saving much time or money. [/quote] 3 and 227 normally stand inside the bus station but the limited space there is the only reason the Anerley Station stand was built.[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 22, 2018 23:40:32 GMT
It would obviously save a bus on each route. And why would people be getting off the LO at Anerley and getting a bus to Crystal Palace rather than going there direct on the LO? Good question, because frequencies are lower. People intend on going to West Norwood and Streatham (but the London Bridge to Vic train is sometimes suspended or a long wait) so people get on either the 249 or 432. A lot of people there have travelcards so aren't losing any money from doing this. When I go to stay with my sister in Leigham Court Road I frequently get a LO to Anerley in the late evening peak, then any bus up from Anerley to CP then a 417. If I can get a 249 or 432, all the better, simple change of bus without a walk. I wouldn't fancy that trek up Anerley Hill at my age, and from CP station I'd feel a fraud waiting for a bus up, so I'd probably drag myself regardless! |
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jan 22, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
My prediction for next reductions in Hounslow: The 116 down to every 15 minutes Mon-Sat daytime (currently every 12) with evening/Sundays unchanged, and the E8 down to every 10 minutes Mon-Sat daytime (currently every 8) and all evenings to every 12 minutes (currently every 10 !!). Next reductions in the Southall area: Watch it end up being one or both of the 207 and 427  Both the 117 and 235 are probably lucky with their non-London bits, having started their contracts 12-16 months ago. Tempting to go into extreme mode like some other posts a few pages back, but I'll leave that for now  |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 23, 2018 7:46:59 GMT
Good question, because frequencies are lower. People intend on going to West Norwood and Streatham (but the London Bridge to Vic train is sometimes suspended or a long wait) so people get on either the 249 or 432. A lot of people there have travelcards so aren't losing any money from doing this. When I go to stay with my sister in Leigham Court Road I frequently get a LO to Anerley in the late evening peak, then any bus up from Anerley to CP then a 417. If I can get a 249 or 432, all the better, simple change of bus without a walk. I wouldn't fancy that trek up Anerley Hill at my age, and from CP station I'd feel a fraud waiting for a bus up, so I'd probably drag myself regardless! Obviously I don't know where you're travelling from but wouldn't a train to Streatham Hill be a better option? |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 23, 2018 8:36:11 GMT
I wonder what will happen when TfL implement all these lovely cuts we are so willingly giving them?    And don't think they don't read forums like this. They most certainly do. Oh I am fully aware they do, snoggle! As a generally knowledgeable bunch here, I would like to think we are generally sensible when thinking of cuts. I use the 411 regularly for example, but someone here (rgd976?) suggested a cut to x30 min - if you co-ordinated the x30 on 411 with the x30 on the 461 I wouldn’t be upset with that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 9:38:02 GMT
I wonder what will happen when TfL implement all these lovely cuts we are so willingly giving them? And don't think they don't read forums like this. They most certainly do. Oh I am fully aware they do, snoggle! As a generally knowledgeable bunch here, I would like to think we are generally sensible when thinking of cuts. I use the 411 regularly for example, but someone here (rgd976?) suggested a cut to x30 min - if you co-ordinated the x30 on 411 with the x30 on the 461 I wouldn’t be upset with that. The 411and 461 should be co-ordinated to provide a 15 min service between West Molesey Central Sq and Kingston. I know the 411 gets very busy at school / peak hours and also on Saturdays . I never agreed with using single decks at the same frequencies, it should be a double deck route that could be thinned out outside the peaks to every 30 mins* but keeping its 20 min frequency peak hours and Sat Shopping hrs. *Co-ordinated with 461 |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 23, 2018 10:39:39 GMT
Where would people terminate the route(s) if there is no capacity in the bus station ... or would you move another route out? 358 cut Anerley - Palace... Not for me  !
I'd withdraw the 157 , no I'm not planning to axe it just reroute it via Church Road and South Norwood Hill, extend the 432 from Anerley to Norwood Junction then replacing the 312 to Croydon using the 197 stand and I'd extend the 197 to South Croydon Garage where many go OOS for driver changeovers anyway. A few new links, and no significant ones lost, for very little outlay.
As for the 249 if it really cannot be accommodated in the bus station it would have to continue to Anerley but maybe make it a bit more useful by going the extra mile or so to Elmers End?
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 23, 2018 10:49:08 GMT
358 cut Anerley - Palace... Not for me !
I'd withdraw the 157 , no I'm not planning to axe it just reroute it via Church Road and South Norwood Hill, extend the 432 from Anerley to Norwood Junction then replacing the 312 to Croydon using the 197 stand and I'd extend the 197 to South Croydon Garage where many go OOS for driver changeovers anyway. A few new links, and no significant ones lost, for very little outlay.
As for the 249 if it really cannot be accommodated in the bus station it would have to continue to Anerley but maybe make it a bit more useful by going the extra mile or so to Elmers End?
I'd rather the 432 goes to Elmers End or stays at Anerley and the rest gets left alone. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 23, 2018 11:54:13 GMT
1. Reduce PVR by 1 on every route with a peak headway of less than 9 minutes. 2. Bring back short workings for newly tendered routes where demand differs greatly at each end of the route. For example route 282 could be set at every 10 minutes between Ealing Hospital and Eastcote and every 20 minutes through to Mount Vernon. In the early evenings the frequency could be set at 15mins and 30mins, with the final 2 hours of service running the full length of the route at every 30 mins. This would lower PVR’s and excess capacity. It would also require operators to blind their buses properly (**GAL ahem**) 3. Make people touch out of buses for the correct fare. The advantages are opportunities are already covered in other posts. Done in conjunction with scrapping the hopper fare and fare cap. 4. Night tube frequencies halved with immediate effect. Public put on notice to “use it or lose it”. Go ahead with complete axing a year down the line regardless of what happens 😈 5. Introduce daytime red routes along key bus lanes and busy single lane sections of the road. Camera enforcement on buses and on the street to issues fines to offending vehicles. This will help keep buses moving - along with an idea already suggested to cut padding out of existing timetables. 6. All London buses run at a minimum of every 30 minutes. Anything less frequent is axed. The exception being mobility bus routes. 7. Lift 20mph speed restrictions on main roads throughout London and trial free WiFi on longer commuter routes into zone 1. Year long pilot on routes 18, 25, 36 and 53. Expand to other routes if it has an financially significant impact on ridership. If no impact, then look at cutting these routes and other long distance ones back to the edge of Z1. 1. Disagree, there are many routes that don't justify reductions in fact some justify an increase. 2. Agree about short workings and although the 282 isn't a route I see very often your proposal sounds good to me. 3. Disagree, it would be open to abuse with people getting on and touching in and then touching out as they pass the rear door and staying on board. There would be massive scrums at busy stops with people trying to get to the reader to touch out causing no end of delays. 4. Disagree, I think the night tube is a big positive, shame it can't run 7 nights a week, although possibly make reductions on any poorly used sections. 5. Yes and no, some parking provision is essential for delivery vehicles and such like. 6. Disagree, I wouldn't want to see routes like the 146 and R8 axed. 7. I'm open minded about 20mph speed limits, they are good in some areas but not in others. I certainly think wi-fi and USB charging points should be introduced as standard on all public transport. 1. A large number of vehicles need to be taken off the road to achieve these cost savings. If every route with a headway of less than 9 minutes had one bus removed it would reduce the fleet by roughly 150 vehicles. That’s less than 2% of the current fleet. The cost of 150 new hybrid’s is how much? £30 million? Someone better informed chime in here, but the cost savings are there to be had under my “use it or lose it” policy. 3. Good point about the scrums, although I understand Singapore manages to do ok. Why does touching out need to take place on the bus? Touch out at the bus stop instead. Readers can be installed at bus stops. No touch out = maximum fare being charged. 4. I think the night tube is great. If it’s being used. Problem is that frequencies are not matching demand. Also it’s driving up costs as additional buses are needed to link stations regardless of demand. Use it or lose it would be my message. 6. Routes like the 146 could be saved if they merited a service increase or if they could be joined with another route in a cost effective way. Under my suggestion of allowing different frequencies along less busy sections of a route the 146 could be saved by joining with the 126 for example. Every 10 minutes to Bromley, Every 60 minutes through to Downe. Or it could be turned into a mobility bus service and renumbered 946 😈 |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 23, 2018 12:39:12 GMT
1. Disagree, there are many routes that don't justify reductions in fact some justify an increase. 2. Agree about short workings and although the 282 isn't a route I see very often your proposal sounds good to me. 3. Disagree, it would be open to abuse with people getting on and touching in and then touching out as they pass the rear door and staying on board. There would be massive scrums at busy stops with people trying to get to the reader to touch out causing no end of delays. 4. Disagree, I think the night tube is a big positive, shame it can't run 7 nights a week, although possibly make reductions on any poorly used sections. 5. Yes and no, some parking provision is essential for delivery vehicles and such like. 6. Disagree, I wouldn't want to see routes like the 146 and R8 axed. 7. I'm open minded about 20mph speed limits, they are good in some areas but not in others. I certainly think wi-fi and USB charging points should be introduced as standard on all public transport. 1. A large number of vehicles need to be taken off the road to achieve these cost savings. If every route with a headway of less than 9 minutes had one bus removed it would reduce the fleet by roughly 150 vehicles. That’s less than 2% of the current fleet. The cost of 150 new hybrid’s is how much? £30 million? Someone better informed chime in here, but the cost savings are there to be had under my “use it or lose it” policy. 3. Good point about the scrums, although I understand Singapore manages to do ok. Why does touching out need to take place on the bus? Touch out at the bus stop instead. Readers can be installed at bus stops. No touch out = maximum fare being charged. 4. I think the night tube is great. If it’s being used. Problem is that frequencies are not matching demand. Also it’s driving up costs as additional buses are needed to link stations regardless of demand. Use it or lose it would be my message. 6. Routes like the 146 could be saved if they merited a service increase or if they could be joined with another route in a cost effective way. Under my suggestion of allowing different frequencies along less busy sections of a route the 146 could be saved by joining with the 126 for example. Every 10 minutes to Bromley, Every 60 minutes through to Downe. Or it could be turned into a mobility bus service and renumbered 946 😈 I think the cost of installing readers at every bus stop would be prohibitive. I've only used the night tube occasionally in Central London and it's been reasonably busy, obviously if some sections are under utilised questions need to be asked. I don't think much would be gained by linking the 126 and 146. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 23, 2018 13:53:15 GMT
1. Reduce PVR by 1 on every route with a peak headway of less than 9 minutes. 2. Bring back short workings for newly tendered routes where demand differs greatly at each end of the route. For example route 282 could be set at every 10 minutes between Ealing Hospital and Eastcote and every 20 minutes through to Mount Vernon. In the early evenings the frequency could be set at 15mins and 30mins, with the final 2 hours of service running the full length of the route at every 30 mins. This would lower PVR’s and excess capacity. It would also require operators to blind their buses properly (**GAL ahem**) 3. Make people touch out of buses for the correct fare. The advantages are opportunities are already covered in other posts. Done in conjunction with scrapping the hopper fare and fare cap. 4. Night tube frequencies halved with immediate effect. Public put on notice to “use it or lose it”. Go ahead with complete axing a year down the line regardless of what happens 😈 5. Introduce daytime red routes along key bus lanes and busy single lane sections of the road. Camera enforcement on buses and on the street to issues fines to offending vehicles. This will help keep buses moving - along with an idea already suggested to cut padding out of existing timetables. 6. All London buses run at a minimum of every 30 minutes. Anything less frequent is axed. The exception being mobility bus routes. 7. Lift 20mph speed restrictions on main roads throughout London and trial free WiFi on longer commuter routes into zone 1. Year long pilot on routes 18, 25, 36 and 53. Expand to other routes if it has an financially significant impact on ridership. If no impact, then look at cutting these routes and other long distance ones back to the edge of Z1. Problem with bus lanes now is many have been decimated by cycle works etc they are flipping pointless even going into them, there is no advantage to them. Also they are now regularly clogged up with either taxis or cyclists that barely move it defeats the object. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 23, 2018 21:16:02 GMT
When I go to stay with my sister in Leigham Court Road I frequently get a LO to Anerley in the late evening peak, then any bus up from Anerley to CP then a 417. If I can get a 249 or 432, all the better, simple change of bus without a walk. I wouldn't fancy that trek up Anerley Hill at my age, and from CP station I'd feel a fraud waiting for a bus up, so I'd probably drag myself regardless! Obviously I don't know where you're travelling from but wouldn't a train to Streatham Hill be a better option? No, because she lives towards the Streatham Common end of Leigham Court and I'd only have to catch a bus up there, which are often quite full at that time of day, plus I get free bus travel, but not train! |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 23, 2018 21:33:41 GMT
358 cut Anerley - Palace... Not for me !
I'd withdraw the 157 , no I'm not planning to axe it just reroute it via Church Road and South Norwood Hill, extend the 432 from Anerley to Norwood Junction then replacing the 312 to Croydon using the 197 stand and I'd extend the 197 to South Croydon Garage where many go OOS for driver changeovers anyway. A few new links, and no significant ones lost, for very little outlay.
As for the 249 if it really cannot be accommodated in the bus station it would have to continue to Anerley but maybe make it a bit more useful by going the extra mile or so to Elmers End?
The suggestion of a direct route between Crystal Palace and Elmers End is, I think, spot on. It would give a link to the tram so long tantalisingly dangled before the people of the Palace by that arch teaser (I'd use another noun, personally) Boris Johnson when seeking election/re-election as Mayor. I'd forget the 249 or the 432 and extend the 417, that 'forever Norwood' route. Alternatively, extend the 54 up from Elmers End, although I don't believe Beckenham needs further connections to Anerley or Crystal Palace. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 23, 2018 21:46:49 GMT
Not for me !
I'd withdraw the 157 , no I'm not planning to axe it just reroute it via Church Road and South Norwood Hill, extend the 432 from Anerley to Norwood Junction then replacing the 312 to Croydon using the 197 stand and I'd extend the 197 to South Croydon Garage where many go OOS for driver changeovers anyway. A few new links, and no significant ones lost, for very little outlay.
As for the 249 if it really cannot be accommodated in the bus station it would have to continue to Anerley but maybe make it a bit more useful by going the extra mile or so to Elmers End?
The suggestion of a direct route between Crystal Palace and Elmers End is, I think, spot on. It would give a link to the tram so long tantalisingly dangled before the people of the Palace by that arch teaser (I'd use another noun, personally) Boris Johnson when seeking election/re-election as Mayor. I'd forget the 249 or the 432 and extend the 417, that 'forever Norwood' route. Alternatively, extend the 54 up from Elmers End, although I don't believe Beckenham needs further connections to Anerley or Crystal Palace. I don't think Tramlink to Crystal Palace was a viable option, there is a quicker heavy rail link to Croydon and a few improvements to the local bus network would be more realistic for the intermediate area, a direct link to Elmers End and my 432 proposal would give a direct link to the Addiscombe area. |
|
!
