|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 8, 2018 18:20:41 GMT
A 12 mins service of the 412 with SDs would of course be more attractive but the 412 is unique in needed nearly a full DD service to cope with Riddlesdown School. A 12 mins DD service would just be too wasteful from a cost perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 8, 2018 18:28:54 GMT
Well the Brixton Hill routes are definitely busy as well, it's one of those huge corridors - but I wouldn't characterise the 292 as a route that would see large commuter peak on weekends. A lot of buses are busier than usual on sundays midday as frequencies are generally weak - and of course no chance of upgrading them now any time soon. I also wonder what is 292's sunday frequency - if it's every 20-30mins, then it doesn't seem very encouraging or attractive a service I think what you’re describing is exactly what will happen with the 412 as well, it’s already low patronage will just crash and burn even more. It’s understandable TfL reducing the frequency of the 412 so significantly outside peak times, but the problem with doing that is that if you cripple the 412 even more, the few passengers that do use it won’t bother cos it will be a rubbish service. The reason for the 412’s measly loadings is almost definitely because people use their cars to get from place to place instead (because so much of the route runs alone), so I think the only way the 412’s loadings will increase, is by making it a more attractive service. Risky move though, because you’re relying on a hockey stick movement. TfL would be relying upon the extra incoming revenue that currently isn’t there, to cover the extra cost of the improved service, revenue that might not even come in at all. Generally though, any improvements is more likely to bring in extra customers. Like the expansion of any road, one expands a road to improve its capacity, but after nearly no time it’s jammed up even worse because EVERYONE sees it as a more attractive option, so much so that the traffic can’t move. This is a memo that TfL haven’t grasped, but probably the reason why is because of their current severe money shortages, they can ill-afford to lose more money if any improvements don’t work out. But the even BIGGER memo that TfL haven’t grasped is that if you cut the frequency of a service, the patronage would fall even faster than before, because people will turn their backs on a service that’s unattractive, infrequent and/or unreliable. People don’t want to be hanging around longer waiting for a bus, they want to use the most efficient route. I do have real sympathy though, when a business is cash-strapped and can’t afford to improve services, because that then means there’s no direct solution to increasing patronage/profits if you’re forced to keep making cuts, it just goes into a downward spiral until there’s nothing left. I don't think anything will increase loadings on the 412, the Selsdon to Purley section has always been dead going back to the days of the 234/B. A reliable x20 minute service would probably be the best option. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Mar 8, 2018 18:33:13 GMT
A 12 mins service of the 412 with SDs would of course be more attractive but the 412 is unique in needed nearly a full DD service to cope with Riddlesdown School. A 12 mins DD service would just be too wasteful from a cost perspective. That’s the exact tricky problem the 412 has  . For a very small amount of the day, demand is very intense, but the vast vast majority of the time it would probably cope fine with a service provided by a 9-seater Mercedes van😂. If a 12-min DD service was to be introduced on the 412 (which I absolutely agree would be very wasteful in its current form) it would need a lot of publicity to get the usage required to make it profitable, but if people were made aware of its improvements it could become a very prominent success story. Again it’s a very risky move because all of what’s just been outlined may not happen. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 8, 2018 18:39:57 GMT
I think what you’re describing is exactly what will happen with the 412 as well, it’s already low patronage will just crash and burn even more. It’s understandable TfL reducing the frequency of the 412 so significantly outside peak times, but the problem with doing that is that if you cripple the 412 even more, the few passengers that do use it won’t bother cos it will be a rubbish service. The reason for the 412’s measly loadings is almost definitely because people use their cars to get from place to place instead (because so much of the route runs alone), so I think the only way the 412’s loadings will increase, is by making it a more attractive service. Risky move though, because you’re relying on a hockey stick movement. TfL would be relying upon the extra incoming revenue that currently isn’t there, to cover the extra cost of the improved service, revenue that might not even come in at all. Generally though, any improvements is more likely to bring in extra customers. Like the expansion of any road, one expands a road to improve its capacity, but after nearly no time it’s jammed up even worse because EVERYONE sees it as a more attractive option, so much so that the traffic can’t move. This is a memo that TfL haven’t grasped, but probably the reason why is because of their current severe money shortages, they can ill-afford to lose more money if any improvements don’t work out. But the even BIGGER memo that TfL haven’t grasped is that if you cut the frequency of a service, the patronage would fall even faster than before, because people will turn their backs on a service that’s unattractive, infrequent and/or unreliable. People don’t want to be hanging around longer waiting for a bus, they want to use the most efficient route. I do have real sympathy though, when a business is cash-strapped and can’t afford to improve services, because that then means there’s no direct solution to increasing patronage/profits if you’re forced to keep making cuts, it just goes into a downward spiral until there’s nothing left. I think you are seriously underestimating what TfL do or do not know. There is decades worth of data in the organisation. While some of the older hands have gone there will still be people who fully understand what is going on with service reductions. To suggest the changes are based on ignorance or just a whim is to not understand the very analytical nature of TfL as an organisation. I am sure TfL have analysed every single service reduction proposal and concluded that they were worth doing. I suspect a view has been taken on the 412 that the current service level is excessive for the patronage on offer and likely to be on offer for several years into the future. The future service level will be set at a level that just about caters for the existing demand (outside of school times) and which will not see much more erosion of demand and which allows delivers a cost saving that is worth having over a 5 year term. As I have said several times before there are some aspects of the current situation with the Hopper fare and widespread use of real time info that means that high frequency services may no longer be as necessary before. Some of the "old" relationships between frequency / patronage / revenue are not working in the same way. TfL may well have concluded that widespread use of real time info where people turn up just before a bus is due will result in as many people using a 20 min service as use a 12 minute one. If that is true, and I don't know if it is or isn't, then we are in a very different place to where we have been since the 1990s where more frequency virtually guaranteed more passengers and more money. It is also worth saying that TfL never put forward service improvements on the basis they are profitable. There will be extra money yes but not enough to cover extra costs. There are other wider passenger and societal benefits that TfL will evaluate to see if a service improvement is worth doing. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Mar 8, 2018 19:08:11 GMT
I think what you’re describing is exactly what will happen with the 412 as well, it’s already low patronage will just crash and burn even more. It’s understandable TfL reducing the frequency of the 412 so significantly outside peak times, but the problem with doing that is that if you cripple the 412 even more, the few passengers that do use it won’t bother cos it will be a rubbish service. The reason for the 412’s measly loadings is almost definitely because people use their cars to get from place to place instead (because so much of the route runs alone), so I think the only way the 412’s loadings will increase, is by making it a more attractive service. Risky move though, because you’re relying on a hockey stick movement. TfL would be relying upon the extra incoming revenue that currently isn’t there, to cover the extra cost of the improved service, revenue that might not even come in at all. Generally though, any improvements is more likely to bring in extra customers. Like the expansion of any road, one expands a road to improve its capacity, but after nearly no time it’s jammed up even worse because EVERYONE sees it as a more attractive option, so much so that the traffic can’t move. This is a memo that TfL haven’t grasped, but probably the reason why is because of their current severe money shortages, they can ill-afford to lose more money if any improvements don’t work out. But the even BIGGER memo that TfL haven’t grasped is that if you cut the frequency of a service, the patronage would fall even faster than before, because people will turn their backs on a service that’s unattractive, infrequent and/or unreliable. People don’t want to be hanging around longer waiting for a bus, they want to use the most efficient route. I do have real sympathy though, when a business is cash-strapped and can’t afford to improve services, because that then means there’s no direct solution to increasing patronage/profits if you’re forced to keep making cuts, it just goes into a downward spiral until there’s nothing left. I think you are seriously underestimating what TfL do or do not know. There is decades worth of data in the organisation. While some of the older hands have gone there will still be people who fully understand what is going on with service reductions. To suggest the changes are based on ignorance or just a whim is to not understand the very analytical nature of TfL as an organisation. I am sure TfL have analysed every single service reduction proposal and concluded that they were worth doing. I suspect a view has been taken on the 412 that the current service level is excessive for the patronage on offer and likely to be on offer for several years into the future. The future service level will be set at a level that just about caters for the existing demand (outside of school times) and which will not see much more erosion of demand and which allows delivers a cost saving that is worth having over a 5 year term. As I have said several times before there are some aspects of the current situation with the Hopper fare and widespread use of real time info that means that high frequency services may no longer be as necessary before. Some of the "old" relationships between frequency / patronage / revenue are not working in the same way. TfL may well have concluded that widespread use of real time info where people turn up just before a bus is due will result in as many people using a 20 min service as use a 12 minute one. If that is true, and I don't know if it is or isn't, then we are in a very different place to where we have been since the 1990s where more frequency virtually guaranteed more passengers and more money. It is also worth saying that TfL never put forward service improvements on the basis they are profitable. There will be extra money yes but not enough to cover extra costs. There are other wider passenger and societal benefits that TfL will evaluate to see if a service improvement is worth doing. I totally agree with you that the 412’s reduction is absolutely justified because of its very light loads, hence there being a lot of excess capacity that could be put to good use somewhere else. However I thought it was worth making the point, because I’m sure the main reason for its lack of demand is because of car usage, and cutting the frequency is *probably* not going to help reduce that, but after reading what you’ve said, hopefully it won’t increase it either. I have to say I didn’t consider the real time information side of it, as that element probably will mean demand won’t decrease that much, because people will know exactly when to go to a bus stop for when their bus arrives, which like you say unlike the 1990s eradicates waiting times. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 8, 2018 22:28:13 GMT
I totally agree with you that the 412’s reduction is absolutely justified because of its very light loads, hence there being a lot of excess capacity that could be put to good use somewhere else. However I thought it was worth making the point, because I’m sure the main reason for its lack of demand is because of car usage, and cutting the frequency is *probably* not going to help reduce that, but after reading what you’ve said, hopefully it won’t increase it either. I have to say I didn’t consider the real time information side of it, as that element probably will mean demand won’t decrease that much, because people will know exactly when to go to a bus stop for when their bus arrives, which like you say unlike the 1990s eradicates waiting times. I think TfL will always struggle to attract mass numbers of people to bus services in the far outer boroughs. Some well served radial flows will do OK but so many people live away from main roads, often up hills or down in valleys, in large residential areas that buses can't reach that anyone with a moderate or better standard of living will probably have a car. Older folks may well use mini cabs for shopping trips - I see plenty of that in Waltham Forest and it's far denser than boroughs like Croydon or Bromley or Bexley. I see nothing in the future that will shift large numbers of reasonably well to do people to buses instead of cars in these outer boroughs. The real time thing has been highlighted by TfL itself but I only have to look at my local bus stop to see that the vast majority of people turn up with about 3-4 mins before the bus is due. This has devalued the apparent benefit of ever higher frequencies to reduce wait time because people are using technology to reduce wait times for themselves. Obviously doesn't apply for every journey as some of the time people turn up when they turn up regardless of real time info - getting off a tube or train, finishing an activity like shopping / meeting friends or when changing from another bus. The irony, of course, is that TfL were completely against the release of any I-Bus data but Boris Johnson had made it a manifesto commitment (one of the few good ones he had) so they were forced to do it. Now we don't know what we'd do without it. It has, though, landed TfL with a methodological issue as previously well understood passenger behaviour has changed and TfL have yet to say if they've properly understood what's going on so it can be reflected in their service planning / demand modelling. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Mar 10, 2018 19:19:30 GMT
Plenty of routes especially in west London are now double-deck having been single-deck. Some examples I can think of are 28, 31, 92, 105, 183, 282, 285, 302, 328, 607, E1, E2, E3, H12, H32, H91, U4, U5. Just imagine if these reverted to single-deck! Most of these routes had been double-deck previously, before being converted to single-deck (often higher-frequency midibuses) then later back to double deck. This includes the H32 and H91 which had been routes 232 and 91 previously; the H-prefix was part of their rebranding as "Harrier" routes when they went over to midibuses. Also the H12 had been the 209 before it was minibussed as part of the ill-fated Harrow Buses scheme (the operation soon became known as "Harrowing Buses"). Similarly the U4 was the single-deck version of what had been the 204 when a similar scheme was applied to Uxbridge (I'm not sure what the U5 replaced). The conversion of the 183 to single-deck in 1999 was quickly realised to have been a mistake and it reverted to double-deck just over two years later. Even the 607 started off in July 1990 as a double-deck route with standard Metrobuses, before gaining 607 Express route-branded Leyland Nationals and Leyland Lynxes with coach-type seating in November 1991. Double deckers returned, in the shape of Alexander Royale-bodied Volvo Olympians, in October 1996. Although I knew most of this history, I enjoyed reading it all in 1 place, so thanks. To some extent I was reflecting how far these single-deckings had gone in west London. |
|
|
|
Post by NWBusConnoisseur on Oct 14, 2018 23:07:12 GMT
Thought I'd start a thread where you can give a DD route or two that you believe doesn't need them and discuss opinions on what people have put forward.
If you are putting something forward, please use this format:
1: The route.
2: Why it doesn't need them or would be better without them.
3: What SDs would you use instead
4: Where you would allocate the DDs taken away from the route.
Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 14, 2018 23:51:36 GMT
Thought I'd start a thread where you can give a DD route or two that you believe doesn't need them and discuss opinions on what people have put forward. If you are putting something forward, please use this format: 1: The route. 2: Why it doesn't need them or would be better without them. 3: What SDs would you use instead 4: Where you would allocate the DDs taken away from the route. Enjoy. 1. U5 2. I don’t think that it’s busy enough to demand double deckers. 3. The Enviro 200 MMCs from the E7. 4. I would relocate the Enviro 400 MMCs that we’re on the U5 to the E7. |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Oct 15, 2018 6:03:24 GMT
Thought I'd start a thread where you can give a DD route or two that you believe doesn't need them and discuss opinions on what people have put forward. If you are putting something forward, please use this format: 1: The route. 2: Why it doesn't need them or would be better without them. 3: What SDs would you use instead 4: Where you would allocate the DDs taken away from the route. Enjoy. 1. D8 2. The route is majority of the time not even half full 3. New Solo SRs or Second hand Single door E200s brought up to London spec 4. Back where they belong on the 25 |
|
|
|
Post by george on Sept 5, 2019 13:03:14 GMT
I know this is an old thread but just been on the 23 from Hammersmith to Hyde Park Corner and the whole journey I was the only person upstairs. The other ones that went past had no more than 5 people upstairs but maybe the route gets very crowded between Marble Arch and Westbourne park.
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 5, 2019 13:32:57 GMT
I know this is an old thread but just been on the 23 from Hammersmith to Hyde Park Corner and the whole journey I was the only person upstairs. The other ones that went past had no more than 5 people upstairs but maybe the route gets very crowded between Marble Arch and Westbourne park. I knew that would happen. |
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Sept 5, 2019 15:27:13 GMT
1. 116
2. Its not that busy at much of the route with hardly anyone upstairs
3. Enviro 200 MMCs 11.5m from the H37
4. If the 235 was at London United I would reallocate some of the VHs to that route with a small diversion otherwise they would go to the H37
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 5, 2019 17:22:09 GMT
1. 116 2. Its not that busy at much of the route with hardly anyone upstairs 3. Enviro 200 MMCs 11.5m from the H37 4. If the 235 was at London United I would reallocate some of the VHs to that route with a small diversion otherwise they would go to the H37 The H37 can’t take deckers due to the low bridge on St. John’s Road |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 5, 2019 18:47:01 GMT
1. 116 2. Its not that busy at much of the route with hardly anyone upstairs 3. Enviro 200 MMCs 11.5m from the H37 4. If the 235 was at London United I would reallocate some of the VHs to that route with a small diversion otherwise they would go to the H37 Despite not being a busy as the 235 from my observations, the double deck 116 and E8 help to take pressure of the 235. |
|
. For a very small amount of the day, demand is very intense, but the vast vast majority of the time it would probably cope fine with a service provided by a 9-seater Mercedes van😂. If a 12-min DD service was to be introduced on the 412 (which I absolutely agree would be very wasteful in its current form) it would need a lot of publicity to get the usage required to make it profitable, but if people were made aware of its improvements it could become a very prominent success story. Again it’s a very risky move because all of what’s just been outlined may not happen.
