|
|
Post by 15002 on Aug 4, 2018 15:13:29 GMT
Out of interest is your source reliable - or is this canteen gossip? I wouldn't post if it wasn't reliable. I dont do canteen chat ;-) It's in an area where anyone employed by the operator could find it and therefore it would be considered common knowledge. 8th september is the proposed tbc date but I think it would be later than that. Thanks Do you work for Stagecoach out of curiosity? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 4, 2018 15:27:24 GMT
Abbey Wood to Elephant might be quite a good route.
|
|
|
|
Post by 700101 on Aug 4, 2018 15:38:48 GMT
So route 53 is to be cut back as a day route to county hall with a restatement of N53 to Whitehall. The change appears to be pending but this will release further buses from the fleet which could be used on contract renewal. It's slated for sometime in September. Wasn’t there a uproar many years ago when they wanted to cut it back to Elephant & Castle, even when It was temporarily cut to Lambeth North there was so many complaints. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 4, 2018 15:53:40 GMT
Are we sure this is permanent rather than (yet another) temporary cutback during works? I cannot see TfL being able to withdraw a section of any service permanently without consultation.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 4, 2018 17:21:56 GMT
Abbey Wood to Elephant might be quite a good route. Well, it's certainly been done before. You could even extend it alternately via Blackfriars and Westminster Bridges to the Embankment.  |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 4, 2018 18:49:30 GMT
Abbey Wood to Elephant might be quite a good route. Stand space is almost non existent at Elephant since the development at Gant Street - some bus routes now have to stand on Borough Road which was solely the 333’s stand before. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Aug 4, 2018 19:16:32 GMT
Maybe there's a game being played between the remaining staff at TfL HQ. The one who can cut back a route to the most pointless terminal just short of the main objective wins: extra points if you can make it as difficult as possible for satisfactory interchange,even more if you can then get the bus to travel out of service past one of the places that passengers might actually want to get to, still better if after all this you've hardly saved any buses directly, because that's not the main aim of your Machiavellian manoeuvres. The 137 cutback to Marble Arch (or, more accurately to an often windswept stop some way south of there) was out in front, but there were other contenders for the honour which have been (temporarily?) thwarted by dastardly Westminster City Council, like the 25 to Holborn Circus. The 242 to St Pauls doesn't count because it's already had the desired effect of making the western end of the route useless. The 53 is now a strong contender, even better if you can re-use the already fairly poor Horse Guard stand for another route from the south, like the 3. The absolute clincher, though, is to select a route effectively not paralleled in any way by a tube service or a reliable and regular train service. Trebles all round!!! I almost laughed out loud .... but unfortunately this is all happening in reality |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 4, 2018 19:34:21 GMT
Are we sure this is permanent rather than (yet another) temporary cutback during works? I cannot see TfL being able to withdraw a section of any service permanently without consultation. Perhaps this is their attempt to make a permanent change with anyone noticing? After all we have been here many, many times in recent years with service changes and long term reroutings. Some of these have sneaked through consultation and others have had very cursory "consultation" which TfL ignored the result of if it didn't suit their longer term objective (not mentioned all these temporary changes to the 3 and 15 termini to give just one example). "No one was really bothered when we curtailed the 53 to County Hall for nearly 2 years so why would they be bothered now?" |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Aug 4, 2018 20:45:35 GMT
I was waiting for this to happen. Last weekend I needed to get a 53 from Woolwich to Whitehall but buses were only going as far as Lambeth North. I was watching the clock keenly to make sure I got a 453 within the hour. If TfL were going to offer an express service to cover the 53 and 453 eg Plumstead to Marylebone this cut would not feel so bad. Looking at the blue “53 nights only” tiles at the stop for Lambeth North the thought did cross my mind that TfL might try to make the change permanent. Last time TfL tried this, locals including MP’s went ballistic and got the service reinstated to Whitehall. All these cuts will drive people away from buses. After my 53 and 453 experience last weekend, I will do the same trip via SouthEastern tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 4, 2018 20:51:29 GMT
Removing the 453 would be better as it would reduce buses along Portland Place then maybe had the 53 from Trafalgar Square (standing where the 22 did) with a 4-5 min service to Deptford with 8-10 to Plumstead.
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 4, 2018 20:59:15 GMT
Are we sure this is permanent rather than (yet another) temporary cutback during works? I cannot see TfL being able to withdraw a section of any service permanently without consultation. Perhaps this is their attempt to make a permanent change with anyone noticing? After all we have been here many, many times in recent years with service changes and long term reroutings. Some of these have sneaked through consultation and others have had very cursory "consultation" which TfL ignored the result of if it didn't suit their longer term objective (not mentioned all these temporary changes to the 3 and 15 termini to give just one example). "No one was really bothered when we curtailed the 53 to County Hall for nearly 2 years so why would they be bothered now?" Take the point but don't think I buy it. For a start, the 53 is the one example where there was pushback over the temporary curtailment. The Mayor has made commitments about improved consultation to the London Assembly. And then there's the St Thomas' issue. They might sneak it through as part of the Crossrail changes - that would at least be a sensible time - but a permanent change at short notice with no consultation would, at the very least, be an act of bad faith, especially when they did a full consultation on the Bricklayers Arms flyover change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 21:04:16 GMT
Might this be connected with Victoria embankment roadworks which are predicted to bring most of Central London to even more gridlock?
|
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Aug 4, 2018 21:15:37 GMT
I think I'll wait for a confirmed source, some posts from previous "company insiders" have proved to be a bit dubious.
The question has to be asked, however, how well is the 53 used between County Hall and Whitehall?
Until then, as you were
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 4, 2018 21:16:50 GMT
Could be connected. Then the 87 can use the Whitehall stand to shorten the route temporarily for the roadworks aswell.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 4, 2018 21:19:43 GMT
Perhaps this is their attempt to make a permanent change with anyone noticing? After all we have been here many, many times in recent years with service changes and long term reroutings. Some of these have sneaked through consultation and others have had very cursory "consultation" which TfL ignored the result of if it didn't suit their longer term objective (not mentioned all these temporary changes to the 3 and 15 termini to give just one example). "No one was really bothered when we curtailed the 53 to County Hall for nearly 2 years so why would they be bothered now?" Take the point but don't think I buy it. For a start, the 53 is the one example where there was pushback over the temporary curtailment. The Mayor has made commitments about improved consultation to the London Assembly. And then there's the St Thomas' issue. They might sneak it through as part of the Crossrail changes - that would at least be a sensible time - but a permanent change at short notice with no consultation would, at the very least, be an act of bad faith, especially when they did a full consultation on the Bricklayers Arms flyover change. The Mayor made a commitment about consultation and not a single thing has happened and absolutely no follow up has been given in public. You'll excuse me if I'm a tad sceptical. Yes they may well be reluctant to not consult but I can imagine there is a battle going on inside TfL about consultation being ridiculously slow and the pressure to achieve savings being far, far more urgent. We all know consultation is a borderline farce anyway and there are probably "bright young things" with no experience of being yelled at in public meetings who are advocating "taking a chance". The 53 is, as you say, an extremely poor route to choose for such a battle given past experience but if you sack / pay off all the accumulated "experience and knowledge" then you are left exposed. As I say TfL have changed things almost by sleight of hand anyway. The thing that is concerning here is that there is a clear date for a change of some sort - no way will there be any consultation and a result by 8th September this year. |
|
