|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 4, 2018 21:30:41 GMT
I understand a team from TfL are just back from Harare where they were getting tips on how to interpret the will of the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 4, 2018 21:33:47 GMT
I understand a team from TfL are just back from Harare where they were getting tips on how to interpret the will of the people. Surely it was the other way round given how TfL interpret consultation results? Oh yes majority oppose our plan, we're going to do it anyway.  |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 4, 2018 21:45:25 GMT
I understand a team from TfL are just back from Harare where they were getting tips on how to interpret the will of the people. Surely it was the other way round given how TfL interpret consultation results? Oh yes majority oppose our plan, we're going to do it anyway. I wonder whether Peter Tatchell (who lives very close to the 53 bus route, I believe) will take up the cudgels and go to confront TfL officials in their lair. Someone with guts like him really needs to start campaigning on this, get some publicity and (hopefully) get a public debate going on the inadvisability/stupidity of trying to run a public transport service without direct subsidy. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Aug 4, 2018 22:32:38 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. It wasn't all that long ago that it got reinstated to Whitehall, reminisant of the 159 which got extended to Paddington then cut back to Marble Arch not all that long after. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 4, 2018 22:37:41 GMT
I understand a team from TfL are just back from Harare where they were getting tips on how to interpret the will of the people. Surely it was the other way round given how TfL interpret consultation results? Oh yes majority oppose our plan, we're going to do it anyway. Let's not be too unkind to Zimbabwe, there are many other countries that TfL might be learning from!!!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 4, 2018 22:46:14 GMT
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. Assuming this is right and there is a clear date with 8 September, then surely it will be a temporary change, to be made permanent later following consultation. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 4, 2018 22:55:18 GMT
Wasn't there a plan in the 90s to cut it to New Cross. Let's hope TFL don't find it!
|
|
|
|
Post by 15002 on Aug 4, 2018 23:09:28 GMT
Wasn't there a plan in the 90s to cut it to New Cross. Let's hope TFL don't find it! Most likely TFL reads these forums so you might of just inadvertently gave TFL wonderful ideas for the next cut to useful routes  |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 5, 2018 8:43:28 GMT
Wasn't there a plan in the 90s to cut it to New Cross. Let's hope TFL don't find it! Not as far as I can recall, I remember a proposal to curtail it at Elephant & Castle. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 5, 2018 9:38:36 GMT
Wasn't there a plan in the 90s to cut it to New Cross. Let's hope TFL don't find it! Not as far as I can recall, I remember a proposal to curtail it at Elephant & Castle. I'd have to dig it out my old LOTS magazines but as I recall the plan was 53 Oxford Circus - New Cross and 453 Elephant - Plumstead. So almost a reversal of what we have now. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 5, 2018 10:20:53 GMT
In the 2003 round of central London changes the 453 differed for the others by using the higher numbered new route to replace the central section. All the others used the newer routes for the outer sections (333, 363, 432, 436, 476)
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 5, 2018 12:27:39 GMT
In the 2003 round of central London changes the 453 differed for the others by using the higher numbered new route to replace the central section. All the others used the newer routes for the outer sections (333, 363, 432, 436, 476) I wonder whether that was because bendy buses were being introduced simultaneously on new routes 436 and 453, these being the first examples in London service after the Red Arrow routes, so it might have been easier to 'sell' these as new routes with new buses. In any case, the 436 was really just a short-working 36, but the 36 had to get cut back from Lewisham to New Cross so that this didn't quite happen in practice. I still think it a nonsense that the 36 doesn't terminate in Lewisham (or Catford, even), especially since the 436 got diverted after Vauxhall. Still, that's another can of worms! |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 5, 2018 13:27:57 GMT
In the 2003 round of central London changes the 453 differed for the others by using the higher numbered new route to replace the central section. All the others used the newer routes for the outer sections (333, 363, 432, 436, 476) I wonder whether that was because bendy buses were being introduced simultaneously on new routes 436 and 453, these being the first examples in London service after the Red Arrow routes, so it might have been easier to 'sell' these as new routes with new buses. In any case, the 436 was really just a short-working 36, but the 36 had to get cut back from Lewisham to New Cross so that this didn't quite happen in practice. I still think it a nonsense that the 36 doesn't terminate in Lewisham (or Catford, even), especially since the 436 got diverted after Vauxhall. Still, that's another can of worms! The 436 was never meant to be a short-working 36. The 36 had already been running in two overlapping sections for many years. All that happened in 2003 was that one section was renumbered 436; there was no change to the service pattern (except during early am / late evenings when there had previously been some through journeys).
It's the diversion of the 436 to Battersea Park that was the really significant change on this corridor. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 5, 2018 14:03:23 GMT
In the 2003 round of central London changes the 453 differed for the others by using the higher numbered new route to replace the central section. All the others used the newer routes for the outer sections (333, 363, 432, 436, 476) I wonder whether that was because bendy buses were being introduced simultaneously on new routes 436 and 453, these being the first examples in London service after the Red Arrow routes, so it might have been easier to 'sell' these as new routes with new buses. In any case, the 436 was really just a short-working 36, but the 36 had to get cut back from Lewisham to New Cross so that this didn't quite happen in practice. I still think it a nonsense that the 36 doesn't terminate in Lewisham (or Catford, even), especially since the 436 got diverted after Vauxhall. Still, that's another can of worms! Blame the rise of congestion and the frequent closures/diversions of Central London roads as to why the 36 is no longer feasible to run beyond New Cross. As I keep repeating, congestion needs to be significantly reduced but no politician will do so as they’d upset motor users who make up a large voting percentage so some bus routes will continue to shrink in London - after all, congestion has increased from last year which really is no surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Aug 5, 2018 14:42:53 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 From my observations buses don't normally surpass 50% capacity outside peaks, with fair passenger numbers interchanging for the 148/211 to bypass the West End. It doesn't matter if the relatively short but useful link is lopped, the headline is it'll cope. TfL would've done their statistical analysis and likely found there to be sufficient capacity onto Lower Marsh for passengers wanting the 53. Don't know about anybody else but I'm not entirely shocked at this at all. Always look at a "temporary" curtailment or even diversions and think if this is going to be permanent. Caught myself being surprised at the 11 still running to Liverpool Street the other day, I still envisage it being curtailed at Aldwych for months even though those utility works have long since ended. I'm certain TfL are going to take this time to cut the 453 to Oxford Circus as well. There is next to no demand for it on Marylebone Road and the 113 & 139 do a good job as a replacement link if the 453 is to be withdrawn from Marylebone. |
|
