|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 8, 2018 18:45:00 GMT
Alternatively, if TfL takes the decision that a full mid-life refurbishment for the LTs is not going to be cost-effective, the LTs from the 88 could be reallocated to other garages allowing the worst examples to leave the fleet. I have tried to hide my glee at the thought of this scenario happening, i hope I have succeeded LTs for enthusiasts are bit like marmite, you either hate them or love them. I don't think most passengers are too bothered though. I reckon they will get a mid-life refurbishment because too much has been invested in them, and it will be far cheaper to refurbish them than buy new buses. Although they are a unique design they do have many 'standard' type parts and batteries can be replaced, as can the diesel engines. Electric engines should have a much longer lifespan as should the Siemens Elfa II hybrid system, and should not need refurbishment after say 7 years. Therefore I would not bet against refurbishment - sorry to disappoint those who dislike LTs.. Perhaps LTs could switch to the moquette used by CT Plus & Sullivan, if they get refurbished?
|
|
|
Post by busman on Aug 8, 2018 19:29:02 GMT
I think this is a very sensible rationalisation in the grand scheme of things - i.e. TfL needing to make cuts and their Oxford Street bus burning bonanza being denied. The real point of contention for me is what the final frequency will be. If they really run buses at a 12 minute headway, that would be an absolute joke for a central London route. If bunching occurs we are looking at a 25 minute interval between buses. I would like to think TfL maintain the frequency of the 88 for the time being, but in the current climate I very much doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 8, 2018 19:35:20 GMT
Of course I would to be honest. I dream of joining TfL to change the bus routes in London. Kind of, there's a very large part of me that would like to make changes to improve things for the passenger. At the moment I would struggle because the changes are all about a reduction in service for passengers which I think is the wrong way forward for a city like London. Although I realise this is a bus forum I do have other interests and am also interested in other forms of transport (shock horror!), so I might not wish to be limited to just buses.
I more I think about the more I'd like to set overall direction to improve things and help people, but you really need to be something like Transport Commissioner or Mayor to do that.
Like yourself I'm also interested in other forms of transport and I know this is a bus forum but I think rail based transport is a far better way of moving people, just a shame that there aren't more trams in London.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Aug 8, 2018 19:48:17 GMT
TfL have updated the fortnightly bus changes document on Wednesday 8th afternoon The C2 Now showing as frequency cuts from 8 to 6 buses per hour, and down to every 15 mins (4 per hour) at certain times Effective date 18 Aug (just 10 days away) content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-permanent-bus-changes.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 8, 2018 19:55:04 GMT
I'm going to be positive about this cut (forget consultation, it's a done deal) in that it releases the C2's stand off Regent Street to enable either the 3 or the 15 to be re-extended. If the 3 is not to be extended to Russell Square, as was promised by TfL in the Oxford Street/Crossrail plans, then it will allow them to save face by still nearly providing that link to Crossrail that was promised at TCR. Alternatively, a 15 starting in Regent Street could fill up well with people wanting to go to places between Charing Cross Station and St. Paul's churchyard, including many tourists in my experience: the opportunity to extend the so-called Heritage 15 to the scene of the main Year of the Bus event would exist too (there's space on stand for both with those headways),but I wouldn't hold my breath. The plan is that the Conduit Street stand will be for short workings only.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 8, 2018 20:11:48 GMT
I'm going to be positive about this cut (forget consultation, it's a done deal) in that it releases the C2's stand off Regent Street to enable either the 3 or the 15 to be re-extended. If the 3 is not to be extended to Russell Square, as was promised by TfL in the Oxford Street/Crossrail plans, then it will allow them to save face by still nearly providing that link to Crossrail that was promised at TCR. Alternatively, a 15 starting in Regent Street could fill up well with people wanting to go to places between Charing Cross Station and St. Paul's churchyard, including many tourists in my experience: the opportunity to extend the so-called Heritage 15 to the scene of the main Year of the Bus event would exist too (there's space on stand for both with those headways),but I wouldn't hold my breath. Much more likely that TfL will use the Conduit St stand to curtail the 159 and remove it from Oxford St (west). Forget about the 3 and 15 being re-extended. Oh, the irony in my post perhaps didn't come over. I have virtually nil expectation of either the 3 or the 15 being re-extended, I was just giving TfL wriggle room on their promises to 3 passengers, not that they'd be held to account on that score, because it'd all be forgotten about. Regrettably, I agree with you that TfL will see it as a heaven-sent opportunity to remove the 159 from the Oxford Street equation. The drip-drip effect, I think they call it.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 8, 2018 20:24:03 GMT
With the C2 dropping to every 10 mins and the 88 now every 10 mins (down recently from every 7-8 mins) so my guess would be 10 mins on the new 88.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 8, 2018 20:29:00 GMT
TfL have updated the fortnightly bus changes document on Wednesday 8th afternoon The C2 Now showing as frequency cuts from 8 to 6 buses per hour, and down to every 15 mins (4 per hour) at certain times Effective date 18 Aug (just 10 days away) content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-permanent-bus-changes.pdf Explains why the consultation document is so vague over existing frequencies. I assume TfL have had to rush the C2 freq change out early so they are not accused of a double sleight of hand. Also supports my theory that TfL will pitch the replacement 88 service at around 7 bph daytimes and 5-4bph evenings and Sundays.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 8, 2018 21:45:04 GMT
Would an LT be capable of turning at PHF. From what I remember that roundabout at the terminus is difficult enough for the C2 exciting buses I’ve been around that roundabout on a 10.7m Pointer Dart and it couldn’t make it around without having to stop and reverse to get into some sort of position to get around - I can’t see a LT getting around the roundabout at all.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 8, 2018 21:55:05 GMT
An 88 extension northwards makes it even less likely that a southward extension beyond Clapham Common would ever happen, not necessarily as far as Tooting proper. I've always thought that was a cutback too far, Northern Line or no Northern Line.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 8, 2018 22:11:15 GMT
Would an LT be capable of turning at PHF. From what I remember that roundabout at the terminus is difficult enough for the C2 exciting buses I’ve been around that roundabout on a 10.7m Pointer Dart and it couldn’t make it around without having to stop and reverse to get into some sort of position to get around - I can’t see a LT getting around the roundabout at all. The list of failed LT route tests said "C2 Stand manoeuvre at Parliament Hill is tight without over-sweeping pavement and/or grounding on traffic calming". Looking at the terminus at PHF now on Google Maps, it seems hard to believe there used to be a big segregated stand there.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Aug 8, 2018 23:06:28 GMT
As others have said, the LTs should onto the 87 with its vehicles moved to the 88 plus some new top up for the 88's new PVR whatever that may be. Perhaps there will be a timed pvr reduction from another route which may free up buses to cover the 88's extension.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Aug 8, 2018 23:33:24 GMT
The 88 is currently under 8 miles, so the extension via the C2 to PHF would only make the 88 ~8.5 miles in length which still isn't long. It's current running time of 41-84 mins would only be increased by ~15 mins as the distance between Camden Town and PHF is quite short, so the 88 would be fine. I previously suggested the 22 as an alternative to the 88 to replace the C2, both are good contenders though. The caveat is the 88 at its current frequency might struggle with the displaced passengers from the C2 and the removed assistance via Hampstead Road, so the 88 would need a frequency boost, perhaps a considerable one due to the popular Oxo - Camden Town link. The 22 could also be extended to Camden Town via Hampstead Road, arguably this may seem as defeating the purpose of TFL's intention of reducing the amount of buses between Oxo and Camden Town, but the new links that would be provided with the 22 may actually increase passenger flow within the aforementioned section. Regardless of the length, the 88 serves several congestion-prone areas along its existing route, so an extension could affect reliability for that reason. This is why the 27 could be a better alternative to extend to Parliament Hill. When cut back to Hammersmith, it will only be about 7 miles long, and additionally the areas it serves are not as congested as the 88's section between Westminster and Oxford Circus. This would break some links towards Oxford Circus, but I would additionally re-route the 134 to Oxford Circus. The corridor is within walking distance to the existing routeing to TCR, but removes duplicating the 24/29 on this section to partially replace the C2 (with links towards Kentish Town). The 27 would keep its existing routeing to Camden Town, then extended to Parliament Hill, with the 88 going via Albany Street. The 88 and 134 would then vary in routeing towards Camden, to replace the C2 while continuing the link via Warren Street and Hampstead Road. The 134 could possibly use the C2's stand at Regent Street is there is no space at Oxford Circus. The 27 sometimes contends with congested hotspots along its route too, though relatively less than the 88 potentially does. Generally many routes in London deal with congestion, the extent of which is variable, this shouldn't be a dealbreaker regarding extending routes, unless of course the route in question is already long and has ample running time but the 88 is not one of them. Although the 88 does have its times contending with congestion, it's generally a direct route so extending it that bit further to PHF shouldn't be a problem. The 27 could be an alternative to the 88, but it's an inferior one due to the more popular links the 88 would provide* between Camden Town / Kentish Town / PHF and The West End / Vauxhall / Stockwell. Also I agree with danorak that the 87 and 88 could swap routings between Westminster and Vauxhall Bridge Road, there would be no hardship in making the 88 that bit quicker. Additionally I wouldn't remove the 134 from TCR, it gets very busy to and from there and the 24 and 29 would struggle without its assistance. *In comparison with the 27 only.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 4:48:58 GMT
I don’t think TfL will want to get in a pickle by introducing another proposal for the 27 at this time. They’ve changed their minds about the route the 440 will take in Chiswick (first to just miss out Fishers Lane and now go through Chiswick business park and stop at Turnham Green) which has made them look foolish IMO and also they’ve made an absolute mess of the 112 consultations. Not only are they still dawdling on the Crossrail consultation about it going to Osterley, but they still haven’t decided whether it should go down Madeley Road in Ealing... almost TWO years on. Not to say they won’t look at it in the near to medium future though. I think we can safely conclude the 112 won't be going down Madeley Road. There is local resistance to the plan and there's no money for the consequential highway changes on the A406. It's dead. I also suspect it won't be going to Osterley either. They'll extend something else. You say TfL have made themselves look foolish - not really. It could be entirely tactical in that making changes in apparently small "unco-ordinated" steps is much easier than launching one massive consultation which makes a route look like it is being attacked in three different places. That's guaranteed to generate more reaction so "little" consultations are likely to attract less opposition. Also the whole situation with funding and patronage is dynamic so it's inevitable that even 6 months later some things will have changed, most likely for the worse. The flaw is in the time it’s taken to come to a decision... I’m sure the people who’ve been consulted are just as annoyed at the radio silence. Almost two years (and counting) for a decision is pathetic, if that’s tactical then I shall afford a rye smirk as I put my head in my hand. I’m certain it’s low priority and you’ve said it won’t happen and this I agree on... anyway I digress. One thing I will say is that I’d be putting money on a decision by the end of the year... the opportunity to bring in savings quickly makes me think even a November update could be a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 9, 2018 10:50:32 GMT
With the C2 dropping to every 10 mins and the 88 now every 10 mins (down recently from every 7-8 mins) so my guess would be 10 mins on the new 88. My hunch would be this:
'TfL are pleased to announce the result of the consultation into routes C2 and 88..... blah blah....The 88 will be diverted between Great Portland Station and Camden Town via Albany Street and will be extended from Camden Town to Parliament Hill Fields, thus everyone currently using the C2 will be able to make exactly the same journey as now on one bus. There will be the added advantage of new links to Piccadilly Circus....blah blah,,, We are pleased to announce there will be a slight increase in service compared to the C2 during the peaks and for most of the day from the current 6 bph to 7 bph, which will also adequately cover the existing demand from Camden Town to Oxford Circus of 5 bph.... blah blah'. The End. 'TfL - Putting the con into consultation.' Inexplicably, the last sentence got left out.
It's just possible they might make this 7.5 bph, thus giving a 50% notional increase on the 5 bph that Tfl state is necessary..
|
|