|
|
Post by wirewiper on Sept 8, 2018 11:45:27 GMT
At the risk of stating the obvious, the N5 and N20 over the two branches of the Northern line. In these cash-strapped times, I would have thought consideration might be given to removal on Friday and Saturday night, so they became Northern Line 'Night (Weekday)' services? No, they still get used for local bus trips. <snip> Also, TfL mostly specifies routes which run all seven days of the week* and withdrawing these two on two nights would contravene that. And then there are the travellers who for various reasons (like local bus trips) would still prefer to use the bus even with the Night Tube available. I think that the current approach of running a 30-minute service on all nights of the week is a good one. * routes with 24-hour service at weekends only are the obvious exception to that but there is sound reason for this. |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Sept 9, 2018 23:00:45 GMT
No, they still get used for local bus trips. <snip> Also, TfL mostly specifies routes which run all seven days of the week* and withdrawing these two on two nights would contravene that. And then there are the travellers who for various reasons (like local bus trips) would still prefer to use the bus even with the Night Tube available. I think that the current approach of running a 30-minute service on all nights of the week is a good one. * routes with 24-hour service at weekends only are the obvious exception to that but there is sound reason for this. I agree there is a 'sound reason' for Weekend Night buses - because they serve as connections when the tube lines run all night. Conversely, it also seems a 'sound reason' to me that night buses that just *parallel* Tubes when they are running should be cut and only run on weekdays when the lines don't run. i'd far rather money was saved that way given that there is an alternative service then some others in the mix at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Sept 11, 2018 8:45:40 GMT
Also, TfL mostly specifies routes which run all seven days of the week* and withdrawing these two on two nights would contravene that. And then there are the travellers who for various reasons (like local bus trips) would still prefer to use the bus even with the Night Tube available. I think that the current approach of running a 30-minute service on all nights of the week is a good one. * routes with 24-hour service at weekends only are the obvious exception to that but there is sound reason for this. I agree there is a 'sound reason' for Weekend Night buses - because they serve as connections when the tube lines run all night. Conversely, it also seems a 'sound reason' to me that night buses that just *parallel* Tubes when they are running should be cut and only run on weekdays when the lines don't run. i'd far rather money was saved that way given that there is an alternative service then some others in the mix at the moment. I still disagree, to me there is a compelling case to retain these routes even on nights when the Night Tube operates, for reasons of consistency and accessibility (not everybody can use, or wants to use, the night tube). They have been cut - by reducing the weekend frequency to the same level as the weekday frequency, which I think is the right and sensible approach. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 11, 2018 16:24:52 GMT
I agree there is a 'sound reason' for Weekend Night buses - because they serve as connections when the tube lines run all night. Conversely, it also seems a 'sound reason' to me that night buses that just *parallel* Tubes when they are running should be cut and only run on weekdays when the lines don't run. i'd far rather money was saved that way given that there is an alternative service then some others in the mix at the moment. I still disagree, to me there is a compelling case to retain these routes even on nights when the Night Tube operates, for reasons of consistency and accessibility (not everybody can use, or wants to use, the night tube). They have been cut - by reducing the weekend frequency to the same level as the weekday frequency, which I think is the right and sensible approach. Quite honestly I'd rather TfL concentrate on matching supply with demand rather than wasting resources just to comply with some criteria that they've imposed on themselves. Random example, does Bayswater Road really need the 94 148 and N207 Fri/Sat nights when the Central Line is running? Resources saved could be better used elsewhere like an increase on the 36/N136 south of Vauxhall. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Sept 11, 2018 23:12:23 GMT
I still disagree, to me there is a compelling case to retain these routes even on nights when the Night Tube operates, for reasons of consistency and accessibility (not everybody can use, or wants to use, the night tube). They have been cut - by reducing the weekend frequency to the same level as the weekday frequency, which I think is the right and sensible approach. Quite honestly I'd rather TfL concentrate on matching supply with demand rather than wasting resources just to comply with some criteria that they've imposed on themselves. Random example, does Bayswater Road really need the 94 148 and N207 Fri/Sat nights when the Central Line is running? Resources saved could be better used elsewhere like an increase on the 36/N136 south of Vauxhall. Transport for London has a social as well as a commercial remit, and is required to provide socially necessary services - this includes having services that are consistent and which meet accessibility criteria that cannot always be met by the Night Tube. Of course the social necessity criteria could be stripped from TfL and the organisation required to operate purely commercially, were there the popular and political will for this to happen. Then you can cut all the services you like. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 12, 2018 5:43:38 GMT
Quite honestly I'd rather TfL concentrate on matching supply with demand rather than wasting resources just to comply with some criteria that they've imposed on themselves. Random example, does Bayswater Road really need the 94 148 and N207 Fri/Sat nights when the Central Line is running? Resources saved could be better used elsewhere like an increase on the 36/N136 south of Vauxhall. Transport for London has a social as well as a commercial remit, and is required to provide socially necessary services - this includes having services that are consistent and which meet accessibility criteria that cannot always be met by the Night Tube. Of course the social necessity criteria could be stripped from TfL and the organisation required to operate purely commercially, were there the popular and political will for this to happen. Then you can cut all the services you like. None the less three night bus routes along Bayswater Road when the Central Line is running does seem a tad excessive and there are numerous other examples. Funny how a 'socially necessary' service like the N75 gets withdrawn without replacement a few years ago even though it was reasonably well used. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 12, 2018 9:25:35 GMT
Funny how a 'socially necessary' service like the N75 gets withdrawn without replacement a few years ago even though it was reasonably well used. That was *11* years ago. And the 75 does run 21 hours a day every day of the week - start and end times are identical M-F, Sat and Sun which is pretty unusual these day. Most Sunday services start later in the morning. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Sept 12, 2018 9:26:03 GMT
Transport for London has a social as well as a commercial remit, and is required to provide socially necessary services - this includes having services that are consistent and which meet accessibility criteria that cannot always be met by the Night Tube. Of course the social necessity criteria could be stripped from TfL and the organisation required to operate purely commercially, were there the popular and political will for this to happen. Then you can cut all the services you like. None the less three night bus routes along Bayswater Road when the Central Line is running does seem a tad excessive and there are numerous other examples. Funny how a 'socially necessary' service like the N75 gets withdrawn without replacement a few years ago even though it was reasonably well used. I agree with you about the N75 - the (N)106 is another route I would like to have seen retained. That said, these routes have earlier starts and later finishes than they did before the night service was added. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 12, 2018 9:55:03 GMT
Funny how a 'socially necessary' service like the N75 gets withdrawn without replacement a few years ago even though it was reasonably well used. That was *11* years ago. And the 75 does run 21 hours a day every day of the week - start and end times are identical M-F, Sat and Sun which is pretty unusual these day. Most Sunday services start later in the morning. I must confess I didn't think it was that long ago but it still doesn't alter the facts, I'm pretty sure a 24 hour service would be viable at least on Fri/Sat nights. It's quite bizarre that South Norwood has no night service at all. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 12, 2018 10:21:35 GMT
That was *11* years ago. And the 75 does run 21 hours a day every day of the week - start and end times are identical M-F, Sat and Sun which is pretty unusual these day. Most Sunday services start later in the morning. I must confess I didn't think it was that long ago but it still doesn't alter the facts, I'm pretty sure a 24 hour service would be viable at least on Fri/Sat nights. It's quite bizarre that South Norwood has no night service at all. Well the contract spec for the new tender which I received an hour ago doesn't include an option for any form of night service on route 75. The existing 21 hour service is maintained though. To be picky it's just your opinion, not a fact, that you consider a N75 service would be viable. TfL clearly don't agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 12, 2018 13:25:23 GMT
79 - Jubilee Line (between Canons Park and Kingsbury)
92 - Chiltern Railway (between Sudbury Hill Harrow to Wembley Stadium)
204 - Northern Line (between Edgware and Colindale)
482 - Piccadilly Line (between Hatton Cross and Heathrow Terminal 5)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2018 20:29:55 GMT
The N20 is mirroring the Northern Line between Charing Cross and Finchley Central towards High Barnet and between Finchley Central and Euston towards Trafalgar Square.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2018 21:09:54 GMT
Route 240 follows exactly what would have been the Northern Heights Extension. (Edgware - Mill Hill Broadway - Mill Hill East) then crossing back over to the Edgware branch, coming close but not serving Brent Cross and terminating at Golders Green.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Oct 29, 2018 22:57:34 GMT
211 follows the district : circle from Westminster, st james’ Park, Victoria, Sloane Square
14 follows the Piccadilly line - Piccadilly Circus, green park, Hyde Park Corner, Knightsbridge and South Kensington
414 also follows the Piccadilly line (Hyde park corner to south ken)
38 follows the Piccadilly line from Piccadilly Circus to Hyde Park Corner
8 follows the central line from Bethnal Green to Tottenham Court Road
25 follows the central line from bank to Oxford Circus
A bunch of routes follow the central from Oxford Circus to Marble Arch
|
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Mar 19, 2020 13:40:11 GMT
62 - Barking to Becontree (District)
86/N86 - Stratford to Romford (TfL Rail)
370 - Romford to Upminster (Overground)
|
|
