|
Post by vjaska on Dec 9, 2019 14:40:41 GMT
It would be beneficial to hear your views on how the Central London bus changes have settled! Another query arised, for the withdrawn routes did TFL issue compensation to the operators involved? I would like to express as a matter of personal opinion - we need more routes running in to the Central London border, not less. This is causing severe disruption to commuters on low wages. Not that TFL would take these conditions in to account! I can only speak for my local routes but the 45 at the Brixton end has done better than many predicted as it’s not running around carrying fresh air like many predicted. At times, you get empty buses but have also seen plenty of well loaded ones in & out of the peaks. The 35’s frequency increase seems to have the opposite affect at the southern end as it now bunches regularly and many are not carrying big loads either. The 3 & 59 changes have had no affect down south, still business as usual.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 9, 2019 14:46:11 GMT
If anything the reliability of the 45 has probably improved and is attracting new passengers to its round the corner links that you have spoken of.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 9, 2019 20:12:38 GMT
It would be beneficial to hear your views on how the Central London bus changes have settled! Another query arised, for the withdrawn routes did TFL issue compensation to the operators involved? I would like to express as a matter of personal opinion - we need more routes running in to the Central London border, not less. This is causing severe disruption to commuters on low wages. Not that TFL would take these conditions in to account! I can't speak for every route but the one's I've observed. 9: Talking of reliability, this is probably the one which has suffered the most. I can't see at all how this change was meant to save money, all it's done is cause endless reliability issues and now journeys are far longer due to the Piccadilly Circus traffic. 14: The route seems to get more custom heading to Russell Square than it did going Warren Street, although this is probably because prior many people alighted at TCR anyway. It's still not coming from the direction of the 7 or 10 however which is where the lack of a link really shows. The rerouting of the 9 is a joke. Ubiquitous turns on the route are often present due to the traffic it must endure on Piccadilly. It's not as is the 6 is particularly busy on there either so the need for two routes is non existent. The route has fallen to bits, and as a result of these changes, Piccadilly is overbused. The status quo should have been made the route far more attractive but now sitting in congestion between Piccadilly Circus and Hyde Park Corner doesn't appeal. I've used the new section of the 14 on a few occasions and I think it's working quite well, it's attracting custom during the peaks and the link heading west from Russell Sqaure is one which is needed although a link to Oxford Circus would be optimal, especially for tourists. The 14 should have been sent up to Euston really.
|
|
|
Post by george on Dec 9, 2019 21:26:59 GMT
I can't speak for every route but the one's I've observed. 9: Talking of reliability, this is probably the one which has suffered the most. I can't see at all how this change was meant to save money, all it's done is cause endless reliability issues and now journeys are far longer due to the Piccadilly Circus traffic. 14: The route seems to get more custom heading to Russell Square than it did going Warren Street, although this is probably because prior many people alighted at TCR anyway. It's still not coming from the direction of the 7 or 10 however which is where the lack of a link really shows. The rerouting of the 9 is a joke. Ubiquitous turns on the route are often present due to the traffic it must endure on Piccadilly. It's not as is the 6 is particularly busy on there either so the need for two routes is non existent. The route has fallen to bits, and as a result of these changes, Piccadilly is overbused. The status quo should have been made the route far more attractive but now sitting in congestion between Piccadilly Circus and Hyde Park Corner doesn't appeal. I've used the new section of the 14 on a few occasions and I think it's working quite well, it's attracting custom during the peaks and the link heading west from Russell Sqaure is one which is needed although a link to Oxford Circus would be optimal, especially for tourists. The 14 should have been sent up to Euston really. The 9 now is awful so many turns, I really don't understand the change as the 6 goes from Aldwych to Green Park via Piccadilly Circus. Was sceptical of the change in the first place and I was right.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Dec 9, 2019 21:32:58 GMT
It would be beneficial to hear your views on how the Central London bus changes have settled! Another query arised, for the withdrawn routes did TFL issue compensation to the operators involved? I would like to express as a matter of personal opinion - we need more routes running in to the Central London border, not less. This is causing severe disruption to commuters on low wages. Not that TFL would take these conditions in to account! I can only speak for my local routes but the 45 at the Brixton end has done better than many predicted as it’s not running around carrying fresh air like many predicted. At times, you get empty buses but have also seen plenty of well loaded ones in & out of the peaks. The 35’s frequency increase seems to have the opposite affect at the southern end as it now bunches regularly and many are not carrying big loads either. The 3 & 59 changes have had no affect down south, still business as usual. Is it not that busy at the Brixton end now?! In the evening peaks every 35 is rammed to the rafters going across London Bridge, no surprise it’s because of the 40 going lol
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 9, 2019 22:19:36 GMT
I can only speak for my local routes but the 45 at the Brixton end has done better than many predicted as it’s not running around carrying fresh air like many predicted. At times, you get empty buses but have also seen plenty of well loaded ones in & out of the peaks. The 35’s frequency increase seems to have the opposite affect at the southern end as it now bunches regularly and many are not carrying big loads either. The 3 & 59 changes have had no affect down south, still business as usual. Is it not that busy at the Brixton end now?! In the evening peaks every 35 is rammed to the rafters going across London Bridge, no surprise it’s because of the 40 going lol It's not carrying fresh air or anything but the increased frequency seems to have created a lot of bunching that wasn't happening previously and lighter loads at times. Just shows how short sighted the changes are.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 9, 2019 23:47:34 GMT
If anything the reliability of the 45 has probably improved and is attracting new passengers to its round the corner links that you have spoken of. The 45's reliability didn't need improving to begin with and was run quite well. Then again, a route as short as the 45 wouldn't have any reliability issues anyway.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 13, 2019 13:39:13 GMT
Observed 218 and 306 during morning peak yesterday at Starch Green.
Route 218 struggling to keep to timetable, bunching and single deckers full up.
Route 306 operating punctually but double deck capacity not being used to best effect as route does not extend to Acton High Street or have a frequency that can be integrated with the 218 to provide even intervals. Buses running to Acton Vale with a handful of passengers, often directly behind a packed 218.
Both routes serve different stops at Hammersmith Bus Station so no common bus stop towards Acton, most people using the 218 From Lower Bus Station which crowds it from first stop in evening peak. Can see passengers in King Street being left behind.
All entirely predictable.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 13, 2019 17:23:59 GMT
Observed 218 and 306 during morning peak yesterday at Starch Green. Route 218 struggling to keep to timetable, bunching and single deckers full up. Route 306 operating punctually but double deck capacity not being used to best effect as route does not extend to Acton High Street or have a frequency that can be integrated with the 218 to provide even intervals. Buses running to Acton Vale with a handful of passengers, often directly behind a packed 218. Both routes serve different stops at Hammersmith Bus Station so no common bus stop towards Acton, most people using the 218 From Lower Bus Station which crowds it from first stop in evening peak. Can see passengers in King Street being left behind. All entirely predictable. I don't see why the 218 and 306 was not one route merged together. Unless there are double decker restrictions on the 218?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 14, 2019 12:26:09 GMT
Observed 218 and 306 during morning peak yesterday at Starch Green. Route 218 struggling to keep to timetable, bunching and single deckers full up. Route 306 operating punctually but double deck capacity not being used to best effect as route does not extend to Acton High Street or have a frequency that can be integrated with the 218 to provide even intervals. Buses running to Acton Vale with a handful of passengers, often directly behind a packed 218. Both routes serve different stops at Hammersmith Bus Station so no common bus stop towards Acton, most people using the 218 From Lower Bus Station which crowds it from first stop in evening peak. Can see passengers in King Street being left behind. All entirely predictable. I don't see why the 218 and 306 was not one route merged together. Unless there are double decker restrictions on the 218? Double deckers cannot do the turns around North Acton Playing Fields hence why the 218 uses single deckers. This has been discussed countless times, so apologies to those who are sick of reading this but I think the solution would have been to send the 218 up Horn Lane and on to Wembley, with the 440 left alone.
|
|
rml1969
Conductor
Adolescent & Youth Worker - OWR Driver
Posts: 69
|
Post by rml1969 on Dec 16, 2019 5:03:22 GMT
Thanks to all of you who shared your experiences - I try to use trains as much as possible whilst commuting to and from work. Much faster but busier, just about able to breathe.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 8, 2020 6:32:34 GMT
I’ve never understood why the 242 had to be rerouted to Aldgate? Why not create a new route that ran from Aldgate to Wood Green? I don’t know it seems like a odd choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 7:10:23 GMT
I’ve never understood why the 242 had to be rerouted to Aldgate? Why not create a new route that ran from Aldgate to Wood Green? I don’t know it seems like a odd choice. It could have been numbered 67.... o wait....
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 8, 2020 7:12:31 GMT
I’ve never understood why the 242 had to be rerouted to Aldgate? Why not create a new route that ran from Aldgate to Wood Green? I don’t know it seems like a odd choice. It could have been numbered 67.... o wait.... I get you but still did the 67 and 242 really needed to be fiddled with?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 8, 2020 7:24:32 GMT
It seemed to hinge on the feeling that the 149 and 242 were sufficient down to Shoreditch from Dalston without the 67 and the 242 in fairness had lost demand since being cut to St Paul's (and the St Paul's stand was needed by the 100) so it kind of removed some space capacity in TFLs eyes. Personally I'd have left the 67 and made the 242 just a local hospital link from Hammerton to Hackney and Dalston and cut it to Dalston Junction instead.
|
|