|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 1, 2018 16:10:10 GMT
Sounds to me from this as though the best option would be simply not to withdraw the 357. How well used is the 357? If it has some spare capacity, perhaps a small PVR cut or full conversion to SDs may be a bettee solution. Or otherwise a full DD operation including Sundays, as other routes link from Walthamstow into the hospital grounds (e.g. W12, W15) It is clearly not the busiest route on the network. It never has been even stretching back to when it was the 97A and reached Chingford Station. However it can and does carry decent loads if it turns up at the right time to mop up a big queue of people. I was on one the other week which caught schools and college traffic and it was nearly full. That would take pressure off the 97 which is typically well loaded all the time. I've also been on and seen many fully loaded peak time 357 buses. That's why it is run with double deckers. A long time ago it was run with Leyland Nationals. The problem is that TfL have changed the "mantra" and now it expects buses to be "full" (whatever that means) to justify their existence. That appears again in the recent Richmond consultation. On that basis every route could be endangered in London because no normal route ever runs with maximum loadings on every departure. Some school routes may be an exception to that scenario but they are not typical. To be frank it is ridiculous to expect every bus to be "full" all day, every day. It never happens. If it wasn't for the peak time loadings I'd be minded to convert the 357 to single decker and run it on to Leytonstone Stn and then the 339 to Stratford City. I'm still determined to kill the overlong 339!  I suspect that a direct route from Whipps Cross and parts of Leytonstone to Stratford City would give the route a bit of a fillip. An alternative would be to keep it double deck but cut it to every 20 mins M-S but schedule it jointly with the 215 between Walthamstow Central and Chingford Mount to give a x10/x15 headway each day. That increases the likelihood of increased loadings over the common section. Doesn't justify because a gap in the 97, it should be there. I bet after "mopping" up those crowds there is probably a 97 running 2-3 mins behind it. It may only get busy between Crooked Billet & Walthamstow Central at certain times of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 1, 2018 19:16:17 GMT
Sounds to me from this as though the best option would be simply not to withdraw the 357. How well used is the 357? If it has some spare capacity, perhaps a small PVR cut or full conversion to SDs may be a bettee solution. Or otherwise a full DD operation including Sundays, as other routes link from Walthamstow into the hospital grounds (e.g. W12, W15) It is clearly not the busiest route on the network. It never has been even stretching back to when it was the 97A and reached Chingford Station. However it can and does carry decent loads if it turns up at the right time to mop up a big queue of people. I was on one the other week which caught schools and college traffic and it was nearly full. That would take pressure off the 97 which is typically well loaded all the time. I've also been on and seen many fully loaded peak time 357 buses. That's why it is run with double deckers. A long time ago it was run with Leyland Nationals. The problem is that TfL have changed the "mantra" and now it expects buses to be "full" (whatever that means) to justify their existence. That appears again in the recent Richmond consultation. On that basis every route could be endangered in London because no normal route ever runs with maximum loadings on every departure. Some school routes may be an exception to that scenario but they are not typical. To be frank it is ridiculous to expect every bus to be "full" all day, every day. It never happens. If it wasn't for the peak time loadings I'd be minded to convert the 357 to single decker and run it on to Leytonstone Stn and then the 339 to Stratford City. I'm still determined to kill the overlong 339! I suspect that a direct route from Whipps Cross and parts of Leytonstone to Stratford City would give the route a bit of a fillip. An alternative would be to keep it double deck but cut it to every 20 mins M-S but schedule it jointly with the 215 between Walthamstow Central and Chingford Mount to give a x10/x15 headway each day. That increases the likelihood of increased loadings over the common section. TfL's new demand that buses be 'full' to justify their existence defies all logic, as it implies that, on some journeys at least, many must be left behind at stops, perhaps for an hour or so on some routes. This latter problem, where it occurred, was mostly dealt with successfully when resources were devoted to increasing the supply of buses where needed. Besides which, assuming someone on one of these full buses needs to change bus as a result of the repercussions of the 'consultations' and wants to take advantage of the hopper facility, they may be unable to as the second bus flies past full to the brim. Just imagine if each Underground train was required to be 'full' at each part of every journey. There'd be a huge press and MP etc outcry but as the latter wouldn't recognise a bus if it ran them down then TfL are allowed to get away with this rubbish. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 1, 2018 19:20:34 GMT
It is clearly not the busiest route on the network. It never has been even stretching back to when it was the 97A and reached Chingford Station. However it can and does carry decent loads if it turns up at the right time to mop up a big queue of people. I was on one the other week which caught schools and college traffic and it was nearly full. That would take pressure off the 97 which is typically well loaded all the time. I've also been on and seen many fully loaded peak time 357 buses. That's why it is run with double deckers. A long time ago it was run with Leyland Nationals. The problem is that TfL have changed the "mantra" and now it expects buses to be "full" (whatever that means) to justify their existence. That appears again in the recent Richmond consultation. On that basis every route could be endangered in London because no normal route ever runs with maximum loadings on every departure. Some school routes may be an exception to that scenario but they are not typical. To be frank it is ridiculous to expect every bus to be "full" all day, every day. It never happens. If it wasn't for the peak time loadings I'd be minded to convert the 357 to single decker and run it on to Leytonstone Stn and then the 339 to Stratford City. I'm still determined to kill the overlong 339! I suspect that a direct route from Whipps Cross and parts of Leytonstone to Stratford City would give the route a bit of a fillip. An alternative would be to keep it double deck but cut it to every 20 mins M-S but schedule it jointly with the 215 between Walthamstow Central and Chingford Mount to give a x10/x15 headway each day. That increases the likelihood of increased loadings over the common section. TfL's new demand that buses be 'full' to justify their existence defies all logic, as it implies that, on some journeys at least, many must be left behind at stops, perhaps for an hour or so on some routes. This latter problem, where it occurred, was mostly dealt with successfully when resources were devoted to increasing the supply of buses where needed. Besides which, assuming someone on one of these full buses needs to change bus as a result of the repercussions of the 'consultations' and wants to take advantage of the hopper facility, they may be unable to as the second bus flies past full to the brim. Just imagine if each Underground train was required to be 'full' at each part of every journey. There'd be a huge press and MP etc outcry but as the latter wouldn't recognise a bus if it ran them down then TfL are allowed to get away with this rubbish. When did TfL say that buses had to be full to justify their existence? |
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Nov 1, 2018 19:41:59 GMT
TfL's new demand that buses be 'full' to justify their existence defies all logic, as it implies that, on some journeys at least, many must be left behind at stops, perhaps for an hour or so on some routes. This latter problem, where it occurred, was mostly dealt with successfully when resources were devoted to increasing the supply of buses where needed. Besides which, assuming someone on one of these full buses needs to change bus as a result of the repercussions of the 'consultations' and wants to take advantage of the hopper facility, they may be unable to as the second bus flies past full to the brim. Just imagine if each Underground train was required to be 'full' at each part of every journey. There'd be a huge press and MP etc outcry but as the latter wouldn't recognise a bus if it ran them down then TfL are allowed to get away with this rubbish. When did TfL say that buses had to be full to justify their existence? It was inferred in the RV1 business case that I think the figure was 70% on every trip to keep routes sustainable. Believe the figure was used in general terms not just specific to the RV1 |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 1, 2018 20:58:09 GMT
When did TfL say that buses had to be full to justify their existence? It was inferred in the RV1 business case that I think the figure was 70% on every trip to keep routes sustainable. Believe the figure was used in general terms not just specific to the RV1 The only reference I can find to this 70% figure is mentioned in this article. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45268308There is no mention of buses having to be full to justify their existence though. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 1, 2018 21:51:53 GMT
It was inferred in the RV1 business case that I think the figure was 70% on every trip to keep routes sustainable. Believe the figure was used in general terms not just specific to the RV1 The only reference I can find to this 70% figure is mentioned in this article. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45268308There is no mention of buses having to be full to justify their existence though. Reverting to one of the subjects of this thread, the C2, I've just bored myself by going back to read the verbiage produced by TfL in connection with their 'consultation' on the route. TfL stated there are (or were when they came out with this) 15.5 bph between Camden Town and Oxford Circus whereas only 5 were 'needed' (their word.) Their definition of need is apparently to divide the number of passengers per hour by the capacity of a double decker bus and that then tells you how many buses are 'needed'. That implies or infers, according to taste, that the requirement for buses on a given corridor is based on 'full' buses. The fact that TfL is, in its munificence, not planning to go so low as 5 bph at this point does not detract from the logis that, therefore, they may in future require buses to be full in order to justify them. QED. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 1, 2018 22:05:50 GMT
It was inferred in the RV1 business case that I think the figure was 70% on every trip to keep routes sustainable. Believe the figure was used in general terms not just specific to the RV1 The only reference I can find to this 70% figure is mentioned in this article. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45268308There is no mention of buses having to be full to justify their existence though. The full presentation on the 853 website describes buses that are less than 70% full in the morning peak as inefficient. Also the blurb for the Richmond/Twickenham consultation says "Our review of bus services in outer London has revealed that a number of corridors running in Richmond, Twickenham and Whitton are operating with spare capacity. This means that buses are not full." |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 1, 2018 22:55:03 GMT
Reverting to one of the subjects of this thread, the C2, I've just bored myself by going back to read the verbiage produced by TfL in connection with their 'consultation' on the route. TfL stated there are (or were when they came out with this) 15.5 bph between Camden Town and Oxford Circus whereas only 5 were 'needed' (their word.) Their definition of need is apparently to divide the number of passengers per hour by the capacity of a double decker bus and that then tells you how many buses are 'needed'. That implies or infers, according to taste, that the requirement for buses on a given corridor is based on 'full' buses. The fact that TfL is, in its munificence, not planning to go so low as 5 bph at this point does not detract from the logis that, therefore, they may in future require buses to be full in order to justify them. QED. The fact remains that TfL have not said buses have to be full in order to justify their existence and if they had I'm pretty sure the media would have picked up on it. I'm not for one minute suggesting that TfL are perfect but things need to be kept in perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 2, 2018 0:09:12 GMT
TfL's new demand that buses be 'full' to justify their existence defies all logic, as it implies that, on some journeys at least, many must be left behind at stops, perhaps for an hour or so on some routes. This latter problem, where it occurred, was mostly dealt with successfully when resources were devoted to increasing the supply of buses where needed. Besides which, assuming someone on one of these full buses needs to change bus as a result of the repercussions of the 'consultations' and wants to take advantage of the hopper facility, they may be unable to as the second bus flies past full to the brim. Just imagine if each Underground train was required to be 'full' at each part of every journey. There'd be a huge press and MP etc outcry but as the latter wouldn't recognise a bus if it ran them down then TfL are allowed to get away with this rubbish. When did TfL say that buses had to be full to justify their existence? TfL have used that phraseology in several recent consultations including the new Richmond one. TfL have not defined what they mean by "full" so anyone can interpret it as they like. The RV1 has had a separate review because there was a previous commitment to do one. Other posters have mentioned a 70% loading from that review. Given that the average bus load in London was something like 15 passengers a bus (nowhere near 70% of capacity given the high proportion of DDs in the fleet) and that was about twice as high as the rest of England's average number it is perfectly clear that it is nothing to do with loadings and everything to do with money. We don't need to retread the standard arguments beyond that. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 2, 2018 6:10:54 GMT
When did TfL say that buses had to be full to justify their existence? TfL have used that phraseology in several recent consultations including the new Richmond one. TfL have not defined what they mean by "full" so anyone can interpret it as they like. The RV1 has had a separate review because there was a previous commitment to do one. Other posters have mentioned a 70% loading from that review. Given that the average bus load in London was something like 15 passengers a bus (nowhere near 70% of capacity given the high proportion of DDs in the fleet) and that was about twice as high as the rest of England's average number it is perfectly clear that it is nothing to do with loadings and everything to do with money. We don't need to retread the standard arguments beyond that. How people interpret things is obviously up to them but to suggest TfL have said things which they haven't is misleading to say the least. I think we've had enough 'project fear' on another subject without it creeping in here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 22:28:07 GMT
I'd save the 357 by turning it into an SD, and extend it via Whipps Cross Rd to Leytonstone and then to Wanstead thereby creating a new daytime link. Only N55 links Lea Bridge Rd to Wanstead at present.
Okay, the W12 does too, but that is far from a direct link.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 17:42:12 GMT
A mystery is solved, well it was a mystery to me, how does the 357 turn at Whipps Cross hospital on Sunday. Thanks to someone uploading a visual on youtube I now know.
After the last stop it turns right into the small car park at the outpatients entrance and parks there. Passengers get on there, so technically it doesn't serve stop N, the first stop as the car park is directly behind it.
Another mystery is why the 357 serves the hospital on Sunday anyway. It's not as if any other route serving the hospital Monday to Saturday doesn't run on Sunday, they all run seven days. So the 357 is an extra link just for Sunday, why?
|
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jan 14, 2019 21:23:10 GMT
A mystery is solved, well it was a mystery to me, how does the 357 turn at Whipps Cross hospital on Sunday. Thanks to someone uploading a visual on youtube I now know. After the last stop it turns right into the small car park at the outpatients entrance and parks there. Passengers get on there, so technically it doesn't serve stop N, the first stop as the car park is directly behind it. Another mystery is why the 357 serves the hospital on Sunday anyway. It's not as if any other route serving the hospital Monday to Saturday doesn't run on Sunday, they all run seven days. So the 357 is an extra link just for Sunday, why? Sunday was traditionally a day for hospital visits, going back to the days when hospital visting hours were much more restricted. So there used to be many route extensions / variations to serve hospitals on Sundays only. The 357 is the last remnant of this practice. It would surely have been standardised to run to the hospital on all days of the week, were it not for the fact that the route through the hospital grounds is restricted to single-deckers. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 14, 2019 21:34:59 GMT
A mystery is solved, well it was a mystery to me, how does the 357 turn at Whipps Cross hospital on Sunday. Thanks to someone uploading a visual on youtube I now know. After the last stop it turns right into the small car park at the outpatients entrance and parks there. Passengers get on there, so technically it doesn't serve stop N, the first stop as the car park is directly behind it. Another mystery is why the 357 serves the hospital on Sunday anyway. It's not as if any other route serving the hospital Monday to Saturday doesn't run on Sunday, they all run seven days. So the 357 is an extra link just for Sunday, why? Sunday was traditionally a day for hospital visits, going back to the days when hospital visting hours were much more restricted. So there used to be many route extensions / variations to serve hospitals on Sundays only. The 357 is the last remnant of this practice. It would surely have been standardised to run to the hospital on all days of the week, were it not for the fact that the route through the hospital grounds is restricted to single-deckers. Or just scrap the 357 while they can... |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 31, 2019 1:34:07 GMT
I note that the latest TLB says that there has been a short term contract extension for route 357 so Go Ahead have to keep running it beyond 2 March. No word on how long the extension is for. If TfL are proposing to withdraw it they will need to get a consultation out very fast given it takes them on average 6-18 months to actually process and conclude a consultation exercise. If TfL were actually proposing to can the route I'd have expected something before now to be honest. There's nothing stopping them from chucking out a single route consultation. It makes me wonder if it has been tentatively awarded to CT Plus but they are struggling to convince TfL that they have or can create sufficient garage space to run it. If any other operator was first in line to run it (GAL, Stagecoach or Arriva) then they have relatively easy recourse to garage space in the vicinity so an award could be made. Of course my other theories about TfL wanting to reduce the cost of running it by rescheduling / changing frequency may also be equally valid.  |
|
I suspect that a direct route from Whipps Cross and parts of Leytonstone to Stratford City would give the route a bit of a fillip. 
