|
|
Post by uakari on Aug 28, 2023 19:31:49 GMT
Since I live near Ruislip I am more likely to defend installing a night route than defend somewhere in East London having one. Just like the East London folk on here seem to jump on me whenever I make a comment on anything East London Let's bring some figures into this discussion. The closest figures we have to Ruislip deserving a night service is when the 114 was weekend night until the Pandemic. The most recent figure before Covid hit from the 2018-19 period the 114 carried 22,458 people. By contrast the 145 carried 33,216 people. Now this obviously assumes some factors and the biggest is that a night route ideally needs to carry more people than the 145 to be viable. The 145 is a route that was withdrawn effectively in cold blood with no replacement at all and its users left with no alternative with mitigations to existing routes. If the 145 carried over 10K more people than the 114 did would you say the N114 would be justified considering the N145 isn't? Now seeing as for some absurd reason Harold Hill's night service has been compared to Ruilsip's one let's compare the N114 to the N86. There'll be the argument that the N86s usage comes from more than Harold Hill, but the N114s usage will obviously come from more than Ruislip too and it's the closest estimate that we have. The N114s usage divided by 2 (for 2 days of the week) is 11,229 while the N86s usage divided by 7 (for 7 days of the week) is 46,652. Think its needless to say that Ruislip and Harold Hill cannot be compared in this situation, and that the figures show that Ruislip didn't even heavily use the night service when it had it. The weekend night routes that were chosen were clearly done so on the basis of a social need when TfL still thought at all like that, not just in terms of numbers, but to cover night bus deserts like Ruislip, Dagenham, New Barnet, and places that had their night bus taken away like Southbury and Roundshaw. The trouble is that they relied on connections with the night tube, which didn't necessarily match with the timetables and were often from quite distant stations: it's hard to persuade someone to get the tube to Queensbury then catch a bus to Ruislip, or to Leytonstone then to Dagenham, waiting for a long time in the middle of the night. In my opinion it may be better to look at extending routes from central London, such as the N7 to Ruislip, N550 to Dagenham or N271 to New Barnet. But we still don't know yet whether the weekend night routes that haven't been announced are coming back. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 28, 2023 19:32:36 GMT
Since I live near Ruislip I am more likely to defend installing a night route than defend somewhere in East London having one. Just like the East London folk on here seem to jump on me whenever I make a comment on anything East London Let's bring some figures into this discussion. The closest figures we have to Ruislip deserving a night service is when the 114 was weekend night until the Pandemic. The most recent figure before Covid hit from the 2018-19 period the 114 carried 22,458 people. By contrast the 145 carried 33,216 people. Now this obviously assumes some factors and the biggest is that a night route ideally needs to carry more people than the 145 to be viable. The 145 is a route that was withdrawn effectively in cold blood with no replacement at all and its users left with no alternative with mitigations to existing routes. If the 145 carried over 10K more people than the 114 did would you say the N114 would be justified considering the N145 isn't? Now seeing as for some absurd reason Harold Hill's night service has been compared to Ruilsip's one let's compare the N114 to the N86. There'll be the argument that the N86s usage comes from more than Harold Hill, but the N114s usage will obviously come from more than Ruislip too and it's the closest estimate that we have. The N114s usage divided by 2 (for 2 days of the week) is 11,229 while the N86s usage divided by 7 (for 7 days of the week) is 46,652. Think its needless to say that Ruislip and Harold Hill cannot be compared in this situation, and that the figures show that Ruislip didn't even heavily use the night service when it had it. Talking of east London I just had a look at the most recent usage data and was surprised at how low the N474 usage is at around 40,000 people. I do wonder if this route is really justified at night. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 28, 2023 19:45:35 GMT
Let's bring some figures into this discussion. The closest figures we have to Ruislip deserving a night service is when the 114 was weekend night until the Pandemic. The most recent figure before Covid hit from the 2018-19 period the 114 carried 22,458 people. By contrast the 145 carried 33,216 people. Now this obviously assumes some factors and the biggest is that a night route ideally needs to carry more people than the 145 to be viable. The 145 is a route that was withdrawn effectively in cold blood with no replacement at all and its users left with no alternative with mitigations to existing routes. If the 145 carried over 10K more people than the 114 did would you say the N114 would be justified considering the N145 isn't? Now seeing as for some absurd reason Harold Hill's night service has been compared to Ruilsip's one let's compare the N114 to the N86. There'll be the argument that the N86s usage comes from more than Harold Hill, but the N114s usage will obviously come from more than Ruislip too and it's the closest estimate that we have. The N114s usage divided by 2 (for 2 days of the week) is 11,229 while the N86s usage divided by 7 (for 7 days of the week) is 46,652. Think its needless to say that Ruislip and Harold Hill cannot be compared in this situation, and that the figures show that Ruislip didn't even heavily use the night service when it had it. Talking of east London I just had a look at the most recent usage data and was surprised at how low the N474 usage is at around 40,000 people. I do wonder if this route is really justified at night. I think that that is a good number. Though it depends on whether the figure is per week or per night |
|
|
|
Post by rift on Aug 28, 2023 19:47:45 GMT
Unfair… oh please. Well if the shops are closed at night then what is the point of mentioning this. Did you ever think Harold Hill is a residential area? I am surprised northlondon83 has started up the whole debate again. I am trying to be as polite as possible when I say this but it does almost feel like they are trying to stir up the same debate time and time again.
Harold Hill has had a night bus since 1984 with the N98 (Renumbered N25 in 1995) so there is clearly demand there. I am not sure if there was a service before this?
Not to mention that Romford, which Harold Hill is part of, has a noticeable night scene especially on the weekends, albeit not as big as a few years back. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 28, 2023 19:55:01 GMT
I am surprised northlondon83 has started up the whole debate again. I am trying to be as polite as possible when I say this but it does almost feel like they are trying to stir up the same debate time and time again.
Harold Hill has had a night bus since 1984 with the N98 (Renumbered N25 in 1995) so there is clearly demand there. I am not sure if there was a service before this?
Not to mention that Romford, which Harold Hill is part of, has a noticeable night scene especially on the weekends, albeit not as big as a few years back. How is Harold Hill part of Romford? They are two different towns |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 28, 2023 19:55:31 GMT
Not to mention that Romford, which Harold Hill is part of, has a noticeable night scene especially on the weekends, albeit not as big as a few years back. How is Harold Hill part of Romford? They are two different towns Harold Hill's post town is Romford, much like how Becontree is Dagenham. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 28, 2023 21:26:11 GMT
Talking of east London I just had a look at the most recent usage data and was surprised at how low the N474 usage is at around 40,000 people. I do wonder if this route is really justified at night. I think that that is a good number. Though it depends on whether the figure is per week or per night Per year! |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 28, 2023 21:38:09 GMT
I think that that is a good number. Though it depends on whether the figure is per week or per night Per year! Just over 100 passengers per night is terrible number. I wonder if LCA contribute towards the cost? Even though the last flight is around 10.30pm. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 28, 2023 23:04:25 GMT
You wouldn't be saying that if you lived in an area with no bus routes at night and you needed to use them. Harold Hill is a residential area but so is Ruislip and a lot of the surrounding areas with no night routes If I lived in an area with no Night bus I would not rely on one form of transportation to get from A 2 B. When I was at DT a few occasions I got a lift to Northend Road to get the N89 home when car was getting work done on it. For 5 years the N171 was removed from the Hither Green & Catford East area. I simply walked home 25 mins from a N47 or N136 if I had to use a Night bus. Overall not being harsh who cares. Why would you compare Harold Hill and Ruislip. The way I see it you’re saying Harold Hill should not have one and Ruislip should. When you make posts in future I suggest you go through them as members may misinterpret what you post. Like earlier today you were on about the 260 and now your comparing Harold Hill with Ruislip. If you simply suggested a Night service in Ruislip without mentioning Harold Hill then you would get a very different response in relation to the 260 and now Ruislip comments. Whilst I don't agree with northlondon83 point, not at anytime has he said Harold Hill should have their service withdrawn, merely that he believes Ruislip should have one because Harold Hill has one which obviously it doesn't work like that. Other than that, I agree with you, particularly on your last paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 29, 2023 4:49:07 GMT
Just over 100 passengers per night is terrible number. I wonder if LCA contribute towards the cost? Even though the last flight is around 10.30pm. So if everyone pays a single fare (which isn't going to happen as many will have passes or will be let on for nothing due to card issues/drivers avoiding confrontation) that's £175 a night revenue. Roughly a night route every 30 mins runs 8 journeys give or take (first at 1am the last at 4.30am) that's about £10.90 a journey. Be interesting to see what a (N)474 journey costs to run but I'd say atleast £20 a run with driver costs and fuel. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 29, 2023 6:46:08 GMT
I think that that is a good number. Though it depends on whether the figure is per week or per night Per year! Oh then that's different and maybe withdrawing it should be considered |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 29, 2023 9:45:37 GMT
Oh then that's different and maybe withdrawing it should be considered Thank you. Now you have finally realised the unsustainability of the trying to provide every link at night or having a very standardised night bus network. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 29, 2023 15:06:48 GMT
Let's bring some figures into this discussion. The closest figures we have to Ruislip deserving a night service is when the 114 was weekend night until the Pandemic. The most recent figure before Covid hit from the 2018-19 period the 114 carried 22,458 people. By contrast the 145 carried 33,216 people. Now this obviously assumes some factors and the biggest is that a night route ideally needs to carry more people than the 145 to be viable. The 145 is a route that was withdrawn effectively in cold blood with no replacement at all and its users left with no alternative with mitigations to existing routes. If the 145 carried over 10K more people than the 114 did would you say the N114 would be justified considering the N145 isn't? Now seeing as for some absurd reason Harold Hill's night service has been compared to Ruilsip's one let's compare the N114 to the N86. There'll be the argument that the N86s usage comes from more than Harold Hill, but the N114s usage will obviously come from more than Ruislip too and it's the closest estimate that we have. The N114s usage divided by 2 (for 2 days of the week) is 11,229 while the N86s usage divided by 7 (for 7 days of the week) is 46,652. Think its needless to say that Ruislip and Harold Hill cannot be compared in this situation, and that the figures show that Ruislip didn't even heavily use the night service when it had it. The weekend night routes that were chosen were clearly done so on the basis of a social need when TfL still thought at all like that, not just in terms of numbers, but to cover night bus deserts like Ruislip, Dagenham, New Barnet, and places that had their night bus taken away like Southbury and Roundshaw. The trouble is that they relied on connections with the night tube, which didn't necessarily match with the timetables and were often from quite distant stations: it's hard to persuade someone to get the tube to Queensbury then catch a bus to Ruislip, or to Leytonstone then to Dagenham, waiting for a long time in the middle of the night. In my opinion it may be better to look at extending routes from central London, such as the N7 to Ruislip, N550 to Dagenham or N271 to New Barnet. But we still don't know yet whether the weekend night routes that haven't been announced are coming back. I absolutely agree with the N7 being extended to Ruislip! Won't be that expensive and links it to somewhere people would want to go. Quite a lot of other night routes go further out like the N207, N98, N18 etc so I would think it's only fair if the N7 gets extended (would be a good idea anyway) At the very least Ruislip should gain the night tube by having the Metropolitan line run from Uxbridge to Baker Street or Aldgate. How is it fair that Osterley, Woodside Park and even Loughton (which is outside London) gets night tube but Ruislip doesn't. Not saying that these services should be withdrawn but I think that the night network should expand across London |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 29, 2023 16:48:36 GMT
The weekend night routes that were chosen were clearly done so on the basis of a social need when TfL still thought at all like that, not just in terms of numbers, but to cover night bus deserts like Ruislip, Dagenham, New Barnet, and places that had their night bus taken away like Southbury and Roundshaw. The trouble is that they relied on connections with the night tube, which didn't necessarily match with the timetables and were often from quite distant stations: it's hard to persuade someone to get the tube to Queensbury then catch a bus to Ruislip, or to Leytonstone then to Dagenham, waiting for a long time in the middle of the night. In my opinion it may be better to look at extending routes from central London, such as the N7 to Ruislip, N550 to Dagenham or N271 to New Barnet. But we still don't know yet whether the weekend night routes that haven't been announced are coming back. I absolutely agree with the N7 being extended to Ruislip! Won't be that expensive and links it to somewhere people would want to go. Quite a lot of other night routes go further out like the N207, N98, N18 etc so I would think it's only fair if the N7 gets extended (would be a good idea anyway) At the very least Ruislip should gain the night tube by having the Metropolitan line run from Uxbridge to Baker Street or Aldgate. How is it fair that Osterley, Woodside Park and even Loughton (which is outside London) gets night tube but Ruislip doesn't. Not saying that these services should be withdrawn but I think that the night network should expand across London The places mentioned get a service because the line goes there its not about being fair! You wouldn't not serve these stations just because they are at the extreme ends of the lines, trains need to terminate at certain stations such as Loughton just as they do in the daytime. Not sure what makes Ruislip more of a destination than East Acton on the N7 and why more people would go there but not going down that road again! |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Aug 29, 2023 17:08:30 GMT
The weekend night routes that were chosen were clearly done so on the basis of a social need when TfL still thought at all like that, not just in terms of numbers, but to cover night bus deserts like Ruislip, Dagenham, New Barnet, and places that had their night bus taken away like Southbury and Roundshaw. The trouble is that they relied on connections with the night tube, which didn't necessarily match with the timetables and were often from quite distant stations: it's hard to persuade someone to get the tube to Queensbury then catch a bus to Ruislip, or to Leytonstone then to Dagenham, waiting for a long time in the middle of the night. In my opinion it may be better to look at extending routes from central London, such as the N7 to Ruislip, N550 to Dagenham or N271 to New Barnet. But we still don't know yet whether the weekend night routes that haven't been announced are coming back. I absolutely agree with the N7 being extended to Ruislip! Won't be that expensive and links it to somewhere people would want to go. Quite a lot of other night routes go further out like the N207, N98, N18 etc so I would think it's only fair if the N7 gets extended (would be a good idea anyway) At the very least Ruislip should gain the night tube by having the Metropolitan line run from Uxbridge to Baker Street or Aldgate. How is it fair that Osterley, Woodside Park and even Loughton (which is outside London) gets night tube but Ruislip doesn't. Not saying that these services should be withdrawn but I think that the night network should expand across London The Sub-Surface Lines (District, Circle, H&C and Metropolitan) were not originally part of the Night Tube plans because of the ongoing resignalling work, this required significant overnight and weekend engineering closures. This work also precluded a service on the Acton Town-Uxbridge section of the Piccadilly Line. TfL is considering extending Night Tube to parts of the Sub-Surface Lines once the work is completed, and providing funding can be made available. |
|
