|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 8, 2024 1:28:24 GMT
A LT makes an appearance on the 123 (LT 574) not sure if this has happened before….. Yes on New Years Eve, saw it fully blinded |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 8, 2024 1:30:45 GMT
They wouldn't publish that a garage would be electrified if it's not planned to They very well could, are they really going to publish 'we don't plan to electrify some garages'? Like I said the 277 is physical proof that things are said that may not be adhered to. I hate to say this, but you are right. Not every garage has been costed. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 8, 2024 1:31:55 GMT
Stagecoach said that WH would be electrified before it was closed. People then said the same thing about WH being secure. Arriva aren't going to publish that a garage won't be electrified. Not to mention it will all be dependent on tenders and this is the case for any garage, not just DX. If they win the work they'll do so. I mean, it was electrified to be pedantic - the 323 receiving EV buses and associated chargers…. I personally suspect DT, DX and EC will all end up receiving EV buses with associated new tenders. Now DB is gone, from what I hear from people who know their stuff the focus is very much on growth and new work at Arriva - both TfL and non-TfL work, new buses for subsidiaries outside London and new tenders and EV buses in London. I don’t expect the abstention from upcoming franchising in Merseyside and West Yorkshire like there was in Manchester. New work and possibly a new garage in the future; but not at throw away prices |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 8, 2024 1:33:51 GMT
Another key point is that all 14 garages will be electrified, confirming a secure future for DT which had a lot of speculation against it existing past the next few years All garages has to be risk assessed and have other planning work associated with electric buses done. Which some were not during the DB phase. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 8, 2024 15:08:43 GMT
Does this latest news release put a question mark against SF being electrified as it is not one of the 3 electrified garages mentioned.
Alternatively, a garage could only count as electrified once an electric bus/route operates from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamie166 on Nov 8, 2024 17:19:14 GMT
With the tender currently up for the 166, does anyone have any idea of the chance the frequency may increase to Epsom Hospital or of a Sunday/evening service? Part of Surrey's bus service improvement plan includes this:
TfL and Surrey County Council may be currently deciding/negotiating about improvements to the route, which may explain why the tender didn't come out alongside the other TC routes. The only issue is that the current 3bph frequency makes it nigh on impossible to run an even interval half hourly service to Epsom.
I'm hopeful that they come to an agreement that does improve the Epsom to Banstead section of the route. I agree it wont be easy as 3ph does seem a bit excessive to Epsom, but I don't know how ellse they can improve the frequency without doing that. I should also note that the two bus stops flags on both sides at Banstead Crossroads have had the tiles replaced. Used to have "Monday-Saturday" underneath, now it just has a standard 166 tile. Either it was just a mistake or those changing the tiles know something we don't. ![C:\Users\jamie\Downloads\Banstead Crossroads 166 bus stop.jpg]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Nov 8, 2024 17:57:59 GMT
Part of Surrey's bus service improvement plan includes this:
TfL and Surrey County Council may be currently deciding/negotiating about improvements to the route, which may explain why the tender didn't come out alongside the other TC routes. The only issue is that the current 3bph frequency makes it nigh on impossible to run an even interval half hourly service to Epsom.
I'm hopeful that they come to an agreement that does improve the Epsom to Banstead section of the route. I agree it wont be easy as 3ph does seem a bit excessive to Epsom, but I don't know how ellse they can improve the frequency without doing that. I should also note that the two bus stops flags on both sides at Banstead Crossroads have had the tiles replaced. Used to have "Monday-Saturday" underneath, now it just has a standard 166 tile. Either it was just a mistake or those changing the tiles know something we don't. ![C:\Users\jamie\Downloads\Banstead Crossroads 166 bus stop.jpg]() ![]() What if they make Banstead to Epsom 2bph anyway and just accept the uneven frequencies? |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 8, 2024 18:01:00 GMT
Part of Surrey's bus service improvement plan includes this:
TfL and Surrey County Council may be currently deciding/negotiating about improvements to the route, which may explain why the tender didn't come out alongside the other TC routes. The only issue is that the current 3bph frequency makes it nigh on impossible to run an even interval half hourly service to Epsom.
I'm hopeful that they come to an agreement that does improve the Epsom to Banstead section of the route. I agree it wont be easy as 3ph does seem a bit excessive to Epsom, but I don't know how ellse they can improve the frequency without doing that. I should also note that the two bus stops flags on both sides at Banstead Crossroads have had the tiles replaced. Used to have "Monday-Saturday" underneath, now it just has a standard 166 tile. Either it was just a mistake or those changing the tiles know something we don't. ![C:\Users\jamie\Downloads\Banstead Crossroads 166 bus stop.jpg]() ![]() Could the 166 do with any extra capacity east of Banstead? If so, the route could increase to every 15 minutes, continuing to Epsom every 30. Or alternatively it could just be split into two routes. Is there any demand around Epsom to go beyond Banstead? If not, maybe the 166 could just all run between West Croydon and Banstead - but maybe extending slightly to terminate near Banstead station. Then extend the 467 from Epsom to Banstead High Street? Or - since the 166 isn't that direct anyway - could a 2tph route work between Croydon and Epsom via Wallington and Banstead? |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Nov 8, 2024 18:13:56 GMT
I'm hopeful that they come to an agreement that does improve the Epsom to Banstead section of the route. I agree it wont be easy as 3ph does seem a bit excessive to Epsom, but I don't know how ellse they can improve the frequency without doing that. I should also note that the two bus stops flags on both sides at Banstead Crossroads have had the tiles replaced. Used to have "Monday-Saturday" underneath, now it just has a standard 166 tile. Either it was just a mistake or those changing the tiles know something we don't. ![C:\Users\jamie\Downloads\Banstead Crossroads 166 bus stop.jpg]() ![]() Could the 166 do with any extra capacity east of Banstead? If so, the route could increase to every 15 minutes, continuing to Epsom every 30. Or alternatively it could just be split into two routes. Is there any demand around Epsom to go beyond Banstead? If not, maybe the 166 could just all run between West Croydon and Banstead - but maybe extending slightly to terminate near Banstead station. Then extend the 467 from Epsom to Banstead High Street? Or - since the 166 isn't that direct anyway - could a 2tph route work between Croydon and Epsom via Wallington and Banstead? None of the solutions are that satisfying. 4bph to Banstead overbusses the route. The Banstead turn is only really practical towards Epsom, not away, and rerouting it via Wallington completely parallels the train for the whole journey. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Nov 8, 2024 18:24:39 GMT
I'm hopeful that they come to an agreement that does improve the Epsom to Banstead section of the route. I agree it wont be easy as 3ph does seem a bit excessive to Epsom, but I don't know how ellse they can improve the frequency without doing that. I should also note that the two bus stops flags on both sides at Banstead Crossroads have had the tiles replaced. Used to have "Monday-Saturday" underneath, now it just has a standard 166 tile. Either it was just a mistake or those changing the tiles know something we don't. ![C:\Users\jamie\Downloads\Banstead Crossroads 166 bus stop.jpg]() ![]() Could the 166 do with any extra capacity east of Banstead? If so, the route could increase to every 15 minutes, continuing to Epsom every 30. Or alternatively it could just be split into two routes. Is there any demand around Epsom to go beyond Banstead? If not, maybe the 166 could just all run between West Croydon and Banstead - but maybe extending slightly to terminate near Banstead station. Then extend the 467 from Epsom to Banstead High Street? Or - since the 166 isn't that direct anyway - could a 2tph route work between Croydon and Epsom via Wallington and Banstead? Extra capacity isn't needed east of Banstead, every 20 minutes is about right for the route. There is a decent bit of demand from Epsom to Coulsdon/Purley, so splitting the route or diverting it wouldn't be ideal at all. In an ideal world, you'd just extend the entire service to Epsom (there would be demand for this as it is already well used now and the additional frequency would induce demand), but it probably isn't financially viable. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Nov 8, 2024 18:29:42 GMT
Part of Surrey's bus service improvement plan includes this:
TfL and Surrey County Council may be currently deciding/negotiating about improvements to the route, which may explain why the tender didn't come out alongside the other TC routes. The only issue is that the current 3bph frequency makes it nigh on impossible to run an even interval half hourly service to Epsom.
I'm hopeful that they come to an agreement that does improve the Epsom to Banstead section of the route. I agree it wont be easy as 3ph does seem a bit excessive to Epsom, but I don't know how ellse they can improve the frequency without doing that. I should also note that the two bus stops flags on both sides at Banstead Crossroads have had the tiles replaced. Used to have "Monday-Saturday" underneath, now it just has a standard 166 tile. Either it was just a mistake or those changing the tiles know something we don't. ![C:\Users\jamie\Downloads\Banstead Crossroads 166 bus stop.jpg]() ![]() I wouldn't be too surprised if a Sunday service through to Epsom is added, the cost for increasing the Mon-Sat frequency on that section will be quite high due to the need for an additional bus to be added to the PVR, but adding a Sunday service would be comparatively cheap. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 8, 2024 18:35:58 GMT
I'm hopeful that they come to an agreement that does improve the Epsom to Banstead section of the route. I agree it wont be easy as 3ph does seem a bit excessive to Epsom, but I don't know how ellse they can improve the frequency without doing that. I should also note that the two bus stops flags on both sides at Banstead Crossroads have had the tiles replaced. Used to have "Monday-Saturday" underneath, now it just has a standard 166 tile. Either it was just a mistake or those changing the tiles know something we don't. ![C:\Users\jamie\Downloads\Banstead Crossroads 166 bus stop.jpg]() ![]() Could the 166 do with any extra capacity east of Banstead? If so, the route could increase to every 15 minutes, continuing to Epsom every 30. Or alternatively it could just be split into two routes. Is there any demand around Epsom to go beyond Banstead? If not, maybe the 166 could just all run between West Croydon and Banstead - but maybe extending slightly to terminate near Banstead station. Then extend the 467 from Epsom to Banstead High Street? Or - since the 166 isn't that direct anyway - could a 2tph route work between Croydon and Epsom via Wallington and Banstead? It could be 4bph to Chipstead Valley and 2bph to Epsom . |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Nov 8, 2024 18:38:42 GMT
Could the 166 do with any extra capacity east of Banstead? If so, the route could increase to every 15 minutes, continuing to Epsom every 30. Or alternatively it could just be split into two routes. Is there any demand around Epsom to go beyond Banstead? If not, maybe the 166 could just all run between West Croydon and Banstead - but maybe extending slightly to terminate near Banstead station. Then extend the 467 from Epsom to Banstead High Street? Or - since the 166 isn't that direct anyway - could a 2tph route work between Croydon and Epsom via Wallington and Banstead? It could be 4bph to Chipstead Valley and 2bph to Epsom . That just overbusses the bulk of the route and unnecessarily hurts Banstead and Woodmansterne |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Nov 8, 2024 18:40:27 GMT
Could the 166 do with any extra capacity east of Banstead? If so, the route could increase to every 15 minutes, continuing to Epsom every 30. Or alternatively it could just be split into two routes. Is there any demand around Epsom to go beyond Banstead? If not, maybe the 166 could just all run between West Croydon and Banstead - but maybe extending slightly to terminate near Banstead station. Then extend the 467 from Epsom to Banstead High Street? Or - since the 166 isn't that direct anyway - could a 2tph route work between Croydon and Epsom via Wallington and Banstead? It could be 4bph to Chipstead Valley and 2bph to Epsom . I've had a go at timetabling that previously and, in order to keep an even interval 4bph service, it ends up requiring the same number of buses as it would if the Chipstead Valley terminators went through to Banstead. Additionally I don't think it's a good idea to reduce the frequency between Chipstead Valley and Banstead. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 8, 2024 18:58:02 GMT
It could be 4bph to Chipstead Valley and 2bph to Epsom . That just overbusses the bulk of the route and unnecessarily hurts Banstead and Woodmansterne Not really if the 466 is reduced, anyway this a discussion for the bus routes section. |
|
