|
|
Post by cl54 on Nov 25, 2021 9:56:36 GMT
Sorry, have the commuters disappeared? No, they might have changed the way they work with less days in the office but the X68 isn’t just for commuters and you know that. Just the like the X26 and X140 aren’t just for airport travellers. The X68 provides additional support for the 468 to West Norwood in the AM/PM peak which otherwise would need a, possibly more expensive, PVR increase and is a cheap way to get workers from the relatively poorer South London to Central London, but I’m sure you know that as well. Who else is the X68 for other than commuters? You may have noticed that many commuter trains and coaches into Central London no longer run since the start of the pandemic. Usage of the X68 has been in decline for years as more and more people work remotely, it was probably just about viable before covid but not now. I realise express routes like the X68 are a bit of a novelty for enthusiasts but in the cold light of day............ I think you will find that bus usage is increasing, particularly in areas away from railway served areas in South London. I used a 51 bus from Woolwich yesterday evening to get part of the way home. All seats were occupied on the upper deck and there was a "legal" number of standing passengers when I got off the bus. Buses are used by many low paid workers to get to Central London and the 68 route used to get heavy loads and the X68 was introduced to assist and speed up the main 68 service by taking away the longer distance passengers. It doesn't require that many vehicles and provides a useful facility. Rest assured that TfL/DfT are examining user data very carefully. I can assure you that the vast majority of people using it are not bus enthusiasts. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 25, 2021 9:56:53 GMT
In that sense there are savings to be made with the X68. In an ideal world if we had one operator on the 69/468/X68 then there would be merit in cutting the PVR to 5 and having additional services run from the 468 in the AM, becoming regular 68s after the run to Russell Square and then from the 68 in the PM becoming 468s after the run to Croydon but to suggest cutting it entirely just speaks volume to the ignorance of people who couldn’t afford the train daily or with phobias of trains, it’s real and happens to some people. And the fact that the world is financially broke because of the pandemic is real. I mean it's not like anyone is going to be left stranded and how do you think having one operator on the 68,X68 and 468 would change anything? Obviously the routes were tendered separately and went to three different operators. Anyway maybe the suggestion of extending the 468 the short distance to London Bridge will come to fruition with the 50 replacing the South Croydon bit? *I'm slightly aghast to see that 'Dan' is still replying to my posts six months after asking me to ignore him. Perhaps it would be better for one singular operator to operate the 68/468/X68 so that they can run those 3 at a timetable where they can evenly be spaced out rather than have 2 or 3 turn up at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 25, 2021 9:58:25 GMT
In that sense there are savings to be made with the X68. In an ideal world if we had one operator on the 69/468/X68 then there would be merit in cutting the PVR to 5 and having additional services run from the 468 in the AM, becoming regular 68s after the run to Russell Square and then from the 68 in the PM becoming 468s after the run to Croydon but to suggest cutting it entirely just speaks volume to the ignorance of people who couldn’t afford the train daily or with phobias of trains, it’s real and happens to some people. And the fact that the world is financially broke because of the pandemic is real. I mean it's not like anyone is going to be left stranded and how do you think having one operator on the 68,X68 and 468 would change anything? Obviously the routes were tendered separately and went to three different operators. Anyway maybe the suggestion of extending the 468 the short distance to London Bridge will come to fruition with the 50 replacing the South Croydon bit? *I'm slightly aghast to see that 'Dan' is still replying to my posts six months after asking me to ignore him. Please stop with the passive aggressive replying third hand and yes I think everyone knows my names Dan so let’s not go there again shall we? I am entitled to reply if it contributes to the discussion which it does where as when I asked you to ignore me you was trolling me pretty much every post you replied to of mine. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 25, 2021 10:00:50 GMT
Who else is the X68 for other than commuters? You may have noticed that many commuter trains and coaches into Central London no longer run since the start of the pandemic. Usage of the X68 has been in decline for years as more and more people work remotely, it was probably just about viable before covid but not now. I realise express routes like the X68 are a bit of a novelty for enthusiasts but in the cold light of day............ I think you will find that bus usage is increasing, particularly in areas away from railway served areas in South London. I used a 51 bus from Woolwich yesterday evening to get part of the way home. All seats were occupied on the upper deck and there was a "legal" number of standing passengers when I got off the bus. Buses are used by many low paid workers to get to Central London and the 68 route used to get heavy loads and the X68 was introduced to assist and speed up the main 68 service by taking away the longer distance passengers. It doesn't require that many vehicles and provides a useful facility. Rest assured that TfL/DfT are examining user data very carefully. I can assure you that the vast majority of people using it are not bus enthusiasts. Yes I'm not doubting that but we were talking specifically about the X68. It was introduced in 1986 when the 68 went OPO with coach seated Leyland Olympians but obviously the world has changed since then. Anyway we'll see what happens regarding the X68. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 25, 2021 10:07:33 GMT
And the fact that the world is financially broke because of the pandemic is real. I mean it's not like anyone is going to be left stranded and how do you think having one operator on the 68,X68 and 468 would change anything? Obviously the routes were tendered separately and went to three different operators. Anyway maybe the suggestion of extending the 468 the short distance to London Bridge will come to fruition with the 50 replacing the South Croydon bit? *I'm slightly aghast to see that 'Dan' is still replying to my posts six months after asking me to ignore him. Perhaps it would be better for one singular operator to operate the 68/468/X68 so that they can run those 3 at a timetable where they can evenly be spaced out rather than have 2 or 3 turn up at the same time. I don't think it would work like that in practice, when Go Ahead had all three routes from Q there was no coordination between them. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 25, 2021 10:07:40 GMT
And the fact that the world is financially broke because of the pandemic is real. I mean it's not like anyone is going to be left stranded and how do you think having one operator on the 68,X68 and 468 would change anything? Obviously the routes were tendered separately and went to three different operators. Anyway maybe the suggestion of extending the 468 the short distance to London Bridge will come to fruition with the 50 replacing the South Croydon bit? *I'm slightly aghast to see that 'Dan' is still replying to my posts six months after asking me to ignore him. Please stop with the passive aggressive replying third hand and yes I think everyone knows my names Dan so let’s not go there again shall we? I am entitled to reply if it contributes to the discussion which it does where as when I asked you to ignore me you was trolling me pretty much every post you replied to of mine. Interesting how every time the tide turns against Greenboys comments he uses it as an opportunity to passive aggressively attack you. A psychiatrist might say he has an unhealthy obsession with you. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 25, 2021 10:08:29 GMT
I think you will find that bus usage is increasing, particularly in areas away from railway served areas in South London. I used a 51 bus from Woolwich yesterday evening to get part of the way home. All seats were occupied on the upper deck and there was a "legal" number of standing passengers when I got off the bus. Buses are used by many low paid workers to get to Central London and the 68 route used to get heavy loads and the X68 was introduced to assist and speed up the main 68 service by taking away the longer distance passengers. It doesn't require that many vehicles and provides a useful facility. Rest assured that TfL/DfT are examining user data very carefully. I can assure you that the vast majority of people using it are not bus enthusiasts. Yes I'm not doubting that but we were talking specifically about the X68. It was introduced in 1986 when the 68 went OPO with coach seated Leyland Olympians but obviously the world has changed since then. Anyway we'll see what happens regarding the X68. Why on earth are comparing 1986 and coach seats to 2021? The X68 has changed a awful lot since then so that seems a pointless comparison! Seems to me like you trying to leak a upcoming cut about the X68. This places is becoming like the Tory government for leaks. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 25, 2021 10:11:24 GMT
Please stop with the passive aggressive replying third hand and yes I think everyone knows my names Dan so let’s not go there again shall we? I am entitled to reply if it contributes to the discussion which it does where as when I asked you to ignore me you was trolling me pretty much every post you replied to of mine. Interesting how every time the tide turns against Greenboys comments he uses it as an opportunity to passive aggressively attack you. A psychiatrist might say he has an unhealthy obsession with you. You'll never make a shrink, it's actually the other way round. Anyway you can join him on my block list, and do feel free to block me. Nobody wants to read this nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 25, 2021 10:22:31 GMT
Interesting how every time the tide turns against Greenboys comments he uses it as an opportunity to passive aggressively attack you. A psychiatrist might say he has an unhealthy obsession with you. You'll never make a shrink, it's actually the other way round. Anyway you can join him on my block list, and do feel free to block me. Nobody wants to read this nonsense. Mate I blocked you weeks ago but unlike you I don’t go on and on about it. Won’t stop me from replying to your absolute bull though. Love you too Felicia 😘. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 25, 2021 10:54:10 GMT
Sorry, have the commuters disappeared? No, they might have changed the way they work with less days in the office but the X68 isn’t just for commuters and you know that. Just the like the X26 and X140 aren’t just for airport travellers. The X68 provides additional support for the 468 to West Norwood in the AM/PM peak which otherwise would need a, possibly more expensive, PVR increase and is a cheap way to get workers from the relatively poorer South London to Central London, but I’m sure you know that as well. Who else is the X68 for other than commuters? You may have noticed that many commuter trains and coaches into Central London no longer run since the start of the pandemic. Usage of the X68 has been in decline for years as more and more people work remotely, it was probably just about viable before covid but not now. I realise express routes like the X68 are a bit of a novelty for enthusiasts but in the cold light of day............ The fact you think the X68 has been on the decline for years has surely told everyone on here you have no idea what your on about - pre pandemic, many of the workings where rammed solid like they’ve been for years. Post pandemic, the loadings haven’t returned to rammed solid but instead are generally at most to all seats taken |
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Nov 25, 2021 11:53:50 GMT
Well for me extending 316 back to Brent Park would be good it will help the 332 So the 316 will be White City to Brent Park but a via 232 down Dollish hill lane that would give new links and Also 245 would be rerouted via 232 So here are my Dollis Hill/Neasden changes 316 extend Back to Brent Park via 232 245 rerouted via 232 down Dollis Hill Lane 324 Withdrawn from Brent Park Tesco then extend to Birchen Grove via 182 326 Extend to Brent Park Tesco for a Replace of the 324 So that Crest Road and Dollis Hill Lane have 3 bus pre road Again, what is the point of this? Route 316 doesn't need extending to Brent Park. Route 332 already has support of route 245 between Cricklewood Broadway and Neasden which is enough plus the 232 section of Dollis Hill Lane doesn't need another route duplicating another that already provides the link and has sufficient demand. Extend 324 to Birchen Grove? Seriously, for what purpose/benefit? Who will travel from Brent Cross to Birchen Grove? Are you thinking of the reliability? The demand will be very little anyways in Birchen Grove. Even though I believe route 182 needs restructuring due to the poor reliability, it already has other routes such as 83,245 and 297 that provide the support. I have suggested before that there should be an express route between Brent Cross and Harrow to support route 182 with the frequency of 182 dropped to every 10 minutes. I don't see the point in extending route 326 to Tesco, most would go in their cars to do shopping (except for those who don't have a car of course). |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 25, 2021 11:58:21 GMT
Well for me extending 316 back to Brent Park would be good it will help the 332 So the 316 will be White City to Brent Park but a via 232 down Dollish hill lane that would give new links and Also 245 would be rerouted via 232 So here are my Dollis Hill/Neasden changes 316 extend Back to Brent Park via 232 245 rerouted via 232 down Dollis Hill Lane 324 Withdrawn from Brent Park Tesco then extend to Birchen Grove via 182 326 Extend to Brent Park Tesco for a Replace of the 324 So that Crest Road and Dollis Hill Lane have 3 bus pre road Again, what is the point of this? Route 316 doesn't need extending to Brent Park. Route 332 already has support of route 245 between Cricklewood Broadway and Neasden which is enough plus the 232 section of Dollis Hill Lane doesn't need another route duplicating another that already provides the link and has sufficient demand. Extend 324 to Birchen Grove? Seriously, for what purpose/benefit? Who will travel from Brent Cross to Birchen Grove? Are you thinking of the reliability? The demand will be very little anyways in Birchen Grove. Even though I believe route 182 needs restructuring due to the poor reliability, it already has other routes such as 83,245 and 297 that provide the support. I have suggested before that there should be an express route between Brent Cross and Harrow to support route 182 with the frequency of 182 dropped to every 10 minutes. I don't see the point in extending route 326 to Tesco, most would go in their cars to do shopping (except for those who don't have a car of course). I assume Brent Cross Tesco and I've said before it could do with a slightly higher frequency even with Toys'R'Us having closed. |
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Nov 25, 2021 12:04:46 GMT
Again, what is the point of this? Route 316 doesn't need extending to Brent Park. Route 332 already has support of route 245 between Cricklewood Broadway and Neasden which is enough plus the 232 section of Dollis Hill Lane doesn't need another route duplicating another that already provides the link and has sufficient demand. Extend 324 to Birchen Grove? Seriously, for what purpose/benefit? Who will travel from Brent Cross to Birchen Grove? Are you thinking of the reliability? The demand will be very little anyways in Birchen Grove. Even though I believe route 182 needs restructuring due to the poor reliability, it already has other routes such as 83,245 and 297 that provide the support. I have suggested before that there should be an express route between Brent Cross and Harrow to support route 182 with the frequency of 182 dropped to every 10 minutes. I don't see the point in extending route 326 to Tesco, most would go in their cars to do shopping (except for those who don't have a car of course). I assume Brent Cross Tesco and I've said before it could do with a slightly higher frequency even with Toys'R'Us having closed. But vast majority travel there in their cars. It's not like the stop is overcrowded that a higher frequency is needed. When I driven 324 on some occasions, there is only one/two or three people waiting at the Tesco bus stop/stand. The Brent Cross/Cricklewood/Neasden, I know very well and I live within those areas and obviously work at W, I analyse most of the routes, so can give a pretty good idea of the bus network in those areas. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 25, 2021 12:08:18 GMT
I assume Brent Cross Tesco and I've said before it could do with a slightly higher frequency even with Toys'R'Us having closed. But vast majority travel there in their cars. It's not like the stop is overcrowded that a higher frequency is needed. When I driven 324 on some occasions, there is only one/two or three people waiting at the Tesco bus stop/stand. The Brent Cross/Cricklewood/Neasden, I know very well and I live within those areas and obviously work at W, I analyse most of the routes, so can give a pretty good idea of the bus network in those areas. I've seen more than or 1 or 2 on the 324 when I've been out to the Tesco however I'll take your word for it because you drive it and I've noticed a lot of people who board it at the Tesco tend to disperse at the Shopping Centre anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 25, 2021 12:31:04 GMT
85: extended to Marble Arch via 414. Would be lengthy (about 14 miles) but gives Kingston a 24hr route to Central London. Alternatively this could be renumbered X14. 414: Withdrawn. With its curtailment, 14 covers all but three of its bus stops. It is just a 14 frequency enhancement in its current state. X68: a few stops added. Due to the drivers preferring to drive via Brixton when it is non stop, perhaps a bus stop there. Also, maybe one at Elephant and Castle. A bus stop, especially in Brixton, would draw people away from the unpleasant 250/109 if they’re just looking for a route that will take them to Croydon. N91: diverted to serve Muswell Hill via W7 then via Alexandra Park Rd to continue serving Wood Green. W7: extended to Cockfosters via N91 and renumbered 391, weekly night service permanently removed 106: Extended to North Finchley via W7 and 134, 24 hr weekends if reinstated 91: Extended to Muswell Hill Gives Crouch Enders and Muswell Hill residents links to more stations and a wider variety at that i.e. Trafalgar Sq and Whitechapel, also giving the area another daily night route Absolutely pointless on the Muswell Hill/Crouch End suggestions.
If I were to make changes to the 106, it would likely be a frequency increase as the Clapton Pond to Finsbury Park section at least pre COVID used to get really busy and probably get it to serve Whitechapel Station (as mentioned by enviroPB the 106 is pretty much empty south of Bethnal Green Station because it does not serve the key objective being Whitechapel Station).
Do you even know what frequency the W7 runs at is all I'll say.
|
|
