|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 3, 2021 22:08:21 GMT
I would like to see it increased to every 20 minutes with an hourly night service added but with no additional stops. I think in terms of stops the X26 is kind of perfect as there are enough routes connecting Feltham with Heathrow and Waddon/Beddington with Croydon. Too many stops and it would detract from the very idea of it being an express route. Agree although TfL will probably do all they can not to fund a frequency increase on the X26 especially given they were reluctant to run the route in the first place Yes I remember when it was hourly under Metrobus the drivers were doing informal passenger surveys to see it if should be increased to half hourly. This must have been back in 2007.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 3, 2021 22:17:18 GMT
Agree although TfL will probably do all they can not to fund a frequency increase on the X26 especially given they were reluctant to run the route in the first place Yes I remember when it was hourly under Metrobus the drivers were doing informal passenger surveys to see it if should be increased to half hourly. This must have been back in 2007. I do miss when members of staff did passenger surveys on buses a good few years back. Certainly they were very interesting to see what TFL had planned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2021 22:21:16 GMT
I don't think the X26 needs to be x20 mins. Would prefer money spent on giving parts of the 470 & S3 a Sunday service.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 3, 2021 22:28:56 GMT
I don't think the X26 needs to be x20 mins. Would prefer money spent on giving parts of the 470 & S3 a Sunday service. Given the size of potential cuts in central London there could be cash to do all three.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 3, 2021 22:45:20 GMT
I don't think the X26 needs to be x20 mins. Would prefer money spent on giving parts of the 470 & S3 a Sunday service. Given the size of potential cuts in central London there could be cash to do all three. Id say money would probably more likely spent on the X26 if a freq reduction happend on the 213 and 407.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 4, 2021 0:01:28 GMT
Agree although TfL will probably do all they can not to fund a frequency increase on the X26 especially given they were reluctant to run the route in the first place Yes I remember when it was hourly under Metrobus the drivers were doing informal passenger surveys to see it if should be increased to half hourly. This must have been back in 2007. I too remember the hourly service using the single door Omnicity's and then the on loan Citaros from Quality Line when it went half hourly. The irony was I think the 30 minute frequency actually made it a bit too popular which helped the case for a capacity increase further down the line as when it was hourly, it was busy but certainly not as much as it became.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 4, 2021 6:49:24 GMT
Yes I remember when it was hourly under Metrobus the drivers were doing informal passenger surveys to see it if should be increased to half hourly. This must have been back in 2007. I too remember the hourly service using the single door Omnicity's and then the on loan Citaros from Quality Line when it went half hourly. The irony was I think the 30 minute frequency actually made it a bit too popular which helped the case for a capacity increase further down the line as when it was hourly, it was busy but certainly not as much as it became. I know what you mean. I guess when it became every 30 mins it became easier for people to plan around on shopping trips to Kingston, Croydon and whilst 30 mins isn't exactly a turn up and go service its alot more attractive then hourly.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 4, 2021 7:06:24 GMT
Yes I remember when it was hourly under Metrobus the drivers were doing informal passenger surveys to see it if should be increased to half hourly. This must have been back in 2007. I too remember the hourly service using the single door Omnicity's and then the on loan Citaros from Quality Line when it went half hourly. The irony was I think the 30 minute frequency actually made it a bit too popular which helped the case for a capacity increase further down the line as when it was hourly, it was busy but certainly not as much as it became. Yes, the 53-reg drafted in for the PVR increase remain a rare example in modern times of buses built for non-London operations transferred into London.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 4, 2021 13:32:49 GMT
Leaving aside the X26, which is only really tangentially relevant to the consultation, it wasn't clear to me why some of the changes aren't being proceeded with. I know my friend in Banstead Road South will be be pleased though as they were against what was being planned.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 4, 2021 13:59:07 GMT
Leaving aside the X26, which is only really tangentially relevant to the consultation, it wasn't clear to me why some of the changes aren't being proceeded with. I know my friend in Banstead Road South will be be pleased though as they were against what was being planned. I was wondering the 413/S3 as effectively there is no improvement on that section now. Thou maybe with the S4 every 20 mins, Sunday service added and still serving Sutton them it was felt that the current S3 is good enough.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 4, 2021 18:21:13 GMT
Leaving aside the X26, which is only really tangentially relevant to the consultation, it wasn't clear to me why some of the changes aren't being proceeded with. I know my friend in Banstead Road South will be be pleased though as they were against what was being planned. My guess is that the prison dropped any objections do double deckers on the 80, more double deckers have been on the route recently anyway. The 166 rerouting via St Peters Road was deemed unnecessary. I can only think the others were cost related, no need to introduce a Sunday service on the S3 section to Belmont now and the 470 withdrawn from Colliers Wood.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 4, 2021 18:30:28 GMT
Leaving aside the X26, which is only really tangentially relevant to the consultation, it wasn't clear to me why some of the changes aren't being proceeded with. I know my friend in Banstead Road South will be be pleased though as they were against what was being planned. My guess is that the prison dropped any objections do double deckers on the 80, more double deckers have been on the route recently anyway. The 166 rerouting via St Peters Road was deemed unnecessary. I can only think the others were cost related, no need to introduce a Sunday service on the S3 section to Belmont now and the 470 withdrawn from Colliers Wood. The 470 is still going to Colliers Wood..it was a typo. As for the 80 is had semi officially converted to DD now. Technically they probably could have got away with the new S2 not having a Sunday service as the 470 and S4 currently don't whereas the revised S4 will need one as the 455 currently does have one.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 4, 2021 18:46:44 GMT
I too remember the hourly service using the single door Omnicity's and then the on loan Citaros from Quality Line when it went half hourly. The irony was I think the 30 minute frequency actually made it a bit too popular which helped the case for a capacity increase further down the line as when it was hourly, it was busy but certainly not as much as it became. Yes, the 53-reg drafted in for the PVR increase remain a rare example in modern times of buses built for non-London operations transferred into London. The H20/Sullivans are other examples.
Lots of operators I think did this in the 00s because lots of operators used leased stock like Thorpes.
I wonder whether any operator in London used foreign stock, the only example I can think of is the 606 when it used VPL174 (X157JOP) which was initially a low floor demonstrator from Dublin
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 4, 2021 21:04:48 GMT
Yes, the 53-reg drafted in for the PVR increase remain a rare example in modern times of buses built for non-London operations transferred into London. The H20/Sullivans are other examples.
Lots of operators I think did this in the 00s because lots of operators used leased stock like Thorpes. I wonder whether any operator in London used foreign stock, the only example I can think of is the 606 when it used VPL174 (X157JOP) which was initially a low floor demonstrator from Dublin
A ex Hong Kong Olympian was rebuilt and used by Metroline on the 266 As for original non London stock being used in London, there are quite a few examples than people might realise though I don't blame anyone for thinking different. Just to give one such one, one of the MPD's used by the Travel Surrey & Abellio Surrey ops was transferred to London work as a spare for the 434 whilst at BC. It had it's LED's replaced by powerblinds, fitted with I-Bus and was repainted 100% red - it finished it's days as the 322's spare before the route was lost to Go-Ahead
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Sept 4, 2021 21:11:50 GMT
Yes, the 53-reg drafted in for the PVR increase remain a rare example in modern times of buses built for non-London operations transferred into London. The H20/Sullivans are other examples.
Lots of operators I think did this in the 00s because lots of operators used leased stock like Thorpes.
I wonder whether any operator in London used foreign stock, the only example I can think of is the 606 when it used VPL174 (X157JOP) which was initially a low floor demonstrator from Dublin
X157JOP was used by London Easylink as a spare for 42 and 185 after it left Dublin. Sullivan bought it after DTS/Easylink had collapsed.
The Darts that Connex used on the 405 (Y211-4 HWJ) started life in Ireland. Oddly they were given Y plates when they were registered in the UK, making them appear to be brand new, even though they were already 2 years old and had been registered with 99 plates in Ireland.
A more exotic example would be Metroline's ex-Singapore Olympian (AV39 / M650ELA) which eventually became part of the allocation on the 266.
|
|