|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 17, 2020 22:20:09 GMT
Or the fact that schools can have up to 13 weeks holidays. Outside of london in the commercial world an operator would cut additional school frequency the day a school breaks up.
|
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Oct 17, 2020 22:32:15 GMT
I can vouch for that too, even back in 2014/15 when I was using the route every day it was crying out for a frequency increase which it eventually got. There are so many schools that are served by the 466 too so rightly justifies its current frequency. School loadings shouldn't dictate the frequency 7 days a week. You could say the same about commuter loadings. Only 6 days and usually at least 30 days off in a year |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 17, 2020 22:38:52 GMT
School loadings shouldn't dictate the frequency 7 days a week. You could say the same about commuter loadings. Only 6 days and usually at least 30 days off in a year I would say that, I mean I don't think anybody would seriously suggest that the X68 and 521 should run 7 days a week. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 18, 2020 11:26:31 GMT
You could say the same about commuter loadings. Only 6 days and usually at least 30 days off in a year I would say that, I mean I don't think anybody would seriously suggest that the X68 and 521 should run 7 days a week. So school loadings don't justify increases on routes, and commuter loadings don't justify increases on routes? What in your book justifies an increase then? Leisure travel alone? |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 18, 2020 11:45:49 GMT
I would say that, I mean I don't think anybody would seriously suggest that the X68 and 521 should run 7 days a week. So school loadings don't justify increases on routes, and commuter loadings don't justify increases on routes? What in your book justifies an increase then? Leisure travel alone? That's not what I said........a 7 day a week service provision shouldn't be based upon school and peak time loadings. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 18, 2020 11:51:17 GMT
So school loadings don't justify increases on routes, and commuter loadings don't justify increases on routes? What in your book justifies an increase then? Leisure travel alone? That's not what I said........a 7 day a week service provision shouldn't be based upon school and peak time loadings. What should it be based upon? As you've said elsewhere it shouldn't be based on commuter loadings either? So if a route is bursting in the peaks because of school time loadings you suggest just leave it be? |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 18, 2020 11:53:36 GMT
That's not what I said........a 7 day a week service provision shouldn't be based upon school and peak time loadings. What should it be based upon? As you've said elsewhere it shouldn't be based on commuter loadings either? So if a route is bursting in the peaks because of school time loadings you suggest just leave it be? Obviously increase it at school/peak times.... off peak, school holidays, weekends etc the same level of service won't be justified. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 18, 2020 11:59:08 GMT
What should it be based upon? As you've said elsewhere it shouldn't be based on commuter loadings either? So if a route is bursting in the peaks because of school time loadings you suggest just leave it be? Obviously increase it at school/peak times.... off peak, school holidays, weekends etc the same level of service won't be justified. So the rest of the time have the buses sat around collecting dirt? For a bus purchase to be justifiable it needs to earn its own cost, alongside maintenance and insurance costs back in revenue earning service. I know it might seem easy to just say willy nilly that you only increase it at certain times but TfL don't have unlimited buses to just have them sitting around most of the day. Why else do you think school routes always get hand me down buses if they're not going to be crosslinked? |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 18, 2020 12:06:54 GMT
Obviously increase it at school/peak times.... off peak, school holidays, weekends etc the same level of service won't be justified. So the rest of the time have the buses sat around collecting dirt? For a bus purchase to be justifiable it needs to earn its own cost, alongside maintenance and insurance costs back in revenue earning service. I know it might seem easy to just say willy nilly that you only increase it at certain times but TfL don't have unlimited buses to just have them sitting around most of the day. Why else do you think school routes always get hand me down buses if they're not going to be crosslinked? And that's why other operators around the country tend to use older buses on school routes, because it's more cost effective to have them doing nothing for much of the day. Kings Ferry have a modern fleet of coaches for the intensive commuter services they operate in normal circumstances but between the peaks many of them are sat doing nothing, many parked up at Millwall football ground. Many of the SEe's used on the 521 are parked up at RA outside peak hours. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 18, 2020 12:18:25 GMT
So the rest of the time have the buses sat around collecting dirt? For a bus purchase to be justifiable it needs to earn its own cost, alongside maintenance and insurance costs back in revenue earning service. I know it might seem easy to just say willy nilly that you only increase it at certain times but TfL don't have unlimited buses to just have them sitting around most of the day. Why else do you think school routes always get hand me down buses if they're not going to be crosslinked? And that's why other operators around the country tend to use older buses on school routes, because it's more cost effective to have them doing nothing for much of the day. Kings Ferry have a modern fleet of coaches for the intensive commuter services they operate in normal circumstances but between the peaks many of them are sat doing nothing, many parked up at Millwall football ground. Many of the SEe's used on the 521 are parked up at RA outside peak hours. The 521 is a unique route when you look at its circumstances so isn’t the best comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 19, 2020 18:16:09 GMT
One thing that has started to bug me a little, but to no great extent, why was the proposed S2 route not numbered S4, and the proposed S4 route the 455.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 19, 2020 19:28:58 GMT
One thing that has started to bug me a little, but to no great extent, why was the proposed S2 route not numbered S4, and the proposed S4 route the 455. Yes that would seem the more logical way of doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 19, 2020 21:34:17 GMT
Maybe it was considered too much change to keep the number 455 for a small section from Waddon to Roundshaw. Thought tfl may have done away with the S4 number and given it and the S2 all numerical numbers similar to the W10 becoming the 456 and the original S2 the 425 and 488.
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 19, 2020 21:39:11 GMT
Maybe it was considered too much change to keep the number 455 for a small section from Waddon to Roundshaw. Thought tfl may have done away with the S4 number and given it and the S2 all numerical numbers similar to the W10 becoming the 456 and the original S2 the 425 and 488. Labouring my point about the use of S-prefixes, there will now be Tramlink interchange to the 54 and S4. Not ideal! |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 19, 2020 22:16:25 GMT
Could have done 480 for the S2 keeing an 80 and 280 theme in Sutton then 489 for the S4 along side the 289 at Waddon Marsh.
|
|
