|
Post by ronnie on Jan 11, 2021 0:10:47 GMT
Well the 301 still isn't providing its main aim of carrying people from Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood, nor has it replaced part of the 472 in Thamesmead yet so it's likely to be quite low on the list. If it's not quicker then the 96, 99 and 422 (which i don't think it is in the case of the 96 and 422) then its probably not carrying many Bexleyheath to Woolwich trips either. Its time will come when Crossrail opens I'm sure. The 301’s a pretty nifty little route I must say. It’s time will come. Probably one of the few good additions from the entire crossrail exercise
|
|
|
Post by Gellico on Jan 11, 2021 1:55:14 GMT
Well the 301 still isn't providing its main aim of carrying people from Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood, nor has it replaced part of the 472 in Thamesmead yet so it's likely to be quite low on the list. If it's not quicker then the 96, 99 and 422 (which i don't think it is in the case of the 96 and 422) then its probably not carrying many Bexleyheath to Woolwich trips either. Its time will come when Crossrail opens I'm sure. The 301 started July 2019, the country went into Lockdown some 8 months later. It has barely had a chance to get established yet. No one in their right mind would end to end using the 301, it is simply not that route's purpose. If you are doing Bexleyheath-Woolwich you would either get the 96 or 422. The 301 starts just infront of the Crossrail entrance at Woolwich which currently isn't the heart of town. 301's certainly busier heading into Woolwich rather than out due to disparity with the 472. Once Crossrail begins I do expect usage to skyrocket. There are currently many more far established routes in place for existing travel patterns, Crossrail will change local travel patterns and the routes purpose will come to fruition.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 11, 2021 10:23:21 GMT
Well the 301 still isn't providing its main aim of carrying people from Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood, nor has it replaced part of the 472 in Thamesmead yet so it's likely to be quite low on the list. If it's not quicker then the 96, 99 and 422 (which i don't think it is in the case of the 96 and 422) then its probably not carrying many Bexleyheath to Woolwich trips either. Its time will come when Crossrail opens I'm sure. September 2019-February 2020 the 301 was very busy buses carrying full loads. Has eased the loadings off the 401. Lockdown has seen numbers decrease. I don’t know how Bexleyheath has survived for so long without a route like this. Abbey Wood to Bexleyheath, Shopping Centre buses would get full standing loads. Anything is quicker than the 99 from Bexleyheath to Woolwich. Some people get on the 301 at Bexleyheath and change at New Road for the 99 that is definitely a quick way of avoiding traffic. The 301 moves faster than the 96 when theres traffic. The first lockdown the 301 & 335 were incredibly quiet there was a shift I did on the 335 in April where I picked up 1 passenger for a duty with 13 trips
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 22, 2021 18:41:27 GMT
Top Route of Single decker: 1. C10 4 887 436 2. 235 4 733 301 3. 195 4 731 490 4. 316 4 710 048 5. W15 4 700 456 6. 200 4 152 818 ( i understand this was before change to DD) 7. 276 4 149 795 8. C11 4 069 182 9. 46 4 046 858 10. 80 4 034 589 Nice to see that two out of the top 10 are expected to convert to DD (80 and 200). Bar the 195 I think all are restricted to SDs. Indeed! 195 should really be double deck then unless the loadings are very evenly spread across the length of the route? 316 should be double deck too if it has been confirmed that there is no restriction.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 22, 2021 18:50:30 GMT
The 46, 235 and 316 can all run with DD's. That is not strictly correct - the 316 can but there has never been any confirmation for the 235 one way or the other and whilst the bridge at Kentish Town West is high enough, it requires buses to use the middle of the roads which is far from ideal on high frequency routes. I think the residents in the North Brentford Quarter would not allow double decks on the 235 on their private road. There was a highway scheme costed to create a bus stand on Ealing Road outside the North Brentford Quarter which may have allowed double deck conversion but it was either too expensive or there was some practical problem that made it impossible to implement.
|
|
|
Post by jrussa on Jan 22, 2021 22:28:57 GMT
I wonder what happened to Route 484? It was one of the busiest single decker routes a few years ago. If anyone who frequently travels on this routes like myself during the morning, day or late afternoons, you would understand the sardine situation as you go on a voyage through Brockley and Nunhead
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 22, 2021 22:53:37 GMT
I wonder what happened to Route 484? It was one of the busiest single decker routes a few years ago. If anyone who frequently travels on this routes like myself during the morning, day or late afternoons, you would understand the sardine situation as you go on a voyage through Brockley and Nunhead I've not been on the 484 recently but it certainly was a busy route, impossible to get on school/peak hours, yet bizarrely it was reduced from x10mins to x12mins a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 22, 2021 23:09:39 GMT
That is not strictly correct - the 316 can but there has never been any confirmation for the 235 one way or the other and whilst the bridge at Kentish Town West is high enough, it requires buses to use the middle of the roads which is far from ideal on high frequency routes. I think the residents in the North Brentford Quarter would not allow double decks on the 235 on their private road. There was a highway scheme costed to create a bus stand on Ealing Road outside the North Brentford Quarter which may have allowed double deck conversion but it was either too expensive or there was some practical problem that made it impossible to implement. Judging by the stories I've heard, those residents don't like any sort of bus. Yes, I remember that consultation, shame it never went ahead for whatever reason.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 22, 2021 23:12:46 GMT
That is not strictly correct - the 316 can but there has never been any confirmation for the 235 one way or the other and whilst the bridge at Kentish Town West is high enough, it requires buses to use the middle of the roads which is far from ideal on high frequency routes. I think the residents in the North Brentford Quarter would not allow double decks on the 235 on their private road. There was a highway scheme costed to create a bus stand on Ealing Road outside the North Brentford Quarter which may have allowed double deck conversion but it was either too expensive or there was some practical problem that made it impossible to implement. Weren't the residents who objected to Deckers in Sunbury Village instead?
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on Jan 23, 2021 3:17:19 GMT
I think the residents in the North Brentford Quarter would not allow double decks on the 235 on their private road. There was a highway scheme costed to create a bus stand on Ealing Road outside the North Brentford Quarter which may have allowed double deck conversion but it was either too expensive or there was some practical problem that made it impossible to implement. Weren't the residents who objected to Deckers in Sunbury Village instead? That's another issue with the route as well, in the past though DD's have been seen at Sunbury Village but that changed due to a rerouting in the route. Saying that the school route 635 operates to Sunbury Village using DD's but uses different roads to the 235 so there must be an issue with roads between Sunbury Station and Sunbury Village. I know it has been said somewhere in this forum someone here has gone more into depth about the specific roads and issue this is more of a general view, I also believe there was an accident in the error that has led to DD's not operating in the area too with complaints from locals/council etc. But it's an odd one as no one can pinpoint specifically the actual issue.
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on Jan 23, 2021 3:22:19 GMT
Weren't the residents who objected to Deckers in Sunbury Village instead? That's another issue with the route as well, in the past though DD's have been seen at Sunbury Village but that changed due to a rerouting in the route. Saying that the school route 635 operates to Sunbury Village using DD's but uses different roads to the 235 so there must be an issue with roads between Sunbury Station and Sunbury Village. I know it has been said somewhere in this forum someone here has gone more into depth about the specific roads and issue this is more of a general view, I also believe there was an accident in the error that has led to DD's not operating in the area too with complaints from locals/council etc. But it's an odd one as no one can pinpoint specifically the actual issue. Also to quote myself despite all this just found an old article 2013, so most likely redundant but is one where the local school were protesting for DD's on the 235 so like others said there has been issue with this for a long time. One thing I do find interesting is that in the article they say that they want the route to terminate in school grounds but the 635 currently does that now and did so back then starting operating in 2004 so I don't know what that would of happened, guess create another school route but then the more school DD journeys you create the better it is to just make the route full time DD route like 412, 492 or 467 for example but I'll attach the article here. www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/plea-double-decker-bus-stop-school-6346027
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 23, 2021 5:53:56 GMT
Well the 301 still isn't providing its main aim of carrying people from Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood, nor has it replaced part of the 472 in Thamesmead yet so it's likely to be quite low on the list. If it's not quicker then the 96, 99 and 422 (which i don't think it is in the case of the 96 and 422) then its probably not carrying many Bexleyheath to Woolwich trips either. Its time will come when Crossrail opens I'm sure. The 301’s a pretty nifty little route I must say. It’s time will come. Probably one of the few good additions from the entire crossrail exercise I am looking forward to Crossrail opening for route 301 almost as much as Crossrail itself.
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Jan 23, 2021 8:57:58 GMT
That's another issue with the route as well, in the past though DD's have been seen at Sunbury Village but that changed due to a rerouting in the route. Saying that the school route 635 operates to Sunbury Village using DD's but uses different roads to the 235 so there must be an issue with roads between Sunbury Station and Sunbury Village. I know it has been said somewhere in this forum someone here has gone more into depth about the specific roads and issue this is more of a general view, I also believe there was an accident in the error that has led to DD's not operating in the area too with complaints from locals/council etc. But it's an odd one as no one can pinpoint specifically the actual issue. Also to quote myself despite all this just found an old article 2013, so most likely redundant but is one where the local school were protesting for DD's on the 235 so like others said there has been issue with this for a long time. One thing I do find interesting is that in the article they say that they want the route to terminate in school grounds but the 635 currently does that now and did so back then starting operating in 2004 so I don't know what that would of happened, guess create another school route but then the more school DD journeys you create the better it is to just make the route full time DD route like 412, 492 or 467 for example but I'll attach the article here. www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/plea-double-decker-bus-stop-school-6346027The 635 takes a different route towards the end of the route due to the low hanging trees near the Sunbury railway bridge It’s the same reason as to whey the 216 doesn’t use deckers anymore although there is the resident objections in Sunbury Village following the death of a pedestrian that may also contribute towards that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2021 20:04:26 GMT
These figures make depressing reading, Some routes have lost a million passengers in one year. A curious exception is the 303 which saw an increase. New developments have probably helped that route.
Out of zone routes I looked at have dropped, but not as much by some big hitting routes. The 203 still manages to punch over 2 million, however with most of Heathrow closed, I suspect that may change.
One Central route which didn’t drop greatly was the C1. I remember when that route was on the verge of extinction.
With unemployment on the rise because of covid, this may have a knock on effect. Will we see more people on lower incomes ? Will this fuel bus patronage ? Will electric buses, higher petrol costs, higher general car running... this could in theory be a boost for buses. I’m trying to be optimistic!
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 2, 2021 22:20:45 GMT
These figures make depressing reading, Some routes have lost a million passengers in one year. A curious exception is the 303 which saw an increase. New developments have probably helped that route. Out of zone routes I looked at have dropped, but not as much by some big hitting routes. The 203 still manages to punch over 2 million, however with most of Heathrow closed, I suspect that may change. One Central route which didn’t drop greatly was the C1. I remember when that route was on the verge of extinction. With unemployment on the rise because of covid, this may have a knock on effect. Will we see more people on lower incomes ? Will this fuel bus patronage ? Will electric buses, higher petrol costs, higher general car running... this could in theory be a boost for buses. I’m trying to be optimistic! This could definitely happen and I too have been predicting this as well.
|
|