|
|
Post by TB123 on Dec 16, 2023 11:47:00 GMT
Would it be worth changing the K2's timetable to have 8bph running between Kingston Hospital and Tolworth, and alternate buses (so 4bph) running through to Hook? Would be interested to know the reasons behind your proposal. Recently I have observed the terrible reliability problems with the 281, with buses not making it through to Tolworth. Maybe the time has come to shorten the 281 to a Hounslow to Kingston route and let something else provide a more reliable service between Tolworth and Kingston. I suspect any future network rejigging in Kingston area would involve less terminating routes in Kingston rather than more. I do think there could be scope for some better cross-town links but as ever this would be dependent on better bus priority measures most likely. For example: Merging the 71 and 85 together into a Chessington-Putney route. Both are every 8 mins as it stands and you could probably cut the combined PVR from 27 to about 23 based off layover changes and removing the duplication within town. This cycle time is not unusual in outer London although the usual caveats do apply. Merging the 371 and K2 together into a Richmond-Hook route. Ideally this would run at the K2s higher (6bph) frequency. One thing would be the loss from some sections of K2 route a direct link to Kingston Hospital, but some of this would be maintained via a merged 71/85 at least. Again, this would be a similar 3 hour round trip with a PVR of around the 18 mark. Merging the 418 into the 411 to form a West Molesey-Epsom route (interworking with the 406 should still be possible at the Epsom end) - this could just maintain the standard off-peak 3bph frequency and use deckers as today. The combined 406/'411'/418 PVR would probably end up being around 16, saving 2 buses versus today.... And put the crayons down.... |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Dec 16, 2023 12:04:31 GMT
For the first time since the start of Covid, I have noticed a couple of instances of the 251 being full up/not letting passengers on board - it used to be a regular occurrence in 2019 and earlier. The new buses are a help but passengers are clearly returning. Always the same places - heading eastbound through Mill Hill at about 8 am and westbound about 4-5pm. Im starting to see see people getting left behind regularly on the 270 for the first time since 2020/1’s 30 people per bus limit. Not really a huge problem for the route though as there is plenty of support, the 251 certainly doesn’t have that for all of its route. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 16, 2023 12:14:03 GMT
On the subject of buses filling up, I was having a conversation about Central London during christmas and when I mentioned seeing the christmas lights from buses my friend (not an enthusiast) said "oh the buses are all rammed aswell". It's positive to hear buses in Central London are being used especially to see lights and get off the busy pavements and I'm not sure why TFL's marketing department haven't followed through with that.
Keeping with the title of the thread, there are many routes in Central that need an update, mostly extensions to repair broken links and provide more capacity where it's needed with a post-covid surge in ridership. TFL need to start investing in Central and Inner London buses again and properly marketing them to tourists and commuters alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 16, 2023 12:21:33 GMT
On the subject of buses filling up, I was having a conversation about Central London during christmas and when I mentioned seeing the christmas lights from buses my friend (not an enthusiast) said "oh the buses are all rammed aswell". It's positive to hear buses in Central London are being used especially to see lights and get off the busy pavements and I'm not sure why TFL's marketing department haven't followed through with that. Keeping with the title of the thread, there are many routes in Central that need an update, mostly extensions to repair broken links and provide more capacity where it's needed with a post-covid surge in ridership. TFL need to start investing in Central and Inner London buses again and properly marketing them to tourists and commuters alike. Probably because most of the bus routes that you'd use previously have been cut in some form or the other. It's all well and good advertising the 139 but it's just a matter of time until some journalists need an article to write about. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 16, 2023 12:27:00 GMT
For the first time since the start of Covid, I have noticed a couple of instances of the 251 being full up/not letting passengers on board - it used to be a regular occurrence in 2019 and earlier. The new buses are a help but passengers are clearly returning. Always the same places - heading eastbound through Mill Hill at about 8 am and westbound about 4-5pm. The peak frequency on the 251 was reduced not that long along, it was a risky strategy given the previous history of passengers being left behind in the peaks. Any increase in passenger numbers was likely to bring back the problem before long. November is traditionally the busiest month of the year for bus travel. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 16, 2023 12:34:23 GMT
Would be interested to know the reasons behind your proposal. Recently I have observed the terrible reliability problems with the 281, with buses not making it through to Tolworth. Maybe the time has come to shorten the 281 to a Hounslow to Kingston route and let something else provide a more reliable service between Tolworth and Kingston. I suspect any future network rejigging in Kingston area would involve less terminating routes in Kingston rather than more. I do think there could be scope for some better cross-town links but as ever this would be dependent on better bus priority measures most likely. For example: Merging the 71 and 85 together into a Chessington-Putney route. Both are every 8 mins as it stands and you could probably cut the combined PVR from 27 to about 23 based off layover changes and removing the duplication within town. This cycle time is not unusual in outer London although the usual caveats do apply. Merging the 371 and K2 together into a Richmond-Hook route. Ideally this would run at the K2s higher (6bph) frequency. One thing would be the loss from some sections of K2 route a direct link to Kingston Hospital, but some of this would be maintained via a merged 71/85 at least. Again, this would be a similar 3 hour round trip with a PVR of around the 18 mark. Merging the 418 into the 411 to form a West Molesey-Epsom route (interworking with the 406 should still be possible at the Epsom end) - this could just maintain the standard off-peak 3bph frequency and use deckers as today. The combined 406/'411'/418 PVR would probably end up being around 16, saving 2 buses versus today.... And put the crayons down.... The 371 runs with a mixed fleet of single and double deckers and already operates at 6bph with peak extras. Not sure that would be compatible with the K2. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Dec 17, 2023 0:25:54 GMT
On the subject of buses filling up, I was having a conversation about Central London during christmas and when I mentioned seeing the christmas lights from buses my friend (not an enthusiast) said "oh the buses are all rammed aswell". It's positive to hear buses in Central London are being used especially to see lights and get off the busy pavements and I'm not sure why TFL's marketing department haven't followed through with that. Keeping with the title of the thread, there are many routes in Central that need an update, mostly extensions to repair broken links and provide more capacity where it's needed with a post-covid surge in ridership. TFL need to start investing in Central and Inner London buses again and properly marketing them to tourists and commuters alike. I've been repeating this ad nauseam but the 9, 15, 24 could use a boost.
Would be nice if they could rejig their Key Central London bus routes map to properly incorporate the April changes and show routes intelligently (ahem ahem showing the 26 which basically replaced most of the 11, adding the 1 or 68 to cover the since deleted link on that map on what was the 59 between Russell Square and Euston for example). |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 17, 2023 10:55:41 GMT
On the subject of buses filling up, I was having a conversation about Central London during christmas and when I mentioned seeing the christmas lights from buses my friend (not an enthusiast) said "oh the buses are all rammed aswell". It's positive to hear buses in Central London are being used especially to see lights and get off the busy pavements and I'm not sure why TFL's marketing department haven't followed through with that. Keeping with the title of the thread, there are many routes in Central that need an update, mostly extensions to repair broken links and provide more capacity where it's needed with a post-covid surge in ridership. TFL need to start investing in Central and Inner London buses again and properly marketing them to tourists and commuters alike. I've been repeating this ad nauseam but the 9, 15, 24 could use a boost.
Would be nice if they could rejig their Key Central London bus routes map to properly incorporate the April changes and show routes intelligently (ahem ahem showing the 26 which basically replaced most of the 11, adding the 1 or 68 to cover the since deleted link on that map on what was the 59 between Russell Square and Euston for example). The 9 and 15 are particularly struggling as I’ve observed. Both routes had their PVRs cut down to the bare bones and as a result the 9 in the middle section and 15 on its western section see overcrowding. And don’t even get me started about the state of the N9! |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 17, 2023 11:53:55 GMT
I suspect any future network rejigging in Kingston area would involve less terminating routes in Kingston rather than more. I do think there could be scope for some better cross-town links but as ever this would be dependent on better bus priority measures most likely. For example: Merging the 71 and 85 together into a Chessington-Putney route. Both are every 8 mins as it stands and you could probably cut the combined PVR from 27 to about 23 based off layover changes and removing the duplication within town. This cycle time is not unusual in outer London although the usual caveats do apply. Merging the 371 and K2 together into a Richmond-Hook route. Ideally this would run at the K2s higher (6bph) frequency. One thing would be the loss from some sections of K2 route a direct link to Kingston Hospital, but some of this would be maintained via a merged 71/85 at least. Again, this would be a similar 3 hour round trip with a PVR of around the 18 mark. Merging the 418 into the 411 to form a West Molesey-Epsom route (interworking with the 406 should still be possible at the Epsom end) - this could just maintain the standard off-peak 3bph frequency and use deckers as today. The combined 406/'411'/418 PVR would probably end up being around 16, saving 2 buses versus today.... And put the crayons down.... The 371 runs with a mixed fleet of single and double deckers and already operates at 6bph with peak extras. Not sure that would be compatible with the K2. I suspect the 371 might be better combined with the 411, at the 371’s frequency. The 411 route could happily take double deckers if need be. No lost links to the hospital with this either. I’ve mentioned in the 2024 predictions thread that I think TfL might have Kingston in their sights for a network revision. If pushed further, I’d be watching the entirety of the ‘K’ routes. We shall see, as my thoughts are purely speculative… |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Dec 17, 2023 12:35:22 GMT
I've been repeating this ad nauseam but the 9, 15, 24 could use a boost.
Would be nice if they could rejig their Key Central London bus routes map to properly incorporate the April changes and show routes intelligently (ahem ahem showing the 26 which basically replaced most of the 11, adding the 1 or 68 to cover the since deleted link on that map on what was the 59 between Russell Square and Euston for example). The 9 and 15 are particularly struggling as I’ve observed. Both routes had their PVRs cut down to the bare bones and as a result the 9 in the middle section and 15 on its western section see overcrowding. And don’t even get me started about the state of the N9! Even if the outer sections of the 9 and 15 are coping, they could at least extend some other Central London routes to support them. For example the 23 could extend from Aldwych to Tower Gateway? Or with the 15, if the Aldgate-Poplar has adequate capacity, a restructure of the 15/115/135 could be a solution, resulting in two higher frequency routes. One from Old Street to East Ham, and one from Trafalgar Square to Crossharbour? Plus fully convert the D6 to DDs. But in the 9's case I think only a frequency increase will now help since the 23 was rerouted. I also wonder if the 23's reroute has affected many passengers - was there every that much demand to travel from the Kensington area up to Marble Arch? |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Dec 17, 2023 12:52:39 GMT
I’ve mentioned in the 2024 predictions thread that I think TfL might have Kingston in their sights for a network revision. If pushed further, I’d be watching the entirety of the ‘K’ routes. We shall see, as my thoughts are purely speculative… The problem with revising the network in Kingston is that there is very little that could be done without increasing PVRs or creating new routes. In comparison to other areas in outer London, buses in Kingston are overcrowded throughout the day. In my opinion the 213, 281, 406, 418, K2 and K3 need frequency increases. The 411 needs to be increased to 4bph off peak, which is already its peak frequency so wouldn't require a PVR increase (and using longer buses, DXEs from the 293 with the 293 decked would be good too). The 371 needs to be fully double decked and the planned frequency decrease to the 85 needs to be scrapped. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Dec 17, 2023 13:03:01 GMT
I’ve mentioned in the 2024 predictions thread that I think TfL might have Kingston in their sights for a network revision. If pushed further, I’d be watching the entirety of the ‘K’ routes. We shall see, as my thoughts are purely speculative… The problem with revising the network in Kingston is that there is very little that could be done without increasing PVRs or creating new routes. In comparison to other areas in outer London, buses in Kingston are overcrowded throughout the day. In my opinion the 213, 281, 406, 418, K2 and K3 need frequency increases. The 411 needs to be increased to 4bph off peak, which is already its peak frequency so wouldn't require a PVR increase (and using longer buses, DXEs from the 293 with the 293 decked would be good too). The 371 needs to be fully double decked and the planned frequency decrease to the 85 needs to be scrapped. Be good to see the 57 return to 6bph as well. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Dec 17, 2023 13:39:59 GMT
The 9 and 15 are particularly struggling as I’ve observed. Both routes had their PVRs cut down to the bare bones and as a result the 9 in the middle section and 15 on its western section see overcrowding. And don’t even get me started about the state of the N9! Even if the outer sections of the 9 and 15 are coping, they could at least extend some other Central London routes to support them. For example the 23 could extend from Aldwych to Tower Gateway? Or with the 15, if the Aldgate-Poplar has adequate capacity, a restructure of the 15/115/135 could be a solution, resulting in two higher frequency routes. One from Old Street to East Ham, and one from Trafalgar Square to Crossharbour? Plus fully convert the D6 to DDs. But in the 9's case I think only a frequency increase will now help since the 23 was rerouted. I also wonder if the 23's reroute has affected many passengers - was there every that much demand to travel from the Kensington area up to Marble Arch? 23 to Tower Gateway would be a good idea. The current terminus in Aldwych means buses empty out progressively and are pretty much completely empty by the time they reach Aldwych. It'd create some new direct links which may interest passengers.
The 23 is definitely fuller than before. Practically no one would go from Kensington up north via the long way round and the section shadowing the 9 was never very full neither despite packed 9s... the route simply didn't go where people wanted to go.
Or... increase the 15 to 6bph or more (surprising it's still at 5bph to be honest)
9 and 24 should at least go to 8bph (currently at 6bph). Sundays to 6bph (currently at 5bph).
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 17, 2023 14:57:55 GMT
Even if the outer sections of the 9 and 15 are coping, they could at least extend some other Central London routes to support them. For example the 23 could extend from Aldwych to Tower Gateway? Or with the 15, if the Aldgate-Poplar has adequate capacity, a restructure of the 15/115/135 could be a solution, resulting in two higher frequency routes. One from Old Street to East Ham, and one from Trafalgar Square to Crossharbour? Plus fully convert the D6 to DDs. But in the 9's case I think only a frequency increase will now help since the 23 was rerouted. I also wonder if the 23's reroute has affected many passengers - was there every that much demand to travel from the Kensington area up to Marble Arch? 23 to Tower Gateway would be a good idea. The current terminus in Aldwych means buses empty out progressively and are pretty much completely empty by the time they reach Aldwych. It'd create some new direct links which may interest passengers. The 23 is definitely fuller than before. Practically no one would go from Kensington up north via the long way round and the section shadowing the 9 was never very full neither despite packed 9s... the route simply didn't go where people wanted to go.
Or... increase the 15 to 6bph or more (surprising it's still at 5bph to be honest)
9 and 24 should at least go to 8bph (currently at 6bph). Sundays to 6bph (currently at 5bph).
I don’t think the 23 needs to go back to crossing the city - like the 11, it was heavily prone to congestion when in it’s Liverpool Street to Westbourne Park form and whilst I agree that the Hammersmith routing was a waste and that Aldwych isn’t ideal, I don’t think lengthning the route without serious reduction in congestion is the answer either |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 17, 2023 17:55:12 GMT
23 to Tower Gateway would be a good idea. The current terminus in Aldwych means buses empty out progressively and are pretty much completely empty by the time they reach Aldwych. It'd create some new direct links which may interest passengers. The 23 is definitely fuller than before. Practically no one would go from Kensington up north via the long way round and the section shadowing the 9 was never very full neither despite packed 9s... the route simply didn't go where people wanted to go.
Or... increase the 15 to 6bph or more (surprising it's still at 5bph to be honest)
9 and 24 should at least go to 8bph (currently at 6bph). Sundays to 6bph (currently at 5bph).
I don’t think the 23 needs to go back to crossing the city - like the 11, it was heavily prone to congestion when in it’s Liverpool Street to Westbourne Park form and whilst I agree that the Hammersmith routing was a waste and that Aldwych isn’t ideal, I don’t think lengthning the route without serious reduction in congestion is the answer either Yes I mean by 2017 when it was cutback to Aldwych it really felt inevitably the time had come to shorten it. If anything the 9 could possibly be able to handle an extension. I Still find slightly odd that the 9 cutback to Aldwych with the longer routing from Ladbroke Grove replaced it especially when the 9 was inevitably looking the Mortlake section. |
|
