|
Post by VMH2537 on Nov 22, 2021 12:10:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Nov 22, 2021 12:13:36 GMT
Exactly how I predicted it to be.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 22, 2021 12:14:53 GMT
Less of a surprise this one ... axing 168 has been mentioned plenty of times.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 22, 2021 12:20:45 GMT
Exactly how I predicted it to be. Lots of similar predictions from many contributors here.
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Nov 22, 2021 12:27:23 GMT
Exactly how I predicted it to be. Lots of similar predictions from many contributors here. Yeah, it will be sad to see 168 go (if the changes go ahead of course), luckily I got to drive the route a few times.
|
|
|
Post by Trafalgax on Nov 22, 2021 12:38:22 GMT
I actually genuinely want to know if someone on this forum is a council member of TFL administration because this isn’t the first time people have predicted stuff and it’s come true
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Nov 22, 2021 12:43:14 GMT
Looks like there might be more route mergings to save money soon, first the 88/C2/110/391 and now this
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Nov 22, 2021 12:46:07 GMT
I actually genuinely want to know if someone on this forum is a council member of TFL administration because this isn’t the first time people have predicted stuff and it’s come true In that case one would see more sensible ideas!
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 22, 2021 12:57:19 GMT
I actually genuinely want to know if someone on this forum is a council member of TFL administration because this isn’t the first time people have predicted stuff and it’s come true Probably not........ the 1,168,188 is a rather obvious one!
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 22, 2021 12:59:52 GMT
Thats the 168 not tendered then. I'm slightly surprised they didn't cut the 188 to Elephant aswell and something else the 59/68 divert to TCR.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2021 12:59:58 GMT
I actually genuinely want to know if someone on this forum is a council member of TFL administration because this isn’t the first time people have predicted stuff and it’s come true Probably not........ the 1,168,188 is a rather obvious one! Actually, the 168 was the only obvious part because it was mentioned as part of a tender programme update
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2021 13:00:11 GMT
Mostly awful changes all around especially merging the 1 & 168 together - once again, no thought for passengers at all
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 22, 2021 13:07:06 GMT
Mostly awful changes all around especially merging the 1 & 168 together - once again, no thought for passengers at all Not surprise of your response.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 22, 2021 13:09:24 GMT
Mostly awful changes all around especially merging the 1 & 168 together - once again, no thought for passengers at all I don’t think the 1 & 168 would cause much issue as both routes are similar. However a slight frequency increase may be needed. The 168 removed from Old Kent Road however forces everyone to use the 172 which previously had extras between Old Kent Road Tesco & Elephant & Castle
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2021 13:18:07 GMT
Mostly awful changes all around especially merging the 1 & 168 together - once again, no thought for passengers at all I don’t think the 1 & 168 would cause much issue as both routes are similar. However a slight frequency increase may be needed. The 168 removed from Old Kent Road however forces everyone to use the 172 which previously had extras between Old Kent Road Tesco & Elephant & Castle The 1 is prone to congestion but currently gets away with it due to its relatively short routing - when you combine that with a substantial chunk of the 168, it has the ability to cause problems.
|
|