|
Post by greenboy on Nov 24, 2021 23:13:43 GMT
Would assume it’s deemed just too high a risk to send the deckers under that bridge, one wrong or a moment’s lapse of concentration and you’ll have a deroofed bus and potentially a lot of injuries 😦 Yes TfL don’t like the risk, see also why the 533 can’t be double decked at Barnes Bridge Station. But they're happy for the 125 to negotiate a similar arched bridge in Green Dragon Lane.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 24, 2021 23:15:02 GMT
I actually think this makes a lot more sense, the 27 could take the extra distance owing to it's shorter length then previously and no longer negotiating Chiswick High Road whilst also removing that awkward arrangement it has at Chalk Farm. Also, thanks for confirming about where most 168 passengers go when heading south I think the direct link from Hampstead Heath to Holborn is quite an important one to retain, especially for links from the southern part of LB of Camden to the Royal Free Hospital. An extended 27 would not offer any new links that would outweigh that loss. Then you could go with my earlier idea of curtailing the 168 to Holborn where there is room and leaving the 1 as it is. Given the hopper fare is suggested for every cut connection we've had since it's introduction, hopper fare could allow the small amount of people who go further the ability to change & money is still saved.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 24, 2021 23:16:45 GMT
Yes TfL don’t like the risk, see also why the 533 can’t be double decked at Barnes Bridge Station. But they're happy for the 125 to negotiate a similar arched bridge in Green Dragon Lane. Green Dragon Lane is not a main road and does not have the same traffic conditions as either Abbey Street or at Barnes Bridge
|
|
|
Post by moz on Nov 25, 2021 15:30:48 GMT
As an alternative, keep the plan for the 188, retain the 168 as is and shove the 148 up to Canada Water instead of Camberwell. Then you can just cut the 1.
Moz
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 25, 2021 23:07:31 GMT
As an alternative, keep the plan for the 188, retain the 168 as is and shove the 148 up to Canada Water instead of Camberwell. Then you can just cut the 1. Moz Could do, and the 168 could go to Go Ahead to compensate for the loss of the 1.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 25, 2021 23:17:43 GMT
As an alternative, keep the plan for the 188, retain the 168 as is and shove the 148 up to Canada Water instead of Camberwell. Then you can just cut the 1. Moz Could do, and the 168 could go to Go Ahead to compensate for the loss of the 1. Why should Go-Ahead get compensated at the expense of Metroline ... besides they are both in same tranche .... they deserve the 168 as much as each other, and as the incumbent, why should Metroline not keep it?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 25, 2021 23:27:21 GMT
If, as expected, the number 1 wins out over the 168 for the combined route, it won't be the first time the number has appeared to outlive the service.
The version of the 1 that stretched out to Bromley from Trafalgar Square in the late 80s was to all intents and purposes the shortlived 199 renumbered and diverted via Greenwich. It was the crew operated Marylebone - Greenwich service that disappeared. And you might even argue that that version of the 1 was really the 1A introduced on weekdays and renumbered. The 1 continually reinvents itself!
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 26, 2021 8:31:26 GMT
Could do, and the 168 could go to Go Ahead to compensate for the loss of the 1. Why should Go-Ahead get compensated at the expense of Metroline ... besides they are both in same tranche .... they deserve the 168 as much as each other, and as the incumbent, why should Metroline not keep it? I may have got this wrong but my understanding is that the 168 contract expires shortly? In fact I think it was mentioned on recently here that it had been extended which presumably means it can be withdrawn without compensation to Metroline?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 26, 2021 8:43:35 GMT
If, as expected, the number 1 wins out over the 168 for the combined route, it won't be the first time the number has appeared to outlive the service. The version of the 1 that stretched out to Bromley from Trafalgar Square in the late 80s was to all intents and purposes the shortlived 199 renumbered and diverted via Greenwich. It was the crew operated Marylebone - Greenwich service that disappeared. And you might even argue that that version of the 1 was really the 1A introduced on weekdays and renumbered. The 1 continually reinvents itself! Yes the 1 has certainly been chopped and changed quite a bit over the years. I can't help thinking that if a new bus network was starting from scratch today the number 1 should go to a high profile route like the 9,11,12 or 15.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 26, 2021 10:12:44 GMT
Matthew Wharmby in his great Titan book "describes it as always less of a force then it prestigious number would have you think" and was "propelled into the limelight with its OPO conversion in 1987"
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 26, 2021 10:32:13 GMT
Why should Go-Ahead get compensated at the expense of Metroline ... besides they are both in same tranche .... they deserve the 168 as much as each other, and as the incumbent, why should Metroline not keep it? I may have got this wrong but my understanding is that the 168 contract expires shortly? In fact I think it was mentioned on recently here that it had been extended which presumably means it can be withdrawn without compensation to Metroline? You are correct, but Go-Ahead would have to route learn and withstand all the other costs of taking up a route, which they no doubt would want to recover from TfL ... with so little time left on a contract, is it worth it? No doubt there is a small cost to TfL when operators change as well.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 27, 2021 17:24:31 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. What they could have done to make the scheme more radical would be this: 1 rerouted between Bricklayers Arms and Canada Water via route 188 and extend it to North Greenwich, but not divert it to Hampstead Heath 68 extended from Euston to Hampstead Heath 155 or 333 extended from Elephant & Castle to Canada Water via route 1 Routes 168 & 188 both withdrawn
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 27, 2021 17:28:00 GMT
Pretty much for 188, everyone expected TFL would would temper with it but for 168, the Holborn to Aldwych section is literally the mid section of the route so I didn’t think TFL would mess with it. An unintended consequence is that route 1 becomes a bit more high profile, I think it's always been a bit of a Cinderella route over the years. I think it is an intended consequence. Diverting route 1 to Hampstead Heath is a bigger change than diverting route 168 to Canada Water would have been.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 27, 2021 17:30:44 GMT
Also if the Hampstead mob vow to save the 168 tfl can always run this consultation again and say the 168 is saved...it's now extended to Canada Water. Can’t see that as likely - the number ‘1’ has an awful lot of numerical prestige attached to it. The number 168 is a relative newcomer, certainly none of the prestige attached to ‘168’ as there was/is to ‘13’, from the change to this route back in the recent-ish past. As for the changes - they’re ok I guess. A little worried about the unique bit of the current 1 suffering through its newly extended routing, but otherwise none of this is a massive surprise. As has been said above, it gives the 1 a bit more of a high profile. I’m quite fond of the dear old 1, my sentimental side says that this is a good thing! What's more, as route 168 was only introduced in 1986 it is one of the younger routes in central London.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 27, 2021 17:35:02 GMT
Quick extra thought - will the 1 gain the LTs from the 168? Is there a restriction around Bermondsey/Surrey Quays as otherwise it would have seemed an obvious candidate before this. Would have thought most LTs made spare from the 168 would go to the 21's PVR increase. I doubt all that many LTs will be needed for the route 21 change and expect that most of those on route 168 will become available for a new conversion.
|
|