|
Post by abellion on Nov 22, 2021 16:34:44 GMT
Would the 1 then become LT operated or are there infrastructure issues preventing that? Would be interesting to know that the Old Kent Road bus stand would then be freed up for another possible route to terminate there. I think a route from Elephant could be extended there, which can leave space for a possible cutback. 155 would provide new links south of Kennington, or perhaps the 45 since Walworth Road - OKR is not an existing link yet outside of the 42 (although the 45 has had talks about getting extended elsewhere)
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 22, 2021 16:48:19 GMT
Would the 1 then become LT operated or are there infrastructure issues preventing that? Would be interesting to know that the Old Kent Road bus stand would then be freed up for another possible route to terminate there. I think a route from Elephant could be extended there, which can leave space for a possible cutback. 155 would provide new links south of Kennington, or perhaps the 45 since Walworth Road - OKR is not an existing link yet outside of the 42 (although the 45 has had talks about getting extended elsewhere) If you were thinking of the proposal to extend the 45 to obliterate the 148, that is no longer a thing. I’m not aware of any other change to the 45 in the pipeline?
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Nov 22, 2021 17:02:10 GMT
With the contract terms of the merged 1/168 and the N1 if route runs same contract is as the day route, N1 and the proposed 1 is definitely one of those routes where the one of day or night counterpart could easily work with a particular operator but not so much with the other part, as an example, Stagecoach could run the N1 from PD though it can be a different story with the day 1 and likewise with the extended 1 & 21 running the day route and both of their night equivalent running deep into outer South East London as things stand.
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on Nov 22, 2021 17:09:10 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.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 22, 2021 17:27:34 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. It was said earlier that the diversion would probably only need 1 extra bus added but could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Nov 22, 2021 17:30:37 GMT
Looks like there might be more route mergings to save money soon, first the 88/C2/110/391 and now this Ah, "simplifying the service", for which read "saving money".
If TfL are actively looking for routes serving over-bussed corridors which can safely be withdrawn by tweaking one or more other services...
C2 - gone 10 - gone 305 - gone
391 - gone 48 - gone
...and now 168 - going 271 - going
...it makes me wonder which other 'unnecessary' routes could be extinguished in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Nov 22, 2021 17:33:35 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. The only part of the route which could seem tricky for LTs is the tight turning onto Deal Porters Way for Surrey Quays Shopping Centre. However as part of the CS4 works, that bus only path is set to close and that is assuming the Surrey Quays part of the works would even be completed at this point.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 22, 2021 17:35:37 GMT
Looks like there might be more route mergings to save money soon, first the 88/C2/110/391 and now this Ah, "simplifying the service", for which read "saving money". If TfL are actively looking for routes serving over-bussed corridors which can safely be withdrawn by tweaking one or more other services... C2 - gone 10 - gone 305 - gone
391 - gone 48 - gone ...and now 168 - going 271 - going ...it makes me wonder which other 'unnecessary' routes could be extinguished in the near future.
Plenty : but not massively willing to add my thoughts about this here for fear of drifting the thread away from the 1, 168 and 188.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 22, 2021 17:36:26 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. The only part of the route which could seem tricky for LTs is the tight turning onto Deal Porters Way for Surrey Quays Shopping Centre. However as part of the CS4 works, that bus only path is set to close and that is assuming the Surrey Quays part of the works would even be completed at this point. I believe the 188 failed an LT test on this.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 22, 2021 17:38:01 GMT
Looks like there might be more route mergings to save money soon, first the 88/C2/110/391 and now this Ah, "simplifying the service", for which read "saving money".
If TfL are actively looking for routes serving over-bussed corridors which can safely be withdrawn by tweaking one or more other services...
C2 - gone 10 - gone 305 - gone
391 - gone 48 - gone
...and now 168 - going 271 - going
...it makes me wonder which other 'unnecessary' routes could be extinguished in the near future.
Can see the 15 being in danger now! would be really disappointed if this route was cut! Could be merged with the 115 and that route renumbered 15....
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 22, 2021 17:40:43 GMT
With the contract terms of the merged 1/168 and the N1 if route runs same contract is as the day route, N1 and the proposed 1 is definitely one of those routes where the one of day or night counterpart could easily work with a particular operator but not so much with the other part, as an example, Stagecoach could run the N1 from PD though it can be a different story with the day 1 and likewise with the extended 1 & 21 running the day route and both of their night equivalent running deep into outer South East London as things stand. I have often thought savings could be made if day and night routes were tendered separately! Your route 1 suggestion is excellent example of how garages at each end of a route could be used.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 22, 2021 17:53:27 GMT
With the contract terms of the merged 1/168 and the N1 if route runs same contract is as the day route, N1 and the proposed 1 is definitely one of those routes where the one of day or night counterpart could easily work with a particular operator but not so much with the other part, as an example, Stagecoach could run the N1 from PD though it can be a different story with the day 1 and likewise with the extended 1 & 21 running the day route and both of their night equivalent running deep into outer South East London as things stand. I have often thought savings could be made if day and night routes were tendered separately! Your route 1 suggestion is excellent example of how garages at each end of a route could be used. The consultation seems a little vague on the 188 night service. I assume it will also run to TCR, although that will duplicate the retained "N1" or whatever number it has in future.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 22, 2021 17:54:11 GMT
Ah, "simplifying the service", for which read "saving money". If TfL are actively looking for routes serving over-bussed corridors which can safely be withdrawn by tweaking one or more other services... C2 - gone 10 - gone 305 - gone
391 - gone 48 - gone ...and now 168 - going 271 - going ...it makes me wonder which other 'unnecessary' routes could be extinguished in the near future.
Plenty : but not massively willing to add my thoughts about this here for fear of drifting the thread away from the 1, 168 and 188. The 414 aswell could be added if rumours of a Putney re cast are true.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 22, 2021 17:58:10 GMT
Think we have to cut which ever operator is unfortunately landed the task of operating this megaroute (along with the 21) some slack regarding headway as the person who devised these plans clearly has no knowledge of inner London traffic patterns. The existing routes suffer enough traffic as it is. Removing a few links and making routes less reliable and less attractive. No from me.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2021 18:11:57 GMT
I wonder if the 1 could take LTs. Not sure if the section via South Bermondsey could. The one turn that makes me doubt it a little bit is from Galleywell Road into Southwark Park though 10.7m VWL's & Abellios own versions did do this regularly. I suspect it would probably pass though. It would free up the WHV's for use elsewhere and give some LT's a home.
|
|