|
Post by greenboy on Nov 22, 2021 18:13:13 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. I'd hardly call it a mega route. I really don't know what you expect in the current circumstances. It seems a perfectly sensible way of reducing costs, I think everyone would agree that the Waterloo to Holborn corridor is over bussed, with little disruption. The new route will be exactly the same between Hampstead Heath and Bricklayers Arms. The alternative would have been to leave the 1 as it is and run the 168 from Hampstead Heath to Holborn removing numerous links.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2021 18:26:25 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. I'd hardly call it a mega route. I really don't know what you expect in the current circumstances. It seems a perfectly sensible way of reducing costs, I think everyone would agree that the Waterloo to Holborn corridor is over bussed, with little disruption. The new route will be exactly the same between Hampstead Heath and Bricklayers Arms. The alternative would have been to leave the 1 as it is and run the 168 from Hampstead Heath to Holborn removing numerous links. Funny how the hopper fare is cited for other routes when they are chopped up but all of a sudden, it's an issue for the 168. At least with the 168 terminating at Holborn, the 1 can carry on doing it's current job - I mean no one has actually answered if people actually use the 168 from Hampstead Heath & Camden Town beyond Aldwych or Holborn, I suspect most use the 168 into Central London at best?
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 22, 2021 18:33:40 GMT
I'd hardly call it a mega route. I really don't know what you expect in the current circumstances. It seems a perfectly sensible way of reducing costs, I think everyone would agree that the Waterloo to Holborn corridor is over bussed, with little disruption. The new route will be exactly the same between Hampstead Heath and Bricklayers Arms. The alternative would have been to leave the 1 as it is and run the 168 from Hampstead Heath to Holborn removing numerous links. Funny how the hopper fare is cited for other routes when they are chopped up but all of a sudden, it's an issue for the 168. At least with the 168 terminating at Holborn, the 1 can carry on doing it's current job - I mean no one has actually answered if people actually use the 168 from Hampstead Heath & Camden Town beyond Aldwych or Holborn, I suspect most use the 168 into Central London at best? Exactly funny how certain areas *cough* east London are usually told to put up and accept cuts but other places are so hard done by and can’t possibly be asked to use the hopper fare.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 22, 2021 18:40:49 GMT
Funny how the hopper fare is cited for other routes when they are chopped up but all of a sudden, it's an issue for the 168. At least with the 168 terminating at Holborn, the 1 can carry on doing it's current job - I mean no one has actually answered if people actually use the 168 from Hampstead Heath & Camden Town beyond Aldwych or Holborn, I suspect most use the 168 into Central London at best? Exactly funny how certain areas *cough* east London are usually told to put up and accept cuts but other places are so hard done by and can’t possibly be asked to use the hopper fare. Well The fuss kicked up about the 11, 13 and 19 in the Chelsea and Finchley Road areas TFL probably want to play it safe by saying most the 168 is being maintained. They could have just left the 168 to the other Waterloo/Holborn routes and the 253 and replaced the unique section with the 27 to Hampstead Heath but knew they would have a backlash. Similar to how they coupd have saved by cutting the 188 to Elephant but again Greenwich would kick up over having no central link.
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Nov 22, 2021 18:49:49 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.
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.... 37 and 337 a candidate perhaps. Likewise the 71 and 371 although that involves mixing SDs and DDs.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 22, 2021 18:50:27 GMT
I'd hardly call it a mega route. I really don't know what you expect in the current circumstances. It seems a perfectly sensible way of reducing costs, I think everyone would agree that the Waterloo to Holborn corridor is over bussed, with little disruption. The new route will be exactly the same between Hampstead Heath and Bricklayers Arms. The alternative would have been to leave the 1 as it is and run the 168 from Hampstead Heath to Holborn removing numerous links. Funny how the hopper fare is cited for other routes when they are chopped up but all of a sudden, it's an issue for the 168. At least with the 168 terminating at Holborn, the 1 can carry on doing it's current job - I mean no one has actually answered if people actually use the 168 from Hampstead Heath & Camden Town beyond Aldwych or Holborn, I suspect most use the 168 into Central London at best? I'd completely agree and as I said with the 143 proposal that would damage long standing local links.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 22, 2021 18:58:22 GMT
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.... 37 and 337 a candidate perhaps. Likewise the 71 and 371 although that involves mixing SDs and DDs. Can't really see either of these, the 337 and 71 are on the short side but combining them with another entire route is a different story. If the 71 were to be extended anywhere I would extend it to Ham, Dukes Avenue via the 65.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 22, 2021 19:04:43 GMT
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.... 37 and 337 a candidate perhaps. Likewise the 71 and 371 although that involves mixing SDs and DDs. I think the 71 would be better merged with the 85 which would give more links to Kingston Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 22, 2021 19:06:30 GMT
37 and 337 a candidate perhaps. Likewise the 71 and 371 although that involves mixing SDs and DDs. I think the 71 would be better merged with the 85 which would give more links to Kingston Hospital. Most of the 71's territory (K2, K3, K4) already has a link to the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 22, 2021 19:07:36 GMT
With my enthusiast's head on, it will be strange to see two routes I associate with outer South East London (1 to Bromley, 21 to Sidcup, Swanley and beyond!) migrating towards inner North London.
It's also interesting to note the growth in importance of the 168 over the years: the traditional 68 only made it as far as Chalk Farm, and the 168 on introduction often used LSs.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 22, 2021 19:14:11 GMT
With my enthusiast's head on, it will be strange to see two routes I associate with outer South East London (1 to Bromley, 21 to Sidcup, Swanley and beyond!) migrating towards inner North London. It's also interesting to note the growth in importance of the 168 over the years: the traditional 68 only made it as far as Chalk Farm, and the 168 on introduction often used LSs. I agree : 21 to Holloway will take some getting used to. At least the traditional 21 down to Sidcup still has a 21-ish identity as 321.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Nov 22, 2021 19:19:25 GMT
37 and 337 a candidate perhaps. Likewise the 71 and 371 although that involves mixing SDs and DDs. I think the 71 would be better merged with the 85 which would give more links to Kingston Hospital. Can think of a number of mergers of practicality, 71/85 would certainly be one.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 22, 2021 19:24:22 GMT
I think the 71 would be better merged with the 85 which would give more links to Kingston Hospital. Can think of a number of mergers of practicality, 71/85 would certainly be one. Not that I'll disagree with you but that would account for a 100 minute running time if we go off londonbusroutes.net, or are some of the schedules on the 71/85 really padded?
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Nov 22, 2021 19:24:40 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. I'm going to say could the LT's move to the 182, with the VWH's moving to the 483?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 22, 2021 19:25:06 GMT
With my enthusiast's head on, it will be strange to see two routes I associate with outer South East London (1 to Bromley, 21 to Sidcup, Swanley and beyond!) migrating towards inner North London. It's also interesting to note the growth in importance of the 168 over the years: the traditional 68 only made it as far as Chalk Farm, and the 168 on introduction often used LSs. I agree : 21 to Holloway will take some getting used to. At least the traditional 21 down to Sidcup still has a 21-ish identity as 321. Indeed it definitely will. I can’t imagine seeing Holloway, Nags Head as a destination in the middle of Lewisham!
|
|