|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 22, 2021 21:07:55 GMT
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? If you take out the overlap in Kingston town, probably 85ish at peaks . Even more saving when you remove the layovers. Could probably run with a PVR of 22/23 - 4/5 buses saved, new links opened. N65 could be withdrawn and replaced with a 24hr service, 24 hour service along combined route. I think the 85 works really well as a shorter route, its a crucial cross-South West London link and stays pretty reliable even when the A3 is playing up. An example of a trunk route that is short yet efficient and that is demonstrated by its loads. You'd be nearly doubling its length for not a whole lot of gain- many of the cross-Kingston links that would provide are already covered by routes like the K3 and K2/K4 to the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 22, 2021 21:29:11 GMT
TfL: we're shortening route X to save money. Also TfL: we're merging route X with route Y to save money. If the 168 contract with Metroline isn't renewed, then it means Go Ahead will run the newly formed route 1 with its garage in south London (MG for now, will be surprised if this isn't reviewed later). That means passengers on the Hampstead end of the route would suffer reliability issues as late buses would be turned from the north to head to south London for drivers' meal reliefs. There's nothing too shocking about this proposal and is a pretty sensible one given the shockers TfL has thrown out in the past. My only real concern is the 188 moving to TCR, St Giles High Street and Bloomsbury Way is definitely more congested than at Russell Square. Another thing that has been mentioned is that there was unusual emphasis on the N1 being untouched in these plans, but does open up the door for the 188. I expect the 188 to be stripped of its 24 hour service and possibly a N188 up to Euston at least. It's rather ludicrous that from Camden to Holborn can be done via one bus during the day but not at night. 1/N1 & 21/N21 are both up for tender soon so it won’t guarantee that Go Ahead London will run these routes in the new forms. Fair enough. I was just responding to two members' concerns on here that the 1's unique section along Grange Road would be the first to suffer. Assuming the 1 is retained by GAL, it's definitely the northern part of the newly formed 1 that will suffer in reliability. As for the 21, I'd no idea of plans to extend it to Holloway before reading this thread. Guess it's time to stop ignoring the forum as much then! 😅
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 22, 2021 21:38:01 GMT
1/N1 & 21/N21 are both up for tender soon so it won’t guarantee that Go Ahead London will run these routes in the new forms. Fair enough. I was just responding to two members' concerns on here that the 1's unique section along Grange Road would be the first to suffer. Assuming the 1 is retained by GAL, it's definitely the northern part of the newly formed 1 that will suffer in reliability. As for the 21, I'd no idea of plans to extend it to Holloway before reading this thread. Guess it's time to stop ignoring the forum as much then! 😅 In fairness I don't think anyone predicted the 21. I had more money on the 21 cutting back to Moorgate and the 141 being left alone.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 22, 2021 21:47:37 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 forgot that the 1 goes that way. Had I remembered that from my time on driving the 188 I would have answered my own question regarding LTs on the 1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 21:50:56 GMT
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. 337! Short! There is a hell of a lot of traffic in the Wandsworth and Sheen areas, often resulting in Queens Road turns. I'm not fussed about the 1/168 and 21/271 mergers, they're not too bad and don't affect me, but I'm sorry to say, if the 37 and 337 were merged, I'd be livid. Besides would residents from Richmond/Barnes really want to go further than Clapham anyway?
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 22, 2021 21:51:57 GMT
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 forgot that the 1 goes that way. Had I remembered that from my time on driving the 188 I would have answered my own question regarding LTs on the 1. However Surrey Quays Shopping Centre is due to de demolished in 2022, so perhaps a slight reroute would allow the new 1 to gain LTs.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 22, 2021 21:55:50 GMT
Fair enough. I was just responding to two members' concerns on here that the 1's unique section along Grange Road would be the first to suffer. Assuming the 1 is retained by GAL, it's definitely the northern part of the newly formed 1 that will suffer in reliability. As for the 21, I'd no idea of plans to extend it to Holloway before reading this thread. Guess it's time to stop ignoring the forum as much then! 😅 In fairness I don't think anyone predicted the 21. I had more money on the 21 cutting back to Moorgate and the 141 being left alone. That's what I thought would probably happen, at least this way the link to Moorfields Hospital from SE London remains.
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Nov 22, 2021 21:56:23 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.
Another route that can be withdrawn with out replace meant is the 460 as it mirror 13 and 260
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 22:08:21 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.
Another route that can be withdrawn with out replace meant is the 460 as it mirror 13 and 260 The U5 could be withdrawn with modifications in the local area. Though Tfl aren't going to focus on changing the outer London areas as much I feel Probably tfl will think that the 94 and 148 can be merged to eradicate the 148
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Nov 22, 2021 22:12:20 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.
Another route that can be withdrawn with out replace meant is the 460 as it mirror 13 and 260 Which is useful. Now this is what I don't like, just because route 460 mirrors both 13 and 260, doesn't mean it's going to be gradually killed off just like that. Route 13 would be a disaster, if it did not have route 460 as assistance especially during peak hours.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 22, 2021 22:14:02 GMT
Another route that can be withdrawn with out replace meant is the 460 as it mirror 13 and 260 The U5 could be withdrawn with modifications in the local area. Though Tfl aren't going to focus on changing the outer London areas as much I feel Probably tfl will think that the 94 and 148 can be merged to eradicate the 148 The Putney area rumours have the 14 standing at Piccadilly Circus so that does suggest the 94 is going to be cut to Marble Arch as planned.
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Nov 22, 2021 22:19:33 GMT
Another route that can be withdrawn with out replace meant is the 460 as it mirror 13 and 260 The U5 could be withdrawn with modifications in the local area. Though Tfl aren't going to focus on changing the outer London areas as much I feel Probably tfl will think that the 94 and 148 can be merged to eradicate the 148 94 and 148, I don't see that merger happening, would be unreliable. Even if it was to happen, I can't see it being a Acton Green-Camberwell Green route, mainly for as I said reliability reasons, you'd probably have to involve another route. For the time being however, routes 94 and 148 are fine as they are now, now that 148 is reduced to 6bph. Obviously if/when the Oxford Street pedestrianisation happens, then we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 22, 2021 22:26:51 GMT
Another route that can be withdrawn with out replace meant is the 460 as it mirror 13 and 260 Which is useful. Now this is what I don't like, just because route 460 mirrors both 13 and 260, doesn't mean it's going to be gradually killed off just like that. Route 13 would be a disaster, if it did not have route 460 as assistance especially during peak hours. Agreed the local links to and from Cricklewood/Willesden into Temple Fortune/Finchley seem to be popular amongst the local communities and Golders Green to North Finchley is quite a busy feeder corridor. Having said that had it not have been for the 125 extension I'd have probably said it would've been likely to have potentially been cutback to North Finchley, all I'll say is investment does wonders to certain routes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2021 22:27:55 GMT
Another route that can be withdrawn with out replace meant is the 460 as it mirror 13 and 260 Which is useful. Now this is what I don't like, just because route 460 mirrors both 13 and 260, doesn't mean it's going to be gradually killed off just like that. Route 13 would be a disaster, if it did not have route 460 as assistance especially during peak hours. Exactly - this is what happens when people see one idea and think everything can & must merge or be withdrawn, they try and put 2+2 together and make 700.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2021 22:29:00 GMT
The U5 could be withdrawn with modifications in the local area. Though Tfl aren't going to focus on changing the outer London areas as much I feel Probably tfl will think that the 94 and 148 can be merged to eradicate the 148 94 and 148, I don't see that merger happening, would be unreliable. Even if it was to happen, I can't see it being a Acton Green-Camberwell Green route, mainly for as I said reliability reasons, you'd probably have to involve another route. For the time being however, routes 94 and 148 are fine as they are now, now that 148 is reduced to 6bph. Obviously if/when the Oxford Street pedestrianisation happens, then we'll see. I agree it shouldn't happen but with the 1 merging with the 168, I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening sooner rather than later.
|
|