|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 24, 2023 8:54:14 GMT
Wouldn't that be a great opportunity to bin the 414 and give the 14 short workings to Hyde Park Corner. Not sure how regulated the timetable is between the two routes but surely by having one route this would eliminate large gaps between services? Honestly who would be sad if the 414 went? It has very little unique sections and therefore purpose. As I said the 14 could always have short workings (could start from Putney Heath too). Not only that but if you're in South Ken/Fulham waiting for a southbound bus going beyond Putney Bridge the 414 isn't going to be useful isn't it? The way I see it is similar to the 349 situation where it was duplicated by several other bus routes in Tottenham, and withdrawing it would have very little impact on passenger journeys. Thge only people who would be negatively impacted if the 414 was withdrawn is those travelling beyond Hyde Park Corner, however there are several bus routes that can take you beyond Hyde Park Corner, combined at a very high frequency, so binning the 414 would not only save Tfl money but has a lot less impact than the majority of changes that tfl consults on. If the 414 was withdrawn overnight I wonder how many people would even notice, they would just get on the 14 instead or the 74 from Marble Arch. I'm sure the nearly 3 million or so passengers would notice. As would regular 14 users who would have extra passengers to contend with.
Would you have an issue if the service ran as a 14 but short workings? or a 14A? I suspect not!!
|
|
|
|
Route 414
Jun 24, 2023 9:32:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 24, 2023 9:32:50 GMT
If the 414 was withdrawn overnight I wonder how many people would even notice, they would just get on the 14 instead or the 74 from Marble Arch. I'm sure the nearly 3 million or so passengers would notice. As would regular 14 users who would have extra passengers to contend with.
Would you have an issue if the service ran as a 14 but short workings? or a 14A? I suspect not!!
I'm surprised WH241 at some of your comments on this subject. Normally you are more understanding of realisation of budget constraints and rationalisation of corridors if there has been a drop in demand. |
|
|
|
Route 414
Jun 24, 2023 9:48:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by WH241 on Jun 24, 2023 9:48:08 GMT
I'm sure the nearly 3 million or so passengers would notice. As would regular 14 users who would have extra passengers to contend with.
Would you have an issue if the service ran as a 14 but short workings? or a 14A? I suspect not!!
I'm surprised WH241 at some of your comments on this subject. Normally you are more understanding of realisation of budget constraints and rationalisation of corridors if there has been a drop in demand. It’s more the fact that it’s clearly serves a purpose and has decent usage. Don’t like keep repeating myself but suspect it works out cheaper for TfL to cover the 14 and 414 shared corridor the way they do. Let’s be honest the forum likes to get it’s self worked up over a route and if it’s not the 414 it will be another route. To a certain extent I have trust in TfL and it has the data so give them more credit than some. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jun 24, 2023 9:50:44 GMT
Because the capacity is needed? The 14 runs at 6bph and the 414 runs at 7.5bph - a combined frequency of 13.5bph is unnecessary, around 8-10bph would suffice. If overbussing Putney Heath is an issue then this is where also combining the 74 and 430 makes sense. A combined 74 & 430 could only work if the merged route was cutback - there were good reasons why the 74 lost it's section to Roehampton in favour of the new 430. Personally, that idea of re-routing the 430 to Hammersmith sounded quite a sound idea and would need no cutback to the 74 either to facilitate but of course, it's unlikely TfL would make such an improvement given it's not saving money plus it's Inner London and it's not allowed nice things by the changes they've made for years now. The 430 being diverted to Hammersmith is certainly a really good idea, along with the 190 being extended to South Kensington to replace the short section of the 430 that has a different route to the 74, but as you say I don't see many improvements in inner London happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 24, 2023 9:51:08 GMT
I'm surprised WH241 at some of your comments on this subject. Normally you are more understanding of realisation of budget constraints and rationalisation of corridors if there has been a drop in demand. It’s more the fact that it’s clearly serves a purpose and has decent usage. Don’t like keep repeating myself but suspect it works out cheaper for TfL to cover the 14 and 414 shared corridor the way they do. Let’s be honest a the forum likes to get it’s self worked up over a route and if it’s not the 414 it will be another route. To a certain extent I have trust in TfL and it has the data so give them more credit than some. While I'm sure the 414 serves a purpose, it probably is administratively cheaper to run the 14 on its own with extra workings than it would be for the 414 to be a standalone contract. Each contract has overheads, and these will all not be fully absorbed by the operator. More contracts means more administrative costs, and while it's known GAL charge a lot for the 14 operation, RATP charge even more per mile for the 414 operation. Making these 14 short workings would be cheaper. |
|
|
|
Route 414
Jun 24, 2023 10:48:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 24, 2023 10:48:44 GMT
If the 414 was withdrawn overnight I wonder how many people would even notice, they would just get on the 14 instead or the 74 from Marble Arch. I'm sure the nearly 3 million or so passengers would notice. As would regular 14 users who would have extra passengers to contend with.
Would you have an issue if the service ran as a 14 but short workings? or a 14A? I suspect not!!
Surely the 427 was well used on the withdrawn section, yet tfl withdraw it anyway and people had to find other alternatives. It's not the end of the world if the 414 goes and tfl will tell people to suck it up and find alternatives. it's as simple as jump on a 14 to Hyde Park Corner then walk a bit to the stops on Park Lane to continue to Marble Arch at no extra cost. There are plenty of alternative routes to central London from Putney Bridge and I'm surprised that they didn't make any changes to the routes in that area. Give it a few years and tfl will launch another consultation perhaps seeing the withdrawal of the 414. Now that the 11 has been shortened it would be a good route to extend westwards towards Putney. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 24, 2023 10:50:43 GMT
There's clearly scope for rationalising the Putney routes, status quo is a very inefficient use of resources. Of course the 14 and 414 are identical all the way up to Hyde Park Corner whereas with the 74/430 there's the question of what routing at merger would take from West Brompton to South Kensington. The Marble Arch cut back has made the 414 less wasteful but its probably only a matter of time until some further cuts to the route are made. I can't why both the 74 and 414 need to run South Kensington-Marble Arch. No point in getting rid of the route just for the sake of eliminating the number though. it's not really about the number but more due to the fact that it duplicates other routes. Are the 14, 22, 74 and 414 really all needed between Putney Bridge and Hyde Park Corner? Yes the first three take different routes but it seems bizarre when you also have train connections. As Alexis said that the link from Marble Arch is useful however tfl have broken a lot of links in inner London such as the withdrawal of the 23 from Hammersmith. I wouldn't be surprised to see a review of the Putney routes, like possibly withdrawing the 430 and having the 74 run from Roehampton to Marble Arch. I can see tfl wanting to remove even more routes in central London. As for the 414, it could be as simple as withdrawing then swapping the 211 and 11 routes between Fulham and Sloane Square so that the 11 retains the South Kensington to Putney Bridge link. Out of all the routes in the area, the 414 is the least desirable of the Putney routes since it doesn't even cross the Thames. If the 414 gets removed after a while people will get used to the change. The 427 had good loadings when it went to Acton but since the change the 207 has not been rammed. When I said withdrawing the route for the sake of getting rid of the number I meant I don't agree with introducing short workings on the 14 to replace the 414. The 11/211 changes irk me. It's poor that the iconic 11 no longer even serves Trafalgar Square as access to the West End and connections from there have now been lost as a result in favour of keeping the less important Waterloo link. I also feel 211 users west of Fulham Broadway are being short changed. I'm an Ealing resident and agree on the 427 cut. We're now at the mercy of the 207's reliability with bunching and long gaps very common. Despite Crossrail there's still plenty of demand along the Uxbridge Road an now journeys to key objectives like Ealing Hospital have been made much more difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 24, 2023 11:24:02 GMT
Park Lane is one of the most grossly overbussed roads in Central London, you often see long queues of lightly loaded buses stuck in the traffic. I suppose the 6/16/23 changes have gone some way to addressing this - going further back TFL removed the 10, 73* and 436 from there. I really can't see how the 74 and 414 are both needed, one route down towards South Ken and Putney would more than suffice. Cutting the 74 back to Marble Arch would take a route out of that Marble Arch-Baker Street stretch which again has enjoys a pretty generous offering. The only issue is that Marble Arch from the south isn't the best terminus as the 137 and 414 demonstrate so cutting the 74 back there could lead to that route having a similar decline. I did suggest Paddington Basin could be an alternative northern terminus for the 414, offering some useful new links but TFL clearly wanted to reduce buses on Edgware Road.
*I know the 73 was replaced with the 390 but its a reduction as the 390's frequency is lower.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jun 24, 2023 21:27:28 GMT
The 414 has always been a bit of an enigma to me because it’s a relief route to the 14, yet said route is actually more frequent than the actual route it’s there to support, very bizarre to me. (This is since the 14 got reduced to every 10 minutes)
|
|
|
|
Route 414
Jun 24, 2023 22:57:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by LondonNorthern on Jun 24, 2023 22:57:27 GMT
It’s more the fact that it’s clearly serves a purpose and has decent usage. Don’t like keep repeating myself but suspect it works out cheaper for TfL to cover the 14 and 414 shared corridor the way they do. Let’s be honest a the forum likes to get it’s self worked up over a route and if it’s not the 414 it will be another route. To a certain extent I have trust in TfL and it has the data so give them more credit than some. While I'm sure the 414 serves a purpose, it probably is administratively cheaper to run the 14 on its own with extra workings than it would be for the 414 to be a standalone contract. Each contract has overheads, and these will all not be fully absorbed by the operator. More contracts means more administrative costs, and while it's known GAL charge a lot for the 14 operation, RATP charge even more per mile for the 414 operation. Making these 14 short workings would be cheaper. Or bolstering the 14, maybe returning it to terminating at Tottenham Court Road like during the Routemaster days and doing away with the 414. The 430 suggestion is an excellent idea, props to whoever suggested that. The 72 being as busy as it was south of Hammersmith would show that there could be some patronage. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 25, 2023 11:47:03 GMT
I think perhaps people don't realise how many passengers the 414 picks up at Marble Arch in the afternoon peak. TfL kept it running to there for a reason That’s interesting, where are they travelling to? As far as South Ken, so it’s just an alternative to the 74 or beyond? |
|
|
|
Route 414
Jun 25, 2023 11:49:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 25, 2023 11:49:56 GMT
One of the biggest issues with the 414 (for me at least) is its frequency - whether the route is necessary or not, it could easily be dropped from 7.5bph to 5bph without causing any difficulties. Why on earth have routes like the 57 and 213 have had frequency reductions just to knock a couple of buses off their PVR when a 414 could have a more drastic PVR reduction with much less effect on passengers? And as I have suggested many times before, I would have combined the 23 and 414 into a Westbourne Park to Putney Bridge route at the 23's frequency of 5bph, instead of the recent Central London changes to the 23. The 6 would be unchanged and the 16 would just be extended from Cricklewood to Brent Park over the 332 but the Central London section to Victoria retained. The only disadvantage would be the loss of the round the corner link at Edgware Road Station to St Mary’s Hospital and Paddington Station. I guess TfL did not want to drop it as bus passenger access to hospitals is a major priority of the current Mayor. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 25, 2023 12:34:23 GMT
Because the capacity is needed? The 14 runs at 6bph and the 414 runs at 7.5bph - a combined frequency of 13.5bph is unnecessary, around 8-10bph would suffice. If overbussing Putney Heath is an issue then this is where also combining the 74 and 430 makes sense. A combined 74 & 430 could only work if the merged route was cutback - there were good reasons why the 74 lost it's section to Roehampton in favour of the new 430. Personally, that idea of re-routing the 430 to Hammersmith sounded quite a sound idea and would need no cutback to the 74 either to facilitate but of course, it's unlikely TfL would make such an improvement given it's not saving money plus it's Inner London and it's not allowed nice things by the changes they've made for years now. I recently spent six weeks accompanying a relative to daily treatment at Charing Cross Hospital, doing the very popular short hop from Hammersmith Bus Station on Mondays to Fridays. The 220 is always busy but gets badly bunched with plenty of short turns to College Park. The 295 loads well but also gets badly bunched. The 190 has decent loadings, soaking up the short hop traffic between Hammersmith Bus Station and Charing Cross Hospital and providing a useful and much valued round the corner link to King Street. The 211 is less well loaded than either the 220 or 295, which is to expected as it doesn’t have the cross Hammersmith traffic of the other routes. The link to Chelsea & Westminster Hospital on Fulham Road is much valued. The overall capacity provided along the northern part of Fulham Palace Road is probably about right but the lower decks of the 220s and 295s can be crowded out by elderly or disabled passengers unable to move upstairs. Traffic congestion on the approach to Hammersmith Broadway is highly unpredictable and some days can trap a cavalcade of buses on this short section of Fulham Palace Road. The 430s turning from Fulham Palace Road into Lillie Road are mostly lightly loaded and would be of more use continuing to Hammersmith instead, although reliability may be an issue. There certainly needs to be a direct link from Putney Station to Hammersmith and Charing Cross Hospital. If TfL were clever they could pass off the cutback of the 430 from South Kensington as being about improving access to a hospital. If necessary route 190 could be extended from West Brompton to South Kensington to replace it. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 25, 2023 13:32:59 GMT
I think perhaps people don't realise how many passengers the 414 picks up at Marble Arch in the afternoon peak. TfL kept it running to there for a reason That’s interesting, where are they travelling to? As far as South Ken, so it’s just an alternative to the 74 or beyond? I guess TFL felt the 414 could kill 2 birds with 1 stone and effectively replace the Putney Heath to HPC section of the 14 and the South Kensington to Marble Arch section of the 74. Really even with a slight increase to the 430 as it took the longer route to S Ken and the extra cost of the 414 to the Heath there still would have been mammoth savings by axing the 14 and 74. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 25, 2023 13:33:09 GMT
I think perhaps people don't realise how many passengers the 414 picks up at Marble Arch in the afternoon peak. TfL kept it running to there for a reason That’s interesting, where are they travelling to? As far as South Ken, so it’s just an alternative to the 74 or beyond? I guess TFL felt the 414 could kill 2 birds with 1 stone and effectively replace the Putney Heath to HPC section of the 14 and the South Kensington to Marble Arch section of the 74. Really even with a slight increase to the 430 as it took the longer route to S Ken and the extra cost of the 414 to the Heath there still would have been mammoth savings by axing the 14 and 74. |
|
