|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 13, 2024 16:14:12 GMT
The 466 is ridiculously over bussed at both ends, I think it only has such a high frequency for Oasis Academy, formerly Taunton Manor High School. The 166 on the other hand could really justify a half hourly frequency to Epsom and an evening and Sunday service. The only section of the 466 which probably justifies its existing frequency is along Brighton Road. When the Sutton/Croydon changes happen in March, the 312 will support the 466 all the way from East Croydon to Reedham, so I reckon the 466's frequency could then easily be dropped to every 10 mins without any problems. The simplest solution for the 166 would be to just run all 3bph to Epsom, as running half hourly to Epsom doesn't work with its frequency. One suggestion I previously had for the 166 was to have 4bph to Banstead and 2bph to Epsom, but this would overbus the Coulsdon to Banstead section and would actually require a higher PVR than just running 3bph to Epsom, so running all 3bph through to Epsom would be much simpler and cheaper. I agree that the Brighton Road section is the only place that the frequency is justified and there's quite a demand to East Croydon Station north of Purley, both Purley Oaks and South Croydon stations are a bit out of the way and have an inferior service. I think the 466 is preferred to the 312 as it stops outside the station rather than round the corner in Cherry Orchard Road. Maybe 3bph to Epsom on the 166 could be justified? The other option would be to increase the 166 to 4bph with alternate buses terminating at Chipstead Valley although that would mean the Banstead section gets a reduced service. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jan 13, 2024 16:23:40 GMT
How much of the 166 actually needs the direct Croydon link? The 166 doesn't take the most direct route for longer journeys, for example from Banstead to Croydon it is quicker to take the S1 to Sutton then change. Plus Southern services from Croydon to Chipstead, Woodmansterne, Epsom, Banstead, Epsom Downs etc. Perhaps the 166 could focus on just linking Croydon to the Coulsdon/Chipstead area, maybe also giving the Cane Hill area a direct link to Croydon? Then a less frequent route like the 404 (or 359 or 434) could take over the section through to Epsom at about every 30 minutes? Or alternatively from the other end, the 467 could take over Epsom-Banstead? I also wonder if a more direct Croydon-Banstead link might be useful, maybe going via Roundshaw and Woodcote Green (which would also link Woodcote to Croydon)? The 166 link to Croydon is definitely needed as far as Woodmansterne, and the links between Epsom, Banstead and Coulsdon are needed so it makes sense for this to all be part of one route (otherwise you'd end up with two routes overlapping between Banstead and Coulsdon which wouldn't be financially viable). Obviously very few use the 166 all the way from Epsom to Croydon, but that isn't the point of the route. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 13, 2024 16:31:04 GMT
57 is literally supported by many routes. 131 (Literally the Entire thing except Coombe Lane and Norbition), 85&213 (Kingston to Norbiton), 219 (Wimbledon to Tooting) and 333 (Tooting to Streatham Hill) mainly throughout it's routing so it kind of does justify a short cut in route frequency (10 min -> 12 Min) if 131 219 and 333 got a frequency boost but im not too sure) Had 57 runs all these sections alone without any support it probs gonna run a 3 min frequency. the frequency cut of 213 was also reasonable considering SL7 (X26) got a double frequency boost by serving 213‘s major points along the way. The 213 has had its frequency reduced twice, from 7.5bph (every 8 mins) to 6bph in 2019, then from 6bph to 5bph last year (and that was way before the X26/SL7 was doubled in frequency). The first reduction in 2019 was reasonable, but the more recent one was not justified and honestly a bit ridiculous. The 57 has also had both of the exact same reductions as the 213, and again the first reduction was fine but the second one was unnecessary. In my opinion, there are a lot of outer London routes that desperately need frequency increases, some examples being the 57, 81, 117, 120, 157, 213, 267, 278, 281, 406, 418, 481, 493, H28, K3, R68 and U7. It should be noted just like in an earlier list, the 57 isn’t solely an Outer London route but is a mixed Inner & Outer - we all know it’s frequency decreases was because of its Inner London section just like the fact the vast majority of frequency decreases have occurred in Inner London. I agree that it’s frequency should be partially restored along with the other suggestions on your list |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jan 13, 2024 16:39:32 GMT
The only section of the 466 which probably justifies its existing frequency is along Brighton Road. When the Sutton/Croydon changes happen in March, the 312 will support the 466 all the way from East Croydon to Reedham, so I reckon the 466's frequency could then easily be dropped to every 10 mins without any problems. The simplest solution for the 166 would be to just run all 3bph to Epsom, as running half hourly to Epsom doesn't work with its frequency. One suggestion I previously had for the 166 was to have 4bph to Banstead and 2bph to Epsom, but this would overbus the Coulsdon to Banstead section and would actually require a higher PVR than just running 3bph to Epsom, so running all 3bph through to Epsom would be much simpler and cheaper. I agree that the Brighton Road section is the only place that the frequency is justified and there's quite a demand to East Croydon Station north of Purley, both Purley Oaks and South Croydon stations are a bit out of the way and have an inferior service. I think the 466 is preferred to the 312 as it stops outside the station rather than round the corner in Cherry Orchard Road. Maybe 3bph to Epsom on the 166 could be justified? The other option would be to increase the 166 to 4bph with alternate buses terminating at Chipstead Valley although that would mean the Banstead section gets a reduced service. The 312/466 issue can simply be resolved by adding a stop to the 312 outside the station (at the same stop as the 466). The 367 already serves both this stop and the Cherry Orchard Road stop, so having the 312 do the same shouldn't be a problem. 3bph to Epsom would probably see a decent level of usage, the main reason the route isn't well used at the moment is because of its hourly frequency. Terminating half the service at Chipstead Valley is an idea I've had previously, but I don’t think the timetabling works well, so the PVR would end up being exactly the same as if the 4bph ran all the way to Banstead. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 13, 2024 16:56:11 GMT
I agree that the Brighton Road section is the only place that the frequency is justified and there's quite a demand to East Croydon Station north of Purley, both Purley Oaks and South Croydon stations are a bit out of the way and have an inferior service. I think the 466 is preferred to the 312 as it stops outside the station rather than round the corner in Cherry Orchard Road. Maybe 3bph to Epsom on the 166 could be justified? The other option would be to increase the 166 to 4bph with alternate buses terminating at Chipstead Valley although that would mean the Banstead section gets a reduced service. The 312/466 issue can simply be resolved by adding a stop to the 312 outside the station (at the same stop as the 466). The 367 already serves both this stop and the Cherry Orchard Road stop, so having the 312 do the same shouldn't be a problem. 3bph to Epsom would probably see a decent level of usage, the main reason the route isn't well used at the moment is because of its hourly frequency. Terminating half the service at Chipstead Valley is an idea I've had previously, but I don’t think the timetabling works well, so the PVR would end up being exactly the same as if the 4bph ran all the way to Banstead. Would 2bph be enough to Banstead? If so could do 4 to Chipstead Valley and 2bph all the way to Epsom. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 13, 2024 17:50:46 GMT
I agree that the Brighton Road section is the only place that the frequency is justified and there's quite a demand to East Croydon Station north of Purley, both Purley Oaks and South Croydon stations are a bit out of the way and have an inferior service. I think the 466 is preferred to the 312 as it stops outside the station rather than round the corner in Cherry Orchard Road. Maybe 3bph to Epsom on the 166 could be justified? The other option would be to increase the 166 to 4bph with alternate buses terminating at Chipstead Valley although that would mean the Banstead section gets a reduced service. The 312/466 issue can simply be resolved by adding a stop to the 312 outside the station (at the same stop as the 466). The 367 already serves both this stop and the Cherry Orchard Road stop, so having the 312 do the same shouldn't be a problem. 3bph to Epsom would probably see a decent level of usage, the main reason the route isn't well used at the moment is because of its hourly frequency. Terminating half the service at Chipstead Valley is an idea I've had previously, but I don’t think the timetabling works well, so the PVR would end up being exactly the same as if the 4bph ran all the way to Banstead. It's a bit strange that the 367 serves both stops, could possibly add the 312 but space is limited and it might cause further congestion. I did see one helpful driver on the 312 pull into the 119/194/198 stop one morning to let commuters off so they didn't have to waste a few minutes going round the corner. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 13, 2024 18:31:43 GMT
The 312/466 issue can simply be resolved by adding a stop to the 312 outside the station (at the same stop as the 466). The 367 already serves both this stop and the Cherry Orchard Road stop, so having the 312 do the same shouldn't be a problem. 3bph to Epsom would probably see a decent level of usage, the main reason the route isn't well used at the moment is because of its hourly frequency. Terminating half the service at Chipstead Valley is an idea I've had previously, but I don’t think the timetabling works well, so the PVR would end up being exactly the same as if the 4bph ran all the way to Banstead. Would 2bph be enough to Banstead? If so could do 4 to Chipstead Valley and 2bph all the way to Epsom. What about people who go to and from Woodmansterne Village and Lavender Fields to Coulsdon and beyond - why should they be subjected to a 30 minute service that could simply drive people to drive instead? Personally, either run a full 3 bph frequency between Epsom Hospital and Croydon or run 2bph beyond Banstead to Epsom with 4 bph between Banstead and Croydon |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jan 13, 2024 18:52:05 GMT
Top 20 least used double deck routes: 20: 405 - 1,388,941 (+1) 19: 496 - 1,343,530 (-1) 18: 418 - 1,330,996 (+3) 17: 401 - 1,324,745 (new) 16: 313 - 1,319,070 (-1) 15: 292 - 1,316,312 (-3) 14: 372 - 1,270,479 (-2) 13: 335 - 1,227,336 (+1) 12: 357 - 1,183,293 (-2) 11: 353 - 1,165,801 (-2) 10: 406 - 1,117,460 (+1) 9: 428 - 1,083,684 (-2) 8: 492 - 1,070,354 (-2) 7: 215 - 956,420 (-1) 6: 498 - 840,967 (-1) 5: 317 - 764,552 (-) 4: 412 - 698,837 (-) 3: 481 - 505,713 (-) 2: X68 - 328,173 (-) 1: 467 - 130,456 (-) The 129 jumped off this list after it was extended to Lewisham. It was previously at no. 6. Does TfL receive funds from Herts for the 292? If not, I can easily see it being withdrawn or severely reduced now that the 384 covers the Edgware to Stirling Corner section. Perhaps complimented by a fiddle with the 107 around Manor Way/Balmoral Drive. I believe at the time of the planning for the 384 extension they did look at turning half of what was then an every 15 minute service on the 292 at Stirling Corner (i.e. alternate buses through to Borehamwood) but instead proposed (and enacted) a reduction in frequency to every 20 minutes. The survival of the 107 and 292 is, I would think, down the various connections they provide which are well used e.g. Barnet to/from Borehamwood, various places including Edgware tube to RNOH, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jan 13, 2024 19:21:17 GMT
57 is literally supported by many routes. 131 (Literally the Entire thing except Coombe Lane and Norbition), 85&213 (Kingston to Norbiton), 219 (Wimbledon to Tooting) and 333 (Tooting to Streatham Hill) mainly throughout it's routing so it kind of does justify a short cut in route frequency (10 min -> 12 Min) if 131 219 and 333 got a frequency boost but im not too sure) Had 57 runs all these sections alone without any support it probs gonna run a 3 min frequency. Considering the parallels with the 57, perhaps it might be worth considering cutting back to Raynes Park (also improving reliability), instead extending the 200 in place to Kingston? The 131 would maintain links from Kingston to Wimbledon Chase, South Wimbledon and Tooting Broadway, while the 200 would offer new direct links to Kingston from areas like Copse Hill and Haydons Road. I'm also unsure if the 57 is needed through to Clapham Park (with the 50 available for links to Streatham, and the 355 to Tooting), and perhaps terminating at Streatham Hill Station (former 255 stand) would be adquate? There isn’t really anything wrong with the 57’s current arrangement, it’s so long that if TfL had any concerns they could’ve raised it ages ago. The 200 is a nice local route and would be better off without the busy Kingston demand. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 13, 2024 19:40:58 GMT
Would 2bph be enough to Banstead? If so could do 4 to Chipstead Valley and 2bph all the way to Epsom. What about people who go to and from Woodmansterne Village and Lavender Fields to Coulsdon and beyond - why should they be subjected to a 30 minute service that could simply drive people to drive instead? Personally, either run a full 3 bph frequency between Epsom Hospital and Croydon or run 2bph beyond Banstead to Epsom with 4 bph between Banstead and Croydon That's why I asked. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jan 14, 2024 0:12:43 GMT
57 is literally supported by many routes. 131 (Literally the Entire thing except Coombe Lane and Norbition), 85&213 (Kingston to Norbiton), 219 (Wimbledon to Tooting) and 333 (Tooting to Streatham Hill) mainly throughout it's routing so it kind of does justify a short cut in route frequency (10 min -> 12 Min) if 131 219 and 333 got a frequency boost but im not too sure) Had 57 runs all these sections alone without any support it probs gonna run a 3 min frequency. the frequency cut of 213 was also reasonable considering SL7 (X26) got a double frequency boost by serving 213‘s major points along the way. The 213 has had its frequency reduced twice, from 7.5bph (every 8 mins) to 6bph in 2019, then from 6bph to 5bph last year (and that was way before the X26/SL7 was doubled in frequency). The first reduction in 2019 was reasonable, but the more recent one was not justified and honestly a bit ridiculous. The 57 has also had both of the exact same reductions as the 213, and again the first reduction was fine but the second one was unnecessary. In my opinion, there are a lot of outer London routes that desperately need frequency increases, some examples being the 57, 81, 117, 120, 157, 213, 267, 278, 281, 406, 418, 481, 493, H28, K3, R68 and U7. Not sure I agree with all of those, apart from the peaks/school times when nearly every route is busy, I think the 57 copes perfectly fine with its 12 min frequency, regrettably the route is nowhere near as busy as it used to be, and the frequency reductions are a reflection of that. Although I think the reductions have had a part to play in artificially reducing the demand, it’s like what came first the chicken or the egg. The 278 I’ve never seen struggling either, seems to run just fine to me at its current frequency usually with plenty of spare capacity. And the 481 after its decking does seem very over capacitated, it’s carrying fresh air mostly. I never see the U7 very busy either, the rest of your list I agree with  |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 14, 2024 0:40:59 GMT
The 213 has had its frequency reduced twice, from 7.5bph (every 8 mins) to 6bph in 2019, then from 6bph to 5bph last year (and that was way before the X26/SL7 was doubled in frequency). The first reduction in 2019 was reasonable, but the more recent one was not justified and honestly a bit ridiculous. The 57 has also had both of the exact same reductions as the 213, and again the first reduction was fine but the second one was unnecessary. In my opinion, there are a lot of outer London routes that desperately need frequency increases, some examples being the 57, 81, 117, 120, 157, 213, 267, 278, 281, 406, 418, 481, 493, H28, K3, R68 and U7. Not sure I agree with all of those, apart from the peaks/school times when nearly every route is busy, I think the 57 copes perfectly fine with its 12 min frequency, regrettably the route is nowhere near as busy as it used to be, and the frequency reductions are a reflection of that. Although I think the reductions have had a part to play in artificially reducing the demand, it’s like what came first the chicken or the egg. The 278 I’ve never seen struggling either, seems to run just fine to me at its current frequency usually with plenty of spare capacity. And the 481 after its decking does seem very over capacitated, it’s carrying fresh air mostly. I never see the U7 very busy either, the rest of your list I agree with The 57 should be at least every 10 minutes, the route isn't as busy as before but it's running around lightly loaded either and there are still plenty of times 57's turn up packed enough. Frequency decreases almost always fuel decline the same way austerity does across the UK - TfL seriously needs to move away from thinking cuts will solve things because 99% of the time, the opposite couldn't be more truer. The U7 I've seen busy on the few occasions I've been on it or around Uxbridge - even when it was decker operated during Covid, the one decker journey I did was busy. The 481 hasn't been particularly busy but I wouldn't describe it as mostly fresh air - of course, it can be argued that running a service through several residential areas at every 30 minutes isn't really going to attract people. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Mar 22, 2024 13:29:49 GMT
TfL has released data from a FOI request regarding bus usage occupancy from the capacity provided on certain times of the day and week. tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-4382-2324tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-3958-2324Top 10 busiest routes on a Saturday Midday (10:00 to 19:00)1. 195: 92% 2. 607(SL8): 90% 3. 55 & 176: 82% 4. 37: 81% 5. 9, 86 & 281: 80% 6. 25: 78% 7. 285, 296 & 482: 76% 8. 1, 181 & 279: 75% 9. 120 & W7: 74% 10: C1: 73% Top 10 busiest routes on a Sunday Midday (10:00 to 19:00)1. 195: 97% 2. 159 96% 3. 94: 93% 4. 482: 89% 5. 55: 88% 6. 176 & 372: 87% 7. E5: 86% 8. 35 & 105: 83% 9. 237: 82% 10. 44 & 203: 81% Top 10 busiest routes on Weekday Late Evenings (22:00 to 00:00)1. 482: 74% 2. 176: 71% 3. 159: 64% 4. 12: 63% 5. 35: 62% 6. 224: 59% 7. 453: 58% 8. 29 & 36: 56% 9. 81 & 105: 54% 10: 109 & 133: 53% Top 10 busiest routes on Saturday Late Evenings (22:00 to 00:00)1. 176: 100% 2. 86: 88% 3. 425: 85% 4. 37: 83% 5. 47: 81% 6. 132: 78% 7. 225 & 436: 77% 8. 109: 76% 9: 185: 75% 10: 25, 118, 159, 250 & 453: 74% |
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Mar 22, 2024 13:51:52 GMT
Thanks for sharing - no time to look at the data but... - Immediate point to jump out is the number of routes that serve Southall that are on the list (105/120/195/482/E5/SL8). - The 195 needs to be decked! - 482 weekday late evenings may be explained by Late Shift workers returning home from LHR (T4/T5/Cargo) (??) / conversely 482 Sunday 1000 to 1900 may be shift working travelling to LHR..??) - Surprised no Barking routes made the list seeing how it's always crazy-busy when I visit - 132 (wonder if "Sat Late Evening" is O2 connected..??) |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Mar 22, 2024 13:52:20 GMT
Nothing to see here, let's give the 195 another single deck contract! |
|
