|
Post by VMH2537 on Sept 2, 2024 11:40:04 GMT
I'm curious to know what's the status of the SL5/SL7 proposals being they seemed to publish it with even some people receiving letters of the proposal.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Sept 2, 2024 11:42:48 GMT
I'm curious to know what's the status of the SL5/SL7 proposals being they seemed to publish it with even some people receiving letters of the proposal. Hopefully back to the drawing board or dropped....if it was a Kingston-based split, that'd be fine but the current proposal has a number of flaws in my mind, though I do understand their rationale.
|
|
|
Post by mark on Sept 6, 2024 6:10:16 GMT
I'm curious to know what's the status of the SL5/SL7 proposals being they seemed to publish it with even some people receiving letters of the proposal. Hopefully back to the drawing board or dropped....if it was a Kingston-based split, that'd be fine but the current proposal has a number of flaws in my mind, though I do understand their rationale. A Kingston split would simply substitute an overly long SL7 with a similarly lengthy SL5. Given the clear wish to shorten the SL7 curtailing it at Sutton is probably the least worst option.
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Sept 6, 2024 6:17:50 GMT
I think the SL5/SL7 proposal will only be effective if they can find a way to deck the SL5.
Does a Kingston split imply a Harrow-Kingston SL9? That just eliminates an extra long route… to create a new one!
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Sept 6, 2024 7:33:01 GMT
I think the SL5/SL7 proposal will only be effective if they can find a way to deck the SL5. More than that, if it’s something they absolutely have to do, then they need to guarantee a hopper fare if you’re Croydon bound. It’s easy to fall out of the hopper hour time frame on that route
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 6, 2024 8:05:41 GMT
I think the SL5/SL7 proposal will only be effective if they can find a way to deck the SL5. Does a Kingston split imply a Harrow-Kingston SL9? That just eliminates an extra long route… to create a new one! No I think they meant a Heathrow to Kingston route and Kingston to Croydon route.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 6, 2024 8:14:32 GMT
I think the SL5/SL7 proposal will only be effective if they can find a way to deck the SL5. Does a Kingston split imply a Harrow-Kingston SL9? That just eliminates an extra long route… to create a new one! No I think they meant a Heathrow to Kingston route and Kingston to Croydon route. I’ve long suggested that there is room for two versions of the SL7, one in a short form every 30 minutes between Kingston and Croydon with an hourly extension to Heathrow. We all know that the Heathrow to Kingston demand is comparatively lower than Kingston to Croydon. It’s not uncommon for a SL7 to empty out at Kingston towards Heathrow and be relatively empty when arriving, even in the peaks. With some creative AI tech reinforcing the scheduling it would be easily achievable these days. The SL5 could be extended on the other end, perhaps to Orpington or wherever.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 6, 2024 8:22:50 GMT
I think the SL5/SL7 proposal will only be effective if they can find a way to deck the SL5. Does a Kingston split imply a Harrow-Kingston SL9? That just eliminates an extra long route… to create a new one! Is it just the low trees on Monks Orchard Road that's preventing DDs? If so, a simple diversion via Manor Park Road and South Eden Park Road wouldn't be much slower.
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Sept 6, 2024 8:32:18 GMT
No I think they meant a Heathrow to Kingston route and Kingston to Croydon route. I’ve long suggested that there is room for two versions of the SL7, one in a short form every 30 minutes between Kingston and Croydon with an hourly extension to Heathrow. We all know that the Heathrow to Kingston demand is comparatively lower than Kingston to Croydon. It’s not uncommon for a SL7 to empty out at Kingston towards Heathrow and be relatively empty when arriving, even in the peaks. With some creative AI tech reinforcing the scheduling it would be easily achievable these days. The SL5 could be extended on the other end, perhaps to Orpington or wherever. Although, it is reasonably loaded between Kingston and Heathrow, it would be more popular if it had a few more stops and so the proposed additional stops are quite good in my opinion. I am in the camp that this is/was only being proposed to get electrics on SL7 without having to have additional spares to cover for journeys. This is not being done for reliability. SL5 is overperforming and SL7 is also reaching its minimum targets in the first quarter of this year by the looks of it. Also, we are 1 year removed from this being a 30 minutes service and so as a passenger I would be thrilled and if I occasional wait 20 minutes, it is not bad as it was before. Therefore, in my opinion, if this was consulted it is about money (as it always is) vs the size of the backlash. My last SL7 full route a couple of weeks back was loaded well throughout and had passengers, mainly airport workers/travellers, do the whole route. Buses in opposite direction were loaded well too (although there were some pairs of buses at times).
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 6, 2024 8:42:03 GMT
I’ve long suggested that there is room for two versions of the SL7, one in a short form every 30 minutes between Kingston and Croydon with an hourly extension to Heathrow. We all know that the Heathrow to Kingston demand is comparatively lower than Kingston to Croydon. It’s not uncommon for a SL7 to empty out at Kingston towards Heathrow and be relatively empty when arriving, even in the peaks. With some creative AI tech reinforcing the scheduling it would be easily achievable these days. The SL5 could be extended on the other end, perhaps to Orpington or wherever. Although, it is reasonably loaded between Kingston and Heathrow, it would be more popular if it had a few more stops and so the proposed additional stops are quite good in my opinion. I am in the camp that this is/was only being proposed to get electrics on SL7 without having to have additional spares to cover for journeys. This is not being done for reliability. SL5 is overperforming and SL7 is also reaching its minimum targets in the first quarter of this year by the looks of it. Also, we are 1 year removed from this being a 30 minutes service and so as a passenger I would be thrilled and if I occasional wait 20 minutes, it is not bad as it was before. Therefore, in my opinion, if this was consulted it is about money (as it always is) vs the size of the backlash. My last SL7 full route a couple of weeks back was loaded well throughout and had passengers, mainly airport workers/travellers, do the whole route. Buses in opposite direction were loaded well too (although there were some pairs of buses at times). The SL7 has gotten a lot less reliable since it went to 15 minutes, used to run like clockwork at 30. Now two could turn up within a few minutes of each other and then nothing for 20-30 minutes. I understand it’s not being done for reliability but the SL5 is a poor choice for taking over the much busier section especially if it cannot be decked. There are better ways to achieve the SL7 goals without essentially halving the capacity on one end. Let’s be honest any proposal to double the SL5 frequency for the Croydon to Sutton end will create a huge imbalance on the Bromley end as that huge capacity wouldn’t be needed.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 6, 2024 9:02:21 GMT
I think the SL5/SL7 proposal will only be effective if they can find a way to deck the SL5. Does a Kingston split imply a Harrow-Kingston SL9? That just eliminates an extra long route… to create a new one! Is it just the low trees on Monks Orchard Road that's preventing DDs? If so, a simple diversion via Manor Park Road and South Eden Park Road wouldn't be much slower. The trees are in South Eden Park Ave and the alternative route would be via Stone Park Ave and Village Way. Monks Orchard Road is apparently ok for double deckers.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 6, 2024 11:47:19 GMT
Although, it is reasonably loaded between Kingston and Heathrow, it would be more popular if it had a few more stops and so the proposed additional stops are quite good in my opinion. I am in the camp that this is/was only being proposed to get electrics on SL7 without having to have additional spares to cover for journeys. This is not being done for reliability. SL5 is overperforming and SL7 is also reaching its minimum targets in the first quarter of this year by the looks of it. Also, we are 1 year removed from this being a 30 minutes service and so as a passenger I would be thrilled and if I occasional wait 20 minutes, it is not bad as it was before. Therefore, in my opinion, if this was consulted it is about money (as it always is) vs the size of the backlash. My last SL7 full route a couple of weeks back was loaded well throughout and had passengers, mainly airport workers/travellers, do the whole route. Buses in opposite direction were loaded well too (although there were some pairs of buses at times). The SL7 has gotten a lot less reliable since it went to 15 minutes, used to run like clockwork at 30. Now two could turn up within a few minutes of each other and then nothing for 20-30 minutes. I understand it’s not being done for reliability but the SL5 is a poor choice for taking over the much busier section especially if it cannot be decked. There are better ways to achieve the SL7 goals without essentially halving the capacity on one end. Let’s be honest any proposal to double the SL5 frequency for the Croydon to Sutton end will create a huge imbalance on the Bromley end as that huge capacity wouldn’t be needed. Given what others have said about the loadings of the SL5 being on the heavy side, the extra frequency might be beneficial for the SL5 too. Realistically IMO, splitting the SL7 at Kingston seems to be the best option without knowing most people so have a SL7 from Croydon to Kingston and a new SL route from Kingston/Richmond/Wimbledon to Heathrow. Extending the SL5 or SL9 to Kingston isn’t viable so it leaves little options to play with outside of drastically reducing the frequency on one section
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Sept 6, 2024 20:21:12 GMT
Although, it is reasonably loaded between Kingston and Heathrow, it would be more popular if it had a few more stops and so the proposed additional stops are quite good in my opinion. I am in the camp that this is/was only being proposed to get electrics on SL7 without having to have additional spares to cover for journeys. This is not being done for reliability. SL5 is overperforming and SL7 is also reaching its minimum targets in the first quarter of this year by the looks of it. Also, we are 1 year removed from this being a 30 minutes service and so as a passenger I would be thrilled and if I occasional wait 20 minutes, it is not bad as it was before. Therefore, in my opinion, if this was consulted it is about money (as it always is) vs the size of the backlash. My last SL7 full route a couple of weeks back was loaded well throughout and had passengers, mainly airport workers/travellers, do the whole route. Buses in opposite direction were loaded well too (although there were some pairs of buses at times). The SL7 has gotten a lot less reliable since it went to 15 minutes, used to run like clockwork at 30. Now two could turn up within a few minutes of each other and then nothing for 20-30 minutes. I understand it’s not being done for reliability but the SL5 is a poor choice for taking over the much busier section especially if it cannot be decked. There are better ways to achieve the SL7 goals without essentially halving the capacity on one end. Let’s be honest any proposal to double the SL5 frequency for the Croydon to Sutton end will create a huge imbalance on the Bromley end as that huge capacity wouldn’t be needed. Isn’t the SL7 being treated as a high frequency route despite being 4bph? That could be explaining the poor performance
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Sept 7, 2024 7:54:15 GMT
Although, it is reasonably loaded between Kingston and Heathrow, it would be more popular if it had a few more stops and so the proposed additional stops are quite good in my opinion. I am in the camp that this is/was only being proposed to get electrics on SL7 without having to have additional spares to cover for journeys. This is not being done for reliability. SL5 is overperforming and SL7 is also reaching its minimum targets in the first quarter of this year by the looks of it. Also, we are 1 year removed from this being a 30 minutes service and so as a passenger I would be thrilled and if I occasional wait 20 minutes, it is not bad as it was before. Therefore, in my opinion, if this was consulted it is about money (as it always is) vs the size of the backlash. My last SL7 full route a couple of weeks back was loaded well throughout and had passengers, mainly airport workers/travellers, do the whole route. Buses in opposite direction were loaded well too (although there were some pairs of buses at times). The SL7 has gotten a lot less reliable since it went to 15 minutes, used to run like clockwork at 30. Now two could turn up within a few minutes of each other and then nothing for 20-30 minutes. I understand it’s not being done for reliability but the SL5 is a poor choice for taking over the much busier section especially if it cannot be decked. There are better ways to achieve the SL7 goals without essentially halving the capacity on one end. Let’s be honest any proposal to double the SL5 frequency for the Croydon to Sutton end will create a huge imbalance on the Bromley end as that huge capacity wouldn’t be needed. To be fair a single deck is about 2/3 the capacity of a double deck, so a fair bit more than half the capacity. And the Croydon to Sutton section will get a frequency uplift regardless, as the SL5 is currently every 12 as opposed to every 15. The SL7 capacity is approx. 350 per hour and the SL5 capacity approx. 300 per hour. As such, with a 1bph uplift to the SL5, a greater capacity will be provided than is currently. Not to say I necessarily agree with the proposals, not my area so can't really comment, just providing some useful data.
|
|