|
|
Post by SILENCED on Apr 27, 2024 18:29:27 GMT
Except it wasn't. The service frequency was increased substantially when the route was converted to single deck. This attracted so many new passengers that when the double deckers were reintroduced, it was at the increased frequency. If that’s a mistake, let's make more of them! If it remained double decker, there’s nothing to say it wouldn’t have seen those increases especially as it saw further increases after converting. Imagine trying to do that sort of policy now, people would probably flock to other alternatives If you convert to single decker, increase frequency and capacity, surely that would be a more attractive service ... Exactly like before. How could a more frequent, greater capacity service be bad in anyway .... plus you don't have issue with all those that don't want to or won't go upstairs. It can be a plus. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 27, 2024 19:03:28 GMT
If it remained double decker, there’s nothing to say it wouldn’t have seen those increases especially as it saw further increases after converting. Imagine trying to do that sort of policy now, people would probably flock to other alternatives If you convert to single decker, increase frequency and capacity, surely that would be a more attractive service ... Exactly like before. How could a more frequent, greater capacity service be bad in anyway .... plus you don't have issue with all those that don't want to or won't go upstairs. It can be a plus. I'm inclined to agree, I think making double decker routes frequent single decker routes would certainly increase bus usage. Much like they did when this was the craze last time around. People aren't usually bothered as to whether a bus is a single decker route or a double decker route if the buses are frequent, it only starts to become a problem when the single deckers can't handle the demand, by which point routes get converted back to double deck. That said is there a huge difference in operating costs between single and double decker buses these days? It might not be very attractive to introduce a load of extra buses if there's considerable extra cost involved. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 27, 2024 21:06:38 GMT
If it remained double decker, there’s nothing to say it wouldn’t have seen those increases especially as it saw further increases after converting. Imagine trying to do that sort of policy now, people would probably flock to other alternatives If you convert to single decker, increase frequency and capacity, surely that would be a more attractive service ... Exactly like before. How could a more frequent, greater capacity service be bad in anyway .... plus you don't have issue with all those that don't want to or won't go upstairs. It can be a plus. So why bother converting routes to double deckers then? Everytime a route is converted to double deckers, I don’t hear much pushback from anyone? Isn’t it 30% of people don’t go upstairs? If so, that means it’s not really an issue given 70% do. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Apr 27, 2024 21:51:50 GMT
If you convert to single decker, increase frequency and capacity, surely that would be a more attractive service ... Exactly like before. How could a more frequent, greater capacity service be bad in anyway .... plus you don't have issue with all those that don't want to or won't go upstairs. It can be a plus. So why bother converting routes to double deckers then? Everytime a route is converted to double deckers, I don’t hear much pushback from anyone? Isn’t it 30% of people don’t go upstairs? If so, that means it’s not really an issue given 70% do. I can't find any stats on the subject, so if you have a reliable source then 30% it is. Routes are converted to double decker as a cheapest way of increasing capacity, staffing costs. Your argument is that it would be unpopular with passengers, and they would desert the service in droves. Do they really care about the cost of the service? What is better. A service where 25% mkrmefrequent and 100% of passenger will use all the capacity, or a less frequent service where some of the bus is off limits to some passenger, you quote 30%. Do the 30% not matter? Let's be honest, the London spec double decker does not really go well with accessible transport. I much prefer to travel on a 12m single deck than a double deck. The environment is far more pleasant. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Apr 27, 2024 22:42:07 GMT
So why bother converting routes to double deckers then? Everytime a route is converted to double deckers, I don’t hear much pushback from anyone? Isn’t it 30% of people don’t go upstairs? If so, that means it’s not really an issue given 70% do. I can't find any stats on the subject, so if you have a reliable source then 30% it is. Routes are converted to double decker as a cheapest way of increasing capacity, staffing costs. Your argument is that it would be unpopular with passengers, and they would desert the service in droves. Do they really care about the cost of the service? What is better. A service where 25% mkrmefrequent and 100% of passenger will use all the capacity, or a less frequent service where some of the bus is off limits to some passenger, you quote 30%. Do the 30% not matter? Let's be honest, the London spec double decker does not really go well with accessible transport. I much prefer to travel on a 12m single deck than a double deck. The environment is far more pleasant. Why do I have a feeling this has been spoken about before. I'm not sure if it was you I made the reference about some routes that were double decker being converted to singles before being a double decker again. I know I spoke about my disdain of the 295 having those dart marshalls between 2000-2002 |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 27, 2024 23:52:35 GMT
So why bother converting routes to double deckers then? Everytime a route is converted to double deckers, I don’t hear much pushback from anyone? Isn’t it 30% of people don’t go upstairs? If so, that means it’s not really an issue given 70% do. I can't find any stats on the subject, so if you have a reliable source then 30% it is. Routes are converted to double decker as a cheapest way of increasing capacity, staffing costs. Your argument is that it would be unpopular with passengers, and they would desert the service in droves. Do they really care about the cost of the service? What is better. A service where 25% mkrmefrequent and 100% of passenger will use all the capacity, or a less frequent service where some of the bus is off limits to some passenger, you quote 30%. Do the 30% not matter? Let's be honest, the London spec double decker does not really go well with accessible transport. I much prefer to travel on a 12m single deck than a double deck. The environment is far more pleasant. Someone else on here mentioned that figure so I went with it. If you offered people single deckers that are crowded versus double deckers that have sufficient capacity, I think the vast majority of people would pick the latter - of course frequency matters too but a lot of comments from people who aren't the biggest fan of buses often use the word overcrowded so they won't be attracted to using a service with overcrowded single deckers. That's not even mentioning the options that buses have to compete with that didn't exist in the 90's - Uber, car sharing to mention but two. There is nothing wrong with a 12m single decker and they have their place but I don't agree that they are far more pleasant than a double decker. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 28, 2024 4:51:35 GMT
So why bother converting routes to double deckers then? Everytime a route is converted to double deckers, I don’t hear much pushback from anyone? Isn’t it 30% of people don’t go upstairs? If so, that means it’s not really an issue given 70% do. I can't find any stats on the subject, so if you have a reliable source then 30% it is. Routes are converted to double decker as a cheapest way of increasing capacity, staffing costs. Your argument is that it would be unpopular with passengers, and they would desert the service in droves. Do they really care about the cost of the service? What is better. A service where 25% mkrmefrequent and 100% of passenger will use all the capacity, or a less frequent service where some of the bus is off limits to some passenger, you quote 30%. Do the 30% not matter? Let's be honest, the London spec double decker does not really go well with accessible transport. I much prefer to travel on a 12m single deck than a double deck. The environment is far more pleasant. I can understand your point and whilst I would generally go upstairs on a double decker, although not if I was only going a few stops, I think single deckers would be more efficient on many routes and I'm surprised they weren't considered for the W7 for example which is effectively a Red Arrow type service. If the bus is full every bit of space is used rather than a full lower deck and a half empty upper deck and single deckers usually have a much lower dwell time at bus stops. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Apr 28, 2024 6:46:13 GMT
So why bother converting routes to double deckers then? Everytime a route is converted to double deckers, I don’t hear much pushback from anyone? Isn’t it 30% of people don’t go upstairs? If so, that means it’s not really an issue given 70% do. I can't find any stats on the subject, so if you have a reliable source then 30% it is. Routes are converted to double decker as a cheapest way of increasing capacity, staffing costs. Your argument is that it would be unpopular with passengers, and they would desert the service in droves. Do they really care about the cost of the service? What is better. A service where 25% mkrmefrequent and 100% of passenger will use all the capacity, or a less frequent service where some of the bus is off limits to some passenger, you quote 30%. Do the 30% not matter? Let's be honest, the London spec double decker does not really go well with accessible transport. I much prefer to travel on a 12m single deck than a double deck. The environment is far more pleasant.100% agree, more priority seats, luggage space above the front axle not dark because of the stairs, higher ceilings, I could go on. Despite having no mobility issues, I firmly count myself within the 30% who don't go upstairs - my most recent e2e being on the 34 and I spent the entire journey downstairs. I often have heavy bags/shopping as well. |
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Apr 28, 2024 8:10:03 GMT
I can't find any stats on the subject, so if you have a reliable source then 30% it is. Routes are converted to double decker as a cheapest way of increasing capacity, staffing costs. Your argument is that it would be unpopular with passengers, and they would desert the service in droves. Do they really care about the cost of the service? What is better. A service where 25% mkrmefrequent and 100% of passenger will use all the capacity, or a less frequent service where some of the bus is off limits to some passenger, you quote 30%. Do the 30% not matter? Let's be honest, the London spec double decker does not really go well with accessible transport. I much prefer to travel on a 12m single deck than a double deck. The environment is far more pleasant. I can understand your point and whilst I would generally go upstairs on a double decker, although not if I was only going a few stops, I think single deckers would be more efficient on many routes and I'm surprised they weren't considered for the W7 for example which is effectively a Red Arrow type service. If the bus is full every bit of space is used rather than a full lower deck and a half empty upper deck and single deckers usually have a much lower dwell time at bus stops. I was on the W7 in the morning peak last week and passengers on the route are very good at using all the seats upstairs. Single deckers will not work on that route, particularly with the hills, it is not the best route to be standing and you will have a lot standing on a single decker. Also, we are in a time where people are constantly on their phones and are happy to be on them sitting and I think this is a selling point for public transport that you can get on with something during the ride. Now ofcourse, it takes some time for the bus to empty at Finsbury Park but again it is not bad as people are used to using both doors to exit. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 28, 2024 8:42:24 GMT
I can understand your point and whilst I would generally go upstairs on a double decker, although not if I was only going a few stops, I think single deckers would be more efficient on many routes and I'm surprised they weren't considered for the W7 for example which is effectively a Red Arrow type service. If the bus is full every bit of space is used rather than a full lower deck and a half empty upper deck and single deckers usually have a much lower dwell time at bus stops. I was on the W7 in the morning peak last week and passengers on the route are very good at using all the seats upstairs. Single deckers will not work on that route, particularly with the hills, it is not the best route to be standing and you will have a lot standing on a single decker. Also, we are in a time where people are constantly on their phones and are happy to be on them sitting and I think this is a selling point for public transport that you can get on with something during the ride. Now ofcourse, it takes some time for the bus to empty at Finsbury Park but again it is not bad as people are used to using both doors to exit. I think people being constantly on their phones is probably a reason fewer go upstairs whereas they may have been more inclined to do so in the past to enjoy the view. This is a problem at a lot of railheads, the time it takes to get off double deckers. |
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Apr 28, 2024 9:43:12 GMT
I can understand your point and whilst I would generally go upstairs on a double decker, although not if I was only going a few stops, I think single deckers would be more efficient on many routes and I'm surprised they weren't considered for the W7 for example which is effectively a Red Arrow type service. If the bus is full every bit of space is used rather than a full lower deck and a half empty upper deck and single deckers usually have a much lower dwell time at bus stops. I was on the W7 in the morning peak last week and passengers on the route are very good at using all the seats upstairs. Single deckers will not work on that route, particularly with the hills, it is not the best route to be standing and you will have a lot standing on a single decker. Also, we are in a time where people are constantly on their phones and are happy to be on them sitting and I think this is a selling point for public transport that you can get on with something during the ride. Now ofcourse, it takes some time for the bus to empty at Finsbury Park but again it is not bad as people are used to using both doors to exit. The W7 is a fascinating route with its overwhelming purpose of feeding Finsbury Park Station (granted some pax will alight at Crouch End for LO). It was interesting to read your observations - I've not ridden the route in the rush hour but seen packed buses de-boarding every 4/5 minutes at Wells Terrace and despite the large number of pax it was civilised and there was no pushing and shoving...I suspect 99% of the rush hour pax are regulars, appreciate that the bus will be packed prior to reaching FP and act accordingly to make the short journey as swift and manageable as possible. Two facts / one question about the W7: 1) In 2023 more pax boarded the W7 at Finsbury Park Stn (1.24m) than any other route / bus stop across London 2) In terms of ‘PAX Density’ (total number of PAX divided by Bus KM operated) in 2023 the W7 had the highest density (8.53 pax per km) – for context 18 is 6.79 and 195 (busy SD route) is 4.51 3) Is this the shortest DD route?? In conclusion SD ain’t gonna work on the W7 but then no-one's suggesting that |
|
ZiyQ
Conductor
I always end up saying too much - beware of the waffle posts taking up an entire thread’s page…
Posts: 118
|
Post by ZiyQ on Apr 28, 2024 9:56:12 GMT
I can understand your point and whilst I would generally go upstairs on a double decker, although not if I was only going a few stops, I think single deckers would be more efficient on many routes and I'm surprised they weren't considered for the W7 for example which is effectively a Red Arrow type service. If the bus is full every bit of space is used rather than a full lower deck and a half empty upper deck and single deckers usually have a much lower dwell time at bus stops. I was on the W7 in the morning peak last week and passengers on the route are very good at using all the seats upstairs. Single deckers will not work on that route, particularly with the hills, it is not the best route to be standing and you will have a lot standing on a single decker. Also, we are in a time where people are constantly on their phones and are happy to be on them sitting and I think this is a selling point for public transport that you can get on with something during the ride. Now ofcourse, it takes some time for the bus to empty at Finsbury Park but again it is not bad as people are used to using both doors to exit. I am sure someone has said it before, but each bus has its own specific use case, and there is never a 'one size fits all' approach to buses. If double deckers have worked for as many years as they have already, there must be a good reason why they are being used, especially on longer routes. Whilst I agree that higher frequency single deckers could work on some double deck routes, it certainly does not apply to almost all double deck routes. I am sure some may disagree, but would New Routemasters (or even artics, though that seems extremely unlikely) suit the W7? They have fast unloading times, which could help at Finsbury Park, with the dual staircase and doors, and although the lower deck seating space is slightly lower than the current Gemini 2s and Electroliners, there is a good amount of standing space and upstairs seating room. The only major issue I can find is the Muswell Hill stand. I know that LTs on the W7 are extremely unlikely, if not impossible, as they have already been allocated Electroliners on their latest contract. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 28, 2024 11:10:15 GMT
I was on the W7 in the morning peak last week and passengers on the route are very good at using all the seats upstairs. Single deckers will not work on that route, particularly with the hills, it is not the best route to be standing and you will have a lot standing on a single decker. Also, we are in a time where people are constantly on their phones and are happy to be on them sitting and I think this is a selling point for public transport that you can get on with something during the ride. Now ofcourse, it takes some time for the bus to empty at Finsbury Park but again it is not bad as people are used to using both doors to exit. The W7 is a fascinating route with its overwhelming purpose of feeding Finsbury Park Station (granted some pax will alight at Crouch End for LO). It was interesting to read your observations - I've not ridden the route in the rush hour but seen packed buses de-boarding every 4/5 minutes at Wells Terrace and despite the large number of pax it was civilised and there was no pushing and shoving...I suspect 99% of the rush hour pax are regulars, appreciate that the bus will be packed prior to reaching FP and act accordingly to make the short journey as swift and manageable as possible. Two facts / one question about the W7: 1) In 2023 more pax boarded the W7 at Finsbury Park Stn (1.24m) than any other route / bus stop across London 2) In terms of ‘PAX Density’ (total number of PAX divided by Bus KM operated) in 2023 the W7 had the highest density (8.53 pax per km) – for context 18 is 6.79 and 195 (busy SD route) is 4.51 3) Is this the shortest DD route?? In conclusion SD ain’t gonna work on the W7 but then no-one's suggesting that They would work the same way they did on the former Red Arrow routes, obviously increase the frequency if necessary. Or LTs maybe with their extra door and staircase for quicker unloading at Finsbury Park? |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 28, 2024 11:16:12 GMT
The W7 is a fascinating route with its overwhelming purpose of feeding Finsbury Park Station (granted some pax will alight at Crouch End for LO). It was interesting to read your observations - I've not ridden the route in the rush hour but seen packed buses de-boarding every 4/5 minutes at Wells Terrace and despite the large number of pax it was civilised and there was no pushing and shoving...I suspect 99% of the rush hour pax are regulars, appreciate that the bus will be packed prior to reaching FP and act accordingly to make the short journey as swift and manageable as possible. Two facts / one question about the W7: 1) In 2023 more pax boarded the W7 at Finsbury Park Stn (1.24m) than any other route / bus stop across London 2) In terms of ‘PAX Density’ (total number of PAX divided by Bus KM operated) in 2023 the W7 had the highest density (8.53 pax per km) – for context 18 is 6.79 and 195 (busy SD route) is 4.51 3) Is this the shortest DD route?? In conclusion SD ain’t gonna work on the W7 but then no-one's suggesting that They would work the same way they did on the former Red Arrow routes, obviously increase the frequency if necessary. Or LTs maybe with their extra door and staircase for quicker unloading at Finsbury Park? W7 is one route for which open-boarding articulated buses would be ideal. Of course, in many parts of the world such an intensively-used route would have trams with open boarding. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 28, 2024 11:54:50 GMT
They would work the same way they did on the former Red Arrow routes, obviously increase the frequency if necessary. Or LTs maybe with their extra door and staircase for quicker unloading at Finsbury Park? W7 is one route for which open-boarding articulated buses would be ideal. Of course, in many parts of the world such an intensively-used route would have trams with open boarding. Yes indeed and I vaguely recall some sort of open boarding trial being carried out on the W7 a few years ago? |
|
