|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Nov 20, 2024 21:52:49 GMT
52 is in the top 20 most crowded routes with 2 supporting routes currently and removing the 452 from Grove is going to make that 52 jump up even further. |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Nov 20, 2024 21:57:26 GMT
The 213N is finally not the least busy night bus, but If I’m not mistaken the two services below it (158N/486N) didn’t even exist for the entire range of data collection. The 123N is impressively missing from the bottom 10 and the 486N was beat by the 158N despite having an extra month of operation, which is unsurprising considering their usage as weekend night routes
|
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Nov 20, 2024 22:19:07 GMT
52 is in the top 20 most crowded routes with 2 supporting routes currently and removing the 452 from Grove is going to make that 52 jump up even further. I have to say I don’t think the 452 being cut back will cause a lot more congestion on the 52, it’s always empty. The last time I saw a really full 452 was in the Abellio days at Ladbroke Grove. In time I’m pretty certain we’ll see TfL ‘do a 45’ on this route. It’ll be a 45 #2 … coincidentally put those together and you get 452 … ooo that’s ominous  😂 |
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Nov 20, 2024 22:43:09 GMT
52 is in the top 20 most crowded routes with 2 supporting routes currently and removing the 452 from Grove is going to make that 52 jump up even further. I have to say I don’t think the 452 being cut back will cause a lot more congestion on the 52, it’s always empty. The last time I saw a really full 452 was in the Abellio days at Ladbroke Grove. In time I’m pretty certain we’ll see TfL ‘do a 45’ on this route. It’ll be a 45 #2 … coincidentally put those together and you get 452 … ooo that’s ominous 😂 Even though its not that busy it never empty i think the passenger base will make an some impact on the 52 tbf it does carry a would be the only bus doing the Ladbroke Grove to Notting Hill split and northbound it would a lot more packed imo. I have seen rammed 452s going towards Sainsbury's with the passenger base petering out at the stops just before. I also do see the coincidence lol. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 20, 2024 23:09:03 GMT
52 is in the top 20 most crowded routes with 2 supporting routes currently and removing the 452 from Grove is going to make that 52 jump up even further. I have to say I don’t think the 452 being cut back will cause a lot more congestion on the 52, it’s always empty. The last time I saw a really full 452 was in the Abellio days at Ladbroke Grove. In time I’m pretty certain we’ll see TfL ‘do a 45’ on this route. It’ll be a 45 #2 … coincidentally put those together and you get 452 … ooo that’s ominous 😂 That doesn't tally with my own observations and doesn't with TfL either who specifically mentioned usage on the 452 has been increasing since the pandemic finished. If the 52 is currently one of the top 20 most crowded routes and the original purpose of the introduction of the 452 was to assist both it & the 137, then it actually makes the cut even more stupid. I don't think the 452 situation is anything remotely like the 45 but time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Nov 21, 2024 11:41:58 GMT
I have to say I don’t think the 452 being cut back will cause a lot more congestion on the 52, it’s always empty. The last time I saw a really full 452 was in the Abellio days at Ladbroke Grove. In time I’m pretty certain we’ll see TfL ‘do a 45’ on this route. It’ll be a 45 #2 … coincidentally put those together and you get 452 … ooo that’s ominous 😂 That doesn't tally with my own observations and doesn't with TfL either who specifically mentioned usage on the 452 has been increasing since the pandemic finished. If the 52 is currently one of the top 20 most crowded routes and the original purpose of the introduction of the 452 was to assist both it & the 137, then it actually makes the cut even more stupid. I don't think the 452 situation is anything remotely like the 45 but time will tell. I don’t see the 452 being withdrawn like the 45 either. Too complicated to replace effectively unless of course they send the 137 to Marble Arch via NHG which seems unlikely. Or divert the 211 to Vauxhall….i think it’s probably got a place as a NHG-Vauxhall route still. I do however see other (less extreme) parts of that central London consultation being slowly bought back into the fold…73/476 and 259/279/349 spring to mind. |
|
imran
Conductor
Posts: 105
|
Post by imran on Nov 21, 2024 12:09:26 GMT
That doesn't tally with my own observations and doesn't with TfL either who specifically mentioned usage on the 452 has been increasing since the pandemic finished. If the 52 is currently one of the top 20 most crowded routes and the original purpose of the introduction of the 452 was to assist both it & the 137, then it actually makes the cut even more stupid. I don't think the 452 situation is anything remotely like the 45 but time will tell. I don’t see the 452 being withdrawn like the 45 either. Too complicated to replace effectively unless of course they send the 137 to Marble Arch via NHG which seems unlikely. Or divert the 211 to Vauxhall….i think it’s probably got a place as a NHG-Vauxhall route still. I do however see other (less extreme) parts of that central London consultation being slowly bought back into the fold…73/476 and 259/279/349 spring to mind. I agree with the last part. I definitely think the 73/476 will be in the Meridian Water consultation. I think the 259/279/349 will also be revisited. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 21, 2024 12:58:01 GMT
That doesn't tally with my own observations and doesn't with TfL either who specifically mentioned usage on the 452 has been increasing since the pandemic finished. If the 52 is currently one of the top 20 most crowded routes and the original purpose of the introduction of the 452 was to assist both it & the 137, then it actually makes the cut even more stupid. I don't think the 452 situation is anything remotely like the 45 but time will tell. I don’t see the 452 being withdrawn like the 45 either. Too complicated to replace effectively unless of course they send the 137 to Marble Arch via NHG which seems unlikely. Or divert the 211 to Vauxhall….i think it’s probably got a place as a NHG-Vauxhall route still. I do however see other (less extreme) parts of that central London consultation being slowly bought back into the fold…73/476 and 259/279/349 spring to mind. Even some of more severe ones could come back but more disguised. If the 30/205 goes ahead and for sake of argument the 214 was cut to Angel then the previous 24 plan has largely been achieved - to withdrawn a route along the Euston Road and to remove the overlap between the 205/214. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 21, 2024 13:01:51 GMT
I don’t see the 452 being withdrawn like the 45 either. Too complicated to replace effectively unless of course they send the 137 to Marble Arch via NHG which seems unlikely. Or divert the 211 to Vauxhall….i think it’s probably got a place as a NHG-Vauxhall route still. I do however see other (less extreme) parts of that central London consultation being slowly bought back into the fold…73/476 and 259/279/349 spring to mind. I agree with the last part. I definitely think the 73/476 will be in the Meridian Water consultation. I think the 259/279/349 will also be revisited. My productions would be; 476 Meridian Water to Newington Green 259 Kings Cross to Ponders End 279 left unchanged. 149 maintains Stamford Hill to Edmonton and the 259/279 Seven Sis to Ponder End. 349 withdrawn. That largely answers concerns about loss of Kings Cross to Tottenham links, Caledonian Road to FP and loss of capacity between Manor House and Tottenham/Edmonton. |
|
😂