|
Post by vjaska on Nov 11, 2013 22:33:30 GMT
Route K6. Kingston to Hammersmith. Kingston Kingston Hospital. Kingston Vale. Roehampton Vale. Roehampton. Barnes. Castelnau. Hammersmith Bridge. Hammersmith Bus Station. .. Weekdays 4-8 minutes. Evenings 6-10 minutes. Sunday and Saturday 8-12 minutes. PVR. 18 buses. Using 10.2m E200 operated by London United at TV No DD's due to weak bridge Not sure if there would be a need for this... You can get the 85 from Kingston to Putney or Putney Bridge, then get a route from there to Hammersmith. The 85 is high-frequency aswell. Or even the 85 to Roehampton, then a bus from there to Hammersmith.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 11, 2013 22:58:11 GMT
Route K6. Kingston to Hammersmith. Kingston Kingston Hospital. Kingston Vale. Roehampton Vale. Roehampton. Barnes. Castelnau. Hammersmith Bridge. Hammersmith Bus Station. .. Weekdays 4-8 minutes. Evenings 6-10 minutes. Sunday and Saturday 8-12 minutes. PVR. 18 buses. Using 10.2m E200 operated by London United at TV No DD's due to weak bridge Not sure if there would be a need for this... You can get the 85 from Kingston to Putney or Putney Bridge, then get a route from there to Hammersmith. The 85 is high-frequency aswell. There certainly isn't any need for Thai route. It is effectively a worse version of the 85. I'm a frequent user of the 85 and I can say this will not work simply because of Putney High Street has too much traffic delaying buses in the peaks. The 85 currently is short and simple to operate, this K6 would not work.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 11, 2013 23:42:46 GMT
As we are playing games with Putney bus services how's about this for a way to put some more buses into Roehampton from Central London? This is an alternative to the local demands to extend route 22.
Route 14 - peak frequency slightly reduced to save 2 buses.
Route 74 - peak frequency marginally reduced to save 1 bus.
Route 414 - extended from Putney Bridge to Bessborough Road via route 22, Queens Drive, then route 265. Needs 6 extra buses resourced from other changes.
Route 430 - slightly reduced in frequency to x10 to save 3 buses.
Now tell me what's wrong with this idea. I'll be honest and say I am unfamiliar with how heavily or lightly loaded the 74 and 430 are east of Putney Bridge. I know route 14 does load heavily into Central London.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 11, 2013 23:52:27 GMT
As we are playing games with Putney bus services how's about this for a way to put some more buses into Roehampton from Central London? This is an alternative to the local demands to extend route 22. Route 14 - peak frequency slightly reduced to save 2 buses. Route 74 - peak frequency marginally reduced to save 1 bus. Route 414 - extended from Putney Bridge to Bessborough Road via route 22, Queens Drive, then route 265. Needs 6 extra buses resourced from other changes. Route 430 - slightly reduced in frequency to x10 to save 3 buses. Now tell me what's wrong with this idea. I'll be honest and say I am unfamiliar with how heavily or lightly loaded the 74 and 430 are east of Putney Bridge. I know route 14 does load heavily into Central London. I like your 414 idea, as people have been calling out for more buses to Roehampton from Putney Common
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 11:47:46 GMT
As we are playing games with Putney bus services how's about this for a way to put some more buses into Roehampton from Central London? This is an alternative to the local demands to extend route 22. Route 14 - peak frequency slightly reduced to save 2 buses. Route 74 - peak frequency marginally reduced to save 1 bus. Route 414 - extended from Putney Bridge to Bessborough Road via route 22, Queens Drive, then route 265. Needs 6 extra buses resourced from other changes. Route 430 - slightly reduced in frequency to x10 to save 3 buses. Now tell me what's wrong with this idea. I'll be honest and say I am unfamiliar with how heavily or lightly loaded the 74 and 430 are east of Putney Bridge. I know route 14 does load heavily into Central London. Wouldn't it be simpler just to extend the 22 to Roehampton as suggested? If savings elsewhere are needed to pay for it the 430 could be withdrawn between Putney Bridge and South Ken, or even withdrawn altogether and the 74 returned to Roehampton.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 12, 2013 13:17:54 GMT
As we are playing games with Putney bus services how's about this for a way to put some more buses into Roehampton from Central London? This is an alternative to the local demands to extend route 22. Route 14 - peak frequency slightly reduced to save 2 buses. Route 74 - peak frequency marginally reduced to save 1 bus. Route 414 - extended from Putney Bridge to Bessborough Road via route 22, Queens Drive, then route 265. Needs 6 extra buses resourced from other changes. Route 430 - slightly reduced in frequency to x10 to save 3 buses. Now tell me what's wrong with this idea. I'll be honest and say I am unfamiliar with how heavily or lightly loaded the 74 and 430 are east of Putney Bridge. I know route 14 does load heavily into Central London. Wouldn't it be simpler just to extend the 22 to Roehampton as suggested? If savings elsewhere are needed to pay for it the 430 could be withdrawn between Putney Bridge and South Ken, or even withdrawn altogether and the 74 returned to Roehampton. Goodness you suggesting the re-extension of the 74. I hadn't seen that one coming! Been chatting to your old mate, Mr Manning? The reason for not tampering unduly with the 74 and 430 is to broadly preserve the higher frequency north of Putney. I am assuming, but am happy to be corrected, that there is strong demand through Fulham and West Brompton for both services. The 414 was chosen because it has a lower peak frequency than the 22 and is therefore less costly to extend. TfL have already rejected an extension to the 22 so there is no point in suggesting it. The 414, as you have said many times in different places, is relatively lightly loaded so actually has capacity to take on extra passengers whereas I expect the 22 does not given it is the sole service through Parsons Green up to Central London. There is no point in extending a route which attracts people on the new section to the detriment of existing users on the long established bit. A rough calculation shows that an extension would need 6 extra peak buses. Extending the 74 to Roehampton, on existing frequencies, would need 5 buses. However to increase the 74's frequency (let's say a x6 headway) to compensate for the loss of the 430, would need 34 buses overall. This is an increase of 13 buses. Therefore your ideas need 19 buses while the 430's PVR is only 15 so it's a net increase of 4 buses which is unaffordable according to TfL. The other issues are whether a x6 headway is sufficient or not - I don't know - and also whether the 74 would be sufficiently reliable if re-extended. If a higher frequency was needed then more buses would be required thus worsening the cost impact. No one would thank TfL for altering routes and ending up with a worse quality of service with buses curtailed short of Roehampton which would be very likely given the location of Putney bus garage. You might not like the 430 but I suspect it is less at risk of curtailment due to late running than the 74 is. I was aiming to provide a PVR neutral proposal which doesn't have too much of a detrimental impact on reliability and capacity. Oh, and just to end with, I thought you didn't read my posts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 13:28:32 GMT
Wouldn't it be simpler just to extend the 22 to Roehampton as suggested? If savings elsewhere are needed to pay for it the 430 could be withdrawn between Putney Bridge and South Ken, or even withdrawn altogether and the 74 returned to Roehampton. Goodness you suggesting the re-extension of the 74. I hadn't seen that one coming! Been chatting to your old mate, Mr Manning? The reason for not tampering unduly with the 74 and 430 is to broadly preserve the higher frequency north of Putney. I am assuming, but am happy to be corrected, that there is strong demand through Fulham and West Brompton for both services. The 414 was chosen because it has a lower peak frequency than the 22 and is therefore less costly to extend. TfL have already rejected an extension to the 22 so there is no point in suggesting it. The 414, as you have said many times in different places, is relatively lightly loaded so actually has capacity to take on extra passengers whereas I expect the 22 does not given it is the sole service through Parsons Green up to Central London. There is no point in extending a route which attracts people on the new section to the detriment of existing users on the long established bit. A rough calculation shows that an extension would need 6 extra peak buses. Extending the 74 to Roehampton, on existing frequencies, would need 5 buses. However to increase the 74's frequency (let's say a x6 headway) to compensate for the loss of the 430, would need 34 buses overall. This is an increase of 13 buses. Therefore your ideas need 19 buses while the 430's PVR is only 15 so it's a net increase of 4 buses which is unaffordable according to TfL. The other issues are whether a x6 headway is sufficient or not - I don't know - and also whether the 74 would be sufficiently reliable if re-extended. If a higher frequency was needed then more buses would be required thus worsening the cost impact. No one would thank TfL for altering routes and ending up with a worse quality of service with buses curtailed short of Roehampton which would be very likely given the location of Putney bus garage. You might not like the 430 but I suspect it is less at risk of curtailment due to late running than the 74 is. I was aiming to provide a PVR neutral proposal which doesn't have too much of a detrimental impact on reliability and capacity. Oh, and just to end with, I thought you didn't read my posts? Firstly, I don't have any mates and I've no idea who this Mr Manning is. As for buses, the 430 carrys little more than fresh air most of the time between Putney Bridge and South Ken so pinching a few buses from there and sticking them onto the 22 would seem a logical move.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 12, 2013 13:49:33 GMT
Goodness you suggesting the re-extension of the 74. I hadn't seen that one coming! Been chatting to your old mate, Mr Manning? The reason for not tampering unduly with the 74 and 430 is to broadly preserve the higher frequency north of Putney. I am assuming, but am happy to be corrected, that there is strong demand through Fulham and West Brompton for both services. The 414 was chosen because it has a lower peak frequency than the 22 and is therefore less costly to extend. TfL have already rejected an extension to the 22 so there is no point in suggesting it. The 414, as you have said many times in different places, is relatively lightly loaded so actually has capacity to take on extra passengers whereas I expect the 22 does not given it is the sole service through Parsons Green up to Central London. There is no point in extending a route which attracts people on the new section to the detriment of existing users on the long established bit. A rough calculation shows that an extension would need 6 extra peak buses. Extending the 74 to Roehampton, on existing frequencies, would need 5 buses. However to increase the 74's frequency (let's say a x6 headway) to compensate for the loss of the 430, would need 34 buses overall. This is an increase of 13 buses. Therefore your ideas need 19 buses while the 430's PVR is only 15 so it's a net increase of 4 buses which is unaffordable according to TfL. The other issues are whether a x6 headway is sufficient or not - I don't know - and also whether the 74 would be sufficiently reliable if re-extended. If a higher frequency was needed then more buses would be required thus worsening the cost impact. No one would thank TfL for altering routes and ending up with a worse quality of service with buses curtailed short of Roehampton which would be very likely given the location of Putney bus garage. You might not like the 430 but I suspect it is less at risk of curtailment due to late running than the 74 is. I was aiming to provide a PVR neutral proposal which doesn't have too much of a detrimental impact on reliability and capacity. Oh, and just to end with, I thought you didn't read my posts? Firstly, I don't have any mates and I've no idea who this Mr Manning is. As for buses, the 430 carrys little more than fresh air most of the time between Putney Bridge and South Ken so pinching a few buses from there and sticking them onto the 22 would seem a logical move. The 430 may carry thin air around, but helps out the 74 a lot in the peaks. I've seen it full up quite a few times. Removing buses from that is a bad idea tbh. Snoggles 414 idea is good IMO. I would cut the 22 to Putney Bridge at the same time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 13:59:19 GMT
Its hard to justify keeping a route that is under used just to allegedly help another route out. The 74 doesn't generally need any help, the more direct 14 is much busier between Putney and central London
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 12, 2013 15:20:04 GMT
Its hard to justify keeping a route that is under used just to allegedly help another route out. The 74 doesn't generally need any help, the more direct 14 is much busier between Putney and central London Let's look at some patronage numbers to see how "under used" these routes are. Rank | Route | 2012/13 Patronage | 35 | 14 | 8.66m | 130 | 74 | 7.07m | 139 | 414 | 5.37m | 153 | 22 | 5.05m | 195 | 430 | 4.29m |
Now I have to say that I expected the 22 to be higher up the list but 5m jnys a year is still impressive. The 430 is hardly "under used" if it is carrying well over 4m journeys a year. I very much doubt the 74 has anything like enough spare capacity to take on an extra 4m journeys a year. Rank refers to how busy the route is out of all routes in London.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 16:34:18 GMT
Its hard to justify keeping a route that is under used just to allegedly help another route out. The 74 doesn't generally need any help, the more direct 14 is much busier between Putney and central London Let's look at some patronage numbers to see how "under used" these routes are. Rank | Route | 2012/13 Patronage | 35 | 14 | 8.66m | 130 | 74 | 7.07m | 139 | 414 | 5.37m | 153 | 22 | 5.05m | 195 | 430 | 4.29m |
Now I have to say that I expected the 22 to be higher up the list but 5m jnys a year is still impressive. The 430 is hardly "under used" if it is carrying well over 4m journeys a year. I very much doubt the 74 has anything like enough spare capacity to take on an extra 4m journeys a year. Rank refers to how busy the route is out of all routes in London. I'm not sure what these stats are supposed to show? The bulk of use on the 430 will undoubtably be at the Roehampton end, I can only repeat that the route is very quiet between Putney and South Ken hence my idea of withdrawing it and using the spare buses on the 22 extension to Roehampton
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 12, 2013 17:06:49 GMT
Let's look at some patronage numbers to see how "under used" these routes are. Rank | Route | 2012/13 Patronage | 35 | 14 | 8.66m | 130 | 74 | 7.07m | 139 | 414 | 5.37m | 153 | 22 | 5.05m | 195 | 430 | 4.29m |
Now I have to say that I expected the 22 to be higher up the list but 5m jnys a year is still impressive. The 430 is hardly "under used" if it is carrying well over 4m journeys a year. I very much doubt the 74 has anything like enough spare capacity to take on an extra 4m journeys a year. Rank refers to how busy the route is out of all routes in London. I'm not sure what these stats are supposed to show? The bulk of use on the 430 will undoubtably be at the Roehampton end, I can only repeat that the route is very quiet between Putney and South Ken hence my idea of withdrawing it and using the spare buses on the 22 extension to Roehampton They show the scale of patronage and what you have to cater for if you withdraw one of the services. You seem incapable of dealing with or understanding numbers or statistics. You display a bizarre mistrust of numbers and then just overlay your own anecdotes as having more weight. You say it is "undoubted" that the 430's patronage is in Roehampton - why is that "undoubted"? Do you have the data that shows where people board and alight on the 430? A few personal observations are not a reliable basis for reaching a conclusion on withdrawing a route. Just to help me can you say how many observations or journeys you have made on route 430 and route 74 in the last 12 months? Oh and can you say roughly where on the routes you've made your observations. I'll happily admit to zero which is why I've been asking for the views of people who know the routes better than I do.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 12, 2013 18:24:04 GMT
They show the scale of patronage and what you have to cater for if you withdraw one of the services. You seem incapable of dealing with or understanding numbers or statistics. You display a bizarre mistrust of numbers and then just overlay your own anecdotes as having more weight. You say it is "undoubted" that the 430's patronage is in Roehampton - why is that "undoubted"? Do you have the data that shows where people board and alight on the 430? A few personal observations are not a reliable basis for reaching a conclusion on withdrawing a route. Just to help me can you say how many observations or journeys you have made on route 430 and route 74 in the last 12 months? Oh and can you say roughly where on the routes you've made your observations. I'll happily admit to zero which is why I've been asking for the views of people who know the routes better than I do. This is getting boring, you are nothing but a wind up merchant and you've also breached the forum guidelines Oh dear - unable to find some objective basis on which to justify your previous statements about the routes under discussion. I only asked you to explain why you apparently mistrust statistics and to share your experience of services you want to change. I put up a perfectly sensible proposal, I worked out the impact on the route PVRs to support my case and then I showed how busy (at an annual level) the routes are. That all looks pretty decent to me and far more reasoned than much of what gets shoved into these debates. How is any of that a problem? Go on - explain how facts and data are "boring" and a "wind up"! I don't consider I have breached any guidelines. I am sure the mods will send me a "telling off" if they believe I have - after all, that is their role not yours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 19:11:24 GMT
Route U11 From Uxbridge to North Kensington St Charles HospitalVia: - Hillingdon Hill
- Hayes End
- Willow Tree Lane Estate Tesco
- Yeading White Hart
- Northolt Station
- Petts Hill
- Sudbury Hill Station
- Sudbury Hill Harrow Station
- Northwick Park Hospital
- Kenton Station
- Kingsbury Circle
- Queensbury Station
- Burnt Oak Broadway
- Colindale
- West Hendon Broadway
- Staples Corner
- Neasden
- Neasden Station
- Harlesden
- Kensal Green Station
- Ladbroke Grove Sainsbury's
Frequency:- Every 20 minutes (Mon-Sat)
- Every 30 minutes (Sun & Eves
Vehicle:- Alexander Dennis Enviro400
Why? And why a prefix route number? Now estimate the PVR and the route length to match your frequencies!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 19:30:15 GMT
Goodness you suggesting the re-extension of the 74. I hadn't seen that one coming! Been chatting to your old mate, Mr Manning? The reason for not tampering unduly with the 74 and 430 is to broadly preserve the higher frequency north of Putney. I am assuming, but am happy to be corrected, that there is strong demand through Fulham and West Brompton for both services. The 414 was chosen because it has a lower peak frequency than the 22 and is therefore less costly to extend. TfL have already rejected an extension to the 22 so there is no point in suggesting it. The 414, as you have said many times in different places, is relatively lightly loaded so actually has capacity to take on extra passengers whereas I expect the 22 does not given it is the sole service through Parsons Green up to Central London. There is no point in extending a route which attracts people on the new section to the detriment of existing users on the long established bit. A rough calculation shows that an extension would need 6 extra peak buses. Extending the 74 to Roehampton, on existing frequencies, would need 5 buses. However to increase the 74's frequency (let's say a x6 headway) to compensate for the loss of the 430, would need 34 buses overall. This is an increase of 13 buses. Therefore your ideas need 19 buses while the 430's PVR is only 15 so it's a net increase of 4 buses which is unaffordable according to TfL. The other issues are whether a x6 headway is sufficient or not - I don't know - and also whether the 74 would be sufficiently reliable if re-extended. If a higher frequency was needed then more buses would be required thus worsening the cost impact. No one would thank TfL for altering routes and ending up with a worse quality of service with buses curtailed short of Roehampton which would be very likely given the location of Putney bus garage. You might not like the 430 but I suspect it is less at risk of curtailment due to late running than the 74 is. I was aiming to provide a PVR neutral proposal which doesn't have too much of a detrimental impact on reliability and capacity. Oh, and just to end with, I thought you didn't read my posts? Other problem would be the loss of service along Old Brompton Road - it would be left with the single-deck, 10- min frequency C1 as its only route. [/ quote] The 190 could be extended from West Brompton to South Ken if need be
|
|