Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 1:10:37 GMT
Now you see i reckon the 65 should be operated from NC and have live driver changes at Richmond. This would eliminate the crew changes at one end of the route.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 7, 2013 7:00:43 GMT
Withdraw the 415 and use its number for that purpose Another I have idea is to 'withdraw' the 71 in it's current form, and make the 65 in effect a full 24-hour services (still makes me wonder why it's not N65) and renumber the 371, simply as 71. Also I wonder if London had an STL-era (mid-late 30's to early 50s) bus network, then SW London would have proper links. Another proposal I have had for a while is to make all Night buses into 24-hour counterparts. (some routes though like N5 and N20 would need renumbering though) Extending the 65 to Chessington full time will decrease the service performance even more. It is already one if the most unreliable routes in London. In the morning peaks especially, The 65 should be left untouched, because I can tell you now if the 65 was extended to Chessington the 71 section will look bad and London United operate it well. The 71 deals with Kingston to Chessington which is effectively the whole purpose of the 71, while the 65 to focuses on quite a few busy areas with traffic hotspots, which is just about enough during the day. This is Another extension idea that has not even been given any proper thought. Also regarding overlapping sections that's not required. It's better each route have its own SPECIFIC number IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 11:25:48 GMT
Another I have idea is to 'withdraw' the 71 in it's current form, and make the 65 in effect a full 24-hour services (still makes me wonder why it's not N65) and renumber the 371, simply as 71. Also I wonder if London had an STL-era (mid-late 30's to early 50s) bus network, then SW London would have proper links. Another proposal I have had for a while is to make all Night buses into 24-hour counterparts. (some routes though like N5 and N20 would need renumbering though) Extending the 65 to Chessington full time will decrease the service performance even more. It is already one if the most unreliable routes in London. In the morning peaks especially, The 65 should be left untouched, because I can tell you now if the 65 was extended to Chessington the 71 section will look bad and London United operate it well. The 71 deals with Kingston to Chessington which is effectively the whole purpose of the 71, while the 65 to focuses on quite a few busy areas with traffic hotspots, which is just about enough during the day. This is Another extension idea that has not even been given any proper thought. Also regarding overlapping sections that's not required. It's better each route have its own SPECIFIC number IMO. Sounds a reasonable suggestion to me, the 65 used to go through to Chessington when there was far fewer bus priority measures and it still does at night. One major advantage is that it would reduce bus related congestion in Kingston town centre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 11:28:27 GMT
I think part of what this thread is ignoring is that dead mileage is not the only factor behind an operator's ability to run a route - case in point is how Metrobus took the 54, 181, 284 from Stagecoach. Regarding the 181 & 284 I used to think that it was a bad idea for Metrobus to operate those routes again, but they operate them far better than Stagecoach ever did. I'm glad they retained both routes. Also Metrobus taking over the 202 was probably the best thing that happened I was seriously fed up of Selkent putting 8.9m MPDs/ALX 200s on the route which were totally inadequate, I have only ever seen 1 8.9m E200 on the 202 with Metrobus. Over the last 7 years the 284 has become a much better service and operated from a Garage much further than the garage on its doorstep. The 181 could be a bit better. With Stagecoach the 284 service was unreliable and had an inadequate timetable. Yes I'd agree the 181 202 and 284 are all much better under Metrobus despite being operated from a depot miles away.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 7, 2013 12:54:56 GMT
Another I have idea is to 'withdraw' the 71 in it's current form, and make the 65 in effect a full 24-hour services (still makes me wonder why it's not N65) and renumber the 371, simply as 71. Also I wonder if London had an STL-era (mid-late 30's to early 50s) bus network, then SW London would have proper links. Another proposal I have had for a while is to make all Night buses into 24-hour counterparts. (some routes though like N5 and N20 would need renumbering though) Extending the 65 to Chessington full time will decrease the service performance even more. It is already one if the most unreliable routes in London. In the morning peaks especially, The 65 should be left untouched, because I can tell you now if the 65 was extended to Chessington the 71 section will look bad and London United operate it well. The 71 deals with Kingston to Chessington which is effectively the whole purpose of the 71, while the 65 to focuses on quite a few busy areas with traffic hotspots, which is just about enough during the day. This is Another extension idea that has not even been given any proper thought. Also regarding overlapping sections that's not required. It's better each route have its own SPECIFIC number IMO. Agree with this, it's best to leave the 65 as it is - the only change I'd make is remove the 24 hour part of the 65 and instead introduce an N65 that runs from Ealing to Chessington via the 65 & 71.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Mar 7, 2013 14:02:11 GMT
I have had that the other way around many times from my days on the 133 where punters from London Bridge ask for the west end. I also would tell them the 15 (from Monument). A bus link from, say Canada water to the West End via London Bridge, may prove useful. Withdraw the 415 and use its number for that purpose Perfect number for it as well as it could partially run with the existing 15 westbound from Monument.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Mar 7, 2013 14:09:58 GMT
Regarding the 33, 285, 290, R70 Not really at all, both TF / FW are actually neighbours. Just Like BC / C. There are many routes which have garages closer to them and they are run from a distance. The 133 being a perfect example, the advantage there being no live crew changes to desrupt the service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 14:17:30 GMT
There are many routes which have garages closer to them and they are run from a distance. The 133 being a perfect example, the advantage there being no live crew changes to desrupt the service. Good point and that may well be why Metrobus seem to do a far better job on the 54 75 181 202 and 284 than Selkent. Live crew changes really should be abolished as far as is reasonably possible.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 7, 2013 14:46:21 GMT
The 133 being a perfect example, the advantage there being no live crew changes to desrupt the service. Good point and that may well be why Metrobus seem to do a far better job on the 54 75 181 202 and 284 than Selkent. Live crew changes really should be abolished as far as is reasonably possible. Not all live changes are bad, the 159 has been doing live changes outside BN for the last 20 years or so yet the route runs as regular as it always has done. The 109 also does live changes outside BN and its the same as it was when they did live changeovers outside TH like what happens on the 198 & 250. I think it all boils down how reliable the operator wants the route to be - being closer doesn't always mean the route will be reliable. Agree with you regarding the Metrobus routes you mentioned - they seem to run better and I didn't use them as much. The only one on the list I'd disagree about is the 75 which was brilliantly run under Stagecoach - could rely on when I got off my 196 at Norwood Junction, unlike the 157
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 7, 2013 15:04:43 GMT
A link from trafalgar square to london bridge would also be good. Had lots of passengers asking how to get to london bridge and I normally tell them to get the 15 as that goes to the monument. But I do recall one passenger boarding my route 3 at trafalgar sq asking how to get there and I told her to get the 15. She replied that the driver said he didn't go there ;D Had to explain to her that the 15 goes to monument which is close to london bridge I have had that the other way around many times from my days on the 133 where punters from London Bridge ask for the west end. I also would tell them the 15 (from Monument). A bus link from, say Canada water to the West End via London Bridge, may prove useful. The simple way to solve the London Bridge - Trafalgar Square issue is to amend the 381 to mirror the N381 and extend it on from Waterloo. It would probably need 2 possibly 3 buses to do depending on the precise location of the last stop. If it peeled off at Horseguards Avenue, like the 53, it would usually miss the worst of the Whitehall jams on the approach to T Sq.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Mar 7, 2013 16:33:50 GMT
Good point and that may well be why Metrobus seem to do a far better job on the 54 75 181 202 and 284 than Selkent. Live crew changes really should be abolished as far as is reasonably possible. Not all live changes are bad, the 159 has been doing live changes outside BN for the last 20 years or so yet the route runs as regular as it always has done. The 109 also does live changes outside BN and its the same as it was when they did live changeovers outside TH like what happens on the 198 & 250. I think it all boils down how reliable the operator wants the route to be - being closer doesn't always mean the route will be reliable. Agree with you regarding the Metrobus routes you mentioned - they seem to run better and I didn't use them as much. The only one on the list I'd disagree about is the 75 which was brilliantly run under Stagecoach - could rely on when I got off my 196 at Norwood Junction, unlike the 157 I believe the 159 actually had two live changeover points during the 90s, the second one being at Kennington Church as some buses were operated from Q (also remember the occasional garage journeys they used to do from Brixton to Camberwell via Loughborough Junction).
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Mar 7, 2013 18:41:47 GMT
I am slightly puzzled as to why it's not the N65, as it covers a substantial longer section than the day route. It also results in a confusing spider map for Chessington, which marks the 65 but provides no indication that it's a night only routing other than making it blue. However, extending the 65 does not sound like a good idea when you consider the reliability issues on the 65 and the resulting length of the route. I'm not sure what you mean by "make all Night buses into 24-hour counterparts" though. Holb Agree with this in regards to the 65 & the converting of Night routes into 24 hour routes For example, if the N109 was withdrawn and replaced by the already 24 hour 159 & a 24 hour 109, that means people have to make a change which at night isn't really a good idea. A N207 would become the already 24 hour 94, a 24 hour 207 & a 24 hour 427 which requires two changes (the 607 wouldn't become a 24 hour route due to its limited stopping nature). But you'd have a 109 which runs from Trafalgar Square to Croydon, a 207 which runs from Uxbridge to Holborn etc, plus some routes, like the 427 would be withdrawn, as they would be redundant.
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Mar 7, 2013 18:50:04 GMT
The 133 being a perfect example, the advantage there being no live crew changes to desrupt the service. Good point and that may well be why Metrobus seem to do a far better job on the 54 75 181 202 and 284 than Selkent. Live crew changes really should be abolished as far as is reasonably possible. I agree, a crew change can be done in 10 minutes (maybe even less), so it would make sense as opposed to doing a change mid route (particularly in the morning peak, where many people need to get to work/school etc. on time), thus making running time faster and the service more reliable. The only disadvantage is the distance, although FW operate a lot of services from Kingston and they frequently (especially the 131) swap buses around, which can be used as crew shuttles. If a route terminates at it's home garage, then bingo, you can change the driver there! This might have been one of the motives for moving the 110 to FW. In Kingston, this means that the 111, 281 and 285 could all move to TV.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Mar 7, 2013 18:54:47 GMT
Not all live changes are bad, the 159 has been doing live changes outside BN for the last 20 years or so yet the route runs as regular as it always has done. The 109 also does live changes outside BN and its the same as it was when they did live changeovers outside TH like what happens on the 198 & 250. I think it all boils down how reliable the operator wants the route to be - being closer doesn't always mean the route will be reliable. Agree with you regarding the Metrobus routes you mentioned - they seem to run better and I didn't use them as much. The only one on the list I'd disagree about is the 75 which was brilliantly run under Stagecoach - could rely on when I got off my 196 at Norwood Junction, unlike the 157 I believe the 159 actually had two live changeover points during the 90s, the second one being at Kennington Church as some buses were operated from Q (also remember the occasional garage journeys they used to do from Brixton to Camberwell via Loughborough Junction). And also the 59A also a Q route
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Mar 7, 2013 18:57:38 GMT
I agree, a crew change can be done in 10 minutes (maybe even less), so it would make sense as opposed to doing a change mid route (particularly in the morning peak, where many people need to get to work/school etc. on time), thus making running time faster and the service more reliable. The only disadvantage is the distance, although FW operate a lot of services from Kingston and they frequently (especially the 131) swap buses around, which can be used as crew shuttles. If a route terminates at it's home garage, then bingo, you can change the driver there! This might have been one of the motives for moving the 110 to FW. In Kingston, this means that the 111, 281 and 285 could all move to TV. Live crew changes don't necessarily need to be abolished. The ones on the 25 are usually reasonably quick (only taking a couple of minutes) whereas the 172 and 188 crew changes can often take so long that half the passengers on the bus get fed up and get off. It all depends... But then you get three at once... Saw this at Bethnal Green last summer.
|
|