|
|
Post by Volvo on Mar 11, 2013 19:39:39 GMT
I agree with David21 about the 139 and 13 situation.
Also the 254 and 349 are pointless routes aswell, that is all thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 11, 2013 19:41:22 GMT
Many would say the R9 is pointless bit it actually isn't. It can be quite busy at times. The R2 to Between Locksbottom and Biggin Hill Valley is pointless IMO, but is a handy link. The R5, R7, R10 all get healthy loadings also. What I wonder is why the 353 isn't just sent round the Ramsden Estate - lack of stand space in Orpington, objection to large-scale decker operation? The R2 is a far better way from Biggin Hill to Orpington, too - it was created because the R8 is too much of a sparse service. The R9s main purpose is to serve Ramsden Estate and is more frequent. The 353 actually terminates there, I don't think it should do the loop at all. Routes 208 and 353 come into Orpington via Petts Wood/Locksbottom. The whole idea is to have them serve Orpington High Street. Makes sense for the 353 to terminate at Ramsden, |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 19:45:58 GMT
The 13 is quite a handy link IMO. I agree. To be honest, there can't be that many truly pointless routes in London because let's face it TFL wouldn't be funding them. Well it also Tfl who are funding the 600 NB4Ls and are they not pointless? The 13 and 139 have the same line of route with the same PVR expect for the 139 splits off and goes to Hampstead Heath near Marylebone Station. What I'm saying is cut the 13, therefore cutting costs, and use the cut costs to extend the 139 to Golders Green and increase the PVR. Also increase the PVR of the 82 to cope with the loss of the 13 between Finchley Road and Fortune Green. It would save a dam sight more money than running the 13. This increase would make the 139 journey time increase by about 15 minutes and that's stretching it. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 11, 2013 19:47:07 GMT
I agree with David21 about the 139 and 13 situation. Also the 254 and 349 are pointless routes aswell, that is all thanks! IMO the 349 should have been withdrawn when it was cut to Stamford Hill. It is actually a duplicated 279 to Seven Sisters. Getting rid of the 13 will completely loose a good link altogether. Both the 13 & 139 are fine as they are. I'm sure the people of Swiss Cottage and Finchley Road areas will not be happy if the 13 is withdrawn. It's quite well used. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 11, 2013 19:49:10 GMT
I agree. To be honest, there can't be that many truly pointless routes in London because let's face it TFL wouldn't be funding them. Well it also Tfl who are funding the 600 NB4Ls and are they not pointless? The 13 and 139 have the same line of route with the same PVR expect for the 139 splits off and goes to Hampstead Heath near Marylebone Station. What I'm saying is cut the 13, therefore cutting costs, and use the cut costs to extend the 139 to Golders Green and increase the PVR. Also increase the PVR of the 82 to cope with the loss of the 13 between Finchley Road and Fortune Green. It would save a dam sight more money than running the 13. Yes, but then part of the links to Aldwych on the 13 will be lost. Finchley Road, Swiss Cottage etc. this will mean customers will have to effectively interchange bus routes. At Golders Green you actually have a Choice between the 13 and 82 and both split. The 13 also provides a link to Oxford Circus and Piccadilly Circus which the 82 does not. |
|
52000
Conductor
Posts: 140
|
Post by 52000 on Mar 11, 2013 19:51:21 GMT
I agree with David21 about the 139 and 13 situation. Also the 254 and 349 are pointless routes aswell, that is all thanks! IMO the 349 should have been withdrawn when it was cut to Stamford Hill. It is actually a duplicated 279 to Seven Sisters. . From Ponders End to Seven Sisters. 279 continues north to Waltham Cross |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 11, 2013 19:55:27 GMT
IMO the 349 should have been withdrawn when it was cut to Stamford Hill. It is actually a duplicated 279 to Seven Sisters. . From Ponders End to Seven Sisters. 279 continues north to Waltham Cross Yes I know. |
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Mar 11, 2013 20:38:39 GMT
I agree with David21 about the 139 and 13 situation. Also the 254 and 349 are pointless routes aswell, that is all thanks! 254 is not pointless at all, I've been on several 254s absolutely packed to the brim. I use the 254 a fair bit, it's very useful. What's your reasoning for that one?  Oh right cool you have used the route several times but I have only been living alongside and using the service since it was introduced in 2003! that is all thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Mar 11, 2013 20:59:24 GMT
No I just don't understand this general (not aimed at you) I have used a route several times and when I use it the loadings are high or low so the route is pointless or not. That doesn't hold water imo to someone who lives alongside and uses the route near enough everyday but that is for another arguement.
Reasons for the 254 be pointless:
the loading between Holloway and Hackney central are not that high, for the following reasons.
between Holloway and Manor House, high pvrs on route 29, 253 and 254 itself, not to mention 259, hence why if you notice alot of 254s actually turn at Finsbury Park now rather than Holloway.
Between Manor House and Hackney Central the 253 has a high enough (this is dating back to 1997 when I first moved to East London and the 253 ran in split sections) and loadings aren't high that it requires two routes with a pvr of nearly 30.
You also have the 106 from Finsbury Park that goes to Hackney Central and onto Whitechapel where you then have the frequent 25/205 onto Aldgate.
So if needs be the PVR of the 253 can be raised a bit. The 106 extended to Aldgate and a raised pvr.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 21:04:52 GMT
The 254 is well used to and from Aldgate. Even though it's only a short stretch from Aldgate to Whitechapel there is no spare capacity on the 25 or 205. The 106 doesn't goes to the back end of Whitechapel so isn't as convenient as the 254.
|
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Mar 11, 2013 21:08:00 GMT
^^^^^ your absolutely right the 254, I thought the 106 being extended to Aldgate with a higher pvr was a good idea, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Mar 11, 2013 21:09:11 GMT
Before anyone says 129... 129. ;D And also routes 255 and 315 (which is far to infrequent and badly routed IMO) |
|
|
|
Post by Trident on Mar 11, 2013 21:14:02 GMT
No I just don't understand this general (not aimed at you) I have used a route several times and when I use it the loadings are high or low so the route is pointless or not. That doesn't hold water imo to someone who lives alongside and uses the route near enough everyday but that is for another arguement. Reasons for the 254 be pointless: the loading between Holloway and Hackney central are not that high, for the following reasons. between Holloway and Manor House, high pvrs on route 29, 253 and 254 itself, not to mention 259, hence why if you notice alot of 254s actually turn at Finsbury Park now rather than Holloway. Between Manor House and Hackney Central the 253 has a high enough (this is dating back to 1997 when I first moved to East London and the 253 ran in split sections) and loadings aren't high that it requires two routes with a pvr of nearly 30. You also have the 106 from Finsbury Park that goes to Hackney Central and onto Whitechapel where you then have the frequent 25/205 onto Aldgate. So if needs be the PVR of the 253 can be raised a bit. The 106 extended to Aldgate and a raised pvr. When I'm around Hackney i do often see the 254 well used. As much as its annoying having a duplicate to another route I certainly think the 253 pairing are busy. The main reasoning behind the 254 in the first place was to aid the 253's reliability AFAIK. Remember, it used to run in two overlapping sections and taking away the 254 and putting the 253 back how it was without the overlaps could create potential problems. I think the 253 already suffers enough passing through Camden, Finsbury Park and sometimes Hackney (where it terminates). |
|
|
|
Post by Trident on Mar 11, 2013 21:18:07 GMT
330- A 58 and interchange with 4 other buses will cover this route. No-one will ever again mention 330, except when they refer to the time of course. You can also get from Forest Gate to Balaam Street much quicker via Route 325 then crossing the road to get a bus over to Canning Town  |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 11, 2013 21:18:27 GMT
I agree about the 332 and 460 being useless. A useless route for me is the 487 and I that think that it would be better if the 487 was discontinued and have the 187 extended back to South Harrow.
|
|
