|
|
Post by Volvo on Mar 11, 2013 21:21:03 GMT
Your all right about the 254, i was wrong sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 11, 2013 21:27:22 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). There are actually quite a few useful duplicated overlapping routes. 53 & 453 68 & 468 63 & 363 IMO I think the 363 Is pointless but at the same time it has retained the link between Crystal Palace and Elephant & Castle. I personally think it should be extended to London Bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 11, 2013 21:27:52 GMT
Before anyone says 129... 129. ;D And also routes 255 and 315 (which is far to infrequent and badly routed IMProve) Whilst the 315 could serve elsewhere, it does provide the only direct link between West Norwood & Streatham/Balham & for a route with a PVR of 4, a 20 minute frequency is actually decent. It's also a well used route as well. My own plan for the 315 was to simply extend to Crystal Palace via Robson Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Vale Street, St. Gothards Road, Gypsy Road, Dulwich Wood Park, Fountain Drive, Crystal Palace Park Parade to terminate at the bus station. This would allow the 322 to gain bigger single deckers (or double deckers if needed) & the 322 can be diverted via Norwood High Street, Gypsy Road & onto the normal route up Gypsy Hill to Crystal Palace. Then it can take over the 450's section from Crystal Palace to Sydenham Sainsburys but without serving Fountain Drive. The 450 can then gain bigger single deckers and can be extended to Loughborough Junction via College Road, Dulwich Wood Park, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Norwood Road, Milkwood Road & Hinton Road. Credit to 'moz' who thought of the 450 extension first  |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 11, 2013 21:33:55 GMT
Some of the posts in this thread seem to be ignoring the value of having an alternative route to get somewhere! One trunk route doesn't necessarily have to be the only way to get from one place to another, after all. Alternative routes are good for extra capacity, better frequencies, and supporting other routes with reliability issues... I agree. The current links we have maybe useful to some people hence why it is hard to call anything pointless! Like the 13 removing that route will effectively remove well used links between Golders Green - Aldwych. Extending the 139 to Golders Green is not going to make much difference because the passengers from the 13 will have actually lost their link and will have to interchange every time and also people do not like change. It is good to have alternative routes I agree because there are times when routes are fully packed to the brim. Now a pointless section that no one has mentioned is the 38 Between Hackney Central & Clapton Pond. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 11, 2013 21:38:03 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). Surely the 254 is one of the old 253 overlaps renumbered? It was only renumbered to create a separate service and contract to encourage more competition rather than tendering a 60+ vehicle 253 service. Now OK the routes have never changed hands since tendering began - always with Arriva or their predecessors - but the 254 was not a load of additional buses on top of the old 253 PVR. Having had to fight on to buses at the Nags Head I can certainly say that having almost empty 254s turn up is a great aid. The 253 rarely has sufficient space to take everyone who wants to head east of Manor House. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Mar 11, 2013 21:38:55 GMT
129. ;D And also routes 255 and 315 (which is far to infrequent and badly routed IMProve) Whilst the 315 could serve elsewhere, it does provide the only direct link between West Norwood & Streatham/Balham & for a route with a PVR of 4, a 20 minute frequency is actually decent. It's also a well used route as well. My own plan for the 315 was to simply extend to Crystal Palace via Robson Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Vale Street, St. Gothards Road, Gypsy Road, Dulwich Wood Park, Fountain Drive, Crystal Palace Park Parade to terminate at the bus station. This would allow the 322 to gain bigger single deckers (or double deckers if needed) & the 322 can be diverted via Norwood High Street, Gypsy Road & onto the normal route up Gypsy Hill to Crystal Palace. Then it can take over the 450's section from Crystal Palace to Sydenham Sainsburys but without serving Fountain Drive. The 450 can then gain bigger single deckers and can be extended to Loughborough Junction via College Road, Dulwich Wood Park, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Norwood Road, Milkwood Road & Hinton Road. Credit to 'moz' who thought of the 450 extension first If the 450 was to be re routed, then I'd hope it takes a simpler route so that it could be double decked, ideally with some DLAs/DLPs! ;D Very crowded route a lot of the time... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 21:39:39 GMT
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). There are actually quite a few useful duplicated overlapping routes. 53 & 453 68 & 468 63 & 363 IMO I think the 363 Is pointless but at the same time it has retained the link between Crystal Palace and Elephant & Castle. I personally think it should be extended to London Bridge. I disagree, the 63 can be very unreliable sometimes, and the 363 terminating at Elephant and Castle means it avoids the worst traffic. There's also meant to be serious stand space issues at London Bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by Trident on Mar 11, 2013 21:41:19 GMT
Some of the posts in this thread seem to be ignoring the value of having an alternative route to get somewhere! One trunk route doesn't necessarily have to be the only way to get from one place to another, after all. Alternative routes are good for extra capacity, better frequencies, and supporting other routes with reliability issues... I agree. The current links we have maybe useful to some people hence why it is hard to call anything pointless! Like the 13 removing that route will effectively remove well used links between Golders Green - Aldwych. Extending the 139 to Golders Green is not going to make much difference because the passengers from the 13 will have actually lost their link and will have to interchange every time and also people do not like change. It is good to have alternative routes I agree because there are times when routes are fully packed to the brim. Now a pointless section that no one has mentioned is the 38 Between Hackney Central & Clapton Pond. The problem is, if we cut the full 38 service to Hackney Central, where will the stand space be when the 253 also stands in CT and the D6/W15 stand near Hackney Downs Station. Although I do like the idea of cutting it there, as getting to Dalston via Route 56 is quicker than detouring via Hackney Central. There are also too many buses that run there from Clapton and I cannot see why this can't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Mar 11, 2013 21:41:28 GMT
There are actually quite a few useful duplicated overlapping routes. 53 & 453 68 & 468 63 & 363 IMO I think the 363 Is pointless but at the same time it has retained the link between Crystal Palace and Elephant & Castle. I personally think it should be extended to London Bridge. I disagree, the 63 can be very unreliable sometimes, and the 363 terminating at Elephant and Castle means it avoids the worst traffic. There's also meant to be serious stand space issues at London Bridge. The 63 in the peaks doesn't do that badly, the worst amount of time I had to wait was 5 minutes and I'd just missed one. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Mar 11, 2013 21:52:56 GMT
Your right, London Bridge (well certainly the bus stn) struggles with the existing routes, wouldn't be able to handle another route. In general this is the case with many locations Stratford, Crystal Palace, West Croydon, Canada Water spring to mind. There are actually quite a few useful duplicated overlapping routes. 53 & 453 68 & 468 63 & 363 IMO I think the 363 Is pointless but at the same time it has retained the link between Crystal Palace and Elephant & Castle. I personally think it should be extended to London Bridge. I disagree, the 63 can be very unreliable sometimes, and the 363 terminating at Elephant and Castle means it avoids the worst traffic. There's also meant to be serious stand space issues at London Bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Mar 11, 2013 22:03:53 GMT
I agree. The current links we have maybe useful to some people hence why it is hard to call anything pointless! Like the 13 removing that route will effectively remove well used links between Golders Green - Aldwych. Extending the 139 to Golders Green is not going to make much difference because the passengers from the 13 will have actually lost their link and will have to interchange every time and also people do not like change. It is good to have alternative routes I agree because there are times when routes are fully packed to the brim. Now a pointless section that no one has mentioned is the 38 Between Hackney Central & Clapton Pond. The problem is, if we cut the full 38 service to Hackney Central, where will the stand space be when the 253 also stands in CT and the D6/W15 stand near Hackney Downs Station. Although I do like the idea of cutting it there, as getting to Dalston via Route 56 is quicker than detouring via Hackney Central. There are also too many buses that run there from Clapton and I cannot see why this can't happen. let me clear this one up for you, during the day time CT isn't so packed that there wouldn't be enough stand space for the 253, trying going there in the day time and you will clearly see that. In the evening - night time when CT is more full, the 253s stand outside marks and spencer mare street or at the first bus stop at Hackney central station. |
|
52000
Conductor
Posts: 140
|
Post by 52000 on Mar 11, 2013 22:19:48 GMT
Now a pointless section that no one has mentioned is the 38 Between Hackney Central & Clapton Pond. . Yeah I agree, normally carries 1 or 2 people at most when I have seen it. (off peak) Not saying it is pointless because it isn't, but what are the other uses of 507 apart from links to the stations and rush hour loads. But why did it gain a weekend service? |
|
|
|
Post by Trident on Mar 11, 2013 22:25:31 GMT
The problem is, if we cut the full 38 service to Hackney Central, where will the stand space be when the 253 also stands in CT and the D6/W15 stand near Hackney Downs Station. Although I do like the idea of cutting it there, as getting to Dalston via Route 56 is quicker than detouring via Hackney Central. There are also too many buses that run there from Clapton and I cannot see why this can't happen. let me clear this one up for you, during the day time CT isn't so packed that there wouldn't be enough stand space for the 253, trying going there in the day time and you will clearly see that. In the evening - night time when CT is more full, the 253s stand outside marks and spencer mare street or at the first bus stop at Hackney central station. Yes, I can see where you come from here. I raised this because for a very frequent route that comes every 3-4 minutes I was wondering if CT could be able to cope |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 12, 2013 0:30:46 GMT
Whilst the 315 could serve elsewhere, it does provide the only direct link between West Norwood & Streatham/Balham & for a route with a PVR of 4, a 20 minute frequency is actually decent. It's also a well used route as well. My own plan for the 315 was to simply extend to Crystal Palace via Robson Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Vale Street, St. Gothards Road, Gypsy Road, Dulwich Wood Park, Fountain Drive, Crystal Palace Park Parade to terminate at the bus station. This would allow the 322 to gain bigger single deckers (or double deckers if needed) & the 322 can be diverted via Norwood High Street, Gypsy Road & onto the normal route up Gypsy Hill to Crystal Palace. Then it can take over the 450's section from Crystal Palace to Sydenham Sainsburys but without serving Fountain Drive. The 450 can then gain bigger single deckers and can be extended to Loughborough Junction via College Road, Dulwich Wood Park, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Norwood Road, Milkwood Road & Hinton Road. Credit to 'moz' who thought of the 450 extension first If the 450 was to be re routed, then I'd hope it takes a simpler route so that it could be double decked, ideally with some DLAs/DLPs! ;D Very crowded route a lot of the time... Indeed, it does get very crowded. I used to ride the route when it had the 51 reg MPD's and they were crowded all the time. Everyone hated them for that fact plus the lack of a rear door. Apparently, passengers complained and that's how it ended up with the dual door 56 reg Darts. I was quite surprised they retained it as it was very unreliable. That said, I don't think I'd run it with deckers. The worst section is West Croydon to Crystal Palace but at Palace, everyone seems to disappear from the 450. I was thinking 10.8m single deckers could be utilised though there would be a few tight turns between Whitehorse Road & Thornton Heath. In the past, I've seen an Arriva trainer MCW Metrobus being driven down Spa Hill & a trainer DLA being driven along Bensham Lane |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Mar 12, 2013 5:20:53 GMT
EL2 does anyone actually travel past thames view ? Majority of times i been down or around there the routes empty and Dagenham Dock station is almost always empty , they should cancel the route until the Barking Riverside developments complete .
|
|
