|
Post by paulsw2 on Jul 5, 2022 9:14:26 GMT
You missed the point about stops in between stations! They wouldn’t be served by rail replacement buses. I really don’t like the mindset of trains simply replacing buses! There isn’t unlimited capacity on the train networks. Also be mindful some people can’t afford train fares or can’t use trains for other reasons. Train fares are barely anymore expensive than buses outside of zone 1 though, Simple answer to this the 155 provides low floor access between Tooting and Elephant what tube stations are step free? This is what makes the 155 Neccessary
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Jul 5, 2022 9:20:14 GMT
What would the passengers between tube stops do? What would happen in the event of tube strikes or signal failures or during engineering works? It would absolutely make a difference if the 155 was gone. They can walk because it's max 10 minutes walk from a tube station to a 155 stop. In the event of strikes/engineering works then there should be a rail replacement bus service I can't tell whether you are trolling or just posting useless suggestions to increase post count. As others have stated multiple times, the 155 is necessary, yet you seem to ignore all those posts
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jul 5, 2022 9:32:19 GMT
Train fares are barely anymore expensive than buses outside of zone 1 though, Simple answer to this the 155 provides low floor access between Tooting and Elephant what tube stations are step free? This is what makes the 155 Neccessary Using that argument South Norwood should have bus services to destinations reachable from Norwood Junction as the station is not accessible. Where is the Norwood Junction - London Bridge bus service? Not saying whether the original point is wrong or right, just your response is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 5, 2022 11:23:52 GMT
Whilst some are not surprised about the 396 coming up I am the opposite and surprised it comes up so much! It serves a useful purpose linking to the hospital. To suggest people could walk to the 296 stop must be a joke especially if you are visiting the hospital for a medical reason.
At my local hospital they are recently increased the amount of bus routes serving the hospital so clearly these links are needed and used. Even in the central London consultation they are maintaining the link to Barts (The choice of routes if debatable but the point still stands buses need to serve hospitals).
Yet are removing direct hospital links for people living south of Brixton on Brixton Hill and at Clapham Park so whilst I agree in that hospital links are important, let’s not pretend the Central London consultation is breaking some whilst creating unnecessary ones at the same time
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 5, 2022 11:54:58 GMT
Whilst some are not surprised about the 396 coming up I am the opposite and surprised it comes up so much! It serves a useful purpose linking to the hospital. To suggest people could walk to the 296 stop must be a joke especially if you are visiting the hospital for a medical reason.
At my local hospital they are recently increased the amount of bus routes serving the hospital so clearly these links are needed and used. Even in the central London consultation they are maintaining the link to Barts (The choice of routes if debatable but the point still stands buses need to serve hospitals).
Yet are removing direct hospital links for people living south of Brixton on Brixton Hill and at Clapham Park so whilst I agree in that hospital links are important, let’s not pretend the Central London consultation is breaking some whilst creating unnecessary ones at the same time What makes the case at Calpham Park more silly is unlike Barts, Kings College has an A&E and is a trauma centre.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jul 5, 2022 11:59:17 GMT
Yet are removing direct hospital links for people living south of Brixton on Brixton Hill and at Clapham Park so whilst I agree in that hospital links are important, let’s not pretend the Central London consultation is breaking some whilst creating unnecessary ones at the same time What makes the case at Calpham Park more silly is unlike Barts, Kings College has an A&E and is a trauma centre. In my original post I was talking about buses serving hospitals I didn’t particularly mean just Barts. I was taken aback by the suggestion people could walk some distance from the 296 stop instead of the 396.
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jul 5, 2022 17:21:17 GMT
Is it me or does the 133 and 155 parallel with the Northern line come up way more than other examples? What about the 134 between Warren Street and Highgate on top of the 43 following the entire northern end? The countless tube lines north of the river whilst the Northern and Victoria are constantly rammed with little support? I'm familiar with the 133 and have been a local and regular user of the 155 for well over a decade now and it's ridiciulous
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jul 5, 2022 17:32:00 GMT
Is it me or does the 133 and 155 parallel with the Northern line come up way more than other examples? What about the 134 between Warren Street and Highgate on top of the 43 following the entire northern end? The countless tube lines north of the river whilst the Northern and Victoria are constantly rammed with little support? I'm familiar with the 133 and have been a local and regular user of the 155 for well over a decade now and it's ridiciulous All arguments that buses that follow rail should be culled are ridiculous. There's a reason they happen to exist along rail corridors. Prime example for me is the 25. Pre-2019 (roughly) followed the Central Line from Oxford Circus to Stratford, the District/H&C from Aldgate to Bow Road and TFL Rail from Stratford to Ilford. According to this logic, the 25 would have carried fresh air given it went on multiple rail corridors along its entire route and there were clearly faster methods to get between termini, yet the route saw and continues to see even in current form, very heavy usage.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Jul 5, 2022 18:18:36 GMT
Is it me or does the 133 and 155 parallel with the Northern line come up way more than other examples? What about the 134 between Warren Street and Highgate on top of the 43 following the entire northern end? The countless tube lines north of the river whilst the Northern and Victoria are constantly rammed with little support? I'm familiar with the 133 and have been a local and regular user of the 155 for well over a decade now and it's ridiciulous All arguments that buses that follow rail should be culled are ridiculous. There's a reason they happen to exist along rail corridors. Prime example for me is the 25. Pre-2019 (roughly) followed the Central Line from Oxford Circus to Stratford, the District/H&C from Aldgate to Bow Road and TFL Rail from Stratford to Ilford. According to this logic, the 25 would have carried fresh air given it went on multiple rail corridors along its entire route and there were clearly faster methods to get between termini, yet the route saw and continues to see even in current form, very heavy usage. If people want to go by that theory about routes paralleling one another then we may as well cut the 86 to Ilford or divert it elsewhere as that route follows the Elizabeth Line between Romford and Stratford. And no of course I wouldn't want to cut that route back or divert it. Even in it's British rail days (Elizabeth Line Eastern side) the 86 has been a saving grace when disruptions has occurred on that route.
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jul 5, 2022 18:43:26 GMT
Is it me or does the 133 and 155 parallel with the Northern line come up way more than other examples? What about the 134 between Warren Street and Highgate on top of the 43 following the entire northern end? The countless tube lines north of the river whilst the Northern and Victoria are constantly rammed with little support? I'm familiar with the 133 and have been a local and regular user of the 155 for well over a decade now and it's ridiciulous Suspiciously all these arguments about bus lines paralleling tube lines only come up for E / S / SE London. You picked up two routes which i was also about to mention (am sure there are more in N London!)
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 5, 2022 18:56:03 GMT
Is it me or does the 133 and 155 parallel with the Northern line come up way more than other examples? What about the 134 between Warren Street and Highgate on top of the 43 following the entire northern end? The countless tube lines north of the river whilst the Northern and Victoria are constantly rammed with little support? I'm familiar with the 133 and have been a local and regular user of the 155 for well over a decade now and it's ridiciulous Suspiciously all these arguments about bus lines paralleling tube lines only come up for E / S / SE London. You picked up two routes which i was also about to mention (am sure there are more in N London!) Even the ones in North London aren’t useless. The 134 has a lot of punters travelling long distances particularly on weekends and during the evenings. I don’t think the 43 parallels the tube much though, especially not on the northern section.
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jul 5, 2022 18:59:14 GMT
Suspiciously all these arguments about bus lines paralleling tube lines only come up for E / S / SE London. You picked up two routes which i was also about to mention (am sure there are more in N London!) Even the ones in North London aren’t useless. The 134 has a lot of punters travelling long distances particularly on weekends and during the evenings. I don’t think the 43 parallels the tube much though, especially not on the northern section. So is true of the 155/133/2
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jul 5, 2022 19:08:46 GMT
Suspiciously all these arguments about bus lines paralleling tube lines only come up for E / S / SE London. You picked up two routes which i was also about to mention (am sure there are more in N London!) Even the ones in North London aren’t useless. The 134 has a lot of punters travelling long distances particularly on weekends and during the evenings. I don’t think the 43 parallels the tube much though, especially not on the northern section. The 43 parallels the Northern Line south of Angel, which TFL are trying to push people on to by rerouting the 43 to Liverpool Street.
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jul 5, 2022 19:24:36 GMT
Suspiciously all these arguments about bus lines paralleling tube lines only come up for E / S / SE London. You picked up two routes which i was also about to mention (am sure there are more in N London!) Even the ones in North London aren’t useless. The 134 has a lot of punters travelling long distances particularly on weekends and during the evenings. I don’t think the 43 parallels the tube much though, especially not on the northern section. Just to be clear I don't think buses paralelling the tube north of the river are useless and meant the 43 and Northern Line together cover the entire 134 bar North Finchley - it's just the 133 and 155 seem to be brought up far more than the ones in North London for some reason
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 5, 2022 19:30:36 GMT
I just have to laugh at these silly comments to withdraw routes because they parallel the tube honestly I think some people need to be booted off this forum for the garbage posted... in relation to the 133 & 155. I used the 133 the other day from London Bridge to Liverpool Street in rush hour and it was busy.
It’s obviously the recent consultation has now given some ideas that anything that parallels the tube should be withdrawn...
|
|