|
|
Post by Steve80 on Mar 12, 2013 19:06:24 GMT
The 312 is probably the most useless route of all in its current form. In case anybody is unaware a 'temporary' weight restriction (its been in place nearly 3 years) in Spring Lane means the 312 is diverted and just duplicates the 197 between Norwood Junction and Croydon, just extend the 197 to South Croydon Garage and axe the 312. Yes, the 312 just duplicates the 197 and lots of other routes between croydon and south croydon. Despite that, you do get a few odd people on it. You can see how it fills up at east croydon station (going towards norwood) and especially if it gets there before the 197 |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 12, 2013 19:17:08 GMT
To effectively remove a well used link is a silly idea. Once a well used link has been created it is not easy to just get rid of it. Increasing the frequency on the 82 will be a waste IMO, because the actual lost link to Aldwych will no longer exist, like many lost links in the past from major large trunk routes. There are plenty of other ways to save money, withdrawing well used services is a bad strategy. Plus you are also suggesting to make the 13s drivers redundant from their jobs and there are many people out there who are jobless looking for jobs, like I was saying its not easy to just withdraw a bus well used bus route. Withdrawing the 13 affects the drivers, the garage and of course the passengers. That is quite a lot of people in my view and no doubt they will get complaints about it. A way to effectively save money is to scrap the New Bus For London. I agree. Removing routes that look a bit like a parallel on paper is pretty silly. Unless there's an alternative way of getting from every A on the route to every B on the route via an appropriate bus route then removing a bus route is usually a bad idea, especially a well-established one on the 13. Would it be justifiable to combine the 82 and 13's PVR into the 82? Probably not, and so that represents an automatic capacity reduction. Passengers will also be hugely fed up you've taken their direct bus away, and might well go back to their cars - the opposite of what a bus route *should* do. Let's face it, despite all the antipathy towards the NB4L, and suggestions it's a waste of money, I don't think it's particularly relevant to this discussion - simply because as long as Boris remains mayor, that NB4L project is happening through hell or high water. Therefore it's not a cut that's ever going to happen and so it isn't worth speculating on the basis of money from NB4L cuts. There are, however, buses that nobody really uses - but they probably are few and far between, to be honest. ^^^^^^ Passengers will get fed up defiantly. People don't like change. Once a link has been established its very hard to change it. Even if the 129 was withdrawn their would be problems. It's actually a well known route in Greenwich. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 19:44:15 GMT
We cannot have back up sevices just in case other routes have problems. Woodside Green had 5bph on the 197, it now has 15bph on the 130 197 and 312 which is just a ridiculous waste of resources. There's not much that can be done about the Spring Lane bridge situation regarding the 130, so that's not particularly relevant to the discussion. The 312 is still used, anyway, even if it is a "silly parallel" - given the 197 can become crowded in the peaks another service supporting it is sometimes useful. There is also the benefit of a faster service from South Croydon, which would probably not be provided by the 197 given it's twice the length of the 312 and therefore probably less reliable and more used. A faster service? Sorry but your argument does not add up. The 312 should be axed, the 197 extended to South Croydon Garage, most 197s go there out of service to change driver anyway, and if and when the weight restriction is removed the 412 can go to Norwood Junction via Addiscombe. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Mar 12, 2013 19:45:58 GMT
Its certainly useful support to the 188 as the link to and from North Greenwich/Greenwich. It would be useful to extend it to Greenwich Station as there are always a number of people wanting the O2 and there isn't a direct link. ^^^^^^ Passengers will get fed up defiantly. People don't like change. Once a link has been established its very hard to change it. Even if the 129 was withdrawn their would be problems. It's actually a well known route in Greenwich. Indeed, my girlfriend lives in Greenwich and it's her only way to get to the Sainsbury's. Of course, that's closing - but there's still other shops and activities up there. To be honest, the 129 only exists in its current form because the other proposal(s) were too expensive/long/nowhere to run them from etc. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 12, 2013 20:07:08 GMT
Its certainly useful support to the 188 as the link to and from North Greenwich/Greenwich. It would be useful to extend it to Greenwich Station as there are always a number of people wanting the O2 and there isn't a direct link. Indeed, my girlfriend lives in Greenwich and it's her only way to get to the Sainsbury's. Of course, that's closing - but there's still other shops and activities up there. To be honest, the 129 only exists in its current form because the other proposal(s) were too expensive/long/nowhere to run them from etc. I think it should be extended to Lewisham. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Mar 12, 2013 20:32:45 GMT
A faster service? Sorry but your argument does not add up. The 312 should be axed, the 197 extended to South Croydon Garage, most 197s go there out of service to change driver anyway, and if and when the weight restriction is removed the 412 can go to Norwood Junction via Addiscombe. It probably is a faster service than changing at East Croydon from a 466 and walking round the corner to get on a 197, yes. Also probably picks up less people, and is more reliable than a 466, even if you're just travelling to East Croydon. It seems a big deal is being made up over what is quite an unimportant link. The majority of people on the 312 change/board at East Croydon/ Croydon Town Centre. A short extension to TC + PVR increase can easily allow us to get rid of this useless route while creating new links from South Croydon to Peckham/ Forest Hill. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Mar 12, 2013 20:40:24 GMT
I take it you mean the 152.  The route used to go to Kingston and was shortened to New Malden Roundabout around twenty years ago. If it was extended a few stops along the High Street the route would suffer even more so from congestion along that extention. Also, i believe the bus stand is not all that big, particularly for an 10.8m Enviro200. The current 152 stand isn't ideal and it would be more useful extended to the station, any congestion is just a byproduct of serving somewhere useful. The other stand is smaller than the current one, which can at least hold two buses at the same time with plenty of room for manoeuvre. |
|
|
|
Post by guybowden on Mar 12, 2013 20:46:06 GMT
With regards to the 129, would it not be an idea to extend it to Lewisham, via the 177 to Deptford Bridge then left and parallel the 225/47 to Lewisham either to the station or shopping center.
At the minute the 129 serves as a link between the DLR and the Jubilee Line/ O2 arena. Routing it as I suggest would create a better/ more optional links with the DLR and another bus link with the O2 for when there are events on to potentially relieve some of the pressure on existing bus links.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 20:49:25 GMT
The reason the 38 goes to Clapton Pond is to relieve the stand space at CT as the garage cannot house the vehicles in the peak of rush hour. People don't like change yes that is clear but we are going through a double-dip reccession and we need to cut pointless expenditure. The 82 can provide the lost link between Oxford Circus and Golder's Green with the loss of the 13, all be it with a frequency increase. The 139 can provide the link between Oxford Circus and Aldwych. People won't loose the Golders Green and Oxford Circus link at all as we still have the 82. It makes sense in my head anyway. To effectively remove a well used link is a silly idea. Once a well used link has been created it is not easy to just get rid of it. Increasing the frequency on the 82 will be a waste IMO, because the actual lost link to Aldwych will no longer exist, like many lost links in the past from major large trunk routes. There are plenty of other ways to save money, withdrawing well used services is a bad strategy. Plus you are also suggesting to make the 13s drivers redundant from their jobs and there are many people out there who are jobless looking for jobs, like I was saying its not easy to just withdraw a bus well used bus route. Withdrawing the 13 affects the drivers, the garage and of course the passengers. That is quite a lot of people in my view and no doubt they will get complaints about it. A way to effectively save money is to scrap the New Bus For London. You do realise the 139 goes to Aldwych right? And it still will go from Golder's Green to Waterloo but via West Hampstead instead of the congested Finchley Road and via ALDWYCH too. Withdrawing the 13 won't have a negative effect on the Drivers for one as the drivers will have to travel a shorter distance to get to the garage from wherever they are travelling from. I'm going to close this anway as I can sort of sense the typical childish attitude kicking in. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 12, 2013 21:12:15 GMT
To effectively remove a well used link is a silly idea. Once a well used link has been created it is not easy to just get rid of it. Increasing the frequency on the 82 will be a waste IMO, because the actual lost link to Aldwych will no longer exist, like many lost links in the past from major large trunk routes. There are plenty of other ways to save money, withdrawing well used services is a bad strategy. Plus you are also suggesting to make the 13s drivers redundant from their jobs and there are many people out there who are jobless looking for jobs, like I was saying its not easy to just withdraw a bus well used bus route. Withdrawing the 13 affects the drivers, the garage and of course the passengers. That is quite a lot of people in my view and no doubt they will get complaints about it. A way to effectively save money is to scrap the New Bus For London. You do realise the 139 goes to Aldwych right? And it still will go from Golder's Green to Waterloo but via West Hampstead instead of the congested Finchley Road and via ALDWYCH too. Withdrawing the 13 won't have a negative effect on the Drivers for one as the drivers will have to travel a shorter distance to get to the garage from wherever they are travelling from. I'm going to close this anway as I can sort of sense the typical childish attitude kicking in. No I don't because the 139 and 176 no longer serve Aldwych actually, but does it actually serve Swiss Cottage, Finchley Road etc.... These will be the areas affected if the 13 is withdrawn which is the busiest section in fact. What you just said 'Withdrawing the 13 won't have a negative effect on the Drivers for one as the drivers will have to travel a shorter distance to get to the garage from wherever they are travelling from' does not make any sense. I can tell you now the drivers of the 13 will be affected because they will actually loose their jobs... like I stated above. Not really Childish at all. Your suggesting to remove a well used link of course others are not going to agree. Plus also suggesting redundancies and unhappy customers. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 12, 2013 21:12:36 GMT
To effectively remove a well used link is a silly idea. Once a well used link has been created it is not easy to just get rid of it. Increasing the frequency on the 82 will be a waste IMO, because the actual lost link to Aldwych will no longer exist, like many lost links in the past from major large trunk routes. There are plenty of other ways to save money, withdrawing well used services is a bad strategy. Plus you are also suggesting to make the 13s drivers redundant from their jobs and there are many people out there who are jobless looking for jobs, like I was saying its not easy to just withdraw a bus well used bus route. Withdrawing the 13 affects the drivers, the garage and of course the passengers. That is quite a lot of people in my view and no doubt they will get complaints about it. A way to effectively save money is to scrap the New Bus For London. You do realise the 139 goes to Aldwych right? And it still will go from Golder's Green to Waterloo but via West Hampstead instead of the congested Finchley Road and via ALDWYCH too. Withdrawing the 13 won't have a negative effect on the Drivers for one as the drivers will have to travel a shorter distance to get to the garage from wherever they are travelling from. I'm going to close this anway as I can sort of sense the typical childish attitude kicking in. What about extending the 139 to Golders Green as a quicker alternative to the 13 instead of withdrawing the 13? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 21:16:43 GMT
It seems a big deal is being made up over what is quite an unimportant link. The majority of people on the 312 change/board at East Croydon/ Croydon Town Centre. A short extension to TC + PVR increase can easily allow us to get rid of this useless route while creating new links from South Croydon to Peckham/ Forest Hill. What I'm saying is that the uselessness of the route is only temporary, because of trouble on Spring Lane bridge in Addiscombe. Once the route can be restored to its original routing it won't just be a parallel anymore. I'm simply justifying the existence of the parallel temporarily rather than the route being totally scraped - at the end of the day, the route is still used, whether or not it's parallel or considered "useless". I'm mainly apprehensive about the 197 running in service to South Croydon simply because the route is already fairly long as it is. We seem to agree then that the 312 is of no use until the Spring Lane problem is resolved? Thats why I say axe the 312 now and when the bridge is fixed, if it ever is, then reroute the 412 to Norwood Junc via Spring Lane. The 197 already goes out of service to South Croydon Garage, running it in service will only add a few minutes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 21:27:56 GMT
You do realise the 139 goes to Aldwych right? And it still will go from Golder's Green to Waterloo but via West Hampstead instead of the congested Finchley Road and via ALDWYCH too. Withdrawing the 13 won't have a negative effect on the Drivers for one as the drivers will have to travel a shorter distance to get to the garage from wherever they are travelling from. I'm going to close this anway as I can sort of sense the typical childish attitude kicking in. No I don't because the 139 and 176 no longer serve Aldwych actually, but does it actually serve Swiss Cottage, Finchley Road etc.... These will be the areas affected if the 13 is withdrawn which is the busiest section in fact. What you just said 'Withdrawing the 13 won't have a negative effect on the Drivers for one as the drivers will have to travel a shorter distance to get to the garage from wherever they are travelling from' does not make any sense. I can tell you now the drivers of the 13 will be affected because they will actually loose their jobs... like I stated above. Not really Childish at all. Your suggesting to remove a well used link of course others are not going to agree. Plus also suggesting redundancies and unhappy customers. Can tell you were not the smartest apple in class. Never did I once suggest in this post there would be redundancies. The former 13 drivers can be redeployed on the Route 82 and/or 139 following the PVR increases. |
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Mar 12, 2013 21:30:48 GMT
No I don't because the 139 and 176 no longer serve Aldwych actually, but does it actually serve Swiss Cottage, Finchley Road etc.... These will be the areas affected if the 13 is withdrawn which is the busiest section in fact. What you just said 'Withdrawing the 13 won't have a negative effect on the Drivers for one as the drivers will have to travel a shorter distance to get to the garage from wherever they are travelling from' does not make any sense. I can tell you now the drivers of the 13 will be affected because they will actually loose their jobs... like I stated above. Not really Childish at all. Your suggesting to remove a well used link of course others are not going to agree. Plus also suggesting redundancies and unhappy customers. Can tell you were not the smartest apple in class. Never did I once suggest in this post there would be redundancies. The former 13 drivers can be redeployed on the Route 82 and/or 139 following the PVR increases. They would be on rubbish contracts as TUPE wouldn't be used and metroline would hire them on the new starter contracts. And removing the route means they will be made redundant. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Mar 12, 2013 21:31:33 GMT
Seems sensible, however stand space is of course at a premium. With regards to the 129, would it not be an idea to extend it to Lewisham, via the 177 to Deptford Bridge then left and parallel the 225/47 to Lewisham either to the station or shopping center. At the minute the 129 serves as a link between the DLR and the Jubilee Line/ O2 arena. Routing it as I suggest would create a better/ more optional links with the DLR and another bus link with the O2 for when there are events on to potentially relieve some of the pressure on existing bus links. |
|
The route used to go to Kingston and was shortened to New Malden Roundabout around twenty years ago. If it was extended a few stops along the High Street the route would suffer even more so from congestion along that extention. Also, i believe the bus stand is not all that big, particularly for an 10.8m Enviro200.
