|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 12, 2013 21:37:09 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 These will be the areas affected if the 13 is withdrawn which is the busiest section in fact.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. Lol. Now thats a Childish Comment  . I'll Ignore that one. Yes I know you didn't, but you suggesting to withdraw the 13 is going to create redundancies! Not all the drivers from the 13 are going to be Automatically transferred to the 82 and 139. I know it certainly doesn't work like that. How do you know that enough work will be created for the redundant drivers from a route with a PVR of 20?  My Guess is that route has more than 40 odd drivers. Really can Metroline accommodate that much, that's a lot of recruitment and selection involved as well and I very much doubt they would require every driver from the 13 for the proposed PVR increases on the 82 & 139. |
|
|
|
Post by Trident on Mar 12, 2013 22:11:19 GMT
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. Lol. Now thats a Childish Comment . I'll Ignore that one. Yes I know you didn't, but you suggesting to withdraw the 13 is going to create redundancies! Not all the drivers from the 13 are going to be Automatically transferred to the 82 and 139. I know it certainly doesn't work like that. How do you know that enough work will be created for the redundant drivers from a route with a PVR of 20? My Guess is that route has more than 40 odd drivers. Really can Metroline accommodate that much, that's a lot of recruitment and selection involved as well and I very much doubt they would require every driver from the 13 for the proposed PVR increases on the 82 & 139. The problem with these type of threads which require 'the most' does in a way provoke a lot of debates that can get heated. I barely use the 13 and I think it should remain. Why would there be a need to extend the 139 to Golders Green when there's already a bus link covered from West Hampstead, courtesy of the 328. From some of my experiences Finchley Road is a busy corridor. Have a think about the impact it could take on the 82 if it's having to suffice with loadings for much of the road up until the 113 joins in from the Edgware end. I don't see what's being achieved by withdrawing the 13, putting jobs at risk makes for unsustainability as Metroline would probably turn the many redundant drivers down. Now how sad would that be? Particularly for poorer families? These are all my opinions from what has been discussed and I hope it is respected from an outsider's perspective. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 22:45:29 GMT
In my opinion this topic is useless as most replies are based on shady observations. The whole point is to get people out of their cars and on to buses so if even 1 person uses that bus then its purpose has been fulfilled.
The EL2 is a low frequency route that intermixes with the EL1 to provide a high frequency service overall. If it didn't run though to dock then you could have upwards of 4-6 buses sitting at Thames view from 8-20+ minutes now is that not pointless. Onto loadings its not heavily used however it does have its regular users. Cleaners, kids that travel from outside the borough to go to school in barking and also the 368 drivers that don't take a bus from the yard. Next week is Holy Week or the week after is Holy Week and most EL2's in the evenings will come up from dock stacked. So if you're going comment on a route base it on more than an hours observations here and there.
The 20 is another prime example it carries the loadings of a single deck the majority of the time but during rush hour and if the central line goes up the spout as it does often then you don't have the room for a rizla.
|
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Mar 12, 2013 22:56:00 GMT
Nonetheless it gets a fair bit of use, whether it's 90% parallel to the 197 or not - no need to axe a service that's in fairly high demand. Only because the 197 is pretty infrequent, it need a PVR increase regardless of whether the 312 is axed. And I don't think the 312 demand/usage is as high as you say outside of peak hours, which is why it's operated by single deckers a lot of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 12, 2013 23:03:56 GMT
In my opinion this topic is useless as most replies are based on shady observations. The whole point is to get people out of their cars and on to buses so if even 1 person uses that bus then its purpose has been fulfilled. The EL2 is a low frequency route that intermixes with the EL1 to provide a high frequency service overall. If it didn't run though to dock then you could have upwards of 4-6 buses sitting at Thames view from 8-20+ minutes now is that not pointless. Onto loadings its not heavily used however it does have its regular users. Cleaners, kids that travel from outside the borough to go to school in barking and also the 368 drivers that don't take a bus from the yard. Next week is Holy Week or the week after is Holy Week and most EL2's in the evenings will come up from dock stacked. So if you're going comment on a route base it on more than an hours observations here and there. The 20 is another prime example it carries the loadings of a single deck the majority of the time but during rush hour and if the central line goes up the spout as it does often then you don't have the room for a rizla. Regarding the 20. The D7 is similar. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 23:05:27 GMT
I've seen the EL2 on many occasions and never seen any passengers go to or from Dagenham Dock. Obviously if it were withdrawn and combined with the EL1 the overall PVR would be reduced.
I've no idea why some people get so worked up, this is just about opinions, nobody has to be right or wrong and why on earth people are talking about job losses, redundancies etc is beyond me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 23:10:46 GMT
Nonetheless it gets a fair bit of use, whether it's 90% parallel to the 197 or not - no need to axe a service that's in fairly high demand. Only because the 197 is pretty infrequent, it need a PVR increase regardless of whether the 312 is axed. And I don't think the 312 demand/usage is as high as you say outside of peak hours, which is why it's operated by single deckers a lot of the time. Increase the 197 to x10mins, extend it to TC, axe the 312, job done. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 12, 2013 23:15:56 GMT
why on earth people are talking about job losses, redundancies etc is beyond me. These are the possible outcomes which people do not consider when stating opinions or giving suggestions about routes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 23:49:05 GMT
Increase the 197 to x10mins, extend it to TC, axe the 312, job done. Seems like you've ignored everything I've said then, about having an *alternative*. There's clearly people using the 312, anyway, so it's not a useless alternative either. Oh for goodness sake, you're obsessed about keeping the 312 but you can't come up with any logical reason for doing so. Lets leave it at that eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Mar 13, 2013 0:00:39 GMT
Only because the 197 is pretty infrequent, it need a PVR increase regardless of whether the 312 is axed. And I don't think the 312 demand/usage is as high as you say outside of peak hours, which is why it's operated by single deckers a lot of the time. Increase the 197 to x10mins, extend it to TC, axe the 312, job done. Surely the 312 would be needed when it returns to spring lane eventually so it can't be axed just yet. I be interested to see the loadings then. Looking at my old timetable from 1987, the 197 use to run every 10 minutes during the day and the 12A was every 6 minutes between south croydon and nowood junction in the daytime. Now both the 197 and 312 are every 12 minutes  When looking at this thread the first routes that spring to mind is the 359 and the T32. I have no idea about the patronage of thses routes but it still makes me wonder. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Mar 13, 2013 0:03:06 GMT
Only because the 197 is pretty infrequent, it need a PVR increase regardless of whether the 312 is axed. And I don't think the 312 demand/usage is as high as you say outside of peak hours, which is why it's operated by single deckers a lot of the time. Majority of routes don't get that much use outside of peak hours, so that's an irrelevant argument. It is a relevant arguement. If you'd ever seen a 197, then a 312, you'd know what I mean... With modifications to the 197, there's is literally no reason to keep the 312 going, I feel like I'm just repeating things now, gonna keep schtum now. ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 0:13:05 GMT
Exactly Steve80, thats why I suggested in a earlier post extending the 412 to Norwood Junc but that maybe sometime off yet. Tramlink has reduced demand for these routes since those timetables but a modest increase on the 197 to x10mins would be in order, its quite busy at the Peckham end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 0:21:49 GMT
I suggest we cross that bridge when we come to it, no pun intended
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2013 3:21:17 GMT
I suggest we cross that bridge when we come to it, no pun intended Indeed. Otherwise I wouldn't see any reason not to merge it with the 412 - frequency increase on the 466 should sort out the East - South Croydon issue without causing the 197 any trouble. Extending the 197 in service to TC wouldnt cause any trouble really, it's only roughly 7 stops and that section of road rarely sees traffic jams. Before the 312 was diverted away from Spring Lane, most passengers from Norwood Junction departed the bus at the Woodside Tram Stop bus stop whilst most people picked up at Ashburton Park & Addiscombe went to Croydon & South Croydon. I suspect that largely this is still the case. Using this and the fact that the 412 mainly carries light loads (school time is when the 412 actually uses it's double deckers to good use), why not just merge them over the proposed routeing now but keep it a single decker route with longer single deckers than the current 10.2m PDL's. This would also be available to cross the bridge even if a future weight restriction was put into place. Also, 1 morning & afternoon journey could run between Purley & East Croydon with a double decker to cater for school traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2013 3:26:35 GMT
Route 415: Was only created for Tulse Hill residents to be linked up with Brixton Road but its rarely takes loads of passengers and and an extension of the 432 (along with increased capacity) over the 415 to Elephant & Castle would create far more links. Seems like literally its only purpose is Kennington - Tulse Hill. Just about everything else is covered by a bigger trunk route (68, 196, 468, etc.) Indeed, I got one of those leaflets about the route through my door a few weeks before the 415 began and it's only purpose is to link the residents living along Tulse Hill with the Brixton Road corridor as every Brixton route that serves the Tulse Hill corridor & ones that serve Tulse Hill itself either terminate in Brixton or head to Stockwell. An extended 432 over the 415 to Elephant & Castle plus an extension from Anerley to Elmers End would create lots of new links and more important ones IMO. |
|
. I'll Ignore that one.
