Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2013 22:11:06 GMT
Why cant people take the train as part of the 25 runs parallel with the Central Line? The train is lot quicker then the bus. On the bus, you have to wait for over an hour to get to your destination whilst on the train, you be there in half hour.  Because despite the time savings, it costs more. Example, it costs me an extra £43/month to get a Travelcard instead of a Bus Pass Indeed. Also, if you're like me and have a non-Zone 1 Travelcard, the bus is covered by that - trains to Zone 1 and 4 obviously aren't. I could get to Ilford or Holborn much more cheaply therefore. |
|
|
|
Post by greeny253 on Apr 4, 2013 5:42:13 GMT
Why cant people take the train as part of the 25 runs parallel with the Central Line?   The train is lot quicker then the bus. On the bus, you have to wait for over an hour to get to your destination whilst on the train, you be there in half hour. Costs more to travel in Zone 1. There's no real other way of putting it.. |
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Apr 4, 2013 9:22:05 GMT
I dont think we needed the graphic to illustrate that trains are faster than buses.
My understanding is that all the Stratford Extensions are being paid by the people who run the Queen Elizabeth Area not TfL, so there was a 'free' opportunity to have a 24 hour 205 extention to Leyton. So there must be a reason for it not happening.
Also would be quicker to get from the new area to Central London with 388's extension or a 205 extension if it happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by Trident on Apr 4, 2013 9:29:08 GMT
I dont think we needed the graphic to illustrate that trains are faster than buses. My understanding is that all the Stratford Extensions are being paid by the people who run the Queen Elizabeth Area not TfL, so there was a 'free' opportunity to have a 24 hour 205 extention to Leyton. So there must be a reason for it not happening. Also would be quicker to get from the new area to Central London with 388's extension or a 205 extension if it happened? I think it would have been the 205, as the 388 cuts through Hackney Wick, Ash Grove and Bethnal Green. The 205 would be more direct. |
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Apr 4, 2013 9:46:22 GMT
Plus the money needed to fund those stupid bus for London raises fare prices
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 10:09:48 GMT
I dont think we needed the graphic to illustrate that trains are faster than buses. My understanding is that all the Stratford Extensions are being paid by the people who run the Queen Elizabeth Area not TfL, so there was a 'free' opportunity to have a 24 hour 205 extention to Leyton. So there must be a reason for it not happening. Also would be quicker to get from the new area to Central London with 388's extension or a 205 extension if it happened? I think it would have been the 205, as the 388 cuts through Hackney Wick, Ash Grove and Bethnal Green. The 205 would be more direct. Indeed, though the 388 will provide an alternative link to Stratford from the City, which will be useful. Will also provide a Stratford - Bethnal Green link that isn't the Central Line. |
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Apr 4, 2013 11:09:17 GMT
A few of my thoughts on the subject. Firstly, I believe that the 205 (along with the 148) are the most successful of the new routes to be introduced.
Thirdly, although I agree with simplification, and routes not running in sections, I am glad that some common sense seems to be returning with some routes running a lesser frequency over some sections eg: 25's to Holborn, 38's to Hackney etc. It makes sense to run the most efficient (cost wise) service and it is not that difficult for passengers to understand. Instead of cutting the whole 73 service back to Stoke Newington for example, I believe that they should have cut half the service back to there and run every other bus to tottenham.
Secondly, the useful extension to Bow Church (whether financed/suggested by ELBG or TfL suggests that in service running isnt that more expensive than long dead runs. When I look at some of the dead runs that some routes have, I cant help but think that this logic could be applied to other routes.
Finally, I believe that the usefulness of long trunk routes has been underestimated in pursuit of reliability. Yes, we could have loads of 5 mile routes running efficiently, but I would much rather have a bit of a wait for a trunk service that is actually going to get me to where I want to go without having to change. With the revelution in real time information available to the passenger, adhering to a timetable is not as important as it used to be and gives the power to the passenger to make on the spot journey decisions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 11:25:20 GMT
Costs more to travel in Zone 1. There's no real other way of putting it.. Indeed. Using Oyster from Ilford to Holborn costs £3.90 off-peak (179% more than a bus) and £5.10 peak (264% more). And that assumes you can walk to your nearest station and not need to start on a bus to it. With price capping just using buses is only £4.40 compared to £7.70 (75% more) off-peak and £10.60 (141% more) to include train and tube. Having rail options do not mean buses are not needed. It does not matter how much faster a train will be if someone cannot afford it or has accessibility issues (Holborn station has limited accessibility). Less of an issue with the Great Eastern line, but in places where trains are only every 30 minutes, and sometimes where even every 15 minutes, the bus can also still work out faster once you include the waiting time. From Streatham to London Bridge the 133 at about 45 minutes can be faster than the half-hourly train service which takes about 25 minutes if you get to the station at the wrong time. Plus it is usually a longer walk to the nearest station than bus stop. Journey times on their own do not reflect how much earlier you have to leave home or may have to wait. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 11:43:20 GMT
A few of my thoughts on the subject. Firstly, I believe that the 205 (along with the 148) are the most successful of the new routes to be introduced. Thirdly, although I agree with simplification, and routes not running in sections, I am glad that some common sense seems to be returning with some routes running a lesser frequency over some sections eg: 25's to Holborn, 38's to Hackney etc. It makes sense to run the most efficient (cost wise) service and it is not that difficult for passengers to understand. Instead of cutting the whole 73 service back to Stoke Newington for example, I believe that they should have cut half the service back to there and run every other bus to tottenham. Secondly, the useful extension to Bow Church (whether financed/suggested by ELBG or TfL suggests that in service running isnt that more expensive than long dead runs. When I look at some of the dead runs that some routes have, I cant help but think that this logic could be applied to other routes. Finally, I believe that the usefulness of long trunk routes has been underestimated in pursuit of reliability. Yes, we could have loads of 5 mile routes running efficiently, but I would much rather have a bit of a wait for a trunk service that is actually going to get me to where I want to go without having to change. With the revelution in real time information available to the passenger, adhering to a timetable is not as important as it used to be and gives the power to the passenger to make on the spot journey decisions. I agree the 205 (and 148) have been very successful. The 205 in particular has patched together some links along the upper limit of Central London which wouldn't exist - for example, Paddington to Euston, Moorgate and Islington. It's also now taken a role of supporting the 25 along the Bow - Aldgate corridor, and provides links from Liverpool St to further afield in East London than Aldgate - all in all a great success. Regarding the scheduled short runs on the 25 and 38, my reckoning was that they were more motivated by stand space than as a way of cost effectiveness. The large increases in the number of buses on ex-bendy routes, and in particular those two as the highest PVR routes in London, probably meant that it wasn't viable to stand all 25s at Oxford Circus or all 38s at Clapton. However, it does provide cost efficiency as you say as the majority of the route is still run, and the City Thameslink - Oxford Circus corridor/Hackney - Claptop corridor does have sufficient coverage from other routes (from 5 other routes in the case of the 38!) As for dead mileage I think that on some routes it could be beneficial, especially if the route has dead mileage to stand in the garage anyway. The 197 is mentioned as an example often here, as it runs light to terminate and stand at South Croydon Garage anyway. The 205 provided a new link by only running a few minutes down the road, again a beneficial but simple extension. However, I'm not sure dead mileage is the biggest cost, as buses are not running to and from the garage all the time, so unless it's a case like the 197 it would probably significantly more costly. I agree about the value of a trunk service, especially ones which centre around Central London. The value of a direct service to Central London, I feel, is greatly underestimated - the popularity of routes like the 25, 36/436, 53/453, 73, 188 are all perfect demonstrations of how much people value direct links to Central London. I am lucky enough to have two trunk routes to Central London where I live, despite living in a fairly insignificant (but heavily residential area) - all because of historical routings. However, both routes are very popular in the peaks. The severing of the 73's link from Tottenham to the West End was, if you ask me, a big mistake. It may have marginally improved reliability, or cut costs, but it was at the expense of a very useful and well-patronised link. Of course, there are still links to Central London from Tottenham but all four are focused around the City more than the (probably more popular) objective of Oxford Circus - the 76, 149, 243, 341 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 11:50:46 GMT
Costs more to travel in Zone 1. There's no real other way of putting it.. Indeed. Using Oyster from Ilford to Holborn costs £3.90 off-peak (179% more than a bus) and £5.10 peak (264% more). And that assumes you can walk to your nearest station and not need to start on a bus to it. With price capping just using buses is only £4.40 compared to £7.70 (75% more) off-peak and £10.60 (141% more) to include train and tube. Having rail options do not mean buses are not needed. It does not matter how much faster a train will be if someone cannot afford it or has accessibility issues (Holborn station has limited accessibility). Less of an issue with the Great Eastern line, but in places where trains are only every 30 minutes, and sometimes where even every 15 minutes, the bus can also still work out faster once you include the waiting time. From Streatham to London Bridge the 133 at about 45 minutes can be faster than the half-hourly train service which takes about 25 minutes if you get to the station at the wrong time. Plus it is usually a longer walk to the nearest station than bus stop. Journey times on their own do not reflect how much earlier you have to leave home or may have to wait. I was also thinking - such a journey would rely on using the Central Line. Now, a crowded Tube (I personally believe) is less comfortable to use than a crowded bus. Even on a busy bus service like the 25 there's often a seat or two available upstairs - something you could only dream of on the rush hour Central Line! People wouldn't particularly want to pay more to have an even less pleasant experience, even if it is quicker. I agree with your point about rail lines and bus links. A round-the-corner rail link doesn't particularly compensate for the lack of a bus service - railway lines tend to be more vulnerable to problems (signal failures in particular) whereas with a bus service, usually an alternative via a change, or a diversion is possible. If simply a rail service is relied upon to provide a link, when that goes down the pan, everyone then relies on the bus. If there's no designated route to provide such a link, that can mean more people on a busy route travelling for a change, or people without much clue about how they're going to continue their journey. Your point about accessibility issues is also very true here. I'm sometimes told "We don't need an X25, use the District and Central Line". Of course, if you're one of the (many) elderly or mobility-impaired people that uses the 25, clambering down 1001 stairs at Whitechapel isn't going to be an option. Also, as everyone has said about FreeBBC's Holborn to Ilford case, nobody is going to want to pay more than they have to. For a lot of people, the bus is the only accessible option, and if you're elderly, making 3 changes to complete a journey isn't going to be a particularly attractive option either. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 4, 2013 12:07:32 GMT
Why cant people take the train as part of the 25 runs parallel with the Central Line? The train is lot quicker then the bus. On the bus, you have to wait for over an hour to get to your destination whilst on the train, you be there in half hour. I can't speak for the 25 but when I went to school in south London I had the choice of the northern line or the 155. Me and my schoolmates mostly took the bus as the tube would take us quite a bit past our school, thus having to walk back. This may be the case with a lot of travellers where the bus stops closer to their venues than the tube. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 12:10:56 GMT
Plus the money needed to fund those stupid bus for London raises fare prices Oh whatever is wrong it must be the NB4L that is too blame..........change the record pleeeeaase  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 12:15:43 GMT
Plus the money needed to fund those stupid bus for London raises fare prices Oh whatever is wrong it must be the NB4L that is too blame..........change the record pleeeeaase Whether it's directly relevant or not, there is a lot of money being poured into the NB4L project, undeniably so. Of course, TFL's supply of money isn't infinite so when one element of the budget goes up, inevitably the money's got to come from somewhere - be it fares, service cuts, etc. I personally don't blame fare rises on the NB4L, because let's face it, we've had fare rises every year that I can remember. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 12:18:29 GMT
Don't take this as gospel but I been told that Stagecoach agreed to run the Mile End - Bow Church at there own cost as part of the tender. I wonder if this will impact on other operators bidding for the route.Also maybe the route should be extended to Stratford City as a more logical terminal than Bow Church. Quoted from the other thread. Highlighted in Yellow. We need to remember ELBG done this, not Stagecoach.... As its been said Stagecoach do not like running at a loss. I cannot see why Stagecoach or ELBG would agree to run the Mile End to Bow section at their own cost, from their point of view it would be cheaper to run buses out of service between Mile End and BW for driver changeovers. Does anybody like running at a loss  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 12:19:48 GMT
Quoted from the other thread. Highlighted in Yellow. We need to remember ELBG done this, not Stagecoach.... As its been said Stagecoach do not like running at a loss. I cannot see why Stagecoach or ELBG would agree to run the Mile End to Bow section at their own cost, from their point of view it would be cheaper to run buses out of service between Mile End and BW for driver changeovers. Does anybody like running at a loss I wonder if it was partly motivated by stand space at Mile End, the little bus stand at the junction isn't particularly big. Also Stagecoach probably put the idea to TFL as part of their contract, but I see no reason why they wouldn't have costed for it. |
|
