|
Post by vjaska on Apr 28, 2020 22:02:21 GMT
Or simply extend the 73 at the northern end (maybe every 2nd or 3rd bus) and get rid of the 476 altogether? There are a few clever tweaks / merging of short routes which can be done. Not that I like it but given tfl finances this is bound to happen at some stage I think the 476 has been damaged since the slice. I could see routes like the 349, 476, 148 & sadly the 45 at risk of slicing, however sacrifices have to be made and they could always return. One thing that could be the saviour for tfl is the fact that everyone may be more excited to go out so tfl may start taking in more money for some time after Lockdown when people want to socialize I am very worried about the transport network and funding post COVID, it's been making me really sad and very anxious that routes could be sliced and that it may turn people away Once you cut a route, it's much more difficult to bring it back especially if the passengers end up going elsewhere. Since the 45's cut, it had surprisingly done pretty well whilst the cut to the 476 has probably damaged it but at the same time, it's still the best alternative as merging another route over it could compromise reliability. At the end of the day, it's still way too early to predict what will happen after lockdown, let alone start making plans for certain routes. The suggestions about what might happen either way are perfectly valid but not predicting routes that could stay or go - not only does lockdown need to end for starters but then, routes would need to be monitored to see what the post lockdown trends are.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 29, 2020 13:22:00 GMT
I live in Euston, and I have to say the 476 was probably the least used route on the section. The cut to King’s Cross was good because it didnt make a difference but its still empty. I can’t comment anywhere past Angel but between Angel and Euston it has usually been empty.
I still think the 73 can replace it with the extension, two routes is really not needed.
If not, I think the 476 could do a further cut to Islington, Angel. Kings Cross section is not needed to be honest, its loads are still very LESS and could 100% go with a single decker during the peaks.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 29, 2020 13:39:55 GMT
I live in Euston, and I have to say the 476 was probably the least used route on the section. The cut to King’s Cross was good because it didnt make a difference but its still empty. I can’t comment anywhere past Angel but between Angel and Euston it has usually been empty. I still think the 73 can replace it with the extension, two routes is really not needed. If not, I think the 476 could do a further cut to Islington, Angel. Kings Cross section is not needed to be honest, its loads are still very LESS and could 100% go with a single decker during the peaks. If you merged the 73 into the 476, the northern end would be overbussed due to the higher frequency of the 73.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 29, 2020 14:25:45 GMT
I wouldn't merge them as I think it would be too long. Maybe at a push take the 73 back to Tottenham but even then capacity has been ok without the 73 up from Stokie and the 349 down to Stokie.
I do think there is high demand from (tubeless) Newington Green down to Islington (Angel zone 1) thou which I'm not sure the 73 could cope with alone. Maybe remove the short overlap between the 349 and 476 betwen Lansdown Road and Stamford Hill and extend the 349 to Angel. The section to Kings X could be left to the other routes and NP to the 341 with an eye on if it can cope. Maybe a slight peak increase on the 341.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 29, 2020 14:43:12 GMT
I live in Euston, and I have to say the 476 was probably the least used route on the section. The cut to King’s Cross was good because it didnt make a difference but its still empty. I can’t comment anywhere past Angel but between Angel and Euston it has usually been empty. I still think the 73 can replace it with the extension, two routes is really not needed. If not, I think the 476 could do a further cut to Islington, Angel. Kings Cross section is not needed to be honest, its loads are still very LESS and could 100% go with a single decker during the peaks. If you merged the 73 into the 476, the northern end would be overbussed due to the higher frequency of the 73. Shorter journeys, and i think the 73 could do with a PVR cut from 35 to maybe 27-31 there are alot of bunching and buses sometimes empty. Shorter journeys maybe up to Tottenham or Seven Sisters?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 29, 2020 17:35:56 GMT
I live in Euston, and I have to say the 476 was probably the least used route on the section. The cut to King’s Cross was good because it didnt make a difference but its still empty. I can’t comment anywhere past Angel but between Angel and Euston it has usually been empty. I still think the 73 can replace it with the extension, two routes is really not needed. If not, I think the 476 could do a further cut to Islington, Angel. Kings Cross section is not needed to be honest, its loads are still very LESS and could 100% go with a single decker during the peaks. I agree, the 476 may as well have been withdrawn completely instead of just cut back to King's Cross. Return the 76 to Northumberland Park (the 341 is a similar length and that seems to operate ok) and extend the 73 to Tottenham Hale.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 29, 2020 20:54:22 GMT
I live in Euston, and I have to say the 476 was probably the least used route on the section. The cut to King’s Cross was good because it didnt make a difference but its still empty. I can’t comment anywhere past Angel but between Angel and Euston it has usually been empty. I still think the 73 can replace it with the extension, two routes is really not needed. If not, I think the 476 could do a further cut to Islington, Angel. Kings Cross section is not needed to be honest, its loads are still very LESS and could 100% go with a single decker during the peaks. I agree, the 476 may as well have been withdrawn completely instead of just cut back to King's Cross. Return the 76 to Northumberland Park (the 341 is a similar length and that seems to operate ok) and extend the 73 to Tottenham Hale. Just because a route is similar length doesn’t mean it will have the same conditions.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 29, 2020 23:05:00 GMT
If post-Covid there really is a 20% reduction in bus use and TfL finances quite bleak, there could be service reductions and thus quite a few spare LTs. Due to their negligible resale value, they are likely to stay in frontline service in London for some time. So, we could see more LT conversions, a bit like we saw some backdoor conversions to RM on 4.9.82. So, a few candidates for LT conversion could be 1 or more of routes 2, 13, 18, 25, 52, 63, 133, 139, 188, 243. Disclaimer: Just as several early conversions did not take account of tender dates, so I am not here either. Also, I do not know beyond a handful of cases which routes have failed an LT test. Possible, but far from clear such a scenario will transpire. I don't think there will be cuts giving sufficient spare buses to convert another route with an average TVR in the foreseeable future. It is in neither the Government's nor Mayor's interest to cut services, as the government needs to get people back to work and the economy moving again. I think it will potentially be a long time before buses can be allowed to carry a full load of passengers, buses will perhaps only be allowed to become half full. I base this on people wearing masks which would allow closer social distancing. If you have full 2m social distancing on buses, you'll need every bus available and then some more to cater for the remaining 80% of passengers. Even if buses are allowed to be half full, a 20% reduction in passengers may not be enough. By the time we are back allowing buses to take a full load and passenger confidence being back to travel in the old 'close quarters', all manner of things may have changed. A reduction in demand at that point leading to cuts is a very possible scenario, but only one of a number of very possible scenarios. We live in 'interesting' times!
|
|
|
Post by BK15AZR on May 1, 2020 17:51:41 GMT
If post-Covid there really is a 20% reduction in bus use and TfL finances quite bleak, there could be service reductions and thus quite a few spare LTs. Due to their negligible resale value, they are likely to stay in frontline service in London for some time. So, we could see more LT conversions, a bit like we saw some backdoor conversions to RM on 4.9.82. So, a few candidates for LT conversion could be 1 or more of routes 2, 13, 18, 25, 52, 63, 133, 139, 188, 243. Disclaimer: Just as several early conversions did not take account of tender dates, so I am not here either. Also, I do not know beyond a handful of cases which routes have failed an LT test. Probably 207/607 would be good places for the LTs as well?
|
|
|
Post by uakari on May 3, 2020 16:53:28 GMT
If post-Covid there really is a 20% reduction in bus use and TfL finances quite bleak, there could be service reductions and thus quite a few spare LTs. Due to their negligible resale value, they are likely to stay in frontline service in London for some time. So, we could see more LT conversions, a bit like we saw some backdoor conversions to RM on 4.9.82. So, a few candidates for LT conversion could be 1 or more of routes 2, 13, 18, 25, 52, 63, 133, 139, 188, 243. Disclaimer: Just as several early conversions did not take account of tender dates, so I am not here either. Also, I do not know beyond a handful of cases which routes have failed an LT test. Probably 207/607 would be good places for the LTs as well? Frankly, since they lost the open back door and the 'passenger assistant', and now the rear/middle boarding that they just got rid of and then obviously had to bring back for Covid, I think that LTs have become completely ridiculous and they should just quietly phase them out when the contracts come up - even the retro-fitted windows don't stop the heat and they're cramped as anything. I certainly wouldn't want to see more of them on more routes.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 3, 2020 17:04:05 GMT
There is a slight issue thou that a new bus can easily still cost 300k or up to 500k for an electric it's hard to justify removing a bus before they hit 12 to 14 years old. Even if the boarding times are the same now as conventional buses they will still do job for another contract.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on May 3, 2020 17:13:40 GMT
There is a slight issue thou that a new bus can easily still cost 300k or up to 500k for an electric it's hard to justify removing a bus before they hit 12 to 14 years old. Even if the boarding times are the same now as conventional buses they will still do job for another contract. Yeah I guess we're stuck with the farquahs for now, and better not to waste them. Just don't inflict them on more routes - hire spare ones out to the tourist bus and party bus industry if they can be repainted.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on May 4, 2020 14:58:16 GMT
Though I see unlikely - it would be nice to have the 476 withdrawn between London Canal Museum & Kings Cross and extended to Holborn via Gray's Inn Road, Guildford Street & Southampton Row and stand on New Oxford Street.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 4, 2020 15:32:54 GMT
Not sure the 19 and 38 need more support between Angel and Holborn. Both routes already are rather generous in terms of frequency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2020 2:22:46 GMT
How about the 47? Possible?
|
|