|
Post by george on Sept 9, 2020 23:49:59 GMT
The 38 is the most overbussed route in the whole of London. I don't disagree it's busy but not to the extend that it needs a bus behind one another every 2 seconds. There's 100 other routes in London that are just as busy in London but don't get the help that the 38 gets. Can't comment on the 73 but greg suggests a cut wouldn't be too bad. I know we would agree to disagree but you have only seen the route at Green Park?. Try looking further North of the route around Islington and Hackney the route will be packed (both ways) and that would have been the same outcome if covid didn't happen. yes it's true that I mainly see the route from Green Park and never said that isn't the case in my posts about the 38. I have seen the route at Angel a couple of times and I still think it's frequency is over the top. There's other routes that deserve the same frequency as the 38 but don't get them so not sure what made the 38 so special? I don't think I'm the only that thinks this as well www.railforums.co.uk/threads/most-frequent-bus-routes-in-london.85067/. It's a shame when routes get cut but I have to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Sept 10, 2020 6:30:41 GMT
The 38 is the most overbussed route in the whole of London. I don't disagree it's busy but not to the extend that it needs a bus behind one another every 2 seconds. There's 100 other routes in London that are just as busy in London but don't get the help that the 38 gets. Can't comment on the 73 but greg suggests a cut wouldn't be too bad. Yes and the reasoning to this is: - The 73 never received a PVR cut with its cut to Oxford Circus so it does not justify any like high patronage like it used to, its main support is the 390 between King’s Cross and Oxford Circus and even Tottenham Court Road with Goodge Street does not have the 73 picking up. The 73 is the second most frequent route but the least used out of the 24, 29 and 390. It needs a PVR cut as the route then becomes residental between Pentonville Road (Penton Street) all the way to Stoke Newington except at Upper Street, Angel Station. The current PVR is 35 and it should manage with a PVR of 23/24 imo. The route does not take anywhere as long as it used to as the real congestion is on Euston Road and Pentonville Road, the 476 supports this route between King’s Cross and Stoke Newington also aswell as the 390 between King’s Cross and Victoria. - Another thing is, if the 73 had a PVR cut buses could actually be busier as people would be waiting for the same bus and it would actually fill up, a 7-8 minute frequency is perfect for the 73 rather than 3 buses coming every 4 minutes, its crazy. Maybe being a little generous but the 73’s good PVR estimate should be about 21-24 on normal hours and maybe 24-26 during peak The 24 does amazing and it only has a PVR of 18, the 31 has a PVR of 15 and carry a lot more loads than the 73 does observationally. Comparing the PVR of the 73 with the PVR of other routes (24 or 31) makes no sense. PVR is a function of route length* as well as frequency, so you cannot just compare PVRs for routes that have different lengths. It is the frequency that is important. You may well be right that the 73 could cope with a frequency reduction (which would obviously entail a PVR reduction) but please don't confuse PVR with frequency!
Another small point - PVR stands for Peak Vehicle Requirement, so it makes no sense to say that a route would have a PVR of xx during off-peak hours and yy during peak hours.
I'm a bit puzzled by the argument that the route should be reduced because it serves residential areas. Residential areas are full of residents, and those residents are the very people who will (potentially) use the bus. Better to serve an area where people live than an area where no-one lives!
(* - actually the time taken to cover the complete route rather than the physical distance covered)
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 10, 2020 10:20:28 GMT
Apparently the 313 LT conversion is intended as a temporary measure to allow for social distancing, whether it subsequently becomes permanent remains to be seen. Only drivers on the 313 rota are being type trained which explains why the LTs weren't put on routes like the 279 or 349 as it would necessitate a lot more drivers being type trained for buses that might only be at E temporarily.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Sept 10, 2020 11:17:00 GMT
Apparently the 313 LT conversion is intended as a temporary measure to allow for social distancing, whether it subsequently becomes permanent remains to be seen. Only drivers on the 313 rota are being type trained which explains why the LTs weren't put on routes like the 279 or 349 as it would necessitate a lot more drivers being type trained for buses that might only be at E temporarily. I had a feeling it might be for a temporary measure, which then raises the question on what route they may yet be used on afterwards. I take it the blindsets will be utilised from the buses that are presently on route, as opposed to getting new blinds?
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on Sept 10, 2020 12:46:30 GMT
Apparently the 313 LT conversion is intended as a temporary measure to allow for social distancing, whether it subsequently becomes permanent remains to be seen. Only drivers on the 313 rota are being type trained which explains why the LTs weren't put on routes like the 279 or 349 as it would necessitate a lot more drivers being type trained for buses that might only be at E temporarily. I had a feeling it might be for a temporary measure, which then raises the question on what route they may yet be used on afterwards. I take it the blindsets will be utilised from the buses that are presently on route, as opposed to getting new blinds? They are a permanent allocation
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 13:07:20 GMT
I had a feeling it might be for a temporary measure, which then raises the question on what route they may yet be used on afterwards. I take it the blindsets will be utilised from the buses that are presently on route, as opposed to getting new blinds? They are a permanent allocation Makes sense, the amount of buses available match the PVR, would be wasteful to produce blinds, type train etc if only short term.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 10, 2020 13:38:54 GMT
We will know how permanent it is if the current SDs are officially allocated to another route. The 318 maybe to lower the age profile on the route.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Sept 10, 2020 13:54:09 GMT
We will know how permanent it is if the current SDs are officially allocated to another route. The 318 maybe to lower the age profile on the route. I'd be surprised if an ENX can manage the 318's back streets round South Tottenham.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 10, 2020 13:54:10 GMT
We will know how permanent it is if the current SDs are officially allocated to another route. The 318 maybe to lower the age profile on the route. The 318 cannot' take ENX's which are the current allocation of the 313 - the most plausible options look to be either replacing the three ENL's allocated to the 289 or converting the B15 from ENL's to ENX's earlier than planned. The trouble with either of these is some ENX's will be left over either way and not enough to do both routes at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Sept 10, 2020 16:57:08 GMT
Is it only temporary because of the 313 being on tender very close?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 10, 2020 16:59:53 GMT
Is it only temporary because of the 313 being on tender very close? I suppose a decision will be made when social distancing is over, whenever that's likely to be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 17:15:39 GMT
Is it only temporary because of the 313 being on tender very close? I would be shocked if it wasn't tendered based on the LTs. We sadly look likely stuck with social distancing until next Spring at the earliest so these buses will be needed long term.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 10, 2020 22:49:56 GMT
As the LT fleet is owned by TFL, I think TFL should decide which routes they are allocated to, rather than the operators. The 313 is a low-frequency, cross-border route, while LTs are likely more suitable for routes that are more central, higher frequency or along busy corridors. A lot of operators/garages have a number of spare LTs which have not been reallocated, usually as a result of PVR cuts, though some of the initial routes to convert were given additional spares. Some of these could instead move to different garages or operators as necessary, e.g. to fully convert the 176. Although the LTs released from the 38 may fit the 313's allocation, more will be released from the 73 cut - those from the 38/73 alongside various spares across operators could be combined to convert more appropriate route(s) to LTs.
The 313 is up for tender soon, so Arriva's decision to introduce LTs might be linked to this. Though this does have the possibility of LTs being introduced to HCT, Sullivan or Uno. Note that NP is not far from the 313, and already has LTs, so might not be that safe with Arriva in this case.
Also, will the 313D working use an LT as well, or remain with a 61reg T?
|
|
|
Post by greg on Sept 10, 2020 23:35:16 GMT
As the LT fleet is owned by TFL, I think TFL should decide which routes they are allocated to, rather than the operators. The 313 is a low-frequency, cross-border route, while LTs are likely more suitable for routes that are more central, higher frequency or along busy corridors. A lot of operators/garages have a number of spare LTs which have not been reallocated, usually as a result of PVR cuts, though some of the initial routes to convert were given additional spares. Some of these could instead move to different garages or operators as necessary, e.g. to fully convert the 176. Although the LTs released from the 38 may fit the 313's allocation, more will be released from the 73 cut - those from the 38/73 alongside various spares across operators could be combined to convert more appropriate route(s) to LTs. The 313 is up for tender soon, so Arriva's decision to introduce LTs might be linked to this. Though this does have the possibility of LTs being introduced to HCT, Sullivan or Uno. Note that NP is not far from the 313, and already has LTs, so might not be that safe with Arriva in this case. Also, will the 313D working use an LT as well, or remain with a 61reg T? I think it was confirmed they are staying with Arriva though so I doubt they would leave, I know TFL own them but do TFL just take them or do Arriva return them to TFL if they are “surplus/not needed”. I think the 313 will be retained by Arriva personally and still using the LTs as a permanent measure to see the last few years the LTs can run as they will have to all be gone in the next 3-10 years. The batch the 313 will be getting will be of old age too, 38’s batch are 13/14 regs I think or even 12 reg and the 73’s is about 15 reg. Any routes in the 2020-2024 tender with LTs, either given to routes which need buses or the LT routes get electrics later as LTs are pretty weird outside of London.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 11, 2020 0:29:17 GMT
As the LT fleet is owned by TFL, I think TFL should decide which routes they are allocated to, rather than the operators. The 313 is a low-frequency, cross-border route, while LTs are likely more suitable for routes that are more central, higher frequency or along busy corridors. A lot of operators/garages have a number of spare LTs which have not been reallocated, usually as a result of PVR cuts, though some of the initial routes to convert were given additional spares. Some of these could instead move to different garages or operators as necessary, e.g. to fully convert the 176. Although the LTs released from the 38 may fit the 313's allocation, more will be released from the 73 cut - those from the 38/73 alongside various spares across operators could be combined to convert more appropriate route(s) to LTs. The 313 is up for tender soon, so Arriva's decision to introduce LTs might be linked to this. Though this does have the possibility of LTs being introduced to HCT, Sullivan or Uno. Note that NP is not far from the 313, and already has LTs, so might not be that safe with Arriva in this case. Also, will the 313D working use an LT as well, or remain with a 61reg T? The 313D might not be needed if converted to DD.
|
|