|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 23, 2022 8:56:49 GMT
People live where their travel is convenient. Have you ever travelled on a 53? I have. A lot of passengers from the Common area go as far as Elephant & Castle. What has the 472 got to do with it? Changing at Woolwich is just as easy as Plumstead station. The hopper fare wouldn't work if you make them change buses at Woolwich and a point after Deptford Bridge. The 53 and 122 are fine as they are. I used to live near Plumstead Common Road, so yes, I have travelled on the 53 a whole lot. And I've observed what happens when an eastbound 53 at busy times arrives at Woolwich Arsenal. It takes forever while about 80% of the passengers fight their way off through one single door. LTs would be great because of the double exit doors. Most of those who disembark then go on to catch a bus towards Thamesmead, usually the 472. I think the biggest problem with any proposal to get rid of the Plumstead Common end of the 53 is you’d need two routes to replicate a reasonable frequency to avoid overcrowding, and one of those two routes would have to be the 54 to minimise the number of broken journeys. On balance, it’s way too much of a faff, and aside from possibly adding a route to go via Plumstead Common and Kings Highway (divert the already meandering 469?) I think it’s best to leave alone.
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Jul 29, 2022 10:37:26 GMT
Could any of PM's remaining 2 DD routes (37 and 363) see an LT conversion?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 29, 2022 10:54:34 GMT
Could any of PM's remaining 2 DD routes (37 and 363) see an LT conversion? Q or NX routes would be more likely I would think?
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 29, 2022 10:55:31 GMT
Could any of PM's remaining 2 DD routes (37 and 363) see an LT conversion? The 37 shouldn't have any issues that I'm aware of but the 363 is very much unlikely as the N63 can't even accommodate the BYD E400 EVs¹ due to street infrastructure issues beyond Honor Oak. ¹ - slightly shorter than the LTs
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jul 29, 2022 11:02:06 GMT
Could any of PM's remaining 2 DD routes (37 and 363) see an LT conversion? Guessing converting the remaining allocation in the 5 would be a priority for GAL before any other routes convert. This is assuming they have any spare LTs of course.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jul 29, 2022 21:11:08 GMT
I used to live near Plumstead Common Road, so yes, I have travelled on the 53 a whole lot. And I've observed what happens when an eastbound 53 at busy times arrives at Woolwich Arsenal. It takes forever while about 80% of the passengers fight their way off through one single door. LTs would be great because of the double exit doors. Most of those who disembark then go on to catch a bus towards Thamesmead, usually the 472. I think the biggest problem with any proposal to get rid of the Plumstead Common end of the 53 is you’d need two routes to replicate a reasonable frequency to avoid overcrowding, and one of those two routes would have to be the 54 to minimise the number of broken journeys. On balance, it’s way too much of a faff, and aside from possibly adding a route to go via Plumstead Common and Kings Highway (divert the already meandering 469?) I think it’s best to leave alone. The voice of reason in this thread, coming from people who know the current route and loadings well. The 53 is well used over the Woolwich to Plumstead section, from the first stop on Orchard Road. It would certainly take two routes to replace it, but inevitably this would lead to an uneven service pattern along that section. Best to just leave it alone. As for converting it to LT, that wouldn’t be in keeping with the recent trend on new awards. Usually the 53 ends up with shiny new buses. I would expect the same next time around with Stagecoach bidding with electrics.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jul 29, 2022 21:19:26 GMT
I think the biggest problem with any proposal to get rid of the Plumstead Common end of the 53 is you’d need two routes to replicate a reasonable frequency to avoid overcrowding, and one of those two routes would have to be the 54 to minimise the number of broken journeys. On balance, it’s way too much of a faff, and aside from possibly adding a route to go via Plumstead Common and Kings Highway (divert the already meandering 469?) I think it’s best to leave alone. The voice of reason in this thread, coming from people who know the current route and loadings well. The 53 is well used over the Woolwich to Plumstead section, from the first stop on Orchard Road. It would certainly take two routes to replace it, but inevitably this would lead to an uneven service pattern along that section. Best to just leave it alone. As for converting it to LT, that wouldn’t be in keeping with the recent trend on new awards. Usually the 53 ends up with shiny new buses. I would expect the same next time around with Stagecoach bidding with electrics. I agree with the 53 and can see the existing buses moving to the 86 if retained just like last time around.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 29, 2022 21:29:27 GMT
The voice of reason in this thread, coming from people who know the current route and loadings well. The 53 is well used over the Woolwich to Plumstead section, from the first stop on Orchard Road. It would certainly take two routes to replace it, but inevitably this would lead to an uneven service pattern along that section. Best to just leave it alone. As for converting it to LT, that wouldn’t be in keeping with the recent trend on new awards. Usually the 53 ends up with shiny new buses. I would expect the same next time around with Stagecoach bidding with electrics. I agree with the 53 and can see the existing buses moving to the 86 if retained just like last time around. Although the last award was as the route on paper was still diesel as the hybrids were attached to the 96 (not to mention non standard ones being Volvos/Geminis) whereas the 86 was allowed diesels for another term as it didnt enter the ULEZ so that may explain why the 53 got new buses. This time around the 53 does have a fully compliant fleet of its own so could be more likely for an existing award.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 3, 2022 16:14:01 GMT
I wonder if LTs can go on the following: 114, 140, 222, 427 and 607.
|
|
|
Post by sam97 on Aug 4, 2022 12:55:15 GMT
Maybe the 215 be the next Candidate? Since the 8 frequency reduction and LT 368 was on the 215 route a few weeks back I’m have a feeling it could be the case
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 4, 2022 13:19:32 GMT
Maybe the 215 be the next Candidate? Since the 8 frequency reduction and LT 368 was on the 215 route a few weeks back I’m have a feeling it could be the case Yes I have said this several times in various threads over the last few weeks. The route is also on its 2 year extension so fits well with the next tender renewal of fixed for 5 years like other recent LT tenders.
|
|
|
Post by sleckdeck on Aug 4, 2022 15:58:07 GMT
I wonder if LTs can go on the following: 114, 140, 222, 427 and 607. The 607 is a terrible idea for NBFL’s, the route is not only express but people make long journeys on the route (such as from Ealing to Uxbridge) - therefore, maximum seat capacity should be ensured which the VMHs do a good job of.
|
|
|
Post by SouthLondoner468 on Aug 4, 2022 16:20:34 GMT
Could any of PM's remaining 2 DD routes (37 and 363) see an LT conversion? The 37 shouldn't have any issues that I'm aware of but the 363 is very much unlikely as the N63 can't even accommodate the BYD E400 EVs¹ due to street infrastructure issues beyond Honor Oak. ¹ - slightly shorter than the LTs I thought the only reason N63 can’t use the BYDs at night is because the electrics need to charge overnight?
|
|
|
Post by SouthLondoner468 on Aug 4, 2022 16:21:43 GMT
Could any of PM's remaining 2 DD routes (37 and 363) see an LT conversion? They have 197 and N1 as well
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 4, 2022 16:44:49 GMT
I wonder if LTs can go on the following: 114, 140, 222, 427 and 607. The 607 is a terrible idea for NBFL’s, the route is not only express but people make long journeys on the route (such as from Ealing to Uxbridge) - therefore, maximum seat capacity should be ensured which the VMHs do a good job of. I’m pretty sure that LT’s and VMH’s have the same seating capacity so if VMHs can have no problem then LTs have no problem.
|
|