|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Nov 15, 2013 15:56:28 GMT
Tower Transit should experiment a system on the 25 , introduce a Westbourne Park allocation. Like someone else said tightly control departures from termini. Scrap mid route crew change over. That doesn't work on high frequency routes, the 18 is just as bad. I heard the 25 can't use NB4Ls due to Health & Safety reasons eg. People jumping on/off between Stratford and Ilford. X is way too far to operate the 25 also the dead mileage would be long. |
|
|
|
Post by greeny253 on Nov 15, 2013 17:06:27 GMT
Tower Transit should experiment a system on the 25 , introduce a Westbourne Park allocation. Like someone else said tightly control departures from termini. Scrap mid route crew change over. That doesn't work on high frequency routes, the 18 is just as bad. I heard the 25 can't use NB4Ls due to Health & Safety reasons eg. People jumping on/off between Stratford and Ilford. X is way too far to operate the 25 also the dead mileage would be long. Just a thought. People can jump on and off on any of the current NBFL routes so I'm not sure how this would be an issue for the 25. On the subject of mid-route changeovers on the 18/25 it's worth considering this - both are ex-bendy routes with (in my opinion) too many buses now they are double deck. The excessive PVR's have created the demand for the routes and what can only be described as poorly timed traffic lights at several key sections of route 25 in particular are causing reliability issues. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 15, 2013 21:59:18 GMT
While on trailing on route 133 yesterday on my way to work, I got a brainwave that 133 would be a perfect route for NB4L to go on. Always heavily used so it could with a bus like NB4L. The only problem is that I heard the NB4L can't do hills so running light to N would be hard. Maybe with future modifications this problem will be resolved or 133 could just move to BN. As others have indicated I think Liverpool Street kills off this possibility. It was a struggle to get NB4Ls on route 11 and we must remember that the bus station is way under capacity because of all of the Crossrail works. In times past you had the 100, 205, 214 and 271 all running through there or terminating. They're all routed away for several years. The 133 could be rerouted away from the bus station and serve Liverpool via the 8 and terminate where the 42 and 344 stand at. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 15, 2013 23:17:50 GMT
As others have indicated I think Liverpool Street kills off this possibility. It was a struggle to get NB4Ls on route 11 and we must remember that the bus station is way under capacity because of all of the Crossrail works. In times past you had the 100, 205, 214 and 271 all running through there or terminating. They're all routed away for several years. The 133 could be rerouted away from the bus station and serve Liverpool via the 8 and terminate where the 42 and 344 stand at. Considering it's one of the busiest routes to serve Liverpool Street Station, I don't think it would be ideal terminating it where the 42 & 344 stand - the short bus to train interchange at the bus station would be lost. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2013 1:01:17 GMT
I think the 25 should get Hybrids from the 23. But for common sense, its better to keep the high PVR routes with conventional buses instead of open boarding.
|
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Nov 16, 2013 11:34:43 GMT
I think the 25 should get Hybrids from the 23. But for common sense, its better to keep the high PVR routes with conventional buses instead of open boarding. Why? Common sense for me is putting them on the busiest routes. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 16, 2013 11:54:19 GMT
I think the 25 should get Hybrids from the 23. But for common sense, its better to keep the high PVR routes with conventional buses instead of open boarding. Would it not be better for route 25 to get it's own hybrids! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2013 11:56:15 GMT
I think the 25 should get Hybrids from the 23. But for common sense, its better to keep the high PVR routes with conventional buses instead of open boarding. Why? Common sense for me is putting them on the busiest routes. if they need to turn 25 to an open boarding service where it had high amount of fare evasion during the bendy days, its better to put loads of revenue inspectors along the route. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 16, 2013 12:14:09 GMT
Why? Common sense for me is putting them on the busiest routes. if they need to turn 25 to an open boarding service where it had high amount of fare evasion during the bendy days, its better to put loads of revenue inspectors along the route. I think they need more revenue inspectors across the board, full stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Swadbus on Nov 16, 2013 12:21:18 GMT
I heard the 25 can't use NB4Ls due to Health & Safety reasons eg. People jumping on/off between Stratford and Ilford. X is way too far to operate the 25 also the dead mileage would be long. Just a thought. People can jump on and off on any of the current NBFL routes so I'm not sure how this would be an issue for the 25. On the subject of mid-route changeovers on the 18/25 it's worth considering this - both are ex-bendy routes with (in my opinion) too many buses now they are double deck. The excessive PVR's have created the demand for the routes and what can only be described as poorly timed traffic lights at several key sections of route 25 in particular are causing reliability issues. ATS along the vast majority of the route 25 is demand controlled via UTC (Urban Traffic Control), whilst broadly the demand is similar most of the time, phasing fluctuates according to traffic flow, time of day, planned and unplanned events and traffic management plans from knock on effects of other areas. They don't have timings as such any more. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 16, 2013 12:24:58 GMT
I think the 25 should get Hybrids from the 23. But for common sense, its better to keep the high PVR routes with conventional buses instead of open boarding. Why? Common sense for me is putting them on the busiest routes. Due to LTs having less capacity than your standard double deck I.e Enviro400s and Gemini 2s I wouldn't put LTs on busiest routes. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 16, 2013 12:46:53 GMT
Why? Common sense for me is putting them on the busiest routes. Due to LTs having less capacity than your standard double deck I.e Enviro400s and Gemini 2s I wouldn't put LTs on busy routes. There is also the factor of loading times at bus stops, which LTs are designed to improve upon. Basically it's one factor gained at the cost of another. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 16, 2013 16:58:43 GMT
Due to LTs having less capacity than your standard double deck I.e Enviro400s and Gemini 2s I wouldn't put LTs on busy routes. There is also the factor of loading times at bus stops, which LTs are designed to improve upon. Basically it's one factor gained at the cost of another. Bring back the Bendy Buses. They had three doors to speed up and had a capacity of 100(?). |
|
|
|
Post by greeny253 on Nov 16, 2013 19:34:02 GMT
Just a thought. People can jump on and off on any of the current NBFL routes so I'm not sure how this would be an issue for the 25. On the subject of mid-route changeovers on the 18/25 it's worth considering this - both are ex-bendy routes with (in my opinion) too many buses now they are double deck. The excessive PVR's have created the demand for the routes and what can only be described as poorly timed traffic lights at several key sections of route 25 in particular are causing reliability issues. ATS along the vast majority of the route 25 is demand controlled via UTC (Urban Traffic Control), whilst broadly the demand is similar most of the time, phasing fluctuates according to traffic flow, time of day, planned and unplanned events and traffic management plans from knock on effects of other areas. They don't have timings as such any more. Well I can safely say that UTC at Aldgate doesn't work. I came off 21 minutes late at Aldgate the other day because the traffic lights at Leman Street and the ones releasing traffic from Mansell Street were working against each other. Queue started at those lights and ended somewhere near Monument Station for traffic heading out of town - the traffic situation around Aldgate and it's one way system is becoming predictable. I'm not taking a pop at you in my reply Swadbus mate just making an observation. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 16, 2013 22:10:38 GMT
On the subject of mid-route changeovers on the 18/25 it's worth considering this - both are ex-bendy routes with (in my opinion) too many buses now they are double deck. The excessive PVR's have created the demand for the routes and what can only be described as poorly timed traffic lights at several key sections of route 25 in particular are causing reliability issues. The interesting thing is that while there were big ridership increases on the 18 and 25 post bendy bus conversion there has not been a big drop off in ridership as has happened with some other former bendy routes. It is hard to know why precisely this has happened. Clearly the good frequency will have helped and both routes have longish "freehold" sections although the 25 has had to be helped out with the 205 and 425 over some sections. I do wonder if things like population growth and the huge scale of development in and around Stratford have helped sustain the upward trend in ridership. While the other routes post bendy buses have rarely seen frequency decreases they have all seen reductions in patronage - presumably from losing the opportunistic free riders. Obviously the 73 also lost part of its route which will account for some decrease. |
|
