|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 6, 2013 8:55:27 GMT
Almost on a daily basis in the AM/PM Peaks, 160s are curtailed to Hither Green, which is technically "Catford East" as the last stop before the turn is Minard Road! Plus the blind is very misleading "Hither Green, St Mildred's Road" the blind for the old turn is constantly used. It should be changed to "Catford, Minard Road" as it is an SE6 Postcode and Not Hither Green. Whether it is debatable or not Sandhurst Road is Catford and most people know it as Catford the title to call it Hither Green is very misleading IMO, the Hither Green used in the iBus is taken direct from the 225s announcement. Looks so unprofessional.
This does not help the service at all when a bus is missing from the Catford area because it means much longer waits and busier 124s, 181s and 284s. There is a much higher demand for the 160 in the Catford /Eltham area than Sidcup, so why would they constantly curtail buses to Hither Green (Catford, Minard Road) it is becoming too frequent and other routes mainly the 284 have to suffer overcrowding because of it. The people controlling the service need to come and see how busy the Catford area is in the peaks.
Yes there's a bit of traffic hot spots on the 160, but why not run them to Catford and turn them at QMH instead or increase the AM/PM peak PVR to 12 to prevent such curtailments because I think it is ridiculous especially as bus routes are becoming busier the 284 can just about cope in the peaks now, an extra bus out on the 160 would at least be able to all buses to cover full milage when buses are later without the need to turn buses. Overall I think the 160 frequency in the peaks should be every 12 and every 15 off peak.
I still cannot believe Arriva Kent Thameside managed to retain the service the only decent outcome was new buses and a good off peak service, as it is one of my local routes the service over the last 7 years has not been great which seems to be an issue with Arriva Kent Thameside, e.g the 126 has been with Metrobus almost 8 months and the service is far superior to how DT ran it and this is not me being biased either, turns on the 126 to Bromley North and Mottingham are very rare nowadays I myself have only seen 1 126 to Mottingham under Metrobus and that was a sub bus on MB 50 which was late, whereas DT turned buses too frequently why couldn't DT do it and they ran the route for 17 years. The same can be said about the 162, which was run better by Stagecoach and also Metrobus. The only decent service I give them credit for is the 286 a route for them to be proud of. The B15 service is also quite decent as well as the 428 and 492.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 6, 2013 9:51:58 GMT
To be honest, I'm unconvinced by the current 160 route as it stands : I wonder if splitting the route into two bits would be a good idea : Catford - Eltham Southend Crescent and Eltham Station - Sidcup Station via Chislehurst. I suspect that would improve reliability.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 6, 2013 10:10:11 GMT
To be honest, I'm unconvinced by the current 160 route as it stands : I wonder if splitting the route into two bits would be a good idea : Catford - Eltham Southend Crescent and Eltham Station - Sidcup Station via Chislehurst. I suspect that would improve reliability. It probably would I like the idea, but what I more had in mind is to swap the it with the 286 routing, but that would cause the 286 service to become a big problem. Fiveways & New Eltham Delays mostly all the routes serving it. What could be done though is the 160 diverted via the 286, 269 and 273 and run it to Petts Wood via Nugent Retail Park to assist the 273. The old section of the 160 can be withdrawn as it is partly covered by the 162 and 269. It's a lost link, but hardly used IMO, New Eltham seems to delay the service far more than Eltham Green/ Westhorne.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 6, 2013 10:44:44 GMT
I am not familiar with the 160 but surely the issue is about where the garage is and how they manage reliefs? We see the reliability issues time and again with certain operators with "remote garages" and I assume this is why there is a preference for terminating at the western end of the 160 rather than the eastern end. Some operators can manage remote reliefs so I am not saying this is a blanket problem. I don't see the 160 getting an increase in PVR assuming that Arriva are not losing a lot of money on the route through performance deductions. On time departure stats look OK relative to target but lost mileage is a long standing issue (as you've said)
On the wider issue with Arriva Kent Thamesside I just wonder if they devote rather less effort to the TfL routes compared to their commercial business (I know garages are separate). While there are obviously no guarantees that work will be retained by any operator I suspect TfL would not wish to lose a competitor for South East London work. I also suspect that Arriva KT are a tad cheaper than other operators which is why they win and retain work.
|
|
|
Route 160
Nov 6, 2013 10:53:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Nov 6, 2013 10:53:57 GMT
I am not familiar with the 160 but surely the issue is about where the garage is and how they manage reliefs? We see the reliability issues time and again with certain operators with "remote garages" and I assume this is why there is a preference for terminating at the western end of the 160 rather than the eastern end. Some operators can manage remote reliefs so I am not saying this is a blanket problem. I don't see the 160 getting an increase in PVR assuming that Arriva are not losing a lot of money on the route through performance deductions. On time departure stats look OK relative to target but lost mileage is a long standing issue (as you've said) On the wider issue with Arriva Kent Thamesside I just wonder if they devote rather less effort to the TfL routes compared to their commercial business (I know garages are separate). While there are obviously no guarantees that work will be retained by any operator I suspect TfL would not wish to lose a competitor for South East London work. I also suspect that Arriva KT are a tad cheaper than other operators which is why they win and retain work. They also have the added advantage of using the A2 & M25 for any dead running.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 6, 2013 11:03:36 GMT
I am not familiar with the 160 but surely the issue is about where the garage is and how they manage reliefs? We see the reliability issues time and again with certain operators with "remote garages" and I assume this is why there is a preference for terminating at the western end of the 160 rather than the eastern end. Some operators can manage remote reliefs so I am not saying this is a blanket problem. I don't see the 160 getting an increase in PVR assuming that Arriva are not losing a lot of money on the route through performance deductions. On time departure stats look OK relative to target but lost mileage is a long standing issue (as you've said) On the wider issue with Arriva Kent Thamesside I just wonder if they devote rather less effort to the TfL routes compared to their commercial business (I know garages are separate). While there are obviously no guarantees that work will be retained by any operator I suspect TfL would not wish to lose a competitor for South East London work. I also suspect that Arriva KT are a tad cheaper than other operators which is why they win and retain work. All good points, but regarding on the assumption of devoting less effort on TFL services, then surely they shouldn't be running TFL services if they don't want to put effort in the services they operate? There buses are barely ever cleaned to me shows no care at all IMO and that's a fact because the I've been using the 160 for years now. It really makes no sense at all to be running services with no care, the service was far worse when it had those DLAs as there was at least 4-5 single Deckers out on the 160 daily. At least if Stagecoach or Metrobus operated the 160 the service would probably be far more decent than it is now. Plus to add on a lot of the buses curtailed on the 160 to Sandhurst Road are standing on St Mildred's road for at least 10 minutes at times, which seems stupid as buses can run light to Catford Bridge to begin again. The extra capacity the 160 provides in the Catford area really helps out the 124, 181 & 284, but when there's a missed bus that's where overcrowding starts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 11:21:20 GMT
I have always thought that the nearest garage should operate the route i.e TL, but since privatisation all that has gone out the window. It is like the D7 the drivers have their crew changes at Island Gardens station, the garage is at Silvertown ok that is not too far from the route but i think that there must be a lot of dead millage with buses running empty to and from route.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 6, 2013 11:47:00 GMT
I have always thought that the nearest garage should operate the route i.e TL, but since privatisation all that has gone out the window. It is like the D7 the drivers have their crew changes at Island Gardens station, the garage is at Silvertown ok that is not too far from the route but i think that there must be a lot of dead millage with buses running empty to and from route. I agree, but the nearest garage isn't always the best, but for the 160 it certainly was. All changeovers and reliefs were done at Catford and this is the busiest part of the route. They certainly ran the service a lot better. Back to running from the nearer Garage again. I thought when the 284 returned to Metrobus in 2006 they would have the same issues as Stagecoach, but over the last 7 years the service has become far more superior to how TL ran it and can be called a route for them to be proud of. The same cannot be said about the 181 which has been has always been problematic even under Stagecoach, it is more difficult to operate. There's many routes in the Bromley area operated from Green Street Green even though Bromley Garage & Catford for the 320 is closer.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 6, 2013 12:02:55 GMT
All good points, but regarding on the assumption of devoting less effort on TFL services, then surely they shouldn't be running TFL services if they don't want to put effort in the services they operate? There buses are barely ever cleaned to me shows no care at all IMO and that's a fact because the I've been using the 160 for years now. It really makes no sense at all to be running services with no care, the service was far worse when it had those DLAs as there was at least 4-5 single Deckers out on the 160 daily. At least if Stagecoach or Metrobus operated the 160 the service would probably be far more decent than it is now. Plus to add on a lot of the buses curtailed on the 160 to Sandhurst Road are standing on St Mildred's road for at least 10 minutes at times, which seems stupid as buses can run light to Catford Bridge to begin again. The extra capacity the 160 provides in the Catford area really helps out the 124, 181 & 284, but when there's a missed bus that's where overcrowding starts. I understand you're fed up with the route's performance. I would be, too, if I was stuck with such a service. However there is plenty of debate and observation on here and elsewhere about the variability of operator, garage and route performance. Not every garage is equal and never has been. Unfortunately there is no mechanism to shut down cr*p garages because the impact would be too great. If the operators make money and no one complains too loudly then nothing's going to change too much. The other issue is whether TfL's contract regime is rigorous enough to pick up these issues but, of course, QIC Mark 2 was scrapped as it was considered unaffordable in the era of declining subsidy.
|
|
|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Nov 6, 2013 15:20:41 GMT
I am not familiar with the 160 but surely the issue is about where the garage is and how they manage reliefs? We see the reliability issues time and again with certain operators with "remote garages" and I assume this is why there is a preference for terminating at the western end of the 160 rather than the eastern end. Some operators can manage remote reliefs so I am not saying this is a blanket problem. I don't see the 160 getting an increase in PVR assuming that Arriva are not losing a lot of money on the route through performance deductions. On time departure stats look OK relative to target but lost mileage is a long standing issue (as you've said) On the wider issue with Arriva Kent Thamesside I just wonder if they devote rather less effort to the TfL routes compared to their commercial business (I know garages are separate). While there are obviously no guarantees that work will be retained by any operator I suspect TfL would not wish to lose a competitor for South East London work. I also suspect that Arriva KT are a tad cheaper than other operators which is why they win and retain work. All good points, but regarding on the assumption of devoting less effort on TFL services, then surely they shouldn't be running TFL services if they don't want to put effort in the services they operate? There buses are barely ever cleaned to me shows no care at all IMO and that's a fact because the I've been using the 160 for years now. It really makes no sense at all to be running services with no care, the service was far worse when it had those DLAs as there was at least 4-5 single Deckers out on the 160 daily. At least if Stagecoach or Metrobus operated the 160 the service would probably be far more decent than it is now. Plus to add on a lot of the buses curtailed on the 160 to Sandhurst Road are standing on St Mildred's road for at least 10 minutes at times, which seems stupid as buses can run light to Catford Bridge to begin again. The extra capacity the 160 provides in the Catford area really helps out the 124, 181 & 284, but when there's a missed bus that's where overcrowding starts. Have to agree with your comment about the buses being filthy and I find this true of most DT routes I use. I have also noticed a increase in various strange mechanical sounds coming from the E400's used on the 160. I now use the 160 most day's now to get from Sidcup to Chislehurst at various times of day and have noticed more recently buses being turned at QM Hospital from Catford which from my perspective as I am waiting at Sidcup Station is a pain and frequently makes me late for work. The 160 on the odd occasion I have used it to get from Chislehurst to Eltham normally carry nothing but fresh air betweens those points and I am normally the only passenger. My solution would be to cut the 160 back to Eltham without replacement as the 162 provides a much more reliable service between Eltham and Chislehurst. But to maintain the Sidcup to Chislehurst link I would suggest exetnding the R11 from QM Hospital to Chislehurst. But this is pure fantasy on my part as it is extremely unlikely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Nov 6, 2013 15:37:56 GMT
Someone should make a complaint to TFL about the 160. That's IF TFL would even bother listening.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Nov 6, 2013 17:25:26 GMT
The reason is route 160 take over the route 228/328 between Eltham and Sidcup station. while other side of 228/328 is cover by route 286.
However over many years, lots of changes! Route 160 by Arriva is not helpful from A2/M25 to get to Bus garage in Dartford.
I remember my local route 162 which was operate by Stagecoach was doing wells then lost to Arriva but getting worse because of the affect of A2 and M25 not helpful which make bus driver staffs run late and make this route 162 run late. so after 5 years pass service and it lost to Metrobus. It improve alots better but unfort, traffics is not helpful from Eltham/New Eltham/Chislehurst and Bromley area! It really should be increase to every 15 minutes!!! It had not changed at this mins freq since 1994.
Now London Assemy say result shown route 162 is over crowned or waiting too long and find no seats!
I was susprised nothing to say about route 160!
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Nov 6, 2013 21:46:00 GMT
Almost on a daily basis in the AM/PM Peaks, 160s are curtailed to Hither Green, which is technically "Catford East" as the last stop before the turn is Minard Road! Plus the blind is very misleading "Hither Green, St Mildred's Road" the blind for the old turn is constantly used. It should be changed to "Catford, Minard Road" as it is an SE6 Postcode and Not Hither Green. Whether it is debatable or not Sandhurst Road is Catford and most people know it as Catford the title to call it Hither Green is very misleading IMO, the Hither Green used in the iBus is taken direct from the 225s announcement. Looks so unprofessional. This does not help the service at all when a bus is missing from the Catford area because it means much longer waits and busier 124s, 181s and 284s. There is a much higher demand for the 160 in the Catford /Eltham area than Sidcup, so why would they constantly curtail buses to Hither Green (Catford, Minard Road) it is becoming too frequent and other routes mainly the 284 have to suffer overcrowding because of it. The people controlling the service need to come and see how busy the Catford area is in the peaks. Yes there's a bit of traffic hot spots on the 160, but why not run them to Catford and turn them at QMH instead or increase the AM/PM peak PVR to 12 to prevent such curtailments because I think it is ridiculous especially as bus routes are becoming busier the 284 can just about cope in the peaks now, an extra bus out on the 160 would at least be able to all buses to cover full milage when buses are later without the need to turn buses. Overall I think the 160 frequency in the peaks should be every 12 and every 15 off peak. I still cannot believe Arriva Kent Thameside managed to retain the service the only decent outcome was new buses and a good off peak service, as it is one of my local routes the service over the last 7 years has not been great which seems to be an issue with Arriva Kent Thameside, e.g the 126 has been with Metrobus almost 8 months and the service is far superior to how DT ran it and this is not me being biased either, turns on the 126 to Bromley North and Mottingham are very rare nowadays I myself have only seen 1 126 to Mottingham under Metrobus and that was a sub bus on MB 50 which was late, whereas DT turned buses too frequently why couldn't DT do it and they ran the route for 17 years. The same can be said about the 162, which was run better by Stagecoach and also Metrobus. The only decent service I give them credit for is the 286 a route for them to be proud of. The B15 service is also quite decent as well as the 428 and 492. I understand your concerns with the 160, don't go suggesting the 492 is particularly impressive either! I think the most cost effective option would be to hack back the 160 to Eltham or Chislehurst but I do have concerns about through passengers. It returns to my previous argument, which builds on the Lib Dem mayoral manifesto, that a one-hour bus transfer ticket should be introduced. It would mean this service could be improved with current resources, and savings made whilst providing minimal disruption to through services which are rather important. I know a lot of school children do use the 160 end to end and it is at the end of the day a link to the hospital. Buses are indeed often dirty and the service on the 492 is also often seeing double-deckers. I do think they have issues with bus availability and changeovers. Both run right down to the margins meaning that often they miss each other and single-deckers are the only vehicles fit for service and DDs become available at other times leading to our numerous observations of DDs on the 428 whilst the two DD routes suffer without. As you point out, the 286 does provide sterling service and is a credit to DT. Money is probably at the root of this. Just as has been mentioned, I think DT probably are cheaper than many more London based and larger garages, and TfL is probably happy for this to maintain a competitive market and under cost pressures some routes can be ignored on the fringers...
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 7, 2013 7:40:23 GMT
All good points, but regarding on the assumption of devoting less effort on TFL services, then surely they shouldn't be running TFL services if they don't want to put effort in the services they operate? There buses are barely ever cleaned to me shows no care at all IMO and that's a fact because the I've been using the 160 for years now. It really makes no sense at all to be running services with no care, the service was far worse when it had those DLAs as there was at least 4-5 single Deckers out on the 160 daily. At least if Stagecoach or Metrobus operated the 160 the service would probably be far more decent than it is now. Plus to add on a lot of the buses curtailed on the 160 to Sandhurst Road are standing on St Mildred's road for at least 10 minutes at times, which seems stupid as buses can run light to Catford Bridge to begin again. The extra capacity the 160 provides in the Catford area really helps out the 124, 181 & 284, but when there's a missed bus that's where overcrowding starts. Have to agree with your comment about the buses being filthy and I find this true of most DT routes I use. I have also noticed a increase in various strange mechanical sounds coming from the E400's used on the 160. I now use the 160 most day's now to get from Sidcup to Chislehurst at various times of day and have noticed more recently buses being turned at QM Hospital from Catford which from my perspective as I am waiting at Sidcup Station is a pain and frequently makes me late for work. The 160 on the odd occasion I have used it to get from Chislehurst to Eltham normally carry nothing but fresh air betweens those points and I am normally the only passenger. My solution would be to cut the 160 back to Eltham without replacement as the 162 provides a much more reliable service between Eltham and Chislehurst. But to maintain the Sidcup to Chislehurst link I would suggest exetnding the R11 from QM Hospital to Chislehurst. But this is pure fantasy on my part as it is extremely unlikely to happen. I myself have noticed the buses on the 160 making odd sounds, it sounds unhealthy if you ask me. So it's not just getting turned at the Catford end then. I rarely see 160s to QMH maybe they all get turned mid route. I like the idea to shorten the 160 and the R11 idea seems quite smart, but the Sidcup link will be lost, I would much rather the 160 diverted via the 286 and terminate at Queen Mary's Hospital the service would be much more reliable IMO. I'm not being harsh but I seriously would not care who looses out between New Eltham and Chislehurst simply because that section as well as Westhorne Avenue delays the service. Even I would loose out and would have to interchange, only thing is the 162 will get all the burden from the withdrawn section of the 160. The 162 I find has an excellent amount of running time to deal with traffic around that area
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 7, 2013 9:00:43 GMT
Something should support the 162 in the Edgebury area - it uses baby E200s and in school hours would be overwhelmed with students from Cooper's School and Beaverwood if it were the only service through there.
Am still thinking that splitting the 160 is best - I would be reluctant to pull in other existing routes to change them because of the 160's unreliability.
|
|