|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 4, 2015 12:34:13 GMT
I see the TfL bus service change document has been updated. Clearly the peak travel crisis at Leytonstone is getting worse with more buses added to the W19 in the afternoon to give a x12 service (17.10.15) and also on the 339 in the AM peak (31.10.15)! Glad to see swift measures have been put in place to try and address the problems at Leytonstone. The timing of the W19s one additional bus is good but I still feel another could be added between 1830 and 2000. The 339s additional bus is perfectly timed. I've noticed this route rather busier in the morning towards Leytonstone. Whilst on the topic of Leytonstone I'd like to mention the lack (or resistance) to change/ improve the W15!  Also poor service still remains unaddressed on the W16, yesterdays service was a mess and overcrowding on Sunday's is still a problem. I'm glad I don't use the W16 anymore and just view it from other buses. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 4, 2015 13:27:01 GMT
I see the TfL bus service change document has been updated. Clearly the peak travel crisis at Leytonstone is getting worse with more buses added to the W19 in the afternoon to give a x12 service (17.10.15) and also on the 339 in the AM peak (31.10.15)! Glad to see swift measures have been put in place to try and address the problems at Leytonstone. The timing of the W19s one additional bus is good but I still feel another could be added between 1830 and 2000. The 339s additional bus is perfectly timed. I've noticed this route rather busier in the morning towards Leytonstone. Whilst on the topic of Leytonstone I'd like to mention the lack (or resistance) to change/ improve the W15! Also poor service still remains unaddressed on the W16, yesterdays service was a mess and overcrowding on Sunday's is still a problem. I'm glad I don't use the W16 anymore and just view it from other buses. Is that why a number of nearly new 8.9m SE's have moved up there from South London? The 157 hasn't been addressed for years, it's struggles every weekday since the early days of Travel London. |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 4, 2015 13:57:02 GMT
Glad to see swift measures have been put in place to try and address the problems at Leytonstone. The timing of the W19s one additional bus is good but I still feel another could be added between 1830 and 2000. The 339s additional bus is perfectly timed. I've noticed this route rather busier in the morning towards Leytonstone. Whilst on the topic of Leytonstone I'd like to mention the lack (or resistance) to change/ improve the W15! Also poor service still remains unaddressed on the W16, yesterdays service was a mess and overcrowding on Sunday's is still a problem. I'm glad I don't use the W16 anymore and just view it from other buses. Is that why a number of nearly new 8.9m SE's have moved up there from South London? The 157 hasn't been addressed for years, it's struggles every weekday since the early days of Travel London. I think it was mentioned in another thread that they moved because of the recent incidents with the EDs. It will be interesting to see if new buses will be purchased before the next contract starts, bearing in mind the contract ends soon. All I know the 8.9m SEs do not help with the problems of overcrowding, however this not necessarily Blue Triangles fault. Although the problem could be (slightly) remedied by Double Decking the 368, moving 368s SEs to the 167, and giving the 167s longer EDs to the W19. (I'd welcome the SENs on the W19 but 10.8m buses aren't ideal at the junctions on Fairlop Road/ Hainault Road/ James Lane) I genuinely do not know why the 157 hasn't been addressed, maybe people that live on the route do not contact TfL when the there's poor service or overcrowding. |
|
|
|
Post by TA1 on Oct 4, 2015 14:09:39 GMT
Glad to see swift measures have been put in place to try and address the problems at Leytonstone. The timing of the W19s one additional bus is good but I still feel another could be added between 1830 and 2000. The 339s additional bus is perfectly timed. I've noticed this route rather busier in the morning towards Leytonstone. Whilst on the topic of Leytonstone I'd like to mention the lack (or resistance) to change/ improve the W15! Also poor service still remains unaddressed on the W16, yesterdays service was a mess and overcrowding on Sunday's is still a problem. I'm glad I don't use the W16 anymore and just view it from other buses. Is that why a number of nearly new 8.9m SE's have moved up there from South London? The 157 hasn't been addressed for years, it's struggles every weekday since the early days of Travel London. It must be noted that SE232-234 are currently long term vehicles of road, away receiving flywheel treatment. I've seen SE255 on a morning peak journey passing through Blake Hall area absolutely rammed. Reminded me of the days just after Docklands Buses took over and I was treated to a variety of buses on the route on a daily basis, Reminded me of the days when First used DMS' on a half hourly frequency or when Docklands Buses used the 549's former optare solo. |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Oct 4, 2015 14:26:15 GMT
Is that why a number of nearly new 8.9m SE's have moved up there from South London? The 157 hasn't been addressed for years, it's struggles every weekday since the early days of Travel London. I think it was mentioned in another thread that they moved because of the recent incidents with the EDs. It will be interesting to see if new buses will be purchased before the next contract starts, bearing in mind the contract ends soon. All I know the 8.9m SEs do not help with the problems of overcrowding, however this not necessarily Blue Triangles fault. Although the problem could be (slightly) remedied by Double Decking the 368, moving 368s SEs to the 167, and giving the 167s longer EDs to the W19. (I'd welcome the SENs on the W19 but 10.8m buses aren't ideal at the junctions on Fairlop Road/ Hainault Road/ James Lane) I genuinely do not know why the 157 hasn't been addressed, maybe people that live on the route do not contact TfL when the there's poor service or overcrowding. The 157 is a problemchild for TfL and Abellio. Abellio have done numerous timetable alternations and it has got PVR increases in the past with little to no difference to the quality of service in the route. It doesn't help it has dreadful buses as well. I think that's why it's out for tender right now. So robust talks can happen to what to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 4, 2015 14:37:47 GMT
I think it was mentioned in another thread that they moved because of the recent incidents with the EDs. It will be interesting to see if new buses will be purchased before the next contract starts, bearing in mind the contract ends soon. All I know the 8.9m SEs do not help with the problems of overcrowding, however this not necessarily Blue Triangles fault. Although the problem could be (slightly) remedied by Double Decking the 368, moving 368s SEs to the 167, and giving the 167s longer EDs to the W19. (I'd welcome the SENs on the W19 but 10.8m buses aren't ideal at the junctions on Fairlop Road/ Hainault Road/ James Lane) I genuinely do not know why the 157 hasn't been addressed, maybe people that live on the route do not contact TfL when the there's poor service or overcrowding. The 157 is a problemchild for TfL and Abellio. Abellio have done numerous timetable alternations and it has got PVR increases in the past with little to no difference to the quality of service in the route. It doesn't help it has dreadful buses as well. I think that's why it's out for tender right now. So robust talks can happen to what to do with it. Give it to another operator would be a good start lol. It's the only poorly route operated by Travel London & Abellio and I'd like to see Go-Ahead (London General ran the route well according to many people) run it from C (unless something shifts out of A) or Arriva from N. |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 4, 2015 14:40:55 GMT
I genuinely do not know why the 157 hasn't been addressed, maybe people that live on the route do not contact TfL when the there's poor service or overcrowding. The 157 is a problemchild for TfL and Abellio. Abellio have done numerous timetable alternations and it has got PVR increases in the past with little to no difference to the quality of service in the route. It doesn't help it has dreadful buses as well. I think that's why it's out for tender right now. So robust talks can happen to what to do with it. Ok, I didn't know this. Im not really familiar with the 157. |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Oct 4, 2015 14:49:03 GMT
The 157 is a problemchild for TfL and Abellio. Abellio have done numerous timetable alternations and it has got PVR increases in the past with little to no difference to the quality of service in the route. It doesn't help it has dreadful buses as well. I think that's why it's out for tender right now. So robust talks can happen to what to do with it. Give it to another operator would be a good start lol. It's the only poorly route operated by Travel London & Abellio and I'd like to see Go-Ahead (London General ran the route well according to many people) run it from C (unless something shifts out of A) or Arriva from N. I wouldn't be surprised if we do lose it, it has performing dreadfully since it's last contract renewal and I don't think Abellio even want to invest in it. I hope Metrobus get it. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 4, 2015 16:11:22 GMT
I think it was mentioned in another thread that they moved because of the recent incidents with the EDs. It will be interesting to see if new buses will be purchased before the next contract starts, bearing in mind the contract ends soon. All I know the 8.9m SEs do not help with the problems of overcrowding, however this not necessarily Blue Triangles fault. Although the problem could be (slightly) remedied by Double Decking the 368, moving 368s SEs to the 167, and giving the 167s longer EDs to the W19. (I'd welcome the SENs on the W19 but 10.8m buses aren't ideal at the junctions on Fairlop Road/ Hainault Road/ James Lane) I genuinely do not know why the 157 hasn't been addressed, maybe people that live on the route do not contact TfL when the there's poor service or overcrowding. The 157 is a problemchild for TfL and Abellio. Abellio have done numerous timetable alternations and it has got PVR increases in the past with little to no difference to the quality of service in the route. It doesn't help it has dreadful buses as well. I think that's why it's out for tender right now. So robust talks can happen to what to do with it. It's up for tender because the five year contract ends December next year. The 152 ends the same time so it could be a group award with whoever wins it. |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Oct 4, 2015 16:21:11 GMT
The 157 is a problemchild for TfL and Abellio. Abellio have done numerous timetable alternations and it has got PVR increases in the past with little to no difference to the quality of service in the route. It doesn't help it has dreadful buses as well. I think that's why it's out for tender right now. So robust talks can happen to what to do with it. It's up for tender because the five year contract ends December next year. The 152 ends the same time so it could be a group award with whoever wins it. Yes, I am fully aware of that. Tender discussion of routes usually include robust talks between TfL and the operators interested in them which was the point I was trying to put across. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 4, 2015 17:44:00 GMT
The 157 hasn't been addressed for years, it's struggles every weekday since the early days of Travel London. From my travels today I see it only runs every 20 mins on a Sunday. That's really very very poor for such an important trunk service that links so many Tube, Overground and NR stations. |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Oct 4, 2015 17:59:18 GMT
Give it to another operator would be a good start lol. It's the only poorly route operated by Travel London & Abellio and I'd like to see Go-Ahead (London General ran the route well according to many people) run it from C (unless something shifts out of A) or Arriva from N. I'd beg to differ on that - having moved back to South London, I find the 40 as unusable as ever - the day Go Ahead takes over can't come soon enough. Abellio are also still up to the usual tricks with the N35 - Clapham Common to Clapham Junction is a section operated on an optional basis on weekends, whilst they're still dumping passengers and running buses dead between London Bridge/Elephant and Brixton. Again, it's no disappointment from the passenger's perspective that Go Ahead will be taking it over. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 4, 2015 18:11:16 GMT
Give it to another operator would be a good start lol. It's the only poorly route operated by Travel London & Abellio and I'd like to see Go-Ahead (London General ran the route well according to many people) run it from C (unless something shifts out of A) or Arriva from N. I'd beg to differ on that - having moved back to South London, I find the 40 as unusable as ever - the day Go Ahead takes over can't come soon enough. Abellio are also still up to the usual tricks with the N35 - Clapham Common to Clapham Junction is a section operated on an optional basis on weekends, whilst they're still dumping passengers and running buses dead between London Bridge/Elephant and Brixton. Again, it's no disappointment from the passenger's perspective that Go Ahead will be taking it over. When using the 343 the other day I was astonished to see a completely full 40 heading into the City near Borough Station at about 1730. I may be missing something but I'd expect the full loads to be heading south out of the City. I wonder if there had been an enormous gap in the service. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2015 18:42:37 GMT
Give it to another operator would be a good start lol. It's the only poorly route operated by Travel London & Abellio and I'd like to see Go-Ahead (London General ran the route well according to many people) run it from C (unless something shifts out of A) or Arriva from N. I'd beg to differ on that - having moved back to South London, I find the 40 as unusable as ever - the day Go Ahead takes over can't come soon enough. Abellio are also still up to the usual tricks with the N35 - Clapham Common to Clapham Junction is a section operated on an optional basis on weekends, whilst they're still dumping passengers and running buses dead between London Bridge/Elephant and Brixton. Again, it's no disappointment from the passenger's perspective that Go Ahead will be taking it over. Add the 188 to that, had some horrendous waits at Waterloo when I worked up there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2015 20:12:30 GMT
Those 167 ed's are 37 foot. That's roughly 11.2 meters. They're not good on the route. I know a few people have said well I've been on it end to end and it seemed fine. Try being at the front and ask the drivers. They manage yes by doing something tfl don't like.. Sweeping the kerb with the overhang. Is that why a number of nearly new 8.9m SE's have moved up there from South London? The 157 hasn't been addressed for years, it's struggles every weekday since the early days of Travel London. I think it was mentioned in another thread that they moved because of the recent incidents with the EDs. It will be interesting to see if new buses will be purchased before the next contract starts, bearing in mind the contract ends soon. All I know the 8.9m SEs do not help with the problems of overcrowding, however this not necessarily Blue Triangles fault. Although the problem could be (slightly) remedied by Double Decking the 368, moving 368s SEs to the 167, and giving the 167s longer EDs to the W19. (I'd welcome the SENs on the W19 but 10.8m buses aren't ideal at the junctions on Fairlop Road/ Hainault Road/ James Lane) I genuinely do not know why the 157 hasn't been addressed, maybe people that live on the route do not contact TfL when the there's poor service or overcrowding. |
|
