|
Post by gwiwer on Feb 20, 2024 14:07:18 GMT
Possibly because it is outside the TfL boundary in Surrey although running the 434 down to Caterham Station is also out-boundary. TfL has consistently refused to provide a service up and down the hill even though it makes sense from a customer viewpoint. It's a a lengthy and unpleasant walk or requires a wait for the relatively infrequent 409 which is not a TfL route.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 20, 2024 15:10:35 GMT
Why does the 434 go all the way to Caterham Station under the changes? Is it simply because there is no other turn / stand available? Wapses Lodge is a one-bus stand for the 439. Nothing at Upper Warlingham? I agree it is nonsensical to sever links to Coulsdon town centre which have become established and provide most of the traffic for the current 434 along the narrow roads. It's not an easy route and buses do sometimes get stuck when faced with an oncoming vehicle or a badly-parked one but those homes are a long way from the main road when you factor in the need to cross the railway. What is the proposed / expected route from Higher Drive? Would that be Cullesden Road / Firs Road / Park Road or all the way along Hayes Lane?? The original plan was for the 434 to follow its current routing up until Kenley Station, then instead of turning right into Oaks Way like it does now, it was going to go straight up Park Road, down Hayes Lane, round Wattendon Road to serve The Hayes Primary School, then going down Firs Road, Cullesden Road and Higher Drive, rejoining its original route at Foxley Hill Road. I think the main reasons for extending the 434 to Caterham was to provide a direct bus link from Coulsdon to Caterham Valley which is great, but it would have also been a trade off for a frequency reduction between Purley and Caterham for the 407/443 which has been shelved for the time being. I don't think stand space at Whyteleafe South was an issue, as others have highlighted you can easily fit two buses on that stand at a time. What I think would have been more useful to provide a link between Coulsdon and Caterham Valley though was to extend the 404 from Caterham-on-the-Hill. How TfL deemed that this wasn't "cost effective" is beyond me, more people would use the bus if TfL were operating it. There certainly is room for more than one bus on the Whyteleafe stand and I very much agree about extending the 404 to Caterham Station, seems an obvious one to everyone but TfL!
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Feb 20, 2024 20:39:48 GMT
Possibly because it is outside the TfL boundary in Surrey although running the 434 down to Caterham Station is also out-boundary. TfL has consistently refused to provide a service up and down the hill even though it makes sense from a customer viewpoint. It's a a lengthy and unpleasant walk or requires a wait for the relatively infrequent 409 which is not a TfL route. I'm not disputing that a TfL service would be more attractive than a Surrey one, but it is worth noting that the 400, 409 and 411 combine to provide 3-4 buses an hour on weekdays between Caterham Station and Caterham-on-the-Hill. That's a more frequent service than the 404 would provide. It's only on Sundays that the 404 would be more frequent than the Surrey offering. Granted the 404 would have the advantage of a regular clockface timetable, unlike the irregular gaps between three uncoordinated Surrey services.
It's interesting that the Surrey services are still perceived as being less frequent than the TfL ones. TfL's 407 and 466 certainly provide Caterham with a level of service that commercial operators could never dream of, but the 404 is much closer in character to a Surrey service. I suspect TfL's fares are the real attraction here, in which case I can see why they don't feel it's necessary to duplicate existing non-TfL services.
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Feb 21, 2024 11:12:50 GMT
I suspect TfL's fares are the real attraction here, in which case I can see why they don't feel it's necessary to duplicate existing non-TfL services.The Surrey fare up and down the hill is a £2 cap for even that short distance. The 404 would charge £1.75 leading to an element of competition unless Metrobus matched it.
In that area I suspect that a majority of bus users are travelling with some sort of pass, probably ENCTS ones, and are not required to pay a fare. As those passes are not operator-specific Surrey ones could be used on an extended 404 and vice-versa but London Oyster 60+ cards would not be valid on Surrey routes and there may be a difference in permitted use before 09.30.
Connecting Old Coulsdon to Caterham station might not be seen as a benefit; Coulsdon South and Town stations are closer and have a level of service matching Caterham between them.
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Feb 21, 2024 11:43:15 GMT
Possibly because it is outside the TfL boundary in Surrey although running the 434 down to Caterham Station is also out-boundary. TfL has consistently refused to provide a service up and down the hill even though it makes sense from a customer viewpoint. It's a a lengthy and unpleasant walk or requires a wait for the relatively infrequent 409 which is not a TfL route. We've seen with documentation from the 84 up north how strict the business case must be to operate a route with dares serve outside of the GLA boundary unfortunately...
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 21, 2024 13:03:52 GMT
Possibly because it is outside the TfL boundary in Surrey although running the 434 down to Caterham Station is also out-boundary. TfL has consistently refused to provide a service up and down the hill even though it makes sense from a customer viewpoint. It's a a lengthy and unpleasant walk or requires a wait for the relatively infrequent 409 which is not a TfL route. We've seen with documentation from the 84 up north how strict the business case must be to operate a route with dares serve outside of the GLA boundary unfortunately... I think the 84 is understandable but I can't see how TfL can stubbornly refuse to extend the 404 the short distance to Caterham Station when the 407 goes there. The 404 could possibly even be merged with the 434 to create a circular route in both directions, Cane Hill, Coulsdon, Caterham Station then the 407 to Wapses Lodge and the 434 back to Coulsdon and Rickman Hill? Still keep the 404 and 434 numbers to avoid confusion with buses changing routes at Caterham.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 21, 2024 13:25:15 GMT
Possibly because it is outside the TfL boundary in Surrey although running the 434 down to Caterham Station is also out-boundary. TfL has consistently refused to provide a service up and down the hill even though it makes sense from a customer viewpoint. It's a a lengthy and unpleasant walk or requires a wait for the relatively infrequent 409 which is not a TfL route. We've seen with documentation from the 84 up north how strict the business case must be to operate a route with dares serve outside of the GLA boundary unfortunately... If the communities outside London want cheaper fares and a TfL level of service then they can always start a petition to be absorbed into Greater London!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 21, 2024 15:27:01 GMT
We've seen with documentation from the 84 up north how strict the business case must be to operate a route with dares serve outside of the GLA boundary unfortunately... If the communities outside London want cheaper fares and a TfL level of service then they can always start a petition to be absorbed into Greater London! I don't think your taking into account that border towns in London also receive business from these passengers outside and that it's not one way - there are people from London who commute to the next town beyond the border and who pay for TfL services so should these people be also penalised? I don't think it's as simple as "petition to be absorbed into Greater London" otherwise we'd of seen other places do it in recent times I think what should happen is the home counties and TfL in these situations need to sit and discuss like grown up adults solutions to the issue of cross border routes - look at what happens to the remaining cross border routes that when invested into properly, they thrive and not left to shrivel up like the 505 was
|
|
|
Post by va59 on Feb 21, 2024 20:55:30 GMT
Why does the 434 go all the way to Caterham Station under the changes? Is it simply because there is no other turn / stand available? Wapses Lodge is a one-bus stand for the 439. Nothing at Upper Warlingham? I agree it is nonsensical to sever links to Coulsdon town centre which have become established and provide most of the traffic for the current 434 along the narrow roads. It's not an easy route and buses do sometimes get stuck when faced with an oncoming vehicle or a badly-parked one but those homes are a long way from the main road when you factor in the need to cross the railway. What is the proposed / expected route from Higher Drive? Would that be Cullesden Road / Firs Road / Park Road or all the way along Hayes Lane?? The original plan was for the 434 to follow its current routing up until Kenley Station, then instead of turning right into Oaks Way like it does now, it was going to go straight up Park Road, down Hayes Lane, round Wattendon Road to serve The Hayes Primary School, then going down Firs Road, Cullesden Road and Higher Drive, rejoining its original route at Foxley Hill Road. I think the main reasons for extending the 434 to Caterham was to provide a direct bus link from Coulsdon to Caterham Valley which is great, but it would have also been a trade off for a frequency reduction between Purley and Caterham for the 407/443 which has been shelved for the time being. I don't think stand space at Whyteleafe South was an issue, as others have highlighted you can easily fit two buses on that stand at a time. What I think would have been more useful to provide a link between Coulsdon and Caterham Valley though was to extend the 404 from Caterham-on-the-Hill. How TfL deemed that this wasn't "cost effective" is beyond me, more people would use the bus if TfL were operating it. You mean terminating at Caterham Station instead via Church Hill? I completely agree with this as leaving the station and walking up that hill with no service pretty much after 7pm (409) is a painful nightmare even if you are pretty fit. The only issue I see with this is how would it route back up Church Hill as there it would be facing the wrong direction with no turnaround point until the Ann Summers roundabout / Whyteleafe South.
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Feb 23, 2024 13:44:31 GMT
walking up that hill with no service pretty much after 7pm (409) And here is a fundamental difference between TfL and all other services. So many of those cease early in the evening. Even if they are contracted operations there are few enough buses after 19.00 where ever you look. That prevents anyone making us of the service for any purpose in the evening and strongly mitigates against it being used by day if there is no return option when required.
We have discussed before in here that there is a pressing need for TfL and the commercial operators and county authorities to sit around a table with open minds and adult attitudes to establish the way forward. Otherwise London will become a bus island serving the "haves" whilst the "have-nots" wail and gnash their teeth the other side of a line drawn on a map.
There will be different solutions for different areas; LT found out that Bedfordshire was unwilling to play ball many years ago which resulted in a large cut to "green bus" operations across the Herts - Beds border. That in turn led to the truncated version of those routes becoming much less useful and therefore (in a fair number of cases) being withdrawn not too long afterwards as unremunerative.
We live in different times now but cross-border public transport can and must be made to work in the passenger's favour. Dartford, Swanley, Epsom and others have joined the Oyster Card for rail users. Dartford offers some TfL bus routes across the boundary but Oyster cannot be used on the majority of its local route network including the 477 which has almost been withdrawn more than once recently. This particular route hops over the line more than once and runs more or less parallel to it (but largely just outside) making it a commercial, not a TfL, route and until the £2 cap arrived asking IIRC £6.50 from Dartford through Swanley to Orpington. Epsom likewise benefits from some TfL buses but around half are commercial or provided by Surrey CC.
It's not just London. Cross-boundary services where ever you look have been bisected, hacked or withdrawn altogether fundamentally because of local politics. That is not the way to get people out of cars and offer them a credible alternative. It's not that long ago that one could turn up in Bromley and catch the next bus to Sevenoaks. But no more. There is a gap south of Orpington which was for a time completely unserved but recently has had just three trips each weekday restored. Hardly a useful service when it was once around half-hourly and four-an-hour counting Green Line coaches and the occasional 431 around the lanes.
If this industry is to survive at all outside a few major cities then heads need banging together now. Until it hurts.
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Feb 23, 2024 15:58:25 GMT
Moving on from Croydon to Ealing does anyone know what's happened to the E1 extension to Osterley? This was mooted 2 years ago
|
|
|
Post by rift on Feb 23, 2024 15:59:55 GMT
Moving on from Croydon to Ealing does anyone know what's happened to the E1 extension to Osterley? This was mooted 2 years ago There was a consultation for it a few months ago which has closed, the results are still pending
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Feb 24, 2024 8:21:04 GMT
walking up that hill with no service pretty much after 7pm (409) And here is a fundamental difference between TfL and all other services. So many of those cease early in the evening. Even if they are contracted operations there are few enough buses after 19.00 where ever you look. That prevents anyone making us of the service for any purpose in the evening and strongly mitigates against it being used by day if there is no return option when required. We have discussed before in here that there is a pressing need for TfL and the commercial operators and county authorities to sit around a table with open minds and adult attitudes to establish the way forward. Otherwise London will become a bus island serving the "haves" whilst the "have-nots" wail and gnash their teeth the other side of a line drawn on a map. There will be different solutions for different areas; LT found out that Bedfordshire was unwilling to play ball many years ago which resulted in a large cut to "green bus" operations across the Herts - Beds border. That in turn led to the truncated version of those routes becoming much less useful and therefore (in a fair number of cases) being withdrawn not too long afterwards as unremunerative. We live in different times now but cross-border public transport can and must be made to work in the passenger's favour. Dartford, Swanley, Epsom and others have joined the Oyster Card for rail users. Dartford offers some TfL bus routes across the boundary but Oyster cannot be used on the majority of its local route network including the 477 which has almost been withdrawn more than once recently. This particular route hops over the line more than once and runs more or less parallel to it (but largely just outside) making it a commercial, not a TfL, route and until the £2 cap arrived asking IIRC £6.50 from Dartford through Swanley to Orpington. Epsom likewise benefits from some TfL buses but around half are commercial or provided by Surrey CC. It's not just London. Cross-boundary services where ever you look have been bisected, hacked or withdrawn altogether fundamentally because of local politics. That is not the way to get people out of cars and offer them a credible alternative. It's not that long ago that one could turn up in Bromley and catch the next bus to Sevenoaks. But no more. There is a gap south of Orpington which was for a time completely unserved but recently has had just three trips each weekday restored. Hardly a useful service when it was once around half-hourly and four-an-hour counting Green Line coaches and the occasional 431 around the lanes. If this industry is to survive at all outside a few major cities then heads need banging together now. Until it hurts. Wholeheartedly agree with this. Council boundaries are invisible bureaucratic barriers that stop buses going further than they should. This needs the government to step in and sort it out, or, as mentioned , sensible collusion needs to take place between local authorities.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 24, 2024 8:44:58 GMT
walking up that hill with no service pretty much after 7pm (409) And here is a fundamental difference between TfL and all other services. So many of those cease early in the evening. Even if they are contracted operations there are few enough buses after 19.00 where ever you look. That prevents anyone making us of the service for any purpose in the evening and strongly mitigates against it being used by day if there is no return option when required. We have discussed before in here that there is a pressing need for TfL and the commercial operators and county authorities to sit around a table with open minds and adult attitudes to establish the way forward. Otherwise London will become a bus island serving the "haves" whilst the "have-nots" wail and gnash their teeth the other side of a line drawn on a map. There will be different solutions for different areas; LT found out that Bedfordshire was unwilling to play ball many years ago which resulted in a large cut to "green bus" operations across the Herts - Beds border. That in turn led to the truncated version of those routes becoming much less useful and therefore (in a fair number of cases) being withdrawn not too long afterwards as unremunerative. We live in different times now but cross-border public transport can and must be made to work in the passenger's favour. Dartford, Swanley, Epsom and others have joined the Oyster Card for rail users. Dartford offers some TfL bus routes across the boundary but Oyster cannot be used on the majority of its local route network including the 477 which has almost been withdrawn more than once recently. This particular route hops over the line more than once and runs more or less parallel to it (but largely just outside) making it a commercial, not a TfL, route and until the £2 cap arrived asking IIRC £6.50 from Dartford through Swanley to Orpington. Epsom likewise benefits from some TfL buses but around half are commercial or provided by Surrey CC. It's not just London. Cross-boundary services where ever you look have been bisected, hacked or withdrawn altogether fundamentally because of local politics. That is not the way to get people out of cars and offer them a credible alternative. It's not that long ago that one could turn up in Bromley and catch the next bus to Sevenoaks. But no more. There is a gap south of Orpington which was for a time completely unserved but recently has had just three trips each weekday restored. Hardly a useful service when it was once around half-hourly and four-an-hour counting Green Line coaches and the occasional 431 around the lanes. If this industry is to survive at all outside a few major cities then heads need banging together now. Until it hurts. But if the authorities aren’t willing to pick up the bills, at least part, how can the cities be expected to? At least Surrey recognised the need for cross border services but if Kent isn’t willing surely TfL can’t be expected to either. They aren’t a bottomless pit of money and providing a mediocre cross border service detracts money from where it is actually needed. If I recall the council and the local MP for Epsom had to lobby TfL hard to get them to agree to oyster acceptance in Epsom and it took years to actually do. At a time when council budgets are already squeezed the big question is who picks up the bill?
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Feb 24, 2024 12:46:14 GMT
At a time when council budgets are already squeezed the big question is who picks up the bill?Under the current regime it should be Westminster if no other agreement can be reached. It is Westminster who is funding the £2 fare cap, the BSIP scheme and other bus industry support initiatives. In the overall scheme of things it would not cost a great deal to support, for example, an hourly Orpington - Sevenoaks service from 06.00 until at least 20.00. It can be done with one vehicle and three drivers. It could be done with two drivers if meal relief trips were worked into other duties. Not overly expensive.
Looking at other areas Romford - Harlow has been mentioned here before. I am not convinced there is enough demand end-to-end on that corridor, there already is a regular service northward from Epping and an infrequent TfL 375 service south from Passingford Bridge. But it did once support an hourly daily Green Line operation and might do so again if the service was there.
Hertfordshire is making positive strides using BSIP money to put new and much-improved links in place at most times of most days but none crosses the TfL boundary. That is left to Uno and their commercial network which penetrates well into the northern suburbs these days though isn't perhaps as widely known nor as well-used as it could be.
Moving beyond London the bus is a threatened species in Wiltshire, rural Hampshire, Dorsest and Somerset. Cross-border links have largely vanished with the exception of a few long-standing services still operated commercially for the most part. Salisbury - Bath now requires a change of bus but Salisbury - Swindon soldiers on. Salisbury - Southampton by bus however is almost a non-service with just an alternate-hours off-peak service supplemented by a few additional journeys on a different LOR. Southampton - Bournemouth no longer has any bus option other than taking hours via and changing in Lymington; it used to support two alternate-hours routes effectively offering an hourly daily service.
The well-used X53, Weymouth / Dorchester - Exeter, no longer runs despite having carried good loadings. A commercial initiative of First Bus (Southern National with support from the Exeter-based Red Bus unit) the operator has determined that too many ENCTS pass-holders were travelling long-distances for free (as they were entitled to do) and not enough cash was being taken to continue the service. This was the premium and well-promoted Jurassic Coaster operation with well-filled double-deckers operating most trips after the first few years. The coaches which started the service were found to be too small. The cross-border leg between Lyme Regis (Dorset) and Seaton (Devon) is now virtually unserved; Axe Valley runs a token service a few times a day on the back of a school contract. Neither county was prepared to revenue-support a route which ran significantly in the neighbouring one. The result is that a popular and well-used service has now been lost altogether.
This is a nationwide problem and the solution must come from the nation's authority in Westminster. Scotland and Wales do not seem to suffer to the same extent at all as their devolved administrations see sense and can offer some co-ordination (for example the Traws-Cymru network) and support (such as that given to Scottish Citylink to maintain essential rural links)
|
|