|
|
Post by abellion on Aug 18, 2024 21:20:38 GMT
Weekend night routes were suspended March 2020, the early hours of March 15th was when they last operated. It's clear TfL aren't likely to bring weekend night routes back, it's been two years now that Night Tube started running post Covid postponement. It's nice that they have made the 123, 158 and 486 24 hour daily routes, but I think they didn't want a dozen or so public consultations for the weekend night removal element as seen with the 145 early last year. Still, the N319 did appear in the tendering programme for next year so maybe those in TfL Towers are still dancing with the idea. I don't think any of them are coming back, the 145 consultation was probably them making a song and dance about how people in Dagenham kept crying out for a night route and then nobody used it. There were multiple routes like the 114 which had even lower usage than the 145 so would by proxy probably not justify themselves either. Sampling 2018, the 145 was busier than the short H32/H37/E1, seemingly flop 307, 296, the N21-following 132, highly anticipated 154/319 and very long 114 so you could write those off. That being said, the 486 was less busy than the 145 and has overlap with the N89, N53, N1 and others yet still came back, potentially thanks to QEH. The 34, 114, 183, 296, 319, W3 and despite its length W7 all did better than the 486 here too, so being less busy than the 145 wouldn’t necessarily remove any chances for any other routes |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 19, 2024 12:55:38 GMT
It's good to see some weekend frequency increases (66, 243, 314) in amongst the changes. Also there's been a lot of bellyaching about the Wanstead route changes, but some passengers will enjoy frequency increases especially over the Walthamstow-Whipps Cross section of the W12. Even former 549 passengers benefit from an improved regular hourly service operating from 06.00 to 24.00, seven days a week. A pointless frequency increase, to go on a longer journey that would outweigh the current W12. Plus for the W14/W12 combined, the bus size would be a lot smaller |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 19, 2024 12:56:39 GMT
Bellyaching? Really? Sorry but the changes are pretty awful even by TfL standards! Yes some get frequency increases those getting a decrease are probably more inconvenient than the old 549 that goes back to hourly. These changes are like robbing Peter to pay Paul. I will risk eating humble pie but these changes are going to backfire especially the bus length choices and capacity. But don't you think that TfL have done adequate research before implementing this? People say things will backfire, but what actually has? The same way they did their research a few years ago when the 257 went to single deck DML's.... |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 19, 2024 13:42:25 GMT
But don't you think that TfL have done adequate research before implementing this? People say things will backfire, but what actually has? The same way they did their research a few years ago when the 257 went to single deck DML's.... More then a few. Was 24 years ago now when bus usgeage was lower. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 19, 2024 13:55:49 GMT
The same way they did their research a few years ago when the 257 went to single deck DML's.... More then a few. Was 24 years ago now when bus usgeage was lower. Yeah because poor frequencies and converting double decker routes to single decker doesn't really grow usage - a bit like now where you cut frequencies or whole routes, you ain't going to encourage people to use the network |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Aug 19, 2024 14:26:03 GMT
The same way they did their research a few years ago when the 257 went to single deck DML's.... More then a few. Was 24 years ago now when bus usgeage was lower. As was often the case at that time though, conversion to single-deck was accompanied by a considerable frequency increase and also the introduction of fully-accessible low-floor buses. This stimulated demand to the extent that it was necessary to re-introduce double-deckers, usually retaining the higher frequency. The 183 is another classic example of this. The 257 was converted to low-floor DML in January 2001 and the PVR increased from 10 to 14, which upped the frequency to a turn-up-and-go level. Such was the immediate upswing in passenger numbers that by April 2001 it had become necessary to add in three extra double-deck vehicles operating extra short journeys between Stratford and Leytonstone. Full double-deck operation - retaining the higher PVR of 17 - came in October 2001. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 19, 2024 20:52:57 GMT
More then a few. Was 24 years ago now when bus usgeage was lower. As was often the case at that time though, conversion to single-deck was accompanied by a considerable frequency increase and also the introduction of fully-accessible low-floor buses. This stimulated demand to the extent that it was necessary to re-introduce double-deckers, usually retaining the higher frequency. The 183 is another classic example of this. The 257 was converted to low-floor DML in January 2001 and the PVR increased from 10 to 14, which upped the frequency to a turn-up-and-go level. Such was the immediate upswing in passenger numbers that by April 2001 it had become necessary to add in three extra double-deck vehicles operating extra short journeys between Stratford and Leytonstone. Full double-deck operation - retaining the higher PVR of 17 - came in October 2001. The 257 was already a high-frequency service. It was only increased from 6bph to 8bph. Given the much lower passenger capacity of the Darts, this meant that the conversion actually led to a very significant decrease in capacity. Reports at the time indicated that the route was badly overcrowded from day 1 of the conversion. I find it very hard to believe that the people who were left behind by full 257s were all new passengers that had magically been attracted to the route by a modest frequency increase. I am not knocking the overall idea, but it seems pretty clear that on some of those conversions the capacity requirement had been miscalculated.
You keep lauding the 183 conversion but again I have to point out that the frequency increase was very modest - from 4bph to 5bph. Again this was not nearly enough to offset the reduction in capacity. The idea of replacing low-frequency DDs with high-frequency SDs only works if you have a much more significant increase in frequency.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 20, 2024 4:27:41 GMT
More then a few. Was 24 years ago now when bus usgeage was lower. Yeah because poor frequencies and converting double decker routes to single decker doesn't really grow usage - a bit like now where you cut frequencies or whole routes, you ain't going to encourage people to use the network And a lower perception of buses back then. The thinking was rightly or wrongly that the new low floor SDs would seem more attractive to passengers. |
|
va59
Conductor
Posts: 145 
|
Post by va59 on Aug 20, 2024 11:37:54 GMT
The same way they did their research a few years ago when the 257 went to single deck DML's.... More then a few. Was 24 years ago now when bus usgeage was lower. Well in that case then, if bus usage is busier now then why extend and divert a route to a very busy shopping district (Walthamstow) and decrease the length of buses on that route? And by this, I am talking W12/W14 change, I wouldn't mind if the frequency was 8-12 mins but it's a 15 minute gap. It's around 10.3 miles in length and takes in some very busy areas in Woodford, South Woodford, Wanstead, Leytonstone, Leyton and Walthamstow (not to mention Whipps Cross Hospital which was one of the reaons of this change was to connect people of Woodford with the hospital). But yeah, I'm guessing an Enviro 100EV should cover that no issues.... |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Aug 21, 2024 10:01:23 GMT
Yeah because poor frequencies and converting double decker routes to single decker doesn't really grow usage - a bit like now where you cut frequencies or whole routes, you ain't going to encourage people to use the network And a lower perception of buses back then. The thinking was rightly or wrongly that the new low floor SDs would seem more attractive to passengers. It was a very controversial move. I know I've mentioned a few routes in the past that was a big mistake for them to do it to I.e the 257, 238, 104, 212 and 295 in particular. The 295 one was unforgivable in my eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 21, 2024 10:07:51 GMT
And a lower perception of buses back then. The thinking was rightly or wrongly that the new low floor SDs would seem more attractive to passengers. It was a very controversial move. I know I've mentioned a few routes in the past that was a big mistake for them to do it to I.e the 257, 238, 104, 212 and 295 in particular. The 295 one was unforgivable in my eyes. Add the 49, 155, 319, 344 and 345 aswell. Of all of them am I right in thinking the 152, 163, 164 are the only remaining routes to still be using SDs now the 80 has re converted aswell. |
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on Aug 21, 2024 11:39:52 GMT
It was a very controversial move. I know I've mentioned a few routes in the past that was a big mistake for them to do it to I.e the 257, 238, 104, 212 and 295 in particular. The 295 one was unforgivable in my eyes. Add the 49, 155, 319, 344 and 345 aswell. Of all of them am I right in thinking the 152, 163, 164 are the only remaining routes to still be using SDs now the 80 has re converted aswell. The 152 converted to midibus from dd, and then to low floor sd. |
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on Aug 21, 2024 11:51:21 GMT
Add the 49, 155, 319, 344 and 345 aswell. Of all of them am I right in thinking the 152, 163, 164 are the only remaining routes to still be using SDs now the 80 has re converted aswell. The 152 converted to midibus from dd, and then to low floor sd. IIRC the 232 went from dd to low-floor sd and remains so. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 21, 2024 12:48:10 GMT
The same way they did their research a few years ago when the 257 went to single deck DML's.... More then a few. Was 24 years ago now when bus usgeage was lower. The usage of the 257 was not low. The 257 covered the 108 from Leytonstone Green Man to Stratford as well as the 262 that did its route before it. The only reason why it went single deck was TfL being cheap at the time due to the route going low floor buses. A few double deck routes were treated like this gaining single deckers and on paper the maths on pax numbers were about right. But in reality dwell times at stops being longer then led to the buses being overloaded then after having to skip stops. The 257 was as busy as routes like the 69 and 97 then, so was a mad decision. The 212 was another one of those routes that was given this treatment, although the 212 was not as busy as the 257. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 21, 2024 13:03:03 GMT
The 152 converted to midibus from dd, and then to low floor sd. IIRC the 232 went from dd to low-floor sd and remains so. 232 is a bit different in that it was never intended to be DD. When introduced in 1994 it was tendered as a SD route, but London Northern were able to put in a cheap bid using existing Ms; they didn't have any suitable spare SDs in the fleet.
On retendering in 1999 it was awarded with new low-floor Darts at the same (low) frequency, so it isn't one of those routes that was converted from low-frequency DD to high-frequency SD.
|
|
