|
Post by snoggle on Mar 3, 2015 20:43:05 GMT
Very happy seeing these proposed changes! (don't shoot me ) I am sorry but I must shoot you with a musical accompaniment.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 3, 2015 20:47:35 GMT
Not related but I wonder what they are going to do with the 7, 23 and 94 to convert them into NBfL. I have heard that the 7 won't convert and will end up with the same fate as the 13, however that is a rumour. I wouldn't be surprised if the 23 was mysteriously diverted around Paddington through different roads a few months before TFL announce an LT conversion
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Mar 3, 2015 20:47:47 GMT
When you put it like that, TFL is absolutely doing the right thing. You've just taken their idea and renamed it the 13 LOL. Any reason why the 82, 113, 139, N113 and N189 can't be converted to NBfLs? They have to go somewhere! I feel like the older 13 should stay and the people at BT who drive routes 13/N13 could keep there jobs. The current 139 can't take NBfLs because of it's stand at West Hampstead. Their solution of an extention to the current 139 is much better than your idea of extensively reworking a huge chunk of the 13. Not to mention that TFL's idea takes away another route from Oxford Street (a good thing). If the 13's VHs do move to the 285, then hopefully they see a FULL refurb into the standard LU interior, as these buses have the ugliest interiors I think I've seen in recent times! (NBfL has top spot)
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 3, 2015 20:50:06 GMT
A lot of negatives and I'm struggling to see any positives, the 24hr 82 will only be replacing the N13, does the daytime 82 get a frequency increase? And as others have said the 13 is only a year or so into a new contract, won't there have to be some compensation pay out? Extending the 139 to Golders Green serves no real purpose with the 328 already covering that section. The reason the 139 is being extended is so passengers can maintain connections between Golders Green and the West End, it's not necassarily for those who are travelling between West Hampstead and Golders Green. The consultation says "There would be with no changes to the day 82 service" this is a bit ambigous, so it's unclear whether or not there will be an increase. On another note, I think the N189 has a northern extenstion potential... maybe via the 142 or 326 to Mill Hill East? Yes I see what you mean, I thought the 139 could be extended at night to Golders Green and then via the daytime 240 to Mill Hill and Edgware.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 3, 2015 20:54:48 GMT
I feel like the older 13 should stay and the people at BT who drive routes 13/N13 could keep there jobs. The current 139 can't take NBfLs because of it's stand at West Hampstead. Their solution of an extention to the current 139 is much better than your idea of extensively reworking a huge chunk of the 13. Not to mention that TFL's idea takes away another route from Oxford Street (a good thing). If the 13's VHs do move to the 285, then hopefully they see a FULL refurb into the standard LU interior, as these buses have the ugliest interiors I think I've seen in recent times! (NBfL has top spot) Let me ask you a question why is removing another route from Oxford Street a good thing. Personally I don't think removing a route from Oxford Street is a good idea because you will end up with links lost. The VHs will probably stay at BT for the 183 and 292 and the SPs on the 183 will go to HH for the 285.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 3, 2015 20:54:46 GMT
Not related but I wonder what they are going to do with the 7, 23 and 94 to convert them into NBfL. I have heard that the 7 won't convert and will end up with the same fate as the 13, however that is a rumour. I wouldn't be surprised if the 23 was mysteriously diverted around Paddington through different roads a few months before TFL announce an LT conversion That is why the 7 has pretty 7/N7 is not returning to Russell Square. Heard a rumour of an extension to Northolt and removed entirely from the West End.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Mar 3, 2015 21:01:21 GMT
I feel like the older 13 should stay and the people at BT who drive routes 13/N13 could keep there jobs. The current 139 can't take NBfLs because of it's stand at West Hampstead. Their solution of an extention to the current 139 is much better than your idea of extensively reworking a huge chunk of the 13. Not to mention that TFL's idea takes away another route from Oxford Street (a good thing). If the 13's VHs do move to the 285, then hopefully they see a FULL refurb into the standard LU interior, as these buses have the ugliest interiors I think I've seen in recent times! (NBfL has top spot) Not nessairily a good thing, Two hybrid routes (13 & 189) are removed and replaced by One disel Euro IV route (113). If London United do refurbish theses buses (from the 13) for the 285 then they would be piddling away money, it is not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 3, 2015 21:05:59 GMT
Slightly facetious, but..
"Our Tube modernisation plan means journeys are more reliable, many lines now have a better service. We’ve also introduced new, longer trains on many lines."
*TfL enhances direct bus service between Edgware, Hendon and Central London*
I need to see someone about this cough.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 3, 2015 21:07:20 GMT
Maybe the idea is that the 139 will be worked by Sovereign with the VH's and Metroline compensated by an increase on the 82?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 3, 2015 21:09:59 GMT
I need to do a bit more analysis but a rough and ready check of annual patronage and capacity numbers gives the following.
Route 13 Demand - 5.4m Capacity - 8.1m Route 82 Demand - 8.4m Capacity - 8.9m Route 113 Demand - 5.1m Capacity - 5.8m Route 139 Demand - 3.9m Capacity - 7.9m Route 189 Demand - 4.9m Capacity - 8.2m
Clearly you have to be very careful with the numbers as they are annualised and can't pick up detailed loadings at stop level or by day of the week / time of day.
Clearly TfL have taken the view that they can bump a lot of the 13's demand on to the 139 with the 82 and 113 picking up specific demand on the Finchley Road which the rerouted 139 won't deal with. Given the 113 has little capacity overhead you can see why it is being increased to take up the 13's slack. What is quite interesting is that the performance of all of these routes is pretty good relative to their targets, the 13 being worst and 113 being exceptionally good.
I haven't specifically looked at frequencies yet but I get a sense this package of changes will make things very very tight indeed. There won't be much "slack" if there is growth on the corridor. I've certainly seen very well loaded 13s in the peak and big queues at stops on Finchley Road, including outside Finchley Road and Swiss Cottage tube stations!
I still think this is a great big "con trick" in that it is nothing much to do with changing demand - all the routes have seen modest increases in recent years - and everything to do with Oxford Street and facilitating NB4L conversions.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 3, 2015 21:12:39 GMT
Maybe the idea is that the 139 will be worked by Sovereign with the VH's and Metroline compensated by an increase on the 82? I can't see that happening as Metroline hold the contract for the 139 until 2017. LS will probably have to bid for more work to replace the 13/N13. The 326 is going to BT and the 324 is going Metroline.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 3, 2015 21:18:02 GMT
Maybe the idea is that the 139 will be worked by Sovereign with the VH's and Metroline compensated by an increase on the 82? I rather suspect the plan is 13's buses go elsewhere in the RATP empire 139 and 189 both convert to LT. They have to find somewhere to deploy them. 82 gets new Volvo B5s but no extra work. Big cascade of hybrid E400s within Metroline fleet - possibly to the 113, which needs more buses, and other routes. Not sure whether TfL will dump Metroline from the 139 and "give" it to London Sovereign. All a guess on my part btw.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 3, 2015 21:18:53 GMT
Maybe the idea is that the 139 will be worked by Sovereign with the VH's and Metroline compensated by an increase on the 82? I can't see that happening as Metroline hold the contract for the 139 until 2017. LS will probably have to bid for more work to replace the 13/N13. The 326 is going to BT and the 324 is going Metroline. It would be like withdrawing the 139 and extending the 13 to Waterloo and rerouting it via West Hampstead although actually doing that would confuse passengers. Just one theory, the whole idea seems daft to me.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 3, 2015 21:31:26 GMT
I need to do a bit more analysis but a rough and ready check of annual patronage and capacity numbers gives the following. Route 13 Demand - 5.4m Capacity - 8.1m Route 82 Demand - 8.4m Capacity - 8.9m Route 113 Demand - 5.1m Capacity - 5.8m Route 139 Demand - 3.9m Capacity - 7.9m Route 189 Demand - 4.9m Capacity - 8.2m Clearly you have to be very careful with the numbers as they are annualised and can't pick up detailed loadings at stop level or by day of the week / time of day. Clearly TfL have taken the view that they can bump a lot of the 13's demand on to the 139 with the 82 and 113 picking up specific demand on the Finchley Road which the rerouted 139 won't deal with. Given the 113 has little capacity overhead you can see why it is being increased to take up the 13's slack. What is quite interesting is that the performance of all of these routes is pretty good relative to their targets, the 13 being worst and 113 being exceptionally good. I haven't specifically looked at frequencies yet but I get a sense this package of changes will make things very very tight indeed. There won't be much "slack" if there is growth on the corridor. I've certainly seen very well loaded 13s in the peak and big queues at stops on Finchley Road, including outside Finchley Road and Swiss Cottage tube stations! I still think this is a great big "con trick" in that it is nothing much to do with changing demand - all the routes have been modest increases in recent years - and everything to do with Oxford Street and facilitating NB4L conversions. The 113 has had a lot of 'padding' put into the timetable in the last few years without any noticeable increase in traffic levels on the A41 so the good reliability figures for that route would not surprise me. It goes without saying that it does also miss the bulk of the town traffic vs the 139/189/13. The outer stretch is certainly busier than it used to be, and a lot of the 50mph bits have been dropped to 40, but I'm not sure that accounts for an extra 10-15 minutes running time from Edgware to the edge of the West End. It was achievable well inside an hour off peak 15 years ago. Certainly the days of Metros spanking it down Watford/Hendon Way flat out are long gone (tbf I think the c.2000 timetable was probably still tuned to the performance of the Lances!). Does the routeing from Childs Hill to Baker Street via West Hampstead incur a time penalty vs the Finchley Road? Shiny NBfLs aside this will have a bearing on whether passengers from GG will lump the 139 going into town. Off peak I'd think it is probably slower but even the bus lane on Finchley Road is often slow going at peak times with NX coaches thrown into the mix, especially southbound in the AM peak around Frognal - having commuted it by bicycle I can confirm that weaving the wall of traffic in all three lanes is hard work.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 3, 2015 21:58:27 GMT
Two years in the making I would say. Always thought it was unusual that the 292 had new buses planned for later this year mid contract, especially as its run by one of the smaller operaters. . A break clause was probably written in to the 13's 2013 renewal. Now it will be interesting as to whether the hybrids are diverted to the 285 instead. The other London United colleague on here mentioned something about Volvos with the 285 so your theory could be true. I don't see the 292 getting hybrids but more so new or existing diesels because there is extremely little stop start going on beyond Edgware. The VH's could easily be scattered between the 114 & 183.
|
|