|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on May 17, 2018 7:22:31 GMT
Them MCV are unsuitable for the 13 I don’t know what Tower Transit was thinking I wish it was Retained by Metroline with the classic Enviros. Can't, enters ULEZ hence hybrids required. I wonder if you mean the downstairs layout with the battery taking up a lot of space - afraid that'd be the case either way as Tower only order B5LH deckers so far
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 17, 2018 8:42:07 GMT
It has been suggested that reliability on route 13 is due to the operator, when compared to Metroline's operation of route 82. However the frequency of the new 13 is significantly higher than the 82 due to the Finchley Road changes, plus any roadworks/traffic issues may not have been in place previously. If there are reliability issues on route 13 due to the long length of the route (alongside traffic congestion issues), the following changes would shorten both routes 13 and 113 to create 3 routes in total. Frequencies to be adjusted as necessary to provide adequate capacity on each section. Route 13 - Withdrawn to/from Finchley to operate between Golders Green and Victoria Route 113 - Withdrawn to/from Central London to operate between Edgware and Finchley Road OR Swiss Cottage (depending on availability of stand space) Route 82 - Reinstated, operating between North Finchley and Baker Street These changes would still reflect much of the cuts made previously in the Finchley Road consultation, with continuation of 2 routes between Finchley Road and Baker Street, and withdrawal of the old route 13 towards Aldwych. The 113 cut back removes the need to modify the route around Oxford Street due to changes there. The current 13 is effectively being split into two routes, with the 113 being partly replaced by the overlap towards Baker Street (in effect also improving reliability of the very long 113). I don't think removing the 113 from Central London would go down well at all, it offers a relatively fast service and it does seem to have a lot of regular commuters. I think the route structure is probably ok as it is although the Marble Arch to Victoria section is pretty dead although why on earth the route wasn't left as the 82 I don't know, all the change has done is cause unnecessary confusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 8:48:36 GMT
Them MCV are unsuitable for the 13 I don’t know what Tower Transit was thinking I wish it was Retained by Metroline with the classic Enviros. I don't think the type of bus makes much difference but I suspect a lot of people wish it had been retained by Metroline, seems Tower Transit put in a rock bottom bid that just isn't viable. If this isn't evidence that TfL only worries about money rather than providing a decent service for passengers then I don't know what will ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 8:49:17 GMT
It has been suggested that reliability on route 13 is due to the operator, when compared to Metroline's operation of route 82. However the frequency of the new 13 is significantly higher than the 82 due to the Finchley Road changes, plus any roadworks/traffic issues may not have been in place previously. If there are reliability issues on route 13 due to the long length of the route (alongside traffic congestion issues), the following changes would shorten both routes 13 and 113 to create 3 routes in total. Frequencies to be adjusted as necessary to provide adequate capacity on each section. Route 13 - Withdrawn to/from Finchley to operate between Golders Green and Victoria Route 113 - Withdrawn to/from Central London to operate between Edgware and Finchley Road OR Swiss Cottage (depending on availability of stand space) Route 82 - Reinstated, operating between North Finchley and Baker Street These changes would still reflect much of the cuts made previously in the Finchley Road consultation, with continuation of 2 routes between Finchley Road and Baker Street, and withdrawal of the old route 13 towards Aldwych. The 113 cut back removes the need to modify the route around Oxford Street due to changes there. The current 13 is effectively being split into two routes, with the 113 being partly replaced by the overlap towards Baker Street (in effect also improving reliability of the very long 113). I don't think removing the 113 from Central London would go down well at all, it offers a relatively fast service and it does seem to have a lot of regular commuters. I think the route structure is probably ok as it is although the Marble Arch to Victoria section is pretty dead although why on earth the route wasn't left as the 82 I don't know, all the change has done is cause unnecessary confusion. Completely agree with you. Only politics kept the route 13 number.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 17, 2018 11:45:35 GMT
It has been suggested that reliability on route 13 is due to the operator, when compared to Metroline's operation of route 82. However the frequency of the new 13 is significantly higher than the 82 due to the Finchley Road changes, plus any roadworks/traffic issues may not have been in place previously. If there are reliability issues on route 13 due to the long length of the route (alongside traffic congestion issues), the following changes would shorten both routes 13 and 113 to create 3 routes in total. Frequencies to be adjusted as necessary to provide adequate capacity on each section. Route 13 - Withdrawn to/from Finchley to operate between Golders Green and Victoria Route 113 - Withdrawn to/from Central London to operate between Edgware and Finchley Road OR Swiss Cottage (depending on availability of stand space) Route 82 - Reinstated, operating between North Finchley and Baker Street These changes would still reflect much of the cuts made previously in the Finchley Road consultation, with continuation of 2 routes between Finchley Road and Baker Street, and withdrawal of the old route 13 towards Aldwych. The 113 cut back removes the need to modify the route around Oxford Street due to changes there. The current 13 is effectively being split into two routes, with the 113 being partly replaced by the overlap towards Baker Street (in effect also improving reliability of the very long 113). I don't think removing the 113 from Central London would go down well at all, it offers a relatively fast service and it does seem to have a lot of regular commuters. I think the route structure is probably ok as it is although the Marble Arch to Victoria section is pretty dead although why on earth the route wasn't left as the 82 I don't know, all the change has done is cause unnecessary confusion. Agreed regarding the 113. The route should not be touched at it's Central London end as it's well used to and from there and it should in any form continue providing a connection as close to the West End as possible regardless of any changes that may happen. The 113's direct routing and fast sections of the route contribute to its popularity. However I disagree with your point regarding the 13 between Marble Arch and Victoria. This section is popular in the peaks and in the normal hours, though relatively modest, there is a consistent usage within this section.
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 17, 2018 12:14:59 GMT
I don't think removing the 113 from Central London would go down well at all, it offers a relatively fast service and it does seem to have a lot of regular commuters. I think the route structure is probably ok as it is although the Marble Arch to Victoria section is pretty dead although why on earth the route wasn't left as the 82 I don't know, all the change has done is cause unnecessary confusion. Agreed regarding the 113. The route should not be touched at it's Central London end as it's well used to and from there and it should in any form continue providing a connection as close to the West End as possible regardless of any changes that may happen. The 113's direct routing and fast sections of the route contribute to its popularity. However I disagree with your point regarding the 13 between Marble Arch and Victoria. This section is popular in the peaks and in the normal hours, though relatively modest, there is a consistent usage within this section. It's probably a section that is only justified at peak times, it's certainly not uncommon to see almost empty n/b 13's sailing up Park Lane during the daytime although in the other direction most people will get any bus with Victoria on the front. I'm not necessarily saying it should be axed but if a section needed to be sacrificed to improve the service on the rest of the route that should be it.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 17, 2018 12:51:13 GMT
Plus it does juplicate the 2 between Baker Street and Victoria. If the full pedestrianisation ever takes place then I can easily see the 2 cut to Marble Arch rather then a diversion to get to Baker Street/Marylebone.
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 17, 2018 13:35:12 GMT
Plus it does juplicate the 2 between Baker Street and Victoria. If the full pedestrianisation ever takes place then I can easily see the 2 cut to Marble Arch rather then a diversion to get to Baker Street/Marylebone. Of course years ago the 2 went all the way to Golders Green thus performing both functions between Victoria and Baker Street.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 17, 2018 13:40:27 GMT
Would be lovely to see a Victoria or Marble Arch to Crystal Palace route 2. Won't happen thou as would lead to a drop in capacity between N and Brixton.
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 17, 2018 15:06:24 GMT
Would be lovely to see a Victoria or Marble Arch to Crystal Palace route 2. Won't happen thou as would lead to a drop in capacity between N and Brixton. At least the extra capacity is needed between Brixton and Norwood, often ends up being an excessive level of service on the overlap like between Victoria and Baker Street.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 17, 2018 15:33:39 GMT
Yeh so unfortunately the 2 would either have to run every 4-5 mins throughout which would be excessive between CP and N. One remedy possibly would be the 415 extended to N but that would give a s reduction between Brixton and Tulse Hill.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on May 17, 2018 16:01:47 GMT
I don't think removing the 113 from Central London would go down well at all, it offers a relatively fast service and it does seem to have a lot of regular commuters. I think the route structure is probably ok as it is although the Marble Arch to Victoria section is pretty dead although why on earth the route wasn't left as the 82 I don't know, all the change has done is cause unnecessary confusion. Agreed regarding the 113. The route should not be touched at it's Central London end as it's well used to and from there and it should in any form continue providing a connection as close to the West End as possible regardless of any changes that may happen. The 113's direct routing and fast sections of the route contribute to its popularity. However I disagree with your point regarding the 13 between Marble Arch and Victoria. This section is popular in the peaks and in the normal hours, though relatively modest, there is a consistent usage within this section. The proposed 13 & 82 would continue links along the 113 route as far as Childs Hill. The 189 would continue a link from central London to Brent Cross. The few travelling further out than Brent Cross to/from central London can either use the hopper fare, or use the Northern Line or ThamesLink.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on May 17, 2018 16:20:53 GMT
Agreed regarding the 113. The route should not be touched at it's Central London end as it's well used to and from there and it should in any form continue providing a connection as close to the West End as possible regardless of any changes that may happen. The 113's direct routing and fast sections of the route contribute to its popularity. However I disagree with your point regarding the 13 between Marble Arch and Victoria. This section is popular in the peaks and in the normal hours, though relatively modest, there is a consistent usage within this section. The proposed 13 & 82 would continue links along the 113 route as far as Childs Hill. The 189 would continue a link from central London to Brent Cross. The few travelling further out than Brent Cross to/from central London can either use the hopper fare, or use the Northern Line or ThamesLink. I think that It’s best that the 113 is left the way it is because the 113 can go to places that the Northern Line and Thameslink can’t like Apex Corner and Mill Hill Retail Park. As I have said before people should not be forced onto trains.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 17, 2018 18:09:23 GMT
The proposed 13 & 82 would continue links along the 113 route as far as Childs Hill. The 189 would continue a link from central London to Brent Cross. The few travelling further out than Brent Cross to/from central London can either use the hopper fare, or use the Northern Line or ThamesLink. I think that It’s best that the 113 is left the way it is because the 113 can go to places that the Northern Line and Thameslink can’t like Apex Corner and Mill Hill Retail Park. As I’ve told before people should not be forced onto trains. Thanks Cobo
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on May 17, 2018 20:44:56 GMT
I don't think the type of bus makes much difference but I suspect a lot of people wish it had been retained by Metroline, seems Tower Transit put in a rock bottom bid that just isn't viable. If this isn't evidence that TfL only worries about money rather than providing a decent service for passengers then I don't know what will ... Thank the lord someone bought that up. I have a worrying feeling TT could be given a seven year contract for the 13 because TfL are loving paying out such a cheap rate for that route, regardless of service. Although I do very much like to think money doesn’t play a part in a contract extension because certain targets need to be met in order for the extension to be granted. Having said that there are routes which are run incredibly well which I think should have been given an extension but weren’t. Quick question though, why does a rock bottom bid have anything to do with the route being run badly? Whether you have an expensive bid or a cheap bid you have to shell out the same money for drivers/vehicle maintenance and all that malarkey, it’s just a case of how much is left over as profit. I could be completely missing the point though.
|
|