|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 23, 2018 21:56:52 GMT
But the62-13 reg can do another contract on the 264 ... why would you do that? Otherwise 264 will need a new buses contract. DW332 is a seed vehicle for what is to come mwah-ha-ha Think you put this in the wrong thread Whoops you have a point there I forgot about a contract renewal, but however if TC do have the 264 for 7 years then they will in theory be too old to renew with my beef with the 301 getting the 60-reg’s, is that IMO a new route deserves better than a dingy, hard seated, manual blinded, knackered 8yo batch of DWs, which I very much share your view on, the newer ones are much nicer which is why the 301 should get them, and then they match with the DWs already at DT Wrong thread ... mmm yes ... sorry ... can only put it down to the beer ... mods please feel free to move ... 😦
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 23, 2018 23:20:12 GMT
Not good
What I find particularly disturbing is that buses are down whilst other modes are not. This is very telling and the reasons why need to clearly be understood. Only then can the decline be addressed. When the route level information finally comes out for last year we might get some clues.
Surely it just shows that people are still switching from bus to train? A random example, Peckham Rye to Clapham Junction. About 45 minutes on the 37 or 15 minutes on LO in an air conditioned train. Sadly for you and your example patronage on route 37 has remained stable at around the 7m pass jnys per year level since 2007. There is no dip at all coincident with the introduction of London Overground's South London Line service. The most likely reason is that LO does not serve Brixton whereas the 37 does. The 37 is also more frequent but your point re journey times and ambience are decent counter points. The 37 hasn't been affected whereas to give a North London example the 242 has - it's lost 1.5m since 2012 when the ELL service reached its maximum service level south of Dalston Junction.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 23, 2018 23:40:18 GMT
With the fall in bus usage seeming to be smaller than a couple of years ago, that’s one positive to draw from it I suppose. It does show that bus usage isn’t getting worse. I do have faith that bus usage will increase in the near future. Near future as in maybe a couple years. GTR, is that Govia Thameslink, ie Southern etc? No surprises there why their patronage is going out the window. As for tube patronage, it sounds silly but a fall is somewhat needed to stop the network becoming dangerously overcrowded, it almost relieves me in a way as I did worry a couple of years ago how full the bursting the network would be in say 10 years time. Some newspapers warned some parts of the tube could become ‘inoperable’, but that’s a bit of scaremongering there I think You are more optimistic than I am about bus patronage. I think we are 5-6 years away from any real uptick in demand. Yes GTR is Govia Thameslink but more the Thameslink and Great Nothern bits. Southern's operation seems to have stabilised pretty well and I don't see many moans about their trains these days. We seem to be past the dire days of frequent delays, cancellations and strike action. The Tube has a lot of spare capacity in some parts of the network and probably always will because the demand will never be there to fill high frequency services that run a long way out from the centre. They fill up much closer in and, of course, are very busy at peak times in the peak direction of travel but that is the nature of most metros and commuter railways. Clearly some bits are pressured and will continue to be for a long time - south end of the Northern, bits of the Vic Line, bits of the Jubilee etc. I don't think the tube will ever be inoperable. Beware the "hype" that happens when party conferences are on or TfL is trying to negotiate its next financial settlement with the government. We tend to get a lot of hyperbolic "BS" around those times - makes interesting headlines, usually utterly ignored by the DfT and Treasury.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 24, 2018 0:21:53 GMT
Surely it just shows that people are still switching from bus to train? A random example, Peckham Rye to Clapham Junction. About 45 minutes on the 37 or 15 minutes on LO in an air conditioned train. Sadly for you and your example patronage on route 37 has remained stable at around the 7m pass jnys per year level since 2007. There is no dip at all coincident with the introduction of London Overground's South London Line service. The most likely reason is that LO does not serve Brixton whereas the 37 does. The 37 is also more frequent but your point re journey times and ambience are decent counter points. The 37 hasn't been affected whereas to give a North London example the 242 has - it's lost 1.5m since 2012 when the ELL service reached its maximum service level south of Dalston Junction. Not only that but there are many little local links that are only achievable by the 37 especially as it's one of the very few east to west links in South London - this is a route that should have a frequency increase but we all know it won't get one
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 24, 2018 5:20:31 GMT
Surely it just shows that people are still switching from bus to train? A random example, Peckham Rye to Clapham Junction. About 45 minutes on the 37 or 15 minutes on LO in an air conditioned train. Sadly for you and your example patronage on route 37 has remained stable at around the 7m pass jnys per year level since 2007. There is no dip at all coincident with the introduction of London Overground's South London Line service. The most likely reason is that LO does not serve Brixton whereas the 37 does. The 37 is also more frequent but your point re journey times and ambience are decent counter points. The 37 hasn't been affected whereas to give a North London example the 242 has - it's lost 1.5m since 2012 when the ELL service reached its maximum service level south of Dalston Junction. I just mentioned that as I overheard somebody recently saying what a slow journey it used to be on the 37 before the line opened and I suspect it has 'stolen' quite a few bus passengers from various routes since its inception.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 24, 2018 8:12:37 GMT
Sadly for you and your example patronage on route 37 has remained stable at around the 7m pass jnys per year level since 2007. There is no dip at all coincident with the introduction of London Overground's South London Line service. The most likely reason is that LO does not serve Brixton whereas the 37 does. The 37 is also more frequent but your point re journey times and ambience are decent counter points. The 37 hasn't been affected whereas to give a North London example the 242 has - it's lost 1.5m since 2012 when the ELL service reached its maximum service level south of Dalston Junction. I just mentioned that as I overheard somebody recently saying what a slow journey it used to be on the 37 before the line opened and I suspect it has 'stolen' quite a few bus passengers from various routes since its inception. The 37 only serves those two Overground stations so any patronage lost from that would be minimal compared to all the local links that the 37 caters for and the fact 37's are still busy to & from both locations. It actually could do with a frequency increase as buses are regularly busy throughout the day and even busy at nights.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 24, 2018 11:17:43 GMT
Sadly for you and your example patronage on route 37 has remained stable at around the 7m pass jnys per year level since 2007. There is no dip at all coincident with the introduction of London Overground's South London Line service. The most likely reason is that LO does not serve Brixton whereas the 37 does. The 37 is also more frequent but your point re journey times and ambience are decent counter points. The 37 hasn't been affected whereas to give a North London example the 242 has - it's lost 1.5m since 2012 when the ELL service reached its maximum service level south of Dalston Junction. I just mentioned that as I overheard somebody recently saying what a slow journey it used to be on the 37 before the line opened and I suspect it has 'stolen' quite a few bus passengers from various routes since its inception. To be fair there may well have been some bus to Overground transfer for longer distance trips. However there are other trips over the 37 where demand has clearly remained at decent levels with growth compensating for any transfer. The 35 has lost some patronage but I suspect that is more to do with troubles at the City end of the route. I haven't checked the 345's numbers but I'd hazard a guess, given its frequency cut, that it is the route that has been more bus to LO transfer given it gets closer to some of the LO stn catchment areas (e.g. Clapham High St).
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Sept 27, 2018 8:05:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 27, 2018 10:13:01 GMT
Period 5's patronage numbers have been updated in the London Datastore Buses 151.7m Tube 100.3m DLR 8.9m Tram 2.1m Overground 13.6m TfL Rail 4.1m Buses are down 3.4m on same period last year, Tube is down 0.7m on last year. DLR and Overground are down on last year but Trams are static. TfL Rail is up 0.6m. The key thing to remember here is that period 5 covers the start of the school / annual period so you would expect numbers to fall. However the drop is bus usage is a continuation of a trend across the year to date with a cumulative decline of 16.9m pass jnys. And to think TfL were forecasting an increase and we haven't got to the major bus cuts yet.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 27, 2018 10:26:17 GMT
No surprise, they mention the filter lane at Bakers Arms one aspect as I have always said was a disaster to pave it over. Plus every side road from Queens Rd to Lea Bridge Rd is blocked off due to mini Helland so this has created more traffic for buses. It isn't entirely Go-Ahead's fault now the tender is lost then I can understand give the minimum approach, but before I feel they may have been trying their best, but cannot do nothing due to LBWF. Any low frequency route in LBWF that goes through Walthamstow and Leyton would be impossible to run now. To be classed as on time, the bus has to be between 2 minutes and 29 seconds early and 5.00 minutes late.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 27, 2018 10:39:02 GMT
The 78% is relevant because, as for many low frequency routes, it's the minimum performance standard that TfL require. I agree it's not a fantastic number but it is the minimum that TfL decide they can afford to pay for. In short they're happy that 22% of buses are not on time. Wonder if the ranting councillor understands that? I note the TfL spokesperson fails to note that the "many roadworks" are largely schemes paid for with TfL money so TfL are actually paying people to delay their own bus services. Great eh?
|
|