|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 1, 2019 22:08:17 GMT
There IS a need for both these routes as South London (Vauxhall for an example) is prone to heavy traffic as is Finchley Road this should mean if one route is bogged down in traffic/diversion etc the other is available between Victoria and Baker Street if there is only 1 route no-one will get anywhere the ONLY way forward in this particular case is leave alone the 2 and 13 are both busy in there own right you can't even tweak the frequencies that much because of loadings further along each route I know that using the 2 on almost a daily basis there are times you cannot get on the first sometimes second bus I would assume similar for the 13 on the Finchley road corridor. Noting your interest in the history of bus routes, as you may know it's only comparatively recently (1970  ) that the Baker Street to Victoria bus corridor has had a route, or even part route, commencing at Victoria Station to work north to Baker Street and up Finchley Road: before then the 2, 2A and, later on, 2B reigned supreme and these were very much geared to the need of South Londoners to reach the West End. The creation of route 26 in 1970 (I was employed in LT's bus schedules dept at the time) was seen as quite radical, and a response to frustration of passengers along the Finchley Road suffering long waits at times for 2 group buses mainly allocated to Stockwell or Norwood which were getting turned at Swiss Cottage, Baker Street or even further south. Of course the 13 was then a popular and highly regarded route running from Gplders Green to Aldwych, and had a totally North London garage allocation, so their appearances along the Finchley Road were much less sporadic, and many would board these and change at Selfridge's if necessary. That first 26 timetable from Victoria to North Finchley represented a toe in the water only, with a maximum frequency of 16 minutes (I'm ignoring the separate service using the same number between Golders Green and New Barnet, which got tacked on a late stage but had been drawn up as an opo route). The 26 became well-used from an early stage and its frequency developed over time, with fewer 2s venturing north of Baker Street Station. Later on, the 26 begat the 82, then that in turn was renumbered for unsatisfactory political reasons as we know. As you say, an overlap between the 2 and 13 is required for commonsensical traffic reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 1, 2019 22:29:35 GMT
There IS a need for both these routes as South London (Vauxhall for an example) is prone to heavy traffic as is Finchley Road this should mean if one route is bogged down in traffic/diversion etc the other is available between Victoria and Baker Street if there is only 1 route no-one will get anywhere the ONLY way forward in this particular case is leave alone the 2 and 13 are both busy in there own right you can't even tweak the frequencies that much because of loadings further along each route I know that using the 2 on almost a daily basis there are times you cannot get on the first sometimes second bus I would assume similar for the 13 on the Finchley road corridor. Noting your interest in the history of bus routes, as you may know it's only comparatively recently (1970 ) that the Baker Street to Victoria bus corridor has had a route, or even part route, commencing at Victoria Station to work north to Baker Street and up Finchley Road: before then the 2, 2A and, later on, 2B reigned supreme and these were very much geared to the need of South Londoners to reach the West End. The creation of route 26 in 1970 (I was employed in LT's bus schedules dept at the time) was seen as quite radical, and a response to frustration of passengers along the Finchley Road suffering long waits at times for 2 group buses mainly allocated to Stockwell or Norwood which were getting turned at Swiss Cottage, Baker Street or even further south. Of course the 13 was then a popular and highly regarded route running from Gplders Green to Aldwych, and had a totally North London garage allocation, so their appearances along the Finchley Road were much less sporadic, and many would board these and change at Selfridge's if necessary. That first 26 timetable from Victoria to North Finchley represented a toe in the water only, with a maximum frequency of 16 minutes (I'm ignoring the separate service using the same number between Golders Green and New Barnet, which got tacked on a late stage but had been drawn up as an opo route). The 26 became well-used from an early stage and its frequency developed over time, with fewer 2s venturing north of Baker Street Station. Later on, the 26 begat the 82, then that in turn was renumbered for unsatisfactory political reasons as we know. As you say, an overlap between the 2 and 13 is required for commonsensical traffic reasons. Didn't the 13 have an allocation from Rye Lane (RL) when it went all the way to London Bridge and then Camberwell (Q) when RL closed? That would have been a south London allocation for the 13!
When the 26 was axed (Finchley - Victoria) in 1978, the 13 was extended to North Finchley as the replacement. From Victoria you could only get as far north as Golders Green on the 2b, the 82 came later as I recollect. Indeed the only reason the 82 initially went to Finchley was for the convenience of LT and garage journeys, as it was garaged at Finchley (FY). It later took over the Finchley part of the 13 as a cost saving measure when the 13 was put out to tender, as the 82 was one-man, while the 13 was still crew operated.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 1, 2019 23:43:13 GMT
There IS a need for both these routes as South London (Vauxhall for an example) is prone to heavy traffic as is Finchley Road this should mean if one route is bogged down in traffic/diversion etc the other is available between Victoria and Baker Street if there is only 1 route no-one will get anywhere the ONLY way forward in this particular case is leave alone the 2 and 13 are both busy in there own right you can't even tweak the frequencies that much because of loadings further along each route I know that using the 2 on almost a daily basis there are times you cannot get on the first sometimes second bus I would assume similar for the 13 on the Finchley road corridor. Exactly right and I was hoping you would comment as you use the 2 often. The fact that the 2 continues to be busy despite the Victoria Line running parallel for a substantial section says how very important it is and why it should stay untouched. Even at the southern end, it fills up rapidly. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 1, 2019 23:48:22 GMT
Noting your interest in the history of bus routes, as you may know it's only comparatively recently (1970 ) that the Baker Street to Victoria bus corridor has had a route, or even part route, commencing at Victoria Station to work north to Baker Street and up Finchley Road: before then the 2, 2A and, later on, 2B reigned supreme and these were very much geared to the need of South Londoners to reach the West End. The creation of route 26 in 1970 (I was employed in LT's bus schedules dept at the time) was seen as quite radical, and a response to frustration of passengers along the Finchley Road suffering long waits at times for 2 group buses mainly allocated to Stockwell or Norwood which were getting turned at Swiss Cottage, Baker Street or even further south. Of course the 13 was then a popular and highly regarded route running from Gplders Green to Aldwych, and had a totally North London garage allocation, so their appearances along the Finchley Road were much less sporadic, and many would board these and change at Selfridge's if necessary. That first 26 timetable from Victoria to North Finchley represented a toe in the water only, with a maximum frequency of 16 minutes (I'm ignoring the separate service using the same number between Golders Green and New Barnet, which got tacked on a late stage but had been drawn up as an opo route). The 26 became well-used from an early stage and its frequency developed over time, with fewer 2s venturing north of Baker Street Station. Later on, the 26 begat the 82, then that in turn was renumbered for unsatisfactory political reasons as we know. As you say, an overlap between the 2 and 13 is required for commonsensical traffic reasons. Didn't the 13 have an allocation from Rye Lane (RL) when it went all the way to London Bridge and then Camberwell (Q) when RL closed? That would have been a south London allocation for the 13!
When the 26 was axed (Finchley - Victoria) in 1978, the 13 was extended to North Finchley as the replacement. From Victoria you could only get as far north as Golders Green on the 2b, the 82 came later as I recollect. Indeed the only reason the 82 initially went to Finchley was for the convenience of LT and garage journeys, as it was garaged at Finchley (FY). It later took over the Finchley part of the 13 as a cost saving measure when the 13 was put out to tender, as the 82 was one-man, while the 13 was still crew operated.
You're absolutely right about a South London garage allocation for the 13, and frequent garage journeys in service brought a direct service from London Bridge to Peckham that was then otherwise not doable by bus i remember them well! That came to an end, though, with the route's cutback from London Bridge to Aldwych, whereupon S.London ceased its involvement with the 13, and this had occurred by the time the 26 was created. I must admit my memory is hazy as to when the 82 came into play. The 2B got to North Finchley on a Sunday at the same time as the 26 was created as a weekday only route, and an interesting (to me) fact about the 2b on that day was that every single journey worked by Finchley (FY) garage worked the whole route through to Crystal Palace and even provided the first journeys of the day at the CP end despite SW and N also being allocated. Knowing the peculiar humour of bus schedulers I can see the glint in the eye of the guy who got that one through! |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 2, 2019 5:08:55 GMT
I think if TfL thought this, they'd have reduced the frequency of them and prepare to make a cut. I'm not submitting anything else to this discussion. I am not quite sure why we are picking on the 2 and 13 here, there are lots of routes that overlap. You could for instance argue to curtail the 468 at Norwood, or even get rid of the 68 as these routes 'duplicate' each other. I am not suggesting this is sensible, but all these sort of changes should be done on the basis of evidence, loadings, links and usage. To say it can't be justified, is obvious or isn't financially viable to have both the 2 and 13 is quite wrong, none of us can really say that, you need a proper cost benefit analysis to determine such things. Personal observations can only go so far, and you really need those from regular frequent users of the route for such observations to be meaningful.
In the case of the 13 there are lots of people who wish to travel beyond Selfridges towards Victoria and I think you will struggle to justify a cut to Marble Arch on any proper cost benefit analysis. Yes it is true that more people want to travel on the 'old 13' into the West End than Victoria, but as sensible as it would be, the 13 isn't going to be re-routed back to the West End anytime soon. The routing to Victoria does seem justifiable, although as I say you would need a proper cost benefit analysis to prove this.
I am not as familiar with the 2 as I am the 13, but it certainly has its users all the way to Marylebone. My observations are that the 13 is busier than the 2, but again you would need a proper cost benefit analysis to determine the sense in continuing the 2 to Marylebone. Now the 2 no longer stops outside Marylebone station going south, I fear the Marylebone justification will not remain as strong.
As matters stand today I think both routes have their place between Victoria and Baker Street, but without a proper cost benefit analysis I cannot be sure. Yes there are other alternative means of travelling in the event of problems, but so what, so there should be in the heart of central London. By the argument of other forms of transport being available, you would terminate the 2 at Brixton and tell people to take the Victoria line, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Looking ahead I could see the 2 cut back to Victoria, but for 'political' reasons to reduce buses in Park Lane, Baker Street etc, rather than for patronage reasons.
I'm not particularly picking on the 2 and 13 it's just an obvious case of over bussing, as indeed is the 68/468 to some extent. These overlapping routes were an extravagance from inception but they were acceptable when bus usage was high and resources were plentiful. I hadn't realised that the 2 no longer stops outside Marylebone station until it was mentioned on here recently, is this permanent? I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see some change on the 2/13 common section in the near future, back in the day the 2/2B were always adequate and there's no need for two routes today. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 2, 2019 9:40:51 GMT
I am not quite sure why we are picking on the 2 and 13 here, there are lots of routes that overlap. You could for instance argue to curtail the 468 at Norwood, or even get rid of the 68 as these routes 'duplicate' each other. I am not suggesting this is sensible, but all these sort of changes should be done on the basis of evidence, loadings, links and usage. To say it can't be justified, is obvious or isn't financially viable to have both the 2 and 13 is quite wrong, none of us can really say that, you need a proper cost benefit analysis to determine such things. Personal observations can only go so far, and you really need those from regular frequent users of the route for such observations to be meaningful.
In the case of the 13 there are lots of people who wish to travel beyond Selfridges towards Victoria and I think you will struggle to justify a cut to Marble Arch on any proper cost benefit analysis. Yes it is true that more people want to travel on the 'old 13' into the West End than Victoria, but as sensible as it would be, the 13 isn't going to be re-routed back to the West End anytime soon. The routing to Victoria does seem justifiable, although as I say you would need a proper cost benefit analysis to prove this.
I am not as familiar with the 2 as I am the 13, but it certainly has its users all the way to Marylebone. My observations are that the 13 is busier than the 2, but again you would need a proper cost benefit analysis to determine the sense in continuing the 2 to Marylebone. Now the 2 no longer stops outside Marylebone station going south, I fear the Marylebone justification will not remain as strong.
As matters stand today I think both routes have their place between Victoria and Baker Street, but without a proper cost benefit analysis I cannot be sure. Yes there are other alternative means of travelling in the event of problems, but so what, so there should be in the heart of central London. By the argument of other forms of transport being available, you would terminate the 2 at Brixton and tell people to take the Victoria line, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Looking ahead I could see the 2 cut back to Victoria, but for 'political' reasons to reduce buses in Park Lane, Baker Street etc, rather than for patronage reasons.
I'm not particularly picking on the 2 and 13 it's just an obvious case of over bussing, as indeed is the 68/468 to some extent. These overlapping routes were an extravagance from inception but they were acceptable when bus usage was high and resources were plentiful. I hadn't realised that the 2 no longer stops outside Marylebone station until it was mentioned on here recently, is this permanent? I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see some change on the 2/13 common section in the near future, back in the day the 2/2B were always adequate and there's no need for two routes today. Yes it’s permanent - the stop outside Marylebone Station is to be removed which is why the 205 will run direct via Marylebone Road. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 2, 2019 10:16:11 GMT
I am not quite sure why we are picking on the 2 and 13 here, there are lots of routes that overlap. You could for instance argue to curtail the 468 at Norwood, or even get rid of the 68 as these routes 'duplicate' each other. I am not suggesting this is sensible, but all these sort of changes should be done on the basis of evidence, loadings, links and usage. To say it can't be justified, is obvious or isn't financially viable to have both the 2 and 13 is quite wrong, none of us can really say that, you need a proper cost benefit analysis to determine such things. Personal observations can only go so far, and you really need those from regular frequent users of the route for such observations to be meaningful.
In the case of the 13 there are lots of people who wish to travel beyond Selfridges towards Victoria and I think you will struggle to justify a cut to Marble Arch on any proper cost benefit analysis. Yes it is true that more people want to travel on the 'old 13' into the West End than Victoria, but as sensible as it would be, the 13 isn't going to be re-routed back to the West End anytime soon. The routing to Victoria does seem justifiable, although as I say you would need a proper cost benefit analysis to prove this.
I am not as familiar with the 2 as I am the 13, but it certainly has its users all the way to Marylebone. My observations are that the 13 is busier than the 2, but again you would need a proper cost benefit analysis to determine the sense in continuing the 2 to Marylebone. Now the 2 no longer stops outside Marylebone station going south, I fear the Marylebone justification will not remain as strong.
As matters stand today I think both routes have their place between Victoria and Baker Street, but without a proper cost benefit analysis I cannot be sure. Yes there are other alternative means of travelling in the event of problems, but so what, so there should be in the heart of central London. By the argument of other forms of transport being available, you would terminate the 2 at Brixton and tell people to take the Victoria line, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Looking ahead I could see the 2 cut back to Victoria, but for 'political' reasons to reduce buses in Park Lane, Baker Street etc, rather than for patronage reasons.
I'm not particularly picking on the 2 and 13 it's just an obvious case of over bussing, as indeed is the 68/468 to some extent. These overlapping routes were an extravagance from inception but they were acceptable when bus usage was high and resources were plentiful. I hadn't realised that the 2 no longer stops outside Marylebone station until it was mentioned on here recently, is this permanent? I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see some change on the 2/13 common section in the near future, back in the day the 2/2B were always adequate and there's no need for two routes today. The first stop for the 2 is now on the Marylebone Road, and that is permanent. As part of the central London cuts it is planned to re-route the 205 straight down the Marylebone Road so it won't go into Marylebone station at all. At that point no Eastbound bus will serve the actual station, the 453 being the nearest that will be left.
In determining over bussing there are lots of considerations, how busy is the route as a whole, how many lost links are there if you curtail the route, what is peak patronage against capacity and so on. All the benefits and dis-benefits can be given a value and proper cost-benefit analysis undertaken to determine whether capacity is insufficient, right or too great. The analysis can then be used to support whatever changes are appropriate.
Now I have seen many a quiet and busy buses on both the 2 and the 13 on the overlapping section, and that is often the case. Casual observations simply don't tell the whole story so you can't use that to say to say two routes are an extravagance. If you look back the combined frequency of the 2 and 13 on the overlapping section, is it almost at historic low frequencies. In the 1960s and before the 2 group of routes provided a far higher combined frequency on the overlapping sections. When the 26 was introduced the 2 group along with the 26 also had significantly higher frequencies than today. In 1978 when there was shift away from Victoria to the West End and the 26 was axed, the 2 group still was more frequent. The introduction of the 82 only enhanced the frequency over this section. So when you say we now have two routes between Baker Street and Victoria, that has always been the case, with justification, and for much of the time there were at least three routes.
When looking at capacity TfL have to look at the busiest point on a route, at the busiest time to determine capacity and so frequency. That frequency is then generally run on the whole route for the daytime. If you are having to cut, it makes more sense to me to cut inter-peak frequency or curtail some buses so they don't complete the whole route (so say every other bus goes the whole way), because at least that way people can still get to their destination without lots of changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 2, 2019 20:18:05 GMT
I'm not particularly picking on the 2 and 13 it's just an obvious case of over bussing, as indeed is the 68/468 to some extent. These overlapping routes were an extravagance from inception but they were acceptable when bus usage was high and resources were plentiful. I hadn't realised that the 2 no longer stops outside Marylebone station until it was mentioned on here recently, is this permanent? I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see some change on the 2/13 common section in the near future, back in the day the 2/2B were always adequate and there's no need for two routes today. The first stop for the 2 is now on the Marylebone Road, and that is permanent. As part of the central London cuts it is planned to re-route the 205 straight down the Marylebone Road so it won't go into Marylebone station at all. At that point no Eastbound bus will serve the actual station, the 453 being the nearest that will be left.
In determining over bussing there are lots of considerations, how busy is the route as a whole, how many lost links are there if you curtail the route, what is peak patronage against capacity and so on. All the benefits and dis-benefits can be given a value and proper cost-benefit analysis undertaken to determine whether capacity is insufficient, right or too great. The analysis can then be used to support whatever changes are appropriate.
Now I have seen many a quiet and busy buses on both the 2 and the 13 on the overlapping section, and that is often the case. Casual observations simply don't tell the whole story so you can't use that to say to say two routes are an extravagance. If you look back the combined frequency of the 2 and 13 on the overlapping section, is it almost at historic low frequencies. In the 1960s and before the 2 group of routes provided a far higher combined frequency on the overlapping sections. When the 26 was introduced the 2 group along with the 26 also had significantly higher frequencies than today. In 1978 when there was shift away from Victoria to the West End and the 26 was axed, the 2 group still was more frequent. The introduction of the 82 only enhanced the frequency over this section. So when you say we now have two routes between Baker Street and Victoria, that has always been the case, with justification, and for much of the time there were at least three routes.
When looking at capacity TfL have to look at the busiest point on a route, at the busiest time to determine capacity and so frequency. That frequency is then generally run on the whole route for the daytime. If you are having to cut, it makes more sense to me to cut inter-peak frequency or curtail some buses so they don't complete the whole route (so say every other bus goes the whole way), because at least that way people can still get to their destination without lots of changes.
A postscript to the Baker Street to Victoria corridor in the past. Up to 1991 the 74 (and the 74B before that) had covered St John's Wood to Hyde Park Corner and the 30 the Baker Street to Hyde Park Corner bit too, so there was even more flexibility for the bus passenger to take advantage of. |
|
) that the Baker Street to Victoria bus corridor has had a route, or even part route, commencing at Victoria Station to work north to Baker Street and up Finchley Road: before then the 2, 2A and, later on, 2B reigned supreme and these were very much geared to the need of South Londoners to reach the West End. The creation of route 26 in 1970 (I was employed in LT's bus schedules dept at the time) was seen as quite radical, and a response to frustration of passengers along the Finchley Road suffering long waits at times for 2 group buses mainly allocated to Stockwell or Norwood which were getting turned at Swiss Cottage, Baker Street or even further south. Of course the 13 was then a popular and highly regarded route running from Gplders Green to Aldwych, and had a totally North London garage allocation, so their appearances along the Finchley Road were much less sporadic, and many would board these and change at Selfridge's if necessary. That first 26 timetable from Victoria to North Finchley represented a toe in the water only, with a maximum frequency of 16 minutes (I'm ignoring the separate service using the same number between Golders Green and New Barnet, which got tacked on a late stage but had been drawn up as an opo route). The 26 became well-used from an early stage and its frequency developed over time, with fewer 2s venturing north of Baker Street Station. Later on, the 26 begat the 82, then that in turn was renumbered for unsatisfactory political reasons as we know. As you say, an overlap between the 2 and 13 is required for commonsensical traffic reasons.
