|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 26, 2020 14:55:45 GMT
There's no other way to describe this consultation than simply a sh*t show. I am rather aware of most of these changes as the late, great Snoggle created the Bus Network Development Papers thread some years ago which had South Newham proposals devised in 2016. Unlike like the schemes in Colindale or Tower Hamlets for example, TfL keep changing how they want the bus network to look in the Beckton & Royal Docks area, and I suspect I know why. So, before Crossrail was a thing, it was proposed that the 325 was decked and sent to Royal Albert Dock or the 101 rerouted at East Ham Manor Way and sent there via a new bus-only bridge. Considering there's a half-built bridge in Beckton already, it's probably not best to chuck more money on half-arsed infrastructure projects. There was a proposal to send the 101 via Royal Albert Way instead to the new ABP development in Royal Albert Docks, much more cost effective. But Crossrail came and the 104 was to be sent to Beckton, so it was also considered (and favoured) to go to Royal Albert Docks instead of the 101. Now to this rubbish today and it seems they've ditched the idea of the the bus only bridge! They likely didn't secure funding for it, which is a shame as their research suggests that a route serving RAD from the east would generate more bus passenger journeys. But obviously the cheaper 325 option was chosen. I know in my heart of hearts TfL keep flip flopping on South Newham because of the Custom House stand (or lack of) situation. I believe Newham council owns the proposed land on which TfL hopes to stand the 304 and 241, but for whatever reason they won't give the land/approve work to construct the stand. Newham council are also mostly critical of the Crossrail related changes in their borough as they're not in favour of broken links this new Custom House interchange will create, so I sense a standoff from both parties here. The mere fact TfL are sending the 241 to Royal Wharf instead of Prince Regent is a goodwill gesture on their part, the 330 can easily run into the Wharf and out again without the extra 1 or 2 increase in PVR. Oh, and I wonder if the peak time for routes serving out-of-town shopping parks is the same as peak time for other conventional routes, cause I don't need to mention seeing 101 and 262 buses loaded very close to seating capacity at 10:30 on a Sunday morning heading to Gallions Reach. Honestly the 101 withdrawal on its own is a rational proposal and would be accepted if it needed to serve another development, but to have it be one of six routes stand at Beckton bus station is absolutely absurd. Six routes at the bus station but the 366 trundling along alone in east Beckton is considered sufficient by TfL?! Spent more than 3 hours trying to compose this post, and I am still pretty lost for words really. So disappointed with this tripe. Just went passed the proposed stand at Custom House which has been cleared and most of the Crossrail hoarding removed so work could be starting soon. Also just arrived at Gallions Reach just seen 20 plus passengers board at 262 to Stratford and one arrive for East Beckton full downstairs. There is about 20 or so passengers waiting for a 101 or 366. TfL were very quick to erect the Pontoon Dock stand last year when they were hopeful of the Lizzie line starting in full in May August December, albeit it is much easier to construct the 330's stand than the one at Custom House. I just have a funny feeling they would have plopped the stand there already when they had workers doing up the new entrance at Custom House; why have two bouts of construction [costs] incurred when everything can be done in one go? It's somewhat rare that everyone is in unanimous agreement that if savings are to be made in Gallions Reach, then surely scale back the 101 and probably increase the the 262's PVR to 7-8bph during the week and definitely 5bph on Sundays to mitigate excess wait times on the 366. I live in Barking and catching the 366 there to Beckton is barely punctual to put it lightly. Leaving the 366 to plunder the retail parks of Beckton alone will lead to a shattering of its already fragile reliability, especially during weekends. Assuming local people cotton onto this consultation (which I suspect they will through the Newham Recorder & Newham Mag*) then Transport for London will have a fight on their hands to keep the 262 the way it is. *The Newham Magazine is delivered free to residents every fortnight month and has quite a wide array of local issues discussed. There's no way editors won't stick this steaming heap of a consultation in for all Newham residents to see.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 26, 2020 14:24:37 GMT
Does anyone know the official LOR for the emergency LO-T Replacement? My bus yesterday morning (LK54 FWL) went via East Ham and picked up there whereas my bus in the afternoon (PJ02RDZ) went via Romford Road and the A406 alongside a Southern Transit E400 city The offical line of route is via East Ham station to pick up (towards Walthamstow) or set down (towards Barking) and then continuing towards Woodgrange Park. This is a modified LOR though, the original routing was via the A406 and Romford Road direct. My hunch is that TfL likely sent the out of date route to Southern Transit for them to be traversing the A406 unprompted as I'm not aware of any road closures in East Ham occurring yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 25, 2020 23:09:53 GMT
There's no other way to describe this consultation than simply a poo show. I am rather aware of most of these changes as the late, great Snoggle created the Bus Network Development Papers thread some years ago which had South Newham proposals devised in 2016. Unlike like the schemes in Colindale or Tower Hamlets for example, TfL keep changing how they want the bus network to look in the Beckton & Royal Docks area, and I suspect I know why. So, before Crossrail was a thing, it was proposed that the 325 was decked and sent to Royal Albert Dock or the 101 rerouted at East Ham Manor Way and sent there via a new bus-only bridge. Considering there's a half-built bridge in Beckton already, it's probably not best to chuck more money on half-arsed infrastructure projects. There was a proposal to send the 101 via Royal Albert Way instead to the new ABP development in Royal Albert Docks, much more cost effective. But Crossrail came and the 104 was to be sent to Beckton, so it was also considered (and favoured) to go to Royal Albert Docks instead of the 101. Now to this rubbish today and it seems they've ditched the idea of the the bus only bridge! They likely didn't secure funding for it, which is a shame as their research suggests that a route serving RAD from the east would generate more bus passenger journeys. But obviously the cheaper 325 option was chosen. I know in my heart of hearts TfL keep flip flopping on South Newham because of the Custom House stand (or lack of) situation. I believe Newham council owns the proposed land on which TfL hopes to stand the 304 and 241, but for whatever reason they won't give the land/approve work to construct the stand. Newham council are also mostly critical of the Crossrail related changes in their borough as they're not in favour of broken links this new Custom House interchange will create, so I sense a standoff from both parties here. The mere fact TfL are sending the 241 to Royal Wharf instead of Prince Regent is a goodwill gesture on their part, the 330 can easily run into the Wharf and out again without the extra 1 or 2 increase in PVR. Oh, and I wonder if the peak time for routes serving out-of-town shopping parks is the same as peak time for other conventional routes, cause I don't need to mention seeing 101 and 262 buses loaded very close to seating capacity at 10:30 on a Sunday morning heading to Gallions Reach. Honestly the 101 withdrawal on its own is a rational proposal and would be accepted if it needed to serve another development, but to have it be one of six routes stand at Beckton bus station is absolutely absurd. Six routes at the bus station but the 366 trundling along alone in east Beckton is considered sufficient by TfL?! Spent more than 3 hours trying to compose this post, and I am still pretty lost for words really. So disappointed with this tripe.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 17, 2020 10:45:25 GMT
N188 to Camden would be good. I think Hampstead Heath has enough with the N5 and N24. That said thou with the Night jubilee and Overground at Canada water the area has quite alot of night routes which may end up up for review. 3 routes now from CW is quite excessive so I'd look to maybe restore the N47 to its former routing at both ends as the night LO has taken alot of the Shoreditch traffic from the (N)47. Or an N129 from N Greenwich to Lewisham then maybe replacing the N199. Please, God no! I've been a regular along the Jamaica Road corridor since 2012 and I don't want to go back to the days of waiting ages for the old N47 at London Bridge to see the bus arrive jam packed and leave without picking up any passengers. The 24 hour 47 has added much needed capacity to the north Bemrnondsey area [at weekends] and is still relatively well used when compared to other 24 hour night routes. A night bus doesn't need to be over capacity to be deemed a success; TfL had that view at the turn of the century up till the Olympics, thank the heavens they left some of the PVR increases on the N15 and old N35 for example after the games ended in September 2012. redexpress' N188 idea does sound really lucrative. I'm sure Joe and Jenny Public would love a direct route from the two busy night hubs of Camden and Elephant & Castle especially at weekends, and it'd likely be quicker than the Night Tube where passengers at Elephant would currently have to go to Waterloo to catch the train at weekends.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 14, 2020 21:37:38 GMT
I want to ask any drivers of their overall experience or approval of smart hybrids. This is spurred on by drivers on the 330 & 474 (I suspect) constantly revving the engine so the engine doesn't cut out. This is in comparison to my journeys on the N207's micro hybrids where stop/start is noticeable; had to rack my brain last night to remember when I last heard WH's hybrids stop/start, not even at bus stops! My hunch is that bus drivers grow slowly less fond of it as time goes on. I think it may be the case the drivers are doing this on purpose as with most hybrid buses the heating goes cold when the engine cuts out. So they are spitefully doing this. Some do this with the E40H restarting the engine when it cuts out via the button, or on the LT some deliberately putting it into diesel mode. Figured there was a reason stop/start wasn't happening all the sudden! It seems drivers too have to face what passengers face when the engine cuts off and so it the heating/cooling. Never knew we had that in common
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 14, 2020 14:21:10 GMT
I want to ask any drivers of their overall experience or approval of smart hybrids. This is spurred on by drivers on the 330 & 474 (I suspect) constantly revving the engine so the engine doesn't cut out. This is in comparison to my journeys on the N207's micro hybrids where stop/start is noticeable; had to rack my brain last night to remember when I last heard WH's hybrids stop/start, not even at bus stops! My hunch is that bus drivers grow slowly less fond of it as time goes on.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 10, 2020 22:35:58 GMT
I have a problem or two with this article: its ambiguity suggests that Sadiq Khan got rid of the conductors and having the rear door open whilst driving, which is all Boris's doing. Naughty Mr Osbourne, showing predilections in your newspaper article when journalism should be impartial! It's the beginning of the end for LTs, that much is certain. What's the point in having 3 door buses when they aren't fully utilised? They will be withdrawn en masse should Khan win another mayoral term, pending some molehill issue in the media that he will capitalise on respond to. And as for this "successful trial" on the 8; I believe the route was successfully pulled back from TCR, saw a lower patronage than normal and TfL successfully stretched data which is not like-for-like. It was Sadiq Khan that got rid of conductors and consequently the open platform. I don't think three door buses have been a success regardless of the type of bus, ie bendybus as well, but I think the LT will be with us for some time yet. Gosh, 2016 seems like an eon away! I disagree, in terms of passenger flow and reducing dwell times, open boarding has been a success. Where TfL want to be stringent in having open boarding but not enforcing revenue protection is where the downfall lies. It's pointless to have LTs or bendies and not have a strong deterrent like inspector checks every other day to fend the fare evaders off, cause the vast majority of [fare paying] customers will be appreciative of open boarding and the benefits it brings.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 10, 2020 21:47:06 GMT
I have a problem or two with this article: its ambiguity suggests that Sadiq Khan got rid of the conductors and having the rear door open whilst driving, which is all Boris's doing. Naughty Mr Osbourne, showing predilections in your newspaper article when journalism should be impartial! It's the beginning of the end for LTs, that much is certain. What's the point in having 3 door buses when they aren't fully utilised? They will be withdrawn en masse should Khan win another mayoral term, pending some molehill issue in the media that he will capitalise on respond to. And as for this "successful trial" on the 8; I believe the route was successfully pulled back from TCR, saw a lower patronage than normal and TfL successfully stretched data which is not like-for-like.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 4, 2020 15:23:26 GMT
That's quite a shame if the Royal Mail centre is shut. Those early and late journeys were justified, the 01:30 bus from Canning Town often saw a dozen passengers or more. Rather sad at the timetable trimming as I'm partial to a 323 at that time of night, but the 309 does finish at 01:25 so there is an alternative for passengers for the very short 323 route. I think it closed a few years ago and is now occupied by Sainsburys and used as a home delivery centre? Thought Sainsbury's had their own warehouse separate to Royal Mail's depot. Articles online give an estimate of 2012 to the closure which if true, means that other shift workers in the business park were thoroughly utilising the 323's late journeys.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 4, 2020 14:48:25 GMT
Those journeys are very early or very late for a non trunk route. It serves the Royal Mail Centre at Twelvetrees Crescent which might have originally explained their purpose. Perhaps a change of shift times has occurred so that they are no longer needed. I believe that Royal Mail centre was closed down which would probably explain the reason behind these journey withdrawals That's quite a shame if the Royal Mail centre is shut. Those early and late journeys were justified, the 01:30 bus from Canning Town often saw a dozen passengers or more. Rather sad at the timetable trimming as I'm partial to a 323 at that time of night, but the 309 does finish at 01:25 so there is an alternative for passengers for the very short 323 route.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 2, 2020 3:10:34 GMT
I'm not too sure about Europe, but First Caledonia is the biggest garage in the UK with 390 buses at my time of searching a couple years ago. Another poster has suggested the capacity is over 400 now, I'm not surprised if this is indeed the case now. I can go one better and tell you the biggest temporary bus garage was in China in 2008, where over 1,000 buses were held close to Beijing for Olympic duties. If we are going on the biggest garage in London I would say WH would be one of them followed by LI,X and possibly W. Wasn't LI moved slightly to make way for the Olympic stadium? West Ham is definitely first with up to 350 buses fitting on the compound. I believe RR is actually second with something upwards of 230 buses. After that, it's a close contest between LI, HT, SW and W. Unfortunately I won't know for sure as info on garage capacity is very much non-existent online, unless publicity like 'One of the biggest garages ever built...' encases such information online if/when the media report on it. Almost forgot the history lesson lool: Stagecoach's SD garage and First's H garage, which were both on Waterden Way, was demolished to make way for the Olympic Park in 2007. LI as a replacement was relocated somewhat close to its original site whereas Stagecoach's WH was a little farther away. One of the routes to run from SD was the 276, which was the only route then to run on Waterden Way had changeovers right outside the garage. After that closed the 276 moved to WH where it had changeovers on Manor Road, where it was also the only route serving most of that road! No escape for passengers
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 2, 2020 0:26:18 GMT
Second biggest if I'm right with space for 300 buses, WH edges ahead with space for 320 buses. Isn't WH the biggest not just in London but in Europe? I'm not too sure about Europe, but First Caledonia is the biggest garage in the UK with 390 buses at my time of searching a couple years ago. Another poster has suggested the capacity is over 400 now, I'm not surprised if this is indeed the case now. I can go one better and tell you the biggest temporary bus garage was in China in 2008, where over 1,000 buses were held close to Beijing for Olympic duties.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 27, 2019 21:54:35 GMT
I was rather surprised to see the 474 around 04:17 when I was cycling on High Street South earlier this morning. TT's 36104 was also on the White Horse stand undergoing a 25 minute wait to depart the 58. Likely because TfL doesn't make it clear, but I was under the assumption that all buses would start around 6am. Now I understand that rule is generally said for most bus routes starting late with their Sunday timetables. I wonder if the 474 was running early because of early flights at City Airport. From memory departing Manor Park only; the first night service is 00:40 and the first day service at 04:10 where the 474 goes up to 3bph. Between December 2005 and November 2007, the last and first journeys on the then day route was 01:40 and 04:10 respectively. In hindsight, I shouldn't have been so surprised to see the 474 run so early.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 26, 2019 14:03:42 GMT
I was rather surprised to see the 474 around 04:17 when I was cycling on High Street South earlier this morning. TT's 36104 was also on the White Horse stand undergoing a 25 minute wait to depart the 58. Likely because TfL doesn't make it clear, but I was under the assumption that all buses would start around 6am. Now I understand that rule is generally said for most bus routes starting late with their Sunday timetables.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 18, 2019 10:42:33 GMT
I live in Welling and visit Bluewater occasionally using route 96. I have made a couple of trips recently , once on a school holiday day and once during term time which indicate the need for the 428 to continue serving Darenth Valley Hospital and Bluewater. on the school holiday day I got to Welling corner and just missed a 96 which seemed to be pretty full. Fortunately another was just behind but was also full downstairs and fairly full upstairs. By the time we reached Bexleyheath several people got of but more got on. By Crayford the bus was full and people were left waiting at the stop although fortunately there was a 428 just behind. If the 428 had been cut back to Crayford there would be even more people left to wait for the next 96. on the term day the 96 was full downstairs by the time we reached Crayford , with some room still available upstairs. A fair number of the passengers were elderly either travelling to Bluewater or to attend vital appointments at Darenth Valley Hospital, and unable to cope with the stairs. There are also mothers with young children in buggies going shopping in Bluewater and on occasions they have to be left behind . And then of course there are wheelchair passengers trying to get to the hospital or Bluewater. Thua there may seem to be some spare capacity on th 96 but this is only available to healthy people able to manage the stairs. By curtailing the 428 at Crayford an important direct link to the Hospital and Bluewater is lost to people living in the Erith and Slade Green areas.Elderly patients are faced with having to change buses and possibly face a long wait ( bad enough in fine weather but hardly likely to improve their health on a cold winters day), before they can get on a 96. But then of course every journey matters unless you are elderly and trying to get to a vital hospital appointment This comes back to the problem mentioned on here recently about the 65, a lot of people being unable or unwilling to go upstairs. Maybe the 96 would be better with 12m single deckers or even bendy buses? Maybe if we got a bendy bus and wrote 'Not for London' on the side of it, the Prime Minister will probably leave it alone! If capacity is needed up to Darnet Valley Hospital, then surely the 428 should terminate there? I've never been to the site in question so don't know how feasible this is.
|
|