|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 24, 2019 18:56:13 GMT
Saw an Arriva HV trundling along part of the route this evening, type or route training I assume. I was wondering what the stopping arrangements are going to be for this in North Greenwich as it fits rather awkwardly - it needs to have a common stop with the 108 and 422 but it also has commonality with the 132. You can't even see the 132 stop from the 108/422 stop, and I am sure they don't want people hanging around near the top of the escalator to see what appears first (the apps are unreliable at the first stop). It feels like a stop reshuffle might be in order. Unlikely. TfL are probably going to plonk the 335 at the 132 stop as it's just the 132 serving stop D.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 23, 2019 13:50:02 GMT
Well the N242 extension I'd argue is a very slight of hand reversal. Did 2 end-to-ends as I fell asleep on the first attempt. What's interesting on my second attempt was there were only 20 passengers throughout the trip from TCR; what was more interesting is that 3 passengers boarded before St Paul's with the magical breakeven number of 17 passengers east of that point. Clearly they're trying to justify the N242 (so different to what it was 5 or 10 years ago) as the passenger numbers aren't as strong.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 18, 2019 12:31:48 GMT
Would the 1 really manage to cope with such a lengthy extension? I don’t think so. The City Hall stand is vacant so could be used if you wanted to take this new route a little further west, but that’s something I don’t want to do, as I feel my proposed route is already paralleling the 188 for quite a way. The City Hall stand has fallen subject to the roadworks going on at Tower Bridge, so is out of action for the time being and probably won't return given how much bus priority means to the son of a bus driver heading up City Hall. My point about the 180 change is that will there really be a demand for NG from Abbey Wood/Belvedere once CrossRail opens? CrossRail will be much quicker to Canary Wharf and the West End, if this had been proposed twenty years ago when NG first opened and there was no DLR at Woolwich, and CrossRail was still years off then I would agree with it. The 180 is honestly a godsend along the Woolwich-Greenwich corridor, as it can get busy and the 177 & 180 do well to manage the overcrowding. One suggestion could be that extend the 129 to Lewisham and still keep the 180 as far as Greenwich Cutty Sark but re-route it to Deptford or even Surrey Quays There will be demand from Abbey Wood and Plumstead as the O2 is a destination in its own right. Plus the additional stops serving more of the retail area in Charlton will imho make the 180 diversion very popular. Daytime extras between Plumstead and Greenwich/Deptford Bridge could solve any overcrowding (if any) on the 177. Wow, you haven't been through Greenwich town centre on a Sunday in a while, have you?! It's south-east London's equivalent of Camden Town with the swelling of tourists it sees on weekends. There's already overcrowding particularly on the 177 as passengers make use of New Cross as a leisurely destination (galleries, pubs etc.) so one would argue the 177 shorts are needed now before the 180 is pulled out of Greenwich.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 15, 2019 20:25:56 GMT
Yes, very probably, but the decline can also be put down to four further words ''cutback from Oxford Circus'', to which I'd now add ''to an inappropriate dumpimg place just off Whitehall''. The cutback from Oxford Circus will doubtless have driven people away, also when one remembers that it was a pre-hopper cutback. I don't think the Whitehall cutback will have hit patronage too badly though as its still walking distance from Trafalgar Square, but the damage had already been done.
Its sad how much decline bus services along Regent Street have seen. Whilst Oxford Street's buses have been virulently attacked by TfL for the last few years, poor Regent Street has been adversley affected losing the 3, 6, 13, 15, 23, and C2. (I've probably forgotten one, such is the number of routes which have been cut)
EDIT: Although its only temporary, and day time only, Regent Street has lost the 12 too.
What I really liked when the 3 was temporarily* cut back to Trafalgar Square was that it still managed to pick up quite a few passengers after departing the faux stand on the south of Waterloo Place. Now granted if it was a real stand with markings then I think the 3 will handsomely benefit in patronage rather than the relative obscurity that is Whitehall. Countenance to the 3's terminating arrangements at Trafalgar Square would be the 15 night bus routes** standing on Northumberland Avenue and Whitehall Place with cages that barely fit 8 buses in total. TfL could've really left the 3 standing at Waterloo Place to better serve Trafalgar Square for passengers if they wanted to; but they didn't and they don't. * the very rare time a temporary curtailment had been made where TfL didn't make it permanent! They further withdrew from the original route and then made it permanent ** Seventeen bus routes terminate around Trafalgar Square at night. The N550 and N551 were excluded as they use Charles II Street and Haymarket to stand.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 12, 2019 13:46:14 GMT
I thought the 13 was more frequent then the 82 was at all times. Yes the new 13 is more frequent, particularly in the evenings past 9/10 when the 82 went down to 3pbh till the end of service. This extension of the 112 hasn't conned me by thinking North Finchley is a nice place to terminate a bus route. Services north of Golders Green has been very unreliable for quite a few years now, and the problem still continues with the 13 even with its 5bph during the evenings. Dare I say the 82 was more reliable when it ran with its infrequent service than the 13 is now between Golders Green & North Finchley.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 12, 2019 13:31:12 GMT
In the good old days of proper planning from TfL, they would have proposed in this consultation to have the 5 and 175 move from stop T to stop Y to have a common stop with the 128. If they can't publish official documents without any grammatical errors (which I'm still surprised this is a problem tbh), then there's no hope for the 128 having a common stop. As I touched on in my former post, if the loss of passengers from the reroute isn't imminent for the 128 then the lack of a common stop at Romford Station will definitely represent investment in the outer London bus network. That proposed first stop in Romford for the 128 stop Y (used by the buses to Brentwood Road and eastern part of Roneo Corner) is already awful as it cannot take more than 2 buses at a time which is already a busy stop used by 6 different routes and the stop already used by live driver changeovers on the 248, 252 & 365 doesn't help either to the point its often difficult serving that stop if one bus is having a changeover there. I was suggesting a reshuffle of some routes to facilitate the 5/128/175 at stop Y; perhaps turfing the 248 and 252 to stop T?
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 11, 2019 23:17:38 GMT
Today marks the 4th year of Night Tube (initially Central & Victoria lines) operating. It's also 4 years since:
- routes 47, 222 and 238 were converted into 24 hour daily routes - the creation of route N199 - routes 123, 132, 154, 158 and 486 were converted into 24 hour weekend routes - route N133 was extended to Morden from Mitcham - all routes served Canada Water bus station at all times, ending the ban on buses from 01:00 to 05:00.
I shall use every breath to call for one or two of the 17 weekend night bus routes to run 24/7. I strongly suggest the 123 and the 145 seeing as they've been in the top 3 used weekend night routes since their inception, and I'm certain passengers would use these routes on weekday nights considering there are no quick alternatives to their respective links. I'd also pine for the 154N to run all week long, precisely to plug a gap in the night-time network TfL left after removing the N213 from Croydon.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 11, 2019 22:30:12 GMT
I actually think that it works quite well having the 5 provide the direct link to Romford Station and onto the Market with the 128 going the other way around the loop. The current sitation means people who want to travel directly between Romford Station and Becontree Heath can just use the 5. However the 5 is a very bus route, and unlike some of the other routes in Romford picks up strong loadings just at Romford Station. On the 128 there is little demand for the station, presumably because many punters just opt for the 5 to reach the station. Therefore the current situation by where the 128 serves the Market then the Station with the 5 doing the reverse works quite well. It means that people going to the Market have a choice of routes thus splitting up passengers to avoid overcrowding, whilst to go directly to the station punters can jump on the 5. This does raise an interesting point actually, the 128 if it terminates Romford Station from the South will not be able to provide common stops with the 5 and 175. If that isn't provided nobody will opt for the 128 unless they have to, giving the 5 even more work to potentially do. In the good old days of proper planning from TfL, they would have proposed in this consultation to have the 5 and 175 move from stop T to stop Y to have a common stop with the 128. If they can't publish official documents without any grammatical errors (which I'm still surprised this is a problem tbh), then there's no hope for the 128 having a common stop. As I touched on in my former post, if the loss of passengers from the reroute isn't imminent for the 128 then the lack of a common stop at Romford Station will definitely represent investment in the outer London bus network.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 11, 2019 20:22:09 GMT
A lot of angry people about this as nothing was put out on the stops in Barkingside or Clayhall, bus just on some stops around Romford. A lot of people who use it to have less of a walk to Brewery, Mawney Rd, London Rd would now have to change buses. This offers now real benefit to the public other than a saving of one bus. Now the 5, 175 and 128 would mirror each other from Becontree Heath. The Brewery is pretty much the only thing that validates the circuitous routing the 128 has in Romford, seeing as it's pretty well used and the only westbound bus within a reasonably short walk. TfL knew flipping the loop & having the 128 go through the station first to the Market would be a waste of time and resources as it's a straight up parallel of the 5 to Becontree Heath. It's a shame cause after the 3 or 4 times I've gone specifically to the Brewery for leisurely purposes, I've always used the 128 to go home. Wasn't fussed to walk to the 86 stop when I lived in Forest Gate, and wasn't bothered to walk for the 5 when I moved to Barking. It's not hard to see fall in patronage after this change, and TfL lining up another route to bypass Romford either completely or double run to the station and bypass the Market. My guess is the 175.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 9, 2019 23:54:08 GMT
I was on a 266 from Hammersmith on Friday night tootling through Acton a little before 1:30AM, I saw, going the other way, N207, N7 and N11 all pass by in the space of 5-6 minutes. While it's true they all have different destinations but they all head for Central London. I couldn't help thinking that after the passage of these three buses so close together, anyone wanting to head for Central London would have rather a long wait for the next bus. I personally wouldn't campaign to change any of them. As mentioned the routes all do very different things. The N207 runs every 7-8 minutes on Friday nights at that point - I don't agree that would constitute "rather a long wait" at night! The N207 stopped running at 8bph through to Hayes By-Pass as soon as the Uxbridge leg went up to a 20 minute frequency. Annoyingly neither Timetable Graveyard nor the London Buses website have a date on the timetable change, but it is a change associated to the Night Tube cuts rationalisation and one of the last waves of changes made; my educated guess of the frequency reshuffle is early 2017.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 8, 2019 13:01:50 GMT
It was the camberwell night spare driver covering a duty and the driver only had a DD. Fortunately the company performed a DD route test not long ago and passed the route for double decks to use occasionally. yes true a driver didn't turn up for his duty and we had to call camberwell and luckily they had a spare driver who knew 214 Route👍 *waits for trickymicky to upload his pics*
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 2, 2019 13:34:27 GMT
TfL have the bloody cheek to say usage on the 262 has gone down between 2006 & 2015, maybe because they pulled out the 262 from Showcase Cinema when people readily used the route from Stratford to that destination?! Let me try to bulletpoint the rest to keep my distain concise: - in the previous South Newham documentation, TfL proposed that the rerouted 104 will have the option to be extended to ABP after terminating at Beckton Station. Fail to see how the 101, 104 and 262 will all fit onto stands within the bus station. - it is completely pointless talking about an increase to 5bph on the 376 when the ABP residents aren't within easy access to use the route. - research has shown (as recently as last month) that high street shopping is still slowly dying but out-of-town retail centres (like Gallions Reach Shopping Park) has seen increases in shopping activity. The 101 shouldn't be pulled out of the area, simple. - the Custom House stand looks dead in the water gauging by TfL's proposal to send the 241 up to ABP, as well as that unnecessary Here East extension in the Olympic Park. The 325 and 241's proposals look the best out of a bad bunch, but would be indeed overkill if they were to be both extended to ABP considering they share the same corridor. I think the rerouted 104 should come into the new development from the east (with help from the new ramp at Beckton Park) and either the 241/325 approach ABP from the west. From the looks of Custom House and the lack of a bus stand at present, it'll likely be the 241 going to ABP rather than the 325. I think it was suggested that the 101 & 325 would be most likely to extend to the ABP development. The 241 was suggested for an extension to a new development near West Silvertown Station. Still don't understand the reason for rhe 330/474 changes when the 473 already provides the link the revised 474 will. Wouldn't it be better to route the 330 via Kier Hardie Estate and Prince Regent, with the 474 unchanged? In order: I know what TfL have put forward as their proposals; as a local and someone with overall sanity I have mentioned the routes that would add less disruption to south Newham residents and actually add to the bus network. Propping up the 376's frequency does diddly squat for residents at ABP. Are you sure you're not confusing the 241 with the 330? The 473 at present does not go to Custom House station. The idea to send the 473 via the 241's routing up to Plaistow was quickly revoked due to the amount of broken journeys that reroute would create. I understand TfL's reasoning behind rerouting the 474 to Custom House, so as to cover more of the North Woolwich catchment area to funnel passengers to the Crossrail station. Assuming this 474 change is still going ahead, I just hope the N551 is rerouted as well to avoid overbussing at night between Canning Town, Kier Hardie & Custom House. Ideally the N551 should plug the nighttime gap in Silvertown left vacant by the 474.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 2, 2019 11:04:34 GMT
TfL have the bloody cheek to say usage on the 262 has gone down between 2006 & 2015, maybe because they pulled out the 262 from Showcase Cinema when people readily used the route from Stratford to that destination?! Let me try to bulletpoint the rest to keep my distain concise:
- in the previous South Newham documentation, TfL proposed that the rerouted 104 will have the option to be extended to ABP after terminating at Beckton Station. Fail to see how the 101, 104 and 262 will all fit onto stands within the bus station.
- it is completely pointless talking about an increase to 5bph on the 376 when the ABP residents aren't within easy access to use the route.
- research has shown (as recently as last month) that high street shopping is still slowly dying but out-of-town retail centres (like Gallions Reach Shopping Park) has seen increases in shopping activity. The 101 shouldn't be pulled out of the area, simple.
- the Custom House stand looks dead in the water gauging by TfL's proposal to send the 241 up to ABP, as well as that unnecessary Here East extension in the Olympic Park.
The 325 and 241's proposals look the best out of a bad bunch, but would be indeed overkill if they were to be both extended to ABP considering they share the same corridor. I think the rerouted 104 should come into the new development from the east (with help from the new ramp at Beckton Park) and either the 241/325 approach ABP from the west. From the looks of Custom House and the lack of a bus stand at present, it'll likely be the 241 going to ABP rather than the 325.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Aug 31, 2019 7:57:54 GMT
Now its time for some stats for night routes Top 5 daily night routes: N15 1 274 017 N29 1 188 479 N25 1 096 796 N207 952 869 N18 951 153 Bottom 5 daily night routes: N85 65 717 N33 58 917 N474 58 027 N213 44 863 N365 43 991 Also a honorable mention to the NC2 which just had usage of 29,810 in its final 12 months which is less than the weekend only night routes 123 and 145. Top 5 Weekend only Night Routes: N145 33 216 N123 32 031 N183 29 578 N158 28 844 N34 27 825 Bottom 5 Weekend only Night Routes: N132 16 301 N307 16 250 NH32 11 549 NE1 11 354 NH37 8 067 I'm not too sure if the N15 has ever been the busiest night route, I know it always features in the top 5 but I suspect its every 10 minute frequency all night every night helps push the route to first. I won't talk about the 474N being in the bottom 5, instead I'll save my fighting talk till later... 😣 Not too surprising to see the 145N take the top spot for weekend 24-hour routes; beyond Martins Corner southbound, there is no other alertate night route for miles. That and a late start for the Tube on Sundays means a swell in patronage numbers. To put it into contrast, the 123N has three Tube lines feeding passengers to the route whereas the 145N only has the Central Line; and believe you me there's barely more than 5 people boarding the route at Leytonstone. There seems to be a recurring theme that most of the routes that see a decrease in numbers tend to be in west London. The best illustration is the 154N, which if I remember correctly was the top weekend 24-hour route last year but has now fallen from grace this year. Route 33N does not have the excuse of the Hammersmith Bridge closure as that occured after the 2018/19 financial year.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Aug 29, 2019 16:01:53 GMT
Although there’s a good case for uniting all the ULEZ routes at RR. Swapping the 101/104/147 for the 135 would allow a common pool of hybrids, so RR don’t need to worry about loaning buses. The 135 is up for tender in two years time, so maybe if GAL retain it they’ll move it to RR. There's no need to move the 135 to RR, SI is closer to both termini so it's uneconomical to send the route a few miles up the A13. What Go Ahead may need to contend with is probably finding another spare hybrid to send to SI if the loans are getting to be unmanageable. However I don't think it is a problem as GAL can (and do) always rob the part-hybrid operated route 5, which is contracted to have 11 EHs on the route but sees about 7 or 8 EHs daily. It's also worth noting that the new Crossrail route 304 was awarded to Docklands Buses' SI, so theoretically the space at the garage is still reserved for the 304 despite most of its buses, if not all are at RR working the 104 & propping up its previous PVR. The 104 contract awarded to Go Ahead was for 12 buses, but due to the postponement of the 304 in lieu with the Elizabeth Line delay in opening, the 304's buses are being used to reinstate the old 104 PVR of 18 until the 304 commences.
|
|