|
Post by ADH45258 on May 3, 2024 22:53:37 GMT
Not anymore considering RATP threw the contract back and it's now up for tender! It'll probably be cheaper to agree a frequency increase of the 14 with GAL than a new contract for the 414. I am not so sure. Last time there were four tenders for the 414 and while RATP were the cheapest there didn't seem to be a huge amount between the lowest and highest bids. The 14 only attracted two bids, so there is clearly more competition on the 414, so increasing the likelihood of keeping the 414 to be the cheaper option. I think the 414 potentially could be less competitive this time though, partly because RATP took over X, but also due to limited garage space at other operators. QB is likely close to full capacity now, as are AF and SW, so would be limited options to fit the 414 if at all. I also wonder if RATP might consider moving the 414 to S or V this time if retained? Both have tube links nearby to the line of route, unlike Westbourne Park. If TFL are looking to review the 414 in some way, I expect they will at least award a short term contract for now, which could mean keeping the ADHs for a bit longer if retained.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 4, 2024 7:55:58 GMT
I am not so sure. Last time there were four tenders for the 414 and while RATP were the cheapest there didn't seem to be a huge amount between the lowest and highest bids. The 14 only attracted two bids, so there is clearly more competition on the 414, so increasing the likelihood of keeping the 414 to be the cheaper option. I think the 414 potentially could be less competitive this time though, partly because RATP took over X, but also due to limited garage space at other operators. QB is likely close to full capacity now, as are AF and SW, so would be limited options to fit the 414 if at all. I also wonder if RATP might consider moving the 414 to S or V this time if retained? Both have tube links nearby to the line of route, unlike Westbourne Park. If TFL are looking to review the 414 in some way, I expect they will at least award a short term contract for now, which could mean keeping the ADHs for a bit longer if retained. I think the ADHs Will remain for 3 years and if TUK were interested then they could have a go with the ex 381 E40Hs.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on May 4, 2024 10:29:09 GMT
What are the odds of shortening the 118 to Clapham Park? Could routes that terminate nearby such as 57 or 59 could also be involved? Could 45 get an extension? I'm actually interested in this idea. The likelihood is that sadly, the 45 will be stupidly withdrawn completely with the 118 extended to Camberwell as per rumours. The 59 was originally proposed to divert & replace the Clapham Park section but thankfully didn’t go ahead. I’m really not looking forward to what proposal they put forward because an important link for me will be broken I may well (indeed will probably!) be totally wrong, but I have a feeling the changes might be : 35 : withdrawn Brixton to Clapham Junction, diverted to Clapham Park via 45. 45 : withdrawn 118 : extended to Camberwell new route : Clapham Junction to Brixton over the current 35 (435?)
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on May 4, 2024 10:40:35 GMT
Out of curiosity has it been posted anywhere about Surrey's aspiration for 2bph on their category 1 services? It's a great idea but very expensive! And I wonder how they'd fund it. It’s buried deep within the SCC meetings papers on their website. I didn’t bookmark it like a lemon, but I did screenshoot what SCC list as cat 1 services - many already meet the criteria so perhaps not as expensive as it could be - the list isn’t huge. Perhaps 458, 515 and 715 among the more significant to a London bus forum. Found it! It's within the Surrey Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) update from May 2023: www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/278715/Surrey-Bus-Service-Improvement-Plan-May-2023-Update-v3.pdf
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on May 4, 2024 11:05:16 GMT
Well done! I spent flipping ages trying to re-find that with precisely zero success 😂
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on May 4, 2024 13:08:00 GMT
The likelihood is that sadly, the 45 will be stupidly withdrawn completely with the 118 extended to Camberwell as per rumours. The 59 was originally proposed to divert & replace the Clapham Park section but thankfully didn’t go ahead. I’m really not looking forward to what proposal they put forward because an important link for me will be broken I may well (indeed will probably!) be totally wrong, but I have a feeling the changes might be : 35 : withdrawn Brixton to Clapham Junction, diverted to Clapham Park via 45. 45 : withdrawn 118 : extended to Camberwell new route : Clapham Junction to Brixton over the current 35 (435?) Honestly that is very sensible and I think is as likely as the much-speculated 59 diversion. I would say your 435 should be extended to South Kensington though with the 345 cut back to Clapham Junction.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on May 4, 2024 13:33:46 GMT
The likelihood is that sadly, the 45 will be stupidly withdrawn completely with the 118 extended to Camberwell as per rumours. The 59 was originally proposed to divert & replace the Clapham Park section but thankfully didn’t go ahead. I’m really not looking forward to what proposal they put forward because an important link for me will be broken I may well (indeed will probably!) be totally wrong, but I have a feeling the changes might be : 35 : withdrawn Brixton to Clapham Junction, diverted to Clapham Park via 45. 45 : withdrawn 118 : extended to Camberwell new route : Clapham Junction to Brixton over the current 35 (435?) If your 35/45 changes are correct, then I'd expect TfL to propose extending the 337 from Clapham Junction to Brixton to replace the 35 instead of introducing a new route. Hopefully they do propose a new route as you suggest though.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on May 4, 2024 16:26:42 GMT
I may well (indeed will probably!) be totally wrong, but I have a feeling the changes might be : 35 : withdrawn Brixton to Clapham Junction, diverted to Clapham Park via 45. 45 : withdrawn 118 : extended to Camberwell new route : Clapham Junction to Brixton over the current 35 (435?) If your 35/45 changes are correct, then I'd expect TfL to propose extending the 337 from Clapham Junction to Brixton to replace the 35 instead of introducing a new route. Hopefully they do propose a new route as you suggest though. Brixton to Richmond would be a very long route and very susceptible to traffic. A route to bridge the gap, maybe Brixton to Wandsworth or Wimbledon via Wandsworth and Putney Heath would be better. It could then allow the 37 to be cut back slightly to Wandsworth to improve reliability.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on May 4, 2024 16:34:33 GMT
If your 35/45 changes are correct, then I'd expect TfL to propose extending the 337 from Clapham Junction to Brixton to replace the 35 instead of introducing a new route. Hopefully they do propose a new route as you suggest though. Brixton to Richmond would be a very long route and very susceptible to traffic. A route to bridge the gap, maybe Brixton to Wandsworth or Wimbledon via Wandsworth and Putney Heath would be better. It could then allow the 37 to be cut back slightly to Wandsworth to improve reliability. I agree, but I still predict that's what TfL will propose if the 35 ends up being diverted to Clapham Park.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 4, 2024 19:06:32 GMT
The likelihood is that sadly, the 45 will be stupidly withdrawn completely with the 118 extended to Camberwell as per rumours. The 59 was originally proposed to divert & replace the Clapham Park section but thankfully didn’t go ahead. I’m really not looking forward to what proposal they put forward because an important link for me will be broken I may well (indeed will probably!) be totally wrong, but I have a feeling the changes might be : 35 : withdrawn Brixton to Clapham Junction, diverted to Clapham Park via 45. 45 : withdrawn 118 : extended to Camberwell new route : Clapham Junction to Brixton over the current 35 (435?) Firstly if the 35 or 45 was to remain to Clapham Park then the 118 wouldn't be needed to Camberwell but also it would probably be easier to explain those changes to the public as 35 withdrawn between Brixton and Shoreditch 45 extended to Elephant to Shoreditch rather then bringing a new route number into it. Alternatively as you say divert the 35 to Clapham Park and restructure the 45 to run CJ to Brixton.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 4, 2024 20:01:22 GMT
Brixton to Richmond would be a very long route and very susceptible to traffic. A route to bridge the gap, maybe Brixton to Wandsworth or Wimbledon via Wandsworth and Putney Heath would be better. It could then allow the 37 to be cut back slightly to Wandsworth to improve reliability. I agree, but I still predict that's what TfL will propose if the 35 ends up being diverted to Clapham Park. I might not be TfL’s biggest fan but not even I think they will do that precisely for the reasons already mentioned - it would be unworkable in that form and would simply overload the 37 which would have to pick up the strain when inevitably gaps appear. I see it being just the 45 & 118 changing and nothing else with certain direct links stupidly severed to satisfy their hopper fare
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 4, 2024 20:10:43 GMT
I agree, but I still predict that's what TfL will propose if the 35 ends up being diverted to Clapham Park. I might not be TfL’s biggest fan but not even I think they will do that precisely for the reasons already mentioned - it would be unworkable in that form and would simply overload the 37 which would have to pick up the strain when inevitably gaps appear. I see it being just the 45 & 118 changing and nothing else with certain direct links stupidly severed to satisfy their hopper fare The 59 may still divert round the corner thou. I can't recall if the counter proposals mentioned it as going ahead or whether it was just extend the 118.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 4, 2024 20:20:43 GMT
I might not be TfL’s biggest fan but not even I think they will do that precisely for the reasons already mentioned - it would be unworkable in that form and would simply overload the 37 which would have to pick up the strain when inevitably gaps appear. I see it being just the 45 & 118 changing and nothing else with certain direct links stupidly severed to satisfy their hopper fare The 59 may still divert round the corner thou. I can't recall if the counter proposals mentioned it as going ahead or whether it was just extend the 118. The counter proposal just mentioned the 118 IIRC?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 4, 2024 20:48:26 GMT
The 59 may still divert round the corner thou. I can't recall if the counter proposals mentioned it as going ahead or whether it was just extend the 118. The counter proposal just mentioned the 118 IIRC? Iv re read it and it say "a further mitigation that would extend the 118 to Camberwell Green. Passengers from Brixton Hill would retain the same links to King's College Hospital. Passengers would have access to interchange stops on Brixton Hill, which have shelters and countdown displays" So not sure if it would still go ahead or not. Whilst I can see the desire for the round the corner link if I was deciding with my head I think the 59 would still be better going to Telford Avenue.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses2018 on May 4, 2024 21:29:31 GMT
A new route from Golders Green to Stamford Hill Superloop part 2
|
|