Actually, the transformation in theory took place on Saturday, upon TfL’s introduction of a new weekend 507 service on what has to date been Mondays to Fridays only.
Bendies RIP 2002-2009. In 2002, Red Arrow routes 507 and 521 were the first to receive artics. After the 507 is converted back, the 521 which also serves Waterloo will follow
What’s happened here is that the new Mayor is committed to spend a reputed £60mil in removing bendies by 2011, though this may take till 2015. Is this a whim? No. He has a clear mandate following bendies being central to his election campaign.To convert the 507 route, TfL has increased:
- The PVR from nine to 15 and, overall, this increases the amount of roadspace taken up by the previously articulated 507s by one whole artic.
- The frequency from every five to three to four minutes at its height.
- Bus miles by a third, though remember this includes new weekend running.
- Peak passenger capacity by three per cent.
- Its premium per annum of £215,000 p.a. to replace the existing artics with new rigids.
507 route as portrayed on Whatbus?!
One reason campaigners cite for the removal of artics is fares evasion. Well, to cope with the crush loadings seen at peak, the Red Arrow Citaro 507 rigids will unorthodoxly allow boarding as well as alighting at the centre exits. Those who travelled free on an artic on Friday can therefore easily continue to do so on a rigid today. Balanced against this, however, is the high proportion of commuters using the 507 whose season tickets already include their bus fare. The proportion of fares evasion on the 507 is lower than average, in any case.
The 507 isn’t suitable for double decks as it shares resources with the single deck only 521 though this will hardly stop traditionalists continuing to call for decker reintroduction. This is because the rigid Citaro mirrors the London Transport AEC single deck Red Arrows of the 60s and 70s in offering a good deal of reservoir standing space and few seats—now 21 to be exact. Passengers dislike standing though they’re surely used to it on the 507. But a 10m double deck seating 75+ would be a disaster on such a short distance, high footfall route. With few seats downstairs on a decker these days, you’re no better off. Because passengers continually board and alight over what is no more than a 20 minute journey, there’s no incentive to mount the stairs. Those wishing to will simply slow everyone down as they fight their way through standing passengers and try to negotiate opposing passengers on the stairs themselves.
All this leaves the knotty question of what TfL will do with its young, redundant artics. Adverts in the trade press have failed to shift them. Meanwhile, even on Friday, London Travelwatch is still questioning the value to the public purse of the withdrawal programme and there are hints emerging that TfL may yet retain some of them in service...
8 comments:
Artics on the 507 in my view did work as it is such a short trip.
However my occasional commute once reaching London is Kings X to Oxford Street, thus the selection of Artic 73 or double deck 10 or 390. In the morning I always wait for a double deck, due to being able to get a seat. On the way back to Kings X, which ever arrives first due to my onward train journey.
The problem I have with the artic 73 is in the past when Routemaster operation, it was often possible to get a seat. Since Artic opperation their a very few seats, the seats on these buses are often very uncorftable (over wheel arches etc) and when standing you get thrown around by poor driving standards.
Also I remember quite a few trips where the artic could not swing into New Oxford Street and each time missed 5 or more green traffic lights.
"in the past when Routemaster operation, it was often possible to get a seat"
In the past there were far fewer passengers, too, so it's perhaps not surprising that there were more seats available - the world doesn't stay the same. Hence the extremely high PVRs on bendy->DD conversions, starting with the 38 in November, from 47 to 72. There are of course more seats on the new buses, but all upstairs.
Apart from any costs TfL is incurring, someone, somewhere, is losing a packet - presumably the leasing company/ies. As Omnibuses suggests, have *any* of the first batch withdrawn found a new home home yet?
More than a few grumbles heard on the 507 this morning. Commuters have short minds and the phrase "cattle car" was being used to describe the new sparsely seated standee zone-equipped rigid Citaros!
Ironic that the bendy buses had more seats than those that have replaced them!
Until comparatively recently (1984-88) the 507 was backed up by three more routes taking various paths between Waterloo and Victoria - the 70, 76 and 149 - at the end of their respective journeys. With the cutting back of those routes, the 507 has been left as the sole carrier; no wonder it's crowded.
I recently spent a day in London travelling on the new hybrid double deckers. I sat downstairs to better hear the engine noise (or lack of it). I was also able to watch the boarding passengers and it was noticeable how few of them went upstairs. The vast majority stayed downstairs and often prefered to stand even when there were vacant lower deck seats.
I have also recently been in Montreux. The main line bus route there is run by full low floor, 4 door, articulated trolleybuses. The driver plays no part in collecting fares. Passengers are trusted to have either pay before they board or to use a coin operated ticket machine opposite the rearmost door behind the back axle. With passengers boarding and alighting through all the doors, dwell time at stops is very short.
"The 12m Citaros will seem long to Londoners’ eyes. Obviously, not as long as the 18m bendies but, to date, London has few 12m vehicles. Given their rear overhang and long wheelbase, how more manoeuvrable are these vehicles when compared to bendies?"
They're not. Artics are about as manoeuvrable as a 10m bus, that being the legnth of their front section (the back follows it). Rigids are therefore less manvoerable.
"They're not. Artics are about as manoeuvrable as a 10m bus, that being the legnth of their front section (the back follows it). Rigids are therefore less manvoerable."
Several years' experience of bendy buses in York begs to differ. We have a load of Volvo B7s, both 12m rigid and 18m articulated. It is most definitely the case that there are plenty of turns that the 12m rigid buses can make but the 18m artics cannot - or at least, not without sweeping a considerably wider path.
Post a Comment