Might or might not have touched on it but internally I dare say I struggle now that the topic is revived with the 4% mileage cut TfL propose in the next 3-4 years to cut down expenditures, no blaming in that aspect. Good thing it slowly died out of minds the moment I finish this post up, eh?
So with my pride swallowed, I try to investigate the variety of ways this can be executed. With the opening statement being 68's split (with 68A [468]'s birth) intended to be at Herne Hill rather than West Norwood. Fun facts eh, too bad 40 decided to outright leave for Dulwich.
I'm questioning why I've done this but I've put the effort in anyways so I've seen it through to the end.
Standing tall at 8 miles with a frequency of every 8-9 (peaks at every 7-8), is the 68, with a PVR of 23.
The 168 with a PVR two lower at 21, with a frequency of every 7-8. Average 7 miles length.
The 468 with a PVR one higher at 24, with a frequency of every 9. Respectable 12 miles length.
Express X68 also 12 miles but a PVR of 10, mostly every 15.
Combined peak muscle at common point of West Norwood: 18.67 bph.
Combined peak muscle between Russell Square and Waterloo: 20 bph.
N68 isn't involved in this whatsoever as it doesn't need to change other than the abysmal running time I suffered through which still haunts me to this day Lord have mercy on my soul I can still rant about this but I should stop right here and now for the safety of all our sanities. Moving on...
Option 1: Cutting 68 in Central to either Aldwych or Waterloo.
Aldwych with it's restructure would probably cater for the current routes than adding an extra route, whilst Waterloo as a terminus from the South could be more sticky with the first stop southbound not even near the station, but better than a hack all the way to Elephant & Castle? (Ahem 171.) Going further to Elephant & Castle makes it effectively shorts for 468. Which doesn't taste nice in that respect.
Postscript: 171's stand in Holborn is free, and with a rough round trip of 21 minutes between Holborn and Euston peak-time the 68 could save 3 buses confidently, dropping it's PVR from 23 to 21.
PVR changes: 68 (23>19 or 18), 468 (no change)
Route length update: 68 (7 miles or 6 miles), 468 (no change)
Option 2: Boosting 468 + renumber to 68 combining 68's resources to 468
In this scenario the new 68 (South Croydon South End - Elephant & Castle) would be every 6 (10 bph) Monday-Saturdays and every 8 Sundays/evenings as the middle ground between complimenting the lack of two routes providing the combined 14.67 bph which is less adequate on 468's portion between the two.
Plan A: 68 (South Croydon South End - Elephant & Castle)
PVR changes: Old 68 (23 to 0), New 68 [renumbered 468] (24 to 32). Total (47>32)
Route length update: Old 68 (0 miles), New 68 (no change)
In this scenario the new 68 (Croydon Town Centre - Waterloo) would be every 6 (10 bph) Monday-Saturdays and every 8 Sundays/evenings. As compensation for lack of two every 8 (or less) routes supporting one another.
Plan B: 50 (Stockwell - South Croydon South End), 68 (Croydon Fairfield Halls - Waterloo)
PVR changes: 50 (15>17), Old 68 (23>0), New 68 (24>33). Total (62>49)
Route length update: 50 (9 miles > 10 miles), Old 68 (0 miles), New 68 (12 miles)
Option 3: Restructuring X68 by incorporating more of 68 into X68
The nice route that caters for commuters from the hearts of Croydon and gems of Norwood to the diamonds in Central. The same route that got suspended in lockdown 2020. Admittedly the route had well patronage (374K from 406K, 2018/9 vs 2019/20) for only 12 journeys per peak, totalling 24 a day, throughout the years coming to that point. You can't kill the route without someone batting an eye and raising pitchforks, so might be better off making more use of it, milking the money machine or beating the dead horse until it can't move. In the realm of capitalism everything is dollar signs and I don't know where I'm heading with this as I'm no secret to playing the Soviet Anthem every morning.
Firstly, the 468 would be unchanged with it's frequency reverted to every 7-8 from the pathetic every 9-10 that detrimentally effected it's performance.
Secondly, the X68 wouldn't change from Russell Square since Euston with HS2 works would necessitate some changes in the meantime like with Liverpool Street in the name of Crossrail.
In order to add 68 spice to X68, it'd have to only go down the Camberwell route which has more traffic than dashing down a dozen minutes passing Brixton and leaving 59s in the dust. It'd also have to make stops at Herne Hill.
However, it'd get quite longer than it's already 69 minute trip time so some stops would have to kiss an X68 goodbye, that said, on the southern portion it's effectively a 468 extra which helped and still would help with crowds... if people aren't behind behind the comfort of their bed more often. That and Covid capacity constraints but I digress.
Calculating the game
Working out the average car driving between the Wests of Croydon and Norwood as 17 minutes with X68's being double at 34, divided by the 28 stops, on average 1.2 minutes spent per stop, not accounting anything other than stop count but bear with me. Having it serve key stops in order to shave down time spent for better reliability:
- West Norwood Station, Crown Point/Beulah Hill, Beulah Hill/All Saints Church (South Norwood Hill/All Saints Church northbound), Talbot Road (for Thornton Heath), Bedford Hall, West Croydon Bus Station.
- Upon drawing the map I've contemplated my decision for All Saints Church as it's not a high priority but closest interchange to 249 coming from Croydon in order to head to Crystal Palace
 |
| I see a gravestone behind it... |
So roughly 21 minutes instead of the 34 mins paralleling 468 almost stop-for-stop. Let's try test this theory further north. Again, 10 minutes car Norwood to HerneHill, 7 mins HerneHill to Qamberwell... How long does it take for 468 to do both, 14 minutes and 10 minutes respectively at comparable timeframes. There already isn't much difference between them as it is off-peak hours I'm using but it would scale pretty interestingly I imagine.
For that purpose, instead of the express model of barely any stops, how about the '607-style' limited stop model of... l i m i t e d s t o p . Maximise capacity on the section which could be relieved rather than left for only one to handle...
The 607 as a template in spite of 207s and 427s comically overtaking it, we can casually rid of half the head count of stops, effectively the route would be free flowing through Herne Hill either way.
Though for the purpose of Herne Hill and south of it, there's 196 so let's instead express that and focus on the 6 stops before King's College Hospital. Out of them a blind ranking by throwing darts would tell me Frankfurt Road, Herne Hill Road (crossing P4) and Blanchedowne as higher targets.
Given 42 does nothing for the last one but attract single digits but I haven't seen it in years so I hope I'm wrong.
Express that instead after all. Yes I've baited you with a decent explanation but with 468 consisting of passengers going long-distance from the depths of Croydon as far or further than Camberwell, the slower stopping 468 would have room to deal with the peasants that lay in-between.
 |
| PVL306 (PJ02RGU), Norwood Road/Robson Road |
After that, stopping at King's College Hospital and Camberwell Green before darting it immediately to Elephant & Castle Station (both stops). I've been thinking of the popular East Street market stops though in worst case scenario it could end up like 607... that's what I pessimistically think.
Thereafter, same logic, stopping at Waterloo Station, Aldwych, Holborn Station then final stop Russell Square. Though the last three are more or not right after one another anyway and you'd have to fight through Aldwych traffic which slows it down regardless. Even if northbound it could use the underpass it'd have to be single deck so unless it's articulated single deckers (aka bendies) then it's one reason not to.
Finally frequency, it'd carry 68's every 7-8 minute peak frequency over and 8-9 minutes off-peak. Yes extended operation hours!
So I've magically come to a total end-to-end trip time of 68 minutes (I wish I was lying), double that because laziness, throw in 12 minutes as a lucky number. Round trip of 148 minutes. Another familiar number to the area. Divide that by 7.5 (frequency) and you round it up to 20 as the PVR.
Realistically taking into account it'd have one or two more as a failsafe for my off-the-shelf random calculations.
Obviously again, reusing the 68 number into 468.
PVR changes: "68" (23>0), "468" (24>29), X68 (10>20). Total (57>49)
Route length update: "68" (0), "468" (no change), X68 (no change)
Option 4: The 168?
Adding insult to the injury I've scoffed at the suggestion of fusing it with 172 as a reliability nightmare. That and the lost capacity on Old Kent Road meriting the 415 which in the interim before leaving Arriva, the 172 had shorts from Old Kent Road to Elephant.
Rerouting 168 at Elephant to Herne Hill, though Old Kent Road suffers the end of the stick something that conveniently goes Waterloo to take the vacant space at Tesco. The 139 is trouble, 243 is trouble and overfrequent, the 341 is trouble and long, the 26 is the next best sacrificial lamb, matching the frequency conveniently, though already is similar to 168 in length from dimension and time perspectives. Whilst again, since I'm bias, throw in a frequency increase of 468 back to it's every 7-8 with the extra journeys making it have an every 6 Monday-Friday peak frequency.
Realistically Camden Town makes more sense for reliability's sake (reducing 4 buses off the PVR) but this isn't a genuine suggestion I've come up with, one I can blame someone else on for another pinfinger. In any case I have no idea what route should take over the northern part so I really am not taking this to the 'serious suggestion' level.
Provided, a new stand would have to be fortified out of thin air since it only fits le 201.
So, 26 (Hackney Wick - Waterloo - Old Kent Road Tesco), 168 (Hampstead Heath - Camden Town - Herne Hill).
PVR changes: 26 (21>26), 68 (23>0), 168 (21>25), 468 (24>29). Total (89>80)
Route length update: 26 (7 miles > 9 miles), 68 (0 miles), 168 (7 miles > 9 miles), 468 (no change)
Assuming one or the other _68 is renumbered to 68, preferably the latter [468].
Option 5th addendum November 2022:
Really an epiphany that I am yet to calculate since this post was uploaded on January 2021 but alas.
Image below, enjoy.
The 68 would be every 6-7 Mon-Sat with 2 additional journeys on Mon-Fri [1 starting from West Norwood and 1 from Herne Hill] towards Holborn in the AM. Then again 2 journeys in the PM [1 starting from Elephant & Castle and 1 from Camberwell Green] towards Croydon.
The X68 would be every 10 mins Mon-Sat, every 15 Sundays.
Limited stop one of the routes (except X68)?
Truth be told this is just what I've done with the X68 idea but segregating X68's direct-to-central aspect of it, which leads to X68 having less of a use with less people needing to flock to and from Waterloo first thing in the morning then in the afternoon, as at best becomes a chauffer extra along 468 in a lockdown world. Perhaps it has more merit in routes without an express route that can be capitalised on but for now the 96 can remain unique in it's non-stop section between Dartford and Bluewater.
Combining the ideas:
Option 1 can't be combined with any other option I've listed because it involves 68's death. Such as:
Option 1 + Option 2: Fusing 468 with part of 68's resources.
Option 1 + Option 3: Hmm, it still involves fusing 68 with X68 but if not the case, it makes 68 more redundant.
Option 1 + Option 4: Oof. Overbus much?
Option 2 + Option 3: Still saves resources by killing 68 but only by 5 buses. Total PVR (57>52) ... Though it's less justified for 468 to have a more exquisite frequency than it had with X68 doubling in performance, in speed and power with it's range unchanged.
So modifying that; 468 at every 7-8 with X68 at every 7-8 as well lands: Total PVR (57>49) Eight buses that have been slimmed down as if they were fat on the body.
Option 2 + Option 4: Like above the exquisite frequency of 468 would hamper cost-to-efficiency a bit, and frankly involves lowering reliability for 26 and 168 anyways. However, again just like above, turning down the notch one turn reduces 468 back to it's original 25-year long frequency of every 7-8 which the 168 conveniently shares. This, nostalgia I'd say, is akin to 68 and 468's frequencies before both received cuts on TfL's path to reduce costs (not in a genius way, anyway).
Conclusion
Finally, to balance most cost effective and most passenger friendly (or makes more sense with less links broken).
Option 1: Upside: Is there any besides saving TfL resources?
Downside: Links lost but the argument for hopper existing tips that in favour.
Option 2: It's sort of one I could get behind but have a few disagreements with, so as long as I don't see the person suggesting it so I can make them play stabscotch.
Upside: A more frequent service throughout Thornton Heath, Norwood and Herne Hill directly to Elephant & Castle, regardless of reaching Waterloo. Also the cheapest way to slish bash bosh cut a route from Kingsway.
Downside: Loss of Waterloo link to Herne Hill to West Norwood, though hopper is viable for existing 68 users to jump ship to 176.
Option 3: If not obvious from the paragraphs I've bled it's my favourite proposal out of the lot. The X68 is already quick from Central to the hills as the substitute to a train the parts don't have an exactly easy access to.
Upside: Speeds up long-distance journeys on 468, and retaining 68's major links (minus Euston).
Benefit of the doubt routing via Camberwell is slower but it'd make up for it by skipping lots of stops paralleling 468 south of West Norwood in order to be as similar in journey time, nearing an hour per trip.
Downside: The links lost from the intermediary stops but hopper exists, one major link lost, Euston (doable by hopper to 168).
Option 4: Now I'd like to brush aside the memey suggestion of option 4 as much as someone might take it more seriously. Least favourite in any case as irregardless of cutting 168's frequency slightly cut to every 8 (-1 bus) to make ends, there's still the possibility of a problem for overall smoothness, in key north of Camden Town. Essentially a 24-style possibility where it's neither convenient south of the river nor north of the river as a cross-Central route, though 36 has the benefit of terminating at a garage and abundantly frequent.
In any case, thanks for reading my rants and logistic breakdown attempts although realistically I'm fine with the way things are minus the X68 which could be bettered (mainly to avoid obscurity), with that stay safe!
No comments:
Post a Comment