Double Consultations

No

Two-in-one, the clickbait would be withdrawal of 168 and 271 but I prefer numbers and calculating any changes, whether I believe they were bad (such as 48's withdrawal) or perhaps positive (I can't mention something within the past 5 years) so without further ado:

The consultations in question; 1, 168 and 188. As well as 21, 143, 263 and 271.

To save you the effort however:

1, 168 and 188

We've seen the talks of 168 being withdrawn over and over at some point, rumours speculating as well as the cutback of 171 from Holborn to Elephant and 172 from St Pauls to Aldwych spurring some thought as Kingsway has lost patronage and thus became overbussed, arguably even down Waterloo Bridge to Elephant & Castle.

The 168 as far as north of Elephant is concerned is important, so it's links remain as evident by the fused route.

The only links lost are Old Kent Road to Holborn and northwards, since Aldywch and Waterloo are covered by 172. Of course Hopper makes changing from 53/172/453 to 1/68 to Euston very possible. Just a shame some capacity is lost, one which involved an almost-emergency extension of 415 to the corridor.

In hindsight the 1 and 188 swap in central (but 1 would go further north), but the issue is N1 isn't accounted for, so you end up with two night routes at Tottenham Court Road. Perhaps if being true to the swap the 1 would be 24-hour and an N188 to Thamesmead at every 15 but alas that is perhaps draconian.

Day-wise the links that are lost are yet again salvaged by the Hopper, not that the difference between Tottenham Court Road and Russell Square is daunting by any means but if the past is an indicator, the 188 isn't cut back to Elephant & Castle at least.

Damned if you don't but damned if you do something, there can be less offensive ways to go about it but the bottom line is that the Holborn to Euston section is deemed overbussed by TfL, rather than Holborn to Waterloo which is interesting in retrospect but alas we can all agree that yes there is a degree of overbus that needs to be addressed should overhead costs really need to be thinned to have more efficient operations.

21, 143, 263, 271

...

The way I understand it the withdrawal of 271 (which was attempted previously, albeit night service) is saddening. Something that I do second, given it's oddity of terminating at Liverpool Street on weekends and at night before Crossrail works took place.

The routeing swap of 143 and 263 whilst menial does nothing in the way of 143's problems which spurred into two different 143Ds and a 643 all coexisting as a result of double deckers not being possible due to resident complaints. Speaking of which, one of the 143Ds becomes renumbered into 620!

As much as I have no experience on these routes in question it is interesting but equally a shot in the foot in a mirror, but alas the goal is reducing PVR not ways to better buses which obviously involves increasing PVRs.

Le 21 is the one south route in the list that I do have knowledge about but of course it's section to Newington Green is squarely inside north, of which is known to be less used as of late. It was extended to aid the busy 141 and the 141 is still of course busy but most of it is longer distance as apparent by less loaded 21s and well loaded 141s.

--------------------------------------------------------

All in all this is what it boils down to:

Numbers and estimate PVR (!) numbers
Reusing the Bus Review Cuts spreadsheet that was made during the 2019 saga.

How would I go about it?

Anyone can suggest things and I can't lie by saying the only routes familiar to me are those south of the river from these routes, the 168 was only extended from Elephant & Castle to aid the Old Kent Road corridor and so has 415 a decade later.

It's not exactly explicit knowledge that 143 is another of those single deck routes that needs double deckers or failing that, an increase in frequency. At least it's not something like 355 which parallels double decker routes for 100% of it's length.

Spot the mistakes

So whilst I've done the same thing, bloodying my hand in murdering the former-trolleybus 271 and the bastard offspring of the 68, I've compensated with wilder stuff in some places (the 21) whilst overly heroic on the 143 at the expense of the chronic 326 which, if the 366 could put up with the loss of 101 and 262 then I will play villain and have 326 suffer even more than it already does. Thankfully I do not make the decisions but merely criticise them for my own fun until the day one of my own routes becomes next in which I fear is in the near future but alas, it is what it is.

I've thought of using Finchley Central's stand that was last used by 125, but extending 271 defeats the purpose of lessening PVR to save costs, not creating more costs.

Thankfully or not I've been lazing about making a post so I could quickly produce this and bide more time as I have found myself being particular on detail lately, a perfectionist if you will, to my detriment. Alas, I hope it was worthwhile and until then, stay safe!