On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:34:24 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:26:14 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

c) how to deal with the very strong competition provided by the rail and
tube network.

The answer is that they should not. Why? Well, what's the point in
running parallel with railway lines, except where necessary to get beyond
the railway line? In fact, I'd propose the best solution for the latter
would be to run an express service from the end of the railway line to the
ultimate destination. Express bus services are really best filling in
where the railway does not serve.

But the original poster was proposing an express version of route 48
which runs between Walthamstow Central and Liverpool St virtually
parallel to the "One" overground line. The bus does run on to London
Bridge. It also stops at almost all the same places as the train service
barring St James St and Bethnal Green.

You deleted my text which referred to the waste / duplication of
resources argument which would fall foul of the strategic direction
given to TfL. Also in times of constrained budgets it would not make a
lot of sense.

That said, Hamburg[1] takes a different approach; direct, express buses to
and from the city centre do duplicate some railway lines, but at a
supplementary fare of (I think) EUR 1. They are provided with
high-quality, low-density seating and are treated as "first class".

Which is similar to the long distance bus routes in Hong Kong. These
typically run at a premium fare but in the few cases where there is a
parallel with the rail system they remain cheaper than rail.

Commuter bus routes (from the outer Boroughs into Manhatten) in New York
also charge a premium fare and to use them on a regular basis you need
an upgraded and more expensive Metrocard.

Do the Hamburg express buses run only at peak times or all the time?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!