On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:20:49 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
.. .

One of the main reasons why such routes don't exist is
that they fail the "value for money" test when you look
at the density and capacity of the rail network in Greater
London. I appreciate that peak capacity is a big problem
on much of the rail network but just running express
buses at that time just pushes up the peak time costs of
the transport network as a whole.

If an existing route which is running ludicrously frequently, for instance
the 38, were replaced by an express route and stopping route each running at
half that frequency, the decreased journey times would allow a reduction in
the number of buses and drivers used. I suspect that fuel usage and vehicle
wear would also decrease with fewer stops. The only question is whether the
stopping route would wither and die.

I understand the point being made but I think the example of the 38 is a
poor one. An X38 but running from Leyton with limited stops in Zone 2
and Zone 1 might make sense but the traffic on the 38 is pretty high
from Hackney Central inwards with people getting on and off all the
time. It would be near impossible for an Express version to offer
sufficient choice of stops while being faster than the stoping service.
Also given that it would probably be one person operated it would be
slower than a crew bus thus reducing the overall extent of peak vehicle
requirement reduction.

I also think you would have a riot on your hands if you proposed cutting
back route 38 given where the route serves and the high usage (look at
the reaction to the 73 change). When TfL get round to replacing the
routemasters it will be interesting to see what they decide to do -
double decks or artics. Personally I will be surprised if they go artic
for this route.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!