TfL Route 395
 

Why was this route withdrawn?

TfL Route 395
 

Barry Salter wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006 19:39:25 +0100, "Chris Read"
wrote:


Why was this route withdrawn?

A quick bit of Googling suggests that it was expensive to operate
compared to the number of journeys undertaken, plus with the Rotherhithe
Tunnel being closed for roadworks I would suspect it would have meant a
fairly major diversion compared to the short route.

Cheers,

Barry


Don't know why it was withdrawn, can only suggest it was never that
busy.

Talking of diversions, I'm always amused to see instructions posted up
at Canada Water bus station on how to get to Canary Wharf by bus.
Obviously whilst route 395 was in operation the instructions were to
catch this bus and once north of the river alight on the Commercial
road for one of the buses to the Wharf - the notices gave an estimated
journey time of 45 minutes plus, and compared it to the 5 minute
journey on the Jubilee line.

Since the 395 has been wqithdrawn new notices advise people to travel
via the City, with an estimated journey time of an hour plus.

I joked with one of the bus station staff at Canada Water about this
once, and he said they were asked the "how do I get there by bus"
question so often they'd just put up the notices. He said that they
just weren't interested in going by Tube as they had a bus pass.

I can quite understand people being on a tight budget, but it's a great
shame they ain't figured out that a zones 2&3 weekly Travelcard costs
£14, a mere 50p cheaper that a weekly London Bus Pass. Said Travelcard
would of course allow for the Canada Water - Canary Wharf journey, and
open up almost all the DLR network as well. Perhaps I should be
benevolent and put up some notices of my own advertising said fact. And
probably get done under some archaic LT byelaw!

TfL Route 395
 

Mizter T wrote:
Barry Salter wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006 19:39:25 +0100, "Chris Read"
wrote:


Why was this route withdrawn?

A quick bit of Googling suggests that it was expensive to operate
compared to the number of journeys undertaken, plus with the Rotherhithe
Tunnel being closed for roadworks I would suspect it would have meant a
fairly major diversion compared to the short route.


Is this permanent? Or will it come back when the tunnel is open
again....

TfL Route 395
 

Mizter T wrote:

I can quite understand people being on a tight budget, but it's a great
shame they ain't figured out that a zones 2&3 weekly Travelcard costs
£14, a mere 50p cheaper that a weekly London Bus Pass. Said Travelcard
would of course allow for the Canada Water - Canary Wharf journey, and
open up almost all the DLR network as well.

And indeed any bus journey.

Given that any Travelcard is valid on the entire bus network regardless
of zones, this makes a bit of a farce of the weekly Bus Pass.

Neil

TfL Route 395
 

Mizter T wrote:

Barry Salter wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006 19:39:25 +0100, "Chris Read"
wrote:


Why was this route withdrawn?

And when was it withdrawn?

A quick bit of Googling suggests that it was expensive to operate
compared to the number of journeys undertaken, plus with the Rotherhithe
Tunnel being closed for roadworks I would suspect it would have meant a
fairly major diversion compared to the short route.

Searching the tfl site shows nothing about its withdawal, and the search
results include several spider maps where it's still included. This
suggests that it may be temporary. However, the bus tender results page
list of routes does not include 395.

Don't know why it was withdrawn, can only suggest it was never that
busy.

When bus services terminate short of where people want to go, it's not
surprising they don't get passengers. Before the Jubilee, the buses
through the Rotherhithe Tunnel did serve Canary Wharf (and not just the
part nearest the station) but when the JLE opened they cut it back to
Limehouse, even though the stretch of tube between Canada Water and
Canary Wharf quickly became overcrowded!

Canary Wharf's not at all well served by buses, so it's hardly
surprising that the tube and DLR are overcrowded - and rather annoying
to see the Mayor (and almost everyone associated with the project)
claiming that because of the overcrowding, Canary Wharf should get
Crossrail before other parts of London with genuine transport problems.

But even if they wanted ot keep it away from Canary Wharf, they could at
least have diverted it up Burdet Road to Mile End. TfL are well aware
that buses attract many more passengers when there are significant
destinations at both ends of the route, so there was really no excuse
for finishing at Limehouse.

Talking of diversions, I'm always amused to see instructions posted up
at Canada Water bus station on how to get to Canary Wharf by bus.
Obviously whilst route 395 was in operation the instructions were to
catch this bus and once north of the river alight on the Commercial
road for one of the buses to the Wharf - the notices gave an estimated
journey time of 45 minutes plus, and compared it to the 5 minute
journey on the Jubilee line.

Since the 395 has been wqithdrawn new notices advise people to travel
via the City, with an estimated journey time of an hour plus.

I joked with one of the bus station staff at Canada Water about this
once, and he said they were asked the "how do I get there by bus"
question so often they'd just put up the notices. He said that they
just weren't interested in going by Tube as they had a bus pass.

I can quite understand people being on a tight budget, but it's a great
shame they ain't figured out that a zones 2&3 weekly Travelcard costs
£14, a mere 50p cheaper that a weekly London Bus Pass.

But aren't they more likely to be on one day bus passes?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

TfL Route 395
 

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 01:57:00 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

Barry Salter wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006 19:39:25 +0100, "Chris Read"
wrote:


Why was this route withdrawn?

And when was it withdrawn?

29 April 2006 IIRC

A quick bit of Googling suggests that it was expensive to operate
compared to the number of journeys undertaken, plus with the Rotherhithe
Tunnel being closed for roadworks I would suspect it would have meant a
fairly major diversion compared to the short route.

Searching the tfl site shows nothing about its withdawal, and the search
results include several spider maps where it's still included. This
suggests that it may be temporary. However, the bus tender results page
list of routes does not include 395.

It was not awarded at retender - instead it was earmarked for
withdrawal. TfL do not advertise bad news or cuts to bus services.

I can assure you that there is no indication whatsoever that it is a
temporary withdrawal. The special buses that are required to run the
service have been sent away from London for other duties within First
Group.

Don't know why it was withdrawn, can only suggest it was never that
busy.

But even if they wanted ot keep it away from Canary Wharf, they could at
least have diverted it up Burdet Road to Mile End. TfL are well aware
that buses attract many more passengers when there are significant
destinations at both ends of the route, so there was really no excuse
for finishing at Limehouse.

I think the excuse is simple - they wished to devote the minimum amount
of resources to the route. Given that very expensive Mercedes Sprinter
buses were needed and they were dreadfully unreliable there was little
prospect of extra money being spent.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

TfL Route 395
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

(snip)
TfL do not advertise bad news or cuts to bus services.

Why not? Any idea whose decision it was to neglect their duty to keep
the public informed?

I can assure you that there is no indication whatsoever that it is a
temporary withdrawal. The special buses that are required to run the
service have been sent away from London for other duties within First
Group.

Why does it require special buses?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

TfL Route 395
 

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
Paul Corfield wrote:

(snip)
TfL do not advertise bad news or cuts to bus services.

Why not? Any idea whose decision it was to neglect their duty to
keep
the public informed?

I can assure you that there is no indication whatsoever that it is
a
temporary withdrawal. The special buses that are required to run
the
service have been sent away from London for other duties within
First
Group.

Why does it require special buses?


Because "normal" buses were considered "too big" for the Rotherhithe
Tunnel.

TfL Route 395
 

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:42:56 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

(snip)
TfL do not advertise bad news or cuts to bus services.

Why not? Any idea whose decision it was to neglect their duty to keep
the public informed?

I am only speaking from my knowledge of how the network has changed and
how services have been cut. There has been no clear communication about
those events while any improvement no matter how small is blasted from
the rooftops. I find the apparent policy to be inconsistent but then
the whole policy about communicating service changes is appalling in my
view. There is little information provided other than via the web and I
(and many other people) don't have any means of contacting the web when
I am on the bus or at the bus stop.

I can assure you that there is no indication whatsoever that it is a
temporary withdrawal. The special buses that are required to run the
service have been sent away from London for other duties within First
Group.

Why does it require special buses?

There are width restrictions at both entrances. There are also very
tight clearances where there the tunnel changes direction.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

TfL Route 395
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
There are width restrictions at both entrances [to the Rotherhithe Tunnel].
There are also very tight clearances where there the tunnel changes direction.

This is something that's always puzzled me - why does the Rotherhithe
Tunnel change direction? Surely, when it was being built, it would
have been cheaper and easier to just go in a straight line? Yet it
twists and turns constantly.

Patrick

TfL Route 395
 

In message . com,
writes

This is something that's always puzzled me - why does the Rotherhithe
Tunnel change direction?

To stop horses bolting ...

Surely, when it was being built, it would
have been cheaper and easier to just go in a straight line?

It was designed primarily with horse-drawn vehicles in mind
(construction started in 1904). These needed long, gentle inclines
either side, and the only space to build such long approaches and avoid
the many docks in the area was almost parallel to the river (even so a
lot of house demolition was necessary). They were constructed using the
relatively cheap cut-and-cover system.

Once down to final depth, the central part of the tunnel (the only part
needing expensive boring) crosses the river more directly, although
still a little obliquely, because the object was to connect the docks on
the south side of the river with those a little further downstream on
the northern side. The result is the characteristic zig-zag of the
tunnel.

The sharp bends wouldn't have been a problem for horse-drawn vehicles,
of course - in fact, they were deliberate because they prevented horses
seeing the light at the other end of the tunnel too soon and thus
possibly bolting.

--
Paul Terry

TfL Route 395
 

In article . com,
() wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
There are width restrictions at both entrances [to the
Rotherhithe Tunnel].
There are also very tight clearances where there the tunnel
changes direction.

This is something that's always puzzled me - why does the
Rotherhithe Tunnel change direction? Surely, when it was being built,
it would have been cheaper and easier to just go in a straight line?
Yet it twists and turns constantly.

I thought there were just two turns, from the approaches that are
closely parallel to the river to and from the stretch under the river.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Route 395
 

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

(snip)

Talking of diversions, I'm always amused to see instructions posted up
at Canada Water bus station on how to get to Canary Wharf by bus.
Obviously whilst route 395 was in operation the instructions were to
catch this bus and once north of the river alight on the Commercial
road for one of the buses to the Wharf - the notices gave an estimated
journey time of 45 minutes plus, and compared it to the 5 minute
journey on the Jubilee line.

Since the 395 has been withdrawn new notices advise people to travel
via the City, with an estimated journey time of an hour plus.

I joked with one of the bus station staff at Canada Water about this
once, and he said they were asked the "how do I get there by bus"
question so often they'd just put up the notices. He said that they
just weren't interested in going by Tube as they had a bus pass.

I can quite understand people being on a tight budget, but it's a great
shame they ain't figured out that a zones 2&3 weekly Travelcard costs
£14, a mere 50p cheaper that a weekly London Bus Pass.

But aren't they more likely to be on one day bus passes?


Good point. I guess in all likelyhood it's a mix of one-day and longer
bus passes. This is merely anecdotal evidence but when boarding buses
at Canada Water I've seen several weekly bus passes being brandished to
drivers (i.e. green paper tickets), though I've also seen a fair number
of one-day passes (i.e. red paper tickets).

If passengers were making irregular off-peak trips to Canary Wharf from
south of the river then they might want to consider buying a zones 2-6
off-peak Day Travelcard at £4.30 as opposed to a one-day bus pass at
£3.50. Indeed if they went for Oyster Pre-Pay then daily capping for
zones 2-6 would mean they'd pay no more than £3.80 off-peak - though
this should be compared to the £3 daily cap that kicks in if one is
just travelling by bus.

I hope that regular commuters to Canary Wharf from south of the river
(perhaps in particular those on lower wages) do find out about the
weekly Travelcard option - it would save many hours sitting on a bus
each week.


(Apols for the late response, I've only just noticed this thread is
still active.)

TfL Route 395