|
Post by snowman on Jun 4, 2019 8:26:16 GMT
UPDATES TO ROUTE 303:23 February: Unfortunately, to get the double yellow lines painted at Corner Mead was proving difficult due to the condition of the road edge, coupled with heavy parking early in the morning and throughout the day. The Service Delivery Manager attended a route test which failed due to the lack of double yellow lines or hatching near the traffic island at the crossing into the school. 1 March: TfL received confirmation that the yellow lines were now in place and a further route test was in progress. However, an area of concern needed to be revisited and TfL requested that London Borough of Barnet move the stop line back a few metres to allow the bus to better manoeuvre during left hand turns into Colindale Avenue from the A5. During the route test, 2 cars waiting to exit Colindale Avenue had to reverse to enable the bus to safely make this turn. A decision was then made for the route to remain on diversion until the Colindale Avenue stop line issue was resolved. 18 April: TfL received information from their Network Performance team advising that they were undertaking a scheme assessment for junction A5/Capitol Way and a proposed junction at A5/Montrose Avenue, as part of the wider Colindale Area Action Plan. Following a discussion with the Traffic Signal Engineering Services, it was confirmed that there is no standard stop line set back distance, as it’s dependant on the location layout. They also advised that if the borough agrees to move the stop line back temporarily, by just a couple of metres, and monitor the situation, TfL could then decide if they could live with the consequences until the Area Action Plan for Colindale is complete or keep route 303 on diversion until the scheme is built. 8 May: TfL's Bus Priority Manager advised that as soon as the stop line was moved back, they would need at least 4 weeks before they could reinstate the route back on to the correct line. If Barnet are able to move the stop line as soon as possible, TfL aim to get the route back by early June. The Service Delivery Manager confirmed that it was agreed to remove both diversions at the same time because 2 new schedules and rotas may need to be implemented and all drivers will need to be ‘route learned’ twice. So the question that must be asked is why has it taken so long to get to this situation? More importantly why was none of this realised before the issue of the tender and even more importantly, before RATP ordered vehicles that wouldn't fit the route? Whilst TfL is mainly to blame, I cannot shrug off the feeling that RATP have a responsibility too. In the tendering process, the invitation quotes the maximum approved vehicle length for the route in question. On the Armstrong site, the 2011 tender states the current approved vehicle dimensions were 10.2m, however it specifies 10.8m vehicle subject to a satisfactory route survey. As 10.8m vehicles were ordered, and the current route not being suitable for the new vehicles, that leaves only two options: a - RATP/TfL did not conduct a route test with a 10.8m vehicle despite it being a requirement b - the route survey did take place and TfL passed it knowing full well that it didn't fit in certain places Correct me if I am wrong, but with the 303 tender result announced in Dec 2017, with the contract starting in Sept 2017, that is a whole seven month window in which one would have expected these issues to have been ironed out. Failing that, RATP should then not have been allowed to run the longer vehicles on the 303 until the issues had been sorted. This does also feel like one rule for some and one for another as Metroline got no dispensation (and quite rightly so) for the 393 when the unexpected longer buses turned up. So why is it that the Colindale and Graham Park residents should be lumbered with, not just a newly diverted route, but a route that is on a further [poorly advertised] diversion on top of that, away from one of the area's focal points?! This might sound daft but standards change, although 10.2m permitted historically, would these pass if tested today Also sometimes promised work is not undertaken by some dates. If it was route tested and passed except for location X, and X was to be adjusted by a certain date, but isn't done by start date then not really the Operators fault. Might be mixing it up with another route, but didn't this new route have some sort of physical barrier / restriction that was due to change, if so that part was untestable until removed
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 4, 2019 9:43:04 GMT
UPDATES TO ROUTE 303:23 February: Unfortunately, to get the double yellow lines painted at Corner Mead was proving difficult due to the condition of the road edge, coupled with heavy parking early in the morning and throughout the day. The Service Delivery Manager attended a route test which failed due to the lack of double yellow lines or hatching near the traffic island at the crossing into the school. 1 March: TfL received confirmation that the yellow lines were now in place and a further route test was in progress. However, an area of concern needed to be revisited and TfL requested that London Borough of Barnet move the stop line back a few metres to allow the bus to better manoeuvre during left hand turns into Colindale Avenue from the A5. During the route test, 2 cars waiting to exit Colindale Avenue had to reverse to enable the bus to safely make this turn. A decision was then made for the route to remain on diversion until the Colindale Avenue stop line issue was resolved. 18 April: TfL received information from their Network Performance team advising that they were undertaking a scheme assessment for junction A5/Capitol Way and a proposed junction at A5/Montrose Avenue, as part of the wider Colindale Area Action Plan. Following a discussion with the Traffic Signal Engineering Services, it was confirmed that there is no standard stop line set back distance, as it’s dependant on the location layout. They also advised that if the borough agrees to move the stop line back temporarily, by just a couple of metres, and monitor the situation, TfL could then decide if they could live with the consequences until the Area Action Plan for Colindale is complete or keep route 303 on diversion until the scheme is built. 8 May: TfL's Bus Priority Manager advised that as soon as the stop line was moved back, they would need at least 4 weeks before they could reinstate the route back on to the correct line. If Barnet are able to move the stop line as soon as possible, TfL aim to get the route back by early June. The Service Delivery Manager confirmed that it was agreed to remove both diversions at the same time because 2 new schedules and rotas may need to be implemented and all drivers will need to be ‘route learned’ twice. So the question that must be asked is why has it taken so long to get to this situation? More importantly why was none of this realised before the issue of the tender and even more importantly, before RATP ordered vehicles that wouldn't fit the route? Whilst TfL is mainly to blame, I cannot shrug off the feeling that RATP have a responsibility too. In the tendering process, the invitation quotes the maximum approved vehicle length for the route in question. On the Armstrong site, the 2011 tender states the current approved vehicle dimensions were 10.2m, however it specifies 10.8m vehicle subject to a satisfactory route survey. As 10.8m vehicles were ordered, and the current route not being suitable for the new vehicles, that leaves only two options: a - RATP/TfL did not conduct a route test with a 10.8m vehicle despite it being a requirement b - the route survey did take place and TfL passed it knowing full well that it didn't fit in certain places Correct me if I am wrong, but with the 303 tender result announced in Dec 2017, with the contract starting in Sept 2017, that is a whole seven month window in which one would have expected these issues to have been ironed out. Failing that, RATP should then not have been allowed to run the longer vehicles on the 303 until the issues had been sorted. This does also feel like one rule for some and one for another as Metroline got no dispensation (and quite rightly so) for the 393 when the unexpected longer buses turned up. So why is it that the Colindale and Graham Park residents should be lumbered with, not just a newly diverted route, but a route that is on a further [poorly advertised] diversion on top of that, away from one of the area's focal points?! What's even more odd is under Arriva, the 303 saw all sorts including 10.7m Darts when a few were loaned in from DT after the 126 loss and 10.6m VLA's which were used fairly regularly during the final stretch of Arriva operation - being double decker, these would of been wider so it's a bit odd that all of a sudden, long buses now can't do it.
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Jun 4, 2019 10:29:50 GMT
So the question that must be asked is why has it taken so long to get to this situation? More importantly why was none of this realised before the issue of the tender and even more importantly, before RATP ordered vehicles that wouldn't fit the route? Whilst TfL is mainly to blame, I cannot shrug off the feeling that RATP have a responsibility too. In the tendering process, the invitation quotes the maximum approved vehicle length for the route in question. On the Armstrong site, the 2011 tender states the current approved vehicle dimensions were 10.2m, however it specifies 10.8m vehicle subject to a satisfactory route survey. As 10.8m vehicles were ordered, and the current route not being suitable for the new vehicles, that leaves only two options: a - RATP/TfL did not conduct a route test with a 10.8m vehicle despite it being a requirement b - the route survey did take place and TfL passed it knowing full well that it didn't fit in certain places Correct me if I am wrong, but with the 303 tender result announced in Dec 2017, with the contract starting in Sept 2017, that is a whole seven month window in which one would have expected these issues to have been ironed out. Failing that, RATP should then not have been allowed to run the longer vehicles on the 303 until the issues had been sorted. This does also feel like one rule for some and one for another as Metroline got no dispensation (and quite rightly so) for the 393 when the unexpected longer buses turned up. So why is it that the Colindale and Graham Park residents should be lumbered with, not just a newly diverted route, but a route that is on a further [poorly advertised] diversion on top of that, away from one of the area's focal points?! This might sound daft but standards change, although 10.2m permitted historically, would these pass if tested today Also sometimes promised work is not undertaken by some dates. If it was route tested and passed except for location X, and X was to be adjusted by a certain date, but isn't done by start date then not really the Operators fault. Might be mixing it up with another route, but didn't this new route have some sort of physical barrier / restriction that was due to change, if so that part was untestable until removed I think it was a fire gate somewhere near Colindale Asda, however this was highlighted up in the original consultation as work to be carried out, so TfL were aware of this restriction from Day 1. I understand that work projects do encounter all sorts of delays etc. but is up to two years acceptable? Maybe a delay of handing over the new contract should have happened until the gate work had been carried out. If we know for example that there is an issue on the route that prevents the use of the new vehicles at location X, and the operator has a fleet of vehicles that can negotiate location X, should the Operator be pro-active at this point to arrange a fleet swap, or a temporary hire of the previous operator's acceptable vehicles, such like what Metroline have embarrassingly had to do twice now?! Maybe TfL did not allow this, or neither party thought of this. The issue with the bus gate as far as I am aware was solved a while back now? Whilst maybe none of this can be RATPs "fault" as such, I think they could have done better. TfL on the other hand have acted shambolically throughout.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jun 4, 2019 20:25:03 GMT
I think it was a fire gate somewhere near Colindale Asda, however this was highlighted up in the original consultation as work to be carried out, so TfL were aware of this restriction from Day 1. I understand that work projects do encounter all sorts of delays etc. but is up to two years acceptable? Maybe a delay of handing over the new contract should have happened until the gate work had been carried out. If we know for example that there is an issue on the route that prevents the use of the new vehicles at location X, and the operator has a fleet of vehicles that can negotiate location X, should the Operator be pro-active at this point to arrange a fleet swap, or a temporary hire of the previous operator's acceptable vehicles, such like what Metroline have embarrassingly had to do twice now?! Maybe TfL did not allow this, or neither party thought of this. The issue with the bus gate as far as I am aware was solved a while back now? Whilst maybe none of this can be RATPs "fault" as such, I think they could have done better. TfL on the other hand have acted shambolically throughout. I think that under the current regime I'd forgive TfL contractors for not being proactive. The system does not encourage or reward anyone to be proactive - it is very much a case of "we're in charge, you just do what we pay you to do" from TfL. I agree RATP could probably have arranged a swap with some 10.2m buses from elsewhere in the fleet but it would have to be at TfL's behest. Of course we don't know whether this option was offered and declined.
Sadly the issue of contracts being awarded on the basis of "untested" vehicle sizes is nothing new. Until recently there were still DD routes that were only formally cleared for 9.8m buses, despite the fact that no 9.8m DD has been available on the market for decades. This isn't the first time that TfL have been caught out by buses being deemed not to fit after they've already been delivered. You have to wonder why route tests aren't carried out much earlier in the process. That said the E10 did get its order changed to shorter buses once it was found that the higher-capacity buses originally intended had failed a route test, so maybe the lesson has been learnt.
Incidentally the 393 situation is completely different so I wouldn't draw any parallels with the 303 situation. For the 303 TfL specified longer buses (well strictly speaking they specify the vehicle capacity, but they know full well that 60-capacity translates to a 10.8-10.9m SD), so that's what RATP ordered. For the 393 TfL specified lower-capacity buses, and it was a c0ck-up between operator and manufacturer that saw longer vehicles delivered, so no fault of TfL's at all.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 5, 2019 8:50:07 GMT
Which of the following RATP routes can take 10.9m DLEs? - 251, 326, H9/H10, H11
A short-term solution could be to temporarily swap some London Sovereign DEs onto the 303.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 5, 2019 19:32:43 GMT
Which of the following RATP routes can take 10.9m DLEs? - 251, 326, H9/H10, H11 A short-term solution could be to temporarily swap some London Sovereign DEs onto the 303. To my knowledge of the H11, the one sticky part of the route would be that turn from Suffolk Road into The Ridgeway, I don't know if a DLE would be able to do that turn but other than that I should think 10.9m DLEs would be able to cope on the H11. Happy to be corrected by anyone who knows the H11 better than me
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jun 5, 2019 19:40:32 GMT
Which of the following RATP routes can take 10.9m DLEs? - 251, 326, H9/H10, H11 A short-term solution could be to temporarily swap some London Sovereign DEs onto the 303. To my knowledge of the H11, the one sticky part of the route would be that turn from Suffolk Road into The Ridgeway, I don't know if a DLE would be able to do that turn but other than that I should think 10.9m DLEs would be able to cope on the H11. Happy to be corrected by anyone who knows the H11 better than me
I don’t think there is an issue with this part as it’s only a bend in the road. It could be the roundabout further down Suffolk Road with Rayners Lane that seems a bit tight in the Mount Vernon Hospital direction
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 21:27:37 GMT
Which of the following RATP routes can take 10.9m DLEs? - 251, 326, H9/H10, H11 A short-term solution could be to temporarily swap some London Sovereign DEs onto the 303. That would be the obvious solution, but I really doubt that will happen to be honest. For whatever reason TfL/RATP seem adamant to keep the DLEs on the 303.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 6, 2019 4:44:48 GMT
Which of the following RATP routes can take 10.9m DLEs? - 251, 326, H9/H10, H11 A short-term solution could be to temporarily swap some London Sovereign DEs onto the 303. That would be the obvious solution, but I really doubt that will happen to be honest. For whatever reason TfL/RATP seem adamant to keep the DLEs on the 303. There is no shortage of 10.2m buses that could be swapped if required, 371, 665, 265 supplementary etc all see 10.9m versions. Also 33 can take the longer buses whilst not crossing Hammersmith Bridge (and its tightest part in Richmond sees DXEs)
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 7, 2019 8:37:00 GMT
And proposed frequency reduction on route 125 is abandoned. Which makes a change. I still can't get my head around the fact that the 125, once Finchley garage's most insignificant route with a 40 minute Sunday headway for most of the day when converted to opo, now has a weekday headway on a par with the mighty 11. Good for the 125, of course. Is the extension proving popular?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 16:35:38 GMT
I still can't get my head around the fact that the 125, once Finchley garage's most insignificant route with a 40 minute Sunday headway for most of the day when converted to opo, now has a weekday headway on a par with the mighty 11. Good for the 125, of course. Is the extension proving popular? From what I can see it is fairly well-used already - not super busy yet but it's getting there. Hopefully things keep going up from here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 11:28:32 GMT
So two weeks since the 125 has been extended to Colindale and still the bus stop tiles haven't added the 125 at Church End (apart from the new stop that was installed) or The Quadrant don't know about the other stops but this is just appaling
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Jun 9, 2019 12:58:12 GMT
For 303 or 305 I think the 632 turns in to a day route and extended to Edgware via the old 303 or 305 I not it can be renumber as 32A
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jun 9, 2019 14:14:34 GMT
For 303 or 305 I think the 632 turns in to a day route and extended to Edgware via the old 303 or 305 I not it can be renumber as 32A But wouldn't the 32A be duplicating the 32 and besides TfL doesn't do suffix letters.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Aug 5, 2019 15:47:40 GMT
I’m at North Finchley bus station and all the bus stop information for the 125 is still showing it as running to Finchley Central rather than Colindale. Also the 125 that arrives (TE909) is blinded for Finchley Central even though it’s headed to Colindale
|
|