|
Post by YY13VKP on Jan 11, 2020 10:58:04 GMT
I have to say that now that the 407 is double decked, the last few months has probably been the most I've actually used the 407 over the last 5 years ! Goes to show how much I couldn't stand the route especially when those horrid Enviro200's were on it that have now been banished to the 490. Double Deckers are certainly a marked improvement for the 407, and it also must be said that it's finally got lucky with some decent vehicles again! I would usually prefer a full allocation of MMC's but at least having two different batches of Enviro400's from different era's operating on a regular basis brings some variety back to the route. A common user pool appears to have now been formed with the 407 and the 109 too, and more of the 109's MMC's are beginning to appear more frequently. I went on the 407 recently on a double decker and the route was very busy, I couldn't even begin to imagine what that route was like in the rush hour with those single decker buses. It's just a shame they've gone to another route thats in dire need of having double deckers. It was absolutely awful
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Jan 15, 2020 23:48:09 GMT
8525 and 8527 have still not been in use in November 5th. I assume these have both been withdrawn and returned to the leasing company?
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Jan 22, 2020 15:11:56 GMT
Looks as though 2492 and 2497 are the next 109 MMC's to head for refurb. 2492 hasn't been seen since Jan 5th whereas 2497 hasn't been in use since December 17th
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jan 24, 2020 9:32:22 GMT
I have to say that now that the 407 is double decked, the last few months has probably been the most I've actually used the 407 over the last 5 years ! Goes to show how much I couldn't stand the route especially when those horrid Enviro200's were on it that have now been banished to the 490. Double Deckers are certainly a marked improvement for the 407, and it also must be said that it's finally got lucky with some decent vehicles again! I would usually prefer a full allocation of MMC's but at least having two different batches of Enviro400's from different era's operating on a regular basis brings some variety back to the route. A common user pool appears to have now been formed with the 407 and the 109 too, and more of the 109's MMC's are beginning to appear more frequently. I went on the 407 recently on a double decker and the route was very busy, I couldn't even begin to imagine what that route was like in the rush hour with those single decker buses. It's just a shame they've gone to another route thats in dire need of having double deckers. Richmond Bridge has an 18 tonne MGW restriction on it. Unless the N22 gets flash mobbed it's unlikely to breach that but daytime routes could well do, regularly if double decks ran on them. The 490 is unlikely to get double deckers anytime soon!
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 24, 2020 9:40:18 GMT
I went on the 407 recently on a double decker and the route was very busy, I couldn't even begin to imagine what that route was like in the rush hour with those single decker buses. It's just a shame they've gone to another route thats in dire need of having double deckers. Richmond Bridge has an 18 tonne MGW restriction on it. Unless the N22 gets flash mobbed it's unlikely to breach that but daytime routes could well do, regularly if double decks ran on them. The 490 is unlikely to get double deckers anytime soon! I had a feing some work was done on Richmond Bridge? Also wouldn't any rail replacement work breach the limit?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 24, 2020 10:10:28 GMT
Richmond Bridge has an 18 tonne MGW restriction on it. Unless the N22 gets flash mobbed it's unlikely to breach that but daytime routes could well do, regularly if double decks ran on them. The 490 is unlikely to get double deckers anytime soon! I had a feing some work was done on Richmond Bridge? Also wouldn't any rail replacement work breach the limit? Can't remember when (was about 6-8 years ago) weight limit on Richmond Bridge was raised from 16.5t to 18t Before that double deck buses could only carry about 65 people without exceeding limit
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 24, 2020 10:17:43 GMT
I had a feing some work was done on Richmond Bridge? Also wouldn't any rail replacement work breach the limit? Can't remember when (was about 6-8 years ago) weight limit on Richmond Bridge was raised from 16.5t to 18t Before that double deck buses could only carry about 65 people without exceeding limit If it was MGW they could not even do that ... MGW is Maximum Gross Weight, which would be 18 tonnes even if running light.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 24, 2020 10:19:46 GMT
I had a feing some work was done on Richmond Bridge? Also wouldn't any rail replacement work breach the limit? Can't remember when (was about 6-8 years ago) weight limit on Richmond Bridge was raised from 16.5t to 18t Before that double deck buses could only carry about 65 people without exceeding limit The weight limit must have been exceeded when the 65 was on diversion over Richmond Bridge for a month during works in Petersham back in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Jan 26, 2020 16:44:24 GMT
Any news on the new Caetano e.City electrics for routes P5 and C10?
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 27, 2020 11:52:52 GMT
Any news on the new Caetano e.City electrics for routes P5 and C10? Reliable source says the first lot are due mid-February
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Jan 28, 2020 18:29:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Jan 28, 2020 18:58:11 GMT
Might be worth considering! Need to check when I can get back from uni though
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jan 28, 2020 22:20:43 GMT
Can't remember when (was about 6-8 years ago) weight limit on Richmond Bridge was raised from 16.5t to 18t Before that double deck buses could only carry about 65 people without exceeding limit If it was MGW they could not even do that ... MGW is Maximum Gross Weight, which would be 18 tonnes even if running light. It depends on how it is calculated. It seems the rule in London according to the GLA website is that all buses should have a MGW of 18 tonnes. The question that should be asked is how that is calculated. If 68kg is the acceptable average and it's permitted to only use the vehicle's seated capacity as a multiplier then most buses should comply with that. If a more standard average is used and total capacity is the multiplier then things could get a bit more interesting in some cases, which is why a few bus types out there have standing capacities that are a lot lower than the number of people that can and do cram on.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 28, 2020 23:35:56 GMT
If it was MGW they could not even do that ... MGW is Maximum Gross Weight, which would be 18 tonnes even if running light. It depends on how it is calculated. It seems the rule in London according to the GLA website is that all buses should have a MGW of 18 tonnes. The question that should be asked is how that is calculated. If 68kg is the acceptable average and it's permitted to only use the vehicle's seated capacity as a multiplier then most buses should comply with that. If a more standard average is used and total capacity is the multiplier then things could get a bit more interesting in some cases, which is why a few bus types out there have standing capacities that are a lot lower than the number of people that can and do cram on. If it is a limit of MGW ... that is your weight ... Does not matter how many you are licensed to carry or the passenger weight. If you take a 18mgw vehicle light out the garage, unlikely to happen, but you would be breaking a 17.5MGW limit ... even if you do not actually weigh that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 11:29:00 GMT
2005 has a sticker saying only for use on 427 and N207. It's on the 207 and was bought for the 278 ??
|
|