|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 28, 2019 23:34:11 GMT
Why do existing buses run on trade plates? Saw SLS6 which has already been in London service but had trade plates heading for Norwood and was being driven instead of on a towtruck Probably because it was not an Arriva employee dring it, hence not covered by the Arriva insurance, rather who is ever covering whatever maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Mar 1, 2019 2:32:18 GMT
Sorry, That isn't my experience of the 178 and I live on the route, with the exception of EHs covering defective or rota work the allocation has been exactly as it should be the 3 WVLs and the E400s. Lol I won't argue, but I seen some trashy buses on that route few weeks ago but maybe just my luck I suppose. 321 reminds me of P4, they literally run 'whatever' is available, from decent ADL 400 to old trashy WHV with classic manual labor blinds lol. Personally, I don’t think it’s a big deal. As long as there’s a serviceable bus that meets the requirements specified for the respective contracts, then it’s not a big deal. I think in the eyes of an ethusiast, we may want things to be a certain way, and can often be pedantic about the smallest of things in the bus world, which is understandable. But at the end of the day running a bus service is a business, and if there’s no serviceable bus (allocated or not) running on the road, then everyone is losing out on money. I’d personally rather have a tacky looking unallocated bus turn up, rather than no bus at all. Besides, London bus travel isn’t really designed for comfort as a number 1 priority, so I personally wouldn’t expect a bus, used by thousands of people in a day, to not look somewhat ‘trashy’ after a days worth of work. Also, wrt the P4, I do see where your frustration may come from, especially when those 8.9m E200s escaped onto the route, leaving everyone to be packed in like sardines. However, it does go back to my point above, where it’s better than no bus at all, I guess. Also, the older WHVs do not carry ‘manual labour blinds’ as you describe lol. They use powerblinds with a mobitec ICU controller.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 17:56:58 GMT
Does anyone know why some routes e.g. H2 have full iBus for the hail & ride sections, but routes like the 326 have a massive gap in iBus between Totteridge Station and Finchley Central?
I find it really annoying lol
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 1, 2019 18:26:28 GMT
Does anyone know why some routes e.g. H2 have full iBus for the hail & ride sections, but routes like the 326 have a massive gap in iBus between Totteridge Station and Finchley Central? I find it really annoying lol The reason is very simple. Someone in the relevant team took the time to explain it to me. To establish all the "pseudo" stops on Hail and Ride sections and to ensure they work well is immensely tedious and complex work. Even in more generously resourced days there was not enough time for the small team of people to do all the work and get all the approvals and co-operation from other departments so that I-Bus worked. I suspect that is no longer viewed as any sort of priority given loss of staff and demands to do other things. The only time this will resolve itself is when hail and ride sections are removed and replaced with fixed stops. The lobby groups for mobility impaired passengers and London Travelwatch all want Hail and Ride abolished as quickly as possible. Why would people invest time and effort on a policy that the politicians' friends don't want? I agree it can be very inconsistent between routes but this is what happens when things are not official policy and people are basically doing the right thing as an "as and when" task when workloads allow. And don't forget that different departments rarely have the same priorities so even if the work was done by one team it may never be implemented if the final link in the process can't be bothered to do their part of the process.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Mar 1, 2019 19:52:46 GMT
Does anyone know why some routes e.g. H2 have full iBus for the hail & ride sections, but routes like the 326 have a massive gap in iBus between Totteridge Station and Finchley Central? I find it really annoying lol The reason is very simple. Someone in the relevant team took the time to explain it to me. To establish all the "pseudo" stops on Hail and Ride sections and to ensure they work well is immensely tedious and complex work. Even in more generously resourced days there was not enough time for the small team of people to do all the work and get all the approvals and co-operation from other departments so that I-Bus worked. I suspect that is no longer viewed as any sort of priority given loss of staff and demands to do other things. The only time this will resolve itself is when hail and ride sections are removed and replaced with fixed stops. The lobby groups for mobility impaired passengers and London Travelwatch all want Hail and Ride abolished as quickly as possible. Why would people invest time and effort on a policy that the politicians' friends don't want? I agree it can be very inconsistent between routes but this is what happens when things are not official policy and people are basically doing the right thing as an "as and when" task when workloads allow. And don't forget that different departments rarely have the same priorities so even if the work was done by one team it may never be implemented if the final link in the process can't be bothered to do their part of the process. Personally I think there is a conflict with hail and ride for the mobility impaired. While it is true that stopping next to curb isn't always so easy on hail and ride and being next to the kerb so there's next to no step will aid the less mobile, there's another side. Hail and ride will allow the bus stop in places that will be more convenient than fixed stops, and the less walking as a result may be even more important to the less mobile. Also don't get me started about what lost links and forcing passengers to change bus does for the less mobile.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 1, 2019 20:18:50 GMT
Personally I think there is a conflict with hail and ride for the mobility impaired. While it is true that stopping next to curb isn't always so easy on hail and ride and being next to the kerb so there's next to no step will aid the less mobile, there's another side. Hail and ride will allow the bus stop in places that will be more convenient than fixed stops, and the less walking as a result may be even more important to the less mobile. Also don't get me started about what lost links and forcing passengers to change bus does for the less mobile. Well those lobbying for Hail and Ride to be removed regularly cite the need for proper bus stops with raised and straight kerbs and pavements that are wide enough for ramp deployment / wheelchair to safely use the ramp. That's fair enough and I understand those points. However there are the contrary points that you raise about convenient stopping points with H&R that reduce walking distances for people. That convenience may be enough to tip some more marginal passengers into using the bus rather than a car. The hail and ride I know best is on the W11 and that works fine. The waiting / stopping positions are well established but I suspect half of them would disappear if the route is ever converted to fixed stops. It's not that they are dangerous per se just that some are close together and others are close to zebra crossing / junctions. Others would also mean the loss of car parking space for residents in order to create sufficient space. I've never seen a wheelchair passengers board or alight on that section but plenty of older people plus those with buggies or loads of shopping. I think it works fine but I suspect there'd be a complete sense of humour failure from the anti H&R lobbyists if they used the route.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Mar 3, 2019 16:35:37 GMT
To those who have been wondering why some recent batches have had registrations in reverse alphabetical order to fleet numbers (like I had been), I’ve just been given a very reliable answer as to why.
The DVLA have recently changed how they assign registrations to vehicles. Previously, the registrations of vehicles were assigned pretty much immediately after the Vehicle Identification Number (or VIN) was inputted Into the manufacturer’s system, so before the vehicle was even built. So the vehicles would have been inputted in fleet number order, and the registrations would have been assigned in that order.
This has now been changed. The registration is now assigned to the vehicle much later into the manufacturing process which now means vehicles aren’t always assigned in VIN order.
So for example the 54’s 11317-35 batch is a little wacky, so it would have probably been that 11322 was being built first so that was assigned the first reg of the batch, YW68OZL. That might not have been exactly the case but had it have been under the old system when the reg’s came immediately after the VINs were entered, 11317 would definitely have taken YW68OZL, 11335 would have taken YW68PCV, and then alphanumerically between the two end vehicles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 20:42:00 GMT
For the iBus on route 440, shouldn't the destination be "Chiswick, Power Road" instead of "Chiswick Power Road"? Is there an official stance on the use of destination name qualifiers with correct punctuation?
As someone who doesn't use the route often nor is familiar with the Chiswick area, I was confused as to whether the road was actually called "Chiswick Power" road, and whether it even was in Chiswick!
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Mar 6, 2019 20:50:13 GMT
For the iBus on route 440, shouldn't the destination be "Chiswick, Power Road" instead of "Chiswick Power Road"? Is there an official stance on the use of destination name qualifiers with correct punctuation? As someone who doesn't use the route often nor is familiar with the Chiswick area, I was confused as to whether the road was actually called "Chiswick Power" road, and whether it even was in Chiswick! Are you aware that Chiswick Power Station was established by London United Tramways for the express purpose of providing power for their trams? It was round about 1900. Doesn't address your point, but still...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 19:21:17 GMT
2 things about route numbering...
1) How long do TfL wait before reusing numbers (eg 305, 82...)
2) Why are there so many 3XX new numbers appearing lately (301, 311...)
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 18, 2019 19:27:35 GMT
2 things about route numbering... 1) How long do TfL wait before reusing numbers (eg 305, 82...) 2) Why are there so many 3XX new numbers appearing lately (301, 311...) In regards to the second point, it’s because most unused numbers are in the 300’s & 400’s. The 10’s & 200’s have 10, 82, 239 (I’ve purposefully ignored proposed Crossrail routes).
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Mar 18, 2019 19:38:18 GMT
2 things about route numbering... 1) How long do TfL wait before reusing numbers (eg 305, 82...) 2) Why are there so many 3XX new numbers appearing lately (301, 311...) I don’t think there’s a timeline on how quick TfL may reuse route numbers. A prime example I can think of is the 689. The former 689 was the 690s sisters route, with a small variation via Tulse Hill (the road), as opposed to Herne Hill. Shortly after the 689 was withdrawn, TfL have used that route number for a new school route in the Croydon area.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 18, 2019 19:54:21 GMT
2 things about route numbering... 1) How long do TfL wait before reusing numbers (eg 305, 82...) 2) Why are there so many 3XX new numbers appearing lately (301, 311...) I don't think there is any sort of time parameter for re-using route numbers. The main reason would be the extent of network change / volatility or, possibly, a policy issue like removing route suffixes (e.g. 2A, 77A etc). Until fairly recently the network has been remarkably stable since 2003 when we had a lot of route splitting and renumbering. Very little changed during Boris's tenure as Mayor because there wasn't the funding for large scale route expansion. Vjaska has answered your second question - the later number series have more gaps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 20:38:47 GMT
2 things about route numbering... 1) How long do TfL wait before reusing numbers (eg 305, 82...) 2) Why are there so many 3XX new numbers appearing lately (301, 311...) Not sure but the 87 was used quickly again, Route 278 has been recycled a few times too since the 90s.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Mar 18, 2019 20:39:33 GMT
2 things about route numbering... 1) How long do TfL wait before reusing numbers (eg 305, 82...) 2) Why are there so many 3XX new numbers appearing lately (301, 311...) Not sure about 1), but using the redundant number in a different location. Check Ian Armstrongs bus page, I'll give the 32,87, 163 as examples.
|
|