|
Post by LT 20181 on Jul 19, 2019 17:11:09 GMT
Here are the registrations for the 209's MMCs, according to LVF: SE293 - YW19VSG SE294 - YW19VSJ SE295 - YW19VSK SE296 - YW19VSL SE297 - YW19VSM SE298 - YW19VSN SE299 - YW19VSO SE300 - YW19VSP SE301 - YW19VST SE302 - YW19VSU SE303 - YW19VSV What spec? 10.5m, I believe
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jul 19, 2019 17:16:42 GMT
Here are the registrations for the 209's MMCs, according to LVF: SE293 - YW19VSG SE294 - YW19VSJ SE295 - YW19VSK SE296 - YW19VSL SE297 - YW19VSM SE298 - YW19VSN SE299 - YW19VSO SE300 - YW19VSP SE301 - YW19VST SE302 - YW19VSU SE303 - YW19VSV And probably the 378’s now too!
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 19, 2019 17:18:58 GMT
Here are the registrations for the 209's MMCs, according to LVF: SE293 - YW19VSG SE294 - YW19VSJ SE295 - YW19VSK SE296 - YW19VSL SE297 - YW19VSM SE298 - YW19VSN SE299 - YW19VSO SE300 - YW19VSP SE301 - YW19VST SE302 - YW19VSU SE303 - YW19VSV And probably the 378’s now too! I still don't think it's been officially confirmed that Go Ahead will run the 378 although I would expect it to be the most likely case
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jul 19, 2019 18:05:51 GMT
Ive never seen that before and I can't think where a bus could be turned round at Shortlands. Unless it was going to run empty to Bromley North turning left into London Road and right into Tweedy Road? It would only save a few minutes at the most though. A few minutes yes but it does seem pointless to me because most if not all people would be going towards Bromley at that point Shortlands to Bromley North - 6(?) minutes Stand time - 8(?) minutes Bromley North to Shortlands - 8(?) minutes 22 minutes seems like a big chunk to me. Those timings are estimates from me; I haven’t done a serious shift on the 227s in around 7 years! But a Shortlands turn would seem like a handy tool to have. Yes, most people want Bromley but can anyone name a curtailment that DOESN’T inconvenience passengers?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 19, 2019 18:13:17 GMT
A few minutes yes but it does seem pointless to me because most if not all people would be going towards Bromley at that point Shortlands to Bromley North - 6(?) minutes Stand time - 8(?) minutes Bromley North to Shortlands - 8(?) minutes 22 minutes seems like a big chunk to me. Those timings are estimates from me; I haven’t done a serious shift on the 227s in around 7 years! But a Shortlands turn would seem like a handy tool to have. Yes, most people want Bromley but can anyone name a curtailment that DOESN’T inconvenience passengers? Shepherd's Bush on any of the routes which go to White City
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 19, 2019 18:16:14 GMT
A few minutes yes but it does seem pointless to me because most if not all people would be going towards Bromley at that point Shortlands to Bromley North - 6(?) minutes Stand time - 8(?) minutes Bromley North to Shortlands - 8(?) minutes 22 minutes seems like a big chunk to me. Those timings are estimates from me; I haven’t done a serious shift on the 227s in around 7 years! But a Shortlands turn would seem like a handy tool to have. Yes, most people want Bromley but can anyone name a curtailment that DOESN’T inconvenience passengers? Richmond Station on the 371/490/493/H22/H37/R70
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jul 19, 2019 18:17:31 GMT
😝 to both of you! Knew I’d regret saying that!
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 19, 2019 18:49:54 GMT
Very pleased that AF will still be running the 337. I think they run it well and it's good the route will still see a mixture of different types which I don't think would have happened had it gone back to SW
EDIT. Just seen wikia and it says the route is moving to SW
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 19, 2019 19:09:27 GMT
Very pleased that AF will still be running the 337. I think they run it well and it's good the route will still see a mixture of different types which I don't think would have happened had it gone back to SW EDIT. Just seen wikia and it says the route is moving to SW The 485 only has a PVR of 4, so won't release enough space for the 209/378, which will presumably have a PVR of 6 each (given that the 209's current PVR is 12). The 337 has a PVR of 11, so moving out the 337 and 485 together creates sufficient space at AF for the 209/378. Still, hopefully we get beastly EHs on the 337 if it is going back to SW and there's always the chance of WHVs, saying GAL are known for strict allocations wouldn't be truthful
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 19, 2019 19:14:36 GMT
Very pleased that AF will still be running the 337. I think they run it well and it's good the route will still see a mixture of different types which I don't think would have happened had it gone back to SW EDIT. Just seen wikia and it says the route is moving to SW The 485 only has a PVR of 4, so won't release enough space for the 209/378, which will presumably have a PVR of 6 each (given that the 209's current PVR is 12). The 337 has a PVR of 11, so moving out the 337 and 485 together creates sufficient space at AF for the 209/378. Still, hopefully we get beastly EHs on the 337 if it is going back to SW and there's always the chance of WHVs, saying GAL are known for strict allocations wouldn't be truthful If the 378 is to be split from the 209's new contract, the PVRs are unlikely to be evenly split - both routes will be a similar length but with the 209 at a higher frequency than the 378. AF is not currently at full capacity, with routes 14/74 receiving PVR cuts a while ago. Therefore the 485 moving out should now create enough space. If there's still not quite enough, the 639/670 could go to SW. AF previously operated the 14 & 74 at higher PVRs than present, alongside the 22, 337, 424, 430 and 639/670. The 485 moved to AF (from AL) after the 14/74's PVRs were cut, but did not fill the space made available.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 19, 2019 19:33:31 GMT
The 485 only has a PVR of 4, so won't release enough space for the 209/378, which will presumably have a PVR of 6 each (given that the 209's current PVR is 12). The 337 has a PVR of 11, so moving out the 337 and 485 together creates sufficient space at AF for the 209/378. Still, hopefully we get beastly EHs on the 337 if it is going back to SW and there's always the chance of WHVs, saying GAL are known for strict allocations wouldn't be truthful If the 378 is to be split from the 209's new contract, the PVRs are unlikely to be evenly split - both routes will be a similar length but with the 209 at a higher frequency than the 378. AF is not currently at full capacity, with routes 14/74 receiving PVR cuts a while ago. Therefore the 485 moving out should now create enough space. If there's still not quite enough, the 639/670 could go to SW. AF previously operated the 14 & 74 at higher PVRs than present, alongside the 22, 337, 424, 430 and 639/670. The 485 moved to AF (from AL) after the 14/74's PVRs were cut, but did not fill the space made available. There was no sign about the 337 moving to SW when I was there just the G1
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Jul 19, 2019 19:52:41 GMT
The 485 only has a PVR of 4, so won't release enough space for the 209/378, which will presumably have a PVR of 6 each (given that the 209's current PVR is 12). The 337 has a PVR of 11, so moving out the 337 and 485 together creates sufficient space at AF for the 209/378. Still, hopefully we get beastly EHs on the 337 if it is going back to SW and there's always the chance of WHVs, saying GAL are known for strict allocations wouldn't be truthful If the 378 is to be split from the 209's new contract, the PVRs are unlikely to be evenly split - both routes will be a similar length but with the 209 at a higher frequency than the 378. AF is not currently at full capacity, with routes 14/74 receiving PVR cuts a while ago. Therefore the 485 moving out should now create enough space. If there's still not quite enough, the 639/670 could go to SW. AF previously operated the 14 & 74 at higher PVRs than present, alongside the 22, 337, 424, 430 and 639/670. The 485 moved to AF (from AL) after the 14/74's PVRs were cut, but did not fill the space made available. even if the 639/670 moved back to SW then there would only gain 3 spaces as as the 639 has a pvr of 1 and the 670 has a pvr of 2. Could they not move the 424 pvr of 5 and 485 pvr of 4 both to PL with the G1 going to SW.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 19, 2019 20:26:21 GMT
A few minutes yes but it does seem pointless to me because most if not all people would be going towards Bromley at that point Shortlands to Bromley North - 6(?) minutes Stand time - 8(?) minutes Bromley North to Shortlands - 8(?) minutes 22 minutes seems like a big chunk to me. Those timings are estimates from me; I haven’t done a serious shift on the 227s in around 7 years! But a Shortlands turn would seem like a handy tool to have. Yes, most people want Bromley but can anyone name a curtailment that DOESN’T inconvenience passengers? Just to clarify the reference to just a few minutes being saved was me assuming, wrongly it seems, that the bus terminating at Shortlands would have then run empty to Bromley North. I think this curtailment point should be used only in extreme cases only, if the last stop is Ashmere Avenue that's a few stops from Shortlands anyway. I think curtailments should be made in the opposite direction at Beckenham or Penge as far as possible.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 19, 2019 22:07:41 GMT
Very pleased that AF will still be running the 337. I think they run it well and it's good the route will still see a mixture of different types which I don't think would have happened had it gone back to SW EDIT. Just seen wikia and it says the route is moving to SW I'd take that with a pinch of salt personally - although LOTS can get things wrong, they are still a fairly trustworthy source and if it just says the G1 is moving to SW, then that is likely what is happening especially as you said thats what you saw whilst visiting SW
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 19, 2019 22:15:38 GMT
Very pleased that AF will still be running the 337. I think they run it well and it's good the route will still see a mixture of different types which I don't think would have happened had it gone back to SW EDIT. Just seen wikia and it says the route is moving to SW The 485 only has a PVR of 4, so won't release enough space for the 209/378, which will presumably have a PVR of 6 each (given that the 209's current PVR is 12). The 337 has a PVR of 11, so moving out the 337 and 485 together creates sufficient space at AF for the 209/378. Still, hopefully we get beastly EHs on the 337 if it is going back to SW and there's always the chance of WHVs, saying GAL are known for strict allocations wouldn't be truthful This assumes that AF has zero spare space. That might not be the case - they may well have nearly enough space for the 209/378 so only need to ship 4 buses out.
|
|