|
Post by greenboy on Jan 24, 2020 18:46:25 GMT
The figures show that it has had steady patronage pretty much throughout its existence and even recovered from dipping below 5m to jump back above it and then stay there - not many routes can say the same thing - in comparison, the 14 has declined from a high of over 9m to between 6m-7m. I’ve no opinion on the 414 at all as I’ve rode it twice (once under First & once under Abellio) but to me, any route carrying on average 5m every year with extremely little decline over that time IMO shouldn’t be touted for withdrawal. Adjusting the frequency if required, as you mentioned, sounds more logical.. The biggest problem with the southern end of the 414 is Putney Bridge. The stand effectively blocks access to and from the station for all the other buses. Buses cannot pass each other on the approach road. It's even worse when too many 414's are at the terminus as they overspill round the corner taking out one of the lanes of the main road. I once saw five of them in a row with two on the main road. You can be on a bus coming from Hammersmith / Fulham, speed along on the bus lane on Fulham High Street and then get stuck because all traffic needs to get round parked up buses. If the 414 is to survive it should terminate somewhere else. Putney Common? The 414 stand is a bit of a nightmare, I think the previously suggested 414/430 merger would be the best solution.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 24, 2020 19:33:43 GMT
The biggest problem with the southern end of the 414 is Putney Bridge. The stand effectively blocks access to and from the station for all the other buses. Buses cannot pass each other on the approach road. It's even worse when too many 414's are at the terminus as they overspill round the corner taking out one of the lanes of the main road. I once saw five of them in a row with two on the main road. You can be on a bus coming from Hammersmith / Fulham, speed along on the bus lane on Fulham High Street and then get stuck because all traffic needs to get round parked up buses. If the 414 is to survive it should terminate somewhere else. Putney Common? Putney Bridge has long been issue for all buses terminating there - the trouble is, there is either no space elsewhere or you end up overbussing a corridor with an extension. This is all guesswork so feel free to correct but whilst Putney Common has enough room for the 22, I'd say not enough for another high frequency route alongside the 22 - if the 22 ever got the extension that Barnes residents have long asked for, then it becomes available but that section between Putney High Street & Putney Common would then be greatly overbussed given it currently has the 22, 265, 378 & 485 and arguably, one of the 378 or 485 is probably all ready overbussing this section. Putney Heath isn't ideal regardless of space as it then shadows the 14 even more and running it along Putney nor is running along Putney Bridge Road into Wandsworth again due to the 414's high frequency. Spot on about Putney common. If the 22 was ever to be extended to Barnes then I don't see the 378 carrying on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 20:01:31 GMT
Why have they stopped ordering Gemini 3’s, and switched to evos mainly? Metroline stopped ordering G3s because they weren’t happy with the quality of them and they kept being delivered late, so in the end they terminated the contract with Wright to produce buses for them and plumped for MCV instead. The contract was never terminated and this was never confirmed. There was a deal that ran from 2015 till 2017 and the terms were that all new Hybrid Double Deckers that Metroline purchase from new, would be through Volvo. This is why no more TEHs were ordered. Once the deal ended, a new deal was signed with Volvo for three years and MCV is the preferred body at this moment in time.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jan 24, 2020 20:26:27 GMT
Metroline stopped ordering G3s because they weren’t happy with the quality of them and they kept being delivered late, so in the end they terminated the contract with Wright to produce buses for them and plumped for MCV instead. The contract was never terminated and this was never confirmed. There was a deal that ran from 2015 till 2017 and the terms were that all new Hybrid Double Deckers that Metroline purchase from new, would be through Volvo. This is why no more TEHs were ordered. Once the deal ended, a new deal was signed with Volvo for three years and MCV is the preferred body at this moment in time. Thanks for the info on that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 20:59:04 GMT
The contract was never terminated and this was never confirmed. There was a deal that ran from 2015 till 2017 and the terms were that all new Hybrid Double Deckers that Metroline purchase from new, would be through Volvo. This is why no more TEHs were ordered. Once the deal ended, a new deal was signed with Volvo for three years and MCV is the preferred body at this moment in time. Thanks for the info on that No worries dude.
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Jan 25, 2020 18:40:08 GMT
Do we know what extra buses will be brought in for the 170's frequency increase?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jan 25, 2020 20:13:23 GMT
Putney Bridge has long been issue for all buses terminating there - the trouble is, there is either no space elsewhere or you end up overbussing a corridor with an extension. This is all guesswork so feel free to correct but whilst Putney Common has enough room for the 22, I'd say not enough for another high frequency route alongside the 22 - if the 22 ever got the extension that Barnes residents have long asked for, then it becomes available but that section between Putney High Street & Putney Common would then be greatly overbussed given it currently has the 22, 265, 378 & 485 and arguably, one of the 378 or 485 is probably all ready overbussing this section. Putney Heath isn't ideal regardless of space as it then shadows the 14 even more and running it along Putney nor is running along Putney Bridge Road into Wandsworth again due to the 414's high frequency. Spot on about Putney common. If the 22 was ever to be extended to Barnes then I don't see the 378 carrying on. I think that's a fair point. The best way for TfL to appease the people of Barnes with their desire for the 22 is to have some sort of merger between the 378 and either the 414 or 430, or even some way to fudge the three together. I'm no expert on buses in that area, but I think that some sort of merger would reduce bus flow across Putney Bridge and create new links from Barnes to Central London needed now more than ever given that Barnes have lost their direct buses to Hammersmith.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 25, 2020 20:27:16 GMT
Spot on about Putney common. If the 22 was ever to be extended to Barnes then I don't see the 378 carrying on. I think that's a fair point. The best way for TfL to appease the people of Barnes with their desire for the 22 is to have some sort of merger between the 378 and either the 414 or 430, or even some way to fudge the three together. I'm no expert on buses in that area, but I think that some sort of merger would reduce bus flow across Putney Bridge and create new links from Barnes to Central London needed now more than ever given that Barnes have lost their direct buses to Hammersmith. I like your ideas. Would be nice for Barnes to have a day Central London route.
|
|
misty
Conductor
9518 in Battersea with shattered windcsreen and damaged nearside front wing. Showing 344 on the back
Posts: 103
|
Post by misty on Jan 25, 2020 22:22:48 GMT
I think that's a fair point. The best way for TfL to appease the people of Barnes with their desire for the 22 is to have some sort of merger between the 378 and either the 414 or 430, or even some way to fudge the three together. I'm no expert on buses in that area, but I think that some sort of merger would reduce bus flow across Putney Bridge and create new links from Barnes to Central London needed now more than ever given that Barnes have lost their direct buses to Hammersmith. I like your ideas. Would be nice for Barnes to have a day Central London route.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 26, 2020 8:27:04 GMT
Something I have only recently spotted is that my final London bus in 2018 was a modern EH on route 36, and my first London bus in 2019 an E (on route 178) displaced from route 36 by EHs!
|
|
|
Post by selondon on Jan 26, 2020 10:36:09 GMT
For anyone wondering where 170 and MEC51 are, they are still both parked up in the metropolitan police vehicle pound in Charlton. MEC51 looks easily repairable but 170 is in a bad way and not sure given the circumstances go ahead would put it back on the road.
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Jan 27, 2020 19:54:12 GMT
For anyone wondering where 170 and MEC51 are, they are still both parked up in the metropolitan police vehicle pound in Charlton. MEC51 looks easily repairable but 170 is in a bad way and not sure given the circumstances go ahead would put it back on the road. MEC51 is still a fairly new bus and a good bus as well so I can see GAL keeping it.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 27, 2020 19:58:46 GMT
For anyone wondering where 170 and MEC51 are, they are still both parked up in the metropolitan police vehicle pound in Charlton. MEC51 looks easily repairable but 170 is in a bad way and not sure given the circumstances go ahead would put it back on the road. MEC51 is still a fairly new bus and a good bus as well so I can see GAL keeping it. I think it depends on what the future use will be for the rest of the 65reg MEC batch, with the 358 due to receieve new electrics. The 108 has been suggested to receive them, replacing the older 09reg MECs, but the 65reg batch is 2 vehicles short for the 108's allocation. Perhaps Go Ahead might decide to use these MECs outside of London somewhere, in which case it would be worth repairing and keeping MEC51.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jan 27, 2020 19:59:48 GMT
For anyone wondering where 170 and MEC51 are, they are still both parked up in the metropolitan police vehicle pound in Charlton. MEC51 looks easily repairable but 170 is in a bad way and not sure given the circumstances go ahead would put it back on the road. MEC51 is still a fairly new bus and a good bus as well so I can see GAL keeping it. They may keep it but I can't see them going so because of the sad memories it holds
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Jan 27, 2020 20:00:52 GMT
MEC51 is still a fairly new bus and a good bus as well so I can see GAL keeping it. I think it depends on what the future use will be for the rest of the 65reg MEC batch, with the 358 due to receieve new electrics. The 108 has been suggested to receive them, replacing the older 09reg MECs, but the 65reg batch is 2 vehicles short for the 108's allocation. Perhaps Go Ahead might decide to use these MECs outside of London somewhere, in which case it would be worth repairing and keeping MEC51. I don't know much about Go Ahead London. The companies I know about are Tower Transit (small bits), RATP Group London, Abellio and Metroline
|
|