|
Post by rugbyref on Nov 19, 2019 10:51:14 GMT
and what about the school children? Hence the emoji!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 19, 2019 11:22:27 GMT
Sorry, someone works in the public services industry and no part of their job description involve customer satisfaction .... would live to see the controllers job description if that is the case, and maybe forward it to TfL. He's right though, harsh as it might sound passenger needs aren't the controllers problem, mileage, driving hours and getting drivers to the changeover point on time are their priorities. Inevitably not all buses on the 486 are going to get to North Greenwich, maybe the route would be better worked from MG but that's down to TfL, they awarded the contract based on it running from BX. Its been running from BX for years so I hardly think that's the issue here.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 19, 2019 12:49:16 GMT
I actually really like the B9TL. They are really smooth, comfy, has large windows and the ones on the X26 don’t seem that boring and can actually be fairly quick. The Metroline ones seem to be different though. Agree, in the beginning, I found them boring and slow until a journey on the 89 completely changed my mind when the driver drove it in high revs and treated Shooters Hill like it was a flat road. I've also had this experience on other routes such as the 432 with WVL's shooting up Anerley Hill. But that is going up a hill, so then it comes into play, on flat roads, it just makes you want to cry.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 19, 2019 12:51:08 GMT
and what about the school children? let them walk around 1000 metres to the bus stop.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 19, 2019 12:52:10 GMT
Wanting to get on a 486 at the Charlton Retail Park a short while ago. Somebody next to me in the queue had been waiting for 25 minutes. LVF suggested a bus was due in 5 minutes. This became 10 with another bus a minute behind. The driver told me there were 2 more buses at North Greenwich. The first bus arrived fully loaded with people from North Greenwich, the leisure park/Ikea stops and school kids from the new 1600 pupil school on the peninsular. Not sure if a bus had been turned at Charlton Station or one had been cut. The route needs a review and the controllers to understand the changes in the area.. Controllers are only doing their job. Not their job to think of the passengers, their job to meet performance targets so buses need to be turned to fill gaps in the service. But it is, back in the day it was to deliver the most efficient service for the passengers.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 19, 2019 12:55:53 GMT
Drive one in high revs and you'll see the power and speed come through. Unfortunately the Go Ahead ones are restricted so won't go above 1500 RPM and they are restricted to pull away more slowly as well. Drove one with a dodgy gearbox the other day (think it was only using 2nd, 3rd and 4th, was pulling away in 2nd) and once you get it up to high revs it flies. No wonder they are a heap of poo, 1500rpm, its as pathetic as the Euro 5/6 ZF gearbox E400. I find the Go-Ahead ones bad because soon as the handbrake is let off, it jolts and changes into second around 3mph, seems so much gearchanges before the bus has even hit 20. It may be good for emissions but crap for fuel economy with so many changes of gear so close.
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Nov 19, 2019 13:15:23 GMT
Unfortunately the Go Ahead ones are restricted so won't go above 1500 RPM and they are restricted to pull away more slowly as well. Drove one with a dodgy gearbox the other day (think it was only using 2nd, 3rd and 4th, was pulling away in 2nd) and once you get it up to high revs it flies. No wonder they are a heap of sh*t, 1500rpm, its as pathetic as the Euro 5/6 ZF gearbox E400. I find the Go-Ahead ones bad because soon as the handbrake is let off, it jolts and changes into second around 3mph, seems so much gearchanges before the bus has even hit 20. It may be good for emissions but crap for fuel economy with so many changes of gear so close. B9TL’s drive better than any ADL crap that’s for sure, having now driven over 5 different batches both on Voith and ZF, nothing else new comes close, yes they may shift up super early but they fly up any hill, they hold the road very well at speed and every now and then you get one that actually brakes smoothly haha, if you were to drive the Voith ones back to back with a ZF you’ll notice how powerful the ZF retarder is
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 19, 2019 13:17:53 GMT
Unfortunately the Go Ahead ones are restricted so won't go above 1500 RPM and they are restricted to pull away more slowly as well. Drove one with a dodgy gearbox the other day (think it was only using 2nd, 3rd and 4th, was pulling away in 2nd) and once you get it up to high revs it flies. No wonder they are a heap of sh*t, 1500rpm, its as pathetic as the Euro 5/6 ZF gearbox E400. I find the Go-Ahead ones bad because soon as the handbrake is let off, it jolts and changes into second around 3mph, seems so much gearchanges before the bus has even hit 20. It may be good for emissions but crap for fuel economy with so many changes of gear so close. I would have thought fuel economy would be improved with low-speed gear changes. It's when it's in low gears for a longer period that's where emissions and fuel consumption is increased. As you say the B9TL handles that well with its rich low revv torque.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Nov 19, 2019 14:14:20 GMT
Wanting to get on a 486 at the Charlton Retail Park a short while ago. Somebody next to me in the queue had been waiting for 25 minutes. LVF suggested a bus was due in 5 minutes. This became 10 with another bus a minute behind. The driver told me there were 2 more buses at North Greenwich. The first bus arrived fully loaded with people from North Greenwich, the leisure park/Ikea stops and school kids from the new 1600 pupil school on the peninsular. Not sure if a bus had been turned at Charlton Station or one had been cut. The route needs a review and the controllers to understand the changes in the area.. You offer your final comment as a definitive statement, yet you have made no comment as to why that particular route was so disrupted at that time. The controllers also have to take that into account when attempting to regulate the service and there is never a one-size-fits-all solution. Sometimes controllers are faced with an impossible situation, especially on days when Murphy's Law* comes into effect and a string of multiple incidents defeat all attempts to keep at least some semblance of a service going. They cannot do right for doing wrong. * Murphy's Law - If anything can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible time. This was just an example of what happens most afternoons. The route does need to be reviewed following the recent cutbacks. North Greenwich being in Zone 2 attracts a lot of people from Zones 4/5. Adding Ikea and a very large school has compounded the issues.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 19, 2019 14:47:29 GMT
No wonder they are a heap of sh*t, 1500rpm, its as pathetic as the Euro 5/6 ZF gearbox E400. I find the Go-Ahead ones bad because soon as the handbrake is let off, it jolts and changes into second around 3mph, seems so much gearchanges before the bus has even hit 20. It may be good for emissions but crap for fuel economy with so many changes of gear so close. B9TL’s drive better than any ADL crap that’s for sure, having now driven over 5 different batches both on Voith and ZF, nothing else new comes close, yes they may shift up super early but they fly up any hill, they hold the road very well at speed and every now and then you get one that actually brakes smoothly haha, if you were to drive the Voith ones back to back with a ZF you’ll notice how powerful the ZF retarder is As much I prefer ADL buses, your spot on in regards to how B9TL's perform and the ZF ones eat hills for breakfast. For a comparison, I've rode countless buses over the years up the steep Central Hill in Upper Norwood and from the bottom to the first stop, most of the Voith buses would hit 2nd literally before the stop (the Voith L's would still be in 1st & the Voith VLA's would be midway through 2nd) whilst the ZF VLA's would be midway through 2nd but all the B9TL's I've been on up the hill are easily quicker than anything gone before and are somewhere between 4th & 5th still gaining speed whereas most other types are merely cruising.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Nov 19, 2019 18:13:48 GMT
I was under the impression that passenger excess waiting time was one of the performance targets that affected contract extensions.
It seems that companies receive a route specification to run buses between 2 points at specified frequencies.
My most often used route is Go Ahead's 386 usually between Woolwich and Herbert Road. There are supposed to be buses every 15 minutes during the day. Traffic conditions can be awful particularly across Blackheath.
London Buses and Go Ahead want to remove the first 4 stops after the existing stand. This hasn't gone to consultation yet but London Buses removed the 386 e tiles from the stops last December and refused to put them back until the Council intervened.
It now seems that an operator doesn't need to meet the specified frequency and can turn buses short of their destination with impunity.
This evening I was having something to eat in a cafe in Hare Street. I was able to observe 386s. Buses ran along the road at 1550, 1638 and 1704.
Does this not result in excess waiting time?
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Nov 19, 2019 18:35:45 GMT
I was under the impression that passenger excess waiting time was one of the performance targets that affected contract extensions. It seems that companies receive a route specification to run buses between 2 points at specified frequencies. My most often used route is Go Ahead's 386 usually between Woolwich and Herbert Road. There are supposed to be buses every 15 minutes during the day. Traffic conditions can be awful particularly across Blackheath. London Buses and Go Ahead want to remove the first 4 stops after the existing stand. This hasn't gone to consultation yet but London Buses removed the 386 e tiles from the stops last December and refused to put them back until the Council intervened. It now seems that an operator doesn't need to meet the specified frequency and can turn buses short of their destination with impunity. This evening I was having something to eat in a cafe in Hare Street. I was able to observe 386s. Buses ran along the road at 1550, 1638 and 1704. Does this not result in excess waiting time? The tender specification not only gives the excess waiting time (ewt) but also the measuring points on the route. Unless there has been some other agreement between the operator and TfL, then I suspect it depends whether the curtailment involves the measuring points or not. Of course any curtailment would mean reduced mileage and this too is measured and part of the performance regime.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 19, 2019 19:04:04 GMT
I was under the impression that passenger excess waiting time was one of the performance targets that affected contract extensions. It seems that companies receive a route specification to run buses between 2 points at specified frequencies. My most often used route is Go Ahead's 386 usually between Woolwich and Herbert Road. There are supposed to be buses every 15 minutes during the day. Traffic conditions can be awful particularly across Blackheath. London Buses and Go Ahead want to remove the first 4 stops after the existing stand. This hasn't gone to consultation yet but London Buses removed the 386 e tiles from the stops last December and refused to put them back until the Council intervened. It now seems that an operator doesn't need to meet the specified frequency and can turn buses short of their destination with impunity. This evening I was having something to eat in a cafe in Hare Street. I was able to observe 386s. Buses ran along the road at 1550, 1638 and 1704. Does this not result in excess waiting time? How do you know Go-Ahead want to remove stops given it's outside their remit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 19:21:32 GMT
I was under the impression that passenger excess waiting time was one of the performance targets that affected contract extensions. It seems that companies receive a route specification to run buses between 2 points at specified frequencies. My most often used route is Go Ahead's 386 usually between Woolwich and Herbert Road. There are supposed to be buses every 15 minutes during the day. Traffic conditions can be awful particularly across Blackheath. London Buses and Go Ahead want to remove the first 4 stops after the existing stand. This hasn't gone to consultation yet but London Buses removed the 386 e tiles from the stops last December and refused to put them back until the Council intervened. It now seems that an operator doesn't need to meet the specified frequency and can turn buses short of their destination with impunity. This evening I was having something to eat in a cafe in Hare Street. I was able to observe 386s. Buses ran along the road at 1550, 1638 and 1704. Does this not result in excess waiting time? EWT does not apply to low frequency routes. EWT will be measured at many points along high frequency routes, so better to create a gap on the end of the route at a couple of QSI Points than to create a gap going all the way through the route by not turning it.
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Nov 19, 2019 19:35:58 GMT
The e tiles were removed in error, nothing to do with the council them going back. quote author=" cl54" source="/post/538003/thread" timestamp="1574187228"]I was under the impression that passenger excess waiting time was one of the performance targets that affected contract extensions. It seems that companies receive a route specification to run buses between 2 points at specified frequencies. My most often used route is Go Ahead's 386 usually between Woolwich and Herbert Road. There are supposed to be buses every 15 minutes during the day. Traffic conditions can be awful particularly across Blackheath. London Buses and Go Ahead want to remove the first 4 stops after the existing stand. This hasn't gone to consultation yet but London Buses removed the 386 e tiles from the stops last December and refused to put them back until the Council intervened. It now seems that an operator doesn't need to meet the specified frequency and can turn buses short of their destination with impunity. This evening I was having something to eat in a cafe in Hare Street. I was able to observe 386s. Buses ran along the road at 1550, 1638 and 1704. Does this not result in excess waiting time?[/quote]
|
|