|
Post by cl54 on Nov 19, 2019 21:11:38 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? With due respect when I complained to TfL about the tiles being removed I received a reply that the cost of replacement could not be justified. I passed this to my local councillor and he asked his transport team to intervene. The tiles were then replaced. The 161 tiles are still missing.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Nov 19, 2019 21:15:15 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. Buses at 1550, 1638 and 1704 is considerably more than a gap. I would say it's a disgrace. 2 mothers with pushchairs left behind on the 1704 bus. Go Ahead's schedule fails time after time.
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Nov 20, 2019 14:32:42 GMT
I’ve noticed that the 405 buses seem to just be displaying ‘South Croydon, South End’ on their blinds since the change - have they not been reprogrammed?
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Nov 20, 2019 14:38:45 GMT
I’ve noticed that the 405 buses seem to just be displaying ‘South Croydon, South End’ on their blinds since the change - have they not been reprogrammed? It's been like that since the route was changed, pretty sorry state of affairs quite honestly. Presumably they don't have a Croydon Katherine Street or at least a Town Centre blind? I don't know why they can't use the West Croydon blind with West taped over?
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 20, 2019 16:14:54 GMT
I’ve noticed that the 405 buses seem to just be displaying ‘South Croydon, South End’ on their blinds since the change - have they not been reprogrammed? It's been like that since the route was changed, pretty sorry state of affairs quite honestly. Presumably they don't have a Croydon Katherine Street or at least a Town Centre blind? I don't know why they can't use the West Croydon blind with West taped over? They will still need the West for the 403
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Nov 20, 2019 19:22:14 GMT
Well with all due respect that indeed was the position if the change was going ahead soon at the time, then costs to change would not be worthwhile. Then as the change is on hold they were changed. Again nothing to do with the council, it was already in hand I believe. quote author=" cl54" source="/post/538030/thread" timestamp="1574197898"] 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? With due respect when I complained to TfL about the tiles being removed I received a reply that the cost of replacement could not be justified. I passed this to my local councillor and he asked his transport team to intervene. The tiles were then replaced. The 161 tiles are still missing.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Nov 21, 2019 2:39:09 GMT
Well with all due respect that indeed was the position if the change was going ahead soon at the time, then costs to change would not be worthwhile. Then as the change is on hold they were changed. Again nothing to do with the council, it was already in hand I believe. quote author=" cl54 " source="/post/538030/thread" timestamp="1574197898"] 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? With due respect when I complained to TfL about the tiles being removed I received a reply that the cost of replacement could not be justified. I passed this to my local councillor and he asked his transport team to intervene. The tiles were then replaced. The 161 tiles are still missing. If that is the case why is the 161 tile still missing from Woolwich New Road? (I didn't raise the 161 with the Council)
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Nov 21, 2019 16:02:42 GMT
Because it's been forgotten about, although Stagecoach raised it, let me know which stop or stops and will follow up again if I remember Well with all due respect that indeed was the position if the change was going ahead soon at the time, then costs to change would not be worthwhile. Then as the change is on hold they were changed. Again nothing to do with the council, it was already in hand I believe. quote author=" cl54 " source="/post/538030/thread" timestamp="1574197898"]With due respect when I complained to TfL about the tiles being removed I received a reply that the cost of replacement could not be justified. I passed this to my local councillor and he asked his transport team to intervene. The tiles were then replaced. The 161 tiles are still missing. If that is the case why is the 161 tile still missing from Woolwich New Road? (I didn't raise the 161 with the Council)
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 21, 2019 17:26:56 GMT
It's been like that since the route was changed, pretty sorry state of affairs quite honestly. Presumably they don't have a Croydon Katherine Street or at least a Town Centre blind? I don't know why they can't use the West Croydon blind with West taped over? They will still need the West for the 403 Or potentially the X26
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Nov 21, 2019 17:38:51 GMT
They will still need the West for the 403 Or potentially the X26 The 403 and X26 could display just 'Croydon'. Obviously not ideal but better than the current situation with the 405 having to display South Croydon.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 21, 2019 17:52:26 GMT
The 403 and X26 could display just 'Croydon'. Obviously not ideal but better than the current situation with the 405 having to display South Croydon. Surely butchering the South Croydon blind makes more sense ... and there is only I stop after South End, unless it drops off at Katherine St which I am not 100% on ... So not really that bad. Can't see the blinds getting updated now the route has been lost. Assume when a WHV operates the route it is correct as they have Croydon Town Centre for the 197.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Nov 21, 2019 18:00:36 GMT
The 403 and X26 could display just 'Croydon'. Obviously not ideal but better than the current situation with the 405 having to display South Croydon. Surely butchering the South Croydon blind makes more sense ... and there is only I stop after South End, unless it drops off at Katherine St which I am not 100% on ... So not really that bad. Can't see the blinds getting updated now the route has been lost. Yes Katherine Street is the last stop, or at least it should be. All a bit of a mess really and it is the same with the 433 displaying East Croydon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2019 21:02:13 GMT
Had to pop to Stratford this afternoon, until today I never really realised just how disruptive West Ham games are to the local buses! I had to give up on the 241 towards Stratford and walk from Paul Street to the shopping centre. On the way home the 69 was a mess and my bus was cut short to Plaistow Station. Just out of interest were do the 69 / other buses turn when curtailed at the station? many years ago Bull Road was used towards Stratford.
I do wonder if we will ever get to a situation were as bus services will have to be curtailed / diverted much like when West Ham were at Upton Park.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 24, 2019 2:04:36 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 The B9TL's may be a better bus overall, but I would rather drive a bus that is faster than a limped out bus that can only move properly when going up hills. Its just as bada as the Arriva Econospeed system, which did the same thing. I find the ZF retarder never as powerful unless you pushed to feel physical pressure from the brake pedal. Which had tired your knees out more. The Voith you hardly had need to press the pedal and the retarder would be whining out.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 24, 2019 2:06:04 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. 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. Gearbox with too much gear changes also go against the grain. I remember some 5 speed ZF's were giving worst fuel economy than 3 speed Voiths and that was even without kickdown!
|
|