|
Post by snowman on Aug 18, 2019 5:42:13 GMT
Not sure the 203 is actually covering for MCLs on the H37 anymore seeing as the H37 hasn't seen a single MCL in over a month, it's been using DLE (E200s) and DLE (E200 MMCs.) Usually it sees its DXEs plus 1 SN60 and 1 YX17 reg per day. Also the ones that were used on the H37 over a month ago appear to be missing which leads me to wonder if the 203 could receive a DD conversion which would oust the non standard type. Keeping some of the E3's SPs would've been a good idea as it would've allowed RATP to oust the older 56-reg examples, and the E3's batch could've been used on the 203 now. Either way, I think a DD conversion is on the cards for either the 203 or 293 I don’t see a conversion, not if the double deck 306 starts, from a split of 391 into 306 and 391, because that releases loads of nearly new DLEs. So could DLEs take over some DXE workings, Think this is more likely to happen. But I wouldn’t rule out more DXEs being obtained either, especially if the 419 extension is deemed long term justifying new buses (with the new buses being DXEs and route swapped from 419). Another possibility (but a bit obscure) is the 326 is retained with new buses, but a mix of lengths are ordered to regularise where DLEs are working with DXEs and DMEs, especially if 326 cannot take anything longer than 10.5m (not too sure about it’s max length). Having thought about it overnight, I’ve not seen anything to say 419 merger with 110 is not going ahead, if TfL were originally happy to run it to Hammersmith, probably ok about diverting the end to Roehampton instead (and much easier now to use 10.9m buses). The notice may say 419, but it has to for now, unless the Richmond area changes were being announced at same time. Doesn’t mean change is not going ahead later this year.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 18, 2019 9:42:21 GMT
I’ve just realised if there is a plan to merge the 419/110 further down the line and cut the H37 ... One way to get extra DXEs for the H37 would be to stick some deckers on the 293 as it can take them, then plonk from DXEs from there onto the H37 in the interim, bit like what the 203’s doing. Not sure the 203 is actually covering for MCLs on the H37 anymore seeing as the H37 hasn't seen a single MCL in over a month, it's been using DLE (E200s) and DLE (E200 MMCs.) Usually it sees its DXEs plus 1 SN60 and 1 YX17 reg per day. Also the ones that were used on the H37 over a month ago appear to be missing which leads me to wonder if the 203 could receive a DD conversion which would oust the non standard type. Some seem strange to have a low frequency route using 12m SDs, when there is no restriction preventing the 203 from using DDs. I thought full-length SDs were mostly for high-frequency routes that can not take DDs, such as the 108, 227 or H37.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 18, 2019 10:16:50 GMT
Not sure the 203 is actually covering for MCLs on the H37 anymore seeing as the H37 hasn't seen a single MCL in over a month, it's been using DLE (E200s) and DLE (E200 MMCs.) Usually it sees its DXEs plus 1 SN60 and 1 YX17 reg per day. Also the ones that were used on the H37 over a month ago appear to be missing which leads me to wonder if the 203 could receive a DD conversion which would oust the non standard type. Some seem strange to have a low frequency route using 12m SDs, when there is no restriction preventing the 203 from using DDs. I thought full-length SDs were mostly for high-frequency routes that can not take DDs, such as the 108, 227 or H37. Well both the 203 and 293 have this. I agree the 203 should be a double decker, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the route when it’s not packed up to the door. But the 293 I guess isn’t busy enough to warrant double deckers all the time, but is still relatively busy so longer SDs are deemed appropriate. It seems silly to deck an entire route just because one single school journey needs them, hence it’s allocation of just one decker.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Aug 18, 2019 11:04:02 GMT
Not sure the 203 is actually covering for MCLs on the H37 anymore seeing as the H37 hasn't seen a single MCL in over a month, it's been using DLE (E200s) and DLE (E200 MMCs.) Usually it sees its DXEs plus 1 SN60 and 1 YX17 reg per day. Also the ones that were used on the H37 over a month ago appear to be missing which leads me to wonder if the 203 could receive a DD conversion which would oust the non standard type. Some seem strange to have a low frequency route using 12m SDs, when there is no restriction preventing the 203 from using DDs. I thought full-length SDs were mostly for high-frequency routes that can not take DDs, such as the 108, 227 or H37. Double decks cost more, about 30-35% of passengers can't or won't go upstairs, so always preferable to use long single decks. It is not as if TfL aim to maximize seating, 20-30 standing capacity is common, no standing upstairs, and stairs slow boarding and alighting, so double decks have little advantage, apart from can carry slightly more in same road space. Probably a more sensible question would be why so few of them in outer London (and if they can fit around somewhere like Richmond town centre, must be lot of places they now fit especially as many of the really tight corners have gone. I remember visiting my gran near St James Street, Walthamstow, use to be sharp 90 degree bends, all now straightened as corner buildings have gone. Lots of London easier like that nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 18, 2019 11:38:29 GMT
Some seem strange to have a low frequency route using 12m SDs, when there is no restriction preventing the 203 from using DDs. I thought full-length SDs were mostly for high-frequency routes that can not take DDs, such as the 108, 227 or H37. Double decks cost more, about 30-35% of passengers can't or won't go upstairs, so always preferable to use long single decks. It is not as if TfL aim to maximize seating, 20-30 standing capacity is common, no standing upstairs, and stairs slow boarding and alighting, so double decks have little advantage, apart from can carry slightly more in same road space. Probably a more sensible question would be why so few of them in outer London (and if they can fit around somewhere like Richmond town centre, must be lot of places they now fit especially as many of the really tight corners have gone. I remember visiting my gran near St James Street, Walthamstow, use to be sharp 90 degree bends, all now straightened as corner buildings have gone. Lots of London easier like that nowadays. What's the capacity of a DXE compared to that of an ADH? The standing capacity on a DXE, plus no staircase means you'd fit more standees in and obviously you can cram more people in standing than you can with seats. How large is the difference in overall capacity?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 18, 2019 13:59:55 GMT
Some seem strange to have a low frequency route using 12m SDs, when there is no restriction preventing the 203 from using DDs. I thought full-length SDs were mostly for high-frequency routes that can not take DDs, such as the 108, 227 or H37. Double decks cost more, about 30-35% of passengers can't or won't go upstairs, so always preferable to use long single decks. It is not as if TfL aim to maximize seating, 20-30 standing capacity is common, no standing upstairs, and stairs slow boarding and alighting, so double decks have little advantage, apart from can carry slightly more in same road space. Probably a more sensible question would be why so few of them in outer London (and if they can fit around somewhere like Richmond town centre, must be lot of places they now fit especially as many of the really tight corners have gone. I remember visiting my gran near St James Street, Walthamstow, use to be sharp 90 degree bends, all now straightened as corner buildings have gone. Lots of London easier like that nowadays. Whilst double deckers cost more, I’m afraid I don’t buy into this 30-35% of people wont go upstairs figure. Unless a route has a restriction against double deckers, it should ideally be using double deckers. Double Deckers roughly give you an extra 20-30 people either standing or seated which is much more than just ‘slightly’. A route with packed single deckers also have increased dwell times due to people struggling to reach the rear doors so there is little difference. The reason why there is so few in Outer London is because these routes have become much busier and have outstripped any requirement for single deckers. To return these routes to single deckers is a step backwards and could lend a hand to more patronage being lost as a result.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 18, 2019 14:04:44 GMT
Double decks cost more, about 30-35% of passengers can't or won't go upstairs, so always preferable to use long single decks. It is not as if TfL aim to maximize seating, 20-30 standing capacity is common, no standing upstairs, and stairs slow boarding and alighting, so double decks have little advantage, apart from can carry slightly more in same road space. Probably a more sensible question would be why so few of them in outer London (and if they can fit around somewhere like Richmond town centre, must be lot of places they now fit especially as many of the really tight corners have gone. I remember visiting my gran near St James Street, Walthamstow, use to be sharp 90 degree bends, all now straightened as corner buildings have gone. Lots of London easier like that nowadays. Whilst double deckers cost more, I’m afraid I don’t buy into this 30-35% of people wont go upstairs figure. Unless a route has a restriction against double deckers, it should ideally be using double deckers. Double Deckers roughly give you an extra 20-30 people either standing or seated which is much more than just ‘slightly’. A route with packed single deckers also have increased dwell times due to people struggling to reach the rear doors so there is little difference. The reason why there is so few in Outer London is because these routes have become much busier and have outstripped any requirement for single deckers. To return these routes to single deckers is a step backwards and could lend a hand to more patronage being lost as a result. I very rarely go upstairs ... prefer to stand unless on long journey .... about 20min+ ... that is where the ferrel passengers go ... so try to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 18, 2019 14:10:12 GMT
Double decks cost more, about 30-35% of passengers can't or won't go upstairs, so always preferable to use long single decks. It is not as if TfL aim to maximize seating, 20-30 standing capacity is common, no standing upstairs, and stairs slow boarding and alighting, so double decks have little advantage, apart from can carry slightly more in same road space. Probably a more sensible question would be why so few of them in outer London (and if they can fit around somewhere like Richmond town centre, must be lot of places they now fit especially as many of the really tight corners have gone. I remember visiting my gran near St James Street, Walthamstow, use to be sharp 90 degree bends, all now straightened as corner buildings have gone. Lots of London easier like that nowadays. Whilst double deckers cost more, I’m afraid I don’t buy into this 30-35% of people wont go upstairs figure. Unless a route has a restriction against double deckers, it should ideally be using double deckers. Double Deckers roughly give you an extra 20-30 people either standing or seated which is much more than just ‘slightly’. A route with packed single deckers also have increased dwell times due to people struggling to reach the rear doors so there is little difference. The reason why there is so few in Outer London is because these routes have become much busier and have outstripped any requirement for single deckers. To return these routes to single deckers is a step backwards and could lend a hand to more patronage being lost as a result. If TfL were true to their word of enhancing buses in Outer London at the expense of Central London then busy routes such as the 203/293 should be being decked
|
|
|
Post by Lukeo on Aug 18, 2019 14:53:18 GMT
Whilst double deckers cost more, I’m afraid I don’t buy into this 30-35% of people wont go upstairs figure. Unless a route has a restriction against double deckers, it should ideally be using double deckers. Double Deckers roughly give you an extra 20-30 people either standing or seated which is much more than just ‘slightly’. A route with packed single deckers also have increased dwell times due to people struggling to reach the rear doors so there is little difference. The reason why there is so few in Outer London is because these routes have become much busier and have outstripped any requirement for single deckers. To return these routes to single deckers is a step backwards and could lend a hand to more patronage being lost as a result. I very rarely go upstairs ... prefer to stand unless on long journey .... about 20min+ ... that is where the ferrel passengers go ... so try to avoid. That's quite a substantial generalisation. I prefer double deckers and usually I can always go upstairs and get a seat. Take my local H14 for example, when it was single deckers I'd often be stuck standing with little space and thus always avoided the route when I wasn't in a rush. Much more comfortable journeys nowadays with deckers, and going upstairs isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 18, 2019 15:04:47 GMT
Whilst double deckers cost more, I’m afraid I don’t buy into this 30-35% of people wont go upstairs figure. Unless a route has a restriction against double deckers, it should ideally be using double deckers. Double Deckers roughly give you an extra 20-30 people either standing or seated which is much more than just ‘slightly’. A route with packed single deckers also have increased dwell times due to people struggling to reach the rear doors so there is little difference. The reason why there is so few in Outer London is because these routes have become much busier and have outstripped any requirement for single deckers. To return these routes to single deckers is a step backwards and could lend a hand to more patronage being lost as a result. I very rarely go upstairs ... prefer to stand unless on long journey .... about 20min+ ... that is where the ferrel passengers go ... so try to avoid. So I’m ferrel because I do use the upstairs, usually a seat at the front?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 18, 2019 15:07:49 GMT
Whilst double deckers cost more, I’m afraid I don’t buy into this 30-35% of people wont go upstairs figure. Unless a route has a restriction against double deckers, it should ideally be using double deckers. Double Deckers roughly give you an extra 20-30 people either standing or seated which is much more than just ‘slightly’. A route with packed single deckers also have increased dwell times due to people struggling to reach the rear doors so there is little difference. The reason why there is so few in Outer London is because these routes have become much busier and have outstripped any requirement for single deckers. To return these routes to single deckers is a step backwards and could lend a hand to more patronage being lost as a result. I very rarely go upstairs ... prefer to stand unless on long journey .... about 20min+ ... that is where the ferrel passengers go ... so try to avoid. Aren't you just as likely to get ferrel passengers on the lower deck. I've had many ferrel passengers on buses but in my experience there is no relationship between which deck people chose to sit on and their behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Aug 18, 2019 15:09:13 GMT
Double decks cost more, about 30-35% of passengers can't or won't go upstairs, so always preferable to use long single decks. It is not as if TfL aim to maximize seating, 20-30 standing capacity is common, no standing upstairs, and stairs slow boarding and alighting, so double decks have little advantage, apart from can carry slightly more in same road space. Probably a more sensible question would be why so few of them in outer London (and if they can fit around somewhere like Richmond town centre, must be lot of places they now fit especially as many of the really tight corners have gone. I remember visiting my gran near St James Street, Walthamstow, use to be sharp 90 degree bends, all now straightened as corner buildings have gone. Lots of London easier like that nowadays. Whilst double deckers cost more, I’m afraid I don’t buy into this 30-35% of people wont go upstairs figure. Unless a route has a restriction against double deckers, it should ideally be using double deckers. Double Deckers roughly give you an extra 20-30 people either standing or seated which is much more than just ‘slightly’. A route with packed single deckers also have increased dwell times due to people struggling to reach the rear doors so there is little difference. The reason why there is so few in Outer London is because these routes have become much busier and have outstripped any requirement for single deckers. To return these routes to single deckers is a step backwards and could lend a hand to more patronage being lost as a result. I can’t find the links at moment, but the 30-35% comes from some surveys, wasn’t just London, one was Cardiff, and another was one of the northern cities (forget which) I have seen plenty of buses with loads standing downstairs, but even greater number of empty seats upstairs, clearly these people chose not to go upstairs (or are to infirm to use the stairs)
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 18, 2019 15:12:25 GMT
Whilst double deckers cost more, I’m afraid I don’t buy into this 30-35% of people wont go upstairs figure. Unless a route has a restriction against double deckers, it should ideally be using double deckers. Double Deckers roughly give you an extra 20-30 people either standing or seated which is much more than just ‘slightly’. A route with packed single deckers also have increased dwell times due to people struggling to reach the rear doors so there is little difference. The reason why there is so few in Outer London is because these routes have become much busier and have outstripped any requirement for single deckers. To return these routes to single deckers is a step backwards and could lend a hand to more patronage being lost as a result. I can’t find the links at moment, but the 30-35% comes from some surveys, wasn’t just London, one was Cardiff, and another was one of the northern cities (forget which) I have seen plenty of buses with loads standing downstairs, but even greater number of empty seats upstairs, clearly these people chose not to go upstairs (or are to infirm to use the stairs) And likewise, I’ve seen plenty of deckers with both decks full or even well used across all parts of London. Even with 30-35%, am I right in thinking then that 65-70% use the upstairs then giving a majority?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 18, 2019 15:14:02 GMT
Whilst double deckers cost more, I’m afraid I don’t buy into this 30-35% of people wont go upstairs figure. Unless a route has a restriction against double deckers, it should ideally be using double deckers. Double Deckers roughly give you an extra 20-30 people either standing or seated which is much more than just ‘slightly’. A route with packed single deckers also have increased dwell times due to people struggling to reach the rear doors so there is little difference. The reason why there is so few in Outer London is because these routes have become much busier and have outstripped any requirement for single deckers. To return these routes to single deckers is a step backwards and could lend a hand to more patronage being lost as a result. I can’t find the links at moment, but the 30-35% comes from some surveys, wasn’t just London, one was Cardiff, and another was one of the northern cities (forget which) I have seen plenty of buses with loads standing downstairs, but even greater number of empty seats upstairs, clearly these people chose not to go upstairs (or are to infirm to use the stairs) Often that depends on thr nature of the route. Generally, short distance travellers see little benefit in going upstairs so chose not to whilst longer distance travellers do go upstairs. The 237 is a route which is packed upstairs between Hounslow and Shepherd's Bush, a lot of the passengers on the upper decl make that journey. Meanwhile the lower deck of the bus has plenty of available seats. I do accept you often get buses carrying standing loads downstairs with plenty of available seatd upstairs but I've proved the opposite of this also occurs
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 18, 2019 15:16:59 GMT
I very rarely go upstairs ... prefer to stand unless on long journey .... about 20min+ ... that is where the ferrel passengers go ... so try to avoid. So I’m ferrel because I do use the upstairs, usually a seat at the front? Certainly not by a long run everyone that goes upstairs is ferrel ... but most those that are head up that way!
|
|