|
Post by lonmark on Apr 14, 2014 11:32:07 GMT
Im only guess! lol.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Apr 14, 2014 23:06:33 GMT
No, that is a bad idea. 160 is useful and provides a more shorter link between Catford and Eltham alongside 124 (but that route seems to go round and round). 160 just needs to be more reliable and if DT can't achieve that then they might aswell give it to Stagecoach who can. Judging from LVF, there's one SD (4005) on the route which is not helpful especially for a route that just got a PVR increase. I hoped people might be able to tell I wasn't being entirely serious. On a slightly more serious note it should be possible to diagnose the reason for delays and curtailments. Then TfL can decide what to do in terms of the route structure, frequency or the operator. It's not a route I've used so I've no great insight as to its woes. A look at the bus map suggests to me that it's a bit of a "not one thing or the other" route. By that I mean it has some local diversions down back roads and then has to do the inter urban bit between town centres like Eltham, Chislehurst and Catford. I suspect this compromise route structure doesn't help the reliability but I'm guessing. I'm not sure when the 160 will appear on the "Snoggle" tour de London by bus but I'll be sure to report back. The issues are being caused by the Sidcup "STAR" works. Additional resource has recently gone into the route. I did go on this route a few weeks ago and noticed that blocks from several flags in the Eltham area were missing, so there was only the roundel but no indication of which routes served the stop. Hopefully they've been put in now!
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 14, 2014 23:20:44 GMT
I hoped people might be able to tell I wasn't being entirely serious. On a slightly more serious note it should be possible to diagnose the reason for delays and curtailments. Then TfL can decide what to do in terms of the route structure, frequency or the operator. It's not a route I've used so I've no great insight as to its woes. A look at the bus map suggests to me that it's a bit of a "not one thing or the other" route. By that I mean it has some local diversions down back roads and then has to do the inter urban bit between town centres like Eltham, Chislehurst and Catford. I suspect this compromise route structure doesn't help the reliability but I'm guessing. I'm not sure when the 160 will appear on the "Snoggle" tour de London by bus but I'll be sure to report back. The issues are being caused by the Sidcup "STAR" works. Additional resource has recently gone into the route. I did go on this route a few weeks ago and noticed that blocks from several flags in the Eltham area were missing, so there was only the roundel but no indication of which routes served the stop. Hopefully they've been put in now! Those roadworks have only just began in Sidcup hence the PVR increase by 1, the route has been poorly run for a number of years.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 15, 2014 6:27:02 GMT
Week 1 Day 1: 3983, 3989 on Route 160 Day 2: 3985, 4024 on Route 160
|
|
|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Apr 15, 2014 8:03:20 GMT
The issues are being caused by the Sidcup "STAR" works. Additional resource has recently gone into the route. I did go on this route a few weeks ago and noticed that blocks from several flags in the Eltham area were missing, so there was only the roundel but no indication of which routes served the stop. Hopefully they've been put in now! Those roadworks have only just began in Sidcup hence the PVR increase by 1, the route has been poorly run for a number of years. From my own observations and daily use no other routes in Sidcup have had temporary timetables put in and yet seem to be running fine..... Does make you wonder about standards at DT.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Apr 15, 2014 8:09:06 GMT
The issues are being caused by the Sidcup "STAR" works. Additional resource has recently gone into the route. I did go on this route a few weeks ago and noticed that blocks from several flags in the Eltham area were missing, so there was only the roundel but no indication of which routes served the stop. Hopefully they've been put in now! Those roadworks have only just began in Sidcup hence the PVR increase by 1, the route has been poorly run for a number of years. To an extent, this echoes the sentiments of southeastlondonbus. The Sidcup works are not causing any real disruption to services, I would suggest. Since the traffic lights at the roadworks were re-phased to take greater account of vehicles turning right off of Main Road down towards QMH the area runs as smoothly as ever. The 160's route hasn't even changed, and may have found a couple of minutes added to waiting at the traffic lights at worst. This probably pushed the route's timetable beyond tolerances for running just eleven buses, perhaps reflecting just how tight everything was running to start with.
|
|
|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Apr 15, 2014 9:48:48 GMT
Those roadworks have only just began in Sidcup hence the PVR increase by 1, the route has been poorly run for a number of years. To an extent, this echoes the sentiments of southeastlondonbus. The Sidcup works are not causing any real disruption to services, I would suggest. Since the traffic lights at the roadworks were re-phased to take greater account of vehicles turning right off of Main Road down towards QMH the area runs as smoothly as ever. The 160's route hasn't even changed, and may have found a couple of minutes added to waiting at the traffic lights at worst. This probably pushed the route's timetable beyond tolerances for running just eleven buses, perhaps reflecting just how tight everything was running to start with. You may have hit the nail on the head from spending a bit of time studying the working timetable mjcarchive.www.idnet.com/schedules/150to199/Schedule_160-30651-MF-KE-1-4.pdf the buses were only getting 5 - 6 mins turnaround at each terminus during the day which if you get delayed on any trip for one reason or another there would be a domino effect for the next trip or I could be completely wrong LOL.
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Apr 15, 2014 13:58:24 GMT
Those roadworks have only just began in Sidcup hence the PVR increase by 1, the route has been poorly run for a number of years. To an extent, this echoes the sentiments of southeastlondonbus. The Sidcup works are not causing any real disruption to services, I would suggest. Since the traffic lights at the roadworks were re-phased to take greater account of vehicles turning right off of Main Road down towards QMH the area runs as smoothly as ever. The 160's route hasn't even changed, and may have found a couple of minutes added to waiting at the traffic lights at worst. This probably pushed the route's timetable beyond tolerances for running just eleven buses, perhaps reflecting just how tight everything was running to start with. Those lights in Sidcup can actually cause quite a bit of disruption to services coming from Sidcup Station, as all buses can be at least 4-6 mins late by the time you get to Carlton Road.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Apr 15, 2014 17:40:29 GMT
To an extent, this echoes the sentiments of southeastlondonbus. The Sidcup works are not causing any real disruption to services, I would suggest. Since the traffic lights at the roadworks were re-phased to take greater account of vehicles turning right off of Main Road down towards QMH the area runs as smoothly as ever. The 160's route hasn't even changed, and may have found a couple of minutes added to waiting at the traffic lights at worst. This probably pushed the route's timetable beyond tolerances for running just eleven buses, perhaps reflecting just how tight everything was running to start with. Those lights in Sidcup can actually cause quite a bit of disruption to services coming from Sidcup Station, as all buses can be at least 4-6 mins late by the time you get to Carlton Road. My suggestion that it runs as "smoothly as ever" should not be read as this is a smooth running junction, so much as it causes equally long delays and is just as unpredictable as ever. That junction is never fun, particularly if you are approaching it from Sidcup Station and certainly if you're approaching it from the QMH direction.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 16, 2014 7:05:29 GMT
Week 1 Day 1: 3983, 3989 on Route 160 Day 2: 3985, 4024 on Route 160 Day 3: 3982, 3984, 4029 on Route 160
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Apr 16, 2014 9:04:01 GMT
Day 2: 3985, 4024 on Route 160 Day 3: 3982, 3984 on Route 160 No surprise given 3 of the 492's Pulsar Geminis have been off the road for a few days now, now 4 as of this morning!
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 16, 2014 9:22:37 GMT
Surely this week and possibly next week the 492 is better for SD substitutions as there are no schools for Easter and the route really is DD just for school times.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 16, 2014 9:55:17 GMT
Day 3: 3982, 3984 on Route 160 No surprise given 3 of the 492's Pulsar Geminis have been off the road for a few days now, now 4 as of this morning! That's not the reason I'm doing this. I'm recording these workings over 7 days to show how common it is as earlier in this thread I was questioned about the 160 currently the route in the TFL network operated with double Deckers with single decker workings and I am indeed correct with the 492 in second place so far as of 2014, 2013 is slightly different and the most obvious route in 1st place actually isn't the 160. I am half way through it when it is finished it will be downloadable from my Dropbox so people can see it for themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Route 160
Apr 16, 2014 10:21:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 10:21:11 GMT
No surprise given 3 of the 492's Pulsar Geminis have been off the road for a few days now, now 4 as of this morning! That's not the reason I'm doing this. I'm recording these workings over 7 days to show how common it is as earlier in this thread I was questioned about the 160 currently the route in the TFL network operated with double Deckers with single decker workings and I am indeed correct with the 492 in second place so far as of 2014, 2013 is slightly different and the most obvious route in 1st place actually isn't the 160. I am half way through it when it is finished it will be downloadable from my Dropbox so people can see it for themselves. How do you know that the contracted extra vehicle is not a single decker? As no extra did has been allocated to DT this has to remain a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 16, 2014 13:04:05 GMT
That's not the reason I'm doing this. I'm recording these workings over 7 days to show how common it is as earlier in this thread I was questioned about the 160 currently the route in the TFL network operated with double Deckers with single decker workings and I am indeed correct with the 492 in second place so far as of 2014, 2013 is slightly different and the most obvious route in 1st place actually isn't the 160. I am half way through it when it is finished it will be downloadable from my Dropbox so people can see it for themselves. How do you know that the contracted extra vehicle is not a single decker? As no extra did has been allocated to DT this has to remain a possibility. The last contract officially stated 11 new double Deckers, NOT single Deckers. 13 vehicles were ordered. Plus why would a double decker route actually be contracted a single decker working. Are there actually any examples seems silly to provide less capacity. Plus single Deckers have been appearing on the 160 daily ages before hand. I know there are prefect examples of single decker routes contracted double decker workings.
|
|