|
Post by danorak on Apr 18, 2014 21:26:36 GMT
My solution is to chop it to Eltham High Street without a replacement the New Eltham - Sidcup Section which is one of the most problematic section on the route and extend the 660 to Sidcup Station for school children. Increase the 162 peak frequency to every 15 mins. That would still leave some main roads in the Edgebury estate without a bus service, and even at 15 minute frequency, the 162 won't cope. And that's before we talk about the broken links from northern parts of Chislehurst to Sidcup, and, emotively, Queen Mary's Hospital. If the 160 has to be played with, split it in two : Catford - New Eltham and Eltham Station - Sidcup Station via Chislehurst. I'm not sure leaving Edgebury uncovered would be a problem: although the 160 runs along it, there are no stops other than at either end. One end is served by the 162 anyway, and it stops just around the corner at the other. Possibly you could contort the B13 at Fiveways to continue over the 160 back to Sidcup if a 160 replacement were needed on this section.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 19, 2014 8:17:17 GMT
Day 6: 3987, 4002 on Route 160
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 19, 2014 9:38:51 GMT
My solution is to chop it to Eltham High Street without a replacement the New Eltham - Sidcup Section which is one of the most problematic section on the route and extend the 660 to Sidcup Station for school children. Increase the 162 peak frequency to every 15 mins. That would still leave some main roads in the Edgebury estate without a bus service, and even at 15 minute frequency, the 162 won't cope. And that's before we talk about the broken links from northern parts of Chislehurst to Sidcup, and, emotively, Queen Mary's Hospital. If the 160 has to be played with, split it in two : Catford - New Eltham and Eltham Station - Sidcup Station via Chislehurst. Quite honestly I think the 160 route is ok as it is, the problem is that Arriva KT are incapable of operating it to anything like the required standard. The only change I would make is to return it to Brownhill Road in Catford.
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Apr 19, 2014 10:18:49 GMT
3987 is our SD today.
IIRC, the 261 had a number of SD workings before Stagecoach gained it? Maybe in 2016 it could go back to Stagecoach or be gained by Metrobus (or Go-Ahead/Go-Away if Camberhell)
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 19, 2014 11:46:26 GMT
3987 is our SD today. IIRC, the 261 had a number of SD workings before Stagecoach gained it? Maybe in 2016 it could go back to Stagecoach or be gained by Metrobus (or Go-Ahead/Go-Away if Camberhell) Q ? BX is closer.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Apr 19, 2014 12:32:09 GMT
3987 is our SD today. IIRC, the 261 had a number of SD workings before Stagecoach gained it? Maybe in 2016 it could go back to Stagecoach or be gained by Metrobus (or Go-Ahead/Go-Away if Camberhell) Q ? BX is closer. Or better yet, NX
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 19, 2014 12:34:55 GMT
Not even NX either. BX or MB
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 19, 2014 12:36:30 GMT
I'm afraid Enviro 400 6467 has gone mechanical during the day, and with the same three Geminis still unavailable, another E200 has appeared on the 160 - 4002. Will be interesting to see if any E200s go out tomorrow or Monday, with less buses needed.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 19, 2014 13:06:42 GMT
Not even NX either. BX or MB NX is actually closer than MB and BX, funnily enough, though I suspect traffic in Lewisham and Catford would make the dead mileage implausible. From my observations a lot of 160 duties start in Sidcup so it would slightly be a lot less dead Milage if it was operated from BX or MB if such a thing happened. Could even be operated by TB as well as TL if Stagecoach ran it again.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 19, 2014 14:05:10 GMT
It's a big shame N is so far off the route of the 160 - the reliability of the vehicles would improve greatly and there would be no such thing as single deckers turning up either.
It's also a shame that GY couldn't be used as well.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 19, 2014 14:42:20 GMT
It's a big shame N is so far off the route of the 160 - the reliability of the vehicles would improve greatly and there would be no such thing as single deckers turning up either. It's also a shame that GY couldn't be used as well. N is about 5 miles from Catford. DT is about 6 miles from Sidcup. Hmmmmmm.....
|
|
|
Route 160
Apr 19, 2014 16:40:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 19, 2014 16:40:38 GMT
It's a big shame N is so far off the route of the 160 - the reliability of the vehicles would improve greatly and there would be no such thing as single deckers turning up either. It's also a shame that GY couldn't be used as well. N is about 5 miles from Catford. DT is about 6 miles from Sidcup. Hmmmmmm..... Lol, don't forget to add in the traffic this side of Catford.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Apr 19, 2014 20:54:13 GMT
N is about 5 miles from Catford. DT is about 6 miles from Sidcup. Hmmmmmm..... Lol, don't forget to add in the traffic this side of Catford. Plus I don't think the drivers of the route would be happy to move from DT all the way to N .
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 19, 2014 21:16:24 GMT
For those who are getting terribly agitated about this route and the vehicles used thereon I thought I'd check the template bus route contract on the TfL website.
Firstly TfL ask operators to declare the vehicles to be used on the route. Two types can be declared so it is *possible* that an operator could, if they wished, declare a double deck type and a single deck type.
Secondly I looked to see what TfL say in terms of their expectation about the vehicles to be operated.
There is loads of other stuff about roundels, stickers, emission standards etc but they're not really relevant to the moans about the 160. What I haven't found is whether TfL adjust contract payments in respect of using a single deck on a double deck route. It might be in there but I'm not reading all 269 pages to find it. If Arriva KT are having problems with their double deckers then perhaps they've written to TfL in respect of using single deckers? The logical thing, though, is that the second vehicle type specified for the route is an Enviro 200 in which case they're within their rights to use them.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Apr 20, 2014 9:18:40 GMT
For those who are getting terribly agitated about this route and the vehicles used thereon I thought I'd check the template bus route contract on the TfL website. Firstly TfL ask operators to declare the vehicles to be used on the route. Two types can be declared so it is *possible* that an operator could, if they wished, declare a double deck type and a single deck type. Secondly I looked to see what TfL say in terms of their expectation about the vehicles to be operated. There is loads of other stuff about roundels, stickers, emission standards etc but they're not really relevant to the moans about the 160. What I haven't found is whether TfL adjust contract payments in respect of using a single deck on a double deck route. It might be in there but I'm not reading all 269 pages to find it. If Arriva KT are having problems with their double deckers then perhaps they've written to TfL in respect of using single deckers? The logical thing, though, is that the second vehicle type specified for the route is an Enviro 200 in which case they're within their rights to use them. Any guesses therefore on whether Ts and DWs would be documented as the same declared vehicle?
|
|