|
Post by Nathan on May 26, 2015 7:18:05 GMT
The 316 desperately needs them. Even on a Sunday I've seen it completely full. The 332, with its lower passenger numbers, gets DDs yet the 316 with and an extra million passengers a year doesn't. I've asked TfL about any MPs blocking its conversion and they said they knew nothing about it. Good point on the 332. Whenever I see the route go by it's never crowded. This is between Kilburn and Paddington at least.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 26, 2015 9:49:53 GMT
the 130 needs double decks especially in peak times If you wanted open-top ones past Norwood Junction, yes. There is a low bridge at Norwood Junction that forced the 130 to become single deck in the first place. It is possible to put double deckers on the 130, but it would have to be diverted via the 197, then turn left towards South Norwood as the 197 turns right towards Anerley. The 197 avoids the low bridge. I see no reason why the 130 can't.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 26, 2015 9:59:44 GMT
The 316 desperately needs them. Even on a Sunday I've seen it completely full. The 332, with its lower passenger numbers, gets DDs yet the 316 with and an extra million passengers a year doesn't. I've asked TfL about any MPs blocking its conversion and they said they knew nothing about it. Good point on the 332. Whenever I see the route go by it's never crowded. This is between Kilburn and Paddington at least. If I remember right, there is an MP who lives along the 316 who doesn't like Deckers. During Carnival time the buses divert around this area allowing Deckers to be used.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 26, 2015 10:03:09 GMT
Good point on the 332. Whenever I see the route go by it's never crowded. This is between Kilburn and Paddington at least. If I remember right, there is an MP who lives along the 316 who doesn't like Deckers. During Carnival time the buses divert around this area allowing Deckers to be used. People that don't like Double Deckers passing their homes should bugger off elsewhere. Why should capacity stay reduced for selfish individuals.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 26, 2015 10:05:32 GMT
I just realised this had a Poll, why would the 100, 314 & 469 need double deckers?
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 26, 2015 10:06:25 GMT
If you wanted open-top ones past Norwood Junction, yes. There is a low bridge at Norwood Junction that forced the 130 to become single deck in the first place. It is possible to put double deckers on the 130, but it would have to be diverted via the 197, then turn left towards South Norwood as the 197 turns right towards Anerley. The 197 avoids the low bridge. I see no reason why the 130 can't. It would add several minutes onto the 130 running time when it's busy, I'm not sure that the 130 really needs double deckers anyway
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 26, 2015 10:07:23 GMT
I just realised this had a Poll, why would the 100, 314 & 469 need double deckers? There might be a few deroofings on the 314 at Elmstead Woods
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 26, 2015 10:22:52 GMT
If I remember right, there is an MP who lives along the 316 who doesn't like Deckers. During Carnival time the buses divert around this area allowing Deckers to be used. People that don't like Double Deckers passing their homes should bugger off elsewhere. Why should capacity stay reduced for selfish individuals. Exactly, this is one of the reasons for proposing the 295 extended to Queen's Park to support the 316. Regardless, a petition against this selfish MP should be started by residents along the route or who use it for a DD conversion, I always see them rammed throughout the day in my area.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 26, 2015 10:34:36 GMT
If you wanted open-top ones past Norwood Junction, yes. There is a low bridge at Norwood Junction that forced the 130 to become single deck in the first place. It is possible to put double deckers on the 130, but it would have to be diverted via the 197, then turn left towards South Norwood as the 197 turns right towards Anerley. The 197 avoids the low bridge. I see no reason why the 130 can't. That would add far more time on as Goats Bridge & High Street are regularly packed but yes, it's possible to turn left there. That said, it's not worth the 130 diverting that way as it can cope fine with 10.8m single deckers.
|
|
|
Post by northken on May 26, 2015 12:14:51 GMT
Good point on the 332. Whenever I see the route go by it's never crowded. This is between Kilburn and Paddington at least. If I remember right, there is an MP who lives along the 316 who doesn't like Deckers. During Carnival time the buses divert around this area allowing Deckers to be used. There is only around 400m of road on which the 316 isn't parallelled by a DD route, and this is along Barlby Road. Half of that road is a school and a gate to the Great Western Mainline. The other half is low-lying residential properties (which are actually hidden from view by a little park and its trees) and a housing development with tinted windows, which was only built recently. If the 70 gets converted to DDs soon then there is no reason whatsoever why the 316 can't as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 12:20:06 GMT
TF must be able to operate double deckers. The 235 & 490 must be candidates ( but 285 conversion may damper loadings on the 490 over common section) In London United days, the R68 was double decked on Summer Sunday's, and the R70 went through a phase of being half and half operated, but also fully double decked on Sunday's. The 235 was double deck under LU but lost to TGM and converted to darts. Remember the 216 used to have regular Metrobus workings when HH ran it ( running off school routes 400/1/2/3 655/6).
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on May 26, 2015 13:39:02 GMT
People that don't like Double Deckers passing their homes should bugger off elsewhere. Why should capacity stay reduced for selfish individuals. Exactly, this is one of the reasons for proposing the 295 extended to Queen's Park to support the 316. Regardless, a petition against this selfish MP should be started by residents along the route or who use it for a DD conversion, I always see them rammed throughout the day in my area. Get the locals to buy this knobhead some curtains
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on May 26, 2015 13:44:34 GMT
TF must be able to operate double deckers. The 235 & 490 must be candidates ( but 285 conversion may damper loadings on the 490 over common section) In London United days, the R68 was double decked on Summer Sunday's, and the R70 went through a phase of being half and half operated, but also fully double decked on Sunday's. The 235 was double deck under LU but lost to TGM and converted to darts. Remember the 216 used to have regular Metrobus workings when HH ran it ( running off school routes 400/1/2/3 655/6). I do like the idea of half-and-half SD and DD operation on some routes. The R70 was rammed during the AM peak when I went to college, with TF 54/55/56/57 (as it was back then, I assume these are now 44-47) being the busiest buses. I imagine the double decking of the 490 would be beneficiary, even if the 90, 235 and 285 were also all double decked. That said the 490 needs to be a 24 hour service more than it needs double decks in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 26, 2015 15:12:34 GMT
Exactly, this is one of the reasons for proposing the 295 extended to Queen's Park to support the 316. Regardless, a petition against this selfish MP should be started by residents along the route or who use it for a DD conversion, I always see them rammed throughout the day in my area. Get the locals to buy this knobhead some curtains I would gladly do this and deliver them straight to the door
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 26, 2015 16:17:42 GMT
Get the locals to buy this knobhead some curtains I would gladly do this and deliver them straight to the door I don't know about this situation but the objections are usually regarding top deck passengers looking over walls and hedges etc, so curtains wouldn't really help
|
|