|
Post by capitalomnibus on Dec 20, 2016 21:30:53 GMT
In my part of London, (SW) possibilities include : 131 (tender award awaited), or maybe the 11.4m version of the VHs as used on KU services (without glass stairs) 85 (long and straight, with heavy peak loads) 267 (via Brentford which is a population growth area) Think most other routes would struggle due to a tight corner/junction 267 would do well with longer buses, the only problem is if one gets turned at Brentford County Court (much stand space amongst the 195's?) Arriva did trial a StreetDeck Max on the W3 a couple of years back but there were issues with the bus grounding on speed humps in Ally Pally lmao
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 20, 2016 21:32:31 GMT
I used to use the 123 then to go school, but somehow never saw that one. The nicest bus was the non LT single door Titan Capital Citybus run on the 123, seemed so much more different from the LT Titans. And that's a bus I never saw on the 123. I was shocked when I saw photos of it on Flickr. I did once see a National 2 on the 123 on a Saturday but regrettably didn't have a camera with me.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 21, 2016 0:33:29 GMT
We have to be careful what sort of route would be a good contender for tri-axles even outside of whether they can fit around said routes. Personally, I don't feel routes like the 81, 131, 136, 267, H91, etc are the right candidates as although they are all most likely busy routes, they do not compare to others suggested like the 5, 18, 25, 86, 109, 140, 149, 207, 237, 427, 607, etc. and instead, LWB deckers would probably be a better use for those sort of routes which are busy but not ridiculously busy.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 21, 2016 6:29:36 GMT
We have to be careful what sort of route would be a good contender for tri-axles even outside of whether they can fit around said routes. Personally, I don't feel routes like the 81, 131, 136, 267, H91, etc are the right candidates as although they are all most likely busy routes, they do not compare to others suggested like the 5, 18, 25, 86, 109, 140, 149, 207, 237, 427, 607, etc. and instead, LWB deckers would probably be a better use for those sort of routes which are busy but not ridiculously busy. Busy needs to be qualified, you don't want too much churn, you will just get boarding delays, also there is no point providing 50 seats upstairs if everyone is only going few stops as seats won't get used. Let's face it, the long radial routes to central London are a dying breed, most suburban routes are station feeders or take people to local shopping centres, one growth area is the orbital journeys (although minicabs often cover this as using bus connections tends to be slow). Where tri axles should work is from growth areas without stations, places like Roehampton, Olympic Park (north), Greenwich peninsula (south), Old Oak common etc. However perhaps long wheelbase two axles are a better bet. One final comment, I agree they are only likely with new contracts, not mid contract like some nb4l conversions.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 21, 2016 7:35:23 GMT
We have to be careful what sort of route would be a good contender for tri-axles even outside of whether they can fit around said routes. Personally, I don't feel routes like the 81, 131, 136, 267, H91, etc are the right candidates as although they are all most likely busy routes, they do not compare to others suggested like the 5, 18, 25, 86, 109, 140, 149, 207, 237, 427, 607, etc. and instead, LWB deckers would probably be a better use for those sort of routes which are busy but not ridiculously busy. Busy needs to be qualified, you don't want too much churn, you will just get boarding delays, also there is no point providing 50 seats upstairs if everyone is only going few stops as seats won't get used. Let's face it, the long radial routes to central London are a dying breed, most suburban routes are station feeders or take people to local shopping centres, one growth area is the orbital journeys (although minicabs often cover this as using bus connections tends to be slow). Where tri axles should work is from growth areas without stations, places like Roehampton, Olympic Park (north), Greenwich peninsula (south), Old Oak common etc. However perhaps long wheelbase two axles are a better bet. One final comment, I agree they are only likely with new contracts, not mid contract like some nb4l conversions. Could be done mid contract, as a random example if Abellio won the 250 they could put the buses currently on the 109 onto it and put tri axles on the 109? The obvious problem would be what happens if an operator loses a tri axle route?
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Dec 21, 2016 7:46:06 GMT
Cancel the WVLs from the 19 destined for the X26 - do the logical thing and put tri-axle DDs on the X26 instead!
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 21, 2016 8:15:38 GMT
Then use the buses from the 19 on the 280 and 320 next retender.
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Dec 21, 2016 8:17:00 GMT
The X68 has also come to my mind, a lot of people using the service that stay on till west croydon and want a seat at the same time. Should the 5 be awarded with Tri-axles, it will be a breakthrough, as there will be more room and the potential to have a wheelchair space and a buggy space, so the end of the buggy-wheelchair conflicts that plague the route.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 21, 2016 8:38:33 GMT
The 36 would be another candidate if they can manage the Queens Park section. There's also the Edgware Road to Paddington section to consider, concerning a left turn for Queens Park-bound buses.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 21, 2016 12:15:30 GMT
We have to be careful what sort of route would be a good contender for tri-axles even outside of whether they can fit around said routes. Personally, I don't feel routes like the 81, 131, 136, 267, H91, etc are the right candidates as although they are all most likely busy routes, they do not compare to others suggested like the 5, 18, 25, 86, 109, 140, 149, 207, 237, 427, 607, etc. and instead, LWB deckers would probably be a better use for those sort of routes which are busy but not ridiculously busy. Busy needs to be qualified, you don't want too much churn, you will just get boarding delays, also there is no point providing 50 seats upstairs if everyone is only going few stops as seats won't get used. Let's face it, the long radial routes to central London are a dying breed, most suburban routes are station feeders or take people to local shopping centres, one growth area is the orbital journeys (although minicabs often cover this as using bus connections tends to be slow). Where tri axles should work is from growth areas without stations, places like Roehampton, Olympic Park (north), Greenwich peninsula (south), Old Oak common etc. However perhaps long wheelbase two axles are a better bet. One final comment, I agree they are only likely with new contracts, not mid contract like some nb4l conversions. I thought it was self explanatory by the list of routes I referenced that would probably be ideal as to how busy they are. All those routes are routes which are rammed full during many different times of the day to the point where both seats and standing room are all used up.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 21, 2016 12:30:30 GMT
Surely the 85 would struggle with long buses on some of the turns in the Putney Heath / Roehampton area? The turn from the A3 into the Alton Estate I don't think 11m buses can make it I think they could manage that turn but the right turn and bus stop by the (former) Earl Spencer pub which is awkward in a standard length bus might be a problem and the tight bend just up the road.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 21, 2016 13:29:03 GMT
The X68 has also come to my mind, a lot of people using the service that stay on till west croydon and want a seat at the same time. Should the 5 be awarded with Tri-axles, it will be a breakthrough, as there will be more room and the potential to have a wheelchair space and a buggy space, so the end of the buggy-wheelchair conflicts that plague the route. There is nothing to stop more buggies using the designated wheelchair space on tri-axle buses - you certainly won't see the end of that conflict!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 13:53:55 GMT
What about turns? Even if bus routes were suitable for tri-axle vehicles under normal circumstances, major issues could be identified for buses turning short through narrower roads with tight turns. Then you have to consider diversions and whether these could be done.
In theory, I think that most current double deck routes could handle tri-axles but as far as I know route tests are a bit more stringent than that! And now I think about it, my local E3 finds it hard enough getting past each other in Southfield Road so would be interesting to see tri-axles test my theory 😂
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 21, 2016 14:36:45 GMT
The X68 has also come to my mind, a lot of people using the service that stay on till west croydon and want a seat at the same time. Should the 5 be awarded with Tri-axles, it will be a breakthrough, as there will be more room and the potential to have a wheelchair space and a buggy space, so the end of the buggy-wheelchair conflicts that plague the route. There is nothing to stop more buggies using the designated wheelchair space on tri-axle buses - you certainly won't see the end of that conflict! I think he meant a space exclusively for wheelchairs although I'm not sure that would work in practice? The X68 would be a good choice but not really cost effective for a peak hour only route unless the buses were also used on other routes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 21, 2016 15:02:03 GMT
There is nothing to stop more buggies using the designated wheelchair space on tri-axle buses - you certainly won't see the end of that conflict! I think he meant a space exclusively for wheelchairs although I'm not sure that would work in practice? The X68 would be a good choice but not really cost effective for a peak hour only route unless the buses were also used on other routes. They could be used on the 468 outside of the X68's operating hours - the X68 is certainly one of the best candidates for them outside of any restrictions especially given how it's rammed solid from Holborn to West Croydon
|
|