|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 23, 2020 16:21:44 GMT
But the issue would still persist where the 14 would struggle to cope without assistance between Hyde Park Corner and Fulham Broadway according to your suggestion, which is the section where the 414 gets busy alongside the 14. Hence why I suggested the 414 to remain as such but be rerouted north of Marble Arch/Edgware Road. The 414 is never busy, more fresh air than passengers. Never busy?! If you observe the 414 regularly you will find buses generally carry healthy loads along its southern section between HPC and Fulham Broadway, shared with the 14. It's only the northern end that emptier buses are commonly seen. The 6 and 36 already provide the HPC/Marble Arch and Maida Hill link, the latter an area already served by too many routes. The logical thing to do with the 414 would be to reroute it to Kilburn High Road. As this is the Go-Ahead thread it would be best if we don't digress further
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 23, 2020 14:29:51 GMT
I agree that the 414 is pointless in its current form, though only north of Marble Arch/Edgware Road as it heavily duplicates the 6 which could cope alone. However between Hyde Park Corner and Fulham Broadway is where it is useful as it assists the busy 14. I would personally reroute the 414 along Maida Vale to Kilburn High Road. But that’s why i suggested the 311 to Putney Bridge on the same route as the 14 from Fulham Broadway to allow the 414 to be withdrawn entirely. It’s resources could be better deployed elsewhere, just as an example to keep the 101 or 262 going to Galleons Reach where buses are still needed 😂 But the issue would still persist where the 14 would struggle to cope without assistance between Hyde Park Corner and Fulham Broadway according to your suggestion, which is the section where the 414 gets busy alongside the 14. Hence why I suggested the 414 to remain as such but be rerouted north of Marble Arch/Edgware Road.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 23, 2020 13:09:02 GMT
I still think TfL will introduce the 311 one day. I was surprised that the 311 didn’t get introduced last year. The 11 really needs reviewing as the curtailment to Victoria would make it become a more reliable route. If I had my way I would do the following; 11 becomes a Victoria - Liverpool Street route. 19 retains its current route. 22 becomes a Piccadilly Circus - Putney Common route 311 new route Fulham Broadway - Oxford Circus (via Victoria) I agree, the 11 is too long in its current form and a shorter route would be better. I think though that I would instead run the 311 as Putney Bridge to Oxford Circus via Victoria, existing 11 to Fulham and then the 14 to Putney Bridge. In the process I would cut the 414 entirely to compensate because lets face it the whole route is useless and is a drain on resources.
I agree that the 414 is pointless in its current form, though only north of Marble Arch/Edgware Road as it heavily duplicates the 6 which could cope alone. However between Hyde Park Corner and Fulham Broadway is where it is useful as it assists the busy 14. I would personally reroute the 414 along Maida Vale to Kilburn High Road.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 23, 2020 0:23:46 GMT
Speaking of speed humps, there are just too many of them on certain roads. An example is Carlton Vale. Try using the 6 or 316 along there and you're guaranteed an excessively bumpy ride, exacerbated by some 6 drivers often going fast along that section. There are too many speed humps in close proximity to each other, those useless 'speed tables' in between should be removed in my opinion. Makes me feel bad for the poor VWHs in particular (less concerned about the awful 316 DEs) even though their suspension are built to handle it Interesting that many drivers on the 6 don't really slow down for humps. Over here on the 120, almost no driver slows down anywhere near enough, and I'm just fed up of it. B5LHs are a bit too bouncy anyway due to their awkward wheelbase and rear-heavy design, and then drivers make it worse. Always nicer when a VW turns up, as their longer wheelbase helps a lot in being less bouncy. Although neither are good for body lean, which makes the side roads section on the 105 between Southall and Greenford quite grim (those side roads are full of odd road cambers and having raised tables at ends of roads). Indeed the B5LH chassis has an awkward wheelbase due to the large rear overhang, the assymetry in the wheelbase makes it bounce over humps more so than other chassis types due to its slight imbalance between the front and rear axles. I thought grounding would be an issue when the chassis was first introduced but this is mitigated by the rear angled upwards slightly. I don't mind speed humps in general, however as I highlighted along Carlton Vale they are quite high and there are too many of them spaced out unevenly. Perhaps just sticking to Speed Tables and removing the humps would be a better idea. Also humps should be smoother so the suspension and body of buses are not affected in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 22, 2020 20:04:49 GMT
I'm surprised the 139 hasn't been cut back yet. The fact that the 328 coped fine between west Hampstead and GG plus the 13 (82) maintains the link to Baker Street. Of course links to Oxo and Trafalgar Square would be lost but I think the 13 and 139 are similar from GG whereas cutting the 318 breaks to useful links to Kilburn and NHG. I'm not surprised that the 139 hasn't been cut back at all, and it shouldn't be. This would result in the 13 being busier than it already is between Baker Street/Oxford Street and Golders Green despite the alternative routing. Although the common section along the 139/328 is relatively less busy, the two routes serve their own purpose to and from Golders Green i.e. providing unique links therefore their existence is more than justified along there.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 22, 2020 19:54:05 GMT
Did the 136 from Elephant & Castle to Grove Park today. Not the most scenic route, and the speed humps on the early part of the route are trully horendous. Speaking of speed humps, there are just too many of them on certain roads. An example is Carlton Vale. Try using the 6 or 316 along there and you're guaranteed an excessively bumpy ride, exacerbated by some 6 drivers often going fast along that section. There are too many speed humps in close proximity to each other, those useless 'speed tables' in between should be removed in my opinion. Makes me feel bad for the poor VWHs in particular (less concerned about the awful 316 DEs) even though their suspension are built to handle it
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 20, 2020 19:56:13 GMT
I find it hilarious they've chosen to extend the 325 out of all routes to the development at Beckton Park, I had to double check which end it was even being extended from! This must be on the road to becoming the only route in London to terminate in the exact same town that it started in despite serving four others. I wonder what poor sods will end up using it from Beckton Park to Beckton Sainsburys Completely agree regarding the 325. It's a pointless extension that would serve little purpose. The 300 and 376 already are in close proximity to Beckton Park, the latter even more so. So the 325 is not needed there. If this will be the case then the 325 may as well be a circular route! Just look at the current route on a map and visualise how it would appear after the extension
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 20, 2020 19:44:49 GMT
So if I'm right, when Crossrail opens the rerouted 241 to Royal Wharf will be removed and curtailed to Custom House, with the 474 rerouted to cover the lost section of the 241 to Canning Town. The 330 will then be extended to cover the lost section of the 474 to Silvertown. That would result in the 241 being very short, there certainly would be scope for extending the 241 at either of its termini. 241 will be Stratford City to Royal Wharf was going to be Custom House but will extended over Connaught Bridge so not as short as it was going to be. Ah ok understood. Got a little confused.com. For some reason I was under the impression that the 241 extension to Royal Wharf will be temporary and will be removed once Crossrail opens. I suppose the 241 will have some added length to it. Though I believe there is still scope for an extension further from Stratford City.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 20, 2020 15:26:46 GMT
Have the 241 and 325 replaced proposals previously in the Crossrail consualtion. I'm guessing the 241 extends over Connaught Bridge then the 330 wont now. Its seems to pay for more trendy Crossrail changes that Gallions Reach misses out. I may have been considered cutting the 101 and 366 back and giving the 262 a light freq increase. But to leave just the 366 seems very poor. 241 changes still go ahead when Crossrail opens but now extended and approaches from the opposite direction to the 330. The 330 will replace the 474 from Canning Town towards Connaught Bridge and the 474 covers the lost section of the 241 at Canning Town. Personally don't see there being a huge demand for buses services in the new development apart from to Custom House Station. So if I'm right, when Crossrail opens the rerouted 241 to Royal Wharf will be removed and curtailed to Custom House, with the 474 rerouted to cover the lost section of the 241 to Canning Town. The 330 will then be extended to cover the lost section of the 474 to Silvertown. That would result in the 241 being very short, there certainly would be scope for extending the 241 at either of its termini.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 20, 2020 14:17:18 GMT
TFL have really sunk to a new low. They can't be serious?! What an utter joke. How is it justified that the SINGLE DECK 366 would cope between Beckton and Gallions Reach without at least one assisting route alongside?! Surely at least the 262 should remain for much needed support to the 366 between East Beckton and Beckton.
Personally I would reroute the 366 via Woolwich Manor Way to speed things up, leaving the 101 to serve Cyprus Station. The 262 could be curtailed to Gallions Reach at a push. However in general this change is completely unnecessary and pointless. Again one of many ideas that highlight TFL's ignorance and foolishness.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 18, 2020 12:34:56 GMT
I believe the first buses to have the new safety trial are the P5/C10s buses not the 100s. The 100s buses do in fact have that artificial noise. Although I'm not sure how useful it will be considering it sounds nothing like a bus or any other road vehicle - people will probably end up thinking it's a busker somewhere in the background I reckon it would be better to use an intermittent noise like the artificial bell noise buses in Paris use to alert pedestrians. It's far more appealing and is actually more plausible. Plus it has more character
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 15, 2020 20:14:50 GMT
Next route to be converted away from LT class? 👀 This would be a thread worthy of its own
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 13, 2020 20:19:28 GMT
Have to say from my experience of riding Enviro 400's, Enviro 400H's & B9TL's, that's quite surprising to here that the latter two types struggle with hills - can only presume it's a maintenance thing because I remember Abellio's Enviro 400H's would climb Dulwich Wood Park without any issue other than it's speed topping out due to how they were set up - though admittedly not as steep, there was no struggling and the same with Stagecoach ones on the 99 up the far steeper Borstall Hill where they would treat it as a flat road. Likewise with Go-Ahead WVL's which I've had treat hills like Shooters Hill & Anerley Hill as well as the hills either side of Loughton on the 20 like they were flat roads. I agree that a Enviro 400 can do well but they must be looked after as restricted ones definitely struggle a lot having had numerous experiences with EW TE's myself and the 57 reg E's whilst they were at SW. I’ve been on one of the 13-reg TEHs on the 210 which struggled hugely just going up Archway broadway. I feel this video of TEH1228 LK61BKJ illustrates the problem the TEHs have very well, at 5:25. (NOT MY VIDEO). Even TE985 struggled a little with this same hill on Tuesday when I did it, TE984 would have had no issues at all. Like I said earlier VWs are also good with hills but not in the same way as these TE rockets. They’re a lot more torquey, the grunt comes from very low down and they can crawl up the hill relentlessly without struggling (just as you described with the WVLs on the 432/Anerley Hill), but it’s not fast. Whereas the Euro IV E400s and old tridents are/were about sheer power and speed. What you’re saying is definitely right in that if any of these bus types have any issues at all climbing hills it’s definitely due to maintenance rather than the bus any regular battery E40H MMC (like the 109s or 172/343s buses) would absolutely devour this hill or Bittacy Hill on the 240. Regarding the E400H. I remember being on an EH on the 210 towards Brent Cross, can't recall whether it was a 60, 61 or 13 reg but after boarding at Archway the EH effortlessly breezed up Highgate Hill, as if it was a flat road. I think I posted a video of it somewhere on the forum quite a while ago, can't remember where though. Also the brilliant Abellio E400Hs that were on the 3 used to climb up the hill on the approach to Crystal Palace very rapidly, some drivers would floor it up there and it was always a pleasant experience I believe those E400Hs that don't perform that well is down to maintenance rather than the bus itself as they are more than capable.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 12, 2020 0:22:46 GMT
Additional changes now on TfL website 25th Jan : Route 424 afternoons reduced to every 35 mins 1 Feb : Route 170 frequency increase to every 7-8 mins (12 mins evenings & Sundays) not sure where the extra 10.9m single decks for route 170 will come from (suggests PVR going up by 2 or 3) The problem with a 35 minute frequency is that it is both infrequent and not 'clock faced' so people will need to know the time of their bus. Such changes tend not to work well and just lead to a loss of passengers. Perhaps TfL won't be too concerned about that, but if the intention is to provide a decent bus service they should be. It's inconsistencies like this that make TFL annoying. The extra 5 minutes won't make much of a difference as the 424 is already a low frequency route, it's just an inconvenience at such an odd interval. TFL should either keep the half hourly frequency or withdraw the 424 completely, if they want to be sensible about it then the former should be the choice.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 11, 2020 1:57:23 GMT
I wonder even as a guess how much a renumber would cost. Blinds alone would run into the thousands. Of course cost would be substantially mitigated if buses switch to LED blinds...but that's another matter
|
|