|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 6, 2020 20:12:33 GMT
I'm not really familiar with this situation, but if drivers are complaining about long hours without adequate rest time then surely bus companies/TFL should recruit more drivers? This would allow existing drivers to be able to rest more and be replaced by others. It's probably not that transparent but I can't see another legitimate solution. If drivers desire to work more because the extra pay is needed for personal reasons then surely the 'exhaustion' should be expected? Unless the working conditions itself is a major concern then I don't see how a strike is justified. I'm happy to be enlightened on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 5, 2020 11:41:53 GMT
Old farts? That’s a bit mean 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱 I meant old darts!! Didn’t notice that😂, think it was autocorrect as I use that expression a lot loool Lool this made me chuckle
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 3, 2020 13:20:14 GMT
Found this thread because I've got something to contribute. I've had enough of the tube noise. It's starting to affect lots of people who regularly take the Jubilee Central Northern and Victoria lines. I've now started to go by bus home because its getting horrible. Now, in around the late 2000s/early 2010s I didn't nearly notice the amount of noise on tube trains. The noise was mainly people but not the tracks. See, I think there should be about 3 weeks where all sections of track underground are replaced because this is clearly to do with speed and train tracks For example, I recently took a Waterloo & City line to Bank and this is similar stock to the Central no where near as much noise. The central line is quick but in the process it makes a h*CK of amount of noise. It's honestly scary how commuters who regularly take these 4 lines may have harmful effects on the hearing of their ears. I think with night tube on these 4 lines should halt. This will be a controversial opinion but this actually should happen for a few weeks. Night time is a valuable time for repair works but now across the weekend it's now been replaced by night tube and more care should be put into what the rails are like and the amount of noise they make. But when you think about it, the section between Bethnal Green and Liverpool Street got up to 110 dB, which is roughly the same as an aircraft. Sure, this might be commuters, but you can still hear the piercing noise of the rails through all the hubbub. I'm so disappointed in the sound, but it's not only the JVNC, it's also the Bakerloo between Waterloo and Lambeth North. That is truly horrible, the noise it makes leaving Lambeth North. Bakerloo line is easier to fix as it has no night tube, but the tracks need to be at a better quality and if we want people to stop producing emissions which contribute to climate change, it needs a sort out ASAP. Thanks 😁 This is exactly why I prefer to get the train into central London when I have to go. The noise on the northern line is unbearable sometimes and I often have to turn my music up very loud. The Northern Line is personally the worst of all. A few months ago I used the Northern Line between East Finchley and King's Cross and the section between Kentish Town and Camden Town s/b was unbearably loud, the noise is unlike anything I've heard before on the Underground in terms of loudness. The screeching noise was persistently loud on the approach to Camden Town. Not sure if it's been rectified now, pretty sure it has been as I can't imagine the public being subjected to this until now!
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 1, 2020 18:48:14 GMT
Just boarded an OME on the 134 for the first time, must say I was very impressed. Not only do they look great but they're rapid and have a smooth ride. Not a fan of the bright indoor lighting however. One question, does anyone know where the Air Cooling system is exactly? I couldn't locate where the vents are.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 1, 2020 0:37:36 GMT
Happy new year to all! Wishing 2020 is a positive year for everyone
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 31, 2019 11:07:07 GMT
Got a quite a few, but there is one route that stood out for me the most and for the wrong reasons, the 483. I used the route regularly a few months ago between Alperton and Harrow, and it was always a disappointing journey. Congestion made it tedious, drivers were always slow for some reason, and buses often dwelled at stops for a long time, only to result in more crowded buses. I avoided the 483 since.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 31, 2019 1:08:38 GMT
I know I'll be shot but all the numbers are fine with me except I'd love to see the 390 renumbered to 10. I know there is no 48 and 82 but I would just be nice to see atleast 1-20 sequence used. I'm generally indifferent with triple digit routes operating in Central London, however I'm not a fan of single and double digit routes operating in Outer and Suburban London. This is a personal preference and it may sound strange, but I would renumber single and double digit routes in Outer London i.e. the 5/20/93 etc to triple digit numbers. Conversely these numbers can be used to renumber triple digit and prefixed routes that operate in Central London. Routes that cross the geographical boundaries are obvious exceptions. I'm also not a fan of categorising routes that overlap each other with similar numbers i.e. 68/1u68/468. I acknowledge it's because of familiarisation amongst the public, however it's only a matter of time before the public are accustomed to a particular change, which can be facilitated with prior notice.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 30, 2019 4:29:19 GMT
A bugbear of mine, and I'm sure I speak for others as well. I've been witnessing a lot of people repetitively ringing the bell on buses and it's frustrating for fellow passengers but more so for the drivers themselves. If I find myself standing/sitting on the lower deck towards the front and this happens it's evident by their expression some drivers become frustrated and annoyed, and rightly so. All London buses should revert back to having a single-press only function like some buses used to have before. Not sure why this has been stopped. That's what I used to love about the old Leyland Metros, switch off the relevant breaker switch behind the driver's seat and the bell stops working (stopping light still works). Only thing is you had to watch your speed as the speedometer's switched off as it's on the same breaker switch. It certainly wouldn't have been worth doing that then! Then again during the days of the Metros I imagine speed restrictions weren't as common as they are now.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 29, 2019 19:30:52 GMT
A bugbear of mine, and I'm sure I speak for others as well. I've been witnessing a lot of people repetitively ringing the bell on buses and it's frustrating for fellow passengers but more so for the drivers themselves. If I find myself standing/sitting on the lower deck towards the front and this happens it's evident by their expression some drivers become frustrated and annoyed, and rightly so. All London buses should revert back to having a single-press only function like some buses used to have before. Not sure why this has been stopped.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 25, 2019 12:30:11 GMT
Merry Christmas everyone. Hoping everyone is having an enjoyable day with their families, friends and loved ones
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 25, 2019 3:37:38 GMT
Stumbled across this photo on Flickr... flic.kr/p/aDVAQzHow this OmniCity made it around the 138 unscathed I do not know. Can't fathom this either! A real gem though as it's - or was - a rare occurence. What amazes me most of all though is that this pic was snapped by an N73...phone not route I have fond memories of it, I digress
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 22, 2019 12:23:27 GMT
Tbh I don't think the 390 is needed anymore to NHG with the 94 and 148 from Marble Arch and the 274 as far as Lancaster Gate. Bayswater Road. It has sufficient bus capacity, but its in the wrong place. The 94 is crush loaded leaving Marble Arch, so from that point of view, it could do with some assistance, however, on the flip side, that would probably overbus Bayswater Road. The 94 really puts a shift in on Bayswater Road and is a really important link for the road. The 148 is also important, but its certainly the less busy of the two. There is enough bus capacity to cope with demand along Bayswater Road, what there isn't is plenty of capacity to deal with buses being swarmed at Marble Arch Station. The deckers on the 274 don't help that much as the 274 isn't very busy on Bayswater Road, and it doesn't go far enough to assist the 94 properly. Perhaps having the 390 back on Bayswater Road would be overkill, but if every other bus continued to Notting Hill Gate I think this would be fine, as would extending the 274 to Notting Hill Gate - I favour the latter as Bayswater Road has enough LTs as it is. I advocated extending the 274 to NHG before, however in hindsight the 94 becomes overcrowded pretty much from the get go at Piccadilly Circus, hence why it would be logical to extend a route within the vicinity of the West End to assist the 94 to NHG instead. The 274 wouldn't be of much help, perhaps the 73 would be more ideal. the 274 can then be curtailed to Marble Arch to avoid surplus capacity to and from Lancaster Gate. Alternatively the 73 and 390 can be reverted to their former termini, with the latter decreased in frequency.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 20, 2019 19:46:12 GMT
Why was the 476 cut between Kings Cross & Euston when it's only 2 stops? It's probably down TFL's reasoning of there being 'sufficient' capacity between Euston and King's Cross, if this was the case then reducing capacity along there is negligible due to the distance in between being so short. Although the 476 assisted the 73 to and from Euston, the former pretty much duplicated most of the latter's routing, leaving only the stretch to Oxford Circus for the 73 to traverse. Even after the change there is still a generous overlap, so something more radical could have been done in this regard. TFL could have looked at merging the 73 and 476, but this probably wouldn't be a good idea as the resulting route would require an astronomically large PVR. To give the 73 more of a 'sole purpose' outside the overlap it could be extended to Notting Hill Gate, assisting the 94 in the process. Having said that if you take into account the busy nature of the 73/476 then the overlap is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 18, 2019 17:50:53 GMT
Jeez, reading some of the silly comments from people in this thread who clearly don’t use these services at busy times is frustrating. Any local user (of which I’m one) will tell you that on Saturdays and during peaks, the 96 is rammed often to standing room only to and from Bluewater. I think cutting both the 428 and 492 is overkill and I’m glad that TfL are reconsidering. Yes Bluewater and DVH are outside TfL territory but the level of use from people in Bexley borough and further afield is very high. If you cut these services, those journeys will be made by car. Services that get local London borough residents to work, healthcare and leisure services are hardly an “extravagance”. If KCC have to pay for any service, it should be the stopping service on the 492. If lack of KCC funding is the core driver of these changes, the earlier suggestion of swapping the 428 and 492 routing between Crayford and Dartford, with the 492 curtailed to Dartford makes sense to me. I agree that these changes are 'overkill' and at least one route should remain at Bluewater in addition to the 96. The suggestion of the 428 and 492 swapping routings between Crayford and Dartford is sensible, enabling the latter to be more direct. The 492 can then be curtailed to Dartford, perhaps there will also be scope for extending the route further from Sidcup. Consequently the 428 could be extended further west to Thamesmead to provide new links, while the 428 already has a purpose it would be further boosted due to the extension which would also justify the conversion to Double Decks.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 13, 2019 13:54:16 GMT
Also the 112 will attract a considerable amount of patronage if it's extended to North Finchley via the 232 as TFL proposed not too long ago, which I hope does happen as there is scope for extending the 112. If the extension happens then that's an incentive to convert it to Double Decks. An extension is the last thing the 112 needs given it will simply make the unreliability worse - double deckers and a look at improving its reliability of the current route is what it really needs IMO. The 112 can suffer from reliability issues indeed because of the potential congestion along the North Circular. However according to the LBR website its max running time is 54 mins, if this is the 'worst case scenario' then the extension to North Finchley would perhaps add another 20-30 mins to its running time which is still feasible. Not forgetting the busy 232 would also be given some assistance along the common section.
|
|