|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 7, 2015 20:17:30 GMT
I thought I'd give my two cents on this extremely relevant and valid topic. My focus was trying to untangle the single decker routes in Harlesden. However I have looked at other parts of West South West London. In some cases one route has been placed with two. I based most of these changes on observations that I have done when in West London and i think the changes will take passengers directly to places they need to go. Rethink206- Discontinued (replaced by Route A & B) 226- Discontinued (replaced by Route B & C) 228- Extended to Stonebridge Park (via Abbey Road and North Circular Road) 228- Rerouted via Du Cane Road and Wood Lane 228- Rerouted via Kensal Road and Westbourne Park (instead of Harrow Road) 260- Routing between North Acton and Starch Green swapped with the 266 266- Routing between North Acton and Starch Green swapped with the 260 283- Diverted away from East Acton instead via North Pole Road, Highever Road, Sutton Way, Dalgarno Way, Shrewsbury Street, Rootes Drive, Barlby Road to Ladbroke Grove, Sainsbury's 305- Discontinued (replaced by Route A) 440- Discontinued (replaced by bus routes C, 228 & E9) E9- Extended to Chiswick, Power Road via The Mall, Uxbridge Road, Acton, Winchester Road, Bollo Bridge Road, Bollo Lane, Acton Lane, Fishers Lane, Chiswick High Road, Sutton Lane North, Wellesley Road and Oxford Road North H20- Extended to Toplocks Estate via Lampton Road, Heston Road, Norwood Road, Merrick Road, Havelock Road, Hunt Road, Hillary Road, Havelock Road, McNair Road and Post Road, New RoutesRoute A- Edgware Station Bus Station - Station Road - Hale Lane - Mill Hill Green Man - Deans Lane - Orange Hill Road - Watling Avenue - Burnt Oak Station - Burnt Oak Broadway - Stag Lane - Princes Avenue - Honeypot Lane - Kingsbury Circle - Fryent Way - The Paddocks - Forty Lane - Bridge Road - Wembley Park Station - Wembley Park Drive - Fulton Road - Rutherford Way - Engineers Way - Wembley Trading Estate - Great Central Way - Brent Park Tesco - Brentfield Road - Knatchbull Road - Harlesden Station - Acton Lane - Station Road - High Street Harlesden - Station Road - Willesden Junction Station - Old Oak Lane - Old Oak Common Lane - Old Oak Common High Speed 2 Station (replacement of 206 & 305) (Frequency- M-S: 15 mins, S: 20 mins, Eve: 20 mins, Late Eve: 30 mins) Route B- Ealing Broadway Station - Haven Green - Eaton Rise - Montpelier Road - Birkdale Road - Lynwood Road - Brunswick Road - Hanger Lane - Hanger Lane Station - Twyford Abbey Road - Lakeside Drive (for Park Royal Station) - Coronation Road - Central Middlesex Hospital Bus Station - Acton Lane - Harlesden Station - Acton Lane - High Street Harlesden - Park Parade - Harlesden Road - Robson Avenue - Willesden Community Hospital - Harlesden Road - Donnington Road - Peter Avenue - Chambers Lane - Sidmouth Road - Brondesbury Park - Brondesbury Park Station - Salusbury Road - Queens Park Station - Brondesbury Road - Kilburn High Road - Kilburn High Road Station - Cambridge Avenue - Kilburn Park Station (Combination of 226 & 206) (Frequency- M-S: 12 mins, S: 20 mins, Eve: 20 mins) To be honest the 228 is hardly used well, apart from being handy along the entire length of Ladbroke Grove I never really understood its introduction in the first place. It's pretty much a second 187 with a complicated route, axeing it completely wouldn't cause any significant issues. I can see the logic behind your interesting 206 proposal, the issue however is Route B would mirror the 187 to an extent i.e. going past Queen's Park, Harlesden and Central Middlesex Hospital. Perhaps the 187 could be extended to Ealing Broadway from Central Middlesex Hospital via Route B, assisting the 226 along the common section.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 7, 2015 19:42:50 GMT
2 to Marylebone 27 to Turnham Green 391 to Richmond (SP) 190 to Stamford Brook 27 to Paddington Bakerloo Line to Piccadilly Circus Piccadilly Line to Hyde Park Corner 36 to Home (EH)
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 6, 2015 23:45:40 GMT
One issue is that OPO NB4Ls can end up with vast numbers of people squashed into the rear platform area. There is nothing to stop people standing there in OPO mode and I doubt drivers pay that much attention provided they can get the doors open and closed. If the area is congested then it may simply be a case of people being unable to move or get their feet out of the way. It's the same problem as the DLR had with their first units which had inward swinging doors. I take the point about other doors moving inwards but they tend now to be at the front door only and this will usually be kept clear by the driver. Inward swinging centre doors are getting rarer and rarer in London and the centre doors on NB4Ls slide outwards. The VLAs still have them and I regularly see people getting clonked by them - often because the bus is so full with standees. *If* the rear door is redesigned then hopefully the curved element will be straightened out to allow a wider aperture for the door and resiting of any internal vertical stanchions. I hope also the door will simply slide along the side of the bus but not out the back - that would present a collision risk if people decide to walk into the road by the back of the bus. That is what "did" for the first design of Enviro 200. As the rear axle of the NB4L doesn't steer there should be little issue with a door sliding along to the left of the rear door aperture. I did see a picture of LT511s door, but I've since lost the link so I can't actually show you but the rear door only slides one way and does indeed cover the rear wheel exactly as you said. Interesting, this was also an idea I was thinking of. I didn't mention it due to the awkwardness of the rear door being constantly open in open-platform mode and covering the rear left wheel. I guess this isn't an issue after all in the case of LT511, or will LT511 and onwards LTs always operate in OPO mode?
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 6, 2015 19:33:26 GMT
Or grossly embarrassing and an unjustifable expenditure? The problem with making substantive modifications to the vehicles means you have to admit they weren't necessarily fit for purpose and that's probably a step too far for such a high profile, politician linked project A shame but there you go. But in that case couldn't having to modify the design for future deliveries also be considered embarrassing? And I'd have thought the fact that most LTs are going to be used in OPO mode at all times, which didn't appear to be the original plan, could be used as a good excuse for the change. However I'm still kind of surprised that the rear door design is such an issue. While the grab pole clearly obstructs part of the doorway, many buses in the past have had folding exit doors. In general plug doors are better, however the rear door on the NBfL was always going to be a compromise and fitting a plug door doesn't really solve that as the curved rear of the bus means the full width of the door can't ever be used in OPO mode. Also some of these buses are likely to be based at garages which operate other LTs in crew mode, so the modification will result in less flexibility (such as the 168's and 91's batches not being able to operate in crew mode on the 24 and 390). So I'm not sure that it was really worth making this change. If people are being hit by the rear door then maybe some larger warning notices could have be applied. Perhaps the best solution for the rear door problem would be to implement some sort of partition i.e an automatically retractable barrier, preventing anyone from standing in the area and potentially getting hit when the door is opening, or just an old school ribbon! Although the former would prove costly, especially if implemented across the entire fleet. A rear plug door is indeed a challenging prospect, however there might be a possibility for designing the door to swing outwards around the rear, similarly with some front coach doors.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 6, 2015 18:58:31 GMT
And it's the public who keep the London buses business running, after all the objective is to transport the public. Awwwww.... It's cute that you still think that!!! ...*roll eyes*
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 5, 2015 15:03:51 GMT
Lol fair enough in that respect You're forgetting that London buses are a business not a public service. Mileage and money in the bank for the operator is what matters not the traveling public. And it's the public who keep the London buses business running, after all the objective is to transport the public.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 2, 2015 13:57:58 GMT
The general rule of thumb is that they could go anywhere a 12 metre rigid could go. Of course, they've never been many of them in London. There are left turns on established bus routes that have to be taken wide (just off the top of my head 14 etc from Fulham Road into Onslow Square, 170 Chelsea Embankment onto Battersea Bridge) so I think certain bendy bans were as much due to more modern risk assessments and the perceived extra risk to cyclists than those moves being more dangerous than existing ones. I drove them on Malta and the roads there are nowhere near as easy to manouvere as London - certainly helped me hone my driving skills and good fun to boot! Also, you should see where some of the bus routes around Folkestone and Dover serve with long wheelbase vehicles... Moz I echo this! Another example is Paris. I regularly use Route 80 when I'm in Paris, which goes past my Aunt's house. It's a Bendy Bus route operated by MAN Lion's City Gs, some of the roads on the route are narrower than London's yet they manage fine...and cyclists over there are superfluous in comparison
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 29, 2015 12:52:39 GMT
A lot of drivers are happy just going up and down the same familiar route day after day and are totally out of their comfort zone doing rail replacement work in an unfamiliar area Yet they still choose to accept work and don't bother to learn the route correctly, get lost and end up dealing with this www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB94lcLRvhcThat guy that didn't want to shut his trap is annoying...it's no wonder this escalated into an argument and the driver had the right to get furious at him
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 29, 2015 12:47:29 GMT
This is probably what happened with the 73 taking a separate diversion stated in my previous post, due to the general diversion being risk assessed for the Artics. As you drove the Bendies, it's great that you can provide proof for their maneuverability. I completely agree, as long as the second set of wheels get around a corner then the rear part will follow without issue Whilst it is true that they are very manoeuvrable for their size there are a lot of turns that they cannot do which conventional buses can. For example the left turn from Regent Street into Oxford Street (before the junction was modified) could only be done in an artic from the right hand lane (impractical and potentially unsafe in normal traffic conditions) whilst conventional buses could do the turn quite comfortably from the nearside lane. The Artics on Regent Street were on routes 12 and 453, they weren't required to turn left from Regent Street into Oxford Street as they went straight on, unless there was a diversion which for some reason caused a Bendy route to negotiate that turn.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 29, 2015 12:39:22 GMT
But many of the passengers would be inconvenienced as a result, obviously they would read the destination before getting on. Also, as drivers won't expect anyone to get on for a 2 stop journey, is covering a tiny bit of mileage worth the hassle of being in service? If you don't want to lose money, than yes, certainly is worth the hassle IMO. Lol fair enough in that respect
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 29, 2015 12:34:01 GMT
Yes but I am talking about this specific turn, not all others. I am aware about the points to short turns. If the bus was only traveling for 2 stops passengers wouldn't really have a benefit apart from going on those 2 stops, otherwise they could have gotten on another bus, something TFL should have looked into before sending a bus for a 5 minute or less journey. I understand if the bus needed to go back to the garage or if there was a problem with the bus but unless so it could have been scheduled for at least a longer journey. I don't understand your point I'm afraid. Short turns, whether they are for 2 bus stops or 22 bus stops, are done to cover mileage, plug gaps elsewhere on the route and/or can also be done due to the working hours of that particular driver. If that 476 turn meets just one of the criteria above, then it can't be pointless. But many of the passengers would be inconvenienced as a result, obviously they would read the destination before getting on. Also, as drivers won't expect anyone to get on for a 2 stop journey, is covering a tiny bit of mileage worth the hassle of being in service?
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 29, 2015 11:14:10 GMT
I drove bendies for a while on 12 and 453 in 2011 and they are generally very manoeuvrable (have a look at the Dulwich stand working for proof!). I did not notice them to be any harder to drive than a 10 metre double deck (reversing excepted and I did get used to doing that with practice.) As long as the second set of wheels clear a corner the rest will follow. I could foresee possible complications if an adjustment to avoid parking on a narrow road needed to be made before the turn was completed but I never remember getting in that situation. I know they sometimes took different diversions but that was probably down to only certain roads being risk assessed specifically for a bendy bus diversions. This is probably what happened with the 73 taking a separate diversion stated in my previous post, due to the general diversion being risk assessed for the Artics. As you drove the Bendies, it's great that you can provide proof for their maneuverability. I completely agree, as long as the second set of wheels get around a corner then the rear part will follow without issue
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 29, 2015 10:59:17 GMT
A lot of drivers can't cope with rail replacement. They refuse to work with maps provided, refuse to work with signposts and haven't got a clue when it comes to road knowledge. It's mystifying as to why some operators indiscriminately throw money at drivers to do it without vetting them first. And further mystifying as to why drivers accept the duties. Pilots can help, but from what I've witnessed they can and will get the driver lost if neither of them know the route. Could it be the extra money thrown at them resulting in a bit of complacency? Only much to the driver's surprise, they realise that this duty needs a much more considered approach...especially with a relatively complex route like Willesden Junction - Richmond. It's not that much to ask for drivers to familiarise with any given route prior to duty, or knowledgeable pilots accompanying drivers along an entire journey.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 28, 2015 22:41:14 GMT
They only had their own diversions because those putting the diversions in place had no idea of the capabilities of those buses. My dad used to drive them on the 453 and maintains to this day that there is nowhere a regular double decker could go that a bendy bus couldn't follow I'm sure I've already had this argument on here.......... I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with that, I was on a 73 which should have turned left into Gloucester Place when Oxford Street was closed but the driver went straight on and got totally stuck on a corner on the diversion that other buses were taking! I remember when the 73 had Artics, it was exclusively diverted between Oxford Circus and Goodge Street via Regent Street and Mortimer Street, other routes continued onwards and took a left on to Newman Street then right to Goodge Street, this is probably due to the right corner of the latter diversion's angle being less than 90 degrees. I still maintain that Bendies can follow the majority of corners a DD can.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 28, 2015 18:00:28 GMT
It would be best if the 129 terminates and stands on Millennium Way, it's unnecessary for it to go further to the Emirates Air Line Station and saves some valuable running time regardless of its route length. Additionally, the 188 could share the Millennium way stand with the 129 to provide a common bus stop towards Greenwich, this would also avoid overcrowding North Greenwich bus station, leaving the 129/188's current stop exclusively served by the 132 and DT 11's proposed 218 as well as making stand space available for it and future proposals. A single route linking Greenwich Town Centre/Cutty Sark, North Greenwich Station/O2 Arena and the Emirates Air Line would be very useful, particularly for tourists. Extending the 129 (a very short and frequent route) to the Air Line Station wouldn't add much to the 'valuable' running time; it's a very short extension taking a few minutes. I also don't understand how moving moving the 188 (and 129) away from the bus station would help 'overcrowding' at the bus station, the bus station doesn't get overcrowded, the buses do! The bus stops at the station get ridiculously overcrowded in the peaks, adding the 218 to one of the stops would just make it worse. So moving the 129 and 188 adjacent to the station, which is literally across the road, might help in this situation. Don't forget this is only an idea to accommodate the would-be busy 218 at the station, otherwise if this is possible without any modifications then great! I don't really see the 129 being any more useful if it terminates at the Emirates Air Line, I'm sure tourists are happy to walk on a day out to get to the Cable Car, which to be fair is only a short walking distance away from the station, IMO having the 129 double run the station just to terminate a few metres away is unnecessary.
|
|