|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 30, 2024 20:32:01 GMT
Today: 25 to Bow Church (from Ilford), X2 New BZLs 66034 and 66044 on the 276 looking pretty good! ๐ GAL curtailed the school bus on the 325 this afternoon away from Upton Lane. Hopefully they realise Upton Lane is actually the busiest part of the route, irrespective of the delays elsewhere. Arriva still managed to run the school extra without issue... And SEe274 on the 376! Passengers piled on from Upton Park to the penultimate stop in East Ham, which is unusual as Joe & Jenny Public don't normally hail the 376 towards Town Hall on High Street North. Drivers from all routes waving the 376 driver down, passengers upset when the bus terminated and due to the iBus screen not working properly, a lady overshot East Ham Station. But overall, passengers happy to see new buses in east London. Streetdeck 12328 on the 58 Oh, and 19863 spotting my most hated display- 474 to East Ham ๐ Saturday: Forgot to mention, 19873 on the 58. E400s are and still continue to be ultra rare on the 58 ๐ฎ The one on the 58 is in fact 13128, and it's not a Streetdeck - it's a Volvo B5LH with Wright Gemini III body. I definitely wrote 13128 but that got autocorrected. I was wrong with the Streetdeck statement though, cheers for pointing that out!
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 30, 2024 19:37:30 GMT
Today: 25 to Bow Church (from Ilford), X2
New BZLs 66034 and 66044 on the 276 looking pretty good! ๐
GAL curtailed the school bus on the 325 this afternoon away from Upton Lane. Hopefully they realise Upton Lane is actually the busiest part of the route, irrespective of the delays elsewhere. Arriva still managed to run the school extra without issue...
And SEe274 on the 376! Passengers piled on from Upton Park to the penultimate stop in East Ham, which is unusual as Joe & Jenny Public don't normally hail the 376 towards Town Hall on High Street North. Drivers from all routes waving the 376 driver down, passengers upset when the bus terminated and due to the iBus screen not working properly, a lady overshot East Ham Station. But overall, passengers happy to see new buses in east London.
12328 on the 58 Oh, and 19863 spotting my most hated display- 474 to East Ham ๐
Saturday: Forgot to mention, 19873 on the 58. E400s are and still continue to be ultra rare on the 58 ๐ฎ
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 30, 2024 18:54:52 GMT
Never say never! When I was attacked in 2017 and was forcibly driven to Newham General by a friend's mother at the time who was also a nurse, I was told at half 2 in the morning to make my way to Royal London. I'd say my jaw dropped to the floor upon hearing that, but unfortunately that was already the case as it was broken. Didn't want to get drawn into this debate or indeed this duplicate thread, but it's foolish to think all hospital staff are on the same two shift patterns. It is far from the case as consultants, lab technicians, pharmacy staff and support staff like porters and security guards all co-exist in a hospital. They finish as late as 1am and start as early as 3am. That's not even mentioning doctors who are prone to finishing shifts late due to chronic under-funding. I echo joefrombow 's sentiments in saying that if there is demand at night to hospitals with A&E departments, they should be served. Surely night buses exist to serve passengers already making these journeys, it'd be a smart use of resources to capture as much patronage as possible. So sorry to hear, I genuinely am. I also got attacked in 2017 the 1st night of GoAhead running the 5 group. The ambulance service were to busy to attend so the old bill drove me to Whipps X but then the trauma just continued. This is a core reason why I am always wary whilst travelling at night. Thanks for the well wishes. Merde happens as the French say. Coincidentally I was hospitalised the day of the 5 group tender results in 2017. My physical injuries healed fast, however it took a few months for me to mentally get over being homophobically attacked. Traveling in London at any time, you have to keep your wits about you especially after the news today in Hainult. I do hope you've fully recovered. ๐
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 29, 2024 22:38:08 GMT
This question is open to all though I think busoccultation will probably have the answer I am seeking: what will happen to the 238's E400s once the 277's hybrids are released? Spotted 12406 with BK codes on while most of 10101-10112 still have WH codes on them. Is it right to assume the old allocation will return to West Ham? To be absolutely honest, I'm not sure what will exactly happen to the transferred 238 Enviros once more hybrids from the 277 gets transferred to BK for the 238. Once the 242 starts using the Electroliners I don't think WH will need any more diesel E400's for any of the routes unless they still got the Scanias left in use by then they want to get rid off. I was slightly surprised to see WH codes still in place on 10101-112 batch in place when I saw a few of them on the road the other day, as normally Stagecoach are quick to replace the garage codes as soon as the bus gets transferred to another garage.
I did spot one bus, 10104 but not 100% certain, had BK codes on it so assumed the rest would naturally get done. Not too sure if there is a need for the E400s at PD as I don't think there are many Scanias left and PD should be able to source spares. There are still buses from the 86 that can be cascaded [back] to PD if need be, and then likely sell the 238's 12 reg on to the commercial market. In any case, time is almost certainly up for those E400s which is a mighty shame. I can still remember boarding them first time during college and my mates enjoying the ยจnew bus smellยจ. Will be sad to see them go.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 29, 2024 21:45:16 GMT
This question is open to all though I think busoccultation will probably have the answer I am seeking: what will happen to the 238's E400s once the 277's hybrids are released? Spotted 12406 with BK codes on while most of 10101-10112 still have WH codes on them. Is it right to assume the old allocation will return to West Ham?
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 29, 2024 21:26:24 GMT
The overwhelming majority of those would be for emergency lifesaving treatment. If Iโm sick enough to need to go to A&E at night Iโm not gonna waste time by waiting for a bus. Nobody who has to go to A&E in the middle of the night is not going to take a slow approach. Even discharges donโt tend to be in the middle of the night as there are typically less staff working so delays in tests, x-rays etc are common overnight. I agree there's no obvious need for night buses to serve hospitals. If an ambulance isn't available the NHS often pay for a taxi to get someone to A&E, they certainly wouldn't expect them to get a bus. Never say never! When I was attacked in 2017 and was forcibly driven to Newham General by a friend's mother at the time who was also a nurse, I was told at half 2 in the morning to make my way to Royal London. I'd say my jaw dropped to the floor upon hearing that, but unfortunately that was already the case as it was broken. Didn't want to get drawn into this debate or indeed this duplicate thread, but it's foolish to think all hospital staff are on the same two shift patterns. It is far from the case as consultants, lab technicians, pharmacy staff and support staff like porters and security guards all co-exist in a hospital. They finish as late as 1am and start as early as 3am. That's not even mentioning doctors who are prone to finishing shifts late due to chronic under-funding. I echo joefrombow's sentiments in saying that if there is demand at night to hospitals with A&E departments, they should be served. Surely night buses exist to serve passengers already making these journeys, it'd be a smart use of resources to capture as much patronage as possible.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 29, 2024 6:42:45 GMT
Is it Thames water doing the digging or contractors?Round here with Anglia Water itโs Clancy Dowcra doing the digging for them. Most of their works is not thought through, uncoordinated with other utility companies and spent most of the past 4 months digging up East Ham. It's definitely Thames Water! ๐
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 28, 2024 18:40:24 GMT
Just wanted to comment that I had two legitimate uses involving the Superloop last week Friday. First was a meet up in Pontoon Dock which involved taking the SL2 to Gallions Reach for the first time. The UeL bus stops have completely been taken over with livery! A pretty quick 15 minute journey which included some traffic, but the annoyance of not accessing Silvertown Way from North Woolwich got annoying with the 474 diverted through to Custom House. However, more and more people are using the 474 to head to Custom House/Excel from City Airport, so a mixed bag. Second journey was from Barking to New Southgate for a birthday dinner. A journey time of an hour on the trains vs the 50 minutes on the Superloop made it a clear choice in vehicle mode! Unfortunately the journey on the SL1, though very quick up till AD with a former driver on the 78, crawled throughout Bounds Green due to an accident on the westbound carriage adding 5 mins onto my trip. Still, the SL1 dropped me literally outside of the residence where I needed to be! I'm not going to completely overhaul my schedule to it fits around the Superloop network, but if there is a trip I need to do and can incorporate it, I will try to use the SL network when I can. It's not so bad... under the right conditions.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 28, 2024 18:06:18 GMT
Yesterday: SEe200- 366 to Ilford Station (from Beckton Station) 10301- 128 to Ilford Broadway (from Romford Station) Romford Road finally opened last Friday and GAL is running the full route of the 325... with noticeable bunching! Can't be too critical though, Thames Water still aren't done digging up Barking Road outside Newham Town Hall and East Ham High Street.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 25, 2024 17:45:53 GMT
I think some of the routes which I find annoying are the ones which just stop short of a really useful termination point, when they could have been very handy otherwise Example: - 25 to city thameslink. Itโs annoying as the current terminus is just so short of being useful, Holborn would have been much better (or TCR) - D3 terminating at city island. The extension to Canning Town would have been so useful Holborn might be full now that the 133 stops there now. You can actually walk from the City Island to Canning Town so there's a connection there The 171's old stand on New Oxford Street is still available. As much as there is stand space at Canning Town bus station after the 330 vacated, I personally feel TfL don't want two routes heading to Bethnal Green from Canning Town. That's how I see it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 24, 2024 21:11:39 GMT
I believe NP is at capacity so don't know where they would've fit the W4 NP just lost the 76. But gained the 91 in its place.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 24, 2024 17:33:03 GMT
Google Maps doesn't show it, but I believe Portland Rise is blocked off. Only cycles and pedestrians can go through the road now. Perhaps buses did use it before but now I donโt think can be used anymore. That's not the only way to access the stand. Buses [on the 141 and 341] proceed to Gloucester Drive to alight, then onto Alexandra Grove and Henry Road to stand on Portland Rise. Seeing as you haven't mentioned any of the other roads and this is still a turn available for other buses, the Portland Rise stand is still accessible.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 24, 2024 14:22:27 GMT
There is a bus stand on Portland Rise not too far away if the main stand in Manor House is an issue. Where exactly is it on Portland Rise? I never knew there was one there. Google is your friend That's a bit harsh considering Eversholt Street and other roads around Euston have been closed since November, and the 168 would've faced the same delays regardless. Maybe I am a bit biased but I believe the 1 merger isn't all that bad as it creates more direct journeys than it breaks. My non-enthusiast friends living in the Surrey Quays area are now opting for the 1 to central London and Camden because of this very reason; if the bus links are desirable, people will use it. By the way, the Overground from Enfield snakes very close to Dalston so wouldn't be surprised if there are some bus journeys emulating this trip. I personally favour extending the 67 to New Southgate, Oakleigh Road North via the 221 and 34 instead of merging the 67 and 329 together, but that's just me. As I mentioned in my earlier follow up post, my reports were pre Euston works. The 168 would of suffered too but the distance from Bricklayers Arms to Canada Water as apposed to Old Kent Road Tesco is far greater both in terms of traffic & routing. Old Kent Road Tesco is only a further two stops down the road whereas the 1 has plenty more stops to serve before even reaching Surrey Quays, let alone Canada Water. I didn't see you address that in a previous post before writing, sorry for that. As much as it isn't an ideal situation given the previous scope in the TfL: Super Broke era, this is one of those changes that make sense. The 436 being diverted to terminate at Battersea Park was an example of saving resources with very little benefit for passengers. GAL and its drivers have the expertise to run cross-city routes like TB123 has said, including the 108 which is run pretty well given the immense challenges that's unique to it. I get I'm not going to convince you that the 1 and 168 should've been left alone, but given the amount of garbage in the central London consultation a couple years ago this is a marked improvement.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 23, 2024 21:52:48 GMT
That could work, though I'm unsure about leaving the 259 on a solo section from Seven Sisters to Amhurst Park, with the Seven Sisters to Stamford Hill corridor already having quite a high frequency without the 243. Traffic doesn't seem too bad North of Edmonton Green, and I think the 149 wasn't cut from Ponders End due to poor reliability (but that was 2004 and a new cycle lane has been built along the road) - I don't think the 149 would suffer too much, but it could sometimes as well, but would save a decent level of buses without stripping anywhere of too many buses I would also be in favour of removing the 279โs current stand at Manor House, due to the fact that it has to U-Turn on a busy main road when departing towards Waltham Cross. There is a bus stand on Portland Rise not too far away if the main stand in Manor House is an issue.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 23, 2024 19:00:24 GMT
Mergers almost always involve 'thinning out' a section of route. The 1/168/188 changes led to a combined PVR saving of around 13. And from reports I've heard, not a particularly good service on the newly merged 1 as a result. That's a bit harsh considering Eversholt Street and other roads around Euston have been closed since November, and the 168 would've faced the same delays regardless. Maybe I am a bit biased but I believe the 1 merger isn't all that bad as it creates more direct journeys than it breaks. My non-enthusiast friends living in the Surrey Quays area are now opting for the 1 to central London and Camden because of this very reason; if the bus links are desirable, people will use it. By the way, the Overground from Enfield snakes very close to Dalston so wouldn't be surprised if there are some bus journeys emulating this trip. I personally favour extending the 67 to New Southgate, Oakleigh Road North via the 221 and 34 instead of merging the 67 and 329 together, but that's just me.
|
|