|
Post by elcesteem16 on Mar 12, 2024 12:59:19 GMT
X and LI routes were both on the blinds. Same for DDs. I'll bet you that was from the Tower Transit era 👀 No, really? Would never have guessed 😱
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Feb 13, 2024 13:59:04 GMT
They are non-standard which probably led some to believe there might be an alteration. I had heard talk of them being replaced but at the same time I'm not hugely surprised. Although it doesn't feel long ago they entered service, it was only during Covid! Time flies. I wouldn’t class them as non standard - they share body parts with the large group of diesel examples in the fleet whilst the electrical parts are identical to the 74 double decker BYD’s they have. The outgoing Scanias & Solos are what I’d call truly non standard Not necessarily in terms of body parts. Sure the light clusters and stuff will appear to be the same, but interior fittings and some external panelling will have differences from measurements to fixings and not to mention some design changes. You also got to think, by the time the Volvo’s come in, they will be considered non-standard at that point.
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Feb 12, 2024 14:37:20 GMT
Yes and there isn't really anywhere in Catford town centre either for it to stand. I think it's close to 10 to 12 mins down there and back up to TL in order to turn around. There is one place it could go especially now it no longer goes to Holborn ita highly uikley but Beckenham? Via Lower Sydenham could work maybe 🤔 One for the fantasy thread me thinks.
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Dec 5, 2023 16:48:59 GMT
Quite possibly, bit concerning how often this seems to happen, fortunately nobody injured. And shouldn't have been doing a U turn either in the road. Drivers at TL are not doing them for the 171. Many 171 and 47 drivers are doing it! There was even a night where one 171 drove up to Daneswood Road (before Catford Police Station stop) did a whole U-Turn another went up going up towards Conisborough College and looping via Bellingham Road (which I think in a way is a better approach than going all the way up to Downham empty). There was also also a time a 47 driver reversed into the road next to TFC and pulled out nearly being knocked out by an oncoming 54!
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Nov 24, 2023 17:09:31 GMT
Why not? Again you have the 160/194 and at a push 202/320? I don’t think ruling out DD operating from such a depot should be anyone’s thought. I agree with you, I'm just saying that at the moment there is no need for any double decker routes to operate from there. May not now, certainly. But if an opportunity arises then can definitely see them lining themselves up into that race!
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Nov 24, 2023 17:07:31 GMT
Why not? Again you have the 160/194 and at a push 202/320? I don’t think ruling out DD operating from such a depot should be anyone’s thought. I agree completely, any suggestion that double deckers can't operate from a garage because there is a low bridge nearby is ridiculous. If GAL ever did take over the Clarkes site the 352 and 450 would be the obvious ones and maybe the 171,227 or 320? Oh definitely! I can certainly see maybe some interest in the 160 too and maybe another shot at the 54/75. Endless opportunities for any operator who grabs that land up. As long as protocols are put in place to then I don’t see why they couldn’t. It’s also an opportunity if SL were to take it in, in addition to look at things west of Southend Lane (TL already covers everything from the east side).
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Nov 24, 2023 17:02:02 GMT
This was some time ago and would imagine things have been learnt and put in place since. I doubt this would be an issue now if say, 194 was to run from KB or any other operator in that industrial area. For one you can’t exactly turn right (as I mentioned above) to make that mistake and it’s not even on the way to the start of the route. I’ve sat and read these arguments about the area not being suitable for a bus depot many times and honestly it’s come to a point where those who say it are just wrong. A majority of drivers/controllers/engineers aren’t that stupid and so the risk in this day and age is low. A those who aren’t that smart systems such as the warning alarms now exist which I don’t think did in TA’s back then (could be wrong). That area is also good for expansion wether that’s to help relieve room from other depots (GAL/SLN) or for expansion into other areas they don’t usually operate (ALS/SLN). I really think the forum should shy away from this shenanigans and at least give the opportunity a chance if it was to happen. (As you can tell it has annoyed me that those comments have always been the default answer of being against the idea) However, as things stand now there are no double-deckers operating from that site, so the risk factor of a double-decker from that site striking the nearby bridge is zero. Not low - zero. Risk management allows for historical and known risk to be managed, even then as we know, and even with all the mitigating factors in place, things do go wrong - people make mistakes. However a guiding principle of risk management is that you do not deliberately and knowingly introduce new risk where it has not existed previously. There is no good reason to operate any double deck route from Kangley Bridge Road or from the former coach depot. There are plenty of single-deck routes that can be operated from there. So expansion wouldn’t be a good reason to operate? Particularly for a new operator within the area. Sure there’s historical risks, but logically you can balance both and that goes for any industry. You can’t not do things just cause it’s happened once or twice years ago. What you do is you look at things that may help to stop it from ever happening again, whilst still reaching goals that you set (expansion). I’m sure it’s happened a few times at garages like Bow or others near a low bridge and I’m sure they’ve put in protocols to stop such things from ever happening again. TL have protocols I’m sure for stuff such as the 75 now since that happened, why wouldn’t KB or any other operator? It’s also not Zero. As mentioned, DDs have been stabled at KB so it’s really 50/50. End of the day DDs are able to operate from that part of town out of a depot in that area, if people think otherwise then thank lord they aren’t running busses themselves.
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Nov 24, 2023 14:35:21 GMT
If GAL did purchase the Clarkes site, I can't see them even operating any double decker routes from there anyway - it would probably take the 352 and 354 from MB (maybe the 227 as well), and the 450 from C so I think the concern about double deckers is a non issue. Why not? Again you have the 160/194 and at a push 202/320? I don’t think ruling out DD operating from such a depot should be anyone’s thought.
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Nov 24, 2023 14:30:38 GMT
I am pretty sure Stagecoach had a particular TA back in the day that was deroofed at the Southend Lane low bridge when running light on the 75 when TL based and then again when based at TB when running light on the 194 or vice versa, either way it was the same bus deroofed twice at the same low bridge. Anyone remember? This was some time ago and would imagine things have been learnt and put in place since. I doubt this would be an issue now if say, 194 was to run from KB or any other operator in that industrial area. For one you can’t exactly turn right (as I mentioned above) to make that mistake and it’s not even on the way to the start of the route. I’ve sat and read these arguments about the area not being suitable for a bus depot many times and honestly it’s come to a point where those who say it are just wrong. A majority of drivers/controllers/engineers aren’t that stupid and so the risk in this day and age is low. A those who aren’t that smart systems such as the warning alarms now exist which I don’t think did in TA’s back then (could be wrong). That area is also good for expansion wether that’s to help relieve room from other depots (GAL/SLN) or for expansion into other areas they don’t usually operate (ALS/SLN). I really think the forum should shy away from this shenanigans and at least give the opportunity a chance if it was to happen. (As you can tell it has annoyed me that those comments have always been the default answer of being against the idea)
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Nov 24, 2023 4:00:57 GMT
One thing to remember is you can’t exactly do a right out of Kangley Bridge. So any possibility of hitting that bridge on a dead-run to a start of route would really be baffling and if you forgot where the depot is on the way back and hit that bridge, then you’re as stupid as the artist who gets 9 writers to write their track.
Not to mention I couldn’t see KB (if it was to operate DDs) taking on routes East of Southend Lane (54/136/208/320) I’d imagine TL/TB have that A21 stretch covered for those. West of it (Crystal Palace / Sydenham areas) I would imagine would be a sole focus if new routes were to run from it.
Keeping on topic, if GAL were to snap up that depot I would imagine they would use that in the same way as I latterly explained about KB + Capacity easing. I couldn’t see them wanting to grab the 136 from there when it could be cheaper from NX. 320 could be a good shout and a possible snap up of the 54, but really it would literally just be ideal to help on capacity and overall don’t see that bridge as any issue unless you’re the most stupidest driver to ever exist.
Also looking on a lighter side, if that idea of relocating Lower Sydenham station and the development around it goes ahead, could possibly lower the road in the process to allow DD. That’s ofc in a paper pipe dream though, but an idea 😉
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Sept 28, 2023 16:30:57 GMT
one of my distant friends just got on the refurbished 10343 and took a snap saying 'Tfl upgrade '. Heres how the convo went: Me with her snap: 'Those seats look goofy icl, even me as a bus enthusiast' Her: 'Bro said a bus enthusiast (skull emoji)'     'Icl the seat comfy tho' Me: (Bro said a bus enthusiast (skull emoji)) 'I am'    (Icl the seat comfy tho) 'Might need to check it out icl' Yep, i have yet to catch or get on the refubished 10343. Btw, thats the end of the convo. Just told your friend you’re a bus enthusiast so casually 💀
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Sept 20, 2023 1:21:06 GMT
What’s happening to the YX15s on 346 once Stagecoach get the route? I believe they are replacing the 60 plates with these at MB but not too sure on the confirmed plans I assume you mean the 61 plates? 60 plates are 8.9m opposed to the 61 plates which are 9.6m, same as the 15 regs
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Sept 19, 2023 14:21:28 GMT
What's everyone's favourite existing DD fleet at X? The red ones The ones that go brrrr vrrrmm 🤣🤣 some whistle too, those are cool. 🤣
|
|
|
Metroline
Sept 19, 2023 14:18:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by elcesteem16 on Sept 19, 2023 14:18:15 GMT
Will the VMHs currently at EW be going for scrap once they are all displaced by the new electrics on the 113 next year? Why… what?!? Are you stupid?! What sort of question is this… Honestly some of the stuff I see you post is actually a**. Do some research or ask your silly questions and thoughts elsewhere then come back when you’re a bit more intelligent in the matter. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by elcesteem16 on Sept 18, 2023 9:54:28 GMT
Thanks for your advice. BTW the 386 is the lowest frequency route in the area and route controllers have a habit of instructing drivers to miss the first three or four stops on the route in Woolwich. As the whole bus is now shaking it's not just the passengers. Would you like to drive it? It seems the operator is always right on this forum. I highly doubt that to be the case the operator will not skip stops without a good reason so I say this is BS. I have done the 99 in the past and I can tell you now it is was not uncommon to get calls from the NMCC about Hare Street being blocked due to badly parked vehicles. 51 99 & 386 would divert and skip Hare Street & Powis Street. Where are the traffic wardens in Greenwich nowhere to be ever seen. Overall I can just now compare you to the complaining passenger asking her to take her back to the previous stop who feels entitled to such a matter that hundreds of service buses have gone through for decades. If you feel entitled because of buses vibrating I suggest to sit on the 450 for a whole day and at the end of the day you will most certainly have a headache. If it really bothers you get an UBER or Walk… No one from the DVSA, Go Ahead London & TFL gives a Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious about buses that vibrate when they are idling hence why your complaints will be ignored and continue to be ignored for all eternity… I wonder how many people laughed at such foolishness in their email inbox… Like I said earlier 178 380 & P4 darts all used to do this and even HVs. You should have been around when buses were real quick journeys loud engines now in my opinion those were real buses ROARING Volvos, Screaming Tridents, Allison Box ALX 200s I remember those double deckers I used to call them burping buses due to the loud sound that came from them… Overall as I driver yes I would drive it. As long as the vehicle is fit for service it is moving. If a bus stinks of diesel fumes it is being taken out of service immediately and I will challenge anyone who asks me to continue Carbon Monoxide poisoning to passengers or those with Asthma… Love this! I agree with all points here! I’d absolutely drive the route or any route that has a vibrating bus on it, at the end of the day, a bus is bus. It’s not about the forum being so in love with the operator or what not, it’s about priorities and to an operator, vibrating diesel buses is probs down the very bottom of their long list, sitting in a puddle (apart from ridding them for an EV on contract renewal). A with missing out stops, I’m sure there is a good reason for it… including what DT has said! If it was deliberate, there would have been some discipline by TFL to the operator, but since there hasn’t (that we know of) and it’s been explained why they skipped the stops on the route then again no real issue. I’m sure the passengers have been informed one way or another, due to lack of complaints! Those who have complained may have just had a driver, who hasn’t informed its passengers about skipping stops and so that’s on the driver, again not life threatening. Complaints on that level to an operator will only have a difference made if more than one person puts a complaint through. At that point I’m sure someone from Socials/Communication will pick up the email, contact relevant garage and just ask for a check over on that complaint groups behalf. Engineer may do a little tweak, but if it’s nothing that bad to someone who is professionally trained in that area then I’d trust their word for it being fine. Same process if I was a driver, I’d assure them it’s a normal thing but will put it on the check card or tell someone at depot. But I’d also let them know cause of the type of bus and it’s age, it will be a an issue that won’t go away and will most likely be quite low on the list to deal with. Either way, the harsh reality is you’ll have to deal with it until contract is renewed with EVs.
|
|