|
Post by ak121 on Apr 5, 2024 14:10:20 GMT
The E7 doesn't have any height restrictions, so there should be no problem getting deckers on it. In regards to the consultation, it wasn't clarified whether or not it was a typo on TfL's side stating that the route will be ran with DDs. So, it's anyone's guess as to if these specific Kites end up on the E7 (based on its original awarded contract from 27th May 2023 onwards) or if DDs are in store. Personally, I think the route that urgently needs decking in the area is the 195. But unfortunately, it was recently retained with its existing diesel SDs. Couldnt agree more on the 195. TfL definitely have some vendetta against that route. It should be running with deckers at minimum x8min frequency!! Crazy to think it hit 5m journeys in 2018 (a bit less now though, but still exceptionally busy), by far the lowest PVR single deck route to hit that figure. Only the 235, W15, 170 (and C10 just about) have hit that which are all a lot more frequent Just from local observations, the 195 is consistently well-loaded with people often being left behind in the peak times, especially between Hayes Town and Southall Green. It's a real shame that it wasn't converted over to DD, or at least partly, when the 427 received a PVR cut after its diversion to Merrick Road. Whilst TfL did grant increase the PVR of the 195 by 1 within its recent contract renewal, it's absolutely abysmal that it still runs every 12 mins! On another note, the E5 is also a route that is struggling: using single door vehicles and at a x12min frequency. I'm sure it featured in recent lists concerning the busiest bus usage in London at specific times. 9.7m buses should definitely be able to do the full route comfortably and the second door would really help with un / boarding. But then again, it seems like TfL have some sort of vendetta ongoing against the SD routes in Southall! It will be interesting to see how the proposed route 495 will help with loadings and journey patterns. Looking at the upcoming tenders and their specs, I'm glad to see that the 495 is at least specified with 60 capacity vehicles. So hopefully, this slight vendetta begins to dissipate haha!
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Apr 5, 2024 12:10:19 GMT
Oh yeah aren’t they proposing to deck it? Never heard of them doing that, certainly would look extremely weird because I thought E7 couldn’t use them or they just don’t do the E7. The E7 doesn't have any height restrictions, so there should be no problem getting deckers on it. In regards to the consultation, it wasn't clarified whether or not it was a typo on TfL's side stating that the route will be ran with DDs. So, it's anyone's guess as to if these specific Kites end up on the E7 (based on its original awarded contract from 27th May 2023 onwards) or if DDs are in store. Personally, I think the route that urgently needs decking in the area is the 195. But unfortunately, it was recently retained with its existing diesel SDs.
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Apr 5, 2024 10:11:34 GMT
Interesting to see none of 8142-8145 have moved over to BC ahead of the S3 takeover even though they are intended for the 404. Thought TUK would use this opportunity to move them over. It seems like TUK have decided to transfer over some of the H20's SN66 batch over to BC, prioritising the arrival of the S3 tomorrow and having the 404 continue on with the 367's YX16 batch. I wonder how long it will take GW to be fully wired up so that the E5 can receive its rightful YJ73 batch of MetroCities, have its YX16 batch transferred over for the 404 and the H20 receives its SN66s back...
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Apr 2, 2024 8:02:14 GMT
TUK's Metrocity saga continues with 1019, 1020, 1021 and 1023 (all YJ73 reg really for the E5) now on the H20!
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Mar 28, 2024 12:20:40 GMT
E5 has now FINALLY using Metrocities. Although the 2 of these are the 322s YJ22 batch I don’t know why it didn’t get its YJ73 batch. I can't believe this has finally happened! How strange that they have transferred some of the YJ22 batch over to GW instead! I'm also now presuming that GW should be wired up completely and that the E7 may potentially be seeing its Kites back from the R70? You never know with TUK's allocation strategies haha. Looking on LVF, it seems like 1010 was just a log in as it only lasted a min on the route at 10:57. Although, it seems like there are currently only 10 buses on the route at the moment, when the PVR should be 11 or 12 I think, so maybe some buses are not tracking correctly?
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Mar 14, 2024 7:24:52 GMT
Is councillors objecting that is stopping the route being decked? Crazy if so... deckers would have worked the route for years (as the old 237) . It should be decked as there is no physical reason why not and then the frequency could drop a bit and save some duties. Numerous decker routes are much lower frequency than this. Alternatively boost the 117 frequency which probably needs it in its own right and covers probably the busiest chunk of the 235 (between which it seems it is often curtailed anyway) The 195 is a case in point that you make, every 12 minutes with single deckers is outrageous for that route. You could probably double its frequency and it’ll still be packed all the time I agree with this- the 195 is almost constantly full to the brim. Whilst Abellio do try and run it to the best of their ability, excessive loading times, horrendous traffic in Hayes, Southall and Boston Manor Road and sometimes tedious driver changing at St Bernard's Gatehouse or Ealing Hospital can really mess the route up. I initially thought that TfL and Abellio would have considered transferring some of the ex-427's double decker MMCs to the route after it was rerouted to Southall and received a TVR decrease. Unfortunately, I seem to recall that it was retained recently with its existing 17-reg single decker MMCs though. ☹️
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Mar 11, 2024 8:06:14 GMT
The 235 follows some a good part of the 237 The 235 is run by RATP The 237 is run by Metroline If there is congestion on the London Road between Brentford and Hounslow the 237 will also suffer. But all you’ll hear about dear reader , is how bad the 235 is. The bias is clear to see from some posters screen names and images. It's not a case of clear bias. That'd be the easiest way out to explain the 235's dire performance. As you say, the 237 does share a significant proportion of its route with the 235 and yet Metroline never seem to have a long string of continuous curtailments, effectively cutting off a section of the 237's route. Unfortunately, with the case of the 235, RATP use this tactic regularly and the route is still a victim to heavy bunching. I understand that Metroline are not perfect either and have struggled with certain routes and RATP do also run some of their routes excellently. I also understand that the London Road corridor that the 235 and 237 serve is not the easiest turf to operate bus services down. But, looking at the graphs for both routes' performance and being a frequent user of each route, the service that RATP provide on the 235 is quite frankly, abhorrent with frequent ~30 min waits, whereas the fluctuations on the 237's graph are not as extreme. Metroline also did struggle with the 235, but they were wise enough not to resort to giving up on either end of the 235 route and were not liable to bunching as much. So, I'd advise anyone analysing the London Road example and the 235/237 situation, to realise that whatever an enthusiast's favourite bus operator is, in this specific case, it is clearly evident that RATP are currently rather incompetent in their operation on the 235 and Metroline seem to be managing rather impressively on the 237. I'm sorry it doesn't work in the favour of RATP fanboys, but as mentioned before, RATP have a proven track record of operating many bus services rather well. They just need to really re-evaluate their performance and contingency mechanisms on the 235 when things go wrong!
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Feb 15, 2024 10:41:26 GMT
If the E6 GB Kites are delayed, what spares could they use? Seeing that the E6 is a new contract, whereas the E7 was a retention last May, I assume TUK may elect to use the first batch of Kites (which were ordered for the E7) on the E6 when the contract starts and then shift buses around once the second batch arrives? I'm unsure about TVRs, but they could also convert the E7 to EV operation and use its 10.9m MMCs (8865-8875) on the E6 instead?
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Feb 2, 2024 14:43:01 GMT
I think attempting to move the 237 to WJ would be the most bizarre choice to solve AH's capacity problems. Moving either the 120 (from SG) or E2 to G would probably be more feasible and in the 120's case, transfer the H91 from AH to SG. Why would moving the 237 to WJ be bizarre? Out of all of AH's options, moving the E2 to G (which is practically on its LOR) or have the 120 being moved to G, which is 2 mins down the Ruislip Road from its LOR, and thus SG being free just seem like much more sensible and probably cheaper options. Whilst WJ isn't too far away from White City for the 237, why mess with an allocation there that has been working for numerous years and is on the LOR of the 237?
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Feb 2, 2024 6:45:07 GMT
How full is WJ? Would it be out of the question for the 237 to be moved to WJ to create space at AH so it can have another route or would the 237 be too big of a route to move. I think attempting to move the 237 to WJ would be the most bizarre choice to solve AH's capacity problems. Moving either the 120 (from SG) or E2 to G would probably be more feasible and in the 120's case, transfer the H91 from AH to SG.
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Jan 28, 2024 7:35:06 GMT
Because Metroline's bid was ultimately successful - whether an operator runs a service well or not doesn't determine who wins the tender even if I don't agree with that way of thinking. I don’t know whether you noticed but over the past few years, Westbourne Park Bus Garage has been losing a lot of buses to Metroline. It started with 31, 328 then 228 and now 28. 218 has also changed moved from Westbourne Park Bus Garage to London United. Don’t see what the problem is? Metroline has garages in the area and has always competed with the operator at X. Whether that operator was First CentreWest, Tower Transit or RATP London Transit, if Metroline put in a more competitive bid, it makes much more sense for TfL to award them the route. Nice bit of healthy competition (especially after the time period when Metroline were losing many of their ex-First contracts) is rather pleasant imo.
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Dec 20, 2023 11:45:35 GMT
Does anyone know how much progress has been made at GW with its electrification? The E5 and E7's contracts were renewed at the end of May and both fleets have been built and delivered. So hopefully, we should be seeing these two routes being electrified soon?
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Oct 23, 2023 11:02:47 GMT
1012 YJ73 BWA 1013 YJ73 BWB 1014 YJ73 BWC 1015 YJ73 BWD 1016 YJ73 BWE 1017 YJ73 BWF 1018 YJ73 BWG 1019 YJ73 BWH 1020 YJ73 BWK 1021 YJ73 BWL 1022 YJ73 BWM 1023 YJ73 BWN 1024 YJ73 BWO
1015-1016, 1018-1020 are now ready to be put into service and are sitting at QB with all relevant equipment installed That's excellent! Does anybody know what the progress is on the electrification work at GW? Are there any photos of these buses at QB?
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on May 29, 2023 9:18:35 GMT
The hail & ride sections between Denbigh Road and Dormers Wells (no longer existing due to rerouting), the whole Golflinks estate section, Toplocks, and that doubled up section near the A40. These are only based off observations, not sure if that’s what the route testing came up. Being a frequent user of the route, and having ridden on a 10.8m rare working on the E5 a few years ago, the entire route can support infrequent workings of 10.8m buses. However, some of the problematic sections on the E5 do tend to be badly parked cars on Sussex Road and Featherstone Road in Southall, the Medway Parade turning in Perivale and Edison Drive in Southall. Having said that, it does seem like Abellio has missed the opportunity to upgrade the route to at least 9.6m or even 10.2m vehicles with its contract renewal this year. The route does suffer from chronic overcrowding: longer buses would be a welcome addition and would be fine for the entire routing too. What was intriguing to see last year during a sudden closure of the Uxbridge Road in Southall due to a collision, 207s, 427s (at the time) and 607s were diverted through Dormers Wells and down the very tight Edison Drive back to LOR at Iron Bridge, rather than going all the way via Greenford. It was phenomenal to see large double deckers squeezing past parked cars in that residential section!
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Aug 16, 2022 15:47:54 GMT
Are there any routes which enter a borough twice or more? For example, 68 enters Lambeth at Waterloo, then Southwark, then Lambeth again at Herne Hill The 195 enters Hounslow on North Hyde Road, near to where the large Tesco is. It then travels through Ealing and re-enters Hounslow just after Boston Manor Station.
|
|