|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jan 9, 2018 17:24:08 GMT
I'm starting to think that Fleet Road isn't actually an issue, because a proposal in the Development paper was to deck the 325 suggesting there aren't actually any barriers to this. I also think you may be right about loadings, both routes have healthy patronage numbers for Single Deck routes but it's been a very long time since I saw a 325 or 366 packed solid. Prior to the 2016 contract the 366 would struggle but that's not the case anymore since its PVR and frequency increase. I've seen a few packed 366s during my Uni years until summer last year (2016) and I always thought DDs were justified for the route. Not sure about it now though as it's been a while since I've witnessed the route regularly bar the odd occasion of venturing within its vicinity. I find the only real busy section is the side roads between Barking and Ilford. The only time the bit near Gallions Reach Shopping Park gets wedged is when there are sales or there is a big gap on the other routes. |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Jan 9, 2018 17:31:09 GMT
Bit of a variation, has made the news today in Battersea that the new single decks are too tall for the 10 foot height restriction so TfL just abandoned a section of route 170 Wandsworth Council news linkA basic streetlite 10.8m is officially 2905mm (9'7") but this may exclude any roof mounted pods, cant remember exact height of the Darts, but they are about 2850mm (9'4") Who is the faceless t*rd from TFL who said "The bridge must have been lowered?" Probably get a knighthood next time round  |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jan 9, 2018 18:07:28 GMT
Bit of a variation, has made the news today in Battersea that the new single decks are too tall for the 10 foot height restriction so TfL just abandoned a section of route 170 Wandsworth Council news linkA basic streetlite 10.8m is officially 2905mm (9'7") but this may exclude any roof mounted pods, cant remember exact height of the Darts, but they are about 2850mm (9'4") I didn't want to believe this was true, but it is confirmed the route is on diversion on the route's status page. Is it confirmed that it's only the Streetlites that were hitting the bridge? If so then then it's beggars belief that Darts haven't been sourced to make up the PVR. There are loads lying around in yards around London. If it's the Darts that have been hitting the bridge then it makes sense to carry out further investigations until it's resolved. |
|
|
|
Post by lwldriver on Jan 9, 2018 18:12:54 GMT
286 Deckers don’t do the full route, they turn at the Frognal Corner roundabout and so don’t serve the hospital loop which misses out I believe two stops. Yes that's how they're instructed. But one I rode didn't do this. I even have filmed a route visual to back this up, once I get my YT channel intro done I will put it up I promise. For now here's a picture of it using the normal hospital stand, meaning it had to continue straight into the hospital site to get out: flic.kr/p/21znuLW Fair enough, yes I’m familiar with that stand, lwldriver was born in QMH and I have always lived half a mile away, that’s before they knocked down the maternity unit lol |
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Jan 9, 2018 18:16:17 GMT
Bit of a variation, has made the news today in Battersea that the new single decks are too tall for the 10 foot height restriction so TfL just abandoned a section of route 170 Wandsworth Council news linkA basic streetlite 10.8m is officially 2905mm (9'7") but this may exclude any roof mounted pods, cant remember exact height of the Darts, but they are about 2850mm (9'4") I didn't want to believe this was true, but it is confirmed the route is on diversion on the route's status page. Is it confirmed that it's only the Streetlites that were hitting the bridge? If so then then it's beggars belief that Dart's haven't been sourced to make up the PVR. There are loads lying around in yards around London. If the Darts have also been hitting the bridge then it makes sense to divert the route until the council sorts it. Easiest thing to do now would be to swap around the Streetlites with Enviro 200's off the 493. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 9, 2018 18:17:34 GMT
Bit of a variation, has made the news today in Battersea that the new single decks are too tall for the 10 foot height restriction so TfL just abandoned a section of route 170 Wandsworth Council news linkA basic streetlite 10.8m is officially 2905mm (9'7") but this may exclude any roof mounted pods, cant remember exact height of the Darts, but they are about 2850mm (9'4") I didn't want to believe this was true, but it is confirmed the route is on diversion on the route's status page. Is it confirmed that it's only the Streetlites that were hitting the bridge? If so then then it's beggars belief that Dart's haven't been sourced to make up the PVR. There are loads lying around in yards around London. If the Darts have also been hitting the bridge then it makes sense to divert the route until the council sorts it. Exactly and surely TfL should be on the phone to Go Ahead screaming blue murder and demanding to know what they're doing about it? Darts have passed safely under the bridge for years, haven't a few Citaro's also appeared on the 170? |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jan 9, 2018 18:23:11 GMT
Exactly and surely TfL should be on the phone to Go Ahead screaming blue murder and demanding to know what they're doing about it? If Darts suddenly started hitting the bridge then it warrants the diversion and further investigation as it could be one of many things. If it was only the Streetlites as the article suggests then they should have been taken off immediately and replaced with Darts until the problem is resolved. It may well be the case that the Streetlite passed the route test but other drivers in service have had issues with the bridge. Whatever it is, hope it is sorted soon! |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 9, 2018 18:25:56 GMT
Exactly and surely TfL should be on the phone to Go Ahead screaming blue murder and demanding to know what they're doing about it? If Darts suddenly started hitting the bridge then it warrants the diversion and further investigation as it could be one of many things. If it was only the Streetlites as the article suggests then they should have been taken off immediately and replaced with Darts until the problem is resolved. It may well be the case that the Streetlite passed the route test but other drivers in service have had issues with the bridge. Whatever it is, hope it is sorted soon! As far as I'm aware it's only the Streetlites. As you said there are plenty of spare Darts knocking about. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 9, 2018 18:51:57 GMT
VPL630 made a good point on a Facebook group that the MEC that run on the 170 did the full route but are 10’5” whereas a Streetlite is 9’7” and it’s mentioned in a previous post that the Darts are 9’4” - the bridge is signposted as 10’0” so something somewhere doesn’t add up
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 9, 2018 19:11:24 GMT
Bit of a variation, has made the news today in Battersea that the new single decks are too tall for the 10 foot height restriction so TfL just abandoned a section of route 170 Wandsworth Council news linkA basic streetlite 10.8m is officially 2905mm (9'7") but this may exclude any roof mounted pods, cant remember exact height of the Darts, but they are about 2850mm (9'4") Who is the faceless t*rd from TFL who said "The bridge must have been lowered?" Probably get a knighthood next time round Unless the road under the bridge has been resurfaced recently but that doesn't appear to be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Jan 9, 2018 19:12:58 GMT
If they are hitting the bridge or having issues then the bridge has the wrong signpost or the buses are too tall but I refuse to believe that a streetlite is taller than a citaro, anyway, each driver that has taken a merc under that bridge has broken the law as they are certainly taller than 10ft
Edit: After some digging, looks like the bridge safe section might actually be 10'3 but I'll edit the post when I can confirm it
|
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Jan 9, 2018 22:11:48 GMT
I have never seen the E7 double decked as one of the reasons is that there are low bridge concerns with Ruislip gardens but the 696 can go under no problem
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 9, 2018 23:32:52 GMT
I have never seen the E7 double decked as one of the reasons is that there are low bridge concerns with Ruislip gardens but the 696 can go under no problem How can there be low bridge concerns on the E7 when: 1) a fellow double decker route runs under the bridge with no issues 2) the bridge in question is 15’9” and a modern double decker’s height is 14’6” |
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Jan 9, 2018 23:59:00 GMT
I have never seen the E7 double decked as one of the reasons is that there are low bridge concerns with Ruislip gardens but the 696 can go under no problem How can there be low bridge concerns on the E7 when: 1) a fellow double decker route runs under the bridge with no issues 2) the bridge in question is 15’9” and a modern double decker’s height is 14’6” this was along time ago in 2013 when they had double decker concerns of the E7 |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 10, 2018 1:25:58 GMT
How can there be low bridge concerns on the E7 when: 1) a fellow double decker route runs under the bridge with no issues 2) the bridge in question is 15’9” and a modern double decker’s height is 14’6” this was along time ago in 2013 when they had double decker concerns of the E7 Well they wouldn't be anything to do with the bridge - are you sure it wasn't down to a different structure like trees? |
|
