|
|
Post by sid on Jan 10, 2018 3:58:58 GMT
Also sorry to double post, but one of my friends highlighted something - metroman you have 286 on a list of routes that cannot be decked when a decker ran full mileage of the route... Yet don't have 331 on the can't-be-decked list. Trust me if U2, U10 and 331 could take DDs, UX would have had one turn up at some point. Those trees sometimes brush the singles....not long the route had to divert as it was deemed too unsafe for all buses 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. Just one stop I think? If those trees in Frognal Avenue really are a problem then just send the single deck R11 that way instead? |
|
|
|
Post by lwldriver on Jan 10, 2018 6:59:04 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. Just one stop I think? If those trees in Frognal Avenue really are a problem then just send the single deck R11 that way instead? One at the bottom by the new cancer centre and one up the top by the B block building. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 10, 2018 9:18:08 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 This seems to be all TfL have to say on the situation: Route 170 is on diversion southbound until end of January and unable to serve Lombard Road, Vicarage Crescent and Battersea Church Road due to safety issues. Buses diverted via Battersea Bridge Road, Prince of Wales Drive, Albert Bridge Road and Battersea Park Road. I wonder what is happening at the end of the month to resolve the issue? I also wonder why something can't be done sooner? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 9:29:22 GMT
Oh jeez okay a lot of updates. Sorry I haven’t been around. Because of the volume of suggestions I’ve had to resort to noting them in a book which I foolishly left at work. I’ll be picking this up today so I’ll have a butchers back at the thread then, but can’t guarantee that today, I’ll definitely have time on Friday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 9:34:42 GMT
Also sorry to double post, but one of my friends highlighted something - @metroman you have 286 on a list of routes that cannot be decked when a decker ran full mileage of the route with me on board...  Yes it's a 184/316 style situation where DDs can do full route but divert for whatever reason... Yet don't have 331 on the can't-be-decked list. Trust me if U2, U10 and 331 could take DDs, UX would have had one turn up at some point. Those trees sometimes brush the singles....not long the route had to divert as it was deemed too unsafe for all buses I think it was @selondongal who said there were numerous low trees along the hospital grounds which having seen the images did look very low... how long ago was your trip? Trees may have been allowed to grow out of control since then? |
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Jan 10, 2018 10:24:11 GMT
Also sorry to double post, but one of my friends highlighted something - @metroman you have 286 on a list of routes that cannot be decked when a decker ran full mileage of the route with me on board... Yes it's a 184/316 style situation where DDs can do full route but divert for whatever reason... I think it was @selondongal who said there were numerous low trees along the hospital grounds which having seen the images did look very low... how long ago was your trip? Trees may have been allowed to grow out of control since then? 27th November... A bus I did few days before that skipped the hospital section. It really is that the driver must've either forgotten or not known he wasn't meant to go through there. But we managed fine and in one piece, so 286 can definitely take DD then - those trees looked like a little trim would solve the issue also |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 12:18:00 GMT
Also sorry to double post, but one of my friends highlighted something - @metroman you have 286 on a list of routes that cannot be decked when a decker ran full mileage of the route with me on board... Yes it's a 184/316 style situation where DDs can do full route but divert for whatever reason... Yet don't have 331 on the can't-be-decked list. Trust me if U2, U10 and 331 could take DDs, UX would have had one turn up at some point. Those trees sometimes brush the singles....not long the route had to divert as it was deemed too unsafe for all buses I think it was @selondongal who said there were numerous low trees along the hospital grounds which having seen the images did look very low... how long ago was your trip? Trees may have been allowed to grow out of control since then? The problem with Frognal Avenue's trees is that they are growing in a verge which is right next to the road and thus some grow into the road. The problem trees are all on the right hand side of the road. There are parked cars on the left. All it would really take for DDs to be able to use the road is a double yellow line on the left hand side of the road. This was confirmed as the official reason by numerous staff working at MG. They wouldn't have been seen on the journey as they are on the part of Frognal Avenue where buses run empty to the first stop. Apparently some drivers forget they're driving a DD and just run into the stand! The official turning point for DDs is the roundabout. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 10, 2018 12:18:21 GMT
For those blaming Go-Ahead regarding the 170 situation, I've seen something posted by someone within Go-Ahead who suggests it's TfL at fault - apparently, TfL have got it into their head that the height of the Streetlites are 10'0" when they are indeed 9'7" - this is despite the Streetlites passing under the bridge with no issues at all before the diversion began.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 10, 2018 12:29:56 GMT
For those blaming Go-Ahead regarding the 170 situation, I've seen something posted by someone within Go-Ahead who suggests it's TfL at fault - apparently, TfL have got it into their head that the height of the Streetlites are 10'0" when they are indeed 9'7" - this is despite the Streetlites passing under the bridge with no issues at all before the diversion began. With no official explanation it does appear that Go Ahead are to blame, either way I think it's quite appalling that TfL haven't explained exactly what the problem is, passengers are having to ask drivers what's going on. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 10, 2018 12:33:37 GMT
I think it was @selondongal who said there were numerous low trees along the hospital grounds which having seen the images did look very low... how long ago was your trip? Trees may have been allowed to grow out of control since then? The problem with Frognal Avenue's trees is that they are growing in a verge which is right next to the road and thus some grow into the road. The problem trees are all on the right hand side of the road. There are parked cars on the left. All it would really take for DDs to be able to use the road is a double yellow line on the left hand side of the road. This was confirmed as the official reason by numerous staff working at MG. They wouldn't have been seen on the journey as they are on the part of Frognal Avenue where buses run empty to the first stop. Apparently some drivers forget they're driving a DD and just run into the stand! The official turning point for DDs is the roundabout. Yes I have seen double deckers go round there before without any difficulty, if the trees really are a problem then swapping the 286 and R11 would seem the simplest solution? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 12:36:16 GMT
The problem with Frognal Avenue's trees is that they are growing in a verge which is right next to the road and thus some grow into the road. The problem trees are all on the right hand side of the road. There are parked cars on the left. All it would really take for DDs to be able to use the road is a double yellow line on the left hand side of the road. This was confirmed as the official reason by numerous staff working at MG. They wouldn't have been seen on the journey as they are on the part of Frognal Avenue where buses run empty to the first stop. Apparently some drivers forget they're driving a DD and just run into the stand! The official turning point for DDs is the roundabout. Yes I have seen double deckers go round there before without any difficulty, if the trees really are a problem then swapping the 286 and R11 would seem the simplest solution? I'm not so sure. The R11 only ever has one bus on the stand. The 286 often has two. DDs are also longer than the R11 buses and the 10.8m SDs are considerably longer. With the 229 also using this stop, I'm not sure it is a viable solution. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 10, 2018 12:53:18 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 Absolute farce, surely the buck stops with Go Ahead? Can they not just put the offending WS's on another route, 163/164 for example? WSs may[1] have issues on the 164 as Merton have never used their older batch on route as far as I'm aware. The 163 use shorter wheelbase buses so swapping allocations with the 170 would leave the latter with less overall capacity. [1] - Street infrastructure vs bus design? |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 10, 2018 13:53:16 GMT
For those blaming Go-Ahead regarding the 170 situation, I've seen something posted by someone within Go-Ahead who suggests it's TfL at fault - apparently, TfL have got it into their head that the height of the Streetlites are 10'0" when they are indeed 9'7" - this is despite the Streetlites passing under the bridge with no issues at all before the diversion began. The Streetlite rolling off the production line might be 9'7", but extra equipment mounted onto buses like tree guards and iBus satellite technology will have an effect on the overall height of the vehichle. If the issue is iBus as I suspect it to be, then TfL have every right to stop buses going down a low bridge and getting their equipment constantly damaged; it is their property after all. What I (and anyone with a brain) doesn't appreciate is being told a Victorian bridge which is well over a century old, has been lowered. It's like TfL are playing Cards Against Humanity or something with these ridiculous answers! |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 10, 2018 14:19:50 GMT
For those blaming Go-Ahead regarding the 170 situation, I've seen something posted by someone within Go-Ahead who suggests it's TfL at fault - apparently, TfL have got it into their head that the height of the Streetlites are 10'0" when they are indeed 9'7" - this is despite the Streetlites passing under the bridge with no issues at all before the diversion began. With no official explanation it does appear that Go Ahead are to blame, either way I think it's quite appalling that TfL haven't explained exactly what the problem is, passengers are having to ask drivers what's going on. The information came from a very good source within Go-Ahead and is better than merely presuming that Go-Ahead are to blame. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 10, 2018 14:38:35 GMT
For those blaming Go-Ahead regarding the 170 situation, I've seen something posted by someone within Go-Ahead who suggests it's TfL at fault - apparently, TfL have got it into their head that the height of the Streetlites are 10'0" when they are indeed 9'7" - this is despite the Streetlites passing under the bridge with no issues at all before the diversion began. The Streetlite rolling off the production line might be 9'7", but extra equipment mounted onto buses like tree guards and iBus satellite technology will have an effect on the overall height of the vehichle. If the issue is iBus as I suspect it to be, then TfL have every right to stop buses going down a low bridge and getting their equipment constantly damaged; it is their property after all. What I (and anyone with a brain) doesn't appreciate is being told a Victorian bridge which is well over a century old, has been lowered. It's like TfL are playing Cards Against Humanity or something with these ridiculous answers! But presumably Go Aheads earlier Streetlites will have the same equipment? Surely they would have tested one of them under this low bridge before ordering another batch for the 170? I doubt whether TfL would have suggested the bridge had been lowered, what they may have suggested is that the clearance had been reduced if the road has been resurfaced? |
|
