|
|
Post by John tuthill on Jan 10, 2018 14:42:04 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! If certain routes are known for height restrictions why not build a wooded arch in the garage area to check any new buses are compliant? Does the suspension height compensate for passenger loads? In other words is the roof the same height from the road whether it's full or empty? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 10, 2018 14:47:26 GMT
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? Yes there may be a problem with Streetlites on the 164 but that's just one of a number of options. What's happened to the Darts that were previously on the 170? Can they not be returned to service until this problem is resolved? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 10, 2018 15:08:50 GMT
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. The stand layout isn't ideal but there is room for at least three double deckers which should generally be adequate for the 229 and 286, if another bus arrives and can't get on the stand it can go round the roundabout and come back. In the long term maybe the area can be redesigned. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 15:10:12 GMT
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? Yes there may be a problem with Streetlites on the 164 but that's just one of a number of options. What's happened to the Darts that were previously on the 170? Can they not be returned to service until this problem is resolved? Swapping with the 286 may be possible. MG transfer all the SEs (including the 2 extra buses that are above the 170's requirement while the fleet gets sorted out), and keep the WHY vehicles longer term until they get the extra 2 SEs back once the modifications are complete. Streetlites also aren't too dissimilar from the WHYs in terms of equipment and cab layout so should fit the 286 quite well? I doubt any WHY vehicles would fit under the bridge due to their very large roof mounted pods. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 15:17:53 GMT
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. The stand layout isn't ideal but there is room for at least three double deckers which should generally be adequate for the 229 and 286, if another bus arrives and can't get on the stand it can go round the roundabout and come back. There is stand space for around two deckers, because you are forgetting that two of those deckers you mentioned has to stand where the R11 does. That would not be possible as a 229 bus has to be able to pull up at that stop and pick up passengers. Two buses wouldn't be adequate for the routes. It's not really that hard to rectify the tree issue. All it would take is the removal of the double yellow line on the right hand side of Frognal Avenue and the addition of one on the left. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 10, 2018 15:31:49 GMT
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? TfL suggesting the bridge was lowered is in the link, and was apparently TfLs answer when an enquiry was made to find out why the buses had been diverted away. Possibly someone at TfL gave a stupid answer. The sign is confusing as 10 feet is not 3.0m (its actually 3.05m) which probably means the clearance is nearer 3.2m (signs round down to allow margin of error) I don't understand the TfL comments that the diversion is until end January* (unless the road is being planed to lower it that date, as unusual to end diversion on a Wednesday), if so, why didn't they simply keep using existing buses until road was modified. Perhaps there is a fleet swap with another route that date (why not do it now). Or is it simply incompetence that no-one checked height properly during a route test. To me someone is not telling the whole truth about how this occurred. * current status alert for route 170 on TfL website |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 16:06:14 GMT
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? TfL suggesting the bridge was lowered is in the link, and was apparently TfLs answer when an enquiry was made to find out why the buses had been diverted away. Possibly someone at TfL gave a stupid answer. The sign is confusing as 10 feet is not 3.0m (its actually 3.05m) which probably means the clearance is nearer 3.2m (signs round down to allow margin of error) I don't understand the TfL comments that the diversion is until end January* (unless the road is being planed to lower it that date, as unusual to end diversion on a Wednesday), if so, why didn't they simply keep using existing buses until road was modified. Perhaps there is a fleet swap with another route that date (why not do it now). Or is it simply incompetence that no-one checked height properly during a route test. To me someone is not telling the whole truth about how this occurred. * current status alert for route 170 on TfL website The overall height for 10.8m Streetlites according to the TFL fleet audit spreadsheet is 3.173m which exceeds the signed height of the bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 10, 2018 16:07:04 GMT
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? TfL suggesting the bridge was lowered is in the link, and was apparently TfLs answer when an enquiry was made to find out why the buses had been diverted away. Possibly someone at TfL gave a stupid answer. The sign is confusing as 10 feet is not 3.0m (its actually 3.05m) which probably means the clearance is nearer 3.2m (signs round down to allow margin of error) I don't understand the TfL comments that the diversion is until end January* (unless the road is being planed to lower it that date, as unusual to end diversion on a Wednesday), if so, why didn't they simply keep using existing buses until road was modified. Perhaps there is a fleet swap with another route that date (why not do it now). Or is it simply incompetence that no-one checked height properly during a route test. To me someone is not telling the whole truth about how this occurred. * current status alert for route 170 on TfL website I saw the reference to it in the link but I can't believe even TfL would say something as daft as that. I agree this sounds like gross incompetence on somebody's part and surely passengers are owed some sort of explanation. To think they can just divert buses around the problem and nobody is going to ask questions is naive to say the least. The mind boggles as to what will be done at the end of the month that can't be done now to solve the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 10, 2018 16:32:51 GMT
TfL suggesting the bridge was lowered is in the link, and was apparently TfLs answer when an enquiry was made to find out why the buses had been diverted away. Possibly someone at TfL gave a stupid answer. The sign is confusing as 10 feet is not 3.0m (its actually 3.05m) which probably means the clearance is nearer 3.2m (signs round down to allow margin of error) I don't understand the TfL comments that the diversion is until end January* (unless the road is being planed to lower it that date, as unusual to end diversion on a Wednesday), if so, why didn't they simply keep using existing buses until road was modified. Perhaps there is a fleet swap with another route that date (why not do it now). Or is it simply incompetence that no-one checked height properly during a route test. To me someone is not telling the whole truth about how this occurred. * current status alert for route 170 on TfL website I saw the reference to it in the link but I can't believe even TfL would say something as daft as that. I agree this sounds like gross incompetence on somebody's part and surely passengers are owed some sort of explanation. To think they can just divert buses around the problem and nobody is going to ask questions is naive to say the least. The mind boggles as to what will be done at the end of the month that can't be done now to solve the problem. Surely as a temporary measure they could transfer some other Euro6 buses onto the 170 while they try to work out what's going on. The 286s SEs come to mind with the 286 taking the Streetlites instead. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 10, 2018 18:22:25 GMT
TfL suggesting the bridge was lowered is in the link, and was apparently TfLs answer when an enquiry was made to find out why the buses had been diverted away. Possibly someone at TfL gave a stupid answer. The sign is confusing as 10 feet is not 3.0m (its actually 3.05m) which probably means the clearance is nearer 3.2m (signs round down to allow margin of error) I don't understand the TfL comments that the diversion is until end January* (unless the road is being planed to lower it that date, as unusual to end diversion on a Wednesday), if so, why didn't they simply keep using existing buses until road was modified. Perhaps there is a fleet swap with another route that date (why not do it now). Or is it simply incompetence that no-one checked height properly during a route test. To me someone is not telling the whole truth about how this occurred. * current status alert for route 170 on TfL website The overall height for 10.8m Streetlites according to the TFL fleet audit spreadsheet is 3.173m which exceeds the signed height of the bridge. Interesting - considering that TfL’s fleet audit spreadsheet has had errors in other areas such as vehicle type for a long time now, I suspect, though I could be wrong, that maybe they’ve inputted the wrong height in, someone’s realised and decided to divert the route as a result. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 18:35:46 GMT
The overall height for 10.8m Streetlites according to the TFL fleet audit spreadsheet is 3.173m which exceeds the signed height of the bridge. Interesting - considering that TfL’s fleet audit spreadsheet has had errors in other areas such as vehicle type for a long time now, I suspect, though I could be wrong, that maybe they’ve inputted the wrong height in, someone’s realised and decided to divert the route as a result. It wouldn't surprise me. I found numerous other errors. However, this height seems to check out for all other batches of 10.8m Streetlites including those from other operators dating back many years. This measurement may well include any roof mounted pods though. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 10, 2018 19:28:19 GMT
Interesting - considering that TfL’s fleet audit spreadsheet has had errors in other areas such as vehicle type for a long time now, I suspect, though I could be wrong, that maybe they’ve inputted the wrong height in, someone’s realised and decided to divert the route as a result. It wouldn't surprise me. I found numerous other errors. However, this height seems to check out for all other batches of 10.8m Streetlites including those from other operators dating back many years. This measurement may well include any roof mounted pods though. So Wrightbus spec sheet shows 2.905m and TfL have 3.173m which is difference of 0.26m (about 10 inch) Whenever I have seen photos, those roof pods seem more like 50mm (2inches) rather than 10 inches tall |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 19:34:33 GMT
It wouldn't surprise me. I found numerous other errors. However, this height seems to check out for all other batches of 10.8m Streetlites including those from other operators dating back many years. This measurement may well include any roof mounted pods though. So Wrightbus spec sheet shows 2.905m and TfL have 3.173m which is difference of 0.26m (about 10 inch) Whenever I have seen photos, those roof pods seem more like 50mm (2inches) rather than 10 inches tall Hmm. The spreadsheet has the shorter Streetlites listed at a lower height. Does the wrightbus sheet have any differences for different model lengths? Of course, it could just be a massive fuss over an admin error! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 20:27:53 GMT
I saw the reference to it in the link but I can't believe even TfL would say something as daft as that. I agree this sounds like gross incompetence on somebody's part and surely passengers are owed some sort of explanation. To think they can just divert buses around the problem and nobody is going to ask questions is naive to say the least. The mind boggles as to what will be done at the end of the month that can't be done now to solve the problem. Surely as a temporary measure they could transfer some other Euro6 buses onto the 170 while they try to work out what's going on. The 286s SEs come to mind with the 286 taking the Streetlites instead. Having had a look through the fleet audit speadsheet, it does appear that the only Euro 6 10.8m non-Streetlites are those allocated to the 286. A swap could work if the 286 keeps the WHY buses (they would be too tall for the bridge due to large pods) and the 170 gets all of the SEs, including two surplus to cover for the continuous mechanical issues with these buses. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 10, 2018 20:30:51 GMT
To me someone is not telling the whole truth about how this occurred. Putting to one side all the "huff and puff" from various quarters the above is the thing I take away from this debacle. Someone, somewhere is not being reliable with the actuality. I can see this one ending in a series of Mayor's Questions as it raises all sorts of questions which some Assembly Members will take great delight in picking away at. |
|
