Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 13:13:30 GMT
I see, in all honesty I thought modern day DDs were shorter than the old Metrobuses and Titans rolling around and they were around 14”6’ but fair dos... so what route did the DD W19s take? I know nothing about any DD W19s. How long ago was that? It's possible that the compulsory sign wasn't there at the time, so a DD may have been useable if under 14'5. I see what’s happened. I allowed myself to become confused with the W13. Did a quick check and realised my daft error 😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 13:23:44 GMT
665: I would need more information. The route appears to share roads in the Berrylands area with the full size K2 route which needs single decks more because of a low bridge in Norbiton as opposed to anything else, what specific roads contain hazardous trees? 665 and K2 is due to a few scattered trees along Surbiton Hill Park and Raeburn Avenue. There are no parking restrictions in the area so vehicles could be near the kerb, some trees overhang the road, buses could probably miss them by using the middle of the (generally quiet) road, but that is not satisfactory. I’ve looked at both roads and I’ll leave it up for debate. I checked both roads on google map and I can’t see any areas where trees are a particular problem (not with reasonable management anyway, as you say they are ‘scattered’ rather than constant) I see that Surbiton Hill Park (more so than Raeburn Avenue at least) looks slightly narrow and with cars parked but the K2 is long in vehicle length and seems to manage, and the 665 is extremely low frequency and wouldn’t be encountering decks in the opposite direction. I’m not sure that it’s really worthy of inclusion but let’s see what others think |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 13:45:24 GMT
Hi all, I just thought I’d enclose two pictures of high frequency routes that use narrow roads to give you all an idea why I’m sometimes reluctant to accept narrow roads as a reason for declaring routes SD only. Attachment DeletedThe first image is of Bilton Road in Perivale used by the 297. As you can see there are indeed vehicles parked on either side and the roadway is quite narrow but this frequent route gets by in both directions with little fuss from my experience (I sometimes use this bus to work from Ealing) There are trees close to the roadway but these are managed well. Attachment DeletedThe second picture is of Southfield Road in Acton. Another high frequency bus, the E3, uses this road in both directions, often in pairs in both directions due to traffic in Chiswick High Road from the south or various areas to the north. The vehicles may only be parked on one side of the road and tidily, but buses cannot pass side by side here. Instead, they wait at this intersection (Carlton Road) for others to pass. The bus cage at the church stop is a convenient alternative. There are many trees here but again they are maintained. The reason for posting the pics is because I feel a narrow road shouldn’t always mean no double decks can ever run... side road turnouts, bus cages etc can all be used to good effect when passing, especially if long wheelbase single decks can do it. And a few low trees doesn’t mean they can’t be trimmed and maintained. The argument isn’t about cost effectiveness, it’s whether it’s reasonably possible to run DDs over a route in the first place. Once the list is filled out I will revisit, in order, some of the routes that have ‘trees’ or ‘narrow roads’ attributed to them and open debates about whether DDs can run on them or not. I’m hoping it will be fun for the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 17, 2018 13:49:37 GMT
I see route W19 isn't on the list, that route is hampered by the bridge at Whipps Cross Hospital. Same for the W15 and the 357 on Sundays Ah yes thanks you reminded me... the 357, W12, W13 and W19 all use this routeing (assuming we are discussing the same structure). The structure I observed is an elevated walkway, and from google maps the maximum safe height stated is 14 feet 5 inches. I’m sure this allows DD buses to pass under. And I’m sure the W19 has used DDs in the past, perhaps they avoided the hospital grounds but I wouldn’t know. I'm pretty sure the W19 hasn't seen a double decker ever. Its predecessor, Thamesway's 551, did see DDs but it was not routed through the hospital grounds. I have dug out an old area bus guide from 2000 that has a relevant map and frequency guide for Walthamstow area services which confirms the 551's route via Whipps Cross Rd (as per the 257). I suspect a height of 14'5" is too borderline for TfL to entertain. I've looked at the streetview image but I'm not sure it 100% shows the slope on that bridge. It is certainly sloped inside as I've walked on it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 13:56:07 GMT
Ah yes thanks you reminded me... the 357, W12, W13 and W19 all use this routeing (assuming we are discussing the same structure). The structure I observed is an elevated walkway, and from google maps the maximum safe height stated is 14 feet 5 inches. I’m sure this allows DD buses to pass under. And I’m sure the W19 has used DDs in the past, perhaps they avoided the hospital grounds but I wouldn’t know. I'm pretty sure the W19 hasn't seen a double decker ever. Its predecessor, Thamesway's 551, did see DDs but it was not routed through the hospital grounds. I have dug out an old area bus guide from 2000 that has a relevant map and frequency guide for Walthamstow area services which confirms the 551's route. I suspect a height of 14'5" is too borderline for TfL to entertain. I've looked at the streetview image but I'm not sure it 100% shows the slope on that bridge. It is certainly sloped inside as I've walked on it. Thanks Snoggle, I already realised my error in confusing the W19 for the W13, oops. It’s also been pointed out that there is a sign off James Lane warning of a 10”2’ clearance (though this seems extravagant if it refers to the walkway, perhaps they are playing it safe?) |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 17, 2018 14:01:06 GMT
665 and K2 is due to a few scattered trees along Surbiton Hill Park and Raeburn Avenue. There are no parking restrictions in the area so vehicles could be near the kerb, some trees overhang the road, buses could probably miss them by using the middle of the (generally quiet) road, but that is not satisfactory. I’ve looked at both roads and I’ll leave it up for debate. I checked both roads on google map and I can’t see any areas where trees are a particular problem (not with reasonable management anyway, as you say they are ‘scattered’ rather than constant) I see that Surbiton Hill Park (more so than Raeburn Avenue at least) looks slightly narrow and with cars parked but the K2 is long in vehicle length and seems to manage, and the 665 is extremely low frequency and wouldn’t be encountering decks in the opposite direction. I’m not sure that it’s really worthy of inclusion but let’s see what others think Just remembered that the official reason for not double decking was in the 662+665 consultation Basically one single deck was resulting in people being left behind, was decided to add a double deck (but due to trees in 5 roads) send it along Ewell Road (and therefore give it new nearest available number 662). The 665 was then shortened so it didn't pick up anyone near Surbiton station consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-665-and-new-route-662/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 14:07:26 GMT
I’ve looked at both roads and I’ll leave it up for debate. I checked both roads on google map and I can’t see any areas where trees are a particular problem (not with reasonable management anyway, as you say they are ‘scattered’ rather than constant) I see that Surbiton Hill Park (more so than Raeburn Avenue at least) looks slightly narrow and with cars parked but the K2 is long in vehicle length and seems to manage, and the 665 is extremely low frequency and wouldn’t be encountering decks in the opposite direction. I’m not sure that it’s really worthy of inclusion but let’s see what others think Just remembered that the official reason for not double decking was in the 662+665 consultation Basically one single deck was resulting in people being left behind, was decided to add a double deck (but due to trees in 5 roads) send it along Ewell Road (and therefore give it new nearest available number 662). The 665 was then shortened so it didn't pick up anyone near Surbiton station consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-665-and-new-route-662/I remember that consultation now you’ve mentioned it. I still wasn’t convinced but I’ve looked at the route map and the different roads served in the consultation and looked again on streetview. It seems they were on about Elgar Avenue more than anything. The map shows the trees cut right down on the only side of the road buses would use due to parked cars, but I’m sure they would grow out into the road and quite low. So this will be it’s reason for inclusion |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 16:21:44 GMT
Just wondering, how does the 357 turn and where does it stand on Sunday when terminating at the hospital?
Does it go onto James Lane and back to whipps cross roundabout to stand and then back into James Lane to start,or does it stand in the hospital? . Just curious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 16:46:25 GMT
Just wondering, how does the 357 turn and where does it stand on Sunday when terminating at the hospital? Does it go onto James Lane and back to whipps cross roundabout to stand and then back into James Lane to start,or does it stand in the hospital? . Just curious. I think it loops around Bridge Road and Back Road, someone correct me if necessary. Which is the answer to an earlier query I had. There is a 10”2’ structure on Bridge Road which explains the sign off James Street |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 17, 2018 19:34:22 GMT
Just wondering, how does the 357 turn and where does it stand on Sunday when terminating at the hospital? Does it go onto James Lane and back to whipps cross roundabout to stand and then back into James Lane to start,or does it stand in the hospital? . Just curious. I think it loops around Bridge Road and Back Road, someone correct me if necessary. Which is the answer to an earlier query I had. There is a 10”2’ structure on Bridge Road which explains the sign off James Street This spec may help clear a couple of questions. Unfortunately it is not specific about the roads used on Sundays - just refers to private roads. www.londonbuses.co.uk/Tender-specs/357.pdfNote the height reference of 13'5" which is rather lower than pasted on the bridge on the main road through the grounds. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 22:29:45 GMT
I think it loops around Bridge Road and Back Road, someone correct me if necessary. Which is the answer to an earlier query I had. There is a 10”2’ structure on Bridge Road which explains the sign off James Street This spec may help clear a couple of questions. Unfortunately it is not specific about the roads used on Sundays - just refers to private roads. www.londonbuses.co.uk/Tender-specs/357.pdfNote the height reference of 13'5" which is rather lower than pasted on the bridge on the main road through the grounds. Interesting, perhaps it’s a typo regarding the height restriction? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 18, 2018 0:40:30 GMT
This spec may help clear a couple of questions. Unfortunately it is not specific about the roads used on Sundays - just refers to private roads. www.londonbuses.co.uk/Tender-specs/357.pdfNote the height reference of 13'5" which is rather lower than pasted on the bridge on the main road through the grounds. Interesting, perhaps it’s a typo regarding the height restriction? Makes me wonder if TfL impose a degree of safety margin or perhaps the signage on the bridge is not actually correct. As the roads are private they are not under the remit of the local highway authority and that bridge has non standard signage on it. |
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Jan 18, 2018 1:37:14 GMT
I can't believe we are debating whether the notorious Whipps Cross walkway is too low for DDs or not. It really is! Here's a photo Gellico took when we were spotting together clearly showing there is no way a decker could squeeze underneath: flic.kr/p/21HavZrIn addition, W19 and W15 also pass under an additional 3.9m (?) low bridge near Leytonstone station. W16 passes underneath a low one at Grove Green Road. A rail rep managed to deroof itself there not so long ago. I still think you are too lenient on deckers on narrow roads or those with trees - e.g. if you did U10 you'd see why there is no a DD could do it |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 18, 2018 2:33:54 GMT
I can't believe we are debating whether the notorious Whipps Cross walkway is too low for DDs or not. It really is! Here's a photo Gellico took when we were spotting together clearly showing there is no way a decker could squeeze underneath: flic.kr/p/21HavZrIn addition, W19 and W15 also pass under an additional 3.9m (?) low bridge near Leytonstone station. W16 passes underneath a low one at Grove Green Road. A rail rep managed to deroof itself there not so long ago. I still think you are too lenient on deckers on narrow roads or those with trees - e.g. if you did U10 you'd see why there is no a DD could do it I agree with your last sentence, those factors are considerable enough to stop deckers from running on these routes especially in the case of narrow roads. The time I did the U10, the 10.2m DE I had struggled to navigate the loop due to parked cars. The W16's low bridge (other than the one at the hospital) is on Hainault Road in Leytonstone whereas it's the W15 that passes under the low bridge on Grove Green Road. The only low bridge on the W19 is the one at the hospital  |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jan 18, 2018 2:42:48 GMT
Interesting, perhaps it’s a typo regarding the height restriction? Makes me wonder if TfL impose a degree of safety margin or perhaps the signage on the bridge is not actually correct. As the roads are private they are not under the remit of the local highway authority and that bridge has non standard signage on it. Not sure why TfL think the restriction is 13'5 when the road sign within the grounds (not the signage on the structure itself) imposes a limit of 13'0. Although, as you say, these are private roads, so not sure what legal significance, if any, this road sign has. The odd thing is that there doesn't seem to be a similar sign on the other side of the bridge (there is an advisory 10'2 sign at the entrance to the grounds, but not a compulsory one) so presumably it'd be OK to take a 14'3 bus under the bridge in one direction but not in the other! |
|
