|
|
Post by redexpress on Jan 18, 2018 14:01:00 GMT
The problem with arch bridges is that you're not just depending on the skill of the bus driver - you're also depending on drivers of oncoming vehicles using their brains, and this is a problem because not all drivers of oncoming vehicles have brains. Some arch bridges are not a problem, e.g. at Barnes Bridge you might have to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic but it's doable (as shown by the N22 and rail replacement services). But I wouldn't want to send a DD route down Abbey Street in Bermondsey (C10 route) because the arched section is quite long - all it would take is one or two idiots insisting on driving towards you and you're stuck. Another arch bridge that I'd say is unsuitable is Hook Road in Epsom; in theory the clearance is 15'6 but you need to hog the whole of a busy two-way street otherwise you'll strike the arch. Regarding Abbey Street out of service buses from route 1 regularly passed under that bridge without a problem, quite honestly a professional driver should be able to manage. Depends on the time of day though. It's probably very easy at times when there isn't much traffic, but not the same in the rush hour if there's a steady stream of traffic coming the other way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 14:06:26 GMT
I think we need to appreciate the skill of the vast majority of bus drivers. Sure, we have seen our fair share of deroofs, crashes, and scrapes over the years but with the correct driving training, type training and route training I think that we can trust drivers to be mindful of their surroundings. There is evidence that TfL do too, I’m not sure that 422 drivers would need to use the middle of the road for the arch bridge at Westcombe Hill but if you look at trees as an example, TfL have provided warning signs for low trees in many places where DDs operate. I would think bus drivers use extra care in such areas. The problem with arch bridges is that you're not just depending on the skill of the bus driver - you're also depending on drivers of oncoming vehicles using their brains, and this is a problem because not all drivers of oncoming vehicles have brains. Some arch bridges are not a problem, e.g. at Barnes Bridge you might have to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic but it's doable (as shown by the N22 and rail replacement services). But I wouldn't want to send a DD route down Abbey Street in Bermondsey (C10 route) because the arched section is quite long - all it would take is one or two idiots insisting on driving towards you and you're stuck. Another arch bridge that I'd say is unsuitable is Hook Road in Epsom; in theory the clearance is 15'6 but you need to hog the whole of a busy two-way street otherwise you'll strike the arch. Things like arch bridges are always about hazard awareness and perception, including anticipating the potential hazards posed by oncoming traffic. Provided the bridge has sufficient markings a bus driver, or any other high vehicle driver for that matter) should be fine. This should be ingrained in their minds by their route training. Ps thanks for the updates. I’ll look at them in due course |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jan 18, 2018 14:19:34 GMT
The problem with arch bridges is that you're not just depending on the skill of the bus driver - you're also depending on drivers of oncoming vehicles using their brains, and this is a problem because not all drivers of oncoming vehicles have brains. Some arch bridges are not a problem, e.g. at Barnes Bridge you might have to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic but it's doable (as shown by the N22 and rail replacement services). But I wouldn't want to send a DD route down Abbey Street in Bermondsey (C10 route) because the arched section is quite long - all it would take is one or two idiots insisting on driving towards you and you're stuck. Another arch bridge that I'd say is unsuitable is Hook Road in Epsom; in theory the clearance is 15'6 but you need to hog the whole of a busy two-way street otherwise you'll strike the arch. Things like arch bridges are always about hazard awareness and perception, including anticipating the potential hazards posed by oncoming traffic. Provided the bridge has sufficient markings a bus driver, or any other high vehicle driver for that matter) should be fine. This should be ingrained in their minds by their route training. Ps thanks for the updates. I’ll look at them in due course I should have pointed out that I'm not concerned about the risk of a bus hitting an arch bridge. I agree that professional drivers won't be doing that. The potential issue is that if buses need to routinely use the middle of the road, there is the risk of causing too much congestion / delays when drivers of oncoming vehicles don't realise that they have to wait for the bus. There's no problem with the occasional bus going through but if you have a regular high-frequency service running both ways under an arch bridge, the risk of disruption to traffic becomes a bit too high. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 18, 2018 14:34:15 GMT
Regarding Abbey Street out of service buses from route 1 regularly passed under that bridge without a problem, quite honestly a professional driver should be able to manage. No they didn’t and I’m not sure why you always keep on saying this. Route 1’s from Canada Water used either Southwark Park Road or St James’s Road to get to MW where they would then turn onto Dunton Road and Mandela Way afterwards. Why would drivers deliberately drive under a low bridge?  I can assure you that they did and quite regularly, it's not a low bridge! |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 18, 2018 16:08:40 GMT
Some bridges with an arch for the roadway require tall vehicles to use the centre of the carriageway. One such example is Westcombe Hill in south east London. At one stage local managers suggested it was too low for modern double deckers (RTs on the 108 had fitted). Was then proved OK provided the bus used the middle of the road. The 291 is to get deckers later this year. Used to be OK when RTs/RMs ran in the Plumstead area as the 192. Apparently some trees will need to be lopped. A couple of years ago, Greenwich Council out of the blue proposed signal-controlling traffic passing under the bridge in Westcombe Hill. For whatever reason, it didn't happen but it did seem entirely unnecessary. Don't forget the 291 in Plumstead is no longer identical to the 192. It now serves Raglan Road, Brewery Road and Burrage Road rather than the full length of Griffin Road and the Woodlands Estate loop has been expanded. That said, route tests have demonstrated double deckers do fit. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 18, 2018 16:50:28 GMT
I can assure you that they did and quite regularly, it's not a low bridge! We’ll just have to agree to disagree then because this was never the case. I live not too far from the area and have not once seen a route 1 go down there. Maybe this is something you were told than actually observed.
No I actually observed double deckers going under Abbey Street bridge with no difficultly at all. I'll take a photo next time  !
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 18, 2018 17:51:50 GMT
Hi all, I just read back over the last few pages and I think my list is as complete as possible thus far. Still looking for more in the east London area, my B routes are looking shambolic! As for the west I’ll look into some of the E and H routes myself just to get some of them filled out nicely. Take with a pinch of salt, but my observations on the B routes would be : B11 : Lodge Hill and Overton Road both in my view too tight for buses bigger than the SEs. B12 : unless there are trees I don’t know about in Joydens Wood, I’d say B12 could take d/d. B13 : all sorts of double deck eaters here - primary amongst them the narrow Ramillies Road in Blackfen and the narrow roads around Polly Clean Stairs in Bexleyheath. B14 : Royal Park really not suited to buses bigger than current allocation. B15 : Is Horn Park a double deck issue? Otherwise looks OK to me. B16 : has occasionally see double decks Eltham Green - Bexleyheath, and the Kidbrooke low bridge is now gone, so no restrictions as far as I can see. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 18:24:56 GMT
Hi all, I just read back over the last few pages and I think my list is as complete as possible thus far. Still looking for more in the east London area, my B routes are looking shambolic! As for the west I’ll look into some of the E and H routes myself just to get some of them filled out nicely. Take with a pinch of salt, but my observations on the B routes would be : B11 : Lodge Hill and Overton Road both in my view too tight for buses bigger than the SEs. B12 : unless there are trees I don’t know about in Joydens Wood, I’d say B12 could take d/d. B13 : all sorts of double deck eaters here - primary amongst them the narrow Ramillies Road in Blackfen and the narrow roads around Polly Clean Stairs in Bexleyheath. B14 : Royal Park really not suited to buses bigger than current allocation. B15 : Is Horn Park a double deck issue? Otherwise looks OK to me. B16 : has occasionally see double decks Eltham Green - Bexleyheath, and the Kidbrooke low bridge is now gone, so no restrictions as far as I can see. Nice one, thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jan 18, 2018 19:25:41 GMT
Regarding Abbey Street out of service buses from route 1 regularly passed under that bridge without a problem, quite honestly a professional driver should be able to manage. No they didn’t and I’m not sure why you always keep on saying this. Route 1’s from Canada Water used either Southwark Park Road or St James’s Road to get to MW where they would then turn onto Dunton Road and Mandela Way afterwards. Why would drivers deliberately drive under a low bridge? I took a double decker down St James's Road on a dead run to Canada Water and almost had a heart attack going under that arched bridge. Never again! |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 19, 2018 0:03:29 GMT
I can assure you that they did and quite regularly, it's not a low bridge! We’ll just have to agree to disagree then because this was never the case. I live not too far from the area and have not once seen a route 1 go down there. Maybe this is something you were told than actually observed. I've seen party buses go under the Abbey Street low bridge, so it's doable. However to centre yourself in the middle of a very busy road (many drivers use this route to bypass Tooley Street and its traffic woes); is too much of a hassle if there was a regular/frequent DD route running along Abbey Street. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 19, 2018 8:07:49 GMT
No they didn’t and I’m not sure why you always keep on saying this. Route 1’s from Canada Water used either Southwark Park Road or St James’s Road to get to MW where they would then turn onto Dunton Road and Mandela Way afterwards. Why would drivers deliberately drive under a low bridge? I took a double decker down St James's Road on a dead run to Canada Water and almost had a heart attack going under that arched bridge. Never again! Indeed, that bridge is far more 'hairy' in a double decker than the Abbey Street one. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jan 25, 2018 15:20:43 GMT
Does the 153 have a restrictions?
|
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 25, 2018 15:42:47 GMT
Does the 153 have a restrictions? No height restrictions, just narrow residential roads from what I recall. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 25, 2018 17:28:42 GMT
The 153 has seen the occasional CT Plus HTL in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 25, 2018 21:30:48 GMT
|
|
!
