|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jun 24, 2024 19:17:05 GMT
How many 10.8m buses have actually gone around the route and is it more than 1 at a time? Metrobus only have 2 of the 359's SEes of that length so I'd assume none have ever gone in recent history. Looking at LVF nothing over 8.9m has strayed on the route Plenty of 9.7m, 10.2m and 10.8m buses have all strayed onto the route when RATP/Quality Line had it. Realistically 10.8m might be a bit tight, but there won't be any problems with using 9.7m buses. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 24, 2024 23:00:30 GMT
Metrobus only have 2 of the 359's SEes of that length so I'd assume none have ever gone in recent history. Looking at LVF nothing over 8.9m has strayed on the route Plenty of 9.7m, 10.2m and 10.8m buses have all strayed onto the route when RATP/Quality Line had it. Realistically 10.8m might be a bit tight, but there won't be any problems with using 9.7m buses. Again, I ask - how many times have more than 1 10.8m been out at the same time? Having one out every so often isn't the same thing as having multiple out at once |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jun 25, 2024 0:51:24 GMT
Plenty of 9.7m, 10.2m and 10.8m buses have all strayed onto the route when RATP/Quality Line had it. Realistically 10.8m might be a bit tight, but there won't be any problems with using 9.7m buses. Again, I ask - how many times have more than 1 10.8m been out at the same time? Having one out every so often isn't the same thing as having multiple out at once I never said more than one 10.8m had been out at the same time (although I suspect that has happened), but the route has seen DLEs and MCMs under RATP/Quality Line, which proves that the route can take them. However, the route very regularly used to use multiple 10.2m DEs, 9.9m OMs from the S1 and 9.7m DDEs from the 470 so these lengths are clearly suitable for a permanent allocation. The whole route apart from Beddington ASDA to Coomber Way and the Pollards Hill loop also see double deckers daily. I haven't suggested the route should used 10.8m buses but, as well as the above, I know from my personal experience that there would be no problems whatsoever with the route being upgraded to 9.7m double door buses, and even 10.2m shouldn't be a problem. As I said in a previous post, I believe it should be an aim for every bus route in London to use 9.7m double door buses at the bare minimum, except where clearly not possible (such as the H2/H3). |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 25, 2024 11:08:34 GMT
Again, I ask - how many times have more than 1 10.8m been out at the same time? Having one out every so often isn't the same thing as having multiple out at once I never said more than one 10.8m had been out at the same time (although I suspect that has happened), but the route has seen DLEs and MCMs under RATP/Quality Line, which proves that the route can take them. However, the route very regularly used to use multiple 10.2m DEs, 9.9m OMs from the S1 and 9.7m DDEs from the 470 so these lengths are clearly suitable for a permanent allocation. The whole route apart from Beddington ASDA to Coomber Way and the Pollards Hill loop also see double deckers daily. I haven't suggested the route should used 10.8m buses but, as well as the above, I know from my personal experience that there would be no problems whatsoever with the route being upgraded to 9.7m double door buses, and even 10.2m shouldn't be a problem. As I said in a previous post, I believe it should be an aim for every bus route in London to use 9.7m double door buses at the bare minimum, except where clearly not possible (such as the H2/H3). But that doesn’t necessarily prove it can take them hence why I asked. There is a difference between 1 10.8m bus going around (a MCM isn’t 10.8m but 10.6m btw) and multiple 10.8m buses going around at the same time. I agree that every route should aim for the maximum length that is available to it barring restrictions as I’ve said this before. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 4, 2024 5:46:32 GMT
Are the 33, 265 and 419 able to be double deckered? Or is there something on their routes that stops them? the 419 goes under a low bridge so double deckers can't go the 419. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Jul 4, 2024 9:37:41 GMT
Are the 33, 265 and 419 able to be double deckered? Or is there something on their routes that stops them? the 419 goes under a low bridge so double deckers can't go the 419. If you mean under Barnes Bridge that can take deckers as the N22 runs under it. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jul 4, 2024 9:43:07 GMT
the 419 goes under a low bridge so double deckers can't go the 419. If you mean under Barnes Bridge that can take deckers as the N22 runs under it. I believe the N22 has to travel right under the middle of the bridge which wouldn’t be ideal for daytime routes. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 4, 2024 9:43:45 GMT
the 419 goes under a low bridge so double deckers can't go the 419. If you mean under Barnes Bridge that can take deckers as the N22 runs under it. Double deckers are only allowed to go under it at night as the road is clear enough for double deckers to go through the middle as that is the only section of the bridge that double deckers can go under. Double deckers are not allowed to go under it during the daytime as it would be to be busy to go through the middle. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 4, 2024 9:57:45 GMT
the 419 goes under a low bridge so double deckers can't go the 419. If you mean under Barnes Bridge that can take deckers as the N22 runs under it. The N22 has always been operated with double deckers, which are required to run in the middle of the road as there is insufficient clearance at the sides of the arch. This is a 'historical' risk that is well known, familiar to drivers on the route and is allowed to remain. TfL cannot introduce a new risk by operating double deckers on a route that has been exclusively single-deck. Rant about "Health & Safety gone mad" if it makes you feel better, but nothing is changing unless the arch is replaced with a span bridge. H&S legislation and the unions would not allow it anyway. And since when did the 419 need double deckers anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Jul 4, 2024 10:12:11 GMT
If you mean under Barnes Bridge that can take deckers as the N22 runs under it. The N22 has always been operated with double deckers, which are required to run in the middle of the road as there is insufficient clearance at the sides of the arch. This is a 'historical' risk that is well known, familiar to drivers on the route and is allowed to remain. TfL cannot introduce a new risk by operating double deckers on a route that has been exclusively single-deck. Rant about "Health & Safety gone mad" if it makes you feel better, but nothing is changing unless the arch is replaced with a span bridge. H&S legislation and the unions would not allow it anyway. And since when did the 419 need double deckers anyway? Oh ok I didn’t know that bit about the N22, that it needs to run under the middle of the bridge. Yeah it needs to be clear of traffic for it to work. & I do agree I don’t really see a need for the 419 to use deckers, would much rather put them on something like the 33 which can completely safely use them. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 4, 2024 13:59:19 GMT
The N22 has always been operated with double deckers, which are required to run in the middle of the road as there is insufficient clearance at the sides of the arch. This is a 'historical' risk that is well known, familiar to drivers on the route and is allowed to remain. TfL cannot introduce a new risk by operating double deckers on a route that has been exclusively single-deck. Rant about "Health & Safety gone mad" if it makes you feel better, but nothing is changing unless the arch is replaced with a span bridge. H&S legislation and the unions would not allow it anyway. And since when did the 419 need double deckers anyway? Oh ok I didn’t know that bit about the N22, that it needs to run under the middle of the bridge. Yeah it needs to be clear of traffic for it to work. & I do agree I don’t really see a need for the 419 to use deckers, would much rather put them on something like the 33 which can completely safely use them. Well, safe until Castleneau. Hopefully Hammersmith Bridge when it's fixed will be strengthened to accomodate deckers, but whether it happens is the 250 million pound question.  |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jul 4, 2024 17:01:24 GMT
Oh ok I didn’t know that bit about the N22, that it needs to run under the middle of the bridge. Yeah it needs to be clear of traffic for it to work. & I do agree I don’t really see a need for the 419 to use deckers, would much rather put them on something like the 33 which can completely safely use them. Well, safe until Castleneau. Hopefully Hammersmith Bridge when it's fixed will be strengthened to accomodate deckers, but whether it happens is the 250 million pound question. Castelnau. |
|
|
|
Post by someone on Jul 10, 2024 18:03:32 GMT
Oh ok I didn’t know that bit about the N22, that it needs to run under the middle of the bridge. Yeah it needs to be clear of traffic for it to work. & I do agree I don’t really see a need for the 419 to use deckers, would much rather put them on something like the 33 which can completely safely use them. Well, safe until Castleneau. Hopefully Hammersmith Bridge when it's fixed will be strengthened to accomodate deckers, but whether it happens is the 250 million pound question. (Indonesian Who Wants To Be A Millionaire intensifies) |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 19, 2024 22:55:31 GMT
298 is getting double decked in new tender award.
|
|
|
|
Post by randomy on Jul 22, 2024 14:52:16 GMT
298 is getting double decked in new tender award. It already has some double deckers |
|
