|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Dec 24, 2017 0:36:16 GMT
double deckers on the 316 but this turned out to be a load of tosh. Is it just that TfL have decided in their wisdom that single deckers are adequate for the 316? The MP story was just gossip but the Latimer Road thing is really it this time. Not like gossip about AW being where the Walthamstow Stadium site was meant the garage didn't materialise - it just ended up being located elsewhere, other side of the road  Also, "TfL" and "wisdom" in one sentence??  Just wow. Hellova oxymoron if you ask me! I hope nobody believes in that! And no, 316 is still overcrowded in the peaks. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Dec 24, 2017 0:36:23 GMT
Westfields DD 316s were either Notting Hill buses or diverted ones. This May was the case when my scenario #2 happened and thanks to a diversion on the entire route the deckers dodged Latimer Road and made it to the "other end". flic.kr/p/V7E27pWell residents demanded either the route is SD or they will not "have" it run. Lolol. There was an article somewhere with them calling buses killers, blah blah etc. D'oh! And have I mentioned that double-decker 295 actually goes there also? Yeah  That reminds me, another nearby route, the 228, passes under a low bridge near East Acton. Unless that's already been mentioned. There was a story about an MP stopping double deckers on the 316 but this turned out to be a load of tosh. Is it just that TfL have decided in their wisdom that single deckers are adequate for the 316? No, it isn't just that SDs have been deemed adequate for the route. There is a restriction on using DDs on the 316 on Royal Crescent, as I mentioned when you asked the exact same question a couple of months ago. This was confirmed by TP446 in this post. The 316 should certainly not be in metroman's list, because the only reason for the restriction is to pacify residents, but there certainly is a restriction. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 24, 2017 0:43:43 GMT
There was a story about an MP stopping double deckers on the 316 but this turned out to be a load of tosh. Is it just that TfL have decided in their wisdom that single deckers are adequate for the 316? No, it isn't just that SDs have been deemed adequate for the route. There is a restriction on using DDs on the 316 on Royal Crescent, as I mentioned when you asked the exact same question a couple of months ago. This was confirmed by TP446 in this post. The 316 should certainly not be in metroman's list, because the only reason for the restriction is to pacify residents, but there certainly is a restriction. But this restriction doesn't apply to the 295, which seems a bit odd, but yes the 316 does need double deckers. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Dec 24, 2017 0:53:36 GMT
No, it isn't just that SDs have been deemed adequate for the route. There is a restriction on using DDs on the 316 on Royal Crescent, as I mentioned when you asked the exact same question a couple of months ago. This was confirmed by TP446 in this post. The 316 should certainly not be in metroman's list, because the only reason for the restriction is to pacify residents, but there certainly is a restriction. But this restriction doesn't apply to the 295, which seems a bit odd, but yes the 316 does need double deckers. Indeed it's odd. As I understand it, the residents weren't initially campaigning against DDs, they were campaigning against a second route being introduced at all. It seems that TfL offered them the SD restriction as a way of pacifying them. Perhaps that was the only way to get the residents to agree to the 316 extension at all. The 295 had already established DD operation on the road for many years, so the residents couldn't do anything about that. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 24, 2017 1:44:02 GMT
But this restriction doesn't apply to the 295, which seems a bit odd, but yes the 316 does need double deckers. Indeed it's odd. As I understand it, the residents weren't initially campaigning against DDs, they were campaigning against a second route being introduced at all. It seems that TfL offered them the SD restriction as a way of pacifying them. Perhaps that was the only way to get the residents to agree to the 316 extension at all. The 295 had already established DD operation on the road for many years, so the residents couldn't do anything about that. On the daft subject of residents, it's odd that they have no choice but to 'cope' with DDs on the 295 yet nothing in this matter logically justifies keeping the 316 SD. I acknowledge this was a way of pacifying the residents, but TFL might as well convert the 316 to DD and end this nonsense because it generally makes no difference as residents deal with passing DDs on the 295 anyway. The 316 and 228 could swap routings, which would allow the 316 to be converted to DDs, however keeping its original routing via North Kensington is the more desirable option and it should by no means be a subsitute just to appease residents. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 24, 2017 1:53:41 GMT
It’s easy for me to say because if you decide to live on a road with single deck buses you can’t expect them to necessarily stay that way. My sympathy is reserved for those where roads previously unserved by buses suddenly get one on their doorstep. (EDIT and even then, this is London so anything is possible) Not trying to sound mean to residents (although I’m sure it comes across that way) but I don’t get what the big deal is with DDs... the biggest one I hear is that people can see through your windows. I’ve never been on a DD and hoped to find something interesting by looking into properties and I can’t imagine other folk would either. Just sounds completely irrational I think it's more to do with people on the top deck being able to see over walls and fences, lack of privacy etc, some are irrational some are reasonable and I think each case has to be judged on its own merit. But it's not reasonable because there are long standing double deck routes where you can see into people's houses - the difference is these people have used their brain and brought curtains or blinds instead. The 250 is one example - certain houses along Green Lane can be looked into from the top deck. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 24, 2017 7:45:35 GMT
I think it's more to do with people on the top deck being able to see over walls and fences, lack of privacy etc, some are irrational some are reasonable and I think each case has to be judged on its own merit. But it's not reasonable because there are long standing double deck routes where you can see into people's houses - the difference is these people have used their brain and brought curtains or blinds instead. The 250 is one example - certain houses along Green Lane can be looked into from the top deck. Long established routes are different, it's when new double decker operations are proposed that problems arise, it seems to be very much a London thing, being publicly funded TfL have to listen to all viewpoints. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Dec 24, 2017 8:14:44 GMT
Indeed it's odd. As I understand it, the residents weren't initially campaigning against DDs, they were campaigning against a second route being introduced at all. It seems that TfL offered them the SD restriction as a way of pacifying them. Perhaps that was the only way to get the residents to agree to the 316 extension at all. The 295 had already established DD operation on the road for many years, so the residents couldn't do anything about that. On the daft subject of residents, it's odd that they have no choice but to 'cope' with DDs on the 295 yet nothing in this matter logically justifies keeping the 316 SD. I acknowledge this was a way of pacifying the residents, but TFL might as well convert the 316 to DD and end this nonsense because it generally makes no difference as residents deal with passing DDs on the 295 anyway. The 316 and 228 could swap routings, which would allow the 316 to be converted to DDs, however keeping its original routing via North Kensington is the more desirable option and it should by no means be a subsitute just to appease residents. The residents along the 228 might not want dds on the 316 passing them either. Those residents originally didn’t want the 228 running pass them either. |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Dec 24, 2017 9:32:58 GMT
I’m fairly sure I’ve seen a DD at Westfield though, and not in the summer either! Well, if there is some law preventing DDs running down residential streets I think I’d rather this thread locked and buried... too bloody depressing to consider this possibility 😭 I’m really hoping it’s a Metroline and/or TfL courtesy. If it’s not a legal issue then 316 gets my full DD allocation 😂 Some more for you to full your list out: 339 and W15: Passes a low bridge on Grove Green Road, Leytonstone. 362: Grove Road and Brocket Way are narrow and tight. 366: Narrow Roads and Parked Vehicles on Sunnyside Road and Eton Road. 410: Has various narrow roads on routes such as Davidson Road and Sylvan Road areas. 488: Passes a Low Bridge on Fairfield Road, Bow and Kenworthy Road, Homerton. 665: Low Trees in the Berrylands area. there's also an over-hanging structure at Jenkins Lane which prevents the 325 and 366 converting to DD |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 10:02:22 GMT
In regards to the 233, I saw a DD once in the early 2000s as a kid. I'm sure two passing each other down Longlands Road, Sidcup would be a task as well as Northview, Swanley.
With the 286 I actually saw one and reported it a few Sundays back.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Dec 24, 2017 10:33:59 GMT
Always assumed the 364 can't be decked due to tight turns in the Meads Lane area, but lo and behold I saw an empty blue Ensignbus DD along there last week. God knows what it was doing there, but 364 definitely needs DDs during school in and out times. 193 - very tight and narrow turns along Newmarket Way and Bevan Way, so no chance of DD there, likewise 499 along Keats Ave and Grange Rd. 462 -no problem 362 possible problems along Grove Rd and Brocket Way 346 problems probably along Moor Lane and the turn into Lexington Way. 462 now is been rerouted via Fairlop Station which has a low bridge so 462 can't use double deckers. When with First (before it was extended) the TN/TNL fleet at DM was blinded for the 362 and 462. There was a photo floating around of a TNL on the 462 on route test going through the bus gate on Longwood Gardens |
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Dec 24, 2017 10:47:38 GMT
462 now is been rerouted via Fairlop Station which has a low bridge so 462 can't use double deckers. When with First (before it was extended) the TN/TNL fleet at DM was blinded for the 362 and 462. There was a photo floating around of a TNL on the 462 on route test going through the bus gate on Longwood Gardens Any idea where about that picture is and what website is it on? |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Dec 24, 2017 13:07:10 GMT
When with First (before it was extended) the TN/TNL fleet at DM was blinded for the 362 and 462. There was a photo floating around of a TNL on the 462 on route test going through the bus gate on Longwood Gardens Any idea where about that picture is and what website is it on? it was a few (quite a few) years ago now. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 24, 2017 13:10:47 GMT
In regards to the 233, I saw a DD once in the early 2000s as a kid. I'm sure two passing each other down Longlands Road, Sidcup would be a task as well as Northview, Swanley. With the 286 I actually saw one and reported it a few Sundays back. Longlands Road is OK for double deckers. Occasionally rail replacements go that way. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 24, 2017 13:42:12 GMT
The most famous case in recent years was the 324 whose presence near Stanmore was going to cause the world to end and Stanmore to disappear to the centre of the earth (I exaggerate only slightly) if you believed the detractors. How appropriate that this should come up on Christmas Eve  (now there's an in-joke...) I tend to agree with sid here - each case needs to be taken on its merits. |
|
Just wow. Hellova oxymoron if you ask me!
(now there's an in-joke...)