|
Post by thesquirrels on Apr 22, 2020 21:21:52 GMT
I've heard this quoted as the reason for DDs not appearing on the 216 any more, but not the 235. In any case I thought it was more an unofficial "ban" rather than a formal one. The 235 itself used to be double-deck, and the only route change since then has been at the Brentford end. Of course trees may have grown a bit since the route last saw DDs but surely that can be solved with a bit of tree pruning.
The part of lower Sunbury where the residents complained is the narrow section of the river road so not on the 235 route. I think it’s dubious as to whether this is a valid reason though. I would have thought the narrow section of Church Street behind St. Mary's would be the biggest obstacle to all-day double decker running on the 235, it is extremely tight with parked cars and a kink in the road. I haven't used the 235 for years but I do remember the section south of Sunbury Cross being fairly quiet - is the overcrowding on the section through Hounslow very bad? Would it make more sense to localise the Sunbury section and get double decks on a Brentford - Lower Feltham/Sunbury Cross service?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 22, 2020 21:23:38 GMT
I would love to see an electric bendi in London safety would top due to cyclists and motorbikes. Most ideal Route for that would either be the 36 or 73 My personal opinion but I don't think anything like the bendy bus should be brought back onto London streets again. Agree although I would introduce some just for the 507 & 521 as those routes made a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 22, 2020 21:26:42 GMT
Ir just leave that section to Surrey County Council and run a DD servive between Brentfore and Sunbury Cross where there are no restrictions. Feltham to Hounslow needs better. Or drop the 235 to every 12 to 15 mins and extend the 237 to Feltham. The main reason for the 235's high freq is to cope with Hounslow to Feltham.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 22, 2020 21:46:42 GMT
Ir just leave that section to Surrey County Council and run a DD servive between Brentfore and Sunbury Cross where there are no restrictions. Feltham to Hounslow needs better. Or drop the 235 to every 12 to 15 mins and extend the 237 to Feltham. The main reason for the 235's high freq is to cope with Hounslow to Feltham. Not sure extending the 237 is the answer - it would make it very lengthy & Feltham is practically under construction at the moment so stand space would likely be tough to find. Not sure if there is stand space at Sunbury Cross - the Tesco did have one of the 500 series routes standing there under Abellio. I suspect why it runs to Sunbury Village is possibly because of stand space issues as the stand is decent sized. One option would be create stand space before the Tesco if possible and use the Tesco link road to turn around
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 22:07:19 GMT
266 I'm pretty sure was considered for Artic Ops (makes it sound like a secret operation) and the 134 which I mentioned in another thread. I'm surprised that the 16 and/or the 32 didn't get any to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Apr 22, 2020 22:24:59 GMT
Ir just leave that section to Surrey County Council and run a DD servive between Brentfore and Sunbury Cross where there are no restrictions. Feltham to Hounslow needs better. Or drop the 235 to every 12 to 15 mins and extend the 237 to Feltham. The main reason for the 235's high freq is to cope with Hounslow to Feltham. Not sure extending the 237 is the answer - it would make it very lengthy & Feltham is practically under construction at the moment so stand space would likely be tough to find. Not sure if there is stand space at Sunbury Cross - the Tesco did have one of the 500 series routes standing there under Abellio. I suspect why it runs to Sunbury Village is possibly because of stand space issues as the stand is decent sized. One option would be create stand space before the Tesco if possible and use the Tesco link road to turn around Can stand at Springwest Academy
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Apr 22, 2020 22:31:20 GMT
266 I'm pretty sure was considered for Artic Ops (makes it sound like a secret operation) and the 134 which I mentioned in another thread. I'm surprised that the 16 and/or the 32 didn't get any to be honest. Going back to the 134 plan I always thought it odd that they chose 134 over 43. I had visions of the 43 going bendy with a reintroduced X43 running alongside for longer journeys - a bit like the 207/607 pair. Unrealistic I know. But I still think artics would have been better suited to 43 than 134.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 22, 2020 23:28:51 GMT
Not sure extending the 237 is the answer - it would make it very lengthy & Feltham is practically under construction at the moment so stand space would likely be tough to find. Not sure if there is stand space at Sunbury Cross - the Tesco did have one of the 500 series routes standing there under Abellio. I suspect why it runs to Sunbury Village is possibly because of stand space issues as the stand is decent sized. One option would be create stand space before the Tesco if possible and use the Tesco link road to turn around Can stand at Springwest Academy Looking at the stand on google maps, there seems to be only enough stand space there for the 90?
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Apr 23, 2020 0:13:47 GMT
Can stand at Springwest Academy Looking at the stand on google maps, there seems to be only enough stand space there for the 90? The 90 could always move back to Leisure West.
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Apr 23, 2020 9:14:37 GMT
Hmm. Perhaps they’ve just never got round to route testing it. If there is indeed maybe an unsuitable corner. If there are DDs ready to be used on the route with correct blinds etc that must tell me there’s definitely something stopping it. Otherwise like the 190 they would definitely have appeared by now. TP446 would almost definitely have known foxhat might know. Foxhat are double deckers allowed on the 235? Subject to a satisfactory route test - there is no official double deck restriction. Pushing resident 'complaints' if often more for local politics. Just look at the 274 which was a 'resident complaint'. It's fine now
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 23, 2020 9:38:08 GMT
foxhat might know. Foxhat are double deckers allowed on the 235? Subject to a satisfactory route test - there is no official double deck restriction. Pushing resident 'complaints' if often more for local politics. Just look at the 274 which was a 'resident complaint'. It's fine now There were reportedly objections to double deckers returning to the 319 although they have operated the route for some years now without any problems, I suspect a lot of it is indeed local politics rather than residents.
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Apr 23, 2020 9:55:47 GMT
Subject to a satisfactory route test - there is no official double deck restriction. Pushing resident 'complaints' if often more for local politics. Just look at the 274 which was a 'resident complaint'. It's fine now There were reportedly objections to double deckers returning to the 319 although they have operated the route for some years now without any problems, I suspect a lot of it is indeed local politics rather than residents. And then there's just plain incompetence. Take the 316 for example. The section of its route which is "banned" for deckers is also shared by the 295 which has been decked for years and for a while was also the route of a double deck LUL rail replacement service. How anyone can claim that one double deck bus route is evil yet have no objections over 1-2 others on the same road is beyond me. Yet, that's where we are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 13:31:28 GMT
266 I'm pretty sure was considered for Artic Ops (makes it sound like a secret operation) and the 134 which I mentioned in another thread. I'm surprised that the 16 and/or the 32 didn't get any to be honest. Going back to the 134 plan I always thought it odd that they chose 134 over 43. I had visions of the 43 going bendy with a reintroduced X43 running alongside for longer journeys - a bit like the 207/607 pair. Unrealistic I know. But I still think artics would have been better suited to 43 than 134. Ha, someone is showing signs of why their name is Rex Express.. . Looking at it, the 43 would have worked, its mainly straight roads, but do you think they would have made it around the Friern Barnet stand? BTW how long did the X43 last?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 23, 2020 13:37:22 GMT
Going back to the 134 plan I always thought it odd that they chose 134 over 43. I had visions of the 43 going bendy with a reintroduced X43 running alongside for longer journeys - a bit like the 207/607 pair. Unrealistic I know. But I still think artics would have been better suited to 43 than 134. Ha, someone is showing signs of why their name is Rex Express.. . Looking at it, the 43 would have worked, its mainly straight roads, but do you think they would have made it around the Friern Barnet stand? BTW how long did the X43 last? If I was to guess, I'd say they could make the stand though probably would have to limit how many were on stand at once. That excellent turning circle lets them go places you wouldn't believe - been on a 453 MAL down narrow country lanes before.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 23, 2020 13:45:15 GMT
What could make turns easier, Bendys or the NB4L?
|
|