|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 23, 2020 13:47:18 GMT
What could make turns easier, Bendys or the NB4L? I believe it was bendies. They managed to get cleared for route 436 at Paddington while it's believed the same turn at Edgware Road failed the LT assessment on some Paddington routes |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 23, 2020 13:50:53 GMT
Does the 27 have to do that routing now thou?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 23, 2020 15:30:33 GMT
Does the 27 have to do that routing now thou? No, the 27 comes in the same way as route 205 - which itself was also cleared for LTs. They, along with the 332 are the only decker routes which enter Paddington through other routes. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Apr 23, 2020 20:05:36 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? X43 ran for just under 6 years (1992-1998), so not very long at all. And I only really discovered it in its last couple of years. In all honesty though, if we were looking at new express routes, there are probably better candidates than the X43. Probably best to leave it in the past (and in my avatar) where it belongs 
As for Friern Barnet, I'm pretty sure the stand would be OK. It would certainly be easier to navigate than that abomination of a bus station at North Finchley.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 23, 2020 20:27:33 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 I'm attempting to be logical here. If double deckers are banned on the 235 because an elderly gentleman was hit by one in Sunbury Village, was the reason for the accident its double deck features? In other words, was the gentleman in question abnormally tall and somehow came into contact with the upper deck. Am I missing something obvious? |
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Apr 23, 2020 20:57:55 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 I'm attempting to be logical here. If double deckers are banned on the 235 because an elderly gentleman was hit by one in Sunbury Village, was the reason for the accident its double deck features? In other words, was the gentleman in question abnormally tall and somehow came into contact with the upper deck. Am I missing something obvious? It was actually a 216 SLE that was involved in that tragic collision. Locals were also known to complain about DDs going through the narrow village bits, and that unfortunate accident was what put an end to 216 deckers for good, because it is easy for civilians to point fingers on "oversized buses". I had thought it was North Brentford Quarter apartment residents who were not keen on deckers entering their little estate when it comes to 235? It is a tricky subject I've got to admit. I have heard that 235 has appeared on some VW blinds though and wouldn't have without TfL approval, so this is a sign of things pointing in a good direction. Perhaps next contract…? |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 26, 2020 6:06:21 GMT
That article is one that certainly did make the rounds. I found it completely hilarious that Neil Smith at the time said he didn't need London cause he made the money in Singapore and Australia. Obviously brings up a question on why he was operating in London then? That strike was also a bit unique as there were multiple reports of Tower Transit abandoning VNs at Stratford Bus Station with no intention to actually run the buses yet blinded them up for the 25 to make it look like a service was being run. I think many would share your point questioning why Tower are running in London. It's hardly been what I'd call a roaring success for them. They've admitted this themselves. As Transit Systems were recently taken over by Sealink Ferries who specifically noticed they were acquiring bus services in London and Singapore, this may be in effect a fresh start for Tower Transit in London. www.sealinktravelgroup.com.au/news-media/2020/sealink-completes-acquisition-of-transit-systems-group/ |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 26, 2020 6:07:58 GMT
I think many would share your point questioning why Tower are running in London. It's hardly been what I'd call a roaring success for them. They've admitted this themselves. TT have certainly had a rollercoaster ride, they’ve had the biggest highs and the biggest lows. They were having an absolute battering at one point, losing the 26, 30, 31, 70, 266, 295, N550 and N551. Late 2018/early 2019 was quite a bit better, winning the D8, 262, 473, 228 and more recently the 218 (but doesn’t quite make up the shortfall. Then they had a knock back with the 212 and 444 then a devastating hammerblow losing the 25 and 425. The C3 is rather trivial compensation. The 28, 328 and 69 are also imminent and are likely to be hugely competitive so this could potentially be disastrous, and then it’ll be quite a while before they can pick anything else up, the biggest chance being the 414 at the end of the year  (deliberately haven’t mentioned the 108/D7 as they could get extended yet) Tower Transit have also gained route 452 and new route 218. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 26, 2020 6:13:32 GMT
foxhat might know. Foxhat are double deckers allowed on the 235? Double deckers used to go to Sunbury Village on the 237, I don't know if there is any problem with double deckers at Brentford Quarter? Talking of which, route 237 had served Sunbury longer than Shepherd's Bush, as it was only extended to there in 1978. So, when the 235/237 split occurred, I wish they had been given opposite numbers, enabling the route 237 to remain in Sunbury. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 26, 2020 6:15:08 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. Although transport in London is devolved to the Mayor of London, the Prime Minister might frown at such an idea.  |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 26, 2020 6:19:01 GMT
A route I so believed was destined for bendibuses that I was shocked it got new double-decks in 2006 instead was route 68.
|
|
|
|
Post by First Hayes on May 9, 2020 1:51:45 GMT
If it was unsafe to make the turn then my father, with around 20 years bus driving experience at that time, would not have done it. The problem with those buses was people with no experience of driving them telling drivers what they could and couldn’t do with them. My dad drove them every day for five years and knew exactly how manoeuvrable they were and exactly where they could and couldn’t go. He was even showing Go Ahead drivers how to drive them after Stagecoach lost the 453 I'm more than sure they could easily make the turn but the problem/issue being is when making that turn you would have a reduced view in your N/S mirror and obviously due to the extended length, more risk of an accident happening. The quote from Merc was anywhere a 12M Ridgid could go, these could go as well, they had an amazing steering lock and turning circle, I would have loved to drive them in service Used to love getting on the 29's when they were driven like this That’s How We Drove The 2...Oh’s Along UxbridgeRoad Those Were The Days |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 9, 2020 7:22:23 GMT
A route I so believed was destined for bendibuses that I was shocked it got new double-decks in 2006 instead was route 68. I don't recall hearing about the 68 but i think the would have fit along the route quite easily. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on May 9, 2020 8:06:50 GMT
A route I so believed was destined for bendibuses that I was shocked it got new double-decks in 2006 instead was route 68. I don't recall hearing about the 68 but i think the would have fit along the route quite easily. True, I never heard any such rumours either. I just felt at the time that it would be a relatively likely candidate for bendis. |
|
. 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?
(deliberately haven’t mentioned the 108/D7 as they could get extended yet)
#SadTimes