|
Post by londonbuses on Dec 6, 2023 14:09:18 GMT
On the flip side the 97, 197, 297, 397, 497 and N97 don’t meet Nor do the 5, 105, 205, 405, N5 And also 20, 120, 220, 320, N20 Neither do the 27, 127, 227, 327 and 427.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Dec 6, 2023 14:17:21 GMT
Checking LVF I see a number of VH appearances on the 33 during 2021 - presumably Covid extras, my memory of that period is hazy to say the least. That being the case the sequence goes up to at least 45. The 46 has seen all sorts of oddities in the past but I can't think of any Wright products that would have appeared on the route. It would certainly be interesting to know which routes have never had any Wright products on the route, and the same for ADL products.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 6, 2023 16:13:30 GMT
Checking LVF I see a number of VH appearances on the 33 during 2021 - presumably Covid extras, my memory of that period is hazy to say the least. That being the case the sequence goes up to at least 45. The 46 has seen all sorts of oddities in the past but I can't think of any Wright products that would have appeared on the route. It would certainly be interesting to know which routes have never had any Wright products on the route, and the same for ADL products. The only one of the top of my head I can think of is the H1/631, H2 & H3 have possibly never had either ADL/Alexander or Wright products (depends on the body of the minibuses they had though, redexpress over to you ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) ). Certainly in the low floor era, it's only been Solos and Solo SR's
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Dec 6, 2023 16:24:47 GMT
It would certainly be interesting to know which routes have never had any Wright products on the route, and the same for ADL products. The only one of the top of my head I can think of is the H1/631, H2 & H3 have possibly never had either ADL/Alexander or Wright products (depends on the body of the minibuses they had though, redexpress over to you ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) ). Certainly in the low floor era, it's only been Solos and Solo SR's It was with R&I Coaches from June 1989 to September 2000 but I am not sure they had any Wright or Alexander products. From 2000 Metroline operated the routes with Optare Metroriders, the step-entrance predecessor of the Solo.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Dec 9, 2023 5:01:05 GMT
In that case, it will be a good thing that the former southern section of route 137 to Crystal Palace is numbered 417 not 437. More interesting about the 37 group is that you can get on each and every 37 bus route sequentially, without repeating any routes, but there is only one order in which you can do this. 237, H37, 337, 37 and 137 (or vice versa). You might think that that is the case with the Superloop routes, but the SL4 doesn't connect with any others, and route SL9 would have to be ridden twice (once Heathrow to Hayes and once Hayes to Harrow). I don't think that there are any other route sets which this applies to. This means that the 37s connection has happened by accident, while the new Superloop concept has not been designed with the best combo of route numbers.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Dec 9, 2023 5:03:59 GMT
In that case, it will be a good thing that the former southern section of route 137 to Crystal Palace is numbered 417 not 437. The current 87 was originally tendered as route 437, so we could have already had that number covered by 220 ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) This is all the more reason why it is a pity that route 87 in the Barking area was withdrawn upon extension of route 5. I feel that route 5 should have kept the number 87. Route 115 (East Ham - Aldgate) was traditionally covered by route 5 (plus route 15) and ought to have retained the number 5. Route number 115 still feels like it belongs in the Norbury area.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Dec 9, 2023 5:06:05 GMT
Adding onto my previous post, I also realised that although all three routes do not intersect in one place, route 122 connects with route 322 at Crystal Palace and route 422 in Woolwich. If only route 22 ran in South London, it would've completed the puzzle! Strictly speaking, route 22 does reach Putney Common, which is on the south side of London, but alas yes it does fail to intersect with any of those other routes.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Dec 9, 2023 5:08:50 GMT
Every single route from 1 - 20 has had an allocation of Wright-based products, whether it be the routemaster, B5LHs or B9TLs. Route 21 has Wrightbus LTs and route 22 some WHVs (alongside MHVs). It is route 23 that finally lets the side down with MetroDeckers. EDIT : Having seen subsequent posts, I see that some of you have allowed for routes that can see Wright buses. My 23 observation is based on scheduled vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by mb171 on Dec 9, 2023 9:44:52 GMT
MHV81 I believe is the only London bus where it shows it bus code on its reg plate - BG66MHV
T304, T319, T309, T301 (LK65ENR, ENL, ENX, ENN) shows different types of Arriva Codes of Enviro200s on their reg but are actually Enviro400s at Arriva.
DLE30263 (SK68LTZ) i believe is the only non-routemaster bus in London to have 'LTZ' on its reg plate.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Dec 9, 2023 21:18:41 GMT
It would certainly be interesting to know which routes have never had any Wright products on the route, and the same for ADL products. The only one of the top of my head I can think of is the H1/631, H2 & H3 have possibly never had either ADL/Alexander or Wright products (depends on the body of the minibuses they had though, redexpress over to you ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) ). Certainly in the low floor era, it's only been Solos and Solo SR's There must be quite a few routes that have never seen a Wright product. Up to the early 2000s Wright buses were very much in a minority in London, and they are still a minority when it comes to single-deckers.
ADL products are harder to avoid, especially if we're including all the manufacturers that eventually became part of ADL. That would include Dennis, Alexander, Northern Counties, Plaxton and Reeve Burgess, which doesn't leave very much!
The 631/H1/H2/H3 is a good shout. R&I initially used Fiat/Iveco midis with bodywork by Robin Hood or LHE Engineering (I don't know what happened to those bodybuilders). They later switched to integral Optare MetroRiders. In the MTL era there was one Mercedes 811D with Marshall bodywork, then came the low-floor buses. So nothing with Plaxton or Alexander bodywork unless I've missed something.
The previous 395, and the P14 before it, may not have seen any pre-ADL buses either. Other than that I guess we're looking at something recently introduced. The SL7 hasn't seen an ADL product yet, and the SL8 hasn't seen either ADL or Wright products.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Dec 9, 2023 21:25:22 GMT
Every single route from 1 - 20 has had an allocation of Wright-based products, whether it be the routemaster, B5LHs or B9TLs. Route 21 has Wrightbus LTs and route 22 some WHVs (alongside MHVs). It is route 23 that finally lets the side down with MetroDeckers. EDIT : Having seen subsequent posts, I see that some of you have allowed for routes that can see Wright buses. My 23 observation is based on scheduled vehicles. The original comment was about historical allocations as well as current ones. The 23 has had two batches of Wright vehicles officially allocated. The small batch of WNs was allocated to the 23 when new. The route then received a whole batch of new 61-reg VNs for a few months, as a stopgap before new E40Ds and E40Hs were received (with the VNs moving to the 266).
As far as I can see the 26 is the lowest-numbered route not to have had an official allocation of Wright buses at any point in its history.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Dec 10, 2023 0:05:36 GMT
The current 87 was originally tendered as route 437, so we could have already had that number covered by 220 ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) This is all the more reason why it is a pity that route 87 in the Barking area was withdrawn upon extension of route 5. I feel that route 5 should have kept the number 87. Route 115 (East Ham - Aldgate) was traditionally covered by route 5 (plus route 15) and ought to have retained the number 5. Route number 115 still feels like it belongs in the Norbury area. not sure why the 5 should have kept the 87 number- the 5 had run along the Barking Road since 1961 and, and a lot of that time up to Becontree Heath along Longbridge Road edit: the 115 was formed by renumbering the 15B, which was a "version" of the 15.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Dec 10, 2023 15:07:17 GMT
Am I right in saying that the 102 serves the most amount of places that has the word Green in it. Edmonton Green, Palmers Green, Bounds Green and Golders Green or is there another route that surpasses that?
|
|
|
Post by orangejamieboss on Dec 11, 2023 9:28:18 GMT
Following the extension of the 316 to Brent Cross West yesterday and the earlier withdrawal of the original Route 16 in April, Cricklewood Bus Garage has now lost the only 2 routes which terminated there and is no longer a terminus (other than curtailments).
From 2 terminating routes in April to none in the space of 8 months.
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Dec 11, 2023 12:16:09 GMT
Following the extension of the 316 to Brent Cross West yesterday and the earlier withdrawal of the original Route 16 in April, Cricklewood Bus Garage has now lost the only 2 routes which terminated there and is no longer a terminus (other than curtailments). From 2 terminating routes in April to none in the space of 8 months. Also now there are no bus routes left which had “Bus” at both ends on blinds 316 used to have White City bus station - Cricklewood bus garage
|
|