|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 4, 2021 21:33:13 GMT
The H20/Sullivans are other examples.
Lots of operators I think did this in the 00s because lots of operators used leased stock like Thorpes.
I wonder whether any operator in London used foreign stock, the only example I can think of is the 606 when it used VPL174 (X157JOP) which was initially a low floor demonstrator from Dublin
X157JOP was used by London Easylink as a spare for 42 and 185 after it left Dublin. Sullivan bought it after DTS/Easylink had collapsed.
The Darts that Connex used on the 405 (Y211-4 HWJ) started life in Ireland. Oddly they were given Y plates when they were registered in the UK, making them appear to be brand new, even though they were already 2 years old and had been registered with 99 plates in Ireland.
A more exotic example would be Metroline's ex-Singapore Olympian (AV39 / M650ELA) which eventually became part of the allocation on the 266.
X157JOP funnily enough was also a 1999 vehicle, surprisingly however that also ended up on an X plate. Strange.
I didn't know about the latter 2 examples, that is so intriguing. Especially in the case of the 266, I had probably ridden that on the 260/266 but never came to know it was actualy ex-Singaporean.
Not fully related to London operators itself, however the Megabus venture (which I believe entered London) started out by Stagecoach was operated I believe by ex Hong Kong dragons, and I heard somewhere that there was a ALX300 demonstrator that was born in the UK, however went out to South Africa (I think a main operator in Cape Town), rebuilt by Neoplan and ended up with Stagecoach back in the UK. It is just so fascinating how much foreign stock travels around.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 4, 2021 21:34:13 GMT
The H20/Sullivans are other examples.
Lots of operators I think did this in the 00s because lots of operators used leased stock like Thorpes. I wonder whether any operator in London used foreign stock, the only example I can think of is the 606 when it used VPL174 (X157JOP) which was initially a low floor demonstrator from Dublin
A ex Hong Kong Olympian was rebuilt and used by Metroline on the 266 As for original non London stock being used in London, there are quite a few examples than people might realise though I don't blame anyone for thinking different. Just to give one such one, one of the MPD's used by the Travel Surrey & Abellio Surrey ops was transferred to London work as a spare for the 434 whilst at BC. It had it's LED's replaced by powerblinds, fitted with I-Bus and was repainted 100% red - it finished it's days as the 322's spare before the route was lost to Go-Ahead I think a similar situation happened with 8108 returning from Surrey and becoming a spare on the 367. But interesting as well.
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Sept 5, 2021 11:16:56 GMT
Really pleased to see most of the changes planned for Croydon go ahead, especially the 434 extension to Caterham which I had been hoping to happen for many years! It's also great to see Kenley gaining another bus route in the 439, however the bit I don't quite understand in the report is when TfL said that keeping the 434 on its current routing via Northwood Avenue and routing the 439 via the top of Kenley would "increase costs substantially and would no longer offer value for money to justify the changes". Surely it's better to send a new route into an area that hasn't had a bus service before rather than changing the routing of an existing one and cause confusion amongst local residents? Wouldn't they also save money by keeping the 434 as it is?
The 407 being split in half is also much needed, I felt it was becoming unsustainable in its current form for much longer. I don't think the routing via Old Town would be well used though. And whilst it's sad to see the 455 getting withdrawn completely, the route went completely round the houses, took way longer than it should have done and as there were other alternatives available in most of the areas it serves, it saw low demand. Seeing as the 455 received a 2 year extension recently, one of the new routes will surely have to go to Go-Ahead as compensation for the withdrawal of the 455, a la 48/335. They do have the 322's E200's available which could be used on the 439.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 5, 2021 12:00:18 GMT
The 439 with the SEs would be good though what is the max length it will be able to take as current S1 buses might be good aswell. If not, the 470 using the optares could be a Go Ahead win out of AL.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 5, 2021 21:00:22 GMT
Really pleased to see most of the changes planned for Croydon go ahead, especially the 434 extension to Caterham which I had been hoping to happen for many years! It's also great to see Kenley gaining another bus route in the 439, however the bit I don't quite understand in the report is when TfL said that keeping the 434 on its current routing via Northwood Avenue and routing the 439 via the top of Kenley would "increase costs substantially and would no longer offer value for money to justify the changes". Surely it's better to send a new route into an area that hasn't had a bus service before rather than changing the routing of an existing one and cause confusion amongst local residents? Wouldn't they also save money by keeping the 434 as it is? The 407 being split in half is also much needed, I felt it was becoming unsustainable in its current form for much longer. I don't think the routing via Old Town would be well used though. And whilst it's sad to see the 455 getting withdrawn completely, the route went completely round the houses, took way longer than it should have done and as there were other alternatives available in most of the areas it serves, it saw low demand. Seeing as the 455 received a 2 year extension recently, one of the new routes will surely have to go to Go-Ahead as compensation for the withdrawal of the 455, a la 48/335. They do have the 322's E200's available which could be used on the 439. I'm glad I'm not the only one puzzled about the 434 and 439 routing. I think the other side of Purley the 439 might have been better going via Pampisford Road and Waddon Way rather than duplicate the 289. I don't think many people will miss the current 407 and the 455, both rather cumbersome indirect routes. I'm also rather dubious about the 443 route via Old Town, I think it might have been better to reroute the 154 that way instead. I think the 443 should be given a different number to avoid any confusion with the 433. I think routing the 166 (and 405) via Christchurch Road would be preferable, presumably it would be dependant on traffic lights being installed at the Pampisford Road junction.
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Sept 5, 2021 21:16:09 GMT
The 439 with the SEs would be good though what is the max length it will be able to take as current S1 buses might be good aswell. If not, the 470 using the optares could be a Go Ahead win out of AL. At a push, I think it could take 10.2m buses, and it would probably justify them if the route gets busy as the 289 does during the rush hour. The only difficulty being Northwood Avenue where cars parked on both sides of the road, although I would imagine space would be identified to place fixed bus stops. I doubt TfL would want to keep a hail and ride section on the 439 unless they really had to. I do wonder if the 434 will finally gain fixed bus stops as a result of this consultation?
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Sept 5, 2021 21:32:06 GMT
Really pleased to see most of the changes planned for Croydon go ahead, especially the 434 extension to Caterham which I had been hoping to happen for many years! It's also great to see Kenley gaining another bus route in the 439, however the bit I don't quite understand in the report is when TfL said that keeping the 434 on its current routing via Northwood Avenue and routing the 439 via the top of Kenley would "increase costs substantially and would no longer offer value for money to justify the changes". Surely it's better to send a new route into an area that hasn't had a bus service before rather than changing the routing of an existing one and cause confusion amongst local residents? Wouldn't they also save money by keeping the 434 as it is? The 407 being split in half is also much needed, I felt it was becoming unsustainable in its current form for much longer. I don't think the routing via Old Town would be well used though. And whilst it's sad to see the 455 getting withdrawn completely, the route went completely round the houses, took way longer than it should have done and as there were other alternatives available in most of the areas it serves, it saw low demand. Seeing as the 455 received a 2 year extension recently, one of the new routes will surely have to go to Go-Ahead as compensation for the withdrawal of the 455, a la 48/335. They do have the 322's E200's available which could be used on the 439. To add to my post, the below section of the report caught my eye concerning the addition of a TfL bus service between Caterham-on-the-Hill and Caterham Valley: I do wonder if they considered extending the 404 to serve Caterham Valley, surely that wouldn't "greatly increase costs"?. A TfL bus link between Caterham-on-the-Hill/The Village and the station I'm sure would be a net benefit. More people would be attracted to use it, particularly commuters travelling to Caterham Station as it would be a lot cheaper and more frequent than Surrey County Council's bus routes. I assume TfL are referring to serving the whole of Hayes Lane when they talk about roads that were unsuitable for bus operation as there are some narrow sections between The Hayes Primary School and Kenley Aerodrome, but then you have routes in the Orpington area such as the R8 which serve roads which are narrower than that, and it's only for a small section too.
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Sept 5, 2021 21:38:08 GMT
Really pleased to see most of the changes planned for Croydon go ahead, especially the 434 extension to Caterham which I had been hoping to happen for many years! It's also great to see Kenley gaining another bus route in the 439, however the bit I don't quite understand in the report is when TfL said that keeping the 434 on its current routing via Northwood Avenue and routing the 439 via the top of Kenley would "increase costs substantially and would no longer offer value for money to justify the changes". Surely it's better to send a new route into an area that hasn't had a bus service before rather than changing the routing of an existing one and cause confusion amongst local residents? Wouldn't they also save money by keeping the 434 as it is? The 407 being split in half is also much needed, I felt it was becoming unsustainable in its current form for much longer. I don't think the routing via Old Town would be well used though. And whilst it's sad to see the 455 getting withdrawn completely, the route went completely round the houses, took way longer than it should have done and as there were other alternatives available in most of the areas it serves, it saw low demand. Seeing as the 455 received a 2 year extension recently, one of the new routes will surely have to go to Go-Ahead as compensation for the withdrawal of the 455, a la 48/335. They do have the 322's E200's available which could be used on the 439. I'm glad I'm not the only one puzzled about the 434 and 439 routing. I think the other side of Purley the 439 might have been better going via Pampisford Road and Waddon Way rather than duplicate the 289. I don't think many people will miss the current 407 and the 455, both rather cumbersome indirect routes. I'm also rather dubious about the 443 route via Old Town, I think it might have been better to reroute the 154 that way instead. I think the 443 should be given a different number to avoid any confusion with the 433. I think routing the 166 (and 405) via Christchurch Road would be preferable, presumably it would be dependant on traffic lights being installed at the Pampisford Road junction. The whole purpose of routing the 439 via the Purley Way was to relieve pressure on the 289 which is already busy as it is (pre covid anyway), but it would make more sense if there was less duplication that the proposed 439 route currently has, which is why I think it would make more sense for it to serve the top of Kenley instead of the 434. That is unless TfL want to put longer buses on the 439 which it couldn't take if it was routed via the top of Kenley. They should have really switched around the 407 and 443 proposals so that the 407 ran between Caterham and West Croydon and the 443 was the section of the route between Croydon Town Centre and Sutton.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Sept 5, 2021 22:43:56 GMT
Now that the dust has settled, I thought I’d write out the revised (simplified) Croydon-Sutton bus changes for clarity.
Sutton: 164- Extended from Sutton Station to Royal Marsden Hospital via Brighton Road.
455- Route withdrawn- see S4 for replacement.
470- Withdrawn between Epsom Town Centre and Sutton Station (see S2) Rerouted in Sutton Common via Marlborough Road and Stayton Road (replacing S3)
S1- Route simplified in St Helier area to serve Rose Hill and northern end of Green Wrythe Lane instead of residential streets. Diverted away from Belmont Station.
S2- NEW ROUTE between St Helier and Epsom Town Centre via existing routes S4 and 470.
S3- Route simplified in Sutton Common area to continue via Sutton Common Station and Angel Hill instead of residential streets (see 470)
S4- Extended from Roundshaw to Waddon Marsh (replacing 455) Withdrawn between St Helier and Sutton Town Centre (see S2)
Croydon: 166- Rerouted away from South Croydon, via Pampisford Road and Warham Road (replacing 455). Note- Park Lane 455 section is without replacement- 166 will operate into Croydon as is.
312- Extended from South Croydon Bus Garage to Purley, Old Lodge Lane (replacing 455).
405- School day only extra journey withdrawn (see 645)
407- Withdrawn between Croydon Town Centre and Caterham (see 443)
434- Rerouted in Kenley via Higher Drive (new road) instead of Oaks Road (see 439) Extended from Whyteleafe to Caterham via existing route 407.
439- NEW ROUTE from Waddon Marsh to Whyteleafe. Provides extra capacity along Purley Way (via route 289) and replaces 434 routing in Kenley via Oaks Road.
443- NEW ROUTE from West Croydon to Caterham, replacing route 407. Note- will not serve Croydon High Street, instead running via Old Town (new road) and Reeves Corner.
455- Route withdrawn- see 166 and 312 for replacement.
645- NEW SCHOOL ROUTE introduced to replace school day journey on 405. Route runs from Purley Town Centre to Waddon via existing 405 SDO route, plus extension to Reeves Corner and Waddon.
164 Wimbledon-Royal Marsden Hospital 166 West Croydon-Epsom Hospital/Banstead 312 Norwood Junction-Purley, Old Lodge Lane 405 Croydon Town Centre-Redhill 407 Sutton Town Centre-Croydon Town Centre 434 Coulsdon, Rickmans Hill-Caterham 439 Waddon Marsh-Whyteleafe 443 West Croydon-Caterham 470 Colliers Wood-Sutton Station 645 Waddon-Purley Town Centre S1 Lavender Fields-Banstead S2 St Helier-Epsom S3 Malden Manor-Royal Marsden Hospital S4 Sutton Town Centre-Waddon Marsh
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 5, 2021 22:46:18 GMT
Really pleased to see most of the changes planned for Croydon go ahead, especially the 434 extension to Caterham which I had been hoping to happen for many years! It's also great to see Kenley gaining another bus route in the 439, however the bit I don't quite understand in the report is when TfL said that keeping the 434 on its current routing via Northwood Avenue and routing the 439 via the top of Kenley would "increase costs substantially and would no longer offer value for money to justify the changes". Surely it's better to send a new route into an area that hasn't had a bus service before rather than changing the routing of an existing one and cause confusion amongst local residents? Wouldn't they also save money by keeping the 434 as it is? The 407 being split in half is also much needed, I felt it was becoming unsustainable in its current form for much longer. I don't think the routing via Old Town would be well used though. And whilst it's sad to see the 455 getting withdrawn completely, the route went completely round the houses, took way longer than it should have done and as there were other alternatives available in most of the areas it serves, it saw low demand. Seeing as the 455 received a 2 year extension recently, one of the new routes will surely have to go to Go-Ahead as compensation for the withdrawal of the 455, a la 48/335. They do have the 322's E200's available which could be used on the 439. I'm glad I'm not the only one puzzled about the 434 and 439 routing. I think the other side of Purley the 439 might have been better going via Pampisford Road and Waddon Way rather than duplicate the 289. I don't think many people will miss the current 407 and the 455, both rather cumbersome indirect routes. I'm also rather dubious about the 443 route via Old Town, I think it might have been better to reroute the 154 that way instead. I think the 443 should be given a different number to avoid any confusion with the 433. I think routing the 166 (and 405) via Christchurch Road would be preferable, presumably it would be dependant on traffic lights being installed at the Pampisford Road junction. Re-routing the 154 via Old Town would mean it misses both the Whitgift & Fairfield Hall stops, the latter which is commonly used by Croydon College students so definitely good that wasn't suggested to happen by TfL. The 407 isn't a wholly indirect route, it's more a route of two halves that have been merged together, very good example of why simply merging routes rarely always works. I hope the Old Town routing of the 443 is a success, makes more sense than diverting the 154 after all given the routing via High Street under the Flyover has plenty of different options already
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 6, 2021 7:19:46 GMT
The ironic thing is the 197 between NJ and Croydon was shorter then Croydon to Sutton so kind of made Caterham route longer when it was extended to Sutton and renumbered 407.
I certainly wouldn't say the 407 was like the new 23 and that there was some cross Croydon travel such as Beddington to Purley.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 6, 2021 7:33:28 GMT
The ironic thing is the 197 between NJ and Croydon was shorter then Croydon to Sutton so kind of made Caterham route longer when it was extended to Sutton and renumbered 407. I certainly wouldn't say the 407 was like the new 23 and that there was some cross Croydon travel such as Beddington to Purley. The 407 was a replacement for the 197A and 403.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Sept 6, 2021 7:50:18 GMT
The 439 with the SEs would be good though what is the max length it will be able to take as current S1 buses might be good aswell. If not, the 470 using the optares could be a Go Ahead win out of AL. At a push, I think it could take 10.2m buses, and it would probably justify them if the route gets busy as the 289 does during the rush hour. The only difficulty being Northwood Avenue where cars parked on both sides of the road, although I would imagine space would be identified to place fixed bus stops. I doubt TfL would want to keep a hail and ride section on the 439 unless they really had to. I do wonder if the 434 will finally gain fixed bus stops as a result of this consultation? TfL said in the EQIA of this consultation that all locations currently served by hail & ride will remain that way, and that Higher Drive on the 434 will also be of such an operation
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Sept 6, 2021 7:51:53 GMT
I'm glad I'm not the only one puzzled about the 434 and 439 routing. I think the other side of Purley the 439 might have been better going via Pampisford Road and Waddon Way rather than duplicate the 289. I don't think many people will miss the current 407 and the 455, both rather cumbersome indirect routes. I'm also rather dubious about the 443 route via Old Town, I think it might have been better to reroute the 154 that way instead. I think the 443 should be given a different number to avoid any confusion with the 433. I think routing the 166 (and 405) via Christchurch Road would be preferable, presumably it would be dependant on traffic lights being installed at the Pampisford Road junction. The whole purpose of routing the 439 via the Purley Way was to relieve pressure on the 289 which is already busy as it is (pre covid anyway), but it would make more sense if there was less duplication that the proposed 439 route currently has, which is why I think it would make more sense for it to serve the top of Kenley instead of the 434. That is unless TfL want to put longer buses on the 439 which it couldn't take if it was routed via the top of Kenley. They should have really switched around the 407 and 443 proposals so that the 407 ran between Caterham and West Croydon and the 443 was the section of the route between Croydon Town Centre and Sutton. The section of Purley Way between Purley and the Colonaades is quite a lightly populated section, although it does have Thomas More school along there which the 439 could be useful for. I think a routing via Christchurch Road (if suitable), Pampisford Road and Waddon Way would certainly be of merit - especially given proposals for new housing at the Colonaades site.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Sept 6, 2021 7:54:28 GMT
Really pleased to see most of the changes planned for Croydon go ahead, especially the 434 extension to Caterham which I had been hoping to happen for many years! It's also great to see Kenley gaining another bus route in the 439, however the bit I don't quite understand in the report is when TfL said that keeping the 434 on its current routing via Northwood Avenue and routing the 439 via the top of Kenley would "increase costs substantially and would no longer offer value for money to justify the changes". Surely it's better to send a new route into an area that hasn't had a bus service before rather than changing the routing of an existing one and cause confusion amongst local residents? Wouldn't they also save money by keeping the 434 as it is? The 407 being split in half is also much needed, I felt it was becoming unsustainable in its current form for much longer. I don't think the routing via Old Town would be well used though. And whilst it's sad to see the 455 getting withdrawn completely, the route went completely round the houses, took way longer than it should have done and as there were other alternatives available in most of the areas it serves, it saw low demand. Seeing as the 455 received a 2 year extension recently, one of the new routes will surely have to go to Go-Ahead as compensation for the withdrawal of the 455, a la 48/335. They do have the 322's E200's available which could be used on the 439. To add to my post, the below section of the report caught my eye concerning the addition of a TfL bus service between Caterham-on-the-Hill and Caterham Valley: I do wonder if they considered extending the 404 to serve Caterham Valley, surely that wouldn't "greatly increase costs"?. A TfL bus link between Caterham-on-the-Hill/The Village and the station I'm sure would be a net benefit. More people would be attracted to use it, particularly commuters travelling to Caterham Station as it would be a lot cheaper and more frequent than Surrey County Council's bus routes. I assume TfL are referring to serving the whole of Hayes Lane when they talk about roads that were unsuitable for bus operation as there are some narrow sections between The Hayes Primary School and Kenley Aerodrome, but then you have routes in the Orpington area such as the R8 which serve roads which are narrower than that, and it's only for a small section too. The 404 being extended to the Valley would require an extra bus - that would be £200k straight away. On a marginal route like the 404, that's a huge sum - all to provide a link that is outside of London and would likely not be of sufficent value to London taxpayers. The only real option would be Surrey contributing towards such a link, but they already fund their 409 bus service along that stretch. Unlikely therefore, although would be preferable in an ideal world - use of an extra bus (4PVR with 2hr cycle) could also allow it to serve the Village development too. The 404 frequency enhancment only came because of the S106 funds from the Cane Hill developers - £500k a year over 3 years which funded 2 extra PVR - and helpfully TfL maximised the use of those resources by throwing in the Tollers Lane loop which bought a few more households into 400m radius of a bus, smart efficent planning there.
|
|