|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 18, 2021 22:43:09 GMT
Sorry but you are wrong! double deckers can't go under the second bridge (This is 13"0) - A double decker came to grief way back in the 1990s when running on a North London Line rail replacement. Isn't there a low bridge around the old carpenters road routing of the 276 that also prevented that bus from getting double deckers. Yes, the one on Carpenters Road is 11'6" which the 276 ran under, believe the old 178 run under here as well hence it had RLH's? |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Apr 19, 2021 7:34:54 GMT
Isn't there a low bridge around the old carpenters road routing of the 276 that also prevented that bus from getting double deckers. Yes, the one on Carpenters Road is 11'6" which the 276 ran under, believe the old 178 run under here as well hence it had RLH's? I thought as much. |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Apr 19, 2021 8:11:48 GMT
Yes, the one on Carpenters Road is 11'6" which the 276 ran under, believe the old 178 run under here as well hence it had RLH's? I thought as much. The clearance under the bridge used to be signed at 13' but the low height buses (RLH class withdrawn 50 years ago this week) fitted underneath despite being slightly higher. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Apr 19, 2021 11:27:35 GMT
The same reason the 276 doesn't serve Stratford Broadway towards Stoke Newington I guess, to save on time. Ultimately though the reroute towards Bow did benefit passengers, it also added more running time to the route. There's also the arguements to be had of the difficulty of a bus turning right from Ordnance Road onto Barking Road for Canning Town and possibly houses near Star Lane not being with 400 metres of a bus if the 276 went direct via Manor Road. Nonetheless if a double run to Canning Town bus station from Ordnance Road were to be done, that's adding easily 8 minutes off peak to a route that exceeds 75 minutes in journey time. It's not favourable for onward passengers and there is normally a large exodus at Hermit Road southbound, presumably with those people heading to Canning Town station. Route 300 is a single deck route and takes passenger traffic towards Prince Regent Lane (south) at Canning Town station, thus relieving the 276 in the process. I did not misread your post. I certainly remember Waterden Road pre Olympics and do have the memory of 276 drivers changing over right outside the garage at SD, thinking it's probably not allowed but wherever we are they can get away with it! I was very young back then lool  The 276 never ran past SD? I remember drivers changed over at the stop on White Post Lane. Still have memories of how bleak the area was pre 2012. It was on Carpenters Road at the junction with Waterden Rd, it was about a 5 min walk down Waterden Rd from the garage. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Apr 19, 2021 12:01:13 GMT
Sorry but you are wrong! double deckers can't go under the second bridge (This is 13"0) - A double decker came to grief way back in the 1990s when running on a North London Line rail replacement. Isn't there a low bridge around the old carpenters road routing of the 276 that also prevented that bus from getting double deckers. What happened when 18255 came to agreement with that bridge. Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Apr 19, 2021 12:05:01 GMT
If the new route W17 is a split from the W15, perhaps this might allow the busier sections of the current W15 to use DDs? Presumably it's the hospital grounds at Whipps Cross that currently prevent DDs from being used? Not just the hospital - the W15 passes under a low bridge on Grove Green Road, and that's very much one of the busier sections of route. Perhaps longer single-deckers could be used. It is too tight for DMV's, the left turn into Essex Rd South and turning left into Higham Hill Rd from Forest Rd is tight; although it can be done. There is more risk of drivers damaging the buses. Hence why DMV's no longer appear on W15 anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 19, 2021 12:22:48 GMT
Not just the hospital - the W15 passes under a low bridge on Grove Green Road, and that's very much one of the busier sections of route. Perhaps longer single-deckers could be used. It is too tight for DMV's, the left turn into Essex Rd South and turning left into Higham Hill Rd from Forest Rd is tight; although it can be done. There is more risk of drivers damaging the buses. Hence why DMV's no longer appear on W15 anymore. I believe it's also what led to the 368 being a bit lucky and getting that late 2011 upgrade form DMLs to DMVs out of the blue, the 368 was having huge capacity issues back then and I think they must have seen the opportunity to upgrade it with newer buses while giving the W15 the less than year old DMLs that the 368 was using. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Apr 19, 2021 12:25:22 GMT
Isn't there a low bridge around the old carpenters road routing of the 276 that also prevented that bus from getting double deckers. What happened when 18255 came to agreement with that bridge. View AttachmentOh d*mn that's bad. How did the driver not know that the bus wouldn't be able to get through the low bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Apr 19, 2021 12:28:46 GMT
It is too tight for DMV's, the left turn into Essex Rd South and turning left into Higham Hill Rd from Forest Rd is tight; although it can be done. There is more risk of drivers damaging the buses. Hence why DMV's no longer appear on W15 anymore. I believe it's also what led to the 368 being a bit lucky and getting that late 2011 upgrade form DMLs to DMVs out of the blue, the 368 was having huge capacity issues back then and I think they must have seen the opportunity to upgrade it with newer buses while giving the W15 the less than year old DMLs that the 368 was using. Oh yeah I remembered those 11 reg enviros on the 368. Thinking about it now the 368 has come a long way. From being a small bus to that small extension to Hart Lane in 2001 to getting those 10.8 buses from Blue Triangle and Dockland Buses to then getting those 10.2 enviros from first and then going back to 10.8 and then finally the double deckers. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 19, 2021 12:30:30 GMT
I believe it's also what led to the 368 being a bit lucky and getting that late 2011 upgrade form DMLs to DMVs out of the blue, the 368 was having huge capacity issues back then and I think they must have seen the opportunity to upgrade it with newer buses while giving the W15 the less than year old DMLs that the 368 was using. Oh yeah I remembered those 11 reg enviros on the 368. Thinking about it now the 368 has come a long way. From being a small bus to that small extension to Hart Lane in 2001 to getting those 10.8 buses from Blue Triangle and Dockland Buses to then getting those 10.2 enviros from first and then going back to 10.8 and then finally the double deckers. It certainly has been a route that's seen quite good growth. The change in 2016 was one that certainly helped it, the change from a PVR 7 single decker route to a PVR 10 double decker route was certainly a huge increase in capacity and a lot of it has been put to good use now. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Apr 19, 2021 12:32:57 GMT
Oh yeah I remembered those 11 reg enviros on the 368. Thinking about it now the 368 has come a long way. From being a small bus to that small extension to Hart Lane in 2001 to getting those 10.8 buses from Blue Triangle and Dockland Buses to then getting those 10.2 enviros from first and then going back to 10.8 and then finally the double deckers. It certainly has been a route that's seen quite good growth. The change in 2016 was one that certainly helped it, the change from a PVR 7 single decker route to a PVR 10 double decker route was certainly a huge increase in capacity and a lot of it has been put to good use now. Exactly that and the same thing with the 62. Now that I think about it it's actually crazy to think that the 368, 62, 173, 145 and 287 were all single deckers at one point in time. All that's left now is for Crossrail to open *coughs coughs* GET A BLOODY MOVE ON TFL!!!!!!!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2021 12:34:59 GMT
It certainly has been a route that's seen quite good growth. The change in 2016 was one that certainly helped it, the change from a PVR 7 single decker route to a PVR 10 double decker route was certainly a huge increase in capacity and a lot of it has been put to good use now. Exactly that and the same thing with the 62. Now that I think about it it's actually crazy to think that the 368, 62, 173, 145 and 287 were all single deckers at one point in time. All that's left now is for Crossrail to open *coughs coughs* GET A BLOODY MOVE ON TFL!!!!!!!!! Add to that the 104,238 and worse of all the 257 back in the early 00s. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Apr 19, 2021 12:36:48 GMT
Exactly that and the same thing with the 62. Now that I think about it it's actually crazy to think that the 368, 62, 173, 145 and 287 were all single deckers at one point in time. All that's left now is for Crossrail to open *coughs coughs* GET A BLOODY MOVE ON TFL!!!!!!!!! Add to that the 104,238 and worse of all the 257 back in the early 00s. The 257 was a controversial move they did along with the 212 in 2000. Thank goodness common sense prevailed in 2001 for the 257 even they had to steal the original 123 tridents to convert it to double decker. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 19, 2021 12:41:38 GMT
It certainly has been a route that's seen quite good growth. The change in 2016 was one that certainly helped it, the change from a PVR 7 single decker route to a PVR 10 double decker route was certainly a huge increase in capacity and a lot of it has been put to good use now. Exactly that and the same thing with the 62. Now that I think about it it's actually crazy to think that the 368, 62, 173, 145 and 287 were all single deckers at one point in time. All that's left now is for Crossrail to open *coughs coughs* GET A BLOODY MOVE ON TFL!!!!!!!!! I remember being in primary school and the routes which passed would be the 62, 287, 368, 369 and 387 and only the 369 and 387 would be the double decker routes there with the 62, 287 and 368 all using ALX200s or Caetanos. The 287 then got its decker conversion around the 2009-2010 time before the 62 and 368 joined in, by which point the 387 and 369 soon were gone from the area. Although 2013-2016 the 62 did have a period where it could often reach around 50% of its allocation being decker at any time which might have been what inspired the decker conversion upon the next contract as demand was already picking up from the extra deckers on it and with the impending opening of Crossrail it would have been beneficial. Now it's funny the 62, 173 and 368 all got awarded as DD routes because Crossrail was intended to open during the contracts, however the 173 has since finished that contract and even gone onto a new operator while the 62 and 368 would have started new contracts in two weeks if they didn't get their extensions. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Apr 19, 2021 12:54:02 GMT
Exactly that and the same thing with the 62. Now that I think about it it's actually crazy to think that the 368, 62, 173, 145 and 287 were all single deckers at one point in time. All that's left now is for Crossrail to open *coughs coughs* GET A BLOODY MOVE ON TFL!!!!!!!!! I remember being in primary school and the routes which passed would be the 62, 287, 368, 369 and 387 and only the 369 and 387 would be the double decker routes there with the 62, 287 and 368 all using ALX200s or Caetanos. The 287 then got its decker conversion around the 2009-2010 time before the 62 and 368 joined in, by which point the 387 and 369 soon were gone from the area. Although 2013-2016 the 62 did have a period where it could often reach around 50% of its allocation being decker at any time which might have been what inspired the decker conversion upon the next contract as demand was already picking up from the extra deckers on it and with the impending opening of Crossrail it would have been beneficial. Now it's funny the 62, 173 and 368 all got awarded as DD routes because Crossrail was intended to open during the contracts, however the 173 has since finished that contract and even gone onto a new operator while the 62 and 368 would have started new contracts in two weeks if they didn't get their extensions. Funny enough the 287 was actually converted in late 2006 with its tridents coming from TL (Catford) garage in the form of 17523-530. The 369 was a short but busy bus hahaha. I remembered when people would purposely wait for the 369 at Hainault Street and let the 169 go past as they would be guaranteed a seat |
|
