|
|
Post by mrhk on Sept 15, 2024 12:27:18 GMT
Just realised there hasn't been a thread for routes that shohld be decked. If there's any other routes I don't mention in this post.
95 - Whilst it does shadow the 105 between Southall and Greenford Roundabout, the 95 does carry a decent load across the stretch of the A40 and even sometimes in Southall itself. It could also indirectly help relieve the E5 as both routes serve Southall, Greenford and Perivale.
195 - Insane that this hasn't been decked yet and even more insane that the U7 got decked instead (in 2020-22). Drivers often skips stops due to how loaded the bus can get and even with the newly diverted 427, 195s still seem to struggle badly with the amount of crowds it carries.
E6 - Another route that struggles capacity wise, even with the support of routes 140 and SL9. Not sure if a route test for deckers has been done for this route however if not, a hefty PVR increase would help.
U2 - Same story as the E6, however (I believe) a decker has ventured onto the route before. Either a decking or an upgraded 278 PVR would help relieve the loads the U2 carries.
These are only a few I can think of. Let me know of any other or if you contest my suggestions.
|
|
randomy
Conductor
Posts: 92
Member is Online
|
Post by randomy on Sept 15, 2024 12:53:23 GMT
316.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Sept 15, 2024 13:20:33 GMT
Agreed completely. However because of residents in North Kensington, they won't allow the route to be decked (despite 295 also running there whilst being a DD route). |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Sept 15, 2024 13:38:55 GMT
Resident objected routes are the most frustrating like the 235, 316 and P4, they would all benefit from DDs. The 165 and 195 I am not local to but if the stories on here are true then I can’t comprehend why they are single deck routes. The U3 from my own experiences lately, I can’t see how that route coped with SDs either with how busy the TEs are. The 80/200 are some lucky exceptions but there are a lot of routes in SW London which have been shunned of deckers. 355 most notably but the 163, 152 (currently restricted  ), 164, 219, 293 too and maybe more which I’m forgetting. A few of these like the 152 and 355 arguably deserve them full time. I’ve said this before but if the 200 is worthy of DDs full time when it has tons of quite periods then why aren’t some of these others??? |
|
|
|
Post by B9TL205 on Sept 15, 2024 13:59:21 GMT
D6
Whilst the D8 has starting to get some decent loadings (which is why it's fine with its DDs), there's no doubt the D6 has always been the busier route
|
|
|
|
Post by greg on Sept 15, 2024 16:25:25 GMT
214. Camden Council need to get a grip and cut those trees down down Highgate West Hill, its only in the northbound direction too. Deckers have gone down southbound previously, deadrunning/RRP.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Sept 15, 2024 17:01:07 GMT
Resident objected routes are the most frustrating like the 235, 316 and P4, they would all benefit from DDs. The 165 and 195 I am not local to but if the stories on here are true then I can’t comprehend why they are single deck routes. The U3 from my own experiences lately, I can’t see how that route coped with SDs either with how busy the TEs are. The 80/200 are some lucky exceptions but there are a lot of routes in SW London which have been shunned of deckers. 355 most notably but the 163, 152 (currently restricted ), 164, 219, 293 too and maybe more which I’m forgetting. A few of these like the 152 and 355 arguably deserve them full time. I’ve said this before but if the 200 is worthy of DDs full time when it has tons of quite periods then why aren’t some of these others??? 100% agree with 235 and P4. Had two rides on the P4 back when SLN operated it and the bus gets packed quick and for a long time. U3 wasn't the most popular route back in the day hence it beforehand only using DMLs/DEs but it has now got the allox it deserves. |
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Sept 15, 2024 17:03:31 GMT
214. Camden Council need to get a grip and cut those trees down down Highgate West Hill, its only in the northbound direction too. Deckers have gone down southbound previously, deadrunning/RRP. I hear the frustration. Same story with route 331, can get quite packed sometimes however low trees almost along all its LOR means it cant be decker |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 15, 2024 17:31:33 GMT
214. Camden Council need to get a grip and cut those trees down down Highgate West Hill, its only in the northbound direction too. Deckers have gone down southbound previously, deadrunning/RRP. Rail replacement buses and dead running buses are outside of TfL control and they don't have to pull into bus stops, if TfL have decided the risk is too great then it's not likely to change. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 15, 2024 17:37:43 GMT
214. Camden Council need to get a grip and cut those trees down down Highgate West Hill, its only in the northbound direction too. Deckers have gone down southbound previously, deadrunning/RRP. Back in 2003 Matthew Wharmby described it as the route 'that most surely ought to convert to double deck'. Probably doesn't help the SDs are only 10.2m aswell. |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Sept 15, 2024 18:23:32 GMT
It’s an absolute travesty that the 355 was awarded with a single deck contract. Its arguably the leader or vice president of the overcrowded single deck club and it undeniably simplifies operations if it had a common fleet with the 88 and inevitably other SW routes in the future
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 15, 2024 18:58:16 GMT
It’s an absolute travesty that the 355 was awarded with a single deck contract. Its arguably the leader or vice president of the overcrowded single deck club and it undeniably simplifies operations if it had a common fleet with the 88 and inevitably other SW routes in the future It wouldn't have been so bad had it been for existing SDs as atleast you could understand that its much cheaper then new DDs but to be buying new SDs seems such a shortsighted waste. |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Sept 15, 2024 19:12:44 GMT
251 would be another candidate with the 'low trees' problem. Why Barnet council can't deal with them I do not know. TBF, the route is only really totally rammed in the peak hour and pretty quiet in the evenings, especially eastbound am and westbound pm when it can be really ridiculous, and leave people unable to board, though the lovely new buses have helped a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Sept 15, 2024 19:23:29 GMT
Resident objected routes are the most frustrating like the 235, 316 and P4, they would all benefit from DDs. The 165 and 195 I am not local to but if the stories on here are true then I can’t comprehend why they are single deck routes. The U3 from my own experiences lately, I can’t see how that route coped with SDs either with how busy the TEs are. The 80/200 are some lucky exceptions but there are a lot of routes in SW London which have been shunned of deckers. 355 most notably but the 163, 152 (currently restricted ), 164, 219, 293 too and maybe more which I’m forgetting. A few of these like the 152 and 355 arguably deserve them full time. I’ve said this before but if the 200 is worthy of DDs full time when it has tons of quite periods then why aren’t some of these others??? Couldn't have said the South West London thing myself. The 355 and 152 are always busy whenever I ride them and the patronage is most likely only going to grow on those two buses and it's clear they are willing to put deckers on them (and the 163, 164 and 293) as they have in the past, it's just they don't want to put a full allocation on. Overall, id say the 289 was the old club leader with the 355 being the clubs second in command, now that the 289 has been freed from SD eternity, the 355 is the new club leader of ' packed single deckers that can take doubles with no problems. ' |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Sept 15, 2024 20:00:06 GMT
251 would be another candidate with the 'low trees' problem. Why Barnet council can't deal with them I do not know. TBF, the route is only really totally rammed in the peak hour and pretty quiet in the evenings, especially eastbound am and westbound pm when it can be really ridiculous, and leave people unable to board, though the lovely new buses have helped a bit. Cutting down trees doesn't always end up being straight forward. Barnet council may have assessed the situation and concluded it's not viable. Some trees grow back quickly bringing the whole situation again where they need to cut it. It's also not just cutting trees, it's also the residents who may be opposed to such changes. As much as how useful I'll find having the 251 decked, it's these complications I can see holding it back. |
|
), 164, 219, 293 too and maybe more which I’m forgetting. A few of these like the 152 and 355 arguably deserve them full time. I’ve said this before but if the 200 is worthy of DDs full time when it has tons of quite periods then why aren’t some of these others??? 
