|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 15, 2024 20:06:34 GMT
490 now that it is the sole route on the Richmond to Staines Road corridor. If Pools on the Park cannot take double deckers then it should swap terminal points with one of the routes that terminate on the Lower Mortlake Road.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2024 20:14:54 GMT
490 now that it is the sole route on the Richmond to Staines Road corridor. If Pools on the Park cannot take double deckers then it should swap terminal points with one of the routes that terminate on the Lower Mortlake Road. Definitely needs deckers now with the lack of support of the H22. If the H22 reverted back to its original routing then the 490 would not need deckers honestly. I'd also say the 493 need deckers. Its rammed most of the time, is there a reason why it cannot take DDs? The 195 is another. Probably the most urgent SD route I know that needs an upgrade. |
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Sept 15, 2024 21:45:18 GMT
490 now that it is the sole route on the Richmond to Staines Road corridor. If Pools on the Park cannot take double deckers then it should swap terminal points with one of the routes that terminate on the Lower Mortlake Road. Definitely needs deckers now with the lack of support of the H22. If the H22 reverted back to its original routing then the 490 would not need deckers honestly. I'd also say the 493 need deckers. Its rammed most of the time, is there a reason why it cannot take DDs? The 195 is another. Probably the most urgent SD route I know that needs an upgrade. 493 might be another one of those routes which have low trees along its LOR. Completely agree with the 490, though I think it should still have a partial decker allocation even if the H22 goes back to its old routing. While we're in Richmond, I say the 110 could be a possibke contender for a DD allocation. It has had deckers run on it before however the routing was completely different to todays 110. |
|
|
|
Post by BL15HCD on Sept 15, 2024 21:46:22 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. Some extreme cases require the whole removal of a tree which can open up another can of worms |
|
|
|
Post by Dad91 on Sept 15, 2024 23:18:45 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??? 235 landowners won't allow DDs GWQ Brentford and barries Sudbury village Residents won't allow due to fatal accident.for 195 95 316 can be deacker due TFL and residents |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 16, 2024 1:12:40 GMT
The 355 & P4 should both absolutely be double deck routes and there is no restrictions on the former, just TfL picking and choosing what areas to bother with for improvements. The P4 is trickier due to residents but that hasn't stopped the odd diversion being implemented through Dulwich Village since the 90's (particularly the 37 diversion that lasted a while in the late 90's owing to bridge works at North Dulwich which meant 37's were diverted through the village itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 16, 2024 1:38:30 GMT
33, 95, 112, 152, 164, 190, 195, 214, 293, 316, 355, 444, 490, E7, P4, SL5
The passenger flows on some routes that are able to be decked, such as the 163 and 411, mean they would be more suitable to stay SD with a frequency increase (and longer buses in the case of the 411, the DXEs freed from the 293 being decked would be ideal!).
|
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Sept 16, 2024 6:14:27 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??? 235 landowners won't allow DDs GWQ Brentford and barries Sudbury village Residents won't allow due to fatal accident.for 195 95 316 can be deacker due TFL and residents 95 runs along the busy A40 and when it does't it shadows already DD 105 and 120 in Southall. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 16, 2024 7:46:11 GMT
33, 95, 112, 152, 164, 190, 195, 214, 293, 316, 355, 444, 490, E7, P4, SL5 The passenger flows on some routes that are able to be decked, such as the 163 and 411, mean they would be more suitable to stay SD with a frequency increase (and longer buses in the case of the 411, the DXEs freed from the 293 being decked would be ideal!). 190 is already operated with a full set of double deckers. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Sept 16, 2024 7:56:45 GMT
33, 95, 112, 152, 164, 190, 195, 214, 293, 316, 355, 444, 490, E7, P4, SL5 The passenger flows on some routes that are able to be decked, such as the 163 and 411, mean they would be more suitable to stay SD with a frequency increase (and longer buses in the case of the 411, the DXEs freed from the 293 being decked would be ideal!). 190 is already operated with a full set of double deckers. Only on a 'temporary' basis, unfortunately |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2024 8:16:54 GMT
Definitely needs deckers now with the lack of support of the H22. If the H22 reverted back to its original routing then the 490 would not need deckers honestly. I'd also say the 493 need deckers. Its rammed most of the time, is there a reason why it cannot take DDs? The 195 is another. Probably the most urgent SD route I know that needs an upgrade. 493 might be another one of those routes which have low trees along its LOR. Completely agree with the 490, though I think it should still have a partial decker allocation even if the H22 goes back to its old routing. While we're in Richmond, I say the 110 could be a possibke contender for a DD allocation. It has had deckers run on it before however the routing was completely different to todays 110. The 110 has become more of an unattractive option for passengers since its been stretched and its frequency reduced. The solution to that route is to at least restore its previous frequency of every 15 minutes and preferably split the route into half with the Richmond to Hounslow section called the 110 and the Richmond to Hammersmith section called the 391. What I don't get is how are routes such as the 481 allowed to be tendered with DD when it gets a fraction of the traffic the 195 gets? Even at 06:30, 195 drivers are leaving passengers behind at stops because it is so busy. Honestly, I was disappointed to see the route issued with SDs again. |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Sept 16, 2024 8:39:58 GMT
493 might be another one of those routes which have low trees along its LOR. Completely agree with the 490, though I think it should still have a partial decker allocation even if the H22 goes back to its old routing. While we're in Richmond, I say the 110 could be a possibke contender for a DD allocation. It has had deckers run on it before however the routing was completely different to todays 110. The 110 has become more of an unattractive option for passengers since its been stretched and its frequency reduced. The solution to that route is to at least restore its previous frequency of every 15 minutes and preferably split the route into half with the Richmond to Hounslow section called the 110 and the Richmond to Hammersmith section called the 391. What I don't get is how are routes such as the 481 allowed to be tendered with DD when it gets a fraction of the traffic the 195 gets? Even at 06:30, 195 drivers are leaving passengers behind at stops because it is so busy. Honestly, I was disappointed to see the route issued with SDs again. Even if route 110 does get split eventually, I doubt the Hammersmith - Richmond section will be called the 391. That would be TFL admitting they made a mistake withdrawing it in the first place thus going backwards so they most likely would use a new number to try to present these changes as brand new. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 16, 2024 13:48:51 GMT
I thought that there was already a thread like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on Sept 16, 2024 14:10:46 GMT
I thought that there was already a thread like this. I thought so, too. on a different note, I'm surprised no-one has thrown the 126 and 244 into this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Sept 16, 2024 14:38:39 GMT
493 might be another one of those routes which have low trees along its LOR. Completely agree with the 490, though I think it should still have a partial decker allocation even if the H22 goes back to its old routing. While we're in Richmond, I say the 110 could be a possibke contender for a DD allocation. It has had deckers run on it before however the routing was completely different to todays 110. The 110 has become more of an unattractive option for passengers since its been stretched and its frequency reduced. The solution to that route is to at least restore its previous frequency of every 15 minutes and preferably split the route into half with the Richmond to Hounslow section called the 110 and the Richmond to Hammersmith section called the 391. What I don't get is how are routes such as the 481 allowed to be tendered with DD when it gets a fraction of the traffic the 195 gets? Even at 06:30, 195 drivers are leaving passengers behind at stops because it is so busy. Honestly, I was disappointed to see the route issued with SDs again. I'm not at all familiar with the 195 so not commenting on it's usage but the 481 has very defined peaks, at certain times of day the DDs are packed and the route would not cope at certain times of day with single decks. Now it could be possible to say, have 3 SD journeys (3 don't serve Turing House School at opening/closing times in the relevant direction), but there would be absolutely no reason to do so. As the route is able to use a full allocation of DDs, there is no need to have a needlessly mixed allocation. |
|
), 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??? 
