|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 16, 2024 14:57:39 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. I thought it be best to let locals name their routes but I'd agree with those two myself  If it was down to me, any single decker route with no restrictions to double deckers would go double deck for me. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 16, 2024 17:14:45 GMT
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. I think someone said previously that there was a reason why the 195 couldn't have double deckers although I can't remember what it was? |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Sept 16, 2024 18:20:58 GMT
In a perfect world where Abbey Street bridge wasn't arched and Rotherhithe Street didn't have parked cars on both sides of it, including the tightest part by Hilton Hotel - Doubletree Docklands, C10 would be using double deckers.
For its length and purpose, single decker use isn't really ideal for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 16, 2024 19:01:53 GMT
In a perfect world where Abbey Street bridge wasn't arched and Rotherhithe Street didn't have parked cars on both sides of it, including the tightest part by Hilton Hotel - Doubletree Docklands, C10 would be using double deckers. For its length and purpose, single decker use isn't really ideal for it. Abbey Street bridge isn't the problem it's trees/residential issues in Sutherland Street and at Rotherhithe. |
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Sept 16, 2024 19:05:32 GMT
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. I think someone said previously that there was a reason why the 195 couldn't have double deckers although I can't remember what it was? It used to be low trees on Charville Lane however since the U7 got decked, there shouldn't be a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on Sept 17, 2024 9:56:29 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. I believe the roads in Southfields is the reason why it can't be DD along with the 39. But I agree it should be DD, but hopefully the SL493 will help the route out. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Sept 17, 2024 20:06:52 GMT
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. The 481 I saw (and eventually travelled behind) last week was quite busy, with the old order of small SDs it would have left people behind at Bentalls. Quite a full upper deck. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Sept 18, 2024 6:13:51 GMT
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. The 481 I saw (and eventually travelled behind) last week was quite busy, with the old order of small SDs it would have left people behind at Bentalls. Quite a full upper deck. Interesting, I didn't know it got busy outside of school flows (the school buses mainly fill up around TF in the morning and empty there in the afternoons) so this demonstrates even more how it's worthy of DDs. |
|
va59
Conductor
Posts: 145 
|
Post by va59 on Sept 18, 2024 13:21:27 GMT
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. I would love to deck U2, I cannot stand their music or Bono. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Sept 18, 2024 13:29:45 GMT
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. I would love to deck U2, I cannot stand their music or Bono. Now that'd be a Bloody Sunday, hardly a beautiful day. Maybe you'd get vertigo. I'll get my coat... |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 18, 2024 13:40:46 GMT
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. I would love to deck U2, I cannot stand their music or Bono. I guess you still haven't found what your looking for |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Sept 19, 2024 8:32:39 GMT
In a perfect world where Abbey Street bridge wasn't arched and Rotherhithe Street didn't have parked cars on both sides of it, including the tightest part by Hilton Hotel - Doubletree Docklands, C10 would be using double deckers. For its length and purpose, single decker use isn't really ideal for it. Abbey Street bridge isn't the problem it's trees/residential issues in Sutherland Street and at Rotherhithe. Says who? Double deckers cannot safely pass under the bridge without straddling both lanes. This wouldn't be ideal for a high-frequency route like C10, nor would it pass health and safety standards which TFL are rigid on today. There are no residential or tree issues around Rotherhithe that disallows double decker use on C10. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 19, 2024 9:16:04 GMT
Abbey Street bridge isn't the problem it's trees/residential issues in Sutherland Street and at Rotherhithe. Says who? Double deckers cannot safely pass under the bridge without straddling both lanes. This wouldn't be ideal for a high-frequency route like C10, nor would it pass health and safety standards which TFL are rigid on today. There are no residential or tree issues around Rotherhithe that disallows double decker use on C10. Says me and the drivers of out of service buses that pass under there without straddling both lanes, if TfL think drivers can't be trusted to do that it's down to them. There is certainly some residential issue in Rotherhithe and in Sutherland St near Victoria. |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Sept 19, 2024 17:04:02 GMT
Says who? Double deckers cannot safely pass under the bridge without straddling both lanes. This wouldn't be ideal for a high-frequency route like C10, nor would it pass health and safety standards which TFL are rigid on today. There are no residential or tree issues around Rotherhithe that disallows double decker use on C10. Says me and the drivers of out of service buses that pass under there without straddling both lanes, if TfL think drivers can't be trusted to do that it's down to them. There is certainly some residential issue in Rotherhithe and in Sutherland St near Victoria. But no double decker routes or buses use Abbey Street while out of service? It's not even a diversionary route for 47, 188, 381, N199 or N381. We'll end this conversation here as I'm not going back and forth with someone who has no clue what they're talking about. It's a waste of my time. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 19, 2024 17:15:41 GMT
Says me and the drivers of out of service buses that pass under there without straddling both lanes, if TfL think drivers can't be trusted to do that it's down to them. There is certainly some residential issue in Rotherhithe and in Sutherland St near Victoria. But no double decker routes or buses use Abbey Street while out of service? It's not even a diversionary route for 47, 188, 381, N199 or N381. We'll end this conversation here as I'm not going back and forth with someone who has no clue what they're talking about. It's a waste of my time. The irony, I've seen double deckers go under that bridge without any problems, the clearance is 15'0. |
|
