|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2020 16:07:02 GMT
They may have been got rid of for a reason, but that does not mean that reason is still valid today. If there is not the money to increase the frequency on a whole route, should the busier section be denied an enhanced service. A regular network might be great when awash with money, but money is probably better concentrated where it is needed when the financial belt needs tightening. Should we really be basing a network around the understanding of the lowest common denominator? Exactly, inevitably there are going to be routes or sections of route that are only justified at certain times. Whilst the network should be as easy to understand as possible (and colour coding does wonders for that but I digress!) I don't accept this idea that the average passenger is too stupid to understand that a particular route only runs at peak times or doesn't operate in the evening. I've yet to encounter anybody waiting for an X68 on a Sunday or a 404 at 10pm for example. Has anyone actually suggested that the average passenger is stupid to understand anything? You seem to be confused of the definition of stupid against the definition of confusion - passengers, particularly in London, get confused with minor things like blinds even when they're set correctly.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 22, 2020 16:08:41 GMT
Exactly, inevitably there are going to be routes or sections of route that are only justified at certain times. Whilst the network should be as easy to understand as possible (and colour coding does wonders for that but I digress!) I don't accept this idea that the average passenger is too stupid to understand that a particular route only runs at peak times or doesn't operate in the evening. I've yet to encounter anybody waiting for an X68 on a Sunday or a 404 at 10pm for example. Has anyone actually suggested that the average passenger is stupid to understand anything? You seem to be confused of the definition of stupid against the definition of confusion - passengers, particularly in London, get confused with minor things like blinds even when they're set correctly. But what causes that confusion? Stupidity?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 22, 2020 16:25:17 GMT
Exactly, inevitably there are going to be routes or sections of route that are only justified at certain times. Whilst the network should be as easy to understand as possible (and colour coding does wonders for that but I digress!) I don't accept this idea that the average passenger is too stupid to understand that a particular route only runs at peak times or doesn't operate in the evening. I've yet to encounter anybody waiting for an X68 on a Sunday or a 404 at 10pm for example. I can't think of many routes that can only be justified at certain times, most of the ones which still do are low-frequency and pretty marginal anyway. The principle does not need to be applied to the bulk of the network though. The X68 may be a special case, and the exception that proves the rule because it is so well-established and known - although conversely, I bet there are still occasional travellers who don't usually travel at peak times and get caught out by the lengthy non-stop section. However I don't see why the 404 should not have an evening service. Another example is the 521 which only runs Mondays to Fridays, why can't that have a skeleton weekend service like the 507 does? I don't know if you were entirely serious about a weekend service on the 521, I'm not sure the Monday to Friday service is justified outside of peak hours and the evening service certainly isn't even in normal circumstances. The 507 is slightly different in that it's not so much of a commuter service and does serve a residential area. The 404 has only recently had a frequency increase which I think was long overdue, there may be a case for running an evening service on a use it or lose it trial basis but I'm doubtful whether it would attract enough custom to make it viable.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Nov 22, 2020 16:43:25 GMT
Has anyone actually suggested that the average passenger is stupid to understand anything? You seem to be confused of the definition of stupid against the definition of confusion - passengers, particularly in London, get confused with minor things like blinds even when they're set correctly. But what causes that confusion? Stupidity? Or unfamiliarity. As bus enthusiasts who know our subject well we forget that some people are simply not familiar with the bus network, and the harder it is made to understand and use, the less likely they are to be encouraged to use it. There are also people who do have learning difficulties (which is not the same thing as stupidity). Adding complications to the bus network can make it harder for them to travel and can be a barrier to their mobility. For an operation with a social remit this is an important consideration.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 22, 2020 17:43:51 GMT
But what causes that confusion? Stupidity? Or unfamiliarity. As bus enthusiasts who know our subject well we forget that some people are simply not familiar with the bus network, and the harder it is made to understand and use, the less likely they are to be encouraged to use it. There are also people who do have learning difficulties (which is not the same thing as stupidity). Adding complications to the bus network can make it harder for them to travel and can be a barrier to their mobility. For an operation with a social remit this is an important consideration. If people are unfamiliar with the network, would standardisation matter, people would need to check where it was going if they were unfamiliar with it. Most definitely. How do people cope with the tube and trains? Sorry your saying we need to have a network for the lowest common denominator rather than what is best for London.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Nov 22, 2020 18:12:28 GMT
Or unfamiliarity. As bus enthusiasts who know our subject well we forget that some people are simply not familiar with the bus network, and the harder it is made to understand and use, the less likely they are to be encouraged to use it. There are also people who do have learning difficulties (which is not the same thing as stupidity). Adding complications to the bus network can make it harder for them to travel and can be a barrier to their mobility. For an operation with a social remit this is an important consideration. If people are unfamiliar with the network, would standardisation matter, people would need to check where it was going if they were unfamiliar with it. Most definitely. How do people cope with the tube and trains? Sorry your saying we need to have a network for the lowest common denominator rather than what is best for London. No, that is what you think I am saying. I do not regard having a simple-to-understand and easy-to-use network to be "lowest common denominator". And I have acknowledged that there will be marginal routes for which an exception can be argued.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Nov 22, 2020 18:13:50 GMT
Has anyone actually suggested that the average passenger is stupid to understand anything? You seem to be confused of the definition of stupid against the definition of confusion - passengers, particularly in London, get confused with minor things like blinds even when they're set correctly. But what causes that confusion? Stupidity? In a word-YES!!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2020 19:10:24 GMT
Has anyone actually suggested that the average passenger is stupid to understand anything? You seem to be confused of the definition of stupid against the definition of confusion - passengers, particularly in London, get confused with minor things like blinds even when they're set correctly. But what causes that confusion? Stupidity? Not always no - confusion comes about for a number of reasons with some reasonable and some not. Having a simplified network doesn’t mean a lower common denominator at all and I’d thought an intelligent person like yourself would know that because your certainly not stupid from what you say on here over the years
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 22, 2020 21:33:48 GMT
In 2008/2009 TfL were trialing hybrids double deckers and different operators trial different hybrid double deckers. These hybrid double deckers included the Enviro 400H, the Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodied Volvo B5LHs and the Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300 hybrids or Wright Gemini 2 integral hybrids. Only the Enviro 400Hs and Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodied Volvo B5LHs were a success. Why weren’t the intergal Gemini 2 hybrids or the Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300 hybrids a success in London? Arriva London and First Lonodn were the only ones to trial them but no London operator ordered them after the trial why was that?
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Nov 22, 2020 22:06:25 GMT
Why was the 263 transferred from First to Metroline mid contract in 2002? It wasn’t mid contract as Metroline won it on tender in 2002. I don’t remember the exact details but Leaside/Cowie won the contract in 1996 and operated from WN. Then in 2001, it got subcontracted to First from NP for the remainder of it’s contract which was about 9 months. I thought I read somewhere it was part of a exchange with Arriva but I can’t seem to find what sort of exchange it was. It wasn't an exchange. WN was operating at capacity at the time, and they needed space for a PVR increase on the 29. I think they may have been a bit short of staff as well. First had lost the 67 so had spare buses and drivers at NP. Presumably Arriva had already decided that they wouldn't be bidding to retain the 263 anyway, so there was no harm in subcontracting it out for the last 10 months.
Note that the 263 had been awarded on a 6-year contract in 1996. That was during a brief period when many contracts were being awarded for 6 years rather than 5.
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Nov 22, 2020 22:23:33 GMT
In 2008/2009 TfL were trialing hybrids double deckers and different operators trial different hybrid double deckers. These hybrid double deckers included the Enviro 400H, the Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodied Volvo B5LHs and the Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300 hybrids or Wright Gemini 2 integral hybrids. Only the Enviro 400Hs and Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodied Volvo B5LHs were a success. Why weren’t the intergal Gemini 2 hybrids or the Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300S a success in London? Arriva London and First Lonodn were the only ones to trial them but no London operator ordered them after the trial why was that? Perhaps they were a bit too faulty, even the Electrocitys had issues, half the time they struggled on the 360 and even Abellio wanted to offload them as much as possible. The Volvo B5LH was a success, however. I remember reading somewhere that the integrals didn't run very often, so they were withdrawn rather quickly.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 22, 2020 22:25:41 GMT
It wasn’t mid contract as Metroline won it on tender in 2002. I don’t remember the exact details but Leaside/Cowie won the contract in 1996 and operated from WN. Then in 2001, it got subcontracted to First from NP for the remainder of it’s contract which was about 9 months. I thought I read somewhere it was part of a exchange with Arriva but I can’t seem to find what sort of exchange it was. It wasn't an exchange. WN was operating at capacity at the time, and they needed space for a PVR increase on the 29. I think they may have been a bit short of staff as well. First had lost the 67 so had spare buses and drivers at NP. Presumably Arriva had already decided that they wouldn't be bidding to retain the 263 anyway, so there was no harm in subcontracting it out for the last 10 months.
Note that the 263 had been awarded on a 6-year contract in 1996. That was during a brief period when many contracts were being awarded for 6 years rather than 5.
I remover the 38 and 202 I think having 7 year contracts.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2020 22:30:37 GMT
In 2008/2009 TfL were trialing hybrids double deckers and different operators trial different hybrid double deckers. These hybrid double deckers included the Enviro 400H, the Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodied Volvo B5LHs and the Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300 hybrids or Wright Gemini 2 integral hybrids. Only the Enviro 400Hs and Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodied Volvo B5LHs were a success. Why weren’t the intergal Gemini 2 hybrids or the Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300S a success in London? Arriva London and First Lonodn were the only ones to trial them but no London operator ordered them after the trial why was that? The only hybrid that wasn't ordered was the Wrightbus Integral hybrid or Wrightbus Gemini2 HEV - I can't say for sure but I can only presume when tested with Arriva & First, the savings and economics involved were inferior especially with Arriva who were also trialing B5LH's at the same time. I also suspect reliability might of been an issue given all Wrightbus hybrid products do seem to be unreliable given London Central's WHY's, Travel London's own Electrocitys & Arriva's HW's all required upgrades just to get them to operate better as they all had lengthy periods of going missing and in the case of the Travel London examples, never received any having been disposed off still in original form. As for the VDL DB300, Wikipedia (so take with a pinch of salt) says 462 were built of which most were for Arriva so whilst not 1000's, it's certainly not the worst return. First have their 5 still going with Tower Transit and WDL1 of Go-Ahead is now with Carousel I believe.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 22, 2020 22:43:26 GMT
In 2008/2009 TfL were trialing hybrids double deckers and different operators trial different hybrid double deckers. These hybrid double deckers included the Enviro 400H, the Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodied Volvo B5LHs and the Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300 hybrids or Wright Gemini 2 integral hybrids. Only the Enviro 400Hs and Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodied Volvo B5LHs were a success. Why weren’t the intergal Gemini 2 hybrids or the Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300S a success in London? Arriva London and First Lonodn were the only ones to trial them but no London operator ordered them after the trial why was that? The only hybrid that wasn't ordered was the Wrightbus Integral hybrid or Wrightbus Gemini2 HEV - I can't say for sure but I can only presume when tested with Arriva & First, the savings and economics involved were inferior especially with Arriva who were also trialing B5LH's at the same time. I also suspect reliability might of been an issue given all Wrightbus hybrid products do seem to be unreliable given London Central's WHY's, Travel London's own Electrocitys & Arriva's HW's all required upgrades just to get them to operate better as they all had lengthy periods of going missing and in the case of the Travel London examples, never received any having been disposed off still in original form. As for the VDL DB300, Wikipedia (so take with a pinch of salt) says 462 were built of which most were for Arriva so whilst not 1000's, it's certainly not the worst return. First have their 5 still going with Tower Transit and WDL1 of Go-Ahead is now with Carousel I believe. My bad and I’m sorry but when I said the DB300s I meant the hybrid Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300s or Wright Gemini 2 integrals. I know that the diesel versions where successful I was just meant to refer to the less successful hybrids and not the successful diesel versions. I should have put hybrid after DB300 my bad.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 23, 2020 8:34:35 GMT
In 2008/2009 TfL were trialing hybrids double deckers and different operators trial different hybrid double deckers. These hybrid double deckers included the Enviro 400H, the Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodied Volvo B5LHs and the Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300 hybrids or Wright Gemini 2 integral hybrids. Only the Enviro 400Hs and Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodied Volvo B5LHs were a success. Why weren’t the intergal Gemini 2 hybrids or the Wright Gemini 2 bodied VDL DB300S a success in London? Arriva London and First Lonodn were the only ones to trial them but no London operator ordered them after the trial why was that? The only hybrid that wasn't ordered was the Wrightbus Integral hybrid or Wrightbus Gemini2 HEV - I can't say for sure but I can only presume when tested with Arriva & First, the savings and economics involved were inferior especially with Arriva who were also trialing B5LH's at the same time. I also suspect reliability might of been an issue given all Wrightbus hybrid products do seem to be unreliable given London Central's WHY's, Travel London's own Electrocitys & Arriva's HW's all required upgrades just to get them to operate better as they all had lengthy periods of going missing and in the case of the Travel London examples, never received any having been disposed off still in original form. As for the VDL DB300, Wikipedia (so take with a pinch of salt) says 462 were built of which most were for Arriva so whilst not 1000's, it's certainly not the worst return. First have their 5 still going with Tower Transit and WDL1 of Go-Ahead is now with Carousel I believe. It also depends on what is defined as success, none of them were reliable, and they were all expensive (I think most of the initial ones were about double the price of a diesel bus) Initially there were no follow on orders, then had 20 ADL buses funded by Green bus grant (RATP ADH 45003-22) and the earlier pair had some modifications, but eventually left London. Arriva also got a batch of 20 (HV 7-26), with the earlier ones all being rebuilt to same spec (from memory HV 1-6 went to Sweden for the rebuild of hybrid equipment). Metroline also had 5 of the ADL version (TEH 915-919) which were also later modified, but are now withdrawn. They were more cautious and follow on batch in 2010 was only 10 buses (TEH 1105-1114) It was only after all the development and improvements that were found to be needed did orders really start (a trickle from 2010, but only became common 2012-2013), and really it was only Volvo and ADL that developed them far enough to get production orders. Once production settled down there was a premium of about £110,000 over diesel version, which could be recovered in fuel saving (about 21-27% depending on route), which gave a payback of about 7-9 years for urban double decks, however those on less congested routes, were nearer 10-11 years to recover costs. The fuel savings on single decks weren’t sufficient to justify it and no more were ordered. The downfall of these early hybrids were their unreliability, and non standard parts, which often meant months off the road awaiting replacement parts to be especially made. Some were scrapped, others fitted with conventional engines and reused elsewhere. However had TfL never ordered them it is possible that reliable hybrids may never have been developed, or only happened at least 3 years later. But in 50 years time bus historians will see them as a interim solution used for a decade before zero emission became the norm.
|
|