|
Post by george on Oct 22, 2019 17:24:57 GMT
Didn't really know where to put this but since Go Ahead run the service thought it might as well go here, I really hope Roehampton uni reconsider letting passengers I.E none uni students/staff on the 849. Every 265 that's going up roehampton lane is packed that people are being pushed right up against the front doors. 419s are statting to get busier too. If the route could take double deckers then I think that would be a great idea but having used it many times before I'm sure it would fail due to the little side roads off the A3 South Ealing Road is a similar story. The 65 is a busy, unreliable route, and it is struggling along that section, TfL initially proposed extending the 112 down to Osterley Tesco to alleviate pressure on the 65, and of course now they've changed their mind and gone for the E10. I don't doubt that the link to Osterley Tesco will be appreciated by many, but I think its a huge shame that the Sky/University of West London shuttle buses don't let those other than students/staff on, as this would help take some pressure off the 65, and reduce how wasteful it can be to have both these services, as often, you see such light loadings that the justification for both is weak. The truth is you're getting double decker go up Roehampton uni with 5/6 people max. If it was well advertised so people knew they could use it then i think the service would become very popular.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Oct 22, 2019 19:22:53 GMT
Didn't really know where to put this but since Go Ahead run the service thought it might as well go here, I really hope Roehampton uni reconsider letting passengers I.E none uni students/staff on the 849. Every 265 that's going up roehampton lane is packed that people are being pushed right up against the front doors. 419s are statting to get busier too. If the route could take double deckers then I think that would be a great idea but having used it many times before I'm sure it would fail due to the little side roads off the A3 I appreciate it's frustrating to see DDs with spare capacity drive past, but I don't see why the university should be paying to cover for TfL's failings. If the service was made public, the demand could easily overwhelm the two DDs that they pay for, to the detriment of their own students and staff. It's up to TfL to provide adequate capacity.
Converting the 265 to DD might be possible. The Roehampton - Tolworth section used to be covered by DDs (on route 72). Of course road layouts have probably changed since then, but I have been down some of the A3 side roads on a DD (on SWR rail replacement) without any problems.
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 22, 2019 19:36:50 GMT
Didn't really know where to put this but since Go Ahead run the service thought it might as well go here, I really hope Roehampton uni reconsider letting passengers I.E none uni students/staff on the 849. Every 265 that's going up roehampton lane is packed that people are being pushed right up against the front doors. 419s are statting to get busier too. If the route could take double deckers then I think that would be a great idea but having used it many times before I'm sure it would fail due to the little side roads off the A3 I appreciate it's frustrating to see DDs with spare capacity drive past, but I don't see why the university should be paying to cover for TfL's failings. If the service was made public, the demand could easily overwhelm the two DDs that they pay for, to the detriment of their own students and staff. It's up to TfL to provide adequate capacity.
Converting the 265 to DD might be possible. The Roehampton - Tolworth section used to be covered by DDs (on route 72). Of course road layouts have probably changed since then, but I have been down some of the A3 side roads on a DD (on SWR rail replacement) without any problems.
I completely understand what you're saying but seeing these double deckers is annoying, I would much rather advocate double deckers on the 265 than the idea of making the 849 public, It's interesting to read you have been on a double decker along the 265s side roads as I used to be regular user of the 265 nearly everyday for about a year and I would have thought the route would have failed due to parked cars along the side roads.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Oct 22, 2019 20:35:32 GMT
I appreciate it's frustrating to see DDs with spare capacity drive past, but I don't see why the university should be paying to cover for TfL's failings. If the service was made public, the demand could easily overwhelm the two DDs that they pay for, to the detriment of their own students and staff. It's up to TfL to provide adequate capacity.
Converting the 265 to DD might be possible. The Roehampton - Tolworth section used to be covered by DDs (on route 72). Of course road layouts have probably changed since then, but I have been down some of the A3 side roads on a DD (on SWR rail replacement) without any problems.
I completely understand what you're saying but seeing these double deckers is annoying, I would much rather advocate double deckers on the 265 than the idea of making the 849 public, It's interesting to read you have been on a double decker along the 265s side roads as I used to be regular user of the 265 nearly everyday for about a year and I would have thought the route would have failed due to parked cars along the side roads. Doesnt the 265 have a low bridge as well? (Isn’t it the same bridge that stops the K2 and 665 running with DDs too?)
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 22, 2019 20:38:08 GMT
I completely understand what you're saying but seeing these double deckers is annoying, I would much rather advocate double deckers on the 265 than the idea of making the 849 public, It's interesting to read you have been on a double decker along the 265s side roads as I used to be regular user of the 265 nearly everyday for about a year and I would have thought the route would have failed due to parked cars along the side roads. Doesnt the 265 have a low bridge as well? (Isn’t it the same bridge that stops the K2 and 665 running with DDs too?) no lower bridges along the route, the only bridge I can think it goes under is the underpass near the ASDA and that's ok as the 85 goes down there.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 22, 2019 21:53:56 GMT
I completely understand what you're saying but seeing these double deckers is annoying, I would much rather advocate double deckers on the 265 than the idea of making the 849 public, It's interesting to read you have been on a double decker along the 265s side roads as I used to be regular user of the 265 nearly everyday for about a year and I would have thought the route would have failed due to parked cars along the side roads. Doesnt the 265 have a low bridge as well? (Isn’t it the same bridge that stops the K2 and 665 running with DDs too?) The K2's low bridge is at Norbiton Station which the K3, K4 & K5 use
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Oct 23, 2019 6:36:37 GMT
I completely understand what you're saying but seeing these double deckers is annoying, I would much rather advocate double deckers on the 265 than the idea of making the 849 public, It's interesting to read you have been on a double decker along the 265s side roads as I used to be regular user of the 265 nearly everyday for about a year and I would have thought the route would have failed due to parked cars along the side roads. Doesnt the 265 have a low bridge as well? (Isn’t it the same bridge that stops the K2 and 665 running with DDs too?) 665 doesn't pass under any low bridge. There may be an issue with trees in the Berrylands area, which is why the DD version (the 662) bypasses the area. I think SWT rail replacements used to take the odd DD through Berrylands, but they gave up providing a replacement service to Berrylands many years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2019 10:10:17 GMT
Didn't really know where to put this but since Go Ahead run the service thought it might as well go here, I really hope Roehampton uni reconsider letting passengers I.E none uni students/staff on the 849. Every 265 that's going up roehampton lane is packed that people are being pushed right up against the front doors. 419s are statting to get busier too. If the route could take double deckers then I think that would be a great idea but having used it many times before I'm sure it would fail due to the little side roads off the A3 Tfl still haven’t grasped the former stretch of the 72 Hammersmith to Roehampton needs a 6-7 min frequency (using DE sized buses) So the revised arrangements still don’t adequately cover. Operators haven’t got spare DD’s available. I can’t see TfL changing anything again. And I’m not sure DD’s would be particularly welcomed by Barnes residents on the Lonsdale Road stand area. It would have been simpler to keep a 72 Roehampton to Hammersmith Bridge south side, and another 72 Hammersmith Bridge North Side to East Acton. Both every 6-7 mins , with the N72 as is now.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Oct 23, 2019 11:13:19 GMT
Doesnt the 265 have a low bridge as well? (Isn’t it the same bridge that stops the K2 and 665 running with DDs too?) The K2's low bridge is at Norbiton Station which the K3, K4 & K5 use And here it is. (Picture, not mine, shows the result of a train replacement service not following the approved route. Hasn't happened for a while. OOOOPPS what have I said Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by tbmlondon on Oct 23, 2019 12:00:07 GMT
The 364's MMCs are now registered on LVF:
SE304 YX69NNH SE305 YX69NNJ SE306 YX69NNK SE307 YX69NNL SE308 YX69NNM SE309 YX69NNO SE310 YX69NNP SE311 YX69NNR SE312 YX69NNT SE313 YX69NNU SE314 YX69NNV SE315 YX69NNW SE316 YX69NNY SE317 YX69NNZ SE318 YX69NOF SE319 YX69NOH
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Oct 23, 2019 12:17:52 GMT
The 364's MMCs are now registered on LVF: SE304 YX69NNH SE305 YX69NNJ SE306 YX69NNK SE307 YX69NNL SE308 YX69NNM SE309 YX69NNO SE310 YX69NNP SE311 YX69NNR SE312 YX69NNT SE313 YX69NNU SE314 YX69NNV SE315 YX69NNW SE316 YX69NNY SE317 YX69NNZ SE318 YX69NOF SE319 YX69NOH What a stange set of reg. On a similar note, the sooner these are in service the better, will mean that the 396 gets all of its SEs back, the awful 07/57 E200 reg most likely withdrawn and SOEs returned to their school routes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 23, 2019 14:22:00 GMT
The 364's MMCs are now registered on LVF: SE304 YX69NNH SE305 YX69NNJ SE306 YX69NNK SE307 YX69NNL SE308 YX69NNM SE309 YX69NNO SE310 YX69NNP SE311 YX69NNR SE312 YX69NNT SE313 YX69NNU SE314 YX69NNV SE315 YX69NNW SE316 YX69NNY SE317 YX69NNZ SE318 YX69NOF SE319 YX69NOH What a stange set of reg. On a similar note, the sooner these are in service the better, will mean that the 396 gets all of its SEs back, the awful 07/57 E200 reg most likely withdrawn and SOEs returned to their school routes. I don't understand what is strange about the regs?
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Oct 23, 2019 14:40:25 GMT
What a stange set of reg. On a similar note, the sooner these are in service the better, will mean that the 396 gets all of its SEs back, the awful 07/57 E200 reg most likely withdrawn and SOEs returned to their school routes. I don't understand what is strange about the regs? The NN/NO reg haven't been used in a while. I rephrase my comment to say that the composition has not been used in a while.
|
|
|
Post by 725DYE on Oct 23, 2019 15:01:24 GMT
I don't understand what is strange about the regs? The NN/NO reg haven't been used in a while. I rephrase my comment to say that the composition has not been used in a while. I don't really see why it's worth commenting on. They're just number plates
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Oct 23, 2019 15:02:44 GMT
The NN/NO reg haven't been used in a while. I rephrase my comment to say that the composition has not been used in a while. I don't really see why it's worth commenting on. They're just number plates Maybe you do not but some people do take note of the number plates and fleet codes, I do not see the big deal?
|
|