|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 18, 2024 12:54:02 GMT
If the 45 and 118 merger goes ahead with TUK space could be made available at SW as early as February Why not move the 333 along with the 77 or 155 to Waterloo? That should free up 35 or so buses. Those routes all terminate in the vicinity of Waterloo. Drivers can easily use the northern line to travel up and down those routes. Makes no sense operating the 153 and 214 there. I believe RA cannot take double deckers due to the height of the maintenance shed. When the 153 is lost, I would expect the 100 to move from Q to RA (or alternatively the 360).
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Sept 18, 2024 13:05:34 GMT
If the 45 and 118 merger goes ahead with TUK space could be made available at SW as early as February Isn't the 355 moving to SW? There's also difficulty at the Tooting Broadway stand which is why Arriva very rarely put EA's on the 333. Would still need upgrading within the shed as the 88's also due electrics as well as a potentially SW based 355 EDIT: Regarding the potential Tooting Broadway issue a temporary quick fix would be to allocate Ees on another SW route
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Sept 18, 2024 16:54:03 GMT
So was there ever a reason why double deck workings completely vanished from the 219 a few years ago? It has been discussed on here occasionally but I don’t recall an official reason ever being cited.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 18, 2024 17:00:13 GMT
So was there ever a reason why double deck workings completely vanished from the 219 a few years ago? It has been discussed on here occasionally but I don’t recall an official reason ever being cited. I believe there are low trees on Trinity Road (the only part of the route where it isn't parallel to any other routes). The whole situation with double deckers at AL is very disappointing, having two routes which are desperate for deckers (152 and 164) and another two which could probably do with them aswell (163 and 219).
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 18, 2024 17:17:50 GMT
So was there ever a reason why double deck workings completely vanished from the 219 a few years ago? It has been discussed on here occasionally but I don’t recall an official reason ever being cited. I believe there are low trees on Trinity Road (the only part of the route where it isn't parallel to any other routes). The whole situation with double deckers at AL is very disappointing, having two routes which are desperate for deckers (152 and 164) and another two which could probably do with them aswell (163 and 219). The 152 only really needs them on one half of the route, beyond Colliers Wood towards New Malden it is considerably quieter. The 164 and 219 only really need them in the peaks, even then loads are not currently excessive and nobody is left behind. The 163 is too short for deckers, in my experience the upstairs wouldn’t be well used. In all these cases I’d say longer vehicles would resolve the capacity issues. Sadly in the case of the 163/164 Hartfield Road prevents this.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 18, 2024 17:21:07 GMT
I believe there are low trees on Trinity Road (the only part of the route where it isn't parallel to any other routes). The whole situation with double deckers at AL is very disappointing, having two routes which are desperate for deckers (152 and 164) and another two which could probably do with them aswell (163 and 219). The 152 only really needs them on one half of the route, beyond Colliers Wood towards New Malden it is considerably quieter. The 164 and 219 only really need them in the peaks, even then loads are not currently excessive and nobody is left behind. The 163 is too short for deckers, in my experience the upstairs wouldn’t be well used. In all these cases I’d say longer vehicles would resolve the capacity issues. Sadly in the case of the 163/174 Hartfield Road prevents this. I agree about the 163, a frequency increase would suit it much more. The 164 however I very much disagree, it can get very busy throughout the day and sees a decent amount of e2e usage so would be perfect for deckers.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 18, 2024 17:23:51 GMT
The 152 only really needs them on one half of the route, beyond Colliers Wood towards New Malden it is considerably quieter. The 164 and 219 only really need them in the peaks, even then loads are not currently excessive and nobody is left behind. The 163 is too short for deckers, in my experience the upstairs wouldn’t be well used. In all these cases I’d say longer vehicles would resolve the capacity issues. Sadly in the case of the 163/174 Hartfield Road prevents this. I agree about the 163, a frequency increase would suit it much more. The 164 however I very much disagree, it can get very busy throughout the day and sees a decent amount of e2e usage so would be perfect for deckers. I would say for the 164 a frequency increase would be adequate as well. It can be busy but I’ve never seen passengers turned away in Sutton, Wimbledon or Morden. Whilst there may be quite a few through journeys in my 30 years of experience most passengers alight in Morden in both directions.
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Sept 18, 2024 17:24:44 GMT
The 152 only really needs them on one half of the route, beyond Colliers Wood towards New Malden it is considerably quieter. The 164 and 219 only really need them in the peaks, even then loads are not currently excessive and nobody is left behind. The 163 is too short for deckers, in my experience the upstairs wouldn’t be well used. In all these cases I’d say longer vehicles would resolve the capacity issues. Sadly in the case of the 163/174 Hartfield Road prevents this. I agree about the 163, a frequency increase would suit it much more. The 164 however I very much disagree, it can get very busy throughout the day and sees a decent amount of e2e usage so would be perfect for deckers. I've never seen the 164 particularly busy at the Sutton end
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Sept 18, 2024 18:21:41 GMT
So was there ever a reason why double deck workings completely vanished from the 219 a few years ago? It has been discussed on here occasionally but I don’t recall an official reason ever being cited. I believe there are low trees on Trinity Road (the only part of the route where it isn't parallel to any other routes). The whole situation with double deckers at AL is very disappointing, having two routes which are desperate for deckers (152 and 164) and another two which could probably do with them aswell (163 and 219). That hasn't stopped the 44, 77, 270 and 319 from using the road on diversion (not the same as regular daily use but still ). I would've guessed the tiny bit of the A205 where the 219 is by itself, the last time the 319 was sent on diversion staying on Trinity Road it would turn off of the A214 at the junction with Earlsfield Road and follow the 77 to the A205 instead of following the 219.
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Sept 18, 2024 20:26:23 GMT
I believe there are low trees on Trinity Road (the only part of the route where it isn't parallel to any other routes). The whole situation with double deckers at AL is very disappointing, having two routes which are desperate for deckers (152 and 164) and another two which could probably do with them aswell (163 and 219). The 152 only really needs them on one half of the route, beyond Colliers Wood towards New Malden it is considerably quieter. The 164 and 219 only really need them in the peaks, even then loads are not currently excessive and nobody is left behind. The 163 is too short for deckers, in my experience the upstairs wouldn’t be well used. In all these cases I’d say longer vehicles would resolve the capacity issues. Sadly in the case of the 163/164 Hartfield Road prevents this. In terms of distance, 163 is a mile longer than 238's 4 miles (and W7's 3 miles), but of course 238 and W7 are very busy and in their own league. A more similar example I'd think would be 415/417 at same distance length and I could bet healthily on a Mon-Fri off-peak both have loadings that wouldn't crowd a single deck. Initially when 355 started seeing 1 WHV or so I also saw rare usage of the upper deck but it seems a while after and in addition to allocated up to 4 WHVs (by which point I rarely ever crossed the route) it seems it's been used well, correct me if I'm wrong. It's entirely possible it'd be used decently and appreciated, even for the several stops from the tube station like with 415.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 18, 2024 20:38:19 GMT
The 152 only really needs them on one half of the route, beyond Colliers Wood towards New Malden it is considerably quieter. The 164 and 219 only really need them in the peaks, even then loads are not currently excessive and nobody is left behind. The 163 is too short for deckers, in my experience the upstairs wouldn’t be well used. In all these cases I’d say longer vehicles would resolve the capacity issues. Sadly in the case of the 163/164 Hartfield Road prevents this. In terms of distance, 163 is a mile longer than 238's 4 miles (and W7's 3 miles), but of course 238 and W7 are very busy and in their own league. A more similar example I'd think would be 415/417 at same distance length and I could bet healthily on a Mon-Fri off-peak both have loadings that wouldn't crowd a single deck. Initially when 355 started seeing 1 WHV or so I also saw rare usage of the upper deck but it seems a while after and in addition to allocated WHVs (by which point I rarely ever crossed the route) it seems it's been used well. It's entirely possible it'd be used decently and appreciated, even for the several stops from the tube station like with 415. Yeah, I’ve been on multiple 163s where a double decker has arrived and nobody goes upstairs. It’s a route of 3 sections, busy from Wimbledon to Wimbledon Chase where it empties out although it is dependent on when the next 164 is and vice versa. Busy again from Raynes Park to the stupidly named Queen Mary Drive stop where again it empties out. It is then busy again from the agin stupidly named Tudor Drive stop all the way to Morden, but again this is dependent on whether a 293 turns up first or not. Exactly the same on the reverse, double deckers would be largely wasted on the route and under utilised. A frequency increase bringing the PVR back to 13 + a school day extra would resolve any problem. I have taken the 163 at the peak of life in the mid-2010s when there could be queues of 40-50 people waiting at Raynes Park and you’d get packed in like a sardine.
|
|
sw2
Conductor
Posts: 50
|
Post by sw2 on Sept 19, 2024 12:29:58 GMT
WS49 spending the day on the 299 again as it did yesterday, the route is cursed!
|
|
|
Post by atb123 on Sept 19, 2024 12:31:20 GMT
WS49 spending the day on the 299 again as it did yesterday, the route is cursed! As well as WS61 out on 389/399
|
|
sw2
Conductor
Posts: 50
|
Post by sw2 on Sept 19, 2024 12:34:05 GMT
WS49 spending the day on the 299 again as it did yesterday, the route is cursed! As well as WS61 out on 389/399 That allocation makes a lot more sense, but it would be interesting to know why they’ve suddenly appeared
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Sept 19, 2024 12:41:56 GMT
I believe there are low trees on Trinity Road (the only part of the route where it isn't parallel to any other routes). The whole situation with double deckers at AL is very disappointing, having two routes which are desperate for deckers (152 and 164) and another two which could probably do with them aswell (163 and 219). That hasn't stopped the 44, 77, 270 and 319 from using the road on diversion (not the same as regular daily use but still ). I would've guessed the tiny bit of the A205 where the 219 is by itself, the last time the 319 was sent on diversion staying on Trinity Road it would turn off of the A214 at the junction with Earlsfield Road and follow the 77 to the A205 instead of following the 219. I believe there are low trees on Trinity Road (the only part of the route where it isn't parallel to any other routes). The whole situation with double deckers at AL is very disappointing, having two routes which are desperate for deckers (152 and 164) and another two which could probably do with them aswell (163 and 219). That hasn't stopped the 44, 77, 270 and 319 from using the road on diversion (not the same as regular daily use but still ). I would've guessed the tiny bit of the A205 where the 219 is by itself, the last time the 319 was sent on diversion staying on Trinity Road it would turn off of the A214 at the junction with Earlsfield Road and follow the 77 to the A205 instead of following the 219. The 219 section of the A205 is used daily by light running 37s, said to be the official way as well for those depot runs
|
|