|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 2, 2011 6:20:55 GMT
Many thanks for that, it is interesting the photo is shows as taken 4 weeks ago as first Tempos only arrived this week. Stagecoach fans ought to look through the set as there are some new e200s and e400s at Leyland (a mid delivery holding point for ones built at Falkirk) |
|
|
|
Post by mre81 on Apr 2, 2011 10:59:00 GMT
The pic also shows the new format side blinds, with the destination as opposed to a via point.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamaal on Apr 2, 2011 21:43:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 3, 2011 8:08:55 GMT
Thanks for the pics If the capacity is actually 78 then you wonder why TfL doesn't go in for more buses of this size, 55-58 capacity is a bit low for some routes and 87 (or more) is excessive for some routes (plus all the problems of double deckers, people refusing or unable to go upstairs, higher vandalism/unsocial etc). Of course some routes cannot take longish vehicles but many can. I hope they look at this mid-capacity more often in the future. . |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 3, 2011 10:08:02 GMT
I hope they dont TBH as I dont want a return to the late 90's Single Decking craze as although these has a max capacity of 78 they prob only seat 40 as opposed to around 64 on a DD. I dont want to have to stand all time as all 40 seats are taking up by priority passengers and if I do get a seat I dont want it to be either over the wheelarches to facing backwards or on the hot back row. I would much rather go upstairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamaal on Apr 3, 2011 10:08:02 GMT
Thanks for the pics If the capacity is actually 78 then you wonder why TfL doesn't go in for more buses of this size, 55-58 capacity is a bit low for some routes and 87 (or more) is excessive for some routes (plus all the problems of double deckers, people refusing or unable to go upstairs, higher vandalism/unsocial etc). Of course some routes cannot take longish vehicles but many can. I hope they look at this mid-capacity more often in the future. . Snowman I agree. DDs suffer higher vandalism in comparison to SDs, due to the increased privacy for vandals to do what they want without getting caught. On a SD this is not the case. I actually really like the look of these things and I would love to see more ordered. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 3, 2011 10:17:07 GMT
Thanks for the pics If the capacity is actually 78 then you wonder why TfL doesn't go in for more buses of this size, 55-58 capacity is a bit low for some routes and 87 (or more) is excessive for some routes (plus all the problems of double deckers, people refusing or unable to go upstairs, higher vandalism/unsocial etc). Of course some routes cannot take longish vehicles but many can. I hope they look at this mid-capacity more often in the future. . The 164 would've been an excellent choice for a longer bus like this. I'm speculating that TfL are most likey considering other routes throughout its domain as often there's usually a trend to TfL's vehicle specs when a new variant is tried and rolled out. Would be interesting to see if TfL specify any more 11m variants where a 12m is unsuitable due to routing. Are these Tempos bought or leased and from London United or via TfL? |
|
|
|
Post by jamaal on Apr 3, 2011 10:22:37 GMT
Thanks for the pics If the capacity is actually 78 then you wonder why TfL doesn't go in for more buses of this size, 55-58 capacity is a bit low for some routes and 87 (or more) is excessive for some routes (plus all the problems of double deckers, people refusing or unable to go upstairs, higher vandalism/unsocial etc). Of course some routes cannot take longish vehicles but many can. I hope they look at this mid-capacity more often in the future. . The 164 would've been an excellent choice for a 12m bus like this, or a dual doored Enviro300/MEC equivalent for that capacity. I'm speculating that TfL are most likey considering other routes throughout its domain as often there's usually a trend to TfL's vehicle specs when a new variant is tried out. Would be interesting to see if TfL specify any more 11m variants too where 10.2m would've been the norm. Are these Tempos bought or leased and from London United or via TfL? TFL were considering giving the 274 LWB Vehicles in 10.8m domain but realized it would be impossible for the route to use vehicles of this length. the DEs were supposed to be marked DELs. These Tempos are leased and not funded by TFL. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 3, 2011 11:05:30 GMT
I hope they dont TBH as I dont want a return to the late 90's Single Decking craze as although these has a max capacity of 78 they prob only seat 40 as opposed to around 64 on a DD. I dont want to have to stand all time as all 40 seats are taking up by priority passengers and if I do get a seat I dont want it to be either over the wheelarches to facing backwards or on the hot back row. I would much rather go upstairs. With the "90's single decking craze" that was alot to do with routes that were double deckers on their previous contracts, like with the 265 and the Richmond - Hounslow section of the then much longer 37. This time round the "craze" appears to be with stretching out existing single deck buses on recent routes like the 170 (which can't handle DDs anyway do to a low bridge in Vicarage Cresent: Battersea) and the pending H37. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 3, 2011 11:22:31 GMT
The 164 would've been an excellent choice for a 12m bus like this, or a dual doored Enviro300/MEC equivalent for that capacity. I'm speculating that TfL are most likey considering other routes throughout its domain as often there's usually a trend to TfL's vehicle specs when a new variant is tried out. Would be interesting to see if TfL specify any more 11m variants too where 10.2m would've been the norm. Are these Tempos bought or leased and from London United or via TfL? TFL were considering giving the 274 LWB Vehicles in 10.8m domain but realized it would be impossible for the route to use vehicles of this length. the DEs were supposed to be marked DELs. These Tempos are leased and not funded by TFL. Thanks on that Tempo detail. |
|
|
|
Post by deppy42 on Apr 3, 2011 13:42:21 GMT
Thanks for the pics If the capacity is actually 78 then you wonder why TfL doesn't go in for more buses of this size, 55-58 capacity is a bit low for some routes and 87 (or more) is excessive for some routes (plus all the problems of double deckers, people refusing or unable to go upstairs, higher vandalism/unsocial etc). Of course some routes cannot take longish vehicles but many can. I hope they look at this mid-capacity more often in the future. . The 164 would've been an excellent choice for a longer bus like this. I'm speculating that TfL are most likey considering other routes throughout its domain as often there's usually a trend to TfL's vehicle specs when a new variant is tried and rolled out. Would be interesting to see if TfL specify any more 11m variants where a 12m is unsuitable due to routing. Are these Tempos bought or leased and from London United or via TfL? Spooky! TfL carried out a formal assessment on the route 222 on Friday using the demo 12m Tempo from AV.... |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 3, 2011 15:32:28 GMT
I wonder if that was done as a possible tender option or to see if the Tempos can stray onto the route as with both the H37 and later 203 using them it reduces the number of Darts at the depot and it would make sense to see if they can go out on the 222. Bit like BX tested a DD on the 132 to see if they could be used which did fail the test.
|
|
|
|
Post by deppy42 on Apr 3, 2011 16:10:24 GMT
I wonder if that was done as a possible tender option or to see if the Tempos can stray onto the route as with both the H37 and later 203 using them it reduces the number of Darts at the depot and it would make sense to see if they can go out on the 222. Bit like BX tested a DD on the 132 to see if they could be used which did fail the test. It was done as a tender option. The Tempos will stray onto other routes. It makes no commercial sense to have a vehicle parked up as a spare and not be able to use it on other routes. The Tempo at AV has already been out and has been risk assessed on the 203, H98, 222 and of course the H37. The issues are more about infrastructure rather than vehicle length. (specifically bus stop design). |
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Apr 3, 2011 18:56:56 GMT
The 164 would've been an excellent choice for a longer bus like this. I'm speculating that TfL are most likey considering other routes throughout its domain as often there's usually a trend to TfL's vehicle specs when a new variant is tried and rolled out. Would be interesting to see if TfL specify any more 11m variants where a 12m is unsuitable due to routing. Are these Tempos bought or leased and from London United or via TfL? Spooky! TfL carried out a formal assessment on the route 222 on Friday using the demo 12m Tempo from AV.... A 12m Bus on the 222 is a good idea, the 10.2m DPS's which have become the norm over the last few months are totally inadequate. The only spot where I could think they'd come into difficulty is the turning circle at West Drayton Station. Then again, if a LLW can do it, I'm sure a Tempo can. |
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Apr 3, 2011 19:57:13 GMT
I would like to see more 12m single deckers in london aswell. Tired of en-dry-ro 200s.
|
|
