Overcrowding on Single decker buses

[Deleted]

The 214 usually gets mentioned in threads like these. I think they were hoping on double decking this route, but posh Highgate residents objected because it would ruin their privacy lol.

Now the route is based at Kings Cross, which can only take single deckers (I think), so would have to move to a new garage just to accomodate DDs. Seems strange having a central London garage which can only accomodate SDs, surely this may cause problems in the future if ever the 46, 214 or 274 need to be DD'd.

[Deleted]

Jan 20, 2013 9:50:03 GMT @truffles1234 said:

The 214 usually gets mentioned in threads like these. I think they were hoping on double decking this route, but posh Highgate residents objected because it would ruin their privacy lol.

Now the route is based at Kings Cross, which can only take single deckers (I think), so would have to move to a new garage just to accomodate DDs. Seems strange having a central London garage which can only accomodate SDs, surely this may cause problems in the future if ever the 46, 214 or 274 need to be DD'd.

DDs wouldn't go amiss on either the 214 or the 274. The former is obviously plagued with some middle-class residents who don't want deckers anywhere near their house.

I'm not sure what the issue with the 274 is - the loadings from Baker Street to the Zoo can be very very heavy.

[Deleted]

Jan 20, 2013 3:03:18 GMT M1104 said:

Jan 19, 2013 19:52:08 GMT M1199 said:

I believe the 350 could run with MPD's, apart from 1-2 journeys and still have spare capacity. I've noticed even more so since moving along the 350 route 5 months ago how much the Tridents are such an unnecessary luxury.

I reckon the Tridents are there more for company satisfaction, seeing as they did free up single deckers to cover new contract awards (saving the firm from buying/leasing more single deckers). Those Tridents would otherwise have been put in storage until they could find another use for them.

They could've done a similar arrangement double-decking the 407 - freeing the Enviros off there. I personally feel that would've been a more suitable use, given the issues on there.

[Deleted]

Jan 20, 2013 9:50:03 GMT @truffles1234 said:

The 214 usually gets mentioned in threads like these. I think they were hoping on double decking this route, but posh Highgate residents objected because it would ruin their privacy lol.

Now the route is based at Kings Cross, which can only take single deckers (I think), so would have to move to a new garage just to accomodate DDs. Seems strange having a central London garage which can only accomodate SDs, surely this may cause problems in the future if ever the 46, 214 or 274 need to be DD'd.

Indeed, Im sure the 214 could get away with an odd worning but as mentioned before KC cant accomendate Double Deckers. There were other routes such as the T33 when operated under Metrobus, you'd see an odd working of an Omnidekka or Omnicity.

[Deleted]

Jan 20, 2013 12:33:18 GMT @eastlondon92 said:

Jan 20, 2013 9:50:03 GMT @truffles1234 said:

The 214 usually gets mentioned in threads like these. I think they were hoping on double decking this route, but posh Highgate residents objected because it would ruin their privacy lol.

Now the route is based at Kings Cross, which can only take single deckers (I think), so would have to move to a new garage just to accomodate DDs. Seems strange having a central London garage which can only accomodate SDs, surely this may cause problems in the future if ever the 46, 214 or 274 need to be DD'd.

Indeed, Im sure the 214 could get away with an odd worning but as mentioned before KC cant accomendate Double Deckers. There were other routes such as the T33 when operated under Metrobus, you'd see an odd working of an Omnidekka or Omnicity.

It might also depend on whether the 214 is cleared for deckers, and whether there's low trees on the route. A lot of routes like the 312, T32, T33 can accommodate deckers but don't use them simply because they don't need the capacity.

[M1104]

Jan 20, 2013 11:33:24 GMT @mredd said:

Jan 20, 2013 3:03:18 GMT M1104 said:

I reckon the Tridents are there more for company satisfaction, seeing as they did free up single deckers to cover new contract awards (saving the firm from buying/leasing more single deckers). Those Tridents would otherwise have been put in storage until they could find another use for them.

They could've done a similar arrangement double-decking the 407 - freeing the Enviros off there. I personally feel that would've been a more suitable use, given the issues on there.

As much as i agree with you there (100%) I am guessing the 407 wasn't chosen because the 350 is closer to contract renewal where the fleet may be moved about anyway.

Another possible reason is that the 407's E200s are power blinded, which means if the buses were transferred out the displays themselves would be somewhat redundant. They could be refitted to the Tridents, but then they won't be properly compatible for the 157....and I don't see them forking out extra money to include another route on the power blinds.

It could be that the 407 was considered but the 350 was better (for them) to convert.

[Deleted]

Jan 20, 2013 14:57:21 GMT M1104 said:

Jan 20, 2013 11:33:24 GMT @mredd said:

They could've done a similar arrangement double-decking the 407 - freeing the Enviros off there. I personally feel that would've been a more suitable use, given the issues on there.

As much as i agree with you there (100%) I am guessing the 407 wasn't chosen because the 350 is closer to contract renewal where the fleet may be moved about anyway.

Another possible reason is that the 407's E200s are power blinded, which means if the buses were moved the displays themselves would be somewhat redundant. They could be refitted to the Tridents, but then they won't be properly compatible for the 157....and I don't see them forking out extra money to include another route on the power blinds.

You do have a point there. Ironically, now the 350 has an extension the 407 may end up renewing in 2014, before the 350 in 2015! Maybe if the 381 renews with new buses the 55/06-plate Volvos at WL could be used at BC. TFL probably wouldn't be too happy about older buses on the Central London 381 (though they allowed it for the 172!) and Abellio certainly aren't averse to utilising older buses for new contracts, and they'd get 5 more years out of otherwise redundant deckers.

There must've been enough redundant Tridents at the time of the 3's contract renewal to cover both the 350 and the 407. The 407's Enviro200 could've then been utilised on the 152's new contract, requiring no blind changes, and the redundant 56-plate Enviro200 + the 5 Pointers from the 129 could've been used as the 455 bid. (Both manually blinded AFAIK) I understand there was demand for some Tridents in Liverpool but I'm sure that could be sourced if needed.

[vjaska]

Jan 20, 2013 12:49:53 GMT @mredd said:

Jan 20, 2013 12:33:18 GMT @eastlondon92 said:

Indeed, Im sure the 214 could get away with an odd worning but as mentioned before KC cant accomendate Double Deckers. There were other routes such as the T33 when operated under Metrobus, you'd see an odd working of an Omnidekka or Omnicity.

It might also depend on whether the 214 is cleared for deckers, and whether there's low trees on the route. A lot of routes like the 312, T32, T33 can accommodate deckers but don't use them simply because they don't need the capacity.

The T33 only has a few odd workings because the Selsdon Vale residents do not want double deckers running through the estate. They protested about this before, even removing bus stops in the area!

[Deleted]

Jan 20, 2013 15:19:16 GMT vjaska said:

Jan 20, 2013 12:49:53 GMT @mredd said:

It might also depend on whether the 214 is cleared for deckers, and whether there's low trees on the route. A lot of routes like the 312, T32, T33 can accommodate deckers but don't use them simply because they don't need the capacity.

The T33 only has a few odd workings because the Selsdon Vale residents do not want double deckers running through the estate. They protested about this before, even removing bus stops in the area!

There surely can't be enough demand on the T33 to justify double-deckers anyway. Half the route runs parallel to the double-deck 64, so it's only really around Selsdon Vale and Forestdale that the demand would come from.

[Hassaan]

Jan 20, 2013 15:18:59 GMT @mredd said:

Jan 20, 2013 14:57:21 GMT M1104 said:

As much as i agree with you there (100%) I am guessing the 407 wasn't chosen because the 350 is closer to contract renewal where the fleet may be moved about anyway.

Another possible reason is that the 407's E200s are power blinded, which means if the buses were moved the displays themselves would be somewhat redundant. They could be refitted to the Tridents, but then they won't be properly compatible for the 157....and I don't see them forking out extra money to include another route on the power blinds.

You do have a point there. Ironically, now the 350 has an extension the 407 may end up renewing in 2014, before the 350 in 2015! Maybe if the 381 renews with new buses the 55/06-plate Volvos at WL could be used at BC. TFL probably wouldn't be too happy about older buses on the Central London 381 (though they allowed it for the 172!) and Abellio certainly aren't averse to utilising older buses for new contracts, and they'd get 5 more years out of otherwise redundant deckers.

There must've been enough redundant Tridents at the time of the 3's contract renewal to cover both the 350 and the 407. The 407's Enviro200 could've then been utilised on the 152's new contract, requiring no blind changes, and the redundant 56-plate Enviro200 + the 5 Pointers from the 129 could've been used as the 455 bid. (Both manually blinded AFAIK) I understand there was demand for some Tridents in Liverpool but I'm sure that could be sourced if needed.

8501-8506 have powerblinds: londonbusesbyadam.zenfolio.com/p309141474/h85fe98e#h85fe98e

I would have liked to see double deckers on the 235 as it definitely needs them. The spare buses because of that would be 02-reg and 52-reg. Some could be used on the 117 for a frequency increase and also on the 350 which would be an alternative to putting the deckers on the 350.

However, I have no idea how the numbers add up

Another route where deckers are needed is the 195.

[Deleted]

Jan 20, 2013 15:55:56 GMT Hassaan said:

Jan 20, 2013 15:18:59 GMT @mredd said:

You do have a point there. Ironically, now the 350 has an extension the 407 may end up renewing in 2014, before the 350 in 2015! Maybe if the 381 renews with new buses the 55/06-plate Volvos at WL could be used at BC. TFL probably wouldn't be too happy about older buses on the Central London 381 (though they allowed it for the 172!) and Abellio certainly aren't averse to utilising older buses for new contracts, and they'd get 5 more years out of otherwise redundant deckers.

There must've been enough redundant Tridents at the time of the 3's contract renewal to cover both the 350 and the 407. The 407's Enviro200 could've then been utilised on the 152's new contract, requiring no blind changes, and the redundant 56-plate Enviro200 + the 5 Pointers from the 129 could've been used as the 455 bid. (Both manually blinded AFAIK) I understand there was demand for some Tridents in Liverpool but I'm sure that could be sourced if needed.

8501-8506 have powerblinds: londonbusesbyadam.zenfolio.com/p309141474/h85fe98e#h85fe98e

I would have liked to see double deckers on the 235 as it definitely needs them. The spare buses because of that would be 02-reg and 52-reg. Some could be used on the 117 for a frequency increase and also on the 350 which would be an alternative to putting the deckers on the 350.

However, I have no idea how the numbers add up

Another route where deckers are needed is the 195.

I wasn't sure, thanks!

There's some residents objection to the 235 getting deckers, isn't there?
Often residents seem to be a humongous barrier to double-decking, which seems to be why routes like the 214 have gone for so long with inadequate capacity. Ironically, a lot of the time complaining residents seem to then complain to the council about how there's not enough capacity on their local bus route - guess what, can't have it both ways...

In terms of the 235, if double-deckers really can't be used it does sound like something needs to be done. Frankly, why it was ever acceptable for 10.2m Darts to be allocated to the route is another question. How tight are the turns on the route - failing deckers, Citaros (or the like) could always be an option..

[Deleted]

All I got to say is screw the residents. I've got better things to do then look at other people's houses besides most of them you can barely see anything through their curtain's so I don't know what they are complaining about. People nowadays are too busy fiddling around on their iPads/iPhones, etc.

[Deleted]

Jan 20, 2013 16:49:47 GMT @eastlondon92 said:

All I got to say is screw the residents. I've got better things to do then look at other people's houses besides most of them you can barely see anything through their curtain's so I don't know what they are complaining about. People nowadays are too busy fiddling around on their iPads/iPhones, etc.

Indeed, thought it never seems to be that simple. If TFL said "screw it, we're putting deckers there" then the residents would kick up a huge fuss, going to the council etc., and then the council would constantly fight it - bearing in mind the councillors don't want to be the ones that let the deckers go down that route, else they'd potentially lose their seats. And so we end up with the current situation.

To be honest, some routes like the 214 will likely never get deckers, so it's probably best that other options are looked at. Full-sized single decks are always a good start, and they're a largely successful solution for the 227 and 358 - though until recently they were quite a rarity. They're certainly a good alternative to deckers, as they provide a fair amount of capacity - only problem is tight turns. If a route has tight turns and isn't suitable for deckers, then the only solutions seems to be PVR increase.

Full-sized single decks seem to have been largely successful along the 293 - there's still the scheduled school decker workings but as far as I know the only reason it's got full-sized single deckers is because residents weren't too happy about the idea of double-deck operation.

[rambo]

Last bus in the world syndrome......................

[vjaska]

Jan 20, 2013 16:59:57 GMT @mredd said:

Jan 20, 2013 16:49:47 GMT @eastlondon92 said:

All I got to say is screw the residents. I've got better things to do then look at other people's houses besides most of them you can barely see anything through their curtain's so I don't know what they are complaining about. People nowadays are too busy fiddling around on their iPads/iPhones, etc.

Indeed, thought it never seems to be that simple. If TFL said "screw it, we're putting deckers there" then the residents would kick up a huge fuss, going to the council etc., and then the council would constantly fight it - bearing in mind the councillors don't want to be the ones that let the deckers go down that route, else they'd potentially lose their seats. And so we end up with the current situation.

To be honest, some routes like the 214 will likely never get deckers, so it's probably best that other options are looked at. Full-sized single decks are always a good start, and they're a largely successful solution for the 227 and 358 - though until recently they were quite a rarity. They're certainly a good alternative to deckers, as they provide a fair amount of capacity - only problem is tight turns. If a route has tight turns and isn't suitable for deckers, then the only solutions seems to be PVR increase.

Full-sized single decks seem to have been largely successful along the 293 - there's still the scheduled school decker workings but as far as I know the only reason it's got full-sized single deckers is because residents weren't too happy about the idea of double-deck operation.

If the residents don't like it, then they should move. There are plenty of residents across the country who live next to double decker routes and have no complaints. What happens if one day, an accident occurs on an overcrowded route due to overcrowding - then what will the happen.

The 227 & 358 were only successful in the beginning - both routes now need deckers but can't due to the Shortlands low bridge. Maybe the only way to do this is to divert both routes at Shortlands avoiding the bridge.