Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 17:34:23 GMT
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. I'm no apologist for snobby residents, far from it - I'm just saying it's not as simple as ignoring them. I'm also saying deckers aren't the only solution to overcrowding - some routes simply aren't suitable for them, be it lots of low trees, low bridges or residents that won't budge. If residents don't like it, they'll do all they can to stop it. It's also not that easy to move - I imagine a double-decker running past your house every 5 minutes would probably quite dramatically reduce the price of your house. I'd like them to be ignored but I'm not sure it's that easy/possible. The 227 and 358 don't do that badly with full-sized single decks. There's often people having to stand on the 227, but it's rare they get so full they're leaving people behind. I might be wrong, but I think the 358 also passes through another low bridge in the Beckenham area, so you'd have to make quite large changes to a successful route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 18:09:12 GMT
I'm surprised no one had mentioned the 355 in this thread. IME, it's always crowded at both ends, so DD's would certainly ease the overcrowding. I remember seeing central staircase PVL's on this route at afternoon school hours until around 2010, it seems these journeys are no more.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 20, 2013 18:22:12 GMT
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. They were retrofitted with power blinds a year ago as part of their refurbishments, manual blinds prior to that.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 20, 2013 18:27:01 GMT
I'm surprised no one had mentioned the 355 in this thread. IME, it's always crowded at both ends, so DD's would certainly ease the overcrowding. I remember seeing central staircase PVL's on this route at afternoon school hours until around 2010, it seems these journeys are no more. I've been mentioning that the 355 should be double decked since joining the forum in 2008, even sent a email TfL regarding the issue as well asking about decking the 289 & P4. Got a nonsense response as well as one about the 81 which I didn't even mention The PVL's weren't scheduled journeys, just odds that were thrown out as I've seen them at all times of the day. There was also more sightings when the 53 reg LDP's were being refurbed. Anyway, definately agree with you that it needs deckers, I've lost count the amount of times I've either seen or been crowded onto an LDP on the 355. It's also a single decker route that uses entirely main roads and roads which are served by double deckers so there are no restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 20, 2013 18:34:39 GMT
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. I'm no apologist for snobby residents, far from it - I'm just saying it's not as simple as ignoring them. I'm also saying deckers aren't the only solution to overcrowding - some routes simply aren't suitable for them, be it lots of low trees, low bridges or residents that won't budge. If residents don't like it, they'll do all they can to stop it. It's also not that easy to move - I imagine a double-decker running past your house every 5 minutes would probably quite dramatically reduce the price of your house. I'd like them to be ignored but I'm not sure it's that easy/possible. The 227 and 358 don't do that badly with full-sized single decks. There's often people having to stand on the 227, but it's rare they get so full they're leaving people behind. I might be wrong, but I think the 358 also passes through another low bridge in the Beckenham area, so you'd have to make quite large changes to a successful route. So, for example, from a 250 on Green Lane & Parchmore Road, you can potentially see into people's houses yet since its introduction in the late 80's, the 250 has always been entirely double decker. I've been on many 227's that have left people behind before, because of the SPD's, it's a route I've used so many times. The 358 could probably survive a it is, think there is low bridge at Eden Park come to think of it but definately not one in Beckenham that the 358 uses.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 20, 2013 18:55:09 GMT
I'm surprised no one had mentioned the 355 in this thread. IME, it's always crowded at both ends, so DD's would certainly ease the overcrowding. I remember seeing central staircase PVL's on this route at afternoon school hours until around 2010, it seems these journeys are no more. Merton was then running the route, running plate AL173 being the decker as it was the last bus out in the mornings. Since moving to Q there have been no double deck sightings yet on the 355 as it's not included on their blinds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 18:55:36 GMT
I'm no apologist for snobby residents, far from it - I'm just saying it's not as simple as ignoring them. I'm also saying deckers aren't the only solution to overcrowding - some routes simply aren't suitable for them, be it lots of low trees, low bridges or residents that won't budge. If residents don't like it, they'll do all they can to stop it. It's also not that easy to move - I imagine a double-decker running past your house every 5 minutes would probably quite dramatically reduce the price of your house. I'd like them to be ignored but I'm not sure it's that easy/possible. The 227 and 358 don't do that badly with full-sized single decks. There's often people having to stand on the 227, but it's rare they get so full they're leaving people behind. I might be wrong, but I think the 358 also passes through another low bridge in the Beckenham area, so you'd have to make quite large changes to a successful route. So, for example, from a 250 on Green Lane & Parchmore Road, you can potentially see into people's houses yet since its introduction in the late 80's, the 250 has always been entirely double decker. I've been on many 227's that have left people behind before, because of the SPD's, it's a route I've used so many times. The 358 could probably survive a it is, think there is low bridge at Eden Park come to think of it but definately not one in Beckenham that the 358 uses. Deckers that have always been there are different to putting deckers on a route which has been single deck for years and years. (Small c) conservative types don't like things that have been the same way for a while being changed in such a way that impacts negatively upon them. I was using Beckenham as a general name for the area as I wasn't sure exactly where the bridge was I knew I was close. I don't feel the 358 has too many problems, as on its main corridors it's largely supported by the 227 and 61. The SPDs did used to leave people behind, I admit - but the Citaros seem to cope well as the huge bay seems to provide a lot of standing space. I've never seen them having the same crowding as the SPDs, and they are larger - they cope, anyway. Ironically, I use the route a lot just because I like the Citaros. Even in the crowded peaks, it doesn't get rammed full. It would take a significant diversion to find a route appropriate for a decker - probably would mean cutting out half of the route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 19:08:40 GMT
I'm surprised no one had mentioned the 355 in this thread. IME, it's always crowded at both ends, so DD's would certainly ease the overcrowding. I remember seeing central staircase PVL's on this route at afternoon school hours until around 2010, it seems these journeys are no more. I've been mentioning that the 355 should be double decked since joining the forum in 2008, even sent a email TfL regarding the issue as well asking about decking the 289 & P4. Got a nonsense response as well as one about the 81 which I didn't even mention The PVL's weren't scheduled journeys, just odds that were thrown out as I've seen them at all times of the day. There was also more sightings when the 53 reg LDP's were being refurbed. Anyway, definately agree with you that it needs deckers, I've lost count the amount of times I've either seen or been crowded onto an LDP on the 355. It's also a single decker route that uses entirely main roads and roads which are served by double deckers so there are no restrictions. If the 355 gets anything other than deckers in 2015, then something isn't right. I remember when I caught the route from Tooting and regretted it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the change - I imagine it was just considered cheaper to use the existing LDPs on contract renewal but it was at the sacrifice to passengers! In 2015 the buses will be too old for a new contract anyway, so new buses will be being potentially bought anyway. I hope Go-Ahead find some spare deckers... On a note relating your email the 289 wasn't done when the contract was renewed. Maybe the costings were too high and TFL didn't think it was worth it. P4 would probably need diversions, potentially some low trees trimmed but I'd hope that'd be done for 2016.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 21:28:32 GMT
The bridge at Shorlands restricts the 227 and 358, the bridge at Eden Park is high enough for double deckers.
The 214 is restricted by trees at Highgate, double deckers can run as far as Parliament Hill Fields.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 21:35:38 GMT
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. T33 can get very busy particularly at peak/school times
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 21:36:34 GMT
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. T33 can get very busy particularly at peak/school times To be fair, don't most routes?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 20, 2013 21:38:08 GMT
I've been mentioning that the 355 should be double decked since joining the forum in 2008, even sent a email TfL regarding the issue as well asking about decking the 289 & P4. Got a nonsense response as well as one about the 81 which I didn't even mention The PVL's weren't scheduled journeys, just odds that were thrown out as I've seen them at all times of the day. There was also more sightings when the 53 reg LDP's were being refurbed. Anyway, definately agree with you that it needs deckers, I've lost count the amount of times I've either seen or been crowded onto an LDP on the 355. It's also a single decker route that uses entirely main roads and roads which are served by double deckers so there are no restrictions. If the 355 gets anything other than deckers in 2015, then something isn't right. I remember when I caught the route from Tooting and regretted it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the change - I imagine it was just considered cheaper to use the existing LDPs on contract renewal but it was at the sacrifice to passengers! In 2015 the buses will be too old for a new contract anyway, so new buses will be being potentially bought anyway. I hope Go-Ahead find some spare deckers... On a note relating your email the 289 wasn't done when the contract was renewed. Maybe the costings were too high and TFL didn't think it was worth it. P4 would probably need diversions, potentially some low trees trimmed but I'd hope that'd be done for 2016. It was about 2009 when I emailed them, at the time, the 289 had a mixture of PDL's & DWL's but with regular decker appearances. Regarding the P4, indeed trees may need trimming but not sure where a diversion would be needed. Deckers have gone through Dulwich Village before when the 37 with its M's was diverted at Herne Hill via the 3 to Thurlow Park Road, Dulwich Common, College Road, Dulwich Village before meeting up with the route at East Dulwich Grove. This was due to the bridge at North Dulwich.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 21:39:09 GMT
The bridge at Shorlands restricts the 227 and 358, the bridge at Eden Park is high enough for double deckers. The 214 is restricted by trees at Highgate, double deckers can run as far as Parliament Hill Fields. I wonder if it would ever be possible for those trees to be cut? Failing that, would be a silly idea to suggest running scheduled decker shorts to Parliament Hill Fields in the peaks?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 21:41:21 GMT
If the 355 gets anything other than deckers in 2015, then something isn't right. I remember when I caught the route from Tooting and regretted it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the change - I imagine it was just considered cheaper to use the existing LDPs on contract renewal but it was at the sacrifice to passengers! In 2015 the buses will be too old for a new contract anyway, so new buses will be being potentially bought anyway. I hope Go-Ahead find some spare deckers... On a note relating your email the 289 wasn't done when the contract was renewed. Maybe the costings were too high and TFL didn't think it was worth it. P4 would probably need diversions, potentially some low trees trimmed but I'd hope that'd be done for 2016. It was about 2009 when I emailed them, at the time, the 289 had a mixture of PDL's & DWL's but with regular decker appearances. Regarding the P4, indeed trees may need trimming but not sure where a diversion would be needed. Deckers have gone through Dulwich Village before when the 37 with its M's was diverted at Herne Hill via the 3 to Thurlow Park Road, Dulwich Common, College Road, Dulwich Village before meeting up with the route at East Dulwich Grove. This was due to the bridge at North Dulwich. I don't know why I put that - it doesn't need diversions - just trees trimmed in Dulwich. The turn at the bottom of Honor Oak Park is potentially a problem, though if it were going to be a serious issue, journeys towards Lewisham could always take an extra minute to loop round the Brockley Rise stand used by the 172 and P4...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 21:44:00 GMT
T33 can get very busy particularly at peak/school times To be fair, don't most routes? Well lets just say deckers would be justified on the T33, the much quieter 412 route is double deck.
|
|