Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 21:47:42 GMT
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. I think the light loadings on the 412 were recognised when TFL suggested fusing the 312 and 412, given both have neither particularly heavy loadings. Maybe the potential for through journeys would increase loadings a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 21:49:59 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? It seems that the trees cannot be cut, I would curtail the full service at Parliament Hill and run another single deck route to Highgate
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 21:59:19 GMT
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? It seems that the trees cannot be cut, I would curtail the full service at Parliament Hill and run another single deck route to Highgate Not a bad idea, provided a suitable terminus past Highgate could be found. Wouldn't be much point in a single deck route running 5 minutes down the road...
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jan 20, 2013 22:03:30 GMT
8501-8506 have powerblinds: londonbusesbyadam.zenfolio.com/p309141474/h85fe98e#h85fe98eI 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.. I think it did, forgot about that. As for longer buses, only familiar with the route between Brentford and Feltham High Street, and I'd reckon the only "interesting" bit in that section could be the stand at Brentford. Wouldn't be surprised though if other things come to light around the Sunbury end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 22:40:10 GMT
I think it did, forgot about that. As for longer buses, only familiar with the route between Brentford and Feltham High Street, and I'd reckon the only "interesting" bit in that section could be the stand at Brentford. Wouldn't be surprised though if other things come to light around the Sunbury end. A full allocation of 10.8m buses would've at least been a start, really - and if all else fails, a frequency increase. I imagine TFL would definitely consider deckers and full-sized single decks before a PVR increase, though, as significant PVR increases (more than 1) can be pretty costly.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 20, 2013 22:49:16 GMT
Well lets just say deckers would be justified on the T33, the much quieter 412 route is double deck. I think the light loadings on the 412 were recognised when TFL suggested fusing the 312 and 412, given both have neither particularly heavy loadings. Maybe the potential for through journeys would increase loadings a bit. I still think the routes should be fused together. It would give some purpose to the 412's DDs (which are only needed at school times) as the reduced 312 would prob need DDs. Also i think more people from Purley would use the route if it ran direct to Norwood Junction (and bargain the slightly indirect route for not having to change buses in Croydon).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 22:55:58 GMT
I think the light loadings on the 412 were recognised when TFL suggested fusing the 312 and 412, given both have neither particularly heavy loadings. Maybe the potential for through journeys would increase loadings a bit. I still think the routes should be fused together. It would give some purpose to the 412's DDs (which are only needed at school times) as the reduced 312 would prob need DDs. Also i think more people from Purley would use the route if it ran direct to Norwood Junction (and bargain the slightly indirect route for not having to change buses in Croydon). Yes, that was my thinking - a good alternative if there's train troubles as you can get a 196 from Norwood Junc.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 21, 2013 0:59:53 GMT
The 407 should be double decked TBH - the 10.7m ADL's struggled on the route and I doubt the 10.2m Enviro 200's fair any better. Is there any low bridges on the 484 as I can't remember from memory - reason I ask is Q used a T on the route but was only part of the route. The 322 could use double deckers if it was rerouted at West Norwood via Norwood High Street (towards Crystal Palace), Ernest Avenue, Knights Hill (towards Clapham Common), Gypsy Road meeting up with its normal route at Gypsy Hill. The 322 could then be extended from Crystal Palace to Lower Sydenham via the 202 or 450 with the 315 taking up the Robson Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Vale Street, St. Gothards Road section, meeting the 322 at Gypsy Road. The 315 could then follow the 3 to Crystal Palace taking the 322's place. Not sure why you couldn't shove the 322 right along the length of Robson Road through to Croxted Road and follow the 3 up to Crystal Palace. The 450 could be cut back to Palace from Sydenham and sent along the 322 to Rosendale, then along the length of Rosendale Road and Norwood Road to Herne Hill, possibly even further along Milkwood Road and Coldharbour Lane to Camberwell. Moz Apologies, meant to reply to this earlier Thats a good idea as well but myself - I'd prefer to give the 315 a proper purpose than it already does. It removes the 315's 'out of the way' terminus and using the 322 idea, provides an opportunity for Lower Sydenham to have new links to places in the west such as West Norwood, Brixton & Clapham Common. That said, the 450 could still do your routing but instead just run via the 3 to Park Hall Road, then meet Rosendale Road there. And just thinking now, the 315 could take over the Fountain Drive section from the 450 I've designed a little map to show this ;D maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=212123501666803857824.0004d3c1c7baeb2313c9f&msa=0&ll=51.435283,-0.092869&spn=0.031034,0.055189
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 1:02:19 GMT
Well at the moment the 312 has no real purpose at all as it just duplicates the 197.
If and when it returns to its original route via Addiscome it should be merged with the 412.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 1:15:35 GMT
Well at the moment the 312 has no real purpose at all as it just duplicates the 197. If and when it returns to its original route via Addiscome it should be merged with the 412. Literally the only purpose it seems to be serving is a quicker link from South Croydon Bus Garage to East Croydon, which was apparently the original protest against merging the 312 and 412. Why that couldn't have been covered with a frequency increase on the 466 is another matter. I'm assuming the only reason the 312 got routed away from Addiscombe was because the tram already covered that link. The Norwood Junction to Addiscombe link also already exists in the form of the 130, though if that ever gets sent via the proposed routing via Spring Lane (as part of keeping the PVR the same while extending it to Thornton Heath - if that ever goes ahead) that link will be lost and the 312 could potentially cover it. As it happens I doubt the 312 would get much use along that section at the moment, as the tram is quicker. At least merging with the 412 does give the 312 some form of raison d'ĂȘtre - the Norwood Junction terminus would act as more of a place to stand buses outside of Croydon rather than providing any particular new link. There's already a struggle for stand space in Croydon and as I understand it the 412 vacating West Croydon bus station allows the X26 to stand there, which I think was part of the reason for the merger proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Jan 21, 2013 4:27:17 GMT
The 312 is diverted away from addiscombe because of the weak bridge in spring lane. I hope that they increase the 197 frequency when the 130/312 are rerouted back otoits original routing as right now the 312 can get busy espeically if it reaches the stops before the 197. Many times I seen a busy 312 and an empty 197 and vice versa especially in the croydon area. I still think the 312 should be merged with the 412 as it would create more links. Still trying to figure why the DDs on the 412 as I never see it busy I agree that the 355 and 407 should be double deck. There been many times when my 407 has been full to the brim. I haven't done the 407 much since I come back though. As for the 355, I remember when the route was first altered to serve clapham park and acre lane it wasn't really busy until about 2 weeks later. I was surprised at how busy my bus used to get. The 355 has alwayss been busy between mitcham and tooting and also from there to balham. Regarding the 322, there are no height restrictions on the route. There are two dodgy turns in st gothards road and in clapham north (towards clapham common only). All of the enviro 200s at BC have 322 on their blinds
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 6:16:42 GMT
8501-8506 have powerblinds: londonbusesbyadam.zenfolio.com/p309141474/h85fe98e#h85fe98eI 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.. Are we sure the residents on the 235 route are against double deckers? I find it ironic that residents can object to double deckers after previously having them for 18 years! I guess things change and people move etc. Plus it has been 16 years since the 235 was introduced to replace the western end of the 237 and double deckers were lost from Sunbury Village, however I still think that the fact it had double deckers for so many years previously would make a good argument for having them reinstated. I'm sure if TfL and Abellio wanted them they could get them. Maybe it's more to do with cost!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 11:59:40 GMT
The 312 is diverted away from addiscombe because of the weak bridge in spring lane. I hope that they increase the 197 frequency when the 130/312 are rerouted back otoits original routing as right now the 312 can get busy espeically if it reaches the stops before the 197. Many times I seen a busy 312 and an empty 197 and vice versa especially in the croydon area. I still think the 312 should be merged with the 412 as it would create more links. Still trying to figure why the DDs on the 412 as I never see it busy I agree that the 355 and 407 should be double deck. There been many times when my 407 has been full to the brim. I haven't done the 407 much since I come back though. As for the 355, I remember when the route was first altered to serve clapham park and acre lane it wasn't really busy until about 2 weeks later. I was surprised at how busy my bus used to get. The 355 has alwayss been busy between mitcham and tooting and also from there to balham. Regarding the 322, there are no height restrictions on the route. There are two dodgy turns in st gothards road and in clapham north (towards clapham common only). All of the enviro 200s at BC have 322 on their blinds Ah, that would explain why the 130 hasn't gone ahead yet - as that was meant to be using no extra buses by being re-routed via Spring Lane. Maybe if the 130 gets diverted away from Addiscombe, the 312 can go down there. A merger wouldn't stop such a diversion through Addiscombe, after all. As for the 412 I suppose it must only be used by people in Riddlesdown and Sanderstead. There's various options if people are that fed up about losing the South Croydon Garage to East Croydon link. Either extension of the 197 or frequency increase on the 466 would both suffice. A short link like that doesn't really need two buses covering it.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jan 21, 2013 12:11:23 GMT
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.. Are we sure the residents on the 235 route are against double deckers? I find it ironic that residents can object to double deckers after previously having them for 18 years! I guess things change and people move etc. Plus it has been 16 years since the 235 was introduced to replace the western end of the 237 and double deckers were lost from Sunbury Village, however I still think that the fact it had double deckers for so many years previously would make a good argument for having them reinstated. I'm sure if TfL and Abellio wanted them they could get them. Maybe it's more to do with cost! I think it is indirectly from the 216. But anyway, cost does seem a big factor in my opinion. The 117 has been overcrowded for years but remains every 20 minutes. The 235 also overcrowded. The 216 is said to be overcrowded (not sure) but remained every 20 minutes. The 285 even had a double deck option in 2007/2008 that wasn't taken. Looking at that I'd consider the 203 to be very lucky in managing to get bigger buses in 2011.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 12:52:41 GMT
The 312 is diverted away from addiscombe because of the weak bridge in spring lane. I hope that they increase the 197 frequency when the 130/312 are rerouted back otoits original routing as right now the 312 can get busy espeically if it reaches the stops before the 197. Many times I seen a busy 312 and an empty 197 and vice versa especially in the croydon area. I still think the 312 should be merged with the 412 as it would create more links. Still trying to figure why the DDs on the 412 as I never see it busy I agree that the 355 and 407 should be double deck. There been many times when my 407 has been full to the brim. I haven't done the 407 much since I come back though. As for the 355, I remember when the route was first altered to serve clapham park and acre lane it wasn't really busy until about 2 weeks later. I was surprised at how busy my bus used to get. The 355 has alwayss been busy between mitcham and tooting and also from there to balham. Regarding the 322, there are no height restrictions on the route. There are two dodgy turns in st gothards road and in clapham north (towards clapham common only). All of the enviro 200s at BC have 322 on their blinds Ah, that would explain why the 130 hasn't gone ahead yet - as that was meant to be using no extra buses by being re-routed via Spring Lane. Maybe if the 130 gets diverted away from Addiscombe, the 312 can go down there. A merger wouldn't stop such a diversion through Addiscombe, after all. As for the 412 I suppose it must only be used by people in Riddlesdown and Sanderstead. There's various options if people are that fed up about losing the South Croydon Garage to East Croydon link. Either extension of the 197 or frequency increase on the 466 would both suffice. A short link like that doesn't really need two buses covering it. The 130 and 312 are diverted until the weight restriction in Spring Lane is removed. The 312 may just was well be 'suspended' until then as all its doing at the moment is duplicating the 197, the 197 could be extended to South Croydon Garage (it runs there out of service anyway for driver changeovers) and given a slight frequency increase, the Peckham-Forest Hill section is quite busy as well. When the bridge reopens extend the 412 to Norwood Junction and the 130 extension to Thornton Heath can hopefully go ahead at long last.
|
|