|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 26, 2013 14:46:18 GMT
snoggle......WTF? Ive never mentioned poor layouts on deckers. The X26 needs more capacity, frequency increase or deckers. Larger single deckers? Artics are out of the question for a number of reasons. Reduce stops? That was done when the X26 replaced the 726. And whats all this about luggage? It can be taken upstairs Are you seriously saying that someone should have to lug a 15-20kg suitcase up stairs on a bus as you do know that'll slow boarding and create other issues such as where to stick said luggage. Funny as it may seem tfl do know what there doing and the only thing that needs to happen to the route is a frequency increase. Not all passengers taking the X26 bring on Luggage you know. That is way I suggested Double deckers with Luggage racks on the lower deck! The whole of the lower deck on the X26 should be priority for passengers who are carrying luggage so that they can see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2013 14:58:29 GMT
I agree Metrobus and of course most passengers don't have luggage. Not sure how any priority on the lower deck can be enforced though. My main point is that I do not understand objections to deckers on the X26, its a no brainer surely?
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Jan 26, 2013 15:06:30 GMT
So you put say an e400 on it the luggage rack is tiny and pretty much useless then people leave luggage in aisles or wheelxhair area both areas arent suitable.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 26, 2013 15:11:46 GMT
So you put say an e400 on it the luggage rack is tiny and pretty much useless then people leave luggage in aisles or wheelxhair area both areas arent suitable. No ;D I've stated once before that the X26 should have been double decked with 10.9m Double Deckers with that extra capacity to place Luggage Racks at the Front of the bus instead of a lot of seats. The Whole of the Lower deck priority to passengers carrying luggage and those less able to stand.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 26, 2013 15:18:33 GMT
snoggle......WTF? Ive never mentioned poor layouts on deckers. The X26 needs more capacity, frequency increase or deckers. Larger single deckers? Artics are out of the question for a number of reasons. Reduce stops? That was done when the X26 replaced the 726. And whats all this about luggage? It can be taken upstairs Less of the swear words please. I know that you post under other identities on other groups and you have made those remarks elsewhere. I know you'll deny it but your posting style and remarks are very distinctive. It's odd you know but I am really trying to recall seeing people haul luggage upstairs on a London double decker and I just can't recall it. I can recall tripping over cases and bags on the lower deck of double deckers loads of times (on seats, in the aisles, on the luggage rack, in the wheelchair bay). I always use the bus to get to the station if I'm off somewhere far off and have never taken luggage upstairs. I don't even take shopping bags upstairs these days as they're (often) too heavy and it's unsafe on straight staircases with those awful new handrails which slice your fingers off. Your experience clearly differs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2013 15:40:04 GMT
snoggle......WTF? Ive never mentioned poor layouts on deckers. The X26 needs more capacity, frequency increase or deckers. Larger single deckers? Artics are out of the question for a number of reasons. Reduce stops? That was done when the X26 replaced the 726. And whats all this about luggage? It can be taken upstairs Less of the swear words please. I know that you post under other identities on other groups and you have made those remarks elsewhere. I know you'll deny it but your posting style and remarks are very distinctive. It's odd you know but I am really trying to recall seeing people haul luggage upstairs on a London double decker and I just can't recall it. I can recall tripping over cases and bags on the lower deck of double deckers loads of times (on seats, in the aisles, on the luggage rack, in the wheelchair bay). I always use the bus to get to the station if I'm off somewhere far off and have never taken luggage upstairs. I don't even take shopping bags upstairs these days as they're (often) too heavy and it's unsafe on straight staircases with those awful new handrails which slice your fingers off. Your experience clearly differs. Swear words? What the flip? Other ID's?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 26, 2013 15:41:39 GMT
Less of the swear words please. I know that you post under other identities on other groups and you have made those remarks elsewhere. I know you'll deny it but your posting style and remarks are very distinctive. It's odd you know but I am really trying to recall seeing people haul luggage upstairs on a London double decker and I just can't recall it. I can recall tripping over cases and bags on the lower deck of double deckers loads of times (on seats, in the aisles, on the luggage rack, in the wheelchair bay). I always use the bus to get to the station if I'm off somewhere far off and have never taken luggage upstairs. I don't even take shopping bags upstairs these days as they're (often) too heavy and it's unsafe on straight staircases with those awful new handrails which slice your fingers off. Your experience clearly differs. Swear words? What the flip? Other ID's? The Abbreviation you used in commonly known as a Swear Word. I see that you mean. What the flip
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2013 18:22:19 GMT
So you put say an e400 on it the luggage rack is tiny and pretty much useless then people leave luggage in aisles or wheelxhair area both areas arent suitable. If you could add a proper luggage rack (like that of the current MCLs) to the lower deck of a long-wheelbase Enviro400 (in place of the lower doors?) then you could still retain some lower deck seating and have a greater upper deck capacity.
|
|
|
Post by mre81 on Jan 26, 2013 20:53:01 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 264 could be extended to South Croydon Garage- it does the runs out of service anyway, and is a short-ish route in the first place, so an extension is less likely to create reliability problems. The 197 is quite long enough already without tacking on garage runs in service (IMO).
|
|
|
Post by mre81 on Jan 26, 2013 20:55:23 GMT
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 312 does use deckers quite a lot actually. From what I see there are at least 2 or 3 on the route every day. I'm not sure why, as they're definitely not needed for most journies!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 26, 2013 22:01:58 GMT
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 264 could be extended to South Croydon Garage- it does the runs out of service anyway, and is a short-ish route in the first place, so an extension is less likely to create reliability problems. The 197 is quite long enough already without tacking on garage runs in service (IMO). Personally I'd extend the 264 to Wandsworth from Tooting to open up new links but considering that the Flyover to TC is roughly 6 stops, both the 197 & 264 could be extended.
|
|
|
Post by mre81 on Jan 26, 2013 22:07:47 GMT
The 264 could be extended to South Croydon Garage- it does the runs out of service anyway, and is a short-ish route in the first place, so an extension is less likely to create reliability problems. The 197 is quite long enough already without tacking on garage runs in service (IMO). Personally I'd extend the 264 to Wandsworth from Tooting to open up new links but considering that the Flyover to TC is roughly 6 stops, both the 197 & 264 could be extended. I like the idea of making the 264 into a proper trunk TC-WD The 197 is quite long and can be unreliable at times, so I'd be hesitant extending it further. However, as you say it is only 6 stops, so might not be too much of and issue....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 10:38:05 GMT
The 197 goes to/from South Croydon Garage out of service anyway so livening it up is hardly going to be a problem.
Merge the 264 with the 270, Croydon to Putney Bridge
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 27, 2013 14:01:48 GMT
The 197 goes to/from South Croydon Garage out of service anyway so livening it up is hardly going to be a problem. Merge the 264 with the 270, Croydon to Putney Bridge The 264 would become unreliable due to traffic in Putney - it already suffers from traffic in Tooting & along Mitcham Common.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 14:45:35 GMT
What I liked when Metrobus ran the X26 was they put a lot of double deckers on it. The early morning journeys are packed to the brim. IMO it should have got 10.9m Enviro 400s with a single door with luggage racks on the lower deck. DDs will be good for the X26 as the extra capacity will be there when it is required. The X26 can pick up a full load at Heathrow and a half hour wait for anybody that can't get on, it should be top of the list for double deckers. Metrobus put quite a few deckers out particularly on Sundays. Why not make the most of the junk buses meant to arrive later this year, and stick them on the X26...
|
|