|
|
Post by M1104 on Mar 15, 2013 10:10:51 GMT
I reckon the 40 would be more useful if re-routed between Camberwell Green and Elephant to serve Peckham Road, then via 343 up Southampton Way, Thurlow Street, Rodney Road, etc to Elephant. This would give the heavily residentual old North Peckham Estate extra buses. As it is now the 176 covers 2/3 of the 40. . 'NCT' - Walworth Road would still have a link to London Bridge & the City in the form of the 35. And additionally if they are close enough to Albany Road there is still the option of the 42, bearing in mind that bus may be packed with it being single decker. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Mar 15, 2013 11:01:50 GMT
And additionally if they are close enough to Albany Road there is still the option of the 42, bearing in mind that bus may be packed with it being single decker. The 42 should really be converted to double-deck; I hope the opportunity will be taken in 2014/16. With the NB4Ls flooding into London over the next few years i'm hoping that they'd be adequate deckers able to be freed up to at least make the firm considure the possibility, same with the 163 and/or 164. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 12:15:20 GMT
With the NB4Ls flooding into London over the next few years i'm hoping that they'd be adequate deckers able to be freed up to at least make the firm considure the possibility, same with the 163 and/or 164. Indeed, there's a few within Go-Ahead that would benefit greatly - the 42, 163/164, 355, D6. The redundant SEs from the D6 could then serve a new contract on the 108/201. I've managed to build up quite a list of routes that could do with double-decking, some of them already tested (by odd-workings), some of them not. Personally I'd make all routes double deck except routes that are restricted to small Darts or by low bridges or trees. The only exception would be the 507 and 521 which are designed for high volumes of short hop passengers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 12:22:24 GMT
Overlapping sections went out years ago and probably just as well, they just cause confusion. Be simpler just to extend the existing 349 to Shoreditch, it would do the same job but I think the 349 would be better extended to Hackney but then the Stamford Hill to Hackney section is overbussed with the 253 and 254 as well. Return the 149 to Ponders End, withdraw the 349 and reroute the 254 to Edmonton Green perhaps? I never really noticed confusion with overlapping sections, personally, then again the 349 to Shoreditch would do the same job. The 254 came to remove the overlapping sections on the 253, I believe - both are well-used routes and I wouldn't see the value in rerouting the 254, especially as the link to Holloway is a valuable link from East London where routes to North London are sparse. Sods law somebody would be waiting for a 149 to London Bridge at Ponders End or vice versa. I question whether the 253 and 254 both need to go straight ahead at Stamford Hill, wouldn't it be better if one turned right to Edmonton Green? |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Mar 15, 2013 12:41:58 GMT
Indeed, there's a few within Go-Ahead that would benefit greatly - the 42, 163/164, 355, D6. The redundant SEs from the D6 could then serve a new contract on the 108/201. I've managed to build up quite a list of routes that could do with double-decking, some of them already tested (by odd-workings), some of them not. Personally I'd make all routes double deck except routes that are restricted to small Darts or by low bridges or trees. The only exception would be the 507 and 521 which are designed for high volumes of short hop passengers. The 521 couldn't be double decker anyway as it runs under the height restricted Aldwych underpass.  |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Mar 15, 2013 18:03:18 GMT
Its been looked at and failed a route test around Red Post Hill. Yes I know that deckers have been used before but there you go these are the facts. And additionally if they are close enough to Albany Road there is still the option of the 42, bearing in mind that bus may be packed with it being single decker. The 42 should really be converted to double-deck; I hope the opportunity will be taken in 2014/16. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 15, 2013 18:20:54 GMT
Its been looked at and failed a route test around Red Post Hill. Yes I know that deckers have been used before but there you go these are the facts. The 42 should really be converted to double-deck; I hope the opportunity will be taken in 2014/16. Weird that a route that deckers appear on from time to time fails a test regarding deckers. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Mar 15, 2013 18:49:47 GMT
I guess they shouldn't have been on there Its been looked at and failed a route test around Red Post Hill. Yes I know that deckers have been used before but there you go these are the facts. Weird that a route that deckers appear on from time to time fails a test regarding deckers. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 15, 2013 19:19:13 GMT
I guess they shouldn't have been on there Weird that a route that deckers appear on from time to time fails a test regarding deckers. Whose been a naughty allocater then ;D |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Mar 15, 2013 20:08:38 GMT
I think it was trees. I will look out some further details. I am sure if works need to be done they will be - not a show stopper. Its been looked at and failed a route test around Red Post Hill. Yes I know that deckers have been used before but there you go these are the facts. How odd! It seems the deckers on there before weren't strictly meant to be there then. I wonder what the issue was - low trees? There's rather a lot of trees round there  A shame it failed a route test at the last hurdle - it only serves Red Post Hill northbound, which is quite a shame - but that's the way things are! Equally a shame that it wipes out the chance of the P4 getting deckers - but then whether the turn at the bottom of Honor Oak Park would be possible anyway is another question. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Mar 15, 2013 20:11:48 GMT
It goes back to when East Thames ran the 42's. For whatever reasons its come to light and highlighted an issue. I guess they shouldn't have been on there Whose been a naughty allocater then ;D |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 15, 2013 20:15:09 GMT
Its been looked at and failed a route test around Red Post Hill. Yes I know that deckers have been used before but there you go these are the facts. How odd! It seems the deckers on there before weren't strictly meant to be there then. I wonder what the issue was - low trees? There's rather a lot of trees round there A shame it failed a route test at the last hurdle - it only serves Red Post Hill northbound, which is quite a shame - but that's the way things are! Equally a shame that it wipes out the chance of the P4 getting deckers - but then whether the turn at the bottom of Honor Oak Park would be possible anyway is another question. I reckon it was more Sunray Avenue than Red Post Hill as its literally covered in trees and Red Post Hill has been used by the 37 as a diversion route on a number of occasions in the past |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Mar 15, 2013 20:22:41 GMT
It may have been - I can't remember. How odd! It seems the deckers on there before weren't strictly meant to be there then. I wonder what the issue was - low trees? There's rather a lot of trees round there A shame it failed a route test at the last hurdle - it only serves Red Post Hill northbound, which is quite a shame - but that's the way things are! Equally a shame that it wipes out the chance of the P4 getting deckers - but then whether the turn at the bottom of Honor Oak Park would be possible anyway is another question. I reckon it was more Sunray Avenue than Red Post Hill as its literally covered in trees and Red Post Hill has been used by the 37 as a diversion route on a number of occasions in the past |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 15, 2013 20:51:16 GMT
It may have been - I can't remember. I reckon it was more Sunray Avenue than Red Post Hill as its literally covered in trees and Red Post Hill has been used by the 37 as a diversion route on a number of occasions in the past That's okay, thanks for the info btw |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 16, 2013 22:30:35 GMT
Its been looked at and failed a route test around Red Post Hill. Yes I know that deckers have been used before but there you go these are the facts. Weird that a route that deckers appear on from time to time fails a test regarding deckers. Is there stand space at Herne Hill ? I think It would make sense to extend the 42 to Herne Hill and convert it to Double decker. |
|
