Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 22:52:51 GMT
The 65 cannot take NB4L's Why can't the 65 take NB4L's? Tight Turns at Petersham, Overhanging rear at Ham Common, Unability to turn around at Ham when nessacary, thin road from Richmond-Petersham (dont know if that affects it too severly, but it can be a struggle with SP's sometimes, same with the turn at Petersham Fox and Duck)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 23:06:45 GMT
This is a bit of fun only so no descending into "I love the NB4L / I hate the NB4L" arguments please. To date the NB4L has been concentrated on radial service that serve Zone 1. Here is your chance to please the Outer London politicians who want NB4Ls in their areas. Nominate a suburban service where you think the NB4L could sensibly run - one that needs double deckers, which has high boarding rates and where a hybrid design would improve the environment. It doesn't necessarily have to run in crew mode, full OPO routes would do fine. Suggest away. I got a very long list but i will list a few... 86, 25, 207, 55, 123, 321, 20, EL1, EL2, 81, 370, 33, 5....etc Majority of them will be re-designed without the rear door and rear staircase, but it will only have 2 doors like a conventional bus. Some might be mixed with normal NBFL or conventional hybrids. The fleet number would be the continuation of normal fleet of NBFL's but will be LTC standing for London Transport Conventional. They will not be numbered separately like with the AEC Routemasters.
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Dec 27, 2013 23:35:08 GMT
This is a bit of fun only so no descending into "I love the NB4L / I hate the NB4L" arguments please. To date the NB4L has been concentrated on radial service that serve Zone 1. Here is your chance to please the Outer London politicians who want NB4Ls in their areas. Nominate a suburban service where you think the NB4L could sensibly run - one that needs double deckers, which has high boarding rates and where a hybrid design would improve the environment. It doesn't necessarily have to run in crew mode, full OPO routes would do fine. Suggest away. Well I suggested the 498 to LD See comments here leondaniels.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/route-11-conversion-starts.html#comment-form
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Dec 27, 2013 23:39:48 GMT
This is a bit of fun only so no descending into "I love the NB4L / I hate the NB4L" arguments please. To date the NB4L has been concentrated on radial service that serve Zone 1. Here is your chance to please the Outer London politicians who want NB4Ls in their areas. Nominate a suburban service where you think the NB4L could sensibly run - one that needs double deckers, which has high boarding rates and where a hybrid design would improve the environment. It doesn't necessarily have to run in crew mode, full OPO routes would do fine. Suggest away. I got a very long list but i will list a few... 86, 25, 207, 55, 123, 321, 20, EL1, EL2, 81, 370, 33, 5....etc Majority of them will be re-designed without the rear door and rear staircase, but it will only have 2 doors like a conventional bus. Some might be mixed with normal NBFL or conventional hybrids. The fleet number would be the continuation of normal fleet of NBFL's but will be LTC standing for London Transport Conventional. They will not be numbered separately like with the AEC Routemasters. Route 33 can't take double deckers due to the weak Hammersmith Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Dec 27, 2013 23:43:01 GMT
I'd nominate the 207/427/607 group of routes. They could come in handy with passengers wanting to alight when the traffic snarles up in places such as Southall. I wouldn't mind seeing a NBfL bombing along the outside lane overtaking cars and buses whilst on the 607!
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Dec 27, 2013 23:44:51 GMT
This is a bit of fun only so no descending into "I love the NB4L / I hate the NB4L" arguments please. To date the NB4L has been concentrated on radial service that serve Zone 1. Here is your chance to please the Outer London politicians who want NB4Ls in their areas. Nominate a suburban service where you think the NB4L could sensibly run - one that needs double deckers, which has high boarding rates and where a hybrid design would improve the environment. It doesn't necessarily have to run in crew mode, full OPO routes would do fine. Suggest away. Well I suggested the 498 to LD See comments here leondaniels.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/route-11-conversion-starts.html#comment-formWould the 498 be able to go up that hill along London Road and turn around Brentwood Sainsbury's?
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Dec 27, 2013 23:46:41 GMT
Would the 498 be able to go up that hill along London Road and turn around Brentwood Sainsbury's? Come to Brentwood and find out, I wouldn't suggest something stupid as 33 for example...
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Dec 27, 2013 23:47:13 GMT
This is a bit of fun only so no descending into "I love the NB4L / I hate the NB4L" arguments please. To date the NB4L has been concentrated on radial service that serve Zone 1. Here is your chance to please the Outer London politicians who want NB4Ls in their areas. Nominate a suburban service where you think the NB4L could sensibly run - one that needs double deckers, which has high boarding rates and where a hybrid design would improve the environment. It doesn't necessarily have to run in crew mode, full OPO routes would do fine. Suggest away. Well I suggested the 498 to LD See comments here leondaniels.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/route-11-conversion-starts.html#comment-formYou can keep your knackered WVL's sir they can be good when the engineers look at them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 23:47:22 GMT
I got a very long list but i will list a few... 86, 25, 207, 55, 123, 321, 20, EL1, EL2, 81, 370, 33, 5....etc Majority of them will be re-designed without the rear door and rear staircase, but it will only have 2 doors like a conventional bus. Some might be mixed with normal NBFL or conventional hybrids. The fleet number would be the continuation of normal fleet of NBFL's but will be LTC standing for London Transport Conventional. They will not be numbered separately like with the AEC Routemasters. Route 33 can't take double deckers due to the weak Hammersmith Bridge. I was guessing them randomly. But majority of routes would take a 11.3 meter long double decker bus. But the surface of the road should be improved in order to handle at least 12m buses. But I would take the NBFL's along onto the school routes because it would improve lot on boarding by having kids entering by the middle and rear doors. And with rail replacements I don't know, its usually diesel conventional buses that does it.
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Dec 27, 2013 23:50:44 GMT
Route 33 can't take double deckers due to the weak Hammersmith Bridge. I was guessing them randomly. But majority of routes would take a 11.3 meter long double decker bus. But the surface of the road should be improved in order to handle at least 12m buses. But I would take the NBFL's along onto the school routes because it would improve lot on boarding by having kids entering by the middle and rear doors. And with rail replacements I don't know, its usually diesel conventional buses that does it. School routes would be an area i'd leave as is because the driver needs a bit of control on boarding as well school kids can and often are stupid at home time. re the road surfaces its more to do with the area around the roads as London wasn't built with big buses in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Dec 27, 2013 23:52:01 GMT
Route 33 can't take double deckers due to the weak Hammersmith Bridge. I was guessing them randomly. But majority of routes would take a 11.3 meter long double decker bus. But the surface of the road should be improved in order to handle at least 12m buses. But I would take the NBFL's along onto the school routes because it would improve lot on boarding by having kids entering by the middle and rear doors. And with rail replacements I don't know, its usually diesel conventional buses that does it. Why would you put a £354,000 bus on a school route!? Unless you want it to get wrecked in a day
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Dec 27, 2013 23:53:54 GMT
This is a bit of fun only so no descending into "I love the NB4L / I hate the NB4L" arguments please. To date the NB4L has been concentrated on radial service that serve Zone 1. Here is your chance to please the Outer London politicians who want NB4Ls in their areas. Nominate a suburban service where you think the NB4L could sensibly run - one that needs double deckers, which has high boarding rates and where a hybrid design would improve the environment. It doesn't necessarily have to run in crew mode, full OPO routes would do fine. Suggest away. I got a very long list but i will list a few... 86, 25, 207, 55, 123, 321, 20, EL1, EL2, 81, 370, 33, 5....etc Majority of them will be re-designed without the rear door and rear staircase, but it will only have 2 doors like a conventional bus. Some might be mixed with normal NBFL or conventional hybrids. The fleet number would be the continuation of normal fleet of NBFL's but will be LTC standing for London Transport Conventional. They will not be numbered separately like with the AEC Routemasters. Let me get my head round this, You can only have 3 door buses because whats the point of this waste of money bus if it just has 2 doors You say the 33 which can't even take deckers The 25/86 well no, it will become a free bus and will always be too pack The 207 works fine at the moment, I can't see NB4L improving the service The 123, I doubt H&S will be happy with it going down the A406 with a rear platform and lot's of people standing in the peak The 20, I doubt it would even make it up the hill The EL1/2, Yes a good choice The 81 again I can't see it happening, a bit to far out of London and it's not really a route you would need/want hop on/off buses The 370, No, just no, If you see how busy this route can be, Imagine how dangerous it would be going down country lanes with an open platform, Can't see it working at all, Plus loads of people would jump on for free at Lakeside The 5,I suppose it's an ok choice, could see quite a high rate of fare evasion When you suggest route, be realistic and give reasons why
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Dec 27, 2013 23:54:33 GMT
Would the 498 be able to go up that hill along London Road and turn around Brentwood Sainsbury's? Come to Brentwood and find out, I wouldn't suggest something stupid as 33 for example... I went there a few weeks ago but I doubt NB4Ls could climb that hill on London Road. I'm assuming the ENs run really fast along that hill, well EN25 was fast for me.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 27, 2013 23:59:18 GMT
The 370, No, just no, If you see how busy this route can be, Imagine how dangerous it would be going down country lanes with an open platform, Can't see it working at all, Plus loads of people would jump on for free at Lakeside. I must remember to tell the Newmans at Ensignbus not to run all those RMs and RTs to Brentwood and Shenfield on their running days!
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Dec 27, 2013 23:59:29 GMT
You can keep your knackered WVL's sir they can be good when the engineers look at them. They were terrible from the day they were built, Despite me being a big Volvo Fan (No Pun Intended) fitting a 215 D7C to a 3 speed Voith was not a good choice especially when Go-Ahead seem to restricted them!!! Think it was WVL75 that is apparently banned from the 498 because it's so slow on take off it's dangerous at Gallows Corner (Still appears from time to time) There would be no point fixing buses 13 years old when they are not going to last that much longer in London, I can't wait for them to leave, I think I may even have a party celebrating them going
|
|