|
Post by VPL630 on Dec 28, 2013 0:01:38 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! I hope UNLAWFUL is mention as well but seriously that is once a year, I personally think accidents could happen
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Dec 28, 2013 0:04:08 GMT
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. I think they would make it up the hill, they would be fine at brentwood, Yes the EN's are great compared to the WVL
|
|
|
Post by romfordbuses on Dec 28, 2013 0:08:28 GMT
Imagine how dangerous it would be going down country lanes with an open platform, Dangerous? No. Fun? YOU BET!! On a serious note, There's nothing wrong with having open platform buses going through the countryside. Great fun doing it other the Dartford Crossing mind!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 28, 2013 0:58:25 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 Sorry but having rode the 52 reg WVL's from day one when they entered service on the 133, they were certainly not terrible from the day they were built and in fact, they were fine throughout their time at SW & MW. They wern't too bad at AL either and the ones that have since gone back to SW and transferred to A & PM have been ok - BE's maintenance isn't great especially when I boarded PVN10 and heard it making a strange low growling sort of noise that I've never heard any B7TL ever make.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 28, 2013 0:59:51 GMT
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. I think they would make it up the hill, they would be fine at brentwood, Yes the EN's are great compared to the WVL Well if they struggle up the tiny incline at Brooklands, I don't think they've any hope of making it to Brentwood lol.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 28, 2013 9:10:28 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. The 33? You are joking right...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 9:13:34 GMT
279 and W7
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Dec 28, 2013 9:17:05 GMT
Am going to stick to the area that I know, and define 'suburbs' as 'not zone 1'. So... 321 (though current terminal arrangements at Foots Cray wouldn't be conducive to NBfL). Why not? I'm sure space could be made to swing one around down there. Tesco's artics have been seen to swing in that gap so I'm sure a Borisbus could do it. Some of you aren't thinking rural enough. 492 anybody!? That said, the wee bridge in Foots Cray wouldn't take it. Sticking to my corner of London it'd have to be something that was particularly busy running through Bexleyheath. 96 a candidate that has been mentioned. Anything that runs through North Greenwich might be a good idea!
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 28, 2013 10:49:17 GMT
Am going to stick to the area that I know, and define 'suburbs' as 'not zone 1'. So... 321 (though current terminal arrangements at Foots Cray wouldn't be conducive to NBfL). Why not? I'm sure space could be made to swing one around down there. Tesco's artics have been seen to swing in that gap so I'm sure a Borisbus could do it. Some of you aren't thinking rural enough. 492 anybody!? That said, the wee bridge in Foots Cray wouldn't take it. Sticking to my corner of London it'd have to be something that was particularly busy running through Bexleyheath. 96 a candidate that has been mentioned. Anything that runs through North Greenwich might be a good idea! True enough, re. 321. I just remember being on an R11 that had to reverse to get round the turning circle, though maybe that's down to the skills of the driver North Greenwich : yes! Would nominate the 472 as a prime candidate.
|
|
|
Post by guybowden on Dec 28, 2013 14:36:22 GMT
If there is no lorry delivering to tescos you can easily swing a bus around in that turning circle. I've only had to reverse when a lorry has been parked there.
With regards to the NBfL going up hills, maybe when Cobham have their spring gathering they could try and send one up the hill test hill. I give it between 20 and 30 meters before it stops and rolls backwards.
With regards to routes I would suggest the 96, 136 and 208.
|
|
|
Post by moz on Dec 28, 2013 20:28:40 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. The 109 - it currently uses DD's, it has a high boarding rate as I mentioned when the report came out and would improve the environment along the A23 corridor which is quite often choc-a-bloc with traffic Sort of yes, sort of no. There is the whole overloading issue to contend with on the 109s and a three door bus will simply be rammed full with standees up and down. Best thing that could be done to the 109 is to convert to Bendy which, strangely enough, Arriva suddenly have a lot to get rid of from Malta! Moz
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 28, 2013 22:15:09 GMT
The 109 - it currently uses DD's, it has a high boarding rate as I mentioned when the report came out and would improve the environment along the A23 corridor which is quite often choc-a-bloc with traffic Sort of yes, sort of no. There is the whole overloading issue to contend with on the 109s and a three door bus will simply be rammed full with standees up and down. Best thing that could be done to the 109 is to convert to Bendy which, strangely enough, Arriva suddenly have a lot to get rid of from Malta! Moz I only suggested yet it to go along with the 'fun' element of this topic lool. I can't stand the bus itself so I'd never like it to happen - then again, I wouldn't advocate Artic operation on the route either. IMO, the best way to solve the 109's overcrowding issue is to extend the 64 to the Streatham Hub and move the P13 out to stand on Streatham High Road. It could turn around using the gap in the Central reservation opposite Natal Road. The 64 has lots of excess running time beyond East Croydon and has a pretty good frequency for a route that runs in the outer parts of the network.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Dec 28, 2013 23:52:03 GMT
Route 75, although unsure if Woolstone Road is wide enough for NB4L's?
Also the 89, 208 and 261. I was also going to suggest the 122, however Dartmouth Road in Forest Hill may be too narrow.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 29, 2013 0:53:23 GMT
Going into silly territory, the 402 - be a laugh to see it go down the narrow Shoreham Lane lol.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 29, 2013 22:23:14 GMT
I guess I should give my own suggestions given I started the thread. No great surprises but I'd nominate the 5 and 279 in North / East London and the 237 in West London. The 237 is usually tremendously busy with frequent stops so could be a good candidate.
|
|