|
Post by vjaska on Apr 17, 2023 20:53:42 GMT
Whilst the height on the bridge is higher than a double decker, it’s not your average bridge as the middle section is a narrow archway that forces high vehicles into the middle of the road which might be why the C10 doesn’t have double deckers. The N22, AFAIK, is the only double decker route to run under a bridge similar to this where high vehicles are forced into the middle of the road and that bridge is much shorter in length compared to the Abbey Street one (traffic is also quiet at night so that helps)
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 17, 2023 20:57:41 GMT
If you look on streetview you can see the height, 15ft. However it's an arched bridge so that might prevent DD's on the route. Otherwise what else is preventing the C10 from being DD? That's nonsense, the 15ft clearance is the lowest point of the arch.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Apr 17, 2023 21:11:23 GMT
However it's an arched bridge so that might prevent DD's on the route. Otherwise what else is preventing the C10 from being DD? That's nonsense, the 15ft clearance is the lowest point of the arch. I doubt it, on Google Street view the clearance sign is at the middle of the bridge. Although not present here, on other arched bridges, there are usually 2 different height limit signs, one for the middle of the bridge (highest point) and one for the sides of the road (lowest point). If the 15ft clearance is the lowest point of the arch, then the highest point would be at least 5m (16.5ft). I've never seen a low bridge warning sign for bridges above 5m so would they really put this sign up if the middle of the bridge is 5m or above ground level?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 17, 2023 21:14:56 GMT
That's nonsense, the 15ft clearance is the lowest point of the arch. I doubt it, on Google Street view the clearance sign is at the middle of the bridge. Although not present here, on other arched bridges, there are usually 2 different height limit signs, one for the middle of the bridge (highest point) and one for the sides of the road (lowest point). If the 15ft clearance is the lowest point of the arch, then the highest point would be at least 5m (16.5ft). I've never seen a low bridge warning sign for bridges above 5m so would they really put this sign up if the middle of the bridge is 5m or above ground level? You said it yourself, there aren't two different height signs because the 15ft applies to the full width of the road. Do you have a driving licence?
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Apr 17, 2023 21:21:26 GMT
I doubt it, on Google Street view the clearance sign is at the middle of the bridge. Although not present here, on other arched bridges, there are usually 2 different height limit signs, one for the middle of the bridge (highest point) and one for the sides of the road (lowest point). If the 15ft clearance is the lowest point of the arch, then the highest point would be at least 5m (16.5ft). I've never seen a low bridge warning sign for bridges above 5m so would they really put this sign up if the middle of the bridge is 5m or above ground level? You said it yourself, there aren't two different height signs because the 15ft applies to the full width of the road. Do you have a driving licence? What does having a driving license got to do with this? I have never driven down there but I have walked on that street, and regardless, from the picture on Google Street View, the height restriction is pointing to the middle of the bridge, therefore vehicles 15ft high can't necessarily pass under the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 17, 2023 21:25:08 GMT
You said it yourself, there aren't two different height signs because the 15ft applies to the full width of the road. Do you have a driving licence? What does having a driving license got to do with this? I have never driven down there but I have walked on that street, and regardless, from the picture on Google Street View, the height restriction is pointing to the middle of the bridge, therefore vehicles 15ft high can't necessarily pass under the bridge. Well obviously if you have a driving license you should understand the signage. Double deckers go under that bridge in exactly the same way that single deckers do. Height restrictions are normally in the middle of the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Apr 17, 2023 21:30:08 GMT
What does having a driving license got to do with this? I have never driven down there but I have walked on that street, and regardless, from the picture on Google Street View, the height restriction is pointing to the middle of the bridge, therefore vehicles 15ft high can't necessarily pass under the bridge. Well obviously if you have a driving license you should understand the signage. Double deckers go under that bridge in exactly the same way that single deckers do. Height restrictions are normally in the middle of the bridge. They are but in the case of arched bridges, greater restrictions are on either side. If the bridge can take deckers, is there any reason why the C10 isn't DD? Only other place that might possibly be problematic is Rotherhithe Road, though I've never heard of any problems there
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 17, 2023 21:32:43 GMT
Well obviously if you have a driving license you should understand the signage. Double deckers go under that bridge in exactly the same way that single deckers do. Height restrictions are normally in the middle of the bridge. They are but in the case of arched bridges, greater restrictions are on either side. If the bridge can take deckers, is there any reason why the C10 isn't DD? Only other place that might possibly be problematic is Rotherhithe Road, though I've never heard of any problems there I have heard something about residential issues in Rotherhithe.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 17, 2023 23:00:14 GMT
Well obviously if you have a driving license you should understand the signage. Double deckers go under that bridge in exactly the same way that single deckers do. Height restrictions are normally in the middle of the bridge. They are but in the case of arched bridges, greater restrictions are on either side. If the bridge can take deckers, is there any reason why the C10 isn't DD? Only other place that might possibly be problematic is Rotherhithe Road, though I've never heard of any problems there A decker can pass underneath providing it uses the middle of the road which, whilst ok for something running light, it's hardly ideal for a daily, frequent service like the C10
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 18, 2023 7:01:27 GMT
Arched bridges have an additional marker if the maximum height indicated does not cover the full width of the carriageway. The marker indicates the width of the carriageway where the maximum headroom indicated is available. I assume the Abbey Road bridge has such markers. trafficsigns.co.uk/available-width-head-room/
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 18, 2023 7:20:03 GMT
Arched bridges have an additional marker if the maximum height indicated does not cover the full width of the carriageway. The marker indicates the width of the carriageway where the maximum headroom indicated is available. I assume the Abbey Road bridge has such markers. trafficsigns.co.uk/available-width-head-room/ No such markers on the Abbey Street bridge.
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Apr 24, 2023 11:17:06 GMT
The 24's diversion routeing (LOR, Grovesnor Place, HPC, Piccadilly, Shaftesbury Av., LOR) due to protests at Parliament Square seems to me to be a better permanent route. It offers TCR/Warren Street a direct link to Piccadilly which has been absent ever since the 14 was cut back to Russell Square. It also is likely marginally faster on average.
Problem: the 24 is very busy on its current routing. Of note, a lot of tourists use it to come down from as far as Camden down through TCR Station, Leicester Square through to Trafalgar Square, Whitehall, Parliament Square and to Victoria. It's a very useful routing but not very fast. Diverting by Piccadilly risks losing some of these passengers.
What mitigations/other route changes would y'all make if the 24 were to divert via HPC and Piccadilly?
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Apr 24, 2023 12:39:45 GMT
The 24's diversion routeing (LOR, Grovesnor Place, HPC, Piccadilly, Shaftesbury Av., LOR) due to protests at Parliament Square seems to me to be a better permanent route. It offers TCR/Warren Street a direct link to Piccadilly which has been absent ever since the 14 was cut back to Russell Square. It also is likely marginally faster on average. Problem: the 24 is very busy on its current routing. Of note, a lot of tourists use it to come down from as far as Camden down through TCR Station, Leicester Square through to Trafalgar Square, Whitehall, Parliament Square and to Victoria. It's a very useful routing but not very fast. Diverting by Piccadilly risks losing some of these passengers. What mitigations/other route changes would y'all make if the 24 were to divert via HPC and Piccadilly? Controversial opinion here but perhaps the 29 could be extended to Victoria? I'd imagine most people from Pimlico use the 24 as far as Victoria but don't go much further however I could be wrong. Or a possible new route along the 29's route: 29 retained as it is 429 Finsbury Park to Battersea Park or Clapham Junction, via route 29 to TSQ, 24 to Pimlico, Grovesnor Road, Chelsea Bridge, Battersea Park station, 344 to Clapham Junction.
Could possibly be rerouted at Battersea Park to Battersea Power Station to have a more central London route serve the development (and serves some areas where the Northern line doesn't go)
|
|
|
Post by busboy17 on Apr 27, 2023 10:13:02 GMT
Routes 316 and 16 swapped
316 converted to double decker with pvr reduction or kept single decker with pvr increase. Routes 16 and 228 swap routes between Ladbroke Grove sainsburys and Shepherd's Bush. Route 16 extended to White City and made 24 Hours.
16 Brent Cross to White City 316 Paddington to Brent Cross West
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 27, 2023 13:01:47 GMT
The 24's diversion routeing (LOR, Grovesnor Place, HPC, Piccadilly, Shaftesbury Av., LOR) due to protests at Parliament Square seems to me to be a better permanent route. It offers TCR/Warren Street a direct link to Piccadilly which has been absent ever since the 14 was cut back to Russell Square. It also is likely marginally faster on average. Problem: the 24 is very busy on its current routing. Of note, a lot of tourists use it to come down from as far as Camden down through TCR Station, Leicester Square through to Trafalgar Square, Whitehall, Parliament Square and to Victoria. It's a very useful routing but not very fast. Diverting by Piccadilly risks losing some of these passengers. What mitigations/other route changes would y'all make if the 24 were to divert via HPC and Piccadilly? Yessssss 100% I support!! we are definitely local haha I would just remember that the 88 also serves TSQ, Whitehall and nearby Pimlico at Tate Britian and Vauxhall, so to be honest I don't know how important it would be to have a route replace it between TSQ and Pimlico. Leicester Square is just a 3 minute walk to TSQ where the 26 is available to Victoria which will follow the current 24 via Victoria Street anyway so can easily switch with the Hopper Fare. As for Victoria to Pimlico, perhaps the 52 extended? Another idea was to swap the 24/38 routings, so the 38 goes down Whitehall and Victoria Street instead but would this be viable? The 19 follows all the way down to Islington so in my head, wouldnt be the worst of ideas. And as someone has said, 29 extended to Victoria via Whitehall amd Victoria Street as option 3
|
|