|
|
Route 316
Oct 8, 2016 13:35:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by maximus23 on Oct 8, 2016 13:35:17 GMT
It was reported on here previously that it's a complete myth about a local MP preventing double deckers appearing on the 316. But if it's a Myth then what is the real reason why the 316 can't be double decked? When a double decker is put on the 316 it can't go beyond North Kensington. The only time when the 316 is fully converted to double deck is during the Notting Hill Carnival when the route is diverted away from Ladbroke Grove, North Kensington and Latimer Road. This makes me think that there is something in North Kensington that prevents double deckers on the 316. It can't be on Latimer Road because the 295 is double deck and can't be Ladbroke Grove because routes 23, 52, 452 and 295 are all double deck. The 316 could really do with being double decked because it gets busy and predicet it is going to get worse by the westfield expansion is opened. If the 316 can't be double decked then I would like to know why. The 7 is double decked along St. Marks Road also so nothing the issue there. I've seen DD 316's at White City and along Latimer Road before so it really is a mystery to me as to why the 316 isn't DD yet. |
|
|
|
Route 316
Oct 8, 2016 17:07:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by sid on Oct 8, 2016 17:07:21 GMT
It was reported on here previously that it's a complete myth about a local MP preventing double deckers appearing on the 316. But if it's a Myth then what is the real reason why the 316 can't be double decked? When a double decker is put on the 316 it can't go beyond North Kensington. The only time when the 316 is fully converted to double deck is during the Notting Hill Carnival when the route is diverted away from Ladbroke Grove, North Kensington and Latimer Road. This makes me think that there is something in North Kensington that prevents double deckers on the 316. It can't be on Latimer Road because the 295 is double deck and can't be Ladbroke Grove because routes 23, 52, 452 and 295 are all double deck. The 316 could really do with being double decked because it gets busy and predicet it is going to get worse by the westfield expansion is opened. If the 316 can't be double decked then I would like to know why. I don't know but the 316 isn't alone, there are a few busy routes that are restricted to single deckers for no apparent reason. |
|
|
|
Route 316
Oct 8, 2016 17:22:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by maximus23 on Oct 8, 2016 17:22:35 GMT
But if it's a Myth then what is the real reason why the 316 can't be double decked? When a double decker is put on the 316 it can't go beyond North Kensington. The only time when the 316 is fully converted to double deck is during the Notting Hill Carnival when the route is diverted away from Ladbroke Grove, North Kensington and Latimer Road. This makes me think that there is something in North Kensington that prevents double deckers on the 316. It can't be on Latimer Road because the 295 is double deck and can't be Ladbroke Grove because routes 23, 52, 452 and 295 are all double deck. The 316 could really do with being double decked because it gets busy and predicet it is going to get worse by the westfield expansion is opened. If the 316 can't be double decked then I would like to know why. I don't know but the 316 isn't alone, there are a few busy routes that are restricted to single deckers for no apparent reason. Could you give some examples? I'm just interested to know as the 316 is my local route and I'm sure it can't be the only one in need of DD's. I've always thought the 214 should have DD's. |
|
|
|
Route 316
Oct 8, 2016 18:46:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by sid on Oct 8, 2016 18:46:43 GMT
I don't know but the 316 isn't alone, there are a few busy routes that are restricted to single deckers for no apparent reason. Could you give some examples? I'm just interested to know as the 316 is my local route and I'm sure it can't be the only one in need of DD's. I've always thought the 214 should have DD's. The 214 is a prime example, off the top of my head the 46,70,80,95,112,126,143,152,173,235,236,251,289,355,C1 and I've probably missed several others. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 8, 2016 18:58:55 GMT
Could you give some examples? I'm just interested to know as the 316 is my local route and I'm sure it can't be the only one in need of DD's. I've always thought the 214 should have DD's. The 214 is a prime example, off the top of my head the 46,70,80,95,112,126,143,152,173,235,236,251,289,355,C1 and I've probably missed several others. The 173 has been converted to double deck. |
|
|
|
Route 316
Oct 8, 2016 19:18:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 8, 2016 19:18:10 GMT
The 46 is restricted due to a low near Camden Road Station I believe. The 289 has no restrictions and still sees regular DD workings.
|
|
|
|
Route 316
Oct 8, 2016 19:20:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 8, 2016 19:20:13 GMT
The 214 has issues at Highgate Village for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by northken on Oct 8, 2016 19:24:48 GMT
It was reported on here previously that it's a complete myth about a local MP preventing double deckers appearing on the 316. But if it's a Myth then what is the real reason why the 316 can't be double decked? When a double decker is put on the 316 it can't go beyond North Kensington. The only time when the 316 is fully converted to double deck is during the Notting Hill Carnival when the route is diverted away from Ladbroke Grove, North Kensington and Latimer Road. This makes me think that there is something in North Kensington that prevents double deckers on the 316. It can't be on Latimer Road because the 295 is double deck and can't be Ladbroke Grove because routes 23, 52, 452 and 295 are all double deck. The 316 could really do with being double decked because it gets busy and predicet it is going to get worse by the westfield expansion is opened. If the 316 can't be double decked then I would like to know why. Physically, there is nothing stopping it from becoming DD. I haven't the foggiest why when there are DDs on the route they are always turned at North Kensington. It can't be the turn from St Marks Road into Cambridge Gardens as 295s turned to Latimer Road make that turn onto line of the route. I don't really understand this myth about an MP. I only know of Michael Gove living on Barlby Road, but that is the section covered by the 7 and 70. The Cameron residences are not on a road served by buses. Moreoever, whenever a DD is on the 316 it actually passes down Barlby Road! I suspect TfL just do not want to double deck it, which is a huge shame. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 8, 2016 19:29:40 GMT
A bit like the 235.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 8, 2016 20:19:34 GMT
The 46 is restricted due to a low near Camden Road Station I believe. The 289 has no restrictions and still sees regular DD workings. The 46 has no height restrictions that I'm aware of. The bridge at Camden Road has thousands of double deckers pass under it in a week. The only other bridge is Prince of Wales Road where double deckers need to be in the centre of the road. There is a TfL notice to this effect so there is no ban if there is guidance to drivers of double deck buses! The 46 was operated with Titans in my memory and oodles of other types before that. |
|
|
|
Route 316
Oct 8, 2016 20:54:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Oct 8, 2016 20:54:37 GMT
Could you give some examples? I'm just interested to know as the 316 is my local route and I'm sure it can't be the only one in need of DD's. I've always thought the 214 should have DD's. The 214 is a prime example, off the top of my head the 46,70,80,95,112,126,143,152,173,235,236,251,289,355,C1 and I've probably missed several others. The 214 apparently has issues with trees in the Highgate area though I suspect the locals up that way probably would campaign against deckers given the clientele of the area. The 251 also has tree issues and the 173 already has a top deck lol, but the rest seem plausible enough, especially the 355 lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Oct 8, 2016 21:05:35 GMT
I use the 214 (mostly because of those brilliant Dart Pointers), and I cannot see double-deckers getting up Highgate West Hill without hitting any of the trees.
Of Sid's list - the 46 has the bridge at Kentish Town West station - DDs can only go under the bridge if they're bang in the middle, and as it's a frequent route it's a risk TfL aren't really willing to take.
The 70 and 236 can take double-deckers (though some problems with trees may need to be sorted). Heck - even the 444 is able to take double-deckers!
The 80, 95, 112, 126, 152, 289, 355 have had DDs in the past, but for some of the routes, TfL have decided just to up the frequency and let the route remain single-deck operated. 235 is a controversial one - that's been awarded with SDs much to the chagrin of many people here...
Something between Victoria and Sloane Square must be keeping the DDs off the C1 - I think the roads there are quite narrow, and with DDs being slightly wider than SDs...
The 316 is a route that TfL really need to reconsider. COBO rightly stated a short while back that the developments an expansions at White City Westfield's would soon be complete bringing more shoppers to the area. I hope at least the frequency is increased - but it's just more cost effective with DDs. I'm not sure I buy this "selfish MP" story, to be honest.
Is there any particular reason why the 274 can't go double-deck?
|
|
|
|
Post by 725DYE on Oct 8, 2016 22:07:21 GMT
Could you give some examples? I'm just interested to know as the 316 is my local route and I'm sure it can't be the only one in need of DD's. I've always thought the 214 should have DD's. The 214 is a prime example, off the top of my head the 46,70,80,95,112,126,143,152,173,235,236,251,289,355,C1 and I've probably missed several others. The 80 is debatable IMO. Or it may just be that I only ever see them at Belmont, which is where they start  |
|
|
|
Route 316
Oct 8, 2016 22:31:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by sid on Oct 8, 2016 22:31:32 GMT
I use the 214 (mostly because of those brilliant Dart Pointers), and I cannot see double-deckers getting up Highgate West Hill without hitting any of the trees. Of Sid's list - the 46 has the bridge at Kentish Town West station - DDs can only go under the bridge if they're bang in the middle, and as it's a frequent route it's a risk TfL aren't really willing to take. The 70 and 236 can take double-deckers (though some problems with trees may need to be sorted). Heck - even the 444 is able to take double-deckers! The 80, 95, 112, 126, 152, 289, 355 have had DDs in the past, but for some of the routes, TfL have decided just to up the frequency and let the route remain single-deck operated. 235 is a controversial one - that's been awarded with SDs much to the chagrin of many people here... Something between Victoria and Sloane Square must be keeping the DDs off the C1 - I think the roads there are quite narrow, and with DDs being slightly wider than SDs... The 316 is a route that TfL really need to reconsider. COBO rightly stated a short while back that the developments an expansions at White City Westfield's would soon be complete bringing more shoppers to the area. I hope at least the frequency is increased - but it's just more cost effective with DDs. I'm not sure I buy this "selfish MP" story, to be honest. Is there any particular reason why the 274 can't go double-deck? Isn't there a low bridge on the Camden Town to Islington section of the 274? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 8, 2016 22:35:25 GMT
The 214 is a prime example, off the top of my head the 46,70,80,95,112,126,143,152,173,235,236,251,289,355,C1 and I've probably missed several others. The 80 is debatable IMO. Or it may just be that I only ever see them at Belmont, which is where they start The 80 can get packed to or from Morden at peak times. |
|
