|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 29, 2020 10:26:45 GMT
I agree that the Barnes Bridge height restriction is ridiculous and of course double deckers on the 9 used to pass under without any problem. The DD's on the 9 were taller as well - an Enviro400's max height is 4.3m/14'1", while a Wright Eclipse Gemini 3's max height is 4.4m/14'5". The Routemaster's height was 4.38m/14'4½", so an E400 should be able to fit, with a Gemini just going through the middle as the centre height of the bridge is 15'6"? RATP, Metroline and Go-Ahead have quite a few E400's - they could scrape some for the 533 and try a route test on it, I don't think they've even tried. D/Ds are not going to appear on the 533 unless full clearance for any type of D/D extends the full width of the roadway. Attitudes to risk have changed, and whilst RMs on the 9 using the centre of the road may have been tolerated at the time, and D/D are allowed on the N22 because of historic custom and practice, there is no way that deliberately introducing new risk, by converting a route which is currently single-deck, will be sanctioned. Also, bridge strikes don't just damage vehicles. They also put rail services at risk and expose passengers to potential danger. I imagine Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate would have something to say if this was attempted. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 29, 2020 12:12:22 GMT
The DD's on the 9 were taller as well - an Enviro400's max height is 4.3m/14'1", while a Wright Eclipse Gemini 3's max height is 4.4m/14'5". The Routemaster's height was 4.38m/14'4½", so an E400 should be able to fit, with a Gemini just going through the middle as the centre height of the bridge is 15'6"? RATP, Metroline and Go-Ahead have quite a few E400's - they could scrape some for the 533 and try a route test on it, I don't think they've even tried. D/Ds are not going to appear on the 533 unless full clearance for any type of D/D extends the full width of the roadway. Attitudes to risk have changed, and whilst RMs on the 9 using the centre of the road may have been tolerated at the time, and D/D are allowed on the N22 because of historic custom and practice, there is no way that deliberately introducing new risk, by converting a route which is currently single-deck, will be sanctioned. Also, bridge strikes don't just damage vehicles. They also put rail services at risk and expose passengers to potential danger. I imagine Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate would have something to say if this was attempted. I understand what you're saying but if HM Rail Inspectorate were that concerned wouldn't they want the clearance reduced to the to the lowest point? |
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on Oct 29, 2020 12:23:00 GMT
D/Ds are not going to appear on the 533 unless full clearance for any type of D/D extends the full width of the roadway. Attitudes to risk have changed, and whilst RMs on the 9 using the centre of the road may have been tolerated at the time, and D/D are allowed on the N22 because of historic custom and practice, there is no way that deliberately introducing new risk, by converting a route which is currently single-deck, will be sanctioned. Also, bridge strikes don't just damage vehicles. They also put rail services at risk and expose passengers to potential danger. I imagine Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate would have something to say if this was attempted. I understand what you're saying but if HM Rail Inspectorate were that concerned wouldn't they want the clearance reduced to the to the lowest point? The risk element is not necessarily from the Rail Inspectorate side but more the TfL/Bus Operators individual route risk assessments, who have obviously deemed it too risky to run double deckers under, even if they physically fit (albeit only through the centre of the arch). |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 29, 2020 12:43:36 GMT
I agree that the Barnes Bridge height restriction is ridiculous and of course double deckers on the 9 used to pass under without any problem. The DD's on the 9 were taller as well - an Enviro400's max height is 4.3m/14'1", while a Wright Eclipse Gemini 3's max height is 4.4m/14'5". The Routemaster's height was 4.38m/14'4½", so an E400 should be able to fit, with a Gemini just going through the middle as the centre height of the bridge is 15'6"? RATP, Metroline and Go-Ahead have quite a few E400's - they could scrape some for the 533 and try a route test on it, I don't think they've even tried. A standard Enviro 400 is 14'6" and would have to use the middle of the road like other deckers |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 29, 2020 12:48:01 GMT
D/Ds are not going to appear on the 533 unless full clearance for any type of D/D extends the full width of the roadway. Attitudes to risk have changed, and whilst RMs on the 9 using the centre of the road may have been tolerated at the time, and D/D are allowed on the N22 because of historic custom and practice, there is no way that deliberately introducing new risk, by converting a route which is currently single-deck, will be sanctioned. Also, bridge strikes don't just damage vehicles. They also put rail services at risk and expose passengers to potential danger. I imagine Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate would have something to say if this was attempted. I understand what you're saying but if HM Rail Inspectorate were that concerned wouldn't they want the clearance reduced to the to the lowest point? That's not to say it may happen in future. However there is a difference between managing an existing and known historic risk, as opposed to deliberately introducing a new one. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 29, 2020 12:50:26 GMT
Traffic has grown considerably since the 9 last set foot in Barnes and the N22 runs at night when traffic levels are much lower so is a different story - I completely understand their concerns at having a daily, frequent decker route potentially causing traffic issues. It's now every 15 minutes, and could easily go to 10 if a further increase is needed. Is traffic an issue on Mortlake High Street at the moment? Given the bridge is closed? Surely having more journeys on a single decker rather than less using a double decker would be better. Less buses per hour & slightly more capacity. Edit.. I'd also add from remembering when the bridge was open with the 9,33 & 72 using it, the delays through Barnes were considerable. The 9a used to run every 4 mins along Mortlake High Street and I don't think anyone complained then about buses going under the railway at Barnes Bridge. Since the bridge closure, many locals have complained of traffic from Mortlake right down to Upper Richmond Road and as far as Chiswick Bridge but that's not even the point I'm making - running a frequent double decker route under an arch bridge where you have to use the middle of the road and you have no signal controlling each side is an obvious risk. In an ideal world, the 533 would be better using deckers and I'd be one of the first to suggest that. Again, you mentioned what happened many years ago and I believe you 100% but like I said before, traffic has grown considerably since those days to deem such a thing as unviable. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 29, 2020 14:01:04 GMT
I understand what you're saying but if HM Rail Inspectorate were that concerned wouldn't they want the clearance reduced to the to the lowest point? That's not to say it may happen in future. However there is a difference between managing an existing and known historic risk, as opposed to deliberately introducing a new one. Again I understand your point but it's hardly a ringing endorsement for bus drivers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2020 15:36:17 GMT
How many more bridges are there in London with similar issues?
Not just height or width going under but also over.
For example...
The bridge over the railway at Hounslow on the 281 had a restriction for years. Detailed on the 281 timecards. Only one bus to cross at a time because it is narrow. I mean where do you draw the line with this?
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 29, 2020 15:42:59 GMT
How many more bridges are there in London with similar issues? Not just height or width going under but also over. For example... The bridge over the railway at Hounslow on the 281 had a restriction for years. Detailed on the 281 timecards. Only one bus to cross at a time because it is narrow. I mean where do you draw the line with this? Imagine it will be where the insurance companies draw the line. Not going to do something you are uninsured for, is quite an easy line to judge. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 29, 2020 15:44:12 GMT
How many more bridges are there in London with similar issues? Not just height or width going under but also over. For example... The bridge over the railway at Hounslow on the 281 had a restriction for years. Detailed on the 281 timecards. Only one bus to cross at a time because it is narrow. I mean where do you draw the line with this? Very few do but whether there is 3 or 300, the point doesn't change. I had look at the bridge at Hounslow and not only does it look like enough room for two buses to pass over, but if it was a weak bridge, it would have signage leading up to it stating so to which I didn't spot any so is this restriction actually still in place and if so, very odd that it is. Most weak bridges on main roads and bus routes do end up being strengthened and I'd imagine this happened here. |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Oct 29, 2020 15:51:51 GMT
How many more bridges are there in London with similar issues? Not just height or width going under but also over. For example... The bridge over the railway at Hounslow on the 281 had a restriction for years. Detailed on the 281 timecards. Only one bus to cross at a time because it is narrow. I mean where do you draw the line with this? I’m only guessing here but any existing arrangements (a bit like a grandfather agreement) would be allowed to continue (unless there happens to be a serious incident occurring) and anything new would have to follow a proper assessment to see if it is viable |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2020 16:29:07 GMT
How many more bridges are there in London with similar issues? Not just height or width going under but also over. For example... The bridge over the railway at Hounslow on the 281 had a restriction for years. Detailed on the 281 timecards. Only one bus to cross at a time because it is narrow. I mean where do you draw the line with this? Very few do but whether there is 3 or 300, the point doesn't change. I had look at the bridge at Hounslow and not only does it look like enough room for two buses to pass over, but if it was a weak bridge, it would have signage leading up to it stating so to which I didn't spot any so is this restriction actually still in place and if so, very odd that it is. Most weak bridges on main roads and bus routes do end up being strengthened and I'd imagine this happened here. I don't know if it still is. I owned an old 281 timecard which had the restriction clearly printed on it (we're talking 1986) |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 29, 2020 16:36:02 GMT
How many more bridges are there in London with similar issues? Not just height or width going under but also over. For example... The bridge over the railway at Hounslow on the 281 had a restriction for years. Detailed on the 281 timecards. Only one bus to cross at a time because it is narrow. I mean where do you draw the line with this? Imagine it will be where the insurance companies draw the line. Not going to do something you are uninsured for, is quite an easy line to judge. Surely if it's legal insurance companies have to cover it? |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 29, 2020 16:39:09 GMT
How many more bridges are there in London with similar issues? Not just height or width going under but also over. For example... The bridge over the railway at Hounslow on the 281 had a restriction for years. Detailed on the 281 timecards. Only one bus to cross at a time because it is narrow. I mean where do you draw the line with this? Exactly my point, where do you draw the line? Double deckers on the 197,403 and 412 come very close to low bridges so should they be converted to single decker just in case the driver makes a mistake as indeed a few have? |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Oct 29, 2020 17:02:56 GMT
How many more bridges are there in London with similar issues? Not just height or width going under but also over. For example... The bridge over the railway at Hounslow on the 281 had a restriction for years. Detailed on the 281 timecards. Only one bus to cross at a time because it is narrow. I mean where do you draw the line with this? Exactly my point, where do you draw the line? Double deckers on the 197,403 and 412 come very close to low bridges so should they be converted to single decker just in case the driver makes a mistake as indeed a few have? There might not be many DD routes left if that happened. While we at it, does that mean we should ban lorries as well just in case the sat nav makes them turn into a road with a low bridge or a narrow country lane. 😁 |
|
