|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 14, 2016 11:01:13 GMT
I dare TfL to install some on the 109 - I'd give it a few hours before police are issuing missing USB socket posters across Lambeth & Croydon  It would not surprise me at all to see defaced or broken USB sockets. Perhaps TFL should conduct a trial and place dummy USB sockets on buses for a few weeks to determine if such a 'luxury' is appropriate for London's bus network  |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 13, 2016 10:46:51 GMT
Tbh, even though there is highs and lows about the LTs, at the same time without the LTs the London Bus fleet would just look a bit too plain. Completely disagree. How would London's bus fleet look plain without the LTs? If anything it looks plain now with the sheer amount of them practically flooding the streets of London wherever you go. There are several other bus types that would've been in service or more prevalent if the LT did not exist, which would've meant more variety. Had the NB4Ls been commissioned at a modest amount then great, but their predominance is only making the bus network dull and boring. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 12, 2016 17:01:01 GMT
Maybe not for this thread , but I will ask anyway, why is it a requirement to have blinds and not use led / dot matrix displays like the rest of the country? From a spotters point of view I think it is great I guess it's down to the historical aspect of the matter and subjectivity. TFL like to stick to heritage therefore they use blinds instead of the cost-effecive LED technology, which is what I personally prefer. snoggle nothing wrong with a bit of civilised preferential debate here and there, it's a forum after all  |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 9, 2016 11:28:18 GMT
Is the '507' number on the blinds more condensed than the '521' due to spacing or different font? I suspect the former. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 8, 2016 2:31:32 GMT
I've been equally fortunate, in fact I can only recall one abnormally hot journey on a 24 not long after the route was converted, otherwise all good! Lucky you... I would say about one in three of my LT journeys in summer are unacceptably hot - much of the LT is fine, I find them comfortable, aesthetically pleasing, and it's lovely to ride in a London vehicle that isn't mainly blue inside. Posh kitchens and bathrooms can be blue, not bus interiors! The heat issue (and it is an issue, still) spoils a generally pleasant bus. By 'blue' I assume you mean the blue interior colours adopted by Metroline. I'm rather fond of this colour scheme as it portrays a tranquil appearance and looks visually appealing, one of my favourite colours for bus interiors. I digress! |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 6, 2016 23:24:09 GMT
Exactly. Which is why there was no point in implementing opening windows on LTs in the first place as a measure to allegedly enable a cooler environment when it doesn't, a waste of money really. The money could be better spent towards making their Air Cooling systems actually work. Save for some of them working wonders on certain buses, I suppose the same could be said for other buses too. Personally, opening windows should be erradicated on all buses and replaced by effective Air Cooling systems, with vents to allow air inside for the sake of freshness. Surely the fundamental point here is that is simply not possible to retrofit an effective air cooling system in NB4Ls? The bus design mitigates against it. You therefore have an impossibility. The other point here is that unless you have a powerful and cool system on a bus then you will *always* have people who want an open window and circulating air. Everyone has a different tolerance to warmth, cold, humidity and moving air. Therefore you have another impossibility - you will never satisfy everyone. I appreciate your opinion regarding this matter. However I wouldn't go to the extent of saying it's impossible to retrofit an effective Air Cooling System. Regarding your first point, it's not a matter of retrofitting a whole new system, rather fixing something that isn't working as intended. Having an ineffective Air Cooling system is obviously a hindrance due to the added weight and power consumption without having a purposeful function, therefore they should either exist and work properly or disappear completely and make do with opening windows. I'm personally more inclined to the former. I partly agree with your second point, no one will be satisfied due to differences. However judging by how it is currently during hot days, people are already unable to tolerate the intense heat within buses so it's either they get on a very hot bus to get to their destination or not, the former is obviously the only choice at the moment therefore they would have to cope with uncomfortable conditions regardless. On the other hand if the Air Cooling systems work properly then I doubt having windows would be an obstacle, people would be in a more pleasant environment which would therefore diminish the possibility of complaints and disappointment. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 6, 2016 17:29:05 GMT
They all have air cooling but a large number of them simply blow out warm/hot air or don't work at all. I've yet to try one with windows but that's worrying that you've had a LT with windows that was little help in being cool. If an LT has faulty air cooling, no amount of opening windows will make a jot of difference, I'm afraid. I was on LT665 (the one that went to Singapore when new) with opening windows last month. All windows open, and so unbearably hot on both decks I had to leave the bus after three stops. The hot air blowing out of the 'cooling' system trumps the opening windows, it seems. Exactly. Which is why there was no point in implementing opening windows on LTs in the first place as a measure to allegedly enable a cooler environment when it doesn't, a waste of money really. The money could be better spent towards making their Air Cooling systems actually work. Save for some of them working wonders on certain buses, I suppose the same could be said for other buses too. Personally, opening windows should be erradicated on all buses and replaced by effective Air Cooling systems, with vents to allow air inside for the sake of freshness. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 6, 2016 1:42:05 GMT
remaining routes are often very lightly loaded. Sorry but this statement is a myth. I accept some routes along Oxford Street have small loads but not all do - just recently, I've done the 7 and 98 along Oxford Street and both were very busy. These are not one offs either as over the years, I've seen squillions of packed buses along Oxford Street on a number of different routes. Pedestrianisation will create more issues than it's solves - traffic will simply not vanish into thin air but instead be plonked elsewhere making that place full of congestion and pollution whilst the poor & less able lose links left, right & centre because some moany residents will have heart attacks at the sight of buses passing their front door supposedly full of axe murders, thieves, etc. Meanwhile, the extremely overrated black taxi trade will be able to rob more peoples money in the process - absolutely criminal! And to top if off, every route has its quiet times which could easily be justified by reasons such as preceding buses taking the majority of loads, minimal headways, off peak journies etc. It's safe (and correct) to say every route in the West End has a healthy ridership, a frequency decrease would be the only logical option in the event of surplus PVR rather than axing routes completely. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 6, 2016 1:29:27 GMT
Exactly - besides its only boring crappy buses being swapped for more boring crappy buses lool. You cannot beat the E200. Best single deck bus. lol. Hmmm...I guess that's your opinion and it can't be argued with, after all it's a subjective matter. To be fair the 2nd gen E200s are nice, but I dislike the 1st gen ones. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 5, 2016 10:51:24 GMT
I honestly can't fathom how "innovative" changes can be made to bus routes along Oxford Street yet avoid large-scale diversions by rerouting them on surrounding roads. How will this be tackled? Unless a bridge of some sort will be miraculously built to transport buses above the West End, I don't see anything innovative about reducing buses by curtailing or withdrawing routes along Oxford Street - this is the only conclusion that can be logically made to this ridiculous proposition but it's by no means something I advocate.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 5, 2016 10:23:34 GMT
Judging by TFL's reply I think the assumption was the case with the moron of the MP along Barlby Road has been rectified, looks like this hasn't happened yet. Before we start calling people morons does anybody actually know the full story behind this alleged ban on double deckers on the 316? I can't help feeling that there may be more to this than meets the eye  As it stands, someone banning a route from converting to double deckers because they're concerned about their privacy and haven't yet understood the concept of blinds are automatically morons in my eyes |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 4, 2016 9:38:52 GMT
Wait, wasn't the route retained with double deckers this year? Or am I completely misinformed? No it awarded with existing single deckers. The confusion comes when people ask TFL via FOI about double decking the 316 and TFL have replied saying that the 316 will be double decked. Judging by TFL's reply I think the assumption was the case with the moron of the MP along Barlby Road has been rectified, looks like this hasn't happened yet. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 4, 2016 2:32:42 GMT
What a way to kill the excitement of the 316's anticipated DD conversion  However, at this stage I wouldn't rule it out despite the lack of any reliable information regarding this, I really hope TFL see some sense and pursue this case. Also the alleged extension to Staples Corner is unnecessary, extra capacity should be prioritised over an insignificant extension, especially as it concerns the 316. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 2, 2016 11:42:12 GMT
While it's feasible, if anything, extending the 425 to Ilford wouldn't be that beneficial to the 25 anyway, it would provide extra capacity along a part of the 25 route that is already served with the frequent 86 alongside. Rather, it's the Central London - Stratford Section that needs extra capacity and this is factoring in Crossrail as I believe the 25 won't be dramatically affected as everyone makes it out to be. Having an overlapping route between Holborn and Mile End (at which point it diverges elsewhere) would help alot more. Additionally, cutting the 205 to Baker Street and extending it to Stratford alongside the 25 would provide much needed assistance and the latter could be given a modest frequency decrease.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 1, 2016 11:29:35 GMT
As others have said, nothing more dull than Central London right now with the sheer amount of LTs around. I was in Brighton for a few days recently and I was envious of how diverse their bus network is. I pretty much spent my whole time riding buses when I really should've been basking in the sunshine and walking along the beach   But the Brighton & Hove fleet is much the same as what you can find in London, except the bendybuses of course! Obviously far more eye catching liveries though. Funny enough, I'm not really into the liveries of buses much. Rather, the variety of buses themselves is what appeals to me the most. Regarding buses in Brighton, while it's true that you can find most of their buses in London, they don't have too many of one particular bus type unlike London with the LTs. Also, Brighton's variety is more abundant than London's i.e. you can find many types in most areas within the city whereas in London you would have to go to certain areas for variety. On the other hand, I suppose it can be argued that this is due to Brighton being much smaller in size than London. |
|
However, at this stage I wouldn't rule it out despite the lack of any reliable information regarding this, I really hope TFL see some sense and pursue this case. Also the alleged extension to Staples Corner is unnecessary, extra capacity should be prioritised over an insignificant extension, especially as it concerns the 316.
