|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 26, 2016 21:34:03 GMT
I can't pinpoint when exactly but it was roughly during 2001/2002. Ah these pics may explain the reason why this happened, however it definitely wasn't in 1999 as I was still in primary school back then and I witnessed the Ailsas/Citybuses (or whatever they were) on the route briefly during the beginning of secondary school. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 26, 2016 21:16:55 GMT
Ailsas on the 187? - never ever heard of that happening. Me neither. 183 perhaps? Harrow Buses.. Errr no...the 187  I can vividly remember getting on them at Kensal Rise and getting of at Queen's Park. I'm just unsure how long they were on the route for. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 26, 2016 21:13:24 GMT
IIRC the 187 used to have Ailsas operating on the route, which subsequently converted to SD. I remember always looking at the Ailsas in awe and wondering why they were so 'different' from other DDs at the time, then I realised it was due to their asymmetrical layout, strange window positions, abnormally high low decks and front mounted engines. I guess anyone reading this may conclude that I wasn't really that fond of them Ailsas on the 187? - never ever heard of that happening. Yeup! I even remember getting on them a couple of times during my school days, it was a bit of a blur so it may have only been a temporary occurence. Edit: They may have been Volvo Citybuses, they looked similar to me back then. Been searching for images online for them on the 187 but can't find any. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 26, 2016 16:39:13 GMT
IIRC the 187 used to have Ailsas operating on the route, which subsequently converted to SD. I remember always looking at the Ailsas in awe and wondering why they were so 'different' from other DDs at the time, then I realised it was due to their asymmetrical layout, strange window positions, abnormally high low decks and front mounted engines. I guess anyone reading this may conclude that I wasn't really that fond of them |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 22, 2016 21:27:47 GMT
Extend route 343 to the Moon. Operator: NASA Vehicle type: TBA PVR: 50 Notes: One PM peak journey will extend to Mars, subject to consultation. Honestly, is there even any point to this thread anymore? -_-Perhaps with extra peak journeys extended to Mars? I'm not a fan of peak only extensions but hey ho I guess the possibilities are endless in this thread  Regarding the highlighted bit, apparently there is! Glad you share my concern |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 22, 2016 14:07:13 GMT
Time to assist the 18, can't be throwing extra buses at the same route time and again. Controversial idea perhaps, I thought 'new route' but wanted to be bold: Withdraw 28 from Kensal Rise and extend to Willesden Junction via 220. Withdraw 220 between Jubilee Clock and Willesden Junction and reroute to Wembley Central via 18, stand with H17. Both routes are already long. However the 28 routeing is relatively short as its route to Wandsworth is longer than 220. And loading a on these routes is light in their northern sections. Traffic in Harlesden an issue though! The residents of Kensal Rise will love you for taking the 28 away. On the face of it it looks a decent idea although a tad concerned about route length given there are multiple "hot spots" on the 28 from Wandsworth. I wonder if sending the 452 to Willesden is a better bet? Vauxhall - Battersea - Sloane Sq - Kensington - NHG - Ladbroke Grove - Willesden Junc. More concerned about the 220 idea. Breaks a very long standing N-S link from Willesden Junction and would create an immensely long route with even worse hot spots than the 28! Would also remove TfL's ideal "rail replacement" bus when they're working on the West London Line. We know there's a looming reorganisation of the 266 / 440 but a new route from Acton - Park Royal - Central Midx Hosp - Harlesden - route 18 - Wembley Central would give new links and help out on the Harlesden to Wembley bit of the 18. My personal take on assisting the 18 would be to introduce a new route, 218 perhaps? I also posted this a while back in the ermmm...realistic thread It would run between Edgware Road and Harrow alongside the 18 at x8 mins with the 18 receiving a frequency reduction to x6-8 mins. Everything else would be left as it is so as to avoid unnecessarily breaking valueable links. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 22, 2016 9:57:14 GMT
The thread has been a failure for a long time
I thought that was the whole purpose of this thread, fantasy ideas that have no place in the real world? I very rarely look at this thread let alone post anything on it but if other people enjoy fantasy ideas then all well and good 
Yes indeed, that's the point I'm making. This thread should not be taken seriously to the point of having to provide rational reasoning and debate. But there's no harm in a bit of cheeky banter. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 22, 2016 9:34:38 GMT
I had no preferences to begin with, however after some analysing I personally prefer them at the top, they have a more modern look positioned as such. Often it can be related to the route that they're allocated too. Routes with sharp right turns that involve the driver to look back and left cannot have buses that have side blond boxes at the top as they obscure their view. The PVLs at C originally moved in for work on the 127, but were then moved to the 64 due to the 127 having tight turns at Purley, Carshalton and Mitcham which were difficult to navigate to due the PVLs having the side blind boxes at the top. I know that some older PVLs had their side blind boxes replaced and moved to the bottom to serve routes but at C they just took in more Es and WVL365 and 366 for the 127 Ah right, never thought that would be the case, interesting. I thought it was purely for aesthetic reasons. Thanks for the info  |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 22, 2016 9:16:33 GMT
The thread has been a failure for a long time That's an intriguing viewpoint. So the posts this month alone by @cobo , Paul and @te726 have not been enough to keep this thread interesting? I think the thread has plenty of scope for ideas, but it's not easy considering the vast networks we already have, so for me (and others I'm sure) showing the thought behind the working triggers further thought and debate. It may be a 'fantasy' thread but isn't it strange that people forget about the 'routes that should be' part of it? Maybe the thread title could be renamed to alleviate any doubt as to whether people should justify them on a community thread for a community group? What is also of note is your insistence that the thread is dead and has been for a while, yet you are clearly checking back to post more. One would think that an uninteresting thread would deter one from looking. Not meaning to sound mean, I'm just a bit confused about that. I am not 'clearly checking back and posting more' for the sake of it, I was only suggesting that this thread should be merged or locked because there is not much scope for fantasy ideas without any justification, there is already a thread for realistic ideas so why have one that does the opposite apart from partaking in a bit of banter? Which you may note was what I did with my above reply. So you mention that you "don't mean to sound mean"...the tone of your posts suggest otherwise and I'm not only referring to this one, so I suggest you consider what you say carefully before posting, especially as you're a newbie. I have been on the forum long enough to deduce that this thread has been dead for quite some time and the only thing going for it is the odd fantasy posted every now and then with little discussion, some may even feel offended by replies that argue against their ideas and it's easy to forget the title of the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 22, 2016 2:21:34 GMT
Feel free to shoot me but apart from the bottom section under the windscreen, I think these look very nice. I partly share your fondness of them. It is mentioned that they "fill the niche between a bus and a luxury coach", in essence a low height double deck Tri-Axle. My only gripe is the height of these vehicles, I think their design lends itself to the full height 14.5/6" configuration better, their low height makes them look 'vertically squashed'. I could be wrong about their height, it might just be an illusion due to their length. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 22, 2016 0:33:04 GMT
Extend 23 from Liverpool Street to Rainham Clock Tower via New Road - Dagenham - Ripple Road - Barking - East Ham - Upton Park - Plaistow - Canning Town - Poplar - Limehouse - Commercial Road Make new 23a Westbourne Park to Becontree Heath via 23 to Liverpool Street - Barking - East Ham - Plaistow - Canning Town - Poplar - Stepney  The thread has been a failure for a long time |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 22, 2016 0:22:50 GMT
*rushes off to BX and patiently waits for it to come out* |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 21, 2016 11:04:31 GMT
Yeah, I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago. Personally, I've always prefered side blinds at the bottom. I had no preferences to begin with, however after some analysing I personally prefer them at the top, they have a more modern look positioned as such. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 20, 2016 11:19:59 GMT
 Found on twitter. Someone seems to have a bit of a problem with Pokemon Go players.  I can certainly understand not wanting people in your own yard but think he was a little extreme to tell people to get a life - just tell them to move on elsewhere. Exactly. While his concern is understandable, you can't really tell someone to 'get a life' just because they play a certain game, which happens to be the most downloaded mobile game in history. We are in the day and age of modern technology after all |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 20, 2016 3:21:21 GMT
Indeed. The thing is with a 'fantasy' thread as such, anything can be technically possible according to the thread title and justification is therefore not needed as it can't be rationally valid. The original intention for this thread is probably for entertainment purposes, otherwise there is another thread for realistic ideas that can be sensibly justified. Having said that, we can only post fantasical ideas without reasoning here and this thread's fun factor has gone a long time ago, it is becoming repetitive therefore there is no point of it existing anymore and I personally think it should be locked. I doubt this thread will ever get locked. I've suggested that this thread and the withdrawn thread gets merged because they offer the thing and nothing got done. What's difference between this thread and the withdrawn thread? Nothing really. I suppose they could both be merged. At a modest 51 pages currently, all posts could be sifted through and the unrealistic ideas in this thread could be deleted with a formal notice to avoid any disappointment. However, there might be a fine line between a realistic idea and a fantasy one as it can be subjective, which would be something to be aware of. |
|
I can vividly remember getting on them at Kensal Rise and getting of at Queen's Park. I'm just unsure how long they were on the route for.
Regarding the highlighted bit, apparently there is! Glad you share my concern 
