|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 22, 2016 0:23:08 GMT
285 to Sipson Road (VH30)- Was nice to finally ride on a different operator's Gemini 3's (rather than the Gemini 3's Metrobus have!). They all however seem to sound like Ford Transit vans when accelerating though Did some Planespotting at the spotting area, just next to Heathrow's runway It was a perfect day for Planespotting, something I haven't done for ages, planning to very soon. May I ask, what is your favourite aircraft and livery? |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 21, 2016 20:14:50 GMT
Ah ok, thanks COBO and Eastlondoner62 for clarifying that. For some reason I assumed they had their contracts renewed late last year because of the new VWHs. Metroline did the logical thing of swapping the old 6 and 98 VPs with the new VWHs intended for the 245 and 460. I suppose this means the VWHs are staying on the 6 and 98 temporarily until they have their contracts renewed next year, which would see them getting new buses and the VWHs cascaded to the 245 and 460. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 21, 2016 16:34:56 GMT
I don't think that the 07 reg TEs will be too old to be used on the 316. Technically the 59 reg TE's are allocated to 113. And realistically I don't think that there Is an age limit for buses to be used on another contract because the 460 was recently retained with 12 year old VPs and there rumours that the 483 will also be retained with 12 year old VPs. Well there goes Metrolines plan at trying to make W an all hybrid double garage. The 59 reg TE's should be for the 316, as these are allocated to the 113. The 460 was retained with 15 reg VWH's. They are just being used on the 6. When the 6 & 98 will be up for tender, some of the VWH's will go to its destined route, the 460. But the 6 and 98 have recently had their contracts retained with new VWHs. If a Hybrid conversion for the 460 is the intention then it would make more sense to order new Hybrids for the route rather than transferring some of the 6 and 98's VWHs and leaving a gap in their fleets, especially considering their Zone 1 routes. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 20, 2016 22:54:53 GMT
Bit of a random thread this. It just occured to me that the 206 serves several areas with the word 'Park' in it i.e. Kilburn Park, Queen's Park, Brondesbury Park, Roundwood Park, Stonebridge Park (within the vicinity), Brent Park, Wembley Park and just about touches Fryent Park at its northern terminus...that's alot of Parks! Are there other routes that follow the same fashion? Areas starting with identical letters, prefixes, suffixes and anything along those lines are also included. Obvious ones like 'Station', 'Street' and 'Road' however aren't!  |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 20, 2016 22:38:52 GMT
I wonder if the TEs on the 113 will be transferred to W to convert the 316. As much as I dislike those TEs, I won't be complaining if they are due for the 316 conversion...or any DD type for that matter |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 20, 2016 13:06:52 GMT
That's interesting! Do you think any will be in London? If so then that would mean the MMC would be on three different chassis. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 20, 2016 9:57:23 GMT
I'll put this one here, the 113 will be converting to NB4L operation between October and December with no fixed date. I was going to hold back from posting this until further developments were made on the case however it has progressed. Ah man, I was hoping for some Enviro 400 city. Yes me too...or at least MMC Integrals/Hybrids. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 18, 2016 11:14:55 GMT
Latest pics from Heysham docks (not mine) Metroline VWH2214, VWH2215, LT790, LT803 London United VH45195, VH45197, VH45198, Docks 18 June note the difference in painting, drivers window, headlight surround, and behind rearmost side windows are black on Metroline, but red on LU Interesting pics of the B5LH and B5TL chassis. Both pics highlight the difference in the rear axle positions on both chassis and clearly show why the former has a larger rear overhang, Volvo managed to cram in so many components in the engine department. It must be possible in some way that some components could be positioned further forwards the middle of the chassis to eradicate the large rear overhang and balance out the wheelbase. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 17, 2016 19:44:00 GMT
Don't worry I don't see the 6 getting them and personally I don't want them on the 6 or the 19. Or any routes for that matter! |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 17, 2016 10:36:34 GMT
I do wonder if NB4Ls may still be in the pipeline with at least one of the routes (1/14/74), refering to LOTS quote on "Route allocations may vary once delivered". Could be another 'route 21' situation where some EHVs and/or WHVs 'for example' divert elsewhere. The 436 award should be due now which may have an impact if retained. As it goes the 14 and 436 have a similar pvr, baring in mind the latter is planned to be rerouted to Battersea where its pvr would be adjusted with the 36. If TFL are indeed proceeding with the silly idea of rerouting the 436 to Battersea, I do wonder how the 36 would cope between Paddington and Vauxhall. Increasing the 36's frequency any more than it is now is just not practical and would be overkill, it's already frequent enough at x6 mins in the peaks and has a high PVR of 36. I dare to imagine how the 36 would mop up the consistent crowds at Paddington/Edgware Road/Marble Arch/Hyde Park Corner/Victoria without the 436 to assist it. It's also not the type of route that could follow the footsteps of the 18/29/149/207 as they are very frequent trunk routes which follow a main and direct path between their respective destinations through busy areas without using any back roads. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 17, 2016 0:29:23 GMT
If the remaining production ends up being ST, I can see routes like the 6, 19, 23 and 94 coming into play. Please no... |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 17, 2016 0:24:22 GMT
An email from TfL regarding the 316...  Finally!!! This is great news, what a massive relief. I do wonder if TFL would explain why it took them so long and what made them come to this conclusion aside from the fact that capacity issues was an ongoing thing for ages...   |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 16, 2016 11:53:39 GMT
In general I agree with this whole consultation, I'm quite surprised as it's something I actually agree with from TFL for quite some time! Bar a few things obviously as TFL aren't perfect in strategic planning. I envision routes in and around the TCR area will adopt a more easily flowing structure very soon, as opposed to how it is now where they're all quite dispersed.
However, I would prefer if the w/b 10 and s/b 176 have a more direct routing, i.e. both routes turn right from Bloomsbury Street to New Oxford Street saving them having to negotiate around Centre Point. I guess that right turn will be banned in the near future. Additionally, this right turn ban would also prohibit the possibility of the s/b 134 turning left on to Great Russell Street and turn around via New Oxford Street to commence the n/b journey.
But I can't complain, I agree with TFL's prospects of routes running through the TCR area as it's about time this matter is examined in detail. It's strange that TFL haven't included the 98/N98 in this consultation as the route should *hopefully* revert back to Holborn.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 16, 2016 0:16:07 GMT
Attachment DeletedHmmm...I wonder what station this is? Perhaps a ghost station yet to open to the public! 
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 14, 2016 10:36:51 GMT
Quite ironic that from my previous observations, out of the 20 and 167 it was the latter that was more busy, I suppose this is down to it being operated by SDs. The 20 was also used quite well from what I saw, but due to it being a DD route it will always have some spare capacity out of the peaks, which is just fine. Anyway, such a shame TFL are curtailing the 167. I would personally prefer if it was rerouted via a more unique and direct routing to Debden which would start with a double run at Loughton Station, then back up Alderton Hill - Alderton Hall Lane - Bushfields - Colson Road - Chigwell Lane and Debden Station. Alternatively, the 397 could be rerouted as such and the 167 could replace it between Loughton and Debden. Anyway, I digress  |
|
