|
Post by rmz19 on Apr 5, 2016 11:54:25 GMT
I've been saying for a long time the 320 is pretty pointless and should be restored back to Bromley North. The timings of the 208 & 320 are very poor, it is not uncommon for the 320 to arrive two minutes after the 208 on Bromley Road towards Bromley by then the 208 has taken all the people. A new route 218 running between North Greenwich - Bromley Common, Crown Lane via the 108 & 208 would solve this overcrowding issue on both the 108 & 208 and create new links, problem solved. I agree that the 320 to Catford is pretty useless and the 208 needs help right through to Lewisham. I don't agree with the 218 idea though, the 54 is more than adequate between Bellingham and Blackheath, the 199 needs to be extended to Bromley as originally planned but it didn't happen because no suitable stand space could be found. 'TL1' and 'sid' you both make valid points, there is no need to resort to arguing and point scoring as it will get you both nowhere and will only escalate further and clog up the thread so let's keep discussions civilised I won't go as far as saying the 320 is useless, it still provides considerable assistance to the 208 even if it reaches as far as Catford and it wouldn't be wise to withdraw the Biggin Hill leg so I guess Catford is the sensible terminus for the 320. Regarding the 218, although it would be a useful route in that it would provide assistance where needed, it would be superfluous along the majority of the route as there would be unnecessary overlaps, the 54 would be affected the most. Extending the 199 would be the sensible solution and surely stand space can be found in Bromley, Ravensbourne Road and Ringer's Road have adequate space to accommodate a bus stand. To solve overcrowding issues on the 108 and 208, the 108 should receive a full allocation of full size SDs and a frequency increase, perhaps at a push extend the 484 to North Greenwich over the 108 (especially knowing that the 484 can take 10.2m SDs). The 208 and 320 should also receive a frequency increase to x8 and x10 mins respectively, additionally their timings could be adjusted to enable a more consistent headway.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Apr 3, 2016 1:00:17 GMT
172 from Brockley Rise to Forest Hill Station during peak hours. Personally, this should be a permanent extension as I believe Forest Hill would be a useful extension for the 172, it could even be extended further to Lower Sydenham...again, permanent
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Apr 1, 2016 15:34:12 GMT
In other news, LT656 is blinded for the 189 displaying Brent Cross at W garage. Someone at W has a sense of humour. Wait..... Let's hope that someone at W is playing an April Fools prank! ...
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 31, 2016 16:29:00 GMT
The new Electrocity looks like a Gemini 2 has lost its upper deck The previous ones on the other hand look like they were designed to be the SD variants, this is probably due to the large roof giving this illusion. I like the look of this new version nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 30, 2016 22:49:12 GMT
I got on a refurbished 72 Stock train by chance on Easter Monday, I was very surprised as I wasn't expecting to see a refurbished Bakerloo Line train so suddenly. I have to say it looked much cleaner and well presented in the inside, I prefer the new seat moquette colour combination and the floor design. The old seats with their worn out seat covers really looked like they were crapped on I still find it extremely annoying that the Piccadilly and Central Lines are the priorities given they are obviously newer, the latter should be the last to be replaced as not only do I like the 92 Stock, but they are still in good nick. Now with the sudden influx of faulty/defective trains on the Bakerloo Line these days surely this means it should be prioritised, the Piccadilly and Central Lines don't seem to suffer as much from this problem as far as I'm aware.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 29, 2016 12:46:00 GMT
I think the AVLs were quite underrated. They seemed like an unloved bus type when they were still around. The ALX400 / B7TL is a great combination, and I think they were the very best examples of that combination. I have to say, almost 7 years later, I still miss seeing them around the Elephant. Those and the London United VAs. I was hoping they'd have a few out on the Overground rail replacement today, but all I saw were SPs. The AVL's & VA's were lovely buses and I still miss them as well - I still remember the AVL's when they entered service on the 45 as at the time, they were very different to the excellent T's & NV's and they were quicker too though they still don't beat a T in every other department personally. I ended up riding the AVL's on the 35, 37, 40, 45, 63 & 363 & VA's on the 111, 148, 220, 337 (the 337 was fun under London United) & H32. The AVLs were brilliant buses, I remember always catching a glimpse of them but they always eluded me. IIRC the only time I got on one was on the 36, and briefly on the 220, but that was back when I never used to ride alot of buses alone! I liked how modern they looked when they were introduced with their streamlined bonded windows, I preferred them to the PVLs (although the PVLs have a better front design). The only thing I disliked about the AVLs and early PVLs were the rear plastic seats on the upper deck, what was that about? I always avoided those seats like a plague.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 27, 2016 22:58:53 GMT
I can't like your post enough, you've clearly summarised how immaturely planned this cycle scheme was and the profound effect it has on London's traffic flow. I suppose the excuse that is being made now is that cycling in London is potentially quicker than public transport and driving, the irony is almost tangible I wish those who bemoan cyclists would put forward their alternative solution. What do they want cyclists to do? Leave their bike at home and do what? Drive or maybe try and force their way onto a public transport network that cannot cope with the morning rush during school term? For far too long the motoring lobby in its various guises has held sway and everybody else has been treated like second class citizens and the balance is finally being redressed. With the population in London continuing to soar congestion is only going to get worse. I understand the points you are making, but those who 'bemoan' cyclists don't need to think of a better solution. First of, there is no solution needed for this unnecessary endeavour for an Amsterdam-style city where cyclists have the upper hand, London is simply not built for such an infrastructure, the logic here is to stop this pursuit of encouraging more to cycle as this is the primary cause to Central London's congestion. The option for cycling is available for those who want to/need to without inconveniencing commuters, the risk of increasing casualties and building more cycle lanes than necessary as we already have them in abundance all over the city.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 27, 2016 20:34:53 GMT
I'm not just speaking as an enthusiast at his keyboard, but as a motorist at his steering wheel, and trust me, the roads are bad all the time around Regent Street, Vauxhall, Nine Elms Lane, Holborn, Victoria Embankment - so despite the fantasy about cycle lanes and making our infrastructure something like Amsterdam's with zero planning was going to create the perfect storm when it comes to more congestion. The Lib Dem Mayoral candidate said she would raise the Congestion Charge to £20 to raise money for more of these harebrained schemes which kind of says it all really. Thankfully no one is stupid enough to vote Lib Dem after the last Coalition While it may not be easy to remove these cycle schemes (I just hope they use them), we can prevent any more being made, or the 'arteries' of our great City will clog up for good As for the death toll, most of this can be prevented by obeying traffic laws whist you cycle. I used to cycle daily before it was de rigeur in Twickenham and in Kensington without being taken out by lorries by riding thru red lights I can't like your post enough, you've clearly summarised how immaturely planned this cycle scheme was and the profound effect it has on London's traffic flow. I suppose the excuse that is being made now is that cycling in London is potentially quicker than public transport and driving, the irony is almost tangible
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 27, 2016 18:57:07 GMT
Are these E40H MMCs based on the Integral or the B5LH chassis? Integral as the Volvos are EHV's. Ah yes should've known, that's great as I prefer the Integrals.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 27, 2016 16:27:45 GMT
New vehicle deliveries to London in the past week have included the first of Go-Ahead’s E40H/E400H(MMC)s (batch EH39-60), due for Camberwell's take on (or rather return home) of the 35. Source - LOTS online Are these E40H MMCs based on the Integral or the B5LH chassis?
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 26, 2016 20:36:09 GMT
Route 297 - Extend the 297 from Ealing Broadway to Greenford Broadway via Uxbridge Road, West Ealing, Church Road, Hanwell Station, Greenford Avenue and Ruislip Road East. To provide a new link between Willesden and Greenford. Route E2 - withdrawn between Brentford and Ealing Broadway and diverted to Chiswick Edsenor Avenue via Ealing Common, Acton, Turnham Green Station, Chiswick, Turnham Green and Chiswick Station. To provide a more direct link between Chiswick and Greenford Broadway. To also create a new link between Chiswick and Ealing. Route E3 - withdrawn between Acton and Chiswick. Rerouted between Greenford and West Ealing and diverted via Argyle Road and Ruisilip Road East. Route E2 will replace the withdrawn section between Chiswick and Acton. Route E1 - Extend the E1 from Ealing Broadway to Brentford County Court via South Ealing. To relief the 65. Route E4 - a new route running between Ealing Broadway and West Middlesex Hospital via West Ealing, Northfields and Brentford. To replace the withdrawn section of the E2 between Ealing and Brentford. And to provide a new link between West Middlesex Hospital and Ealing. Route E4 will be operated by Metroline from their Brentford (AH) garage using Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 bodies Volvo B9TLs. E12 - Ealing (Warwick Dene) to Thorpe Park - summer route operated by Arriva London from Heathrow Garage. Pictured is Heathrow's sole Streetlite / VDL DB250 demonstrator SW201, at a bus rally... Weather looks as foul as today's Liking the number plate!
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 26, 2016 2:53:16 GMT
Isn't that the standard bhp across the whole E40D fleet? As some 08 and 12 reg ones for example seem slower in comparison, I presume it's because E40 is unrestricted. I don't remember off the top of my head but I think the earlier E40Ds had the option of the Catapiller engine which had the option of 230 or 250bhp. On the 'more standard' Cummin engine i believe there was at one time the uprated option of the 300bhp engine. The euro5 engined E40Ds are generally a bit slower due to updated ECU settings for better mpg. The euro5 on Voith are certainly slower than the euro4. Metroline's earliest Enviros had 225bhp as they had the larger 8.3L engines that predecessor Tridents have. Another factor to consider is the maintenance of each bus. Two identically spec'd buses could perform very differently... no different to the maintenance of identical cars, trucks, etc Thanks for the helpful info.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 26, 2016 0:36:40 GMT
Here is an interesting video link about MCV and it's production of vehicles for selected markets around the world including the UK & Europe, this video features some of GALs new 'MHV' class vehicles in the middle of production so I thought this would be worth a share. youtu.be/okaAKqjG3Q0 They look absolutely gorgeous! Designed to perfection...can't contain my excitement Now imagine seeing them on the streets of Cairo That would be bizarre indeed amongst all the Mercedes, Scania and MCV full size SDs.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 26, 2016 0:18:20 GMT
Does anyone happen to know the bhp of GAL's E400 E40 in particular? It's really quick off the mark, probably the quickest E40D I've been on. 250bhp Isn't that the standard bhp across the whole E40D fleet? The 08 and 12 reg ones for example seem somewhat slower in comparison, I assume this is due to E40 being unrestricted.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 25, 2016 23:11:37 GMT
Does anyone happen to know the bhp of GAL's E400 E40 in particular? It's really quick off the mark, probably the quickest E40D I've been on.
|
|