|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 6, 2016 16:56:55 GMT
Leon Daniels has already told Sports Direct to withdraw those as they're not all over red Leon always gets his own way. But he hasn't got 'em all yet! What a difference a livery can make. I have to say I'm very fond of the Go Ahead trainers, the colours go very well together. Do you happen to know where I can buy them?
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 6, 2016 12:15:28 GMT
Perhaps extending the route to Archway might be possible as an alternative stand option, and adding more links as well. Hopefully all of these cycling vanity projects will come to an end once the new mayor is in office. I seldom see anyone using the cycle "highways". With the imminent highway reconstruction occurring in the Archway area, I cannot personally see TFL looking to extend the 277 to Archway despite it potentially opening up new links, as reliability would obviously go down the pan as it has this week on routes running in and around the Archway. TFL would have to spend more money in providing additional resources something they don't seem too keen on, with this proposal and only relying on the 30 solely between Mildmay Park and Highbury, which is absurd. I really cannot understand how bus operators are expected to meet Performance targets with many highways in and around being dug up collectively, a la Muswell Hill Road j/ Alexandra Park Road, Archway Gyratory. I understand that councils have an obligation to maintain roads but a bit of joined up planning wouldn't go a miss to be honest. Archway is a little far-fetched indeed, Angel or Holloway are good destinations as they aren't too distant to affect the 277's reliability yet would still introduce new links, the former providing support to the 30 between Dalston Junction and Angel. Obviously any extension to the 277 would be costly in TFL's eyes so this is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 5, 2016 23:55:29 GMT
I'm not entirely sure about this proposal, well prepare for more curtailed 30s! 'Extending the day time service beyond Highbury Corner would affect reliability and significantly increase operating costs of the service' - Extending the 277 to Angel would be as 'costly' as increasing the 30's PVR and it's not a particularly long route in regards to length and running time so it would be fine, extending it to Holloway is another option. This would still allow the works to be done without any inconveniences caused. You need to re-read the proposals. The 30's enhancement is two extra peak workings in each peak. Two extra with flow journeys. Nothing extra at any other time. Extending the 277 at all times to Angel would be vastly more expensive than that. Let's face it there will be a greater than 50% cut in capacity and service between Dalston and Highbury. This is just another sympton of the popularity of the Overground service which has 16 trains per hour between Highbury and Dalston at peak times (ELL and NLL combined). The 242 got cut back because of the popularity of the ELL so this is simply the next stage in rationalising the bus service because of modal transfer. If you look at the annual usage stats then both the 30 and 277 are pretty much flat lining in terms of patronage. Depending on when you make the comparison from the 30 may even have lost patronage. The 277 is probably busier at its Docklands end of things than elsewhere. When I rode both routes last year the 30 was very modestly loaded from Hackney to Highbury but that was off peak. I suspect it's busier in the peaks but not overly stressed through Dalston. If the 263 hadn't been extended to Highbury Fields then the logical thing would have been an extension up Holloway Road to a convenient turning point (depending on where the stress on the 43 / 271 lessens). Ah right, I somehow missed that bit of information regarding the four extra peak journeys. In that case it would be significantly more costly to extend the 277, albeit still an option I'm inclined to regardless. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 5, 2016 20:56:13 GMT
I'm not entirely sure about this proposal, well prepare for more curtailed 30s! 'Extending the day time service beyond Highbury Corner would affect reliability and significantly increase operating costs of the service' - Extending the 277 to Angel would be as 'costly' as increasing the 30's PVR and it's not a particularly long route in regards to length and running time so it would be fine, extending it to Holloway is another option. This would still allow the works to be done without any inconveniences caused.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 5, 2016 17:47:50 GMT
Bedroom buses are always great for an afternoon sleep on the way home from work :-) The Euro 5 E400s are my "bedroom bus". I like them but for some reason they're quite boring and I sometimes drift off when I'm on one. B5LHs are brilliant buses though, and I'm glad the 72 and 85 are getting them, as well as maybe the 65. My 'bedroom' bus would be any conventional Gemini 2, they have the softest suspension around and their quietness combined helps for a sleepy and relaxing journey
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 5, 2016 11:54:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 4, 2016 23:23:04 GMT
It appears routes 28/452 are no longer diverted via Queens' Park, and the 316 returned to its original line of route But now its diverted *again*, alongside routes 6/187, from Queen's Park via Salusbury Road - Harvist Road - Chamberlayne Road. It looks like TFL finally realised it was a silly idea to divert the 316 away from Queen's Park! It still states on the TFL website that there are roadworks on Chamberlayne Road, but surely if this diversion is on then the 28/452 would still be diverted too? The only thing I can think of is either they're rerouted via the diverted 52 then 187 to Kensal Rise, or it's actually Banister Road that's closed and the 28/52/452 are back to normal. I haven't gone to the area to check for myself yet. Additionally routes 28/31/328 are on diversion s/b due to roadworks on Great Western Road. The 31/328 are diverted via Harrow Road - Ladbroke Grove (joining with the 28) - Kensal Road - Golborne Road - Elkstone Road. So many diversions
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 4, 2016 16:54:15 GMT
And for our younger readers, here is the proof( Photo taken from Vol 1 of 'Routemaster' by Ken Blacker) Could a LT climb that hill? I think I vaguely remember this, I was little at the time... in 1987 the 11 was cut back from San Francisco to Fulham Broadway to improve reliability The 11 shouldn't have been cut back so drastically, its route may have been a little lengthy at over 5000 miles but it was fairly direct over the Atlantic so its running time was all right
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 3, 2016 15:59:49 GMT
Also regarding the 487, I would extend the 187 from CMH to Alperton via the 487 to support it between Harlesden and Alperton. I would also run the 187 directly via Acton Lane instead of serving Asda, North Acton Road and Minerva Road/Standard Road to make the route more direct.Why? Every other route in the area does this, running via Acton Lane to Central Middlesex Hospital. What all the people living on North Acton and in the streets running off it? Have you ever been at Asda observing the 187 loading and the number of people getting off at the North Acton Road stop and the Wesley Avenue stop. People appreciate the service which saves them a long walk from the Waxlow Road stop on Acton Lane, down to the junction with North Acton Road and then a trek down North Actonh Road itself - something you don't need after a long day at work when there is a bus route serving North Acton Road. Running the 187 in the way you suggest would make the Willesden County Court-Central Middlesex Hospital part of the route totally unneccesary with four other routes serving exactly the same route and stops. I use the 187 regularly so I'm aware of how the section between CMH and Harlesden is used. While the 187 is used along North Acton Lane and Minerva Road/Standard Road, these sections are lightly used the majority of the time. Plus my suggestion wouldn't make sense if its current route remained and still serves CMH and support the 487 to and from Alperton due to the unnecessary double runs, hence why I suggested this section to be withdrawn. To save any inconvenience, the 228 could run along this section instead. TBF Asda is only served by the e/b 187, it's a very short walk to Park Royal Road for the other bus routes therefore my suggestion would be fine in that respect. If needs must, e/b 187s could still serve Asda without issue if my proposal went ahead, I just suggested this to make the route more direct.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 3, 2016 11:53:26 GMT
114 pretty much confirmed as going to EW. The old generator at the forecourt of the garage leading to the bus station has been purchased and should in due course be demolished to make space for the 114. I'm also lead to believe we may see the introduction of MMCs on the 114 as at my last point of contact with my seniors there was no mention of 114 order in line with the 140 and 182 orders. It is also well known that the engineering manager at EW doesn't want any Volvos back at the garage. That's excellent news if true. I did think that Metroline had an exclusivity deal with Volvo though, but having to order 70 more VWHs in one go is a bit daunting for both parties involved. The enthusiast in me says - great! I prefer TEHs and am bored of the total deluge of Metroline's VWHs I hope there will be rare workings on Central London's 113. If you mean the MMC TEHs then I'm with you with this one, I also prefer to have more of them over the VWHs
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 2, 2016 17:02:39 GMT
The uncertainty of the 91 getting LTs is even reflected on the londonbusroutes website as the info is striked through. I have a suspicion that this 'Short Routemaster' is actually the City as the there is no legit info regarding this and the term didn't quite catch on, otherwise the 91 should just get the City's and save all this 'modification' hassle. Have E400H Citys been ordered? The new contract starts on Saturday and LTs are late*, hence the strikethrough. (And if more storms are on the way then there'll be more delays as seen with the 3 & 68 batches) (*Just a thought: would it be feasible for 91's LTs to have the original rear door configuration to allow standardisation with he other HT batch?)No it's just a suspicion I have. If orders are late then a question mark is usually displayed in place of the date rather than striking through the info, hence my suspicion.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 2, 2016 12:26:54 GMT
The uncertainty of the 91 getting LTs is even reflected on the londonbusroutes website as the info is striked through. I have a suspicion that this 'Short Routemaster' is actually the City as there is no legit info regarding this and perhaps the term 'Short Routemaster' didn't quite catch on, otherwise the 91 should just get the City's and save all this 'modification' hassle.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 1, 2016 12:18:57 GMT
A relatively minor change to close the existing stand in Highgate Village and move it round the corner to where the 214 stands / starts from. Seems a bit of a shame given the 271 stand is, I believe, historic and dates back a long way and was used by Trolleybuses. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-271I liked the 271 stand, it was somewhat unique. However I do prefer this new one as it's far more practical, the previous stand was in such a restricted space and it was not uncommon for the stand to overflow with some 271s standing on the side of Highgate High Street.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 1, 2016 12:07:51 GMT
What's wrong with them? Are they slow or governed down? The ones I saw on the 134 on Saturday seemed to be okay... I could tell they were voith by their idle. I was in Kentish Town They feel very sluggish for some reason. Must be the fact they onto 1st for so long. If you compare the VWs to the TEHs then the latter may seem quicker due to their seamless acceleration and the absence of gears (something I dislike about VWHs), they do have a quick pace off the mark. But the VWs are by no means sluggish, maybe it's their dull sound that gives you this illusion? They don't sound particularly special but I would pick the VWs over the TEHs any day.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 31, 2016 23:20:28 GMT
Out of interest, where is the furthest point north of London a TfL bus route serves and what routes go there? Because i wonder how long it would take to travel from that place to Redhill (the furthest place south a TfL route serves). And i may want to attempt this one day, to travel the entire distance by bus. That would be either the 298 or 313 to Potters Bar, assuming you're intending to cross the London boundary as Redhill is outside of it.
|
|