|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 31, 2016 20:45:17 GMT
it's a shame TfL is so stuck in the past and won't take the plunge and go for LEDs for what seems to be "for traditions sake." Lothian Buses have shown just how far LED displays have come in terms of information that can be provided, whilst TrentBarton have shown just how clear then displays can be. Perhaps if TfL were to go down the LED route they could start specifying rear destination displays as well (but that would be truly innovative) I've seen how smart rear LED destinations are, in places like Reading and Brighton. What is it that Leon is scared of, I wonder? The money peed away spent on cycle lanes that cyclists refuse to use, and yet more LTs (hopefully with opening windows) plus other projects like wiring the GOBLIN (Gospel Oak to Barking Line) shows that they do have money to throw about... surely they could fit the WOB LED that McKenna Bros supplied to MBK1 to a handful of buses (all operators, a couple at Brixton and Wood Green for Arriva, some for LU, Stagecoach, you get the picture) rather than the busical chairs of the cameo appearances across London of MBK1 / MCS1 / MEC70 or whatever it's name is today as it pops up at different garages without warning? They are or have a couple of Kindle Bus Stops I think in Southbank somewhere, I have an interview for a job tomorrow in Clerkenwell (just going for practice, Netstar is an unknown that's got bad reviews on Glassdoor jobsite), if the bus stop is in Waterloo I'll check it out on my return jaunt on the 243 back to Waterloo to catch my train back to Brentford... LED's have come a long way from the orange monstrosities or the flipdots of yesteryear. I know there's tradition, but it seems the same strict rules don't apply to trains or trams on the Tramlink / Underground / Overground these days. Bar the Bakerloo Line stock, every other Underground rolling stock including the '73 stock on the Piccadilly has LED blinds... Surely via points rather than a vague final destination could be better for tourists visiting our city? (you could have the route number like |243|Wood Green| scrolling as well. I'm sure if they could have got away with it, iBus would have had roller blinds as well A million likes for this post Couldn't agree more. I will never understand this tradition BS TFL are sticking to as it's benefiting no one but TFL's selfish and money-wasting selves. LED is far easier and cheaper to use and still looks good imo, especially if it's the white LED colour. And the scrolling idea is a brilliant idea that could be implemented, in white LED of course Nothing wrong with a bit of colour either, e.g. on buses in Paris, which looks pretty cool. Even the Kindle tech would look great if it actually works.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 31, 2016 20:19:34 GMT
Hope you have a strong stomach snoggle Pic courtesy of The Londoner (Tom Cooling) All I have to say for this is....Oh dear
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 30, 2016 11:12:21 GMT
Last Saturday's bus journey to North West London.....again The H3 to Golders Green Station via Hampstead Garden Suburbs (2468) - not as fast as the H2 'rally stage' journey I had a while ago but still a good one and the Solo was extremely nippy, tackling the steep hills with ease. I was shocked to see that The Bishops Avenue is a 40mph road and yet is lined with residential properties even if they are owned by oligarchs and Jonathan Ross (more on him later) - quite an unusual quirk for a 40mph road in London. Anyway, reached the 'terminus' and the driver informed me - from there, we literally just started chatting about general chit chat and it was from that that I learned Mr. Ross lives along The Bishops Avenue The 390 to Notting Hill Gate (LT16) - thought I'd try and tick another LT route off whilst the weather is still cold as in this weather, they aren't too bad to be on and the stupid motor wasn't on either throughout the whole journey. According to some passengers I overheard talking, they waited over 30 minutes for a 390 which is staggering given it's a high frequency route and we encountered no traffic at all Does Mr Woss catch the H3 then or does he just use a flash motah and zoom past the prols on the bus? I have seen too many tweets about the 390 and the frequency being appalling. Plenty of references to 20-30 minute waits which is ridiculous on a route like that but clearly something goes wrong somewhere. New Oxford St?? - that's been a really bad problem area for months. If New Oxford Street is a problem then surely large gaps would apply to the other routes as well? I never encounter long waits for, say the 10 or 98, especially the latter, unless there is a problem of some sort affecting all routes in the area. Maybe it's the congestion along Bloomsbury Street heading towards Tottenham Court Road? Or Metroline are not doing a good job running the route for some reason
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 29, 2016 23:37:52 GMT
As the 452 is currently diverted I thought may as well take it to go home...and what a journey it was! The driver was somewhat quiet along Ladbroke Grove but as soon as we approached the start of the diversion at the Ladbroke Grove/Harrow Road junction the fun began....50 mph down Harrow Road without stopping! And pure thrashing until I got off, it was a d*mn exciting ride
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 29, 2016 12:59:04 GMT
No because what me and 'rmz19' were trying to achieve was to support the 487 due to the heavy loadings and the fact a decker conversion has been surprisingly ignored. The 487 would continue to run regardless. I understand that and I think that both of your ideas are great but with the 483 and 187 both high frequency routes won't it over bus the sections shared with the 487. I don't think extending the 187 to Alperton via the 487 would overbus the overlapping section, it's a fairly short distance from CMH to Alperton so it should be fine. Even if both of our ideas were to be implemented, the 487 would still have its exclusive link between Willesden Junction/Harlesden/CMH and Sudbury/South Harrow. Although I do understand your point regarding the 483, vjaska perhaps rerouting the 483 via the 487 might not be wise because of the large overlap? The 483's proposed route to Harrow seems fine especially as it will cover the unique section of Wembley Hill.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 28, 2016 23:31:24 GMT
The money would come from your pocket, lol. I doubt a change of mayor would also really stop more LT purchases. TfL are likely to put a case forward. we have been promised many things by both mayors i.e. no strikes on the Underground etc but they still happen. I think even before Boris took office TfL were starting to slow down on the idea of the bend bus. I think I may know more about TfL's budget and financing sources than you do so sarcy comments aren't really necessary. This is nothing short of scandalous - if £65m is "sloshing around" inside TfL then no wonder Mayoral candidates feel they can afford to cut fares. I'd rather this was spent of proper meaningful service improvements than these awful buses. It's the bare faced deceit in front of the Assembly's Budget and Performance Committee that gets me. I just find that astounding behaviour. If TfL are stupid enough to place these orders then I sincerely hope someone is elected in May who then instructs them to cancel them. Precisely. The revenue gained from the cancelled LT orders, if this indeed happens, can be better spent on cheaper and conventional (and subjectively better) buses. There will even be some money left over to budget towards essential service improvements, it's not rocket science to figure out that improving London's bus network infrastructure is what needs to be prioritised. The unnecessary emphasis on manufacturing more and more of these things should have ceased a while ago, of course at what exact amount is subjective, but only a few LT operated routes would be sufficient for them to be recognised on the city streets and acknowledged as the legacy to the Routemaster, if that indeed was its intention. Additionally, this matter would not have been criticised as much for being a vanity project if a modest amount of LTs were commissioned, more of them simply won't keep London's bus network moving as effectively as conventional buses would due to their relative costs and the lack of difference in their respective capacities.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 27, 2016 21:17:22 GMT
Totally agree. travelled through Bow on Sunday and boi did I regret it. To dismantle the flyover is to dismantle (in my eyes) one of the Bus Priority Schemes as the 25 uses this to improve service. But I guess that the 25 may not be the same route by the time the Flyover comes down. It was only recently that the 25 started using the flyover, such a shame as this significantly helped the route's reliability. Now the 25 will be back to dealing with the congestion in the area amidst all the road users all because of this heavy emphasis on cyclists unless something radical will be undertaken. Funnily enough, on the subject of cyclists, I have just witnessed an incident between a cyclist and a car driver along New Oxford Street which the former instigated. Anyway, I digress.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 27, 2016 0:42:59 GMT
The northern section of the 88 between Oxford Circus and Camden Town used to be the 135, which ran between Marble Arch and Archway. It was withdrawn in 2000 and the 88 was subsequently extended to Camden Town with the frequency of the 134 boosted. Also, a more obvious one as it was fairly recent, most of the 390 used to be the former 10 prior to being cut to Kings Cross.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 26, 2016 11:24:04 GMT
The 251 runs through the pretty affluent area of Totteridge & Whetstone, scenic too
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 24, 2016 19:23:53 GMT
Lol sigh indeed. Hong Kong is just pure bus heaven
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 24, 2016 12:16:44 GMT
Seriously? They're actually going this far just to get a particular bus type out on the road? So stupid...all that money going to waste. They have done this before with bendy buses, so that was also a waste then. Really? I don't recall any road modifications done for the bendies apart from lengthening bus stops and bus stands.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 22, 2016 14:15:43 GMT
I can see the usefulness of this extension, but even if cut to Orpington, Perry Hall Road it would be a very long route at 15 miles and its reliability would suffer greatly. However I do agree with extending the 401, personally I'd extend it to Sidcup, Queen Mary's Hospital using an alternative routing to the 229 via Arnsberg Way - Highland Road - Albion Road - Townley Road - Arbuthnot Lane - Bridgen Road - Blendon Road - Penhill Road - Foots Cray Lane - Bexley Lane - Rectory Lane - High Street - Sidcup - The Green - Chislehurst Road - Queen Mary's Hospital. It's not too long at all, Thamesmead to Orpington would be about 1hr 15mins end to end off peak which is about the optimum length for bus routes. I certainly wouldn't curtail it at Perry Hall Road on the edge of Orpington. Correct me if I'm wrong but an off peak running time of 75 mins is already excessive, imagine how long peak journeys would take. For a bit of perspective route 25's off peak journey time is 60 mins.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 22, 2016 12:38:02 GMT
This route would be massive, even with a 10 minute frequency I could imagine long queues in both ways Ooh, at a second glance you're right! I think I'd actually make the terminus Orpington, Perry Hall Road. I can see the usefulness of this extension, but even if cut to Orpington, Perry Hall Road it would be a very long route at 15 miles and its reliability would suffer greatly. However I do agree with extending the 401, personally I'd extend it to Sidcup, Queen Mary's Hospital using an alternative routing to the 229 via Arnsberg Way - Highland Road - Albion Road - Townley Road - Arbuthnot Lane - Bridgen Road - Blendon Road - Penhill Road - Foots Cray Lane - Bexley Lane - Rectory Lane - High Street - Sidcup - The Green - Chislehurst Road - Queen Mary's Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 22, 2016 11:40:12 GMT
Thank you Rmz19. I had the idea that seasonal extensions were very much in the past, like the 116 tootling off to Windsor on a summer Sunday. I think there are only two left - 215 running to Lea Valley Camp Site daily during the summer months. You suddenly hear lots of German and Dutch accents in Walthamstow Bus Station. The 246 runs on to Chartwell on Summer Sundays. The former 267 extension to Hampton Court was killed off years ago by TfL. Happy to be corrected if I've missed anything. Lool at suddenly hearing lots of German and Dutch accents I completely forgot about the 267's summer extension to Hampton Court! You've rekindled my memory as I remember it very well now.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 22, 2016 0:02:40 GMT
By 'the zones' I'm assuming you're referring to outside the Greater London boundary. If so then below is a list of routes that venture outside the boundary. Routes marked with an asterisk only cross the boundary very briefly. 20, 80*, 81, 96, 107, 116*, 117, 142, 150*, 166, 167, 203, 215* (seasonal extension only), 216, 217*, 233, 235, 246, 258, 279*, 290, 292, 293, 298, 313, 317*, 327*, 331, 347, 370, 372, 375, 397, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 411, 418, 428, 434, 462*, 464, 465, 466, 467, 470, 491*, 492, 498, 549, B12, K3, R5, R10, S1. Can I also include my new route proposals?
|
|