|
Post by rmz19 on Oct 1, 2015 11:42:07 GMT
Just entered
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Oct 1, 2015 1:00:09 GMT
I see your points but could the same not be said about most buses? The ALX400 was perfectly OK, so does that mean the Enviro400 was pointless? But there is a massive difference, the ALX400 and Enviro400 have completely different designs and the ALX400 was produced well before. The E400H City is being produced shortly after the MMC and NB4L and they all share similar design elements.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 30, 2015 18:03:54 GMT
I think that the 209 could be molded together with the 419 to create a Richmond to Hammersmith super link. It always bugs me why the 209 is so short The 209 works as it is which is to link Mortlake and the bottom of Avondale Road which sees a lot of use by passengers with Hammersmith - why does Richmond need yet another route to Hammersmith when there is already the 33, 190, 391 & 419? Just because a route is short, doesn't mean it automatically needs an extension! You seem to defend the 209 quite alot lol, It indeed serves its purpose very well and is used alot regardless of its route length. However an idea I've always thought of is to reroute the 419 from Barnes Bridge Station to terminate at Roehampton via Mill Hill Road then alongside the 72, this would allow the 209 to be extended to Richmond. This idea hits two birds with one stone as the 72 will be provided with extra support by the 419 as well as the 209 providing a unique connection between Richmond and Mortlake.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 29, 2015 20:05:43 GMT
I have devised a plan to replace the 11, because I think it could do more and the number could be used elsewhere C4 Putney Bridge Fulham Broadway Earls Court South Kensington Sloane Square Eaton Gate Victoria Westminster Trafalgar Square Aldwych Blackfriars Mansion House Tower Hill I think I may be being a bit adventurous, but let me know what you think The 11 is fine as it is, I don't think it needs an extension as the route can hit some bad traffic and can be seriously delayed. It most certainly should not be renumbered either, especially a prefix number (something I generally despise).
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 29, 2015 10:35:46 GMT
Sorry but since when is a glazed stairwell & a wrap over rear saloon windscreen the London look. I think they've been watching too many Rimmel adverts. Regardless of likes/dislikes of this bus, I'm no closer as to the purpose of this bus. It's as if ADL are ashamed to see loads of MMC's running around in London. There's that famous saying - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Since the LTs came into service. They are now London's flagship bus, didn't you know? I feel this project must have been initiated by TfL. Specifically, to create a London centric bus after the New Routemaster project finishes next year.I've highlighted my favourite part of your post, just because it's such a pleasant thing to read
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 28, 2015 21:38:10 GMT
18/N18 and 36 currently diverted westbound between Edgware Road - Sutherland Avenue, Harrow Road and Bayswater - Prince of Wales, Harrow Road respectively due to antiskid resurfacing. 18/N18 diverted via Edgware Road - Warwick Avenue Station - Shirland Road - Sutherland Avenue. 36 diverted via Westbourne Grove - Chepstow Road - Westbourne Park Station.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 28, 2015 15:27:23 GMT
There's 5 of them coming 1471-1475. No indication as to what they will be coded for now. 'BYD' is a possible option for them Or perhaps 'BE', 'B' being the first initial and 'E' being Electric. It's also the reverse of the BYD electric SD on the 507/521.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 28, 2015 11:22:13 GMT
Really? Interesting as the 6 and 98 have just received new VWHs, thought it was going to W for the 16 as previously planned. From TfL's viewpoint it makes more sense to evaluate an all electric decker on routes that run in the ULEZ and on Oxford St / Regent St. The 16 doesn't run in the ULEZ - it uses the boundary. As with all the trial routes for electric vehicles the routes also terminate at a garage allowing quick swap overs. Obviously the 16 does too but I think the 6 and 98 are probably a more robust test environment than the 16. Ah right, the 6 and 98 would indeed make more sense due to them running within the ULEZ. That's great news then, hopefully another completely new bus to experience on my 6 very soon
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 28, 2015 10:53:26 GMT
It looks SO ugly!! . I wouldn't like to be travelling in one of these. Is this still going to the 16, which is becoming NBfL. It is going to AC for the 6 and 98 Really? Interesting as the 6 and 98 have just received new VWHs, thought it was going to W for the 16 as previously planned.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 28, 2015 1:29:30 GMT
Thanks mate, it works. This design is slowly growing on me though I'm still a bit unsure about the rear section underneath the upstairs rear window. This bus reminds me a bit of the East Lanc S type body, a body I've always liked despite looking strange lol. The new BYD electric DD looks very strange, it defies what a DD should look like lol. It's growing on me slowly too, the only thing that puts me off is the extremely flat back which looks out of proportion, if the back was less flat and the wheelbase was slightly longer it would've looked more appealing. At least this design will give London a breath of fresh air
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 27, 2015 10:49:33 GMT
So it's a fusion of an E200 MMC with E400 sides and an LT rear, interesting. But I'd prefer a completely new design rather than using existing style influences. *Cough*Metrodecker/MCV EvoSeti/BYD Electric DD*Cough* Shouldn't complain though, it looks good and I'm all for new buses for London.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 24, 2015 15:40:16 GMT
Not sure what to think of this, the 452's layout at the southern end is hardly direct and journeys to Vauxhall could be done quicker by using either the 156 or 344 from Battersea Park, this makes the purpose of the extension questionable. It would make sense if the 452 was rerouted from Battersea Park to Vauxhall along Nine Elms Lane instead. The problem with that though is Wandsworth Road loses its link to Battersea Park and further north - at present, you can only go east, west & south from there directly. Personally, I'd of left it as it was rather than extending it to Vauxhall. That link would be lost indeed, but I wouldn't say it's a demanded link as the 452 is lightly used in that section. Wandsworth Road always striked to me as an odd destination, an alternative would be to extend the 452 to Clapham Common to support the 137, this would also create new links between Clapham Common and High Street Kensington/Notting Hill Gate/Ladbroke Grove.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 24, 2015 11:27:18 GMT
Was told today by a reliable source that the 452 will be extended to Vauxhall Bus Station from January. Not sure what to think of this, the 452's layout at the southern end is hardly direct and journeys to Vauxhall could be done quicker by using either the 156 or 344 from Battersea Park, this makes the purpose of the extension questionable. It would make sense if the 452 was rerouted from Battersea Park to Vauxhall along Nine Elms Lane instead.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 21, 2015 22:25:05 GMT
FINALLY. Hopefully (if they're retrofitted) my passengers will stop complaining come next year #gettingmyhopesup I don't think opening windows will make a massive difference, they would be useless on a hot summers day in the rush hour traffic! They're unnecessary, rather than wasting money all that needs to be done is to get all the Air Cooling systems working properly.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 21, 2015 14:02:28 GMT
I would reinstate the 74 back to Roehampton, Danebury Avenue as it used to be, but not at the expense of withdrawing the 430. Removing the restriction along Danebury Avenue could allow the 430 to be extended to Richmond via Sawyers Hill and Richmond Hill, providing a unique alternative to the 190. Otherwise the 430 seems like a tricky route to fiddle with, remaining options would either be a radical modification or withdrawal.
|
|