London Buses Discussion

[PGAT]

Imo single-decking the route was a big oversight and that may come back to bite them.

 

[Busaholic]

Apparently the reason given by TfL for the single deck route is low trees. I think this was mentioned earlier in this thread.

Okay, I'll take that at face value, but the obvious question is '' then why take this routeing, which wasn't in the original specification?'' It doesn't add up to me.

 

[Hophead]

Apologies for not backtracking through the thread, but do we know where the problematic trees are? Cutting back overhanging vegetation is hardly a novel exercise and is carried out all over London and elsewhere all the time, so this seems a curious excuse.

 

[PGAT]

Apologies for not backtracking through the thread, but do we know where the problematic trees are? Cutting back overhanging vegetation is hardly a novel exercise and is carried out all over London and elsewhere all the time, so this seems a curious excuse.

I believe they're on South Eden Park Road

 

[Bishopstone]

Apologies for not backtracking through the thread, but do we know where the problematic trees are? Cutting back overhanging vegetation is hardly a novel exercise and is carried out all over London and elsewhere all the time, so this seems a curious excuse.

By process of elimination, disregarding those roads where double deckers already operate successfully, I think the problem must be in South Eden Park Road or Monks Orchard Road. I’m tempted to go on a reconnaissance mission to see whether there has been an element of bluffing!

 

[TWBG]

Shouldn’t all bus routes at North Finchley serve stop P inside the bus station?

 

[Busaholic]

By process of elimination, disregarding those roads where double deckers already operate successfully, I think the problem must be in South Eden Park Road or Monks Orchard Road. I’m tempted to go on a reconnaissance mission to see whether there has been an element of bluffing!

Could it be that TfL will attempt to assuage the frustration of Metrobus at being unable so far to operate their long-awaited new allocation of opportunity-charged buses on the 358 by getting Bromley North and West Croydon bus stations charged up, and lo and behold....? They would be a good advert for Superloop, after all. A maybe-not-so-idle thought.

 

[Goldfish62]

Could it be that TfL will attempt to assuage the frustration of Metrobus at being unable so far to operate their long-awaited new allocation of opportunity-charged buses on the 358 by getting Bromley North and West Croydon bus stations charged up, and lo and behold....? They would be a good advert for Superloop, after all. A maybe-not-so-idle thought.

Nice idea, but the delay is due to getting the power supply connected. You'd have to start from scratch with new connections and new equipment at Bromley North and West Croydon.

 

[Hophead]

By process of elimination, disregarding those roads where double deckers already operate successfully, I think the problem must be in South Eden Park Road or Monks Orchard Road. I’m tempted to go on a reconnaissance mission to see whether there has been an element of bluffing!

Having done some reconnaissance via Street View, I wonder if Monks Orchard Road is the culprit? There seems to be a number of mature trees on the grass verges towards the north end. Possibly of equal importance, the houses along there seem very pleasant, so I wonder if TfL prefers not to antagonise the locals by chopping back? South Eden Park Road also has tree cover, but is a B road, which I would have expected to have a requirement for height clearance unless otherwise marked (there is a 15 foot 3 inch low bridge indicated, so presumably the road is good for that throughout).

 

[PGAT]

Having done some reconnaissance via Street View, I wonder if Monks Orchard Road is the culprit? There seems to be a number of mature trees on the grass verges towards the north end. Possibly of equal importance, the houses along there seem very pleasant, so I wonder if TfL prefers not to antagonise the locals by chopping back? South Eden Park Road also has tree cover, but is a B road, which I would have expected to have a requirement for height clearance unless otherwise marked (there is a 15 foot 3 inch low bridge indicated, so presumably the road is good for that throughout).

Monks Orchard isn’t the culprit. The tree coverage there compared to South Eden Park Road is more sparse and the trees there are much taller.

 

[Edsmith]

Apparently the reason given by TfL for the single deck route is low trees. I think this was mentioned earlier in this thread.

Yes it is low trees in South Eden Park Road and it's also been mentioned before that the routing is to avoid taking passengers from Tramlink. Single deckers should be quite sufficient for demand.

 

[Somewhere]

Yes it is low trees and it's also been mentioned before that the routing is to avoid taking passengers off Tramlink. Single deckers should be quite sufficient for demand.

Why not include Tramlink in the Superloop scheme?

 

[Dr_Paul]

Apparently the reason given by TfL for the single deck route is low trees. I think this was mentioned earlier in this thread.

Years back, London Transport had an old STL with its roof removed, to keep tree branches suitably trimmed so that they would not be hit by buses. The bus has been preserved, perhaps it might be returned to service...

 

[Edsmith]

Years back, London Transport had an old STL with its roof removed, to keep tree branches suitably trimmed so that they would not be hit by buses. The bus has been preserved, perhaps it might be returned to service...

Trees aren't going to be hacked to bits in order to accommodate double deckers on a route that will probably never need them.

 

[Busaholic]

Nice idea, but the delay is due to getting the power supply connected. You'd have to start from scratch with new connections and new equipment at Bromley North and West Croydon.

If, as I hope, this type of arrangement becomes quite prevalent at larger bus stations/termini then those two locations would almost certainly be included. I do, however, recognise it is for the medium/long term, but it's something that TfL and National Grid etc really must get to grips with if effective all-electric operation is to take place in all parts of London.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Trees aren't going to be hacked to bits in order to accommodate double deckers on a route that will probably never need them.

Perhaps in respect of the bus route in question, but there are routes in Central London, all double-deck, on which there are quite a few trees that need a trim. In the past, they would have been trimmed, nowadays a sign saying 'overhanging branches' seems to suffice.

 

[Edsmith]

Perhaps in respect of the bus route in question, but there are routes in Central London, all double-deck, on which there are quite a few trees that need a trim. In the past, they would have been trimmed, nowadays a sign saying 'overhanging branches' seems to suffice.

Those signs are usually on diversion routes

 

[eh_oh]

In my observations I have seen that demand is failing to materialise on the SL10, as I've never seen a bus with more than about 8 people on it.

Of course I could just be unlucky and every other bus is standing room only, but I doubt it

 

[Goldfish62]

In my observations I have seen that demand is failing to materialise on the SL10, as I've never seen a bus with more than about 8 people on it.

Of course I could just be unlucky and every other bus is standing room only, but I doubt it

Less than two months, plus with Christmas in the middle, is a very short time to draw any conclusions. Six months minimum is more realistic.

 

[Edvid]

Looks like Arriva don't accept TfL tickets/passes on the LSP 477 any more.*

I had a paper One Day Travelcard and (for curiosity's sake) sought to travel from Orpington to St Mary Cray with it, but the driver wouldn't accept it. I got the 51 instead so it wasn't an issue for me, though Appendix 1 of the TfL CoC will need updating.

[* Freedom Pass aside, given its ENCTS status]

 

[Joe Paxton]

Looks like Arriva don't accept TfL tickets/passes on the LSP 477 any more.*

I had a paper One Day Travelcard and (for curiosity's sake) sought to travel from Orpington to St Mary Cray with it, but the driver wouldn't accept it. I got the 51 instead so it wasn't an issue for me, though Appendix 1 of the TfL CoC will need updating.

[* Freedom Pass aside, given its ENCTS status]

Or the driver isn't aware of the arrangements.

 

[Edsmith]

In my observations I have seen that demand is failing to materialise on the SL10, as I've never seen a bus with more than about 8 people on it.

Of course I could just be unlucky and every other bus is standing room only, but I doubt it

Sounds about par for the course, I can't see any of these routes being a success.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Those signs are usually on diversion routes

There have been warning signs about overhanging trees tacked on to trees in Kingsway, a busy road for buses, for many years; plenty of time to have had the trees suitable trimmed.

 

[Goldfish62]

There have been warning signs about overhanging trees tacked on to trees in Kingsway, a busy road for buses, for many years; plenty of time to have had the trees suitable trimmed.

Councils in London are no more responsive at cutting trees than they are outside London.

In the case of Kingsway a bus lost its roof a few years ago when hitting a tree. At the time it looked like a fluke, hence the warning signs. It has not stopped double decks using Kingsway.

 

[Busaholic]

Councils in London are no more responsive at cutting trees than they are outside London.

In the case of Kingsway a bus lost its roof a few years ago when hitting a tree. At the time it looked like a fluke, hence the warning signs. It has not stopped double decks using Kingsway.

It's difficult to be sure, as the London Borough of Camden doesn't appear to list all Tree Preservation Orders on any publically available website, but piecing together sparse information suggests there is such an order on the Eastern side of Kingsway. Prhichesumably this isn't an order on an individual tree, but the whole group, which may extend into Westminster borough, The orders do allow the council to carry out what are called 'Crown re-reductions' which I gather allows reduction in the height and spread of trees over a three year period, work to be carried out between September and April.

I might well be wrong, but iirc it was a 91 bus and the suggestion at the time was that the driver had somehow selected the wrong trajectory, but that was based on hearsay.

 

[busesrusuk]

I think the problem with Kingsway is that the main trunk of some trees lean across and encroach into the nearside lane about 10ft from the ground. The nearside lane now has (or did!) height warning signs; coaches still use that lane (possibly for parking?). Deckers use the outside lane

To deal with them properly it would need some of them to be cut down totally which is probably too far for some functionary to contemplate.

Again, from memory, I thought it was an abellio bus that lost its roof but happy to be corrected.

 

[Busaholic]

Again, from memory, I thought it was an abellio bus that lost its roof but happy to be corrected.

No. my memory is probably at fault.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I think the problem with Kingsway is that the main trunk of some trees lean across and encroach into the nearside lane about 10ft from the ground. The nearside lane now has (or did!) height warning signs; coaches still use that lane (possibly for parking?). Deckers use the outside lane

To deal with them properly it would need some of them to be cut down totally which is probably too far for some functionary to contemplate.

Again, from memory, I thought it was an abellio bus that lost its roof but happy to be corrected.

Yes - some trees in Kingsway lean over the carriageway; in many cases it's the trunk which impinges above the edge of the road, not the branches. There was some kerb realignment at one spot to deal wit this, but for much of the distance the road is too narrow for that. Most of the trees concerned are in Westminster not Camden.

The height warning signs on the inside lanes have been there for years; they even messed up - to much local pleasure/amusement - the plan for the Olympic "Zil Lanes" for sports bureaucrats/sponsors/etc in 2012, because the buses there couldn't be put in the inside lane to keep the outside lane for the Olympic vehicles. Though given how much environmental and other damage the Olympics caused in some places, I'm surprised the IOC didn't order the GLA to chop down those trees!

 

[traji00]

I might well be wrong, but iirc it was a 91 bus and the suggestion at the time was that the driver had somehow selected the wrong trajectory, but that was based on hearsay.

Again, from memory, I thought it was an abellio bus that lost its roof but happy to be corrected.

It was indeed a on 91, TE1745. (Formerly First DN33605)

Holborn bus crash: Four injured as roof torn off bus on Kingsway

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Tetchytyke]

In my observations I have seen that demand is failing to materialise on the SL10, as I've never seen a bus with more than about 8 people on it.

I'd be surprised if demand doesn't steadily build up, especially with the university students back. I used to regularly use the 183 between Golders Green and Harrow and it was always pretty busy.