|
Post by COBO on Jul 22, 2018 14:06:46 GMT
I don't see how you can remove the R68. It provides a number of unique links south of Twickenham. You'd also lose service on roads solely served by the R68 which is unlikely to be acceptable politically and is also completely contrary to the Mayor's comments on outer London routes. I know TfL have been cutting outer London routes anyway but no one has yet chucked the Mayor's own words back in his face. Scrapping the R68 would allow this to be done. I don't quite see TfL putting the Mayor in that position. While I understand the debate about reducing cross town centre movements in Richmond we are left with the issue that it is chronically short of stand space in the town centre and the bus station, such as it is, is borderline useless for terminating services. I suppose you could end up with the following. R68 curtailed to Twickenham Station (using old 110 stand). H22 and 419 merged across Richmond We know the 493 is being curtailed to the Bus Station 371 extended to Kew Retail park 33, 490, H37, R70 unchanged That rationalises bus movements across Richmond, takes some capacity out of Richmond - Twickenham, reduces stand requirements in and around Richmond. The worries would be whether a merged 419/H22 could actually run reliably without the need for regular curtailments. Extending the 371 could overbus the road to Kew Retail Park. The only other option would be reroute part of the 391 via the A205, Kew Retail Park and then over the railway to regain its current route near Kew Gardens. There would still be a loss of some part of the R68. I've no idea what the patronage levels are in this part of the world so I may be talking nonsense about rerouting the 391. I am more familiar, albeit a tad of out of date, with Richmond to Twickenham which has always been very busy. Whether it can lose 4 bph these days I know not. I would leave the R68 as it is, and instead extend the 371 to Hammersmith to replace the 419. Then extend the H22 to Turnham Green to partially replace the 391. When you mean extend the 371 to Hammersmith via the 419 does that include the double deck journeys.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 22, 2018 16:56:29 GMT
I would leave the R68 as it is, and instead extend the 371 to Hammersmith to replace the 419. Then extend the H22 to Turnham Green to partially replace the 391. When you mean extend the 371 to Hammersmith via the 419 does that include the double deck journeys. The route would become fully SD, but with 10.9m vehicles if the routeing can take them.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 22, 2018 17:03:10 GMT
When you mean extend the 371 to Hammersmith via the 419 does that include the double deck journeys. The route would become fully SD, but with 10.9m vehicles if the routeing can take them. The problem with that is the 371 is a very busy route and that is why needs double decker journeys. It can’t go fully double deck because the residents object to them. A full SD on the 371 wouldn’t work.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2018 17:45:48 GMT
I think a better solution would be to send the potentially 4 bph on the 485 round the hail and ride section of the 419 and extend the 209 to Richmond at a reduced freq/DD conversion and withdraw the 419. That reduces services a bit in Barnes and Richmond.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 22, 2018 17:54:49 GMT
The route would become fully SD, but with 10.9m vehicles if the routeing can take them. The problem with that is the 371 is a very busy route and that is why needs double decker journeys. It can’t go fully double deck because the residents object to them. A full SD on the 371 wouldn’t work. The 371 is part busy, very quiet Richmond - Manor Circus & Kingston Eden St - Kingston Hall Rd not that busy Dukes Avenue - Tudor Drive area (most would take Direct 65), medium quiet in Petersham Busy on Richmond- Richmond Hill and Park Road - Kingston sections Busy at school times to Greycourt School Ham. Obviously the double decks are for School workings. But loading are mixed which suggests the route overall is overbussed, but some sections (not whole route) could do with some help, however it is probably too difficult to restructure it (and the old Richmond Hill loop route is long dead so can no longer help) and those quiet end sections are more for operational convenience as there are no spare stands at end of busy section. It’s quite interesting that people are considering extending the 371, as its predecessor the 71 had extensions to places like Hammersmith (via what is now 190)
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 22, 2018 18:44:39 GMT
I don't see how you can remove the R68. It provides a number of unique links south of Twickenham. You'd also lose service on roads solely served by the R68 which is unlikely to be acceptable politically and is also completely contrary to the Mayor's comments on outer London routes. I know TfL have been cutting outer London routes anyway but no one has yet chucked the Mayor's own words back in his face. Scrapping the R68 would allow this to be done. I don't quite see TfL putting the Mayor in that position. While I understand the debate about reducing cross town centre movements in Richmond we are left with the issue that it is chronically short of stand space in the town centre and the bus station, such as it is, is borderline useless for terminating services. I suppose you could end up with the following. R68 curtailed to Twickenham Station (using old 110 stand). H22 and 419 merged across Richmond We know the 493 is being curtailed to the Bus Station 371 extended to Kew Retail park 33, 490, H37, R70 unchanged That rationalises bus movements across Richmond, takes some capacity out of Richmond - Twickenham, reduces stand requirements in and around Richmond. The worries would be whether a merged 419/H22 could actually run reliably without the need for regular curtailments. Extending the 371 could overbus the road to Kew Retail Park. The only other option would be reroute part of the 391 via the A205, Kew Retail Park and then over the railway to regain its current route near Kew Gardens. There would still be a loss of some part of the R68. I've no idea what the patronage levels are in this part of the world so I may be talking nonsense about rerouting the 391. I am more familiar, albeit a tad of out of date, with Richmond to Twickenham which has always been very busy. Whether it can lose 4 bph these days I know not. I vaguely remember at beginning of year was a reference to forthcoming Richmond and Twickenham area bus consultation, think it was something like Operational Performance or Investment committee agenda/minutes. Hasn’t happened yet, as other things happened. All the single decks are a legacy of the 16.5t weight limit on Richmond Bridge, but this was raised to 18t about 6 years ago, so can now take fully loaded double deckers (before that only empty DD and night routes (assumed to never be full) were permitted across the bridge) Didn’t the 33 run over Richmond Bridge when it was double decker operated right until Hammersmith Bridge gained its weight restriction.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2018 19:10:18 GMT
It was really i guess as it was a route with 2 different amount of loadings that caused the 71 to be split. The need for an 8 mins service south of Kingston whereas a section that still suffices with a 10-12 min SD service north of Kingston. I doubt the 371 even if the objections to DDs were cleared would require the level of service of the current 71 if the routes rejoined.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 22, 2018 19:27:52 GMT
I vaguely remember at beginning of year was a reference to forthcoming Richmond and Twickenham area bus consultation, think it was something like Operational Performance or Investment committee agenda/minutes. Hasn’t happened yet, as other things happened. All the single decks are a legacy of the 16.5t weight limit on Richmond Bridge, but this was raised to 18t about 6 years ago, so can now take fully loaded double deckers (before that only empty DD and night routes (assumed to never be full) were permitted across the bridge) Didn’t the 33 run over Richmond Bridge when it was double decker operated right until Hammersmith Bridge gained its weight restriction. Yes, was RM operated, later MCW Metrobus (but these had a gross plated weight of about 16.7t) much less than modern buses 18t Not sure what Richmond bridge weight restriction was 30 years ago but was 16.5t for many years.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2018 20:13:10 GMT
That might explain why Richmond had quite a high number of Routemaster's still into the 80s due to the bridge having a reduced weight limit. The 33, 37 would have crossed it (the 27 on Sundays) plus a tight turn on the 71 meant it was RM long after suburban routes had converted.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Jul 23, 2018 0:03:11 GMT
Didn’t the 33 run over Richmond Bridge when it was double decker operated right until Hammersmith Bridge gained its weight restriction. Yes, was RM operated, later MCW Metrobus (but these had a gross plated weight of about 16.7t) much less than modern buses 18t Not sure what Richmond bridge weight restriction was 30 years ago but was 16.5t for many years. I remember very occasional Ms on the 290 (pre-Twickers cut) and 33 (obviously not through to Hammersmith!) up until 2000ish (emphasis on the ish) - would these have flouted the Richmond weight restriction, or was the levying of that a relatively recent thing?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2018 0:48:25 GMT
Yes, was RM operated, later MCW Metrobus (but these had a gross plated weight of about 16.7t) much less than modern buses 18t Not sure what Richmond bridge weight restriction was 30 years ago but was 16.5t for many years. I remember very occasional Ms on the 290 (pre-Twickers cut) and 33 (obviously not through to Hammersmith!) up until 2000ish (emphasis on the ish) - would these have flouted the Richmond weight restriction, or was the levying of that a relatively recent thing? The interesting thing is that at least one VA went out on the 33 between Fulwell & Barnes before the weight restriction changed to to the current mark which is 18t.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 23, 2018 6:43:44 GMT
I think a better solution would be to send the potentially 4 bph on the 485 round the hail and ride section of the 419 and extend the 209 to Richmond at a reduced freq/DD conversion and withdraw the 419. That reduces services a bit in Barnes and Richmond. The 371 could just instead extend to Hammersmith, but via the 209 between Barnes and Hammersmith. With 209 and 419 both withdrawn, and 485 diverted and increased in frequency as above.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 23, 2018 10:11:18 GMT
Yes, was RM operated, later MCW Metrobus (but these had a gross plated weight of about 16.7t) much less than modern buses 18t Not sure what Richmond bridge weight restriction was 30 years ago but was 16.5t for many years. I remember very occasional Ms on the 290 (pre-Twickers cut) and 33 (obviously not through to Hammersmith!) up until 2000ish (emphasis on the ish) - would these have flouted the Richmond weight restriction, or was the levying of that a relatively recent thing? And the R70 had a scheduled DD working over the bridge until 2005. I don't think it was ever scheduled for a low-floor DD so may not have breached the weight limit. Alternatively it may have had dispensation given there was only one trip in each direction.
I suspect various DDs on SWT rail replacement services would have breached the limit before it was raised to 18t.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 23, 2018 13:32:03 GMT
If a route such as the 490 were to be converted to DDs, could it just be diverted via Twickenham Bridge (instead of Richmond Bridge)?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2018 13:38:06 GMT
If a route such as the 490 were to be converted to DDs, could it just be diverted via Twickenham Bridge (instead of Richmond Bridge)? Double Deckers can run over Richmond Bridge as it is now 18t - Railway Replacements regularly use the bridge.
|
|