|
Post by fg49 on Jun 17, 2015 22:50:46 GMT
I noticed a few weeks back that an SE on the G1 had its side blind stuck on the 485 to Putney somewhere, confirmed today to be Putney Station. So whatever's going to happen with the 485, it'll run to or past Putney Station.
|
|
|
Route 485
Jun 17, 2015 23:58:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Jun 17, 2015 23:58:14 GMT
I noticed a few weeks back that an SE on the G1 had its side blind stuck on the 485 to Putney somewhere, confirmed today to be Putney Station. So whatever's going to happen with the 485, it'll run to or past Putney Station. Interesting - I wonder if the 424 & 485 are to swap routings?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 9:43:43 GMT
I noticed a few weeks back that an SE on the G1 had its side blind stuck on the 485 to Putney somewhere, confirmed today to be Putney Station. So whatever's going to happen with the 485, it'll run to or past Putney Station. Interesting - I wonder if the 424 & 485 are to swap routings? Could the 485 be re-routed from Hammersmith down Fulham Palace Road, serve the 424 roads around Craven Cottage and basically the whole route up to Putney Green Man before continuing to Roehampton, then maybe via Queen Mary's Hospital, Rock Lane and terminate at Barnes Pond ?? 424 could in theory then be withdrawn. Then extend the 265 to Wandsworth, I did hear that particular temporary extension was much welcomed at the time and fairly well used.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jun 18, 2015 10:54:43 GMT
Interesting - I wonder if the 424 & 485 are to swap routings? Could the 485 be re-routed from Hammersmith down Fulham Palace Road, serve the 424 roads around Craven Cottage and basically the whole route up to Putney Green Man before continuing to Roehampton, then maybe via Queen Mary's Hospital, Rock Lane and terminate at Barnes Pond ?? 424 could in theory then be withdrawn. Then extend the 265 to Wandsworth, I did hear that particular temporary extension was much welcomed at the time and fairly well used. The original report by LOTS in January stated that the buses acquired were for the 485 plus an additional vehicle for the 424, which suggests that this route will be retained in a modified form. The latter provides some useful cross Fulham links in the Munster Road area. Although the 485 does not have huge loadings it again provides some useful unique links from Barnes to the Putney area. It seems that the 485 could retain its present routing via Castelnau to Putney Bridge and then on via the present 424 to Putney Heath, thus explaining the need for shorter buses. Even with a diversion via Craven Cottage, a routing of the 485 via Fulham Palace Road using 8.9m single deckers could lead to some serious crush loadings when a delay occurred on the 220. The 485 would also have to be transferred back to the Upper Bus Station in Hammersmith where space is very limited. When it previously used the Upper Station, the less than ideal situation occurred where the 485 took stand time on the coach stop at the north end of the bus station. Obviously this is all speculation. Hopefully TfL's proposals will soon be put forward for consultation.
|
|
|
Route 485
Jun 18, 2015 12:14:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Jun 18, 2015 12:14:40 GMT
Interesting - I wonder if the 424 & 485 are to swap routings? Could the 485 be re-routed from Hammersmith down Fulham Palace Road, serve the 424 roads around Craven Cottage and basically the whole route up to Putney Green Man before continuing to Roehampton, then maybe via Queen Mary's Hospital, Rock Lane and terminate at Barnes Pond ?? 424 could in theory then be withdrawn. Then extend the 265 to Wandsworth, I did hear that particular temporary extension was much welcomed at the time and fairly well used. The 265 extension to Wandsworth was certainly well used, saw on a number of occasions a good load heading out of Wandsworth.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 18, 2015 14:35:28 GMT
Hopefully TfL's proposals will soon be put forward for consultation. I wish TfL would publish this because I want to know what's planned. Nothing in the very latest TLB that dropped through the letter box earlier. I can't see the reason for the delay *unless* the proposal is very controversial and TfL have got problems with key stakeholders like Wandsworth Council or similar.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jun 18, 2015 17:19:47 GMT
Could the 485 be re-routed from Hammersmith down Fulham Palace Road, serve the 424 roads around Craven Cottage and basically the whole route up to Putney Green Man before continuing to Roehampton, then maybe via Queen Mary's Hospital, Rock Lane and terminate at Barnes Pond ?? 424 could in theory then be withdrawn. Then extend the 265 to Wandsworth, I did hear that particular temporary extension was much welcomed at the time and fairly well used. The original report by LOTS in January stated that the buses acquired were for the 485 plus an additional vehicle for the 424, which suggests that this route will be retained in a modified form. The latter provides some useful cross Fulham links in the Munster Road area. Although the 485 does not have huge loadings it again provides some useful unique links from Barnes to the Putney area. It seems that the 485 could retain its present routing via Castelnau to Putney Bridge and then on via the present 424 to Putney Heath, thus explaining the need for shorter buses. Even with a diversion via Craven Cottage, a routing of the 485 via Fulham Palace Road using 8.9m single deckers could lead to some serious crush loadings when a delay occurred on the 220. The 485 would also have to be transferred back to the Upper Bus Station in Hammersmith where space is very limited. When it previously used the Upper Station, the less than ideal situation occurred where the 485 took stand time on the coach stop at the north end of the bus station. Obviously this is all speculation. Hopefully TfL's proposals will soon be put forward for consultation. Sorry I got my compass points mixed up. The coach stop at the Upper Bus Station at Hammersmith is at the south end not the north end.
|
|
misty
Conductor
9518 in Battersea with shattered windcsreen and damaged nearside front wing. Showing 344 on the back
Posts: 103
|
Post by misty on Jul 22, 2015 21:16:49 GMT
According to Information from H&F council the 424 will not serve Sands End and therefore not serve Bagleys Lane, Pearscroft Road, Broughton Road or Byam Street and will terminate in Wandsworth. This of course will be put forward for consultation. There is no mention of any other change to the route or of route 485.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jul 22, 2015 22:08:49 GMT
According to Information from H&F council the 424 will not serve Sands End and therefore not serve Bagleys Lane, Pearscroft Road, Broughton Road or Byam Street and will terminate in Wandsworth. This of course will be put forward for consultation. There is no mention of any other change to the route or of route 485. There's a petition to savethe424, including support to save it from a local councillor MP Greg Hands. It'd be nice to see the full consultation details, no such luck yet. ADDITION: I think this is the Information from H&F council you were refer to. - quotes from the page. Hopefully they're talking about Autumn this year.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 22, 2015 22:12:05 GMT
According to Information from H&F council the 424 will not serve Sands End and therefore not serve Bagleys Lane, Pearscroft Road, Broughton Road or Byam Street and will terminate in Wandsworth. This of course will be put forward for consultation. There is no mention of any other change to the route or of route 485. Thanks for that. Looking on the H&F website brings up this. www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Hammersmith_and_Fulham_Council_backs_residents_in_fight_against_bus_route_change.asp#3I suspect there is actually a related change to the 485 somewhere in the mix but if there is then TfL haven't got the message across if the Council has voted against a proposal that hasn't reached a public consultation yet. I note the consultation may not emerge until Autumn. I am wondering if the final plan is something like 424 - Fulham - Wandsworth missing out Sands End. 485 - Hammersmith - Putney Heath (taking over the bit of the 424 that will be lost by running to Wandsworth). If that's not the proposal then I can't see how bits of the 424 are otherwise covered. Unless there's something locally that I'm not aware of this seems to be a clumsy scheme guaranteed to upset everyone. If the 485 were to take over the Putney Heath bit then I can understand why Mini Pointers were bought a few months back. I assume the proposal to not serve back roads in Sands End allows bigger buses to be run (assuming they can get round by Craven Cottage - I've never used the 424 so don't know). routew15 - Mr Hands is the local MP, not councillor, and is also Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Government. Not exactly brilliant politics to create a mess in his constituency when he's a key player in determining how much grant TfL will get as part of the Spending Review!!!
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jul 22, 2015 23:09:11 GMT
According to Information from H&F council the 424 will not serve Sands End and therefore not serve Bagleys Lane, Pearscroft Road, Broughton Road or Byam Street and will terminate in Wandsworth. This of course will be put forward for consultation. There is no mention of any other change to the route or of route 485. Thanks for that. Looking on the H&F website brings up this. www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Hammersmith_and_Fulham_Council_backs_residents_in_fight_against_bus_route_change.asp#3I suspect there is actually a related change to the 485 somewhere in the mix but if there is then TfL haven't got the message across if the Council has voted against a proposal that hasn't reached a public consultation yet. I note the consultation may not emerge until Autumn. I am wondering if the final plan is something like 424 - Fulham - Wandsworth missing out Sands End. 485 - Hammersmith - Putney Heath (taking over the bit of the 424 that will be lost by running to Wandsworth). If that's not the proposal then I can't see how bits of the 424 are otherwise covered. Unless there's something locally that I'm not aware of this seems to be a clumsy scheme guaranteed to upset everyone. If the 485 were to take over the Putney Heath bit then I can understand why Mini Pointers were bought a few months back. I assume the proposal to not serve back roads in Sands End allows bigger buses to be run (assuming they can get round by Craven Cottage - I've never used the 424 so don't know). routew15 - Mr Hands is the local MP, not councillor, and is also Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Government. Not exactly brilliant politics to create a mess in his constituency when he's a key player in determining how much grant TfL will get as part of the Spending Review!!! Thank you for the correction, another faux pas I can't say I see the point in the 424 going to Wandsworth, especially when the 28 from Fulham already serves there. I'd say back to the chalkboard for this one.
|
|
|
Route 485
Jul 23, 2015 0:25:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2015 0:25:42 GMT
According to Information from H&F council the 424 will not serve Sands End and therefore not serve Bagleys Lane, Pearscroft Road, Broughton Road or Byam Street and will terminate in Wandsworth. This of course will be put forward for consultation. There is no mention of any other change to the route or of route 485. Thanks for that. Looking on the H&F website brings up this. www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Hammersmith_and_Fulham_Council_backs_residents_in_fight_against_bus_route_change.asp#3I suspect there is actually a related change to the 485 somewhere in the mix but if there is then TfL haven't got the message across if the Council has voted against a proposal that hasn't reached a public consultation yet. I note the consultation may not emerge until Autumn. I am wondering if the final plan is something like 424 - Fulham - Wandsworth missing out Sands End. 485 - Hammersmith - Putney Heath (taking over the bit of the 424 that will be lost by running to Wandsworth). If that's not the proposal then I can't see how bits of the 424 are otherwise covered. Unless there's something locally that I'm not aware of this seems to be a clumsy scheme guaranteed to upset everyone. If the 485 were to take over the Putney Heath bit then I can understand why Mini Pointers were bought a few months back. I assume the proposal to not serve back roads in Sands End allows bigger buses to be run (assuming they can get round by Craven Cottage - I've never used the 424 so don't know). routew15 - Mr Hands is the local MP, not councillor, and is also Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Government. Not exactly brilliant politics to create a mess in his constituency when he's a key player in determining how much grant TfL will get as part of the Spending Review!!! The Craven Cottage part isn't too bad, shouldn't prevent longer buses from serving it, especially as the route around the stands operates in a loop.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2015 0:31:22 GMT
Thanks for that. Looking on the H&F website brings up this. www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Hammersmith_and_Fulham_Council_backs_residents_in_fight_against_bus_route_change.asp#3I suspect there is actually a related change to the 485 somewhere in the mix but if there is then TfL haven't got the message across if the Council has voted against a proposal that hasn't reached a public consultation yet. I note the consultation may not emerge until Autumn. I am wondering if the final plan is something like 424 - Fulham - Wandsworth missing out Sands End. 485 - Hammersmith - Putney Heath (taking over the bit of the 424 that will be lost by running to Wandsworth). If that's not the proposal then I can't see how bits of the 424 are otherwise covered. Unless there's something locally that I'm not aware of this seems to be a clumsy scheme guaranteed to upset everyone. If the 485 were to take over the Putney Heath bit then I can understand why Mini Pointers were bought a few months back. I assume the proposal to not serve back roads in Sands End allows bigger buses to be run (assuming they can get round by Craven Cottage - I've never used the 424 so don't know). routew15 - Mr Hands is the local MP, not councillor, and is also Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Government. Not exactly brilliant politics to create a mess in his constituency when he's a key player in determining how much grant TfL will get as part of the Spending Review!!! Thank you for the correction, another faux pas I can't say I see the point in the 424 going to Wandsworth, especially when the 28 from Fulham already serves there. I'd say back to the chalkboard for this one. It seems to be just a needless duplication of the 28 as you say except the 424 is likely to terminate on Ram Street like the 485 does meaning people will have to walk for the Southside centre. So not only is the 28 much more frequent but it dumps people where they actually want to go. Other losers are anyone from Wandsworth who wants Barnes & Hammersmith
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Aug 1, 2015 18:28:00 GMT
The leaks about the proposals for the 424/485 do not initially appear to provide any benefits compared to the existing route patterns. We will have to wait for the formal proposals to see whether this is the case or not. What is of interest is the stance of the politicians. As the threatened section of the 424 along residential streets is obviously already in existence then local representatives demand the routing is retained so that all sections of society can access public transport. It is not so far back in time that TfL proposed to divert the C1 at the Commonwealth Institute so that it could be extended to White City via the unserved Blythe Road. The new roads it would have served are similar to those traversed by the 424, but on this occasion local political representatives of all persuasions were up in arms. The C1 was eventually extended via Holland Road, a routing that it retains to this day, whilst the elderly, disabled, vulnerable, young and those without public transport in the Blythe Road area have to this day remained isolated from the London bus network. Whatever the weather they still face a long walk to and from bus stops.. Obviously in the case of the C1 the politicians calculated that the opponents of the scheme were more likely to vote than the residents who would have used the new bus service. Hopefully one day in the future Blythe Road will gain a bus service.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 1, 2015 21:26:59 GMT
The leaks about the proposals for the 424/485 do not initially appear to provide any benefits compared to the existing route patterns. We will have to wait for the formal proposals to see whether this is the case or not. What is of interest is the stance of the politicians. As the threatened section of the 424 along residential streets is obviously already in existence then local representatives demand the routing is retained so that all sections of society can access public transport. It is not so far back in time that TfL proposed to divert the C1 at the Commonwealth Institute so that it could be extended to White City via the unserved Blythe Road. The new roads it would have served are similar to those traversed by the 424, but on this occasion local political representatives of all persuasions were up in arms. The C1 was eventually extended via Holland Road, a routing that it retains to this day, whilst the elderly, disabled, vulnerable, young and those without public transport in the Blythe Road area have to this day remained isolated from the London bus network. Whatever the weather they still face a long walk to and from bus stops.. Obviously in the case of the C1 the politicians calculated that the opponents of the scheme were more likely to vote than the residents who would have used the new bus service. Hopefully one day in the future Blythe Road will gain a bus service. I hadn't looked at the C1 extension proposal before so I've learnt something. Hmmm interesting given that a certain Mr Greg Hands led political opposition to the Blythe Road route but is now demanding 424 buses *remain* on local streets in Sands End. Talk about hypocrisy and inconsistency. I note with smug delight that then Assembly Member (and later MP) Angie Bray was another leader of dissent to the C1's routing and was booted out at the last general election. I can see merit in extending the 33 on from Hammersmith or the 95 on from Shepherds Bus or the 360 from Royal Albert Hall to lay waste to, umm, I mean serve the Blythe Road area. It looks like good bus territory to me. Looking at some of the web articles about opposition to the C1 proposal I note that the owners of Olympia admit to causing traffic chaos and blocking the roads. I wonder what the Police, Fire Brigade and Ambulance Services would say about that? The more I read about opposition to buses running down roads the more I am convinced that people are either mad or simply outrageous selfish snobs who are more than happy to deprive their neighbours of much needed bus services. Why on earth they think a bus route leads to the loss of local shops and replacement by chain stores I know not. There are tens of thousands of local shops in London that survive perfectly well with buses running past them.
|
|