|
Post by danorak on May 24, 2019 17:35:07 GMT
Comment moved to the right thread!
|
|
|
Post by redbus on May 24, 2019 18:01:09 GMT
BBC now reporting that it is the pedestals.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48395371
What I found shocking is that according this BBC report the cracks in the pedestals are due to corrosion causing flexibility to be compromised. This to my mind suggests that the bridge hasn't been maintained as it should, as the corrosion should have been dealt with early before it became a major problem, or am I missing something?
The bridge wasn't built to take the volume of traffic that has been using it, I don't think there is any suggestion that it hasn't been properly maintained? Some local residents are quite happy for it to stay as it is with perhaps some sort of free taxi service across the bridge for the elderly and disabled. The BBC report is quite clear, it says in effect corrosion prevented the bridge from being able to flex as it should, which in turn caused the pedestals to crack. Sure you can argue that if the bridge were not used there would be no need for it to flex, but that doesn't get away from the fact that had the corrosion been dealt with so the bridge could continue to flex as it should, the bridge would probably still be in use today. Arguably if the corrosion remains untreated the bridge will eventually fall into the river. The question therefore needs to be asked why the corrosion wasn't dealt with promptly and whether that was a maintenance issue. To be clear I am not accusing anyone, just raising the question. If you look at the road deck of Hammersmith Bridge for example, it doesn't look particularly well maintained.
The bridge has been closed several times before over the years, and yes each time some locals (NIMBYs?) are happy with it. If you look at what is reported the vast majority of residents use the bridge and want it re-opened. I don't think the small minority who would like the bridge closed permanently should be over represented.
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 24, 2019 18:12:02 GMT
The bridge wasn't built to take the volume of traffic that has been using it, I don't think there is any suggestion that it hasn't been properly maintained? Some local residents are quite happy for it to stay as it is with perhaps some sort of free taxi service across the bridge for the elderly and disabled. The BBC report is quite clear, it says in effect corrosion prevented the bridge from being able to flex as it should, which in turn caused the pedestals to crack. Sure you can argue that if the bridge were not used there would be no need for it to flex, but that doesn't get away from the fact that had the corrosion been dealt with so the bridge could continue to flex as it should, the bridge would probably still be in use today. Arguably if the corrosion remains untreated the bridge will eventually fall into the river. The question therefore needs to be asked why the corrosion wasn't dealt with promptly and whether that was a maintenance issue. To be clear I am not accusing anyone, just raising the question. If you look at the road deck of Hammersmith Bridge for example, it doesn't look particularly well maintained.
The bridge has been closed several times before over the years, and yes each time some locals (NIMBYs?) are happy with it. If you look at what is reported the vast majority of residents use the bridge and want it re-opened. I don't think the small minority who would like the bridge closed permanently should be over represented.
I don't know enough about the issues to apportion blame, there has been suggestions that excessive numbers of buses are the cause. I think we should be grateful that the problem was discovered and we didn't have a disaster like the bridge collapse in Genoa. Yes the bridge has been closed numerous times before and I can understand those who would prefer it to stay that way, I've no idea as to what the majority view is on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by daveshah on May 24, 2019 19:50:36 GMT
Incidentally, I was the person who submitted that request. Of interest is an email exchange about a route test for the new 72 route via Bridge View and Rutland Grove. It states that the test, on 24th April, was with "a 10.9m bus which is hybrid and will probably be the one used throughout this manoeuvre". Although 10.9m *and* hybrid is meaningless, if it isn't a complete typo it could mean a conversion of the 72 to either DLEs or hybrid deckers is planned...
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 25, 2019 1:06:40 GMT
Incidentally, I was the person who submitted that request. Of interest is an email exchange about a route test for the new 72 route via Bridge View and Rutland Grove. It states that the test, on 24th April, was with "a 10.9m bus which is hybrid and will probably be the one used throughout this manoeuvre". Although 10.9m *and* hybrid is meaningless, if it isn't a complete typo it could mean a conversion of the 72 to either DLEs or hybrid deckers is planned... If I was to guess, it probably was tested using a DLE as they are 10.9m - where they get hybrid from is a mystery though as it certainly couldn't be a decker as none currently in service are 10.9m and the only ones that will be shortly are the Metroline BDE's for the 43.
|
|
|
Post by bookd on May 27, 2019 14:31:59 GMT
In Twickenham today I saw a couple of 33s blinded for Hammersmith, without the slipboard, but one of them had Castlenau on the side blind.
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 27, 2019 18:18:18 GMT
In Twickenham today I saw a couple of 33s blinded for Hammersmith, without the slipboard, but one of them had Castlenau on the side blind. Every 33 I've seen has Hammersmith on the front and perhaps not unreasonably many people assume that is where it is going despite the bridge closure
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 27, 2019 19:28:35 GMT
For all intents and purposes the 33 and 485 do still go to Hammersmith except the stop a short walk away at the moment
|
|
|
Post by george on May 27, 2019 19:35:07 GMT
So apprantly the 33 no longer serves the stop named Ranelagh Avenue on rocks lane as the tile has been moved but according to TfL the 72 is still serving Castelnau at night🤦. You just couldn't make it up 😂.
|
|
|
Post by daveshah on May 27, 2019 19:39:17 GMT
In Twickenham today I saw a couple of 33s blinded for Hammersmith, without the slipboard, but one of them had Castlenau on the side blind. Every 33 I've seen has Hammersmith on the front and perhaps not unreasonably many people assume that is where it is going despite the bridge closure The occasional DLE workings do have the more accurate "Hammersmith Bridge" on their blinds.
|
|
|
Post by george on May 27, 2019 20:03:37 GMT
For all intents and purposes the 33 and 485 do still go to Hammersmith except the stop a short walk away at the moment Hammersmith Bridge south side should be the destination on the blinds.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on May 27, 2019 21:03:40 GMT
Every 33 I've seen has Hammersmith on the front and perhaps not unreasonably many people assume that is where it is going despite the bridge closure The occasional DLE workings do have the more accurate "Hammersmith Bridge" on their blinds. Also the few DEs that have the very latest blinds (most of the 10-reg for the 419, and 60-reg 20128)
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 28, 2019 9:21:15 GMT
Would it be a better use of resources to increase the 33 to every 5 minutes between Hammersmith Bridge and Richmond and reduce the quieter Richmond to FW section to every 10 minutes?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 9:26:57 GMT
Would it be a better use of resources to increase the 33 to every 5 minutes between Hammersmith Bridge and Richmond and reduce the quieter Richmond to FW section to every 10 minutes? Could be a good shout if the loadings at Barnes continue to be high. Put the existing extra 265’s onto this section instead. I’d be interested to see if more Mortlake passengers are now using the 419 to Castlenau rather than use the 209 to Putney or the infrequent 533 to Hammersmith via Chiswick.
|
|
|
Post by george on May 28, 2019 20:33:09 GMT
The diverted 209's are running near empty towards Putney. This may in part be because TfL haven't worked out that because they turn off Barnes High Street at Barnes Pond there is now no eastbound 209 stop in the centre of Barnes. The buses stop at Barnes Bridge Station, then Beverley Road, both far from the centre of Barnes. Surely a temporary stop on Barnes High Street would have been possible. Other notes. No correct timetables on any stop in Barnes. Just little yellow service change announcements. At Barnes Red Lion Hammersmith Bound they've changed the "buses towards" sign to say "towards Barnes Bridge" but there are no timetables for buses to Barnes Bridge. Even better the tiles are still wrong, showing the 209 and a blue 72 nights only put up by mistake 2 weeks ago. Also the 33 tile still says 24 hours. But they have managed to add the 419. Of course there are no new spider maps. In Putney the tiles have changed but there are no yellow service change sheets and again no new timetables so lots of mystery buses running. The N33 and N72 plus the frequent link to Barnes and double the number of 265's to Roehampton are all things to celebrate in Putney but TfL just can't do it. A great opportunity to boost public transport use being thrown away. How difficult is this to manage? A temporary bus stop has now been added just after Barnes pond, guessing this a sign a permanent bus stop is coming soon.
|
|