|
Post by george on May 28, 2019 21:07:29 GMT
This is what I have noticed after observing the 209, 265 and 533 this evening. The 209 have next to no one on them saw three buses out of the three only one had a single passenger. The 265 on the other hand are packed standing room only for DE20185. The 533 that went past has about 6 people on it.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 28, 2019 21:42:06 GMT
It seems the 209 to Putney Bridge really isn't working. It misses out alot of Barnes (and ends up duplicating the 485). The 533 was always going to carry little (length/traffic of diversion plus the low freq) means for most walking over the bridge is easier especially now the 72 starts on the north side.
I'm wondering if 2 extra 419s using DDs from Mortlake would be better. Could say do normal 4 bph Richmond to Barnes and 2 extras from Mortlake (out of service from Avondale road) to Barnes Pond so Mortlake to Castlenau is every 10 mins and withdraw the 209.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 28, 2019 21:51:13 GMT
It seems the 209 to Putney Bridge really isn't working. It misses out alot of Barnes (and ends up duplicating the 485). The 533 was always going to carry little (length/traffic of diversion plus the low freq) means for most walking over the bridge is easier especially now the 72 starts on the north side. I'm wondering if 2 extra 419s using DDs from Mortlake would be better. Could say do normal 4 bph Richmond to Barnes and 2 extras from Mortlake (out of service from Avondale road) to Barnes Pond so Mortlake to Castlenau is every 10 mins and withdraw the 209. I imagine one of the biggest issues surrounding the 209 has been the fact it was awarded to Go Ahead for the next 5 years just a matter of months before this happened, I'm willing to bet that if the issues with the bridge had manifested earlier than its tender then it wouldn't have gone out to tender at all and would have been withdrawn. I also wouldn't be surprised if one of the influences, if it wasn't the only influence to send the 209 to Putney Bridge out of all places. When GAL take the route over it could even make it cheaper to operate running to and from Putney Bridge as opposed to Hammersmith.
|
|
|
Post by george on May 28, 2019 22:01:04 GMT
It seems the 209 to Putney Bridge really isn't working. It misses out alot of Barnes (and ends up duplicating the 485). The 533 was always going to carry little (length/traffic of diversion plus the low freq) means for most walking over the bridge is easier especially now the 72 starts on the north side. I'm wondering if 2 extra 419s using DDs from Mortlake would be better. Could say do normal 4 bph Richmond to Barnes and 2 extras from Mortlake (out of service from Avondale road) to Barnes Pond so Mortlake to Castlenau is every 10 mins and withdraw the 209. I am sure people will use the route if it goes via the high street and rocks lane. Just a simple change but that's where people will want to go.
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on May 29, 2019 0:18:28 GMT
Maybe extend the 22 to Mortlake High Street, withdraw the 209 to Pitney Bridge however to help out the 33 when leaving Avondale Road turn left up Mortlake High Street and turn left into Sheen Lane left Upper Richmond Road, follow the 33 route to Hammersmith Bridge then 419 route at Lonsdale Road to Stand make it a circular route as 209 and 209a...the 209a goes in reverse direction 419 route to Hammersmith Bridge 33 route to Sheen Lane and terminate at Avondale Road...you probably could withdraw the 419?
|
|
|
Post by george on May 29, 2019 0:41:25 GMT
Maybe extend the 22 to Mortlake High Street, withdraw the 209 to Pitney Bridge however to help out the 33 when leaving Avondale Road turn left up Mortlake High Street and turn left into Sheen Lane left Upper Richmond Road, follow the 33 route to Hammersmith Bridge then 419 route at Lonsdale Road to Stand make it a circular route as 209 and 209a...the 209a goes in reverse direction 419 route to Hammersmith Bridge 33 route to Sheen Lane and terminate at Avondale Road...you probably could withdraw the 419? Don't think tfl would want to sent a high frequency route via sheen lane level crossing can sometimes be down for over 10 minutes that lots of time lost. Probably best to go over the railway on Clifford avenue.
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on May 29, 2019 1:55:25 GMT
I was thinking about the level crossing also contemplating the 209 runs via white hart lane but yet again level crossing in this road....
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on May 29, 2019 3:10:36 GMT
Don't think tfl would want to sent a high frequency route via sheen lane level crossing can sometimes be down for over 10 minutes that lots of time lost. Probably best to go over the railway on Clifford avenue. As someone who is regularly forced to endure near-solid traffic on Clifford Avenue for 10-20 minutes at a time, I don't believe that adding a bus service down there will make anyone's journey better. Traffic approaching Chalkers Corner is appalling from every direction during peak times, but Clifford Avenue suffers particularly badly because it's a relatively narrow road that connects two major roads - the A316 and Upper Richmond Road West - and which is used around the clock by motorists who also wish to avoid being caught out by level crossings in Barnes and North Sheen. Compare sitting at a level crossing in Barnes for 10 minutes, with the extra time trundling through traffic to Chalkers Corner, then more time in traffic down Clifford Avenue, and yet more traffic towards Sheen. Really, your journey would be dreadful either way - so you might as well take the more direct route. Oddly, you will see a bus if you check out the Google Street View of Clifford Avenue - an unexpected visitor in the form of London Sovereign's TD40672 on a driver training jaunt.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on May 29, 2019 6:36:28 GMT
I was thinking about the level crossing also contemplating the 209 runs via white hart lane but yet again level crossing in this road.... Even without the level crossing I wouldn't send a frequent bus service down White Hart Lane. I know it used to have a regular service but that was in the days of narrow step-entrance Darts. I went down there recently on a rail replacement service whose driver had missed the turn into Rocks Lane and was using satnav to get back on route. He got well and truly stuck trying to turn from Priests Bridge onto White Hart Lane and had to wait for someone to come out of their house and move their car before we could get though!
|
|
|
Post by george on May 31, 2019 10:46:22 GMT
Over 800 people have now signed.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on May 31, 2019 16:31:36 GMT
Quite a test of alternative routes currently as A316 Junction with South Circular is closed due to accidents so gridlock in Sheen, Mortlake, Chiswick Bridge area
|
|
|
Post by daveshah on Jun 3, 2019 15:05:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by daveshah on Jun 5, 2019 12:28:01 GMT
TfL have now removed the erroneous "72 nights only" tile from the bus stops down Castlenau, and replaced the stickered over 209 one with a proper blank one.
But don't worry, they still aren't correct as they've now removed the 33 tile from these stops altogether, even though it still serves these stops in the day.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 5, 2019 12:49:00 GMT
TfL have now removed the erroneous "72 nights only" tile from the bus stops down Castlenau, and replaced the stickered over 209 one with a proper blank one. But don't worry, they still aren't correct as they've now removed the 33 tile from these stops altogether, even though it still serves these stops in the day. You really could not make this up, surely a minimum requirement for the job would be a reasonable knowledge of the bus network?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 5, 2019 13:36:50 GMT
TfL have now removed the erroneous "72 nights only" tile from the bus stops down Castlenau, and replaced the stickered over 209 one with a proper blank one. But don't worry, they still aren't correct as they've now removed the 33 tile from these stops altogether, even though it still serves these stops in the day. You really could not make this up, surely a minimum requirement for the job would be a reasonable knowledge of the bus network? Clearly, the people making the decisions at the very top have no knowledge of the bus network.
|
|