|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 24, 2019 9:03:11 GMT
On both days of the weekend I found myself at Hammersmith Bus Station. I noticed 220's a very well loaded now. I used to use the 220 a lot and the loadings were never that heavy at weekends. Presumably the Hammersmith Bridge closure has pushed a lot of people on to the 220. Is the 220 struggling at peak hours with all the extra demand? I think it could do with some support up the Fulham Palace Road TFL really need to extend the 209 back to Hammersmith, but via Putney Bridge. I think this could resolve some passenger complaints on the changes to some extent. Frequency could probably be reduced slightly to enable an unchanged PVR. Or better, TFL could revise the 209 to replace the 533, running between Castelnau and Hammersmith via Barnes High Street, Mortlake and Chiswick Bridge - as Chiswick Bridge is probably a faster diversion route for Mortlake and Barnes Bridge. Then re-extend the 72 from Hammersmith to Roehampton via Putney Bridge - this is likely the faster diversion route from Barnes Common. Then withdraw the 265 short workings. And maybe extend the 283 to Hammersmith Bridge North Side to replace the current 72.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 24, 2019 10:11:27 GMT
On both days of the weekend I found myself at Hammersmith Bus Station. I noticed 220's a very well loaded now. I used to use the 220 a lot and the loadings were never that heavy at weekends. Presumably the Hammersmith Bridge closure has pushed a lot of people on to the 220. Is the 220 struggling at peak hours with all the extra demand? I think it could do with some support up the Fulham Palace Road TFL really need to extend the 209 back to Hammersmith, but via Putney Bridge. I think this could resolve some passenger complaints on the changes to some extent. Frequency could probably be reduced slightly to enable an unchanged PVR. Or better, TFL could revise the 209 to replace the 533, running between Castelnau and Hammersmith via Barnes High Street, Mortlake and Chiswick Bridge - as Chiswick Bridge is probably a faster diversion route for Mortlake and Barnes Bridge. Then re-extend the 72 from Hammersmith to Roehampton via Putney Bridge - this is likely the faster diversion route from Barnes Common. Then withdraw the 265 short workings. And maybe extend the 283 to Hammersmith Bridge North Side to replace the current 72. Pretty much what I & others have previously suggested, makes sense as well.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jun 24, 2019 11:56:04 GMT
TFL really need to extend the 209 back to Hammersmith, but via Putney Bridge. I think this could resolve some passenger complaints on the changes to some extent. Frequency could probably be reduced slightly to enable an unchanged PVR. Or better, TFL could revise the 209 to replace the 533, running between Castelnau and Hammersmith via Barnes High Street, Mortlake and Chiswick Bridge - as Chiswick Bridge is probably a faster diversion route for Mortlake and Barnes Bridge. Then re-extend the 72 from Hammersmith to Roehampton via Putney Bridge - this is likely the faster diversion route from Barnes Common. Then withdraw the 265 short workings. And maybe extend the 283 to Hammersmith Bridge North Side to replace the current 72. Pretty much what I & others have previously suggested, makes sense as well. Makes an awful lot of sense, but TfL couldn't possibly take up what is suggested here !
|
|
|
Post by Ted Barclay on Jun 24, 2019 13:25:59 GMT
Pretty much what I & others have previously suggested, makes sense as well. Makes an awful lot of sense, but TfL couldn't possibly take up what is suggested here ! I believe that postings on this forum are monitored by at least one TfL department! It wouldn't surprise me if some operators do the same!
|
|
|
Post by george on Jun 24, 2019 13:34:08 GMT
On both days of the weekend I found myself at Hammersmith Bus Station. I noticed 220's a very well loaded now. I used to use the 220 a lot and the loadings were never that heavy at weekends. Presumably the Hammersmith Bridge closure has pushed a lot of people on to the 220. Is the 220 struggling at peak hours with all the extra demand? I think it could do with some support up the Fulham Palace Road Yep can be very difficult to get a seat on a 220 now. Roehampton residents are using the route up to Putney Bridge the from there jumping on the 265.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jun 24, 2019 17:54:04 GMT
On both days of the weekend I found myself at Hammersmith Bus Station. I noticed 220's a very well loaded now. I used to use the 220 a lot and the loadings were never that heavy at weekends. Presumably the Hammersmith Bridge closure has pushed a lot of people on to the 220. Is the 220 struggling at peak hours with all the extra demand? I think it could do with some support up the Fulham Palace Road TFL really need to extend the 209 back to Hammersmith, but via Putney Bridge. I think this could resolve some passenger complaints on the changes to some extent. Frequency could probably be reduced slightly to enable an unchanged PVR. Or better, TFL could revise the 209 to replace the 533, running between Castelnau and Hammersmith via Barnes High Street, Mortlake and Chiswick Bridge - as Chiswick Bridge is probably a faster diversion route for Mortlake and Barnes Bridge. Then re-extend the 72 from Hammersmith to Roehampton via Putney Bridge - this is likely the faster diversion route from Barnes Common. Then withdraw the 265 short workings. And maybe extend the 283 to Hammersmith Bridge North Side to replace the current 72. Just a quick question about the 209 idea, will it still start at Mortlake bus station?
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 24, 2019 23:08:55 GMT
TFL really need to extend the 209 back to Hammersmith, but via Putney Bridge. I think this could resolve some passenger complaints on the changes to some extent. Frequency could probably be reduced slightly to enable an unchanged PVR. Or better, TFL could revise the 209 to replace the 533, running between Castelnau and Hammersmith via Barnes High Street, Mortlake and Chiswick Bridge - as Chiswick Bridge is probably a faster diversion route for Mortlake and Barnes Bridge. Then re-extend the 72 from Hammersmith to Roehampton via Putney Bridge - this is likely the faster diversion route from Barnes Common. Then withdraw the 265 short workings. And maybe extend the 283 to Hammersmith Bridge North Side to replace the current 72. Just a quick question about the 209 idea, will it still start at Mortlake bus station? No, I would suggest starting it at Castelnau, extended from Mortlake back to Hammersmith via the 533. Connects Barnes High Street and Mortlake to Hammersmith as the route did previously, but via the opposite direction. Stand space would likely be available at Castelnau as the 419 terminated there before being extended to Barnes Pond, and these suggestions would withdraw the 533 and extra workings on the 33.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 24, 2019 23:28:30 GMT
TFL really need to extend the 209 back to Hammersmith, but via Putney Bridge. I think this could resolve some passenger complaints on the changes to some extent. Frequency could probably be reduced slightly to enable an unchanged PVR. Or better, TFL could revise the 209 to replace the 533, running between Castelnau and Hammersmith via Barnes High Street, Mortlake and Chiswick Bridge - as Chiswick Bridge is probably a faster diversion route for Mortlake and Barnes Bridge. Then re-extend the 72 from Hammersmith to Roehampton via Putney Bridge - this is likely the faster diversion route from Barnes Common. Then withdraw the 265 short workings. And maybe extend the 283 to Hammersmith Bridge North Side to replace the current 72. Just a quick question about the 209 idea, will it still start at Mortlake bus station? My proposal differs from ADH45258 in that I'd still start it at Mortlake but run via the 533's current loop and then back through Mortlake towards Chiswick Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jun 25, 2019 7:15:11 GMT
Just a quick question about the 209 idea, will it still start at Mortlake bus station? My proposal differs from ADH45258 in that I'd still start it at Mortlake but run via the 533's current loop and then back through Mortlake towards Chiswick Bridge. I would start it mortlake bus station then go via Barnes high street and castelnau up to Hammersmith bridge from there the route would do the loop via Lonsdale road and Chiswick bridge to get to Hammersmith
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 25, 2019 14:01:25 GMT
Just a quick question about the 209 idea, will it still start at Mortlake bus station? My proposal differs from ADH45258 in that I'd still start it at Mortlake but run via the 533's current loop and then back through Mortlake towards Chiswick Bridge. That would just be confusing for passengers. No point is terminating at Mortlake as the route would just operate as a loop in this case terminating only at Hammersmith (as the 533 does, or the 138/288). But a revised 209 could stand at Castelnau, as it did prior to the Putney Bridge rerouting, making more sense to go via Castelnau and Barnes High Street in both directions (as the 419 goes via Lonsdale Road).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 14:34:28 GMT
My proposal differs from ADH45258 in that I'd still start it at Mortlake but run via the 533's current loop and then back through Mortlake towards Chiswick Bridge. That would just be confusing for passengers. No point is terminating at Mortlake as the route would just operate as a loop in this case terminating only at Hammersmith (as the 533 does, or the 138/288). But a revised 209 could stand at Castelnau, as it did prior to the Putney Bridge rerouting, making more sense to go via Castelnau and Barnes High Street in both directions (as the 419 goes via Lonsdale Road). How about a ferry
|
|
|
Post by george on Jun 25, 2019 14:34:52 GMT
My proposal differs from ADH45258 in that I'd still start it at Mortlake but run via the 533's current loop and then back through Mortlake towards Chiswick Bridge. That would just be confusing for passengers. No point is terminating at Mortlake as the route would just operate as a loop in this case terminating only at Hammersmith (as the 533 does, or the 138/288). But a revised 209 could stand at Castelnau, as it did prior to the Putney Bridge rerouting, making more sense to go via Castelnau and Barnes High Street in both directions (as the 419 goes via Lonsdale Road). Starting it at the bus station isn't that practical but it's popular start and end point with people on the other side of the railway line. Interestingly someone said in the meeting last week "we don't care if the 209 doesn't drop as off at the bus station we just want it to go the bridge" that recieved a big cheer.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Jun 25, 2019 15:01:17 GMT
That would just be confusing for passengers. No point is terminating at Mortlake as the route would just operate as a loop in this case terminating only at Hammersmith (as the 533 does, or the 138/288). But a revised 209 could stand at Castelnau, as it did prior to the Putney Bridge rerouting, making more sense to go via Castelnau and Barnes High Street in both directions (as the 419 goes via Lonsdale Road). How about a ferry If you had a couple of these you'd make a fortune!(Not my photo) Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 25, 2019 15:59:13 GMT
That would just be confusing for passengers. No point is terminating at Mortlake as the route would just operate as a loop in this case terminating only at Hammersmith (as the 533 does, or the 138/288). But a revised 209 could stand at Castelnau, as it did prior to the Putney Bridge rerouting, making more sense to go via Castelnau and Barnes High Street in both directions (as the 419 goes via Lonsdale Road). Starting it at the bus station isn't that practical but it's popular start and end point with people on the other side of the railway line. Interestingly someone said in the meeting last week "we don't care if the 209 doesn't drop as off at the bus station we just want it to go the bridge" that recieved a big cheer. The funny thing about planning transport, is that quite often the public do not behave in the way they might be expected to. I would have thought that people would have welcomed the rerouting to Putney Bridge to maintain links into the Underground but no, apparently a lot would prefer to get off at Hammersmith Bridge and walk the rest. Perhaps the solution is to get rid of the 209 completely and put the resources into the 533?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 25, 2019 16:16:35 GMT
Starting it at the bus station isn't that practical but it's popular start and end point with people on the other side of the railway line. Interestingly someone said in the meeting last week "we don't care if the 209 doesn't drop as off at the bus station we just want it to go the bridge" that recieved a big cheer. The funny thing about planning transport, is that quite often the public do not behave in the way they might be expected to. I would have thought that people would have welcomed the rerouting to Putney Bridge to maintain links into the Underground but no, apparently a lot would prefer to get off at Hammersmith Bridge and walk the rest. Perhaps the solution is to get rid of the 209 completely and put the resources into the 533? I think should the bridge's crack have manifested itself before December the 209s new contract would not have been awarded and the route withdrawn with as you say the resources being put towards a more frequent 533. I also wonder if the rerouting to Putney Bridge was done in mind with the fact the new contract would have Go Ahead potentially operating it out of Putney garage. I wonder if the reason people prefer to walk to Hammersmith is because you have the Piccadilly Line there directly rather than needing to get the District to Earl's Court and changing there.
|
|