|
Post by george on Jul 11, 2019 21:43:18 GMT
I think the 419 is somehow seem as 'replacing' lost capacity from the 72. I like the 419 going to Barnes Pond as it allows the 419 to reach the Bridge. Lonsdale Road it a bit of treck to the Bridge when I did it only to then have the walk to Hammersmith aswell. I'm just thinking if the 419 could be rerouted to Roehampton instead of Barnes pond as this would replace the ex 72 section between Roehampton and Hammersmith bridge. It would pretty much be the same way it goes now apart from it would turn left up rocks lane towards Roehampton instead of going to barnes pond.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 11, 2019 22:34:23 GMT
I think the 419 is somehow seem as 'replacing' lost capacity from the 72. I like the 419 going to Barnes Pond as it allows the 419 to reach the Bridge. Lonsdale Road it a bit of treck to the Bridge when I did it only to then have the walk to Hammersmith aswell. I'm just thinking if the 419 could be rerouted to Roehampton instead of Barnes pond as this would replace the ex 72 section between Roehampton and Hammersmith bridge. It would pretty much be the same way it goes now apart from it would turn left up rocks lane towards Roehampton instead of going to barnes pond. Given how many passengers in the Barnes area have opted to take the bus to Castelnau then walk over the bridge, those in Roehampton may prefer to do the same rather than using the 265 extras to Putney Bridge. I think it was also mentioned that the 220 has been very crowded recently, possibly due to passengers changing at Putney Bridge to reach Hammersmith.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 12, 2019 0:17:55 GMT
I must be the only one who thinks the 209/378 change isn't that great - the important Roehampton to Hammersmith link is still missing whilst we have another route being thrown into the fray (the 378) when the last incarnation (the diverted 209) was severly underused to Putney Bridge. Surely, it would of been more sensible to merge the 209 & 533 together with a better frequency than currently and extend the 72 back to Roehampton leaving the 283 to run to the northern end of the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 12, 2019 6:37:10 GMT
I must be the only one who thinks the 209/378 change isn't that great - the important Roehampton to Hammersmith link is still missing whilst we have another route being thrown into the fray (the 378) when the last incarnation (the diverted 209) was severly underused to Putney Bridge. Surely, it would of been more sensible to merge the 209 & 533 together with a better frequency than currently and extend the 72 back to Roehampton leaving the 283 to run to the northern end of the bridge. Seems to me that there are two main requests: one is a more frequent service between Mortlake and Hammersmith Bridge, and the other is a direct link between Roehampton and Hammersmith Bridge. The 209/378 plan is intended as a solution to the first problem, not the second, so it's a bit harsh to blame it for not solving the Roehampton problem!
I suspect TfL will have to come up with another plan to meet the Roehampton demand somehow. I'd be in favour of diverting the 419 to Roehampton, as suggested above, as well as rerouting the 265 extras to Castelnau (under a different route number of course) to provide extra peak capacity.
I don't really think the "duplication" between 209 and 533 is an issue. We are making the mistake of focussing on route numbers rather than on frequencies. If there is a demand for a frequent link between Mortlake and Hammersmith Bridge, together with a lower demand for a direct link between Mortlake and Hammersmith itself, the 209 and 533 provide a decent solution. The revised 209 has the advantage of also providing a frequent service from Barnes Pond to Hammersmith Bridge, which a beefed-up 533 wouldn't do.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 12, 2019 6:38:42 GMT
I think the 419 is somehow seem as 'replacing' lost capacity from the 72. I like the 419 going to Barnes Pond as it allows the 419 to reach the Bridge. Lonsdale Road it a bit of treck to the Bridge when I did it only to then have the walk to Hammersmith aswell. The 419 is also soaking up people who want to get from Barnes to the bridge now there are no 209s, and more importantly, the extension reduces pressure on the Lonsdale Road stand
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 12, 2019 7:04:40 GMT
I think the 419 is somehow seem as 'replacing' lost capacity from the 72. I like the 419 going to Barnes Pond as it allows the 419 to reach the Bridge. Lonsdale Road it a bit of treck to the Bridge when I did it only to then have the walk to Hammersmith aswell. The 419 is also soaking up people who want to get from Barnes to the bridge now there are no 209s, and more importantly, the extension reduces pressure on the Lonsdale Road stand The Lonsdale road stand is just car parking spaces that have been closed off. There's loads of space there.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 12, 2019 9:06:00 GMT
If the bridge does get sorted then thinking ahead the reduced frequency 209 could join with the 218 to reduce 2 lots of stand time and space from Hammersmith bus station.
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Jul 12, 2019 9:10:04 GMT
If the bridge does get sorted then thinking ahead the reduced frequency 209 could join with the 218 to reduce 2 lots of stand time and space from Hammersmith bus station. But when operation of the 218 starts, wouldn’t it use the 266’s stand that would be spare from the 266’s cutback to Acton?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 12, 2019 10:09:07 GMT
If the bridge does get sorted then thinking ahead the reduced frequency 209 could join with the 218 to reduce 2 lots of stand time and space from Hammersmith bus station. But when operation of the 218 starts, wouldn’t it use the 266’s stand that would be spare from the 266’s cutback to Acton? I should think the 218 will use the 266 stand. Maybe the 218/391 will share the stand otherwise there's no obvious location where the 391 could stand in Hammersmith
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Jul 12, 2019 11:00:38 GMT
Another issue I fear the 378 doesn't resolve is the routing of the Barnes - Putney section. I sense the "Bring the 22 to Barnes" campaigners had always imagined any frequent daytime service would take the route of the N22 and run down Rocks Lane and along Church Road so serving the whole of central Barnes. If the 378 takes the shorter route via Station Road as the 209 currently does then it is of less interest to Putney - Barnes travellers. However unless both the 485 and 378 become at least every 15 minutes, TfL will be right to concentrate on just one routeing between Barnes and Putney.
From my recent journeys on 209's between Barnes and Putney I would say loading is increasing and people are making use of the now more frequent than the occassional 485 link.
What isn't working is the extra 265's. They may be meant to be every 5-6 minutes between Putney and Roehampton but there's plenty of bunching in both directions. It is of course extra noticeable as the additional buses are a different type.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jul 12, 2019 16:57:35 GMT
Slightly curious though as to why they chose route number 378, 509 might have been more fitting. Or perhaps there is the possibility of the 378 being made permanent even if Hammersmith Bridge ever reopens for buses. Never mind 509, 409 was available which is probably a better choice imo as although temporary it’s a long term change, why that wasn’t chosen I’ll never know lol, probably didn’t think to
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jul 12, 2019 17:00:09 GMT
So will London General subsequently operate both the 209 and 378 ? Presume the 533 is being withdrawn then ? The 533 is here to stay, even though with the 209 change, Barnes-Castelnau may well end up being overbussed.
It hasn't been confirmed whether London General will run the 378 or not, however myself and many other forum members believe that GAL running the 378 using buses ordered for the 209 but not needed on it due to the lower frequency will be used for the 378 - this is probably the most likely outcome
Barnes to Castlenau certainly won’t be overbussed imo, the 33 needs all the assistance it can get at the moment as it’s on its knees now because of these changes 😩 it’ll give 33 passengers trying (and failing) boarding at Barnes some much needed relief I think
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jul 12, 2019 17:03:41 GMT
Question about this new 378 as I’ve only just found out about this. It’s going to be running from Mortlake to Putney Bridge, just as the current 209 routeing does now. Does this mean the new is essentially just a renumbering of the current 209 (and most probably a lower frequency considering how dead it is atm) or is it being tweaked somewhere mid route to be something different?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 12, 2019 17:12:24 GMT
Question about this new 378 as I’ve only just found out about this. It’s going to be running from Mortlake to Putney Bridge, just as the current 209 routeing does now. Does this mean the new is essentially just a renumbering of the current 209 (and most probably a lower frequency considering how dead it is atm) or is it being tweaked somewhere mid route to be something different? The 209 and 378 will both run every 12 minutes. The 378 will follow the route of the present 209 with the 209 being altered to run Mortlake-Castelnau
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 12, 2019 17:25:43 GMT
The 533 is here to stay, even though with the 209 change, Barnes-Castelnau may well end up being overbussed.
It hasn't been confirmed whether London General will run the 378 or not, however myself and many other forum members believe that GAL running the 378 using buses ordered for the 209 but not needed on it due to the lower frequency will be used for the 378 - this is probably the most likely outcome
Barnes to Castlenau certainly won’t be overbussed imo, the 33 needs all the assistance it can get at the moment as it’s on its knees now because of these changes 😩 it’ll give 33 passengers trying (and failing) boarding at Barnes some much needed relief I think When I wrote Barnes-Castlenau I was more thinking of Barnes Pond. The 33 does need assistance, because it can't cope without the 72 assisting it between Barnes Station and the Bridge. Really another route to replace the southern half of the 72 is needed to aid the 33 and restore the Roehampton-Hammersmith Bridge link
|
|