|
Post by thelondonthing on Sept 27, 2019 20:06:04 GMT
It wouldn't have been a like-for-like swap though. The proposal would have seen the H22 withdrawn between Twickenham and Richmond - but the plan was to divert the 110 away from Twickenham town centre entirely, running instead via the A316 and St Margarets (which would have helped ease the burden on the H37 between St Margarets and Richmond). I'm aware of the point you're trying to convey. However, the argument about the 110 extension being used as justification to cut the H37's frequency is fallacious. The H37 is a very busy route which is well used, and carries very strong loadings. It would not cope well with a frequency cut, buses are packed in the Isleworth area as it is, so the 110 won't do much to alleviate pressure on the route, also when one considers that there isn't a very long section of overlap between the proposed 110 and H37.
Just to be clear, I wasn't equating the 110's extension with covering the H37's frequency reduction. I was highlighting the fact that having the 110 running between St Margarets and Richmond would have helped ease the burden on that section of the H37, which it would have - but I wasn't making any comment at all on the merits, or not, of cutting the H37's frequency. (FWIW, as a regular H37 user, I think any cuts to its service are madness.) But that wasn't really the point I was trying to convey at all. My main point was that when you said "you'd be swapping one route for another" - referring to the H22 and the extended 110 between Twickenham and Richmond - that wasn't accurate, as one would not have replaced the other. The H22 was to be withdrawn between Twickenham and Richmond - but that section wasn't going to be replaced by the new 110, which was never intended to even reach Twickenham town centre. Rather than swapping one route for another, the changes would have actually reduced capacity between Twickenham and Richmond, as the capacity lost from the H22 would not have been replaced by the 110, or any other route. Still, none of it really matters now - the whole plan's gone totally t¡ts up thanks to Hammersmith Bridge...!
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 27, 2019 20:10:52 GMT
I'm aware of the point you're trying to convey. However, the argument about the 110 extension being used as justification to cut the H37's frequency is fallacious. The H37 is a very busy route which is well used, and carries very strong loadings. It would not cope well with a frequency cut, buses are packed in the Isleworth area as it is, so the 110 won't do much to alleviate pressure on the route, also when one considers that there isn't a very long section of overlap between the proposed 110 and H37.
Just to be clear, I wasn't equating the 110's extension with covering the H37's frequency reduction. I was highlighting the fact that having the 110 running between St Margarets and Richmond would have helped ease the burden on that section of the H37, which it would have - but I wasn't making any comment at all on the merits, or not, of cutting the H37's frequency. (FWIW, as a regular H37 user, I think any cuts to its service are madness.) But that wasn't really the point I was trying to convey at all. My main point was that when you said "you'd be swapping one route for another" - referring to the H22 and the extended 110 between Twickenham and Richmond - that wasn't accurate, as one would not have replaced the other. The H22 was to be withdrawn between Twickenham and Richmond - but that section wasn't going to be replaced by the new 110, which was never intended to even reach Twickenham town centre. Rather than swapping one route for another, the changes would have actually reduced capacity between Twickenham and Richmond, as the capacity lost from the H22 would not have been replaced by the 110, or any other route. Still, none of it really matters now - the whole plan's gone totally t¡ts up thanks to Hammersmith Bridge...! Ah ok, apologies for misinterpretation/misunderstanding/confusion caused.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Sept 27, 2019 20:17:35 GMT
Ah ok, apologies for misinterpretation/misunderstanding/confusion caused.
No worries! We all get things mixed up now and then!
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Sept 28, 2019 4:00:14 GMT
So, the next wave of changes begins today with: revised timetables for various routes; the extension of the 419 to Roehampton (and withdrawal of service to Barnes Pond); and the withdrawal of short extras on the 265 between Roehampton and Putney Bridge. Of course, TfL's promotion of these changes is predictably terrible: - The main Hammersmith Bridge closure page still hasn't been updated for months, and continues to announce that TfL is "making changes to the local bus network from 18 May 2019". It still makes no mention of new route 378, introduced almost two months ago, nor of the very latest changes to the 265 and 419.
- The main Hammersmith Bridge bus route changes consultation page still leads with the 18 May changes, although it at least refers to them in the past tense (!!). And while the 378 is displayed in a map there showing the changes introduced on 3 August, the page itself doesn't describe those changes at all, nor does it give any further details on the 378, such as its frequency. It does refer to the 419's extension to Roehampton from today, but doesn't mention the corresponding changes to the 265.
- Additionally, there's nothing on the consultation pages about the new timetables for various routes that start today - one would think that this would be an important issue to consult on, given that TfL is reducing frequency on several routes, while promising that this will improve their reliability. TfL has acknowledged that these timetable revisions are connected with the bridge closure, so it's unclear why passengers who are also affected by the closure aren't being invited to share their opinions on these changes. Isn't that the whole purpose of the consultation?
- Meanwhile, the Temporary Bus Changes page continues to offer passengers this useless, outdated map from May.
*sigh*
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on Sept 28, 2019 11:15:50 GMT
You cannot make this up, 419 is either showing Hammersmith Bridge or Blank Blinds still with a small A4 slip paper saying Roehampton at the bottom of the windscreen, confusion all around.
Furthermore I have seen the university bus to Roehampton trundling around Barnes empty (operated by Go-ahead) would it be a good idea to help out the 33 etc?
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Sept 29, 2019 8:25:12 GMT
It gets worse than that. At the Castlenau Lonsdale Road stop Roehampton bound the 419 timetable has changed but they left the tile saying 419 Barnes Pond. It's the same at a few other stops though my favourite remains the Barnes High Street stop which still has a 419 tile even though the bus has never ever served it in its many versions.
As for the Putney end of things, on the bridge one stop has both 209 and 378 timetables. On the Lower Richmond Road a couple of N33 timetables have appeared but not a single N72.
|
|
|
Post by george on Sept 29, 2019 8:30:11 GMT
It gets worse than that. At the Castlenau Lonsdale Road stop Roehampton bound the 419 timetable has changed but they left the tile saying 419 Barnes Pond. It's the same at a few other stops though my favourite remains the Barnes High Street stop which still has a 419 tile even though the bus has never ever served it in its many versions. As for the Putney end of things, on the bridge one stop has both 209 and 378 timetables. On the Lower Richmond Road a couple of N33 timetables have appeared but not a single N72. Also none of the stops from Barnes Red Lion (the new stop) to Roehampton Bessborough road have 419 tiles.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Sept 29, 2019 9:14:11 GMT
You cannot make this up, 419 is either showing Hammersmith Bridge or Blank Blinds still with a small A4 slip paper saying Roehampton at the bottom of the windscreen, confusion all around. Furthermore I have seen the university bus to Roehampton trundling around Barnes empty (operated by Go-ahead) would it be a good idea to help out the 33 etc? On top of this something else I also think could cause a lot of confusion is the 419’s now very indirect nature. Hopefully the 419 receives new blinds soon, but hopefully they’ll add a ‘via Castelnau’ qualifier like with the 331 now. Buses going towards Roehampton don’t have blinds at all which can’t be helpful, then to make it even worse buses going the other way up to Castelnau/Hammersmith Bridge probably say ‘Richmond’ on the front with no indication at all its an alternative to the 33. The good ideas are there but they’re just being so poorly executed. Replacing the 419 to Roehampton instead of the 265 is a far better option as that more closely mirrors the old 33/72 routing and the 265 didn’t help the 33’s overcrowding, this restructured 419 thankfully does. I actually think a different blinding approach should be taken here with this reformed 419, as it’s essentially two routes fused together now. From Roehampton the 419 route should display ‘Hammersmith Bridge / THEN RICHMOND’ up to the Bridge, and then change it to ‘Richmond’ after it gets to Hammersmith Bridge so passengers know it actually goes via there. Then from Richmond it should say ‘Hammersmith Bridge / THEN ROEHAMPTON’ which changes to ‘Roehampton / BESSBOROUGH ROAD’ after passing the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 29, 2019 9:30:11 GMT
You cannot make this up, 419 is either showing Hammersmith Bridge or Blank Blinds still with a small A4 slip paper saying Roehampton at the bottom of the windscreen, confusion all around. Furthermore I have seen the university bus to Roehampton trundling around Barnes empty (operated by Go-ahead) would it be a good idea to help out the 33 etc? On top of this something else I also think could cause a lot of confusion is the 419’s now very indirect nature. Hopefully the 419 receives new blinds soon, but hopefully they’ll add a ‘via Castelnau’ qualifier like with the 331 now. Buses going towards Roehampton don’t have blinds at all which can’t be helpful, then to make it even worse buses going the other way up to Castelnau/Hammersmith Bridge probably say ‘Richmond’ on the front with no indication at all its an alternative to the 33. That's precisely why I object to merging the 378, 419, and 485 into a single route - as the product would be a very long circuitous route with a fair bit of going round the houses.
My idea is instead just to merge the 378 and 485, but to then have this route run on to Richmond as well as the 419. That way, you have a Richmond-Wandsworth route which creates new links, it ensures the 378 has more purpose than the pointless fresh air route it is, instead replacing it with a viable through route. I decided the terminus should be Richmond rather than Mortlake Bus Station to create a more useful terminus than Mortlake Bus Station so this route can see its full potential. As for stand space at Richmond Bus Station I hear you say, well once the bridge reopens (when this proposal would be implemented) the 110/419 merger could finally occur, or the rather short 391 could be extended somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Sept 29, 2019 9:39:30 GMT
On top of this something else I also think could cause a lot of confusion is the 419’s now very indirect nature. Hopefully the 419 receives new blinds soon, but hopefully they’ll add a ‘via Castelnau’ qualifier like with the 331 now. Buses going towards Roehampton don’t have blinds at all which can’t be helpful, then to make it even worse buses going the other way up to Castelnau/Hammersmith Bridge probably say ‘Richmond’ on the front with no indication at all its an alternative to the 33. That's precisely why I object to merging the 378, 419, and 485 into a single route - as the product would be a very long circuitous route with a fair bit of going round the houses.
My idea is instead just to merge the 378 and 485, but to then have this route run on to Richmond as well as the 419. That way, you have a Richmond-Wandsworth route which creates new links, it ensures the 378 has more purpose than the pointless fresh air route it is, instead replacing it with a viable through route. I decided the terminus should be Richmond rather than Mortlake Bus Station to create a more useful terminus than Mortlake Bus Station so this route can see its full potential. As for stand space at Richmond Bus Station I hear you say, well once the bridge reopens (when this proposal would be implemented) the 110/419 merger could finally occur, or the rather short 391 could be extended somewhere.
The 378 is definitely not the fresh-air carrying route it once was when it was numbered 209. The last time I used the 378 (just under a month ago? Wanted to try the new GAL MMCs) it was about 2/3 in the afternoon by the time we got to Ruvigny gardens (the third stop along the route, heading for Mortlake) there were twenty-one people on the bus (I counted, which I was very surprised at), compared to just seven in the same place when it was with Metroline with banditised buses, it’s definitely picked up.
|
|
|
Post by george on Sept 29, 2019 10:26:03 GMT
That's precisely why I object to merging the 378, 419, and 485 into a single route - as the product would be a very long circuitous route with a fair bit of going round the houses.
My idea is instead just to merge the 378 and 485, but to then have this route run on to Richmond as well as the 419. That way, you have a Richmond-Wandsworth route which creates new links, it ensures the 378 has more purpose than the pointless fresh air route it is, instead replacing it with a viable through route. I decided the terminus should be Richmond rather than Mortlake Bus Station to create a more useful terminus than Mortlake Bus Station so this route can see its full potential. As for stand space at Richmond Bus Station I hear you say, well once the bridge reopens (when this proposal would be implemented) the 110/419 merger could finally occur, or the rather short 391 could be extended somewhere.
The 378 is definitely not the fresh-air carrying route it once was when it was numbered 209. The last time I used the 378 (just under a month ago? Wanted to try the new GAL MMCs) it was about 2/3 in the afternoon by the time we got to Ruvigny gardens (the third stop along the route, heading for Mortlake) there were twenty-one people on the bus (I counted, which I was very surprised at), compared to just seven in the same place when it was with Metroline with banditised buses, it’s definitely picked up. I do agree that passenger numbers have increased, I personally haven't been on a 378 that has more than 15 people on it but that could be down to the times I use the service. Having said that I still have been on 378s with as little as two people on board. I'm still a big advocate of extending the route to Hammersmith to support the 220. I know travel time has increased along the Fulham Palace road due to the traffic caused by the closure of the bridge but I hope with the bus lane it shouldn't be too bad apart from approaching the rounadbout near Fulham road.
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on Sept 29, 2019 10:35:04 GMT
With the 419 now going to Roehampton is it really necessary for the 493 to continue from Roehampton to Richmond, I feel this route can suffer from severe delays so when the bus reaches Earl Spencer’s continue and terminate at Asda? Any views....
|
|
|
Post by george on Sept 29, 2019 10:44:51 GMT
With the 419 now going to Roehampton is it really necessary for the 493 to continue from Roehampton to Richmond, I feel this route can suffer from severe delays so when the bus reaches Earl Spencer’s continue and terminate at Asda? Any views.... I have previously had the idea of diverting the 493 to Hammersmith Bridge before the 419 extension came to light. My reason for that was the 493 suffers from massive delays along the A205. Have a look on LVF on a weekday between 16.00 to 19.00 you will notice a lot of buses will be terminating at either Barnes Common or East sheen. It can take 12 minutes for a bus to travel one stop that may not seem a lot but when you think you could walk between those two stops in about 2 then it is.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 29, 2019 11:53:14 GMT
With the 419 now going to Roehampton is it really necessary for the 493 to continue from Roehampton to Richmond, I feel this route can suffer from severe delays so when the bus reaches Earl Spencer’s continue and terminate at Asda? Any views.... You would be breaking a number of links by doing this such as the round the corner link from Roehampton to Sheen which is the 419 doesn’t do and from the Putney Heath area which no other route does either. I agree about the delays you mention but the 419 is no replacement. Personally, a temporary split of the route until the bridge is fixed might be a better solution - say something along the lines of Richmond to Wimbledon & Tooting to Putney Heath.
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on Sept 29, 2019 12:14:26 GMT
With the 419 now going to Roehampton is it really necessary for the 493 to continue from Roehampton to Richmond, I feel this route can suffer from severe delays so when the bus reaches Earl Spencer’s continue and terminate at Asda? Any views.... You would be breaking a number of links by doing this such as the round the corner link from Roehampton to Sheen which is the 419 doesn’t do and from the Putney Heath area which no other route does either. I agree about the delays you mention but the 419 is no replacement. Personally, a temporary split of the route until the bridge is fixed might be a better solution - say something along the lines of Richmond to Wimbledon & Tooting to Putney Heath. Maybe but you never know with TFL and Hopper Fares etc or extend 493 and terminate at Barnes Pond via Rocks Lane and Church Road thus creating new links from Barnes Area to Wimbledon and Tooting
|
|