|
Post by vjaska on Sept 29, 2019 13:42:21 GMT
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 Extend the 493 from where? From Richmond?
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Oct 1, 2019 8:55:04 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. 419 tiles have now popped up along Rocks Lane. Unfortunately whoever put them up wasn't allowed to change the posters. The large bus service alteration one shows the previous version of the 419 that doesn't serve Rocks Lane. Even better the spider map shows all buses still crossing Hammersmith Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 1, 2019 11:06:31 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. Agree. Tooting to Richmond is far too long in present circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 1, 2019 11:10:53 GMT
Also none of the stops from Barnes Red Lion (the new stop) to Roehampton Bessborough road have 419 tiles. 419 tiles have now popped up along Rocks Lane. Unfortunately whoever put them up wasn't allowed to change the posters. The large bus service alteration one shows the previous version of the 419 that doesn't serve Rocks Lane. Even better the spider map shows all buses still crossing Hammersmith Bridge. Hammersmith tube station is telling passengers to get a train to East Putney and then change for a 265. It was was an automated announcement I heard two weeks ago, I will see if it's been changed.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 2, 2019 8:45:56 GMT
How is the 419 extension to Roehampton loading?
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 2, 2019 19:07:06 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. 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. I agree that some kind of special blind arrangement is needed here, but I don't believe the best solution is to switch the blinds halfway through in each direction. That's just adding more complexity to the situation, and I think it's likely to create greater confusion when, inevitably, the blinds aren't switched mid-route every single time. For the 419, the destination blind needs to show two things clearly: 1) the destination, including the qualifier, in both directions (Richmond has multiple termini, including Richmond Station, Lower Mortlake Road, Manor Circus, Manor Road, and the Bus Station; and Roehampton is too large an area to refer to as a destination without a qualifying point); and 2) something to indicate its indirect routing (as opposed to route 493, which is far more direct between Richmond and Roehampton). Any blind layout still has to fit with TfL's strict requirements, as well as meeting accessibility standards. TfL Buses' design guidelines include only a limited number of different layouts approved for blinds, and I'm reasonably sure that none of them would easily accommodate the unusual requirements of the 419. Whatever the best solution ends up being for the 419, I think TfL might end up needing to bend its own rules a bit. Bearing this in mind, I think the simplest layout is one that just adds "via Castelnau" below the standard stacked "Roehampton, Bessborough Road" layout: Attachment DeletedIn my opinion, "via Castelnau" gives a very clear indication of the 419's new routing in both directions, especially juxtaposed with the absence of any such indicator on the 493's blinds. I think that this would do the job very simply, rather than adding complications like changing the blinds mid-route. However, I can't imagine that TfL would favour having two lines of qualifying information, especially when they're effectively two separate qualifiers (one for the terminus, and one for the routing). It could be argued that this might be confusing to read at a fleeting glance while boarding or running for a bus. There's plenty of evidence showing that it can be difficult to quickly read information presented in CAPS (indeed, this was one of the reasons that the great Margaret Calvert and Jock Kinneir pressed for the use of mixed case when designing UK road and rail signage in the 1950s and 60s - wisdom that persists to this day). Two stacked lines of CAPS could be considered a bit much to quickly take in while glancing at the front of a bus. Might this alternative layout might be more suitable? Attachment DeletedIt is, admittedly, a mix of old and new, and I'll be the first to admit that it's not entirely perfect. The destination qualifier becomes extremely small, but the "via Castelnau" text becomes much clearer and easier to quickly read when it stands on its own. Overall, I would argue that this second layout is more successful at quickly communicating the most essential information. Frankly, though, I'm not sure what the best overall solution is in terms of the final blind layout - maybe other members will have better ideas than mine! - but I am certain that displaying a single blind in each direction is greatly preferable to changing the blinds halfway through the route.
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on Oct 2, 2019 19:14:57 GMT
Oh no big problems on Hammersmith Bridge for pedestrians l, one side is closed now and they are discussing on closing the bridge all together because the lights have failed completely on one side and the other side only a little stretch off the lighting is on but flickering...I’m here now
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Oct 2, 2019 19:46:59 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. 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. I agree that some kind of special blind arrangement is needed here, but I don't believe the best solution is to switch the blinds halfway through in each direction. That's just adding more complexity to the situation, and I think it's likely to create greater confusion when, inevitably, the blinds aren't switched mid-route every single time. For the 419, the destination blind needs to show two things clearly: 1) the destination, including the qualifier, in both directions (Richmond has multiple termini, including Richmond Station, Lower Mortlake Road, Manor Circus, Manor Road, and the Bus Station; and Roehampton is too large an area to refer to as a destination without a qualifying point); and 2) something to indicate its indirect routing (as opposed to route 493, which is far more direct between Richmond and Roehampton). Any blind layout still has to fit with TfL's strict requirements, as well as meeting accessibility standards. TfL Buses' design guidelines include only a limited number of different layouts approved for blinds, and I'm reasonably sure that none of them would easily accommodate the unusual requirements of the 419. Whatever the best solution ends up being for the 419, I think TfL might end up needing to bend its own rules a bit. Bearing this in mind, I think the simplest layout is one that just adds "via Castelnau" below the standard stacked "Roehampton, Bessborough Road" layout: In my opinion, "via Castelnau" gives a very clear indication of the 419's new routing in both directions, especially juxtaposed with the absence of any such indicator on the 493's blinds. I think that this would do the job very simply, rather than adding complications like changing the blinds mid-route. However, I can't imagine that TfL would favour having two lines of qualifying information, especially when they're effectively two separate qualifiers (one for the terminus, and one for the routing). It could be argued that this might be confusing to read at a fleeting glance while boarding or running for a bus. There's plenty of evidence showing that it can be difficult to quickly read information presented in CAPS (indeed, this was one of the reasons that the great Margaret Calvert and Jock Kinneir pressed for the use of mixed case when designing UK road and rail signage in the 1950s and 60s - wisdom that persists to this day). Two stacked lines of CAPS could be considered a bit much to quickly take in while glancing at the front of a bus. Might this alternative layout might be more suitable? It is, admittedly, a mix of old and new, and I'll be the first to admit that it's not entirely perfect. The destination qualifier becomes extremely small, but the "via Castelnau" text becomes much clearer and easier to quickly read when it stands on its own. Overall, I would argue that this second layout is more successful at quickly communicating the most essential information. Frankly, though, I'm not sure what the best overall solution is in terms of the final blind layout - maybe other members will have better ideas than mine! - but I am certain that displaying a single blind in each direction is greatly preferable to changing the blinds halfway through the route. Remember that the 386, probably the ultimate indirect route between two termini on the TfL network, has never had any via points since the route was extended from Greenwich to Blackheath Village in 2007.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 2, 2019 19:51:24 GMT
Today, an update appeared halfway down the Hammersmith Bridge bus route changes consultation page: First, I have to confess that I believed Dial-a-Ride was already available to every qualifying resident in every London borough - it came as news to me that it wasn't being offered in the Hammersmith Bridge area. But why on earth wasn't it made available there before now? How is it possible that this mess has been going on for months, and yet it's taken this long for TfL to make this hugely useful service available to some of the most vulnerable locals affected by the bridge closure? Second, this update was not published on 26 September, despite what TfL claims. I checked the page yesterday afternoon, and that update wasn't there. This isn't the first time that TfL has done this; it previously published an update claiming to be from 2 September, but which could not have been posted earlier than the 4th. I'm struggling to imagine why TfL would lie about publishing this update at least five days earlier than it claimed - what on earth would it have to gain from doing so? I think it's far simpler to conclude that these updates were originally intended to be published by TfL on the stated dates, but whoever was responsible simply didn't bother to do so until several days later. Third, despite adding that Dial-a-Ride update to the page, TfL has left the rest of the page virtually untouched. That means that the page still leads with the changes introduced on 18 May, and still makes no explicit reference to the 378. If you scroll further down that page, past the 26 September Dial-a-Ride update, you'll see an "Update 2 September 2019" heading. However: - despite the heading, the update actually relates to the changes introduced to the 419 on 28 September;
- it claims that "the full route will be Richmond station to Roehampton, Bessborough Road" (which is obviously wrong, as the 419 does not terminate at Richmond station);
- it claims that "Route 419 will be extended from Barnes Pond to Roehampton" (which is obviously wrong, as the Barnes Pond section of the route has been withdrawn); and
- it still omits any mention of the extra 265 journeys being withdrawn between Roehampton and Putney Bridge.
Amazingly, despite leaving the page littered with confusing, outdated information, TfL has finally updated the map shown there to the very latest edition. Since TfL's people managed to bugger up pretty much everything else on the page, I have to assume that the addition of a genuinely useful map was an unintentional error.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 2, 2019 20:15:46 GMT
Remember that the 386, probably the ultimate indirect route between two termini on the TfL network, has never had any via points since the route was extended from Greenwich to Blackheath Village in 2007. I'm not sure that that's a fair comparison. One reason in favour of allowing the 419 to use via points is the sheer scale of upheaval to which the local bus network, including the 419 itself, has been subjected in recent months, making it even more important that the latest routings be clarified. Consider too that the changes to the 419 are - for now, at least - intended to be temporary. I think it's worth adding something like a via point to the blinds to help passengers navigate more easily, especially when all of the changes across the affected area could potentially be revised again. Another factor is that Castelnau, as a terminus or a thoroughfare, has become intrinsically linked with the bridge works. Whether by terminating buses there, or by running buses "via Castelnau", it quickly and effectively communicates that buses are headed towards the south side of the bridge. The 386 may have operated very successfully without any via points for 12 years, but I think it's difficult to reasonably compare a route that launched over a decade ago under very different circumstances with the 419, a route that has just been revised for the third time in five months, in the middle of widespread chaos across the local network.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 2, 2019 20:16:55 GMT
Oh no big problems on Hammersmith Bridge for pedestrians l, one side is closed now and they are discussing on closing the bridge all together because the lights have failed completely on one side and the other side only a little stretch off the lighting is on but flickering...I’m here now Make sure you get some photos - you might get a few quid for them from local press!
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 2, 2019 22:25:52 GMT
Now the winter is starting to set in I wonder if the option of going to Putney Bridge then taking the 378 will become more popular. If say coming from Sloane Square people may now prefer to take the district of PB then a bus rather then to Hammersmith then a walk over the bridge in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Oct 3, 2019 8:09:31 GMT
A Cool idea is to the 9 extended to Mortlake via Putney Bridge then merge it with 378
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 3, 2019 11:29:03 GMT
Appears Dial a ride is being extended for those living within a mile of Hammersmith Bridge Not sure of the criteria, but will take people to other side Londonnewsonline Link
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 3, 2019 11:47:22 GMT
A Cool idea is to the 9 extended to Mortlake via Putney Bridge then merge it with 378 It wouldn't work - the section between Barnes Common & Barnes Pond would likely be too tight due to how narrow it gets in places, double deckers at Barnes Bridge have to use the middle of the road thus delaying the service (the N22 runs through at night when it is much more quieter & its tight around the bottom of Avondale Road
|
|