|
Post by riverside on Aug 19, 2016 9:31:54 GMT
"Pat, when oi said the District Line runs in the open' you stay on the tracks bejasus!!" I am not sure that ethnic 'jokes' sit well on this forum. By coincidence I was born and grew up in Hammersmith with Irish parents. I do not think my Irish heritage means that I am lacking intellectual skills or that my parents were mentally challenged. I am sure that no offence is meant or intended by this post, but I like to think that in 2016 things have moved on .
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Aug 11, 2016 11:04:11 GMT
#AbbeyRoad A more honest description of these proposals would be to say 'Route 13 withdrawn'. Route 82 renumbered 13. TfL had to withdraw the original proposals but they have been kept in cold storage. TfL have now changed the recipe slightly, disingenuously worded the menu, reheated the dish and served it up to Londoners in NW London. Like it or lump it seems to be the subliminal message from above.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on May 23, 2016 10:18:32 GMT
Sorry I pressed the wrong button and cut myself off! I cannot see the proposed 218 being an adequate replacement for the 266 if it is single decked. Large loads can be carried on the 266 and many passengers want to go further than Acton Vale. If it follows the 440 route via West Acton then I presume the frequency is probably only going to be every 15 minutes. To literally cut the 266 in half at North Acton seems very strange. If I am reading these proposals correctly there would be no bus service between Acton High Street and Harlesden Jubilee Clock. I can't see locals being happy. Rerouting the 440 might have some benefits but the residents of the West Acton/Noel Road area will probably not be amused as many residents use the 440 to access the Asda at Park Royal. Thanks to @david21 for the info on the route changes. riverside I do agree with your comments about demand for the 266 at Acton. I've waited near Morrisons for a 266 around school time and it was horrendous. Now OK the service was not running well but there were a lot of people waiting - huge numbers and more turning up all the time. A single deck route every 15 mins will simply not cope as you say. Imagine what will happen in the evenings when buses may only be half hourly? I assume also there will no night bus so a link through West London will be lost. Clearly TfL have taken the view that it's not possible to run the 266 reliably hence this set of "karate chop" (hi yah) bus changes. I also don't see the point in sending the 218 round the West Acton loop on the 440. I also can't see the Wetlands Centre being delighted at the loss of a bus link to its front door. Obviously we must wait for the inevitable consultation but this looks like another piece of radical surgery that won't go down well. The 266 has always been difficult to operate but in the past it has always been decided that the benefits of maintaining a through service outweighed the disbenefits of lopping the route in two. I can remember many, many years ago the then Labour MP for Acton (Nigel Spearing) regularly writing into the letters page of the West London Observer complaining about the poor service on the 266 between Acton and Hammersmith. This was when the 266 was still supplemented by the 260 between these points during Monday to Friday rush hours and all day Saturday. During rush hours sometimes the queues could stretch from the old stand in Hammersmith Grove round the corner into King street and virtually to the Broadway. When the old 255 was withdrawn Riverside Garage gained a minority share(Monday-Saturday) on the 266 which meant that at least some buses were guaranteed to get to Hammersmith for meal breaks/crew reliefs. However one new problem was introduced for northbound journeys. If a 266 was scheduled to start inside Riverside Garage then the bus would turn left into King Street and serve the stop outside Marks and Spencer as its first stop, thus omitting the old trolleybus stand in the southern portion of Hammersmith Grove between King Street and Beadon Road. Passengers would be able to see an empty 266 go by and many would begin to race towards the M and S stop. Most conductors as I recall would be watching passengers board with one eye, whilst with the other watching the approaching stampede. Usually the conductors would get the waiting passengers on, ring the bell and the 266 would pull away rather emptier than it should, leaving passengers in various states of exhaustion shaking their fists as the bus continued on its way to Cricklewood or Colindale. I still feel that despite operational problems the 266 should continue to run as present. If it has to be split then I would suggest that the new 218 be double decked and run between Hammersmith and Craven Park with the 266 running between Brent Cross and Willesden Junction. To split the route at North Acton is just nonsensical. We will have to wait and see what the actual proposals are but I hate to think that TfL think that if passengers wish to travel between Acton and Harlesden they have to get the Overground to Willesden Junction and then walk or bus. Maybe the proposals are an indication of what is to come with the one hour bus transfer ticket. It now doesn't matter if we chuck passengers off at remote North Acton in the rain,cold,wind,thunder,sleet, snow or dark to wait for another bus to continue their journey as they will not have to pay again!
|
|
|
Post by riverside on May 22, 2016 19:17:08 GMT
Sorry I pressed the wrong button and cut myself off!
I cannot see the proposed 218 being an adequate replacement for the 266 if it is single decked. Large loads can be carried on the 266 and many passengers want to go further than Acton Vale. If it follows the 440 route via West Acton then I presume the frequency is probably only going to be every 15 minutes. To literally cut the 266 in half at North Acton seems very strange. If I am reading these proposals correctly there would be no bus service between Acton High Street and Harlesden Jubilee Clock. I can't see locals being happy.
Rerouting the 440 might have some benefits but the residents of the West Acton/Noel Road area will probably not be amused as many residents use the 440 to access the Asda at Park Royal.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on May 22, 2016 19:08:34 GMT
Proposed changes. Route 283 will be cut from East Acton to Hammersmith once the Hammersmith bridge changes are complete. There will be a new DD Route numbered 239 will run from Roehampton Danebury Avenue to Acton Vale. There will be a new SD Route numbered 218 which will run from Hammersmith to North Acton via the existing 266 to Acton High Street and 440 to North Acton. Route 266 will be withdrawn between Hammersmith and North Acton. Route 440 will be re-routed directly between Acton High Street and North Acton and then via the existing routing to Stonebridge Park but extended to Wembley Central. snoggle see mystery route 218 Let's take these one at a time. The withdrawal of the 283 between Hammersmith and Barnes makes sense as the route tends to load very lightly on this section. The only question is whether a service to the Barnes Wetland Centre is still needed. A bifurcation on the 485 could serve this point if need be. The 239 proposal has been public knowledge for awhile. I have a feeling that when the route is up and running there will be little through traffic at Hammersmith, but I might be proved wrong. I had thought that the idea of the 239 was to replace the 72 shorts plus give the southern part of the 266 a bit of protection. Obviously that was not what TfL had in mind.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on May 21, 2016 21:03:09 GMT
I would have loved for a DMS* to also make an appearance as that's the earliest type I remember on the 95, back in the day when the 181 used to run with it between Streatham and Tooting Broadway. * - really early ones where the headlights were a bit closer together and the engines sounded a bit like the Titan This may not be on the old 95, but I don't know if you (probably do) know that a DMS (DMS1) will be running a heritage service as part of the Shepherds Bush Bus Garage Open Day today. That will bring back some nightmares to many people of a certain age. I grew up just off the Shepherds Bush Road and well remember the conversion of the 220 from RM to DMS. Overnight a busy trunk route was ruined. To this day I still cannot understand why such an important route as the 220 was selected as a guinea pig for the introduction of OMO double deckers. The buses had not been sufficiently road tested and the split entrance fare collection method was disliked by passengers. Sadly the passengers basically had to like it or lump it. The 220 certainly was not one of LTs worst routes in terms of cost recovery. Why routes like the 295 in 1971 were not selected as pioneers I will never know. It would have been worse for me if I had lived south of the river. If Sadiq Khan had been MP for Tooting in January 1971 I am sure he would have been inundated with complaints about the conversion of the 95 and 220 from RM to DMS, plus the 181 from RT to SMS all on the same day. Not sure what Tooting did to deserve this but it is something Citizen Smith should have campaigned against. The economics of the time meant that OMO/OPO had to come in but LT seemed to go about it in a clumsy manner. All three routes had AFC equipment installed ready for January 2nd that accepted the old £sd currency. Then on D Day 15th February 1971 all the equipment had to be converted to accept the new decimal currency. Why LT did not defer all three conversions till after the 15th of Feb. I do not know. DMS 1 certainly has a place in London bus history. It was a pioneer but sadly in many ways it and its siblings were rushed into service and it was the travelling public who paid the price.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on May 16, 2016 16:43:35 GMT
I think time might be playing tricks here. The 55 was not the forerunner to the E8. When the Ealing flat fare scheme was introduced on 30/11/68 the old 55 which was RM worked (with a few extra Turnham Green RTs on Saturdays) was replaced. The 55 had run between Chiswick(Swimming Pools)/Chiswick Station to Hayes(Bourne Avenue). It was replaced by the new E3 running between Chiswick (Swimming Pools) and Greenford (Red Lion) using MBSs. The new RT operated 274 ran from Ealing Broadway via the previously unserved southern part of Argyle Road to Greenford and then replacing the remainder of the 55 on to Hayes (Bourne Avenue). The first day of operation was very wet and cold. The new 36ft buses had problems negotiating the parked cars plus doors and turnstiles all gave problems. In those days there were no concessionary passes so even OAPs had to pay. The previous day they had fully seated RTs and RMs with hopefully helpful conductors.Now they were faced by turnstiles to negotiate and then once they got through they had to go either up another step towards the rear where the 25 seats were or stand in the front part of the bus designed for 48 standees. The present E8 covers part of the old E1. Prior to the introduction of the E1 the former 255 still ran along Boston Manor Road during Monday to Friday rush hours to reach Hanwell Broadway but it was cut back to Gunnersbury Roundabout as part of the Ealing Flat fare scheme. The 255 was RM operated out of Riverside. I knew there was a '55' in there somewhere I was only 3 years old at the time, but I remember the coin box that would 'pop' when you put the fare in thanks for clearing that up Probably a good thing you were only three at the time otherwise you would probably still be scarred by the experience of using the original E1-3. I was 11 myself and clearly remember the horrific first day, especially the afternoon when it seemed to rain non stop. Luckily I lived in Hammersmith so although the routes were near at least I did not have to experience them everyday. The service provided by the E routes today is far superior to their original incarnation.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on May 16, 2016 12:20:40 GMT
I remember the old 55, forerunner to the E8, with Daimler Fleetline deckers and popping 10p in the box as a kid (it was just 20p for an Adult), seen the E8 emerge after E1 was split at Ealing Broadway, seen the buses progress from Wrightbus Renault single deckers... to the TP class deckers, back for a while to single deckers and onwards to deckers and Hounslow extension so quite a lot of changes since the early 80s... During that time I moved to North London, then back to West and am considering heading for the Shires as London is getting too costly rent wise I think time might be playing tricks here. The 55 was not the forerunner to the E8. When the Ealing flat fare scheme was introduced on 30/11/68 the old 55 which was RM worked (with a few extra Turnham Green RTs on Saturdays) was replaced. The 55 had run between Chiswick(Swimming Pools)/Chiswick Station to Hayes(Bourne Avenue). It was replaced by the new E3 running between Chiswick (Swimming Pools) and Greenford (Red Lion) using MBSs. The new RT operated 274 ran from Ealing Broadway via the previously unserved southern part of Argyle Road to Greenford and then replacing the remainder of the 55 on to Hayes (Bourne Avenue). The first day of operation was very wet and cold. The new 36ft buses had problems negotiating the parked cars plus doors and turnstiles all gave problems. In those days there were no concessionary passes so even OAPs had to pay. The previous day they had fully seated RTs and RMs with hopefully helpful conductors.Now they were faced by turnstiles to negotiate and then once they got through they had to go either up another step towards the rear where the 25 seats were or stand in the front part of the bus designed for 48 standees. The present E8 covers part of the old E1. Prior to the introduction of the E1 the former 255 still ran along Boston Manor Road during Monday to Friday rush hours to reach Hanwell Broadway but it was cut back to Gunnersbury Roundabout as part of the Ealing Flat fare scheme. The 255 was RM operated out of Riverside.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Apr 7, 2016 19:17:16 GMT
Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative London Mayoral candidate was interviewed the other day on Radio 2 on the Jeremy Vine Show. The issue of transport dominated the discussion, during which all forms of transport(including cycling and walking) were mentioned but not a word was said about the form of transport that dare not speak its name! The humble bus was not mentioned by either Zac or Jeremy. Very depressing but not surprising. I didn't listen to the show so I'm only guessing but often on radio interviews they avoid going into the finer details of changes to bus routes as they are unlikely to be of much interest to most listeners. I would not expect them to go into finer details about bus route changes. What amazed me was that the word bus was never mentioned once. Not only did Zac Goldsmith appear to not think buses were worth mentioning, but equally, Jeremy Vine did not think that buses merited a question. I think I am right in saying that buses in London carry more people a day then other forms of transport but obviously not the right kind of people!
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Apr 7, 2016 10:28:16 GMT
Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative London Mayoral candidate was interviewed the other day on Radio 2 on the Jeremy Vine Show. The issue of transport dominated the discussion, during which all forms of transport(including cycling and walking) were mentioned but not a word was said about the form of transport that dare not speak its name! The humble bus was not mentioned by either Zac or Jeremy. Very depressing but not surprising.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Mar 28, 2016 11:18:15 GMT
The general reaction of passengers/residents is not surprising. Let's take them one at a time.
481: 99% in favour of doubling service to every thirty minutes and introduction of Sunday service. As this is not a new service(so residents are used to buses), the change will still see only 4 buses an hour pass along any given stretch of road plus the buses are relatively small single deckers, this proposal was never likely to generate any serious opposition. It is a welcome strengthening of services in this part of SW London.
E8: The extension to Hounslow(thus providing a long overdue link with Ealing) was bound to be welcomed and it is good to see that this is being pursued. The proposed diversion via Amhurst Gardens to serve West Middlesex Hospital was always going to meet with controversy. When this consultation first appeared I expressed my concerns about routing the E8 via such a narrow residential road. This is not a case of nimbyism. Unlike some of the residents of the Peabody Estate near Tulse Hill who recently thwarted the plan to extend the 315, these residents already have the H28 passing their front doors, a route that because of its size and frequency is more suited to negotiate the road conditions of Amhurst Gardens. I hope that the E8 becomes established on London Road and sticks to the direct route.
It is interesting to see how TfL will champion an argument/point of view in one consultation whilst taking the complete opposite point of view in another. In the proposal advanced for the E8, TfL tried to do two things at once ie provide new links to both Hounslow and the West Middlesex Hospital. Passengers wishing to travel to Hounslow (the majority) would be subject to a diversion to the hospital thus lengthening their journey times. The other people paying the cost would be the residents of Amhurst Gardens who would now have a high frequency double deck service traversing their road. In this case TfL decided that the through passengers would have to be inconvenienced. Now contrast that to a scheme just a few years ago, slightly to the east where TfL took exactly the OPPOSITE view.
For decades and decades the former 91 and its successor the H91 always diverted off Chiswick High Road, between Turnham Green and Gunnersbury Roundabout to serve the Wellesley Road area of Gunnersbury. In a package of changes for the area it was decided that the H91 should run direct via Chiswick High Road. I think Section 106 money was being provided to increase the frequency and make the route more attractive to workers on the 'Golden Mile'(no not Blackpool, but part of the Great West Road apparently). The replacement service proposed by TfL was an extension of the 440 from Turnham Green to Chiswick(Power Road). The residents of Wellesley Road stated that the 440 would not take them to where they wanted to go and instead asked TfL to divert the 391 to serve this area. Such a diversion of the 391 would be similar to diverting the E8 via West Middlesex Hospital. In this case, however, TfL stated that diverting the 391 would result in an unacceptable lengthening of journey time for through passengers and so to this day Wellesley Road is served by the 440, which carries tiny numbers of passengers on this section.
If the diversion of the 391 was unacceptable, then by the same reckoning the diversion of the E8 should also be deemed unacceptable. TfL should now forget about ever running the E8 via West Middlesex Hospital. Instead they should listen to the clear message of the people they consulted that an extension of the E2 would be of far more benefit. Such an extension would give a greater number of people access to the hospital, while also meaning that Amhurst Gardens would not have to have a high frequency double deck service. There could be problems about stand space at the hospital but if the West Middlesex is serious about working to improve accessibility to the services they provide then it is up to them to work with TfL to come up with a solution.
H28: Again, it is not surprising that this proposal has met opposition. I can appreciate what TfL is trying to achieve here. The route of the H28 on a map looks like the readings you might find on a cardiograph machine. It is far from an ideal route and I appreciate that some untangling is desirable. However, it was TfL who designed the route. It was designed to provide a multiplicity of needs in a local area, so as to provide numerous short journeys in the most cost efficient way. It was not designed for long through journeys. I don't know the answer to this problem. Maybe the H28 is the Maria of the TfL network and needs the help of singing nuns! There is benefit in the diversion/extension to Brentford but that seems to come at an excessive price in the complete withdrawal of a bus service from Wood Lane.
110: The proposal for the 110 to approach the West Middlesex from the other direction has merit, but as it has already been said on here before it seems pointless to merely duplicate the 267. I think it was Snoggle who proposed that this extension would be of more benefit if it was diverted via part of the St. Margaret's Road area. I would agree with that and feel that the 110 would have more utility if such a route were to be adopted.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Mar 13, 2016 19:39:43 GMT
It is very sad to see this proposal rejected.It is a case of those people who mainly use cars having no consideration for their neighbours. The elderly, people on low incomes and those with a disability will be most impacted by this decision. Surely under present legislation there should be some sort of Equalities Impact Assessment done that helps more marginalised people to have a voice. TfL were approached by residents of the estate to provide some sort of service, so there are people there who feel isolated from the present bus network.
I agree with Vjaska, that given the area and the socio-economic make up it is surprising that some residents have campaigned so vigorously against a service that would clearly be of benefit to their fellow residents. If I remember correctly the Peabody Trust only exists because an American philanthropist George? Peabody was so appalled by the housing conditions he saw in Victorian London that he started a charitable foundation to provide some form of social housing.
I hope TfL do not let the issue rest here and will re-present the proposal in an amended form at a future date. This is reminiscent of the campaign waged against the C1 running down Blythe Road. However it is ironic that when it suits TfL they will arbitrarily propose withdrawing services along roads e.g. the proposal to no longer serve Spendrift Avenue if the current plan for the Isle of Dogs goes ahead. I have only ever made a few journeys on the D3, but in my limited experience there was a steady stream of passengers boarding and alighting along this section who obviously valued their bus service. So TfL are not always the passengers' friend.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Feb 29, 2016 12:28:28 GMT
It was extended from Camden Town to Parliament Hill Fields from 1984-87. Similarly, route 19 ran from Tooting Bec to Archway in 1984-85. In an earlier post you mentioned the 45 going from Sth Ken to Archway. I would suggest that the 45 together with a short lived 19A which ran from Finsbury Park to Hammersmith, are the only two routes which crossed the Thames twice? (YES I KNOW-the 109, 155, 177 and 184's did as well but they were circular routes) thinking caps on chaps, and I'll stand corrected if there are anymore When the 27 ran between Archway and Teddington it crossed both Kew Bridge and Richmond Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Feb 10, 2016 16:56:57 GMT
Before vjaska blows a gasket it's spelt "Duran Duran". The Top of the Pops 81 episodes are on I-Player so you can "catch up" with relative ease. You will no doubt see some artists / hear some songs and think "what were they on" but don't worry. We thought that at the time too and now it's even more hysterical. It's great fun to read Twitter when TOTP81 is on the box because you get all sorts of "reaction" from people who were teenagers back in the 80s (like I was - sob ). All good fun. Oops, Duran. I know songs on there, they'll be by Phil Collins. A singer they play on Heart sometimes, and I do like his songs. You seem that you want people like me to continue this "ancient" music for the next 100 years, but if it is all that good, I don't blame you. At least it's not opera! The two spellings can be explained. Obviously there was Duran Duran, but when Tony Blackburn did the Top 40 on Radio One he famously mispronounced the name of the band so for a short while maybe there did exist a Durran Durran!
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Feb 6, 2016 20:48:28 GMT
Was 53 and/or 260 ever run in overlapping sections? I suppose "routes split in two" don't necessarily count? (6/26, 14/91*, 22/242*, 112/232, 141/172*, 171/341 etc) * pairs no longer meet Looking at Darius Grigg's Flickr collection of old LT timetables the 53 had supplementary sectional working but to a common terminus at Plumstead. Some buses ran from Oxford Circus, others from Camden Town and others from Parliament Hill Fields. Therefore one destination going south but three going north! The 260 doesn't seem to have had overlaps during the 80s/90s. It did get a Saturdays only extra service from Willesden Junction to Golders Green alongside the North Finchley - Shepherds Bush service. I assume this is because there was a lot of demand through Willesden and Cricklewood on Saturdays which was the main shopping day back then. From June 1970 till October 1978 the 260 was a very confusing route. It did not run in overlapping sections but none of the 3 garages that operated the route served it all. On Mondays to Fridays Stonebridge Park Garage operated the route between North Finchley and Harlesden(Willesden Junction) with a rush hour extension to Acton Vale(Bromyard Avenue). On Saturdays Willesden Garage took charge running between Harlesden and Golders Green. On Sundays it was the turn of Finchley Garage to run the route running between Willesden Garage and Barnet(Chesterfield Road). RMs were the allocation from each garage and there were three different intermediate blinds, one for each garage. As part of the second stage of Busplan this complex route was standardised to run from North Finchley to Hammersmith Broadway using RMs from Willesden garage, thus recreating the old 660 trolleybus route that had been withdrawn in January 1962. Such a complicated route pattern was obviously an attempt by LT to tailor routes to public demand within the constraints of limited budgetary resources. The result was interesting for enthusiasts but potentially confusing for passengers. TfL quite rightly would not sanction such a complicated route nowadays.
|
|