|
Post by riverside on Jun 19, 2015 18:48:55 GMT
Sorry if anyone's already mentioned it but why don't they make oxford street buses only that way their will be no traffic problems so the journeys will be alot quicker so that is the best option I think Isn't it buses and taxi's only already? Buses,taxis and those awful rickshaw bicycles! Apart from having a total disregard for other traffic and general road safety,these rickshaw drivers create a dreadful image for Oxford street. Surely the shops should be campaigning for their removal before buses?
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jun 18, 2015 17:29:22 GMT
There's no point in having a fully accessible bus fleet and then not allowing buses to serve major shopping areas where the elderly and disabled will want to go just like the rest of the population. I hope that all the parties involved in this review will sensibly balance competing needs and not be party to an anti-bus project. Crossrail will definitely alter travel patterns but there will still be a need for many bus routes to access Oxford Street or neighbouring streets. If Wigmore Street ends up with loads of buses then the residents should blame the storeowners on Oxford Street for their plight.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jun 18, 2015 17:19:47 GMT
Could the 485 be re-routed from Hammersmith down Fulham Palace Road, serve the 424 roads around Craven Cottage and basically the whole route up to Putney Green Man before continuing to Roehampton, then maybe via Queen Mary's Hospital, Rock Lane and terminate at Barnes Pond ?? 424 could in theory then be withdrawn. Then extend the 265 to Wandsworth, I did hear that particular temporary extension was much welcomed at the time and fairly well used. The original report by LOTS in January stated that the buses acquired were for the 485 plus an additional vehicle for the 424, which suggests that this route will be retained in a modified form. The latter provides some useful cross Fulham links in the Munster Road area. Although the 485 does not have huge loadings it again provides some useful unique links from Barnes to the Putney area. It seems that the 485 could retain its present routing via Castelnau to Putney Bridge and then on via the present 424 to Putney Heath, thus explaining the need for shorter buses. Even with a diversion via Craven Cottage, a routing of the 485 via Fulham Palace Road using 8.9m single deckers could lead to some serious crush loadings when a delay occurred on the 220. The 485 would also have to be transferred back to the Upper Bus Station in Hammersmith where space is very limited. When it previously used the Upper Station, the less than ideal situation occurred where the 485 took stand time on the coach stop at the north end of the bus station. Obviously this is all speculation. Hopefully TfL's proposals will soon be put forward for consultation. Sorry I got my compass points mixed up. The coach stop at the Upper Bus Station at Hammersmith is at the south end not the north end.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jun 18, 2015 10:54:43 GMT
Interesting - I wonder if the 424 & 485 are to swap routings? Could the 485 be re-routed from Hammersmith down Fulham Palace Road, serve the 424 roads around Craven Cottage and basically the whole route up to Putney Green Man before continuing to Roehampton, then maybe via Queen Mary's Hospital, Rock Lane and terminate at Barnes Pond ?? 424 could in theory then be withdrawn. Then extend the 265 to Wandsworth, I did hear that particular temporary extension was much welcomed at the time and fairly well used. The original report by LOTS in January stated that the buses acquired were for the 485 plus an additional vehicle for the 424, which suggests that this route will be retained in a modified form. The latter provides some useful cross Fulham links in the Munster Road area. Although the 485 does not have huge loadings it again provides some useful unique links from Barnes to the Putney area. It seems that the 485 could retain its present routing via Castelnau to Putney Bridge and then on via the present 424 to Putney Heath, thus explaining the need for shorter buses. Even with a diversion via Craven Cottage, a routing of the 485 via Fulham Palace Road using 8.9m single deckers could lead to some serious crush loadings when a delay occurred on the 220. The 485 would also have to be transferred back to the Upper Bus Station in Hammersmith where space is very limited. When it previously used the Upper Station, the less than ideal situation occurred where the 485 took stand time on the coach stop at the north end of the bus station. Obviously this is all speculation. Hopefully TfL's proposals will soon be put forward for consultation.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Apr 13, 2015 16:21:57 GMT
I knew about the old V (Turnham Green) (which is now a Sainsbury's), the old R (Hammersmith-Riverside) (which is now a shopping centre) and the old M (Mortlake) (which is now housing and a bus stand). Chiswick Works became Chiswick Business Park, and it's fitting that public buses actually serve the site now (with the 27 based at V (Stamford Brook)). Except for the former R with the garage frontage) and the fact Mortlake Avondale Road is a bus stand, there is no visible thing that shows it used to be related to London Transport. I use the Sainsbury's at Chiswick regularly, and use Chiswick Business Park as part of a cut-through walking path to Acton Town when the District line messes up, and I have seen no sign of the former heritage. The northern bridge under the Picc/Dist to Chiswick Business Park has clearance for a double decker (surely) as a northern entrance to Chiswick Works (I assume). In more recent times, I remember ECT ran the 195 from Greenford Garage. I remember using the 195 to go to school with ECT, and I have always found it puzzling as to why it ended up with First Centrewest under a temporary contract. I never knew why, my only thought is that ECT just wanted to pull out of TfL tendered work for some reason. Chiswick Sainsbury is not actually on the site of the former Turnham Green garage(V), although it is close by. If you turn from Chiswick High Road on to Belmont Road, you will turn left for Sainsbury's. If you stay on Belmont Road you will see directly ahead of you a newish housing development, the first bit of which forms a u shape on a corner. That development marks the start of the old V garage. If you carry on Belmont Road with the development on your left then you will be passing where the entrances were situated. It was a rather cramped site on a triangular piece of land hemmed in by the railway to the north.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Mar 20, 2015 16:22:45 GMT
The earlier suggestion of the 485 replacing the Shaftesbury Estate leg of the G1 is an interesting one. It would enable larger capacity buses to service the busier southern end of the route. The restoration of the old 255 link between Putney Bridge Road and Clapham Junction would be welcome. Unlike the 255 I presume the 485 would be routed via Battersea Rise rather than St. John's Hill, so as to serve the shops in St. John's Road. Until TfL go to consultation we are all still guessing. The latest information from LOTS states that the 424 and 485 are candidates for proposed changes, whether separately or linked we'll have to wait and see. The same issue of TLB states that there is a suspension of consultations prior to the General Election which is something I didn't realise happened. I couldn't honestly see the fate of the humble 485 becoming a major talking point on the proposed TV election debates! They say patience is a virtue, so we'll just have to keep on waiting and speculating. I believe the "purdah" period prior to elections is a relatively recent development but is mandated in law and public bodies like TfL are not allowed to do or announce anything that could be perceived as or actually is "influencing" the voters' intentions. TfL issues instructions to all of its staff about what they can do, say or write in this period. Further some staff in certain roles have additional restrictions placed on their behaviour. You may recall that the opening of the East London Line extension was stalled by the purdah period as there was an election due. Boris tried to ignore it but I think he was eventually persuaded he couldn't come along and cut a ribbon. Back on the buses the G1 idea is interesting but I'm amazed it's not a declared part of the tender award given it gets a better frequency and new buses shortly. I can't see a change being popular if it means the Shaftesbury Estate were to lose a frequent service. The 485 is half hourly M-S with no late evening service whereas the G1 is daily and reasonably frequent. Thanks for that information Snoggle. It shows how times change. Years ago there was always a period of purdah before the Budget, but now details are leaked regularly. It is interesting to learn that public bodies such as TfL have to put everything on hold in the run up to a General Election. I agree with your comments about linking the 485 and G1. It would probably be hard to justify an evening and Sunday service over the whole length of the 485 when budgets are being squeezed so tight.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Mar 20, 2015 12:45:56 GMT
On that note, the latest TLB has a reference to a forthcoming consultation about changes to the 424 and 485 - no other details given. So in memoriam to the late great Shaw Taylor... keep 'em peeled! This is getting tiresome. Why can't they just put the issue out to consultation and then we'll know what they want to do? The earlier suggestion of the 485 replacing the Shaftesbury Estate leg of the G1 is an interesting one. It would enable larger capacity buses to service the busier southern end of the route. The restoration of the old 255 link between Putney Bridge Road and Clapham Junction would be welcome. Unlike the 255 I presume the 485 would be routed via Battersea Rise rather than St. John's Hill, so as to serve the shops in St. John's Road. Until TfL go to consultation we are all still guessing. The latest information from LOTS states that the 424 and 485 are candidates for proposed changes, whether separately or linked we'll have to wait and see. The same issue of TLB states that there is a suspension of consultations prior to the General Election which is something I didn't realise happened. I couldn't honestly see the fate of the humble 485 becoming a major talking point on the proposed TV election debates! They say patience is a virtue, so we'll just have to keep on waiting and speculating.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jan 26, 2015 12:56:07 GMT
Thanks for all your responses. The mystery still remains. I'm wondering if some people have asked for a short diversion via Station Road so that the 485 directly connects with Barnes Station. The road is narrow so probably would need shorter buses. The real question behind this thread is consistency in the TfL consultation process. As others have stated in other threads things seem to be unraveling. Routes in Central London are arbitrarily being cut back. Whether the changes are temporary or permanent people are not sure, however, we do know that the 7 will never return to Russell Square. Snoggle is at present challenging TfL about changes to the W11 and W15 resulting from the end of a diversion. Other members have stated that similar long term diversions have gone out to consultation about rejigging routes as a result of data collected during the implementation of the diversion. The interesting thing about the 485 changes is that if the news in TLB is to be believed then Go-Ahead London General have already sourced replacement buses for the route without any of the public(including the informed membership of this forum!) knowing anything about it. A short diversion via Station Road would serve virtually a rural environment and maybe because such a change would not affect residents, would lead to a very marginal increase in journey times for through passengers and would not need a PVR increase, then TfL feels there is no need to consult.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jan 23, 2015 23:28:45 GMT
I'm not to sure of the new line of route for the 485 but this is a 12 year old quote from 'Bob Kiley and Tim O'Toole written answers' to the then (2003) London Assembly To read the document fully use think link and scroll down to 195/03 Bus Route 419 & 485 in BarnesWritten Answers 11 June 2003
I personally think the route will be diverted to serve Barnes Station. If the present changes has anything to do with this 2003 review then it will be very disappointing to know it took 12 years for something to happen. Thanks for going to the trouble of digging out that information. It seems strange that London General have gone to the trouble to source a new allocation of buses to the 485 but TfL has not initiated any consultation process about changes to the route.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jan 23, 2015 17:22:31 GMT
Sorry Vjaska about the 'ghost' post, I pressed the wrong buttons! I fully agree that the 485 could easily serve Wandsworth Southside as it has fifteen minutes stand time. This short extension would as you say be useful for many shoppers, especially on a cold January day. An alternative could be to extend the 485 up the hill to the St. John's Health Centre, thereby creating a few new liks.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jan 23, 2015 16:22:14 GMT
The January edition of TLB states that London General have acquired five 8.9m E200s from Metroline via Ensign Bus. These are to cover a +1pvr on route 424 and a rerouting of route 485 over a restricted section that cannot take 10.2m buses. What is this proposed rerouting of the 485? I am not aware of any proposals to alter the route. TBH, only heard this info published in LOTS like you mentioned above. What does annoy me is TfL haven't bothered to consider extending the route in Wandsworth to stand with the 28 & 220 at Southside as there is plenty of space there and 485 passengers would not need to cross Wandsworth High Street to use Sainsbury's and have a shorter walk to reach the Cineworld end of the Southside Centre (or Arndale as it was called).
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jan 23, 2015 15:51:09 GMT
The January edition of TLB states that London General have acquired five 8.9m E200s from Metroline via Ensign Bus. These are to cover a +1pvr on route 424 and a rerouting of route 485 over a restricted section that cannot take 10.2m buses. What is this proposed rerouting of the 485? I am not aware of any proposals to alter the route.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Oct 17, 2014 10:29:29 GMT
A - Airport B - Bexleyheath C - Camden, Central, Chelsea D - Docklands E - Ealing EL - East London Transit G - George's Hospital H - Harrow, Hounslow, Heathrow, Hendon K - Kingston P - Peckham R - Richmond, Roundabout RV - Riverside S - Sutton T - Tramlink U - Uxbridge W - Waltham Forest X - Express Err "W" has to be treated with care. Originally it was Wood Green given the original W routes from 1968 but we did have the W21 in Walthamstow. Even with the later minibus schemes you still have "W" routes in and around Haringey (W4, W5 and W6) while Walthamstow and Woodford got W11-W17. Goodness knows what the "W" for the W10 to Crews Hill refers to!! "S" was originally Stratford with the S1 and S2 which are only fairly recent casualties of renumberings / route changes. Roundabout was simply a local identity to raise the profile of local services in and around Orpington so as to try to encourage patronage on what was an area with a very mixed history of operators, services and frequencies. Other far more knowledgeable group members could give chapter and verse. While "D" is for Docklands the extent of the "D" network has changed vastly over the years and it reached to Ilford and Barking plus we had the private "D" Docklands Minibus routes. "C" applied to a network of Croydon area services to the Addington area. "H" originally referred to Hampstead for the H1/H2/H3 serving Hampstead Garden Suburb. "M" referred to the M1 route in the Morden area. It is really worth looking at the historical London Bus routes site run by Ian ArmstrongThe H prefix was originally for Harrow when RLHs on the 230 were replaced by MBSs on the H1 in June 1969.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Aug 19, 2014 20:15:31 GMT
Being controversial for a moment you could easily say the 485 is already unviable. It barely reaches 260,000 pax per annum which works back to an average 18 passengers per journey (rough and ready calculation). It's not in the immediate danger zone if TfL had to cut funding as other routes carry fewer people and would be cut first. However TfL could probably construct an argument to get rid of it given there are parallel routes on much of its corridor so people could change buses to make a journey (as they need to do late evenings and Sundays). If passengers can get a better service from Wandsworth on a rerouted 265 then surely it makes sense to find the resources for that by removing the 485? Losing the three buses from the 485 would provide the extra buses the 265 needs to run to Wandsworth. There only looks to be one stop (Beverley Road) which is uniquely served by the 485 and that's not a huge distance from other routes. If the 265 was rerouted then people could change for Hammersmith at Barnes Station. It's a shame the road and pavement layout at the junction of Mill Hill Rd and Rocks Lane doesn't allow bus stops to be provided there to give an interchange at the junction. I imagine there'd be huge objections to removing a few metres of Barnes Common to create the bus stops near the junction. I agree that the 485 under performs but it does provide some useful links between Barnes and Putney/Wandsworth. Its cost recovery ratio could be improved by the following measures: (i)Give it a common boarding stop at Hammersmith with the 209, rather than the 419. This would immediately improve loadings. There might also be a case for a slight thinning of the 209 frequency. (ii)Withdraw the 283 between Hammersmith and Barnes. Castelnau tends to be overbussed. The 485 could bifurcate to the Wetlands Centre. The route has 15 mins recovery time either end so no extra resources needed. The 485 could easily cope with the Wetlands loadings. Lack of a Sunday service would be an issue. The 283 does not have many through passengers from its northern section to Barnes. Most links (but not all) would be maintained by the 72. If the 265 is in the future rerouted to Wandsworth then it would not make sense to have 3 of the 4 routes along Putney Bridge Road terminating at Wandsworth. Maybe the 485 could be extended via East Hill, Battersea Rise and Clapham Common North Side to Clapham Common Station. This would create some new links and give very slight relief to the 37.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Aug 19, 2014 20:13:44 GMT
Permanently rerouting the 265 to Wandsworth would be detrimental to the 485. This route already has light loadings and could become unviable if the 265 extracted traffic between Putney Common and Wandsworth. Being controversial for a moment you could easily say the 485 is already unviable. It barely reaches 260,000 pax per annum which works back to an average 18 passengers per journey (rough and ready calculation). It's not in the immediate danger zone if TfL had to cut funding as other routes carry fewer people and would be cut first. However TfL could probably construct an argument to get rid of it given there are parallel routes on much of its corridor so people could change buses to make a journey (as they need to do late evenings and Sundays). If passengers can get a better service from Wandsworth on a rerouted 265 then surely it makes sense to find the resources for that by removing the 485? Losing the three buses from the 485 would provide the extra buses the 265 needs to run to Wandsworth. There only looks to be one stop (Beverley Road) which is uniquely served by the 485 and that's not a huge distance from other routes. If the 265 was rerouted then people could change for Hammersmith at Barnes Station. It's a shame the road and pavement layout at the junction of Mill Hill Rd and Rocks Lane doesn't allow bus stops to be provided there to give an interchange at the junction. I imagine there'd be huge objections to removing a few metres of Barnes Common to create the bus stops near the junction. I agree that the 485 under performs but it does provide some useful links between Barnes and Putney/Wandsworth. Its cost recovery ratio could be improved by the following measures: (i)Give it a common boarding stop at Hammersmith with the 209, rather than the 419. This would immediately improve loadings. There might also be a case for a slight thinning of the 209 frequency. (ii)Withdraw the 283 between Hammersmith and Barnes. Castelnau tends to be overbussed. The 485 could bifurcate to the Wetlands Centre. The route has 15 mins recovery time either end so no extra resources needed. The 485 could easily cope with the Wetlands loadings. Lack of a Sunday service would be an issue. The 283 does not have many through passengers from its northern section to Barnes. Most links (but not all) would be maintained by the 72. If the 265 is in the future rerouted to Wandsworth then it would not make sense to have 3 of the 4 routes terminating at Wandsworth. Maybe the 485 could be extended via East Hill, Battersea Rise and Clapham Common North Side to Clapham Common Station. This would create some new links and give very slight relief to the 37.
|
|