|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 22, 2020 11:40:22 GMT
Though it wouldn't affect the RV1 withdrawal, this suggested Victoria-London Bridge could perhaps be achieved by extending route 381 from County Hall to Victoria? This would provide additional capacity on the 507 section by using DDs, while introducing further links from the Millbank area beyond Waterloo. I don't think there are any physical restrictions along the 507 that would prevent it using DDs. Though the 521 is restricted eastbound only by using the Kingsway tunnel - could the 521 be rationalised to go via Aldywch in both directions, allowing DDs to operate for added capacity? The 507, and in particular, the 521, are commuter routes purposely designed to be as short as possible to get people from two different rail terminals to areas of work - both area also prone to hitting heavy traffic so why make the 381 even longer? The 507 has used double deckers before when the Artics were temporarily withdrawn as a result of a few catching fire but the nature of each route means neither arguably needs them and really, they should of kept their Artics which make much more sense for busy and short shuttle like routes like the 507 & 521. It's way too early to see what the lasting damage is from Covid in terms of patronage. This isn't really the thread for the 507/521 so probably best to take this elsewhere after this but I suspect the 521 is less susceptible to cuts than the 507. The area served by the 507 is mainly Government offices and they are working from home for the forseeable future. I would say that most 507 journeys are walkable and if people get into that habit, there may be fewer 507s about. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 22, 2020 22:45:45 GMT
Back in the days when we had the RV1 I did think the route was vulnerable to a potential merger with the 507 which I think would have been a sensible way to link London Bridge to Victoria and save TfL some money. When TfL halved the RV1’s frequency it became clear this wouldn’t occur. The 507 & RV1 were different routes - the RV1 was originally marketed as a tourist route and as a result of the constant works, it exclusively became one unlike the days of the EA class Citaros where the route would be regularly packed during the peaks with commuters. The 507 meanwhile is designed as a commuter route bringing people from two different rail terminals to areas of work. Though the 507 and RV1 do/did serve different purposes, both routes used full length SDs - if both routes had similar frequencies at the time, a merger could have worked, and introduced new links, though would have involved withdrawing the Covent Garden section of the RV1. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 22, 2020 23:43:48 GMT
The 507 & RV1 were different routes - the RV1 was originally marketed as a tourist route and as a result of the constant works, it exclusively became one unlike the days of the EA class Citaros where the route would be regularly packed during the peaks with commuters. The 507 meanwhile is designed as a commuter route bringing people from two different rail terminals to areas of work. Though the 507 and RV1 do/did serve different purposes, both routes used full length SDs - if both routes had similar frequencies at the time, a merger could have worked, and introduced new links, though would have involved withdrawing the Covent Garden section of the RV1. Only between 2013 & the last day of the RV1 was there really a substantial period where both it and the 507 used full length single deckers - the RV1 was introduced the same year the 507 converted to MAL's and only a short period after the 507 converted to MEC's did both routes use full length single deckers as the RV1's EA's were cascaded to First Berkshire and the RV1 using Darts until all the WSH's arrived over the next couple of years. Having the same vehicle type doesn't really mean much if you have two routes performing entirely different roles - by 2013, the commuter travel on the RV1 had significantly dried up and was literally more of a tourist route by this point. Also, add in the fact that the traffic around Tower Bridge would of wrecked the purpose of the 507 if it merged into the RV1 which is to bring commuters from Victoria & Waterloo to work. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 22, 2020 23:44:36 GMT
The 507, and in particular, the 521, are commuter routes purposely designed to be as short as possible to get people from two different rail terminals to areas of work - both area also prone to hitting heavy traffic so why make the 381 even longer? The 507 has used double deckers before when the Artics were temporarily withdrawn as a result of a few catching fire but the nature of each route means neither arguably needs them and really, they should of kept their Artics which make much more sense for busy and short shuttle like routes like the 507 & 521. It's way too early to see what the lasting damage is from Covid in terms of patronage. This isn't really the thread for the 507/521 so probably best to take this elsewhere after this but I suspect the 521 is less susceptible to cuts than the 507. The area served by the 507 is mainly Government offices and they are working from home for the forseeable future. I would say that most 507 journeys are walkable and if people get into that habit, there may be fewer 507s about. You could indeed be right - the coming months may give us an indication as to what the impact is  |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jun 28, 2020 9:38:54 GMT
A nice touch about route 110 reaching Hammersmith is that we have seen routes 10 & 11 there, and now we will see route 110 there.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 31, 2020 7:24:22 GMT
Bit of an update, it appears there will be quite a few minor changes to other routes also on 12 December However struggling to get any info as TfL doesn’t seem to have published anything Surrey is ahead of TfL on publishing these, as the cross border 117 and 235 (both Metroline) are showing as minor timetable changes www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/buses-and-other-transport/bus-timetable-changes/forthcoming-changesI suspect there will be whole series of alterations (some small, but others massive such as 110 replacing 391) taking place on same day. |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Nov 20, 2020 12:35:01 GMT
TfL has announced that the Richmond area changes will come into effect on 12 December 2020. Since the changes being introduced are not quite the same as those originally proposed, I've created a separate thread detailing the changes here. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Dec 12, 2020 22:26:58 GMT
I wonder if and when Hammersmith Bridge ever gets fixed. If TfL would revert to there original plan and the reroute the 110 between Hammersmith and Manor Circus via route 419 and Hammersmith and resurrect the 391.
|
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Dec 13, 2020 0:14:00 GMT
I wonder if and when Hammersmith Bridge ever gets fixed. If TfL would revert to there original plan and the reroute the 110 between Hammersmith and Manor Circus via route 419 and Hammersmith and resurrect the 391. Works have started IIRC. People are allowed to walk across the bridge again now but the whole bridge might not be fully fixed until 2027 (even through the Genoa bridge was fully replaced in 2 years and that actually collapsed into the water). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2020 0:53:21 GMT
I wonder if and when Hammersmith Bridge ever gets fixed. If TfL would revert to there original plan and the reroute the 110 between Hammersmith and Manor Circus via route 419 and Hammersmith and resurrect the 391. Works have started IIRC. People are allowed to walk across the bridge again now but the whole bridge might not be fully fixed until 2027 (even through the Genoa bridge was fully replaced in 2 years and that actually collapsed into the water). It’s not open to pedestrians yet, the DfT is currently lobbying the council to allow this to happen in early 2021 but the council has refused as the DfT and the government won’t take on the legal liability in case of a collapse. The Genoa bridge was an entirely different situation, that bridge was not listed, was simple to replace as it was mostly concrete and was a main artery between Italy and France so was vital to residents crossing the borders. Not to mention the port of Genoa is the largest and busiest in Italy so the bridge was vital to getting trucks and containers in and out of Genoa to the rest of Italy and other parts of Europe. Two entirely different situations which have nothing to do with the other. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Dec 13, 2020 8:17:59 GMT
Works have started IIRC. People are allowed to walk across the bridge again now but the whole bridge might not be fully fixed until 2027 (even through the Genoa bridge was fully replaced in 2 years and that actually collapsed into the water). It’s not open to pedestrians yet, the DfT is currently lobbying the council to allow this to happen in early 2021 but the council has refused as the DfT and the government won’t take on the legal liability in case of a collapse. The Genoa bridge was an entirely different situation, that bridge was not listed, was simple to replace as it was mostly concrete and was a main artery between Italy and France so was vital to residents crossing the borders. Not to mention the port of Genoa is the largest and busiest in Italy so the bridge was vital to getting trucks and containers in and out of Genoa to the rest of Italy and other parts of Europe. Two entirely different situations which have nothing to do with the other. Is there any point in harping on grade II listed heritage if it’s in such poor shape it may collapse any moment and is effectively useles? At some stage people up in the decision making places need to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic ... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2020 14:00:59 GMT
It’s not open to pedestrians yet, the DfT is currently lobbying the council to allow this to happen in early 2021 but the council has refused as the DfT and the government won’t take on the legal liability in case of a collapse. The Genoa bridge was an entirely different situation, that bridge was not listed, was simple to replace as it was mostly concrete and was a main artery between Italy and France so was vital to residents crossing the borders. Not to mention the port of Genoa is the largest and busiest in Italy so the bridge was vital to getting trucks and containers in and out of Genoa to the rest of Italy and other parts of Europe. Two entirely different situations which have nothing to do with the other. Is there any point in harping on grade II listed heritage if it’s in such poor shape it may collapse any moment and is effectively useles? At some stage people up in the decision making places need to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic ... I have always said they should build a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge and convert the current one to pedestrian/cyclists only. Unfortunately the list of restrictions related to grade 2 listing means every step has to be monitored and approved so construction can take longer. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 13, 2020 14:27:59 GMT
It’s not open to pedestrians yet, the DfT is currently lobbying the council to allow this to happen in early 2021 but the council has refused as the DfT and the government won’t take on the legal liability in case of a collapse. The Genoa bridge was an entirely different situation, that bridge was not listed, was simple to replace as it was mostly concrete and was a main artery between Italy and France so was vital to residents crossing the borders. Not to mention the port of Genoa is the largest and busiest in Italy so the bridge was vital to getting trucks and containers in and out of Genoa to the rest of Italy and other parts of Europe. Two entirely different situations which have nothing to do with the other. Is there any point in harping on grade II listed heritage if it’s in such poor shape it may collapse any moment and is effectively useles? At some stage people up in the decision making places need to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic ... Grade II heritage also has obligations about maintaining the asset The owners of the bridge didn’t respect the listing, Is it really worth preserving if unusable |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 13, 2020 14:39:48 GMT
Is there any point in harping on grade II listed heritage if it’s in such poor shape it may collapse any moment and is effectively useles? At some stage people up in the decision making places need to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic ... Grade II heritage also has obligations about maintaining the asset The owners of the bridge didn’t respect the listing, Is it really worth preserving if unusable It’s actually Grade II* so in top 8% of all listed buildings in the country. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 13, 2020 14:42:29 GMT
Is there any point in harping on grade II listed heritage if it’s in such poor shape it may collapse any moment and is effectively useles? At some stage people up in the decision making places need to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic ... I have always said they should build a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge and convert the current one to pedestrian/cyclists only. Unfortunately the list of restrictions related to grade 2 listing means every step has to be monitored and approved so construction can take longer. There is absolutely no way that a new road bridge is going to built alongside the existing one without property acquisition and demolition which alone would cost tens of millions. |
|
