Routes 110, 419, 493, H22 and H37

[southlondonbus]

The change could go ahead with the new 110 converted to older SDs. If the 419 doesn't come out the bus station then the 419 can't be cut back there and if the 110 dosent reach Richmond then the H37 can't be reduced in freq. Also the 110 maintains a Whitton to Richmond link which again if it doesn't go ahead then the H22 can't be cut so easily to Twickenham.

[paulo]

Mar 3, 2019 18:22:27 GMT southlondonbus said:

The change could go ahead with the new 110 converted to older SDs. If the 419 doesn't come out the bus station then the 419 can't be cut back there and if the 110 dosent reach Richmond then the H37 can't be reduced in freq. Also the 110 maintains a Whitton to Richmond link which again if it doesn't go ahead then the H22 can't be cut so easily to Twickenham.

I thought the new 110 and cut back H22 were going to be DEs in any case. 371 will convert to DLE as a result.

Perhaps I’m wrong.

[vjaska]

Mar 3, 2019 18:31:55 GMT paulo said:

Mar 3, 2019 18:22:27 GMT southlondonbus said:

The change could go ahead with the new 110 converted to older SDs. If the 419 doesn't come out the bus station then the 419 can't be cut back there and if the 110 dosent reach Richmond then the H37 can't be reduced in freq. Also the 110 maintains a Whitton to Richmond link which again if it doesn't go ahead then the H22 can't be cut so easily to Twickenham.

I thought the new 110 and cut back H22 were going to be DEs in any case. 371 will convert to DLE as a result.

Perhaps I’m wrong.

Can’t you find out at work? Genuine question by the way.

[thelondonthing]

Mar 3, 2019 7:00:19 GMT snowman said:

For a consultation expected to start in May, TfL are being slow producing results

I have heard that the merger of 110 and 419 has run into problems because H&F Council are not keen on the heavier 10.9m MMC buses running over Hammersmith Bridge. I suspect someone had to ask for weight exemption and it has not gone down well as H&F are trying to get more money from TfL for bridge strengthening

The alternative would be either to use DEs (not impossible as they could be swapped off routes like 371), but would require higher frequency to maintain capacity

I suspect these rumoured problems are linked to continued use of OVs on 465 and the apparent lack of a confirmed bus order for 272 new contract in May

I'm also a little surprised that it's taken this long to publish the results of this consultation, given that all stakeholders must have time to prepare for any changes approved, and the public must also be given ample notice of upcoming changes. The plan to implement these changes from May was, of course, just a proposal, but they are running out of time if they still intend to stick to that plan.

Just to give a very, very vague sense of how many responses TfL might have to deal with in a consultation like this one, I think it's worth looking at another Richmond area consultation from recent(ish) history. Many of you may recall that in 2011, TfL announced plans to prevent passengers at Richmond Bus Station from boarding routes 190, 391 and 419 at Stop H (the bus stand area). While passengers wanting route 337 would be able to continue boarding from that stop, those wanting to board the 190, 391 and 419 would have to walk deeper into the town centre to catch their bus from a different stop.

According to TfL's own documentation (links to PDF):

"A total of eight responses were received from members of the public, all which [sic] were received online. Of these one was generally supportive, seven were generally against."

Amusingly, despite seven out of the eight responses being against the proposal, TfL added:

"After carefully considering all responses, we plan to go ahead with the proposed changes. They will be introduced from 14 January 2012."

The number of responses for the current consultation will surely be higher than eight (!!!), given that it covers a wider area, and has also received some local council coverage, although press coverage hasn't exactly been positive. More people are comfortable using PCs, tablets and smartphones these days too, compared with seven years ago, so that might also result in more people having responded.

But even so, I think we can safely assume that the number of responses to this latest consultation is unlikely to be so vast that it's taking TfL huge amounts of time to get through the backlog. And we can be even more confident of one other thing: whatever "careful consideration" it gives to the responses, TfL won't let them get in the way of doing what it thinks is best.

[snowman]

Totally agree about the lack of answers.

This consultation has a planned implementation date of May, includes a frequency reduction on H37, (presumably already confirmed with Operator RATP as they have ordered fewer DXEs), but of course is officially still subject to consultation results.

So we are at the silly position of retaining a few Tempos or going ahead with changes regardless (as the route is tendered for 70 capacity buses, and the DLEs which appear are undersize bus). TfL really ought to come clean rather than indirectly reveal its going ahead anyway.

[thelondonthing]

Earlier in this thread, I referred to the proposed 'Avanton' residential redevelopment of the Homebase site at Manor Road, close to North Sheen Station, and the potential disruption that it - along with necessary TfL upgrades to the Manor Circus junction - could cause to Richmond bus services. Since then, the developer of the site has submitted a formal planning application to Richmond Council, which has thrown up a couple of interesting details.

A letter from TfL City Planning to the consulting engineers, providing "TfL's pre-application advice" for the project, is included as part of the documentary submissions, and shows:

1. In a meeting on 7 Nov 2018, the developers discussed with TfL "the feasibility of building over the existing North Sheen Bus Terminus". The letter explains to the engineers:

"Any over station development would need to be designed in accordance with TfL guidance, which will be provided separately to this letter. The layout would also need to maintain standing for up to 5 buses including a bus driver facility. TfL suggest that the applicant produces a feasibility design for an over station development which could be used to inform more detailed discussions."

Given the nature of TfL's advice, it sounds like this possibility was only discussed in passing, rather than as a likely option. The developer hasn't actually submitted any plans to build over the terminus, so it looks like this isn't going to happen. Indeed, the plans as submitted suggest that the current bus stand area would be preserved with few changes.

It's worth noting, though, that TfL insists on maintaining stand space for five buses, even though the 493 is intended to be curtailed to Richmond Bus Station, leaving only the R70 to stand at Manor Road. I assume they're just keeping their options open for the future, in ensuring that space remains for another route to slot in there later, if needed. 


2. TfL notes that "the development will be car free with the exception of 12 spaces reserved for disabled users". Considering that there are 414 planned residences in the new development, that could add considerable pressure on local transport services, especially during peak times. Interestingly, the TfL letter states:

"The applicant has indicated that they are currently discussing the viability of providing a car club space on site. TfL would recommend that three years free car club membership is secured for all new residents without a car parking space."

Does TfL routinely recommend the provision of private car club memberships, rather than promoting the use of public transport?


3. The letter also refers to local bus services around the proposed development:

"As stated above, there are currently 10 bus routes (65, 371, 493, 190, 419, H37, R68, R70, 391 and H22) within an acceptable walking distance of the site with stops on Manor Road and Lower Mortlake Road."

I find it very curious that no reference is made to the 33 and 337, which serve the 'Manor Road, North Sheen Station' bus stop, and which are a much shorter walk away from the development site than the 65. The letter also explains:

"The entrance to North Sheen rail station is located on the opposite side of Manor Road near the sites southern boundary; there are also 10 bus routes within an acceptable walk distance. Based on TfL’s Webcat toolkit the application site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 5, on a scale of 1 to 6b where 6b is the most accessible."

Considering that TfL somehow neglected to include two further routes that provide valuable local connections close by, one can't help but wonder if its Webcat toolkit is accurate in its assessment of the site's accessibility.


4. TfL's letter also referred to the consultation on bus services:

"TfL are currently consulting on changes to bus services within the Richmond area. This would result in a slight reduction in the frequency of services between Manor Circus and Richmond."

As with all such projects, TfL expects the developers to submit detailed assessments of how the new residents are likely to use local transport, whether public or private - and given that the site will be car-free, it seems that many will rely on the public transport option (unless they end up using those free car club memberships TfL recommended...). When you consider that the development could add a couple of thousand new residents (depending on the mix of couples, families, etc across the properties), we may well see TfL having to consult on another round of Richmond area changes in the near future.

Of course, that all depends on the development getting the green light - and local residents have already been responding against the proposals in considerable force. 

[snoggle]

Mar 17, 2019 12:17:30 GMT thelondonthing said:

Earlier in this thread, I referred to the proposed 'Avanton' residential redevelopment of the Homebase site at Manor Road, close to North Sheen Station, and the potential disruption that it - along with necessary TfL upgrades to the Manor Circus junction - could cause to Richmond bus services. Since then, the developer of the site has submitted a formal planning application to Richmond Council, which has thrown up a couple of interesting details.

A letter from TfL City Planning to the consulting engineers, providing "TfL's pre-application advice" for the project, is included as part of the documentary submissions, and shows:

1. In a meeting on 7 Nov 2018, the developers discussed with TfL "the feasibility of building over the existing North Sheen Bus Terminus". The letter explains to the engineers:

"Any over station development would need to be designed in accordance with TfL guidance, which will be provided separately to this letter. The layout would also need to maintain standing for up to 5 buses including a bus driver facility. TfL suggest that the applicant produces a feasibility design for an over station development which could be used to inform more detailed discussions."

Given the nature of TfL's advice, it sounds like this possibility was only discussed in passing, rather than as a likely option. The developer hasn't actually submitted any plans to build over the terminus, so it looks like this isn't going to happen. Indeed, the plans as submitted suggest that the current bus stand area would be preserved with few changes.

It's worth noting, though, that TfL insists on maintaining stand space for five buses, even though the 493 is intended to be curtailed to Richmond Bus Station, leaving only the R70 to stand at Manor Road. I assume they're just keeping their options open for the future, in ensuring that space remains for another route to slot in there later, if needed. 


2. TfL notes that "the development will be car free with the exception of 12 spaces reserved for disabled users". Considering that there are 414 planned residences in the new development, that could add considerable pressure on local transport services, especially during peak times. Interestingly, the TfL letter states:

"The applicant has indicated that they are currently discussing the viability of providing a car club space on site. TfL would recommend that three years free car club membership is secured for all new residents without a car parking space."

Does TfL routinely recommend the provision of private car club memberships, rather than promoting the use of public transport?


3. The letter also refers to local bus services around the proposed development:

"As stated above, there are currently 10 bus routes (65, 371, 493, 190, 419, H37, R68, R70, 391 and H22) within an acceptable walking distance of the site with stops on Manor Road and Lower Mortlake Road."

I find it very curious that no reference is made to the 33 and 337, which serve the 'Manor Road, North Sheen Station' bus stop, and which are a much shorter walk away from the development site than the 65. The letter also explains:

"The entrance to North Sheen rail station is located on the opposite side of Manor Road near the sites southern boundary; there are also 10 bus routes within an acceptable walk distance. Based on TfL’s Webcat toolkit the application site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 5, on a scale of 1 to 6b where 6b is the most accessible."

Considering that TfL somehow neglected to include two further routes that provide valuable local connections close by, one can't help but wonder if its Webcat toolkit is accurate in its assessment of the site's accessibility.


4. TfL's letter also referred to the consultation on bus services:

"TfL are currently consulting on changes to bus services within the Richmond area. This would result in a slight reduction in the frequency of services between Manor Circus and Richmond."

As with all such projects, TfL expects the developers to submit detailed assessments of how the new residents are likely to use local transport, whether public or private - and given that the site will be car-free, it seems that many will rely on the public transport option (unless they end up using those free car club memberships TfL recommended...). When you consider that the development could add a couple of thousand new residents (depending on the mix of couples, families, etc across the properties), we may well see TfL having to consult on another round of Richmond area changes in the near future.

Of course, that all depends on the development getting the green light - and local residents have already been responding against the proposals in considerable force. 

I haven't looked at oodles of TfL planning responses but I have seen car clubs recommended before - in terms of the developer funding the membership of said club for future residents. TfL can't be blatantly anti-car in its advice and has to work within the strictures placed on it by Mayoral planning guidance / rules plus the Transport Strategy. Whether we may like it or not residents in Richmond are going to expect to have a car and to use it. These so called "car free" developments nearly always end up with a level of car ownership and parking. You can't ban people from owning vehicles - they just have to shoulder the cost and risk of parking as near to the development as they can get away with.

TfL would be mad to relinquish any stand space anywhere. It is far too valuable to lose even if short term plans suggest it may not be fully utilised. There is a need for some level of overflow capacity in some places - you never know what might happen. Once stand space is lost you NEVER get it back - especially if people start parking cars on it with no sanction or reaction. Ditto if you let be built on or even over. I wouldn't even allow it to be built over as any structure may cause further problems re parking bays / bus movements esp if vehicle sizes change.

The problem I've noted with these schemes is that developers employ their own experts (one of the usual consultancies) who take the numbers and then forecast about 3 extra peak trips from the addition of 500 new residents. Ditto for things like Westfield expansion which apparently had a tiny impact on public transport demand - something I don't really believe at all. Why build a huge expansion if no one extra is going to turn up and why hundreds of extra car parking spaces? Obviously developers do not want to lose a penny in profit and will seek to squash down the impact of their schemes and thus any S106 contributions to TfL / local authority for a range of impacts. Furthermore they also try to constrain / limit the scale of public transport provision - an example being the ludicrous design for the new Brent Cross bus station. The existing place barely works as we know and you'd legitimately expect more service volume in future but the last design I saw for the bus station barely had enough space for current service levels never mind expansion of routes / frequencies / stand space. Again all about money and not releasing land they'd rather get a commercial return from. Sadly TfL have to reach deals on all this stuff and don't have a lot of power to force things in their direction for the wider benefit of current and future public transport users. Given the never ending pressure for sales of public land and buildings these poor compromises will keep happening. I wouldn't be as objectionable about developments if there was a level playing field but things are so skewed in favour of developers and against public bodies but we've had 40 years of appallingly bad planning practice and government (of both hues) policies that have done the wrong things.

[snowman]

Mar 18, 2019 0:52:57 GMT snoggle said:

Mar 17, 2019 12:17:30 GMT thelondonthing said:

Earlier in this thread, I referred to the proposed 'Avanton' residential redevelopment of the Homebase site at Manor Road, close to North Sheen Station, and the potential disruption that it - along with necessary TfL upgrades to the Manor Circus junction - could cause to Richmond bus services. Since then, the developer of the site has submitted a formal planning application to Richmond Council, which has thrown up a couple of interesting details.

A letter from TfL City Planning to the consulting engineers, providing "TfL's pre-application advice" for the project, is included as part of the documentary submissions, and shows:

1. In a meeting on 7 Nov 2018, the developers discussed with TfL "the feasibility of building over the existing North Sheen Bus Terminus". The letter explains to the engineers:

Given the nature of TfL's advice, it sounds like this possibility was only discussed in passing, rather than as a likely option. The developer hasn't actually submitted any plans to build over the terminus, so it looks like this isn't going to happen. Indeed, the plans as submitted suggest that the current bus stand area would be preserved with few changes.

It's worth noting, though, that TfL insists on maintaining stand space for five buses, even though the 493 is intended to be curtailed to Richmond Bus Station, leaving only the R70 to stand at Manor Road. I assume they're just keeping their options open for the future, in ensuring that space remains for another route to slot in there later, if needed. 


2. TfL notes that "the development will be car free with the exception of 12 spaces reserved for disabled users". Considering that there are 414 planned residences in the new development, that could add considerable pressure on local transport services, especially during peak times. Interestingly, the TfL letter states:

Does TfL routinely recommend the provision of private car club memberships, rather than promoting the use of public transport?


3. The letter also refers to local bus services around the proposed development:

I find it very curious that no reference is made to the 33 and 337, which serve the 'Manor Road, North Sheen Station' bus stop, and which are a much shorter walk away from the development site than the 65. The letter also explains:

Considering that TfL somehow neglected to include two further routes that provide valuable local connections close by, one can't help but wonder if its Webcat toolkit is accurate in its assessment of the site's accessibility.


4. TfL's letter also referred to the consultation on bus services:

As with all such projects, TfL expects the developers to submit detailed assessments of how the new residents are likely to use local transport, whether public or private - and given that the site will be car-free, it seems that many will rely on the public transport option (unless they end up using those free car club memberships TfL recommended...). When you consider that the development could add a couple of thousand new residents (depending on the mix of couples, families, etc across the properties), we may well see TfL having to consult on another round of Richmond area changes in the near future.

Of course, that all depends on the development getting the green light - and local residents have already been responding against the proposals in considerable force. 

I haven't looked at oodles of TfL planning responses but I have seen car clubs recommended before - in terms of the developer funding the membership of said club for future residents. TfL can't be blatantly anti-car in its advice and has to work within the strictures placed on it by Mayoral planning guidance / rules plus the Transport Strategy. Whether we may like it or not residents in Richmond are going to expect to have a car and to use it. These so called "car free" developments nearly always end up with a level of car ownership and parking. You can't ban people from owning vehicles - they just have to shoulder the cost and risk of parking as near to the development as they can get away with.

TfL would be mad to relinquish any stand space anywhere. It is far too valuable to lose even if short term plans suggest it may not be fully utilised. There is a need for some level of overflow capacity in some places - you never know what might happen. Once stand space is lost you NEVER get it back - especially if people start parking cars on it with no sanction or reaction. Ditto if you let be built on or even over. I wouldn't even allow it to be built over as any structure may cause further problems re parking bays / bus movements esp if vehicle sizes change.

The problem I've noted with these schemes is that developers employ their own experts (one of the usual consultancies) who take the numbers and then forecast about 3 extra peak trips from the addition of 500 new residents. Ditto for things like Westfield expansion which apparently had a tiny impact on public transport demand - something I don't really believe at all. Why build a huge expansion if no one extra is going to turn up and why hundreds of extra car parking spaces? Obviously developers do not want to lose a penny in profit and will seek to squash down the impact of their schemes and thus any S106 contributions to TfL / local authority for a range of impacts. Furthermore they also try to constrain / limit the scale of public transport provision - an example being the ludicrous design for the new Brent Cross bus station. The existing place barely works as we know and you'd legitimately expect more service volume in future but the last design I saw for the bus station barely had enough space for current service levels never mind expansion of routes / frequencies / stand space. Again all about money and not releasing land they'd rather get a commercial return from. Sadly TfL have to reach deals on all this stuff and don't have a lot of power to force things in their direction for the wider benefit of current and future public transport users. Given the never ending pressure for sales of public land and buildings these poor compromises will keep happening. I wouldn't be as objectionable about developments if there was a level playing field but things are so skewed in favour of developers and against public bodies but we've had 40 years of appallingly bad planning practice and government (of both hues) policies that have done the wrong things.

TfL have a quite blunt instrument policy and attitude to cars and try to limit them in developments
They even assume some 3 and 4 bed homes will never have 2 cars, or no one will ever visit by car and needs a visitors space.

Developers hate it because the policy is the same across London, and anyone with an existing car is told they won’t be able to park it even if it is needed for your work. They use the PTAL as the blunt test, so a person who commutes by train everyday but once a fortnight visits family in the country (where there is no public transport) and needs a car is effectively told to park it a few roads away (outside a permit area). This always annoys those just outside permit areas and results in permit area creep. Obviously a potential buyer with a car is also put off which makes flats harder to sell, reduces their value (and thus the affordability part is reduced which means there is never the 50% affordable the mayor wants). So TfL car free policy actually reduces affordable homes provision.

I am bemused why 65 was included but buses routes other end of Manor Road weren’t. As for retaining the bus stands it is not the best layout having been placed in a wedge of land adjacent to the District line. Would it not have been better to have told the developer to provide a better layout on another part of the site and you can build over it, then close existing one and build on that. Looks like TfL either don’t have a policy for built over bus stands or no standard designs they could offer. The real comedy of this is that some bus routes at Manor Circus stand on the Road (eg H37). So end up with inconsistent policy of removing cars but using valuable roadspace for bus parking, because TfL didn’t think to remove the spill over into the bus stand. (The current stand can’t handle the 12m buses so the retention in current form is even more barmy)

PTAL is basically a measure of public transport assesibility at one Location, it ignores how easy a journey will be. TfL uses the same argument for anywhere with PTAL that isn’t poor. I have seen it applied to developments in Central Kingston (where there are shops, cafes, buses in all directions etc) and same TfL reasoning applied to the Tolworth development right on fringe of London where there is no public transport for any destination west of the site, but a 6 lane A3 to enable people to drive westwards.

Remember TfL policy is to discourage cars, not by having them parked off road in underground car parks for occasional use, but asking those with cars to park them on an unrestricted road elsewhere. The buyers and renters do not need to dispose of cars, just keep them elsewhere

[Deleted]

If it wasn’t for the level crossing a route from Manor Circus could have a short extension up to the two bus stand at the Black Horse.

[thelondonthing]

Mar 18, 2019 9:20:54 GMT @rgd976 said:

If it wasn’t for the level crossing a route from Manor Circus could have a short extension up to the two bus stand at the Black Horse.

It would be nice to have that option, but as I'm sure you know, the Manor Road level crossing is truly the stuff of nightmares. The barrier is frequently down for 5-10 minutes at a time to allow for several fast and stopping services to pass in both directions, and it's not uncommon for the barrier to go up, only to come down again literally seconds later as another train approaches. It makes it impossible to run a bus service down there.

The former 'Black Horse' stand (the pub after which it was named is now a block of flats) does still see a surprising amount of use, considering it's not a terminus for any route. You can often find a 337 standing there for a half-hour or so on a weekday afternoon before it departs the stand towards Clapham - a much-needed additional school journey as nearby bus stops are completely swamped with kids between 3 and 4pm.

It's also regularly used for short turns on the 337 and 493 (turning them around to spare them having to enter Richmond) and for the 33 (in both directions of the route) to help regulate service during periods of severe traffic. As you can see from this image, buses that stand there these days are blinded for 'East Sheen, Queen's Road' (rather than the old 'East Sheen, Black Horse'), although the stand itself is named 'Marshgate Primary School' on the flag.

[george]

Mar 19, 2019 0:27:13 GMT thelondonthing said:

Mar 18, 2019 9:20:54 GMT @rgd976 said:

If it wasn’t for the level crossing a route from Manor Circus could have a short extension up to the two bus stand at the Black Horse.

It would be nice to have that option, but as I'm sure you know, the Manor Road level crossing is truly the stuff of nightmares. The barrier is frequently down for 5-10 minutes at a time to allow for several fast and stopping services to pass in both directions, and it's not uncommon for the barrier to go up, only to come down again literally seconds later as another train approaches. It makes it impossible to run a bus service down there.

The former 'Black Horse' stand (the pub after which it was named is now a block of flats) does still see a surprising amount of use, considering it's not a terminus for any route. You can often find a 337 standing there for a half-hour or so on a weekday afternoon before it departs the stand towards Clapham - a much-needed additional school journey as nearby bus stops are completely swamped with kids between 3 and 4pm.

It's also regularly used for short turns on the 337 and 493 (turning them around to spare them having to enter Richmond) and for the 33 (in both directions of the route) to help regulate service during periods of severe traffic. As you can see from this image, buses that stand there these days are blinded for 'East Sheen, Queen's Road' (rather than the old 'East Sheen, Black Horse'), although the stand itself is named 'Marshgate Primary School' on the flag.

East sheen blackhorse isn't in east sheen which if you was on a 33 coming from Richmond it could be confusing. The stand should be north sheen manor road. Although there's no such place as north sheen now just the station but that's a whole different matter 😉

[thelondonthing]

Mar 19, 2019 0:36:19 GMT george said:

Mar 19, 2019 0:27:13 GMT thelondonthing said:

It would be nice to have that option, but as I'm sure you know, the Manor Road level crossing is truly the stuff of nightmares. The barrier is frequently down for 5-10 minutes at a time to allow for several fast and stopping services to pass in both directions, and it's not uncommon for the barrier to go up, only to come down again literally seconds later as another train approaches. It makes it impossible to run a bus service down there.

The former 'Black Horse' stand (the pub after which it was named is now a block of flats) does still see a surprising amount of use, considering it's not a terminus for any route. You can often find a 337 standing there for a half-hour or so on a weekday afternoon before it departs the stand towards Clapham - a much-needed additional school journey as nearby bus stops are completely swamped with kids between 3 and 4pm.

It's also regularly used for short turns on the 337 and 493 (turning them around to spare them having to enter Richmond) and for the 33 (in both directions of the route) to help regulate service during periods of severe traffic. As you can see from this image, buses that stand there these days are blinded for 'East Sheen, Queen's Road' (rather than the old 'East Sheen, Black Horse'), although the stand itself is named 'Marshgate Primary School' on the flag.

East sheen blackhorse isn't in east sheen which if you was on a 33 coming from Richmond it could be confusing. The stand should be north sheen manor road. Although there's no such place as north sheen now just the station but that's a whole different matter 😉

Indeed, the Queen's Road stand is a good 3 or 4 stops away from East Sheen itself - and I've witnessed exactly the confusion you describe, from passengers who have seen 'East Sheen' on the front of a 33 and expected the bus to actually get them there, rather than terminating several stops short of where they hoped to be.

FWIW, no-one who lives in the area identifies the Queen's Road locale as being East Sheen, or even North Sheen (to locals, that area is part of Richmond). But the nearest bus stops to the stand (literally around the corner) are 'Manor Road, North Sheen Station'. I don't think that would be suitable for a blind; nor would 'North Sheen, Manor Road' (as the stand isn't on Manor Road) - but 'North Sheen, Queen's Road' might be a more acceptable compromise.

[snowman]

Mar 19, 2019 0:36:19 GMT george said:

Mar 19, 2019 0:27:13 GMT thelondonthing said:

It would be nice to have that option, but as I'm sure you know, the Manor Road level crossing is truly the stuff of nightmares. The barrier is frequently down for 5-10 minutes at a time to allow for several fast and stopping services to pass in both directions, and it's not uncommon for the barrier to go up, only to come down again literally seconds later as another train approaches. It makes it impossible to run a bus service down there.

The former 'Black Horse' stand (the pub after which it was named is now a block of flats) does still see a surprising amount of use, considering it's not a terminus for any route. You can often find a 337 standing there for a half-hour or so on a weekday afternoon before it departs the stand towards Clapham - a much-needed additional school journey as nearby bus stops are completely swamped with kids between 3 and 4pm.

It's also regularly used for short turns on the 337 and 493 (turning them around to spare them having to enter Richmond) and for the 33 (in both directions of the route) to help regulate service during periods of severe traffic. As you can see from this image, buses that stand there these days are blinded for 'East Sheen, Queen's Road' (rather than the old 'East Sheen, Black Horse'), although the stand itself is named 'Marshgate Primary School' on the flag.

East sheen blackhorse isn't in east sheen which if you was on a 33 coming from Richmond it could be confusing. The stand should be north sheen manor road. Although there's no such place as north sheen now just the station but that's a whole different matter 😉

That stand is also used as a turn on 371 (Richmond Hill, Queens Road is destination displayed)

The Fulwell DEs thus have 2 destinations for same stand, as route 33 uses the East Sheen, Queens Road blind

Marshgate Primary opened about 15 years ago, so stand used to have different name

[thelondonthing]

Mar 19, 2019 5:24:23 GMT snowman said:

Mar 19, 2019 0:36:19 GMT george said:

East sheen blackhorse isn't in east sheen which if you was on a 33 coming from Richmond it could be confusing. The stand should be north sheen manor road. Although there's no such place as north sheen now just the station but that's a whole different matter 😉

That stand is also used as a turn on 371 (Richmond Hill, Queens Road is destination displayed)

The Fulwell DEs thus have 2 destinations for same stand, as route 33 uses the East Sheen, Queens Road blind

Marshgate Primary opened about 15 years ago, so stand used to have different name

It makes sense that the 371 would use the stand to turn around when terminating at Richmond Hill - but I'm fairly(ish) sure that the blind used on the 371 is 'Richmond Hill, Queens Court', rather than 'Richmond Hill, Queen's Road'.

Towards Richmond, 'Queens Court' is the last stop on the route that the 371 can serve before running to the Queen's Road stand (rather than turning left into Marchmont Road).

[snowman]

Oct 30, 2018 12:47:49 GMT lundnah said:

Consultation "proposing changes to bus routes 110, 419, 493, H22 and H37 to reallocate bus resources to where additional capacity is needed in Richmond, Twickenham and Whitton."

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/bus-changes-richmond/consult_view

• Routes 110 and 419 would be merged
• Route 493 would no longer run between Richmond, Manor Circus and Richmond Bus Station
• Route H22 would no longer run between Richmond, Manor Circus and Twickenham town centre
• Route H37 frequency would be reduced

Proposed start date: May 2019

Exactly 6 months on from opening, even though it has proposed implementation date of during May,
still no provisional results, or any hint as to revisions.