|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Jan 22, 2022 9:38:29 GMT
Now this is a bit of an odd request: I was just browsing through some old FOI's to TfL when I found this: A 239 tender specification!According to this, the route would have run from Acton Vale (306 stand) to Roehampton via Hammersmith Bridge using DD's. Could anyone tell me what this is about? And is there any chance of it being implemented, or has this route been replaced by the 306? Please could you tell me if you can't access the link . |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 22, 2022 9:53:31 GMT
Now this is a bit of an odd request: I was just browsing through some old FOI's to TfL when I found this: A 239 tender specification!According to this, the route would have run from Acton Vale (306 stand) to Roehampton via Hammersmith Bridge using DD's. Please could you tell me if you can't access the link .This was from about 2015. I’m sure the SW Londoners of the forum would have been pleased to hear about it but I believe it was to replace the short workings on the 72 from Roehampton to Hammersmith and support the 266 between Acton & Hammersmith although it should’ve probably continued onwards to Acton High Street. Perhaps it could’ve even gone further than Acton up to Wembley like has been suggested with a lot of 218 ideas. Now that really would be a good route especially given how packed the 72 once was on the southern end. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 22, 2022 10:33:09 GMT
Ironically it would probably have been 'temporarily' suspended now due to the bridge. Not sure why it never got off the ground as it would have silenced calls for a more reliable service along Askew Road. Maybe it was considered more economical to run the shorts but probably mroe likely it was assumed by 2015 that the bridge would be strengthened and the 72 converting to DD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jan 22, 2022 11:03:17 GMT
It would have been tied with the 218 (cutting the 266 was in the cards at this time but not official just yet)…
The 306 effectively replaced this idea due to Hammersmith Bridge… being Hammersmith Bridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 22, 2022 11:16:59 GMT
It would have been tied with the 218 (cutting the 266 was in the cards at this time)… The 306 effectively replaced this idea due to Hammersmith Bridge… being Hammersmith Bridge. And with the plan to cut the 266 and 391 already in motion the 306 came into being to kill two birds with one stone and to this day I feel it was rushed and not well thought through. Still plenty more things they can to to make it more useful. The cross-Hammersmith traffic they had hoped would come about simply doesn't exist, and the 306 picks up some scraps along Askew Road, dumps them all off at Hammersmith and then serves the North End Road/Fulham areas like the 391. I'd imagine TFL are looking at it as it can't be sustainable. To add insult to injury the 306 is woefully overtimed so buses are frequently regulating and often wait up to 10 minutes to Latimer Court because buses are early. Don't think even the 239 idea would've worked with regards to new links and cross-Hammersmith traffic. Barnes and Roehampton passengers are by and large only interested in Hammersmith Tube or Westfields. Sorry to deviate but had to get that off my chest! |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 22, 2022 11:23:32 GMT
It would have been tied with the 218 (cutting the 266 was in the cards at this time)… The 306 effectively replaced this idea due to Hammersmith Bridge… being Hammersmith Bridge. And with the plan to cut the 266 and 391 already in motion the 306 came into being to kill two birds with one stone and to this day I feel it was rushed and not well thought through. Still plenty more things they can to to make it more useful. The cross-Hammersmith traffic they had hoped would come about simply doesn't exist, and the 306 picks up some scraps along Askew Road, dumps them all off at Hammersmith and then serves the North End Road/Fulham areas like the 391. I'd imagine TFL are looking at it as it can't be sustainable. To add insult to injury the 306 is woefully overtimed so buses are frequently regulating and often wait up to 10 minutes to Latimer Court because buses are early. Don't think even the 239 idea would've worked with regards to new links and cross-Hammersmith traffic. Barnes and Roehampton passengers are by and large only interested in Hammersmith Tube or Westfields. Sorry to deviate but had to get that off my chest! I think the idea was the 239 replacing the heavy demand from Hammersmith to Roehampton using DDs including replacing the short workings with perhaps the 72 revised to run at a smaller frequency as demand didn't likely match up north of Westfield to what it did say south of Hammersmith. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 22, 2022 11:32:58 GMT
And with the plan to cut the 266 and 391 already in motion the 306 came into being to kill two birds with one stone and to this day I feel it was rushed and not well thought through. Still plenty more things they can to to make it more useful. The cross-Hammersmith traffic they had hoped would come about simply doesn't exist, and the 306 picks up some scraps along Askew Road, dumps them all off at Hammersmith and then serves the North End Road/Fulham areas like the 391. I'd imagine TFL are looking at it as it can't be sustainable. To add insult to injury the 306 is woefully overtimed so buses are frequently regulating and often wait up to 10 minutes to Latimer Court because buses are early. Don't think even the 239 idea would've worked with regards to new links and cross-Hammersmith traffic. Barnes and Roehampton passengers are by and large only interested in Hammersmith Tube or Westfields. Sorry to deviate but had to get that off my chest! I think the idea was the 239 replacing the heavy demand from Hammersmith to Roehampton using DDs including replacing the short workings with perhaps the 72 revised to run at a smaller frequency as demand didn't likely match up north of Westfield to what it did say south of Hammersmith. Can't believe they were going out of their way to look at implementing a route to support the 72 when they could've just... decked the 72. You're right that loadings north of Westfields are lighter but decking the whole route really should still be the aim when the bridge reopens. |
|
|
|
Route 239
Jan 22, 2022 11:45:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 22, 2022 11:45:32 GMT
I think the idea was the 239 replacing the heavy demand from Hammersmith to Roehampton using DDs including replacing the short workings with perhaps the 72 revised to run at a smaller frequency as demand didn't likely match up north of Westfield to what it did say south of Hammersmith. Can't believe they were going out of their way to look at implementing a route to support the 72 when they could've just... decked the 72. You're right that loadings north of Westfields are lighter but decking the whole route really should still be the aim when the bridge reopens. Another option they could have done in 2015 would have been to divert the 283 to Roehampton (replaced by the 485 as now) and had the two routes from Roehampton to East Acton to provide enough capacity to Hammersmith and removed the 72 shorts. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jan 22, 2022 12:03:05 GMT
And with the plan to cut the 266 and 391 already in motion the 306 came into being to kill two birds with one stone and to this day I feel it was rushed and not well thought through. Still plenty more things they can to to make it more useful. The cross-Hammersmith traffic they had hoped would come about simply doesn't exist, and the 306 picks up some scraps along Askew Road, dumps them all off at Hammersmith and then serves the North End Road/Fulham areas like the 391. I'd imagine TFL are looking at it as it can't be sustainable. To add insult to injury the 306 is woefully overtimed so buses are frequently regulating and often wait up to 10 minutes to Latimer Court because buses are early. Don't think even the 239 idea would've worked with regards to new links and cross-Hammersmith traffic. Barnes and Roehampton passengers are by and large only interested in Hammersmith Tube or Westfields. Sorry to deviate but had to get that off my chest! I think the idea was the 239 replacing the heavy demand from Hammersmith to Roehampton using DDs including replacing the short workings with perhaps the 72 revised to run at a smaller frequency as demand didn't likely match up north of Westfield to what it did say south of Hammersmith. Decking the 72 also was planned. The intended buses were even ordered and delivered. They were sent to the 94 instead to oust TLAs and TAs. The 239 would replace the short workings on the 72 at the time. If all went well and the bridge was strengthened the 72 would be decked, the 239 would be introduced (Acton Vale - Roehampton) and the 218 would be introduced as it is now. The 266 would be cut to Acton High Street. The 218/266 plans came a little later, I was working on the tender in mid-2016. The plans were shelved for the time being and the route wouldn’t be introduced until 2019. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 22, 2022 15:13:27 GMT
I think the idea was the 239 replacing the heavy demand from Hammersmith to Roehampton using DDs including replacing the short workings with perhaps the 72 revised to run at a smaller frequency as demand didn't likely match up north of Westfield to what it did say south of Hammersmith. Decking the 72 also was planned. The intended buses were even ordered and delivered. They were sent to the 94 instead to oust TLAs and TAs. The 239 would replace the short workings on the 72 at the time. If all went well and the bridge was strengthened the 72 would be decked, the 239 would be introduced (Acton Vale - Roehampton) and the 218 would be introduced as it is now. The 266 would be cut to Acton High Street. The 218/266 plans came a little later, I was working on the tender in mid-2016. The plans were shelved for the time being and the route wouldn’t be introduced until 2019. Possibly the 33 decked aswell in time. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 22, 2022 15:33:10 GMT
I think the idea was the 239 replacing the heavy demand from Hammersmith to Roehampton using DDs including replacing the short workings with perhaps the 72 revised to run at a smaller frequency as demand didn't likely match up north of Westfield to what it did say south of Hammersmith. Decking the 72 also was planned. The intended buses were even ordered and delivered. They were sent to the 94 instead to oust TLAs and TAs. The 239 would replace the short workings on the 72 at the time. If all went well and the bridge was strengthened the 72 would be decked, the 239 would be introduced (Acton Vale - Roehampton) and the 218 would be introduced as it is now. The 266 would be cut to Acton High Street. The 218/266 plans came a little later, I was working on the tender in mid-2016. The plans were shelved for the time being and the route wouldn’t be introduced until 2019. I don't think that's what happened, the 94s VHs were a standalone order specifically made to oust the TLAs and TAs while the ones ordered for the 72 arrived and hung around for a bit with no home before being used on the new contact for the 18, which is why that award was a mix of existing and new. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 29, 2022 6:26:50 GMT
I remember being disappointed that the number 104 was used for the new route into Stratford replacing route S1. At the time the number 239 was vacant. We could have had routes 238 & 239 duplicating eachother into Stratford. Plus, I can still feel the heritage of route 104 linking what is still covered by routes 43 & 263.
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jan 30, 2022 6:52:11 GMT
I remember being disappointed that the number 104 was used for the new route into Stratford replacing route S1. At the time the number 239 was vacant. We could have had routes 238 & 239 duplicating eachother into Stratford. Plus, I can still feel the heritage of route 104 linking what is still covered by routes 43 & 263. The many gaps in route numbers plays havoc with my OCD... I remember the 239, run by London General from Victoria to Clapham IIRC, via Albert Bridge into Battersea. I used to use that bus when I worked in a rather grim call centre for a major bank near Battersea Embankment around 1996... They should renumber everything and have a clearer plan. Prefixed routes should make more geographical sense (W prefix routes bug me for this  )... I suspect most people don't notice much when a route is chopped as most work from home or use an Uber nowadays. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 30, 2022 7:35:28 GMT
I remember being disappointed that the number 104 was used for the new route into Stratford replacing route S1. At the time the number 239 was vacant. We could have had routes 238 & 239 duplicating eachother into Stratford. Plus, I can still feel the heritage of route 104 linking what is still covered by routes 43 & 263. Don’t think having similar numbers sharing stops is considered good practice anymore. 238 and 239 can easily be misread as other number, especially if one of the blinds is bit grubby, and someone has poor eyesight |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 30, 2022 9:00:33 GMT
I remember being disappointed that the number 104 was used for the new route into Stratford replacing route S1. At the time the number 239 was vacant. We could have had routes 238 & 239 duplicating eachother into Stratford. Plus, I can still feel the heritage of route 104 linking what is still covered by routes 43 & 263. Don’t think having similar numbers sharing stops is considered good practice anymore. 238 and 239 can easily be misread as other number, especially if one of the blinds is bit grubby, and someone has poor eyesight I think it depends on the ‘type’ of number? Clearly (eg) 116 and 117 look very different, but 238 and 239 could be confused at distance. |
|
)... I suspect most people don't notice much when a route is chopped as most work from home or use an Uber nowadays. 