|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 17, 2024 19:07:57 GMT
The 72 is one that comes to mind for me since it was cut back to Hammersmith. I think it should divert over Putney Bridge & convert to DD operation, since the 220 gets very busy & is the only route from Putney to Hammersmith/Shepherds Bush. I’ve suggested these proposals before, but I would divert the 265 to Caslenau, divert the 110 to Castlenau via the 419 as initially proposed, reintroduce the 391 between Hammersmith & Richmond & withdraw the 419. The 283 would also extend to Hammersmith bridge Northside. But wouldn’t that break the link that the 265 provides between parts of Roehampton and Putney? There is also both the 85 & 430 already linking Roehampton to Putney & the revised 72 would run the exact routing as the 265 between Norley Vale & Putney Bridge, but with more capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 17, 2024 23:25:48 GMT
But wouldn’t that break the link that the 265 provides between parts of Roehampton and Putney? There is also both the 85 & 430 already linking Roehampton to Putney & the revised 72 would run the exact routing as the 265 between Norley Vale & Putney Bridge, but with more capacity. And what about people further afield south of Roehampton? Castelnau currently has more than enough capacity but should the bridge ever open, that situation would highly likely change and diverting the 265 to be replaced by a 72 that potentially faces more reliability issues doesn't seem like a good move IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 18, 2024 8:42:10 GMT
There is also both the 85 & 430 already linking Roehampton to Putney & the revised 72 would run the exact routing as the 265 between Norley Vale & Putney Bridge, but with more capacity. And what about people further afield south of Roehampton? Castelnau currently has more than enough capacity but should the bridge ever open, that situation would highly likely change and diverting the 265 to be replaced by a 72 that potentially faces more reliability issues doesn't seem like a good move IMO. Most people tend to use the 85 for links south of Roehampton towards Putney, mainly because the 85 isn’t doing that awkward double run to serve Bessborough Road. The 265 loads quite well at Putney Bridge however most people will get out at Barnes Station, with some also heading for the University too. I think the 72 even when diverted via Putney Bridge would be manageable route, the 220 needs more capacity along its route. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 18, 2024 10:09:22 GMT
And what about people further afield south of Roehampton? Castelnau currently has more than enough capacity but should the bridge ever open, that situation would highly likely change and diverting the 265 to be replaced by a 72 that potentially faces more reliability issues doesn't seem like a good move IMO. Most people tend to use the 85 for links south of Roehampton towards Putney, mainly because the 85 isn’t doing that awkward double run to serve Bessborough Road. The 265 loads quite well at Putney Bridge however most people will get out at Barnes Station, with some also heading for the University too. I think the 72 even when diverted via Putney Bridge would be manageable route, the 220 needs more capacity along its route. I think you’re underestimating the impact of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to the surrounding roads and bridge crossings personally. If the 220 needs more capacity, something else might need looking at particularly as it’s just the Hammersmith to Putney section that needs assistance - maybe divert the 190 to Putney instead |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 18, 2024 11:42:42 GMT
Most people tend to use the 85 for links south of Roehampton towards Putney, mainly because the 85 isn’t doing that awkward double run to serve Bessborough Road. The 265 loads quite well at Putney Bridge however most people will get out at Barnes Station, with some also heading for the University too. I think the 72 even when diverted via Putney Bridge would be manageable route, the 220 needs more capacity along its route. I think you’re underestimating the impact of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to the surrounding roads and bridge crossings personally. If the 220 needs more capacity, something else might need looking at particularly as it’s just the Hammersmith to Putney section that needs assistance - maybe divert the 190 to Putney instead The reason for diverting the 72 via Putney Bridge was to make it more useful than it is now. It’s very possible Hammersmith Bridge may never reopen to vehicles again. There are other ways to assist the 220, I have also thought the 430 could divert to Hammersmith, with the 190 extended to South Kensington. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 18, 2024 12:08:46 GMT
I think you’re underestimating the impact of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to the surrounding roads and bridge crossings personally. If the 220 needs more capacity, something else might need looking at particularly as it’s just the Hammersmith to Putney section that needs assistance - maybe divert the 190 to Putney instead The reason for diverting the 72 via Putney Bridge was to make it more useful than it is now. It’s very possible Hammersmith Bridge may never reopen to vehicles again. There are other ways to assist the 220, I have also thought the 430 could divert to Hammersmith, with the 190 extended to South Kensington. I agree it might never open which would be awful but at this moment, nothing has been decided so until that time comes, there is little point in making changes to the 72. The only change in Barnes that could be made now regardless personally is merging the 209 & 378 into one route - should the bridge re-open, the route can remain as is alongside the 485 and if not, the route could absorb the 485. |
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Apr 18, 2024 12:56:50 GMT
The debate about loadings on the 265 or extending the 72 to Roehampton has reminded me of the 849 which now runs for much of the day Putney Bridge to Roehampton. The double deckers are usually near empty. Partcularly annoying when it's going your way. I've never seen one with people standing and of course ordinary punters can't use it. Roehampton University could help the community a bit...
Sadly the latest timetable is only available via the route's own app and this story only mentions its older routing...
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Apr 18, 2024 13:59:16 GMT
The debate about loadings on the 265 or extending the 72 to Roehampton has reminded me of the 849 which now runs for much of the day Putney Bridge to Roehampton. The double deckers are usually near empty. Partcularly annoying when it's going your way. I've never seen one with people standing and of course ordinary punters can't use it. Roehampton University could help the community a bit...
Sadly the latest timetable is only available via the route's own app and this story only mentions its older routing...
Nothing on that link mentions Putney Bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on Apr 18, 2024 14:08:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Apr 18, 2024 15:24:40 GMT
I think you’re underestimating the impact of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to the surrounding roads and bridge crossings personally. If the 220 needs more capacity, something else might need looking at particularly as it’s just the Hammersmith to Putney section that needs assistance - maybe divert the 190 to Putney instead The reason for diverting the 72 via Putney Bridge was to make it more useful than it is now. It’s very possible Hammersmith Bridge may never reopen to vehicles again. There are other ways to assist the 220, I have also thought the 430 could divert to Hammersmith, with the 190 extended to South Kensington. The 430 being diverted to Hammersmith and the 190 extended to South Kensington would probably be much cheaper than rerouting the 72 to Roehampton. These are also changes that can take place on a permanent basis, regardless of whether or not Hammersmith Bridge reopens. |
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Apr 18, 2024 15:29:36 GMT
We are pleased to announce that we are trialling an extension of the Roehampton 849 bus service into the summer term. 💚🚌📍☀️ This service will run from 15 April until 31 May, from 7.09am – 6.30pm. ⌚️ To reflect demand, the 849 service will run every 20 minutes between Putney Bridge, which is seeing the strongest demand, via Barnes Station, the main campus and Whitelands along the way. 🌉 The trial to extend the 849 service into the summer term will not include the Wimbledon route. However, the 493 service provided by TfL runs regularly from Wimbledon to Roehampton. Please use the TfL Go app to track this service. |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 19, 2024 15:29:52 GMT
My local, 24. Don’t really think this route has the demand it had previously and it is heavily duplicated by the 29. Most passengers would just use the 29 instead as its high frequency just means its the first bus coming that they wait for, while the 24 can sometimes be 7-25 minutes, depending on delays/traffic or events that kill off the route as it spends 9/10 of its route in Central London
Extension of the 27 to Hampstead Heath and 29 to Victoria would be enough and maybe a reroute of one of the Victoria-Vauxhall routes via Pimlico and Lupus Street to Millbank instead (185?).
|
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 19, 2024 16:11:22 GMT
My local, 24. Don’t really think this route has the demand it had previously and it is heavily duplicated by the 29. Most passengers would just use the 29 instead as its high frequency just means its the first bus coming that they wait for, while the 24 can sometimes be 7-25 minutes, depending on delays/traffic or events that kill off the route as it spends 9/10 of its route in Central London Extension of the 27 to Hampstead Heath and 29 to Victoria would be enough and maybe a reroute of one of the Victoria-Vauxhall routes via Pimlico and Lupus Street to Millbank instead (185?). The 29 would become too unreliable if it was extended to Victoria & the 27 going to Hampstead Heath to replace the 24 does break links from there to the West End. The 24 could potentially receive a small frequency increase but otherwise it is fine as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 19, 2024 16:15:13 GMT
My local, 24. Don’t really think this route has the demand it had previously and it is heavily duplicated by the 29. Most passengers would just use the 29 instead as its high frequency just means its the first bus coming that they wait for, while the 24 can sometimes be 7-25 minutes, depending on delays/traffic or events that kill off the route as it spends 9/10 of its route in Central London Extension of the 27 to Hampstead Heath and 29 to Victoria would be enough and maybe a reroute of one of the Victoria-Vauxhall routes via Pimlico and Lupus Street to Millbank instead (185?). You won't be able to re-route buses away from Vauxhall Bridge Road IMO - whilst the 36 & 185 have a larger duplication than the 2, all three are necessary along there especially now the 436 doesn't run there. I'm also not convinced by the extension of the 29 either - it's max running time is already not far off 90 minutes. Maybe the only way is to find an alternative routing through Central London for the 24 - maybe put the 22 back to Piccadilly Circus via it's old routing and let the 24 run via the old C2 routing from Victoria to Great Portland Street? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 19, 2024 16:23:43 GMT
My local, 24. Don’t really think this route has the demand it had previously and it is heavily duplicated by the 29. Most passengers would just use the 29 instead as its high frequency just means its the first bus coming that they wait for, while the 24 can sometimes be 7-25 minutes, depending on delays/traffic or events that kill off the route as it spends 9/10 of its route in Central London Extension of the 27 to Hampstead Heath and 29 to Victoria would be enough and maybe a reroute of one of the Victoria-Vauxhall routes via Pimlico and Lupus Street to Millbank instead (185?). The 29 would become too unreliable if it was extended to Victoria & the 27 going to Hampstead Heath to replace the 24 does break links from there to the West End. The 24 could potentially receive a small frequency increase but otherwise it is fine as it is. If Anything there would probably just be a rehash of the previous proposals but with the lower numbers kept and the 205 or 214 'withdrawn'. |
|
