|
|
Post by fortheloveofbuses on Nov 13, 2024 18:44:30 GMT
The MP for Putney is currently campaigning for better bus services for Putney and Roehampton as a cause of urgency for this area. The petition can be signed on the MP's website: www.fleuranderson.co.uk/Some interesting ideas from the campaign include; - Prioritise a wider review of all bus services for Putney and Roehampton - Route 170 being converted to a double deck route and becoming a Roehampton to Clapham Junction route - More reliable and frequent services on bus routes 85 and 265 The Route 170 idea is very interesting and it is something I would support providing that stand space could be found at Clapham Junction. The Clapham Junction - Victoria section could become a part of another new route in the process. Interested in your thoughts on this. Really weird complication considering that Battersea understandably want the 170 to stay at Vincarge Crescent despite it meaning staying in single decker operation. Makes you think they could create a 170D that perhaps bypasses the area to go to The Latchmere instead on peak hours, or perhaps an entire overhaul to the current network. Not to encourage any ideas, but perhaps making a second route from Victoria to Roehampton (Via The Latchmere) (With demand balanced out between the second route and 170 accordingly!) might prove to be a good idea that would fill out the demand for the need of double decker services to Roehampton. But then again, we've seen this "MP promotes great thing" bandwagon a million times, and personally I think we all know this is just going to be another empty promise to say "I tried" after 2-3 months pass by. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 13, 2024 19:15:42 GMT
Maybe the simplest way would be to cut the 170 back to Wandsworth and extend the 87 to Roehampton in replacement. The 87 could also be trimmed back to Whitehall Horse Guards to take a route off the Strand and keep the service manageable.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 13, 2024 23:14:10 GMT
Maybe the simplest way would be to cut the 170 back to Wandsworth and extend the 87 to Roehampton in replacement. The 87 could also be trimmed back to Whitehall Horse Guards to take a route off the Strand and keep the service manageable. Not a bad shout TBF - aside from the 87's current stand at Wandsworth Plain, there's should be some stand space at Southside for the 170 which could eradicate the Wandsworth Plain stand for good. The 87 would definitely have to be trimmed at the northern end due to West Hill's congestion issues. There might even be a small amount of demand from students in areas like the Wandsworth Road corridor who would have slightly better links to Roehampton University than currently |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Nov 14, 2024 7:21:40 GMT
Yes route 170 does definitely need double deckers, the route always packed with standing loads at nearly all times of the day. It would have them if it wasn't for the low bridge in Battersea that it passes under. There was a proposal by londonbuses which I agree with with a further restructuring of the Wandsworth borough area; Route 156 becomes a Wimbledon to Clapham Junction route - Route 156 often suffers reliability issues nowadays because of the traffic hotspots it hits along its route in Wandsworth Town, Southfields and Wimbledon. The shortening of route 156 to Clapham Junction from Vauxhall will aid reliability which route 156 desperately needs due to the route being the sole route between Wandsworth and Wimbledon. Route 170 is converted to a double deck operation and becomes a Roehampton to Vauxhall route (existing route 170 to Clapham Junction then existing route 156 to Vauxhall) - This route will provide new links between Roehampton, Putney Heath to Battersea Power Station, Battersea Park Station and Vauxhall (which obviously have a tube link to Victoria via the Victoria line) My idea here; new route 387; New route launched between Tooting, St. George's Hospital - Victoria via Clapham Junction - This new route would go via existing route 170 to Clapham Junction then via route 319 to Wandsworth Common Station then via route 690 then on to St. George's Hospital. These ideas around the 156 would make a lot of sense. The only thing is the area around Battersea Village should ideally maintain the current 170's links at least as far as Wandsworth. If the 170 were to be split, perhaps the Victoria end could divert to terminate at Wandsworth Riverside, then the 485 to run direct again? Late reply, there is a low bridge on Point Pleasant so sending the 170 to the Riverside will just retain the same issue of having to use SDs  Edit , Nevermind, just remembered the 170 from Victoria will still have the low Bridge!! Apologies |
|
|
|
Post by Dad91 on Nov 14, 2024 18:29:23 GMT
If 170 covert's Double decker it needs to be re routed away from low bridge area. Have route to replace old 170 SD route
|
|
CustomTransport277
Conductor
Your local transport enthusiast who is based in Greater London
Posts: 139 
|
Post by CustomTransport277 on Nov 14, 2024 23:51:05 GMT
I strongly believe that 170 is definitely one of the most important TfL routes that needs an upgrade, as to me it’s quite shocking that this route earlier on in 2024 had it’s contract with diesels retained for six years, even though this was before Go-Ahead started to retain or award routes only on a 3-year contract. I do remember there being a period of time when the 170 used to appear with double-deck workings which was before the route was extended to Victoria, in turn replacing former route 239 which I remember from being just a little kid.
If TfL is unable to successfully consider the MP’s request to improve the 170 and divert it away from that pesky low bridge on Lombard Road, then I could definitely see this being the final route to ever operate with an entire allocation of diesel vehicles, given that the 170’s new contract finishes at the very end of 2030, where from that point onwards is when only low-emission buses will be permitted to operate across the entirety of London.
|
|
|
|
Post by yunus on Nov 15, 2024 0:05:54 GMT
I strongly believe that 170 is definitely one of the most important TfL routes that needs an upgrade, as to me it’s quite shocking that this route earlier on in 2024 had it’s contract with diesels retained for six years, even though this was before Go-Ahead started to retain or award routes only on a 3-year contract. I do remember there being a period of time when the 170 used to appear with double-deck workings which was before the route was extended to Victoria, in turn replacing former route 239 which I remember from being just a little kid. If TfL is unable to successfully consider the MP’s request to improve the 170 and divert it away from that pesky low bridge on Lombard Road, then I could definitely see this being the final route to ever operate with an entire allocation of diesel vehicles, given that the 170’s new contract finishes at the very end of 2030, where from that point onwards is when only low-emission buses will be permitted to operate across the entirety of London. Well said 👏! If I am not mistaken, the 170 cannot have strays due to the low bridge? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 15, 2024 4:31:52 GMT
I strongly believe that 170 is definitely one of the most important TfL routes that needs an upgrade, as to me it’s quite shocking that this route earlier on in 2024 had it’s contract with diesels retained for six years, even though this was before Go-Ahead started to retain or award routes only on a 3-year contract. I do remember there being a period of time when the 170 used to appear with double-deck workings which was before the route was extended to Victoria, in turn replacing former route 239 which I remember from being just a little kid. If TfL is unable to successfully consider the MP’s request to improve the 170 and divert it away from that pesky low bridge on Lombard Road, then I could definitely see this being the final route to ever operate with an entire allocation of diesel vehicles, given that the 170’s new contract finishes at the very end of 2030, where from that point onwards is when only low-emission buses will be permitted to operate across the entirety of London. Well said 👏! If I am not mistaken, the 170 cannot have strays due to the low bridge? Well it can have stray deckers providing they only run between Clapham Junction & Roehampton which happened before it's extension to Victoria, WVL's being the common decker I saw used. |
|
|
|
Post by mark on Nov 16, 2024 9:17:47 GMT
I strongly believe that 170 is definitely one of the most important TfL routes that needs an upgrade, as to me it’s quite shocking that this route earlier on in 2024 had it’s contract with diesels retained for six years, even though this was before Go-Ahead started to retain or award routes only on a 3-year contract. I do remember there being a period of time when the 170 used to appear with double-deck workings which was before the route was extended to Victoria, in turn replacing former route 239 which I remember from being just a little kid. If TfL is unable to successfully consider the MP’s request to improve the 170 and divert it away from that pesky low bridge on Lombard Road, then I could definitely see this being the final route to ever operate with an entire allocation of diesel vehicles, given that the 170’s new contract finishes at the very end of 2030, where from that point onwards is when only low-emission buses will be permitted to operate across the entirety of London. London’s buses are all low or zero emission. The current target date for a 100% zero emission bus fleet for London is 2034 but with an aspiration from the mayor to bring this forward to 2030 if funding is available. It is this which is currently driving the policy of not awarding any contracts beyond 2030 with diesel buses with a fair number of short term contracts to even out the peaks and troughs in the tender programme. If funding is not available (and this will depend on the outcome of the spending review currently being worked on by government which will cover the four years from 1 April 2026) then we’ll almost certainly see contracts awarded with diesel buses beyond 2030. There is nothing to suggest that diesel engines buses will not be permitted after 2030. |
|
