|
Post by sleckdeck on Jan 31, 2022 20:46:55 GMT
That may have been the case, considering the 65 does not bunch as much as it used to (apart from afternoon school times, but buses have to bunch as multiple are needed at the same time for capacity). It was properly very frustrating for passengers at Kew Bridge, but it happens I find the 65 bunches a lot. Saturday I saw 5 buses in the same direction in the space of 4 minutes. I have seen 'bus in 1 min, 2 min, 3 min' before. It has been known for that, it’s one of the bunchiest routes in London. Although in recent times it’s quite exaggerated, I frequently use that route and the 18 - and I’d argue the 18 bunches more. The 65 does get regulated quite a lot though, although there are times where 65s will leave Kingston together for capacity purposes which is actually very smart of the controller, otherwise, as annoying as the bunching is you would be leaving crowds of passengers behind. Do you think the service has improved with the changes to Kew Bridge or further change is required, maybe with the E1 being extended to Osterley or possibly another route to run down Richmond road?
|
|
|
Post by Frenzie on Jan 31, 2022 20:51:10 GMT
Believe me it was equally frustrating for those of us stuck on Kew Road. I ended up walking from Victoria Gate to the Great West Road because the traffic wasn’t moving and in the process I must’ve walked past around 11 65s. What caused the gridlock in the area? The Chiswick Roundabout can be extremely problematic. I’ve once been stuck at on an H91 for around 20 minutes just because people entered the roundabout when the shouldn’t have and completely stopped the flow around it by blocking an exit. I suspect the Piccadilly and District Line both being down contributed to more traffic going through the area.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 31, 2022 20:52:59 GMT
I find the 65 bunches a lot. Saturday I saw 5 buses in the same direction in the space of 4 minutes. I have seen 'bus in 1 min, 2 min, 3 min' before. It has been known for that, it’s one of the bunchiest routes in London. Although in recent times it’s quite exaggerated, I frequently use that route and the 18 - and I’d argue the 18 bunches more. The 65 does get regulated quite a lot though, although there are times where 65s will leave Kingston together for capacity purposes which is actually very smart of the controller, otherwise, as annoying as the bunching is you would be leaving crowds of passengers behind. Do you think the service has improved with the changes to Kew Bridge or further change is required, maybe with the E1 being extended to Osterley or possibly another route to run down Richmond road? With the changes to Kew Bridge do you mean conversion to 4 lane road on the actual bridge or the developments? The E1 is being extended to Osterley, that was part of it's new contract with RATP (they have the extra buses for it that are spares at the moment), this extension is planned for when the Elizabeth Line opens at Ealing B. I personally think the 65 handles its capacity well in most of its sections. The most problematic section for capacity is probably Richmond Road between Ham and Kingston, where the existing heavy loads from Richmond are made worse by the round the corner passengers getting into Kingston. I've said in the past I would be in favour of the 71 being extended to Ham to help the 65, which would also create new cross-Kingston links.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 31, 2022 21:20:34 GMT
I find the 65 bunches a lot. Saturday I saw 5 buses in the same direction in the space of 4 minutes. I have seen 'bus in 1 min, 2 min, 3 min' before. It has been known for that, it’s one of the bunchiest routes in London. Although in recent times it’s quite exaggerated, I frequently use that route and the 18 - and I’d argue the 18 bunches more. The 65 does get regulated quite a lot though, although there are times where 65s will leave Kingston together for capacity purposes which is actually very smart of the controller, otherwise, as annoying as the bunching is you would be leaving crowds of passengers behind. Do you think the service has improved with the changes to Kew Bridge or further change is required, maybe with the E1 being extended to Osterley or possibly another route to run down Richmond road? The 102 is an example of a route that doesn't necessarily bunch but at its headway buses being 2-3 minutes between each other (and quite a lot of them) and then a long gap afterwards. As you say these sorts of moves can be quite useful for busy bus stops, probably not as comparative as the 65 but there are some stops on the 102 that can get quite busy, not too sure about the eastern end for any stops that get packed although there are definitely a few on the western end, more namely East Finchley Station southbound (buses can be packed from then onwards), Muswell Hill SB & NB, Golders Green Station NB.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 31, 2022 21:21:52 GMT
It has been known for that, it’s one of the bunchiest routes in London. Although in recent times it’s quite exaggerated, I frequently use that route and the 18 - and I’d argue the 18 bunches more. The 65 does get regulated quite a lot though, although there are times where 65s will leave Kingston together for capacity purposes which is actually very smart of the controller, otherwise, as annoying as the bunching is you would be leaving crowds of passengers behind. Do you think the service has improved with the changes to Kew Bridge or further change is required, maybe with the E1 being extended to Osterley or possibly another route to run down Richmond road? With the changes to Kew Bridge do you mean conversion to 4 lane road on the actual bridge or the developments? The E1 is being extended to Osterley, that was part of it's new contract with RATP (they have the extra buses for it that are spares at the moment), this extension is planned for when the Elizabeth Line opens at Ealing B. I personally think the 65 handles its capacity well in most of its sections. The most problematic section for capacity is probably Richmond Road between Ham and Kingston, where the existing heavy loads from Richmond are made worse by the round the corner passengers getting into Kingston. I've said in the past I would be in favour of the 71 being extended to Ham to help the 65, which would also create new cross-Kingston links. I believe the frequency was increased on the 65 of late, could that potentially be in replacement of an E1 extension?
The 65 really does defy all odds in regards to stereotypes about buses, it passes through really well off areas in SW London & yet gets absolutely packed. The 93 is another example along with the 85.
|
|
|
Post by sleckdeck on Jan 31, 2022 21:26:52 GMT
It has been known for that, it’s one of the bunchiest routes in London. Although in recent times it’s quite exaggerated, I frequently use that route and the 18 - and I’d argue the 18 bunches more. The 65 does get regulated quite a lot though, although there are times where 65s will leave Kingston together for capacity purposes which is actually very smart of the controller, otherwise, as annoying as the bunching is you would be leaving crowds of passengers behind. Do you think the service has improved with the changes to Kew Bridge or further change is required, maybe with the E1 being extended to Osterley or possibly another route to run down Richmond road? With the changes to Kew Bridge do you mean conversion to 4 lane road on the actual bridge or the developments? The E1 is being extended to Osterley, that was part of it's new contract with RATP (they have the extra buses for it that are spares at the moment), this extension is planned for when the Elizabeth Line opens at Ealing B. I personally think the 65 handles its capacity well in most of its sections. The most problematic section for capacity is probably Richmond Road between Ham and Kingston, where the existing heavy loads from Richmond are made worse by the round the corner passengers getting into Kingston. I've said in the past I would be in favour of the 71 being extended to Ham to help the 65, which would also create new cross-Kingston links. I am on about the 4 lane conversion on Kew Bridge, the 65 rarely gets caught up in traffic now. In fact weirdly enough I’d avoid using the 267 back home from Twickenham and instead board a 65 as it’s surprisingly the route to avoid traffic. I would also say that the rush hour loads from the South Ealing to Richmond section is a bit concerning as some 65s would be unable to carry any more passengers after Great West Road with most passengers aiming to reach Richmond.
|
|
|
Post by sleckdeck on Jan 31, 2022 21:32:12 GMT
With the changes to Kew Bridge do you mean conversion to 4 lane road on the actual bridge or the developments? The E1 is being extended to Osterley, that was part of it's new contract with RATP (they have the extra buses for it that are spares at the moment), this extension is planned for when the Elizabeth Line opens at Ealing B. I personally think the 65 handles its capacity well in most of its sections. The most problematic section for capacity is probably Richmond Road between Ham and Kingston, where the existing heavy loads from Richmond are made worse by the round the corner passengers getting into Kingston. I've said in the past I would be in favour of the 71 being extended to Ham to help the 65, which would also create new cross-Kingston links. I believe the frequency was increased on the 65 of late, could that potentially be in replacement of an E1 extension?
The 65 really does defy all odds in regards to stereotypes about buses, it passes through really well off areas in SW London & yet gets absolutely packed. The 93 is another example along with the 85.
Didn’t it have a PVR increase in 2016? I think the frequency in the morning peak had been altered slightly on the Southern end, which took the frequency in Brentford of up to 5 minutes due to unusually busy loadings recently. Although I am worried the 65 could be prone to a PVR reduction given the E1’s extension, though this would be quite annoying for RATP given they would’ve ordered so many extra EVs given TFLs knowledge. Although, I would go against a PVR reduction. The route at rush hour could have 3 65s together and each one of them would still be rammed. Let’s hope not.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 31, 2022 22:02:52 GMT
I believe the frequency was increased on the 65 of late, could that potentially be in replacement of an E1 extension? The 65 really does defy all odds in regards to stereotypes about buses, it passes through really well off areas in SW London & yet gets absolutely packed. The 93 is another example along with the 85.
Didn’t it have a PVR increase in 2016? I think the frequency in the morning peak had been altered slightly on the Southern end, which took the frequency in Brentford of up to 5 minutes due to unusually busy loadings recently. Although I am worried the 65 could be prone to a PVR reduction given the E1’s extension, though this would be quite annoying for RATP given they would’ve ordered so many extra EVs given TFLs knowledge. Although, I would go against a PVR reduction. The route at rush hour could have 3 65s together and each one of them would still be rammed. Let’s hope not. The route only just got a +1 PVR increase so I doubt it will suddenly be decreased
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 31, 2022 22:02:57 GMT
With the changes to Kew Bridge do you mean conversion to 4 lane road on the actual bridge or the developments? The E1 is being extended to Osterley, that was part of it's new contract with RATP (they have the extra buses for it that are spares at the moment), this extension is planned for when the Elizabeth Line opens at Ealing B. I personally think the 65 handles its capacity well in most of its sections. The most problematic section for capacity is probably Richmond Road between Ham and Kingston, where the existing heavy loads from Richmond are made worse by the round the corner passengers getting into Kingston. I've said in the past I would be in favour of the 71 being extended to Ham to help the 65, which would also create new cross-Kingston links. I believe the frequency was increased on the 65 of late, could that potentially be in replacement of an E1 extension? The 65 really does defy all odds in regards to stereotypes about buses, it passes through really well off areas in SW London & yet gets absolutely packed. The 93 is another example along with the 85.
The 93 owes its high demand to providing links which are either non existent or difficult by train. North Cheam and Stonecot Hill generate huge demand to the nearest station at Morden and Morden Town Centre to Wimbledon is not far but again the 93 is the most direct link.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 31, 2022 22:08:44 GMT
With the changes to Kew Bridge do you mean conversion to 4 lane road on the actual bridge or the developments? The E1 is being extended to Osterley, that was part of it's new contract with RATP (they have the extra buses for it that are spares at the moment), this extension is planned for when the Elizabeth Line opens at Ealing B. I personally think the 65 handles its capacity well in most of its sections. The most problematic section for capacity is probably Richmond Road between Ham and Kingston, where the existing heavy loads from Richmond are made worse by the round the corner passengers getting into Kingston. I've said in the past I would be in favour of the 71 being extended to Ham to help the 65, which would also create new cross-Kingston links. I believe the frequency was increased on the 65 of late, could that potentially be in replacement of an E1 extension?
The 65 really does defy all odds in regards to stereotypes about buses, it passes through really well off areas in SW London & yet gets absolutely packed. The 93 is another example along with the 85.
The E1 wasn't extended to support the 65 (although that is a byproduct), it was to provide better links to the Elizabeth Line especially from the new developments at Osterley, also making sure the H91 doesn't get overwhelmed. The E1 extension would still go ahead no matter what the situation on the 65 is.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 31, 2022 22:13:58 GMT
With the changes to Kew Bridge do you mean conversion to 4 lane road on the actual bridge or the developments? The E1 is being extended to Osterley, that was part of it's new contract with RATP (they have the extra buses for it that are spares at the moment), this extension is planned for when the Elizabeth Line opens at Ealing B. I personally think the 65 handles its capacity well in most of its sections. The most problematic section for capacity is probably Richmond Road between Ham and Kingston, where the existing heavy loads from Richmond are made worse by the round the corner passengers getting into Kingston. I've said in the past I would be in favour of the 71 being extended to Ham to help the 65, which would also create new cross-Kingston links. I am on about the 4 lane conversion on Kew Bridge, the 65 rarely gets caught up in traffic now. In fact weirdly enough I’d avoid using the 267 back home from Twickenham and instead board a 65 as it’s surprisingly the route to avoid traffic. I would also say that the rush hour loads from the South Ealing to Richmond section is a bit concerning as some 65s would be unable to carry any more passengers after Great West Road with most passengers aiming to reach Richmond. The improvements on the bridge are a step in the right direction but the 65 still can get very congested, Petersham is a notorious bottleneck with the weight of traffic going through there, Richmond can get nasty and Kingston has general town centre delays.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 31, 2022 22:23:13 GMT
I believe the frequency was increased on the 65 of late, could that potentially be in replacement of an E1 extension? The 65 really does defy all odds in regards to stereotypes about buses, it passes through really well off areas in SW London & yet gets absolutely packed. The 93 is another example along with the 85.
The 93 owes its high demand to providing links which are either non existent or difficult by train. North Cheam and Stonecot Hill generate huge demand to the nearest station at Morden and Morden Town Centre to Wimbledon is not far but again the 93 is the most direct link. I assume the destination Putney Bridge likely attracts a fair amount of custom as well?
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jan 31, 2022 22:26:36 GMT
The 93 owes its high demand to providing links which are either non existent or difficult by train. North Cheam and Stonecot Hill generate huge demand to the nearest station at Morden and Morden Town Centre to Wimbledon is not far but again the 93 is the most direct link. I assume the destination Putney Bridge likely attracts a fair amount of custom as well? A lot of people tend to get off at St Johns Avenue or Putney Station and walk down because of the traffic. It is busy in the Wimbledon direction though.
|
|
|
Post by sleckdeck on Jan 31, 2022 22:29:33 GMT
Didn’t it have a PVR increase in 2016? I think the frequency in the morning peak had been altered slightly on the Southern end, which took the frequency in Brentford of up to 5 minutes due to unusually busy loadings recently. Although I am worried the 65 could be prone to a PVR reduction given the E1’s extension, though this would be quite annoying for RATP given they would’ve ordered so many extra EVs given TFLs knowledge. Although, I would go against a PVR reduction. The route at rush hour could have 3 65s together and each one of them would still be rammed. Let’s hope not. The route only just got a +1 PVR increase so I doubt it will suddenly be decreased It wouldn’t surprise me due to TfLs significant financial crisis, though the 65 is one of those routes that TFL wouldn’t be able to axe due to running on its own in several areas.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 31, 2022 22:31:16 GMT
The route only just got a +1 PVR increase so I doubt it will suddenly be decreased It wouldn’t surprise me due to TfLs significant financial crisis, though the 65 is one of those routes that TFL wouldn’t be able to axe due to running on its own in several areas. I took the 65 on Sunday (mainly to have an SP ride) and it was full on the top deck by the time we left Kingston to head to Richmond.
|
|