|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 1, 2023 6:58:36 GMT
Unfortunately, I think the volatility of North Sheen station's level crossing all but kills the idea of the R70 standing at Queen's Road. I think Kew Gardens Station is the next closest bus stand, but I'd imagine TfL would be hesitant to extend the R70 there for whatever reason. It would be very unwise, as you said, to have a bus route run over that level crossing. I have, on many occasions, had to wait 10 minutes or even longer there. It is sometimes used by routes on short-term diversions but an alternative routing would need to be used for any longer-term diversion. I don't think sending either R route to Kew Gardens would be such a bad idea, but would require an extra bus so would be too expensive for TfL. Same goes for the Kew Green stand. Am I right in thinking that the R70 is going to Kew Retail Park instead. Because it it did and the R68 being cut to Twickenham I'd imagine that there would be a slight pvr saving |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Sept 1, 2023 7:03:20 GMT
Dee Road stand has gone I believe. I think a reroute of the R70 would be on the cards if that went DD. The Nurserylands is much more congested with parked cars than it was in LU Metrobus days. 490 should have been DD upon last contract renewal. 33 could use DD and that is up for tender soon. I don’t think Hammersmith Bridge is on the verge of reopening anytime soon. When it does the DD version could go along the N33 route giving the 220 a much needed helping hand between Hammersmith and Putney. Ironically it got single deckers displaced from a route that had a double deck conversion in the 407! But I do agree the 490 should be double decked. As long as it doesn’t shove the 493 into any traffic jams or hotspots, I’m not too familiar with the 490 terminal There are low trees coming in to the Pools on the Park car park which would prevent a decker from reaching there. I do agree though, the 490 and 493 should swap terminuses which would then enable the 490 to convert to double deck. I also wouldn't be surprised if the 490 got 2580-2587 from the 407 should they not be kept on it and Abellio retain the 490... Yes the 490 certainly should be one route that's decked soon, it even gets crowded at 11pm. It won't be retendered though until 2026 so that puts pain to any imminent decking. Responding to abellion's post, extending the 493 to Pools on the Park would mean that the 493 has to contend with many additional traffic hotspots. The road outside Richmond Station, extending as far as the left turn onto The Square, sees a lot of traffic, and the Pools on the Park section is chockablock on rugby days too. So I think it would not be a good idea to send the 493 to Pools on the Park. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Sept 1, 2023 7:04:38 GMT
It would be very unwise, as you said, to have a bus route run over that level crossing. I have, on many occasions, had to wait 10 minutes or even longer there. It is sometimes used by routes on short-term diversions but an alternative routing would need to be used for any longer-term diversion. I don't think sending either R route to Kew Gardens would be such a bad idea, but would require an extra bus so would be too expensive for TfL. Same goes for the Kew Green stand. Am I right in thinking that the R70 is going to Kew Retail Park instead. Because it it did and the R68 being cut to Twickenham I'd imagine that there would be a slight pvr saving Yes that is what is being discussed. The current plan would result in 1 PVR being saved. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Sept 1, 2023 7:10:24 GMT
Ironically it got single deckers displaced from a route that had a double deck conversion in the 407! But I do agree the 490 should be double decked. There are low trees coming in to the Pools on the Park car park which would prevent a decker from reaching there. I do agree though, the 490 and 493 should swap terminuses which would then enable the 490 to convert to double deck. I also wouldn't be surprised if the 490 got 2580-2587 from the 407 should they not be kept on it and Abellio retain the 490... There is no point double decking the 490, if it doesn’t serve Richmond Station since that is where the demand is coming from. You would actually make the existing situation worse by reducing capacity from Richmond Station towards Twickenham by taking out the highest frequency route. The outbound journey on the 490 from Richmond Bus Station towards Twickenham would only serve one bus stop in the town centre at Richmond Bus Station and maybe not even that as not all routes leaving the stand there are allowed to pick up for safety reasons. I believe that is the case for the 493 which has it’s first outbound stop in George Street. Secondly even if it could pick up on the stand, you would have two separate stops at Richmond Bus Station for buses towards Twickenham, which wouldn’t work and cause more safety issues. Agreed, with the R68 not serving Richmond, the 490 must continue serving Richmond Station. However, one route only is allowed to pick up at Richmond Bus Station from the stands, and if any bridge route terminated there, it would be given priority and the 337's first stop would be on George Street, outside Boots. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Sept 1, 2023 7:44:48 GMT
Being local to the area and a bus user I don't think anyone is aware of this impending change and some will be caught out by it. The 33 could usefully revert to deckers today and be re-visited when Hammersmith Bridge reopens. It is a busy route at almost all times with a high PVR because of the "need" for single-deck operation which is currently not a need at all. It doesn't serve Richmond station but does stop within a 2- 3 minute walk at Waitrose. There are other options. It is possible to extend the Kew Retail Park service up to Kew Green at the cost of missing the terminal stop; I acknowledge this is quite well used compared with others on the extension but allows the option of two buses standing at Kew Green together which is not possible (but does happen unofficially) at the Retail Park. Kew Green is a congested area but this does plug the route into the 65 and 110 for onward links there. Cutting any more buses from the Twickenham - Richmond leg is going to cause capacity issues and probably significant overloading at school and peak times. The comment about Strawberry Vale having a stub service is relevant but it's not the most-used part of the R68 route at all and the 33 also covers the busier Cross Deep end. I would stand the R68 at Pools on the Park and R70 at Kew Retail Park whilst finding somewhere at the Nurserylands end for a stand to even out the service. Does it need to run the full current loop or can it terminate somewhere in Hanworth instead? The 111 covers half of the estate. The 490 is a long route which doesn't need to be any longer; if the R68 went to Pools then the 490 needs to go to a vacant stand such as East Sheen. Once again that cuts out the direct Richmond station link but it is within easy walking distance and other routes link Twickenham with Richmond station. The 110 also needs to be revisited having been doubled in length and given a most indirect LOR at the last change. This was supposed to have seen the withdrawal of the 969 with the 110 covering its residential bits off the Chertsey Road but those can only be accessed westbound meaning an end-to-end route could not serve the area except by means of a double-run of well over a mile. So the 969 continues to run, the 110 had useful links cut and was diverted via parts of the Chertsey Road where it picks up no-one. It also suffers badly from the traffic over the Hammersmith leg it gained from the 391. I am of the opinion that the 110 and H22 changes should be undone although my comments about stand space at Manor Circus made above would apply should the H22 be returned to that area. Agreed re the 33, I know TfL wouldn't particularly like to deck then un-deck a route but this is an exceptional circumstance. imo it should have received Scanias ex routes 65/281 when they were electrified. Running route R70 to Kew Green, as you said, would send the route through a major traffic hotspot. However the new links opened up and the ability for 2 buses to park on stand would make it worthwhile. At the other end, it could use the Fir Road stand and run via Fearnley Crescent two-way. The question then is whether to run it via Broad Lane as opposed to via Sainsbury's, I would say the former is better to prevent part of Broad Lane losing its bus service. Sainsbury's is a ~200m walk from Fearnley Crescent. The start and end of the school day will certainly be a pinchpoint for routes 33, 490 and R70, with Orleans Park School situated right in the middle of the Richmond-Twickenham stretch. Could a new school route (668?) be useful here to cover links lost by the R68? It would run via the R68 from Orleans Park School to Teddington, then up to TF or FW to stand. Regarding the 110/H22 changes, they could not be reversed now without significant additional stand space being required in Richmond. Not sure about the H22, but the 110 change has certainly been successful barring its reliability issues. I would consider splitting it into two routes, with the Hammersmith half taking on the 440 routing in Chiswick. I also think the 969 is fine as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 1, 2023 9:57:02 GMT
The R70 can be operated by double deckers, it’s just that residents in some big houses on Nightingale Road and Acacia Road didn’t want double deck buses going down their street. If that's the case, then could it not be diverted via the 111 route in that area? The residents on the northern section of Nightingale Road i.e. the 111 route, did not like the frequency of double deckers on routes 111 and R70 passing their homes, so the R70 got rerouted the full length of Acacia Road and back via Hanworth Road in order to avoid it. That northern section of Nightingale Road has quite a tight curve and can get busy at peak times with the three secondary schools in Hanworth Road. |
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Sept 1, 2023 13:22:11 GMT
As of today I see no notices anywhere about these changes around Twickenham.
And the R70 continues to be as busy as ever although to be fair as today is a rail strike day there are more bus passengers about than might otherwise be the case. Even my N22 this morning carried a healthy load right from the off at FW.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 1, 2023 13:41:18 GMT
As of today I see no notices anywhere about these changes around Twickenham. And the R70 continues to be as busy as ever although to be fair as today is a rail strike day there are more bus passengers about than might otherwise be the case. Even my N22 this morning carried a healthy load right from the off at FW. The retail park is due to partially close at some point for redevelopment into housing with the only retail being a brand new M&S store being built at one end. Perhaps the OP where it was seen just got confused and jumped the gun on an upcoming consultation. If most of the retail park closes and is developed around M&S perhaps there won’t be space for a bus service to stand? |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 1, 2023 14:12:24 GMT
As of today I see no notices anywhere about these changes around Twickenham. And the R70 continues to be as busy as ever although to be fair as today is a rail strike day there are more bus passengers about than might otherwise be the case. Even my N22 this morning carried a healthy load right from the off at FW. The retail park is due to partially close at some point for redevelopment into housing with the only retail being a brand new M&S store being built at one end. Perhaps the OP where it was seen just got confused and jumped the gun on an upcoming consultation. If most of the retail park closes and is developed around M&S perhaps there won’t be space for a bus service to stand? The R68 stand should be fine, even while Kew Retail Park is redeveloped, as Bessant Drive has to stay open to allow access to the flats behind. It's the R70 stand that is the problem, the stand is part of the new development on the old Homebase site - I believe a bus stand is planned as part of the development, but for the next few years while construction is taking place, there will be no stand there. |
|
|
|
Post by george on Sept 1, 2023 16:26:14 GMT
As of today I see no notices anywhere about these changes around Twickenham. And the R70 continues to be as busy as ever although to be fair as today is a rail strike day there are more bus passengers about than might otherwise be the case. Even my N22 this morning carried a healthy load right from the off at FW. One R68 driver and two R70 drivers have confirmed the change. |
|
|
|
Post by george on Sept 1, 2023 16:31:33 GMT
R68 not serving Richmond will odd given its prefix.
|
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Sept 1, 2023 16:35:10 GMT
R68 not serving Richmond will odd given its prefix. Yeah but there are plenty of prefixed routes that don't serve the area that the prefix alludes to |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Sept 1, 2023 16:45:03 GMT
As of today I see no notices anywhere about these changes around Twickenham. And the R70 continues to be as busy as ever although to be fair as today is a rail strike day there are more bus passengers about than might otherwise be the case. Even my N22 this morning carried a healthy load right from the off at FW. One R68 driver and two R70 drivers have confirmed the change. Has it been confirmed as temporary or permanent? |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Sept 1, 2023 16:52:14 GMT
R68 not serving Richmond will odd given its prefix. R68 was originally a "Harrier" midibus route, it replaced the southern end of the 267 in June 1991. The R70 was also a "Harrier" route, the 270 renumbered when it was converted to midibus in November 1990. Presumably they were given R prefixes rather than H as this was felt to be more appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by george on Sept 1, 2023 16:58:50 GMT
One R68 driver and two R70 drivers have confirmed the change. Has it been confirmed as temporary or permanent? Will be honest don't know sorry. I think if it's temporary it will be long time until new apartments are fixed. Like the 153 being cut back. |
|
