|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 2, 2023 12:12:08 GMT
This R68 change is a really poor proposal, I think there could be a lot of local opposition due to broken links, particularly from the Teddington Lock area to/from Richmond. If cuts need to be made between Twickenham and Richmond, surely there must be an alternative option with less disruption to current journey patterns? While the highest frequency, the 33 probably has the fewest unique links out of the routes on this corridor, so could be looked at too?
For example could cut back the 33 between Fulwell and Teddington High Street, instead extend via Ferry Road to terminate near Broom Road (currently unserved other than the 681).
Or alternatively could restructure the 33 to merge partly with the H37, operating between Castelnau and Hounslow (going via Church Road in Richmond to continue serving the station). The revise the R68 or R70 to cover links via Strawberry Hill, with frequency increases as necessary.
If TFL weren't having to make cuts in this area, I actually think a new route between Richmond and Kingston via Twickenham and Teddington could be quite useful. Would relieve the 65, while offering a more direct alternative to the 281 for journeys between Twickenham and Kingston. Could then restructure some other routes in the area at the same time to better match capacity on each section. The 65 diverted along this route for a few months due to a road closure in Ham - does anyone know if this was much of a success?
Assuming TFL's plans do go ahead, a DD conversion for the 490 would definitely be welcome to increase capacity between Richmond and Twickenham - particularly with the R70's stand at Manor Circus being made available. Is there actually a need for any route at all to serve Pools on the Park (the stops at Richmond Station aren't far away)?
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Sept 2, 2023 13:26:29 GMT
The 33 is run from FW so although it looks a bit odd in taking an indirect route from Cross Deep to Stanley Road that is for garage working purposes. If you turned it at Ferry Road you would require crew ferry vehicles and dead mileage. There is no stand in Ferry Road; it is a bus stop only for the two 681 journeys and not very far to walk for the 281/ 285 all day. I doubt the tight turn at Teddington Lock would be approved of for a bus every 5 - 10 minutes all day and standing outside a school isn't ideal.
Twickenham - Richmond is a busy bus corridor. As we have discussed it has already lost the H22 in a recent round of cuts which has placed the remaining routes under greater pressure and leads to overloading at times. The 33 suffers from traffic on the Barnes - Sheen section when running towards Fulwell and long gaps can arise in what should be an 8-minute base headway. More buses, not fewer, are urgently needed over this section and 'deckers on the 33 should be looked at as a priority move. If or when Hammersmith Bridge reopens to full-size vehicles that could be revisited. A fully DD 33 could cope on a 10-minute headway which reduces costs through a PVR reduction but there remains the need for frequent buses between Richmond and Twickenham.
Stand space in Richmond is at a premium. There doesn't appear to be an idea solution but rather than cut one of the R-routes altogether I would still have it run to East Sheen stand. That serves most of Richmond town centre only missing the station. A station link is highly desirable but there would still be the other R-route and the 490.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 2, 2023 16:09:02 GMT
The 33 is run from FW so although it looks a bit odd in taking an indirect route from Cross Deep to Stanley Road that is for garage working purposes. If you turned it at Ferry Road you would require crew ferry vehicles and dead mileage. There is no stand in Ferry Road; it is a bus stop only for the two 681 journeys and not very far to walk for the 281/ 285 all day. I doubt the tight turn at Teddington Lock would be approved of for a bus every 5 - 10 minutes all day and standing outside a school isn't ideal. Twickenham - Richmond is a busy bus corridor. As we have discussed it has already lost the H22 in a recent round of cuts which has placed the remaining routes under greater pressure and leads to overloading at times. The 33 suffers from traffic on the Barnes - Sheen section when running towards Fulwell and long gaps can arise in what should be an 8-minute base headway. More buses, not fewer, are urgently needed over this section and 'deckers on the 33 should be looked at as a priority move. If or when Hammersmith Bridge reopens to full-size vehicles that could be revisited. A fully DD 33 could cope on a 10-minute headway which reduces costs through a PVR reduction but there remains the need for frequent buses between Richmond and Twickenham. Stand space in Richmond is at a premium. There doesn't appear to be an idea solution but rather than cut one of the R-routes altogether I would still have it run to East Sheen stand. That serves most of Richmond town centre only missing the station. A station link is highly desirable but there would still be the other R-route and the 490. Ideally TFL should keep the 33, R68 and R70 to/from Richmond, as they all serve different purposes. Presumably TFL are looking to make cuts to that corridor, otherwise why change the R68/R70 at all? Or is the current R70 stand on Manor Road being redeveloped etc? If something like this is the problem, the better solution might be another merger like the 110/391, creating another through route across Richmond. The 190, 371 and H37 are all relatively short, and may cope with an extension of some sort. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 2, 2023 16:19:15 GMT
The 33 is run from FW so although it looks a bit odd in taking an indirect route from Cross Deep to Stanley Road that is for garage working purposes. If you turned it at Ferry Road you would require crew ferry vehicles and dead mileage. There is no stand in Ferry Road; it is a bus stop only for the two 681 journeys and not very far to walk for the 281/ 285 all day. I doubt the tight turn at Teddington Lock would be approved of for a bus every 5 - 10 minutes all day and standing outside a school isn't ideal. Twickenham - Richmond is a busy bus corridor. As we have discussed it has already lost the H22 in a recent round of cuts which has placed the remaining routes under greater pressure and leads to overloading at times. The 33 suffers from traffic on the Barnes - Sheen section when running towards Fulwell and long gaps can arise in what should be an 8-minute base headway. More buses, not fewer, are urgently needed over this section and 'deckers on the 33 should be looked at as a priority move. If or when Hammersmith Bridge reopens to full-size vehicles that could be revisited. A fully DD 33 could cope on a 10-minute headway which reduces costs through a PVR reduction but there remains the need for frequent buses between Richmond and Twickenham. Stand space in Richmond is at a premium. There doesn't appear to be an idea solution but rather than cut one of the R-routes altogether I would still have it run to East Sheen stand. That serves most of Richmond town centre only missing the station. A station link is highly desirable but there would still be the other R-route and the 490. Ideally TFL should keep the 33, R68 and R70 to/from Richmond, as they all serve different purposes. Presumably TFL are looking to make cuts to that corridor, otherwise why change the R68/R70 at all? Or is the current R70 stand on Manor Road being redeveloped etc? If something like this is the problem, the better solution might be another merger like the 110/391, creating another through route across Richmond. The 190, 371 and H37 are all relatively short, and may cope with an extension of some sort. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 2, 2023 16:42:33 GMT
Ideally TFL should keep the 33, R68 and R70 to/from Richmond, as they all serve different purposes. Presumably TFL are looking to make cuts to that corridor, otherwise why change the R68/R70 at all? Or is the current R70 stand on Manor Road being redeveloped etc? If something like this is the problem, the better solution might be another merger like the 110/391, creating another through route across Richmond. The 190, 371 and H37 are all relatively short, and may cope with an extension of some sort. The current 110 isn't ideal, but there may be a way of restructuring routes to be slightly shorter than that. The H37 seems an obvious route to consider, it's quite high frequency so the Richmond stand becoming free could be beneficial. Looking at where the 11.5m MMCs might fit, the H37 could perhaps extend to Castelnau taking over the 33. The rest of the 33 could maybe then merge with the 371, operating from Fulwell to Kingston via Richmond. It would be quite an indirect route, but add some potentially useful cross-river links from Ham/Petersham to Twickenham. Or alternatively the 33 could return to Hammersmith but via Chiswick Bridge replacing the 190. The 218 could then take over the West Brompton section. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 2, 2023 17:03:37 GMT
I don't think merging is the solution, think about the traffic hotspots that the routes could come across. Tfl might come up with barmy ideas, the 110 never went to Richmond in the first place. The changes also resulted in the loss of the H22. The current 110 isn't ideal, but there may be a way of restructuring routes to be slightly shorter than that. The H37 seems an obvious route to consider, it's quite high frequency so the Richmond stand becoming free could be beneficial. Looking at where the 11.5m MMCs might fit, the H37 could perhaps extend to Castelnau taking over the 33. The rest of the 33 could maybe then merge with the 371, operating from Fulwell to Kingston via Richmond. It would be quite an indirect route, but add some potentially useful cross-river links from Ham/Petersham to Twickenham. Or alternatively the 33 could return to Hammersmith but via Chiswick Bridge replacing the 190. The 218 could then take over the West Brompton section. Richmond isn't really a best terminal place as buses from the south suit Manor Road and routes from the North suit the bus station otherwise they miss most the town out. The 190/337/419/493 can serve stops on George Street whereas if the 490/R68/R70/H37 stood at the bus station the first stop would be the other side of Richmond Bridge. Probably why in the past most the routes passed through 33/37/65/90B/290 with the 27 at the bus station and the 71/202 at Manor Road. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 2, 2023 17:40:31 GMT
The 33 is run from FW so although it looks a bit odd in taking an indirect route from Cross Deep to Stanley Road that is for garage working purposes. If you turned it at Ferry Road you would require crew ferry vehicles and dead mileage. There is no stand in Ferry Road; it is a bus stop only for the two 681 journeys and not very far to walk for the 281/ 285 all day. I doubt the tight turn at Teddington Lock would be approved of for a bus every 5 - 10 minutes all day and standing outside a school isn't ideal. Twickenham - Richmond is a busy bus corridor. As we have discussed it has already lost the H22 in a recent round of cuts which has placed the remaining routes under greater pressure and leads to overloading at times. The 33 suffers from traffic on the Barnes - Sheen section when running towards Fulwell and long gaps can arise in what should be an 8-minute base headway. More buses, not fewer, are urgently needed over this section and 'deckers on the 33 should be looked at as a priority move. If or when Hammersmith Bridge reopens to full-size vehicles that could be revisited. A fully DD 33 could cope on a 10-minute headway which reduces costs through a PVR reduction but there remains the need for frequent buses between Richmond and Twickenham. Stand space in Richmond is at a premium. There doesn't appear to be an idea solution but rather than cut one of the R-routes altogether I would still have it run to East Sheen stand. That serves most of Richmond town centre only missing the station. A station link is highly desirable but there would still be the other R-route and the 490. Ideally TFL should keep the 33, R68 and R70 to/from Richmond, as they all serve different purposes. Presumably TFL are looking to make cuts to that corridor, otherwise why change the R68/R70 at all? Or is the current R70 stand on Manor Road being redeveloped etc? If something like this is the problem, the better solution might be another merger like the 110/391, creating another through route across Richmond. The 190, 371 and H37 are all relatively short, and may cope with an extension of some sort. As discussed previously there appears to be a temporary issue with stand capacity due to the forthcoming redevelopment of the Homebase site, we haven’t had the official announcement from TfL yet, but they would not be able to cut back the R68 on a permanent basis without prior consultation without risking a legal challenge. As far as we know these changes are not about cutting capacity, at least not as the primary reason. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 2, 2023 17:53:52 GMT
If you really want to be creative they could;
Divert the 267 between Fulwell and Twickenham via the 33
Cut the H22 to Twickenham Station as planned
Extend the 290 to West Middx Hosp to maintain the link from Fulwell and Twickenham Green to the Hospital
Divert the H37 at Richmond to Castlenau via the 33. Withdraw the 33. This would free up stand space for the R70
Leave the R70 and R68 unchanged.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 2, 2023 19:50:43 GMT
If you really want to be creative they could; Divert the 267 between Fulwell and Twickenham via the 33 Cut the H22 to Twickenham Station as planned Extend the 290 to West Middx Hosp to maintain the link from Fulwell and Twickenham Green to the Hospital Divert the H37 at Richmond to Castlenau via the 33. Withdraw the 33. This would free up stand space for the R70 Leave the R70 and R68 unchanged. I think the main problem would be the loss of the frequent Richmond to Teddington direct link. The R68 runs at half the frequency of the 33 and via a less direct route. The reliability of the 267 can be irrational due to traffic conditions in Brentford, Chiswick and Hammersmith. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 2, 2023 19:56:01 GMT
I don't think merging is the solution, think about the traffic hotspots that the routes could come across. Tfl might come up with barmy ideas, the 110 never went to Richmond in the first place. The changes also resulted in the loss of the H22. The current 110 isn't ideal, but there may be a way of restructuring routes to be slightly shorter than that. The H37 seems an obvious route to consider, it's quite high frequency so the Richmond stand becoming free could be beneficial. Looking at where the 11.5m MMCs might fit, the H37 could perhaps extend to Castelnau taking over the 33. The rest of the 33 could maybe then merge with the 371, operating from Fulwell to Kingston via Richmond. It would be quite an indirect route, but add some potentially useful cross-river links from Ham/Petersham to Twickenham. Or alternatively the 33 could return to Hammersmith but via Chiswick Bridge replacing the 190. The 218 could then take over the West Brompton section. The loss of the direct service to Richmond Station on the 371 and H37 would be a problem, they both load heavily at the station. The direct link to Richmond Station from Hounslow etc was one one of the benefits of the 37 split in the early 90s. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 2, 2023 20:09:00 GMT
If you really want to be creative they could; Divert the 267 between Fulwell and Twickenham via the 33 Cut the H22 to Twickenham Station as planned Extend the 290 to West Middx Hosp to maintain the link from Fulwell and Twickenham Green to the Hospital Divert the H37 at Richmond to Castlenau via the 33. Withdraw the 33. This would free up stand space for the R70 Leave the R70 and R68 unchanged. I think the main problem would be the loss of the frequent Richmond to Teddington direct link. The R68 runs at half the frequency of the 33 and via a less direct route. The reliability of the 267 can be irrational due to traffic conditions in Brentford, Chiswick and Hammersmith. Sorry I was totally forgetting the 267 didn't go via Richmond. I see now the problems for Teddington. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 2, 2023 20:11:52 GMT
The current 110 isn't ideal, but there may be a way of restructuring routes to be slightly shorter than that. The H37 seems an obvious route to consider, it's quite high frequency so the Richmond stand becoming free could be beneficial. Looking at where the 11.5m MMCs might fit, the H37 could perhaps extend to Castelnau taking over the 33. The rest of the 33 could maybe then merge with the 371, operating from Fulwell to Kingston via Richmond. It would be quite an indirect route, but add some potentially useful cross-river links from Ham/Petersham to Twickenham. Or alternatively the 33 could return to Hammersmith but via Chiswick Bridge replacing the 190. The 218 could then take over the West Brompton section. The loss of the direct service to Richmond Station on the 371 and H37 would be a problem, they both load heavily at the station. The direct link to Richmond Station from Hounslow etc was one one of the benefits of the 37 split in the early 90s. I assume alot of people like the direct connection to the District line and more frequent/less stop services hence taking the H37 from St Margarets area to Richmond Station. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 2, 2023 20:31:38 GMT
What's the maximum number of buses to ever be at the H37's Richmond stand at once? It's quite a long stand, could it accommodate a less frequent route alongside too? Particularly as the H37 had a minor frequency cut as part of the 110 restructure.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 2, 2023 20:54:16 GMT
The loss of the direct service to Richmond Station on the 371 and H37 would be a problem, they both load heavily at the station. The direct link to Richmond Station from Hounslow etc was one one of the benefits of the 37 split in the early 90s. I assume alot of people like the direct connection to the District line and more frequent/less stop services hence taking the H37 from St Margarets area to Richmond Station. Yes, especially now that St Margaret’s has been reduced to a half hourly service on SWT. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 2, 2023 20:57:46 GMT
What's the maximum number of buses to ever be at the H37's Richmond stand at once? It's quite a long stand, could it accommodate a less frequent route alongside too? Particularly as the H37 had a minor frequency cut as part of the 110 restructure. I have walked past many times, it’s quite long and there seems to be plenty of space left when there are two H37 buses there. I think there would be space there for two routes to terminate. Presumably the H37 and H22 shared the stand in the past without problems, the combined frequencies of which would not be that much different from the H37 and R70 today. |
|
