|
Post by vjaska on Jul 19, 2019 22:09:57 GMT
Roehampton-Hammersmith Bridge is a straight line. However, to get to Barnes Pond, 419s turn off Castelnau at Barnes to head to the Pond. It'd be more sensible to just withdraw the 419 between Barnes and the pond then extend it to Roehampton. The issue is that this makes the 419 a pain to operate, and the 419s frequency is poor, Roehampton deserves a more frequent link than a meagre 4bph to the bridge I agree the frequency is not ideal, this would just be a short term solution that could be implenented quickly, until the long term plan for the bridge is known next month. If the bridge is to remain closed permanently or for a substantial period of time, I would instead opt to restore route 72 to Roehampton, but via route 220 to Putney Bridge then the 265. This revised 72 could possibly be converted to DDs, and in addition I would extend the 283 to Hammersmith Bridge north side in replacement, and reroute the 265 to Hammersmith Bridge south side via the previous 72 routeing. Personally, this is what I'd have preferred to see as well, makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 19, 2019 22:11:16 GMT
Additionally, I would merge the revised 209 with the 533, operating from Hammersmith Bus Station to Lonsdale Road, going along the 533, but along Barnes High Street and Castelnau in both directions. Would have a frequency slightly reduced from the current 209 (maybe about 6bhp), and with some fixed bus stops added along Great West Road. I wouldn't merge these two routes, the last stop on the 209 Mortlake Bus station is very popular with people crossing the railway line if you was to merge the 209 with the 533 this stop could no longer be served Could you not merge them but start it from Avondale Road, then run up Castlenau after the hight street and onto Lonsdale Road that way?
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 19, 2019 22:20:52 GMT
I wouldn't merge these two routes, the last stop on the 209 Mortlake Bus station is very popular with people crossing the railway line if you was to merge the 209 with the 533 this stop could no longer be served Could you not merge them but start it from Avondale Road, then run up Castlenau after the hight street and onto Lonsdale Road that way? you could do that, will be double running though, never been on a route that does double running but I guess this can confuse a few people? Could be a time when someone was running for a bus then jumps on and realises it's not going where they want to go.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 19, 2019 22:26:11 GMT
Could you not merge them but start it from Avondale Road, then run up Castlenau after the hight street and onto Lonsdale Road that way? you could do that, will be double running though, never been on a route that does double running but I guess this can confuse a few people? Could be a time when someone was running for a bus then jumps on and realises it's not going where they want to go. Of course, there is the potential for that but then you could argue some are confused at far more simper things like boarding a bus without looking at the front full stop There are routes in London that do double runs so it's not a new thing so to say
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 20, 2019 0:18:49 GMT
I wouldn't merge these two routes, the last stop on the 209 Mortlake Bus station is very popular with people crossing the railway line if you was to merge the 209 with the 533 this stop could no longer be served Could you not merge them but start it from Avondale Road, then run up Castlenau after the hight street and onto Lonsdale Road that way? The 209 will soon terminate at Hammersmith Bridge south side anyway, so more be far simpler to instead extend from Mortlake via the 533. If your concern is Avondale Road losing a bus route, it is not far from Mortlake High Street. Though a double run to 'Mortlake Bus Station' could work.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 20, 2019 0:21:56 GMT
Additionally, I would merge the revised 209 with the 533, operating from Hammersmith Bus Station to Lonsdale Road, going along the 533, but along Barnes High Street and Castelnau in both directions. Would have a frequency slightly reduced from the current 209 (maybe about 6bhp), and with some fixed bus stops added along Great West Road. I wouldn't merge these two routes, the last stop on the 209 Mortlake Bus station is very popular with people crossing the railway line if you was to merge the 209 with the 533 this stop could no longer be served Mortlake Bus Station is only a short distance from Mortlake High Street, so if necessary, the 209 or 419 could double run via Avondale Road. Of course there is also the 33 available at Upper Richmond Road for passengers wanting to travel to Castelnau or Hammersmith Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Jul 21, 2019 11:48:05 GMT
With two weeks to go before the latest changes yellow signs have gone up on stops in Putney saying the 209 will be no more use route 378 instead. No suggestion of a reduction in frequency or that it is a new route! The signs cover the 209 timetables which were the only new timetables put up in the area when the 265 gained a doubling of service to Roehampton and two night buses were introduced. We are still waiting for those timetables to appear.
Confusingly I have now discovered that someone has bothered to put the N33 and N72 timetables at stops on at least part of Fulham Palace Road but they remain missing from Lower Richmond Road in Putney.
Around 01.00 this morning I finally saw an N33. Unfortunately it was showing 33 Hammersmith so could have confused late night travellers into assuming the bus took the daytime route to Hammersmith Bridge via Barnes as those buses still sometimes mark themselves as Hammersmith bound.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 21, 2019 13:52:49 GMT
Statement from H&F Council:- July 21.
Misleading Evening Standard story
You may have read claims in the Evening Standard that Hammersmith Bridge may be closed for good. That is simply not true. The Standard’s editorial also makes a series of unfounded and factually incorrect claims.
So, to put the record straight and reassure the residents and businesses affected by the current works on the bridge, we confirm that both H&F Council and Transport for London (TfL) are working closely together to re-open the bridge to motorised traffic as soon as possible - which our world-class, specialist engineers advise will be within three years.
The Standard bases its bizarre claims on an assertion that ‘the estimated repair bill will be near £100million’, but they admitted to the council that this figure was invented by a journalist.
The Standard also falsely reported that the council wants to ‘replace Hammersmith Bridge with a Thames tunnel’. That’s also nonsense, which they subsequently removed from the online version of their story.
For more information about what’s happened to Hammersmith Bridge and what we and TfL are doing to fully restore it please visit our Hammersmith Bridge page.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 21, 2019 14:18:41 GMT
Statement from H&F Council:- July 21. Misleading Evening Standard story You may have read claims in the Evening Standard that Hammersmith Bridge may be closed for good. That is simply not true. The Standard’s editorial also makes a series of unfounded and factually incorrect claims. So, to put the record straight and reassure the residents and businesses affected by the current works on the bridge, we confirm that both H&F Council and Transport for London (TfL) are working closely together to re-open the bridge to motorised traffic as soon as possible - which our world-class, specialist engineers advise will be within three years. The Standard bases its bizarre claims on an assertion that ‘the estimated repair bill will be near £100million’, but they admitted to the council that this figure was invented by a journalist. The Standard also falsely reported that the council wants to ‘replace Hammersmith Bridge with a Thames tunnel’. That’s also nonsense, which they subsequently removed from the online version of their story. For more information about what’s happened to Hammersmith Bridge and what we and TfL are doing to fully restore it please visit our Hammersmith Bridge page. Will buses be allowed on this bridge?
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 21, 2019 18:02:30 GMT
Statement from H&F Council:- July 21. Misleading Evening Standard story You may have read claims in the Evening Standard that Hammersmith Bridge may be closed for good. That is simply not true. The Standard’s editorial also makes a series of unfounded and factually incorrect claims. So, to put the record straight and reassure the residents and businesses affected by the current works on the bridge, we confirm that both H&F Council and Transport for London (TfL) are working closely together to re-open the bridge to motorised traffic as soon as possible - which our world-class, specialist engineers advise will be within three years. The Standard bases its bizarre claims on an assertion that ‘the estimated repair bill will be near £100million’, but they admitted to the council that this figure was invented by a journalist. The Standard also falsely reported that the council wants to ‘replace Hammersmith Bridge with a Thames tunnel’. That’s also nonsense, which they subsequently removed from the online version of their story. For more information about what’s happened to Hammersmith Bridge and what we and TfL are doing to fully restore it please visit our Hammersmith Bridge page. Will buses be allowed on this bridge? Last thing I read was that without doubt single deckers would be aloud back on it but there not sure about double deckers quite yet.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 22, 2019 7:36:57 GMT
>>> single deckers would be aloud <<<
Homophone corner strikes again?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 22, 2019 7:40:13 GMT
Repairing the bridge to only allow single deckers to cross would be a farce. The bridge should’ve been strengthened to take double deckers three years ago but instead the 72’s 16-reg VHs were diverted elsewhere. This is a chance to futureproof the bridge and ensure it is fit for purpose in the future. The 33/72 will never see double deckers if this botched solution of only strengthening the bridge for single deckers occurs.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2019 7:56:58 GMT
I do maintain if you do a partial upgrade then a little bit down the line more work would be needed again and sometimes the cost can be greater in the end.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jul 22, 2019 19:49:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Jul 23, 2019 15:55:04 GMT
With two weeks to go before the latest changes yellow signs have gone up on stops in Putney saying the 209 will be no more use route 378 instead. No suggestion of a reduction in frequency or that it is a new route! The signs cover the 209 timetables which were the only new timetables put up in the area when the 265 gained a doubling of service to Roehampton and two night buses were introduced. We are still waiting for those timetables to appear. Confusingly I have now discovered that someone has bothered to put the N33 and N72 timetables at stops on at least part of Fulham Palace Road but they remain missing from Lower Richmond Road in Putney. Around 01.00 this morning I finally saw an N33. Unfortunately it was showing 33 Hammersmith so could have confused late night travellers into assuming the bus took the daytime route to Hammersmith Bridge via Barnes as those buses still sometimes mark themselves as Hammersmith bound. Curiously the yellow signs I wrote about two days ago have now been removed and you can once again read the current 209 timetable. Sadly none of the missing or inaccurate timetables have been added or changed. What there is though ( on the shelter not the actual bus stop ) is an unofficial 378 route map that I assume is the work of
|
|