|
Post by rif153 on Aug 18, 2019 14:58:26 GMT
The 139 / 189 used to be interworked evenings and Sundays, but that was stopped in April 2017, one of the 'benefits' of the Finchley Road changes. And the fact that one of the routes has new Routemaster's now I doubt the interworking would have continued. Not necesarrily, TfL don't seem too fussed about which routes NRMs work anymore, they're happy for W to insert the 332 on their LT blinds, and they allowed Q to put an LT on the X68. Now our dear prime minister is no longer Mayor of London, TfL don't seem too bothered by LT allocations
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 18, 2019 15:15:33 GMT
Possibly had the 139 still been at W it would probably have seen regular NB4L workings particulary when the 16 was reduced and the spares were often on the 32.
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 18, 2019 17:22:55 GMT
Just wondering do you think the hail and ride section will be retained when the route becomes high frequency?
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Aug 18, 2019 20:58:56 GMT
Just wondering do you think the hail and ride section will be retained when the route becomes high frequency? I can't see this being changed. I understand that the hail-and-ride section was introduced back in the day due to the very vocal objections of local residents, specifically along Suffolk, Ferry and Verdun Roads. While many supported (and even campaigned for!) the introduction of a local bus service there, few were thrilled at the prospect of bus stop markings, flags, shelters and the like cluttering up their pleasant suburban paradise. The hail-and-ride section was a compromise, which continued when the R69 became the 419; this also saw Howsman and Kilmington Roads added to the route, becoming an extension of the H&R section. (Incidentally, the 419 was originally intended to reach Richmond via Kew Gardens Station - from Chalkers Corner via Mortlake Road, High Park Road, Sandycombe Road, Kew Gardens Road and Kew Road - but these plans were dropped shortly before it was due to enter service. Personally, I think that would have been quite a useful routing!) If the hail-and-ride section were to be withdrawn when the route becomes high frequency next month, one of two things would have to happen: either 1) bus stops are introduced, which is unlikely to go down well with residents; or 2) the service will no longer stop in those sections of route, which would defeat the purpose of serving those roads. I don't see TfL wishing to rock the boat on this issue, especially when they've already got their hands full trying to make everyone in the Barnes peninsula happy by throwing as many bus routes at them as possible.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 18, 2019 21:44:50 GMT
yep! Out of interest what other routes are interworked? Not including school routes, I know 389/399 and H18/H19 are The 139 / 189 used to be interworked evenings and Sundays, but that was stopped in April 2017, one of the 'benefits' of the Finchley Road changes. I think there's a bit of confusion in this thread with two meanings of the word "interworking"! 139 and 189 were interworked in the traditional sense, i.e. buses on both routes were spaced out to provide an even headway over the common section. That doesn't mean that there were any crosslinks between 139 and 189. On the other hand, route pairs like 389/399 and R5/R10 are "interworked" in the sense that the same bus works both routes alternately. Which has nothing to do with the original meaning of "interworking".
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 18, 2019 23:21:30 GMT
The 139 / 189 used to be interworked evenings and Sundays, but that was stopped in April 2017, one of the 'benefits' of the Finchley Road changes. And the fact that one of the routes has new Routemaster's now I doubt the interworking would have continued. Oddly, if you look at the current schedules, for instance on Sunday mornings the NRMs of the 189 take longer to complete the journey than the 139s - go figure!
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 18, 2019 23:23:27 GMT
The 139 / 189 used to be interworked evenings and Sundays, but that was stopped in April 2017, one of the 'benefits' of the Finchley Road changes. I think there's a bit of confusion in this thread with two meanings of the word "interworking"! 139 and 189 were interworked in the traditional sense, i.e. buses on both routes were spaced out to provide an even headway over the common section. That doesn't mean that there were any crosslinks between 139 and 189. On the other hand, route pairs like 389/399 and R5/R10 are "interworked" in the sense that the same bus works both routes alternately. Which has nothing to do with the original meaning of "interworking". Happy to stand corrected, indeed I probably read the post too quickly and in my mind confused interworked with interlinked!
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Aug 25, 2019 2:41:44 GMT
Much has been said here and elsewhere about how poorly TfL has communicated the changes introduced following the bridge closure. Even so, I find it astonishing that TfL is still failing to communicate in even the simplest and most basic of ways. Many, if not most, bus travellers trying to navigate around the bridge closure will turn to the TfL website for more information; in fact, TfL itself encourages this, even setting up a special URL - tfl.gov.uk/hammersmith-bridge - that redirects visitors to the correct webpage (which has a longer, less memorable address). The page is also linked-to from the TfL Buses homepage. But that Hammersmith Bridge Closure page is hopelessly out-of-date, with none of the latest changes (which were introduced more than two months after the page was last updated). That means that there's no mention at all of the 209 being restored to run from Mortlake to Castelnau; nor of new route 378, which replaced the 209 to Putney Bridge. It's no better if you stumble onto the Temporary Bus Changes page. There, you'll find a link to the same outdated Hammersmith Bridge Closure page, and you can also open the ' Changes to bus services in Hammersmith bridge area' PDF map - and again, it's from over three months ago, with none of the new changes introduced in the last three weeks. There's also no mention anywhere of the plan to redirect the 419 next month to terminate at Roehampton, rather than Barnes Pond. This isn't entirely surprising, as TfL appears to be running the Hammersmith Bridge bus services consultation in a unique way. First, it quietly decides on the changes; then, it works to implement them (with operators, councils, etc); and finally, a couple of weeks before the changes are due to be introduced, it announces them on the consultation page for the public to see, leaving no time for their input to have any effect on the changes that have already been finalised and signed off. Between 'consulting' with passengers on changes too late for their feedback to count, and abandoning prominent sections of its website with outdated information for months at a time, TfL's efforts to communicate with its customers really aren't getting any better.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 25, 2019 8:56:01 GMT
Much has been said here and elsewhere about how poorly TfL has communicated the changes introduced following the bridge closure. Even so, I find it astonishing that TfL is still failing to communicate in even the simplest and most basic of ways. Many, if not most, bus travellers trying to navigate around the bridge closure will turn to the TfL website for more information; in fact, TfL itself encourages this, even setting up a special URL - tfl.gov.uk/hammersmith-bridge - that redirects visitors to the correct webpage (which has a longer, less memorable address). The page is also linked-to from the TfL Buses homepage. But that Hammersmith Bridge Closure page is hopelessly out-of-date, with none of the latest changes (which were introduced more than two months after the page was last updated). That means that there's no mention at all of the 209 being restored to run from Mortlake to Castelnau; nor of new route 378, which replaced the 209 to Putney Bridge. It's no better if you stumble onto the Temporary Bus Changes page. There, you'll find a link to the same outdated Hammersmith Bridge Closure page, and you can also open the ' Changes to bus services in Hammersmith bridge area' PDF map - and again, it's from over three months ago, with none of the new changes introduced in the last three weeks. There's also no mention anywhere of the plan to redirect the 419 next month to terminate at Roehampton, rather than Barnes Pond. This isn't entirely surprising, as TfL appears to be running the Hammersmith Bridge bus services consultation in a unique way. First, it quietly decides on the changes; then, it works to implement them (with operators, councils, etc); and finally, a couple of weeks before the changes are due to be introduced, it announces them on the consultation page for the public to see, leaving no time for their input to have any effect on the changes that have already been finalised and signed off. Between 'consulting' with passengers on changes too late for their feedback to count, and abandoning prominent sections of its website with outdated information for months at a time, TfL's efforts to communicate with its customers really aren't getting any better. It’s effectively a rolling consultation, which allows people to give their views on the current situation whenever they want and potentially avoids customer services being swamped by the volume of correspondence received by the articulate residents of Barnes and Richmond. To my mind it’s not a bad thing, but I agree that co-ordination with communications about service changes is poor. The reintroduction of route 209 to Castelnau and extension of route 419 to Roehampton is probably the result of feedback gathered from the rolling consultation.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Aug 25, 2019 11:18:52 GMT
It’s effectively a rolling consultation, which allows people to give their views on the current situation whenever they want and potentially avoids customer services being swamped by the volume of correspondence received by the articulate residents of Barnes and Richmond. To my mind it’s not a bad thing, but I agree that co-ordination with communications about service changes is poor. The reintroduction of route 209 to Castelnau and extension of route 419 to Roehampton is probably the result of feedback gathered from the rolling consultation. I understand the principle of the rolling consultation, but I believe TfL's approach here is flawed. Your point about the 209/Castelnau and 419/Roehampton changes is a good one - but why do the changes have to be finalised before people get to voice their opinions on them? If TfL had had the time to consult with passengers immediately after the bridge closure, it would likely not have diverted the 209 to Putney at all. Of course, TfL needed to act quickly to restore some level of bus connectivity, but while it should be commended for since reversing that change, it can't be praised for now maintaining a new bus route that no-one asked for. The 378 provides a service that passengers literally campaigned against (albeit when the number on the front was 209); they told TfL, in no uncertain terms, that they did not need a link between Mortlake and Putney Bridge. But while usage of the 378 may be slowly growing, it seems absurd to provide a far-from-essential route when demand for bus capacity exists elsewhere. Now, we face the upcoming 419 change, and again, I have to ask why this plan can't be presented earlier to the public. Is TfL certain that this new connection is definitely what passengers want and need? We know that many in Roehampton simply want a direct link restored to Hammersmith Bridge south side, so the 419 plan ticks that box. But would passengers prefer restoring a direct link to Hammersmith itself, perhaps by extending the 533 to Roehampton instead of the 419, at a higher frequency? Do passengers in Roehampton see more value in getting a second link to Richmond with the 419 (in addition to the 493), or in restoring the lost link to Hammersmith Bus Station (or even beyond)? And how might the notoriously NIMBYesque residents around Suffolk and Verdun Roads react to a frequency boost on the 419, with the commensurate increase in buses that will pass their homes each day? Would everyone everywhere just be a lot happier if the 72 was somehow restored through to Roehampton? I agree with you that it's great for passengers to be able to have their say on the area's bus services at any time with the open rolling consultation. But TfL is losing the value of that feedback by denying passengers the opportunity to give their opinions on any specific service changes until it's too late to amend the plans ahead of their implementation date. Perhaps the 419's extension to Roehampton will be well-received. Perhaps it won't be. If it isn't, at what financial cost will the reversal come? And what price tag will be attached to whatever changes might then be implemented instead? Considerable sums are being spent on implementing changes that might have to be revised again later when the public's reaction is eventually considered. In these times of cuts to the wider bus network, how can that waste be justified? I give credit to TfL for making changes in response to feedback, and I'm sure that it will continue to do so. But in my opinion, the way it's running the consultation is problematic. No-one wanted the 378, and yet there it is, essentially existing so that drivers and vehicles displaced from the newly-shortened 209 have something to do. I struggle to see how we can applaud the consultation process for giving us this outcome. And while it's nice to give credit for TfL's willingness to reverse the changes it makes, I'm still left wondering why it wouldn't be more prudent to prevent misguided changes before they're made, rather than facing possible U-turns that could easily (and cheaply!) have been avoided. It makes every change that TfL implements under this consultation a potentially costly gamble on how passengers might react. Good lord, I've typed a lot. I should really learn when to STFU.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 25, 2019 12:40:40 GMT
It’s effectively a rolling consultation, which allows people to give their views on the current situation whenever they want and potentially avoids customer services being swamped by the volume of correspondence received by the articulate residents of Barnes and Richmond. To my mind it’s not a bad thing, but I agree that co-ordination with communications about service changes is poor. The reintroduction of route 209 to Castelnau and extension of route 419 to Roehampton is probably the result of feedback gathered from the rolling consultation. I understand the principle of the rolling consultation, but I believe TfL's approach here is flawed. Your point about the 209/Castelnau and 419/Roehampton changes is a good one - but why do the changes have to be finalised before people get to voice their opinions on them? If TfL had had the time to consult with passengers immediately after the bridge closure, it would likely not have diverted the 209 to Putney at all. Of course, TfL needed to act quickly to restore some level of bus connectivity, but while it should be commended for since reversing that change, it can't be praised for now maintaining a new bus route that no-one asked for. The 378 provides a service that passengers literally campaigned against (albeit when the number on the front was 209); they told TfL, in no uncertain terms, that they did not need a link between Mortlake and Putney Bridge. But while usage of the 378 may be slowly growing, it seems absurd to provide a far-from-essential route when demand for bus capacity exists elsewhere. Now, we face the upcoming 419 change, and again, I have to ask why this plan can't be presented earlier to the public. Is TfL certain that this new connection is definitely what passengers want and need? We know that many in Roehampton simply want a direct link restored to Hammersmith Bridge south side, so the 419 plan ticks that box. But would passengers prefer restoring a direct link to Hammersmith itself, perhaps by extending the 533 to Roehampton instead of the 419, at a higher frequency? Do passengers in Roehampton see more value in getting a second link to Richmond with the 419 (in addition to the 493), or in restoring the lost link to Hammersmith Bus Station (or even beyond)? And how might the notoriously NIMBYesque residents around Suffolk and Verdun Roads react to a frequency boost on the 419, with the commensurate increase in buses that will pass their homes each day? Would everyone everywhere just be a lot happier if the 72 was somehow restored through to Roehampton? I agree with you that it's great for passengers to be able to have their say on the area's bus services at any time with the open rolling consultation. But TfL is losing the value of that feedback by denying passengers the opportunity to give their opinions on any specific service changes until it's too late to amend the plans ahead of their implementation date. Perhaps the 419's extension to Roehampton will be well-received. Perhaps it won't be. If it isn't, at what financial cost will the reversal come? And what price tag will be attached to whatever changes might then be implemented instead? Considerable sums are being spent on implementing changes that might have to be revised again later when the public's reaction is eventually considered. In these times of cuts to the wider bus network, how can that waste be justified? I give credit to TfL for making changes in response to feedback, and I'm sure that it will continue to do so. But in my opinion, the way it's running the consultation is problematic. No-one wanted the 378, and yet there it is, essentially existing so that drivers and vehicles displaced from the newly-shortened 209 have something to do. I struggle to see how we can applaud the consultation process for giving us this outcome. And while it's nice to give credit for TfL's willingness to reverse the changes it makes, I'm still left wondering why it wouldn't be more prudent to prevent misguided changes before they're made, rather than facing possible U-turns that could easily (and cheaply!) have been avoided. It makes every change that TfL implements under this consultation a potentially costly gamble on how passengers might react. Good lord, I've typed a lot. I should really learn when to STFU. Indeed, thoroughly agree with you. I also find TfL very hypocritical that they site overbussing in other places and cut routes that are far more used but then proceed to grossly overbus the network in Barnes by introducing a route no one wants or asked for and refusing to restore the 72 via one of the bridges or increase the frequency of the 533 instead.
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 25, 2019 12:45:29 GMT
I understand the principle of the rolling consultation, but I believe TfL's approach here is flawed. Your point about the 209/Castelnau and 419/Roehampton changes is a good one - but why do the changes have to be finalised before people get to voice their opinions on them? If TfL had had the time to consult with passengers immediately after the bridge closure, it would likely not have diverted the 209 to Putney at all. Of course, TfL needed to act quickly to restore some level of bus connectivity, but while it should be commended for since reversing that change, it can't be praised for now maintaining a new bus route that no-one asked for. The 378 provides a service that passengers literally campaigned against (albeit when the number on the front was 209); they told TfL, in no uncertain terms, that they did not need a link between Mortlake and Putney Bridge. But while usage of the 378 may be slowly growing, it seems absurd to provide a far-from-essential route when demand for bus capacity exists elsewhere. Now, we face the upcoming 419 change, and again, I have to ask why this plan can't be presented earlier to the public. Is TfL certain that this new connection is definitely what passengers want and need? We know that many in Roehampton simply want a direct link restored to Hammersmith Bridge south side, so the 419 plan ticks that box. But would passengers prefer restoring a direct link to Hammersmith itself, perhaps by extending the 533 to Roehampton instead of the 419, at a higher frequency? Do passengers in Roehampton see more value in getting a second link to Richmond with the 419 (in addition to the 493), or in restoring the lost link to Hammersmith Bus Station (or even beyond)? And how might the notoriously NIMBYesque residents around Suffolk and Verdun Roads react to a frequency boost on the 419, with the commensurate increase in buses that will pass their homes each day? Would everyone everywhere just be a lot happier if the 72 was somehow restored through to Roehampton? I agree with you that it's great for passengers to be able to have their say on the area's bus services at any time with the open rolling consultation. But TfL is losing the value of that feedback by denying passengers the opportunity to give their opinions on any specific service changes until it's too late to amend the plans ahead of their implementation date. Perhaps the 419's extension to Roehampton will be well-received. Perhaps it won't be. If it isn't, at what financial cost will the reversal come? And what price tag will be attached to whatever changes might then be implemented instead? Considerable sums are being spent on implementing changes that might have to be revised again later when the public's reaction is eventually considered. In these times of cuts to the wider bus network, how can that waste be justified? I give credit to TfL for making changes in response to feedback, and I'm sure that it will continue to do so. But in my opinion, the way it's running the consultation is problematic. No-one wanted the 378, and yet there it is, essentially existing so that drivers and vehicles displaced from the newly-shortened 209 have something to do. I struggle to see how we can applaud the consultation process for giving us this outcome. And while it's nice to give credit for TfL's willingness to reverse the changes it makes, I'm still left wondering why it wouldn't be more prudent to prevent misguided changes before they're made, rather than facing possible U-turns that could easily (and cheaply!) have been avoided. It makes every change that TfL implements under this consultation a potentially costly gamble on how passengers might react. Good lord, I've typed a lot. I should really learn when to STFU. Indeed, thoroughly agree with you. I also find TfL very hypocritical that they site overbussing in other places and cut routes that are far more used but then proceed to grossly overbus the network in Barnes by introducing a route no one wants or asked for and refusing to restore the 72 via one of the bridges or increase the frequency of the 533 instead. It's ridiculous and I'm local to the area. On a selfish point of view I love the 378 but honestly it's not well used and yes no one asked for it. People would much rather have a more frequent service on the 533 than the introudction of the 378 but it's too late now. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 25, 2019 13:41:55 GMT
Indeed, thoroughly agree with you. I also find TfL very hypocritical that they site overbussing in other places and cut routes that are far more used but then proceed to grossly overbus the network in Barnes by introducing a route no one wants or asked for and refusing to restore the 72 via one of the bridges or increase the frequency of the 533 instead. It's ridiculous and I'm local to the area. On a selfish point of view I love the 378 but honestly it's not well used and yes no one asked for it. People would much rather have a more frequent service on the 533 than the introudction of the 378 but it's too late now. 🙄 Running the 72 over Putney Bridge and along the Lower Richmond Road to Barnes would more or less alleviate the end for the lightly used 378. The 533 would've been a better candidate to extend to Roehampton as it would reduce pressure on the Lonsdale Road stand to allow other routes to be increased. I suspect the only reason the 419 was picked is because it'll operated off the 72's contact in place of the 265 shorts, ie keeping the work with RATP.
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 25, 2019 14:00:04 GMT
It's ridiculous and I'm local to the area. On a selfish point of view I love the 378 but honestly it's not well used and yes no one asked for it. People would much rather have a more frequent service on the 533 than the introudction of the 378 but it's too late now. 🙄 Running the 72 over Putney Bridge and along the Lower Richmond Road to Barnes would more or less alleviate the end for the lightly used 378. The 533 would've been a better candidate to extend to Roehampton as it would reduce pressure on the Lonsdale Road stand to allow other routes to be increased. I suspect the only reason the 419 was picked is because it'll operated off the 72's contact in place of the 265 shorts, ie keeping the work with RATP. I wonder if Metroline retained the 209 it might have been a completely different story with an increase on the 533 rather than introducing the 378.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 25, 2019 14:15:01 GMT
I agree with many posts made that TFL are making too many changes to the network around Barnes which aren't necessarily beneficial. My suggested changes, for as long as the bridge remains closed:
33 - Remain terminating at Lonsdale Road.
72 - Restore to Roehampton, via the 220 to Putney Bridge then the 265. Converted to DD operation.
110 - Rerouted via St Margarets as proposed (along with other Richmond changes), but instead extended to Hammersmith via the 391 route. Frequency increased to every 15 minutes to match the shortened 391.
190 - Frequency increase (to every 12 mins, or even every 10), due to possible displaced passengers from the 419 between Hammersmith, North Sheen and Richmond.
209/533 - Route 209 extended from Mortlake to Hammersmith via route 533, though every other service could continue terminating at Mortlake.
265 - Rerouted from Barnes Station to Lonsdale Road via the former route 72. Putney Bridge link retained by revised 72 and route 85.
283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge north side to replace the 72.
306 - Acton-Sands End route to retain the 391 number, with the section to Richmond taken over by the revised 110.
378/419/485 - Merged to a single route from Richmond to Wandsworth, via route 419 to Lonsdale Road, then Castelnau, Barnes Wetland Centre, Rocks Lane, then via the proposed revised 485 to Wandsworth. Possible extension to the Wandsworth Riverside development. The 378's connection to the District Line is retained, but to East Putney instead of Putney Bridge. Operating around every 15 minutes.
In the event of Hammersmith Bridge reopening, I would keep the 72 running via Putney Bridge to relieve the 220 and to guarantee use of DDs on the busy route. I would extend the 33 back to Hammersmith, as well as extending the revised 265 to Hammersmith, but leave the 378/419 route fully south of the river. I would also restore the 209 to its original route, but keep the 283 at Hammersmith Bridge, with possible extension back to Barnes Pond, or even a merger with the 209 to Mortlake.
|
|