|
|
Post by george on Aug 13, 2020 21:19:21 GMT
In the nicest possible way isn't this pretty much what I posted earlier? And does it matter at the end of the day. Richard posted a new link with the news story. Said it before repeated info better than none. Forum seems in a funny place at the moment. To be honest if you posted something and I saw it I wouldn't post exactly the same thing but from another website/source. Can we imagine if we all did that? but that's just me. I'm not saying because I posted something no one else should far from it my point is that I personally don't see the point of repeating the exact same thing twice on the same thread as well. I just guess my opinion on this kind of thing is different. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 13, 2020 21:34:47 GMT
And does it matter at the end of the day. Richard posted a new link with the news story. Said it before repeated info better than none. Forum seems in a funny place at the moment. To be honest if you posted something and I saw it I wouldn't post exactly the same thing but from another website/source. Can we imagine if we all did that? but that's just me. I'm not saying because I posted something no one else should far from it my point is that I personally don't see the point of repeating the exact same thing twice on the same thread as well. I just guess my opinion on this kind of thing is different. Yes it does get rather tiresome when the same thing is posted again and again and it just clutters up the forum......... before I report something I'll have a quick look through recent postings to see if anyone else has already done so. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 13, 2020 21:38:21 GMT
Yes it does get rather tiresome when the same thing is posted again and again and it just clutters up the forum......... before I report something I'll have a quick look through recent postings to see if anyone else has already done so. I don't think there is a need to report anything. I mean report as in a odd working etc |
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 13, 2020 21:44:33 GMT
To be honest if you posted something and I saw it I wouldn't post exactly the same thing but from another website/source. Can we imagine if we all did that? but that's just me. I'm not saying because I posted something no one else should far from it my point is that I personally don't see the point of repeating the exact same thing twice on the same thread as well. I just guess my opinion on this kind of thing is different. Yes it does get rather tiresome when the same thing is posted again and again and it just clutters up the forum......... before I report something I'll have a quick look through recent postings to see if anyone else has already done so. To be honest I shouldn't probably write a message like that but my feelings towards it are the same. My post wasn't a personal thing I would feel the same I saw someone else post an article and then the same thing is repeated. For example if someone posted an article from Railway magazine about the 707 moving to Southeastern and hour later I personally couldn't post the same story but this time from Modern Railways magazine. Anyway I guess I'm in the minority here but I will apologise to @dannyb and richard my post wasn't personal at all. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 13, 2020 21:47:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 13, 2020 21:47:50 GMT
Yes it does get rather tiresome when the same thing is posted again and again and it just clutters up the forum......... before I report something I'll have a quick look through recent postings to see if anyone else has already done so. To be honest I shouldn't probably write a message like that but my feelings towards it are the same. My post wasn't a personal thing I would feel the same I saw someone else post an article and then the same thing is repeated. For example if someone posted an article from Railway magazine about the 707 moving to Southeastern and hour later I personally couldn't post the same story but this time from Modern Railways magazine. Anyway I guess I'm in the minority here but I will apologise to @dannyb and richard my post wasn't personal at all. No need to apologise. The good thing about posting articles is there is some new bits in that wasn't mentioned beforehand. |
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 13, 2020 21:49:32 GMT
To be honest I shouldn't probably write a message like that but my feelings towards it are the same. My post wasn't a personal thing I would feel the same I saw someone else post an article and then the same thing is repeated. For example if someone posted an article from Railway magazine about the 707 moving to Southeastern and hour later I personally couldn't post the same story but this time from Modern Railways magazine. Anyway I guess I'm in the minority here but I will apologise to @dannyb and richard my post wasn't personal at all. No need to apologise. The good thing about posting articles is there is some new bits in that wasn't mentioned beforehand. No I should apologise sometimes I need to think is that really a sensible post before posting. |
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Aug 13, 2020 22:27:35 GMT
Personally I see the 533 becoming a VERY important link here and should merit a frequency increase and capacity increase. Every 15min with deckers would suffice nicely and would still provide room for social distancing.
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 13, 2020 22:39:41 GMT
Personally I see the 533 becoming a VERY important link here and should merit a frequency increase and capacity increase. Every 15min with deckers would suffice nicely and would still provide room for social distancing. I agree. I also think that it should be a permanent route because there’s no telling how long Hammersmith Bridge will be out. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 13, 2020 22:59:59 GMT
Personally I see the 533 becoming a VERY important link here and should merit a frequency increase and capacity increase. Every 15min with deckers would suffice nicely and would still provide room for social distancing. I agree. I also think that it should be a permanent route because there’s no telling how long Hammersmith Bridge will be out. Doesn't look good when Google maps have completely removed it i.imgur.com/QMQBZ6s.png |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 13, 2020 23:49:06 GMT
Personally I see the 533 becoming a VERY important link here and should merit a frequency increase and capacity increase. Every 15min with deckers would suffice nicely and would still provide room for social distancing. Personally, from all the talk I've heard along with my own, albeit, sole experience of the 533, it should of already had a frequency increase before, maybe in a seasonal sense but yes, entirely agree with you  |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 14, 2020 0:51:05 GMT
Since Hammersmith Bridge has closed (whether temporary or permanent), changes to the bus network in the area seem too complicated, with a number of quite short routes, many of which have excess capacity. If the bridge were to remain closed to traffic permanently (or for a long time), I would suggest making the following changes:
33 - Unchanged, continuing to terminate at Castelnau. Consider converting to DDs.
72 - Re-extended from Hammersmith to Roehampton, but via Putney Bridge, and converted to DDs. Restores some links, and relieves the 220 between Hammersmith and Putney.
265 - Withdrawn between Putney Bridge and Barnes Station, instead extended to Castelnau.
283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge north side, replacing the 72.
209/533 - Merged to operate between Hammersmith and Castelnau via Chiswick Bridge, Mortlake and Barnes - but via the 209 in both directions between Barnes Bridge and Castelnau. Fixed bus stops could be installed along Great West Road near Hammersmith.
419 - Merged with the 378/485 to operate between Richmond and Wandsworth Riverside, via the existing 419 to Castelnau/Barnes, then via Putney Common, Putney High Street, East Putney Station and Wandsworth Town Centre. The 378's current link to Putney Bridge is replaced by serving the District Line at East Putney instead.
If Hammersmith Bridge were to reopen, it has been suggested that bus capacity would have to be reduced from the service patterns before the closure. I would introduce a core route over the bridge, which would merge the existing 209 and 283, operating between East Acton and Mortlake - with the 533 withdrawn. This could potentially be supplemented by extending the 33 or revised 265 to Hammersmith. I would keep my revised 72 and 419 unchanged.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 14, 2020 2:05:01 GMT
Since Hammersmith Bridge has closed (whether temporary or permanent), changes to the bus network in the area seem too complicated, with a number of quite short routes, many of which have excess capacity. If the bridge were to remain closed to traffic permanently (or for a long time), I would suggest making the following changes: 33 - Unchanged, continuing to terminate at Castelnau. Consider converting to DDs. 72 - Re-extended from Hammersmith to Roehampton, but via Putney Bridge, and converted to DDs. Restores some links, and relieves the 220 between Hammersmith and Putney. 265 - Withdrawn between Putney Bridge and Barnes Station, instead extended to Castelnau. 283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge north side, replacing the 72. 209/533 - Merged to operate between Hammersmith and Castelnau via Chiswick Bridge, Mortlake and Barnes - but via the 209 in both directions between Barnes Bridge and Castelnau. Fixed bus stops could be installed along Great West Road near Hammersmith. 419 - Merged with the 378/485 to operate between Richmond and Wandsworth Riverside, via the existing 419 to Castelnau/Barnes, then via Putney Common, Putney High Street, East Putney Station and Wandsworth Town Centre. The 378's current link to Putney Bridge is replaced by serving the District Line at East Putney instead. If Hammersmith Bridge were to reopen, it has been suggested that bus capacity would have to be reduced from the service patterns before the closure. I would introduce a core route over the bridge, which would merge the existing 209 and 283, operating between East Acton and Mortlake - with the 533 withdrawn. This could potentially be supplemented by extending the 33 or revised 265 to Hammersmith. I would keep my revised 72 and 419 unchanged. I think this is actually pretty well thought out - the only change I'd make is to have the merged 419/378/485 route continue to start from Wandsworth (preferably from Southside) and then either ignore Wandsworth Riverside or double run via Wandsworth Riverside. |
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 14, 2020 8:33:03 GMT
Since Hammersmith Bridge has closed (whether temporary or permanent), changes to the bus network in the area seem too complicated, with a number of quite short routes, many of which have excess capacity. If the bridge were to remain closed to traffic permanently (or for a long time), I would suggest making the following changes: 33 - Unchanged, continuing to terminate at Castelnau. Consider converting to DDs. 72 - Re-extended from Hammersmith to Roehampton, but via Putney Bridge, and converted to DDs. Restores some links, and relieves the 220 between Hammersmith and Putney. 265 - Withdrawn between Putney Bridge and Barnes Station, instead extended to Castelnau. 283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge north side, replacing the 72. 209/533 - Merged to operate between Hammersmith and Castelnau via Chiswick Bridge, Mortlake and Barnes - but via the 209 in both directions between Barnes Bridge and Castelnau. Fixed bus stops could be installed along Great West Road near Hammersmith. 419 - Merged with the 378/485 to operate between Richmond and Wandsworth Riverside, via the existing 419 to Castelnau/Barnes, then via Putney Common, Putney High Street, East Putney Station and Wandsworth Town Centre. The 378's current link to Putney Bridge is replaced by serving the District Line at East Putney instead. If Hammersmith Bridge were to reopen, it has been suggested that bus capacity would have to be reduced from the service patterns before the closure. I would introduce a core route over the bridge, which would merge the existing 209 and 283, operating between East Acton and Mortlake - with the 533 withdrawn. This could potentially be supplemented by extending the 33 or revised 265 to Hammersmith. I would keep my revised 72 and 419 unchanged. I like these ideas as well personally if you was to convert the 33 to double decker then I think there would be no need to carry the 265 all the way down the bridge. However one thing that must not go is the Roehampton to Barnes Station link so slightly rerouting you're idea so it serves Barnes Pond instead could work out. |
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Aug 14, 2020 8:55:00 GMT
I would extend the 533 so that:
Anticklockwise - Current 533 then down to Lower Richmond Road,Putney Bridge,Fulham Palace Road to Hammersmith (Blinds show Hammersmith ANTICLOCKWISE)
Clockwise - Fulham Palace Road, Putney Bridge, Lower Richmond Road then up to Castelnau then current 533 to Hammersmith (Blinds show Hammersmith CLOCKWISE)
To increase 533 service and relieve pressure between Putney Bridge & Hammersmith
|
|
