|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 27, 2021 17:39:22 GMT
With my enthusiast's head on, it will be strange to see two routes I associate with outer South East London (1 to Bromley, 21 to Sidcup, Swanley and beyond!) migrating towards inner North London. It's also interesting to note the growth in importance of the 168 over the years: the traditional 68 only made it as far as Chalk Farm, and the 168 on introduction often used LSs. I agree : 21 to Holloway will take some getting used to. At least the traditional 21 down to Sidcup still has a 21-ish identity as 321. Particularly as route 21 currently replicates a former route 141 link from New Cross to Newington Green. I have never known a through bus from New Cross to Holloway before.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 27, 2021 17:41:20 GMT
I agree : 21 to Holloway will take some getting used to. At least the traditional 21 down to Sidcup still has a 21-ish identity as 321. Indeed it definitely will. I can’t imagine seeing Holloway, Nags Head as a destination in the middle of Lewisham! Just wait until LTs come due for withdrawal and route 21 is awarded to Metroline (HT).
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 27, 2021 17:42:29 GMT
An unintended consequence is that route 1 becomes a bit more high profile, I think it's always been a bit of a Cinderella route over the years. I think it is an intended consequence. Diverting route 1 to Hampstead Heath is a bigger change than diverting route 168 to Canada Water would have been. It's only provisionally numbered route 1 in the consultation so it could yet change....... I would say the number 1 would be better than 168 but it probably doesn't matter too much either way.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 27, 2021 17:46:07 GMT
I forgot that the 1 goes that way. Had I remembered that from my time on driving the 188 I would have answered my own question regarding LTs on the 1. However Surrey Quays Shopping Centre is due to de demolished in 2022, so perhaps a slight reroute would allow the new 1 to gain LTs. Not all that long after the closure and demolition of Elephant & Castle shopping centre, not far away.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 27, 2021 17:48:11 GMT
I think it is an intended consequence. Diverting route 1 to Hampstead Heath is a bigger change than diverting route 168 to Canada Water would have been. It's only provisionally numbered route 1 in the consultation so it could yet change....... I would say the number 1 would be better than 168 but it probably doesn't matter too much either way. Mind you .... for all we know, it will keep the 168 number, then the Tottenham Court Road - Canada Water route could be diverted via route 188 and extended to North Greenwich but retain the number 1, meaning number 188 instead of 168 disappears.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 27, 2021 18:03:31 GMT
I think it is an intended consequence. Diverting route 1 to Hampstead Heath is a bigger change than diverting route 168 to Canada Water would have been. It's only provisionally numbered route 1 in the consultation so it could yet change....... I would say the number 1 would be better than 168 but it probably doesn't matter too much either way. I speculate the 1 ident is likely to be kept as lower numbers tend to be a trend for Central London routes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 27, 2021 18:26:13 GMT
Thats the 168 not tendered then. I'm slightly surprised they didn't cut the 188 to Elephant aswell and something else the 59/68 divert to TCR. What they could have done to make the scheme more radical would be this: 1 rerouted between Bricklayers Arms and Canada Water via route 188 and extend it to North Greenwich, but not divert it to Hampstead Heath 68 extended from Euston to Hampstead Heath 155 or 333 extended from Elephant & Castle to Canada Water via route 1 Routes 168 & 188 both withdrawn Extending either the 155 or 333 would make either route quite lengthy and I wouldn’t want the 333 to become less unreliable. I’d argue the same for the 68 too
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Nov 27, 2021 21:49:53 GMT
Thats the 168 not tendered then. I'm slightly surprised they didn't cut the 188 to Elephant aswell and something else the 59/68 divert to TCR. What they could have done to make the scheme more radical would be this: 1 rerouted between Bricklayers Arms and Canada Water via route 188 and extend it to North Greenwich, but not divert it to Hampstead Heath 68 extended from Euston to Hampstead Heath 155 or 333 extended from Elephant & Castle to Canada Water via route 1 Routes 168 & 188 both withdrawn What is the thing is the 1 use to run to Greenwich Cutty Sark one many changes and other way to Willesden AC also the southern end Lewisham So here how 1 when as From Willesden to Greenwich then change to Lewisham then Cut back to Marylebone then later to Tottenham court road then to Surry Quays So that why I want 1 to be extend to Marylebone via 14 and 18
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 27, 2021 22:45:37 GMT
What they could have done to make the scheme more radical would be this: 1 rerouted between Bricklayers Arms and Canada Water via route 188 and extend it to North Greenwich, but not divert it to Hampstead Heath 68 extended from Euston to Hampstead Heath 155 or 333 extended from Elephant & Castle to Canada Water via route 1 Routes 168 & 188 both withdrawn Extending either the 155 or 333 would make either route quite lengthy and I wouldn’t want the 333 to become less unreliable. I’d argue the same for the 68 too I’m not at all sure the good people of Southwark Park Road/The Blue would appreciate losing a direct Central London link in the 1 in favour of a 155 or 333 that means a change of bus along the way.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 27, 2021 23:54:28 GMT
Extending either the 155 or 333 would make either route quite lengthy and I wouldn’t want the 333 to become less unreliable. I’d argue the same for the 68 too I’m not at all sure the good people of Southwark Park Road/The Blue would appreciate losing a direct Central London link in the 1 in favour of a 155 or 333 that means a change of bus along the way. Whislt I'm sure there is some appreciation of the direct link I do think the 1 is very much a feeder into either Canada Water or Elephant for the tube along Southwark Park Road so an extension/diversion of the 45 or 415 to CW might have been an option.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Nov 28, 2021 9:17:49 GMT
In an age where lengthy and busy trunk routes like the 53 and possibly the 180 are being cut back for inane reasons, merging the routes 1 & 168 into the route 1 so it becomes a CW to Hampstead route and extending the 21 up to Holloway are both bizarre moves, and are the opposite of what TfL has been doing to the bus network in the last five years or so which was to make some bus routes into Tube feeder services by having them run into tube/CrossRail hubs .
Might we yet see the 53’s trundle through Piccadilly en route to Camden once again?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 28, 2021 9:29:03 GMT
In an age where lengthy and busy trunk routes like the 53 and possibly the 180 are being cut back for inane reasons, merging the routes 1 & 168 into the route 1 so it becomes a CW to Hampstead route and extending the 21 up to Holloway are both bizarre moves, and are the opposite of what TfL has been doing to the bus network in the last five years or so which was to make some bus routes into Tube feeder services by having them run into tube/CrossRail hubs . Might we yet see the 53’s trundle through Piccadilly again? TfL seem to have woken up to the fact that they need to make some savings, the alternative would have been to curtail the 21 at Moorgate and the 168 at Holborn. I wouldn't hold your breath on the 53 but who knows?
|
|
|
Post by greg on Dec 7, 2021 5:46:09 GMT
Will there be any changes to the N1 or is to continue as the current route between TCR and Thamesmead?
Think it would be sensible to renumber N1 to N188 now and reroute between Elephant and Greenwich via the 188
The new 1 between Hampstead Heath and Canada Water being a 24 hour instead or daily even as the 168 is a daily route
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 7, 2021 6:09:31 GMT
Will there be any changes to the N1 or is to continue as the current route between TCR and Thamesmead? Think it would be sensible to renumber N1 to N188 now and reroute between Elephant and Greenwich via the 188 The new 1 between Hampstead Heath and Canada Water being a 24 hour instead or daily even as the 168 is a daily route According to the consultation the N1 will be retained in its current form. If you are going to reroute the N1 (or new N188) via Jamaica Road then the new 1 should be 24 hour as you say in order to serve that part of Bermondsey otherwise unserved by night buses. However, trouble with that is that most of the northern section of the new 1 is duplicated by the N5. Also worth noting by combining the N1 and 188 you'd be losing the Greenwich-North Greenwich connection as I assume its more important to continue running to Thamesmead, but this could be made up by making the 129 24 hour. Long story short, I think its best to keep the 188 and N1 as they are. Routes such as the N68 and N171 run to TCR without their day routes and that seems to work so I don't think it would cause much confusion even if the 188 ran to TCR.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 7, 2021 13:07:20 GMT
Will there be any changes to the N1 or is to continue as the current route between TCR and Thamesmead? Think it would be sensible to renumber N1 to N188 now and reroute between Elephant and Greenwich via the 188 The new 1 between Hampstead Heath and Canada Water being a 24 hour instead or daily even as the 168 is a daily route According to the consultation the N1 will be retained in its current form. If you are going to reroute the N1 (or new N188) via Jamaica Road then the new 1 should be 24 hour as you say in order to serve that part of Bermondsey otherwise unserved by night buses. However, trouble with that is that most of the northern section of the new 1 is duplicated by the N5. Also worth noting by combining the N1 and 188 you'd be losing the Greenwich-North Greenwich connection as I assume its more important to continue running to Thamesmead, but this could be made up by making the 129 24 hour. Long story short, I think its best to keep the 188 and N1 as they are. Routes such as the N68 and N171 run to TCR without their day routes and that seems to work so I don't think it would cause much confusion even if the 188 ran to TCR. And what's the problem with that? The N5 got savagely cut to 2bph post Night Tube and going by consultations dolled out by TfL, they cut the N5 with PVR projections based on near 100% capacity. I'd like to see the 1 have some night variant north of Holborn. There is demand at night for a direct bus from Elephant & Castle up to Camden; late and early buses on the 168 are generally busy which suggests there is demand at night. The Night Tube only runs two nights a week whereas the night bus network runs 363 nights a year. It's an accessory to late night travel, not an alternative. As busocculation has previously said, easiest way to achieve a night time link over the newly formed 1 is to re-number the N1 into N180 without any changes to the route structure and make the 1 24 hours.
|
|