|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Jan 15, 2024 15:54:43 GMT
Same with the SL10, the times I’ve taken it there has been barely anyone on board. But the 183 still seems busy. The original “express” routes are the only real success stories and I don’t see that changing long term. The SL routes beyond that just seem like an expensive vanity, just give us more frequent services not this express bullshit. Will be interesting to see if they cut any routes a year from now or add any , and I think to start with they should of kept the "X" instead of the "SL" normal civillians probably think SL means something else most people are creatures of habit , I've read stories of people waiting for 34 and sitting in traffic instead of the SL . In regards to the SL1 I would give it time for the 34 passengers, slowly I think they'll warm up to that route especially if they know which stops it goes to specifically and then some will switch onto that route. I have seen it busy a few times when I've been around Walthamstow |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 15, 2024 16:08:26 GMT
I haven't seen the article but I think Leon may well be right, the SL3 for example I could see eventually becoming a normal all stops service replacing the 269 and 301. Just a random observation yesterday, I saw a few SL1's on the North Circular with very few passengers onboard whilst the 34 looked quite busy. Same with the SL10, the times I’ve taken it there has been barely anyone on board. But the 183 still seems busy. The original “express” routes are the only real success stories and I don’t see that changing long term. The SL routes beyond that just seem like an expensive vanity, just give us more frequent services not this express bullshit. The thing with existing X routes was as Vjaska has said with the X68 they kind of have their own passengers which have built up over time. The X68 structure suits a group of people wanting to get from North Croydon, Upper and west Norwood (U Norwood not having a station) into Central London fairly cheaply and the fast section with the flow journeys does it perfectly. You know like me coming from the same part of town that its very hard to get a train from Sutton to WP, New Malden and Kingston and the X26 was the closest thing to a train service with the higher freq 151/213 proving the regular service. X140 aswell was simply the time had come for the 140 to be split and this maintained a population Harrow to Heathrow link. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jan 15, 2024 16:17:36 GMT
Same with the SL10, the times I’ve taken it there has been barely anyone on board. But the 183 still seems busy. The original “express” routes are the only real success stories and I don’t see that changing long term. The SL routes beyond that just seem like an expensive vanity, just give us more frequent services not this express bullshit. The thing with existing X routes was as Vjaska has said with the X68 they kind of have their own passengers which have built up over time. The X68 structure suits a group of people wanting to get from North Croydon, Upper and west Norwood into Central London fairly cheaply and the fast section with the flow sections does it perfectly. You know like me coming from the same part of town that its very hard to get a train from Sutton to WP, New Malden and Kingston and the X26 was the closest thing to a train service with the higher freq 151/213 proving the regular service. X140 aswell was simply the time had come for the 140 to be split and this maintained a population Harrow to Heathrow link. I agree the increase to the x26 was a welcome one, perhaps slightly too frequent and not nearly as well run as when it was every 30m but that is another conversation. I just don’t and I never believed that the SL routes are well thought out. Like you say the x26, x68 and 607 catered to very specific markets. Even the 607 could have been done away with if the 207 and 427, with perhaps another bridging route, were given an high enough frequency. TfL should have targeted corridors it knows are busy like the 29s or 53s which would have been better. If I’m wrong I’m wrong but I think TfL have committed to a misguided idea which has yet again targeted the wrong people. Could we see the SL4 become the first TfL route to be cancelled score it even begins? |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Jan 15, 2024 16:51:02 GMT
I do agree I think central London could have benefited more from the superloop as it really only has the limited peak times SL6. As suggested above maybe run it along high demand corridors (18,25,29,149 etc), though I have a feeling traffic flows in areas are a major factor in deciding where superloop routes are to run.
I am a bit hesitant abour adding buses in the Wood Green area though, yes it needs a high number of buses but there are currently around 100bph (not an exaggeration) on the Turnpike Lane-Wood Green corridor. Might be part of the reason why tfl have proposed to remove the 123 & 232 from that corridor.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 15, 2024 17:09:24 GMT
I do agree I think central London could have benefited more from the superloop as it really only has the limited peak times SL6. As suggested above maybe run it along high demand corridors (18,25,29,149 etc), though I have a feeling traffic flows in areas are a major factor in deciding where superloop routes are to run. I am a bit hesitant abour adding buses in the Wood Green area though, yes it needs a high number of buses but there are currently around 100bph (not an exaggeration) on the Turnpike Lane-Wood Green corridor. Might be part of the reason why tfl have proposed to remove the 123 & 232 from that corridor. Running an express route in Central London or close to it is not only asking for it to be bogged down in traffic due to terrible traffic management but also, the only reason the SL6 is still a thing is because of the unique and specific purpose it has provided since it's creation. The routes you mention all have tube or rail options, sometimes several, unlike the X68 corridor and South London in general which has to mainly rely on a unreliable railway network and some black spots such as Upper Norwood. The SL6 also benefits from running along a corridor that isn't as prone to traffic as other corridors. Until the powers at be actually significantly reduce congestion across the board and/or put in substantial priority for buses, express routes in Central & Inner London will only exist in an exceptional circumstance |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Jan 15, 2024 17:18:48 GMT
The thing with existing X routes was as Vjaska has said with the X68 they kind of have their own passengers which have built up over time. The X68 structure suits a group of people wanting to get from North Croydon, Upper and west Norwood into Central London fairly cheaply and the fast section with the flow sections does it perfectly. You know like me coming from the same part of town that its very hard to get a train from Sutton to WP, New Malden and Kingston and the X26 was the closest thing to a train service with the higher freq 151/213 proving the regular service. X140 aswell was simply the time had come for the 140 to be split and this maintained a population Harrow to Heathrow link. I agree the increase to the x26 was a welcome one, perhaps slightly too frequent and not nearly as well run as when it was every 30m but that is another conversation. I just don’t and I never believed that the SL routes are well thought out. Like you say the x26, x68 and 607 catered to very specific markets. Even the 607 could have been done away with if the 207 and 427, with perhaps another bridging route, were given an high enough frequency. TfL should have targeted corridors it knows are busy like the 29s or 53s which would have been better. If I’m wrong I’m wrong but I think TfL have committed to a misguided idea which has yet again targeted the wrong people. Could we see the SL4 become the first TfL route to be cancelled score it even begins? I just hope someone in those towers locates some sense and try and figure out a way to connect it to the other Superloop routes. I and I think someone else on here has mentioned the only place in Bromley to maybe extend it to is The Crown bus stand. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 15, 2024 22:34:43 GMT
The thing with existing X routes was as Vjaska has said with the X68 they kind of have their own passengers which have built up over time. The X68 structure suits a group of people wanting to get from North Croydon, Upper and west Norwood into Central London fairly cheaply and the fast section with the flow sections does it perfectly. You know like me coming from the same part of town that its very hard to get a train from Sutton to WP, New Malden and Kingston and the X26 was the closest thing to a train service with the higher freq 151/213 proving the regular service. X140 aswell was simply the time had come for the 140 to be split and this maintained a population Harrow to Heathrow link. I agree the increase to the x26 was a welcome one, perhaps slightly too frequent and not nearly as well run as when it was every 30m but that is another conversation. I just don’t and I never believed that the SL routes are well thought out. Like you say the x26, x68 and 607 catered to very specific markets. Even the 607 could have been done away with if the 207 and 427, with perhaps another bridging route, were given an high enough frequency. TfL should have targeted corridors it knows are busy like the 29s or 53s which would have been better. If I’m wrong I’m wrong but I think TfL have committed to a misguided idea which has yet again targeted the wrong people. Could we see the SL4 become the first TfL route to be cancelled score it even begins? Whether or not that happens, there needs to be a certain volume of buses per hour running through Silvertown Tunnel. In the initial stages the proposal was 40bph, then it watered down to 40 buses in both directions and then 25bph one way, but that figure now includes Blackwall Tunnel as well. The original South Newham development papers had the 104B (or 304), 129 and 330 all proposing to use the tunnel to make up that quota. Obviously that's not going to happen now, however I'm sure the remit granted to TfL to construct the tunnel is conditional to sufficient public transport usage. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 16, 2024 5:02:38 GMT
I agree the increase to the x26 was a welcome one, perhaps slightly too frequent and not nearly as well run as when it was every 30m but that is another conversation. I just don’t and I never believed that the SL routes are well thought out. Like you say the x26, x68 and 607 catered to very specific markets. Even the 607 could have been done away with if the 207 and 427, with perhaps another bridging route, were given an high enough frequency. TfL should have targeted corridors it knows are busy like the 29s or 53s which would have been better. If I’m wrong I’m wrong but I think TfL have committed to a misguided idea which has yet again targeted the wrong people. Could we see the SL4 become the first TfL route to be cancelled score it even begins? Whether or not that happens, there needs to be a certain volume of buses per hour running through Silvertown Tunnel. In the initial stages the proposal was 40bph, then it watered down to 40 buses in both directions and then 25bph one way, but that figure now includes Blackwall Tunnel as well. The original South Newham development papers had the 104B (or 304), 129 and 330 all proposing to use the tunnel to make up that quota. Obviously that's not going to happen now, however I'm sure the remit granted to TfL to construct the tunnel is conditional to sufficient public transport usage. They could look at extending an existing route from North Greenwich through the tunnel and just run a regular all stop routes from say Kidbrooke to Canary Whalf. I'm not sure there is going to be huge bus demand from South london across to CW and neither do I really think the extra capacity between Grove Park and Blackheath is needed over the 202/261. I haven't heard anything that either route is particularly struggling. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 16, 2024 10:27:01 GMT
I do agree I think central London could have benefited more from the superloop as it really only has the limited peak times SL6. As suggested above maybe run it along high demand corridors (18,25,29,149 etc), though I have a feeling traffic flows in areas are a major factor in deciding where superloop routes are to run. I am a bit hesitant abour adding buses in the Wood Green area though, yes it needs a high number of buses but there are currently around 100bph (not an exaggeration) on the Turnpike Lane-Wood Green corridor. Might be part of the reason why tfl have proposed to remove the 123 & 232 from that corridor. Nothing wrong with 100 buses per hour, as long as they are not going to the same destination. Do people complain when there are 5000 cars per hour using a street? No. So why should we see this as a problem, this is what is hitting buses across the country anti bus agenda. For example on the trains, you probably have near 60+ trains an hour between Finsbury Park and Kings Cross via National Rail, Victoria line and Piccadilly line. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jan 16, 2024 19:31:36 GMT
Same with the SL10, the times I’ve taken it there has been barely anyone on board. But the 183 still seems busy. The original “express” routes are the only real success stories and I don’t see that changing long term. The SL routes beyond that just seem like an expensive vanity, just give us more frequent services not this express bullshit. Will be interesting to see if they cut any routes a year from now or add any , and I think to start with they should of kept the "X" instead of the "SL" normal civillians probably think SL means something else most people are creatures of habit , I've read stories of people waiting for 34 and sitting in traffic instead of the SL . Need to give it some time imo and for some of the 25km of promised bus lanes to be allocated to the SL routes. |
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Jan 16, 2024 19:35:40 GMT
Same with the SL10, the times I’ve taken it there has been barely anyone on board. But the 183 still seems busy. The original “express” routes are the only real success stories and I don’t see that changing long term. The SL routes beyond that just seem like an expensive vanity, just give us more frequent services not this express bullshit. Will be interesting to see if they cut any routes a year from now or add any , and I think to start with they should of kept the "X" instead of the "SL" normal civillians probably think SL means something else most people are creatures of habit , I've read stories of people waiting for 34 and sitting in traffic instead of the SL . That’s interesting because there weren’t any traditional ‘X’ routes in the sections covered by the SL10 to SL3. So for most people, express routes are a new thing entirely in areas like Walthamstow, Ilford, Thamesmead, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by buspete on Jan 16, 2024 19:45:49 GMT
The 301 was devised to be a fast link from Bexleyheath to Thamesmead via the Elizabeth Line, that was the reason the route was created. But now a faster link is necessary the SL3 which is super express. Can I see why people would want a pacific fast link from Sidcup, then non stop to Bexleyheath orfrom Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood only stopping at the station, no bus stop is common with the 301.
I too can see more bus stops being added.
|
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 17, 2024 11:47:12 GMT
The 301 was devised to be a fast link from Bexleyheath to Thamesmead via the Elizabeth Line, that was the reason the route was created. But now a faster link is necessary the SL3 which is super express. Can I see why people would want a pacific fast link from Sidcup, then non stop to Bexleyheath orfrom Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood only stopping at the station, no bus stop is common with the 301. I too can see more bus stops being added. There is a common stop on the SL3 with the B11 and 301 at Abbey Wood station. Also there are additional common stops with the B11 in Bexleyheath. If I’m travelling from Abbey Wood to Sidcup and beyond, I don’t want the bus stopping every other stop. It defeats the purpose. The 301 is already very fast and direct. It is also very reliable - DT are to be applauded, they’ve done a solid job on the 301. My main concern about the SL3 and SL5 is that they will be over-bussed in the evenings. I’m surprised to see late evening services on some of these SuperLoop routes. It made sense in West London where demand had been built up by the 607 and the 140 was being chopped in two. Even the 607 for many years had limited operating times after it was first introduced. On the SL3 corridor, evening loadings on the 229 and 269 aren’t exactly bursting at the seams. I would have thought a more sensible approach would have been to run services until around 8pm each evening and review a later evening service based on acquired demand. I think there will be a lot of SL3 and SL5 buses running around at night carrying fresh air. Still, don’t want to seem like a negative Nelly, the SL3 will be a fantastic addition for my area. I was in central London earlier this week hopping about on New Routemasters and I’m excited at the prospect of seeing them in my area for the first time in regular service. I completely agree with the sentiments around the “X” prefix being more appropriate vs the non-intuitive “SL”. In saying that, the best thing that can be done to make these routes a success is to get rid of 20mph speed limits on large open roads and to improve bus prioritisation measures. |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Jan 17, 2024 15:01:24 GMT
Will be interesting to see if they cut any routes a year from now or add any , and I think to start with they should of kept the "X" instead of the "SL" normal civillians probably think SL means something else most people are creatures of habit , I've read stories of people waiting for 34 and sitting in traffic instead of the SL . That’s interesting because there weren’t any traditional ‘X’ routes in the sections covered by the SL10 to SL3. So for most people, express routes are a new thing entirely in areas like Walthamstow, Ilford, Thamesmead, etc. Yes but if you use the 34 all the time and a new X34 comes along you know that follows the 34 route whereas with SL3 you won't know where that route goes as such doesn't help not having via points either . |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 17, 2024 15:08:07 GMT
That’s interesting because there weren’t any traditional ‘X’ routes in the sections covered by the SL10 to SL3. So for most people, express routes are a new thing entirely in areas like Walthamstow, Ilford, Thamesmead, etc. Yes but if you use the 34 all the time and a new X34 comes along you know that follows the 34 route whereas with SL3 you won't know where that route goes as such doesn't help not having via points either . Would be fine if its the SL1, but the SL2 for example has little to do with the 123. The whole Ilford to North Woolwich section is more related to the 366. |
|
