|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Jan 17, 2024 15:32:18 GMT
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. You could say it's a combination of routes. I.e the 123, 179, 366 and to an extent the 474. Also fun fact the SL2 will be restoring old links that have been lost over the years. The 179 Gants Hill to Barking link and the 69 to North Woolwich link before it was cut back in 1999 from Walthamstow. |
|
|
|
Post by buspete on Jan 17, 2024 16:21:19 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. Now I didn’t say stop at every bus stop, I said ‘more bus stops added’ where people want to actually go. Very few would want to get a bus fast from Sidcup to Bexleyheath, never alone to connect with another bus route. I mean add strategic bus routes like on the corner of Faraday Avenue/Foots Cray Lane, Brendon and one in Long Lane, maybe near the roundabout. What would the SL3 be called, X269 or X301? |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 17, 2024 16:22:19 GMT
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. Now I didn’t say stop at every bus stop, I said ‘more bus stops added’ where people want to actually go. Very few would want to get a bus fast from Sidcup to Bexleyheath, never alone to connect with another bus route. I mean add strategic bus routes like on the corner of Faraday Avenue/Foots Cray Lane, Brendon and one in Long Lane, maybe near the roundabout. What would the SL3 be called, X269 or X301? Prior to the adoption of the 'SL' numbers the SL3 was penciled in to be the X269. |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jan 19, 2024 10:09:30 GMT
I spent the day on Wednesday hopping around the Finchley and Hendon area for various reasons. My observations were that the SL10 had quite a lot of passengers on it throughout the afternoon in particular. I took one ride and it was pretty busy and I sat upstairs. My other observation was just how incredibly busy the 125 is now (perhaps largely to do with the sheer volume of new housing in Colindale, and hence journeys there to/from Hendon or Finchley) so I felt the SL10 routing in overlapping that bit of 125 as well as 183 may be set to do very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 19, 2024 11:00:20 GMT
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. I think there has been a calling for a direct bus from Grove Park/Bromley to North Greenwich for some time. Most frustrating thing about the SL4 is that it won't call at North Greenwich, one thinks the business case for Canary Wharf will be weakened if there is interchange to the Jubilee line from there. Another member has quoted Leon Daniels saying he sees some of the Superloop routes being downgraded to regular routes over time. This is my wish for the SL4; it's basically a normal route with just a non-stop tunnel section pretty much. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jan 19, 2024 14:19:23 GMT
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. I think there has been a calling for a direct bus from Grove Park/Bromley to North Greenwich for some time. Most frustrating thing about the SL4 is that it won't call at North Greenwich, one thinks the business case for Canary Wharf will be weakened if there is interchange to the Jubilee line from there. Another member has quoted Leon Daniels saying he sees some of the Superloop routes being downgraded to regular routes over time. This is my wish for the SL4; it's basically a normal route with just a non-stop tunnel section pretty much. Big issue with North Greenwich is the big double run to get there though I do think there’s a case that even an express route shouldn’t skip such a major interchange. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 19, 2024 14:39:58 GMT
I think there has been a calling for a direct bus from Grove Park/Bromley to North Greenwich for some time. Most frustrating thing about the SL4 is that it won't call at North Greenwich, one thinks the business case for Canary Wharf will be weakened if there is interchange to the Jubilee line from there. Another member has quoted Leon Daniels saying he sees some of the Superloop routes being downgraded to regular routes over time. This is my wish for the SL4; it's basically a normal route with just a non-stop tunnel section pretty much. Big issue with North Greenwich is the big double run to get there though I do think there’s a case that even an express route shouldn’t skip such a major interchange. It really shouldn't skip North Greenwich or even Canning Town - could you imagine an express bus in any other part of the UK being introduced and skipping two major interchange points? |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 19, 2024 15:28:32 GMT
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. I think there has been a calling for a direct bus from Grove Park/Bromley to North Greenwich for some time. Most frustrating thing about the SL4 is that it won't call at North Greenwich, one thinks the business case for Canary Wharf will be weakened if there is interchange to the Jubilee line from there. Another member has quoted Leon Daniels saying he sees some of the Superloop routes being downgraded to regular routes over time. This is my wish for the SL4; it's basically a normal route with just a non-stop tunnel section pretty much. Given that the Jubilee line goes from North Greenwich to Canary Wharf, I don’t see a case for having the SL4 stop at both North Greenwich and Canary Wharf. If it stops at North Greenwich, it may as well terminate there. It looks like TfL has seen demand for Blackheath and beyond to Canary Wharf and is catering for that. The SL4 idea was conceived before SuperLoop (x239!), so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a modification to make it limited stop throughout ahead of launch. Making the SL4 limited stop throughout may provide enough time to add an extra stop at North Greenwich and/or an extension at the southern end to connect with the SL3/5. The Silvertown tunnel looks like it’s progressing very well. Crazy to think it will be open next year, the time has flown by. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 19, 2024 16:21:35 GMT
I think there has been a calling for a direct bus from Grove Park/Bromley to North Greenwich for some time. Most frustrating thing about the SL4 is that it won't call at North Greenwich, one thinks the business case for Canary Wharf will be weakened if there is interchange to the Jubilee line from there. Another member has quoted Leon Daniels saying he sees some of the Superloop routes being downgraded to regular routes over time. This is my wish for the SL4; it's basically a normal route with just a non-stop tunnel section pretty much. Given that the Jubilee line goes from North Greenwich to Canary Wharf, I don’t see a case for having the SL4 stop at both North Greenwich and Canary Wharf. If it stops at North Greenwich, it may as well terminate there. It looks like TfL has seen demand for Blackheath and beyond to Canary Wharf and is catering for that. The SL4 idea was conceived before SuperLoop (x239!), so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a modification to make it limited stop throughout ahead of launch. Making the SL4 limited stop throughout may provide enough time to add an extra stop at North Greenwich and/or an extension at the southern end to connect with the SL3/5. The Silvertown tunnel looks like it’s progressing very well. Crazy to think it will be open next year, the time has flown by. I get the feeling that the X239 as originally conceived had an express (non-stop) section on the A102 and through the Tunnel, but would serve all bus stops on the non-express section (i.e. rather like the X68 did and SL6 still does). I also get the feeling that the X239 was planned as a stand-alone route for the Slivertown Tunnel rather than as part of a network of express routes (hence it seeming rather disjointed), and would still be going ahead even if the Superloop idea had been shelved. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 20, 2024 5:21:01 GMT
I think there has been a calling for a direct bus from Grove Park/Bromley to North Greenwich for some time. Most frustrating thing about the SL4 is that it won't call at North Greenwich, one thinks the business case for Canary Wharf will be weakened if there is interchange to the Jubilee line from there. Another member has quoted Leon Daniels saying he sees some of the Superloop routes being downgraded to regular routes over time. This is my wish for the SL4; it's basically a normal route with just a non-stop tunnel section pretty much. Given that the Jubilee line goes from North Greenwich to Canary Wharf, I don’t see a case for having the SL4 stop at both North Greenwich and Canary Wharf. If it stops at North Greenwich, it may as well terminate there. It looks like TfL has seen demand for Blackheath and beyond to Canary Wharf and is catering for that. The SL4 idea was conceived before SuperLoop (x239!), so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a modification to make it limited stop throughout ahead of launch. Making the SL4 limited stop throughout may provide enough time to add an extra stop at North Greenwich and/or an extension at the southern end to connect with the SL3/5. The Silvertown tunnel looks like it’s progressing very well. Crazy to think it will be open next year, the time has flown by. I agree it seems pointless, for another reason too. Route 129 will also be extended from North Greenwich through Silverlink Tunnel. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 20, 2024 9:45:01 GMT
Given that the Jubilee line goes from North Greenwich to Canary Wharf, I don’t see a case for having the SL4 stop at both North Greenwich and Canary Wharf. If it stops at North Greenwich, it may as well terminate there. It looks like TfL has seen demand for Blackheath and beyond to Canary Wharf and is catering for that. The SL4 idea was conceived before SuperLoop (x239!), so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a modification to make it limited stop throughout ahead of launch. Making the SL4 limited stop throughout may provide enough time to add an extra stop at North Greenwich and/or an extension at the southern end to connect with the SL3/5. The Silvertown tunnel looks like it’s progressing very well. Crazy to think it will be open next year, the time has flown by. I agree it seems pointless, for another reason too. Route 129 will also be extended from North Greenwich through Silverlink Tunnel. The 129 and SL4 will go in different directions north of the river: haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/19786/widgets/56145/documents/33785I would like to see the SL4 become limited stop throughout, skip North Greenwich and get extended south to Bromley if space can be created (can another route be squeezed in at Bromley North?). All stops services between North Greenwich and Lee are catered for via interchange with the 108 and 202. Canary Wharf is also a major destination in its own right for employment, leisure and interchange with the Lizzie line. At X239 frequencies, the SL4 will run every 8 minutes. That indicates heavy demand. TfL will have data from passengers travelling from the Grove Park and Lee area into Canary Wharf via rail into London Bridge then Jubilee Line. There will be data on journeys from that area using the 108 and Jubilee Line too. It will be interesting to see if the SL4 retains an 8 minute frequency. I think of it as a similar scenario with the old London Bridge bound 507 skipping Aldwych via the Kingsway underpass. Skipping that section saved 3-5 minutes on the journey time to Holborn. I reckon chopping out North Greenwich saves between 5-20 minutes of SL4 journey time depending on the time of day and the route taken in and out of North Greenwich Station. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jan 20, 2024 19:55:39 GMT
I agree it seems pointless, for another reason too. Route 129 will also be extended from North Greenwich through Silverlink Tunnel. The 129 and SL4 will go in different directions north of the river: haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/19786/widgets/56145/documents/33785I would like to see the SL4 become limited stop throughout, skip North Greenwich and get extended south to Bromley if space can be created (can another route be squeezed in at Bromley North?). All stops services between North Greenwich and Lee are catered for via interchange with the 108 and 202. Canary Wharf is also a major destination in its own right for employment, leisure and interchange with the Lizzie line. At X239 frequencies, the SL4 will run every 8 minutes. That indicates heavy demand. TfL will have data from passengers travelling from the Grove Park and Lee area into Canary Wharf via rail into London Bridge then Jubilee Line. There will be data on journeys from that area using the 108 and Jubilee Line too. It will be interesting to see if the SL4 retains an 8 minute frequency. I think of it as a similar scenario with the old London Bridge bound 507 skipping Aldwych via the Kingsway underpass. Skipping that section saved 3-5 minutes on the journey time to Holborn. I reckon chopping out North Greenwich saves between 5-20 minutes of SL4 journey time depending on the time of day and the route taken in and out of North Greenwich Station. As the X239 (now SL4) frequencies are counted into the requirements as part of building the tunnel I'd imagine that it will stay at 8 min despite the number change. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jan 20, 2024 20:18:06 GMT
The 129 and SL4 will go in different directions north of the river: haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/19786/widgets/56145/documents/33785I would like to see the SL4 become limited stop throughout, skip North Greenwich and get extended south to Bromley if space can be created (can another route be squeezed in at Bromley North?). All stops services between North Greenwich and Lee are catered for via interchange with the 108 and 202. Canary Wharf is also a major destination in its own right for employment, leisure and interchange with the Lizzie line. At X239 frequencies, the SL4 will run every 8 minutes. That indicates heavy demand. TfL will have data from passengers travelling from the Grove Park and Lee area into Canary Wharf via rail into London Bridge then Jubilee Line. There will be data on journeys from that area using the 108 and Jubilee Line too. It will be interesting to see if the SL4 retains an 8 minute frequency. I think of it as a similar scenario with the old London Bridge bound 507 skipping Aldwych via the Kingsway underpass. Skipping that section saved 3-5 minutes on the journey time to Holborn. I reckon chopping out North Greenwich saves between 5-20 minutes of SL4 journey time depending on the time of day and the route taken in and out of North Greenwich Station. As the X239 (now SL4) frequencies are counted into the requirements as part of building the tunnel I'd imagine that it will stay at 8 min despite the number change. I wouldn’t bet too much on that. It was supposed to be 40bph and it’s now what, 18bph? I am still sceptical how the SL4 will manage in the morning peak. Given how well-run the 132 is in the morning (on diversion using the 335 LOR half the time or getting short at sun-in-the-sands) I am not sure how it will work. The A102 is completely jammed at the best of times and will worsen as it will now also serve Silvertown tunnel plus all north-south roads to the west of it will be LTN’d in the near future |
|
|
|
Post by blakey1152 on Jan 21, 2024 23:16:58 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. Thamesmead has had 5 express routes in its time so not really a new thing there at all. These were the 177 Express, 53x, X53, X72 and 472. |
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Jan 25, 2024 4:33:57 GMT
SL5 timetable is finally here! |
|
