|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Apr 3, 2024 8:01:19 GMT
Given how many long distance passengers are there on some of the routes (eg 53, which has good loads even at midnight), there is scope for a full blown (or multiple!) express routes I would have had some of the following (money not an objection!) X53: plumstead - woolwich (along the 122 corridor) - Charlton village - Blackheath royal standard - Deptford bridge - New Cross - OKR Tesco - Elephant and castle - Lambeth North - st Thomas - Trafalgar Square - Russell Square X21: lewisham - New Cross - OKR Tesco - elephant and castle - Waterloo - aldwych - Russell Square? Trafalgar Square? X36: Lewisham - New Cross - Peckham - Camberwell green - oval - Vauxhall - Victoria Of course we don’t yet know what form the proposed express bus route would take. It may just be an express bus from Elephant to Lewisham and if you want to go further you would have to change. That would be the cheapest option in terms of PVR. |
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Apr 3, 2024 9:40:25 GMT
Firstly, it occurred to me that Bakerloop may have come about by adding a 'p' to Bakerloo, rather than combining part of Bakerloo and Superloop, so in that case the name is understandable/clever. However, it should have been called SuperLoop and join the rest for consistency.
Considering the extension does not exist, then why would you not run it to the 'future phases' of the Bakerloo extension up to Beckenham Junction to see if there is demand there. I expect this bus to only stop at stations and be 'Rail Replacement' type route.
If this comes in later this year, could we see LTs used for this route for three years?
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on Apr 3, 2024 10:40:56 GMT
Firstly, it occurred to me that Bakerloop may have come about by adding a 'p' to Bakerloo, rather than combining part of Bakerloo and Superloop, so in that case the name is understandable/clever. However, it should have been called SuperLoop and join the rest for consistency. Considering the extension does not exist, then why would you not run it to the 'future phases' of the Bakerloo extension up to Beckenham Junction to see if there is demand there. I expect this bus to only stop at stations and be 'Rail Replacement' type route. If this comes in later this year, could we see LTs used for this route for three years? That would make sense. Of course, extending the Bakerloo line has been talked about since before most (perhaps all) members of this forum were born although the original target was Camberwell. At one stage LT even got round to building some rolling stock for it! |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Apr 3, 2024 11:07:14 GMT
1. Name is awful. BUT, yes and I'm being generous, it makes sense to associate it with the Superloop brand which basically everyone in London is aware of. Of course, the name Superloop may have been a massive mistake in the first place as we've discussed ad infinitum here. But it works to get the message across despite us despairing at how absurd it sounds. (wow it's actually a portmanteau of another portmanteau too! Baker Street+Waterloo+Superloop).
2. Across the Channel, over in France, it's not unusual to have bus routes 'prefigure' future tram lines or BRT. Now, these bus routes aren't full BRTs or whatever as that would be a waste of money for a temporary route, but I rest assured that as in Superloop manner, any infrastructure for this new line will be minimal so no 'wasted' money into something 'temporary'.
3. It likely won't be 'temporary' in the short temporary sense anyway. I'd be pleasantly surprised if the Bakerloo Line Extension went ahead and opened in the next 20 years.
(4. Frankly, at this point, a French style tram along the route, then via Waterloo, Kingsway, etc... along the route of the Cross River Tram would be lovely imo).
5. I hope we're going drip drip with the manifesto points and that this isn't the only public transport manifesto point out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 3, 2024 12:13:51 GMT
Firstly, it occurred to me that Bakerloop may have come about by adding a 'p' to Bakerloo, rather than combining part of Bakerloo and Superloop, so in that case the name is understandable/clever. However, it should have been called SuperLoop and join the rest for consistency. Considering the extension does not exist, then why would you not run it to the 'future phases' of the Bakerloo extension up to Beckenham Junction to see if there is demand there. I expect this bus to only stop at stations and be 'Rail Replacement' type route. If this comes in later this year, could we see LTs used for this route for three years? It does feel like wasted potential to only run it between Lewisham and Elephant. When I first saw the proposal I thought why not run it further down into Catford or run it into Central London properly at other end so people actually have some incentive to use it over just taking the 453. I doubt it will be much faster than the regular routes on OKR anyway and it seems like an odd use of resources to have such a short route as an express. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 3, 2024 12:19:14 GMT
Firstly, it occurred to me that Bakerloop may have come about by adding a 'p' to Bakerloo, rather than combining part of Bakerloo and Superloop, so in that case the name is understandable/clever. However, it should have been called SuperLoop and join the rest for consistency. Considering the extension does not exist, then why would you not run it to the 'future phases' of the Bakerloo extension up to Beckenham Junction to see if there is demand there. I expect this bus to only stop at stations and be 'Rail Replacement' type route. If this comes in later this year, could we see LTs used for this route for three years? That would make sense. Of course, extending the Bakerloo line has been talked about since before most (perhaps all) members of this forum were born although the original target was Camberwell. At one stage LT even got round to building some rolling stock for it! I'm surprised there haven't been any serious proposals to build a new Thameslink station at Camberwell. Seems such an obvious solution when the tracks pass right through the area, and not even a situation like the Overground in Brixton, since there was previously a station next to the bus garage. Though with proximity here to Denmark Hill and Loughborough Junction, perhaps a station slightly further north might be more useful, near the west end of Burgess Park? |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 3, 2024 13:44:59 GMT
That would make sense. Of course, extending the Bakerloo line has been talked about since before most (perhaps all) members of this forum were born although the original target was Camberwell. At one stage LT even got round to building some rolling stock for it! I'm surprised there haven't been any serious proposals to build a new Thameslink station at Camberwell. Seems such an obvious solution when the tracks pass right through the area, and not even a situation like the Overground in Brixton, since there was previously a station next to the bus garage. Though with proximity here to Denmark Hill and Loughborough Junction, perhaps a station slightly further north might be more useful, near the west end of Burgess Park? Both Camberwell and Walworth, near John Ruskin Street, have been considered for reopening but it's never got any further than that. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 3, 2024 18:07:24 GMT
I wonder whether Waterloo might end up being the terminus for this rather than Elephant and Castle. It would give much better onward connections but still be in keeping with the Bakerloo idea. On return, it could also loop via Lambeth North and clear some of the demand from the Lower Marsh stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 3, 2024 18:41:57 GMT
I wonder whether Waterloo might end up being the terminus for this rather than Elephant and Castle. It would give much better onward connections but still be in keeping with the Bakerloo idea. On return, it could also loop via Lambeth North and clear some of the demand from the Lower Marsh stop. The Whitehall stand is still free from the 3 so that could be used and the 453 could drop its freq a little but. |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Apr 4, 2024 7:26:38 GMT
This is a very good proposal from Khan and TFL, it is ridiculous that the link between Elephant and Lewisham is served by long and convoluted route of route 136 when quick connections could be done via Old Kent Road. I think this "Bakerloop" express bus service could be a runway success very soon after implementation. It should be numbered BL1 to tie up with the Superloop services. it will be interesting to see what the livery of the buses will be for this service, will the buses be all brown to highlight its connection to the Bakerloo line? Also, I know the details are on this route are sketchy due to it being a pledge at the moment but I hope TFL look at perhaps extending the Bakerloop service to Central London, like terminating buses at Whitehall, Horse Guards for example. It has a stand free since route 3's reroute to Victoria Bus Station.
However, I do think that it will be a Elephant to Lewisham route as proposed, which leads to suspect that what route will need to be moved out from standing at Elephant & Castle now as the area at full capacity for terminating buses. There has been a cloud of speculation regarding route 45 since both routes 45 and 118 were put into additional tranches from their original ones. Perhaps a merger of routes 45/118 is on the cards with the new route becoming a Camberwell Green - Morden route. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a consultation on these routes shortly after the Mayoral election period is over. In this scenario, route 171 would terminate in the street where route 45 currently terminates in Elephant and the "Bakerloop" bus service would terminate in the street where route 171 currently terminates in Elephant.
Also, it is a bit premature to say this but Go-Ahead New Cross garage are in the perfect position to gain this route if it comes to fruition and is tendered by LBSL. Overall, there seems to be interesting times ahead for the bus network in the South London area in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Apr 6, 2024 8:06:44 GMT
I'm surprised there haven't been any serious proposals to build a new Thameslink station at Camberwell. Seems such an obvious solution when the tracks pass right through the area, and not even a situation like the Overground in Brixton, since there was previously a station next to the bus garage. Though with proximity here to Denmark Hill and Loughborough Junction, perhaps a station slightly further north might be more useful, near the west end of Burgess Park? Both Camberwell and Walworth, near John Ruskin Street, have been considered for reopening but it's never got any further than that. I remember reading the transport consultant’s report about the reopening of Camberwell Station about 20 years ago. At the time the Thameslink trains on the Sutton loop suffered the worst overcrowding at peak times of any rail line in London. The 8 car trains were full to bursting and it would probably have been impossible for many people at a reopened Camberwell Station to board northbound trains during the morning peak. The Thameslink core was at capacity and there was no prospect of increasing the number of train paths until the Thameslink project was completed. Secondly the projected revenue from reopening was not great because most journeys would have been short hops into Central London and they would have been taking up space on trains that otherwise could have been used by commuters from further out who brought in more revenue. So the financial case was found to be poor. IIRC projected usage was about 600 passengers a day. Obviously a lot has changed since then. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 6, 2024 8:38:37 GMT
Both Camberwell and Walworth, near John Ruskin Street, have been considered for reopening but it's never got any further than that. I remember reading the transport consultant’s report about the reopening of Camberwell Station about 20 years ago. At the time the Thameslink trains on the Sutton loop suffered the worst overcrowding at peak times of any rail line in London. The 8 car trains were full to bursting and it would probably have been impossible for many people at a reopened Camberwell Station to board northbound trains during the morning peak. The Thameslink core was at capacity and there was no prospect of increasing the number of train paths until the Thameslink project was completed. Secondly the projected revenue from reopening was not great because most journeys would have been short hops into Central London and they would have been taking up space on trains that otherwise could have been used by commuters from further out who brought in more revenue. So the financial case was found to be poor. IIRC projected usage was about 600 passengers a day. Obviously a lot has changed since then. Probably 600 an hour at the very least if not within 15 mins during the peaks. |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Apr 8, 2024 11:32:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 8, 2024 13:40:46 GMT
It's an opinion piece, and I don't think it is well-written at all. A few ads for unhealthy foods won't get anywhere near funding any Bakerloo Line upgrade, let alone its extension. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 8, 2024 13:55:24 GMT
It's an opinion piece, and I don't think it is well-written at all. A few ads for unhealthy foods won't get anywhere near funding any Bakerloo Line upgrade, let alone its extension. I agree with the connection between the adverts and Bakerloo funding coleration you make but it's still ridiculous that such a ban on these adverts is even implemented in the first place - people won't stop buying unhealthy food because some stations or trains no longer have adverts there and even if it's pocket change, I'd still rather that pocket change going into TfL's coffers rather than missing it out even to pay for some minor improvements. |
|
