|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 19, 2024 22:02:24 GMT
I would not be surprised if the 53 is eventually curtailed to Elephant & Castle. It would have been a good candidate to divert to Victoria instead of the 3 however I know they have no intention of extending it anywhere. Yeah this could happen perhaps if tfl wanted to make savings & it happens to free up stand space in E&C. The frequently suggested 171/172 merger is an example of this. I don’t think the 53 is really needed to run to Victoria tbh. The 3 having been sent there actually has given it a bit more use than when it was running to Whitehall. I'd say more likely if stand space was needed then the 45 would be cut back to Camberwell Green which may explain the tender delay. Thou I think the 171 would have to use the 45 stand due to the road layout at Elephant and the Bakerloop the Newington stand. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 19, 2024 22:14:21 GMT
Yes I agree that Waterloo or even Aldwych would be a more useful destination, I don't think it'll happen though because of the interchange facility. I think Aldwych might be stretching the 53’s length a bit, tfl probably don’t want another bus going across Waterloo Bridge, especially a high frequency route & there isn’t really stand space available. Waterloo though is a good area to terminate the 53 for sure. I'm not sure Waterloo would be useful for 53 passengers especially if the Bakerloop route is implemented which it probably will be - those beyond Old Kent Road have trains to Waterloo East if Waterloo is a big draw for them. Diverting to Waterloo doesn't improve access to the hospital which is a big draw for people from the south east - running via Lambeth Palace Road provides a stop right opposite the hospital that isn't there currently and which was when it previously ran to Whitehall. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on May 19, 2024 23:31:30 GMT
Not a stop thats useless but I don’t see why buses westbound don’t serve Euston Bus Station rather than Euston Road. Can be quite the walk and irritance as Id say many people who head to Euston come from the north and east, particularly busy on the 205. There are no obstructions to rerouting via Grafton Way and Euston Bus Station in both directions, I don’t see why they dont do it. The 18 and 476 use to do it before they were rerouted/476 curtailed, as there are no longer roadworks there. Swapping the 18/68 stands again and bus stop F to be served by the 18, 30, 73, 205, 390, N5, N20, N73 and N253 instead of the three Camden-TSQ night routes. I dont think stand space would be an issue, but you could split the bus stops as stop F has a short road length, for one bus stop towards Baker Street for the 18, 30, 205, N205 and one closer to the alighting point for the 73, 390, N5, N20, N253 instead. Worst case scenario if space is needed for 2 stops you could remove the alighting point and make it an 18 stand with the current 68 stand becoming a bus stop and stop F remained. The 253 could alight at its standing point as it is an official bus stop in comparison to the other Euston-terminating routes and the 68 could move to the vacant 59 stand which is also an actual bus stop. Leaves the current 18 stand empty and possibly for good measure helping the congested northbound buses out. The current Euston Station stop will still be served westbound, but to additionally call at Euston Bus Station. When works were done on Euston Bus Station and E/B buses were stopping at Euston Road instead of Euston Bus Station, it saves 5+ minutes. The lights from Churchway onto Euston Road usually take 3 or more cycles to exit back onto Euston Road -- I actually think that's what makes the 18 so prone to bunching from basically the second stop. I actually think E/B buses should skip it when the time comes for Euston to finally get a revamp with the bus stops for through routes being moved onto Euston Road.
For W/B buses, the light sequences (and road capacity) on Churchway and Grafton Way are absolutely unsuited to it in addition to adding to the journey time. Buses would have to cut across 2 lanes of traffic (often at a standstill) on Euston Road to turn right onto Churchway, with it not having a dedicated right turn sequence so waiting for a gap in oncoming traffic. Realistically, you'd get a bus or two at most turning per sequence, all while blocking one of the two general traffic lanes.
There's also the taxi stand having now moved there being a problem, as Churchway and Grafton Way in the W/B direction being needed to access it if coming from the east on Euston Road. I am sure the at one point the 205 did serve Euston station Westbound and there was a consultation on routing direct down Euston Road before it was changed. Part of the rationale I think was a time saving (PVR saving of 1 I think) and also a lot of destinations could still be reached by the 18 from the station. Further the time saving was considered a benefit to all those passengers on the 205 not alighting or boarding at Euston. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on May 20, 2024 5:57:51 GMT
Yes I agree that Waterloo or even Aldwych would be a more useful destination, I don't think it'll happen though because of the interchange facility. I think Aldwych might be stretching the 53’s length a bit, tfl probably don’t want another bus going across Waterloo Bridge, especially a high frequency route & there isn’t really stand space available. Waterloo though is a good area to terminate the 53 for sure. Aldwych would be instead of the 172 but it probably is stretching it a bit, I think a short extension from County Hall to the Concert Hall stand currently used by the 77 would be ideal but apparently this stand is being removed. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on May 20, 2024 7:13:40 GMT
I think Aldwych might be stretching the 53’s length a bit, tfl probably don’t want another bus going across Waterloo Bridge, especially a high frequency route & there isn’t really stand space available. Waterloo though is a good area to terminate the 53 for sure. Aldwych would be instead of the 172 but it probably is stretching it a bit, I think a short extension from County Hall to the Concert Hall stand currently used by the 77 would be ideal but apparently this stand is being removed. Yeah when the 211 gets rerouted to Battersea the 77 will move to the 211’s current stand, so yes that stand probably will be removed. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on May 20, 2024 7:38:31 GMT
Aldwych would be instead of the 172 but it probably is stretching it a bit, I think a short extension from County Hall to the Concert Hall stand currently used by the 77 would be ideal but apparently this stand is being removed. Yeah when the 211 gets rerouted to Battersea the 77 will move to the 211’s current stand, so yes that stand probably will be removed. Not probably, almost definitely. It was mentioned in the central London consultation that the stand will close due to a proposed development. No doubt another 10-15 storey tower. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 20, 2024 7:46:34 GMT
Yeah when the 211 gets rerouted to Battersea the 77 will move to the 211’s current stand, so yes that stand probably will be removed. Not probably, almost definitely. It was mentioned in the central London consultation that the stand will close due to a proposed development. No doubt another 10-15 storey tower. Or yet another food markets selling overpriced hot snacks. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on May 20, 2024 9:38:16 GMT
The 226 route is puzzling. The 83 was cut back from Ealing Broadway & The Hospital respectively. Yet, the 226 runs from Golders Green to Ealing Broadway. I think it should be cut back to First Central Business Park. The Hanger lane to Ealing Broadway be part of a new SD local route, starting from Willesden Junction or North Acton, go via Park Royal Road and then via the 226 route to Ealing Broadway This actually used to be the case. The 226 was extended to Ealing Broadway to replace the withdrawn PR1 |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 20, 2024 11:42:24 GMT
Not probably, almost definitely. It was mentioned in the central London consultation that the stand will close due to a proposed development. No doubt another 10-15 storey tower. Or yet another food markets selling overpriced hot snacks. The food market near that stand is actually really good as is the one near Elephant and at Camden Town - arguably everything is overpriced these days |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 20, 2024 11:48:20 GMT
Or yet another food markets selling overpriced hot snacks. The food market near that stand is actually really good as is the one near Elephant and at Camden Town - arguably everything is overpriced these days Yes you soon realise there isn't much change for a £10 note. |
|
18ARustee
Conductor
Security Supervisor
Posts: 80 
|
Post by 18ARustee on May 20, 2024 11:48:49 GMT
On a different note, the 487. When it passes the Waxlow Road bus stop going to South Harrow. When the 187 turns right into North Acton Road, I did ask TfL why doesn't the 487 turn right at that same junction, proceeding down Barretts Green Road at the start. They said they would look into that
|
|
|
|
Post by rift on May 20, 2024 17:38:52 GMT
I think Aldwych might be stretching the 53’s length a bit, tfl probably don’t want another bus going across Waterloo Bridge, especially a high frequency route & there isn’t really stand space available. Waterloo though is a good area to terminate the 53 for sure. I'm not sure Waterloo would be useful for 53 passengers especially if the Bakerloop route is implemented which it probably will be - those beyond Old Kent Road have trains to Waterloo East if Waterloo is a big draw for them. Diverting to Waterloo doesn't improve access to the hospital which is a big draw for people from the south east - running via Lambeth Palace Road provides a stop right opposite the hospital that isn't there currently and which was when it previously ran to Whitehall. No trains run to Charing Cross and Waterloo East from the areas the 53 serves after Old Kent Road due to the Winter 2022 timetable change. A new bus station is planned to the southeast side of Waterloo station if the redevelopment goes ahead, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 53 gets sent there if they haven’t changed the route before then. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on May 20, 2024 17:53:48 GMT
I'm not sure Waterloo would be useful for 53 passengers especially if the Bakerloop route is implemented which it probably will be - those beyond Old Kent Road have trains to Waterloo East if Waterloo is a big draw for them. Diverting to Waterloo doesn't improve access to the hospital which is a big draw for people from the south east - running via Lambeth Palace Road provides a stop right opposite the hospital that isn't there currently and which was when it previously ran to Whitehall. No trains run to Charing Cross and Waterloo East from the areas the 53 serves after Old Kent Road due to the Winter 2022 timetable change. A new bus station is planned to the southeast side of Waterloo station if the redevelopment goes ahead, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 53 gets sent there if they haven’t changed the route before then. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on May 20, 2024 18:13:44 GMT
When works were done on Euston Bus Station and E/B buses were stopping at Euston Road instead of Euston Bus Station, it saves 5+ minutes. The lights from Churchway onto Euston Road usually take 3 or more cycles to exit back onto Euston Road -- I actually think that's what makes the 18 so prone to bunching from basically the second stop. I actually think E/B buses should skip it when the time comes for Euston to finally get a revamp with the bus stops for through routes being moved onto Euston Road.
For W/B buses, the light sequences (and road capacity) on Churchway and Grafton Way are absolutely unsuited to it in addition to adding to the journey time. Buses would have to cut across 2 lanes of traffic (often at a standstill) on Euston Road to turn right onto Churchway, with it not having a dedicated right turn sequence so waiting for a gap in oncoming traffic. Realistically, you'd get a bus or two at most turning per sequence, all while blocking one of the two general traffic lanes.
There's also the taxi stand having now moved there being a problem, as Churchway and Grafton Way in the W/B direction being needed to access it if coming from the east on Euston Road. I am sure the at one point the 205 did serve Euston station Westbound and there was a consultation on routing direct down Euston Road before it was changed. Part of the rationale I think was a time saving (PVR saving of 1 I think) and also a lot of destinations could still be reached by the 18 from the station. Further the time saving was considered a benefit to all those passengers on the 205 not alighting or boarding at Euston. Yes it did, in the first year of operation until late 2003. A similar scenario occurred further down the 205 route in 2019 when upon contract renewal, the Marylebone Station stop on Melcombe Place stopped being served and buses on the 205 deferred to serving the station from Marylebone Road like the 18 and 27. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 20, 2024 18:16:17 GMT
I am sure the at one point the 205 did serve Euston station Westbound and there was a consultation on routing direct down Euston Road before it was changed. Part of the rationale I think was a time saving (PVR saving of 1 I think) and also a lot of destinations could still be reached by the 18 from the station. Further the time saving was considered a benefit to all those passengers on the 205 not alighting or boarding at Euston. Yes it did, in the first year of operation until late 2003. A similar scenario occurred further down the 205 route in 2019 when upon contract renewal, the Marylebone Station stop on Melcombe Place stopped being served and buses on the 205 deferred to serving the station from Marylebone Road like the 18 and 27. I believe this was so the route could serve as many stations as possible due to its nature. While not the same circumstance it was also one of a few routes to go through Liverpool Street bus station too. |
|
