Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I don't really think the x68 should even exist as a route. It is far faster to go by train. Buses should feed rail/tube, and/or have short enough routes to have more predictable timetables. By the time x68 crosses the river the timetables is pointless.
I know part of the rationale is to offer cheaper alternative for people, which is a much more political nut to crack. I have seen mentioned somewhere here before that raising fares for buses with corresponding reduction in tube fare would create connectivity and rationalisation of public transit. I guess this would have to include greater subsidies for low income passengers to be palatable.
I am all for superloop as a concept as there are no direct rail/tube alternatives for superloop's orbital route.
No it's not, there's a large area of Upper Norwood (Beulah Hill, & Whitehorse Road) which the X68 serves and is quite some distance from the nearest stations. The X68s are well loaded too, often full by the time they leave West Norwood or Waterloo. X68s provide a faster alternative to & from Central London than the 468 & changing at West Norwood.
No it's not, there's a large area of Upper Norwood (Beulah Hill, & Whitehorse Road) which the X68 serves and is quite some distance from the nearest stations. The X68s are well loaded too, often full by the time they leave West Norwood or Waterloo. X68s provide a faster alternative to & from Central London than the 468 & changing at West Norwood.
I agree that buses are important for this area. I am just saying the route is too long which means too many opportunities for things to go wrong, like road works and traffic. There could be a new bus route from West Norwood down Beulah Hill to Norwood Junction. This is a simpler route and the bus would start empty at each station and could be timed to depart 5 minutes certain trains arrive, making it ideal for interchange from a southbound train.
Another route could go something like Crystal Palace to Thornton Heath.
Is there any progress on the introduction of the Irizar ie Trams on route 358? Is the pantograph charging equipment not yet installed at one or both ends of the route?
Is there any progress on the introduction of the Irizar ie Trams on route 358? Is the pantograph charging equipment not yet installed at one or both ends of the route?
The first one has been registered - IE2 - LX23BKA. The batch will not have consecutive plates.
Believe Crystal Palace is done, but I think there is a land dispute at Orpington Station stopping it happening.
The first one has been registered - IE2 - LX23BKA. The batch will not have consecutive plates.
Believe Crystal Palace is done, but I think there is a land dispute at Orpington Station stopping it happening.
When discussing the installation of a charging point at another Network Rail station, the possibility of stray currents interfering with the railway signalling system was raised. That might be an issue at Orpington.
They have also appeared at the Tenison Way stop at Waterloo in the Russell Square bound stop for the X68/SL6. Haven't checked the Croydon bound stops yet
Despite the assertion that the superloop branded buses will be route bound and a desire by TfL (as I believe I have read somewhere - possibly this thread) that Superloop buses shouldn't be used on other routes or on rail replacement work, two of the newly branded buses for the SL6 (X68) were out today; one on route 188 and one on a DLR rail replacement. Pic here of the bus on route 188 for those interested:
Isn't it a lack of drivers (as opposed to a shortage of functional buses) that's affecting rail replacement services?
With the Day Travelcard set to go next year I've travelled on a few cross-boundary routes in recent days, be it the deep-into-Surrey 405+465 combo (with the non-TfL 32 in-between) or the 331 that exits & re-enters Greater London twice on each run (and under the Colne Valley Viaduct alignment).
Despite the assertion that the superloop branded buses will be route bound and a desire by TfL (as I believe I have read somewhere - possibly this thread) that Superloop buses shouldn't be used on other routes or on rail replacement work, two of the newly branded buses for the SL6 (X68) were out today; one on route 188 and one on a DLR rail replacement. Pic here of the bus on route 188 for those interested:
The X68 and the 188 were until yesterday crosslinked. From Monday the SL6 and 188 won't be. Wraps have started being applied to buses, hence the appearance on the 188 because said bus operated off the X68.
As for the assertion that branded buses can't be used on rail replacement I have no idea if that's true, but then GoAhead does have 2,000 other buses to choose from.
Here's a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, which came to me on seeing the Superloop branded bus on the 188. I remember the Titan buses on the express 53X and 177X, which routes if still going would presumably have been incorporated into Superloop, As things stand. there will be a physical gap between SL2 arriving at North Woolwich and the SL3 departing from Thamesmead, If the 177X were to be revived it could provide the'missing link' between Woolwich and the SL3 at Abbey Wood. Its Northern terminus wouldn't have to be Peckham, either. Just a thought.
Despite the assertion that the superloop branded buses will be route bound and a desire by TfL (as I believe I have read somewhere - possibly this thread) that Superloop buses shouldn't be used on other routes or on rail replacement work, two of the newly branded buses for the SL6 (X68) were out today; one on route 188 and one on a DLR rail replacement. Pic here of the bus on route 188 for those interested:
If the varying number of "notches" between named stops on the route line is supposed to be indicative of how many stops are served on the stopping sections, someone can't count as far as that decorated would-be SL6 shown here is concerned; neither the number between Russell Square and Holborn, nor the number between Holborn and Waterloo, is correct.
Yes they are Switch Mobility MetroCity EVs, but it’s being reported over on the Londoner FB group that the charging infrastructure is having issues at LI hence the lack of electrics out today on the 339
Just hope this isn’t going to be a repeat 322 situation and almost never be fully electric
I was on the new SL8 for the first time today (the last time I used it a few months ago, it was still 607). The announcer was constantly repeating something like "As of xxth July, route 607 has been renumbered SL8. Some of the bus stops have been renamed to better reflect the locations. There are no other changes to the route (not exact wording of announcement)". I think it was probably repeating at every bus stop (or even more frequently) to the point it was becoming annoying!
A tweet from Go Ahead London on X on the SL6 renumbering
Transport for London (TfL) recently announced its intention to introduce a Superloop network of ten express bus routes, designed to improve connectivity between key Outer London town centres and transport hubs.
Earlier today the second addition to the Superloop system, Camberwell Garage-based Route SL6, joined the network.
Previously Route X68, the SL6 operates during peak hours on weekdays as a limited stop service between Russell Square and West Croydon, using an existing fleet of double-deck buses that are in the process of having USB chargers fitted.
David Cutts, Go-Ahead London's Managing Director said: "Superloop is one of many TfL initiatives making bus travel ever more attractive and it is a welcome addition to the public transport family. As always, we will work hard to provide passengers with a high-quality journey experience and I congratulate the Camberwell team for seamlessly introducing the SL6 this morning.”
Images show Driver Papa Thiam at 0515hrs today, having prepared his bus for service (photos taken in an area of the building that was pro-actively managed to maintain safety).
We are London's largest bus company and a part of
@TheGoAheadGroup
, an international provider of passenger transport.
Spent a day in London last Thursday and was shocked to see how tatty the New Routemasters were externally. Also the changes to routes in Central London are unbelieveable. I appreciate TFL are financially strapped but the changes to central london routes are pushing travelers onto the tube. At Bishops gate there is still the timetable for the 11 and the 26 going to EWaterloo at the stop , what chance do tourists have
Buses aren't supposed to be in competition with the tube. But unfortunately the fare system isn't properly integrated. Buses and tubes have their own separate fare structures.
Buses aren't supposed to be in competition with the tube. But unfortunately the fare system isn't properly integrated. Buses and tubes have their own separate fare structures.
Spent a day in London last Thursday and was shocked to see how tatty the New Routemasters were externally. Also the changes to routes in Central London are unbelieveable. I appreciate TFL are financially strapped but the changes to central london routes are pushing travelers onto the tube. At Bishops gate there is still the timetable for the 11 and the 26 going to EWaterloo at the stop , what chance do tourists have
Unfortunately I believe there are some people at TfL who think like this (there are plenty who don't). What I used to regard as gold standard bus stop publicity is now a sick joke.
Showing that good information provision, and well-co-ordinated affordable services which are run with the public interest rather than that of shareholders paramount, often don't go together! Perhaps more one way round in Manchester, and more the other way round in London?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How is that a hassle "these days" compared to previous days? The Thameslink Programme has vastly improved this situation. The old platform 6 used to be shared between Southeastern and Thameslink trains, but now Southeastern has two platforms to itself with Thameslink having its own dedicated platform. There used to be very few Thameslink trains in peak through London Bridge because platform 6 was fully utilised by Southeastern trains but now they run roughly every 5 minutes. Far fewer trains terminate at London Bridge now so many trains that used to terminate there continue to City Thameslink via Blackfriars. There are also frequent trains to Cannon Street. Cannon Street and City Thameslink are within short walking distance of much of the eastern part of the 521 route.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don't get this bit. The 133 starts at Proctor Street (Stop H) and ends at Holborn station (Stop K). It also runs 7 days a week, unlike the old 521.
Yes, perhaps the 133 is a reasonable alternative for the commuters to and from London Bridge; however the commuters to and from Waterloo are badly affected by the breaking of the 521 link. The diverted 59 from Waterloo, running only as far as Smithfield, doesn't link as far into the City as the 521 did; the 59 doesn't start empty from Waterloo; and since it's a double-decker, it can't use the tunnel from Waterloo Bridge so as to avoid two stops and a congested area, hence providing a slower link.
Also, the fact that the 521 route was designed especially for commuters, and linked to a different mainline station at each end of the loop through the City, meant it had a rare feature for a commuter route - decent loadings in both directions during both rush hours. It made perfect sense.
The 59 diversion loses a proportion of the direct Waterloo-Euston bus service, and loses the only (and previously well-used) direct link from the Kennington Road / Lambeth North area through Bloomsbury [ie north of Holborn station] to Euston. The previous truncation of the 59 at Euston had already removed the only direct public transport link between Waterloo and Kings Cross / St Pancras. (What other pair of such major transport interchanges is there in London with no direct link?)
I know it's "the cuts". But even so, it seems to me that central London has suffered particularly in the last few years (compared to other parts of London), in terms of travel by bus becoming much slower and less convenient.
Showing that good information provision, and well-co-ordinated affordable services which are run with the public interest rather than that of shareholders paramount, often don't go together! Perhaps more one way round in Manchester, and more the other way round in London?
It is just a tradition in Manchester from what I have seen over the years. I remember trips there in the 80s and the bus stations would be fully of racks of individual route timetables. The PTE and successor organisations have just kept that going regardless of deregulation, along with route numbers on the bus stops which weren't comprehensive in London at the time. The leaflet format has hardly changed since the 70s if you look at the Timetable World website. Still, I always thought that leaflets weren't that good compared to the area books which we had in London in the 80s. Even then I had friends who cared little for timetables, in any format, and preferred to call 01-2221234.
Yes, perhaps the 133 is a reasonable alternative for the commuters to and from London Bridge; however the commuters to and from Waterloo are badly affected by the breaking of the 521 link. The diverted 59 from Waterloo, running only as far as Smithfield, doesn't link as far into the City as the 521 did; the 59 doesn't start empty from Waterloo; and since it's a double-decker, it can't use the tunnel from Waterloo Bridge so as to avoid two stops and a congested area, hence providing a slower link.
Also, the fact that the 521 route was designed especially for commuters, and linked to a different mainline station at each end of the loop through the City, meant it had a rare feature for a commuter route - decent loadings in both directions during both rush hours. It made perfect sense.
I was a regular user of the 521 between Holborn and St Paul's for a few years at about 08:00 before Covid and I estimate about 70% used to get off at Holborn station. I used to nearly always get a seat on that section, even when getting on on Kingsway, but would usually get on on Proctor Street because it would take ages to go around the corner, plus there were more buses to choose from. Now it is better for that trip with the 133 starting there. The 521 might have had a better chance of survival if Waterloo to Holborn was not so severely overbussed. I always thought the sheer volume of buses on Kingsway was a huge waste, and still is to an extent.
The 59 diversion loses a proportion of the direct Waterloo-Euston bus service, and loses the only (and previously well-used) direct link from the Kennington Road / Lambeth North area through Bloomsbury [ie north of Holborn station] to Euston. The previous truncation of the 59 at Euston had already removed the only direct public transport link between Waterloo and Kings Cross / St Pancras. (What other pair of such major transport interchanges is there in London with no direct link?)
Obviously a lot of Waterloo passengers can get off at Vauxhall instead and get the Victoria Line to Kings Cross St Pancras. You also have to consider the carefully planned cross-platform interchange at Oxford Circus between the Bakerloo and Victoria lines.
I know it's "the cuts". But even so, it seems to me that central London has suffered particularly in the last few years (compared to other parts of London), in terms of travel by bus becoming much slower and less convenient.
Putting the cuts in central London mean that passengers are unlikely to switch to driving, whereas that would have been more likely to have been the case if the cuts were in outer London. The huge amount of money that was spent on the excess buses in central London in the last 50+ years could have been better spent on transport in outer London which would have been more likely to get cars off the road.
Showing that good information provision, and well-co-ordinated affordable services which are run with the public interest rather than that of shareholders paramount, often don't go together! Perhaps more one way round in Manchester, and more the other way round in London?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes, perhaps the 133 is a reasonable alternative for the commuters to and from London Bridge; however the commuters to and from Waterloo are badly affected by the breaking of the 521 link. The diverted 59 from Waterloo, running only as far as Smithfield, doesn't link as far into the City as the 521 did; the 59 doesn't start empty from Waterloo; and since it's a double-decker, it can't use the tunnel from Waterloo Bridge so as to avoid two stops and a congested area, hence providing a slower link.
I know it's "the cuts". But even so, it seems to me that central London has suffered particularly in the last few years (compared to other parts of London), in terms of travel by bus becoming much slower and less convenient.
Central London was the obvious area to cut because it has suffered much more in terms of loss of patronage. There are several parts of outer London which need an increase in capacity.
I don't know what the answer is re traffic congestion, bar further legislation to penalise utility companies and their contractors further so fines do actually hurt.
I'm in total agreement re the 59/133/521. It was a terrible mistake to withdraw the 521. In the AM Peak the 59 fills up at Brixton and is already rammed by the time it arrives at Waterloo. Those people who used to wait in two lengthy orderly queues for the 521 don't stand a chance. The 26 is no longer an alternative option either.
Many of the refurbished LTs have been deployed on contract change routes in outer-London (111, 248 etc).
It’s hoped to complete another 340 this financial year.
Unfortunately I believe there are some people at TfL who think like this (there are plenty who don't). What I used to regard as gold standard bus stop publicity is now a sick joke.
I'm in total agreement re the 59/133/521. It was a terrible mistake to withdraw the 521. In the AM Peak the 59 fills up at Brixton and is already rammed by the time it arrives at Waterloo. Those people who used to wait in two lengthy orderly queues for the 521 don't stand a chance. The 26 is no longer an alternative option either.
Then there is the forthcoming withdrawal of the 168, and it's "replacement" but diverting the 1 at Holborn to cover the route as far as Hampstead Heath.
Yet another reduction in capacity between Waterloo, Holborn and Euston, which is a busy corridor not best served by the tube. (Yes I know the Northern Line goes from Waterloo to Euston, but it serves Leicester Square and Tottenham Court Road, and there is no tube line from Waterloo to Holborn, and from Holborn to Eustn)
Perhaps I'm merely picking on Manchester rather easily, but the ensuing scramble for bus routes in the years, if not decades, following deregulation in cities around the UK serves as a reflection on what London could've experienced had it gone down the same path. Hence why I took issue with @Leedsbusman's viewpoint.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
