Edinburgh & the Lothians bus network speculations & ideas

[stevenedin]

The 13 subsidised route between Blackhall and Lochend I think should be changed from Blackhall to Canonmills (using the loop at Eyre Place).

I think that the 49 should be diverted along Findlay Gardens from Restalrig Road South onto Craigentinny Road/Sleigh Drive to cover for the loss and the 21 could serve Hawkhill Avenue and St Clair Street then down Easter Road to continue the rest of the journey from Duke Street.

 

[LothianBusesPh]

If a route was to be introduced between Leith and Portobello via Fillyside Road, there are so many options for how it could be done - extend the 1, extend the 12, extend the 200, extend the 140/141, reroute the 19... I'd even throw in extending the 15 as a wildcard, send it up Leith Walk and across to Portobello, terminating either at Eastfield or Musselburgh Tesco.


How about something like this - an idea I came up with on the spot.

The 21 would be split into two routes, let's say the 21 and 28.

The 21 would run from Clovenstone to the Infirmary via its current route. The 28 would run from the Gyle Centre to Musselburgh, along the 21 route until the foot of Easter Road, then to Musselburgh Tesco via Hermitage Place, Claremont Park, Seafield Place, Seafield Road, Seafield Road East, Fillyside Road, Craigentinny Avenue, Craigentinny Road, Wakefield Avenue, and the route of the 26.

Then a new route would be introduced, let's give it the number 17, running every half hour along the route of the 21 from Ocean Terminal to the Infirmary, which could also be extended to northern Shawfair in the future.

This maintains the 15 minute frequency along the 21 corridor, alongside providing a new link from Ocean Terminal to the Infirmary, provides a bus service to the Leith-Portobello corridor that avoids the city centre, and creates new direct connections from Musselburgh and Joppa to north Edinburgh and the Gyle Centre. Direct connections between the west of the city and Portobello are also still maintained through the 28, albeit at a lower frequency, though I imagine demand for this is relatively low considering the length of journey, and plenty of alternative options are available through the 12, 19 and 26. The only section the 17, 21 and 28 overlap is between Junction Bridge and Easter Road, a very short section, thus there wouldn't be any stretches of the current 21's route that would suddenly become overserved.

Here's a summary:

17 | Ocean Terminal - Royal Infirmary
via Leith, Lochend, Portobello and Niddrie.
Every 30 minutes.

21 | Clovenstone - Royal Infirmary
via Sighthill, Drum Brae, Davidson's Mains, Leith, Lochend, Portobello and Niddrie.
Every 30 minutes.

28 | Gyle Centre - Musselburgh
via Drum Brae, Davidson's Mains, Leith, Seafield and Portobello.
Every 30 minutes.

This just feels very complex for almost no reason.

 

[roadierway77]

This just feels very complex for almost no reason.

Well then, extend the 200 or the 1. I'm simply demonstrating that there are many different options.

To be honest, as much as it's interesting to explore these possibilities and the creation of new connections, I'm not sure if there would ever be enough passengers to sustain a link between Leith and Portobello. It's been tried in the past as far as I'm aware and it didn't work. You'd need a frequency of at least every 30 minutes for anybody to even use it, but even that feels like too frequent a service for such a corridor. Resources could definitely be better used elsewhere.

 

[frvic93]

Well then, extend the 200 or the 1. I'm simply demonstrating that there are many different options.

To be honest, as much as it's interesting to explore these possibilities and the creation of new connections, I'm not sure if there would ever be enough passengers to sustain a link between Leith and Portobello. It's been tried in the past as far as I'm aware and it didn't work. You'd need a frequency of at least every 30 minutes for anybody to even use it, but even that feels like too frequent a service for such a corridor. Resources could definitely be better used elsewhere.

The council were making noises about the "regeneration of Seafield" involving new housing, though, so it might be viable in 5-10 years.

 

[TheEastCoaster]

Well then, extend the 200 or the 1. I'm simply demonstrating that there are many different options.

To be honest, as much as it's interesting to explore these possibilities and the creation of new connections, I'm not sure if there would ever be enough passengers to sustain a link between Leith and Portobello. It's been tried in the past as far as I'm aware and it didn't work. You'd need a frequency of at least every 30 minutes for anybody to even use it, but even that feels like too frequent a service for such a corridor. Resources could definitely be better used elsewhere.

On top of that it depends on where your traveling from, for example there isn't a link from Musselburgh/Joppa to Leith, so that is something to take into consideration!

Miracles don't happen overnight either, if the 21/49 were altered to be removed from Portobello and the only link to Leith was via Seafield then yes that would work! but again, depends on the route and destination.

The council were making noises about the "regeneration of Seafield" involving new housing, though, so it might be viable in 5-10 years.

Guess we'll see, there's always loads of new housing around Ocean Terminal now, I still believe the Seafield link has some chance nowadays, the question being will Lothian or some other operator take a crack at it?

 

[CSB0241]

I’ve seen several people on this site talking about how they think that Edinburgh’s main operator, Lothian Buses, are trying to move into a new era for the new decade (after the sudden withdrawals of the 42 & 300 on the 11th of September, the latter of which had a slow painful death after being reintroduced after COVID-19, & the 41 on the 28th of May this year).

As for me personally, I think a “cool” change Lothian could do is divide the 38 into 2 routes;

Service 38; Greendykes - RIE - Cameron Toll - Blackford - Morningside - Shandon - Gorgie - Saughton Mains - Longstone - Murrayburn Road - Westside Plaza
Service 40; West Granton - Crewe Toll - Craigleith - Murrayfield - Balgreen - Stenhouse Cross - Longstone - Kingsknowe - Colinton

So, do I Agree with these changes?

NO! Absolutely not! But it’s safe to say that changes like these that I feel like are an inevitability.


So what do you lot think? Do you like these big bombastic changes? Do you prefer the pre-covid routes from 2019? Let us all know below…

 

[TheEastCoaster]

I’ve seen several people on this site talking about how they think that Edinburgh’s main operator, Lothian Buses, are trying to move into a new era for the new decade (after the sudden withdrawals of the 42 & 300 on the 11th of September, the latter of which had a slow painful death after being reintroduced after COVID-19, & the 41 on the 28th of May this year).

As for me personally, I think a “cool” change Lothian could do is divide the 38 into 2 routes;

Service 38; Greendykes - RIE - Cameron Toll - Blackford - Morningside - Shandon - Gorgie - Saughton Mains - Longstone - Murrayburn Road - Westside Plaza
Service 40; West Granton - Crewe Toll - Craigleith - Murrayfield - Balgreen - Stenhouse Cross - Longstone - Kingsknowe - Colinton

So, do I Agree with these changes?

NO! Absolutely not! But it’s safe to say that changes like these that I feel like are an inevitability.


So what do you lot think? Do you like these big bombastic changes? Do you prefer the pre-covid routes from 2019? Let us all know below…

I like the idea of the new 38 but personally I would have it extend from Greendykes to Fort Kinnaird or the Jewel via the Wisp, and therefore giving those areas a connection to Cameron Toll, Blackford and Morningside!

The New 38 or 40 could even go up to Balerno! Besides the 44 and 63 the area is pretty dead for bus services.

 

[JKP]

I like the idea of the new 38 but personally I would have it extend from Greendykes to Fort Kinnaird or the Jewel via the Wisp, and therefore giving those areas a connection to Cameron Toll, Blackford and Morningside!

The New 38 or 40 could even go up to Balerno! Besides the 44 and 63 the area is pretty dead for bus services.

I agree about the 38. One end of a route at a shopping centre or large supermarket is always going to be attractive to potential users and hence improve the financial viability.

 

[TheEastCoaster]

I agree about the 38. One end of a route at a shopping centre or large supermarket is always going to be attractive to potential users and hence improve the financial viability.

That's what I thought! Just more practical that way.

Speaking of Fort Kinnaird you think they will change up the buses that terminate there? Like the 400 just stops at Fort Kinnaird West, would it not be easier to have the bus take a one way loop via the shops and pick up passengers that way?

 

[JKP]

That's what I thought! Just more practical that way.

Speaking of Fort Kinnaird you think they will change up the buses that terminate there? Like the 400 just stops at Fort Kinnaird West, would it not be easier to have the bus take a one way loop via the shops and pick up passengers that way?

I would suggest that that may reduce reliability of the route as off peak there is only 9 minutes stand time. I would allow 5 minutes to do a loop of the shopping centre so that would only give 4 minutes stand time.

The location of the stops before and after the roundabout appear to be ideally situated for most passengers, though it is a long walk if you are a customer of M&S or Primark.

 

[Grumpyscot]

I would suggest that that may reduce reliability of the route as off peak there is only 9 minutes stand time. I would allow 5 minutes to do a loop of the shopping centre so that would only give 4 minutes stand time.

The location of the stops before and after the roundabout appear to be ideally situated for most passengers, though it is a long walk if you are a customer of M&S or Primark.

I don't ont know why they don't use the park and ride at Newcraighall Fire Station as the terminus. It would be a good alternative to the train to get into town and a lot more convenient for East Lothian drivers.

 

[TheEastCoaster]

I don't ont know why they don't use the park and ride at Newcraighall Fire Station as the terminus. It would be a good alternative to the train to get into town and a lot more convenient for East Lothian drivers.

To be fair I thought of that too! The Park and Ride station has been left without a bus service for years now and the other benefit would be a service to the other side of Fort Kinnaird!

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

So as per my post in the Lothian thread earlier, here is my suggestions for the contracts:

12 - Extended to Ratho on either a half hourly or hourly frequency. It would either increase the PVR by 2 (half hourly) or 1 (hourly). This would help to generate larger layovers on the 12 as well, something that is needed. Ingliston P&R could be removed from the route. Connections to Princes Street can be made along the A8 at various points but this restores a direct link to at least parts of the City Centre for the Ratho residents. All evening and Sunday journeys to terminate at Bristo Square, still hourly in the evenings. Evenings PVR would increase to 2 while Sundays would increase to 5.

13 - curtailed to the city centre.

I see little point in this lightly used service east of the city. The 9 could be rerouted to serve Great King Street, Hanover Street etc. Broughton Road has the 36, McDonald Road has the 10, Leith Walk has plenty of buses (and the tram) as does Lochend. The only section lost completely would be the section between Leith Walk and Lochend Road. Findlay Gardens is walkable to Seafield, Sleigh Drive and Restalrig Road. That means as many areas as possible maintain a bus service.

My suggestion would be to join the 13 and 45 together. Let’s face it, the 45 east of the city is largely pointless now. This would restore the Saturday service to the western end of the 45 too. I do have some concerns that the 36 and 38 offer some of the connections already, but really it’s there to solve the issue of the 13 and 45 both being too short. If the 13 were to be extended from Craigleith to Stockbridge (unsure where it could terminate) then that would again restore the link to Sainsbury’s lost since the withdrawal of the 42. I feel like the 13 could sustain a half hourly service on the retained western section. This combined route would need to be single deckers all the time but could run from either Central or Longstone.

20 - Partly combined with 63 to offer a through service from Chesser all the way to South Queensferry. If this were hourly it would have a PVR of 3. I feel that a half hourly service could work, but isn’t probably realistic right now. That would result in a PVR of 6. Every 40 minutes doesn’t work as you still end up with a PVR of 6, just with massive layovers.

63 - Withdrawn and mostly replaced by revised 20.

64 - I couldn’t come up with a route number for this so I’ve stuck with the nostalgic one! As per current 63 from Balerno to Gyle, then serves Turnhouse*, East Craigs, Cammo before terminating in Cramond at the former 41 terminus. Hourly service during the day and runs Monday to Saturday. PVR of 2.

*I’m aware it might be a stretch for it to serve Turnhouse, but I think it’s worth a go.

68 - No longer serves Turnhouse, allowing for a consistent hourly service to be implemented. PVR of 1. If the 64 cannot manage Turnhouse then I’d explore options to maintain the 68 serving it.

 

[overthewater]

No13 is council service. That's not getting cut back.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

No13 is council service that not getting cut back.

Doesn’t mean it’s not quiet though? The 13 east of the city is generally a fresh air bus. There’s absolutely no point in it. My suggestion alleviates as many problems as possible.

 

[overthewater]

Edinburgh council are not shy in making cuts, so there must be enough people using the service to keep them happy. Could they have extended it down to the Parliament instead?

https://edinburghcoachlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/13-4pp-198x210-folded-2207-WEB.pdf

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Edinburgh council are not shy in making cuts, so they must be enough people using the service to keep them happy. They could have extended it down to the Parliament instead?

It’s been cut before, so would not be surprised if it’s cut again. As you’ll probably know for any contract bus to survive it has to not compete with any commercial route. McDonald Road for me was the last reason it had a real purpose on the east section, and now the 10 serves it all day 7 days a week.

The 9 picking up Great King Street, Hanover St, George IV Bridge etc would again further cover the 13 while also fixing the lost 41 links.

A bus down to the parliament is well into the history books. I also question how you would get a bus there within the council’s city centre vision too.

 

[overthewater]

A bus down to the parliament is well into the history books. I also question how you would get a bus there within the council’s city centre vision too.

Head down north bridge then on to Royal mail then on to St mary street, then bobs your uncle.

 

[DunsBus]

Head down north bridge then on to Royal mail then on to St mary street, then bobs your uncle.

Bus services to Holyrood simply don't pay, and never have paid. That's why none run to there. Why should Lothian Buses put on a service running at a loss just so that Granny McPhee and her cronies can go to the bingo once a week?

 

[overthewater]

Bus services to Holyrood simply don't pay, and never have paid. That's why none run to there. Why should Lothian Buses put on a service running at a loss just so that Granny McPhee and her cronies can go to the bingo once a week?

We were taking about the council service 13 and not Lothian buses route. Hence why no 13 is council service no operated by Lothian.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

We were taking about the council service 13 and not Lothian buses route. Hence why no 13 is council service no operated by Lothian.

Even if weren’t operated by Lothian, I find it somewhat unlikely that Holyrood would ever pay for itself. The 60 failed twice, and the 6/36 only really carried tourists and Mrs Smith with her weekly excursion to the city centre outside of the peak. They did carry come employees who worked in the area during the peak but would that justify itself now? I doubt it. The 35 while it was diverted was definitely busy, but that was from passengers who would normally board on the Royal Mile.

Not to mention that if it weren’t a Lothian route the patronage would typically be lower. That’s generally a common theme of routes in this scenario.

 

[DunsBus]

Even if weren’t operated by Lothian, I find it somewhat unlikely that Holyrood would ever pay for itself. The 60 failed twice, and the 6/36 only really carried tourists and Mrs Smith with her weekly excursion to the city centre outside of the peak. They did carry come employees who worked in the area during the peak but would that justify itself now? I doubt it. The 35 while it was diverted was definitely busy, but that was from passengers who would normally board on the Royal Mile.

Not to mention that if it weren’t a Lothian route the patronage would typically be lower. That’s generally a common theme of routes in this scenario.

Even when the 60 was running, it was as a tender and mostly carried fresh air. It was little wonder that the council eventually pulled the plug on the service.

 

[roadierway77]

12 - Extended to Ratho on either a half hourly or hourly frequency. It would either increase the PVR by 2 (half hourly) or 1 (hourly). This would help to generate larger layovers on the 12 as well, something that is needed. Ingliston P&R could be removed from the route. Connections to Princes Street can be made along the A8 at various points but this restores a direct link to at least parts of the City Centre for the Ratho residents. All evening and Sunday journeys to terminate at Bristo Square, still hourly in the evenings. Evenings PVR would increase to 2 while Sundays would increase to 5.

.....

20 - Partly combined with 63 to offer a through service from Chesser all the way to South Queensferry. If this were hourly it would have a PVR of 3. I feel that a half hourly service could work, but isn’t probably realistic right now. That would result in a PVR of 6. Every 40 minutes doesn’t work as you still end up with a PVR of 6, just with massive layovers.

I came up with similar proposals a few weeks back so I definitely agree. A direct link from Ratho to the city would be welcome, as would an hourly service on the 63 - as I mentioned on the Lothian thread, the 63 does surprisingly well in terms of patronage for a service that only runs every 90 minutes and thus would be sustainable at an hourly frequency.

I'd suggest that Chesser-bound 20s and Balerno-bound 63s would connect at the Gyle, and vice versa northbound, as I've observed a small number of passengers travelling from Queensferry and Kirkliston to Riccarton (and I indeed do this journey myself on occasion).

64 - I couldn’t come up with a route number for this so I’ve stuck with the nostalgic one! As per current 63 from Balerno to Gyle, then serves Turnhouse*, East Craigs, Cammo before terminating in Cramond at the former 41 terminus. Hourly service during the day and runs Monday to Saturday. PVR of 2.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch for the 64 to serve Turnhouse as I imagine it would serve West Craigs anyway once the development progresses.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

I'd suggest that Chesser-bound 20s and Balerno-bound 63s would connect at the Gyle, and vice versa northbound, as I've observed a small number of passengers travelling from Queensferry and Kirkliston to Riccarton (and I indeed do this journey myself on occasion).


I don't think it's too much of a stretch for the 64 to serve Turnhouse as I imagine it would serve West Craigs anyway once the development progresses.

I assume you’re referring to 20’s and 64’s lining up well at the Gyle?

Ideally there would be a 4th exit at the Maybury Drive roundabout with a road that comes from Craigs Road and Turnhouse Road in the future once housing is built. That would stop the unnecessary doubling back that we see at the minute.

 

[CSB0241]

Guess we'll see, there's always loads of new housing around Ocean Terminal now, I still believe the Seafield link has some chance nowadays, the question being will Lothian or some other operator take a crack at it?

I think that Edinburgh Coach Lines could maybe make a 2nd service to a) get some more profit, and b) get better links through the Leith & Portobello corridor. If not, maybe extending the 13 via Craigentinny and Fillyside?

 

[LothianBusesPh]

I’ve seen several people on this site talking about how they think that Edinburgh’s main operator, Lothian Buses, are trying to move into a new era for the new decade (after the sudden withdrawals of the 42 & 300 on the 11th of September, the latter of which had a slow painful death after being reintroduced after COVID-19, & the 41 on the 28th of May this year).

As for me personally, I think a “cool” change Lothian could do is divide the 38 into 2 routes;

Service 38; Greendykes - RIE - Cameron Toll - Blackford - Morningside - Shandon - Gorgie - Saughton Mains - Longstone - Murrayburn Road - Westside Plaza
Service 40; West Granton - Crewe Toll - Craigleith - Murrayfield - Balgreen - Stenhouse Cross - Longstone - Kingsknowe - Colinton

So, do I Agree with these changes?

NO! Absolutely not! But it’s safe to say that changes like these that I feel like are an inevitability.


So what do you lot think? Do you like these big bombastic changes? Do you prefer the pre-covid routes from 2019? Let us all know below…

I wouldn't call it the Service 40, maybe Service 39 would make more sense. The Service 40 is already taken by the tendered route alongside the X40, and Lothian could be picking those up this autumn/winter.

View Notice - Public Contracts Scotland

www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk

 

[TheEastCoaster]

I wouldn't call it the Service 40, maybe Service 39 would make more sense. The Service 40 is already taken by the tendered route alongside the X40, and Lothian could be picking those up this autumn/winter.

View Notice - Public Contracts Scotland

www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk

That would be good if Lothian (well most likely LCB) take on this route. It would be a nice way for them to rebuild their West Lothian network.

 

[LothianBusesPh]

That would be good if Lothian (well most likely LCB) take on this route. It would be a nice way for them to rebuild their West Lothian network.

If they take it then I could see 195-198 returning, 199 could even move to Lothian Country and well I don't know what East Coast would get in return.

 

[DespacitoPlayz]

I’ve seen several people on this site talking about how they think that Edinburgh’s main operator, Lothian Buses, are trying to move into a new era for the new decade (after the sudden withdrawals of the 42 & 300 on the 11th of September, the latter of which had a slow painful death after being reintroduced after COVID-19, & the 41 on the 28th of May this year).

As for me personally, I think a “cool” change Lothian could do is divide the 38 into 2 routes;

Service 38; Greendykes - RIE - Cameron Toll - Blackford - Morningside - Shandon - Gorgie - Saughton Mains - Longstone - Murrayburn Road - Westside Plaza
Service 40; West Granton - Crewe Toll - Craigleith - Murrayfield - Balgreen - Stenhouse Cross - Longstone - Kingsknowe - Colinton

So, do I Agree with these changes?

NO! Absolutely not! But it’s safe to say that changes like these that I feel like are an inevitability.


So what do you lot think? Do you like these big bombastic changes? Do you prefer the pre-covid routes from 2019? Let us all kno

I wouldn't call it the Service 40, maybe Service 39 would make more sense. The Service 40 is already taken by the tendered route alongside the X40, and Lothian could be picking those up this autumn/winter.

View Notice - Public Contracts Scotland

www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk

I can totally agree with Service 39, as 40 has been used commonly, with Service 40 from Eastfield to Penicuik (now ECB 140 from Musselburgh to Penicuik) along with the tendered route + X40 whereas Service 39 from Gore Avenue to Woodburn (now ECB 139 from Midlothian Community Hospital to Dalkeith School Campus) is more relatively unknown with it's old status as Service 39 thus being a little easier to follow up with the half of Service 38 with Service 39.

Additionally, a longlonglonglong time back, Service 39 used to be a twin-route of sorts with Service 19 in the Granton area so it would make more sense to see Service 39 running about in West Granton.

Following up with CSB's post, if these changes were to apply, I think a more suitable suggestion would be to extend the new Service 38 to The Jewel (ASDA) to cover up for Service 4 no longer serving the car park. I also think the locals in Craigleith would like another service to cover the long forgotten Service 42, but I guess we'll just have to wait until Lothian releases the next changes.

The image may appear upside down!

 

[gavin1985]

Does anyone know if McGills are not renewing the contract for the 20 and 63?
If not when will they be up for tender?

Does anyone think that Lothian will pick them up and bunch it in the Lothian Country bracket? As it would make sense considering the routes.