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 would have said that bringing Dartford into the equation would be commercial suicide also. The and sign bus x 80 Bluewater to lake side and chafford Hundred can pick up some monstrous delays when it all falls over, I did the root for the first time the other week and was on board and extremely hot Street deck for over 90 minutes
To clarify, I agree with you, it would be. I like to play Devil's Advocate occasionally, and was pointing out that a true Superloop is not feasible with the current pathetic infrastructure for Thames crossings east of Tower Bridge. The award for the 2012 Olympics to Stratford should have been the catalyst for a new crossing, but as a nation we have gone backwards since then on getting anything meaningful done long term.
Always? For example, was the original Roundabout network in Orpington in 1986 consulted on? I honestly can't remember. The revisions to the R1, R1, R3 and R7 in 2001 I believe were consulted on.
Going back even further, when the 131 was curtailed at West Molsey in 1971 and route 211 introduced to cover, was there a consultation? When the 72 and 12 changed terminii at Esher and Hampton Court in 1972, was that consulted upon? Or was it TfL which introduced 'consultations'?
Always? For example, was the original Roundabout network in Orpington in 1986 consulted on? I honestly can't remember. The revisions to the R1, R1, R3 and R7 in 2001 I believe were consulted on.
Going back even further, when the 131 was curtailed at West Molsey in 1971 and route 211 introduced to cover, was there a consultation? When the 72 and 12 changed terminii at Esher and Hampton Court in 1972, was that consulted upon? Or was it TfL which introduced 'consultations'?
Personally I think the renumbering of the 607 and X68 ridiculous, even more so that it’s ridiculous that these routes are part of the Superloop, they should be part of a separate network of radial express routes that parallel the stopping service.
Personally I think the renumbering of the 607 and X68 ridiculous, even more so that it’s ridiculous that these routes are part of the Superloop, they should be part of a separate network of radial express routes that parallel the stopping service.
I am disappointed the new X183 route reduces frequencies to both North Harrow and Pinner.
The H18/H19 is already not a very frequent bus and so residents of North Harrow really lose out here, particularly due to the roundabout nature the H9/H10 takes from Harrow.
I guess needs be for the "greater good"...
Perhaps as a compromise, they could route the X183 to Rayners Lane (via North Harrow) and made use of the "bus stands" by the old Ladbrokes building. These are already often used by rail replacement bus services.
I am disappointed the new X183 route reduces frequencies to both North Harrow and Pinner.
The H18/H19 is already not a very frequent bus and so residents of North Harrow really lose out here, particularly due to the roundabout nature the H9/H10 takes from Harrow.
I guess needs be for the "greater good"...
Perhaps as a compromise, they could route the X183 to Rayners Lane (via North Harrow) and made use of the "bus stands" by the old Ladbrokes building. These are already often used by rail replacement bus services.
There will still be 9 buses per hour between North Harrow and Harrow between the 183/H18/H19. I presume the X183 isn't going beyond Harrow because there is already a tube line to North Harrow and Pinner.
I doubt there were any real plans to introduce such a concept until Sadiq Khan got so much bad publicity for his radical London-wide extension to the ULEZ zone, exploited by the Tory media, especially the Evening Standard. It bears all the hallmarks of a hastily cobbled together 'initiative' with input from many different people with conflicting ideas. Too many cooks!! Oh for Peter Hendy and Leon Daniels, gone but not forgotten.
I doubt there were any real plans to introduce such a concept until Sadiq Khan got so much bad publicity for his radical London-wide extension to the ULEZ zone, exploited by the Tory media, especially the Evening Standard. It bears all the hallmarks of a hastily cobbled together 'initiative' with input from many different people with conflicting ideas. Too many cooks!! Oh for Peter Hendy and Leon Daniels, gone but not forgotten.
If I recall, during the early years of Boris’s tenure as mayor he did propose a similar network of buses, this was around the time the 726 was re-graded into the X26 or maybe a bit after.
The cynic in me, feels that the Superloop is a way to get outer London votes, particularly in Bexley and Bromley boroughs, ie boroughs which are traditionally Tory and would probably never vote Labour.
I doubt there were any real plans to introduce such a concept until Sadiq Khan got so much bad publicity for his radical London-wide extension to the ULEZ zone, exploited by the Tory media, especially the Evening Standard. It bears all the hallmarks of a hastily cobbled together 'initiative' with input from many different people with conflicting ideas. Too many cooks!! Oh for Peter Hendy and Leon Daniels, gone but not forgotten.
The award for the 2012 Olympics to Stratford should have been the catalyst for a new crossing, but as a nation we have gone backwards since then on getting anything meaningful done long term.
In my opinion there really should be a new bridge crossing the Thames between Gallions Reach and Thamesmead (the location is obvious when looking at a satellite view of the area), carrying a 2 lane + bus lane each way road link from the North Circular to Eastern Way (the dual carriageway between Thamesmead and Abbey Wood), a DLR extension from Gallions Reach to Thamesmead and a segregated cycleway and pavement.
There is also an undeveloped part of Thamesmead, next to where the southern end of the bridge would be, that could be developed as part of the scheme.
In my opinion there really should be a new bridge crossing the Thames between Gallions Reach and Thamesmead (the location is obvious when looking at a satellite view), carrying a 2 lane + bus lane each way road link from the North Circular to Eastern Way (the dual carriageway between Thamesmead and Abbey Wood), a DLR extension from Gallions Reach to Thamesmead and a segregated cycleway and pavement.
There is also an undeveloped part of Thamesmead, next to where the southern end of the bridge would be, that could be developed as part of the scheme.
Livingstone proposed the Thames Gateway Bridge that failed at public inquiry and was later cancelled by Johnson. There was a huge amount of opposition against the scheme back then and it would be even less likely to be permitted now.
The 607 is probably getting a frequency cut, it virtually duplicates the newly opened Western section of Elizabeth line, so will probably be spun as excuse as standardising Superloop frequencies rather than decimating the 607
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I doubt there were any real plans to introduce such a concept until Sadiq Khan got so much bad publicity for his radical London-wide extension to the ULEZ zone, exploited by the Tory media, especially the Evening Standard. It bears all the hallmarks of a hastily cobbled together 'initiative' with input from many different people with conflicting ideas. Too many cooks!! Oh for Peter Hendy and Leon Daniels, gone but not forgotten.
There were certainly plans to introduce express buses on certain corridors. This was evidenced by the introduction of the x140 which had been in the planning since just before sadiq Khan became mayor. I definitely remember seeing initial plans for an x183 back in 2018.
Express buses are a cheap way to maintain or increase network mileage (the biggest metric TfL uses to measure the size of the bus network) because of their higher average speeds.
The hopper fare also increases the desirability of the express buses as they are more likely to use the express bus to get a a stop where they can change for a slower bus.
TfL can also get more money under the Travelcard agreement for running express buses because the longer the distance someone travels on the bus, the more reimbursement to TfL.
Connectivity in the outer boroughs is also quite poor and the express buses are a way of addressing this
However, some of the ideas have been rushed and not developed properly and other ideas were floated about that appear to have been abandoned. I remember there was at one point a plan for a 24 hour x26 and an x279.
There were certainly plans to introduce express buses on certain corridors. This was evidenced by the introduction of the x140 which had been in the planning since just before sadiq Khan became mayor. I definitely remember seeing initial plans for an x183 back in 2018.
Express buses are a cheap way to maintain or increase network mileage (the biggest metric TfL uses to measure the size of the bus network) because of their higher average speeds.
The hopper fare also increases the desirability of the express buses as they are more likely to use the express bus to get a a stop where they can change for a slower bus.
TfL can also get more money under the Travelcard agreement for running express buses because the longer the distance someone travels on the bus, the more reimbursement to TfL.
Connectivity in the outer boroughs is also quite poor and the express buses are a way of addressing this
However, some of the ideas have been rushed and not developed properly and other ideas were floated about that appear to have been abandoned. I remember there was at one point a plan for a 24 hour x26 and an x279.
Express buses to Heathrow were always on the cards. Nothing akin to a X183 was ever publically mooted is all I can say on that.
I'm not following your travelcard reimbursement point, but maybe I'm being dense. In any case, travelcards are used less and less as a direct result of TfL both making their virtues less attractive and the things more difficult to buy.
It's interesting to see in the latest tender results that the 279 is the only route to gain extra PVR, albeit only the one. I'd like to see it re-extended further south, but know it won't happen. Nags Head is a turning point for late runners as far as I'm concerned.
GoAhead London has ordered 141 more electric BYD ADL E400 and E200 buses following recent tender wins
Go-Ahead London will take delivery of almost 300 BYD Alexander Dennis battery-electric buses in 2023 after it placed a further order with the consortium for 141 such vehicles.
As a result, the combined total due for the operator 2023 has risen to 299, with 169 Enviro400EV double-deckers and 130 Enviro200EV single-deckers to be supplied. Deliveries of those are already underway. The latest order is based on success in winning Transport for London contracts.
When all 299 of 2023’s delivery are in service, there will be 577 BYD Alexander Dennis battery-electric buses in the Go-Ahead London fleet. That will make it by far the largest operator of the combination. All of the Enviro400EVs from the 2023 orders will be 10.8m long, while the Enviro200EVs will come at a mix of 9.6m, 10.2m and 10.9m lengths.
They have LED blinds - current examples of these buses are on routes 80, 93, 119, 154, 213, 264 and 353 (double decker) and routes 163 and 164 (single decker).
Roller blinds haven't been fitted to new London buses for 2 or 3 years. I don't even think new smartblinds units are still made (and replacement blinds might be down to a single supplier)
Given that the delivery dates seem to be quite quick (much quicker than in previous years), was this order placed some time ago, or mabe an indicative order placed tobe confirmed when the tenders were announced? If the order was placed some time ago, then maybe the non-BYD version was not on offer.
I wonder if Stagecoach London will take the first all-ADL E400EVs, given they need a large batch of electric deckers for the 86 at Romford which they've retained on retender, and also for the D7 from (presumably) West Ham which is being taken over from Go Ahead this winter.
I wonder if Stagecoach London will take the first all-ADL E400EVs, given they need a large batch of electric deckers for the 86 at Romford which they've retained on retender, and also for the D7 from (presumably) West Ham which is being taken over from Go Ahead this winter.
Not so sure. ADL seems to be out of favour with Stagecoach nationwide these days, albeit they do have an order for a batch of E400EVs (non-BYD) for Oxford.
I wonder if Stagecoach London will take the first all-ADL E400EVs, given they need a large batch of electric deckers for the 86 at Romford which they've retained on retender, and also for the D7 from (presumably) West Ham which is being taken over from Go Ahead this winter.
I wonder if Stagecoach London will take the first all-ADL E400EVs, given they need a large batch of electric deckers for the 86 at Romford which they've retained on retender, and also for the D7 from (presumably) West Ham which is being taken over from Go Ahead this winter.
I wouldn't expect TfL to allow the buses to run over a parallel route to the trams, even non-stop. The pro-bus retention argument was lost, to all intents, when the trams were introduced in 2000. I still believe the 54 should not have been withdrawn between Elmers End and West Croydon.
Tramlink is ridiculously unreliable at the moment, and of the 8 running cards on the Addington route, there are regularly only 6 trams in service, and there is no hint as to when the tram availability issue will ease. They should just introduce a six-tram emergency timetable on this route (10-minute headway vice 7.5) but the current situation is so silly three trams come within 15 minutes then the next one is another 15 minutes away. Sometimes they do delay the previous one before the 15-minute gap slightly and bring the next one forward slightly to run a roughly 10-minute even headway, but that is not guaranteed. In any case the tram is actually regularly slower than 466 on this stretch off-peak.
I wondered, since the start of the announcement for the project, whether the "X119" should duplicate capacity via West Wickham, as the demand may not be there for an additional 4-5 bph.
Running it via Addington Interchange does however allow a comprehensive review of routes in the area. I would imagine that routing could allow 466 to be curtailed at East Croydon or Shirley (poss -3/4 PVR), or more daringly Katherine Street (maybe -6 PVR) and possibly 353 at Hayes or, if demand requires due to possible reduction on the regular 119, diverted to West Wickham (-1 PVR).
Shirley to Addington Interchange does not see a huge number of passengers boarding/alighting en route, so "X119" can serve all stops without impacting on the running time too much. Even if it needs to run limited stop to be consistent with the rest of the network, 5bph on the existing 130 should be more than sufficient. The busier school runs can probably be catered for by the 1-2 bus daily extension on the 466/double-run/diversion of 198.
Forestdale can then be replaced with a double-run on the 359 which is a reduction from 8bph to 7bph overall (including 433) and I think 359 can possibly do that without any additional vehicle requirement off-peak, although that does mean Monks Hill will suffer longer journey times in the Addington direction. Saying that some can feasibly walk to the main road and use the 64.
314 can be curtailed at Addington Interchange to help improve its shocking reliability and offer potentially 2-veh saving. 464 can be extended via Gascoigne Road following existing 314 routing terminating at Addington Interchange. Alternatively 464 can do that and be extended to Forestdale instead of 359 (both are 2bph), or even merging the two routes together.
Gascoigne Road as a result goes from 5bph to 2bph, so divert either 2bph or 3bph on the 64 that way. I know TfL don't like running buses on the same route over different roads but the middle section of New Addington via King Henry's Drive doesn't have the demand to justify 6bph on 64, and in any case are short walks away from Tramlink/130.
That to me covers pretty much everything and offers a decent PVR saving.
The biggest problem with running the "X119" via Kent Gate Way is the congestion westbound approaching the Addington roundabout, which is a big headache for existing bus routes.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Personally I think the renumbering of the 607 and X68 ridiculous, even more so that it’s ridiculous that these routes are part of the Superloop, they should be part of a separate network of radial express routes that parallel the stopping service.
I do wonder with traditional bus people from the LT empire no longer at the helm, whether respect for some historic LT practice is gradually being eroded.
SL just reminds me of Station Link (who still remembers those?), so I would think if they really wanted a network name along those lines something like SP (for SuPer or SuperlooP) must have been better. They can then as some suggested go clockwise around the loop increasing in number (X140 >> SP0, "X183" >> SP1, "X34" >> SP2, ..., "X119" >> SP5, X26 >> SP6) following the LT convention where at least last digit(s) match existing routes. 607 can even be SP7, X68 be SP8, and the proposed X239 >> SP9, neat, not that I am a fan of including these in the network.
But just wasting money updating the route numbers (hence smart blinds and all publicity) without any associated changes like they are seemingly doing now with the 607? Can Khan pay for it out of his own pocket rather than waste taxpayers'?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.route-one.net
