Lothian Group discussion (Lothian City, Lothian Country Bus and East Coast Buses)

[Scotrail314209]

Seems to be a lot of 31s turning short at Maybury or Drum Brae, usual business it seems.

 

[DespacitoPlayz]

Seems to be a lot of 31s turning short at Maybury or Drum Brae, usual business it seems.

I saw this on a day out at Princes St, multiple 31s running to Drum Brae. That was on the Scotland-France rugby game day when I saw them, perhaps it's just for the rugby to have more frequent 31s turning and passing Murrayfield faster unless they were also running on non-game days.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

I saw this on a day out at Princes St, multiple 31s running to Drum Brae. That was on the Scotland-France rugby game day when I saw them, perhaps it's just for the rugby to have more frequent 31s turning and passing Murrayfield faster unless they were also running on non-game days.

I saw a few yesterday as well. Late running because of traffic almost certainly being the culprit.

 

[roadierway77]

Do the new departure boards being installed at bus stops take their data from the official Bus Registration? As e.g. the 4 is shown as to Musselburgh, the 1 to South Leith, and so on.

I'm unsure which data the boards source from, probably NaPTAN, and if so, the boards are probably using the 'LocalityName' column for the terminus. The entries for the Seafield terminus and QMU terminus are 'South Leith' and 'Musselburgh' respectively.

This works fine for some terminus points e.g. East Craigs and Clermiston but not all, as Lothian will sometimes not use locality names as the publicised terminus (e.g. Heriot-Watt and Hunter's Tryst) and also some localities are simply missing from the data (the stops in Cammo show up as in 'Drumbrae'). This is probably why The Jewel has been similarly showing up as 'Magdalene' on the displays as the 'LocalityName' entry in the data for the Asda stop is 'Magdalene'.

 

[DespacitoPlayz]

This works fine for some terminus points e.g. East Craigs and Clermiston but not all, as Lothian will sometimes not use locality names as the publicised terminus (e.g. Heriot-Watt and Hunter's Tryst) and also some localities are simply missing from the data (the stops in Cammo show up as in 'Drumbrae'). This is probably why The Jewel has been similarly showing up as 'Magdalene' on the displays as the 'LocalityName' entry in the data for the Asda stop is 'Magdalene'.

Has the same thing being happening with the Royal Infirmary i.e. Little France/Greendykes?

 

[computerSaysNo]

I'm unsure which data the boards source from, probably NaPTAN, and if so, the boards are probably using the 'LocalityName' column for the terminus. The entries for the Seafield terminus and QMU terminus are 'South Leith' and 'Musselburgh' respectively.

This works fine for some terminus points e.g. East Craigs and Clermiston but not all, as Lothian will sometimes not use locality names as the publicised terminus (e.g. Heriot-Watt and Hunter's Tryst) and also some localities are simply missing from the data (the stops in Cammo show up as in 'Drumbrae'). This is probably why The Jewel has been similarly showing up as 'Magdalene' on the displays as the 'LocalityName' entry in the data for the Asda stop is 'Magdalene'.

So is this an issue on the Council's end then? With which column they're selecting from the data?
Or is it Lothian's fault for not using the same name on the physical buses as is registered on the NaPTAN (i.e. the need to change either the text on the buses or the text in the data, so that both match)?

 

[roadierway77]

So is this an issue on the Council's end then? With which column they're selecting from the data?
Or is it Lothian's fault for not using the same name on the physical buses as is registered on the NaPTAN (i.e. the need to change either the text on the buses or the text in the data, so that both match)?

There aren't really any columns best suited as it varies whether Lothian uses a locality, street name or landmark as an advertised terminus point. Usually what Lothian shows on the front of a bus can be found somewhere on the datasheet but which column varies. Ideally the data should be updated with a column listing common terminus names, but that would obviously be very time consuming and require liaison with every bus company in the country as route registrations are often incorrect.

 

[Siemens Trains]

Have to say - was in Edinburgh today and honestly all the Lothian Ladies and Gents should be on danger money - the state of some of the driving from the great British public .... I am not sure if they give them a decent bonus for dealing with this month - but I'd honestly be a nervous wreck (aside from any caused by a complete lack of ability in moving a bus !) by even one journey down Princes Street.

Hopefully few of the general public are driving on Princes Street these days as it's mostly reserved for buses, taxis and occasional deliveries. Thinking back to when the street was 3 lanes wide and open to all vehicles I'm not sure conditions were any better or worse. I don't wish to sound unsympathetic and I know it requires the patience of a saint but drivers should have a pretty good idea of what to expect when taking a driving job and be adequately trained for the challenges before let loose.

 

[jagardner1984]

Hopefully few of the general public are driving on Princes Street these days as it's mostly reserved for buses, taxis and occasional deliveries. Thinking back to when the street was 3 lanes wide and open to all vehicles I'm not sure conditions were any better or worse. I don't wish to sound unsympathetic and I know it requires the patience of a saint but drivers should have a pretty good idea of what to expect when taking a driving job and be adequately trained for the challenges before let loose.

Sure I don’t disagree it’s the job of course. But the issue is pretty clear that there is just insufficient room in the city on the roads, pavements and on vehicles for all the people there. I’m frankly surprised there are not more incidents in this month and I do hope at very least the work of the Lothian bus team (on and off road) is acknowledged and thanked by their management - as it must be extremely challenging to operate in these conditions, however much they’ve come to expect it.

 

[Lx008]

anyone at livingstone or otherwise aware of the status of country buses 588 after its collision in Newbridge on Tuesday?
Can’t show any pictures here as my employer may be liable for the some of the damages however, one of our customers hit the vehicle side on in a large campervan, reportedly ripping open the upper deck of the bus

 

[CN04NRJ]

Hopefully few of the general public are driving on Princes Street these days as it's mostly reserved for buses, taxis and occasional deliveries. Thinking back to when the street was 3 lanes wide and open to all vehicles I'm not sure conditions were any better or worse. I don't wish to sound unsympathetic and I know it requires the patience of a saint but drivers should have a pretty good idea of what to expect when taking a driving job and be adequately trained for the challenges before let loose.

Far more clueless tourists in hire cars during the festival, shame there's (virtually none for bus lanes) no enforcement cameras on princes st and in bus lanes!

 

[computerSaysNo]

Far more clueless tourists in hire cars during the festival, shame there's (virtually none for bus lanes) no enforcement cameras on princes st and in bus lanes!

I feel like the airport doesn't help. Tourists from certain countries think that every country is like their country in having no public transport at all and their default view, having done no research of their own, is that they should hire the biggest car possible and drive everywhere they want to go in Edinburgh. The airport of course is all too happy to cater to and encourage this.
In my opinion you shouldn't be allowed to hire a car in the UK unless you either have a UK driving license or read and take an exam on the highway code first. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

[Bus9120UK]

Service change from Sunday 10 September - Lothian Buses

Changes to Lothian Buses’ network will take effect from Sunday 10 September in response to customer feedback, improving reliability and connectivity and increasing services for returning students.

www.lothianbuses.com

Surprisingly already published, including information regarding changes to stopping patterns at Waverley Steps and Waterloo Place:

Service change from Sunday 10 September - Revision to the network for improved reliability and connectivity​

Changes to Lothian Buses’ network will take effect from Sunday 10 September in response to customer feedback, improving reliability and connectivity and increasing services for returning students.

There will be no change to Lothian Country or East Coast Buses services at this time.

Changes will be made to stopping patterns at Waverley Steps and Waterloo Place to reduce congestion and speed-up bus journey times. Further details of this are available below:
Lothian Services 26 and 44 will no longer stop at Waterloo Place (Stop ZK) but will continue to stop at Waverley Steps (Stop PN). Lothian Service 15 will continue to stop at Waterloo Place (Stop ZK) as a set-down stop.

Lothian Services X26 and X44 will continue to stop at both Waverley Steps (Stop PN) and Waterloo Place (Stop ZK).

East Coast Buses Services 113, 124, X5, X6 and X7 will no longer serve Waverley Steps (Stop PN) eastbound, but will continue to stop at Waterloo Place (Stop ZK).

NightHawk Services N107, N113 and N124 will continue to serve Waverley Steps (Stop PN)

Lothian Country services will continue to use stop ZK at Waterloo Place as a set-down stop.

With the exception of the stopping patterns mentioned above, there will be no change to Lothian Country or East Coast Buses services.

Also details on updates to service 9:

In response to community feedback, two alterations will be made to the route. Buses will run Waterfront Avenue, West Harbour Road, Granton Square, and Granton Road instead of Pilton Drive North, Boswall Parkway, and buses will run Potterrow, George IV Bridge, The Mound, Hanover Street, Dundas Street, and Great King Street instead of Bridges, Leith Street, Broughton Street.

Additional journeys will be introduced to and from King’s Buildings at peak hours to provide capacity for students and staff returning to campus.

More info on link above.

 

[InOban]

Why do they want the 9, having gone down Dundas Street, to turn along Gt. King Street to Rodney St, instead of continuing directly to Canonmills? Is there a major source of passengers on this diversion?

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Is there a major source of passengers on this diversion?

One of the major points of the 9 was that it was to serve Rodney Street for the large amounts of students living around the area. The exact route change at that section therefore makes total sense in my opinion. It’s been done presumably to maintain that while also better replacing the 41’s southern section. It was one that I had discussed before about the 9 when it was first introduced.

Contrary to the other route change, which essentially restores the link of the former 17. I feel that bit won’t last long. Waterfront Avenue really doesn’t need as many buses as 6 per hour.

Rather hilariously, this means the bus stop on the north side of Nicolson Square should just have just a sole bus every day. A lone 8 at 23:25.

 

[stevenedin]

One of the major points of the 9 was that it was to serve Rodney Street for the large amounts of students living around the area. The exact route change at that section therefore makes total sense in my opinion. It’s been done presumably to maintain that while also better replacing the 41’s southern section. It was one that I had discussed before about the 9 when it was first introduced.

Contrary to the other route change, which essentially restores the link of the former 17. I feel that bit won’t last long. Waterfront Avenue really doesn’t need as many buses as 6 per hour.

Rather hilariously, this means the bus stop on the north side of Nicolson Square should just have just a sole bus every day. A lone 8 at 23:25.

I thought the 2, 47 and 47B also served Nicolson Square?

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

I thought the 2, 47 and 47B also served Nicolson Square?

They do, but since the May changes they only stop on Nicolson Square heading westbound. This is due to the fact they were already stopping on Nicolson Street anyway. However, it is something that is the total opposite in the other direction.

 

[stevenedin]

They do, but since the May changes they only stop on Nicolson Square heading westbound. This is due to the fact they were already stopping on Nicolson Street anyway. However, it is something that is the total opposite in the other direction.

I never realised that it had changed. Maybe they will restore that stop or have them stop there but not Nicolson Street

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

I never realised that it had changed. Maybe they will restore that stop or have them stop there but not Nicolson Street

I think they’ll probably leave it as it is to be honest.

Certainly I feel something needs to be done with Leith Street. Could rerouting some services away help?

 

[Blindtraveler]

I think the alterations to the east coast eastbound stopping pattern are completely illogical, loss of a close by without significant walking rail connection for those with buggies and heavy luggage or disabled passengers, Waterloo place is not the easiest to reach from the station if you belong in one of the above categories, they would have done better to remove some local services from stops pn and pm instead, I'm sure the travelling public will tell them this fast enough

In all honesty there's little point re-rooting services away from Leith Street as you simply put the problem elsewhere, capacity at York place that was once available is now not and Waterloo place regent road has gone from being a fast-free flowing corridor to traffic soup so they need to share them evenly between them both

 

[buslad1988]

Certainly I feel something needs to be done with Leith Street. Could rerouting some services away help?

There is heavy passenger demand for Leith Street so why remove services from the area? Yes it’s more common to temporarily divert but they need a long term solution. It’s general traffic and the signals which are the biggest issues - why should bus passengers suffer.

I think the alterations to the east coast eastbound stopping pattern are completely illogical.

The current situation at Waverley Steps has been unsustainable for some time. They’ve come up with the best solution and it’s a shame it can’t be implemented sooner. Queuing and boarding can take upward of 5 minutes with the resulting tailbacks reaching Scott Monument stops.

East Coast buses take the longest to load so removing them entirely and limiting to Waterloo Place is the most feasible option. You could say Lothian caused the problem in the first place when they removed all East Coast services from the stop outside Jenners (due to congestion). The less those buses stop ultimately increases dwell time at the remaining ones.

 

[CN04NRJ]

The current situation at Waverley Steps has been unsustainable for some time. They’ve come up with the best solution and it’s a shame it can’t be implemented sooner. Queuing and boarding can take upward of 5 minutes with the resulting tailbacks reaching Scott Monument stops.

Precisely, it's affecting North Bridge services with the tailbacks and even causing tram delays.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

The current situation at Waverley Steps has been unsustainable for some time. They’ve come up with the best solution and it’s a shame it can’t be implemented sooner. Queuing and boarding can take upward of 5 minutes with the resulting tailbacks reaching Scott Monument stops.

East Coast buses take the longest to load so removing them entirely and limiting to Waterloo Place is the most feasible option. You could say Lothian caused the problem in the first place when they removed all East Coast services from the stop outside Jenners (due to congestion). The less those buses stop ultimately increases dwell time at the remaining ones.

Something had to give at Waverley Steps as it was too much, but I can’t help but think they could’ve gone a slightly more logical way about this. PD-ZK is far beyond the average distance, too far. I for one probably would’ve taken the current Lothian services away from PK, given that to the 26, 44, X26 and X44 and left all of ECB at PN. JC would’ve been fine for Leith St services and anything for drop off could’ve been done at PH due to the increased distance at the rear.

I’d say PM is actually the real problem as it causes the lay-by for PN to be too small, while it only had the 25 it was fine but since they added in the 16 it’s too much now.

For me we’re getting closer and closer to the point where it’s going to need to be ripped up and started again, as buses are still stopping at PP and then PR/PS/PT which in this day and age is too close. I also think PS is one of those stops that doesn’t really seem to have any consistency with another stop as well?

 

[Blindtraveler]

As I've already said their way of tackling the Waverly steps problem is illogical and stupid and will frustrate and disadvantage many passengers, maybe they should have moved the 25 and the 16 to outside marks and Spencer only and then had their next stop on leaf Street which is perfectly reasonable in my view

 

[buslad1988]

To be fair either side at Waverley Steps isn’t working right now. The stops are simply too close together.

The 16/25 stop doesn’t help with the length of XLB’s. 26’s in particular take an age to load with tourists - Lothian could do with positioning a ticket seller here to help reduce dwell times for all eastbound services in this location.

Westbound Lothian Country/Eastern Scottish and Midland Bluebird can queue and again take a while to load resulting in stacking and blocking the stop behind (aswell as buses attempting to pass).

The area is simply a mess. Add in private hire/taxis, general picking up and dropping off by cars and then delivery vans, tourist coaches etc. the whole place often grinds to a halt.

Ideally this location should be made entirely bus only policed with cameras and at most only one bus stop in either direction.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

The area is simply a mess. Add in private hire/taxis, general picking up and dropping off by cars and then delivery vans, tourist coaches etc. the whole place often grinds to a halt.

Ideally this location should be made entirely bus only policed with cameras and at most only one bus stop in either direction.

I agree completely. Ideally parking outside the Balmoral should be reserved for the sole purpose of the Balmoral and absolutely nothing else. The kerbs should be adjusted to have this as a separate section and not one continuous road. The widened pavement we saw installed a couple of years back at PP/PQ could become a permanent feature around there too as that section is too narrow.

I also would like to see the return of the eastbound second lane across South St Andrew St. This pointless narrowed section achieves nothing, made worse by the addition of a poorly made cycle lane. This in itself contributes massively to the issues at PM/PN. Factor in the lights, which still include the likely permanently pedestrianised Waverley Bridge in the sequence, delays occur for essentially nothing.

I agree with stops at Waverley Steps too, either one on each side, or none at all.

Lastly, adding in the same rules that the rest of Princes Street has is a no brainer now. It’s far too busy a section for that not to be included.

 

[A330Alex]

Enforcement in the area is incredibly poor. The section from South St David Street to Waverley is still a bus gate, not that anyone complies with it.

It’s a shame the opportunity wasn’t taken to trial a North Bridge bus gate when it reopened northbound given how important of a bus corridor it is.

I also would like to see the return of the eastbound second lane across South St Andrew St. This pointless narrowed section achieves nothing, made worse by the addition of a poorly made cycle lane. This in itself contributes massively to the issues at PM/PN. Factor in the lights, which still include the likely permanently pedestrianised Waverley Bridge in the sequence, delays occur for essentially nothing.

Even if you removed the widened pavement, you could still only have one ahead lane due to the tram and (potential) right turns into Waverley Bridge. It would also bring back the dangerous tram track crossing for people on bikes.

 

[scosutsut]

I think the alterations to the east coast eastbound stopping pattern are completely illogical, loss of a close by without significant walking rail connection for those with buggies and heavy luggage or disabled passengers, Waterloo place is not the easiest to reach from the station if you belong in one of the above categories, they would have done better to remove some local services from stops pn and pm instead, I'm sure the travelling public will tell them this fast enough

Most the eastbound ECB services haven't come far to get to the stop, whereas the Lothian ones have longer routes up until that point, so whilst I don't dismiss the point I think there would be complaints either way.

A potential positive of splitting the ECB services away from PN will be reducing Edinburgh local load from them, which will be particularly welcomed, especially on the X7 which toils for capacity at the peaks.

I agree completely. Ideally parking outside the Balmoral should be reserved for the sole purpose of the Balmoral and absolutely nothing else. The kerbs should be adjusted to have this as a separate section and not one continuous road. The widened pavement we saw installed a couple of years back at PP/PQ could become a permanent feature around there too as that section is too narrow.

I also would like to see the return of the eastbound second lane across South St Andrew St. This pointless narrowed section achieves nothing, made worse by the addition of a poorly made cycle lane. This in itself contributes massively to the issues at PM/PN. Factor in the lights, which still include the likely permanently pedestrianised Waverley Bridge in the sequence, delays occur for essentially nothing.

I agree with stops at Waverley Steps too, either one on each side, or none at all.

Lastly, adding in the same rules that the rest of Princes Street has is a no brainer now. It’s far too busy a section for that not to be included.

I'd argue the Balmoral should not get special treatment anymore and the roadway be reconfigured in whatever way makes the most sense!

Agree about the widening (there are conflicting challenges but there MUST be a better way of doing things) and the retiming/removal of the Waverley Bridge lights.

However Lothian have worked within the aspects they CAN control themselves, I hope it proves positive.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Even if you removed the widened pavement, you could still only have one ahead lane due to the tram and (potential) right turns into Waverley Bridge. It would also bring back the dangerous tram track crossing for people on bikes.

Would it though? If you maintained the existing two lane layout outside H&M all the way to the Apple Shop I feel like it would work fine. The current cycle lane was a total budget job and isn’t really all that safe either.

I'd argue the Balmoral should not get special treatment anymore and the roadway be reconfigured in whatever way makes the most sense!

Agree about the widening (there are conflicting challenges but there MUST be a better way of doing things) and the retiming/removal of the Waverley Bridge lights.

I think you’d have to tread on very thin ice taking away the parking outside the Balmoral though. It would be extremely controversial and those people using it would certainly find it almost impossible to arrive in at least some kind of privacy.

The lights are just daft. Makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Lx008]

How difficult could it possibly be for the police to install one or two ANPR cameras and send a nice fat bill to any plate not registered to a bus?