|
Post by londonbusbro on May 7, 2024 7:57:45 GMT
they should put the 59 back to euston maybe even kings cross and then reroute the 172 to where the 59 goes now
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 7, 2024 11:27:58 GMT
they should put the 59 back to euston maybe even kings cross and then reroute the 172 to where the 59 goes now TBH, that’s a good idea but it goes against them reducing that corridor
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on May 7, 2024 11:31:03 GMT
they should put the 59 back to euston maybe even kings cross and then reroute the 172 to where the 59 goes now Not needed, no one would use the 172 between Aldwych & St Bartholomew's Hospital, like how no one was using the 172 between Aldwych & Clerkenwell.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on May 7, 2024 12:40:56 GMT
they should put the 59 back to euston maybe even kings cross and then reroute the 172 to where the 59 goes now Not needed, no one would use the 172 between Aldwych & St Bartholomew's Hospital, like how no one was using the 172 between Aldwych & Clerkenwell. Is anyone actually using the 59 though at Smithfield either? I expect former 521 passengers would now prefer to use the 76 or 341, since they both start empty at Waterloo.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on May 7, 2024 12:49:45 GMT
Not needed, no one would use the 172 between Aldwych & St Bartholomew's Hospital, like how no one was using the 172 between Aldwych & Clerkenwell. Is anyone actually using the 59 though at Smithfield either? I expect former 521 passengers would now prefer to use the 76 or 341, since they both start empty at Waterloo. The 59 never seems to be particularly busy to Barts even at peak times so I would imagine many former 521 passengers have made other arrangements, commuter traffic into Waterloo seems to have dropped more sharply than elsewhere post pandemic anyway.
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on May 7, 2024 18:54:06 GMT
they should put the 59 back to euston maybe even kings cross and then reroute the 172 to where the 59 goes now TBH, that’s a good idea but it goes against them reducing that corridor The 59 was never very busy north of Holborn... though the 168 and 1 are. But I doubt that extending another route only as far as Euston would help... people want to go further north.
|
|
|
Post by greg on May 7, 2024 18:55:07 GMT
Not needed, no one would use the 172 between Aldwych & St Bartholomew's Hospital, like how no one was using the 172 between Aldwych & Clerkenwell. Is anyone actually using the 59 though at Smithfield either? I expect former 521 passengers would now prefer to use the 76 or 341, since they both start empty at Waterloo. No one. I reckon you could get away using a 8.9m on this bit and it still would not be full. I wonder what if TFL had never amended the 59 and just withdrew it between Aldwych and Euston? The 8 would provide almost the same link along Chancery Lane up tp Holborn and anyone directly for Waterloo would use the 76/341 instead. The London Bridge-City Thameslink is fairly decent and the 133 does pick up often, however I do think a better route to have been changed was the 47, withdrawing it from Bishopsgate and Shoreditch. There seems to be excess capacity at Bishopsgate IMO especially towards London Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by greg on May 7, 2024 18:56:40 GMT
TBH, that’s a good idea but it goes against them reducing that corridor The 59 was never very busy north of Holborn... though the 168 and 1 are. But I doubt that extending another route only as far as Euston would help... people want to go further north. Im gonna argue as a Euston local that the 59 was the busier route southbound at the time, picking up alot more at Euston Bus Station, but only because there was also the 68/168 at the time to E&C which reduced capacity on both routes. If we had the 1 and 59 still at Euston (68 diverted to Barts) i reckon the 59 would be just as busy at it use to be, probably even more without the 68.
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on May 7, 2024 18:56:45 GMT
Is anyone actually using the 59 though at Smithfield either? I expect former 521 passengers would now prefer to use the 76 or 341, since they both start empty at Waterloo. The 59 never seems to be particularly busy to Barts even at peak times so I would imagine many former 521 passengers have made other arrangements, commuter traffic into Waterloo seems to have dropped more sharply than elsewhere post pandemic anyway. On surface level it seems particularly baffling that they scrapped a route which was packed to the brim (still, even post-pandemic) in the peaks (though always empty off peaks) with compensating changes which aren't as attractive at all. But I suspect there's very little revenue lost in all that since most commuters on the 521 were likely on season passes (at least pre-COVID).
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on May 7, 2024 18:59:22 GMT
The 59 was never very busy north of Holborn... though the 168 and 1 are. But I doubt that extending another route only as far as Euston would help... people want to go further north. Im gonna argue as a Euston local that the 59 was the busier route southbound at the time, picking up alot more at Euston Bus Station, but only because there was also the 68/168 at the time to E&C which reduced capacity on both routes. If we had the 1 and 59 still at Euston (68 diverted to Barts) i reckon the 59 would be just as busy at it use to be, probably even more without the 68. Agreed. In time it might be worth doing a swap. Though I suspect whatever gets sent to St. Bart's will never be very busy. Chancery Lane is not a very busy area for buses.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on May 7, 2024 19:14:26 GMT
TBH, that’s a good idea but it goes against them reducing that corridor The 59 was never very busy north of Holborn... though the 168 and 1 are. But I doubt that extending another route only as far as Euston would help... people want to go further north. I wonder if the 59 could have been extended to Camden Town to help out the 1 had it been kept going to Euston. Regarding the 521, personally I think the 8 could have diverted to Waterloo & the 25 extended back to TCR, the 25 terminating at City Thameslink is quite pointless.
|
|
|
Post by greg on May 7, 2024 19:17:48 GMT
Im gonna argue as a Euston local that the 59 was the busier route southbound at the time, picking up alot more at Euston Bus Station, but only because there was also the 68/168 at the time to E&C which reduced capacity on both routes. If we had the 1 and 59 still at Euston (68 diverted to Barts) i reckon the 59 would be just as busy at it use to be, probably even more without the 68. Agreed. In time it might be worth doing a swap. Though I suspect whatever gets sent to St. Bart's will never be very busy. Chancery Lane is not a very busy area for buses. Im going to say this with discretion as I know how busy the 8 can get at New Oxford Street, and how much it loves to cause collisions in Earnshaw Street particularly. However, better and resourceful would simply have been 8 rerouted to Waterloo via Aldwych and Waterloo Bridge 98 extended to S’t Paul’s Station (not Bart’s) 68 diverted to TCR like its night service 188 curtailed to Waterloo SL6 curtailed to Aldwych 1 changes go ahead 59 no changes 133 extended up to Smithfield only (not Holborn). Ive added SL6 to this, because I really do not think it picks up anything beyond Waterloo. Only have chosen Aldwych as I do notice the odd interchange towards TSQ or the City. Even, I could argue to chop it to Waterloo and run non-stop to West Norwood. Although, this would be more costly as it involves alot more than just the 59, 133 and 521 or 1, 68, 168 and 188.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on May 7, 2024 19:23:54 GMT
The 59 was never very busy north of Holborn... though the 168 and 1 are. But I doubt that extending another route only as far as Euston would help... people want to go further north. I wonder if the 59 could have been extended to Camden Town to help out the 1 had it been kept going to Euston. Regarding the 521, personally I think the 8 could have diverted to Waterloo & the 25 extended back to TCR, the 25 terminating at City Thameslink is quite pointless. I do find it slightly odd how certain ideas come up time and time again. It does feel a little like a small group are pushing an agenda. The 15 on to the Isle Of Dogs / Merged with the 135 the 8 to Waterloo and many others have been posted almost word perfectly by one or two different members on the thread.
To keep on topic I will reply regarding the 25. It will never return to Tottenham Court Road - The section from City Thames Link westbound was timetabled for a something silly like 25 / 30 mins because of the amount of congestion and time it would take for the 25 to reach here.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 7, 2024 19:38:05 GMT
I wonder if the 59 could have been extended to Camden Town to help out the 1 had it been kept going to Euston. Regarding the 521, personally I think the 8 could have diverted to Waterloo & the 25 extended back to TCR, the 25 terminating at City Thameslink is quite pointless. I do find it slightly odd how certain ideas come up time and time again. It does feel a little like a small group are pushing an agenda. The 15 on to the Isle Of Dogs / Merged with the 135 the 8 to Waterloo and many others have been posted almost word perfectly by one or two different members on the thread. To keep on topic I will reply regarding the 25. It will never return to Tottenham Court Road - The section from City Thames Link westbound was timetabled for a something silly like 25 / 30 mins because of the amount of congestion and time it would take for the 25 to reach here.
I think in its last years it had 18 mins alone allocated just from TCR to Holles Street which can probably we walked quicker.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 7, 2024 21:45:20 GMT
TBH, that’s a good idea but it goes against them reducing that corridor The 59 was never very busy north of Holborn... though the 168 and 1 are. But I doubt that extending another route only as far as Euston would help... people want to go further north. I beg to differ personally having used the 59 many times over the years - that link to Euston & King's Cross was used quite well whether it be the 59 or the 91. For me, the 188 should of been the route to be cut back from that corridor - it has enough on it's plate elsewhere without having Central London tagged onto it. I'd then reverse the 1, 59 & 168 changes myself.
|
|