Bus from Waterloo to Kings Cross St Pancras

[STEVIEBOY1]

Good morning, apart from the 59, are there any other direct buses that go from Waterloo to Kings Cross St Pancras and VV? Tks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't think so.

 

[radamfi]

Good morning, apart from the 59, are there any other direct buses that go from Waterloo to Kings Cross St Pancras and VV? Tks.

Just in case you aren't aware, you can use board unlimited buses within an hour for the same price as boarding one. So from Kings Cross, if the 91 came first, you could get that as far as Aldwych and change onto one of the many buses from there to Waterloo from the same stop as you got off.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Just in case you aren't aware, you can use board unlimited buses within an hour for the same price as boarding one. So from Kings Cross, if the 91 came first, you could get that as far as Aldwych and change onto one of the many buses from there to Waterloo from the same stop as you got off.

Thanks for that, it's just if one is coming to / from K.X/ St. P, to Waterloo with luggage, it is a bit easier to travel on a through service. (I think the 59 was extended to K.X. ?ST. P, about the same time that Eurostar moved there from Waterloo.)

 

[Ianno87]

Thanks for that, it's just if one is coming to / from K.X/ St. P, to Waterloo with luggage, it is a bit easier to travel on a through service. (I think the 59 was extended to K.X. ?ST. P, about the same time that Eurostar moved there from Waterloo.)

Yes, the 59 extension was exactly at that time, to provide a direct link from Waterloo to St Pancras as part of the Eurostar transfer.

 

[Busaholic]

Good morning, apart from the 59, are there any other direct buses that go from Waterloo to Kings Cross St Pancras and VV? Tks.

No, and even that link is under threat. In a Central London consultation paper TfL are, regrettably, planning to cut the 59 back to Euston.

 

[radamfi]

No, and even that link is under threat. In a Central London consultation paper TfL are, regrettably, planning to cut the 59 back to Euston.

It's a long time since Eurostar moved from Waterloo so the rationale for the 59 extension is not what it was. Given that now there is no financial penalty for changing and there are opportunities for same stop interchange, the inconvenience is relatively small. The Euston to Waterloo corridor is seriously overbussed, particularly between Holborn and Waterloo.

 

[Mag_seven]

seriously overbussed

Great phrase!

 

[deltic]

It's a long time since Eurostar moved from Waterloo so the rationale for the 59 extension is not what it was. Given that now there is no financial penalty for changing and there are opportunities for same stop interchange, the inconvenience is relatively small. The Euston to Waterloo corridor is seriously overbussed, particularly between Holborn and Waterloo.

Except in the peak periods when the majority are full and standing and the queues at Waterloo are probably the last example of their type in the UK - hundreds of people all standing neatly in lines

 

[radamfi]

Except in the peak periods when the majority are full and standing and the queues at Waterloo are probably the last example of their type in the UK - hundreds of people all standing neatly in lines

Maybe they could try artics on the 521.

 

[deltic]

I wonder why no one has ever thought of doing that before!

 

[Busaholic]

It's a long time since Eurostar moved from Waterloo so the rationale for the 59 extension is not what it was. Given that now there is no financial penalty for changing and there are opportunities for same stop interchange, the inconvenience is relatively small. The Euston to Waterloo corridor is seriously overbussed, particularly between Holborn and Waterloo.

'there is no financial penalty for changing' is a fallacious statement. If a passenger has boarded the 59 at Streatham Hill, for instance, they might not be eligible for the Hopper Fare by the time they get to Euston. I could, before you look out the 59 timetable, say that a present passenger boarding a 109 at Croydon, changing at Streatham Hill to a 59 for Kings Cross, would under no circumstances be eligible for a Hopper fare after the change, even if they changed at Aldwych rather than Euston.

The whole argument is so fallacious. Imagine getting a taxi at Waterloo and asking for Kings Cross, and being told when you got to Euston 'I can't take you any further, but don't worry, I'll just drop you off here. Wait in the same place and another taxi will be along in a few minutes and you won't have to pay an extra penny.' The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except in the peak periods when the majority are full and standing and the queues at Waterloo are probably the last example of their type in the UK - hundreds of people all standing neatly in lines

Must be an unbalanced flow as southbound from Euston in the morning peak I've never seen one more than half full.

 

[deltic]

Must be an unbalanced flow as southbound from Euston in the morning peak I've never seen one more than half full.

Yes the flows are very much northbound from Waterloo

 

[Bletchleyite]

'there is no financial penalty for changing' is a fallacious statement. If a passenger has boarded the 59 at Streatham Hill, for instance, they might not be eligible for the Hopper Fare by the time they get to Euston. I could, before you look out the 59 timetable, say that a present passenger boarding a 109 at Croydon, changing at Streatham Hill to a 59 for Kings Cross, would under no circumstances be eligible for a Hopper fare after the change, even if they changed at Aldwych rather than Euston.

That's a fault with the scheme. If you had to touch out it would have been a lot easier to do, but for most purposes having each touch in reset the clock would solve that.

The whole argument is so fallacious. Imagine getting a taxi at Waterloo and asking for Kings Cross, and being told when you got to Euston 'I can't take you any further, but don't worry, I'll just drop you off here. Wait in the same place and another taxi will be along in a few minutes and you won't have to pay an extra penny.' The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

A taxi is private transport and is not a compromise (other than being expensive), public transport can't offer a direct service from everywhere to everywhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes the flows are very much northbound from Waterloo

Cutting the 59/68/168 and upping the Red Arrow would probably make sense, then.

 

[Busaholic]

That's a fault with the scheme. If you had to touch out it would have been a lot easier to do, but for most purposes having each touch in reset the clock would solve that.



A taxi is private transport and is not a compromise (other than being expensive), public transport can't offer a direct service from everywhere to everywhere.

Of course public transport can't offer a direct link between everywhere and everywhere. It's hardly outlandish to suggest that Waterloo and Kings Cross have a direct connection: in fact, I'd describe it as disgraceful that there's no direct tube because of London Transport's refusal over a century to ever get to grips with an Aldwych extension and a proper upgrade of that line. Knowing their Underground division had failed, the bus division provided that link from the 1930s into the 1980s, in different forms, and then again in more recent years with the 59. Now that's slated with withdrawal to save a measly bus or two to aid Sadiq Khan's aim to cut costs. I'd suggest this is a bad mistake and should not take place. I believe it was Peter Hendy's personal intervention when he was in charge of London's buses that secured the routeing of the 59 to Kings Cross in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They could, to be fair, save more buses on the route by looking at the bus lane layout which makes it easy for cars to block the bus lane in particular parts of the route.

 

[radamfi]

'there is no financial penalty for changing' is a fallacious statement. If a passenger has boarded the 59 at Streatham Hill, for instance, they might not be eligible for the Hopper Fare by the time they get to Euston. I could, before you look out the 59 timetable, say that a present passenger boarding a 109 at Croydon, changing at Streatham Hill to a 59 for Kings Cross, would under no circumstances be eligible for a Hopper fare after the change, even if they changed at Aldwych rather than Euston.

Timed single fares, as they exist in much of the world, enable the vast majority of people to complete their journey within the time limit. It is normal in such systems for there to be a rule that you must pay again once you exceed the time limit, however TfL have been generous and allow you to continue on the current vehicle without paying any extra, and that policy also is compatible with the current implementation of Oyster. The peculiar "no transfer" rule that previously existed in London meant that very short journeys could cost twice or even three times as much as a long journey. There are far more people in this position compared to that in the extreme example quoted above. The old fare system also had the adverse effect of making people wait unnecessarily for a direct service when they could have got their sooner by getting the first bus and changing.

 

[radamfi]

n fact, I'd describe it as disgraceful that there's no direct tube

There is a cross-platform connection between the Victoria and Bakerloo lines at Oxford Circus and both lines run very frequently.

 

[mmh]

It's a long time since Eurostar moved from Waterloo so the rationale for the 59 extension is not what it was. Given that now there is no financial penalty for changing and there are opportunities for same stop interchange, the inconvenience is relatively small. The Euston to Waterloo corridor is seriously overbussed, particularly between Holborn and Waterloo.

No it isn't. Every bus from Holborn to Waterloo (yes, there are an enormous amount of them) is full in the peaks. What other road should those buses go down? (Hint: there isn't one)

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Of course public transport can't offer a direct link between everywhere and everywhere. It's hardly outlandish to suggest that Waterloo and Kings Cross have a direct connection: in fact, I'd describe it as disgraceful that there's no direct tube because of London Transport's refusal over a century to ever get to grips with an Aldwych extension and a proper upgrade of that line. Knowing their Underground division had failed, the bus division provided that link from the 1930s into the 1980s, in different forms, and then again in more recent years with the 59. Now that's slated with withdrawal to save a measly bus or two to aid Sadiq Khan's aim to cut costs. I'd suggest this is a bad mistake and should not take place. I believe it was Peter Hendy's personal intervention when he was in charge of London's buses that secured the routeing of the 59 to Kings Cross in the first place.

That's interesting the point raised above about an Aldwych extension going southwards, I often wondered about that, it would be a brilliant service. I think for a while in past there were some through services from the northern section of the Piccadilly line to Aldwych and VV in the evenings mainly aimed at people wanting to go to the theatres in that area.

And rather than curtailing the 59 back to Euston, how about keeping it as it is and extending the 68 from Euston to KX/ST.P ?

There was talk for a while about having some type of tram service from Waterloo and the south, towards Euston/KX/ST.P, (after all there are a couple of tunnels built for the trams in that area.)(and I think one or two underground tram stations in the Holborn area, although not sure if they are still there now?)

 

[Ianno87]

That's interesting the point raised above about an Aldwych extension going southwards, I often wondered about that, it would be a brilliant service. I think for a while in past there were some through services from the northern section of the Piccadilly line to Aldwych and VV in the evenings mainly aimed at people wanting to go to the theatres in that area.

AIUI, as the Aldwych branch was only a trailing connection into the Eastbound Piccadilly line, it was a single post-theatre train (the unit that had been shuttling all day) from Aldwych to Arnos Grove/wherever.

And rather than curtailing the 59 back to Euston, how about keeping it as it is and extending the 68 from Euston to KX/ST.P ?

Problem is, the Euston Rd between Euston and KXSP can get clogged up, so this bit of the 59 can be quite slow going - you'd probably risk hitting the 68's reliability.

Plus, in world of cash-strapped TfL, and the 59s seldom being well loaded to KXSP, an extension wouldn't be a good use of resources.

 

[bluegoblin7]

There was talk for a while about having some type of tram service from Waterloo and the south, towards Euston/KX/ST.P, (after all there are a couple of tunnels built for the trams in that area.)(and I think one or two underground tram stations in the Holborn area, although not sure if they are still there now?)

The Cross-River tram. Has been a dead duck for well over a decade now.

As for the Kingsway Tramway Subway, what remains is very much unusable. The Strand Underpass re-used a portion of the alignment, and you'd need to remove that (or somehow find space to route a new sub-surface tunnel) to be able to use the Holborn end. The remaining station, Aldwych, is nothing more than a cavern. It's also all listed at Grade II level.

 

[sprunt]

Why would moving Eurostar from Waterloo to St Pancras require a direct link between the two? It isn't as if people are going to continue routing their journey to catch the E* via Waterloo when it no longer runs from there. And if the answer is "To serve people whose natural place of arrival in London is Waterloo", then I don't see why they should get preferential treatment over, say, people who would have arrived at St Pancras as part of their journey to Paris when the E* went from Waterloo.

(Happy to acknowledge that the rationale behind the necessity or otherwise for the service may have moved on in the intervening ~10 years - it's just the reasoning behind the establishment of the service I'm curious about.)

 

[Ianno87]

Why would moving Eurostar from Waterloo to St Pancras require a direct link between the two? It isn't as if people are going to continue routing their journey to catch the E* via Waterloo when it no longer runs from there. And if the answer is "To serve people whose natural place of arrival in London is Waterloo", then I don't see why they should get preferential treatment over, say, people who would have arrived at St Pancras as part of their journey to Paris when the E* went from Waterloo.

(Happy to acknowledge that the rationale behind the necessity or otherwise for the service may have moved on in the intervening ~10 years - it's just the reasoning behind the establishment of the service I'm curious about.)

I think it was genuinely to 'soften the blow' of people who'd previously had a same station change at Waterloo now having to change twice (on those service groups that serve neither Wimbledon nor Vauxhall as the Main Lines don't), which I think was a particular source of criticism.

People from the north to Waterloo never 'got worse' at any point in 1994, if you see what I mean.

Plus it was during the Ken Livingstone bus expansion era too, so ticked that box as well.

 

[Busaholic]

Why would moving Eurostar from Waterloo to St Pancras require a direct link between the two? It isn't as if people are going to continue routing their journey to catch the E* via Waterloo when it no longer runs from there. And if the answer is "To serve people whose natural place of arrival in London is Waterloo", then I don't see why they should get preferential treatment over, say, people who would have arrived at St Pancras as part of their journey to Paris when the E* went from Waterloo.

(Happy to acknowledge that the rationale behind the necessity or otherwise for the service may have moved on in the intervening ~10 years - it's just the reasoning behind the establishment of the service I'm curious about.)

I don't think the Eurostar change of terminal was the sole, or even most significant reason, for the change, but just added to the voices seeking the reinstatement: perhaps it could more precisely be described as a 'tipping point'. Waterloo is, I think, the busiest of all main line stations. There must be a great many passengers arriving there every day who intend to get to Kings Cross to travel up the East Coast Main Line. Given the geography, it is far less likely that so many are intending to reach Paddington, for instance, which is of course so easily reached from Waterloo. It was/will be the worst interchange between two London termini of national substance if it has neither a DIRECT bus or underground service. If it happens, I think it will be a deliberate 'two fingers up' by TfL to their previous two bus leaders by people who shouldn't be allowed in the same room. Rant over.

On a personal note, I used the bus between Waterloo and St Pancras regularly for a couple of years, as a daily commute when I worked for Camden Council. I never considered using the tube - a direct bus (at the time the 239 starting at Waterloo, so an empty bus too) was so much easier, though I admit there weren't all the obstructions that exist now, so many of them created by the people we've allowed to be in charge.

 

[Busaholic]

That's interesting the point raised above about an Aldwych extension going southwards, I often wondered about that, it would be a brilliant service. I think for a while in past there were some through services from the northern section of the Piccadilly line to Aldwych and VV in the evenings mainly aimed at people wanting to go to the theatres in that area.

And rather than curtailing the 59 back to Euston, how about keeping it as it is and extending the 68 from Euston to KX/ST.P ?

There was talk for a while about having some type of tram service from Waterloo and the south, towards Euston/KX/ST.P, (after all there are a couple of tunnels built for the trams in that area.)(and I think one or two underground tram stations in the Holborn area, although not sure if they are still there now?)

I've read that one of the reasons the Aldwych stub never got extended to Waterloo (and there were probably quite a few reasons) and the idea got kicked into the long grass was the opposition of the Inland Revenue, who occupied Somerset House, beneath which it would have had to pass. I never asked my grandfather about this: he worked for the Inland Revenue from leaving school at 14 to final retirement at 80 including decades at Somerset House, and (apparently, and only something that I discovered after his death) he was the person there who produced the report that resulted in them moving there. I don't think he was a railway fan, unlike my father, his son!

 

[radamfi]

if it has neither a DIRECT bus or underground service.

Why the obsession with direct services? There was great care taken when building the Victoria Line so that it provides convenient interchange with other lines. Also, many passengers from the south west can change onto the Victoria Line at Vauxhall.

 

[Ianno87]

Why the obsession with direct services? There was great care taken when building the Victoria Line so that it provides convenient interchange with other lines. Also, many passengers from the south west can change onto the Victoria Line at Vauxhall.

But I think the problem was the 'many' was far from all; c. 33% of services to or from Waterloo do not stop at Vauxhall, namely the entirety of the main line service for passengers from Woking and outwards thereof.