Someone at City Hall found the box of crayons. On the 28th of March, Transport for London unveiled a map of a new transport proposal. It featured a colour scheme to rival the New Jersey Transit disco stripes, a stylised loop around outer London, and a name that brings a certain ABBA song to mind. But what exactly is a Superloop, and will it get people around more efficiently than the similarly-named subterranean traffic jam?
A bundle of bus routes
Superloop is a bus. More specifically, it’s a proposed network of frequent limited stop bus routes, including seven orbital routes almost completely encircling outer London. Two of those are existing services: The half-hourly X26 from Croydon to Heathrow which TfL intend to double in frequency, and the X140 from Heathrow to Harrow. These could be a big element of Superloop – plenty more on Heathrow buses needs sorting, but this is a good start.
TfL plan to consult on the third later this year, namely the X183 from Harrow to North Finchley. The other four are purely lines on a map for now; a Diamond Geezer post gives some educated guesses on how they might look. They’ll certainly be less of a neat circle than the graphic implies.
They’re joined on the map by two existing radial routes, likely thrown in to create a more substantial day one network. The limited stop 607 from White City to Uxbridge, a frequent workhorse of the Uxbridge Road, and peak express X68 from Russel Square to Croydon. The disconnected line from Canary Wharf to Grove Park represents the X239, the express element of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel bus network
These ten routes are all packaged together to create something new and shiny for Outer London in advance of the expansion of the Ultra-Low Emissons Zone across Greater London. The press release is explicit about this:
“The Superloop is the jewel in the crown in our plans to strengthen alternatives to the private car ahead of the ULEZ expanding London-wide and is a game changer for outer London.”
This has provoked some cynicism and some playground wordplay – but one might also let a little gimmickry slide if it helps address the considerable impact of status quo tailpipe emissions.
We also recently looked at Mayor Khan’s initiative to breakout the anonymous Overground lines into their six constituent names and map identities. This alongside the superloop proposal could demonstrate a meaningful commitment to London’s suburb-to-suburb connections.
Superloop schematic routes superimposed on the Tube Map. Jesse Feld
London’s Green Line suburban buses
Few things are entirely new. Boris Johnson had promised a similar network in his 2008 transport manifesto. His idea of “a distinct mode of transport… with coach style vehicles and a limited number of stops” recalls London General Omnibus Company’s ‘Round-London’ routes — three bus routes which plied London’s fringe through the late 20th Century.
Green Line Network Map 1977. London Country Bus Services
The first of these began in 1953. The 725 ran from Gravesend to Windsor via Dartford, Croydon, and Kingston. By the seventies a sister route 726 ran via Heathrow. In the North and West, the 724 and 727 were introduced in the late sixties, linking Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Towns beyond what became Greater London.
The 724 lives on as an hourly regional bus between Harlow, St Albans, Watford and Heathrow. Within Greater London meanwhile, an hourly 726 staggered on. In 1991, its abbreviated Heathrow to Dartford route was proposed for withdrawal and taken on by London Transport. LT in turn tried to jettison the route in 1997. They relented but cut the Eastern terminus back to Bromley. In 2005 it became the X26, cut further back to Croydon and with stops limited to town centres a mile or two apart.
So if their fifty-plus-year survival is a success story for fast orbital buses, it’s a distinctly moderate success. Both remain very much low-frequency buses that get stuck in traffic. As then Mayor Ken Livingstone described the 726 in 2004:
“Basically, it looks like it has been designed to go through every congestion traffic spot in south London, from one end to the other.”
A perennial difficulty of planning bus routes is that popular destinations, like the town centres absorbed into London suburbs, are typically congested parts of the road network. The problem is worsening traffic on London’s roads, with bus speeds declining over the past decade.
Green Line 1977 routes vs Superloop routes. Martha Lauren
Today’s X26 takes anywhere from 75 to 140 minutes to cover twenty miles. On journeys like Croydon to Kingston, a relatively circuitous rail trip via Clapham Junction is faster. Given the problem of speed and punctuality, when service was increased to half-hourly in 2008 TfL observed “benefits to a relatively small number of passengers”.
The optimist might hope that the proposed fifteen minute frequency makes a bigger difference because schedule adherence matters less to the passenger at high frequency. We shall have to see.
The X140: Three bus routes and no money
If half an hour seems like a long wait, it took until 2019 before another fast orbital bus route arrived: The X140’s alliterative route between Harrow, Hayes, Harlington, and Heathrow. It’s something of a different beast: A high frequency route from the outset, making thirteen stops over a more operationally manageable eleven miles.
It was also created without a significant budget by reallocating existing bus service hours. The Superloop press release only mentions £6 million of funding, not enough to meaningfully add service. So unless a good deal more materialises, the X140 is a good case study in what we can expect of future routes.
Previously, the 24-hour local route 140 provided local service every 6-8 minutes along a thirteen-mile route between Harrow Weald, Harrow, Northolt, Hayes & Harlington, and Heathrow Central. In 2019, it was split into three overlapping routes:
- A shorter 140 from Harrow Weald to Hayes & Harlington, every 8-10 minutes.
- The X140 from Harrow to Heathrow Central, every 12 minutes.
- Night bus N140, making local stops from Harrow Weald to Heathrow Central.
Map of 140 and parallel routes. Martha Lauren
Local service through the sparsely populated airport hinterland was duplicated by routes 90 and 278, allowing the 140’s southern end to be cut. The performance benefits of a shorter route and separation from airport traffic meant frequency could also be reduced without much impact on passengers’ actual waits. Thus resources were released for its express counterpart.
Carving out service hours by rationalising local routes is a decent idea. It was, for example, an element of Vancouver’s successful Rapidbus network. And it seems to have worked in West London. Making fewer stops and skipping the West Harrow deviation, the X140 shaves ten minutes off a previously hour-long trip from Harrow to Heathrow. TfL claim a 10-15% increase in weekday demand — they don’t show their working, so some of that may be abstracted from other routes.
Still, shuffling around service hours feels like an underwhelming version of the heralded Superloop. And with the majority of bus trips in outer London being local in nature, it’s not certain that the same will always suit local travel patterns. Absent new funds, it’s a corridor-by-corridor question whether each part of the grand loop proves beneficial to passengers.
Paying twice
Likely boosting the X140’s passenger numbers is the considerable fare premium for travel between Hayes and Heathrow on the faster Elizabeth Line – a single fare of £7 which, because this is London, doesn’t include any connecting bus.
The lack of free interchange between rail and bus is a British peculiarity. While daily commutes outside Zone 1 benefit from decent value period Travelcards including both bus and rail, there is no equivalent day cap. Hence many outer London passengers have a strong price incentive to stick to buses, unless rail covers their entire journey.
This is economically bizarre. Reducing rail service at the outer ends of lines is easier said than done, meaning there’s plenty of spare rail capacity in London with a marginal cost close to zero.
The orbital Superloop routes would rightly complement a mostly radial rail network. Convenient interchange between the two would enable faster suburb-to-suburb trips utilising existing capacity. The fact that current fares discourage interchange between modes is a barrier to a more efficient transport network.
…at the front door
Superloop route 5 bus livery
Also contrasting with international best practice is the use of double deck buses, and fare enforcement by means of everyone filing through the front door. Enhanced bus routes elsewhere typically feature articulated vehicles that passengers can board through any door, with fares enforced by occasional inspections.
A 2017 London Assembly transport committee report suggests that “articulated buses might be the best option for express routes”, noting their high capacity, easy access, and reduced boarding times. The tight corners of Central London challenged the bendybuses of the 2000s, but straighter routes along Outer London’s main roads could prove a better fit.
Another option would be to adopt long three-axle double deckers like the ADL Eviro500. Examples in Singapore and Berlin feature three doors and two staircases to improve passenger flow—much like a New Bus for London, but with a less cramped interior.
North American cities have been implementing all-door boarding measures in recent years – this has reduced reduced travel times by 8% on Seattle’s Aurora Avenue corridor. Despite anecdotes about fare evasion, San Francisco’s switch to all-door boarding saw no significant change in the rate of non-payment.
TfL research on New Bus for London boarding times was more lukewarm, observing little difference on account of the all-door boarding that was in place up to 2019. Cashless operation already means reasonable boarding times in London, and any further benefit was likely limited by the cramped interiors and staircases.
This leaves all-door boarding the preserve of Central London bus routes 507 and 521, which continue the practice “to clear some of London’s busiest stops”. The two are remnants of the Red Arrow network, single deck routes introduced in the 1960s to efficiently move peak crowds over short Central London corridors. Both of these routes are due to be withdrawn following a post-pandemic decline in their core market of white collar commuters. Absent someone to champion best practice bus operations, boarding a London bus at the rear door is set to become a lost art.
The Grove Park to Canary Wharf Route
At least one segment of Superloop requires completion of a separate project, namely the Grove Park to Canary Wharf route.
If this route starts before Silvertown tunnel completion in 2025 (it likely won’t), then it will be limited to single deck buses due to the Blackwall Tunnel. This low tunnel led to the decades of poor economics for the 108, which currently runs between Lewisham and Stratford, due to the many single deck buses required for sufficient capacity.
Otherwise, the new Silvertown Tunnel and the potential for double deck buses radically improves the economics, and it’s potentially useful for to relieve the DLR between Canary Wharf and Stratford.
The probable route will be via:
- Canary Wharf
- Canning Town station
- New City Hall (which could be the real reason for the entire route, as the new seat of London government it is such a pain to get to via public transport)
- North Greenwich station (on the Jubilee line) then the Silvertown Tunnel
- Westcombe Park station (on the Greenwich suburban line)
- Blackheath station (on the Bexleyheath suburban line)
- Grove Park Station (on the Orpington and Bromley North Branch suburban line),
What Superloop isn’t
It’s certainly no Superbus – the branding applied in the 1990s to North Leeds’s pioneering guided bus corridor and the aggressive bus priority it enjoyed. Looking at Superloop publicity, alongside current limited stop routes, suggest a gradual roll out of modest changes to particular corridors: this is neither best practice rapid bus service, nor a comprehensive rethink of London’s bus network.
Modest changes are no bad thing. A bus network that’s gradually improved through the 21st Century is a large element of Outer London maintaining sub-50% private car mode share. And there remains the possibility of future funding to enable a more promising orbital network with higher frequencies.
London was a pioneer of smart payment. The introduction of the Oyster card in 2003 and fully cashless buses in 2014 helped speed the bus network. But with declining bus speeds due to congestion in more recent years, London’s resistance to international practices like all-door boarding (where helpful) and lack of recent investments in bus priority lessen the time savings that new limited stop buses can accomplish.
The Superloop network, as recently presented, does very much give the sense of someone having been let loose with a packet of crayons. The way in which the routes have been put together presents neither a loop nor a network. For example, apart from being a limited stop route what relevance does the peak hour only flow-directional (if that is a term) X68 have to a frequent radial network?
The routes in South East London have been presented with little cohesion. The Bromley to Bexleyheath route appears to duplicate the existing route 269 without giving the opportunity to travel any further. Will it result in a lower frequency for the existing service or result in more buses on the same road, in which case what will be the overall benefit? Terminating the route from Canary Wharf at Grove Park rather than continuing a further two kilometres to Bromley, and so connect with other Superloop services, and present greater journey opportunities, is difficult to understand.
One aspect of the network that requires some thinking through is continuity. For example, according to Robert Munster’s London Bus Routes website, the X140 from Harrow to Heathrow, is 12 stops and is 16 km long. The X26 has 13 stops but is 38km long. They are two very different sorts of route, the former carrying much more local traffic than the latter. Will the disparity continue or will it be necessary to slow down the X26 with the addition of further stops?
The history of the Green Line routes in Martha Lauren’s interesting piece has got a little mangled. The 725 never went to Romford, there being the little matter of getting across the River Thames. From its inception in 1953 for three decades it ran from Gravesend to Windsor before being cut back to Dartford. The serving of Heathrow was a newer version, and where the number 726 came in, when alternate journeys were routed via the airport. A later version saw the route start all journeys at Heathrow as 726 to Dartford, then only to Bromley, before morphing into the X26 between Heathrow and West Croydon only.
A couple of other small points – London’s Green-Line suburban buses – I believe the reference to London General Omnibus Co should read London Transport. These three routes were all started during the time of London Transport Executive (725) or London Transport Board (724 and 727). Green Line vehicles were always (at least publicly) referred to as coaches, even if they were buses with thicker seat cushions. The link to “Round-London routes” currently loops back to the main page.
The Superloop concept has many merits but requires much more thinking through as to what it is trying to achieve and how. I trust that it won’t get filed away under “It seemed a good idea at the time”.
I must admit that I’m also very “hmm….” about this. As much as I have suggested the idea of a limited-stop orbital bus loop service in the past – usually when I was sat on the 69 from Stratford to Walthamstow, this basic idea seems to deal with only part of the problem.
The main useful service that the “London Overground” service provides is that you can get between places on the tube/rail network without (99% of the time) having to travel into Zone 1. Once Stratford to Camden (say) meant an underground change at TCR and now it’s a mobile-signal-all-the-way sunny trip of just 22 minutes.
Trying to replicate this idea with buses gives you some of the advantages of a single-trip, say Royal Docks to Ilford, but it’s still going to be quicker and more reliable to take the DLR and Liz because a bus isn’t going to do it in traffic in less than 37 minutes.
The rest of that line could usefully extend the stations of Walthamstow Central/Queens Road with Leytonstone and then Ilford but again that’s 28 min without traffic – the time it takes to get the Overground from Stratford to 12km away Gospel Oak.
So, great, we have an Overground-Style limited stop Bus network, but what does it actually connect with? Will people want to use the Superloop with the tube/Overground or just local bus services? Yes, there some station with great bus waiting areas (Newbury Park, Tottenham Hale perhaps) but without any cash to spend waiting on inclement days for unreliable local services isn’t that great a plan.
Final thought- I can’t help noticing that much of this idea seems to be a bus version of the late-Crossrail 2.
But it forgets that there are places such as the “Northern Heights” and “Palace Gates” (such as Muswell Hill, West Green) that had their train services taken away in WW2 and might actually find users for non-stop service for their lost connections useful.
The X239 won’t run via Kidbrooke, and it’ll be non-stop between Sun-in-the-Sands roundabout and Orchard Place (the south end of the London City Island development), so no stops at Westcombe Park or City Hall and the Orchard Place stop won’t be convenient for Canning Town. It’ll be more like..
.
– Canary Wharf
– East India DLR
[fast]
– Blackheath station (on the Bexleyheath/North Kent suburban lines)
– Lee Station (on the Sidcup suburban line)
– Grove Park Station (on the Orpington and Bromley North Branch suburban line),
It’ll be one of only two routes using the new tunnel, but won’t stop anywhere near its entrances.
“The 725 ran from Romford to Windsor via Dartford, Croydon, and Kingston.”
That seems rather unlikely as back then there was no crossing at Dartford so Romford to Dartford would have required going a signficant distance into central London and then back out again.
This would feel less like a crayoning exercise if the proposals actually included any solutions for the age-old question of how to get quickly between Bromley and Croydon.
Mea culpa: The Green Line 725 indeed never served Romford; pre-Dartford Crossing that would be an anachronism for the IMDB user reviews. Also the proposed X239 would indeed intersect the Bexleyheath Line at Lee. Both have been corrected.
Walthamstow-Ilford-Royal Docks should call at Barking station and at both City Airport and Custom House.
The 724 was introduced in the late sixties as a Romford to High Wycombe service, in 1972 the western end was rerouted to parallel the 727 on the Watford to Heathrow corridor and then on to Windsor via Staines. Later the section between Harlow and Romford was replaced by a separate route.
A couple of typos it is the the 140’s southern end that has been cut not the X140. The new stopping service between Hayes and Heathrow is the 278 not the 270.
Detailed maps of London’s Superloop bus service released:
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/detailed-maps-of-londons-superloop-bus-service-released-62298/
Sorry, but there is no way that the London General Omnibus Company, absorbed into London Transport in the early 1930s, could have been operating routes in the late 20th century.
As the article hints, the lack of intermodal fares reduces the potential utility of the Superloop. Surely it would not be beyond the wits of TfL (and the technology) to allow a hopper fare type extension (maybe with a small supplement) for a few stops either side of where the loop routes interchange with train, tube or DLR. Intermodal fares would also better address criticisms of ULEZ expansion, bringing value priced alternatives to a wider catchment of outer London
And the loop shouid also be designed to link up to the potential new West London Orbital rail line (which needs to open as quickly as possible, even with a pilot, partial service cobbled together from an existing DMU fleet, or working with GWR to get some Vivarail units, or purchasing a couple of FLIRTs that could be cascaded later to TfW or GA). Bringing the WLO into the loop would mean either changing the loop path for a call at Brent Cross West, favouring existing shopping and the planned new housing developments in that area, and possibly missing Hendon or a intermodal hopper fare on Thameslink between Hendon and Cricklewood (or further).
On the subject of Green Line orbital routes, the X140, X183 and X34 look a lot like the short lived 734 which operated from 1979-1981 between Addlestone and Hertford via an ark through west and north London. It didn’t last, unsurprisingly killed off by traffic congestion.
A REAL “jewel in the crown in our plans to strengthen alternative to the private car” … would be a Tram System.
This is bad PR fluff, as “DG” has already noticed.
“Enhanced bus routes elsewhere typically feature articulated vehicles” – but we CAN’T HAVE THEM … can you imagine the screams from the right-wing press, again, after last time?
Never mind that articulated buses work perfectly well, everywhere else, of course!
James Bunting
Quite
Alan Griffiths
Um, no: – because & but, there is already a perfectly goos 4tph train service along that route(!)
IanVisits details TfL’s indicative maps of the Superloop bus routes, showing the rail, Underground, and Overground stations served, as well as local hospitals.
As well as 853 London’s analysis of planned, and missed, Crossrail interchanges, and fare transfer info.
The biggest issue I have with this is definitely the issue congestion poses. I live on the X26 route and it serves no utility for me because it gets me to places at the same speed as the more frequent stopping services on the same route. The traffic on the stretch between Sutton and Waddon is so bad that I have walked home from Sutton to Beddington (about 4km) quicker than a bus has been able to. Without a bus priority system set up, it would be incredibly limited in what it offers. And if they’re going to go to the trouble of doing that then they might as well set up a network of orbital tram routes instead.
This is pretty clearly an attempt from TFL to create the impression of doing something without having to reach too far into their pretty light wallets. Lets hope they get improved funding from the next government and can actually offer an effective scheme
If this were a tram system instead, I wonder if it would be possible to make use of some existing infrastructure with tram-train vehicles. You could massively cut journey times on the X26 if it were possible to share the tracks between West Croydon and Cheam, and New Malden and Teddington. Also the gap between Grove Park and Bromley almost seems deliberate…
The Croydon to Bromley service being called the X119 is interesting as the route it takes is hardly the most direct. I wonder if they’ll keep the route via Hayes or if it will cut through Park Langley to reduce journey times.
To an ex Londoner, it does appear that there a couple of significant flaws with this excellent (in principle) project:
1. Lack of public transport priority. Cutting down the number of stops will make these services faster than existing buses (are there any statistics about the relative actual service speeds of current express services where they run parallel with ordinary buses?) but otherwise congestion – particularly at intersections – will still get them.
2. Lack of fare integration. As we all know London has been a leader in ticketing integration, but the byzantine organisational structure of the train system means that fares are a mess, with no fewer than ten different Oyster fare scales – see https://oysterfares.com/information-pages/fares-guide-tables/ – and no integration with buses or trams (except when using a pass).
@Distinct – Whilst going through Park Langley makes sense looking at a map there is a little matter of the 7 ft traffic gate close to West Wickham Station. In terms of traffic objectives I would suggest that routing via Beckenham and Elmers End would be better. By the way that the sections of Superloop are being set up for consultation individually and, it would appear, one by one, rather than as a network does seem to suggest that not a great deal of work (or thought?) has gone into the project so far despite the glossy images.
I agree with others that, in serving rail stations, there is a golden opportunity to introduce integrated ticketing for single journeys.
Slight correction – surely the route would go through the silvertown tunnel BEFORE North Greenwich, not after it, on a southbound journey….
James B: integrated *ticketing* already exists, in the form of contactless/Oyster. It’s integrated multimodal single-journey *fares* that are lacking.
Why doesn’t the Canary Wharf route not go on to Bromley anyway? I’d be delighted if the Bromley North line was replaced by an express busway as the current train service is appalling and 9 times out 10 leaves you having to get a bus to Bromley anyway
@LBM/ Brian Butterworth
Those indicative maps are not detailed. They don’t even show which station in Bromley is served.
I would note that Jesse Field’s map is a little over-schematic – the X26 between Sutton and Kingston goes via Worcester poark abnd New malden, so a diagonal would have been more accurate than the oblong shown
The X26 has little advantange over the 213 SE of Kingston, but is definitely the way to get from S London to Heathrow.
The withdrawal of routes 507 and 521 has now happened (last day of operation was the very day after the article was published)
Much as I can see why TfL are trying to do *something* with this, there’s clearly a danger that a few repainted vehicles skipping a few lesser used stops isn’t going to be enough. As others have said, what it really needs is priority measures, upgraded interiors and integrated fares with rail.
To me, the idea of limited stop services would work better if they could utilise a main road for a non-stop express section before dropping off onto local roads at one or both ends. As it is, skipping a few stops makes only a marginal difference if the route is still forced through the same congested centres. An example could be taking the X140 non-stop up the A312 to Northolt rather than through Hayes. This could get the end to end journey down to 40 mins or less. I suppose the proposed X239 somewhat attempts this format, especially if, as the material suggests, it’s not going to stop at Canning Town, North Greenwich or Westcombe Park, which would all require a deviation from the main roads.
Interestingly, Google Maps says the 724 from Heathrow to Uxbridge then the Met Line to HOTH is 11 mins faster than the X140 (and even using the A10 on almost the same route with a detour through Stockley Park is quicker by 2 mins!).
@paul I’m reminded of when I have taken a National Express bus and northbound somewhere and it calls upon Golders Green station adding what seems like countless time to the trip, I can’t recall anyone ever joining or leaving the coach service there either!
Interestingly this popped up on the Week 19 Bus Newsletter today:
“Île-de-France Mobilités has announced plans to establish a regional express coach network to improve connectivity in the outer suburbs of Paris.”
https://bus-news.com/regional-express-bus-network-to-connect-outer-suburbs-in-paris/
I found the location of X183 stops at Harrow and Northwick Park strange because they are only one stop apart on the Metropolitan Line (Harrow-on-the-Hill, which is adjacent to Harrow Bus Station where the 183 (Pinner-Golders Green) stops). The appearance of what is described as Harrow on the map in the article looks more like South Harrow or even Sudbury Hill (Piccadilly Line).
Because Tube lines tend to be radial, having fast orbital bus routes makes sense but a single orbital route outside the North and South Circular roads isn’t really adequate. In north-west London a fast bus route that connected, say Uxbridge to Ruislip to Hatch End to Stanmore to Barnet to Enfield would make a good deal of sense and actually provide a new capability, reducing the need to use cars for these orbital journeys,
Superloop I’m afraid is a void inside TfL Surface Transport. The last two buses directors have been rail people – and the last one went back to rail. The concept would have been vigorously resisted under pre-2017 management.
Why?
1. Express orbital bus routes need levels of bus prioity bordering on the psychotic. This is particuarly the case in boroughs like Bexley who both demand an express route – and also obstruct bus priorityu measures.
2. To make a service even vaguely competitive with alterantives it has to have very frequent services. This isn’t going to be the case.
The re-organisation of TfL’s transport planning from modal specific groups into a general group with specialist teams means that the relevant buses senior people aren’t there any more.
All of this allow’s crayonistas to run riot inside the Mayor’s office. And of course Superloop is a fig-leaf (or ordure polishing – take your pick) to try and take the edge off ULEZ expansion.
The inclusion of orbital routes show how poorly thought-out/desperate the policy is.
The public consultation for new sections of the Superloop. The deadline for answers is September 4th.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/july/tfl-invites-londoners-to-have-their-say-on-proposals-for-new-sections-of-the-superloop
Slightly interesting adjunct to the X123 (now SL2) discussion; the regular route 123 has recently been upgraded to 24/7 service (even better than pre-covid)