-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Thurrock bus network review
- Thread starter siriain
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I guess it would be logistically tough what with the bridges, but increasing the X80 service to half hourly would be a good call, since it seemed to be well used when I took it (though mainly for connections rather than journeys specifically Bluewater to Lakeside). There's definitely some marketing value in having the easternmost public crossing over the Thames (other than ferries of course).
Statto
Established Member
X80 is one of those awkward services to run though, reliant on the Dartford crossing running smoothly, there was cancellations due to the traffic issues yesterday
Anthony ross
Member
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 205
The problem is with Thurrock is that any problem on the m25 at the bridge will always sod up the traffic around the area
I would look at re-establishing a direct link from the area (Tilbury Ferry?) to Romford, even though it would mean going into TfL territory. It would not be worth it going via Lakeside as TfL's 370 has the Romford-Lakeside market stitched up - Ensignbus would not be able to match the £1.50 fare. Perhaps route via Aveley and Hacton Lane.
markymark2000
On Moderation
I think a route into Dartford could do well as well and not just focus on Bluewater.
One of the main things Ensign should do is try and copy TFL routes and push TFL back into their zone and potentially use LSPs to get into Greater London. Look at Uno, they have their buses go quite far into London and one could argue they even compete in parts with TFL buses but they are allowed in.
One of the main things Ensign should do is try and copy TFL routes and push TFL back into their zone and potentially use LSPs to get into Greater London. Look at Uno, they have their buses go quite far into London and one could argue they even compete in parts with TFL buses but they are allowed in.
Uno's hourly frequencies won't trouble TfL much. TfL don't seem likely to axe their Lakeside routes or grant Ensign the permits to compete with them.
NLC1072
Member
TO be fair they could extend the 22 from Aveley to Rainham and that would make a lot of sense.
markymark2000
On Moderation
30 minutes on the 614 which goes quite far through the TFL boundary. 1/2 of the route (30 minutes) is within the TFL boundary.
The trick is work around TFLs routes and find ways to link up a few areas which TFL buses require a change of vehicle. TFL do cut back their network. They are recently cutting back their Dartford/Bluewater services due to the amount of commercial services in the area and they are treading on too many toes. Anything out of the TFL boundary, they would have to withdraw as they would be subsidising a route which competes with a commercial route. As soon as you are in the TFL area, they can have you over.
Ensign could run Lakeside to Orchard Village via Rainham. This would be allowed as almost all of the route is out of the TFL area and Orchard Village isn't linked to Rainham Tesco so you can argue you are providing links which TFL don't currently provide.
TFL give in easier than you think. People are just scared of TFL I think is the issue.
But it you follow the route on a map, you'll see the largest section of direct overlap is between Barnet Church and Stirling Corner (at least on the 2016 map I could find quickly online). Uno can therefore claim to be providing "round the corner" links that are different to those offered by red bus services.
Wrong. As the consultation says, https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/96-428-492/, it is overcapacity, as part of the general network wide review of TfL services. These routes have been running to Bluewater for 20 years, and it has nothing to do with competing commercial services. If anything, the good residents of Dartford are likely to be complaining they can no longer get their Oyster card fares to Bluewater!
Eh? Lots of TfL services run over the boundary. Cut backs are often because local authorities will not pay their share of cross-boundary routes, which is why some routes terminate in odd places, e.g. Passingford Bridge. As I understand it, TfL services are not considered "subsidised" in the same way as a local authority contract, just a different service. Otherwise, why are they consulting on extending route 470 in Epsom to the hospital, despite other services being available?
Inside their area, TfL are judge, jury and executioner. They can say yes or no pretty much as they please. They do not "give in easily", as many operators of LSPs will tell you, and no operator is more "scared" of TfL than they are the Traffic Commissioner. There is also the fact that you have double the work and double the costs, as you are applying to both TfL and the TC. I believe they have different alert periods (TfL's is 90 days, the TC is even now only 72), different fees, and different requirements.
markymark2000
On Moderation
All trips which can be done with Uno, can be done by TFL buses using the Hopper fare. If TFL wanted, they could quite easily use that excuse and say Uno aren't helping.
I have an email from TFL which states differently! They are cutting back buses due to the amount of commercial routes between Dartford and Bluewater and it isn't fair on commercial routes to be subsidizing a stupidly low fare. Commercial companies pick their time to complain. Same happened in Chester a while back with Arriva complaining a city rail link bus unfairly took passengers from it's commercial routes.
I don't think you understand how TFL works. They subsidise the bus fares! That is why they are so low. Epsom to the Hospital is only a few stops so it would make little difference to anyone. Crayford to Bluewater is a lot of stops. Arriva run 8 commercial buses per hour from Dartford to Bluewater. Local authorities wouldn't be able to subsidise some of the cross boundary services on the basis that they are covered by commercial routes (like Dartford to Bluewater).
I know a lot of routes run over the boundary but it's worth noting that slightly over the boundary isn't too bad. Much like Stagecoach, Falcon and Hallmark going into Kingston, TFL go out to Staines. It's not that bad. Bluewater, Dorking, Lakeside, Redhill. If a normal operator wanted to, they could compete with TFL and then claim they are unfairly subsidising a route competing with a commercial one.
I think TFL do give in easily if you play your cards right. IF you go in all guns blazing and your idea is to completely duplicate TFL routes end to end, obviously they are going to say no. If you zig zag around an area inbetween routes, you can get around them. Outside of their area as well, I think they would give in very quickly. LSP's are more cost but they can't put people off too much or there wouldn't be so many non TFL commercial routes running in London. I will use First as an example. They have a service permit for the 8 but it only has 1 stop within London (Heathrow T5). Why would they run to T5 when the cost of that 1 stop increases their cost due to the permit. The cost of the permit is annoying but operators deal with it. The notice period means nothing really for reputable operators. The only people that affects are those who want to chop and change routes on a weekly basis. Big companies plan their changes a few months in advance anyway.
Is it beneficial for the general public if another company takes over routes from TfL, whether inside or outside the GLA boundary? Not only would fares be higher without TfL, but punctuality and reliability of commercial services isn't policed as strictly as TfL routes. TfL regularly publish bus performance data for individual routes and operators don't get paid as much if they fail to meet required standards.
markymark2000
On Moderation
Costs will likely stay the same. Singles and returns will increase but weekly passes are normally around £15 so based on 1 trip each day, each weekday, you are still looking at the £1.50 fare. If you can make use of local bus connections as well, you are saving money!
Punctuality would remain relatively the same as well because the traffic commissioner will have you for not running routes properly.
- Cash payments would be accepted (meaning in areas outside of London where TFL is the only option, you won't be forced to have an Oyster card you don't want or won't use except for that one bus).
- You can take advantage of multi operator tickets (TFL are always an exception on multi operator tickets) to help you get around.
- You can also use the operating companies day/week tickets to connect onto routes outside of London.
- Increase competition possible in outer London areas (which could infact lower the cost of travel). Some estates only have TFL because they run so often, no other operator will risk it. IF TFL are out of the equation, more competition is possible).
There are disadvantages for some and advantages for others. We have to draw the line somewhere. When all said and done, outside of the Greater London boundary, buses are deregulated. That should be respected. Running slightly over the borders to improve connections (both tfl out of London and other companies into London) is good but some routes go way too far out of the boundary.
Or could it be that the real traffic objective is Hatfield, where TfL don't run, so they are happy to allow non direct-competition within their area? As you say, TfL could insist the service be cut back to Barnet or even shorter than that if they wanted, but they haven't. Thus my first suggestion, that they are providing "round the corner" links, explains why TfL are happy to have Uno on their service for "over half the route" - in terms of timing, although probably only because of the semi-fast section between South Hatfield and North Barnet. Whilst Uno don't accept Oyster cards, their cash fares within London are the same price.
Can you quote this e-mail? Does it actually say Arriva have complained, or is that just what you are reading into it? You'll forgive me for thinking that it is slightly odd they say one thing by e-mail to what they say in both their printed consultation leaflet and the online consultation. It is more likely to be overcapacity on their own services, especially as the 96 is staying, and they give a reason as the links being available using the hopper fare - the same reason they have given for cuts across the network, including central London.
Crayford to Bluewater is not that many stops, especially as the Dartford to Bluewater section is already limited on the 96 and 428, and will remain stopping at just Darent valley and Bluewater after the changes. Crayford to Dartford is irrelevant to your argument, as there are no commercial services over that section, and the 492 is staying as far as Dartford. The 492 is the only all-stops route, which does not directly parallel Dartford - Bluewater flows, as the 480 only serves Bluewater outside of the main daytime service.
Off the top of my head, I only count 3. 477 every 30 minutes (2), 423 every hour (1). Fasttrack doesn't count, as that is a KCC contracted service. The 480 only serves Bluewater in the very deep off-peak (early mornings, evenings and Sundays).
Bluewater is no worse than Staines. Redhill and Dorking are much further, and Surrey CC pay towards those services. Likewise Herts CC and the 292 in Borehamwood (or at least they used to... I vaguely recall TfL threatening to withdraw the estates section if HertsCC didn't cough up, Herts using the service frequency as an example of why it didn't need so much of their money). No operator with common sense would attempt to compete directly against TfL even out of area, because they would struggle to offer low enough fares... and you'd then face the argument of loss of connections... see complaints with the withdrawal of the 409 from Croydon. Explain then how this works with Epsom, if an operator could complain?
Any evidence of this? Of TfL backing down? Or are they just acknowledging something different is being done. The number of non TfL commercial routes has dropped over recent years, as they are regarded as onerous conditions. Hence the Passingford Bridge terminus, once Arriva gave up their commercial service into Romford on the 500/501. No 310 into Enfield any more. X29 into Bromley. 351 from Chelmsford. 409 to Croydon. They are just ones that fall out of the memory. Heathrow is a disingenuous argument: it is such a big traffic objective it would make no sense to go anywhere else. Heathrow does not compare to a Tesco store, however large it is. And did those servies not continue to CBS, but were curtailed to save a vehicle on the PVR (i.e. cost)?
Exactly. A few journeys were withdrawn yesterday for traffic problems. The link over the bridge should be stronger (see the KenEx tram suggestion), but the Bridge is always going to be the issue - and nobody is going to travel via the Woolwich Ferry! We may have to wait for the Lower Thames Crossing to be built first, and even then it is dubious that any buses would run through it. Sure, it would be nice, but it's unlikely to happen.
Somebody did suggest on their twitter feed to "deliver us from Arriva Grays", but the response was that it wasn't going to happen.
Thurrock is a bit of an island - let's not forget they recently withdrew from Brentwood - and I think improvements are likely to be of the local sort, rather than the mass expansion some of the suggestions here seem to like the sound of. Some of the twitter ideas most positively received have been little tweaks, such as morning peak train connections.
It takes a lot for the traffic commissioner to take action. Otherwise we wouldn't have threads on here about poor performance! Whereas we don't generally get threads comparing TfL operators and people saying, "I wish xxx company was operating this route instead of yyy".
markymark2000
On Moderation
They can take a bit but as I have said, the rest of the country copes. why can't London. People get so caught up in loving TFL, they miss the facts and think the whole works falls apart as soon as you leave London. It doesn't!
The rest of the country copes by buying a car as soon as possible. There are very few places with anywhere near as good a bus service as is provided in London, there's no doubt about that.
markymark2000
On Moderation
Clearly you are wrapped up in a London is great bubble. Do tell me, does London have a single route which runs every 3 minutes? No! Manchester does!
A hell of a lot of areas have really good bus services. There are gaps but the exact same can be said for London.
Londons buses aren't great. You only have to speak to industry professionals to realise that and not just believe what the labour party tell you!
Although as you probably know, this is really 3 overlapping routes running every 10 minutes: Manchester - Stockport, Manchester - Stepping Hill and Manchester - Hazel Grove. The 38/N38 in London is similar, running 3 buses every 10 minutes for most of the route and has a good night service, whereas the 192 doesn't even run all night on Sunday to Wednesday nights. There is also the 521 which runs every 1-2 minutes in peak hours, although this runs every 11 off-peak.
Manchester may have its star routes, but per capita usage across the conurbation isn't great and has been falling for decades and the biggest bus company in the region has had to be sold off in chunks. Even the biggest supporter of deregulated buses would look elsewhere for evidence.
Obviously it neglects off-peak use, but according to the Census travel to work by bus is much higher in Manchester than London (13% versus 9%ish). Newcastle, Liverpool, and Brighton all also beat London. Whilst there may have been decline since 2011 in the other cities, by no means is London unique.
Interestingly Reading has about 7% share, which considering its fairly affluent demographics is testament to how good the service there is.
The trouble with that is the you were only able to choose the mode of transport used for the longest part of the journey. Obviously in London a lot of people transfer between bus/rail/Tube and most of these people would not have bus as the main mode.
markymark2000
On Moderation
For a contracts in London, the price operators put in can be 2-3x more PER BUS than a normal local contract. This is even higher when a company is almost guaranteed to win a tender. Commercial routes cost councils..... Nothing! Tendered routes cost in the region of £100,000 per year, per bus. The costs are significantly lower and they don't have to fund as much.
Buses don't need to be 24/7 in a lot of places. They aren't used. Why should buses which aren't really used, still operate. I would sit here and argue but it won't get anywhere because you are stuck in a 'london is great' bubble and refuse to live in the real world which shows that London is failing slowly and the buses have a huge deficit because of the overbussing and high specifications.
London actually isn't great at all. Compared to other world cities, it's public transport fares are probably the highest and subsidy levels are among the lowest. Buses are low specification (lightweight chassis, no proper air con, no double glazing) and are crippled by traffic congestion. Fare integration between modes is poor.
90sWereBetter
Member
That's a new one, London buses apparently being "low specification"...
Compared to outside the UK, yes.
RJ
Established Member
There is the 521 which runs at 20-30bph in high peak. When it's not on long term diversion it's 30bph with scheduled headways of 1-2 minutes.
Who are these industry professionals and what did they actually say?
markymark2000
On Moderation
The 521 runs 30bph peak only. 192 is every 3 minutes through the day.
Industry professions like bus operator management who work with buses every day and not clueless politicians who like to think they know what they are doing. Based on this thread, I can see who people generally seem to follow! And it isn't those with experience in the sector!
So, you are not going to give us any names, just more invective about TfL and how we are taken in by them. I don't see any sort of blind following of TfL, more challenging your equally biased assertions.
I don't know if you're aware of the excellent londonbusroutes.net site, where I can see that, for example, the 18 has a frequency of every 4, the 38 every 3-4 as far as Hackney and the 73 every 5 (a drop, and still 4 in the peak), as well as many more with a daytime frequency of every 6 minutes. Many routes will also be joined by others over sections of route, meaning the number of bph will often be higher - much higher in some cases, and that's before looking at other transport modes. London Bridge, for example, is fairly easy to see nose-to-tail with buses in the morning peak: I recall counting over twenty one behind the other within the last few months.
There isn't an equivalent site for Manchester (if there is, please let me know!), but for much of its route the 192 is the only bus to run at any major frequency, and the same is true of a lot of the major routes. Likewise, from memory, in Birmingham - routes running at very heavy frequencies are often the only route available.
If you're not going to look at the whole picture, you are just as single-minded as you claim others are. More importantly, for this thread, Ensign were asking for ideas in Thurrock. Not grand plans to recreate Capital Citybus, largely rendering the whole TfL aspect irrelevant.
Incidentally, the X80 again had suspended journeys this afternoon as a result of the closure of one of the bores of the Tunnel, and even when reopened there were still severe delays due to resulting traffic congestion.
Cesarcollie
Member
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 538
Without getting into the London regulated versus outside London deregulated debate, there are many reasons why costs are considerably higher in London. In no particular order:
1. Quite often, though not exclusively, bids are based on brand new buses.
2. Those buses are to a unique London specification which makes them more expensive.
3. That same specification makes them less use outside London, so coupled with a 5(+2) year life, at best extended by another contract term, the annual depreciation charge is much higher (but see 4)
4. Because of (3), many companies choose to acquire vehicles on operating lease rather than purchase or HP. This means the residual value risk and interest on capital lies with the leasing company- but they pass that on, plus a profit, so overall annual costs are higher (though predictable).
5. London services run long days typically 18 hours and 24 in some cases, usually 7 days a week. So each buses will need 3 or more drivers per day, without sickness, holiday cover etc
6. The labour market means London wage rates (for drivers but also engineers, support staff etc) are higher than probably anywhere else in the UK. Similarly, recruitment and training will be a continual churn, so large fleets of training buses plus instructors have to be funded, along with HR resource to deal with both this, and TUPE when contracts change hands.
7. Rent, rates etc are higher so garages are much more expensive.
8. The TfL performance regime means a large number of supervisors/managers (relative to elsewhere) have to be paid and costed in.
9. Teams of people have to schedule, prepare and cost tender bids. Only a proportion will be successful, but the costs of the team have to be recovered through tender prices.
10. Congestion and idling means mpg is poor.
11. Traffic levels and passenger volumes mean insurance costs are very high relative to elsewhere,
12. I could go on......
I’m not commenting on whether all the above is good or bad. Just that the high price of tenders in London relative to elsewhere in explainable.....!,
- Status