London Buses Discussion

[TWBG]

From experience with the 298, it is very tightly timetabled with only a couple of minutes of layover time at both Potters Bar and Arnos Grove. Any problems with the M25 or the North Circular at either end and it destroys service reliability.

One of my favourite routes though for the variety of secondhand E400s that can be found on it (especially given it's only supposed to be allocated midibuses!), plus the run between Potters Bar and Cockfosters is pretty spirited on a good day.

Yes, 2-minutes layover, no more no less, because it’s a small bus station

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, 2-minutes layover, no more no less, because it’s a small bus station

Potters Bar it's 9-11 minutes and Arnos Grove it's 5 minutes, as shown on the schedule:

file:///C:/Users/Windows%2010/Downloads/Schedule_298-MF.pdf

It's a one bus stand restriction at each end, which at 3bph means potentially up to 20 min standing allowed at each end, but that would create a very inefficient schedule. Given the return running time of about 56 min a total scheduled stand time of 15 min on each return trip is proportionate.

 

[duncombec]

I'm not in a position to quote it at the moment (but will do later, unless anyone gets there first), but there is a curious third-hand post on the "tangytango" Proboards forum (it's allegedly from Dean Sullivan, on a Facebook group or page I'm not a member of, quoted with no surrounding context on the Proboards forum) essentially suggesting there is no love lost between Sullivan Buses and TfL, and they currently have no intention to seek further work from them, and aren't too fussed about the recent school bus route losses.

The quote I referred to above is now inserted below, taken from https://tangytango.proboards.com/post/753139/thread. The Facebook group is private, so I can't check it myself and repeat this is third-hand and without context, other than it was in reply to a comment on a possible restoration of a service between Potters Bar and Barnet. It was posted there on 9th June.

Given that TfL have finally persuaded us to cease tendering for TfL services, we might just take a look at this. TfL have written to us advising they may not award the 605 to us in September. Confirmation either way was due late May, but they have still not confirmed their intentions. Assuming they ask us not to proceed, then the last two school contracts (617/629) expire in April 27 and the 217 hangs on until June 2029. At that point we will have likely have lost all of our TfL work, so any additional Herts work will be useful.
I have held meetings with both MPs and I know Nik Oakley well. And in many respects Nik has a firm understanding of local buses, having been grounded in passenger transport for decades. I have though made all three parties aware that I believe that the current set up with the 84 terminating in Potters Bar is the best under the circumstances. Hence the separate service. The advantage of the 84 service running solely in Herts is we not only have the freedom to operate whichever bus we want without penalty, we also avoid any traffic issues the service would have encountered in Barnet. My concession (at a stretch) was to run to The Spires but this was ruled out as the stand is already at capacity. The 84 has certainly benefited as a result of splitting it out of London. Ridership has
increased over 30% since we took the route over in April. This far outstrips the growth we have experienced post Covid on our other commercial services.

 

[MasterSpenny]

From BLOTW (buslistsontheweb.co.uk), the first of route 417’s Electroliners:

ES038 - LV23ZCA
ES039 - LV23ZCE
ES040 - LV23ZCF
ES041 - LV23ZCJ
ES042 - LV23ZCK
ES043 - LV23ZCL
ES044 - LV23ZCN
ES045 - LV23ZCO
ES046 - LV23ZCT

All of the above are registered with the DVLA, ES047-50 should be registered in due course.

Next two, also taken from BLOTW (buslistsontheweb.co.uk)

ES047 - LV23ZCU
ES048 - LV23ZCX

 

[matt_world2004]

Sullivan doesn’t seem to be operating route W9 well, 61% of buses at peak are on time

http://bus.data.tfl.gov.uk/boroughreports/routes/performance-route-W9.pdf

Sullivans have multiple issues , they recently lost a load of school routes because of buses turning up very late at pick up time

 

[MasterSpenny]

Sullivans have multiple issues , they recently lost a load of school routes because of buses turning up very late at pick up time

Wonder how Uno will operate the JFS school contracts. They acquired ex First/Tower Transit DNH39115 & 118 and DH38501. However, this looks like only enough for route 643.

As for route 626, I presume Metroline have reblinded some buses with the correct blinds. I expect this route, along with 634 to use the 5 EvoSetis at PB.

Wonder how Uno will operate the JFS school contracts. They acquired ex First/Tower Transit DNH39115 & 118 and DH38501. However, this looks like only enough for route 643.

Bus Times (bustimes.org) shows they have got the following:
BYD / ADL Enviro400 EV:
1479 - LF69UXJ (Tracked on route 643)
Ex RATP Dev Transit London ADE40454 & 470
The JFS contracts are 4 years so I think the two Enviro400 and Enviro400H are ok for them

 

[TWBG]

Well personally, none of SB’s current routes will get extended or even some of the contracts may even be terminated early

Sullivans have multiple issues , they recently lost a load of school routes because of buses turning up very late at pick up time

Yes and their buses are so old it’s bad and they even have poor maintenance

 

[GusB]

Well personally, none of SB’s current routes will get extended or even some of the contracts may even be terminated early


Yes and their buses are so old it’s bad and they even have poor maintenance

Do you actually have any evidence to back up any of these statements?

 

[TWBG]

Next two, also taken from BLOTW (buslistsontheweb.co.uk)

ES047 - LV23ZCU
ES048 - LV23ZCX

I believe that the next ones could be

ES49 - LV23ZCY
ES50 - LV23ZCZ or ZDA

Do you actually have any evidence to back up any of these statements?

The buses are old, some of them are 58 and 09 plates. They can be seen on lvf.io if you look up “SB E*” in the search bar

 

[GusB]

The buses are old, some of them are 58 and 09 plates. They can be seen on lvf.io if you look up “SB E*” in the search bar

Old does not equate to being poorly maintained, and if you are making allegations about an operator having a poor maintenance regime, you should have a verifiable source (which you should quote).

You also said:

Well personally, none of SB’s current routes will get extended or even some of the contracts may even be terminated early

Is this just your personal opinion, or are you stating as fact that none of the routes will be extended or that they be terminated early? If it's the latter, again you should provide a quote from a verifiable source.

 

[M803UYA]

The buses are old, some of them are 58 and 09 plates. They can be seen on lvf.io if you look up “SB E*” in the search bar

You might consider that old, but in my native Somerset such vehicles are considered to be an upgrade....

 

[Snow1964]

Well personally, none of SB’s current routes will get extended or even some of the contracts may even be terminated early


Yes and their buses are so old it’s bad and they even have poor maintenance

old I would accept, the latest TfL fleet audit shows Sullivan's as average 9.68 years (that is only the TfL subset of whole fleet), which is oldest of all the TfL operators

Poor maintenance needs evidence to back it up.

TfL average fleet age data is table 6

Bus fleet data & audits

An audit of the LBSL contracted fleet is carried out once a year. The data provides the fleet size, respective percentage of the fleet and average age by operator.

tfl.gov.uk

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes and their buses are so old it’s bad and they even have poor mamaintenance

I don't think it was the fleet age that did it , driver shortages, running non london buses on tfl routes and doing some real funny stuff with the school bus routes is what did it.

There has been an investigation going on within tfl about sullivans issues for about 18 months

 

[Goldfish62]

I don't think it was the fleet age that did it , driver shortages, running non london buses on tfl routes and doing some real funny stuff with the school bus routes is what did it.

There has been an investigation going on within tfl about sullivans issues for about 18 months

Indeed. Plus the TfL Contracts Manager at Sullivan's left last year without replacement and things seem to have gone from bad to worse since then.

 

[TWBG]

Indeed. Plus the TfL Contracts Manager at Sullivan's left last year without replacement and things seem to have gone from bad to worse since then.

I don’t think there’ll be a replacement because the operator [Sullivan Buses] stopped placing bids for their routes meaning that all routes will gradually pass to various operators such as Go-Ahead London, Metroline, Arriva and more by (possibly June) 2029

Mod note:
Please provide the link to this post. You should also ensure that your post is accessible by copying and pasting the text rather than providing a screenshot. This is a requirement of forum rules.

 

[matt_world2004]

I don’t think there’ll be a replacement because the operator [Sullivan Buses] stopped placing bids for their routes meaning that all routes will gradually pass to various operators such as Go-Ahead London, Metroline, Arriva and more by (possibly June) 2029View attachment 140736

605 might need a replacement if tfl don't offer it to them they have won the tender but it sounds like tfl want to withdraw it.

Edit :Misunderstood what you were saying

 

[Goldfish62]

I don’t think there’ll be a replacement because the operator [Sullivan Buses] stopped placing bids for their routes meaning that all routes will gradually pass to various operators such as Go-Ahead London, Metroline, Arriva and more by (possibly June) 2029View attachment 140736

Yes, obviously it's a bit late for a replacement now, but said person did leave nearly a year ago.

 

[johncrossley]

If Sullivan operated commercial services to their current standard in one of the other big cities, would the Traffic Commissioner be sufficiently interested in enforcement action? Would similar performance statistics even be available?

 

[matt_world2004]

If Sullivan operated commercial services to their current standard in one of the other big cities, would the Traffic Commissioner be sufficiently interested in enforcement action? Would similar performance statistics even be available?

I think a lot of problem with sullivans is because they do not meet the standards of tfls concession contracts but it may not be necessarily be the same standard the traffic commissioner would hold them to. Running Thorpe Park buses on route 720 without working ticket machines harms the tfl brand and revenue

Running school buses two hours late Is a political concern too

Running buses that do not meet the low emission bus zone regulations could also cause political fallout to tfl. Even if sullivans is paying the required fees for doing so

 

[Deerfold]

Potters Bar it's 9-11 minutes and Arnos Grove it's 5 minutes, as shown on the schedule:

file:///C:/Users/Windows%2010/Downloads/Schedule_298-MF.pdf

It's a one bus stand restriction at each end, which at 3bph means potentially up to 20 min standing allowed at each end, but that would create a very inefficient schedule. Given the return running time of about 56 min a total scheduled stand time of 15 min on each return trip is proportionate.

You appear to have attempted to link to a file on your computer - we can't see that...

 

[Goldfish62]

You appear to have attempted to link to a file on your computer - we can't see that...

Yes, that's right. I did.

But you can look it up yourself given that all TfL schedules are published here:

Bus schedules

Search for a bus route number to find schedules for that route

tfl.gov.uk

 

[Enthusiast]

When discussing the installation of a charging point at another Network Rail station, the possibility of stray currents interfering with the railway signalling system was raised. That might be an issue at Orpington

The first one has been registered - IE2 - LX23BKA. The batch will not have consecutive plates.
Believe Crystal Palace is done, but I think there is a land dispute at Orpington Station stopping it happening.

For the past 10-14 days Orpington Station Approach (which leads to the bus station) has been the scene of some chaos. The road is very narrow and constricted but contractors have dug a trench (beginning by closing one of the bus station's bays), past the station entrance and are proceeding at not a very impressive rate down towards Station Road. Buses terminating at the station (including the 358) cannot drop passengers off at the alighting point and they must alight at the penultimate stop at Tubbenden Lane. When I was there a couple of days ago a large drum of cable, about 3 or 4 centimetres in diameter (the cable, that is, not the drum) had been delivered to the site. I imagine all this is to serve the charging station for the ieTrams.

 

[90sWereBetter]

How long has the ieTram fiasco been going on, it seems like it's been years since the new contract for the 358 was awarded? I wonder whether Go-Ahead and TFL have wondered if it may have been easier just to specify standard E200EVs instead if they wanted to get electric vehicles into Orpington.

 

[MasterSpenny]

How long has the ieTram fiasco been going on, it seems like it's been years since the new contract for the 358 was awarded? I wonder whether Go-Ahead and TFL have wondered if it may have been easier just to specify standard E200EVs instead if they wanted to get electric vehicles into Orpington.

Enviro200 EVs I don’t think have the range to do a whole day on it (believe a rounder is 30 miles)

 

[Goldfish62]

Enviro200 EVs I don’t think have the range to do a whole day on it (believe a rounder is 30 miles)

Yes indeed. Plus it acts as a useful trial/demonstration of opportunity charging on the route.

The fact that the infrastructure is delaying the whole scheme is far from unusual. Route 235 should have gone electric nearly a year ago (with BYD E200EVs), but there are ongoing issues getting the charging infrastructure into Hounslow Heath. Landlord issues I'm told.

 

[MotCO]

Enviro200 EVs I don’t think have the range to do a whole day on it (believe a rounder is 30 miles)

And some diagrams are about 21 hours long.

 

[TWBG]

How long has the ieTram fiasco been going on, it seems like it's been years since the new contract for the 358 was awarded? I wonder whether Go-Ahead and TFL have wondered if it may have been easier just to specify standard E200EVs instead if they wanted to get electric vehicles into Orpington.

The fiasco has been happening for nearly 3 years. The E200EVs can’t be on the 358 owing to the sheer length of the route

 

[Blindtraveler]

And once built, the infrastructure for these will not only be a great trial of opportunity opportunity charging within the TfL network on one of the longer distance routes but a useful proving trial for other operators elsewhere particularly in the southeast to see how this model of vehicle performs and how the opportunity charging works in practice, not only that but whilst I'm fully away I'm speaking from a deep personal hatred of the things, but any root without an e200 or e400 on it is good as far as I'm concerned

 

[TWBG]

Anyways, what will Kingston [Cromwell Road] Bus Station will look like after the works in Summer 2024?

 

[Goldfish62]

Anyways, what will Kingston [Cromwell Road] Bus Station will look like after the works in Summer 2024?

Somewhat like West Croydon bus station.