London Buses Discussion

[Snow1964]

How does this reduce the PVR across the network?

There are some chunky reductions.

Short term probably not making much difference as Q3 2022-23 (Oct-Dec 2022), which is most recent quarter, only 94.5% of buses ran in London, so effectively a PVR shortfall of nearly 400 from planned.

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s19742/csopp-20230322-item05b%20Customer%20Service%20Operational%20Performance%20Report.pdf

 

[MotCO]

There are lots of London bus changes 29th April including withdrawal of some routes

Changes in central London will affect routes 3, 6 (24 hour), 11, 16, 23 (24 hour), 26, 59, 133, 332, 507, 521, C10, N11, N16, N26 and N32.

Some minor changes will also affect the stops served by routes 17, 24, 59, 139, 176, 211, 415, N3, N53, N109 and N343 at Kennington Park Road, London Bridge, Whitehall or Waterloo.

There is a long detailed list on the following link, from which the summary above was taken

Central London bus changes

We're making changes to bus routes and services in Central London after our consultation

tfl.gov.uk

Notable for the cessation of the last Red Arrow services.

 

[duncanp]

Notable for the cessation of the last Red Arrow services.

And also for Transport for London talking a lot of hogwash about "new links" provided by the re-routed services.

Route 11 - currently running between Fulham Broadway and Liverpool Street - will no longer serve stops between Parliament Square and Liverpool Street. It will not call at Trafalgar Square or Aldwych or Charing Cross, City Thameslink or Bank stations. Instead, buses will be re-routed to serve Waterloo via Westminster Bridge, York Road and Station Approach. This will provide a new link to St Thomas's Hospital.

The link between Victoria Station, St Thomas Hospital and Waterloo was previously provided by route 507, which has been withdrawn, and also route 211, which follows the same route as the revised 11 between Victoria and Waterloo.

Route 26 - currently running between Hackney Wick and Waterloo - will no longer serve stops between Aldwych and Waterloo. Instead, buses will be re-routed to serve Victoria, via Strand, Whitehall and Victoria Street. This will create new links to Charing Cross, Westminster, St James's Park and Victoria stations.

The "new links" supposedly provided by route 26 were previously provided by route 11.

Route 133 - currently running between Streatham station and Liverpool Street - will no longer serve stops between Monument and Liverpool Street. Instead, buses will be re-routed to serve Holborn via Bank junction, Holborn Viaduct and High Holborn. This will create new links to Bank, St Paul's and Chancery Lane stations.

The "new links" supposedly provided by route 133 were previously provided by the withdrawn route 521

Route 23 (24 hour) - currently running between Westbourne Park and Hammersmith - will no longer serve stops between Hyde Park Corner and Hammersmith bus station. It will not serve High Street Kensington, Kensington (Olympia) or Hammersmith stations.

Instead, buses will be re-routed to serve Aldwych via Piccadilly, Trafalgar Square and Strand. This will create new links to Green Park, Piccadilly Circus and Charing Cross stations.

The "new links" supposedly provided by route 23 were previously provided by route 6, which has been diverted to Victoria.

Interesting to note that the re-routing of the 23 to Aldwych restores this route to what it was before it was diverted to Hammersmith when route 10 was withdrawn.

 

[Busaholic]

Interesting to note that the re-routing of the 23 to Aldwych restores this route to what it was before it was diverted to Hammersmith when route 10 was withdrawn.

Only partially: Piccadilly Circus to Aldwych, but not the longer and more useful Marble Arch to Piccadilly Circus section. Why on earth the 23 could not have been further extended to Liverpool Street to replace the 11, at the same time suggesting the route might have a permanence beyond the next cuts in a year or two, heaven alone knows, cos sure as eggs are eggs the teenage beancounters at TfL Towers don't!

 

[duncanp]

Only partially: Piccadilly Circus to Aldwych, but not the longer and more useful Marble Arch to Piccadilly Circus section. Why on earth the 23 could not have been further extended to Liverpool Street to replace the 11, at the same time suggesting the route might have a permanence beyond the next cuts in a year or two, heaven alone knows, cos sure as eggs are eggs the teenage beancounters at TfL Towers don't!

My understanding is that the revised 23 will run from Westbourne Park to Aldwych, which means that it will serve Marble Arch to Piccadilly Circus, albeit via Hyde Park Corner rather than Oxford Circus.

You are right about extending the 23 to Liverpool Street.

There will now only be one bus between Aldwych and Liverpool Street, the 26, whereas previously there was the 11, 23 and 26.

And as for diverting the 11 to Waterloo over the same route as the 211, what is the point of that? You might as well withdraw the 11 completely, although I had better shut up about that, for fear of giving the TfL bean counters ideas for the next round of cuts.

Bus travel in Central London has become such a pain now that it makes me glad I don't live in London anymore.

 

[Busaholic]

My understanding is that the revised 23 will run from Westbourne Park to Aldwych, which means that it will serve Marble Arch to Piccadilly Circus, albeit via Hyde Park Corner rather than Oxford Circus.

You are right about extending the 23 to Liverpool Street.

There will now only be one bus between Aldwych and Liverpool Street, the 26, whereas previously there was the 11, 23 and 26.

And as for diverting the 11 to Waterloo over the same route as the 211, what is the point of that? You might as well withdraw the 11 completely, although I had better shut up about that, for fear of giving the TfL bean counters ideas for the next round of cuts.

Bus travel in Central London has become such a pain now that it makes me glad I don't live in London anymore.

I should perhaps have worded it better - it won't serve Oxford Street, Oxford Circus and Regent Street as it did when it previously went to Aldwych (and Liverpool Street.)

As for withdrawing the 11 altogether, this was part of the original 'ambition' of the anti-bus philistines lodged in their ivory tower, so they don't goading by us!

 

[johncrossley]

I'd rather have my taxes spent on limited stop buses in outer London that may have a chance of getting people out of cars rather than on central London bus services. The central London bus cuts are unlikely to result a substantial increase in extra car or taxi journeys. The affected passengers are almost certainly going to continue using buses which are still very frequent and still very comprehensive by European standards. Nowadays there is no worry about having to pay again when changing. Alternatively they will get the tube or go by bike. Changing from tube to bus is still penalised by the fare system, though, and even after cuts still means people using the bus when the tube is more appropriate.

 

[Fleetmaster]

The central London bus cuts are unlikely to result a substantial increase in extra car or taxi journeys. The affected passengers are almost certainly going to continue using buses which are still very frequent and still very comprehensive by European standards.

London is already a pretty unique market, with many passengers taking the bus by choice, not need.

This is a curious set of changes for two reasons, namely breaking connections and making the network appear less stable overall.

Reducing the number of direct links for people who likely are already changing modes and perhaps already have an expensive electric runabout sitting in their leafy inner suburban driveway, and are probably already only commuting for part of the week, might tip the balance for a few passengers.

It's also odd that they prefer tinkering over more direct cuts to whole routes where alternatives exist for say the two halves. Knowing the network is stable is a big selling point. Stability of specific routes that exist, similarly. Withdrawing a whole route is easier to reverse too, if conditions improve.

If passengers get the idea TfL's default approach when finances are tough is to introduce instability in a bean counter way to satisfy the hard core captured market, rather than thinking about casual or prospective user's needs, well, are they getting the benefits of Londom having a publicly subsidized integrated bus network at all?

To stop this bleeding, TfL are in the unenviable position of having to be even more anti-car at a time of cutting the usefulness of the bus network.

People really won't care if their historical bus provision is still very high, it only reminds people this only came as a result of splashing the cash of ordinary Londoners. Many of whom also now have to change buses, and must now be wondering if this was the reason for the hopper fare all along...

Most privatized operators and certainly smaller munipals long ago learnt the value of not tinkering with routes to save money, preferring instead to reduce frequencies or cut evening or weekend services.

The only major route revisions in my large city are extensions or re-routings to actually try and serve new markets.

Only yesterday I traveled a route that traces back to tram days. It's as useful as ever, linking a main artery and large suburb on one side, while being ghe only bus to travel the centre to hospital route on the other.

I saved money on the day ticket, needing only a return, despite it being an end to end journey. To my mind, the TfL approach to belt tightening would cut this route in half, my half.

They would perhaps see that my side of the route already has good services into town, and they probably don't care that this makes a just about bearable 45 minute run (barring the usual road blocking from inconveniently parked cars), into one that on a bad day or off peak might approach an hour, plus a wait at a city stop that is grim and uninviting, due to building works and congested city streets.

There is one tiny bit of road this would leave unserved, but it's only a few stops, so if adjusting other routes wouldn't do, re-routing the already zip ziggy peripheral air moving nonsense that has second class bus user written all over it, they could probably get away with arguing demographic changes mean this has less of an impact, since the suburb is now one of the nicer parts of town.

A consultation would do no good, since if you remove the negative effect of forcing changes, if probably looks like it would save a lot of money.

I can make that journey by bike in 30 minutes, withiut ever touching a road except to cross it. It's a fifteen minute run in the car or a taxi, and a taxi is probably only a few quid more. All because the route is only economical as a city crosser. This was true from the earliest tram days, and will only change when universal personal public transit becomes a thing, in maybe 50 years?

I am only an occasional user, but my early morning (6.30) run picked up plenty of custom, including I dare say a fair few hospital workers. People who, even the immigrants, seem to already be well off enough to be talking about houses and cars. Tfl is in a bad place if nurses are made to feel like it is anti-car policies not pro-bus policies that are keeping them on the Kahnbahn.

 

[miklcct]

Can anyone explain to me the 16 and 332 change? Is the "amended" 16 identical to the "withdrawn" 332?

 

[GusB]

Can anyone explain to me the 16 and 332 change? Is the "amended" 16 identical to the "withdrawn" 332?

As it has been some time since the last post in this thread, could you perhaps provide a reminder as to what this is about? (ie, provide a link to and a quote from the source of this information)?

 

[bakerstreet]

Can anyone explain to me the 16 and 332 change? Is the "amended" 16 identical to the "withdrawn" 332?

Essentially, yes.

As a few years ago when the 82 was ‘withdrawn’ and route 13 was ‘rerouted’

In both cases the lower number shared a significant amount of route with the higher number, but the lower number represented a more established route number liked by the passengers and/or campaign groups.

Existing route 332 (between Brent Park and Paddington) will be replaced by revised route 16. Revised route 16 will serve all of the same stops as former route 332 and most of the same stops as existing route 16 between Brent Park and Paddington. It will not run between Edgware Road and Victoria.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/332-16-n16-n32-map-web.pdf

 

[busesrusuk]

Just a quick note so say that the first of a very large batch of electric buses have started to enter service this week in South London. Merton have put out the first electric buses on routes 163 and 164 whilst Sutton should follow fairly soon where the majority (if not all) of that garages allocation will convert to electric.

Pic here of SEe187 which entered service earlier today:

GAL SEe187 Apr23

Sutton Station, Apr 2023

www.flickr.com

 

[Andyh82]

Does the withdrawal of the 507 & 521 mean that the depot at Waterloo will now be out of use, and possibly sold?

At Central London land prices they will presumably get millions for it if they sold it

 

[Anthony ross]

Does the withdrawal of the 507 & 521 mean that the depot at Waterloo will now be out of use, and possibly sold?

At Central London land prices they will presumably get millions for it if they sold it

As far as I’m aware the 214 is moving to Waterloo

 

[Goldfish62]

As far as I’m aware the 214 is moving to Waterloo

I believe that's correct.

Does the withdrawal of the 507 & 521 mean that the depot at Waterloo will now be out of use, and possibly sold?

At Central London land prices they will presumably get millions for it if they sold it

The 153 also operates from there.

 

[James H]

Does the withdrawal of the 507 & 521 mean that the depot at Waterloo will now be out of use, and possibly sold?

At Central London land prices they will presumably get millions for it if they sold it

It's owned by Go-Ahead. Will be interesting to see what they do with it.

 

[Surreyman]

It's owned by Go-Ahead. Will be interesting to see what they do with it.

As discussed on this forum sometime back, a lot of money was spent electrifying Waterloo depot, a lot of bus routes go past or near to Waterloo so it wouldn't be difficult to convert an existing or future operated Go Ahead route to electric vehicles and base them.

 

[Goldfish62]

As discussed on this forum sometime back, a lot of money was spent electrifying Waterloo depot, a lot of bus routes go past or near to Waterloo so it wouldn't be difficult to convert an existing or future operated Go Ahead route to electric vehicles and base them.

As stated above the 153 will still operate from there and will be joined by the 214 at least.

It's not closing.

 

[busesrusuk]

It's owned by Go-Ahead. Will be interesting to see what they do with it.

If it were to close we probably would have heard by now. Moving the 214 in will help but there will still be a big gap. Maybe the 100 can move across from Q as well to give an allocation of about 40 buses leaving a bit of spare capacity. From memory there are about 45 charging points at Waterloo. They couldn't get all the 507 and 521 buses in hence the small allocation on the 507 at Q (which also helpfully took care of the Sat/Sun operation on the 507)

 

[Simon75]

If it were to close we probably would have heard by now. Moving the 214 in will help but there will still be a big gap. Maybe the 100 can move across from Q as well to give an allocation of about 40 buses leaving a bit of spare capacity. From memory there are about 45 charging points at Waterloo. They couldn't get all the 507 and 521 buses in hence the small allocation on the 507 at Q (which also helpfully took care of the Sat/Sun operation on the 507)

Q is guess is a depot/outstation, but which one is it please?

 

[James H]

Q = Camberwell

 

[busesrusuk]

Apologies for not spelling out the garage - difficult to break the habits of a lifetime!

 

[Goldfish62]

If it were to close we probably would have heard by now.

It is not closing.

With the addition of the 214 there will be around 35 vehicles at the garage. Hardly empty.

 

[MotCO]

Where are the ex-Red Arrow EVs going? (Apols if it was mentioned up thread)

 

[Goldfish62]

Where are the ex-Red Arrow EVs going? (Apols if it was mentioned up thread)

Most will be going to the 108 I'm told. The few leftover could potentially go to the 444 freeing up the displaced shorter E200EVs for part conversion to electric elsewhere.

 

[MotCO]

Most will be going to the 108 I'm told. The few leftover could potentially go to the 444 freeing up the displaced shorter E200EVs for part conversion to electric elsewhere.

Could the 227 (Crystal Palace to Bromley) be converted? Orpington garage has charging facilities.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Does anyone know when the 358 is due to get these Irizar electric buses? It's been several years since they were announced and there's still no sign of them entering service. Another SWR 701 situation? :P

In addition, Metroline were supposed to convert the 204 to E400/BYD when the new contract started last year. It appears the buses arrived midway through 2022 as the're on 22 plates, however it only seems they're entering service in the last few weeks.

 

[MotCO]

Does anyone know when the 358 is due to get these Irizar electric buses? It's been several years since they were announced and there's still no sign of them entering service. Another SWR 701 situation? :P

In addition, Metroline were supposed to convert the 204 to E400/BYD when the new contract started last year. It appears the buses arrived midway through 2022 as the're on 22 plates, however it only seems they're entering service in the last few weeks.

I think three buses have been delivered, but the infastructure at Orpington Station is still not ready. (Source - London Omnibus Traction Society monthly newsletter, but I may be mis-remembering.)

Edit - I was mostly correct, but it was also on the LOTS website www.LOTS.org.uk It also says that some driving testing is due soon.

 

[Fleetmaster]

35 buses won't keep a central London garage open for long. Unless there are lease restrictions, it's nailed on that will be sold and redeveloped. A decision sure to be regretted when the city gets back to pre-Covid working patterns and the tube is very overcrowded on those terminal to city flows. The Red Arrow was a perfect solution, but for whatever reason Khan has never liked it. Maybe because it makes it pretty obvious that for many trips, the tube is an expensive and often inconvenient mode, a problem he can't fix with the tools he prefers - fiddling with fares and chucking uniforms at it.

 

[TFN]

Hi all, does anyone know what the new diamond stickers on Stagecoach buses are for?

I've noticed over the past week that the buses have a grey or yellow diamond symbol right underneath the front destination blind but have no idea what they mean.

I haven't seen them on Go-Ahead buses in my area, it's just Stagecoach.