London Buses Discussion

[Busaholic]

It won't go the obvious route via Beckenham and Shortlands for fear of taking passengers away from Tramlink.


Interesting article from Mr French, it was perhaps exceptional circumstances but not good at all.

It will already get closer to Beckenham Junction than it would at Shortlands!

 

[Deerfold]

The whole point of Superloop is, supposedly. that by catching one such route to its terminus one can then transfer to another such route and so on ad nauseam, or, rather, when you reach the barrier of the Thames. Denying service to one of the termini, which was effectively what Roger was reporting, negates the principle, never mind that not all routes are yet operational. Somebody with some sort of management sense and expertise at TfL, if they any longer exist, should be over this like a rash. It's not sufficient to try to shift responsibility to the bus company that wins the contract: their primary focus is not the individual passenger, or even passengers en masse.

Their primary focus is to meet the targets in their contract. What do you expect TfL to do at this stage, other than enforce those?

 

[TWBG]

For the first time in two and a half years, a BDE has finally entered service on the 204

it is unclear if it will be the future allocation of the route

Metroline - Route 204​

Towards - Edgware Station​

Fleet	Reg	Destination	Due	Stop Id	Stop Name
VMH2440	LK18AFV	Edgware Station	22:38	77966	Kingsbury Station
WDE2779e	LV23DHG	Edgware Station	22:38	52199	Gunter Grove
WDE2788e	LV23DHY	Edgware Station	22:14	57920	Spring Villa Road
WDE2789e	LV23DHZ	Edgware Station	22:50	77806	Sudbury Town Station
WDE2797e	LV23DJX	Edgware Station	22:38	73700	Wembley Central Station

Towards - Sudbury Town​

Fleet	Reg	Destination	Due	Stop Id	Stop Name
VMH2442	LK18AFY	Sudbury Town	22:00	75347	Edgware Bus Station
BDE2762e	LG22AXT	Sudbury Town	22:14	75347	Edgware Bus Station
WDE2772e	LV23DGY	Sudbury Town	22:38	58588	Slough Lane
WDE2773e	LV23DGZ	Sudbury Town	22:38	47283	Cressingham Road
WDE2786e	LV23DHP	Sudbury Town	22:46	75347	Edgware Bus Station

 

[Deerfold]

For the first time in two and a half years, a BDE has finally entered service on the 204

it is unclear if it will be the future allocation of the route

Metroline - Route 204​

Towards - Edgware Station​

Fleet	Reg	Destination	Due	Stop Id	Stop Name
VMH2440	LK18AFV	Edgware Station	22:38	77966	Kingsbury Station
WDE2779e	LV23DHG	Edgware Station	22:38	52199	Gunter Grove
WDE2788e	LV23DHY	Edgware Station	22:14	57920	Spring Villa Road
WDE2789e	LV23DHZ	Edgware Station	22:50	77806	Sudbury Town Station
WDE2797e	LV23DJX	Edgware Station	22:38	73700	Wembley Central Station

Towards - Sudbury Town​

Fleet	Reg	Destination	Due	Stop Id	Stop Name
VMH2442	LK18AFY	Sudbury Town	22:00	75347	Edgware Bus Station
BDE2762e	LG22AXT	Sudbury Town	22:14	75347	Edgware Bus Station
WDE2772e	LV23DGY	Sudbury Town	22:38	58588	Slough Lane
WDE2773e	LV23DGZ	Sudbury Town	22:38	47283	Cressingham Road
WDE2786e	LV23DHP	Sudbury Town	22:46	75347	Edgware Bus Station

What's a BDE? I googled it but I don't think it's what the first few results suggested.

 

[Notchapple]

What's a BDE? I googled it but I don't think it's what the first few results suggested.

BYD Enviro400EV City

 

[Goldfish62]

What's a BDE? I googled it but I don't think it's what the first few results suggested.

I see what you mean.

 

[talldave]

Having visited every bus stop used by Superloop to fit a Superloop roundel on top, profligate TfL have yet more money to waste and are now visiting every stop once more to fit lights to illuminate the roundel.

Why they didn't buy illuminated roundels and do the job properly in one go is baffling. The answer's probably back-handers, but I'm a cynic!

 

[GusB]

Why they didn't buy illuminated roundels and do the job properly in one go is baffling. The answer's probably back-handers, but I'm a cynic!

The lights will probably be of a fairly standardised type, whereas illuminated roundels are rather more bespoke, and likely to be more expensive as a result.

Perhaps you should submit a Freedom of Information request to TfL, rather than insinuating that there are dodgy dealings going on.

 

[Goldfish62]

Having visited every bus stop used by Superloop to fit a Superloop roundel on top, profligate TfL have yet more money to waste and are now visiting every stop once more to fit lights to illuminate the roundel.

Why they didn't buy illuminated roundels and do the job properly in one go is baffling. The answer's probably back-handers, but I'm a cynic!

How terrible. Fancy visiting each bus stop more than once! Shock and outrage!

 

[Busaholic]

Their primary focus is to meet the targets in their contract. What do you expect TfL to do at this stage, other than enforce those?

Live up to their name rather than hide behind 'contract' b/s.

Palmers Green garage, which operates this route, couldn't be better placed to ensure that both ends of it get some sort of service even in worse than usual traffic conditions. Croydon garage, on the other hand, is less well-placed to ensure both Heathrow and West Croydon are treated equitably on what used to be the X26.

 

[Goldfish62]

Live up to their name rather than hide behind 'contract' b/s.

It would be absolutely absurd, as well as unreasonable, to undertake any enforcement action less than a week into the contract.

It really is about time that Roger reported on the diabolical service provided in places outside London when traffic congestion and roadworks cause gridlock, but strangely he always seems to focus on TfL.

 

[Deerfold]

Live up to their name rather than hide behind 'contract' b/s.

Palmers Green garage, which operates this route, couldn't be better placed to ensure that both ends of it get some sort of service even in worse than usual traffic conditions. Croydon garage, on the other hand, is less well-placed to ensure both Heathrow and West Croydon are treated equitably on what used to be the X26.

I'm no clearer what you think they should do. They can't break public sector rules on how to award tenders. They can't suddenly jump in and manage a route themselves.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm no clearer what you think they should do. They can't break public sector rules on how to award tenders. They can't suddenly jump in and manage a route themselves.

Unlike any other bus operator in Great Britain, TfL is in public ownership, directly answerable to an elected Mayor and, beyond that, to the London Assembly of other elected members.

When the decision was made to create the Superloop network, regardless of where the idea sprung from and if the principal catalyst was an official or a politician, the enactment of it became all-important, particularly in view of the colossal P.R. disaster that the extension of ULEZ to Outer London had become.

TfL did not have to proceed with Superloop by going down the road of just tweaking contracts with individual bus companies on existing routes, except possibly one or two that were effectively mere route renumberings. By the way, I'm ignoring the fatuous decision to include the 607 and X68 in the SL series, which only muddies the waters as far as I'm concerned.

If TfL (or the Mayor) really believe the publicity they produced for the launch, they should have gathered all the company heads together beforehand and told them they had to agree to work together, if necessary, to make it work. After all, any negative publicity would be directed to TfL, not Arriva, Metroline etc etc. So new contracts should have been produced, even if that meant compensation for some existing ones became payable: I can't believe that would have made the concept unviable, because Go-Ahead etc know who butters their bread and would be mitigated by any new contracts going their way. Part of the new contracts should have included provision for human Inspectors at terminal points for much of the day, both to assist passengers and to help control buses, aided of course by the Route Controllers. Much good publicity could have come from this, and not only from that good and wise guy Roger French.

 

[Goldfish62]

Unlike any other bus operator in Great Britain, TfL is in public ownership.

It's not a bus operator. It's officially classified as a bus operator. And it's not answerable to the London Assembly, only the Mayor.

New contracts should have been produced.

That's exactly what's happened for those routes which aren't just existing routes that have been renumbered!

 

[Deerfold]

Unlike any other bus operator in Great Britain, TfL is in public ownership, directly answerable to an elected Mayor and, beyond that, to the London Assembly of other elected members.

When the decision was made to create the Superloop network, regardless of where the idea sprung from and if the principal catalyst was an official or a politician, the enactment of it became all-important, particularly in view of the colossal P.R. disaster that the extension of ULEZ to Outer London had become.

TfL did not have to proceed with Superloop by going down the road of just tweaking contracts with individual bus companies on existing routes, except possibly one or two that were effectively mere route renumberings. By the way, I'm ignoring the fatuous decision to include the 607 and X68 in the SL series, which only muddies the waters as far as I'm concerned.

If TfL (or the Mayor) really believe the publicity they produced for the launch, they should have gathered all the company heads together beforehand and told them they had to agree to work together, if necessary, to make it work. After all, any negative publicity would be directed to TfL, not Arriva, Metroline etc etc. So new contracts should have been produced, even if that meant compensation for some existing ones became payable: I can't believe that would have made the concept unviable, because Go-Ahead etc know who butters their bread and would be mitigated by any new contracts going their way. Part of the new contracts should have included provision for human Inspectors at terminal points for much of the day, both to assist passengers and to help control buses, aided of course by the Route Controllers. Much good publicity could have come from this, and not only from that good and wise guy Roger French.

I'm still not much clearer on what you think TfL should be doing, now. How do you think these new contracts should be different fom other routes? How would that be measured? I'm not sure what extra people on the way would do to help bus control, so long as the existing Route Controllers are on top of the job, but this sounds like a large extra outlay for minimal effect.

 

[Busaholic]

It's not a bus operator. It's officially classified as a bus operator. And it's not answerable to the London Assembly, only the Mayor.

Your first and second sentences are a tautology. The third one merely confirms that it is in public ownership, funded by London ratepayers. It's not the Mayor's personal fiefdom, even though a previous one acted like it was. Resorting to pedantry doesn't provide an answer to my central point that, like so much else that comes out of TfL now, and not all due to being starved of enough finance by the government, it starts with a good deal of self-congratulation and self-promotion that gradually dissipates into scepticism from the public. Those who defend the present set-up really need to look at how other capital cities both in Europe and the wider world run their buses, and wonder why none of them seek to replicate it. TfL can, and have done, actually operate buses themselves if need be, just as the state can do with railway companies, to general acclaim.

 

[johncrossley]

Those who defend the present set-up really need to look at how other capital cities both in Europe and the wider world run their buses, and wonder why none of them seek to replicate it. TfL can, and have done, actually operate buses themselves if need be, just as the state can do with railway companies, to general acclaim.

Unions are probably the main reason why other cities don't privatise their bus services. However, many European capital cities (not sure why being a capital is relevant) also have privatised buses, including Stockholm, Copenhagen and Helsinki. Dublin have also tendered out some routes to Go Ahead. As far as I know, nowhere has considered bringing buses back into public ownership after privatisation. I wouldn't want to go back to pre-1985 London buses. We now get a much more comprehensive bus service at much lower cost to the taxpayer.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

Greetings! I am intrigued to find out why Stagecoach London have introduced some of their 8.7 metre Switch Metrocity EV vehicles on the 339 alongside the dual door variants. I am aware that former were destined for route W5. If that is the case is there something hindering electrification at HK* or is the route currently unsuitable for those vehicles? If anyone can relay any information regarding this intriguing abnormality please do not hesitate to reply!

 

[GusB]

Greetings! I am intrigued to find out why Stagecoach London have introduced some of their 8.7 metre Switch Metrocity EV vehicles on the 339 alongside the dual door variants. I am aware that former were destined for route W5. If that is the case is there something hindering electrification at HK* or is the route currently unsuitable for those vehicles? If anyone can relay any information regarding this intriguing abnormality please do not hesitate to reply!

HK needs to be clarified, please - not everyone is familiar with London depot codes. Thanks

 

[Busoccultation]

HK needs to be clarified, please - not everyone is familiar with London depot codes. Thanks

HK is Stagecoach/HCT share of Ash Grove garage, while the Arriva part of Ash Grove garage is AE.

For those of you who don't know, Ash Grove is one of the few London garages that is shared between two different operators along with Edgware that is shared between Metroline & RATP and Fulwell that is used by RATP at one end while Abellio has the other end of the garage.

 

[CyrusWuff]

HK is Stagecoach/HCT share of Ash Grove garage, while the Arriva part of Ash Grove garage is AE.

For those of you who don't know, Ash Grove is one of the few London garages that is shared between two different operators along with Edgware that is shared between Metroline & RATP and Fulwell that is used by RATP at one end while Abellio has the other end of the garage.

Technically Fulwell isn't shared, despite being opposite ends of the same physical building. Abellio call their part Twickenham, and access it from Stanley Road, with RATP calling theirs Fulwell, with access from Wellington Road.

I'd assume there's a dividing wall somewhere in the building to separate the two operations.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Unions are probably the main reason why other cities don't privatise their bus services. However, many European capital cities (not sure why being a capital is relevant) also have privatised buses, including Stockholm, Copenhagen and Helsinki. Dublin have also tendered out some routes to Go Ahead. As far as I know, nowhere has considered bringing buses back into public ownership after privatisation. I wouldn't want to go back to pre-1985 London buses. We now get a much more comprehensive bus service at much lower cost to the taxpayer.

So where do the private operators get their profits from?

 

[johncrossley]

So where do the private operators get their profits from?

The difference between what they charge TfL to run the service and the cost they actually incur is the profit.

 

[Statto]

Technically Fulwell isn't shared, despite being opposite ends of the same physical building. Abellio call their part Twickenham, and access it from Stanley Road, with RATP calling theirs Fulwell, with access from Wellington Road.

I'd assume there's a dividing wall somewhere in the building to separate the two operations.

Looking on Wiki, at one time Fulwell was one garage, it was a Tram, then Trolleybus depot, their is now a dividing wall that splits the site in half, that happened when the garage was rebuilt in 86, 87.

Fulwell bus garage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AlbertBeale]

The difference between what they charge TfL to run the service and the cost they actually incur is the profit.

Precisely - money taken out of the public transport system to enrich a private company - money which could otherwise go to pay for better services, or to use less taxation to support it. The idea that a privately-run service saves taxpayers' money is ridiculous. Neither evidence not logic supports such an assertion. It can only save taxpayers' money if users pay more - which can happen when in public hands anyway if that's what's wanted (and with less financial "leakage" to profiteers). Anyway - users of public transport and taxpayers are not mutually exclusive sets of people!

 

[johncrossley]

Precisely - money taken out of the public transport system to enrich a private company - money which could otherwise go to pay for better services, or to use less taxation to support it. The idea that a privately-run service saves taxpayers' money is ridiculous. Neither evidence not logic supports such an assertion. It can only save taxpayers' money if users pay more - which can happen when in public hands anyway if that's what's wanted (and with less financial "leakage" to profiteers). Anyway - users of public transport and taxpayers are not mutually exclusive sets of people!

History tells us that privatisation is cheaper even when taking into account the contractor profits because of the use of competitive tendering. London buses were heavily subsidised in the mid 80s and that subsidy was reduced to near zero by the time TfL took over despite some modest improvements in service.

 

[slowroad]

Precisely - money taken out of the public transport system to enrich a private company - money which could otherwise go to pay for better services, or to use less taxation to support it. The idea that a privately-run service saves taxpayers' money is ridiculous. Neither evidence not logic supports such an assertion. It can only save taxpayers' money if users pay more - which can happen when in public hands anyway if that's what's wanted (and with less financial "leakage" to profiteers). Anyway - users of public transport and taxpayers are not mutually exclusive sets of people!

Presumably the same argument applies to other industries, in which case we should simply nationalise them all. That way we could have better and cheaper services across the board, as of course used to be the case in Eastern Europe.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Presumably the same argument applies to other industries, in which case we should simply nationalise them all. That way we could have better and cheaper services across the board, as of course used to be the case in Eastern Europe.

The argument applies to public services. Incidentally, such trade-offs can happen even in unpleasant regimes - average life expectancy in Cuba is higher than for poorer people in the USA.

History tells us that privatisation is cheaper even when taking into account the contractor profits because of the use of competitive tendering. London buses were heavily subsidised in the mid 80s and that subsidy was reduced to near zero by the time TfL took over despite some modest improvements in service.

How does competitive tendering magically make things cheaper? Other than by pushing down wages of the staff of course. There's little else that can be varied. I've obviously read different history...

 

[johncrossley]

How does competitive tendering magically make things cheaper? Other than by pushing down wages of the staff of course. There's little else that can be varied. I've obviously read different history...

If you just sell the bus company to the private sector without competitive tendering so that TfL have no choice of supplier, the bus company can name its own price. That's the problem outside London with Bus Service Improvement Plans where the councils have little choice but to go with the incumbent operator. Water privatisation is another example of a private monopoly which has arguably been a failure.

As a bonus, TfL can offer incentives, for example contract extensions without retendering, if the operator does well, or you can threaten to remove the contract as a result of bad performance. This gives the operator the desire to improve the service provided which wouldn't be available if TfL owned the bus company.

It is historical fact that subsidy reduced dramatically after London bus privatisation, surely you can't be disputing that?

You could make the argument that TfL should own its own operator that competes with private companies for bus contracts. As far as I know, East Thames Buses was only used in the event when a private contractor collapsed. It might have been a good experiment if it wasn't sold off by Boris Johnson and instead was allowed to compete for tenders.

 

[slowroad]

The argument applies to public services. Incidentally, such trade-offs can happen even in unpleasant regimes - average life expectancy in Cuba is higher than for poorer people in the USA.



How does competitive tendering magically make things cheaper? Other than by pushing down wages of the staff of course. There's little else that can be varied. I've obviously read different history...lo

The argument applies to public services. Incidentally, such trade-offs can happen even in unpleasant regimes - average life expectancy in Cuba is higher than for poorer people in the USA.



How does competitive tendering magically make things cheaper? Other than by pushing down wages of the staff of course. There's little else that can be varied. I've obviously read different history...

Low life expectancy of the poor in the USA is more to do with broader societal factors and lack of health coverage than method of provision. And in any case, healthcare provision is not like providing bus services..