London Buses Discussion

[Goldfish62]

Renationalising is unnecessary and counter-productive. I can see the point of setting up a rival publicly owned company to bid for contracts against the private operators if the worry is that we are not getting value for money.

Totally agree.

It's all very populist and fashionable at the moment to say public ownership good, private ownership bad and bringing something into public ownership will magically improve things dramatically (that's not to stay I'm against public ownership - far from it!).

East Thames Buses was set up as a public sector comparator, with bold claims about "setting the standards" and "showing the private operators how to do it". The less said about how those claims stood up to reality the better.

Any TfL-owned operator would still have the same cost pressures, arguably more, and all the traffic congestion and roadworks wouldn't magically vanish for them.

 

[duncombec]

The words "East", "Thames" and "Buses" are springing to mind for some reason here...

 

[Mikey C]

A nonsense proposal. The only way to actually bring all the buses under TfL ownership would be for TfL to buy all the existing garages and drivers. Unless he's planning to build new garages all over London, and poach staff, as even one East Thames Buses type garage will be irrelevant to most of London's routes..

The current mayor said the plan would offer "better value for money, consistency and service to all Londoners and visitors to the city and would also provide stability and certainty if operators were to fail during their existing contracts".

Which with large groups dominating the bus tendering isn't going to happen.

Totally agree.

It's all very populist and fashionable at the moment to say public ownership good, private ownership bad and bringing something into public ownership will magically improve things dramatically (that's not to stay I'm against public ownership - far from it!).

Ahem, Post Office...

 

[Goldfish62]

Ahem, Post Office...

Ownership being conveniently ignored...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sadiq Khan is proposing a ‘Bakerloop’ express bus service, that would run between Elephant and Castle and Lewisham. This is if he is elected as Mayor again this year.

Bakerloop! Sadiq Khan pledges fast bus to Lewisham if he wins election - The Greenwich Wire

London mayor Sadiq Khan says he will bring in a "Bakerloop" bus following the route of the planned Bakerloo Line extension if he is re-elected.

greenwichwire.co.uk

Agreed, could really support the business case for extending the Bakerloo Line out East if buses become seriously overcrowded.

I can't see those buses becoming severely overcrowded. Almost no-one at Lewisham, New Cross, or New Cross Gate who wishes to travel into central London is going to choose to get a bus to Elephant and Castle when they already have pretty fast trains to get them to London Bridge/etc. I totally support the Bakerloo extension, but the idea of the Bakerloop express bus just feels to me like a gimmick. You want to put new express bus routes in places where they will attract the most custom/enable the most new journeys, not places where you're trying to make a political point.

 

[Thirteen]

The current bus system in London works, why change it?

I can't help but think Sadiq Khan is jumping on the bandwagon of national Labour but the rest of the bus services elsewhere are a lot worse compared to London.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I can't see those buses becoming severely overcrowded. Almost no-one at Lewisham, New Cross, or New Cross Gate who wishes to travel into central London is going to choose to get a bus to Elephant and Castle when they already have pretty fast trains to get them to London Bridge/etc. I totally support the Bakerloo extension, but the idea of the Bakerloop express bus just feels to me like a gimmick. You want to put new express bus routes in places where they will attract the most custom/enable the most new journeys, not places where you're trying to make a political point.

What about demand between New Cross/New Cross Gate and Lewisham?

But under Sadiq's new policy, once contracts on routes came to an end, they would be reviewed to decide whether to bring them under the new public operator.

TFL, unlike TFGM, does not own the depots. Before Khan even goes about creating a new publicly owned bus operator, he will have to purchase the depots. The only real bonus of this I can think of is in the long term, having the one integrated operator who controls all staff, vehicles, depots, etc.

 

[PGAT]

The way I see it, the service is useful for preparing passengers for what's to come, and if it's successful, will make a stronger case for the actual extension of the Bakerloo

 

[johncrossley]

I think London could benefit from changing to a Manchester-style tendering system where you have a whole depot being tendered out, which could lead to better value if you get more bidders.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What about demand between New Cross/New Cross Gate and Lewisham?

People will either take the train (from New Cross) or get the first bus that turns up. The distance is too short for a bus being 'express' to have that much impact on journey times, so it will make no sense for people to wait 5 minutes for the express if there's a bus on one of the slower bus routes actually at the bus stop.

 

[YorkRailFan]

People will either take the train (from New Cross) or get the first bus that turns up. The distance is too short for a bus being 'express' to have that much impact on journey times, so it will make no sense for people to wait 5 minutes for the express if there's a bus on one of the slower bus routes actually at the bus stop.

Perhaps many people won't have Elephant & Castle as their final destination, but somewhere else on the Bakerloo Line so will use this bus service to get from Lewisham and New Cross/New Cross Gate to Elephant & Castle and then change onto the Bakerloo Line.

 

[Busaholic]

Well, this interested me, and wasn't a massive surprise: https://www.mylondon.news/news/transport/new-london-bus-company-established-29002732

If it happens, I wonder where operations would be based for initial services and what services might go to it. Feels like an operator of last resort with bells on. Could ETB rise from the ashes again or does GoAhead own that name now also?

Given I moved to GM in 2005, can just see Manchester doing likewise also given that TfGM already owns the garages, would likely be a bit easier to do up here...

Not a massive surprise to me either, especially given the number of tender awards being surrendered early,

I welcome the announcement, albeit being sceptical about its pre-Mayoral election basis. The lessons of East Thames Buses must be learnt, though, and this is one case where I feel getting consultancy advice from people such as Roger French would be imperative, leading perhaps to TfL considerably strengthening its 'bus side management team' for want of a better phrase with judicial poaching from bus operators nationally.

Buses are not such a problem for now with 1,000 LTs in TfL ownership. Garages more so, with TfL only owning Ash Grove, West Ham and Waterloo, or am I well out-of-date? Nevertheless, I'd imagine this needn't be a huge problem with some companies being only too willing to jettison premises, e.g. Westbourne Grove?

The last thing TfL should consider is resurrecting the East Thames name, a very stupid choice in the first place imo. The routes from the start must be operated in all parts of the capital, even if some are initially still operated with some input from the current operators. Another thing that should begin to be centralised I've already alluded to on this forum and (unusually ) even got some support in suggesting bringing all bus route controllers to a suitably large spot in Central London. I know some will suggest I'm merely being sentimental and trying to resurrect London Transport, but I can see many successful transport operations around the world, not just with buses, where something comparable exists, in some cases where the part-private model has been seen to be wanting when previously operated.

Express Bakerloo buses? Well, maybe, but not at the expense of the actual Bakerloo Line getting its chronically badly-needed extension to Lewisham, which should be reinstated to TfL's works list at no. 1 in the first week of the new Labour government.
.

 

[johncrossley]

Garage purchase didn't seem like a major issue in Greater Manchester so would it be so different in London? Does a new nationalised operator even need a brand? The Bee Network doesn't carry operator logos.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Perhaps many people won't have Elephant & Castle as their final destination, but somewhere else on the Bakerloo Line so will use this bus service to get from Lewisham and New Cross/New Cross Gate to Elephant & Castle and then change onto the Bakerloo Line.

I'm afraid I'm still not seeing it. Trains run non-stop between New Cross/New Cross Gate and London Bridge (with all its tube and ongoing train connections), typically taking just 7 minutes from New Cross. New Cross Gate also has very frequent services to Canada Water (6 minute journey time), where people can easily connect to the Jubilee line which will take you very close to almost all central London Bakerloo line destinations (Charing Cross being the only exception). A bus service to Elephant and Castle - even an express bus service - is going to be so much slower by comparison that it just won't be able to compete on most journeys. Add to that that bus+tube journeys are more expensive than rail+tube journeys on Oyster/contactless, which would further disincentivise using the bus. The Bakerloop bus will certainly get some custom, but as far as I can see it'll be a tiny fraction of the custom that an actual Bakerloo extension to Lewisham would get.

 

[stevieinselby]

Perhaps many people won't have Elephant & Castle as their final destination, but somewhere else on the Bakerloo Line so will use this bus service to get from Lewisham and New Cross/New Cross Gate to Elephant & Castle and then change onto the Bakerloo Line.

For people who are within comfortable reach of an existing rail, tube or DLR station, it seems unlikely that the Bakerloop to E&C and then changing to the tube would be quicker than using existing rail services – eg train from Lewisham to Waterloo East (every 10–15 minutes, journey time of 15 minutes) for the Bakerloo, train from St Johns to London Bridge (for Jubbly) or Cannon Street (for C&D), DLR from New Cross to Canada Water (for Jubbly) or various stations for other tube lines.

And for people living along the Old Kent Road who are closer in, I'm not sure that the speed advantage of the Bakerloop will be enough to attract passengers away from the much more frequent services of the 53, 172 and 453 that will get you to the Elephant in 20 minutes or less, and on to Waterloo and beyond without changing.

That said, if it does show there's evidence of demand for faster travel on that corridor then it would be a good stepping stone for Bakerloo > Bakerloop > Bakerlew and a full tube line extension.
(Of course, the danger is that if the bus doesn't show a lot of demand, that doesn't necessarily mean there wouldn't be demand for a tube line...)

 

[MotCO]

Buses are not such a problem for now with 1,000 LTs in TfL ownership. Garages more so, with TfL only owning Ash Grove, West Ham and Waterloo, or am I well out-of-date?
.

The only benefit I can see if TfL renationalised all buses is that maybe garages can be better matched to routes operated to reduce dead mileage. Some routes could even be operated by garages at either end of the route. Does this sound familiar?

 

[Busaholic]

The only benefit I can see if TfL renationalised all buses is that maybe garages can be better matched to routes operated to reduce dead mileage. Some routes could even be operated by garages at either end of the route. Does this sound familiar?

It'd be a big benefit. I've always been in favour of longer routes being operated by garages at or near either end, to ensure that all the route gets some service during times of disruption. It was a familiar theme of mine when I used to take part on another forum! Dead mileage is something that should be restricted to the minimum amount possible, especially with diesel or hybrid buses. Doesn't have to strictly speaking be renationalisation either, there'd be both significant pros and cons to that model. Personally, I'd prefer it not to.

 

[YorkRailFan]

For people who are within comfortable reach of an existing rail, tube or DLR station, it seems unlikely that the Bakerloop to E&C and then changing to the tube would be quicker than using existing rail services – eg train from Lewisham to Waterloo East (every 10–15 minutes, journey time of 15 minutes) for the Bakerloo, train from St Johns to London Bridge (for Jubbly) or Cannon Street (for C&D), DLR from New Cross to Canada Water (for Jubbly) or various stations for other tube lines.

And for people living along the Old Kent Road who are closer in, I'm not sure that the speed advantage of the Bakerloop will be enough to attract passengers away from the much more frequent services of the 53, 172 and 453 that will get you to the Elephant in 20 minutes or less, and on to Waterloo and beyond without changing.

That said, if it does show there's evidence of demand for faster travel on that corridor then it would be a good stepping stone for Bakerloo > Bakerloop > Bakerlew and a full tube line extension.
(Of course, the danger is that if the bus doesn't show a lot of demand, that doesn't necessarily mean there wouldn't be demand for a tube line...)

I guess its more convenient going on the bus and changing at E&C than going through Bank on the DLR as its fewer changes.

I'm afraid I'm still not seeing it. Trains run non-stop between New Cross/New Cross Gate and London Bridge (with all its tube and ongoing train connections), typically taking just 7 minutes from New Cross. New Cross Gate also has very frequent services to Canada Water (6 minute journey time), where people can easily connect to the Jubilee line which will take you very close to almost all central London Bakerloo line destinations (Charing Cross being the only exception). A bus service to Elephant and Castle - even an express bus service - is going to be so much slower by comparison that it just won't be able to compete on most journeys. Add to that that bus+tube journeys are more expensive than rail+tube journeys on Oyster/contactless, which would further disincentivise using the bus. The Bakerloop bus will certainly get some custom, but as far as I can see it'll be a tiny fraction of the custom that an actual Bakerloo extension to Lewisham would get.

That doesn't address people on the Northern end of the Bakerloo Line who may want to go to Lewisham or New Cross/New Cross Gate.

It'd be a big benefit. I've always been in favour of longer routes being operated by garages at or near either end, to ensure that all the route gets some service during times of disruption. It was a familiar theme of mine when I used to take part on another forum! Dead mileage is something that should be restricted to the minimum amount possible, especially with diesel or hybrid buses. Doesn't have to strictly speaking be renationalisation either, there'd be both significant pros and cons to that model. Personally, I'd prefer it not to.

That's the huge advantage TFGM has over TFL, TFGM owns the depots, TFL does not.

 

[MotCO]

It'd be a big benefit. I've always been in favour of longer routes being operated by garages at or near either end, to ensure that all the route gets some service during times of disruption. It was a familiar theme of mine when I used to take part on another forum! Dead mileage is something that should be restricted to the minimum amount possible, especially with diesel or hybrid buses. Doesn't have to strictly speaking be renationalisation either, there'd be both significant pros and cons to that model. Personally, I'd prefer it not to.

Ciuld we ever see joint operation of any routes? For example, the X26, sorry SL7, could be operated by RATP or Metroline from the Heathrow end, and GoAhead from Croydon.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Ciuld we ever see joint operation of any routes? For example, the X26, sorry SL7, could be operated by RATP or Metroline from the Heathrow end, and GoAhead from Croydon.

How would you get buses back from one end to the depot? Running empties?

 

[greenline712]

Ciuld we ever see joint operation of any routes? For example, the X26, sorry SL7, could be operated by RATP or Metroline from the Heathrow end, and GoAhead from Croydon.

Never say never, but unlikely under the present arrangements. A Route Contract is awarded to one operator, who accepts the conditions applying, such as EWT (Excess Waiting Time) targets, operated mileage targets, and so on (there are very many such conditions and targets to be met!). For some form of joint (operator) operation, there would need to be two individual such contracts, specifying which trips were included. If the route failed to meet overall performance targets, how would the penalties be apportioned?

There is also the slight problem that, under the London tendering system, individual operators are not "permitted" to discuss tenders with each other. Of course such conversations (at a very high level . . . or at a very informal level) do take place, but never admitted! To co-operate in such a formal way would, again, not be impossible, but . . .

It would be possible for one operator to specify two Garages to work on the route, as the operator would still hold the contract and be responsible for any penalties. It would then be down to the operator to manage the operational performance between the Garages involved. It is very rare, but not unknown . . .

Historically, having two garages on one route was fraught with problems . . . crews would "punch up" (closely follow) crews from another garage to reduce their workload; would engineer a breakdown if the following crew was from another garage and then, having rectified the "problem", then punch up the other crew! It was actually quite rare for crews to have a break at a "foreign" canteen; although Country crews were much more easy-going . . . driving each others' buses and having breaks wherever there was a canteen.

London bus routes generally don't run far from their operating Garage, so the need seldom arises. As I say, not impossible, but very unlikely . . .

 

[stevieinselby]

How would you get buses back from one end to the depot? Running empties?

Buses run in both directions! You would want to arrange the timetable so that each vehicle ran the same number of westbound and eastbound journeys so that they ended where they started. What you would probably have is a wave of (eg) RATP buses for all the diagrams that started at Heathrow followed by a wave of (eg) Go-ahead buses for all the diagrams that started in Croydon, and then another wave of RATP as they went round on their second cycle and so on through the day.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I guess its more convenient going on the bus and changing at E&C than going through Bank on the DLR as its fewer changes.

That doesn't address people on the Northern end of the Bakerloo Line who may want to go to Lewisham or New Cross/New Cross Gate.

If you mean, people coming from places between Marylebone and Harrow: I'd expect that for those people the quickest route to New Cross/New Cross Gate would still be: Bakerloo to Baker Street, Jubilee to Canada Water, Overground to New Cross (Gate) [*]. The Bakerloop bus might give an edge for people going all the way to Lewisham. But realistically, the vast majority of journeys are going to be to/from central London. People travelling from NW London to SE London would be a small proportion of passengers, even once/if the real Bakerloo extension happens. Enough to provide some custom to the buses, but not enough to overload them.

[*] EDIT: Just checked TfL journey planner: Baker Street to Elephant and Castle is 15 minutes on the Bakerloo line, Baker Street to Canada Water is also 15 minutes on the Jubilee line. Canada Water to New Cross Gate is 6 minutes on the Overground, which is way quicker than a bus from Elephant and Castle will manage.

That said, if it does show there's evidence of demand for faster travel on that corridor then it would be a good stepping stone for Bakerloo > Bakerloop > Bakerlew and a full tube line extension.

The Bakerlew? Is that like a lewd sexual extension to the Bakerloo? If so, then I say, GET IT BUILT ASAP!!!

 

[stevieinselby]

The Bakerlew? Is that like a lewd sexual extension to the Bakerloo? If so, then I say, GET IT BUILT ASAP!!!

If the Bakerloo connected Baker Street and Waterloo, and the Bakerloop is the Superloop extension to the line then the Bakerlew is the only possible name for the extension of the line to Lewisham!

 

[YorkRailFan]

If you mean, people coming from places between Marylebone and Harrow: I'd expect that for those people the quickest route to New Cross/New Cross Gate would still be: Bakerloo to Baker Street, Jubilee to Canada Water, Overground to New Cross (Gate) [*]. The Bakerloop bus might give an edge for people going all the way to Lewisham. But realistically, the vast majority of journeys are going to be to/from central London. People travelling from NW London to SE London would be a small proportion of passengers, even once/if the real Bakerloo extension happens. Enough to provide some custom to the buses, but not enough to overload them.

Less convenient though with more changes if you go via Canada Water on the Jubilee Line.

Buses run in both directions! You would want to arrange the timetable so that each vehicle ran the same number of westbound and eastbound journeys so that they ended where they started. What you would probably have is a wave of (eg) RATP buses for all the diagrams that started at Heathrow followed by a wave of (eg) Go-ahead buses for all the diagrams that started in Croydon, and then another wave of RATP as they went round on their second cycle and so on through the day.

Seems a bit unnecessary.

 

[Edsmith]

The current bus system in London works, why change it?

I can't help but think Sadiq Khan is jumping on the bandwagon of national Labour but the rest of the bus services elsewhere are a lot worse compared to London.

Does it work? That's not to say I agree with Sadiq Khan's idea.

 

[Goldfish62]

Does it work? That's not to say I agree with Sadiq Khan's idea.

It depends on what criteria you set to determine whether it works.

For me, as a passenger, it definitely works. It's far from perfect, and the shine has been taken off it in recent years, but it's still good.

The current fashion for exercising break clauses on routes will I think die down once operators, particularly those who submitted bids that were too keen a few years ago, stabilise their businesses. TfL are also doing their bit through the tendering system to ensure that the option isn't just an easy get-out for operators.

What's really needed to control costs and increase patronage (hence revenue) is to speed up journey times through a bold new programme of bus priority, and to clamp down on poor management of roadworks.

Internally there needs to be more flexibly in the network planning process to enable relatively minor relaxation of rules bring in proportionally greater efficencies.

 

[MotCO]

Never say never, but unlikely under the present arrangements. A Route Contract is awarded to one operator, who accepts the conditions applying, such as EWT (Excess Waiting Time) targets, operated mileage targets, and so on (there are very many such conditions and targets to be met!). For some form of joint (operator) operation, there would need to be two individual such contracts, specifying which trips were included. If the route failed to meet overall performance targets, how would the penalties be apportioned?

There is also the slight problem that, under the London tendering system, individual operators are not "permitted" to discuss tenders with each other. Of course such conversations (at a very high level . . . or at a very informal level) do take place, but never admitted! To co-operate in such a formal way would, again, not be impossible, but . . .

It would be possible for one operator to specify two Garages to work on the route, as the operator would still hold the contract and be responsible for any penalties. It would then be down to the operator to manage the operational performance between the Garages involved. It is very rare, but not unknown . . .

The other option, of course, is for the winning tenderer to subcontract part of it to the garage at the 'other end'. Would that be permitted?

 

[greenline712]

The other option, of course, is for the winning tenderer to subcontract part of it to the garage at the 'other end'. Would that be permitted?

Honestly? No idea. Under the present rules, the operating Garage has to be specified as part of the contract, as do the exact bus numbers to be used on the route (age, type, Euro5 or Euro6 engines, seats and so on). Winning the contract, and then revising the operating Garage and bus types would probably be seen as not adhering to the terms of the submitted tender, so would result in the contract being revoked. Sub-contracting the entire route to another operator has been done, but only for very specific reasons.

It "might" be permitted, but if Operator A wants part of their income stream (bonuses for good performance) to be entrusted to Operator B, then the sub-contract between both operators would need to be pretty rigid. Thereby hangs the rub . . . margins are pertty low at present in London, and I doubt that the financials for any such contract would allow for such a risk.

For those not in the know, margins on many London route contracts are usually weighted towards good in the first year, declining to low in the final year . . . it's all do to with taking a "punt" at fuel prices, staff wages and so on as the years roll on. Look at RATP contracts in the past year . . . a lot have been surrendered because the initial margin was too low, and inflation has scuppered the financials . . . it's been better to take the penalties for early termination on the chin and walk away, rather than see substantial losses be incurred as the years trundle on.

If you get your sums right in London, then the risk (insufficient passengers travelling) is low, so your margins can be low. If the initial sums are wrong, then . . .

 

[Deerfold]

Buses run in both directions! You would want to arrange the timetable so that each vehicle ran the same number of westbound and eastbound journeys so that they ended where they started. What you would probably have is a wave of (eg) RATP buses for all the diagrams that started at Heathrow followed by a wave of (eg) Go-ahead buses for all the diagrams that started in Croydon, and then another wave of RATP as they went round on their second cycle and so on through the day.

See Trentbarton / Arriva's X38 Derby to Burton on Trent. Buses start at the same time at both ends of the route with the first two buses being operated by one operator, the next two being the other operator returning and so on through the day. But with better ticket integration - on the X38 both operators take any return ticket, but not the other operator's day and season tickets.

welcome - X38 - run by trentbarton

trentbarton are proud to be the really good bus company, serving Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire & Leicestershire in the East Midlands.

www.trentbarton.co.uk