London Buses Discussion

[Busaholic]

Many never of those services operated as a through route though, like the 12 which looks like to have operated in 3 sections Harlesden-Peckham, Oxford Circus-South Norwood & Peckham South Croydon.

When Elmers End garage was still open in the 1970s their buses used to work through not only to Harlesden but to Park Royal Trading Estate in the peaks and I think some journeys went beyond the garage to Norwood Junction.

 

[telstarbox]

Following on from the Citymapper service, Ford/Chariot has applied to run on-demand services in Kidbrooke, Nuxley and other areas.

Car giant Ford is planning to launch an on-demand rush-hour commuter service linking Shooters Hill and Kidbrooke with North Greenwich station in January.

The firm’s Chariot offshoot, which runs bus-like minivans in San Francisco, New York City, Seattle and Austin, Texas, is proposing to launch in London, its first non-US city, next year, with six different services.

https://853london.com/2017/11/21/sh...-commuter-chariot-service-to-north-greenwich/

 

[Mikey C]

Following on from the Citymapper service, Ford/Chariot has applied to run on-demand services in Kidbrooke, Nuxley and other areas.



https://853london.com/2017/11/21/sh...-commuter-chariot-service-to-north-greenwich/

Good luck sticking to a timetable when there is gridlock at the Blackwall Tunnel, which happens most days! You can easily get 1 mile tailbacks on the A102 heading towards the tunnel...

I don't get who would pay extra for what is just a scheduled bus, you'd still need to take the tube to get to Central London

 

[londonbridge]

You may want to browse the 1967 timetables here.
http://mjcarchive.www.idnet.com/times/List_of_RedBook_19670717_timetables.htm

That made interesting reading. I remember the 157 running to Raynes Park, whereas now it terminates at Mordern, but never knew that the 154 used to run to Crystal Palace as opposed to terminating at West Croydon.
I also note the 93 as running to Epsom, as opposed to terminating at North Cheam.

Also there is a route 233 listed as running from Finsbury Park to Northumberland Park, but I'm sure I remember this route number running through Wallington and the Roundshaw Housing Estate in the nineteen seventies. Definitely remember the 234 and 234A.

Similarly, Route 127 is listed as Waltham Cross to Victoria in 1967, whereas now it is used on a route from Purley to Tooting Broadway. When did the former stop running and the latter start?

 

[Statto]

That made interesting reading. I remember the 157 running to Raynes Park, whereas now it terminates at Mordern, but never knew that the 154 used to run to Crystal Palace as opposed to terminating at West Croydon.
I also note the 93 as running to Epsom, as opposed to terminating at North Cheam.

Also there is a route 233 listed as running from Finsbury Park to Northumberland Park, but I'm sure I remember this route number running through Wallington and the Roundshaw Housing Estate in the nineteen seventies. Definitely remember the 234 and 234A.

Similarly, Route 127 is listed as Waltham Cross to Victoria in 1967, whereas now it is used on a route from Purley to Tooting Broadway. When did the former stop running and the latter start?

Try this site which has route histories, with some dating back to the formation of London Transport. http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/

 

[Busaholic]

That made interesting reading. I remember the 157 running to Raynes Park, whereas now it terminates at Mordern, but never knew that the 154 used to run to Crystal Palace as opposed to terminating at West Croydon.
I also note the 93 as running to Epsom, as opposed to terminating at North Cheam.

Also there is a route 233 listed as running from Finsbury Park to Northumberland Park, but I'm sure I remember this route number running through Wallington and the Roundshaw Housing Estate in the nineteen seventies. Definitely remember the 234 and 234A.

Similarly, Route 127 is listed as Waltham Cross to Victoria in 1967, whereas now it is used on a route from Purley to Tooting Broadway. When did the former stop running and the latter start?

The 154 was the bus replacement for the 654 trolleybus, extended from Sutton to Morden at the western end, and the 157 was only extended from Wallington to Crystal Palace on the same day as the 154 was introduced. The 157 was worked in two sections for most pf the day on Mondays to Saturdays, Raynes Park to Carshalton Wrythe Green and Morden to Crystal Palace.

The 233 was L.T.'s first (red) OPO double deck route with one whole bus (the FRM, in theory i.e. the unique front-entrance Routemaster) and started in very late 1969. I'd just started work for LT and a group from my office met to travel on the first journey from Roundshaw on the Saturday.

The 127 was a trolleybus replacement route too, extended from Tottenham Court Road ( Howland Street) to Victoria, providing a link from Tottenham and Seven Sisters sorely needed prior to the Victoria Line opening. Camden Town to Victoria saw buses on the 24, 29, 127 and 134/A along the same roads!

 

[Antman]

That made interesting reading. I remember the 157 running to Raynes Park, whereas now it terminates at Mordern, but never knew that the 154 used to run to Crystal Palace as opposed to terminating at West Croydon.
I also note the 93 as running to Epsom, as opposed to terminating at North Cheam.

Also there is a route 233 listed as running from Finsbury Park to Northumberland Park, but I'm sure I remember this route number running through Wallington and the Roundshaw Housing Estate in the nineteen seventies. Definitely remember the 234 and 234A.

Similarly, Route 127 is listed as Waltham Cross to Victoria in 1967, whereas now it is used on a route from Purley to Tooting Broadway. When did the former stop running and the latter start?

The 154 and 157 were identical apart from the Wallington to Rose Hill section, I'm just about old enough to remember RT's. At Crystal Palace the conductor had to put a block under the back wheel before the driver got out of the cab to prevent any chance of a driverless bus rolling away down Anerley Hill.

The 154 was altered in 1981 at the same time the 233 was withdrawn.

 

[Busaholic]

The 154 and 157 were identical apart from the Wallington to Rose Hill section, I'm just about old enough to remember RT's. At Crystal Palace the conductor had to put a block under the back wheel before the driver got out of the cab to prevent any chance of a driverless bus rolling away down Anerley Hill.

.

The 154 never reached Raynes Park of course, but I don't think you meant that.

Any potential problem at the top of Anerley Hill now removed by switching the terminus to the Parade bus station.

Incredible to an old 'un like me to think there are now four bus services down Anerley Hill, even though two only go as far as Anerley Station.

 

[Antman]

The 154 never reached Raynes Park of course, but I don't think you meant that.

Any potential problem at the top of Anerley Hill now removed by switching the terminus to the Parade bus station.

Incredible to an old 'un like me to think there are now four bus services down Anerley Hill, even though two only go as far as Anerley Station.

Yes I meant Crystal Palace to Morden.

Buses started standing in the parade rather than at the top of Anerley Hill when OPO buses took over in the 70's.

I think the 249 and 432 were only extended to Anerley Station because there is insufficient stand space in the bus station.

 

[Wirewiper]

The 127 (Waltham Cross-Victoria) came into being on 26th April 1961 as a direct replacement for the 627 trolleybus, although unlike the 627 it continued beyond Tottenham Court Road to Victoria. Like many lengthy London routes it was operated in overlapping sections: Waltham Cross to Tottenham Court Road and Lower Edmonton to Victoria. The Victoria section came off in September 1968 and the route was withdrawn completely after 23rd January 1970.

The current 127 was introduced between Tooting Broadway and Wallington on 25th April 1981, and was basically a renumbered driver-only version of the former route 77 journeys between Tooting Broadway and Wallington, that were operated completely separately from the main 77. Extension to Purley came in February 1984. The route was one of the first to be contracted out to a non-London Buses operator, passing to London & Country in 22nd March 1986. Since then it has changed hands a number of times, including a disastrous spell with Mitcham Belle where reliability and operating standards soon plummeted to an all-time low - so bad was the situation, that the contract was terminated early and passed in December 2005 to Metrobus, who within a few days were receiving letters from members of the public, thanking them for taking it over.

There was an even earlier 127, which commenced in January 1941 between Morden and South Wimbledon (but the long way round, via North Cheam, Worcester Park, Malden and Raynes Park). This was operated by low-height double-deckers and was not actually a new route, but a renumbering of a previously single-deck one (until 1942 London Transport single-deck routes were numbered in the 2xx series, a policy introduced in 1934 for administrative convenience rather than any discernible benefit to the travelling public). It was withdrawn on 20th August 1958, a victim of the swingeing cuts that followed the disastrous seven-week strike by bus crews, which caused passenger numbers to fall by 20%.

 

[Busaholic]

The 127 (Waltham Cross-Victoria) came into being on 26th April 1961 as a direct replacement for the 627 trolleybus, although unlike the 627 it continued beyond Tottenham Court Road to Victoria. Like many lengthy London routes it was operated in overlapping sections: Waltham Cross to Tottenham Court Road and Lower Edmonton to Victoria. The Victoria section came off in September 1968 and the route was withdrawn completely after 23rd January 1970.

The current 127 was introduced between Tooting Broadway and Wallington on 25th April 1981, and was basically a renumbered driver-only version of the former route 77 journeys between Tooting Broadway and Wallington, that were operated completely separately from the main 77. Extension to Purley came in February 1984. The route was one of the first to be contracted out to a non-London Buses operator, passing to London & Country in 22nd March 1986. Since then it has changed hands a number of times, including a disastrous spell with Mitcham Belle where reliability and operating standards soon plummeted to an all-time low - so bad was the situation, that the contract was terminated early and passed in December 2005 to Metrobus, who within a few days were receiving letters from members of the public, thanking them for taking it over.

There was an even earlier 127, which commenced in January 1941 between Morden and South Wimbledon (but the long way round, via North Cheam, Worcester Park, Malden and Raynes Park). This was operated by low-height double-deckers and was not actually a new route, but a renumbering of a previously single-deck one (until 1942 London Transport single-deck routes were numbered in the 2xx series, a policy introduced in 1934 for administrative convenience rather than any discernible benefit to the travelling public). It was withdrawn on 20th August 1958, a victim of the swingeing cuts that followed the disastrous seven-week strike by bus crews, which caused passenger numbers to fall by 20%.

Absolutely agree with all that, with one small proviso. The two parts of the 77 were, as you say, operated as separate routes in effect from the public's point of view, but crews from Merton garage could be allocated to both parts within the same duty, which, given the strict rules rigorously observed by the union, the TGWU, explained why they weren't numbered differently. Also IIRC there was an early journey which worked through from Wallington to Euston in the 1960s.

I've only ever been on the two previous 127s, not the current one! The RLHs from the Morden one were sent to Dalston to convert the single deck 208A to become the 178, which proved to be LT's last lowheight DD route.

On the Victoria 127, only the Highgate (HT) buses worked through to here, no Edmonton (EM) buses ever worked further south than TCR.

 

[Wirewiper]

Absolutely agree with all that, with one small proviso. The two parts of the 77 were, as you say, operated as separate routes in effect from the public's point of view, but crews from Merton garage could be allocated to both parts within the same duty, which, given the strict rules rigorously observed by the union, the TGWU, explained why they weren't numbered differently. Also IIRC there was an early journey which worked through from Wallington to Euston in the 1960s.

I've only ever been on the two previous 127s, not the current one! The RLHs from the Morden one were sent to Dalston to convert the single deck 208A to become the 178, which proved to be LT's last lowheight DD route.

On the Victoria 127, only the Highgate (HT) buses worked through to here, no Edmonton (EM) buses ever worked further south than TCR.

Thank you for the extra info.

I did think it might be staffing reasons that caused the Tooting-Wallington 77s to have the same number as the main Tooting Station-Euston service. Indeed a lot of these supposedly long routes of the past were effectively separate but overlapping services, with only a few journeys traversing the entire route (the Waltham Cross - Victoria 127 being another example of that).

 

[Busaholic]

Thank you for the extra info.

I did think it might be staffing reasons that caused the Tooting-Wallington 77s to have the same number as the main Tooting Station-Euston service. Indeed a lot of these supposedly long routes of the past were effectively separate but overlapping services, with only a few journeys traversing the entire route (the Waltham Cross - Victoria 127 being another example of that).

In theory, it gave operational flexibility to have such long routes, and, in a few cases, this was maximised. In practice, the main reason why through journeys were rare on (most) long routes was not so much traffic congestion (though as the years progressed this became more of a factor) but the strict rules as to how long a busman's duty could be, and, within that, how long a 'spell' was before a break of at least 40 minutes. Anyone who ever wonders why a particular route was never operated from what may seem an 'obvious' garage can assume that these rules messed up that garage's participation: it also explains many peak hour short journeys, particularly at the end of each peak, to maximise the crew's work without breaking the rules! London Transport had about 150 people working on bus schedules in the period around 1970, and I was briefly one of them. The most experienced compiler worked almost full time on the 12, with its four operating garages: computers then couldn't cope with more than three garages per route!

 

[plcd1]

Just to change the topic very slightly TfL have released their new business plan for 2017/18. They have effectively reduced patronage and revenue estimates for all services bar Crossrail and London Overground. We are talking about several hundred millions of pounds less for buses and Tubes compared to the last plan. On the bus network we face a further massive cut in kilometrage operated of over 9% from now to 2020/21. Annual kilometrage falls from 486m Kms this year to 449m. In contrast the previous plan expected a flat annual kilometrage of 497m kms. So we are losing 48m kms in 3 years. There is negligible growth in patronage expected and TfL are planning to save £375m on contract costs through changing requirements and applying downward pressure on contract prices.

In short, an unmitigated disaster being foisted on London by the "son of a bus driver" Mayor. I appreciate non London resident forum members won't be shedding any tears over this but this is a scandalous mismanagement of a key public transport service.

 

[Busaholic]

Just to change the topic very slightly TfL have released their new business plan for 2017/18. They have effectively reduced patronage and revenue estimates for all services bar Crossrail and London Overground. We are talking about several hundred millions of pounds less for buses and Tubes compared to the last plan. On the bus network we face a further massive cut in kilometrage operated of over 9% from now to 2020/21. Annual kilometrage falls from 486m Kms this year to 449m. In contrast the previous plan expected a flat annual kilometrage of 497m kms. So we are losing 48m kms in 3 years. There is negligible growth in patronage expected and TfL are planning to save £375m on contract costs through changing requirements and applying downward pressure on contract prices.

In short, an unmitigated disaster being foisted on London by the "son of a bus driver" Mayor. I appreciate non London resident forum members won't be shedding any tears over this but this is a scandalous mismanagement of a key public transport service.

As a non London resident I'm also gutted by all this, as it seems that nobody in power cares what's happening or is even aware of it. It's not the Mayor's fault that government pursestrings have been drawn tight, but he could be making a fuss about it, and he could also be doing something about the growing and continued encroachment of cycleways on to roads used by buses, a policy of the last, unlamented Mayor which appears to be continuing unabated.

Even Tramlink is now suffering from frequency cuts, with the excuse being reduced speed limits for safety reasons. The Beckenham and Elmers End branches now have 15 minute offpeak services, compared to 10 minutes, while even the Wimbledon branch gets an offpeak cut when all the evidence is of it being very well used. I'm not sure the Therapia Lane extras exist any more either, although finding an up-to-date timetable has proved elusive.

 

[radamfi]

and he could also be doing something about the growing and continued encroachment of cycleways on to roads used by buses

So cyclepaths shouldn't be build on roads used by buses? Do cyclepaths exist on roads with buses/trams in the Netherlands, Denmark and other more advanced cycling countries? The Netherlands and Denmark manage to have world class public transport as well as good cycling conditions. It is not a case of choosing one or the other. Also, why focus your ire on cycles, given their lack of pollution and the relatively small space taken on the road compared with other vehicles, when taxis and private cars are more obvious targets?

 

[90sWereBetter]

So cyclepaths shouldn't be build on roads used by buses? Do cyclepaths exist on roads with buses/trams in the Netherlands, Denmark and other more advanced cycling countries? The Netherlands and Denmark manage to have world class public transport as well as good cycling conditions. It is not a case of choosing one or the other. Also, why focus your ire on cycles, given their lack of pollution and the relatively small space taken on the road compared with other vehicles, when taxis and private cars are more obvious targets?

You obviously haven't seen the utter, utter mess Aldgate, Archway and the Elephant are in nowadays.

 

[radamfi]

You obviously haven't seen the utter, utter mess Aldgate, Archway and the Elephant are in nowadays.

I haven't been to any of those places recently, but I do remember them being particularly hostile places for all road users other than motorists. Are you complaining about the implementation or would you have objected to any segregated cycle scheme on principle?

 

[IanD]

So cyclepaths shouldn't be build on roads used by buses? Do cyclepaths exist on roads with buses/trams in the Netherlands, Denmark and other more advanced cycling countries? The Netherlands and Denmark manage to have world class public transport as well as good cycling conditions. It is not a case of choosing one or the other. Also, why focus your ire on cycles, given their lack of pollution and the relatively small space taken on the road compared with other vehicles, when taxis and private cars are more obvious targets?

Non-one is saying there shouldn't be cycle lanes but some common sense needs to be applied.

Next time you are Walthamstow, take a walk up Blackhorse Lane towards the Crooked Billet roundabout. Cycle lanes have been added on either side of the road reducing the width by at least 1 third. Bus stops are now in the main carriageway so cars can no longer pass stationary buses. This leads to congestion and queues and inevitably then delays the buses as well. Meanwhile, the cyle lanes remain little used. However, an added stupidity is that in places the cycle lanes are next to the main carriageway in front of the bus shelters so on the occasions when a cyclist is using the cycle lane and a bus stops there is a real risk of being run over by said cyclist when alighting from the bus on to the cycle lane.

 

[Busaholic]

So cyclepaths shouldn't be build on roads used by buses? Do cyclepaths exist on roads with buses/trams in the Netherlands, Denmark and other more advanced cycling countries? The Netherlands and Denmark manage to have world class public transport as well as good cycling conditions. It is not a case of choosing one or the other. Also, why focus your ire on cycles, given their lack of pollution and the relatively small space taken on the road compared with other vehicles, when taxis and private cars are more obvious targets?

This is a rail forum which allows for discussion of other public transport modes. Bus transport is by far the largest mode of public transport in the UK, and this even still applies in London. Bicycles are no more public transport than cars are (although the latter can be used as taxis, which some would include in the category of public transport) and, on the whole, I personally see cycling as an admirable activity, even though I'm now incapable of it myself. It is the way cycling has been promoted by the London Assembly, its Mayor and the transport body it controls, TfL, way beyond its importance to the bulk of people making their daily way to work that annoys me and the fact that some (but not all) of the cycle schemes are unnecessarily grandiose with effects that mar the journeys of all other road users, and I'd include pedestrians amongst the affected in some of these places, particularly the less mobile of the latter. In the case of the bus, and its passengers, the obsession with providing a wonderful environment for the cyclist, and the concomitant road works to achieve this, are producing a spiralling decline in bus usage despite London's growing population. Rail lines are incapable of meeting the resulting demand should bus routes grind to a halt and it is not in the interests of London and Londoners as a whole for this situation to continue.

 

[PeterC]

Non-one is saying there shouldn't be cycle lanes but some common sense needs to be applied.

Next time you are Walthamstow, take a walk up Blackhorse Lane towards the Crooked Billet roundabout. Cycle lanes have been added on either side of the road reducing the width by at least 1 third. Bus stops are now in the main carriageway so cars can no longer pass stationary buses. This leads to congestion and queues and inevitably then delays the buses as well. Meanwhile, the cyle lanes remain little used. However, an added stupidity is that in places the cycle lanes are next to the main carriageway in front of the bus shelters so on the occasions when a cyclist is using the cycle lane and a bus stops there is a real risk of being run over by said cyclist when alighting from the bus on to the cycle lane.

The pedestrians have had their revenge in Selborne Road though and have taken over the new cycle path on the south side. Trouble is that it has forced many cyclists back into the carriageway which has been narrowed so that cars and buses can't pass them safely. Plus the congestion problems caused by lack of room to pass buses when picking up and setting down of course.

 

[radamfi]

It is the way cycling has been promoted by the London Assembly, its Mayor and the transport body it controls, TfL, way beyond its importance to the bulk of people making their daily way to work that annoys me and the fact that some (but not all) of the cycle schemes are unnecessarily grandiose with effects that mar the journeys of all other road users

Cycling is only currently used for a small proportion of trips because there is virtually no provision for it. It is necessary to provide paths that are segregated and perceived to be safe in order to get people cycling. The proportion of the road network covered by cycle paths is minuscule compared to the Netherlands or Denmark. That is why there is so little cycling in Britain and London. Despite that, you again fail to mention the severe delays caused by cars to buses. By comparison, the delays caused by cycling is tiny. The primary goal is to minimise the number of people using cars. The Netherlands has the highest proportion of trips that made by modes other than the car of any developed country. Without "grandiose" cycling facilities, that wouldn't have been possible. Mass switching of car and bus trips to cycling in London would mean reduced traffic delays and reduced overcrowding on buses.

 

[PeterC]

Cycling is only currently used for a small proportion of trips because there is virtually no provision for it. It is necessary to provide paths that are segregated and perceived to be safe in order to get people cycling. The proportion of the road network covered by cycle paths is minuscule compared to the Netherlands or Denmark. That is why there is so little cycling in Britain and London. Despite that, you again fail to mention the severe delays caused by cars to buses. By comparison, the delays caused by cycling is tiny. The primary goal is to minimise the number of people using cars. The Netherlands has the highest proportion of trips that made by modes other than the car of any developed country. Without "grandiose" cycling facilities, that wouldn't have been possible. Mass switching of car and bus trips to cycling in London would mean reduced traffic delays and reduced overcrowding on buses.

You mean the delays caused by cars because the bus lane has been removed to build a segregated cycleway?

Remember that you are respondng to posts explicitly about the situation in LB Waltham Forest.

 

[radamfi]

You mean the delays caused by cars because the bus lane has been removed to build a segregated cycleway?

Remember that you are respondng to posts explicitly about the situation in LB Waltham Forest.

Of course, there should be proper wide bus lanes as well. Most bus lanes in London are too narrow, meaning that buses have to drive slowly past vehicles close to the white line. Despite having a comprehensive network of cycle paths, the Netherlands also has spectacular and widespread bus priority with many segregated busways and bus only roads. Where necessary, general traffic has been moved to accommodate new bus lanes and canals have been moved to make way for better cycle routes.

 

[Deerfold]

Of course, there should be proper wide bus lanes as well. Most bus lanes in London are too narrow, meaning that buses have to drive slowly past vehicles close to the white line. Despite having a comprehensive network of cycle paths, the Netherlands also has spectacular and widespread bus priority with many segregated busways and bus only roads. Where necessary, general traffic has been moved to accommodate new bus lanes and canals have been moved to make way for better cycle routes.

I think the complaints from people here are not about cycle provision as such, but that it is being provided at the expense of provision for buses. Ideally we should have both.

 

[Busaholic]

TfL like to lump buses with taxis, and now bicycles with pedestrians, in separate camps. I would say that bus passengers, if they are to be lumped in with anyone, should be with pedestrians: after all, it is a rare person who has a bus stop directly outside their abode which provides a direct service to their place of work, or even to the shop they wish to frequent, whereas many cyclists have a seamless journey to work, or a place very close to it. Bus passengers, even when not using other transport like rail in the course of their journey, will very often have to do a fair amount of walking too, and some of these walks are being elongated by some of the cycle schemes implemented in the last two or three years.

 

[plcd1]

The pedestrians have had their revenge in Selborne Road though and have taken over the new cycle path on the south side. Trouble is that it has forced many cyclists back into the carriageway which has been narrowed so that cars and buses can't pass them safely. Plus the congestion problems caused by lack of room to pass buses when picking up and setting down of course.

Unfortunately I am all too familiar with the antics in Walthamstow. My bus usage has slumped since we started being clobbered with never ending road works and frankly ludicrous road redesigns. One route I use has recently been reduced in frequency - largely because all the cycle works on Selborne Road and Billet Road have made journey times 20% longer than before. The route previously ran with 7 buses at a 10 min headway. Then it went to 8 buses at a 10/11 min headway and is now down to a 12 min headway with 7 buses - 84 mins round trip time rather than 70. Worse it is now less reliable than it was meaning waits of up to 20 mins. Forest Rd is now being "modified" with a narrowing of lanes and reworking of vastly expensive paving works near Lloyd Park that took months and cost a fortune. This is now being torn up to narrow the pavements and add cycle lanes. You couldn't make it up. Worse the usage of those cycle facilities that are in place is marginal at best. The influx of displaced Hackney and Islington-ites, due to lower house prices, has seen a few more cyclists and unusual bikes like cargo cycles but there is no obvious increase in cycling volume.

 

[londonbridge]

Thanks for the various replies re the 154/157/127.

 

[Busaholic]

Thanks for the various replies re the 154/157/127.

My pleasure.

 

[Mike99]

When Elmers End garage was still open in the 1970s their buses used to work through not only to Harlesden but to Park Royal Trading Estate in the peaks and I think some journeys went beyond the garage to Norwood Junction.

I worked at ED in the 70's, Conductor and Driver, ED worked pretty much every combination of journies, ED or Norwood Junction to Harlesden, ED or NJ to Oxford Circus, Oxford Circus back to Forest Hill and Dulwich, Park Royal shorts, and meal reliefs at Peckham on certain duties. Sundays were 2 Shepherds Bush journies one each side of a break.