London Buses Discussion

[Busaholic]

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.

On what days did your garage work through to (South) Croydon Garage? In the 1970s iirc Croydon (TC) buses worked an Oxford Circus to South Croydon shopping hours service on Saturdays, approx. every 20 minutes, and that was the only time their RTs entered central London on the 12, being otherwise restricted to Peckham as a northern terminus. London Transport's most senior and respected schedule compiler (out of approx. 150) worked full-time on the 12 schedule as it was the most onerous, followed by the 10, a route that has long passed into history (Abridge to Victoria. My second training exercise was on the 10, an exercise that I singularly failed to pass with flying colours, more a case of raising the white flag.

 

[plcd1]

On what days did your garage work through to (South) Croydon Garage? In the 1970s iirc Croydon (TC) buses worked an Oxford Circus to South Croydon shopping hours service on Saturdays, approx. every 20 minutes, and that was the only time their RTs entered central London on the 12, being otherwise restricted to Peckham as a northern terminus. London Transport's most senior and respected schedule compiler (out of approx. 150) worked full-time on the 12 schedule as it was the most onerous, followed by the 10, a route that has long passed into history (Abridge to Victoria. My second training exercise was on the 10, an exercise that I singularly failed to pass with flying colours, more a case of raising the white flag.

Without wishing to decry the art of bus scheduling what was so horrific about route 12 that the most senior person had to be dedicated to dealing with it? Surely it made sense to avoid reliance on a single individual? How else did people ever learn to cope with the most difficult routes unless the burden was shared?

 

[Busaholic]

Without wishing to decry the art of bus scheduling what was so horrific about route 12 that the most senior person had to be dedicated to dealing with it? Surely it made sense to avoid reliance on a single individual? How else did people ever learn to cope with the most difficult routes unless the burden was shared?

I never really got to grips with bus scheduling, because you needed a masters degree in applied maths (or something) to fit the timetabling of the allocated buses (the easy bit, comparatively, which even I could do) in with the complex and convoluted set of agreements between the Transport and General Worker's Union and the London Transport Executive/Board without provoking a strike because you'd given a Shepherd's Bush crew one minute less than their entitled 40 minutes break! It was INCREDIBLY complicated, with no computerisation: one reason was that, although the peak hour extra buses were myriad on most of the major routes, the union only allowed a limited number of 'spreadover' duties per route and garage, a spreadover being where the crew work a.m then p.m. peak, and nothing else. These duties were, in any case, shorter overall so, from L.T.'s point of view, they got less work out of a crew. On the 12 around 1970 there'd probably have been about 25-30 buses that were only really needed for the peaks, spread over its four garages, so the simple solution would be to allocate 25-30 spreadover duties, which probably occurred in bus schedulers' dreams but nowhere else. If you were very lucky, you might get away with 8-10, which is one reason why, if you look at a full passenger timetable for a trunk route of the period (almost impossible to find, by the way, even at the time) there are so many 'short workings' at the fringes of the peak, either providing journeys that weren't really needed in order to keep crews busy, or (sometimes) the opposite, shortturning buses that were needed to the end of the route, but the crew were coming to the end of their maximum agreed shift. Don't forget, neither crews nor their buses could move from one route to another, either scheduled or unscheduled, during the course of a shift (with one or two very rare exceptions of long standing) neither could a crew be asked to work on another garage's bus on the same route, unlike Green Line. I don't know whether that provides an adequate answer to your question and, of course, I've forgotten most of what I learned then.

 

[plcd1]

I never really got to grips with bus scheduling, because you needed a masters degree in applied maths (or something) to fit the timetabling of the allocated buses (the easy bit, comparatively, which even I could do) in with the complex and convoluted set of agreements between the Transport and General Worker's Union and the London Transport Executive/Board without provoking a strike because you'd given a Shepherd's Bush crew one minute less than their entitled 40 minutes break! It was INCREDIBLY complicated, with no computerisation: one reason was that, although the peak hour extra buses were myriad on most of the major routes, the union only allowed a limited number of 'spreadover' duties per route and garage, a spreadover being where the crew work a.m then p.m. peak, and nothing else. These duties were, in any case, shorter overall so, from L.T.'s point of view, they got less work out of a crew. On the 12 around 1970 there'd probably have been about 25-30 buses that were only really needed for the peaks, spread over its four garages, so the simple solution would be to allocate 25-30 spreadover duties, which probably occurred in bus schedulers' dreams but nowhere else. If you were very lucky, you might get away with 8-10, which is one reason why, if you look at a full passenger timetable for a trunk route of the period (almost impossible to find, by the way, even at the time) there are so many 'short workings' at the fringes of the peak, either providing journeys that weren't really needed in order to keep crews busy, or (sometimes) the opposite, shortturning buses that were needed to the end of the route, but the crew were coming to the end of their maximum agreed shift. Don't forget, neither crews nor their buses could move from one route to another, either scheduled or unscheduled, during the course of a shift (with one or two very rare exceptions of long standing) neither could a crew be asked to work on another garage's bus on the same route, unlike Green Line. I don't know whether that provides an adequate answer to your question and, of course, I've forgotten most of what I learned then.

No that's fine. I've never done scheduling as a "job" but I did learn the basics a long time ago. I know it can be incredibly involved because of the need to balance cost vs service and to keep within legal / TU agreement constraints. Obviously things are a lot more flexible now but I know someone who was a LT bus scheduler and I've had a number of examples regaled to me about the "ins and outs" and trickery deployed by LT and the unions but not about route 12.

 

[Busaholic]

No that's fine. I've never done scheduling as a "job" but I did learn the basics a long time ago. I know it can be incredibly involved because of the need to balance cost vs service and to keep within legal / TU agreement constraints. Obviously things are a lot more flexible now but I know someone who was a LT bus scheduler and I've had a number of examples regaled to me about the "ins and outs" and trickery deployed by LT and the unions but not about route 12.

It just might be that the schedules people, with a union of their own (TSSA) to which most belonged, were intent on avoiding computers being brought into the mix, with consequent job losses. It was at the time taken as Holy Grail that a computer was not able to cope with a bus route allocated to more than three garages at a time, and the 12 conveniently had four! I almost failed my interview there because the Schedules Superintendent brought up the subject of the 6 route, which then ran between Kensal Rise and Hackney Wick, and in the course of my answer to his question I opined that it was perhaps not absolutely essential that KR be directly connected to HW every moment of the day, a view which he regarded as heretical! There were some very strange people in that office, a number of whom would no doubt these days have been considered autistic, and not necessarily mildly so. There were also some quite extreme right wing views, and, on balance, I was pleased to leave.

 

[Wirewiper]

in the course of my answer to his question I opined that it was perhaps not absolutely essential that KR be directly connected to HW every moment of the day, a view which he regarded as heretical!

Of course, in practice there probably were large parts of the day when Kensal Rise wasn't directly connected to Hackney Wick anyway, because of in-service curtailments and staff shortages!

 

[PeterC]

... It was at the time taken as Holy Grail that a computer was not able to cope with a bus route allocated to more than three garages at a time, and the 12 conveniently had four! ...

The only way that you are going to have a scheduling algorithm as good as an experienced human scheduler is if the best schedulers are the ones who write the algorithm.

Turkeys voting for Christmas?

 

[90sWereBetter]

Why does TFL hate Route 23 with a passion, because it seems they like to cut it at every opportunity? That route used to be one of the most high-profile services in central London less than 10 years ago, and it's been cut into oblivion. It makes no sense to have more buses terminating at Aldwych.

Also, Hammersmith Bridge really needs to be upgraded so Route 72 can take double deck buses. It's currently being run by a batch of ancient, dishevelled Darts which get full to bursting within three stops.

 

[Antman]

Why does TFL hate Route 23 with a passion, because it seems they like to cut it at every opportunity? That route used to be one of the most high-profile services in central London less than 10 years ago, and it's been cut into oblivion. It makes no sense to have more buses terminating at Aldwych.

Also, Hammersmith Bridge really needs to be upgraded so Route 72 can take double deck buses. It's currently being run by a batch of ancient, dishevelled Darts which get full to bursting within three stops.

The 11 and 23 are not justified between Aldwych and Liverpool Street, one of them had to go.

I agree about the 72 though.

 

[Busaholic]

Why does TFL hate Route 23 with a passion, because it seems they like to cut it at every opportunity? That route used to be one of the most high-profile services in central London less than 10 years ago, and it's been cut into oblivion. It makes no sense to have more buses terminating at Aldwych.

Also, Hammersmith Bridge really needs to be upgraded so Route 72 can take double deck buses. It's currently being run by a batch of ancient, dishevelled Darts which get full to bursting within three stops.

It gets much, much worse with the 23 if TfL achieve their plan to denude Oxford Street and most of the W1 area of buses: the proposal is to cut the 23 further to Marble Arch, then to extend it over the 10 route to Hammersmith, the rest of the 10 also disappearing. So, if you want to go from Hammersmith to Ladbroke Grove, why take the boring old direct 295, add spice and an hour to your journey and grind your way up Edgware Road. Similarly, from Hammersmith/ Kensington to Paddington eschew the 27 and take a nice diversion. Oh, and the vital decision as to whether this parody of a useful bus route is to be numbered 10 or 23 has yet to be taken! On the subject of the 23, I believe its creation and (most certainly) its operation in its early days was very much the work of Peter Hendy, so I suspect the work of those who disrespect the reign of Hendy and Leon Daniels. The Borismaster p.r. stuff pre-production also prominently featured the 23 bus blind, which was no accident, so petty vindictiveness probably plays a part. Now there's no bus that will take you from Ludgate Circus to Oxford or even Piccadilly Circus direct, and no tube either.

 

[Antman]

It gets much, much worse with the 23 if TfL achieve their plan to denude Oxford Street and most of the W1 area of buses: the proposal is to cut the 23 further to Marble Arch, then to extend it over the 10 route to Hammersmith, the rest of the 10 also disappearing. So, if you want to go from Hammersmith to Ladbroke Grove, why take the boring old direct 295, add spice and an hour to your journey and grind your way up Edgware Road. Similarly, from Hammersmith/ Kensington to Paddington eschew the 27 and take a nice diversion. Oh, and the vital decision as to whether this parody of a useful bus route is to be numbered 10 or 23 has yet to be taken! On the subject of the 23, I believe its creation and (most certainly) its operation in its early days was very much the work of Peter Hendy, so I suspect the work of those who disrespect the reign of Hendy and Leon Daniels. The Borismaster p.r. stuff pre-production also prominently featured the 23 bus blind, which was no accident, so petty vindictiveness probably plays a part. Now there's no bus that will take you from Ludgate Circus to Oxford or even Piccadilly Circus direct, and no tube either.

Yes I am aware of those proposals for when Crossrail opens and Oxford Street pedestrianisation, it makes sense to do both simultaneously. I don't think the revised 10 is intended for end to end journeys, just joining two loose ends together although I think the 10 should still go to Kings Cross but via Marylebone Road with the 30 curtailed at Warren Street.

 

[Be3G]

Tucked away at the bottom of this unofficial but nonetheless very useful page, we find another result of the ever-deepening cuts to London buses:

The following table summarises the enhanced services on New Year's Eve night (headways to be confirmed). Click the route number for a timetable, where available. Please note that the majority of extra services and frequency enhancements that have run in previous years will not run this year, due to the Mayor's budget cuts.

Full details to follow, but there will be an additional service on routes 56, 97, 133, 174, 248 and 269.

I can find evidence of the extra services running as far back as 2006 and didn't bother to check beyond that, so I'm assuming the services were relatively well used (or covered by the sponsorship money).

As a side note, I miss the days that TfL produced proper printed and detailed guides to travel during the festive season!

 

[Deerfold]

I can find evidence of the extra services running as far back as 2006 and didn't bother to check beyond that, so I'm assuming the services were relatively well used (or covered by the sponsorship money).

It should probably be noted that several of the 2006 additional routes now have 24 hour services anyway.

 

[Busaholic]

The London Omnibus Traction Society report that Metroline, for one, will not operate a single extra service this New Year's Eve.

 

[Hophead]

Isn't the New Year's Eve service usually sponsored? It is, as usual, free, so Londoners can hardly feel hard done by.

 

[Busaholic]

Usually the New Year's Eve night bus service operates to the enhanced Friday/Saturday frequency, regardless on which day of the week it falls, but presumably this year most will run to Sunday night frequency.

 

[Be3G]

It should probably be noted that several of the 2006 additional routes now have 24 hour services anyway.

Whilst that is indeed true, in subsequent years the list continued to expand to include other extra day routes, and some night/24h routes with boosted frequencies. Taking North Chingford as an example, as recently as last NYE we were given an overnight service on three day routes:

97 – 2bph
215 – 2bph
444 – 3bph

…and that's with the 5bph Saturday night service on the N26 too. Compared to this year where we're getting something yet to be determined on the 97, and the N26 with its newly reduced weekday frequency of just 2bph (according to the TfL journey planner it's not getting a weekend-style frequency boost for the night).

 

[plcd1]

Isn't the New Year's Eve service usually sponsored? It is, as usual, free, so Londoners can hardly feel hard done by.

There has not been a commercial sponsor for several years so the cost has had to come from TfL's own budget. I see no evidence of a commercial sponsor this year. Part of the reason the service is free for a few hours is that it saves on a whole load of hassle of trying to get intoxicated people in large crowds to buy tickets, add value to Oyster cards or simply tapping a card on a bus reader or tube station gate. The priority is actually public safety and getting people home safely. On this latter point I am extremely dubious about the apparent scale of cuts to night bus services. People will be left to risk driving or else forced to use expensive and potentially dangerous minicabs, Ubers or taxis. I don't consider that to be providing an acceptable level of *public* transport service. Night tube and rail services are all very well but not everyone lives close to a station and they need onward connections. Some parts of London will have no night trains because of engineering works or because their TOC doesn't run any. Of course if people can ever find out what buses are running on the night, given TfL's veil of secrecy, they may simply decide not to bother going out at all because there's no transport to get them home safely. Perhaps that is the grand "Master Plan" dreamt up at City Hall and TfL Towers?

 

[matt_world2004]

Tfl Used to pay for free travel to reading on nye and that stopped u4 dont appear to be running nye and that has run every previous year.

 

[telstarbox]

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/

Four of the Chariot routes have now been approved and launched this week - https://www.chariot.com/routes

 

[telstarbox]

Major changes are proposed to the network in Central London, nicely summarised here:

http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2018/08/central-london-bus-cuts.html

It's part of a high level TfL strategy to reshape London's bus network in readiness for future growth...

One key issue is removing excess capacity where it's deemed not to be needed. Another is reducing over-bussing on crowded roads, where there are currently too many routes in place. And a third is "simplifying the network"...

Passengers in outer London, where demand for buses remains high, may see more services. Expect major announcements at the start of 2019. But demand in central London is falling for a variety of reasons, slower traffic being just one...

This first mega-consultation is due to launch in the third week of September...

 

[Busaholic]

Major changes are proposed to the network in Central London, nicely summarised here:

http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2018/08/central-london-bus-cuts.html

The TfL axeman has been sharpening his chopper for some time and now he wants to see some action. Bits of random chopping along the way, but this is the big one, although he's been given warning that even bigger and better may be to come once he's got the smell and taste of blood to excite him. Hopper Fare to be renamed Chopper Fare.

 

[edwin_m]

The TfL axeman has been sharpening his chopper for some time and now he wants to see some action. Bits of random chopping along the way, but this is the big one, although he's been given warning that even bigger and better may be to come once he's got the smell and taste of blood to excite him. Hopper Fare to be renamed Chopper Fare.

A few times in recent years when a meeting around Victoria or London Bridge has finished early i've got the bus back to St Pancras as a way of killing time before my booked train. It's highly effective at doing so, to the extent that once I baled out at City Thameslink because I wasn't going to complete my journey in the hour and a bit I'd allowed. There is the added bonus that there are normally plenty of seats even in peak hour, but the PVR must be awful in relation to passenger numbers and revenue. I can't help thinking that re-deploying vehicles to the suburbs where they can make more difference is a sound use of public money. Perhaps the remaining buses in the centre will be a bit quicker now there aren't so many other buses to get in the way - though they need to do something about taxis and PHVs too.

 

[philjo]

I thought one of the points of the 205 was to link the London termini so not sure why it is being rerouted away from Marylebone, particularly as that is not directly on the circle/H&C lines.
Also not keen on the 59 cut back to Euston as Kings Cross would lose its direct link to Waterloo. if running to Euston it now duplicates the 68 between Waterloo and Euston. Personally It would be better to cut one of 59/68 back to Aldwych and the other on e running to to Kings Cross.

 

[Busaholic]

I thought one of the points of the 205 was to link the London termini so not sure why it is being rerouted away from Marylebone, particularly as that is not directly on the circle/H&C lines.
Also not keen on the 59 cut back to Euston as Kings Cross would lose its direct link to Waterloo. if running to Euston it now duplicates the 68 between Waterloo and Euston. Personally It would be better to cut one of 59/68 back to Aldwych and the other on e running to to Kings Cross.

I hope they might reconsider the 59 cutback, which makes minimal savings while removing that direct link.

 

[Busaholic]

A few times in recent years when a meeting around Victoria or London Bridge has finished early i've got the bus back to St Pancras as a way of killing time before my booked train. It's highly effective at doing so, to the extent that once I baled out at City Thameslink because I wasn't going to complete my journey in the hour and a bit I'd allowed. There is the added bonus that there are normally plenty of seats even in peak hour, but the PVR must be awful in relation to passenger numbers and revenue. I can't help thinking that re-deploying vehicles to the suburbs where they can make more difference is a sound use of public money. Perhaps the remaining buses in the centre will be a bit quicker now there aren't so many other buses to get in the way - though they need to do something about taxis and PHVs too.

Redeploying buses to the suburbs hasn't been happening though, nor will it be. While those outer London routes may be safe from the chop, in the main, they're getting PVR reductions, only on a smaller scale. The main problem with buses in London now is the ridiculously slow speeds of so many routes with roadworks, cycle lanes taking road space, Amazon etc deliveries, and then 'regulation' where a controller instructs a bus to sit at a stop for five minutes if it's somehow managed to get above 5 mph!

 

[Mikey C]

Redeploying buses to the suburbs hasn't been happening though, nor will it be. While those outer London routes may be safe from the chop, in the main, they're getting PVR reductions, only on a smaller scale. The main problem with buses in London now is the ridiculously slow speeds of so many routes with roadworks, cycle lanes taking road space, Amazon etc deliveries, and then 'regulation' where a controller instructs a bus to sit at a stop for five minutes if it's somehow managed to get above 5 mph!

This! It's so annoying when a bus barely 10 minutes into its journey is constantly spending unnecessary time waiting at stops.

TfL seem oblivious (or maybe it's deliberate?) of the damage caused to the bus network by THEIR actions, the constant rebuilding of junctions to remove one way systems, and the extra cycle lanes, it's as if they see ALL motorised road traffic as the problem.

 

[Via Bank]

This! It's so annoying when a bus barely 10 minutes into its journey is constantly spending unnecessary time waiting at stops.

TfL seem oblivious (or maybe it's deliberate?) of the damage caused to the bus network by THEIR actions, the constant rebuilding of junctions to remove one way systems, and the extra cycle lanes, it's as if they see ALL motorised road traffic as the problem.

A few months ago a lady was killed by a bus while she was crossing the street at Stratford gyratory. (The gyratory is currently being removed.) A few weeks ago a lady lost a leg after being crushed by a cement mixer while cycling through Old Street roundabout, where “peninsularisation” and a new layout with cycleways has been delayed and delayed again. And last week a gentleman was killed while cycling at High Holborn under the wheels of a left-turning construction lorry. There are no plans to make this junction safer. It is still a motorway in all but name, which bus passengers are expected to walk around and cross in order to reach their stop.

Multi-lane gyratories are not suitable for cities. Full stop. They kill people on a weekly basis. Removing them may cause some disruption to bus services and slow them down a little in the long term, but frankly - tough. A slower, safer bus journey is better for everyone.

It turns out a very effective thing to do is to remove general traffic from a junction. The Bank on Safety scheme that removes general traffic from Bank on weekdays has resulted in considerable improvements in journey time, and reductions in casualties - but it should really apply 24/7. So should the congestion charge. And there needs to be much more effort put into diverting through traffic away from central London’s minor roads.

 

[AJW12]

This happens all the time and it's such a joke the unnecessary congestion it causes. I was on a 38 yesterday which left Clapton Pond and about five minutes in started waiting "to even out the service" - then ten minutes later stopped again to change drivers on a road which wasn't particularly wide, where there are so many bus services it quickly jammed up because they couldn't pass each other.

I couldn't help but wonder though in places like Hackney Central yesterday whether maybe removing some of those buses would make a bit of a difference. It's disappointing though that he's going after South London where the buses don't run to particularly incredible frequencies and they're generally very well used.

I can also see these cuts increasing more and more whilst congestion takes hold and yet more road schemes go ahead which make things worse. Neither of which are being dealt with by the Major, who instead is pressing ahead with his idiotic plan to make all streets 20mph to save lives (which will be offset by the increased levels of pollution the vehicles will produce).

 

[Via Bank]

This! It's so annoying when a bus barely 10 minutes into its journey is constantly spending unnecessary time waiting at stops.

TfL seem oblivious (or maybe it's deliberate?) of the damage caused to the bus network by THEIR actions, the constant rebuilding of junctions to remove one way systems, and the extra cycle lanes, it's as if they see ALL motorised road traffic as the problem.

A few months ago a lady was killed by a bus while she was crossing the street at Stratford gyratory. (The gyratory is currently being removed.) A few weeks ago a lady lost a leg after being crushed by a cement mixer while cycling through Old Street roundabout, where “peninsularisation” and a new layout with cycleways has been delayed and delayed again. And last week a gentleman was killed while cycling at High Holborn under the wheels of a left-turning construction lorry. There are no plans to make this junction safer. It is still a motorway in all but name, which bus passengers are expected to walk around and cross in order to reach their stop.

Multi-lane gyratories are not suitable for cities. Full stop. They kill people on a weekly basis. Removing them may cause some disruption to bus services and slow them down a little in the long term, but frankly - tough. A slower, safer bus journey is better for everyone.

It turns out a very effective thing to do is to remove general traffic from a junction. The Bank on Safety scheme that removes general traffic from Bank on weekdays has resulted in considerable improvements in journey time, and reductions in casualties - but it should really apply 24/7. So should the congestion charge. And there needs to be much more effort put into diverting through traffic away from central London’s minor roads and rationalising junctions.