TFL Cross border services and capacity

[SWT_USER]

A couple of general questions about TFL services that cross the greater London border. Apologies if these have already been asked - I couldn't see an existing thread.

- How is it decided whether these will be operated by single decker or double decker? Is it all decided by TFL or does the council on the other side have any input?

- Are these services subsidised by the outer London council, and therefore always at risk of removal should a council decide to cut the subsidy?

Local to me I am thinking of routes 116 and 203. The 203 could really do with being fully double deck operated, but a lot of the section from Hatton Cross to Staines (in my experience the busiest) isn't in London, so presumably TFL don't have much incentive to increase capacity?

 

[mb88]

As far as I’m aware, such services are no different to any other TfL tendered service, so no there is no input financially or otherwise from the local authority outside of the London boundary. Therefore the type of vehicle used will be specified by TfL in the contract specification. Happy to be corrected though!

 

[Man of Kent]

As far as I’m aware, such services are no different to any other TfL tendered service, so no there is no input financially or otherwise from the local authority outside of the London boundary. Therefore the type of vehicle used will be specified by TfL in the contract specification. Happy to be corrected though!

Buried in the depths of Surrey's Bus Service Improvement Plan is the information that the County Council contributes to TfL routes 166, 216 and 465, but not to any other TfL route that crosses into Surrey.

 

[mb88]

Buried in the depths of Surrey's Bus Service Improvement Plan is the information that the County Council contributes to TfL routes 166, 216 and 465, but not to any other TfL route that crosses into Surrey.

Interesting. Wonder if the same applies to the 233 which crosses into Kent?

 

[SWT_USER]

Buried in the depths of Surrey's Bus Service Improvement Plan is the information that the County Council contributes to TfL routes 166, 216 and 465, but not to any other TfL route that crosses into Surrey.

Interesting, thanks. I wonder what the rationale is for having to subsidise the 216 but not the 203. Possibly the extra school journeys on the 216 are the ones that require subsidy.

 

[AB93]

Interesting, thanks. I wonder what the rationale is for having to subsidise the 216 but not the 203. Possibly the extra school journeys on the 216 are the ones that require subsidy.

The 203 has a natural flow to Staines from Stanwell as the nearest town. And taking people from Staines to/from Hatton Cross etc.

In contrast the 216 gets to Ashford where it is joined by the 117 and 290, both of which continue to Staines via much more built up areas than the 216's run down the side of a reservoir hardly picking anyone up. From memory, a curtailment at Ashford Hospital was mooted at one point so it's presumably getting it to Staines that Surrey CC are contributing towards.

 

[Man of Kent]

Interesting. Wonder if the same applies to the 233 which crosses into Kent?

Not that I recall, especially as the 233 barely scratches the county. From memory I think the R5/R10 attracted a contribution from Kent (not sure if that is currently the case) and possibly in the past the Joydens Wood service (B12?).

 

[90sWereBetter]

Local to me I am thinking of routes 116 and 203. The 203 could really do with being fully double deck operated, but a lot of the section from Hatton Cross to Staines (in my experience the busiest) isn't in London, so presumably TFL don't have much incentive to increase capacity?

The 203 is scheduled to go fully double deck later this year, according to the excellent London Bus Routes website. From my experience there always used to be one or two Scania Omnicity deckers complimenting the Citaros on the route, but since the wholesale cull of SPs in the RATP empire over the last two years I'm not sure if this happens now.

203

Contract retained by London United with 7 existing hybrid double deckers. (7 years) (151022)

2 Sep 23

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/changes.htm#39

 

[mb88]

Not that I recall, especially as the 233 barely scratches the county. From memory I think the R5/R10 attracted a contribution from Kent (not sure if that is currently the case) and possibly in the past the Joydens Wood service (B12?).

I used to drive the R5/R10 and I’m trying to remember where the boundaries lie. Possible Badgers Mount and Halstead in Kent with the remainder of the route in Bromley borough?

Yes the B12 as you mention and then there is also the Bluewater services (96, 428, 492) which are in Kent for quite a big chunk, although interestingly the 96 used to run non-stop between Dartford and Bluewater, not sure if this is still the case.

 

[Thirteen]

Edgware has a number of buses that cross through Elstree and Borehamwood.

 

[SWT_USER]

The 203 is scheduled to go fully double deck later this year, according to the excellent London Bus Routes website. From my experience there always used to be one or two Scania Omnicity deckers complimenting the Citaros on the route, but since the wholesale cull of SPs in the RATP empire over the last two years I'm not sure if this happens now.

203

Contract retained by London United with 7 existing hybrid double deckers. (7 years) (151022)

2 Sep 23

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/changes.htm#39

That's good news. Very much needed.

There is still the odd double decker - not sure if it's planned use or just a substitution by whatever is available in Hounslow bus garage.

 

[MedwayValiant]

Yes the B12 as you mention and then there is also the Bluewater services (96, 428, 492) which are in Kent for quite a big chunk, although interestingly the 96 used to run non-stop between Dartford and Bluewater, not sure if this is still the case.

There is one stop now, at Darent Valley Hospital. The 428 also has only that one stop, while the 492 goes a different way and serves all stops.

There are two Arriva commercial services between Dartford and Bluewater quite apart from those three TfL services, but the 96 and 428 are the quickest and are often well loaded. I don't know whether Arriva have ever tried to argue that these ought to be commercial services rather than TfL contracts.

 

[EastMidlandsAi]

There are two Arriva commercial services between Dartford and Bluewater quite apart from those three TfL services, but the 96 and 428 are the quickest and are often well loaded. I don't know whether Arriva have ever tried to argue that these ought to be commercial services rather than TfL contracts.

Does Arriva have any right to argue this? TfL surely has as much of a right as Arriva to operate a service there

 

[JonathanH]

Does Arriva have any right to argue this? TfL surely has as much of a right as Arriva to operate a service there

Does Bluewater financially support the extensions beyond Dartford?

 

[Man of Kent]

Does Bluewater financially support the extensions beyond Dartford?

No. I think, but can't recall for certain, that Bluewater provided a small amount of support for the more speculative bits of the original network when it opened in 1999 - things like the Arriva route to Bromley (429?) and the K14/K15 to Longfield. Some of the routes were developed to support Bluewater's staff recruitment, from areas that wouldn't otherwise have had a direct service.

 

[WAB]

Cross-border routes have had their subsidy cut over the years. And of course it is always difficult for commercial operators to compete against TfL for fares, frequencies, hours of operation, etc.