298 in Potters Bar

[Tetchytyke]

Any idea which of those running into Kingston are contracted by TfL ? - I guess some of the Kingston routes must be supported by Surrey C C (isn't that where Transdev is pulling out ?)

Of course Kingston is doubly strange because it is the county town of Surrey- the council head offices are there- without actually being in the county. You'd expect both TfL and Surrey CC to be paying for links to the town.

 

[Busaholic]

Of course Kingston is doubly strange because it is the county town of Surrey- the council head offices are there- without actually being in the county. You'd expect both TfL and Surrey CC to be paying for links to the town.

There's something very strange about that situation, almost an unacceptance by Surrey that Kingston-upon-Thames is now in London. Couldn't they find a golf course somewhere in the middle of the county to build a new HQ?

 

[matt_world2004]

London Buses that are sponsored by surrey county council

465
467 (Actually is only in London for a few stops)
203
219
117

London Buses that serve surrey and are not on record as being sponsored by Surrey County Council

406
235
K3
R68
116( Listed as being sponsored by TfL? Hospital grant?)
635

Cannot determine

418
216

This does not include buses as operating in the Greater London Boundary. The information got from this can be verified by checking the Surrey CC timetables and it will list who the buses is sponsored by at the bottom.

 

[Deerfold]

There's something very strange about that situation, almost an unacceptance by Surrey that Kingston-upon-Thames is now in London. Couldn't they find a golf course somewhere in the middle of the county to build a new HQ?

Not as unusual as you might think.
I used to live in South Buckinghamshire. Their council office was in Slough. On my way to the office I would pass the Slough council offices which were in South Buckinghamshire.

 

[jon0844]

HCC has taken a lot of S106 money (we're talking over a million that I know about) that was to pay for things like local bus services to pay for overspends on other projects, so all signs are for even more cuts next March.

I'm speaking here about Hatfield, but I expect the county council has done the same throughout the county. Any pots of money that are for transport are fair game as long as it's for something transport related.

Our local councillors have warned residents that it's a case of 'use it or lose it' as the next couple of months are critical, given that decisions will be made December/January in order to make timetable changes etc - and give suitable notice.

 

[Busaholic]

London Buses that are sponsored by surrey county council

465
467 (Actually is only in London for a few stops)
203
219
117

London Buses that serve surrey and are not on record as being sponsored by Surrey County Council

406
235
K3
R68
116( Listed as being sponsored by TfL? Hospital grant?)
635

Cannot determine

418
216

This does not include buses as operating in the Greater London Boundary. The information got from this can be verified by checking the Surrey CC timetables and it will list who the buses is sponsored by at the bottom.

I don't quite know the basis on which you provide this 'information'. Some of the routes you list as being 'sponsored' by Surrey County Council are contracted by Transport for London, having been tendered, and are operated on a 5 year contract, which is (usually) extendable by 3 years. The buses are in standard London livery as per the contract. The 2 routes you 'cannot determine' are TfL routes too. This info is available on various TfL websites, including full timetables, but I would suggest anyone really interested in the subject consult the incomparable London Bus Routes website maintained by Robert Munster on www.londonbusroutes.net , not to be confused with the equally wonderful site of Ian Armstrong's with a similar name.

Mr Munster lists every stage carriage route available to the general public that operates within Greater London, if only for a few yards, with full details of contract dates/basis for TfL routes and the basis on which non-TfL routes are operated e.g. Surrey County Council tendered service or provided commercially - sometimes the date of the council contract is given too. Now, whether for instance Surrey has entered into an arrangement with TfL to provide some financial backing for the 465 to Dorking, for instance, I don't know and I'm unsure this sort of information is in the public domain.

P.S. Left out the most salient point. perhaps, which is the flat £1.50 fare for any distance on the TfL routes.

 

[matt_world2004]

I don't quite know the basis on which you provide this 'information'. Some of the routes you list as being 'sponsored' by Surrey County Council are contracted by Transport for London, having been tendered, and are operated on a 5 year contract, which is (usually) extendable by 3 years. The buses are in standard London livery as per the contract. The 2 routes you 'cannot determine' are TfL routes too. This info is available on various TfL websites, including full timetables, but I would suggest anyone really interested in the subject consult the incomparable London Bus Routes website maintained by Robert Munster on www.londonbusroutes.net , not to be confused with the equally wonderful site of Ian Armstrong's with a similar name.

Mr Munster lists every stage carriage route available to the general public that operates within Greater London, if only for a few yards, with full details of contract dates/basis for TfL routes and the basis on which non-TfL routes are operated e.g. Surrey County Council tendered service or provided commercially - sometimes the date of the council contract is given too. Now, whether for instance Surrey has entered into an arrangement with TfL to provide some financial backing for the 465 to Dorking, for instance, I don't know and I'm unsure this sort of information is in the public domain.

P.S. Left out the most salient point. perhaps, which is the flat £1.50 fare for any distance on the TfL routes.

Tfl recieve money from surrey county council for the routes listed as sponsored by them. The 635 is an odd one because subsequent digging show it as a scc franchised route, that is franchised to tfl who then franchise it to a respective bus company.

 

[Hophead]

I have just popped over to surreycc.gov.uk and taken a look at the timetable for the 465 [PDF link], which is suffixed with the words "This service is operated on behalf of London Buses and Surrey County Council". I think matt_world2004 should possibly have used the phrase "supported by Surrey CC", instead of "sponsored by" in the list above.

 

[matt_world2004]

I have just popped over to surreycc.gov.uk and taken a look at the timetable for the 465 [PDF link], which is suffixed with the words "This service is operated on behalf of London Buses and Surrey County Council". I think matt_world2004 should possibly have used the phrase "supported by Surrey CC", instead of "sponsored by" in the list above.

Isn't sponsored an appropriate term? it doesn't imply completely funded by Surrey cc just that it receives some funding for that route

 

[Hophead]

Isn't sponsored an appropriate term? it doesn't imply completely funded by Surrey cc just that it receives some funding for that route

To be honest, I don't think it really matters - just depends on one's personal preference.

 

[Busaholic]

Isn't sponsored an appropriate term? it doesn't imply completely funded by Surrey cc just that it receives some funding for that route

Maybe 'sponsored' is the appropriate term. I may sponsor somebody to run the London Marathon, say, which he/she will do regardless of my sponsorship, and my sponsorship will probably only amount to an insignificant amount of the total. Surrey can reduce/withdraw the sponsorship when they choose, but a TfL-contracted route can only be altered after a public consultation, in addition to the contractual relationship between TfL and the bus company providing the buses and crews. Therefore I would suggest those areas outside Greater London with TfL bus services do their darnedest to retain them, because the alternatives aren't too palatable.