London Buses Discussion

[chopperman21]

As the school extras enter there final few weeks, RATP have been doing well at removing all their non-euro 6 buses even if the school extra has continued. SP40006 (56-reg) was one of there last euro 6 buses to be withdrawn. The oldest bus still in service in London is WVL204 (05-reg) at Merton, a garage which currently holds the title of the oldest and newest buses in London.

 

[ScotGG]

Can't blame TfL when Govt have ordered them to cut £900 million a year.

They also told them to start thinking of cuts now, rather than wait to see how usage grows once restrictions end.

 

[Goldfish62]

What we don't know though is how much bus usage will return

a) when people start returning to the office
b) when people start feeling more confident about travelling on public transport full stop (especially when masks are no longer compulsory)

TfL have spent the last year telling us not to travel, it's hardly surprising that as a result the buses are empty.

Buses are most certainly not empty!

TfL was required to comply with government messaging about avoiding public transport as one of the conditions of the ongoing bailout.

 

[Snow1964]

Buses are most certainly not empty!

TfL was required to comply with government messaging about avoiding public transport as one of the conditions of the ongoing bailout.

The latest TfL Board minutes and reports are suggesting buses are back to 60-65% of pre pandemic loadings

However that is an average, some areas are very busy, and others have much lower loadings

The bailout requires a bus service level review/report by end of July

 

[Goldfish62]

The latest TfL Board minutes and reports are suggesting buses are back to 60-65% of pre pandemic loadings

However that is an average, some areas are very busy, and others have much lower loadings

The bailout requires a bus service level review/report by end of July

I believe it's risen more recently to 70+%.

Yes, inner/outer London loadings are really quite healthy,reflecting the relative normality in those areas. It's central London where loadings are poor.

 

[telstarbox]

I don't know why you'd get a bus within Zone 1 unless you're disabled or you get it for free. Nearly always quicker to walk or cycle to your destination or a convenient station.

 

[WideRanger]

I don't know why you'd get a bus within Zone 1 unless you're disabled or you get it for free. Nearly always quicker to walk or cycle to your destination or a convenient station.

When it's raining?

 

[johncrossley]

There are some gaps in the Tube network that are covered by frequent buses, such as Victoria to Marble Arch and Waterloo to Kingsway to Euston. Although these is still scope for rationalisation as there are several overlapping routes on those corridors.

 

[Snow1964]

The London bus fleet is about to shrink a bit

The remaining school extras (V buses) all ending within next 12 days, they have already had thinning out since half term allowing many of the non-euroVI buses that were retained to be withdrawn.

Has now become clear that multiple routes serving central London are getting frequency cuts in August or early September. Rumours exist but very little is published (don’t really want to speculate but sounds like PVR cut of 250+)

So far TfL has only published changes through July (link to TfL upcoming changes attached), and routes 55, 56 being cut in July

Bus changes

Permanent changes to TfL bus routes including new routes and changes to first and last stops.

tfl.gov.uk

Some other timetable changes planned are appearing elsewhere, eg 3 cross border routes into Surrey showing as getting new timetables first weekend September (but TfL still keeping quiet about these on own website), link to Surrey bus changes attached

Forthcoming bus timetable changes

Changes to routes, stops and operators of bus services in Surrey

www.surreycc.gov.uk

It is likely that any PVR cuts will result in buses being cascaded so the oldest get withdrawn, most likely anything pre-2010

 

[Statto]

There are some gaps in the Tube network that are covered by frequent buses, such as Victoria to Marble Arch and Waterloo to Kingsway to Euston. Although these is still scope for rationalisation as there are several overlapping routes on those corridors.

This, plus due to the heat & humidity the tube can be unbearable, i often prefer catching the bus in zone 1 when i'm visiting London, even though i know it's going to take an hour & longer.

 

[Goldfish62]

I don't know why you'd get a bus within Zone 1 unless you're disabled or you get it for free. Nearly always quicker to walk or cycle to your destination or a convenient station.

That's a very sweeping assumption!

 

[Mikey C]

I don't know why you'd get a bus within Zone 1 unless you're disabled or you get it for free. Nearly always quicker to walk or cycle to your destination or a convenient station.

Zone also covers a wide area to the west of London, Paddington or Kensington to Trafalgar Qquare is quite a walk - nice through the parks when it's light, but not when it's cold and dark!

And many people like being on the top deck of a bus, as you can see out, unlike the tube! Cheaper too

 

[700007]

The London bus fleet is about to shrink a bit

The remaining school extras (V buses) all ending within next 12 days, they have already had thinning out since half term allowing many of the non-euroVI buses that were retained to be withdrawn.

Has now become clear that multiple routes serving central London are getting frequency cuts in August or early September. Rumours exist but very little is published (don’t really want to speculate but sounds like PVR cut of 250+)

So far TfL has only published changes through July (link to TfL upcoming changes attached), and routes 55, 56 being cut in July

Bus changes

Permanent changes to TfL bus routes including new routes and changes to first and last stops.

tfl.gov.uk

Some other timetable changes planned are appearing elsewhere, eg 3 cross border routes into Surrey showing as getting new timetables first weekend September (but TfL still keeping quiet about these on own website), link to Surrey bus changes attached

Forthcoming bus timetable changes

Changes to routes, stops and operators of bus services in Surrey

www.surreycc.gov.uk

It is likely that any PVR cuts will result in buses being cascaded so the oldest get withdrawn, most likely anything pre-2010

Yes, I've also heard that there are going to be a large number of routes being cut in frequency in Central London later this summer. Some (major) routes are rumoured to have very low PVRs (for Central London routes, anyways) after the cuts with PVRs floating just over 10, under 15 Monday to Friday daytimes but this hasn't been verified officially yet.

A consultation involving large amounts of changes to the Central London bus network is expected to be released in the late summer or early autumn as well, further revealing the extent of these bus cuts.

 

[MotCO]

Yes, I've also heard that there are going to be a large number of routes being cut in frequency in Central London later this summer. Some (major) routes are rumoured to have very low PVRs (for Central London routes, anyways) after the cuts with PVRs floating just over 10, under 15 Monday to Friday daytimes but this hasn't been verified officially yet.

A consultation involving large amounts of changes to the Central London bus network is expected to be released in the late summer or early autumn as well, further revealing the extent of these bus cuts.

If this is the case, presumably there will be a need for fewer drivers, mechanics, buses etc. Who will pay for redundancy costs, outstanding leases on buses etc. Also, will this lead to the start of selling off Borismasters? Who will buy them - tour buses perhaps?

 

[Robertj21a]

If this is the case, presumably there will be a need for fewer drivers, mechanics, buses etc. Who will pay for redundancy costs, outstanding leases on buses etc. Also, will this lead to the start of selling off Borismasters? Who will buy them - tour buses perhaps?

Surely, it can mostly be achieved through natural wastage, retirements etc?
Buses are often leased according to a specific route 5/7 year contract and I doubt any changes will have a major impact in the short term.

 

[700007]

If this is the case, presumably there will be a need for fewer drivers, mechanics, buses etc. Who will pay for redundancy costs, outstanding leases on buses etc. Also, will this lead to the start of selling off Borismasters? Who will buy them - tour buses perhaps?

There will naturally be fewer buses as older buses in the fleet will be withdrawn and replaced with newer hybrid/zero-emission vehicles. This will mitigate the need to worry about outstanding leases as most leases would have either be coming to a natural end or there would have been some exercising of a clause a couple of years ago that allowed the company to buy the (now older) buses for a significantly cheaper price.

In terms of drivers, mechanics and other staff - there's a general shortage of these in the industry anyways so I doubt that there should be any redundancies as such on the frontline. Nearly all companies are struggling to fill driver and mechanic vacancies as such and have been short staffed for a while, however it may be that some staff move between depots with surplus staff to those who need more staff.

Borismasters won't be sold off just yet, they're being redeployed to a number of bus routes in the suburbs. The rumour mill has it that the 111 and 349 are the next routes to convert to the LT-type buses, and I'd expect this to be verified on the LOTS website within a week or two. If I was a betting man, I wouldn't be surprised to also see the 71 (which has been subject to LT strays lately) to make a full conversion to the type as well if enough LTs become surplus.

 

[MotCO]

Surely, it can mostly be achieved through natural wastage, retirements etc?
Buses are often leased according to a specific route 5/7 year contract and I doubt any changes will have a major impact in the short term.

But what is being suggested sounds as though there are changes outside contract renewal dates.

 

[700007]

But what is being suggested sounds as though there are changes outside contract renewal dates.

TfL are trying to review routes coming up for tender (as seen with the 13, 55 and 56) to reduce them into the new tender so as to reduce this 'awkwardness' so to speak regarding leases and things like that. But as I said above, the buses can always be re-deployed onto other routes perhaps with the same amount of time left on their contracts and then purchased from the owner for a cheaper, lump sum or re-negotiated onto a shorter lease.

 

[Timmyd]

The problem with this plan is that most routes which are quiet in central London are busy on their suburban stretch. My local route is the 3 which has gradually been cut back and back in central London to render the section north of Brixton almost pointless, but it would struggle to cope with a service reduction between Brixton and Crystal Palace. What’s sad to see is the complete absence of ideas to get people back on buses - speed restrictions, cycle schemes and social distancing measures have all made the bus an unviable way in and out of central London over the past couple of years but there seems no attempt to redress the balance and attract passengers back.

On a separate note, one way to save on PVRs would be to re-integrate some of the outer which were split 20+ years ago, often in an attempt to remove RMs from suburban sections. For instance, the 137 and 417 don’t need to duplicate, one route could easily manage the load between Brixton Garage and Clapham Common. I know it wouldn’t be in line with policy of all buses covering the whole route (although there are exceptions like the 38), but extending every other 137 the short distance to Crystal Palace would surely be practical and save a whole route’s PVR. Same with 2/432 and 63/363 to name a couple in the same area - the extensions would only be very short and and the duplication saved wold be substantial.

 

[Goldfish62]

The problem with this plan is that most routes which are quiet in central London are busy on their suburban stretch. My local route is the 3 which has gradually been cut back and back in central London to render the section north of Brixton almost pointless, but it would struggle to cope with a service reduction between Brixton and Crystal Palace. What’s sad to see is the complete absence of ideas to get people back on buses - speed restrictions, cycle schemes and social distancing measures have all made the bus an unviable way in and out of central London over the past couple of years but there seems no attempt to redress the balance and attract passengers back.

On a separate note, one way to save on PVRs would be to re-integrate some of the outer which were split 20+ years ago, often in an attempt to remove RMs from suburban sections. For instance, the 137 and 417 don’t need to duplicate, one route could easily manage the load between Brixton Garage and Clapham Common. I know it wouldn’t be in line with policy of all buses covering the whole route (although there are exceptions like the 38), but extending every other 137 the short distance to Crystal Palace would surely be practical and save a whole route’s PVR. Same with 2/432 and 63/363 to name a couple in the same area - the extensions would only be very short and and the duplication saved wold be substantial.

I couldn't agree with you more. Absolutely spot-on.

In respect of attracting passengers back I think it's simply the case that no one has got a clue what to do. The marketing team is a completely separate entity within TfL from Buses, which is essentially just the contract management and bus station management side of the business. Even service planning is in a separate directorate these days.

In respect of marketing I think you only have to look at the awful recent attempts at area route branding to conclude there's a major problem.

 

[Robertj21a]

The problem with this plan is that most routes which are quiet in central London are busy on their suburban stretch. My local route is the 3 which has gradually been cut back and back in central London to render the section north of Brixton almost pointless, but it would struggle to cope with a service reduction between Brixton and Crystal Palace. What’s sad to see is the complete absence of ideas to get people back on buses - speed restrictions, cycle schemes and social distancing measures have all made the bus an unviable way in and out of central London over the past couple of years but there seems no attempt to redress the balance and attract passengers back.

On a separate note, one way to save on PVRs would be to re-integrate some of the outer which were split 20+ years ago, often in an attempt to remove RMs from suburban sections. For instance, the 137 and 417 don’t need to duplicate, one route could easily manage the load between Brixton Garage and Clapham Common. I know it wouldn’t be in line with policy of all buses covering the whole route (although there are exceptions like the 38), but extending every other 137 the short distance to Crystal Palace would surely be practical and save a whole route’s PVR. Same with 2/432 and 63/363 to name a couple in the same area - the extensions would only be very short and and the duplication saved wold be substantial.

Yes, it would be good to see some sensible rationalisation of a few routes. Unfortunately, TfL doesn't have much of a track record for pragmatic solutions, or anything other than blanket approaches.

 

[Snow1964]

The problem with this plan is that most routes which are quiet in central London are busy on their suburban stretch. My local route is the 3 which has gradually been cut back and back in central London to render the section north of Brixton almost pointless, but it would struggle to cope with a service reduction between Brixton and Crystal Palace. What’s sad to see is the complete absence of ideas to get people back on buses - speed restrictions, cycle schemes and social distancing measures have all made the bus an unviable way in and out of central London over the past couple of years but there seems no attempt to redress the balance and attract passengers back.

On a separate note, one way to save on PVRs would be to re-integrate some of the outer which were split 20+ years ago, often in an attempt to remove RMs from suburban sections. For instance, the 137 and 417 don’t need to duplicate, one route could easily manage the load between Brixton Garage and Clapham Common. I know it wouldn’t be in line with policy of all buses covering the whole route (although there are exceptions like the 38), but extending every other 137 the short distance to Crystal Palace would surely be practical and save a whole route’s PVR. Same with 2/432 and 63/363 to name a couple in the same area - the extensions would only be very short and and the duplication saved wold be substantial.

TfL have to make savings quickly as part of the bailout. Contracts have variation clauses so they are not fixed and unchangeable for 5-7 years.

TfL can vary the frequency fairly quickly (within few weeks), but changing a route (shortening, lengthening, merging, rerouting, moving terminus etc) requires a consultation under law governing London.

Consultation is obviously a much longer process as it needs to be drawn up, published, wait few weeks until consultation closure, analyze results, summarise and publish results and any updates to plan following the consultation, and only then actually implement it. Some consultations have taken over 2 years from issuing to actual bus changes taking place which gives some idea of completely different timescale, (although for balance some have been just a few months).

A bailout condition is a report/review of bus services by end of July (there is also a tube/rail one, but that is September) and this will obviously give outline of what is happening, or at least TfLs thoughts. However it is quite likely that a central London bus consultation will follow to implement the changes later.

In the past TfL have used already issued consultations to make changes, some of the proposals from Central London, Oxford Street pedestrianisation, and Crossrail consultations from 3-4 years ago could get revived quoting those to allow changes to go ahead. Rather stretches the boundary between the legal requirements for consulting and actually doing it with current data, but they seem to get away with it.

 

[busesrusuk]

Its highly unlikely that there would be redundancies to front line staff, as has been mentioned there is a skill shortage of both drivers and engineers. Big savings (to the companies) would be in depot space (and ultimately closures) as a consequence of reduced bus numbers. Clearly that would lead to a reduced payments by TfL due to the reduced mileage operated.

As for the bonkers buses, they are a bit of a liability and are outstanding a refurb which will be down to TfL to fund. There are already quite a surplus of these buses around the network from previous service reductions. It will be interesting to see if any do leave the fleet sooner rather than later but you can imagine the headlines if they do - mostly politically motivated.

Whilst they are, on the outside, a standard bus that can easily be swapped around between routes and operators they do have bespoke equipment fitted to meet individual operator requirements which means that swaps aren't always as straightforward as seems (between operators at least) - items such as fuelling equipment, CCTV and driver telematics systems vary from company to company.

London Buses really do need to think about reviewing their standardisation policy in terms of frequencies etc. and concentrate resources to where they are needed - if this means short workings or peak extras to cover certain sections then so be it. Having a bus run end to end from first to last bus 7 days a week isn't always the most efficient way to run a service.

 

[Surreyman]

Frequency cuts to Central London routes will impact heavily on the 'New Bus for London fleet' ( I still can't bring myself to call them new Routemasters).
The majority of NBfL vehicles are used on routes which go into the current central London ULEZ zone, a quick analysis shows that @ 30 routes (+ Night variations) are operated by NBfL vehicles into the (current) central London Ultra Low Emission zone.
Service reductions will likely throw up a surplus fleet of NBfLs, which, with their extra length may prove difficult to re-allocate to other routes.

 

[Robertj21a]

Frequency cuts to Central London routes will impact heavily on the 'New Bus for London fleet' ( I still can't bring myself to call them new Routemasters).
The majority of NBfL vehicles are used on routes which go into the current central London ULEZ zone, a quick analysis shows that @ 30 routes (+ Night variations) are operated by NBfL vehicles into the (current) central London Ultra Low Emission zone.
Service reductions will likely throw up a surplus fleet of NBfLs, which, with their extra length may prove difficult to re-allocate to other routes.

Could yet end up with airfields full of Borismasters - I guess not a great loss for many people.

 

[Goldfish62]

Frequency cuts to Central London routes will impact heavily on the 'New Bus for London fleet' ( I still can't bring myself to call them new Routemasters).
The majority of NBfL vehicles are used on routes which go into the current central London ULEZ zone, a quick analysis shows that @ 30 routes (+ Night variations) are operated by NBfL vehicles into the (current) central London Ultra Low Emission zone.
Service reductions will likely throw up a surplus fleet of NBfLs, which, with their extra length may prove difficult to re-allocate to other routes.

It's a major problem. They're being depreciated over 14 years and as TFL owns them they really need to get a whole life out of them otherwise they're still saddled with the same ownership costs.

 

[MotCO]

London Buses really do need to think about reviewing their standardisation policy in terms of frequencies etc. and concentrate resources to where they are needed - if this means short workings or peak extras to cover certain sections then so be it. Having a bus run end to end from first to last bus 7 days a week isn't always the most efficient way to run a service.

Maybe they could renumber some parts of routes by using suffixes to distinguish them from the main route.

 

[Mikey C]

The problem with this plan is that most routes which are quiet in central London are busy on their suburban stretch. My local route is the 3 which has gradually been cut back and back in central London to render the section north of Brixton almost pointless, but it would struggle to cope with a service reduction between Brixton and Crystal Palace. What’s sad to see is the complete absence of ideas to get people back on buses - speed restrictions, cycle schemes and social distancing measures have all made the bus an unviable way in and out of central London over the past couple of years but there seems no attempt to redress the balance and attract passengers back.

On a separate note, one way to save on PVRs would be to re-integrate some of the outer which were split 20+ years ago, often in an attempt to remove RMs from suburban sections. For instance, the 137 and 417 don’t need to duplicate, one route could easily manage the load between Brixton Garage and Clapham Common. I know it wouldn’t be in line with policy of all buses covering the whole route (although there are exceptions like the 38), but extending every other 137 the short distance to Crystal Palace would surely be practical and save a whole route’s PVR. Same with 2/432 and 63/363 to name a couple in the same area - the extensions would only be very short and and the duplication saved wold be substantial.

I agree on both points

20 years ago under "Ken" it felt like buses were part of the solution, now it almost feels within TfL that they're an irritating necessity, and that if bike schemes, and removing gyratories slows them up (as well as making driving less attractive) then so be it.

A good point about split routes, as this was done both to reduce the length of individual routes, but also to increase the number of buses in central London! I think back to the 73 being split to create the 73 and 10, and then the further split to create the 390. Or the 53 and 453.

My local bus into town the 13 is one whose reduction has already been announced. South of Finchley Road station I suspect it'll cope, but north of it I think it'll cause problems, and they need to think about running peak extras from say say Golders Green to Finchley Road.

 

[Busaholic]

Maybe they could renumber some parts of routes by using suffixes to distinguish them from the main route.

As used to happen when the 3 was still Routemaster operated and a 3A appeared on Monday to Friday over the Palace to Brixton section, as an opo route operated by Norwood garage. The 137 and 417 combination into one route again is the obvious one, perhaps with Clapham Common becoming a shortworking terminal again from the Oxford Circus direction at times rather than Brixton garage, which might be useful should Arriva not keep the contract. The night service is already a through job from O.C. to Crystal Palace,with no short workings.

 

[Statto]

One elephant in the room is the night routes, some of them at least in the week feel like they carry fresh air [the outer suburban night routes have this feel], cutting back, merging some of them might help, such as extending the night 25 to Harold Hill as N25 to replace the N86 could be a doer