In Part 1 of this series we looked at the recent history and circumstance that have left London with the bus network it has today. Now we can properly begin to look at how it is argued it might need to change.
The London Assembly Transport Committee decided to investigate the state of London’s bus services as part of their 2013 work programme. Their scoping report sets out the nature of the investigation. The key themes were identifying the most overcrowded routes in London; how TfL plan the bus network to cope with growing demand and how the planning process can be improved; and how forecast demand growth will be catered for given there are no plans for a commensurate expansion in service levels.
The Transport Committee used its June and July meetings to collect the views from stakeholders and the public and then to hear TfL’s response and further comment from other experts.
Session 1 – Stakeholders and the public share their views
The invited guests at this meeting, held on 6 June 2013, include Councillor Derek Levy from the London Borough of Enfield, Stephen Locke and Vincent Stops from London Travelwatch, Faryal Velmi, Director, Transport for All and Peter White, Professor of Public Transport Systems, University of Westminster. There, in an observational capacity from TfL, were Leon Daniels, Managing Director, Surface Transport and John Barry, Head of Service Planning, Surface Transport.
There were also two important submissions to the investigation from London Councils and London Travelwatch.
The meeting started by asking the invited guests for their priority concerns about TfL’s bus services. A wide range of issues were raised in the discussion covering items such as the need for increased bus priority, how the desire to get more disabled people into work may result in the need for more wheelchair spaces on buses at peak times and concerns about the planning process. A perceived lack of transparency in the TfL decision making process was also raised as an issue.
There was a general recognition from the invited guests that London’s bus network is good and of far higher quality than exists elsewhere in the UK. There was also an acceptance that there has been substantial improvement over a number of years. The bus network clearly supports high levels of economic activity in London and facilitates social mobility for all age groups.
London Travelwatch expressed particular concern though at the loss of the Bus Priority unit within TfL and the apparent lack of importance now afforded to bus lanes and other techniques to keep buses moving. They felt that bus priority was something that local councils could provide to help improve the efficiency of the bus network. This would help make the service more attractive to passengers by making it more reliable and speeding up journeys, both factors well recognised as driving increased patronage and revenue. London Travelwatch also felt that bus priority could help lower costs by improving journey times, allowing routes to be run with less resource but with the same service level. This would then free up money for other service improvements.
There was discussion about the busiest parts of the bus network and what factors were driving bus demand. There was a view that the central area was the busiest part of the network but there was also recognition that many suburban centres had significant trip generators (shops, colleges, stations and health facilities). It would thus be wrong to treat the bus network as something solely focused on serving Central London, although that is a significant generator of employment and leisure related trips.
The difficulty of making changes
The discussion then moved on to how demand was changing and several examples were cited of new housing, university expansion and new schools where bus based public transport was not keeping pace with these changes. TfL was deemed to be unresponsive to such changes, with bus services remaining unmodified for many years, if at all, leaving people without the transport services they need. There was also concern expressed about a lack of understanding and transparency as to how TfL evaluate service change proposals and determine the costs and benefits. Several contributors remarked on seeing responses from TfL such as “the proposed change to route “x” will cost £400,000 per annum and is not justified” with little indication as to how that figure had been determined (Indeed Caroline Pidgeon pointedly remarked that every change seems to cost £400,000). There was a view that TfL have a planning “black box” and no-one outside of TfL understands what the inputs are, how the calculation is performed and how the conclusion is determined. It was for this reason that greater transparency about the service planning and cost / benefit assessment processes for bus services was considered a key priority.
The tendering system for bus route contracts was cited as being a contributing factor to both the difficulty of making route changes and the issue of transparency. The very strong perception was that changes are not feasible outside of the fixed 5 or 7 year tendering cycle. TfL undertakes a review process for routes before they come up for retendering and there is consultation with stakeholders (not passengers) at this point about proposals for changes that TfL may wish to make or stakeholders request. For those who may not be aware TfL bus service quality incentive contracts (QIC) are for a standard 5 year term but can be extended to 7 years if there has been good performance during the contract term. The extension is subject to negotiation and TfL may well be able to secure improvements at this point from the operator in return for the longer contract term at an affordable cost. Some services (e.g. school routes) are not contracted on a QIC basis.
Whilst this was cited as an issue, it is in fact worth remembering that despite the claims of inflexibility it is actually the case that route changes, vehicle type changes or revised timetables can and do happen at any point during a contract term for a variety of reasons. This can be seen quite clearly at present with the introduction of the New Bus for London, where its introduction has not yet coincided with a renewal or award of a route contract. The need to cater for road works also results in amended timetables being implemented as a variation to the route contract. Just how well this ability to leverage change is being used though, is clearly open to question.
A Unite union representative also presented an interesting perspective on the tendering process, highlighting that the views of drivers were never sought in the consultation or planning process for new contracts or services despite their local knowledge of both services and traffic conditions. He also expressed concern that switching contracts between operators could lead to problems for employees who may face moving employers every 5-7 years. The pressure on TfL’s budget for bus contracts was also, in turn, leading to pressure on contract prices and therefore the wages / terms and conditions for bus drivers. Unite believed there was now a “drive to the bottom” with wages being pushed down and driving hours extended to the maximum allowable.
Enfield investigates
One of the more interesting interventions came from the Enfield Council rep, Cllr Levy. This is because Enfield Council has been conducting a bottom up review of bus travel requirements in the Borough of Enfield. The Council has started with a “clean sheet of paper” and sought to create an alternative bus network that more effectively meets the travel needs of people in the Borough. It has also looked to create one which recognises the impact of new housing, new schools and amended health service facilities. The work has been shared with TfL and the total number of buses required does not exceed those currently in service on routes in the area.
This revised approach to bus services caused rather a lot of excitement from the politicians in the room as there is something of a clamour for more involvement or, if you were to be unkind, meddling in the local bus network for their boroughs or constituencies. There were repeated statements about TfL being inflexible and uncooperative and buses not being sufficiently focused on local borough needs rather than running on radial routes to the centre. The Enfield Council diagnosis for buses had a distinctly continental flavour, with buses feeding rail services rather than paralleling them and transfer tickets between bus routes. It also included a nice dose of deregulation flavour “flexibility” to change routes repeatedly. The analysis also included a concern that TfL is too restrictive in setting out routes and service levels and then maintaining them rather than constantly reviewing demand in an area and adjusting routes, timetables and frequencies on a regular basis. There was also the by now standard refrain of there being few “orbital” bus routes in Enfield – a somewhat surprising observation given the preponderance of orbital and purely suburban services in the Borough.
Some of the reports suggestions were perhaps a bit more outlandish, including a suggestion of dividing areas into colour coded zones where buses would operate “flexibly” (i.e. not on fixed routes). Thankfully London Travelwatch intervened and said it was best that buses ran along fixed routes and to published timetables.
The issues facing wheelchair users
The changes to social security payments for the disabled were cited by Transport for All, as likely to cause an increase in wheelchair passengers travelling at peak times. This is because benefits such as Motability or Blue Badges are being scaled back while disabled people are being encouraged back into work. The only viable public transport for many will be to use the bus network as it is fully accessible. The problem, of course, is that bus design is predicated on providing for one wheelchair user only. There is also the long standing conflict between wheelchair users and parents with buggies wishing to occupy the same space. Transport for All believes buses must be redesigned to provide more space for wheelchair users and parents with buggies. Outside of London this is usually possible. Buses only have one door and operators live with the longer stop dwell times because higher volumes of cash transactions mean buses can be at stops for long periods anyway. In London however this is likely to prove problematic, as services feature high numbers of passengers but low stop dwell times, as buses have two doors and there are negligible numbers of cash transactions.
There has been much controversy over use of the dedicated space on buses and whether wheelchair users have priority. Outside of London there have been two court cases involving Arriva and First Group where wheelchair users have been unable to board buses due to the wheelchair space being occupied by others who would not move and the driver was unable to compel them to move. The most recent judgement against First Group established the principle that the wheelchair user has priority access to the wheelchair space and that drivers must enforce that priority even if it means forcing other passengers off the bus. However that case is subject to possible appeal by First Group. There are obvious ramifications for bus operators, bus manufacturers and all bus users if the principle of a wheelchair user always having priority and drivers being required to enforce such priority is established in law. This article is making no comment about the merits or otherwise of the argument – it is simply stating that it exists and may become something TfL has to consider very seriously.
Passengers share their views on TfL bus services
A lot of the passenger feedback in the meeting was from representatives of various Pensioner groups from across Greater London coupled with disabled bus users plus other interested individuals (some with direct public transport experience).
Much of the feedback from older bus users related to the difficulty of accessing health services and, in particular, hospitals. There was a very strong and understandable preference for direct services to hospitals to avoid the need to change buses. The impact of NHS reorganisation was not yet fully understood but older passengers were already experiencing difficult, time consuming journeys. The perennial problem of school children crowding out buses at peak times was also mentioned as a difficulty for older people who may need to travel in the AM peak to reach early morning appointments at hospitals. Other issues raised were criticism of TfL’s reliance on mobile technology for Countdown information and not providing more signs at stops. This was cited as an affordability issue for older people.
TfL was repeatedly cited as being unhelpful, inflexible and unresponsive. What was striking was the unstated assumption that buses are a public service that should respond to public demands – we ask for a new bus to the hospital, TfL must provide it. There was no clear recognition of the budgetary constraints facing TfL or the need to prioritise expenditure to deliver most benefit or any understanding that nearly all changes to provide more service creates a bigger demand for subsidy. There is perhaps a need here for some education as to the “realities of life” but such an approach is hardly likely to prove politically palatable.
National Health Service reorganisation impacts
It is clear that the Government’s reorganisation of the National Health Service is causing a number of issues for London’s bus network. One of the starkest impacts is the closure of hospitals and clinics and a move to create “centres of excellence” resulting in vastly changed travel demands for people across London who need to reach these facilities.
The most interesting commentary on this subject was from London Travelwatch who shared their long experience of trying to influence the provision of bus services to NHS facilities. They highlighted that there was a clear failure in NHS planning , with facilities moved or consolidated under a default assumption that the transport authority will adjust services to cope with the aftermath of the change. Travelwatch indicated that there is negligible evidence of any proper planning process which assesses the likely impact on hospital users when NHS facilities change. TfL are not provided with adequate data in sufficient time to allow transport services to be provided while the public simply expect to have bus services to the new facilities. London Travelwatch stated that TfL are aware of the issues and are trying to improve communication with NHS managers. Unfortunately NHS reorganisation is creating pressures of its own and transport co-ordination is not a high priority and there is a lack of suitably qualified staff in the NHS to deal with these issues. This looks like it will be a difficult, long term issue to solve given TfL’s financial pressures and the growing number of public campaigns against the closure of hospitals and centralisation of particular services such as A&E and maternity.
The dangers of tinkering
The meeting concluded by looking at the adequacy of the planning and consultation process. The politicians were aware of TfL’s consultation process as they are formally consulted through all stages of the process. However there was a general lack of faith in the process with a suspicion that TfL has often already concluded what it wishes to do and it is extremely difficult to sway from that belief.
Whilst there may well be grounds for this suspicion, the discussion also highlighted some of the reasons why it is sometimes dangerous to allow too much opportunity for change. This included some rather odd remarks from the political quarter about “flexibility” and throwing away long established services and moving to a network of short routes supported by a system of transfer tickets. Some of this thinking is linked to the oft repeated demands to restructure bus services in the West End to allow the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street. The other demand was to move buses from “underused” services to support overcrowded services but this was also coupled with a demand to move buses from “overbussed” corridors to allow other routes to be developed.
There was no apparent recognition that we have bus services that are 80 – 100 years old because they follow long established and very popular corridors of demand that have survived decades of change and development in the areas served. There was also a failure to recognise that bus passengers have a strong dislike of change, especially if it becomes overly frequent. The importance of a feeling of infrastructure permanence is something that contributes greatly to people’s decisions as to where they live and work (and most importantly what mode of transport they use to get there), and is traditionally something that bus networks have always struggled to achieve – particularly in comparison to rail. Over 25 years of deregulated tinkering with services and the loss of patronage outside of London highlights just how much of an issue this can be for buses, and must always be part of the political debate – something some of London politicians should be encouraged to remember.
There was also apparent failure to recognise that not every route is going to be full of passengers all day long, but that does not mean it is not beneficial to those who do use it or in giving access to parts of London that were traditionally “too far” from the network. Conversely there may be well be some areas which appear to be “overbussed” but that this is by virtue of those areas being significant traffic generators. Even if a bus is lightly loaded at one point may well be full elsewhere, but people still value access to the area where buses sometimes seem “empty”.
Ultimately, although the debate highlighted some important issues, it also equally highlighted the danger of “solutions by anecdote.” Whilst opinions are important, objective, reasoned assessment with an understanding of the trade-offs has been – and will continue to be – important in achieving an appropriate set of bus services for London.
In Part 3 of this series, we will thus jump forward in time and look at how TfL and the bus operators responded.
TFL have announced the award of both former Red Arrow bus routes on the basis of full electric bus operation see – ( From TLB Site)
507 re-awarded to London General with new all electric single deck, PVR 15, start date 27 August 2016.
521 re-awarded to London General with new all electric single deck, PVR 32, start date 27 August 2016.
That’s 47 buses for routes that are/were ideal for Artic bus operation being more to do with distributing commuters to and from stations that providing a local bus route.
So if a new Mayor wanted Artic buses are electric ones available ?
If so then a far smaller number would be required and there would be 47 electric buses which could be better used elsewhere ?
@ Melvyn – more hysteria. You miss the point that TfL has a policy of zero emission single deck buses within the ULEZ. The 507 and 521 are the two largest [1] single deck routes in that zone. There are very few others that enter the zone – 46 and 274 are two that spring to mind. The C10, also awarded a new contract today, just skirts the zone and has been awarded with new diesel vehicles. The RV1 is already zero emission and its hydrogen bus trial is being continued for several more years. Let’s be clear – there are no viable all electric articulated single deck buses on the market in RHD form. Therefore no operator can buy them but the simple fact is that no bendy buses will be bought until Boris has left City Hall and we get a new Mayor with a new transport policy. As yet no one knows what the fine detail of that policy could be. Given the mad electoral campaigning about bus designs in recent Mayoral elections I would venture to suggest that the candidates will (should?) keep their mouths shut and never mention the word “Routemaster” so as to avoid giving needless ammunition to their opponents. The only thing we vaguely know is a possible Conservative candidate has views about the viability of evening bus services and believes you can shuffle resources around within an overall cap on the total number of buses. I know what I think of that but here is not the place to say it.
Posting ranty posts about a completely unviable and unrealistic scenario does not push forward the debate one iota.
[1] in terms of vehicle allocations.
Walthamstow Writer,
Posting ranty posts about a completely unviable and unrealistic scenario does not push forward the debate one iota.
Indeed. I was about to delete Melvyn’s post but as you had written a rather good reply I felt obliged to leave it.
Can I please make the point to Melvyn yet again. We are not a news site. The TfL website has a perfectly good press release section for those who want to read that sort of thing. Adding fatuous digs to the news link doesn’t legitimise it. And, as Walthamstow Writer has pointed out, you have entirely missed the point which is this.
@ PoP – your post prompts a question. By saying “we are not a news site” are you saying that relevant press release links are not wanted? To be fair to Melvyn, I and others sometimes post PR links or quote from them so people can see the “news” here. There are also sometimes “scoop” articles too. I can see why extraneous comments are not wanted but a clarification would be appreciated otherwise it looks a bit like double standards. I think Melvyn stays in “Evening Standard comment mode” when posting here which is a tad unfortunate given how ill informed so much comment is on that website.
Walthamstow Writer,
Relevant press releases, certainly to an active article, are fine. Preferably they should be supporting a point of view or comment made and not just put in for the sake of it.
The problem I have with some people is that they seem find a press release and then go looking for a vaguely appropriate article so that they can tack it onto the comments.
If you are thinking “That’s interesting, I wonder where I could put that” you probably shouldn’t be putting it anywhere – on our website at least. On the other hand if you are happen to be reading something on this site and think “wasn’t there a news item about that which informs/clarifies/add to the debate?” then go ahead and post.
@Ww
“There are very few others that enter the zone – 46 and 274 are two that spring to mind.”
Those two are marginal, but the 100, recently equipped with flywheel hybrids, goes right across the ULEZ from Aldgate to the Elephant by way of London Wall.
Given the title of this article then news of Central London’s first two all electric routes covered the future of London buses . If my post sounded ranty then it was not meant to be.
I just wanted to keep it short and clarify whether the option of electric artic buses was available given this is an emerging technology .
Both these routes needed far fewer buses and drivers during their time as artic routes and thus reversion to smaller buses has increased costs which means money is not available to increase frequency on other routes that are busy all day and not just a couple of hours morning and evening.
One can also add route 214 which enters the central zone at Kings Cross and runs via City Road to Liverpool Street but currently cut back to Finsbury Square and this route used to be double deck and was previously 615 Trolleybus .
There are as yet no electric artics available with RHD, but I can’t imagine it being terribly difficult to persuade an established manufacturer of such LHD vehicles to design one provided there is sufficient demand.
Solaris, an established manufacturer of buses from Poland, offers 18m artic electric buses. I am not sure whether BYD (the manufacturer of the two electric buses currently in service on the 507/521) has an electric artic design, but I’m sure they would rise to the challenge pretty quickly if asked.
@Strpahan
BYD have done an electric artic,
http://www.byd.com/news/news-256.html
http://www.byd.com/Materials/EditorUpload/day_131225/201312251116203417.jpg
they have also built electric buses with RHD.
Putting an RHD front end on an electric artic wouldn’t appear to be too difficult.
@ Straphan – I am sure you are right but at what financial cost for a likely custom build? I think there must already be interesting issues about how a bus company bids for an all electric route anyway given the relatively immature nature of the technology, questions about power costs etc. Obviously TfL are conducting trials to gain experience in these areas but how the risks are shared is something that deserves some more transparency.
Coming back to bendy buses there is the political aspect which renders their use now impossible so manufacturing availability doesn’t apply. I suspect the ridiculous campaigning back in 2008 has completely poisoned the concept in London much to Londoners’ detriment where the targeted use of bendies would be genuinely beneficial. We really must get back to rational analysis about vehicle types and dump the hysteria. I’m not holding my breath though.
Why are we looking to China and Poland for electric buses? Because at the crucial time Britain’s bus designers were distracted by this very large red herring
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02575/routemaster_2575485b.jpg
Plenty of room on that disused rear platform to put quite a big battery!
[Pejoritive removed. LBM]
Re WW
“Obviously TfL are conducting trials to gain experience in these areas…”
Therefore you do the trial as cheaply as possible so no bendies!
With electric bendies – which of the non steering axles would you power just the rear (as per diesel bendy) or both for more efficient regenerative braking in which case the electric bendy is more of an engineering challenge…
@ngh
“or both for more efficient regenerative braking in which case the electric bendy is more of an engineering challenge”
I don’t know whether Solaris or BYD have cracked that one, but separate motors for each wheel in the middle set would be one way of achieving it.
at risk of my comment being zapped [Clarification, (appropriate) mention of trolleybuses is not banned. Just mention of them in the form of a digression from a digression from a digression from the overground. Malcolm] …
Walthamstow Writer: “Let’s be clear – there are no viable all electric articulated single deck buses on the market in RHD form”
um … trolley buses?
/runs away again
ps. More importantly, given statements by the Assembly and Boris in last couple of days to the effect that diesels will be banned from the new ULEZ, “The C10 … new diesel vehicles.” A sensible purchase?
Re timbeau,
I was assuming separate motors in the middle (and rear) any way, it is more the software algorithms to make what I was assuming would be 4 motors all work happily especially with load shift under braking and going round a corner etc. and the interface with the conventional brakes and ABS etc. not a simple task.
@Alison W
As far as I can make out, there are only three RHD trolleybus systems left in the world – Wellington NZ (which is to close in 2017), and two specialised systems in Japan as part of the Tateyama Kurobe Alpine Route, taking tourists through two tunnels
http://www.alpen-route.com/en/transportation
None of them operate articulated vehicles.
@ngh: Looking at the Solaris website the electric artic has one 240kW motor – this leads me to assume the motor is mounted at the rear and powers the rear axle only.
[Derogatory description of an individual led to entire (long) comment being deleted. PoP]
@ Melvyn – the press release emerged at the same time yesterday as the tender announcement. Rare that a PR is posted that quickly but clearly the air quality stuff yesterday required a co-ordinated approach which is clearly what TfL and City Hall had planned.
( ps I wonder why new Borisbuses have instructions on centre entrance door on going to driver with a type of ticket withdrawn years ago !).
Oh Melvyn – there you go again. Saver tickets are still available as a bulk sale item to companies and organisations which need to allow people to travel by bus. They are not on public sale though. If people still have stocks of Saver tickets they remain valid for travel. In fact I saw someone hand over a saver ticket to a driver the other day. Therefore your attempt to suggest TfL have somehow got things wrong has failed again. It is entirely correct that a notice is provided in respect of the use of Saver tickets on open boarding buses.
@Melvyn – “One of the main problems of Artic buses was the way that cash fares were not available but with cash fares available on routes that shared sections passengers did not know until bus arrived whether they had to pay in advance or on bus this no longer applies with all buses now cashless.” As a daily user of the 507 and frequenter of the 521 in artic days, I can assure you that this is nonsense. I virtually never saw anyone attempting to pay cash, very little of the artic routes were shared with any other route over more than a few stops, and nearly all the passengers were commuters who knew the system (and, of course, there were some who had no intention of paying anyway, so cash was not an issue). Where artic routes shared longer distance destinations, if not the detailed routeing, with other routes – eg the 507 and the 211 – then they had different stands at the relevant termini.
You could always pay in advance anyway, as tickets issued by machine were accepted on all buses. I was sent a couple of saver tickets as compensation recently.
@Graham H
“nearly all the passengers were commuters who knew the system ”
Most passengers on the Red Arrows were commuters who had Travelcards.
@timbeau – it was a rare day when a punter bought a cash fare. One could watch the queue at Waterloo… We had fairly frequent fare inspections, so it was quite easy to make an assessment of the relative use of travelcards, cash fares and staff passes (remember the 507 served stops very close to three major TfL offices).
I was a daily commuter on the 501/521 from 1981 (anyone else remember the MBA class?) to 1986 and again from 1994 to 2003. Queues stretching back onto the concourse back in the ’80s (when they started in the Colonnade, now the Jubilee concourse). Three door entry was a revelation in 2002: suddenly a bus could load up faster than the queue was growing. And yes, a cash fare was a rarity (and held up the queue)
The problem with arctic buses in central London is not ‘political’ but more that they take up excessive road space. Compared with a double decker, the road space per passenger is more than 50% greater with an arctic. This impacts heavily on congestion. There is, therefore, a trade off to be made between passenger convenience – and I know passengers like artics – and congestion. Road space is finite and in short supply so I am not surprised that the decision has gone in favour of minimised congestion.
I see my previous comment has referred to ‘arctic’ buses. They may well be cold on occasion but I would blame the spell checker!
@quinlet I’m not sure about your 50% figure (think standees, staircases), but I’d grant that artics take up more road space than the equivalent number of deckers. But I’d disagree with that as being the main reason why London has none, and will not for a while. That is, in my view, entirely them having being made into a political football in the mayoral contest. Any actual technical advantages or disadvantages, such as the one you mention, (and there are many others in both directions) are thus for the moment completely irrelevant.
@Quinlet. Congestion is not simply a function of the length of vehicles. Dwell times at stops also comes into the equation, as well as other factors like speed plus acceleration and braking rates. Anyway, TfL should be balancing many other factors too.
@ngh comment at 1509. Multiple electrical powered axles already in use. Tesla sell an all wheel drive fully electric car, with separate electric motors front and rear, including regeneration. The drivetrain has various modes including an “insane acceleration” setting. Not something I expect will feature on the specification of an artic bus….
@ WW Re notice on Borismasters – I only know that Saver tickets were withdrawn from sale a number of years ago with counterfeit tickets being given as a reason along with development of Oyster tickets. I was unaware that these tickets are still available to business users .
My comment re cash/ pre pay was more about route like the 73/476 where both routes run together from Euston to Stoke Newington/ Seven Sisters and thus passengers could use both routes where they ran together,
In fact, Sir Peter Hendy mentioned recently how he now sees how the fares system used when Artic buses were in use could have been better.
But we were then still developing systems like Oyster and moving from cash for almost all fares to a pre-pay system but need for capacity to replace ROUTEMASTER buses on many short distance journeyed on busy routes when C Charge was introduced meant Artics were introduced at a time of change.
For information, Sir Peter Hendy has given a last interview in his TFL role in tonight’s Evening Standard for anyone interested .
That article talks about Sir Peter’s “1949 Routemaster” (!) which h was driving on route 22 today.
The first Routemsater prototype was built in 1954. RM1005 was registered in 1962
http://www.onlineweb.com/buses-coaches/london/RM%201005.htm
@ Melvyn – I think the era from 2000 onwards involved a degree of experimentation to try to get stop dwell times down given the projected increase in patronage and a policy of putting more buses on the streets. The use of barely modified car park machines for the Zone 1 cashless zone was expedient but those machines were pretty poor and prone to coin fraud. Bendy buses were deployed to improve the productivity of the bus network by allowing 1 driver to be responsible for more passengers per bus. They were also designed to have low stop dwell times as the time saving brought passenger benefits.
Having fallen across old TfL Board papers from the period it is clear the aspiration was to move to a cashless bus network much faster than was eventually achieved. It was a policy objective in Ken’s first term in office and yet it happened over a decade later. That probably reflects the subsequent decision to develop the acceptance of contactless payment cards and we know that took nearly 2 years longer than expected.
The congestion charge also helped by speeding buses up considerably in the weeks after its introduction. I suspect the benefit from that has been progressively eroded as the cost of the charge has been absorbed into business costs and traffic has built up as a result of abandoning the road user hierarchy and adopting “smoothing traffic”.
Re IslandDweller 22:27
I know but I don’t think Tesla would share the IP without
lotsmountains of cash in return. Commercial vehicle braking systems are also different to cars so wouldn’t be directly transferable and would still need lots of R&D to make it work. With a bendy bus it is about 10times heavier than a Tesla car and you also then have to worry about another 2 undriven wheels so plenty of R&D to do but the bus makers probably have bigger issues to work on at the moment. The series hybrid NBfL is a single motor design so the bullet hasn’t been bitten there yet (still mechanical differential)@timbeau: As far as I can make out, there are only three RHD trolleybus systems left in the world
On the other hand, Leeds are about to buy a whole lot of RHD trolleybuses. Although not if First Group have their way: fearful of the competition, they propose a diesel hybrid alternative that looks oddly familiar (with the key environmental addition of a layer of green paint – or maybe they want to pay homage to the glory days of London Country?):
http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/leeds/travel_news/news_initiatives/?item=16281
Is this the nearest (OK, not very near) that Wright Group have come to selling any NBfLs outside London? They even launched a global marketing tour with royalty and the Prime Minister, but seem not to have had any takers at all.
@Ian J – “glory days” and “London Country” don’t often occur in the same sentence. The article is another interesting straw in the wind that the days of ftr are numbered (Swansea reported in this month’s TLB as being about to abandon their ftr network, for example).
Ian J
To be fair, the Blunderbus was being used as a “platform”* for the trade mission, rather than to drum up sales for Wrights (and royalties for the designer). Still, the tour had its plus side – it kept one of Heatherwick’s Heavyweights off London’s streets for a few weeks.
* Well, three platforms – all of them closed off by doors.
@Graham H. “ftr” ?
Re Fandroid
FTR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTR_%28bus%29
@Fandroid – ftr was the “bus of the future” developed by First – articulated,with a “pilot” seated in the centre of his cabin, various “luxury” features, required modification of street infrastructure in many spots. Supposed to offer tramway-style comfort. Cynics regarded it as a spoiler to deter tram schemes, but an interesting admission that bus travel falls way below typical modern tramway comfort levels. . As far as I’m aware only a small handful of cities introduced them – noteably Swansea and York. FTR? – variously explained as Future Transport on Roads, a textspeak contraction of future, or FirsT Rapid transit.
So, First think the bus of the future will have a diesel engine – pure diesel not even a hybrid one. Mmm.
I think the more appropriate tense to refer to this concept is “future in the past” (as in “he was going to travel”). The concept seems to date back to 2006 or perhaps earlier.
@Graham H
Apparently FirstGroup was the only operator, on one route each in:
York (introduced in 2006, withdrawn 2012) ,
Leeds (introduced in 2007: still operating)
Swansea: introduced 2009, to be withdrawn next month – see http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/south_west_wales/travel_news/news_initiatives/?item=28051&conf=0).
All three routes on which they were introduced were numbered “4” n the respective local numbering systems, although the Leeds buses were transferred to the Leeds-Bradford “Hyperlink” route 72 in 2012.
In 2008 some of the Swansea allocation were used by First Capital Connect on the Railair link to Luton Airport, as roadworks to accommodate the vehicles in Swansea were not yet complete.
The total fleet numbered about forty.
http://www.soes.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/docs/fleets/fwy.pdf
http://www.ukbuses.co.uk/fleet/firstcymru.pdf
From what I heard ftr vehicles are (were) horrible gas-guzzlers, in more extreme cases managing only half as many miles to the gallon as conventional double-deckers. Which does not surprise me – in Continental Europe Volvo buses (ftrs have a Volvo chassis and engine) have a reputation for being only for companies with deep pockets.
@straphan – and the body design with fairings over the wheels was hardly conducive to easy maintenance. (I’d assumed – to pick up timbeau’s point – that the ftrs were the result of a sweetheart deal between First and the manufacturers. The whole thing smacked of yet another ego trip by Lockhead).
Thanks for the ftr explanations. I saw one in Leeds once and thought ‘what an ugly bus!’ It’s a bit of a personal feeling but I just cannot see the point of tarting up buses with nonsense like high-back leather seats. Popular tram services do well without anything like that.
Not to mention all the amazing gizmos in that bus that made it inoperable…
The last time I went in an ftr I nearly missed my flight from Luton – a little bit of ice on the road made it difficult for the bus to get up the ramp from the station onto the dual carriageway. Unfortunately, unlike any other bus, the ftr’s operating system (probably called HAL) cut off the engine every time there was the slightest hint of wheelslip. I mean – I know it’s not great to have a bus jack-knife on a busy road, but I do wonder if Volvo would advise fitting such devices to buses destined for its home market…
@ Timbeau – First are the sole UK operator of the Wright Streetcar. However a small fleet of similar vehicles operates in Las Vegas on the SDX service. Enviro 500 deckers run on the Deuce service which also serves the Las Vegas strip. Seemingly these UK buses have done and continue to do well in Las Vegas.
http://www.rtcsnv.com/touristms/routes.html
@ Graham H – I think the progressive demise of FTR with First is part of the ongoing rejigging of First Bus to remove the remains of the Lockhead era. There is a specific Swansea factor which is that the dedicated highway for buses appears to have caused road safety issues with people being hurt in accidents. Now buses other than FTR use the busway but there seem to be question marks about how pedestrian safety is ensured. Seems having a two direction bus road beside a one way road for other traffic is too much for people to cope with.
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Senior-coroner-urges-Swansea-Council-action/story-26297637-detail/story.html
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/infamous-swansea-bendy-buses-scrapped-9526626
@ Fandroid I would emphasise that I am not promoting the FTR concept but I did have two very pleasant trips on one in York. I am not especially a fan of leather upholstery but the seats were very comfortable and the suspension approached the comfort you can obtain on long distance coaches. Clearly the concept was flawed but I don’t think improving the passenger experience through better seating etc should be derided. We do seem to have a view in this country that short range public transport should be on bone shakers -witness the efforts by some to keep the Pacers.
A spy in Stagecoach bus suggests that the palpably awful running of comparable buses in Britain compared with mainland Europe has much to do with fuel additives. Not my field – I’d be interested in others’ expertise.
@Graham – awful in what sense? Speed, power, pollution, miles-per-gallon, noise, or what?
@ WW 23/12/13
It is interesting to watch the 207/260/607 load up at Shepherds Bush Station now that Westfield and the Overground Station are well established. In the evening peak the buses are surrounded by a swarm of intending passengers that is quite overwhelming.
@ Evergreenadam – can’t say I’m surprised by your remark although I suspect the intensity of demand is higher than I’ve seen in the past. The 607 can be horrendous – not unusual for it to have stop dwell times measured in the minutes such is the demand even in places like Acton or Ealing Common. I suspect that Shepherds Bush has become the Stratford of the west. Buses are completely overwhelmed with demand in the rush hours over there.
@ Evergreenadam And to think both Westfields and the Shepherds Bush Overground did not exist when West London Tram project was planned !
We have used Artics on the 207 perhaps it’s time for TFL to trial Enviro 500 buses on this route ?
It’s odd that given the size of some tourist buses in central London and how Londons Trolleybus fleets was largely tri-axle how TFL has been adverse to at least trialling these buses.
Perhaps someone might find a way to convert and expand the Greenford branch into a light rail or tramway for West London ?
@ Melvyn – here we go again. I am sure I’ve said this before so apologies to anyone bored at hearing it again. Dwell times on long tri-axle deckers will be too great meaning busy stops will become blocked and journey times extended. This will generate disbenefit in the TfL business case model. Users of tourist services are rarely in any hurry and no one will be irritated if there are long stops at popular locations like T Square or St Pauls. It’d be a different issue on route 25 if dwell times reached 5 or 7 minutes at busy stops. The use of open boarding in London is an attempt to manage dwell times on busy routes.
I’ve used big tri-axles in Hong Kong. They’re nice vehicles and pleasantly air conditioned *but* you can have massive queues of buses at busy stops because of long dwell times, high service frequencies and the rule that buses cannot overtake each other when queuing for a stop. And this is even with very high smartcard use so each boarding transaction is very fast. Volume is the issue. They might be tolerable on something like the 607 which is limited stop but any route with high volumes of boardings and alightings at stop after stop will some become even more painful than it already is with 87 person capacity deckers.
Hong Kong gets round some of London’s disadvantages because it has a hierarchical service structure which encourages people onto specific services so as to spread demand. There are local feeder routes from estates to MTR or Light Rail stations. Then there are local stopping routes possibly linking local district centres together then there are express routes which serve centres but run fast between them. Then there are different groups of cross harbour services with some running long distance express from the New Territories to central Kowloon and on to Hong Kong Island. On top of all of that you get peak hour special journeys on all sorts of routes to cover busy commuting flows and then there are residential express services into Hong Kong Island from places like Shatin. Oh and don’t forget the 16 seater Public Light Buses which swarm around like insects providing extra fill in routes and links. and then there are special services linking developments to MTR stations (e.g. Park Island or Discovery Bay) plus the plethora of Airbus routes providing express or semi fast routes to the Airport and supporting businesses. The semi fast routes are cheaper than using the main Airbus network.
Fares charged vary by route and service type so as to deter local passengers from using express routes to go “down the road”. Fares also taper on many routes especially expresses where fares fall as you get towards the end of the route so they can provide a local service where it makes sense. Some routes are flat fare but there is no uniform farescale. It’s perfectly possible to pay different fares to make the same journey if you use different services! It sounds immensely complicated but it broadly works and you soon learn what bus to catch to go where. London doesn’t really have the same hierarchy to spread demand between service types although our tube and rail network is much more extensive than the MTR in Hong Kong.
@Malcolm – noise and vibration.
Obviously time to revive a re-jigged & more local-friendly version of West London Tram, then?
@Malcolm:
It’s difficult to compare noise and vibration issues between tram networks in different cities as you really need to understand the geology of the two locations as well as the construction techniques used for the infrastructure. These determine how vibrations are propagated below ground.
London sits mainly very soft soil. This propagates vibrations in a particular way. Edinburgh sits on solid granite, which requires a different approach.
You can see the construction of some of London’s old conduit track here. A more recent photo, showing renewal of Croydon’s Tramlink network, can be seen here. Tram tracks are like icebergs: you normally only see the very tip of the whole.
In some areas, the tracks will incorporate vibration damping materials to reduce the effects of vibrations. In others, the ground conditions themselves may be sufficient to remove the need for additional damping.
A tram on one network will therefore produce different vibration levels to an identical tram on another network.
@anomnibus
That’s all very interesting. But Graham’s answer “noise and vibration” was in response to my request for clarification of his earlier post about fuel additives. Which was about buses. Never mind, it will all come out in the wash.
Bear in mind that tri-axle double-deckers in Hong Kong have a similar length and capacity as regular deckers in the UK – Hong Kong has (as far as I can recall) a lower maximum permitted axle load than the UK.
I would not find things like the Enviro 500 out of place on longer, limited-stop routes. But unless a second stairwell is fitted then I reckon with so many people sat on the top deck the dwells would be too long.
@Straphan
“Bear in mind that tri-axle double-deckers in Hong Kong have a similar length and capacity as normal deckers in the UK ”
The maximum length they will build an Enviro 400 is 11.4m, and weight 18 tons. Enviro 500s are offered in lengths between 11.3 metres and 12.8 metres, and weigh 23 tons.
On a slightly different note…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33569460
[LR is not a news service. Kindly paste the relevant text from a link so that discussion can continue here. In this instance:
New Routemaster’s battery problems mean many run on just diesel
LBM]
If tri-axle queuing times at bus stops would be an issue preventing their introduction then how about TfL again launching some express services? Surely there’s a need again now? In SE London off the top of my head routes such as Thamesmead to North Greenwich can be very slow, but there’s clearly a need. Both ends don’t sit near heavy rail, and places en route like Woolwich see many travelling to N Greenwich. A longer double decker with limited stops (along the lines of Greenwich waterfront transit but avoiding the huge costs that would’ve ensued for very few benefits) would greatly aid much of SE London. Routes like Eltham to North Greenwich would too. They could have a night role too when 24 hr tubes launch, as of course none reach 99% of SE London, so many will be wanting to change to infrequent double deckers at North Greenwich tube on a Friday and Saturday.
When Crossrail launches these higher capacity, limited stop routes could help shift people from areas of Bexley and Bromley boroughs to Abbey Wood and Woolwich Crossrail stations.
@straphan
I believe you have misunderstood my comment. I asked that commentators copy the relevant text from an external link in their comment to highlight exactly what they are referring to, in order to advance the discussion here on LR.
There is indeed very much of relevance in the link you provided. However many news articles contain background information for the general reader, which we don’t need for LR discussion purposes. Copying just the relevant text to LR provides the basis upon which we can further our detailed discussions.
Apologies for not being sufficiently clear in my request.
Fair enough… I may indeed have misunderstood. In which case:
The BBC has obtained confirmation from Leon Daniels (TfL MD, Surface Transport) himself that as many as 80 NBfL buses have experienced battery performance so bad that they have had said batteries removed, in effect becoming straight diesel buses. Drivers anonymously claim the problem affects as many as 90% of NBfLs.
Sixth attempt to make this clarification – in case it is the corroborating links which are the problem, I have left them out – they are from Boriswatch and TfL
18 tonnes is the maximum GVW (gross vehicle weight) for a two axle bus in the UK. The difference between that and the tare weight represents the mass of humanity it can carry, (including a CSA if there is one!), calculated at 68kg per person.
New Routemaster 12.65 tonnes
ADL Enviro 400H 11.9 tonnes
Old Routemaster 7.3-7.8 tonnes*.
This means that an Enviro is permitted to carry eleven more people than a Heatherwick Heavyweight. An empty NBfL weighs the same as a full “old” Routemaster.
* There are other rules, notably the Pauli exclusion principle, that prevent an RM from carrying 150 people!
Fuel consumption. Although the NbfL trounced its rivals on the Millbrook track, with a fuel consumption figure of 11.6mpg, real life was less kind to it.
A press release from TfL gave figures for the first six NBfL routes of a shade under 7 mpg, which compared favourably with the same routes when operated by conventional diesel buses before NbfL took over (average 4.8mpg). But the key word is “conventional”. Figures for two types of hybrid, averaged over a total of fifteen routes, came to 7.2mpg (there was no significant difference between the Dennis and Volvo types).
For comparison, a Routemaster, last re-engined fifteen years ago, returned 8mpg! Such is progress.
@ Straphan – There are a small number of short tri-axles deckers in HK to deal with tight, hilly twisty routes and the axle loading issue. They’re probably close to the UK double deck capacity. However it is not correct to say most HK tri-axles only carry as many as a UK DD. Hong Kong vehicles regularly take over 100 people including standees. The recent trial with 12.8m tri-axles has vehicles that can carry 146 people (incl 48 standees). Clearly you have to be careful where you route such large vehicles but I suspect route 607 in London would be ideal (if such a bus were legal in the UK). The latest HK Enviro 500s carry 131 people incl standees. A recent development in HK has been special dispensation for two axle DDs to operate on certain routes – these are ADL E400s but do have full air con meaning high axles weights (hence the dispensation).
@ Timbeau – I suspect you know but the NB4L weights vary quite a lot. Each batch varies because the design has been tweaked, we have different engine configs plus each operator has their own specific bits and bobs fitted to align with their overall maintenance practices. It is also worth saying that we now have new generations of euro6 deckers from ADL, the Wrightbus Streetdeck and the Volvo B5TL / B5LH (hybrid). All electric versions are also planned for some of these models. The new generation deckers are vastly lighter than their predecessors and the NB4L and have excellent fuel and emissions performance. To date we have not seen any comparative testing undertaken by TfL but I can’t see the NB4L remaining as “class leader” even in euro6 mode. Life has moved on and will in a few years will move on even further.
@ JB / PoP / Malcolm / LBM – not sure if it’s just my browser but all of a sudden the recent comments under this article are suddenly stretching right across the page. The change occurred with Ed’s comment at 1418 20/7/15. Previous comments are correctly formatted.
Yep the formatting is off for me too since I replied earlier.
Also, Berlin has longer double deckers doesn’t it? These would be ideal for North Greenwich limited stop, express services to reaches of SE London. North Greenwich station can be an absolute scrum, but will shortly be rebuilt. Planning for longer double decker buses could be factored in? Cheaper long term than increasing conventional double decker routes like 472? It could go N Greenwich, Charlton, Woolwich, Thamesmead. Leaving more space on conventional stopping routes for all the new residents moving into homes eg 500+ flats opening by the end of 2015 at Greenwich Millenium Village stage 3. Even though only 15-20 mins walk many insist on squeezing onto packed buses.
News item taken from ITV London site which gives details of problems – I hope this proves us
The news item can be found here and concerns battery problems on the New Routemasters.
[Long cut and paste deleted and replaced with sort link. Melvyn, nothing against this being mentioned but this has already been mentioned here a few comments above. Quite frankly I am getting really fed up with you treating us as a news service and cutting and pasting. Go elsewhere if that’s what you want to do. I am inclined just to delete any further news comment type stuff from you – especially when it just repeats what is said earlier. PoP]
Closer to home Dublin also uses Triple Axle double deckers* to increase capacity on more busy radial routes with dedicated bus lanes and bus friendly features. 70 buses out of fleet of a double deck fleet of 946.
Dublin Bus reckon a triple axle bus has 45% more capacity than a double axle and is seen as the easiest capacity enhancement mechanism.
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/March_2013_Dublin_Bus__REDACTED.pdf
They also have a system similar to Oyster – leap, so a short field trip to Dublin might be useful.
*Volvo B9TL low-floor accessible tri-axle chassis with Enviro 500 bodywork by Alexander Dennis
On the subject of battery problems with new routemasters …
There is clearly an issue and we have got the usual “everything in the garden is rosy” response from TfL but equally clearly there is a lot of technical nonsense in the reports. Personally I would caution about what one aspiring mayoral candidate is saying to rubbish something created because of the policy of the current mayor. Hopefully the true story will emerge.
[Mod Note: Fixed formatting issues. Carry on…]
PoP
Your comment on shall we say disparate comments on the workings/reliability of oequipment & services from TfL seems to be a generic problem.
Do TfL need to fix this, soonest, before some/more of us stop believing anything they say at all, even whem it is true?
It could be very, very bad for their public image if this continues, or even appears to go on.
@ PoP – while I understand your note of caution it’s evident that the NB4Ls do seem to have a disportionate number of breakdowns, collisions and there are issues with heat inside the vehicles. Some of the awareness of these events may be down to social media and the “profile” the buses have. However the fact that a TU rep was prepared to be interviewed for BBC London suggests to me there are issues that need resolution. I agree the truth probably lies somewhere between “TfL’s Perfect World” and “Wolmar’s Dossier of Woe”. Regrettably I doubt we will ever really know what has really gone on.
My experience in Berlin is that their three-axle double-deckers don’t have unduly long dwell times. The difference compared to HK, I think, is that the Berlin buses have three doors and two staircases, with a generally-accepted social convention that people use the front staircase to go up and the rear to go down. Hence there really is a one-way passenger flow through the bus and people getting on and off stay out of each other’s way.
(Also, there’s some ruthless driving practices in Berlin – if you aren’t at the doors at the moment when the bus stops the driver will usually close the doors and drive off while you’re just getting out of your seat. Not especially DDA-friendly…)
NbfL does not meet Euro 6 requirements and therefore should not be allowed in the ultra low emission zone after it is introduced. So they will need to find new homes.
Now, the total PVR of all eighteen bus routes serving the parliamentary constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip is 180. Given a 10% maintenance overhead that will take care of one third of the fleet.
(Currently ten routes, total PVR 58, are covered by single deckers, but think how impressed the local MP’s constituents would be with the extra capacity afforded by these!)
(Another possibility, if the next Mayor wants to make his mark, is to consider how ideal the 222 would be for bendybuses!)
[PVR is Peak Vehicle Requirement. Apologies for having missed some Latin phrase translation over the weekend. LBM]
timbeau,
NbfL does not meet Euro 6 requirements and therefore should not be allowed in the ultra low emission zone after it is introduced. So they will need to find new homes.
A few flaws with that argument.
As I understand it, current NBfLs do meet the requirement. Some of the earlier models off the production line didn’t.
Although some of the NBfL fleet do not meet Euro 6 requirements, they do in fact get very close and I believe that where it matters (NOx) it does comply. So TfL aren’t going to rush and send them elsewhere on a technicality but wait until it is necessary to do so.
In any case, what you have overlooked is that the engine was only expected to last 7 years before replacement. Given the higher than planned usage maybe they won’t even last that long. So, the solution is simple, if the engine doesn’t comply then you fit one that is. No need for fanciful ideas about new homes.
Yes, the arrival of a new mayor probably will have some impact on bus acquisitions. However, as far as I know, none of the likely candidates have made bus policy a major feature of their campaign, comparable to Boris’ well-publicised love of Routemasters and opposition to bendies. So the changes, if any, will probably be far less dramatic this time round. They may even be, shall we say, evidence-based?
@Malcolm
I thought Christian Wolmar had a few things to say about buses.
@PoP
“current NBfLs do meet the [Euro VI] requirement”
They have been given a special face-saving exemption, as specified in the TfL web page on the ULEZ
“TfL’s New Routemasters must meet Euro VI or a high-performing Euro V standard.”
All other HGVs buses and coaches must meet Euro VI, no ifs, buts, or exceptions.
So they MAY meet the Euro VI, but they don’t have to
@PoP
“the engine was only expected to last 7 years before replacement”
Is that normal for a bus engine? As far as I am aware, the original Routemasters got into the early 1990s (so nearly five times as old) before the re-engining programme started. (Aldenham would swap engines between buses at overhaul, but scrapping seven year old engines – surely not?)
It was, of course, a flight of fancy, but prompted by the thought of what happened to London’s artic fleet and how difficult it would be to find new homes for the Heavywicks should they, in their turn, also be deemed unsuitable for central London by a future Mayor and/or Head of TfL.
@ Timbeau I have had same idea re moving Borisbuses to Ruislip and Uxbridge and then if any problems arise constituents can ask their MP to take their complaints to TFL and the new Mayor !
The new August issue of Buses Magazine features a photo of new all electric bus for London and I have inserted a link below to show it –
http://www.busesmag.com
As is readily apparent it’s not a NBFL but of conventional design .
Given the fact private bus companies won’t purchase Borisbuses because of their open platform then all the next Mayor needs to do will be to revert to bus companies funding buses and at least supply will dry up .
Whether these buses should be allowed to operate in Central London in diesel mode only needs to be dealt with by London Assembly given some of them may now be more polluting than the buses they replaced in last few years.
timbeau,
I see we are going to interpret things differently but as I understand it the only engines that comply with the NOx requirement are the Euro VI and the ones in the NBfL. So it is Euro VI or Euro V but the latter is only for NBfL. Now you are free to call it a face-saving exemption but it seems entirely reasonable to me.
“the engine was only expected to last 7 years before replacement”
Is that normal for a bus engine?
I believe that in the modern world this is not unusual and is, in fact, the most cost-effective option over the lifetime of a bus. Typically nowadays a bus lasts for fractionally under 14 years. That is because every seven years it has to undergo a rigorous examination. The first one is cost effective but, typically, the second one isn’t.
Of course in the old days you just fobbed them off onto Hong Kong when the fourteen years was up. Routemasters were an exception, built in a different era. Another factor with modern days is that one can expect an engine in seven years time to be considerably more advanced than today.
I understand that one of the reasons an engine is not expected to last so long in the NBfL is that it is a lightweight as far as engines go because it shouldn’t need that much power as all it does is recharge batteries! Lightweight engines tend not to be heavy duty long lasting ones if used on a daily basis. I also understand that the NBfL has been designed with the need to replace the engine after around seven years in mind and it shouldn’t be a difficult, or that expensive, job.
It is not unusual for politicians to saddle their successors with decisions they cannot easily change and very deliberately arrange it so that they can’t – rail privatisation is a classic example. However I think we are back to flights of imagination time again. I find it inconceivable that in the future there will be engines that will be suitable for other buses to pass the ULEZ but none available for the NBfL.
@ Timbeau – Mr Wolmar has nothing to say about buses in his transport strategy document. That, IMO, is crass beyond belief. I have pointed this out to him but not quite as bluntly.
@ Malcolm – I hope that we can avoid the “throw a dead cat / bus design on the table” distracton tactic during the 2016 Mayoral Election. If we end up fixating on bus designs yet a”bleep bleep”gain I shall probably end up being very very rude to the candidates who indulge in such nonsense. Hopefully other people will force the debate in the right direction. We must have a proper policy for the operation, funding and development of the bus network. We can’t have another 8 years of relative drift and minimal network development.
Still all the evidence so far is that none of the candidates in any party have a clue about public transport and its finances. I think they all need locking in a room with Sir Peter Hendy who can tell them the “transport in London facts of life”. I know he’s changed jobs but I’m sure that’s a challenge he’d enjoy even if the politicians might not like what was said. There are some very tough choices ahead and talk of “moving underused buses round the network”, “fares cuts”, “free night buses [1]” and “one hour bus tickets” all show an appalling lack of understanding of TfL’s finances and the pressures on the bus network. Can you imagine what free night buses will do to the Night Tube’s finances? There are equally pressing issues around tube services, the Overground and Crossrail and how on earth future upgrades and proper asset management can actually be financed. The scale of expenditure reductions demanded by the Chancellor today spell very bad news for any ideas that could reduce TfL’s revenue base or affect the finances of TOCs running in Greater London. I don’t think Mayoral candidates understand what a season ticket price cut does to TOC revenue projections and where the obligation to make up the shortfall lands.
[1] please define what a night bus is in a way the public can easily understand. I know every night / 24 hour service has a seperate “N” prefixed contract which defines what is a night service but the public have no comprehension about this.
Walthamstow Writer,
I can recall Sir Peter saying that mayoral candidates tend to avoid talking to him because they don’t like to be told that what they are proposing cannot be implemented.
@ PoP 2148 – colour me not surprised! A shame nonetheless. Practical policies that are affordable and deliverable are what we need not a load of populist expensive flim flam.
per timbeau & PoP: “the engine was only expected to last 7 years before replacement” – Is that normal for a bus engine?”
“I believe that in the modern world this is not unusual and is, in fact, the most cost-effective option over the lifetime of a bus. Typically nowadays a bus lasts for fractionally under 14 years. That is because every seven years it has to undergo a rigorous examination. The first one is cost effective but, typically, the second one isn’t.”
Me: And how long does an electric traction motor, e.g. for a tram or trolleybus last? I know the answer and it’s beyond compare with what is being suggested here for buses of the kind filling our roads.
BTW Mr. Wolmar has issued a statement about the NB4L and in it he quotes £35,000 per battery replacement. Is that anywhere near correct? I am trying not to believe it.
Graham Feakins,
I would have thought £35,000 would seem to be very plausible. More important is who pays. TfL have previously insisted that none of this cost will be borne by them as they are (in laymans terms) under guarantee.
Yes, but its not just the trolleybus/tram motors you have to consider. If were so fantastic why were trolleybuses and trams abandoned which I understood was partly down to life-expired assets.
And please compare like with like. A Boris bus also has an electric motor. That will probably outlive the bus many times over. It is pointless to compare an electric motor with a diesel engine. A fairer comparison might be an electric motor and a power station with a diesel engine.
@PoP
“If were so fantastic why were trolleybuses and trams abandoned which I understood was partly down to life-expired assets.”
My understanding from North American systems is that it was the mainly the knitting, and the trackwork for trams/streetcars, that wore out after decades of use, not the electric motors. Furthermore trolleybus and tram vehicle bodies lasted much longer than comparable internal combustion bus bodies, due to much less vibration.
Yes indeed LBM; the only unfortunate aspect was that here as in North America capital was not put aside for such asset renewal when eventually it was required. (I omit the history relating to the political bias of the oil industry.)
So, PoP, you find it acceptable that buses which are hardly beyond their first youth are worth £35,000 apiece just to renew their battery packs!? And just how often is that going to happen for each bus in the future? I’ll believe the ‘new’ technology when I see it and trust in it for real and not before. The original London electric trams were generally between 30 and 50 years old before they were taken out of service and they still survived. It is hoped that the Croydon Tramlink’s original fleet of trams will survive for a good 25 years.
As for the Boris bus also having an electric motor, of course it’s going to last longer if its not going to be used to its full potential because of failed batteries but I might be even wrong there. It will be interesting to see if the motors are exchanged between failed vehicles.
Finally, regarding “If [they] were so fantastic why were trolleybuses and trams abandoned “, that question belies credit when of course a vast number of first generation tramways &C. survive on the Continent, apart from anywhere else. Abandonment of tramways and trolleybuses here had far more to do with politics as such than asset renewal per se. Funny how the Underground, using the same traction supply, survives and using vehicles that cannot overtake one another at that. Actually, that reminds me of London bus routes these days, with significant stretches of major roads narrowed so much that buses cannot overtake one another en route. What an ideal situation for new tramways London is creating!
BTW £35,000 per unit has to be paid for somehow by somebody and that generally turns out to be the end user one way or another.
@Graham F
“BTW £35,000 per unit has to be paid for somehow by somebody and that generally turns out to be the end user one way or another.”
Of course it will – they say the bill will be paid by the supplier under warranty, but the supplier will have factored the cost of the warranty into the original contract price.
@PoP: Another factor with modern days is that one can expect an engine in seven years time to be considerably more advanced than today.
On the other hand, environmental regulations get ever more difficult to meet. Perhaps the key is to have the engine replacement cycle running just ahead of the new-environmental-regulations cycle.
I understand that one of the reasons an engine is not expected to last so long in the NBfL is that it is a lightweight as far as engines go because it shouldn’t need that much power as all it does is recharge batteries!
But surely it should have an easy life as it can run at a nice constant, optimal speed instead of having to cope with surges of acceleration like most bus engines?
@WW: “one hour bus tickets” all show an appalling lack of understanding of TfL’s finances and the pressures on the bus network
On the other hand a one hour bus ticket could be a cunning way of raising fares – withdraw the single journey bus ticket and introduce a new one hour ticket at a higher price (or “freeze” the fare for the changeover period then use the one-hour feature as an excuse to jack it up later). It would also make it politically easier to rationalise routes in ways that force more people to change buses.
@PoP: If were so fantastic why were trolleybuses and trams abandoned which I understood was partly down to life-expired assets.
As Graham F mentions, a transport network run as a proper business should be putting aside money every year to offset the depreciation of those assets and pay for their eventual replacement: if they don’t do that then the temptation will always be to run down the asset base as happened in London and most English-speaking cities but not in continental Europe (or Melbourne). There’s a book to be written about how apparently obscure accounting conventions change history.
Ian J says “a transport network run as a proper business should be …”
Some of us (some of the time, anyway) would prefer a transport network to be run as a public service. Whether that precludes it being a proper business as well is a touch contentious. And granted, if it is being run as a public service, that alone should also require asset renewal provision.
I suspect that non-renewal of long-life assets actually arises from a range of causes. One of them being of course a world war, which tends to change things. Another is probably a transport network being seen as neither a public service nor a business, but rather a mechanism by which elected politicians can retain the favour of the public for the duration of an electoral campaign.
Oh dear, I seem to have talked myself into the rather tired mantra of “it’s all the politicians’ fault”.
Re Graham F,
“As for the Boris bus also having an electric motor, of course it’s going to last longer if its not going to be used to its full potential because of failed batteries but I might be even wrong there. It will be interesting to see if the motors are exchanged between failed vehicles.”
Err, the Boris buses are electric transmission so if the bus does the same mileage the with or without the batteries the motor gets the same use, the diesel engine is a different matter…
It is easier to get higher efficiency* from an engine if you haven’t engineered it to last a very very long time.
*also including meeting emissions targets
I would be very surprised if replacing after 7 years wasn’t the substancially cheaper option especially if they are out of service for the less time to swap rather than heavily overhaul. The same philosophy has been followed with Vivarails D train “concept” (using derated transit engines) and a similar concept with MTU’s new easily swappable /replaceable DEMU power packs (Hitachi IEP and Bombardiers Aventra).
If TfL really need to cut NOx emissions in a few years time why not replace the NBfL diesel engines with petrol ones???
Please do me credit. Of course I realise that one should put money aside to replace assets and in London’s case it wasn’t. But the point I was making was that Graham Feakins is very selective in what he chooses to compare with what. You can’t just conveniently choose the bit that doesn’t wear out and use that for your comparison.
And yes Ian, the engine should have an easy life which is why you can buy a cheap lightweight engine and throw it away after seven years near constant use rather than have to massively engineer a heavyweight.
At heart here is a discussion I have had many times with Graham Feakins about how much you push technology and accept there may be hard times ahead in order to get to a better state eventually. I believe that you have to go through pain and London constantly innovates and reaps the benefit as well as takes the knocks and that is just part of living in the capital. Graham believes more on relying on tried and tested technology. No doubt this debate is played many times over in railway offices and government buildings.
My argument is that, however much pain you go through, it is nearly always worth it in the end. Few people ever mention the problems of getting ATO working on the Jubilee Line but I think that in retrospect everyone would say that if that was the price to pay to get a better Jubilee (and Northern) Line today then it was worth it.
We are never going to agree because we start from philosophically different viewpoints. That can be seen when we look at the issue of how many points and crossovers one should have on a railway.
If one looks at the history of the proper Routemaster it too had its considerable number of critics in the early days and various technical problems. It also took years to develop. But, I suspect, it is the same sort of person that today sings its praises and holds it in high esteem.
re: discussion of trams and FTR on 17 July
The cancellation of the Leeds Supertram was accompanied by a recommendation to introduce ‘high quality’ bus services. Presumably, hence FTR.
At the time Professor John Kay wrote an article attacking the cost/passenger of trams. I think the link below is an updated version of this argument (but I may be telescoping time):
http://www.johnkay.com/2011/08/31/why-trams-belong-in-museums-and-not-on-city-streets
Anyhow, Professor Kay is highly influential and his arguments need addressing.
(mods: I this this comment belongs here but could equally be displaced to the Sutton thread).
@answer=42 – actually, if you read Kay’s article carefully, it contains a few highly selective facts (mostly drawn from the very bad experience of Edinburgh), one illogical analogy from the States (illogical because it’s irrelevant), and a lot of emotive, terminology. BTW, the fact that he believes the cost of providing a journey whether by bus or tram is £1 suggests he hasn’t done any serious research….
@ PoP – I don’t understand your reference to “7 year rigorous examinations”. I’ve checked the DVSA requirements for inspections and there is no 7 year requirement that I can see. Annual and ad hoc (based on risk / usage) inspections are required plus a plethora of other obligations in respect of vehicle maintenance, safety and record keeping. Are you not thinking of the impact of TfL’s contract cycle which gives vehicle lifespans of 5, 7, 12 or 14 years service in London depending on how well an operator does on any given route and what TfL wants in terms of vehicles? If the incumbent operator retains a route with existing vehicles then TfL may well fund a level of vehicle refurbishment in the contract scope – that may be after 5 or 7 years. That still remains discretionary and not mandatory. The main thing that is causing the departure of vehicles from London fleets is TfL’s own directives about what level of “euro” spec engines it considers to be acceptable. That is largely driven by Mayoral policy on air quality. Quite clearly buses can remain in service for much longer than 14 years given many London vehicles go on to work elsewhere having been sold on.
I understand Hong Kong has a mandatory bus overhaul requirement which is why you can see 8-10 year vehicles looking like new – they literally have been rebuilt. HK operators run vehicles for 18 years and they’re then retired from use. I think Singapore keep theirs in use for up to 20 years but then they do look rather worn out by then!
Like others I am frankly astonished that the NB4L has yet another apparent weakness which is engine replacement after 7 years. Given how hard these little engines are now being worked when the batteries aren’t working / have been removed then that’s yet another cost burden likely to occur earlier than expected. I can’t believe manufacturer warranty is going to run much beyond 2 years so further issues with engines and batteries must surely fall on TfL’s account at some point? I’m not a vehicle engineer but I’ve never heard of standard buses being regularly re-engined after 7 or so years. You might get the occasional engine failure which warrants a replacement and the root cause can be varied – manufacturing defect, poor maintenance, serious misuse.
The initial Wrightbus hybrid double deck, tested in London, had to be re-engined but it was a prototype so that’s excusable. I understand the Wrightbus Electrocity single decks on the 360 were all rebuilt to some extent and the 5 Wrightbus hybrid double decks with First London and the 5 with Arriva London have had similar rebuild issues to allow them to run in service after London use. They also had distinctly variable fortunes in London. Can anyone spot the common theme here?
@WW, PoP
Is someone thinking of the historic 7-year bus re-validation/renewal requirement which used to be one of the major justifications for Aldenham bus works, but which is long gone and, as you say, now replaced by an annual viability test?
@ Ian J – I understand your point about the 1 hour bus ticket being a possible way to increase fares. However no politician would be seen dead implementing that policy. All the “hype” about 1 hour bus tickets is about cheaper travel but it has a price tag somewhere between £50m and £70m per annum depending on the scale of discount offered. If money is tight there is a simple question – do you deprive yourself of £50m funding which could fund new bus routes, extensions, double decks in place of single decks or higher frequencies or not? There is a second level point here – let’s be generous and assume that the 1 hour ticket is launched and it has a generative effect on patronage. How do you then deal with the inevitable resultant extra demand if you’ve chopped away your budget? We already have overloaded bus routes and we know that is going to worsen simply because of more employment, more school children and increased population. We are also going to have new demands for travel as a result of NHS reorganisation and new housing.
I do understand why the 1 hour bus ticket is superficially attractive and why politicians love it. I just don’t think the issue about funding it and the knock on consequences are understood by those promoting it. As for service rationalisation and forcing people to interchange – good luck with that. The same politicians demanding the 1 hour bus ticket will mount the barricades to oppose every single perceived “cut” to bus services. You’re on a hiding to nothing with that policy in London if you try to do it with any level of “fanfare”.
The only times TfL have got away with it is by doing it by stealth off the back of highway changes or massive construction projects like Crossrail. “Oh dear we can’t run the 176 to Oxford Circus anymore due to Crossrail. Sorry” “PS – let’s hope no one remembers about this “temporary” change in 2018″.
My view is that I would rather see investment in the network so that it’s actually possible to travel by bus and in reasonable comfort. We’re in a mess now because we’ve effectively had no substantive network expansion for 8 years. Cutting fares to win an election gets you nowhere eventually – even Ken had to accept that one after 5 years in power. The saving grace is that we don’t need the same scale of investment as back in 2000 as the network has been broadly stable. We need targeted investment to fill gaps, create new links and relieve pinch points by location / flow / day or time of the week.
The 7 year comment was based on Leon Daniels’ talk at the London Transport Museum a while back. I am sure he talked about this with relation to current vehicles (and NBfL) but maybe I misunderstood.
In answer to a question about whether he expected the New Routemaster to be as iconic as the old one I thought he said that it would only last 14 years for the reasons stated. It was also he who made the point that (I paraphrase) you are better off buying a cheap and nasty engine and throwing it away after 7 years.
Remember these are TfL owned buses so will be subject to TfL standards.
I believe Walthamstow Writer was there too. Maybe he recalls the event differently. Maybe I have false memory syndrome.
@ PoP – I was present but have no recollection about engine replacements after 7 years. Perhaps I fell asleep? I do recall the 14 years being mentioned but I knew that was TfL’s stipulated maximum age for vehicles on their contracted services (equal to 2 contract terms where each 5 year term has received the 2 year quality incentive extension). I was therefore not remotely surprised by the number. I can also recall various other things including Leon’s standard recollection about customer service staff in Sainsburys and “grotty back room area” vs “the shop floor” which is the shop workers’ “stage”. I am still waiting for the longer 2 axle conventional double deckers to appear but perhaps I’ll be in my coffin before that actually happens? 😉
@Graham H
Yes, I hadn’t read the article carefully enough. Kay has changed his position since his piece on Leeds trams. In the earlier article, he contended that tram costs / pax were much higher than buses and that there was minimal additional attractiveness from trams.
Clearly, he starts from an anti-tram position and builds his arguments towards this end. The problem is that he is very influential across the political spectrum.
PoP says “But the point I was making was that Graham Feakins is very selective in what he chooses to compare with what. You can’t just conveniently choose the bit that doesn’t wear out and use that for your comparison.”
Strange to relate, I am never consciously selecting anything in particular. However, if I read that one significant, operational part of a bus fails far earlier than another key component, then it’s right that I can be selective, especially when it costs money over the life of the bus that I view as unnecessary expense. As I have said before in so many words, to experiment is one thing but to put into fleet service and then discover the problems is quite another.
PoP is quite right (but we remain friends) to suggest that we come from different approaches. I have my feet on the ground and after nearly 50 years at the forefront of technology covering many engineering disciplines in my profession (so I was told when I joined the profession), during which I have witnessed first hand failure after failure despite brave attempts (including batteries for traction purposes), I have good reason for being sceptical so that throwing lots of money (e.g. £35,000) each time after bad to me doesn’t seem like a good idea. Of course, if the pit is bottomless, then go ahead but I thought we are being told to tighten the reins.
Perhaps I am wrong but I also think that batteries still don’t ‘like’ being recharged and their life-span shortens with each recharging cycle. Add to that the environmental cost of extracting the minerals (some rare) comprising the battery construction, then I wonder how long this avenue can be further readily explored anyway.
@Malcolm – “I suspect that non-renewal of long-life assets actually arises from a range of causes. One of them being of course a world war, which tends to change things.”
In fact, one major cause of non-reinvestment in our tramways of yesteryear was need to satisfy ‘the local Corporation’ because operating profits from its tramway were ploughed back into domestic rate relief rather than into a fund for asset renewal.
On the positive side, tramways and trolleybuses provided a useful load for the municipal power stations which helped balance the books to make them justifiably economic. All that changed with nationalisation of the power industry.
To put engine life into context, the average life of an RT engine in the 1960s was four years between failures, whereupon it was swapped out and reconditioned at Chiswick Works. RM engine life was longer, but I do not have any figures.
Today’s economics might not make reconditioning viable.
@Keith Hales
Thirty years ago (I must have been a child) I audited the UK distribution and service subsidiary of a European construction vehicle manufacturer. Even in those days it was considered more expensive to strip down, recondition and test a 10 litre plus diesel engine than it was to replace it with a brand new unit off the current production line. This was especially the case when parts such as connecting rods and crankshafts had to be measured and X rayed. Even for smaller components such as motors, alternators and pumps, the sale of a “service exchange” reconditioned unit is actually the sale of a brand new item. The worn exchanged unit is scrapped. Only discontinued or low volume lines are actually reconditioned.
I suspect that this is even more the case in respect of present day bus engines.
@Keith Hales – Hi
It was standard practice with RTs to change and recondition every 4 years. The same applied initially to the RM but inspection of the engines returned to Chiswick showed that there was plenty of life in most of them so they were run to failure.
@ nameless
This implies that a recon. engine would be more expensive than a new unit – is that really the case?
@ Jim J
If you are talking about a full recondition including all wear parts, yes. The extra costs are stripping down individual engines by hand, measuring and testing to determine what needs replacing and reassembly by hand. The mass produced new unit does not have to be disassembled first and the components are all tested as part of the production process, having themselves been mass produced to the correct tolerances. Raw materials in the scrapped unit are recovered.
@Jim J
I would add that the company still continued to recondition some engines because they were concerned that customers would not be impressed if an engine was replaced after a short life.
It’s not that the engines are of poor quality but that new engine production is so efficient.
Of course this does not address the matter of where profits arise and to whom they are attributed.
@nameless
It is of course true of many other things, from electronics to buildings, that replacement is now usually cheaper than repair. This is largely because there are so many possible failure modes, so repair necessarily requires individual treatment and is thus labour-intensive, whilst mass-production can be highly mechanised. This trend will continue unless and until the cost of raw materials becomes greater than the labour costs for repair.
TfL consultation on plan to make Oxford Street more pedestrian friendly by reducing the number of buses running along Oxford Street:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/west-end-bus-changes/
The online survey on that page is open until Sunday 29 January 2017.