With the “Year of the Bus” drawing to an end, it seems an appropriate time for a short series on something that we perhaps don’t always cover on London Reconnections as much as we should – the planning, management and issues facing London’s bus network.
As the Chancellor’s autumn statement imminent, we thus begin with both a roundup of how things work and, perhaps more importantly, take a sober look at what perhaps represents the bus network’s elephant in the room – just how a future funding reduction might be addressed.
Getting back to basics
In December 2012 the TfL Board, looking ahead, asked for an update on the value for money derived from the bus contracts process and how rising demand can be accommodated within a constrained funding scenario from the Finance and Policy Committee. It was a weighty question, and one that took time to answer. Answer it they did, however, and in November 2013 they provided their reply.
For those unfamiliar with the way the network is planned and contracted, the paper represents a good place to start. It explains the procurement framework for TfL bus route contracts. TfL have a detailed cost model which allows them to act as an “intelligent client” in assessing bids and determining any tradeoffs between costs, benefits and disbenefits. The Independent Investment Programme Advisory Group (IIPAG) have benchmarked the tendering process and considered it mature and effective. It’s a process that is well established and understood by the bus companies themselves.
The level of competition between those bus companies for route contracts is, if the report is accurate, adequate – this despite consolidation in the market place over several years. In recent times Tower Transit (owned by the Australian Transit Systems Pty) has taken over part of the old First London business and Arriva owned TGM have won a contract in North West London. Uno Bus has also won their first TfL contracted service thus adding some more competitive pressure. Additional competition in North West London is potentially valuable for TfL given Metroline took over several garages from First London and now have a very strong position in that part of London.
Incentivising good performance
Key to the contract management process is how the contracts incentivise good performance. This is done through payment bonuses, deductions and the possibility of contract extensions. Interestingly, the report makes clear that TfL takes the realistic approach of not expecting bus routes to run at 100% performance levels in the vast majority of cases – the exception being on some school services.
Overall this model has proven relatively successful. There has been a progressive improvement in the network level of excess wait time (the extent to which buses run later than expected against service headway or timetable given the contractual performance level). The level of subsidy on the bus network has also been examined and the report shows that it has fallen from 28p per passenger journey (ppj) in 2008 to 15p ppj in 2012/13. Since the report, the figure for 2013/14 has remained at 15p ppj.
Indeed overall, between 2009 and 2012, the bus contract section of TfL Surface Transport has delivered £303m of efficiencies – a not insignificant contribution to the wider TfL Efficiencies Programme demanded by the Mayor. The level of bus operator profitability is also briefly touched upon and at a network level, weighted by market share, it seems that the operators’ profit margin has declined from 8% in 2007/8 to 4% in 2011/12, suggesting TfL have a reasonable grasp of the appropriate level of contract specification. There is apparently more detail on profits in the full paper but unfortunately this is excluded from the public version of the document.
Making hard decisions
If the above represents both a good guide to the state of play and, apparently, a good indication that TfL’s management of the network is solid, it is perhaps now time to move on to the potentially bad – what happens in the future to cater for growing demand and what might the impact be of a funding reduction for TfL bus services – a reduction that could run as big as 20%?
This is something that this paper also helps us to answer, but before too much hysteria about cuts sets in, we must set a little bit of context.
TfL are facing quite severe reductions to their revenue grant over the next 3 years. It is thus both entirely normal, and entirely appropriate, for TfL to construct a range of budget scenarios involving a spread of funding reductions. This they did last November when this paper was first produced in the run up to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement 2013, with the 20% reduction seen as the “nightmare” scenario and smaller reductions of say 5% or 10% also being considered.
That its conclusions are still pertinent now is unfortunately due to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has maintained the downward pressure on revenue grants this year, those that support the provision of services, which means the bus network faces ongoing financial pressure and limited funds for expansion. The 2014 Fares Revision certainly offered little respite for TfL, given the political “gaming” that went on between Whitehall and City Hall in terms of the scale of the increase and the resultant delay which depressed the expected increase in revenue.
Allocating funding
What’s clear from the report, and indeed from Transport Committee meetings and other sources throughout the year, is that TfL remain confident that reallocating resources around the bus network and using spare capacity, where it exists, to accommodate growth are adequate methods of coping with increased patronage levels. There are no demand forecasts beyond 2021 but TfL are assuming that this patronage growth will follow the trend in population growth, with TfL forecasting an increase in capacity of 3% against an increase in demand estimated at 7%.
Beyond reallocating, the prospect of restructuring routes coincident with the introduction of Crossrail is also seen as a future option. The need for extra bus priority to maintain average speeds is also cited as an important aid to ensuring cost efficiency. This is one of the primary reasons why the TfL Budget, approved for 2013/14, has allocated funding, over 10 years, for removal of “pinch points” on the road network that slow buses down and to create new bus priority corridors in development areas – the quicker a bus can run a route, the faster it can be turned at the end.
Exploring the worst case
Turning to a 20% funding cut scenario, TfL explain that the initial approach would be to follow the usual business planning process which routinely looks at service volume, costs and fare revenue. The criteria that are normally used for network changes would be used in assessing a reduced funding scenario and TfL would seek to minimise disbenefits to passengers. However, should cuts reach that extreme level then the possible need to save £65m would likely give rise to the following four outcomes:
- Reductions of 1 bus per hour during the midday, evening and Sunday operating periods on approximately 200 routes (roundly a third of the network). (For example a bus running every 15 minutes, 4 buses per hour, would reduce to every 20 minutes, 3 buses per hour).
- The withdrawal of the 15 most lightly used outer suburban bus routes.
- The withdrawal of the 15 most lightly used night bus routes (largely suburban routes).
- A wider scale of reduction to some peak services plus withdrawal of some routes at weekends.
The first three elements above save £25m, £5m and £4m respectively. The final element would need to save the balance of £31m.
TfL did not list any bus routes in the paper that might be subject to cuts. However as TfL have now published the patronage numbers for each TfL bus service (except school buses) it only requires a little bit of sorting within a spreadsheet to come up with a potential list of low usage routes. Without listing them it is worth noting that removing those routes would certainly create a fair amount of criticism and concern in some of the outer boroughs which typically have lower levels of bus patronage than boroughs nearer to Central London.
Overall, TfL estimate that if the 20% funding reduction was implemented the end result would see a bus network that was 10% smaller overall with 5% fewer passenger journeys. TfL are required to consult with stakeholders about service reductions. It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to guess what the likely response would be.
Beyond the paper
Whilst last year’s paper remains relevant, this is not to say that there hasn’t been further analysis of this potentially thorny subject since. Indeed the Finance and Policy Committee, having duly considered this paper, posed a series of further questions about the bus network. In particular, they asked the Head of Surface Transport to do the following:-
Provide further information, to a future meeting, on the options, issues and trade-offs for London’s bus services. The resulting paper would set out the long term demand and subsidy forecast costs, reflecting predicted population growth and present a wider range of options to reduce costs, and the relative value of each element, including:
(a) the costs and benefits of the existing provision of free travel;
(b) vehicle lifetime costs: setting out specification, maintenance and fuel costs over the lifetime of vehicles and comparing the cost of extending vehicle life against the cost of renewing fleets and the impact on reliability and the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy;
(c) fuel costs; including how the risk was shared between TfL and the operators and the expected impact of the greater use of electric and hybrid vehicles;
(d) labour costs, setting out the savings achieved to date through developments such as I-Bus, and options for further savings; and
(e) the predicted impact on income and routes for the Night Bus service.
The responses to the above questions were expected at the Finance and Policy Committee in June 2014, but ultimately the resulting paper has (so far at least) not been published. Having let the Freedom of Information process grind its way to a conclusion, however, we are able to provide a basic breakdown of what it has added to the future options via a redacted version.
Managing the Fleet
There are no “shock horror” headlines in the paper about service cuts on the network which perhaps confirms the political context of the scenario set out in the November 2013 paper. However the paper does set out a number of thoughts about the items highlighted above. A lot of the key commercial data has been redacted from the paper but there are no radical options set out in respect of fuel cost and vehicle procurement risks.
The conclusions are that the private sector operators are well placed to deal with those risks because almost all of them undertake fuel hedging and vehicle procurement at a group level, thus bringing about cost savings anyway. The ability to cascade vehicles out of London in the event of contract losses is also seen as an advantage. The general endorsement of operators purchasing or leasing their vehicles is in contrast to the approach used for the New Bus for London. No change is proposed to the assumed maximum vehicle life of up to 14 years for buses used in London. Extending the vehicle life is not considered beneficial as older vehicles are less comfortable for passengers and much less likely to comply with the latest environmental standards. TfL does not want the likely time period for adoption of better environmental standards to be extended.
It is not possible to reach any conclusions about the scope for staff cost reductions as the key information has been redacted. This is entirely understandable given the need for due process to be followed in respect of any possible staffing changes as well as the commercial confidentiality surrounding operators’ costs.
Concessionary Travel
On the question of the costs of concessionary travel then TfL have released some very interesting numbers. The numbers relate to the revenue foregone from concessionary travel schemes that TfL fund to comply with Mayoral policies. They do not include the cost of extra services to cater for the demand caused by these concessions (most likely extra school time buses). These are separate from the Freedom Pass scheme that is funded by the London Boroughs and no cost for that scheme is stated in the paper.
In round terms the total cost of Child and Student concessions is currently £180m (£140m share for buses), for low income & employment concessions it’s £28m (£27m buses) and the pre 0930 Freedom Pass “relaxation” and 60+ Pass cost £40m (£28m buses). All figures are from TfL themselves.
These are pretty big numbers and while there are undoubtedly benefits in terms of reducing the scale of the “school run”, transferring trips to public transport, aiding access to employment and education and reducing social exclusion, if funding is reduced then it seems inevitable that a future Mayor might be forced to review these costs and at least consider scaling them back.
Night travel
In terms of the Night Bus network the June paper suggests that the Night Tube will likely lead to a reduction in demand for some of the radial night bus routes. It will likely not simply be case that this translates automatically to savings in all cases, as there may also be a need to provide extra suburban services to link with the Night Tube service. None of this is a surprise and any future changes will be subject to consultation. The one interesting remark is the assumption that adjustments to the night bus network will at least be cost neutral overall. This will mean a careful balancing act to scale back the radial routes to free up resources for the required suburban / feeder routes.
What does it all mean?
As we stated at the beginning of this article, it is important to avoid any kind of hysteria around the possibility of bus cuts. Both the 2013 paper, and its so-far-unpublished 2014 follow up, exist because good transport planning is about planning for the worst case as much, if not more, than you plan for the best. As we know from previous years, intensive lobbying takes place every year to try to secure as good a deal as possible for London’s transport, and in some ways the publication of a “nightmare” scenario for bus funding should always perhaps be seen in a political context to add some weight to what went on behind closed doors.
If funding cuts come to the buses, however, then at least we now have an idea of what impact they might have and where – whether in the worst case or hopefully in the best. Should they be required, it will be interesting to see how both TfL and the Mayor (whoever they may be) rise to the challenge.
@Graham H
There is yet anther “elephant” in the cycling room;-
POLLUTON! (Essentially diesel).
The WHO (and other bodies) have drawn attention to the dangerous
levels of pollution that are now demonstrated in London generally,
and at alarming levels in major thoroughfares.
The cyclist breathes more rapidly and heavily than a pedestrian, and
is at risk of inhaling more dangerous particles deep down into lungs.
Until such time as all internal combustion vehicles are banned from
urban areas, cycling remains a seriously unhealthy activity.
I find it curious that health promoting organisations have not
spoken out about this
I speak as an occasional cyclist who confines my meanderings to
the lanes of the forgotten depths of rural France (only about two
tractors a day on most of them).
@Alan. The pollution elephant is actually trampling all over the house, not just confined to the cycling room. The damage caused by breathing polluted air occurs to all air-breathers in town, not just to those on two wheels. Cyclists may breath more air per km travelled than mechanically-propelled people, but probably less than pedestrians.
I agree that cycling is much more fun in very rural places. The trouble is though, that in such places, destinations seem to be unfeasibly far apart.
AR
Given that in the period 1972-84 I regularly cycled (at weekends) from Walthamstow to Raynes Park ( & back) – I must disagree.
Air pollution from both petrol & diesel vehicles was much worse then.
Modern emission controls have made a huge improvement – I think we are worrying too much – as older vehicles wear out & cleaner (including hybrid & electric) ones come in, the “problem” will, er, evaporate of its own accord.
I must concur with WW’s earlier remarks about the extreme protagonists of pro & anti cycling, incidentally – & add that all the money being “spent on cycling”, especially by the boroughs, isn’t actually going on cycling. The so-called “mini-Holland” projects are a particular source of intense local annoyance in this respect.
[Off topic comment snipped. LBM]
@Macolm
I cannot possibly claim to be an expert on pollution or human breathing.
I am not sure if you are correct in asserting that cyclists breathe less
than pedestrians. It’s question of definition I suppose.
It seems to ne that cyclists breathe more heavily and deeply, especially so if there are any gradients to climb. I puff mightily at the
slightest incline these days! This suggests to me a greater health risk.
Anyone out there with more in depth expert knowledge?
I do take your point that all city dwellers and visitors are very much
at risk from pollution, to a dangerous degree.
The 1956 Clean Air act was introduced as a result of the great smog
of 1952 actually entering the chamber of the House of Commons.
causing cessation of House proceedings (So some assert).
Similarly, A Proper London Sewerage system was only initiated after
a great pong from the Thames invaded the House.
This strongly suggests that nothing really radical will be done
about vehicle pollution until choking diesel fumes invade parliament
such as to cause it to be evacuated.
@Alan Robinson – “I am not sure if you are correct in asserting that cyclists breathe less than pedestrians.”
In support, when I was at primary school way back when, we were taught that one needed more energy to run for a bus (or train) than to walk to the bus stop. If the body requires more energy, it can only do that by requiring inter alia more oxygen and thus it follows that heavier breathing must occur, especially breathing rate but also volume intake. In all my years of cycling experience, I have never breathed less but certainly more than when walking the same route, unless coasting downhill, of course.
@Graham Feakins
Apart from health hazard from pollution, I feel that cycling is often
over valued as a transport mode. Having cycled four miles to school
and back in the 1960s I speak from experience. If you define a transport
requirement as the need to be in a particular place at a particular time,
then cycling can be quite grisly, and gradients and inclement weather can render a cycling journey utterly abominable.
The only really viable exceptions in urban conditions are short
journeys (less than 2 miles) mostly using dedicated cycleways and
traffic calmed streets. In these circumstances, promotion of cycling
might well be depressing public transport use.
In a few weeks time, I shall be visiting one of my favourite cities
in Europe, Ghent. It is very much a cyclists paradise with a largely
pedestrianized centre, and many quiet back roads. It also has a tramway, part of very well integrated transport system at very affordable (cheap!) fares. And yet, I found an article a few weeks ago
suggesting that Ghent was a major public transport disaster zone,
with very low modal split public/private. This was misleading in that
there is a colossal cycling volume, mostly students circulating the various colleges of Ghent University, spread all over the centre.
I would guess that cycling is depriving the Ghent tramway of about
6,000 trips a day, which, even at reduced student fares could well
account for E 1 million per annum in “lost” earnings.
The notion of cycling and public transport being in competition
is seldom discussed, but I would suggest, is an uncomfortable reality.
Urban cyclists’ respiratory systems will be in very much better condition than average non-cyclists. That’s probably why this isn’t spoken out about.
If you do fancy getting some particulate matter down your lungs, I understand deep tube lines are excellent. I recall suggestions that cars pick up exhaust from the vehicle in front, though don’t recall measurements.
@Graham and Alan
I was careful to specify “per km”. Obviously a cyclist usually breathes more oxygen per hour than a pedestrian. But I am fairly sure that once you divide by the speed, the oxygen per km figure will work out less.
It’s just the same with accidents. Aircraft are often claimed, with some plausibility, to be the safest means of transport per km. Whether this is the correct metric is much more contentious, as, arguably, the greater speed of aircraft results in longer journeys being undertaken. A stalwart non-flyer may well have a greater life-expectancy, OTBE.
Paris is seriously thinking of banning diesel cars altogether. In some respects, the NOx pollution is worse in London than in Paris (despite BJ’s bluster). Here we fiddle with ‘iconic’ bus designs and ‘clever’ induction gadgetry to recharge battery buses. London is taking its time. I suspect that Reading has a more intensive use of non-diesel buses than London has.
@Malcolm
The real “issue” is the internal combustion engine. Despite considerable
improvements in recent decades (brought about by government
regulation, the “market” would never have provided this);-
It remains simply unhealthy to have large scale concentrated use of
internal combustion engines in close vicinity of where people live
work and walk, period.
It is also dangerous to the health of people driving and travelling in
internal combustion vehicles. The same WHO report I mentioned
also observed that car drivers and occupants suffer the most
dangerously unhealthy air of all. (This even applies to free moving
motorways). One wonders what this “hidden cost” is to the NHS
and the victims quality of life etc?
I maintain that eventually, this has got be faced up to, just as it was
eventually realised that open coal fires (and other highly polluting
industries) could no longer be tolerated in urban areas.
British Railways (in the 1980s) DID address this issue. I remember
reading an internal report which attempted to assess the dangers
of diesel traction, and, of course try to come up with an assessment
of future claims for industrial disease.
The findings were shocking. The 1950s DMUs (with roof mounted
ventilator intake next to exhaust pipes! ) were judged to be utterly
filthy, to degree of putting passengers’ health at risk, and almost
lethal to on board staff. Diesel locomotives (1950s 1960s build) were just as bad with regard to footplate staff due to emissions from engine compartment invading the cab. There was also great concern re diesel operation in enclosed terminals.
Interestingly, the WHO considered the safest (best air quality) was
enjoyed by passengers on electric trains. This , I presume, was with regard to surface operation. As pointed out, metro tunnels can be
absolutely filthy with particularates from brakes and accumulated
dry dust swirling about.
So, it would seem, the preferred option is electric transport,
all forms, but with high capacity trams on principal routes.
Metros need to find ways of “cleaning up the act”.
As a first step, diesel should be “out”. Private diesel cars banned, delivery vehicles and buses converted ASAP (or go to hybrids).
To be effective, this would need to apply to all roads, not just urban.
(dangerous levels of pollution on busy motorways and trunk roads).
And: (just supposing) the NHS was privatised (I did say just supposing) might private health insurance policies load up the
premiums on those who drove internal combustion engine cars?
I will salute the courage of any politician who promotes the banning
of internal combustion engine transport.
I am no particular fan of the IC engine, but I do wonder whether the danger to health is mainly a matter of inadequate regulation. Emissions from modern petrol engines seem to be fairly harmless now (though maybe not in the pre-cat era). Harmless to air-breathability, that is; what the CO2 is doing to the climate is another thing altogether.
Incidentally, I suspect a lot of confusion is caused by mixing up these issues, especially in tabloid and pub discussions. There’s more than one way we are (perhaps) wrecking our grandchildren’s futures.
@Malcolm
With regard to IC traction;-
We seem to be between the “Devil and the Deep Blue Sea”.
Petrol , cleaner (nowadays) but pumps out loads of CO2.
Diesel, still filthy (even if a bit less so) but less CO2.
Europe has mostly followed the less CO2 option (lower duty on diesel), but has been caught out with consequential appalling
pollution in cities such as Paris.
There is the added complication that large high HP petrol engines
are hopelessly extravagant on fuel. This is why the bus industry
went over to diesel in the years 1930-50. typically, fuel consumption
was halved. (and so helped hasten end of trams and trolleybuses in the UK). especially as the government hadn’t got round to imposing
duty on diesel road fuel in the 1930s!
As I understand it, the higher rate of duty on diesel in the UK has
nothing to do with the environment. As diesel cars were assumed
to achieve a higher MPG, the Treasury wanted higher duty to
compensate.
Either was, I don’t see how we can go on like this.
It’s as simple as this;-
If, in 1956, It was deemed unacceptable for dangerous pollutants to be emitted from a FIXED chimney, then how could it remain
acceptable for dangerous pollutants to be emitted from a MOBILE
chimney?
I can imagine petrolheads such as the fabled J Bonnington Jagworth
rising up in outraged “righteous” indignation over this post.
from a FIXED chimney, then how can it remain acceptable for
Switching back from diesel to petrol would be perfectly feasible; the US still have some quite extensive use of large petrol engines. Doing so would increase CO2 output (by something like 10% at my guess), but that could be offset by more use of the “other measures” which will in any case be necessary to avoid climate disaster. (E.g. more renewables, perhaps more nuclear, perhaps fusion one day, and more curbs on consumption; particularly unnecessary air travel and cooling/warming excessively heat-leaky buildings).
In 1956 in the UK it was only one particular cause of air-pollution which was restricted, i.e. domestic smokeful fuel – and initially only in certain areas. Other sources of air-pollution went untouched – not just mobile ones, but power stations too.
Of course things have gradually improved since then, but there’s still a long way to go.
@Malcolm
That the USA can “enjoy” large petrol engines is because it is a
socialist country. Their version of socialism is hugely subsidised
road travel by means of a laughably low user fee. The cost of road
provision both nationally and by state now far exceeds fuel duties
raised (only about 30% of current basic expenditure) and the
consequence is a socialistic redistribution mechanism that far exceeds anything practised in “free market” liberty loving Europe.
Some studies have indicated that if you include the dreaded
“technical debt” element, then the US highway programme falls
short by TRILLIONS over the next twenty years or so.
Currently, Federal gas tax (supposed to pay for interstates) is
$0.17 (hasn’t gone up since 1991) and state taxes vary between about
$0.60 and $1.20 (California is the highest).
State taxes too have generally not been increased in PRICE terms in
the last twenty years (huge reduction in real tax paid).
What this boils down to is;-
The average US car is charged about 1.6 pence (£) for each mile travelled.
Socialism gone mad, and as Mrs T said, eventually you run out of
other peoples’ money. (No wonder they can’t make passenger trains pay). The beneficiaries are car dependent low earners. The losers
are the wealthier taxpayers and would be train passengers.
This actually does (I believe) bring things back on topic (sort of).
There is an ongoing trade-off between public transport fare levels
and road user charges. Politicians seem to be terrified of increasing
road user charges but gleefully and wilfully mandate perpetual
train and bus fare hikes. certainly applies to the UK.
It’s a SWIZZ!!!
@Alan Robinson – regarding pollution and cycling, while I don’t want to downplay the negative effects of pollution, the benefits of regular exercise far outweigh the risks of pollution or being killed on the roads.
Heart disease, obesity and related illnesses kill a lot more people than pollution or motor vehicles.
The BBC Radio 4 program “More or less” covered these benefits and dis-benefits of cyclists life expectancy in the 22 Sep 13 edition (available on iPlayer)
@Reynolds 953
I appreciate your concerns. The whole question is very knotty indeed.
Of course, sensible level of exercise will promote good health.
I do my best to attempt to stave off total decrepitude by walking about
3 miles a day on average, plus a few walking holidays in places like
the Lake District. Seems to work, in that I think I am in better
health and fitness than many other pensioners!
But, I take care to mostly walk in rural environments, in cities I am
more cautious and use public transport as much as possible, so as
to avoid heavy breathing.
Am I over-cautious? Not sure, better safe than sorry, I suppose.
Was in London other day, saw increasing numbers wearing face masks, mostly Asians.
It’s not just strictly physical health. Living where I do, in Herefordshire, we mostly get westerly winds. In such case the air
is delightfully fresh and clean from its passage over the Irish Sea
and then Hills of Central Wales (you almost taste the Guinness and the leeks). BUT when the wind shifts to a north’easter, the whole
of the vehicle pollution of East and West Midlands advances as a
turgid brownish grey smog, spilling over the Malvern Hills and then
polluting everywhere west, reducing visibility to about 3 miles.
I suspect that, city dwellers really don’t notice the unpleasantness
of the air unless it is exceptionally bad.
When I worked in central London, I needed to wash my hair every day, and the water went black. Goodness knows what it did to my
lungs. (I may pay for it yet).
It might be worth adding my (fairly well-informed) belief that the most life-shortening substances in modern urban air can be neither seen, smelled, nor filtered out with simple face masks.
However, the kinds of pollution which can be seen and/or smelled, even if less intrinsically harmful, do tend to accompany the killery ones, so a common-sense approach of avoiding nasty smells and murky-looking stuff, still has plenty to commend it. But ideally we should also take other precautions.
@Malcolm
A little aside, just to lighten things a bit.
Have you noticed the M25 POLLUTION CONTROL VALVES.
I have long been intrigued. What do they control (Pollution?)
and how do they work?
I have an image of burly muscular operatives tugging away
at an apparently immovable valve, until, at long last it turns and horrible brown grey yellow gunge comes spilling out.
So, perhaps, as my family witnessed today at Hampton Court, when we saw an American family of 4 refused access to a bus as they needed to pay in cash, it was really for the benefit of their health, and they should be grateful to have been told to walk to Kingston
@Dr Richards Beeching
I’ve just had a brilliant idea!
All bus entrances to be fitted with “obeseometers”.
The more obese the intending passenger is, then the higher the fare
value deducted from oyster card. The rise in fare should be at an exponential rate to obesity index.
Those who are at optimum body mass index travel free.
Those who are below optimum body mass index get paid to travel!
I submit that the health of Londoners would improve dramatically.
I have read that all Americans are obese these days, so much so that
(assuming they have oyster cards) the obesity penalty fares levied
on USA tourists should be enough to pay for the free (and negative cost travel) for all the fit people of the UK (not a lot).
should be enough to subsidise the free (and negative cost) travel
for the fit.
AR
Pollution control valves are there to enable the run-off to be diverted to be disposed of in an environmentally manner in the event of a fire,crash or spill.
There…life is now a tiny bit less mysterious…
@ A R
Never assume
The 4 Americans were certainly slimmer than most of the Brits (especially the single mums) on the bus.
@slugabed
Thank you for that precious information. My brain can now rest.
@Dr Richard’s Beechings
Of course, one must never just assume anything . However, I did
point out that to cross subsidise the fit Britons from the unfit, there
might not be very much cross subsidy to find!
My apologies to any readers from across the pond that I might have wound up.
Although being just a bit facetious, perhaps I can be excused a bit.
You do get the impression that a lot of Americans spend all their time
driving vast distances between various drive-in fast food takeaway
joints. Actually, more seriously, I have just been reading some
stuff on present day poverty in the USA (Increasing) whereby
there are a large number of towns where the median income is only
about $30,000 per household. (about £18,750) and as many as 25% of households are living on less than $20,000. (<£12,500)
The analysis revealed high levels of obesity amongst the poorest
due to a bad diet (something similar happening in the UK, I believe,
where the incidence of take aways is in inverse ratio to income levels). I therefore conclude that the slender Americans you witnessed were prosperous and intelligent.
Many of these poor Americans are nevertheless totally car dependent (run old bangers on cheap gas), so never walk anywhere.
At least, in the UK the poor are now increasingly priced out of
car ownership, so must walk a bit.
[This is a good place to end the discussion on the overweight and unfit. LBM]
Just to return to the core subject of buses. Two developments from TfL.
Firstly a new set of the quadrant bus maps has been issued. These now show “hail and ride” sections of route for the first time. A very helpful improvement.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/maps/bus
The second is that the Commissioner has send an update letter to the Transport Committee chair giving an update on progress against the Bus Report recommendations. Two highlights from the letter – an update on how Oyster data is being used to determine “bus busyness” and the first indication that the “seat occupany” software and display trial is being extended from 1 bus to 21 buses.
Today’s bus strike is about different pay rates paid by different companies since the breakup of London Transport buśes and if equal pay rates were to return one can be certain it won’t be based on lowest paying companies !
I found a list on the TFL site which is meant to show the numbers of buśes on affected routes and the normal allocation but given how some routes are shown with 0 as normal allocation and say route 46 is shown with far more buśes than route 38 I reckon that someone who does not know the real figures has produced this table !
See – http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/bus-strike-service-update-1.pdf
TFL have issued an update showing bus route position as at 16.00 see –
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/bus-strike-service-update-1600v2.pdf
On days like today I have in the past told people waiting at a bus stop that they are on strike often for perhaps the only bus on a route that’s operating to pass on then other side of the road !
Odd how route W4 is split into W4N and W4S ?
With the W4 – that’s because of Wood Green High Road improvement works. Buses from Ferry Lane have been terminating at Turnpike Lane to avoid the High Road works, and presumably there’s a northern partner connecting Wood Green and Oakthorpe Park.
Do we assume that routes that are missing from the list, such as the X26, are operating as normal?
@ Melvyn – the N and S suffixes relate to the northern and southern sections of the split operation of route W4 for reasons explained by WAGN.
@ Timbeau – yes the X26 is not affected by the strike action as Quality Line are not in scope of the dispute.
Seems TFL have announced Londons first (!) all electric bus route see –
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/march/london-s-first-all-electric-bus-route-to-be-operated-by-arriva
Haven’t they heard of Trolleybuses and how London once ran thousands of them for around 30 years !
In another announcement it seems extension of route 415 will start later this week –
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/march/south-london-bus-users-to-get-extended-route-415-service
@Melvyn
A good point, but slightly exaggerated. London Transport never had “thousands” of them. It only ever had 1,891 of them, and no more than about 1,750 at any one time.
@melvyn/timbeau – do you have any info about the infrastructure needed to support the operation, eg recharging facilities?
Only what it says in the December press release
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2014/december/croydon-s-first-pure-electric-buses-hit-the-streets
“The buses take around five hours to fully charge overnight, or two hours using fast charge technology, and have a range of up to 100 miles depending on operating conditions”
At an average 10mph, a bus could therefore run for ten hours on one charge. If they each take two hours off in turn in the middle of the day to recharge, you could get twenty hours work out of each.
@ Timbeau I grew up in Islington where Trolley buses dominated and so it seemed like thousands !
Of course had the war not intervened then South London would have been fully converted and it may have been ..?
Another route on which electric buśes are to be trialled is route 69 see details at –
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2014/august/new-hybrid-bus-charging-technology-trial-announced
Ironically route 69 was once a Trolley bus route .
Of course I can’t see miles of overhead wiring returning to London but with development of battery technology ( even an EMU was recently trialled as a BEMU Battery Electric Multiple Unit ) it simply needed a large number of batteries .
As for 69 trials they seem to depend on buśes recharging in Canning Town and maybe Walthamstow Bus Stations (?) from charge point below the bus.
In fact I did read of a tram system that uses similar technology which removes need for overhead wires and so systems for buśes and trams running in electric mode seem to be developing .
Here come the cuts, though the removal of one of the key trunk routes on the Oxford Circus-Aldwych axis is not surprising given current loadings:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/finchleyroad
Route 13 withdrawn. Replaced by extension of route 139 to Golders Green, frequency increase on route 113, restoration of route 113 to Oxford Circus and rerouting of route 189 to Marble Arch.
The narrative from TfL is interesting since as well as the benefits of reducing bus volumes in Oxford Street/Regent Street (reduced congestion, less pollution, fewer complaints from businesses etc) they quote the improvements to Tube services. Improved frequencies on the Jubilee and Northern lines and the Night Tube appears to justify a reduction in radial bus routes from Central London which are of course cheaper for low income Londoners to use.
@ Evergreenadam I have thought for many years that 24 hour service on route 82 made far more sense than the extenstion of 13 route as N13 to North Fiinchley . This change gives are far more importent terminus at the southern end and aligns day and night services much better .
As for removal of 13/N13 well the basic fact is Over the years London has aquired too many bus routes !
My statement above does not mean too many buśes ( well except Borismasters which are to small compared to buśes like E400s ) but a network chopped up into to many routes. Added to which the introduction of a single fare now means 1 credit buys you Ilford to Oxford Circus on route 25 but only a short trip on route 129 between North Greenwich and Greenwich town centre !
The extension of route 139 to Golders Green has been called for for many years partly as a way of removing terminating buśes from West End Green but also to provide a new link which extension now provides .
The 113 is not a very old route and it provides a replacement for route 13 over part of the route . The basic fact is the 13 and more especially the N13 are past their sell buy date . Now maybe 24 hour operation of route 113 and extension of a N113 to Waterloo would be a better option.
No doubt some of these changes are allied to the 24 hour operation of the tube and the night service on route 82 will provide better links to a number of stations especially Victoria which is a 24 hour destination which is likely to grow given the redevelopment going on and night trains to on BML serving Gatwick Airport .
Logical though this is, it will be sad to see the No 13 go – it has taken over eighty years but the little runty 113 has finally throttled it. (In 1934 the 13 ran from London Bridge to Hendon, the 113 was a short suburban route from Hendon to Mill Hill)
The 82, 139 and 189 are all very recent upstarts, dating from 1986, 1992 and 1997 respectively. All had earlier incarnations – the original 82 ran through the Rotherhithe Tunnel.
I’m not convinced that this will result in a reduction of the number of buses in Oxford Street? Yes, two routes (13 and 189) will be replaced by one (113) but the 113 is to have an enhanced frequency in order to maintain the number of bph on the Finchley Road when the 13 is lost.
@ Timbeau
The 113 will be increased in frequency from x8mins in the peaks to x6mins. The 13 runs x7-8mins and the 189 x8mins, so there would be a reduction.
I am not sure the 189 will be that useful terminating short at Marble Arch.
@timbeau – The 13? More like a century plus – the 13 was one of the first round of numbered routes dating from the introduction of regular motorbus operation. It’s a very long time since we have lost one of that original batch. BTW, the 113 was /is one of the few examples of “hundredisation” of route numbering in London
@ Graham H
Ian Armstrong’s website “only” goes back to 1934. Of the first twenty routes, and allowing for the some present routes having been renumbered from suffix variants (2B, 4A, 7A, 20B) of the original routes, only routes 5, 10 and 17 are not direct descendants of the 1934 routes with those numbers.
I’d be very interested to see the original list.
Not sure what you mean by hundredisation being rare – I give you the
14 which was split, the western half becoming the 414.
19/219,
28/328,
30/430,
36/436,
37/337
45/345,
52/452,
53/453,
59/159 (unusual in that the 59 was split from the 159, not vice versa – they are also closely related to route 109)
65/265/465,
68/168/468,
71/371
90/190/290/490
91/391,
107/307,
133/333
513 (part of the original 13, now itself withdrawn),
most trolleybus replacement routes e.g 660 became 260, and 607 became 207 (having originally been tram No 7!)
Honourable mention to the 82 which was split off route 2
Doubtless there are many more
@ Timbeau Here is a history of route 13 since 1950 –
http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/_routes/current/013.html
Battles between bus route survival is not new as I remember when 609 Trolleybus route was a main 7 day bus route with diesel route 43 being a weekday route . Then 609 became 104 which was withdrawn with route 43 becoming the main route .
Oddly part of the 104 became the 263 and that route is now flexing its muscles and moving south first from Archway to Nags Head and recently further down Holloway Road to Highbury . It’s as if it’s trying to home in on Moorgate where the original tram 9/ Trolleybus 609 / bus 104 terminated !
Whether a campaign to re number the 113 to 13 would work depends on getting those in local press on board !
The point about the 82 running elsewhere is common given how London reuses bus route numbers just think how the 104 above is now an Eaśt London route .
Back in LTPB days with trolleybuses, were not the modes split with route number sets reserved something like this:
1-299 Red buses
300-499 – Country (green) buses
601-699 – Trolleybuses
700+ – Green Line routes
with later 500+ for the Red Arrows?
GF: original LPTB route numbering scheme as I understand it:
1-199: Central (red) double-deck buses
200-299: Red single-deck buses
300-399: Country (green) buses, north of the Thames
400-499: Green buses, south of the Thames
501-699: Trolleybuses; later 500+ – Red Arrows
700+: Green Line coaches
800+: Green buses (a later addition, I think)
And 64/264 is another example of hundredisation.
@Mike
Red single deck buses were originally numbered from 200 upwards, and night buses from 299 downwards. The single/double distinction was gradually eroded as routes were converted – most trolleybus replacement routes were in the late 200s. In 1960, during the trolleybus replacement programme, the night buses, which had no got down to 284, had their initial “2” replaced by an “N” to free up another twenty or so numbers. (The day routes had reached at least 265 by 1960, and the last trolleybus replacements in 1962 were in the 28x range, replacing routes in the 60x range)
Advanced hundredisation: 29 tram to 629 trolleybus to 269 bus, which lasted to the reorganisation plan. 29 bus was later diverted to run on old 29 tram route and abandoned section of original 29 bus route covered by 298. 29B became 299. Finally, 29 bus route was split into 29 and 329. Confusing?
Another advanced hundredisation was the 22B, which was multiplied by eleven to become the 242
Trying again …
in response to Melvyn …
I have complained to TfL about their entirely false claim about the first all-electric buses or routes.
I assume this is down to ignorance [Snark snipped. LBM] … but there is an important point at issue here.
If TfL make an “error” or, as in this case a grossly false statement, for whatever reason …
Why should anyone believe anything they say about anything else?
It seriously undermines confidence in any official statement, doesn’t it?
It does rather depend on your definition of London. Certainly TfL, which was only created in 2000, never operated any trolleybuses. Nor did any trolleybuses operate in Greater London, which did not exist until nearly three years after London Transport’s last trolleybuses ran
There is mention here of a battery electric bus in the eighties – the 1880s
http://blog.ltmuseum.co.uk/category/battle-bus/page/4/
But why stop at buses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhqgVimGZRs
Greg is so right yet again, and it is a great pity that so many of today’s ‘in post, desk job graduates can have C.Vs as long as your arm, with a shedload of “……..ologies”, but have little common sense and are not trained in day-to-day “streetcraft”
A great pity Greg’s post has been trimmed. It would be nice to know what he wrote and to make my own mind up as to it’s relevance.
@ timbeau 3rd March 23.01
’14 which was split, the western half becoming the 414.’
I would dispute this comment. The 14 (Putney to Hornsey Rise) was split with the 91 covering the northern part. The 414 was introduced at the time of the congestion charge introduction and provided possibly the first link from Knightsbridge to Edgware Road, but more relevant to your comment, I believe it provided the flat floor, wheel chair friendly alternative to the Routemaster route 14, the 414 following the route of the 14 from Hyde Park Corner to Putney Bridge. Route 476 did the same for Routemaster route 73 and the 436 for the Routemaster route 36.
@timbeau: it also depends on what you mean by “bus”: the numbering scheme as outlined by Mike above (and much of the use of terminology by commenters on this thread) implies that “buses” and “Trolleybuses” are often seen (including by LPTB who operated them) as mutually exclusive categories.
Putting to one side the question as to whether trolleybuses are buses or not, the London Electrobus Company operated a (small) fleet of battery-electric buses in the early 20th century – see http://www.economist.com/node/9465026.
And thanks for the reminder about 2xx night buses, Timbeau – I’d forgotten that (though, sad to say, I do remember the change happening).
Mike
Trolleybus drivers were usually NUR/ASLEF memebers – taken over from the days of trams …
However, they were & are still called “buses”
Castlebar – if I am allowed to, I will explain.
The word that was excised as a “snark” was (IMHO) entirely justified, because if you (TfL) are making a vaunted public claim that this is:
London’s first all electric bus route – & that is a a direct quote from the publicity sheet, then had you better not check that such is the case?
They all to obviously didn’t & hadn’t, which was really asking for trouble.
[Snip. Unless I have misunderstood something this all seems to be based on the issue of whether a trolleybus is a bus. I will add my twopennyworth and argue that the legal principle should be adopted that, where there is ambiguity, the wording should always be interpreted in favour of the defendant [TfL]. In any case arguing about whether a trolleybus is a bus is not worthy of discussion here so unless someone adds something very new and relevant the subject is closed. PoP]
@greg/PoP
On rare occasions diesel buses did work “trackless tram” routes
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4146/5440049402_edfff1d0aa.jpg
@PoP
You have invited “new and relevant” observations re distinction
between trolleybuses and buses.
There is a current contemporary issue at present, and although not
in London, is nevertheless an important point of interest, which could
conceivably apply to a London application in future;-
The Leeds Trolleybus scheme. The fact is that electric propulsion via
traditional trolley poles and wires seems to have diverted attention
from the essential nature of the scheme. It is in reality a BUSWAY,
(largely but not exclusively) on private right of way. I contend
that the power supply is irrelevant with regard to legal questions
re design and operating procedures etc.
As stated, the overriding legal framework is that it is a BUS system,
sharing the same characteristics (and drawbacks) of a non guided vehicle. (hence the criticism in Leeds, being nearly as expensive as
a tramway (and without full segregation) but with vehicles with
much smaller carrying capacity).
In such circumstances, the reserved lanes are really no different to
a “normal” bus lane.
@timbeau of 3 March – the best source for London motorbus route history is the London Historical Research Group of the Omnibus Society. I’m not sure how active they are these days but they have produced a number of volumes covering the 1899-1933 period (unfortunately I have only a few of these – they are difficult to come by).
On bus route numbering generally, the very first numbered motorbus routes were those of the Road Car Co – the S and T, and other routes/letters followed; Vanguard introduced route numbers and had reached 12 when they, and Road Car, were taken over by LGOC in 1908.Manyof the Vanguard route numbers are recognisable today (eg the 6 as Kensal Rise to LST).. The LGOC then renumbered the Road car routes and their own unnumbered routes* inthe series up to 20, The road car S (Hammersmith- Shoreditch) became the 13 but I doubt that it was the direct predecessor of the current route.. In 1908, attempts by any operator to serve Finchley Road had failed. By 1915,the 13 was Hendon- London Bridge . The 113 hadn’t appeared by then but it was the next available number after the main block of routes (these had expanded enormously with the introduction of the B class), so it’s likely to have appeared soon after the War.
The 82 was a pleasant rebus from the (partial) replacement of the 2B. There have been many other such “jeux” -the 139/189 derivatives from the 159 -itself a derivative from the 59 -for example, not to mention some of th revivals such as the 10 Mark2. There are times when one can only salute the ingenuity of the clerks in 55 Broadway!
You are right that hundredisation is relatively widespread these days but it was not always so, Bassom and LPTB preferring – to a different degree and purpose -suffix letters.
@PoP – one of the reasons why trolleybuses had their own route sequence was that organisationally they formed a separate division – Trams and Trolleybuses – within LPTB, that met the bus service division only at Board level.
There is,in fact, a statutory definition of a trolleybus which came to be incorporated into all the relevant local legislation, but no general trolleybus Act, unlike the 1870 and 1896 tramway legislation. This was done to enable the Railways Inspectorate to have a legal locus to inspect the works. In terms of licensing,trolleybuses fell between buses and trams and in London at least, as I recall, had to have both.
Sorry,the footnote * was omitted from an excessively long post. What it should have said was that horse bus routes, at least those run by the associations, were lettered, rather than numbered. Buses had a two letter code (unadvertised), the first indicating the route and the second the “time” on the route. LGOC motorbuses were treated as horse buses for this purpose until 1908, by which time LGOC had withdrawn from all the associations in preparation for the radical introduction of motorbuses. I have never seen a complete listing of horse bus routes or any reference to one.
Without wishing to stray too far from the topic at hand,while being aware that I am in the presence of those with access to primary information not (yet) available via the internet..might I ask a question?
Family history on my father’s side recounts at a distant relative was the proprietor of the unfortunately-named Ball’s Bus Company in Croydon,and that they were fleeced either by the LGOC or LT (it was never clear which) when the company was swallowed up.
I can find no reference to this company on-line,but that perhaps says more about my Google-ability than anything else…..did they ever exist?
@slugabed -the LHRG research shows a Balls Bros of Croydon running two motorbuses on an Oxford Circus-Streatham route (and other unspecified horsebus operations). The company -BallsLtd – was incorporated on 22 May 1905 (its motorbuses started before that on 18 May 1905), motorbus operation ceased on 13 August 1908 but horsebus operation continued until at least after 1910. Balls Ltd went bankrupt on 17 April 1913, and was wound up on 14 July 1915. If anyone forced the company into bankruptcy,it would have been LGOC but if the company was still running horsebuses after 1910, then they wouldn’t have had much of a chance against the all-conquering B type. Only the GE’s steam buses and Tilling’s petrol electrics could take them on.
Graham H Thank you!
I’ll let my dad know the story is partly true (there WAS such a company)!
@ Timbeau 3/5/15 2204 – there definitely is a reduction on Oxford St and elsewhere as a result of these changes. I have done a before and after comparision of route sections from Aldwych / Victoria all the way to Edgware / Golders Green. 50% of the service goes south east of Oxford Circus, 4 tph in the peak vanishes on Oxford Street east of Selfridges and that reduction feeds north all the way to Fortune Green. The only places that gain buses are Selfridges to Marble Arch, West Hampstead to Golders Green and north of Fortune Green to Edgware. There are also cuts to Night Bus frequencies with 4 tph gone east of Oxford Circus at weekends, 2 tph on the Finchley Road and 1 tph on the 189 every night of the week, My reading of things is that TfL are trying to take out what they deem to be surplus capacity while trying to ensure that what service is left can take up the slack from removing the 13. Although unstated in the consultation it is also clear that taking more buses out of Oxford St and converting the 189 to NB4L operation (long rumoured and the route has been vehicle tested for NB4Ls) are part of the package.
I must also slightly disagree with you and Anon about some of the route splits and renumbering in 2002/3. The 414 was additional to the 14 and certainly not the result of a split. As already said the old 14 became the 14 and 14A and then the 14A became the 91 (if my memory’s working). It was clearly an attempt to add much needed extra capacity in West London and some new direct links in Zone 1.
I am not so certain that changes like the 476 and 436 were anything to do with giving a low floor bus alongside Routemasters. The 476 replaced the top end of the 76 to Northumberland Park and was routed beside the 73 to try to give some peak time relief to the 73. Having done the 73 in the AM peak buses were completely full before reaching Newington Green so relief was definitely needed. Much of the 2002/03 changes were to add huge chunks of capacity where it was needed either with bendy buses or double decks. The policy to remove the RMs was clearly established so they’d go at some point with accessible buses replacing them.
The London Bus Routes website has kindly kept a copy of the consultation document for the 2002/3 changes so people can read the official reasoning for the changes to so many services.
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/bus_service_imp.pdf
Trolleybuses were neither flesh nor fowl: controls were more like trams than buses (apart from the presence of a steering wheel!), with brake under the right foot and accelerator on the left, but unlike trams required registration numbers. In London, route numbers of trams duplicated the bus series, but trolleybuses were numbered in the 500/600 series, in the middle of the bus sequence. And trolleybuses appeared on the tram map, not the bus map!
@Slugabed – My copy of Kelly’s Directory of 1911 lists a Balls Limited – livery & bait stable, Brighton Road, Croydon and another as “Jobmaster” (possibly omnibus) at 108 High Street, Sutton. Maybe they were absorbed by, or put out by competition with, Thomas Tilling & Co. (The ‘TC’ designation of today’s South Croydon Bus Garage stands for “Tillings Croydon”.)
If Trolleybus returns here’s an image of one outside Ealing Town Hall –
http://www.tbus.org.uk/liketosee.htm
Well – I’d settle for one of these back
Route 581 turnaround loop, “Napier Arms”, just across the boundary in to Woodford
Graham F
Thank you for your reply!
A brace of Grahams,no less.The full set!
@WW
The current night service on route 189 is every 30 minutes and the N189 would be the same frequency.
Interesting TfL have just updated the consultation webpage to show the changes in buses per hour over the individual sections of route.
@ Evergreenadam – I sit corrected. My routes database had the night 189 as running every 20 mins as I am sure it was due / had been upgraded. Seems I missed the fact that TfL did not implement the planned increase.
@ Graham H and Timbeau 5 March
The original bus route numbers of the enlarged LGOC in November 1908 were:
1 Cricklewood – Elephant & Castle
2 Ebury Bridge – Childs Hill
3 Oxford Circus – South Croydon
4 Shepherd’s Bush – Herne Hill (via Putney and Brixton)
6 Kensal Rise – Liverpool Street
7 Wormwood Scrubs – Liverpool Street
8 Shepherd’s Bush – Seven Kings
9 Hammersmith – Shoreditch
10 Leytonstone – Elephant & castle
11 Barnes – Liverpool Street
13 Shoreditch – Hammersmith
14 Putney – Stratford
15 Shepherd’s Bush – East Ham
16 Cricklewood – Victoria
17 Ealing – Plaistow
18 Leyton – Oxford Circus
19 Clapham Junction – Highbury Barn
20 Hammersmith – Tulse Hill
with 5 and 12 not used at that time.
Eleven of these can claim continuity with present day routes in whole or part (1 2 3 6 7 9 11 14 15 16 and 19, although 15 had a four month hiatus in 1916).
The present 13 started in December 1910 between London Bridge and Childs Hill, the number having been briefly used in 1909 for a Peckham – Harringay service.
The present 20 has no connection with the 1934 version; it originates in a renumbering from 10A in 1948.
The present 113 started as the 214, becoming 113 at the end of the Bassom system in October 1934. Until then 113 was Kingston – Belmont, changed to 213 as it was a single-deck route.
However the new 113 didn’t run south of Hendon Central until 1939 when it replaced the 121, so there doesn’t seem to have been a deliberate “hundredisation” in the original choice of number.
The rare occasions of motor buses working on a trolleybus route were every Sunday between 30 April and 5 November 1961. Route 609 was worked daily from Finchley depot with a minority
Highgate allocation on Sundays only; this was converted to Routemaster operation for the intervening period between conversions at Highgate and Finchley.
The Omnibus Society’s London Historical Research Group is still very much active, and the latest in the series of “Motor Omnibus Routes in London” covering 1933 & 1934 is in an advanced state of preparation. There is also a sub-group in the early stages of collating information about the development of horse bus routes with a view to eventual publication.
Thank you – I will now buy more OS publications… The horsebus route study will be especially interesting.
[BTW I recall the 213 well as it formed part of the itinerary from Ealing to my grandmother’s house in Sutton (655/65/213) and the T’s gear box noises were very appealing to a 4 year old; the RFs were too smooth by half. Also a rare opportunity to board a bus in working depot – can’t think of any other instances off hand – it gave Kingston a very provincial feel.]
Re. the Trolleybus vs. Bus thing:
It seems to me that the key distinction TfL are making is that their electric buses aren’t forced to follow a trolley wire, so they’re as independent and flexible (in theory) as any other kind of bus.
Trolleybuses are tied to that trolley wire, as they have no on-board source of energy. You can’t drop the trolley pole and decide to go haring down an un-wired road. (Any trolleybus that could do that would be more accurately referred to today as a hybrid bus. I’m not aware of any, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some early experiments were done with the concept.)
Basically, the key distinction is that modern electric buses don’t need fixed external power supply infrastructure. They may be nice to have for recharging en route, but they’re not a requirement. Which is, I think, a good thing.
Anomnibus.
Even London trolleybuses could travel a short distance on batteries. Nowadays, in Beijing for example, quite long distances can be covered on batteries. Nobody calls them hybrid buses, they are trolleybuses.
In Beijing they also have the inverted dustbin gadgets, which are supposed to simplify rewiring at the end of the off-wire diversion. I filmed it, but my fumbling missed the moment when the pole missed the dustbin and fell up into the sky. No big drama, because, like the belt and braces man, they are also equipped with a piece of string.
@anomnibus
Nearly all London’s trolleybuses could run on battery power, except for the original “Diddlers” and the vehicles ordered for South Africa but delivered to London Transport because of the lack of available shipping after war broke out). However, the capability was very limited – usually little more than manouvreing around depots, or the occasional unscheduled turnback where the wiring wasn’t set up for it, and limited to 4mph. The most unusual run on battery power was an experimental run through the Kingsway subway, to establish whether converting it from tram to trolleybus operation would be feasible. The tunnel only had conduit supply at the time, and would have had to be rewired if regular “trackless tram” operation were to have gone ahead: these were initial clearance tests, and done on battery power) . Reports of the trials suggest that the bus used had some of its lower deck seats replaced with extra batteries for the trial, but nevertheless these proved insufficient to complete either of the two round trip it did through the tunnel, having to be towed out on both visits – a round trip under the wires to Islington was made to recharge the batteries between the two runs.
The clearance tests raised several danger points, and nothing more was heard of the experiments. Maybe if Hitler hadn’t invaded Poland three weeks later the idea might have been developed further, but by the time hostilities had ended the tide was turning against electric operation.
The tunnel continued to operate trams right until the very last day of tram operation in London, long after all other north London routes had gone over to trolleybus operation. The specially-built bus, with its extra offside platform (for use at the island platforms in the tunnel) worked in normal service until 1955.
Part of the tunnel does now carry buses, as it forms the (one- way!) Strand underpass used by route 521. Indeed, two of the buses operating on that route are electric!
@timbeau – LT did, in fact, get as far as preparing a complete tram-trolleybus conversion programme for the south London routes (complete with route numbers!) and that would have depended on dealing with the subway issues.
BTW LT had a number of scheduled battery turns for trolleybuses, although the Board was pretty good at providing the sort of wired in loops beloved by Greg T as at Napier Arms.
BBTW, there was one notorious NE trolleybus operator (not Hull or Newcastle = perhaps Teesside?)who used to turn trolleybuses regularly by gravity, leading to the bizarre sight of trolleys with the poles down passing silently through the streets. Perhaps others can locate it more precisely?
Two other turning loops near me – One at Drapers’ Sporst ground, Leyton & the other where the old N Circular came in at the “top” of Forest Rd Waltahmstow ( “The Waterworks” )
There’s the remains of one, still, underneath IIRC, Theobald’s Grove station!
This link has been posted before on LR – Solingen, Germany, as one example of regular operation off the wires:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4a6ZsFPon0
@ timbeau 7 March 2015 at 19:37 A minor correction: Kingsway subway closed after service on Saturday, 5 April 1952; Trams were abandoned in London on 5 July 1952
@Graham H – gravity turns
I’ve found this reference
““They used to have a turn loop off Hindley Street, that they turned left at ‘Star Grocery’ to Light Square, where the bus did a “U” turn, stopped, pulled the poles down, then used gravity to turn right to go back on to Hindley Street, once again pulling up to allow the conductor to reconnect the poles back to live wires”
But it’s about as far from the northeast as you can get!
http://www.adelaiderememberwhen.com.au/did-you-ever-catch-an-adelaide-trolleybus/
@Malcolm, timbeau, et al:
Yes, I know about the battery backup (and the Kingsway Tramway). You also know full well that’s not at all the same thing I was referring to: Modern electric buses aren’t limited to a half-mile or so at 4 mph!
Do that again and I’ll whip out my extensive project for extending the [Not even in jest please. LBM]
@anomnibus the Beijing and Solingen examples are not limited to 4 mph either. And I’ll raise your tabu mention of W&C to the observation that there is one point of interchange between the Solingen network and the Schwebebahn. (selon Wikipedia, the question of whose accuracy is yet another DADT).
GH: re reversing by gravity, I don’t know about the north of England but apparently it happened in Adelaide – see http://www.adelaiderememberwhen.com.au/did-you-ever-catch-an-adelaide-trolleybus/, and “the bizarre sight of trolleys with the poles down passing silently through the streets” is a not uncommon occurrence on my local system in Wellington NZ (the only right-hand-drive network remaining in the world, short-sightedly planned to be replaced by hybrids in 2017), when “autonomous power” as the operator calls it needs to be used (overhead works, road works, diversion, whatever).
A little bit of history – it seems Yerkes’ was not the only Ponzi scheme relating to electric traction in the Edwardian era
http://www.economist.com/node/9465026
timbeau,
Also reported by IanVisits some years later. His report was actually briefly referenced and linked to in Asphalt and Battery.
Here are the three Trolleybus turning-circles near me, as to the present day.
First, the one by the “Napier Arms” – as shown in the LT museum picture:
https://goo.gl/maps/d7amb
– full of parked cars for the dealership opposite …
Second, at the top of Forest Rd, by “Wtaerworks Corner” where the original N Circular Rd came in – now a wide green space:
https://goo.gl/maps/OqhAz
Still used, occasionally for emergency turnarounds, but more often, you will find a police car parked there, for ready access to said N Circular.
Lastly at Draper’s Sports Ground in Leyton. Used until very recently, for turning the 97 RM (etc) service – until said 97 was extended to Stratford N apology-for-a-bus-station:
https://goo.gl/maps/VQVYr
Oh & here’s the one close to the Enfield/Waltham Cross boundary at Theobald’s Grove station:
https://goo.gl/maps/swVEy
The road under the bridge to the left was the loop – it has been raised & the trolleys used the very centre, very slowly.
I’m sure there are more – the front of Uxbridge tube station for a start ….
The subject of electric buses was covered and extensively commented on in Asphalt and Battery. Even so, it’s a bit mystifying that there is no trial anywhere in London (or the UK) of a battery bus that recharges via overhead links. I’m not an electrical engineer, but I feel fairly certain that the losses due to using an induction system must be significantly greater than a system utilising direct contact. Is there a real prejudice against anything than even vaguely smacks of ‘old-fashioned’ trolleybuses?
Fandroid
No actual solid proof, but some of us, including me would answer “YES” to your question.
There’s also the anti-tram prejudice, said to date back to the days of the LGOC “combine”, as well.
All very murky, though.
@fandroid, greg
At risk of drifting onto the ‘asphalt & battery’ thread, inductive transmission can be very efficient provided the gap is small and alignment is perfect.
Back to the real world, the amount of electromagnetic radiation created by an indiction system that provides a reasonable rate of power transfer is not suitable for urban settings where the public is likely to be present. Interference with mobile telephony, wireless network and bluetooth operation would likely cause consternation and interference with medical devices (I’m thinking pacemakers but I’m sure there are others) would be potentially catastrophic. Note that the Milton Keynes induction bus requires a fairly small bus to sit over the induction plate for 10 minutes to provide 2/3 of the power required for its next run.
A bit of metal that touches another bit of metal is much lighter and very much cheaper than an induction system of similar capacity.
Moosealot
A bit of metal that touches another bit of metal is much lighter and very much cheaper than an induction system of similar capacity.
Which then immediately begs the question: “Why are they going for a complicated & known-to-be-inefficient system?”
I would certainly like to hear (preferably an official) answer to that one.
Although a contact system strikes me also as more promising, I do not feel the need, as an amateur in these matters, to demand that anyone tells me what they are doing and why. Obviously the design and implementation of rechargeable buses requires all kinds of other considerations, (mainly but not exclusively safety-related) and I feel quite confident that the engineers involved will ultimately design and implement the best system (or determine that it is unfeasible or uneconomic, if that turns out to be the case).
Of course, if anyone commenting here has real expertise in the matter, or close contact with someone who has, then doubtless what they have to say would be of wide interest. But if that is not the case, I think calmly noting developments is the best we can do.
@greg
The induction system means that there is not any exposed infrastructure which is a benefit. There is enough space in Milton Keynes to stand a bus for 10 minutes while it recharges slowly (and, being and lighter than a full-size bus requires less recharging). There is also one charging point, and the convenience of everything being hidden underground may outweigh the disadvantages of the more expensive equipment. There is also enough space at the charging point that the bus can be guaranteed to align correctly on it and it is only charged when not in service.
Given the MK trial was only for 8 buses, the cost of putting induction kit in is probably outweighed by being doable without any modifications to the mechanical loadings of the bus’ body shell or changing its dynamic envelope. Trolley poles, for example, would probably require a redesign of the sides and roof to support the weight and therefore recertification which would have been very expensive for such a small number of vehicles. If there was an order for 200 buses, it would be a different story entirely.
@malcolm
The answer to any question about choices made will be that it was the least capital-intensive way of producing a functioning demonstration. The MK project is primarily about proving that all-day electric bus services can be run (which it is doing quite successfully) and only secondarily about actually providing a bus service. It is not about creating a blueprint for larger or longer-term schemes and various operational inefficiencies will be permitted in the demonstrator in exchange for lowering capital costs.
@Moosealot
“Back to the real world, the amount of electromagnetic radiation created by an indiction system that provides a reasonable rate of power transfer is not suitable for urban settings where the public is likely to be present.”
I would assume that the system is designed so that the inductive system in the ground is only switched on when there is a suitably-equipped bus sitting on top of it.
Trolleybuses never got as far as Theobalds Grove Station – the Waltham Cross turn was a lay-by more or less on the site of the present Bus Station in Eleanor Cross Road.
I just did a quick search for ” electric bus under road charging ” and got the following link –
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129534.900-wireless-charging-for-electric-vehicles-hits-the-road.html#.VP4yBIbfWrU
This article is from last year and is therefore fairly recent .
It’s worth remembering how many tons old style overhead weighed especially at junctions like The Nags Head, Holloway which was one of the busiest in London !
@Melvyn – the best estimate I have seen for the amount of special work at Nags Head was about 2 tons – still a formidable weight. Probably Gardiners Corner was the same -the only other 5/8 grand union on the system.
BTW,I see that at least two of the bits of the Nags head layout had 290 bph (+ trams and buses also) making the same manoeuvre in the peaks – an interesting number when we see the difficulty in running very high frequency services today.
@timbeau, 9/3/15 15:50
Yes, but if there are people on or around the bus while it was in use, they would be affected.
News on LOTS site that consultation on routes 13/113/82/139 has finished but intervention by Mayor Boris has put this on hold !
2) TfL’s consultation period for routes 13/113/139/189 has finished but political intervention from the Mayor means that there will now be no change for the forseeable future.
Sorry meant to add wording used on LOTs site which looks like bad timing ahead of an election ?
The timing of the consultation wasn’t particularly clever, especially as the 13 passes through three marginal constituencies north of Baker Street. There seems to have been quite a backlash from local communities. The cynic might suggest that this was highly predictable and that it was designed to discourage any Mayor (existing or future) from ever contemplating the withdrawal of a central London trunk route again….
Please see link to TFL site and reason for putting consultation on hold –
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/finchleyroad
It seems concerns at holding the consultation near to an election is a reason given which seening we now have fixed term parliaments and not the old system where the PM could call a election at anytime seems not much of an excuse !
I think making the 82 a 24 hour route makes more sense than the old N13 which dates back to days when night bus network was much smaller.
Of course saying removal of 13 is part of reducing congestion on Oxford Street makes less sense when plan included diversion of 113 to Oxford Circus and even less sense given massive rise in buses Borisbuses are generating with latest plan involving route 73 which runs full length of Oxford Street !
No doubt as discussed here reduction of total number of buses running on Finchley Road seems to conflict with how many roads have gained additional bus routes in recent years with even Shoreditch High Street now having two routes !
Boris could also be a victim of his being more open with consultation reports which detail points raised !
@Melvyn
“Of course saying removal of 13 is part of reducing congestion on Oxford Street makes less sense when plan included diversion of 113 to Oxford Circus and even less sense given massive rise in buses Borisbuses are generating with latest plan involving route 73 which runs full length of Oxford Street !”
Both the 13 and the 189 were proposed for removal from Oxford Street: even though partially offset by extension of the 113 this should reduce congestion.
The 73 already runs the length of Oxford Street so conversion to Borisbuses will only have a very small effect on congestion, (we might even hope that the effect of their greater length will be offset by a shorter dwell time because of the threee doors – and open platform if they are operated as the designer and mayor intended, although given most recent conversions have not run in this mode I am not hopeful)
Is this a relevant comment ??
Piece in the “Indie” about a possible return of “the Bendies” ??