We are ashamed to admit that there is a distinct bias on London Reconnections towards trains. Despite the fact that it is used for 50% more passenger journeys than the Underground, the venerable London bus is infrequently mentioned. As we enter a period where bus technology is rapidly evolving though, it is time to look at where London’s buses are, technologically speaking, and were they are going. In part one we thus look at the New Bus for London – Boris’ “New Routemaster,” and more particularly at the vehicle behind the political hype. If it had a bonnet we would delve beneath it.
This article will look at the future of the London bus and by that we mean the bus itself. Whilst from the passenger perspective great changes have been seen in recent years, with more to come (not least the end of cash fares now confirmed to happen on the 6th July) the basics of how the bus itself has been powered has not changed that much. Typically it has an engine, two axles, usually two decks and runs on diesel fuel. The engine is connected to the wheels by a propshaft. Speed is determined by engine speed and a gearbox.
Buses beneath the Wires
Buses in London have become much more accessible and comfortable but these things tend to be of a more evolutionary nature. At the same time there are those who would argue that in some ways we actually had something better than today’s bus many years ago in the form of a trolleybus – fast, high capacity, no noisy internal combustion engine and, to use modern parlance, no tailpipe emissions. Those who are believers in trolleybuses remain disappointed that they are never given any consideration in modern transport thinking within London.
It is important, however, not to view these things from just one perspective. In contrast to the trolleybus evangelists there were those at the time who felt that the rather inflexible trolleybuses were quite rightly consigned to history and that the bus was the future. Instead, the golden days are nostalgically perceived to be the heyday of the Routemaster – the last bus specifically designed for London’s needs before the government required London Transport, as it then was, to buy off-the-peg buses in order to qualify for a substantial grant towards the cost of the buses.
Buying generic
The off-the-peg buses that came after the Routemaster were built in the north of England. The bus builders (especially the state run one) knew they had a captive market and then, as now, the choice of suppliers was skewed by political dogma. This is not to say that elected politicians should not be involved with specifying what buses London should have, but there is a world of difference between an elected London mayor taking into account additional factors that may not be of primary concern to TfL and a national government sacrificing then needs of London to prop up industries that cannot operate competitively due to the poor quality of their product.
A busy New Routemaster at the eastern side of Trafalgar Square. Most of the passengers appear to be tourists. At times and locations like this there appears to be a clear benefit in having three doors and a conductor on the rear platform.
The current builders of London’s buses
Over time, the quality and suitability of buses for London has improved, with London Buses operating in a free market and two firms in particular being very responsive to the requirements of London Buses. In the old days London Transport officials would visit the production line at Park Royal to ensure that the Routemasters were built to their exacting specifications. In today’s world one doesn’t design the bus and tell the bus builder to build it, one explains what is required and works with the bus builder so that they can provide that.
A front view of the lower deck of a New Routemaster. Looking at this one would be justified in wondering what the fuss was about. This is very similar to any double decker bus now running in London.
One of London’s bus builders, Alexander Dennis Ltd (ADL), actually assembles their buses in Guildford. With a worldwide market but London at their doorstep they have shown consistent willingness to adapt their designs to the London market and this may in part account for the fact that they currently have around 47% of it. They see themselves as evolutionary bus builders with a world-wide reputation that needs to be maintained. They are also aware that to ensure competition they are unlikely to get more than 50% of the London bus market regardless of how good a bus they produce.
A rear view of the lower deck of the New Routemaster built by Wrightbus. This is on route 24 south of Victoria which is a very quiet part of an otherwise busy route. The floor is low throughout which means that the seats over the wheel arches are exceptionally high and that some have to be rear facing. Like the previous picture there does not seem to be anywhere to house certain vital pieces of equipment – such as an engine.
Wrightbus, based in Northern Ireland, currently holds the number two spot within the capital, which makes it very aware of the “must try harder” requirement. Unusually it is privately owned, which means the firm isn’t nervously looking over its shoulder at shareholders who might be concerned as to whether their strategy is the most profitable one. On the world stage it is not so established as ADL so is probably more dependant on the London market. At the same time Wrightbus does not have the might of the resources that ADL has behind it. It does, however, have a good working relationship with both TfL and Arriva who, amongst many other things, run some of the buses in London. Wrightbus’s Gemini double decker is similar in appearance to ADL’s Enviro 400 series of buses and comes in both conventional and hybrid versions which are both found in London. It is a Wrightbus body built on a Volvo chassis – which harks back to Wrightbus’s roots as a bodybuilder.
Because the engine can go anywhere is has been conveniently placed under the rear staircase thus utilising space that would otherwise be wasted.
The cover of the fuel filler cap. Cunningly hidden flush with the rest of the bus this shows the attention to design detail. The filler cap is here because the fuel tank is underneath the front stairs
Beyond these two suppliers, there are other bus builders that have a presence in London. A notable third is Volvo, but because of their size they tend to offer a product with standard variations and it is generally a case of “take it or leave it.” Mercedes also have a presence but a lot of their fleet went with the disappearance of bendy buses. Again, being a very large player in a world market it is more a case of Mercedes offering a standard product with various options and service providers then seeing if these buses are consistent with TfL’s specified requirements.
Upstairs on a New Routemaster at night. The design is distinctly retro and loved and hated in equal measure it seems. Photo courtesy Graham Feakins.
Air Quality
Having set the supplier scene, we now move on to a seemingly unrelated subject but one that is in fact very closely bound up with the future of the bus in central London – air quality.
TfL has a large and varied range of responsibilities. It seems to have acquired or have some responsibility for various peripheral activities in its short existence such as licencing roadworks, licencing buskers, crime prevention, anti-terrorism, operating a cable car over the Thames and cycle proficiency.
A responsibility that one would probably not associate with TfL is air quality, yet some would argue this is amongst one of its most important responsibilities that it has. It is certainly one that is of great concern to the Mayor. Whether this is a result of the threat of large EU fines or a realisation of how diesel particles are a silent killer that affects the health of Londoners is something on which we leave readers to form their own opinion. It is certainly not the case that London is alone as was recently shown during a period of smog in Paris when driving was restricted and public transport made free in an effort to reduce it.
What is often the case though with the EU is that it not just the issue of the breach of regulations that matters, but what the offender is doing to rectify the situation. So, apart from any health benefits to London or political benefits to the the Mayor, he has a strong incentive to be seen to be taking the problem seriously and have a programme in place to address this issue.
Targeting the culprits
The problem is, as ever, that politicians don’t want to do to much to upset voters and businesses. So when it comes to pollution from transport and those particularly troublesome diesel particulates the first stage is for TfL to put its own house in order. This is no bad thing, for this, combined with further tightening of the requirements of commercial vehicles from 2020, means the biggest problem in central London will actually be from buses and taxis – both of which are under TfL’s control.
Taxis leading the way
In a radical but very little noticed move, TfL has actually announced that new taxis will be required to be zero emissions capable from 2018.
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today (Thursday 16 January [2014]) announced plans that would require all new taxis presented for licensing in the capital to be zero emission capable from 1 January 2018, with the expectation that they will automatically operate in zero emission mode while in areas where the capital’s air quality is at its worst such as parts of central London.
It is clear from the press release that the objective is not so much an improvement of overall air quality but an aggressive targeting of hotspots. In reality this is likely to be within a few hundred metres of the air quality recording stations with the highest readings. At the same time, even using today’s more conventional hybrid technology, this should lead to reduced emissions of at least 30% and be cost effective over the life of a taxi – though obviously it will require more capital investment upfront.
It will interesting to see how the zero emission taxi will be implemented and enforced. In particular whether there will be GPS or similar to define the areas. It does seem that it will be a requirement that the the engine would automatically switch over if not already in electric mode. It is not stated whether the areas affected would be static or dynamic. One would expect that a similar technology could also apply to buses and both ADL and Wrightbus have stated that it would not be hard to make their hybrid buses zero emissions capable to enable them to run for a mile or two without any tailpipe emissions at all.
Other vehicles are not forgotten in the press release which goes on to state:
The news follows a pledge the Mayor made last year to introduce an Ultra Low Emission Zone in central London by 2020.
Cleaning up the buses
When Boris Johnson became mayor London already had hybrid buses. These were basically existing bus designs that were “hybridised” by adding regenerative braking, a lithium-ion battery and, in parallel with the existing mechanical transmission, a means of powering the wheels electrically. The source of the electrical power was from regenerative braking.
The early hybrid vehicles were not entirely satisfactory for a number of reasons. The first and probably main one was simply cost. For the 20-30% saving in fuel (and emissions) you had an awful lot of extra initial cost in buying the bus. It is said that the hope was that by TfL buying a lot of hybrid buses a new demand would be created that would result in economies of scale and a reduction in the price. The trouble was that these price reductions just did not seem to be materialising.
Another major problem with these early hybrids is that they really did not reduce emissions by the level required. They were described as a “Prius-type” bus and in one sense that is really what they were. Just as the car manufacturers took an existing car and modified it, the bus manufactures did the same. By doing so they were not taking full advantage of the technology and either having to compromise on battery size or rather awkwardly include it in an existing design.
Series Hybrid v Parallel Hybrid
There appeared to be a real reluctance amongst bus builders to totally put their faith in hybrid buses and commit to it. This is rather like a Deutsche Bahn signal engineer who doesn’t really trust modern ERTMS signalling to do the full job and so sticks in a tried and tested signalling system in parallel. The earlier parallel hybrid buses weren’t fully exploiting the technology and they still had propshafts and gearboxes which were really completely unnecessary. ADL were already going along the route of progressing to so-called series hybrid where batteries power the bus and either a diesel generator or regenerative braking tops up the batteries. This they incorporated into their existing bus design – the Enviro 400.
A big advantage of series hybrid was that you didn’t need a propshaft and if you didn’t have a propshaft you could be quite radical and you could put the engine anywhere you wanted on the bus – upstairs if you wanted to. However, this was only really possible if you redesigned the whole bus. A complete redesign also gave the benefit that one should not be struggling to find space to include the sufficiently large battery required to store the energy recovered by regenerative braking.
One further advantage of the series hybrid was that, if the engine wasn’t turning the propshaft and all that it was doing was running an alternator to keep the battery topped up the engine could be much smaller. In fact the ADL EnviroH (H for hybrid) and the New Routemaster use the same small 4.5 litre engine. Potentially, if designed properly, one could always be running this engine at optimum efficiency and regardless of traffic conditions.
The Boris Bus
One can only speculate what thoughts were going on inside the heads of TfL directors when Boris Johnson was elected mayor of London, with his stated commitment of creating a new iconic bus for London with a rear open platform and a conductor on board. Shortly after his electoral victory he triumphantly appeared with Sir Peter Hendy and began talking about his new bus. Hendy had a microphone thrust in front of him and was asked what he thought. Clearly put on the spot, he replied to the effect that they could make something of this.
With many already used to Boris’s hyperbole his commitment for this bus “to run on green fuel” and be energy-efficient could not really assessed. Was it just a soundbite or something more serious?
The thought must have already been crossing some minds in TfL that if you are going to design a new bus that is iconic, and has to have green credentials, then this could potentially be a massive opportunity to innovate. It may have crossed their minds that if it all went wrong it might be the Mayor, and not TfL, that would get the blame. It certainly soon became clear that Hendy, whilst being scrupulously obedient to his political masters, had a somewhat radical agenda.
What we should aim to create now is not just a Routemaster replacement but a whole new generation of London buses that could affect the future of the entire industry.
In the competition to design and build a new Routemaster most of the contestants dropped out when they grasped the enormity of what was asked. Not surprisingly, given the scene we set earlier as to the current London marketplace, it came down to ADL and Wrightbus.
In many ways the situation was probably similar to procurement of Thameslink stock, with one home-grown supplier expected to get the contract and an unfavoured overseas one having to do that bit more to get the order. In the end it seems that ADL did not want to stick their neck out too far, especially as the company had recently been through some difficult times financially, whilst Wrightbus seemed up for the challenge. ADL wanted to build on their hybrid models that either already existed or were being developed whilst Wrightbus, despite their comparative inexperience at chassis building, wanted to embark on a radical design more in keeping with the mayor’s aspirations. Just how radical is probably best illustrated by the fact that at the time there were no purpose-built series hybrid buses in existence.
The rest, as they say, is history. The New Routemasters are offering energy savings of around 40% which means emissions reductions of around that magnitude. The all important NOₓ is around a half that of conventional double-deckers and even most hybrids. The CO₂ level comfortably beats other hybrids and is less than half that of a conventional bus.
There are obviously other opportunities for the future depending on how technology advances. For example, it is not currently possible to top up the charge in the New Routemaster’s batteries in the garage. As lighter materials get cheaper, it may also become more cost effective over the lifetime of a bus to replace some parts simply to reduce the weight further. A basic bus designer’s maxim is that “weight means fuel”. During the lifetime of any bus one would expect the engine to be replaced at least once. One would also expect on a bus like this to replace the lithium-ion batteries once every five to seven years. These occasions may also be an opportunity to take advantages of further advances in relevant technologies.
If one wanted to be even more radical (and playing something of a devil’s advocate), one could even, in principle, simply replace the diesel generator (engine + alternator) in a New Routemaster with a voltage regulator and connect it to a couple of trolley poles on the roof. One then has trolleybus – one with the added advantage of being able to run off wire for a short distance by using its battery. Of course you could do the same with a parallel hybrid, but from a technical standpoint it would a far less satisfactory solution. We will see in part 2 why this would probably not be good idea unless one already had the trolleybus infrastructure for it to run on.
There are lots of clips on YouTube about the New Routemaster. This rather old one from The Mayor’s Office, amongst other things, includes David Brown, MD of Surface Transport at TfL, explaining with passion what they wanted from the bus.
Navigating the Controversy
The New Routemaster has certainly been controversial. A lot of that has been down to looks with, inevitably, some loving it and some hating it. It has also been seen as Boris’s vanity project – but that should not be seen as a reflection on the bus itself – just the process by which it came into being. Likewise, the issue of conductors seems to raise emotions, but again is a separate issue from that of the technology and engineering. Indeed it is probably fair to say that any pretence of these buses being frequently double-manned has effectively been abandoned now that they run on route 148 without any conductors at all.
There have also been other, more physical, flaws. The air-conditioning did not work in the early days, for example (but then the original Routemaster has some major design faults in the early days as well). There have also been criticisms over its weight. As the design has developed the unladen weight has gone down, but this has lead to the strange situation of different but identical-looking buses being authorised to carry different numbers of standing passengers.
A New Routemaster in central London in the afternoon on route 148. The rear door is closed and there is no second crew member. This shows that the bus does not require a crew of two to operate it at any time and whether or not it has a conductor is ultimately the choice of the current mayor.
All the above criticisms will no doubt be forgotten about in time by most people, leaving only those with a long memory and those who are determined to condemn the New Routemaster on past faults. Unlike the original Routemaster though, the New Routemaster will probably not be on our streets for more than around 15 years. The modern economics of buses including re-certification means it doesn’t usually make sense to keep buses going for longer.
Even if the New Routemaster survives for more than the expected 15 years (availability of spare parts is guaranteed for 29) they will probably be relegated to a less demanding location. More critically the bus is going through a phase where development is changing rapidly and, although the New Routemaster is unlikely to replicate the original’s longevity, it will almost certainly be seen as the first of a generation of buses that broke the traditional mould.
Indeed back in 2010 we asked whether the obsession with rear-entry by media and mayor meant that the real legacy of the Routemaster was being lost. We asked whether an opportunity was being missed to take a leap forward in bus-building, both in terms of the way they are built and their environmental friendliness. Whilst the New Routemaster cannot be said to have entirely embraced both those opportunities, we must admit that – politics ignored – it has done so more than any of us here in LR towers anticipated. It is a “B+, good effort” when we were perhaps pessimistically expecting a “D.”
If the mould has now been broken though, then what then comes next? In our next article on this subject we will look at other alternative technologies. These technologies may mean that the New Routemaster will not be seen as futuristic or iconic for long, but if that’s the case then it will be, at least in part, because the New Routemaster opened the door for them…
…even if it was only the front door that it opened. Not the rear one.
Much of the information for this article was taken from “Boris’s Bus” published by Capital Transport. Until recently it was almost impossible to buy at a discount and it is quite expensive at nearly £20. The London Transport Museum does not stock it and this is allegedly because they refuse to sell it. This is somewhat strange to say the least. Whilst the book is definitely a “warts and all” offering it does tell the story of the bus in great detail and the overall picture is one of being very impressed with what was achieved. Thanks also to ngh for clarifying a number of technical matters.
I came across this by googling ‘left hand drive Routemaster’ as I always wondered if there’d been any – with two thirds of the world driving on the unnatural, sorry, right hand side of the road it seems short sighted.
Hong Kong still drives on the left, despite being returned to China, but Gibraltar, avowedly British, drives on the right – there is a red double-decker bus, but it’s a German model!
@Ken W
Even in the UK London Transport only found one other buyer for the Routemaster: Northern General in Newcastle. By the time the RM was on the scene, the tide was already turning: the prototype Leyland Atlantean appeared at the London Motor Show in 1956- the same year RM1 entered service – with the now familar front entrance layout. Indeed London Transport’s own pre-war Q-type was a front entrance double decker.
In any case, double-deckers are rare in other markets: often because of more restrictive height limits, so export opportunities were always unlikely.
But then again –
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/spirit-of-the-routemaster-lives-on-in-the-heart-of-macedonia-6532938.html
timbeau
Surely you shouold have used the word “fashion” rather than “tide”.
Atalanteans were IMHO vile pieces of rust with (octagonal) wheels on.
As for “other markets”, well, Berlin has double-deckers too!
@Ken Westmoreland:
It probably wouldn’t be that difficult to build one, but I can’t imagine many cities being interested in such a beast.
The potential market for double-decker buses is mostly limited to places that already have them. Those that don’t may find that providing the necessary clearance, pruning entire avenues of trees, moving overhead clutter, raising bridges / lowering roads, and so on proves prohibitively expensive.
The NBfL is only ever going to be a very niche player in an already small market. It was designed “for London”. The many narrow roads mean buses there tend to hug the kerb almost all the time, so there is some logic in that open platform, but many cities have far more wide roads and their buses are therefore more likely to be in a lane other than the one next to the pavement.
Without that open platform gimmick, the NBfL is just another double-decker hybrid bus, and it’s an expensive one at that. There are competing models that can carry more people for less money. Why would you buy the more expensive, less efficient, model?
As for Double Deckers in general their is a small but growing market in the US. But there they are seen as ideal for long commuter services and express routes where you want to have maximum seats. Many commentators on US pro transit sites dismiss them as unsuitable for city streets due to slow boarding compared to single deckers.
@Rational Plan et al
Toronto’s regional transit authority GO Transit runs 47 double decker buses made by Alexander Dennis of Scotland on regional highway express routes, where the bridge clearances are higher for 18 wheeler trucks. They are very popular.
As we have drifted into export sales of UK bus designs it is worth noting that Alexander Dennis have updated their Enviro 500 model and produced a “go anywhere” lower height version that can cope with the height restrictions in export markets. A version of this model has been trialled in Seoul in South Korea and I’m sure one or more will end up in the US in due course.
@WW
Indeed 25 of Toronto’s new Enviro 500 double-deckers are 10 cm lower than the original double-deckers introduced in 2008. The new double-deckers will be suitable for 45 routes, 34 more than the older version.
@WW
1. I have a suspicion that there would be a very restricted market for “lower height” double deckers in other parts of the world including, for example, Northern Europe. On the other hand, a petite young lady I know has recently returned from a trip to Japan, enthusing about Tokyo’s public transport. She said that the grab rails were all at the right height.
[As was quickly and politely pointed out to me here on LR a while back when I jokingly remarked on a commentator’s grammar, “The convention here is not to criticise grammar and spelling too much in comments… for many things in the English language there are no hard and fast rules and some things that we would immediately think are *wrong* are considered acceptable by many and positively archaic by others.” We strive to focus on the message conveyed, not the correctness thereof. LBM]
@GT
Your description of Leyland Atlanteans – blech! – borders on praise. They were, in no particular order, ugly, polluting, noisy, unreliable, slow and bone-crunchingly uncomfortable.
@greg
if the front-entrance/rear engine layout pioneered by the Atlantean is a fashion it’s an enduring one. It well over forty years since any new double decker was built without a front entrance. (A quick Google identified half-cabs built up to 1969 for the UK market https://www.flickr.com/photos/46986413@N07/14393334069/ and 1972 for Kowloon, although these had forward entrances rather than open rear platforms.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/46986413@N07/15909694972/
As someone who grew up away from LT standardisation I have no problems with Atlanteans or Fleetlines or various eras of Bristol vehicles. 🙂
@WW = the vile shock was for those who had lived in trolleybus territory and saw(and felt) them replaced by Atlanteans – at least in London, the transition to diesel was more gentle.
As I said – pioneered by the Atlantean – Daimler’s Fleetline and Bristol’s VR followed fairly quickly, and Scania Metropolitans, MCW Metrobuses, Leyland Titans, Volvo Citibuses and E400s, Dennis Dominators and Tridents, and even Boris’s behemoths all have the same basic internal layout, with a front platform next to the driver and ahead of the front wheels – although some relocated the engine under the stairs like London Transport’s pre-war Q type.
It wasn’t the front-entrance rear engine as such that failed to enamour me of the Atalantean it was the appallingly shoddy build & lack of quality generally.
Losing the open platforms was another minus, of course.
I remember the shock of going to Manchester in 1964 – buses in at least 9 liveries & the appearance of Crossley buses, which though often newer than London’s older RT’s felt distinctly pre-war in use ….
Of course at that point there were at least three different colours of Trolleybus too ….
@WW @ timbeau
I have no significant criticism of Metrobuses, E400’s, B7M’s and Tridents. However, Atlanteans and Fleetlines were dreadful. The Bristol VR was much superior to the latter.
@LBM I was not commenting on grammar or spelling, just one particular word containing three superfluous letters.
Mod note: Can we make sure this doesn’t descend into a list of buses that are liked or are not liked? By all means state a preference but give reasons for your opinion otherwise we put ourselves slightly below the standard of discussion of a primary school playground.
@PoP -to pick up your point, I suspect the reason why front entrance buses seem (ed) so unattractive is that they marked the change to one man operation for urban routes, which required greater acceleration away from stops if journey times were not to be even further extended. That implied jerkier ride quality. Drivers also reported that,with rear engines, they could no longer drive on the basis of engine sound with a consequent tendency to over- rev and change gear at a less than optimum point. How true this was is difficult to say.
@Graham H,
Probably very true. In the past I got very frustrated by the fact that people did not like the buses because they did not have a conductor. To me that was a separate argument and it was perfectly feasible to have a front entrance bus with a conductor even if you couldn’t have an open platform bus without one. If they didn’t like the buses they should explain why. If they didn’t like losing the conductor or open platform they should have openly stated that was their reason for disliking them rather than confuse the issue and blame the buses themselves.
It is the same with closing ticket offices and having stations unstaffed. Completely separate arguments although obviously if you have the station unstaffed that means closure of the ticket office – but the converse isn’t necessarily true. Some people seem unable to understand are the issues different and others, for their own purposes, deliberately confuse the two issues.
Pedantic refers to drivers’ reports of rear engines being too far away for smooth gear changes to be made.
Trouble is that once again we have obfuscation by another factor. Upward changes on semi-automatic gear boxes like the Atlantean (two pedal) can be made either smoothly (by waiting for engine revs to die away before pressing on the loud pedal) or roughly, but the rough changes, even if they make passengers fall over, do result in (slightly) faster travel, so there is some temptation. Whereas on preselectors (like the RT), and even more on proper gearboxes (like outside London), the smoothest drive is also the fastest.
The Fleetline was hardly a resounding success in London use, and the fact it was selected over the Atlantean after an extensive trial doesn’t say much for Leyland’s alternative – maybe a good idea badly implemented, and much improved on by others. My own local operator, although loyal to Leyland, actually went back from Atlanteans to half-cabs (albeit forward entrance) in the 1960s, until Bristol’s VR became available to operators other than nationalised industries (Tilling Group)
When the heritage buses were removed from route No 9 the reason given was that passengers would get confused by them because unlike on the NBFL the conductor collects the fares and works the Oyster reader – but the heritage Routemasters would remain on Route 15.
So guess which route is reported by LOTS to be next in line for NBFLs?
There is a world of difference between the reason given … (not true) and a reason given … (may have been true but I don’t remember it).
To establish the facts and not suppositions please read https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-9/results/consultation-report-route-9-heritage.pdf
Sorry I misremembered the actual excuse, but it was NBfL related: we are told that tourists prefer them. (measured how?)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463605/Iconic-London-Routemaster-buses-step-closer-to-being-axed-by-Transport-for-London
“Leon Daniels, managing director of surface transport for Tfl, ……Routemasters on route 9 have not been quite so popular and the service has recently been operated by the ‘New Routemasters’ in the shape of the New Bus for London. Nowadays, those travelling for leisure purposes tend to choose the new buses.”
The “confusion” issue was when the six pilot NBfLs on the 38, working alongside ordinary buses, were switched to OPO (i.e with the rear platform closed off). I fail to understand why it is deemed more confusing for different buses on the same route to be operated in different ways than it is for identical buses on different routes (e.g the 11 and 148) – or even the same route on different days of the week! – to be operated in different ways.
@timbeau,
Sorry I misremembered the actual excuse, but it was NBfL related: we are told that tourists prefer them. (measured how?)
Not an entirely satisfactory answer but I have been quite surprised on occasions when a “normal” bus and a nearly empty routemaster turned up simultaneously on route 15 and neither the locals nor the tourists have not chosen the routemaster. Whether that is because they didn’t realise they could board it at the same fare, were scared of the open entrance or what I just don’t know.
News on bbc site that first Borismasters need to have their batteries replaced !
See – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31837088
Price you pay when dogma overrides proper testing like the REAL ROUTEMASTER went through first shown in 1954 but not into main service until 1960 …!
Melvyn,
Given that they are being replaced under warranty, actually a better comparison would probably be with the early days of the electric tube. The early tube electrical systems were pretty hopeless as they were really pushing the technology of the day and often didn’t come up the agreed specification. There was a lot of replacement of electrical equipment that had only been installed a few years previously – most famously was the “camel back” locomotives of the Central London Railway but there were numerous other examples. It all worked out well in the end because the cost of replacing the equipment (not always borne by the railway company) quickly more than paid for itself in more efficient working due to the major advances in technology over the space of a few years.
I know lot of other people have a different opinion but for me the thing that swings it for the Borisbus is the fact it succeeds in going long distances without the engine running. In contrast, my experience of the off the shelf hybrids it that they are doing well if they can make it to the next set of traffic lights – then the engine kicks in when it is stationary!
But PoP, how many of the ‘400 buses’ so far supplied are equipped with batteries that are or are likely to fail soon, no matter how well they perform when functioning? Those batteries are not cheap and somebody has to pay, whether it be the bus supplier or up the chain to the supplier of the batteries – and presumably eventually the next end customer. There’s another 400 buses to be added to fleet, too.
Supposing that the battery manufacturer cannot improve the product in the short term and nobody else can, then, once the warranty expires, if not before, is it not likely that TfL will have to follow past history and revert to something more traditional before too much expense is incurred and until something better proven is available?
There’s a similarity with the Metadyne regenerative equipment on e.g. the Underground’s R-Stock, which had to be isolated because the substations could not cope.
Graham Feakins,
Don’t get me wrong. This could turn out to be very serious. The buses (and more particularly the batteries) are probably only guaranteed for so many years (five, seven, ten ?) and it could be that at the end of it the cost is just not worth the effort.
I don’t know who supplies the batteries but I suspect it is a big technology company and the cost of replacing 400 or even 800 batteries, even twice over, is a drop in the ocean compared to the potential future market so, as long as they can identify the problem and resolve it, they will just put it down to the learning curve. They are supposed to last a lot longer than this.
Battery technology is advancing at a remarkably fast rate so I suspect in five years time the batteries will be cheaper and more reliable.
Perhaps a better comparison would be with the Dreamliner Aircraft and the problems Boeing had with Lithium-Ion batteries – far more serious than this. Yet, the aircraft are still in the air using the batteries although admittedly modifications have been made to the aircraft to contain battery fires. As far as I am aware the batteries haven’t given any problems over the past 12 months.
If I were in charge of London Buses I would be slightly concerned but I wouldn’t be losing any sleep on this – yet. Slightly worrying is that that London’s Clean Air policy relies on all double deck buses in Central London being hybrid by 2020 and single deck being 100% electric (or other non-polluting source at point of use). I know other makes of hybrid are available but, as I have said, I have been singularly unimpressed by these so far.
@PoP – According to the Wrightbus website, “Latest generation Valence Lithium-ion battery technology” is used on these buses. Home page here:
https://www.valence.com/
Based in Houston, Texas but also with manufacturing capability in China….
@ PoP – I’m sure you know that ADL and Volvo hybrids are to a different design to the NB4L which is why the engine works alongside the hybrid drive. I’m not aware of any battery issues with the ADL E40H or Volvo B5L but perhaps they’ve just not been publicised? The emergence of this battery issue with the NB4L has explained one thing for me – why so many NB4Ls that I see, or more pertinently hear, are chugging along like tractors most of the time. I expect the next couple of Mayor’s Question Times will be full of questions from the usual suspects about this issue. I look forward to reading the responses.
The nearest route to my house, the 212, has just gone over to Volvo-chassis hybrids, as has the 34. [ B5LH? ]
These are vastly preferable to the “Boribus” from (my) passenger’s p-o-v, if only because you can see out of the upstairs windows …..
But I see that some hybrid-enthusiasts are not so keen, claiming that they are not “true hybrids” & that the technology is already out of date.
Confused? I certainly am.
Walthamstow Writer,
I’m sure you know that ADL and Volvo hybrids are to a different design to the NB4L which is why the engine works alongside the hybrid drive
Yes, and they are fine buses in their own way. But, to me, a properly functioning new Routemaster gives a vastly superior ride. I totally accept that others may have different reasons for preferring one against the other – as evidenced by Greg’s priority of having a better view out (or any view in the case of the rear [non] window) of the upstairs windows.
What slightly disappoints me with ADL or Volvo is that we do not appear to be moving to a zero-emissions capable mode whereby they can function without the engine running when going along Oxford Street – or any other location where it is deemed that air quality should be a good as possible due to the number of pedestrians. Planning for all central London buses to be hybrid or better is all very good but we should be able to manage a bit better than that and, as yet, ADL or Volvo do not seem to have a hybrid suited to this.
Just to be clear, I do not have an unfettered love of the new routemaster but I do like the technology it uses and would hope that it could be got to reliably and sustainably work in that and other makes of bus.
The NBfL batteries are lithium iron magnesium phosphate cathode technology rather than lithium cobalt(III) oxide (used in most laptops and mobiles). Lithium iron phosphate is meant to be more robust (stable) for high power application (power tools and electric vehicle).
The issues with Boeing and other big Lithium battery so far have usually been 2 fold: The electrical system in general not behaving as modeled (higher short term loads) and battery cooling not being modeled or designed properly (especially the need to take account of adjacent battery thermal behavior.)
High end Li battery hand held power tools now tend to have forced air cooling built into the chargers with cooling channels in the batteries between cells to prevent cell degradation due to the cells getting too warm during charging. The Boeing mods included similar improvements.
The NB4L is a series hybrid. There is no physical connection between the engine and the wheels at any time, so all the work of pushing the bus along is done by the electric motor. The engine is tuned to provide a given amount of power very efficiently, so if the demanded power is less than that then the battery will be topped up (or the engine shut down and all the power drawn from the battery) and if the power demanded is more than the engine’s output then power will be supplemented by the battery.
The Volvo B5LH is a parallel hybrid, i.e. both the engine and the electric motor are mechanically connected to the back wheels. There’s a 12-speed automatic box to keep the engine in its optimal rev band most of the time and it will pull away up to around 5km/h on battery in order to avoid using the inefficient torque converter before it can match 1st gear to the bottom end of the engine’s optimal band. The engine is not optimised as well as that in the BN4L but as a result it is more flexible in its range of outputs. The amount of use that the battery gets in the Volvo is significantly less than in the NB4L because the engine power and demand can be more closely matched.
The NB4L is quite possibly the most demanding application for automotive batteries on a mass-produced vehicle in the world. If I were the battery manufacturer, I would be very happy to supply replacement batteries in exchange for the performance data that I’m getting.
@ Greg – oh the irony about the 212 buses! They have squashed upper deck windows in the Gemini 3 bodywork just like the NB4L does although I’ll grant you that you can see out the back! The smaller windows are a weight saving measure.
@ PoP – I am sure that ADL and Volvo (and other manufacturers) are all working on virtual electric vehicles that can run without an engine for longer periods of time. ADL will be providing such buses for route 69 in London with charging technology at the termini. I’m now confused about timescales for that as I’m sure I recently read about December being the trial launch date whereas all previous reports were at least two seasons ahead of that (late Spring / Summer). I would expect TfL to be very interested in trialling different forms of all electric / virtual electric vehicles to encourage innovation and to grow the supply base. This is a repeat of what they have done with low floor buses and then hybrid buses over recent decades. There is also a tie in with various EU initiatives as well.
BYD of China are apparently working on a double deck version of the bus that runs on the 507/521 routes. I can’t see Volvo / Scania / Mercedes Benz / Van Hool wanting to be left behind given the world wide trend will be for much cleaner vehicles and Western funding will almost certainly require emerging economies, seeking to modernise their transit systems, to adopt such technologies / undertake technology transfer. Van Hool hydrogen buses have just gone into service in Aberdeen. London is getting two more hydrogen buses for the RV1 and that route has been removed, for the foreseeable future, from the tendering programme because of the unique fixed infrastructure needed to fuel the buses. Route 312 in Croydon goes fully electric later this year when a fleet of new, as yet unconfirmed, all electric single decks join the two Optare Metrocities on the route. Go Ahead London also have two all electric Optare Metrocities on order – don’t know the route they’ll work on yet. I’d guess the 360 (to compare against the Wright Electrocities) but I’m probably wrong!
Walthamstow Writer,
Very interesting and reassuring. Thank you.
They may be being replaced under warranty, but the cost of that warranty will be reflected in the original contract price.
@Melvyn – “REAL ROUTEMASTER not into main service until 1960 ”
Routemasters actually entered squadron service on Remembrance Day 1959
http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/6th-november-1959/47/routemasters-take-over-next-week (Routes 5, 5a, and 48)
http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/_routes/current/005-3.html
Replacing trolleybuses of course
@Grham F
“There’s a similarity with the Metadyne regenerative equipment on e.g. the Underground’s R-Stock”
Metadynes were fitted to the O and P stock, (which were converted to pneumatic camshaft control in the 1950s) but not the R stock, which had PCM control from new (or conversion from Q stock)
@timbeau – “Metadynes were fitted to the O and P stock …. but not the R stock” – Apologies – my error; I blame the spectacles of my memory, since cleaned following the monthly LR visit to the Blue Posts.
The London Assembly Budget and Performance Committee is getting its teeth into all things “new bus for London” this coming week. They are looking at the development of the bus, its use and the prospects for future orders. Mr Leon Daniels and Mr Mike Weston from TfL will be attending the meeting. The Committee has secured the release of a lot of background information on the NB4L including the business case numbers and costs and various bits of commercial info. The Commitee agenda papers are accessible via
http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=129&MId=5606
and key documents submitted as Appendices are accessible via
https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/investigations/new-routemaster-value-for-money
It is noteworthy that the business case is not at all good for the bus and yet it was approved demonstrating the essential political nature of the project. In short TfL had to do it because the Mayor said so. Other interesting snippets are that only 250 buses were ever assumed to be crew operated not all 600 in the original order. The business case is also largely predicated on fuel savings, reduced dwell times at stops (from open boarding) and a better ambience on board through better air cooling and reduced noise. There was also a distinct safety disbenefit included related to the safety risk of the open platform. The papers released date back a couple of years and there’s no evaluation of how buses running now relate back to the anticipated delivery of costs and benefits. In their letter to the Commitee TfL are positive about the bus as you would expect and have tried to deflect the criticism of the internal temperature / comfort issues of the NB4L by trying to turn internal temperatures into a network wide issue. Quite how making a problem on up to 800 buses into one covering 8,000+ vehicles makes any sense I leave to others to consider. I can’t get my head round that bit of thinking. I expect the Committee meeting will be extremely interesting if, as I expect, the members are robust in their questioning of TfL.
Borismasters to be retro-fitted with opening windows (!)
See: HERE http://londonist.com/2015/09/roasting-route-masters-get-window-refit-at-2-million-cost-to-londoners#disqus_thread
How many times has Boris said that there’s nothing wrong with the supposed “air-con” in these?
Oh dearie me.
It takes courage to admit you’ve made a mistake – especially when you’ve repeated it 500 times – so good for them.
Assuming the remaining 300 on order will have them fitted from new, £2m for 500 buses is £4,000 per bus, or about £500 per window if two are replaced each side on each deck.
The original production order for six hundred buses cost £212m (or £220m if you include the five protoypes), or about £350k per bus, so this retrofit will cost about 1% of the total (or about six buses).
Does the opening windows upgrade mean that air conditioning won’t be used? Or is air conditioning still of some use even when the windows are open?
@ Reynolds 953 – Arrrrrrrrgghhhhhhh! Sorry about that. The NB4L does NOT and NEVER HAS HAD air conditioning. It has an air cooling system only. It is a common error that the Mayor has never bothered to publicly correct that the buses only have air cooling and even then a system that really really struggles to cope with the enormous heat generated by the engine and batteries plus the consequences of 80+ bodies on board. TfL are hedging their bets and are not saying the windows will work, what effect they’ll have on the air cooling and fuel consumption. TfL explicity ruled out fitting air con because of the axle weight, carrying capacity and fuel consumption consequences. That was all set out in a Board Paper in late 2014.
No one knows yet what the 6 opening windows upstairs and 2 downstairs will do in terms of improving travelling conditions. There is a suspicion that the replacement windows will be heavier than current ones and that will have consequences for the carrying capacity (total weight of the bus plus passengers). The NB4L already falls badly short in this respect when set against standard bus designs like the new Enviro 400MMC, Wright Streetdeck and Volvo’s new chassis with Wright or ALD bodywork. They are all designed to be lighter and more fuel efficient and can legally carry nearly 100 people which is 25% more than a NB4L in a shorter vehicle length. Why on earth we are persisting with such a poor vehicle design when the market provides something vastly better and cheaper I do not understand.
@WW, isn’t that what “air conditioning” means: a system that cools the air? How do you distinguish between “conditioning” and “cooling”?
As I understand it …
“Air Cooling”, which I think of as little more than a marketing term, essentially means blowing air around which has a cooling effect on the body. It also helps exchange the air inside the bus with air outside that is hopefully cooler. Think of a simple fan and in marketing speak that is an air-cooling system. “Forced Air Ventilation” would be a more honest term.
“Air Conditioning” conditions the air by cooling it in the same way a fridge cools the air inside it. It requires a lot of energy (so increased fuel usage) when it is functioning in a bus. Coach drivers quickly learn that they can’t run the air-conditioning for long without having the engine running otherwise they will have a flat battery.
Air conditioners use a heat exchanger to move heat from one space (i.e. inside a bus) to another (i.e. outside). This is exactly the same technology used by a fridge or freezer.
Air coolers use a number of methods based around evaporation of moisture into the air. The evaporation process cools the air, but raises its humidity level.
Free-standing office units normally have a tank of water (or ice) that has to be refilled regularly. The system used on the NBfL most likely uses the moisture from the air inside the bus rather than requiring a tank of water be filled up at the garage before each trip. It will cool the air down, but not as much as an air conditioner would.
The key difference is that air conditioners dry the air as moisture condenses inside the unit and the resulting water is usually drained away through a pipe. In free-standing / portable units, the condensed water is drained into a tank that has to be emptied regularly.
A “forced air” system really is just a fan. It really is just an air intake hole, a fan, some plastic tubing, and some nozzles. There is no cooling of the air at all and it’s the same system every car – and the Networker trains use this system.
The NBfL uses the “air cooling” method. Although it’s very much a compromise, I can understand the logic of choosing it: it uses much less energy to run, and the equipment weighs less too. The problem is that it’s a double-decker bus, which means there’s a limit to how much equipment you can stick on the roof (the ideal location for any air cooling or conditioning system given that cold air falls). The three entrances don’t help either; most London buses have just the two.
Single-decker buses don’t have to worry quite so much about scraping under low bridges or overhanging branches, and they have a smaller volume of air to keep cool, so full air conditioning is an option for those. (There’s something to be said for reinstating trolley-wires when you consider this aspect of modern bus design. Trams benefit from not having to generate their own power too; the weight added by air conditioning systems is still substantially less than the weight of a diesel engine.)
This has been a Public Information Announcement on behalf of the Ministry of Too Much Information. Sleep well!
We have exhausted (sorry!) the NB4L air conditioning/air cooling topic.
For those who had a air conditioning/air cooling comment deleted recently, basically nothing wrong with the comment itself but we were getting a lot of repetition or at least very slight variations on a theme.
Unless substantially new air conditioning/cooling information is presented, we will cull all such subsequent comments.
There is now (or soon will be) a potential ‘new new bus for London’ (NNBfL?). Interestingly, although an ADL design, it borrows design influences from the NBfL and seems to have been sponsored in some way by TfL. The first will be in London service in November. See: http://www.route-one.net/vehicles/adl-gets-the-london-look/#prettyPhoto.
““It builds on the ‘London look’ with ……………………wrap-over rear upper saloon windscreen .”
Whatever this means, (and I’m not sure), having a rear upper windscreen at all would be a significant improvement on the cave-like environment of the NBfL
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22395444@N07/8343498550
And, timbeau, if one goes to the next photo along in that series:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22395444@N07/8342440207/in/photostream/
I wonder just where they are going to accommodate those opening windows on the present NBfL fleet because the existing windows are far less high than traditional bus windows. If ‘they’ try to install them by simple retrofitting, then surely the opening portions are going to be just about level with the faces, wigs and hats of passengers, which I am sure will produce a measure of complaint just as great as any we have seen so far because of the lack of windows! So they’ll get shut..
@ G Feakins – TfL could, of course, take the revolutionary step of having sliding windows that buses had for decades or, even bigger shock horror, have a little handle you can turn to make the glass move vertically. Now what bus, rumoured to be a London icon, had that type of window? And before anyone says it yes I know that sliding / vertical windows fell out of favour because people apparently threw things out of the windows. If TfL adopt hopper windows on the NB4L then I agree with you that it will be a real struggle to see how they can work in any meaningful way without bashing people’s heads or opening so slightly as to be utterly pointless.
@WW – Yes indeed but add to that what first came to my mind – the fact that nearby passengers will receive direct air flows (call them “draughts”) straight in their faces. Now then, that didn’t happen on that icon of a London bus (apart from maybe the front windows on the upper deck) and neither does it happen on other ‘normal’ buses.
@ Graham F – I beg to differ on the draught issue. Some hopper windows on “normal” buses have side supports and others don’t. The ones that don’t tend to create a draught or mini rain shower for the people sitting behind the window. This is why you end up with arguments between the person *beside* the window wanting it open and the person *behind* wanting it shut because they’ve got a blast of freezing air or water in their face. Of course each person has a different tolerance for warmth and cold and that also causes problems too. I recall one clip from the “Route Masters Moving London” TV series – it’s of a black gentleman complaining about how cold the buses on route 38 are. I reckon the shot was done in Spring when it’s rarely that cold and when we are past the point when you need the heating on – if your temperature tolerance is set to normal UK levels. However if, as I expect was the case for the gent in question, you have a much higher tolerance for warmth then you’re still going to feel that a UK spring is like Winter in your home country. In short the “powers that be” can’t win no matter what temperature they set the controls at.
@ Graham F – But when the front windows on the RM upper deck were open the wind could take the wigs off people sitting at the staircase end. I particularly remember getting a face full of ash once from a smoker in front (yes I am that old). And it was very hard to read a broadsheet newspaper. Happy days on the 94 – it may even have been the 88 then. Didn’t they eventually put pins through some of the front window openers so you couldn’t open them?
““It builds on the ‘London look’ with ……………………wrap-over rear upper saloon windscreen .”
Whatever this means, (and I’m not sure), having a rear upper windscreen at all would be a significant improvement on the cave-like environment of the NBfL
The ‘standard’ new Enviro 400 looks like this, this and this – at the back, there’s a black glass section that rolls up from the glazing to the back of the roof. It looks quite pretty. The upper section isn’t actually a window, though, but more of a decor panel—as seen from inside.
The lower section IS a window though, and that is a definite improvement on the cavelike NBfL
Absence of a rear window on a lower deck is far more common – here is an Optare Solo (single decker) https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8284/7874225484_66fe5b4045.jpg, and even on those designs which do have lower-deck rear windows, they are either tiny or obscured by seat backs so you wonder why they bothered. London’s first low-floor double-deckers were some of the worst offenders – no rear window and high backed longitudinal seats obscuring the rearmost side windows les to an environment not unlike the original “padded cell” CSLR tube cars (not that I have had personal experience of riding in the latter, you understand!)
Agreed—I always find the back of a double-decker horribly oppressive, with the combination of low ceilings, high floors, obstructions from wheelarches and the lack of visibility. Scania OmniCitys always feel much more spacious at the back thanks to the stepless gangway and expansive glazing, but then the otherwise-fun rearmost double seat (which is offset towards the centre of the vehicle, there not being quite enough width for three seats across the back wall) suffers from being little more than a moquetted bench on top of a warm, thrummy engine compartment. Swings and roundabouts.
Westville13 – 22 September 2015 at 22:26
At first the front windows were pinned during the winter only but may have been permanently pinned at a later period.
Here we are – the “cave” at the back of an early ALX400 before they added a rear window
https://www.flickr.com/photos/anevin-tyleephotography/12620295774
and from outside
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73096525@N02/7815991644 (note the high seat backs making the deep windows useless)
TfL have published a paper showing the potential case, or not, for the operation of Christmas Day bus services. The paper goes to the Surface Transport Panel in late October. The preliminary view is that there is not a business case for Christmas Day bus services (across a range of options) but there is an acknowledgement that more detailed work is required. The view on costs is in the “excluded” part of the paper and not for public disclosure. The decision whether to do more work on this topic would seem to rest with the Panel members. Unfortunately we will need to wait until 2016 to see the minutes of the Panel meeting and understand what decision was reached.
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/stp-20151022-part-1-item13-christmas-day-bus-services.pdf
Re: Anonymous 20 September 2015 at 21:25 . LOTS reports that the new Enviro 400 City comes in at 10.4m long with an unladen weight of 11549kg and accommodates 90 passengers. By comparison, the NRM (nee NB4L) is 11.3m with a ULW of 12400kg and manages 81 passengers.
I was about to say that it wasn’t _that_ many years ago when there was a (very much reduced, central area only) Xmas day bus service, but then I realised it was probably a while further back than I’d been thinking it was. Ninetys?
ULW and carrying capacity are directly related. the maximum gross vehicle weight for a bus is 18 tonnes. The standard passenger (or CSA!) is assumed to weigh 68kg. Thus the carrying capacity should be (18000-ULW)/68 .
@Alison W – there was certainly a central area Christmas day service up until the late sixties/ early seventies, but only between 10.00 and 16.00. In the days of trolleybuses, it was even quite frequent – every 4 minutes in some cases. I am less clear about country Christmas Day services – I seem to recall just a handful of routes serving hospitals.
@ Alison W – I think Mr H is correct about a more general level of Christmas Day service. What did happen in the 90s (I think) was that several London operators (bits of London Buses) did run “commercial” Christmas Day services which were concentrated in Central London and numbered in the 7xx series. These charged higher fares than normal and tended to link the main tourist corridors (Tower Hill, T Square, South Ken, Russell Square) and into the inner suburbs. I also understand that when the Sightseeing Buses ran on Christmas Day they did a handsome trade in terms of local fares – several routes (largely feeders) do charge a cash fare for local journeys but this is something of a “state secret” unless you know where to look.
timbeau
The standard passenger (or CSA!) is assumed to weigh 68kg.
Well, THAT assumption needs revising, damned quickly.
I’m of approx average height ( 1.78 metres ) & mass 70-71 kg – even without wearing 2-4 kg of clothing & things-in-pockets.
Um.
WW/Graham H/Alison
The railways certainly used to run Xmas day services in limited numbers (local services only) in London in the 1950’s – & started up again, with restricted services about 09.00 (?) on Dec 26th
Greg,
And male – unlike more than half the population.
@PoP/Greg
Perhaps they assume the average passenger is a little old lady, or a school kid. The seats certainly seem to be designed accordingly!
For non-LOTS members, readers here may be interested in the following analysis from their September 2015 TLB:
31/12/2013 M-F PVR 7679
31/12/2014 M-F PVR 7835
5/09/2015 M-F PVR 7953
and these increases at a time when no new routes had been opened and there have been very few frequency increases (and a number of decreases in fact).
Not a happy story…
@Graham H
This suggests that more buses are needed to maintain the service. But is this because congestion is getting worse (3.6% over 21 months), or recognition that the previous schedules were unrealistic, so more buses were required to maintain the scheduled frequency?
(Or possibly because some of the newest buses – no names, no pack drill, (no sweat!) have a smaller capacity than the buses they replace?)
@timbeau – I think that’s the point. Whether you can actually draw a distinction between congestion problems and unrealistic timetables is a moot point. Given the relative stability of the network, it seems likely that run times which were once “realistic” have become less so with the passage of time. The disruption caused by Crossrail works can’t have helped either. [Others may have views on the capacity point, although introduction of the LTs doesn’t seem to have caused, in itself, changes to the PVR or schedules on the routes affected; I also detect a certain cavalier attitude to the vehicles actually turned out particularly in the suburbs.]
Timbeau / Graham H – let’s do NB4L first. The basic point about PVRs not changing at the time of conversion holds true except for route 55 which gained a more frequent service. Depending on how heavy each batch of NB4Ls is then the capacity reduction varies between 3% and 6%. I have been keeping a spreadsheet of all of this – I’m tedious like that. It’s not yet clear whether NB4L conversion in and of itself causes patronage rises or falls. Last year’s data wasn’t clear at all and there may be a myriad of factors affecting route patronage.
On the wider point about rising PVRs then TfL themselves cite three main causes – more road traffic because of a rising population / lower fuel prices, more delays because of major projects (some are TfL ones) and the final cause is TfL’s own Road Modernisation Programme. The creation of segregated cycling infrastructure is also a major factor. I understand that TfL have been boosting PVRs in an attempt to maintain reliability which suggests that operational efficiency is declining. Belatedly some effort is being put into bus priority but the old team was disbanded years ago to save money as part of Boris’s “efficiencies” so now we have an increasingly inefficient bus network and TfL have to somehow patch together what they axed. Ludicrous. The latest Surface Transport MD’s report shows that patronage is below last year’s levels and below target and network performance is not good.
The picture will become a bit more complicated now because TfL is beginning to slowly bolster some suburban services – the C10 got a big frequency increase last weekend, the 173 gets one tomorrow and other routes have gained double deckers in place of single decks (285, 90, 173, 202 are some examples). Recent tender awards in East London will see more double deck conversions and frequency increases – most likely in advance of Crossrail although overcrowding is chronic now. The counterbalance is that route 16 has just been converted to NB4L operation but also had a significant frequency *reduction* from 10 bph to 8 bph. Although the current business plan has funding to increase bus service provision over a number of years that may all get flushed down the toilet by the Chancellor and / or the next Mayor. As has happened before some people will be lucky and get better services during a time of “plenty” while others may lose if the budget is cut back in future.
As a reminder, PVR is the Peak Vehicle Requirement for a route, as vehicles on the road, whereas the allocation includes spares / breakdown cover.
WW
All true.
What scares me is the p.o.v. shown by many persons – e.g. in a public meeting I was in on Tuesday ( about LBWF’s roads, what a surprise!) where there was a sudden irrelevant-to-the-meeting outcry about bus & train fares & demanding steep reductions – I tried to point out to them, that if they wanted cheaper bus-fares, they could have them, provided they also put up with one bus every 20 minutes, or maybe half-hourly…..
I don’t think they “got it” at all.
In these discussion boards, we are all relatively well-informed, but large numbers of the populace, not so much.
@ Greg – I think there is still a bizarre notion that somehow public transport is just one of those things that is magically provided at seemingly little cost and should therefore be cheap to use. It partly explains this odd attitude to fare dodging – not paying on the tube or trains is somehow “acceptable” because it’s a “public service” whereas nicking a chocolate bar from Tescos would never cross their mind. It is perfectly possible to have cheap public transport but someone picks up the bill somewhere else – council tax, income tax, whatever. There are also other consequences that flow from a cheap fares policy and those may be very unpalatable. If you charge relatively high fares and the system is bursting at the seams why encourage more people if you can’t handle them? Makes no sense.
I completely understand why people are fed up with high fares but those same people keep voting in politicians who have policies of putting up fares!! Are they really so shocked that politicians do what they said they would do? If people want to cut the fares then fine but can we please have an honest debate about what stops getting done or what else costs more in order to find the funding? Mr Khan has allegedly found “efficiencies” in TfL’s budget that can fund a fare cut but seemingly can’t or won’t say what those efficiencies are and how sustainable those savings are to fund the long term ongoing reduction in revenue.
As is to be expected we are back at the annual round of Mayor’s Questions where lots of questions about the impact of fares cuts or specific products (one hour bus ticket – yawn yawn) are being asked so TfL are forced, via an indirect route, to release data to potential Mayoral candidates or opposition politicians.
WW says “… a bizarre notion that somehow public transport is just one of those things that is magically provided at seemingly little cost …“.
Maybe not so bizarre if you think along the lines (perhaps subconsciously) of “the bus will run anyway, whether I get on it or not”. So the bus company (it seems) is no worse off with a fare-dodging passenger than if he walked, whereas Tesco have to replace their nicked chocolate bar.
Of course this is fallacious, but many people may not see the fallacy.
@ Malcolm – well yes I see the point you’re making and it may well be true in London at the moment. It isn’t so true elsewhere in the UK with a deregulated regime. Too much of “it runs anyway but it’s not being used” and the bus simply disappears. The discretionary funding for socially necessary routes / journeys is vanishing by the month and we must wait to see whether the Chancellor carries out his forecast (by others) threat to make all of London’s transport network pay its own way by cancelling revenue grant. I can’t see any way in which London’s bus network will remain in “it runs anyway” mode right across Greater London if George turns off the money tap. The next Mayor will certainly have been handed a poisoned chalice if that happens.
In the last week or so I’ve used two of London’s least frequent services out in Havering. One runs 4 return trips M-S but still had a reasonable number using it for shopping, socialising and education journeys. No way does it make a profit but it clearly provides a lifeline given the way the regulars all knew the driver and addressed him by name. The second route runs every 90 mins and I caught a trip at PM school time. The route loaded well and picked up people at quite unexpected places and dropped people off right out on the Gtr London fringes. I had to take the same bus back as there was no onward bus (other than once a day!) and even then it was picking people up on what I’d assumed would be a quiet run. All this just goes to show that even at low frequencies people will use a service if it is dependable and reliable. Nice to be reminded of the value of the bus when so many of us are used to buses every few mins and barely give them a thought.
There is a hidden assumption in calculations involving ticketless travel that increased inspections will result in more revenue enforcement. This assumes that everyone currently travelling without a ticket would still have travelled if they had to pay. If the risk of getting caught has the effect of stopping them travelling (or choosing a different mode of travel), rather than encouraging them to pay, the cost of the ticket checks will not be recovered from increased revenue. (It will of course make more space for the rest of us).
This is not condoning the freeloaders, just pointing out that stopping them may not be cost effective.
There will also be people who are actually deterred from travelling again after an encounter with an over-zealous inspector with a zero-tolerance attitude to genuine mistakes or emergencies.
Just to mention that Tom Barry, who ran the Boriswatch website and twitter account, has died at the too-young age of 41.
He was a trenchant critic of the NB4L, or “lardbus” as he called it, and it seems somewhat apt that his last tweet was:
Boris Watch @BorisWatch Oct 28
Gloomy, cramped plus a weird vibration from the powertrain. #lardbus #triumph
A nice little controlled rant about the Boris/Roast-masters from “City Metric”
Oh dear, how sad
As mentioned, more fuel for the many critics.
“the precautionary work was completed at no cost to tfL or the taxpayer”
No EXTRA cost – because we’d already paid for it. Since the whole project was sponsored by TfL, the cost of the risk of such a thing happening was factored into the contract price in the first place.
There does seem to be some misinformed comment around though – I have seen several commenters suggesting that tfL should have ordered hybrids instead, suggesting that they don’t realise that the NbFL is itself a hybrid. (albeit probably not the most efficient hybrid available)
With so many supposed issues with the NBfL/NRM, I do wonder are these down to the Heatherwick design or down to Wright’s engineering?
Also, now that the SRM is launched, was this an initiative by TfL or Wrights?
@ Timbeau – to be fair the cost of vehicle warranties is always in the cost of running a route where new vehicles are concerned. To some degree an element of the design and development cost is also factored into the price of new vehicles and operators pay that. In London’s model it is TfL that then pay up and going back one step that means fare and taxpayers. I understand your point that TfL paid the entire cost of the NB4L but let’s not kid ourselves that London didn’t help fund the development of ADL and Volvo hybrid buses too. Given the massive push London has made to low floor buses, hybrids and all electric vehicles over the last 25 years then a lot of “London” money has flowed to help push those innovations into marketable designs.
Given the media are most likely reflecting comments from London Assembly members when it comes to hybrid bus costs then you can rest assured that those AMs most certainly *do* understand the difference between the various models and their respective costs. They definitely know the NB4L is also a hybrid.
@ Stationless – don’t you mean *TfL’s* design given they’ve now ordered 1,000 of the mobile greenhouses? 😛
Although everyone is denying it publicly I think it is pretty clear that TfL have done some very strong “behind the scenes” arm twisting with the manufacturers to ensure the most tedious aspects of the NB4L design are perpetuated. ADL and Wrightbus have spun it as “oh we just decided that these NB4L-esque features should suddenly turn up in new versions of buses we’ve always planned to build” (ahem!). I find the whole thing utterly, utterly depressing. I am also left wondering when some opening windows are going to appear on these wretched buses. Not long now before we’re at Summer (and possibly warmer (hah!) temperatures) when the “majority” of NB4Ls should have been converted and yet new buses are still being churned out of Northern Ireland with non opening glazing – including the new SRM on Volvo chassis when it should have been perfectly feasible to design it from day one with opening windows.
With bus ridership and income going down (not seen in 20+ years?) and cuts to operating budgets increasing, when can we expect real cuts to services to begin?
After the elections?
@ Ed – it remains to be seen. The latest numbers are profoundly worrying and TfL have only published one year’s worth of revised budget numbers despite being instructed by the Mayor to produce 5 year’s worth. Of course it is all totally academic now because whoever gains City Hall in May will force through a change in budget and business plan anyway. As none of the candidates (so far) have any strong commitments about the bus network it’s an easy target for reductions. TfL have already effectively changed policy anyway because they’ve said they’re going to keep reducing central area bus services and divert money to the suburban services. One area to keep an eye on is TfL’s reaction to Essex and Herts cutting their funding for cross boundary services which are contracted by TfL. So far nothing has been said and we are very close to the new financial year so something will have to give soon. If TfL decide the routes have to be cut back to fit the available funding then that’s a clue as to how tough things are.
Regardless of who wins the election Oxford St will be pedestrianised so that will bring seismic changes to the bus network in Central London. It will change beyond recognition compared to today’s network.
@Ww
“you can rest assured that those AMs most certainly *do* understand the difference between the various models and their respective costs. They definitely know the NB4L is also a hybrid.”
They may do, but I’m not convinced the press do, and even less that people writing in to the press do. I saw a comment a few days ago suggesting that tfL should be buying hybrids instead of “diesel buses like the nbfl” Of course, you know and I know that the NbfL is a hybrid, as well as (like all hybrid buses) a diesel. But clearly some people don’t realise this and assume a bus isn’t a hybrid unless it has pictures of green leaves on the side.
If the press get it wrong, then surely a voice of authority in e.g. TfL should contact in a proper manner the publication concerned to inform and correct the reporter’s comments and I do not mean by way of a ‘letter to the editor’ intended to be published as such.
@WW – “If TfL decide the routes have to be cut back to fit the available funding then that’s a clue as to how tough things are.”
Interesting, for do you suppose that bus routes out for consultation to extend (I have in mind the 42 at its southern end by example) will be discarded, or were you just thinking of bus frequency? The 42 is an odd one anyway because most of the extended route is already covered by parallel bus and train routes.
As for the NBfL (NB4L), what is happening to all the perfectly serviceable buses it is replacing? I might add not only perfectly serviceable but more comfortable and better designed in many respects.
@Graham F
“what is happening to all the perfectly serviceable buses it is replacing?”
The same as happens all the time when new buses are introduced = older buses are taken out of service. These may be the ones that previously operated the route the new buses have appeared on, but more usually there is a “cascade”, and somewhere in Stagecoach’s or Arriva’s or whoever’s empire, some life-expired T-registered relic will go for scrap.
WW
<i? …divert money to the suburban services. …
Which are going to need it if LBWF’s antics with their road “system” are continued or reproduced elsewhere.
It now takes ridiculous lengths of time to get from Clapton to Walthamstow & the N-S artery through Walthamstow ( Hoe St & Chingford Rd ) & frequently utterly locked up, even on Sundays, because of LBWF’s “cycle-friendly” initiatives, causing lots more pollution of course ….
This is relevant, because travelling by bus, even in “zones 3-5” (so to speak) is now not worth the effort, most of the time.
@timbeau – T-registered? You should be so lucky. Here in Stagecoachland,we’ve only just seen the backs of N-registered kit.
@ Graham F – Just over a year ago TfL announced their “500 extra buses” boost to the bus contract budget. The profile of planned total annual mileage was duly increased over several years. Clearly this year and rolling into next there is some extra money hence a massive splurge of consultations and an equally massive surge of conclusions in the last couple of days! Has purdah started? 😉 At long last significant network gaps like Ealing to Hounslow and Ealing to Harrow are being fixed albeit off the back of some controversial changes to other routes. The 42 extension has been long heralded but that’s run into a local controversy at Red Post Hill over trees and traffic calming! We shall see what TfL decide to do. They urgently need to double deck the route but can’t keep it at its existing terminal at Sunray Av if they do (tree issues again!).
When you look at the new budget TfL have lopped off 1m miles off the bus network mileage target (was 499m, now 498m). The figures beyond next year have not been published. The response I referred to was TfL’s reaction to the planned total withdrawal of funding by Essex and Herts county councils in respect of cross boundary routes in their areas. As I have said before there is great disquiet by people *living outside of Greater London* about the cuts but the disquiet is directly at our City Hall not the relevant County Halls. Obviously there are Londoners who use the routes too and repeated Mayor’s Questions have yet to elicit a clear answer.
There is a big issue here – if TfL does not cut these routes to reflect the loss of funding they are effectively signalling to other bordering counties that they can cut their funding too and TfL will magically make up the difference. I don’t want to see any routes cut but we are talking about many hundreds of thousands of pounds for Essex and Herts. If Surrey cut off their funding then we’re talking about quite a lot more given the volume of TfL service into Staines, Epsom and south to Dorking. TfL routes in Staines have loadings full to bursting point so any cut to services there would be hugely unpopular but there is a point of principle here. Other authorities can’t be left to “dump” their funding problems on London because where does it end? We’re beyond the point where cuts can be made without them having consequences. Voters outside London need to direct their ire at their politicians. If it was down to me I’d cut all the relevant cross boundary services in order to ram the point home. That’d probably be a bit childish on my part but there is not a bottomless pit of money.
It wouldn’t be quite so bad if the core TfL bus network funding was in decent shape but it isn’t. Revenue is way down as is patronage. When you compare the updated budgetted bus revenue for next year (2016/17) against the numbers in the last Business Plan there is a reduction of £141m (£1,566m against £1,707m). That’s a very large shift to try to cope with. Bus contract costs are shown to be £99m lower which is partly down to lower fuel prices, keen contract costs but must also party reflect that 1m reduction in planned mileage. I was hoping to see the profile of mileage and costs beyond 2016/17 but I assume TfL have deliberately not published that given the pending Mayoral Election and the need to redo the Budget and Business Plan anyway.
WW: your points about the cuts in support for cross-boundary routes make me wonder whether there might be some more targeted response that TfL could make, rather than just choosing between continuing the services (with the consequences you describe) and dropping them.
Is there any scope for differential pricing, for instance, so that a journey wholly within London is priced as now, but crossing the boundary requires paying more? (I assume fare differentials based on the passenger’s home address are ruled out by practical considerations, and perhaps legal ones as well, although use of many council tips requires proof of address).
@ Malcolm – there are, of course, a range of options open to TfL. The obvious ones are to reduce service levels where this is feasible especially if it reduces the peak vehicle requirement. It may also be possible to axe evening or Sunday services or withdraw sections of route but that’s the more difficult thing to do as sensible turning points rarely align with administrative boundaries.
I think fare changes are the least likely to be honest. There used to be higher fares for out boundary sections but that was before Oyster and before cash fares were removed from buses. I think it is completely impractical to have graduated fares because it could only work on where you board the bus rather than where you alight. Also do you charge a higher fare for those travelling to or from an out boundary area or also for those travelling through such an area and re-entering Greater London (this applies to route 107)? I can’t see people going from Edgware to Barnet on a 107 being pleased at coughing up more dosh because the bus runs via Borehamwood! There are also implications for daily / weekly caps, Travelcard and Bus & Tram season ticket prices. Do these all need a higher price version for out county bus travel? Sounds like a load of effort to raise a little money when reducing services is the easier answer.
“I think it is completely impractical to have graduated fares because it could only work on where you board the bus rather than where you alight.”
There is a certain rough justice in such an approach, as most journeys are return journeys and therefore the average cost would be intermediate between an in-London and an outside-London journey.
Of course, the GLA boundary could be adjusted, if the good folk of Epsom & Ewell, etc, want to join the club. But there seems to be some people who would rather the opposite – someone on the radio last night was claiming havering was east of London, not in London, and somehow blaming the existence of the GLA on the EU (despite the fact that the UK did not join the EEC until nine years after Havering joined Greater London!)
Greg Tingey – 100% correct about roads becoming gridlocked for most of the day, every day. In many areas of London I spend time in, out past zone 2 is just solid traffic. Buses are a complete waste of time. And in a deeply unscientific survey – when looking at people on buses it is increasingly those under 16 or over 60 – ie those who do not pay. Looking at falls in revenue this seems to be backed up.
Who would use a bus now if you do pay and have ANY sort of alternative? They are beyond slow. Glacial is more like it. A pitiful service.
@timbeau: Yes, the GLA boundary could be adjusted; some alternative or extra authority could also be introduced. But the timescale of such changes is all wrong – any such thing proposed today could only happen in 5 years at the minimum (and more likely 15, 50 or never), whereas the challenge for the bus network is now: decisions have to be taken now to meet any deficit and/or provide the best possible service with the available money.
@WW – would it matter (except of course, to the users) if the TfL funding for cross-boundary services was withdrawn? Aren’t they -as here in Surrey – “joint” services for funding purposes and therefore if the outcounty leg is withdrawn, so, too are the costs.
@ Graham H 1800
It would be understandable if services no longer having contributions from the shire counties only operated within the TfL area, but creates reminders of what happened to trams when they reached a municipal boundary. Let us hope some sort of sensible solution can be arrived at.
If TfL wanted to keep a cross boundary service for its passengers you could, of course, have the last boarding point at the last stop inside the boundary, with a matching first setting down point in the reverse direction, although the 107 would remain a problem.
The 107 is not the only route to dip in and out of the GLA area. The 166 crosses the boundary three times on its way from Croydon to Epsom, and the 331 crosses four times on its way from Uxbridge to Northwood
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/331.html
@James Bunting – quite so, but hardly TfL’s problem. Financewise, the issue is a neutral one for them. The problem can, of course, be replicated over the entirety of the country, wherever there is a boundary. Those services like the 107 which dip in and out of different local authorities aren’t in principle, any different. The *only* alternative is to have a Dutch-style centrally laid down standard for providing a bus service, but that ship sailed fifty years ago, alas.
Graham
Schools are to move out from local authority control so why would buses moving into some centrally controlled setup be impossible?
Not impossible if the political will was there, but no political party advocates it (nor ever has,indeed). More specifically, whilst the duty to provide education is a legal one, there is no such duty to provide a bus service – and it’s unclear how that duty could be defined. [More generally,and moving perhaps too far away from topic, why would government wish totake direct responsibility for something that is politically a hot potato when the buck can be passed to local government – but then you could have made exactly the samepoint about education…]?
An alternative approach to the cross-boundary issue is for non-TfL services to run into the GLA area. There are not that many examples of local bus routes functioning under a London Service Permit these days (Google TfL LSP Bulletin for more info) but Arriva Southern Counties’ 402 from Tunbridge Wells still manages to make it to Bromley (and the 477 from Bluewater to Orpington).
Colleagues in the know reckon that the 310 from Hertford to Enfield was severely damaged as TfL sought to push such routes out of its area, in this case truncating it at Waltham Cross, which is an inadequate substitute as an attractive destination for passengers.
The disadvantage is that such routes do not have the technology to accept Oyster – though I believe both of the ASC routes offer a cash-equivalent fare – but they do take other passes eg Freedom Pass. However, as operations from outside London tend to have a lower cost base, fewer passengers is not necessarily a financial problem. But it would cost rather more than £1.50 to travel from Dorking to Kingston if the 465 were to be provided this way.
@Man of Kent -the issue is not who runs the buses but who pays for them; it really doesn’t make any difference which operator crosses the boundary – one operator’s route (and many do) could easily cross many boundaries,collecting subsidy from the different authorities as it goes.
@Graham H
It *does* make a difference who is the operator. On another thread I highlighted what Surrey spends on TfL-spec routes that run into the county, and they absorb more subsidy than the typical SCC-funded route.
I would say that is because TfL’s bells-and-whistles specification means that the costs are considerably in excess of what generally runs in the rest of the country. If the cross-boundary routes are run from outside in the manner of the 402, it is entirely possible that they could be provided commercially – or certainly at a much lower rate of subsidy. No i-bus (which costs what – £11k a bus?) but real time info is usually available via the ticket machine; perhaps fewer CCTV cameras though on-board wifi is becoming increasingly common. Swings and roundabouts to some extent, but the cloth is cut accordingly beyond the GLA boundary.
@Man of Kent – still not so, I fear. My point has nothing to do with the spec of the crossboundary routes but is about who pays for them. Surrey is entirely free to choose which operator runs services within its boundaries and if it chooses to procure crossboundary services to a higher spec than internal routes or prefers to break a route at the boundary for tendering purposes then that’s its decision, not TfL’s. Whatever Surrey’s decision – and I suggest you study very carefully the 2014 SCC Cabinet papers on bus tendering with their associated list of routes for which they pay subsidy – they are paid for by SCC, not TfL, within Surrey’s boundaries.
@ Man of Kent / others – yes you can get a cheaper service than one provided by TfL. The main issue is that the service level will (almost certainly) be vastly lower. I think one reason why there is so much “noise” from users is that they know that a TfL provided service is cheaper and much higher quality (frequency, hours of operation). They know that if it goes then any alternative will not be as good. For people inside Greater London then there is the issue that if cross boundary routes go their service levels may drop too and any alternative is likely to be less attractive. Thinking about all the routes into Epsom it’s not easy to find practical places to turn them at the boundary. There is the further issue that some cross boundary routes have been brought back from the dead and have seen decent increases in patronage in recent years (406/418 Kingston to Epsom being a good example). If these routes were cancelled then a lot of investment will be written off. I understand Graham H’s point – depending on how “brutal” you wish to be then yes, of course, you can remove these services and leave users and politicians with the fall out. The issue, though, is that TfL’s services are subject to political accountability whereas most others are not.
I note with interest the remark that TfL forced out the 310 at Enfield. What TfL did, in response to Mayoral policy, was tighten the emissions standards applicable to all service buses running into Greater London. In a number of cases existing operators (Arriva and Thamesway) opted to withdraw the cross boundary routes rather than provide vehicles to a suitable standard. I don’t strictly see this as TfL forcing companies out. There are wider questions about air quality and if exceptions should or should not be made about where the standards apply. The irony is that Arriva now have very decent vehicles on the 310 that would easily meet the requisite standards that are tighter now than they were in the past. I understand the “Oyster equivalent” cash fare on the 402 and 477 in Bromley borough will shortly go as will Travelcard and Bus & Tram Pass acceptance within Greater London.
There are commercial routes within Greater London – for example, Abellio’s 458 and 459 (the successors to red routes 218 and 219) These are the only routes along the Portsmouth Road, passing Kingston University’s Seething Wells campus, and are Surrey County Council sponsored services. They do not accept Oyster, but they do accept cash!
@timbeau – in fact, the majority of routes from Surrey that go into the GLA area are commercially provided according the schedules of bus tenders let by SCC;to judge by the successive route reorganisations in, for example, the Weybridge and LHR areas, it is the “country” sections of such routes which are on the margins of commercial viability. Some were roads whose services were red (eg the 201 and 215)and some were green in origin, even if they look very different today.
@Graham H
The 201 (and 206) disappeared c1980 when the 215 was diverted from the main Portsmouth Road to cover the local roads they had previously served. The 215 itself survives as a TfL red route in darkest Claygate, albeit masquerading since 1987 as the K3.
The Kingston-Guildford road is an interesting but probably off topic of the example of hundredisation, having been served by the 215, 415, 715 and (briefly) the 815. It was nice to see Surrey keep the tradition alive with the 415…
@Graham H
You missed one – the Kingston-Guildford route was originally numbered 115 – renumbered into the single-deck series as 215 in 1934.
http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/routes/215-1.html
@timbeau -:-) It’s a pity that the trolleybus service was never extended from Dittons as the 615 -full house.
sadly the 615 (Moorgate to Parliament Hill Fields) and the 315, (in deepest Hertfordshire) were not part of the pattern.
PS just discovered a short-lived 615 paralleling the 15
http://www.eplates.info/500s.html
But I think you’re mistaken about Surrey’s 415
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/7734/415-stagecoach-010915.pdf
Guess what number the current Kingston-Guildford service has……
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/515.pdf
@timbeau – I sat and watched a 415 leave Guildford for Ripley yesterday whilst waiting for the 71 but maybe that had a poorly set blind (wildly offtopic, but the art of providing a correct display seems to defeat many bus drivers round our way)! You’re right about the 515, tho’.
mea culpa – googling failed to find that one. Curiously, at the other end, I also often use the 71 – the London one , in Kingston. (Or one of them anyway, there is another one serving Heathrow!).
Back on topic, lack of co-ordination of bus numbers between operators can be a real problem – but is hardly new: in my home city the NBC subsidiary and the Corporation, both had number series starting at 1, the correspondingly-numbered routes often leaving the City Centre in diametrically opposite directions but in other cases following each other down the High Street for over two miles before diverging to quite different destinations. In the 1970s they even operated buses of the same make and, just to make it even harder, started dressing some buses in advertising liveries so you couldn’t even rely on recognising which No 7 was yours from the colour (or rather shade, because the two operators’ standard liveries were both green!)
@WW 00:44
Currently on the Arriva website: “From 20th March we will no longer accept Oyster Cards in the Transport for London area (between Crouch Farm and Orpington). Instead we will offer a standard £1.50 single fare for journeys in this area which is equivalent to the value of a single journey using an Oyster card.”
@MoK: I had always avoided them anyway because of the assumption: Bus not red => no oyster! Judging by the loading levels on the 477 when compared with the partially overlapping R6, I think many other people did the same….