It’s been a while since we looked in detail at London’s bus network and its related issues on LR, so it’s time for an update. We begin by looking at what has happened in recent years with regards to finances and emissions.
Looking back on the first term
The election of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London in May 2016 had a significant impact on the bus network, and will continue to do so for years to come. This is despite the fact that his election manifesto didn’t have any big headlines about buses. The real transport issues in the manifesto were about the cost of using public transport in London, with proposals to freeze fares and introduce a one-hour bus ticket. The manifesto claimed TfL was “flabby and inefficient”, and that as the new Mayor he would make it more efficient in order to cover the cost of the fares freeze and to protect services. The manifesto specifically stated that services would not be reduced to cover the expected loss of income.
Alongside the desire to save Londoners money on their transport costs, the new Mayor also promised to improve bus drivers’ pay and remove the “race to the bottom” on driver salaries. He also pledged to make buses “cleaner and greener”, with new hybrid buses being bought, and newer, cleaner technologies like hydrogen and electric power being trialled and then introduced into fleet service. Most of these are planned for introduction from 2020 onwards.
Both of these commitments have had significant impacts on the cost of service provision. A 2016 commitment to pedestrianize Oxford Street would also have a considerable impact on the nature of the bus network in Central London, if implemented.
The above policies represented something of a shift from those in place during Boris Johnson’s tenure at City Hall. The former mayor only had one stated bus policy and that was the development and introduction of the New Routemaster bus. One thousand of these vehicles were eventually ordered and the final batch came into service in 2017, but with little fanfare, given that the new Mayor had already publicly repudiated this policy. We discussed the long term legacy of the New Routemaster more fully in our look at Wrightbus’ situation in Northern Ireland.
Bus subsidies: the elephant in the room
The other key impacts Johnson had, as Mayor of London, on the bus network were an ongoing downward pressure on “subsidy”, no overt policy of bus network expansion and a continued rise in bus fares and season ticket prices over 8 years, linked to RPI.
Only in late 2014 did we get a headline of “500 extra buses” promised for the network. This was a rather sudden change from the previous seven years, and represented TfL deciding it had to do something with growing congestion on some routes, and pressure to improve access to hospitals and create new links. The TfL business plan was duly updated with a new upward projection of annual scheduled kilometrage, with an increase from 493m kms in 2014/15 to 516m kms in 2020/21. The annual difference between revenue and costs was estimated at an average of £470m per annum despite the service expansion. Revenue and patronage were estimated to rise too.
Meanwhile two other of Mayor Johnson’s initiatives were in full swing that would come to have serious consequences for the bus network. These were the construction of segregated cycle superhighways and the “Road Modernisation Plan”.
The TfL Business Plan
We now move forward to December 2016 and the publication of a fully updated TfL Business Plan that reflected the new Mayor’s priorities. In respect of the bus network there were two significant elements in the plan. The first was the complete abandonment of the December 2014 plan to add “500 extra buses” and its replacement with a flat annual kilometrage of only 497m kms. The second element was a complete revision of forecast bus revenues and costs of operation. The annual subsidy was projected to rise to an annual average of £603m. Part of this was because the fares freeze naturally depressed the expected revenue. The need to fund newer, cleaner buses and cover the changes in bus driver salaries also impacted on the projected cost of bus contracts. These cost increases were offset to some extent by the scrapping of service volume expansion.
The absence of increasing passenger numbers
There is one other element of that 2016 Business Plan that now stands out. TfL, and we must assume the Mayor, were expecting to see a 11% increase in passenger journeys over the duration of the plan. This fundamentally underpinned assumptions for forecast revenues. This always seemed optimistic and would have required some impressive increases in usage, when you consider that fares were not going to increase and the Hopper ticket always had the potential to reduce revenue too. In reality, these increases have not come to pass. Bus mileage peaked at 507m kms in 2016/17, before dropping to 489m kms in 2018/19. Bus journeys, meanwhile, were 2.261bn in 2016/17 (already down on the 2015/16 total) and have remained largely static since (2.22bn in 2018/19).
The air quality issue
A fundamental element of the Khan’s programme for London was the improvement of London’s air quality. The Mayor’s control of most of London’s public transport network gives them the ability to use TfL as a delivery body for elements of that quality improvement programme and buses are a key part of that. We are not going to review the entire air quality programme, but will look at how the bus network and the vehicles that run it are affected.
Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)
There are three key elements in the strategy that affect buses. The first was the decision to implement an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in Greater London and to do so earlier than had been previously planned. The second was the decision to expand the area in which “clean” buses will be required to operate. The final element was a decision to create 12 “low emission bus zones” in Greater London.
Boris Johnson proposed to introduce an Ultra Low Emission Zone from 2020. The ULEZ is the same area as the congestion charge zone, which covers most of the West End and parts of the City of London. It does, however, exclude the Edgware Rd – Park Lane – Victoria – Vauxhall corridor, as well as the Marylebone Road linking Kings Cross to Paddington.
In terms of buses the proposal was that all double decker buses in the zone would be hybrid vehicles to Euro6 standard for vehicle emissions, except the Euro5 spec New Routemasters. Single decker buses would be zero emission. Khan later fine tuned that policy slightly by insisting all double deckers will be to Euro6 standard, this required something of a bus shuffle to ensure that only newer, Euro6 compliant New Routemasters served ULEZ routes.
Low emission bus zones
The second element in the Mayor’s strategy that affects buses is the plan to introduce up to 12 “low emission bus zones” (LEBZ). This involves the use of the least polluting buses on specific stretches of road across Greater London that have high levels of airborne pollutants.
The target of twelve zones remained in the latest TfL Business Plan, although only seven had been fully implemented by this point. The remainder were confirmed as implemented in September 2019. A full break down of these zones can be found here.
Implementing these zones has not been free of controversy or difficulty. Using Putney as an example, TfL re-let a large number of contracts for routes in this area and a lot of new hybrid double deckers were brought into service. Despite TfL’s best efforts, however, not every route had the desired low emission buses in place. Therefore some urgent shuffling of buses was undertaken, with route 63’s brand new buses being sent in a south westerly direction to take up duty on route 93 which serves Putney. The residents of Honor Oak and Peckham, who had just started to get used to newer buses on their route, suddenly found themselves on rather older, less emissions-friendly double deckers once again.
More bus juggling
The real controversy sprang from elsewhere in Wandsworth, however, where the Euro6 spec small buses from the G1 route were duly whisked away and replaced by older buses from the 424, a local Putney route. This swap did not go unnoticed either, with the G1’s users, and local residents in Clapham expressing their “outrage” at losing their new buses. Wandsworth Council duly joined in the debate despite having pressured TfL to improve Putney’s air quality changes for years. It said that other routes should not lose their vehicles in order to put low emission buses into Putney.
These issues nicely highlight the delicate position that TfL now finds itself in. Bus revenue is flat and the subsidy gone, yet implementing the much-needed emissions changes within the LEBZ (and beyond) means new buses. And TfL cannot fund new buses on every route whenever these zones are established. Other fleet shuffles have occured since 2016, and we can expect to see more fleet shuffles taking place as the remaining zones are implemented. It is notable that recent Business Plans have been more cautious in promising retrofitting ‘where possible’ on upcoming LEBZ routes. This suggests that some may launch with buses that don’t meet the new standards at all, at least until natural fleet turnover occurs.
The importance and success of these zones should not, however, be overlooked. A recent TfL report indicates that they have likely equated to a 29% reduction in NOx emissions across the entire TfL fleet.
Zero emissions and the ULEZ
All single decker buses operating in the ULEZ will be zero emission from September 2020. The latest Business Plan also commits to only purchasing Euro6 compliant double deckers from 2020 forwards, with the entire London bus fleet to be zero emission at tailpipe by 2037. The nuances in those commitments and the differences in implementation date demonstrates the scale of the task TfL has in updating the bus fleet. It is also worth noting that the 2020 double decker commitment itself represented a slight slip. The 2016 plan had originally promised this would be the case from 2018 onwards.
Overall, Mayor Khan was an early beneficiary of the zero emission single decker policy as he could claim (somewhat dubiously) that he had introduced 50 all electric buses on routes 507 and 521. This was technically true, but also the case of benefitting from the actions of his predecessor (something Johnson had been all to happy to do as well). The reality is that these buses had been ordered under the previous Mayoralty in response to the policy established then. Routes 507 and 521 had been test bed routes for the first all electric single decker bus trials using two Chinese and two Spanish single deck vehicles.
ULEZ and route conversions
In reality, there are not many single deck routes that run into the ULEZ, but the four routes that do (routes 46, 153, 214 and 274) had their contract re-tendering dates brought forward to create a longer time period than usual between contract award and the new contract start date. This was to allow operators and TfL time to equip garages with electric charging or hydrogen fuelling facilities and procure new zero emission vehicles as required. TfL themselves tendered for a new Hydrogen fueling station at Metroline’s Perivale garage in 2018. Despite some delays, this is due to open shortly and will serve not only hydrogen single deckers, but 20 ‘world-first’ hydrogen double deckers. These will serve routes 245, 7 and N7.
Although they do not enter the ULEZ, two other single decker routes receive all electric buses in 2017 – these were route 70 (South Kensington – Chiswick Business Park) and C1 (Victoria – White City), operated by RATP London United and London Central. These routes benefited from some government funding for low emission vehicles and also from RATP itself. RATP are embarking on a conversion of their entire Paris bus fleet to low emission vehicles over the next few years, and wish to showcase their policy in London as well.
Green bus initiatives
It is worth summarising what other development work has gone on with low emission technologies in recent years and what else is planned. TfL has actively participated in several groups and EU initiatives on low carbon, zero emission and hydrogen vehicle technologies. It has also received a share of government funding in several rounds of “green bus” initiatives. All-electric single deckers currently operate on routes 312 in Croydon, the H98 in Hounslow, the cross river 108 route plus the aforementioned 507 and 521 as well as others. The first two routes use Optare Metrocity EV buses with the 312 having a full allocation, the 108 has the two Spanish Irizar buses made surplus from trials from the 507/521, whilst the largest fleet so far has been made up of Alexander Dennis bodied BYD single deckers. The chassis are made in China but the vehicles are bodied in Scotland. Alexander Dennis have formed a partnership with BYD with a clear eye to winning substantial orders in the UK for zero emission single deckers.
TfL have also run two trials of virtual and all-electric double deck buses in London. The virtual electric trial used specially adapted Alexander Dennis Enviro 400 buses on route 69. There were three buses in the trial and these used inductive recharging facilities at Canning Town and Walthamstow bus stations. Buses can recharge their batteries without being plugged in to an electricity supply. If required, the buses can use the small diesel engine they are equipped with if the battery charge falls below a minimum level. This is part of the ZEUS (Zero Emissions Urban Bus System) initiative organised by the UITP (L’Union Internationale des Transports Publics).
The second trial worth noting involved five all-electric double deckers produced by BYD. These were the first all electric, non-trolleybus, double decker buses in the world. These were being trialled on route 98 (Willesden Garage – Holborn) which is operated by Metroline with the buses based at their Willesden Garage. Since then, we’ve seen all-electrics introduced on routes 43 and 134. These use Optare Metrodecker EVs and Alexander Dennis Enviro 400s, respectively.
Ruling out other options
TfL have separately ruled out the use of gas as a fuel for the London bus fleet, even though Reading Buses have converted a large part of their single deck fleet to gas power.
Existing bus upgrades
In the meantime, TfL has also been out to tender for a fleet wide programme of engine and exhaust system upgrades. This covers all single and double deck diesel buses used on TfL services and is part of the commitment to make the full fleet Euro6 compliant.
Alongside the diesel upgrade programme, there is has been a small trial conversion of six older diesel buses to hybrid technology. The conversion technology was developed by Vantage Power and was deployed on 2 Volvo buses run by Go Ahead London. These were trialled on route 87 (Aldwych – Wandsworth) in 2017. It is understood that four further buses were also converted – two from RATP London United and two from Arriva, are also being converted. How successful these conversions were is as yet unknown.
Time to Hop
Moving away from emissions, an early delivery milestone for the new Mayor was the introduction of the so called “Hopper ticket” on the bus and tram network on 12 September 2016. This allows users to make multiple bus journeys for a single price, as long as they are completed within a set period of time. We have covered the technology behind the ticket before.
The ticket itself has proven a success. In September 2019 TfL reported that over 380m ‘hops’ had already been made. That success however, comes at a cost – further pressure on bus revenue. The original estimate from TfL was £30m per annum. What isn’t clear is how much of this was meant to be offset by a perceived increase in bus usage which, as we saw earlier, hasn’t happened. Indeed it is noticeable that since 2016 TfL (and the Mayor) have shifted public relations gears, with the Hopper now pushed as something that has limited the fall in bus passenger journeys, rather than something that will help foster an increase.
Whether that’s true or not remains tricky to ascertain. The dynamics of how people use the ticket is complex. Not every use of the Hopper ticket will necessarily result in revenue loss compared to the situation before introduction and there may be some truth in TfL’s claim that it has had a generative effect that is offsetting wider issues. Either way it has almost certainly cost TfL more, in raw revenue terms, than they originally planed.
The one thing TfL has released is a list of the routes most regularly “hopped” onto by users of the ticket. Indeed a Mayor’s Answer provided a list of these top 200 routes back in 2017. No one will be hugely surprised to see that the most “hopped” routes closely aligns to those routes which are busiest on the network. The long trunk route 18 (Sudbury – Euston) is the most hopped route with just over 74,000 uses in that dataset. Given the 18 interacts with a vast number of other bus services and provides a key radial link in north-west London, logic tells you that a route of this nature would feature highly. Its East London equivalent, route 25, is the third most popular “hopped” route.
The remainder of the list is a mix of routes that run radially into or across Central London, plus the busiest routes in Outer London that either provide “orbital” links between district centres (for example route 83 Alperton – Golders Green or route 41 Tottenham – Archway), plus those which run radially but don’t reach Central London ( for example route 263 Highbury – Barnet Hospital or route 81 Hounslow – Slough).
Finally, it is worth noting that phase 2 of the Hopper ticket came into use in 2018 when the Oyster system was upgraded. This allows unlimited bus and tram journeys within one hour. The upgrade also grants the discount to allow riders to make two bus rides within an hour but separated by a Tube or rail journey (for example Blackhorse Lane in E17 to Camden Town using the Vic Line from Blackhorse Rd to Finsbury Park with a connecting bus at each end). It will be genuinely fascinating what that does to ridership and revenue, and whether TfL has assumed it will be generative or not.
Facing the future
As can be seen from all the above, despite a general lack of publicity (and initial, direct manifesto commitments) there has been considerable activity on the bus front during the current mayoral term. A lot of this is positive, not least the enormous steps forward taken to ensure that London’s bus fleet plays its part in improving air quality. This is important due to the size of the impact such improvements can have.
What is also clear, however, is that this work – as well as changes such as the Hopper – have placed further pressure on TfL’s bus budget. Combined with the fact that bus journeys have remained at best static, this leaves TfL in a tricky situation indeed. Good things come at a price, and that price is becoming much harder for TfL’s wider finances to bear.
Nor is the path to better bus services wrinkle free. Later in this series we will explore some of the changes Khan and TfL have overseen in terms of bus driver employment experience, many positive, but here serious issues remain around bus driver fatigue and the way it is managed. Nor have we yet looked at the impact of increasing road congestion on bus services and more.
There is no doubt that the bus network remains a critical part of both TfL’s past and its future, but navigating the financial constraints and required improvements will be tricky in the years to come.
This article, and other elements of this series, were written by Walthamstow Writer (Paul Corfield). Paul lost his battle with cancer at the end of 2019. We publish them here in memoriam to a valued friend and colleague.
During his battle, MacMillan Cancer Support were invaluable. If you enjoyed Paul’s writing, you can make a donation on Paul’s tribute page.
Cover photo by Spsmiler
Surely 493m kms should be changed to 493 Gm. Perhaps I’m being a little facetious – a million kilometres is a little easier to digest than a gigametre. But please don’t put a letter s on the end of km, because that would mean kilometre seconds, and I don’t know what physical quantity is measured in units of length X time.
Great article, by the way
I wonder how many riders would be lost if the bus fare was now raised to (say) £2 (with corresponding increase in bus-only fare caps to match), and therefore whether revenue would increase, stay flat, or decline. And a matching increase in outer zone off peak oyster fares to match.
To some extent, I suspect that London bus fares are like petrol prices, the increase would not proportionally decrease ridership as some of the ridership doesn’t have an option. Yes an increase would be unpopular in the same way an increase in fuel duty is unpopular; one hand giveth (hopper) and the other hand taketh away (fare increase).
Some of the unpopularity could be mitigated by allowing select routes or zones to stay at £1.50 (adding an extra charge to hop onto a longer distance/popular route to come up to £2 total). Even better if (some) tube/train journeys could be included in the hopper scheme–e.g. bus/tube/bus you only pay for tube (if larger), but that probably would cost too much in extra revenue, defeating the purpose of the fare rise.
To beat an old drum again, I wonder if a deliberate, conscoius and thought-through strategy for the bus network could pay dividends. By that I mean:
1. Better matching routes and frequencies to demand
2. Shortening routes where this can improve reliablity
3, Investing in proper interchanges where possible in order to make changing between buses easier and more reliable – which could allow the hopper to save TfL money in the long run. This includes minor infrastructure improvemnts to shelters, bus stop placement (for interchange) etc.
4. Increased bus priority measures where this is practical and not done already
5. In general, having a holistic picture of the bus network as a whole, and how it fits in with other modes.
It seems to me, that many of the changes to the bus network in recent years (and the publicity that accompanies them) has been haphazard at best, with routes being changed or cut and passengers directed to use the hopper apparently without much thought to how that works in practice. Investing the (comparatively) small sum of money that it would take to improve this could work wonders. – it’s difficult to take a bus that you don’t know exists or gets diverted with little to no warning.
In other words – make using the bus as fast and reliable as using the tube (on a good day)
Buses are traditionally the “budget” option, and currently the bus fare is the same as the cheapest tube/overground fare. If the bus fare was raised, there would presumably now be some journeys which would be cheaper by tube than bus, which feels perverse.
I know it would cost a lot, but installing ‘Countdown’ displays at more bus stops could improve ridership. Knowing how long you are likely to have to wait takes the guesswork out of the picture and would make the bus more attractive.
#Lost
There is nothing usual measured in ms, indeed it is hard to find anything that is. If you really want to find something to measure in ms, then you have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absement which is a word of recent coining, and seems to result from someone trying to do precisely that. It does have some intuitive applications. For example, suppose a mechanical control lever (eg accelerator pedal) controls the power of an engine, or flow through a value, or the like. Suppose the power or flow it allows is proportional to the displacement of the lever from zero position measured in m. Then the quantity of energy used, or quantity of liquid allowed through the valve, is proportional to the absement (time integral of displacement) of the lever control.
#Lost
And why not Gm? Because it is useful to measure things in units we understand and can visualise. Even astrophysicists used to using very large and very small numbers usually prefer to measure astronomical distances in parsecs rather than metres.
That’s why I get annoyed when I see on the news pieces of land measured in acres. An acre is a piece of land a furlong by a chain, or an eighth of a mile by half a cricket pitch. I find it hard enough to visualise that long thin piece of land, let alone 40 (a farm) or 100,000 (a forest fire) of them. I can understand a hectare or a sq km. A hectare is a piece of land 100m by 100m. And there’s 100 of them to the sq km, so that’s easy. At least the conversion factor of 2.5 acres to the hectare allows easy mental arithmetic. 40 acre farm, 16ha or about 400m square, we can understand that. 100,000 acre forest, 400 sq km, or say 20 km square, we can understand that. It also explains why we British often use the Wales as a measure of still larger pieces of land.
Do we know why TFL have ruled out LPG as a bus fuel?
Meanwhile a combination of policies & “initiatives” have screwed with bus usage, particulary “targeting” in exactly the wrong way, the disabled & those with back/neck/hip problems.
The removal of bus lanes, coupled with wider & more cycle routes means that the “disabled” confined to buses now have significaantly slower hourneys in more polluted atmospheres.
How nice.
As far as I can see, this problem is being ignored to the point of pretending that it does not exist.
I echo DM1’s comments that there does not seem to be any coherence in any of this ….
( e.g His poin4 – As actually being reversed. )
‘The latest Business Plan also commits to only purchasing Euro6 compliant double deckers from 2020 forwards’. Is it actually possible, today, to buy a double decker that isn’t Euro 6 compliant? If not, there seems to be no reason to put this statement in the Business Plan unless it is for window dressing and so that TfL can give itself a gold star for achievement.
This is a useful update on the London bus situation.
Sorry to learn the sad news about Walthamstow Writer.
A small point but the statement that BYD had produced the first non-trolleybus electric double decker in the world is not true (TfL also made this mistake in their press releases and many mainstream media outlets failed to check).
The London Electrobus Company ran a fleet of battery-powered double deckers in London from 1907 to 1910, and longer in Brighton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Electrobus_Company
@Ivan …and the length of a double-decker bus, for shorter distances!
I think the chief effect of the Hopper fare has been in balancing crowding between different routes – as an example a stop on an A road by two primary schools will have 60 people and half-a-dozen buggies waiting at 9am each day. Two bus routes stop there. Before Hoppers, most of them would want to squeeze on the bus that went all the way to a tube station three miles away. Since Hoppers came in, people are equally happy to get on the buses that terminate half a mile away, and change to one of several routes that will take them further.
Result: more predictable dwell times, more customers getting seats, less aggro, but in general passengers aren’t making journeys they wouldn’t have done otherwise, apart from possibly a couple extra stops to get closer to their destination for free.
My impression is that bus drivers are facing less abuse and people trying to force themselves onto crowded buses, than in the past, but not sure if that’s the actuality or just me travelling less in rush hour/late night.
@DANIEL JOHNSON
Most people have their own Countdown displays in their pockets and handbags now.
The Citymapper app shows exactly the same information, but stop-by-stop for all stops in the area, and that information is expandable to show a route map. Other apps, no doubt, are available.
This all saves TfL the cost of a display, the power to run it and the telecoms connection to provide the data.
I also agree with DM1’s statement that a better thought through bus strategy is needed.
I’d add to point 4 that at numerous intersections where buses are given priority at traffic lights require a splitter island being built on the road and the provision of a bus lane as there are no special bus traffic lights used in the UK. Take for example westbound buses on Theobalds Road at the intersection with Old North Street. If there was a UK wide introduction of special bus traffic lights, for example using the letter “B” like in Sydney, more intersections can get priority where space limitations prevents the splitter island.
Also, TfL recently revamped their Spider maps at bus stops. They used to show all stops within a mile and a half radius, and then major stops after that (including locations where routes from that location intersected with each other, and tube/rail stations). The new ones only show a handful of stops, and then have an arrow next to the name of the final destination. The new ones are frustrating and virtually useless, especially if one is trying to make a decision about medium-longer distance journies in unfamilar territory. I hope they revert to the detail of the old style.
@Greg
Do we know why TFL have ruled out LPG as a bus fuel?
I can’t say why they have, but I can say why it was a reasonable decision. It is because CNG (LPG has gone out of fashion, but the effect is similar), doesn’t really offer much benefit for larger vehicles like buses and trucks. The systems using for controlling NOx, tailpipe particulates, and other harmful pollutants for larger modern diesels vehicles are much more effective than the methods generally used for diesel cars. In sum, for larger vehicles CNG offers little pollution benefit and only a small CO2 benefit of around 5-10%, which you can match in other ways.
For larger trucks, I can imagine some use of CNG in the short term more broadly in Europe. But that is only because the EU’s 2030 targets (on manufacturers’ ouput averaged) for large truck emissions are pretty soft, iirc about -20% CO2. The 5-10% CNG can help deliver that target, when averaged across manufacturers’ output, compounded with some other general efficiencies and some production of very low carbon trucks. But if some much more challenging target is then imposed for not far beyond, and then CNG quickly becomes not much help at all. So there is a question of whether the manufacturers will bother to develop production CNG vehicles given that they can be pretty sure they will have to do a lot better than that shortly afterwards.
You can fit these more effective pollution control systems to diesel cars too. A small number of upmarket diesel cars do in fact use the systems, or at least did, it is possible those cars died in the “all diesel cars bad” misunderstanding. Better still, the systems works much more reliably and you can’t play “test suite” games with them, at least not to anything like the same extent. If manufacturers had generally adopted such systems, rather than use their present unreliable and cheatable methods, then we wouldn’t have had Volkswagengate, and diesel cars wouldn’t have the bad name they have now acquired. And we wouldn’t have the growth in higher CO2 petrol cars. But the manufacturers fought tooth and nail against it, mainly I would guess because it was more expensive. They also talked about being unable to create the manufacturing capacity in time. But they did for trucks, because they had to.
Re Ivan and Greg,
LNG rather than CNG or LPG…
LNG/CNG solved the air quality issues but not the decarbonisation agenda.
On small /medium, cars there is big problem with finding the the space to fit SCR!
SCR doesn’t work at low exhaust temperatures (low power and cold starts) but this is conveniently “addressed” with by regulatory drive cycles that did allow this to be large ignored, just slightly less so now.
Also interesting to note how many models and engines disappeared when the new drive cycles were introduced recently…
@WW
Thanks for an excellent summary.
Let’s take it as given that there are problems with the buses as the article states.
I could also point to some other problems that I think are stopping people using them more.
1. Bus-stop closures are an utter pest. Stops can be closed for any number of reasons, but this information isn’t reported to TfL, so there is no way of knowing if your start, end or interchange stop will be missing. Yes, it’s only a 400-meter walk, but it makes the service feel third-rate.
2. Bus breakdowns add to the misery of bus use. Who wants to get off in the rain and change to an already full bus? Sometimes this is because of failures, often because of running late.
3. People smoke at bus stops. It might be illegal to do so, but they do. This put the rest of the population off using bus stops.
4. People don’t respect queues in some parts of London, which just puts other people off.
5. Last time I looked (in December 2019) there are 174 bus stops missing at tube/DLR/train interchanges in the TfL dataset, making multi-mode journey planning less helpful.
6. There needs to be a limited-stop “bus Overground” to complete the ability of orbital travel. For example: King George V, Beckton, Barking, Ilford, Gants Hill, Woodford, Higham’s Park, Meridian Water, Silver Street, Palmers Green, Arnos Grove, New Southgate, Finchley Central, Hendon Central, Hendon, Wembley Park, North Wembley, South Harrow/Sudbury Hill Harrow, Perivale, Ealing Broadway, South Ealing, Kew Bridge, Richmond, Wimbledon. This would allow trips on rail, tube and Overground to be more flexible.
7. There needs to be limited stop services such as Walthamstow Central to Stratford to complete the missing bits from the tube/rail network. Putting inter-end passengers on non-stopping buses would improve the lot for both long-distance and local users.
There is,at time of reading, a heading “ULEZ and route conversions” in unbolded lowercase as shown here.
Spiderman
Even worse, TfL have taken to gutting their on-line spider maps … apparently one borough at a time.
Now, if you want to find where the buses go from Clapham Jn or from Seven Sisters …. you can’t, because those bus spider maps have vanished.
Re: more countdown signs.
Yes, lots of people have a smartphone. Lots don’t, or don’t know how to use all the features (or have an old smartphone with limited application space), and these may be a present in greater numbers in the demographic of bus riders.
I think it would now be possible to develop a cheaper version of the countdown sign which could be integrated into the tiles of the stop sign, and maybe solar powered and with 2.5G level mobile communications (low bandwidth, lower powered). Not with a full display, but something simpler (a multi-coloured “bus soon” light, perhaps, next to each route number, with different colours or different lights for “full route”, “stopping short”, or “severe disruption”).
And I also deplore removal of spider maps (or the smaller version on the posts).
Re: matching bus fares to lowest tube fares. Yes, agreed, should raise the lowest tube fares to match/exceed the hopper fare if the bus fare goes up (which I think it may need to, with some concessions).
It shows how London’s bus routes have changed that the 18 from Euston to Sudbury is described as a long trunk route. I remember when it ran from London Bridge to Edgware via Harrow, with some journeys extended to Aldenham. And there were others of similar length.
@Ivan
A chain is 22 yards, just over 20 metres.
A furlong is 10 chains , just over 200 metres.
An acre is therefore about 4,000 square metres or 0.4 hectares.
Hence 2.5 acres is a hectare.
By the way, a cricket pitch is one chain.
One US city “block” is a furlong.
@Brian Butterworth
If WW can read this, he must be somewhere the buses are all RT’s and the trains are Pullmans hauled by 8Ps.
There is however no mention of a tube – that’s in the other place.
@Greg T
I don’t think the choice is between buses and cycling, given that most of the road space in London is currently devoted to queues of private vehicles and taxis. Remove some of them and there would be plenty of space for bus priority measures and cycle lanes.
Bus lanes are generally liked by fast commuter cyclists because being able to swap lanes to go around obstructions makes them quick – wide segregated cycle lanes are much slower and more for the benefit of cargo bikes, cycles adapted for the disabled such as e-trikes, people hauling kids, etc.
The 100 has also just been converted to electric. It runs into the ULEZ…
Spiderman:”I’d add to point 4 [in DM1 post] that at numerous intersections where buses are given priority at traffic lights require a splitter island being built on the road and the provision of a bus lane as there are no special bus traffic lights used in the UK.”
There is at least one in Oxford. Buses leaving the Pear Tree Park and Ride have a lane and their own traffic light that goes green as the bus approaches, to give priority over other traffic moving (usually slowly) towards the A40 roundabout.
I am annoyed about the disappearance of maps on bus stops. As an occasional visitor to London, the day they stopped producing bus maps was a sad one. At the time I thought they said that, apart from phone apps, which as it happens I don’t have access to, passengers would be able to refer to the information at stops.
To be useful, any bus-only traffic light requires a bus lane preceding it, otherwise buses will be held up by non-buses unable to proceed. Whether it also requires an island is probably one of those things where the law is unclear, and different local authorities take different approaches.
When you do have a bus lane, it seems to me not to matter much whether buses are summoned on by their own private green light, or by a letter B or other special symbol. Trams do have entirely different light codes from other vehicles, and that arrangement is technically unnecessary for reserved tracks, but quite helpful as regards avoiding driver confusion.
Come to think, a bus-only light without island is probably quite dangerous for pedestrians, as they may march or wander in front of stopped cars and get clobbered by silent electric buses. But the same observation applies to all filter lights, including the common green left arrow.
Bob
That is the hypothesis – I know.
Practical experience shows that it is not so.
Taffic congestion along Lea Bridge Road & Hoe St has got really significantly worse since the reduction in overall road-width for cycle lanes & the resulting removal of Bus Lanes.
The buses are thus trapped in the queues of cars … oops.
@Malcolm
There are numerous situations where a bus only traffic light without a bus lane can still be useful, especially where buses are allowed to carry out manoeuvres not permissible for general traffic. In particular things like turning left from the right-hand lane on a two lane road.
With a bus lane, they allow things like putting bus lanes in the middle of the road rather than at the edges (in BRT style, with stops as islands) where space permits in a safe way (the transitions to and from such sections are where bus-only lights are helpful).
In certain situations, it’s even possible to have an “electronic contraflow bus lane”. On a two lane road approaching a junction, oncoming traffic is stopped by the traffic lights and the bus crosses the intersection using the oncoming lane as a bus lane. This means the bus can have a bus lane to skip the queue of traffic up to the junction without space being needed for a bus lane..
In short, when you have them, there are countless situations where they can be useful, especially since they prevent confusion with normal traffic lights as would be the case with special signs.
RIP, Walthamstow Writer
An acre is easy to visualise – it is about half the size of a football field. (There is some flexibility in the dimensions). A hectare is close to 2.5 acres
Agree entirely about the loss of Spider Maps. It seems to be a deliberate policy to drive people away from the buses for all but the shortest journeys – even when no alternatives are available (either there is no rail-based service, or that service is disrupted).
Long before they were invented by TfL, the first thing I did when moving to a new area (either to live or work) was create my own spider map by colouring-in, on a paper bus map (remember them?), the routes that radiated from the area .
In the section on “Low Emission Bus Zones” there is a sentence “A full break down of these zones can be found here” Should there be a hyperlink?
@ Milest
Re: Countdown signs
There is an alternative to the standard overhead countdown sign. I’ve only seen one and it is mounted on the westbound bus stop in Carshalton High Street. An upright rectangular design, the same dimensions as the panels used for the printed ”bus times’ sheets, it is mounted on the bus stop post and the display is shades of grey on an off-white back ground.
The first time I noticed it, I thought “great!” (because I’m in favour of countdowns). Alas, on the next occasion I looked at it, it was showing the approaching buses in the Lower Sydenham area.
3 main points-
– Hydrogen is a gas (although stored as a liquid) so stating that TFL have ruled out introducing gas as a fuel isn’t entirely correct. I assume this was referring to natural (carbon based) gas.
– Hybrid buses are clearly not the answer as most seem to have to start the engine within 6 meters of leaving a bus stop. I agree that Hydrogen would seem to be the ‘ideal’ solution were it not for its habit to explode if given the chance.
– Bus congestion (especially around hubs) is also an increasing issue that seems to require urgent review – especially in areas where there are 1 to 2 people onboard a double decker bus, which didnt seem to be touched on
As ever, a good article from WW, and I do miss his lively contributions in the comments sections.
One matter not noted – unless covered elsewhere – is the recent policy of severe route curtailments to deal with too many near empty vehicles plodding through the central area. The trouble with how it’s been done is that now they only reach less useful destinations, the ridership has gone right down. I could give anecdotal evidence of the 3, and how the hopper has not compensated.
On the positive side, the all-electric single deckers are a very nice ride (regular 214 user), and makes anything with a diesel engine clanking, clunking, and rattling the panel-work feel like the stone age by comparison. It’s a big advance. I wonder whether garages need more vehicles to keep the same service level, due to charge time, but Enviro 200’s promotional product information suggests an all-day run off a single charge, which is impressive.
On the mapping, TfL are really letting the side down, alongside the poor promotion and signposting of new routes and changes. The new spider maps don’t let you know how routes cross paths further on, so are useless for making quick decisions at stops served by multiple routes. If they want to increase ridership, then they need to tell people where the routes go and how they interact as a network. It’s useless to suggest that people look at their phones. The screen is fine for saying when the next bus is due and where its destination is, but is too small for useful network layout information.
NickBXN
the all-electric single deckers are a very nice ride (regular 214 user), and makes anything with a diesel engine clanking, clunking, and rattling the panel-work feel like the stone age by comparison.
NOW you know how those of us living in London at the time felt when our Trolleybuses were taken away & replaced by smaller, slower, loud, fume-emitting “routemasters” …..
Well said Greg.
I am of a similar age to Greg, but have to admit that I do not remember feeling particularly strongly at the time when trolleybus routes were “converted”. it just seemed like “one of those things” – I didn’t really notice the fumes or the noise at the time. But looking back now, I rather wish I did.
“If the bus fare was raised, there would presumably now be some journeys which would be cheaper by tube than bus, which feels perverse.”
What’s important is not how it feels, but whether it is best for TfL and/or best for passengers.
Tube trips are probably cheaper for TfL than bus trips, because one train conductor can drive 500 passengers while a bus driver can only drive 50 passengers. If the tube trip is more convenient for passengers and also cheaper for TfL, there is zero reason why it shouldn’t be cheaper than a bus trip.
Malcom
IMHO – one of the worst examples of “short-termism” to the detriment of the next 50+ years I have ever seen.
Given the ( lack of ) air quality in London in 1960-61, the fumes were not too noticeable, but the noise, slowness & small size were immediately apparent.
All to save money over replacing the wiring system & some of the power supplies, IIRC, but sticking us & TfL’s predecessors with ongoing bills for all of that period.
I think there was also “fashion” involved – remember that was the era of “Knock down St Pancras” & “Knock down Tower Bridge” (!)
Thank you for this and many other great reports, Walthamstow Writer.
Re bus funding and costs, surely the easiest way to increase available funding and reduce operating costs is to expand the congestion charge area / increase the charge? I must admit I do have the feeling that Khan’s transport policy is based on the premise that nobody should be hurt unless it is for something really shiny (cycle super highways).
Something else that bothers me is the lack of noticeable structure in route numbering. I think a proper system would help orientation, and it would make TfL look more competent. But then, given that they got rid of mas and spider maps (and the awfulness of the tube map), I do not feel that this is their strength (anymore)
Lastly on trolley buses, has anyone crunched the numbers? Are they really that much more uneconomic than batteries?
PS Previous CC increases were in Feb 2003, July 2005, Jan 2011 and June 2014 – we now have the longest stretch without any increase…
@Christian Schmidt
I think it’s a case of how you crunch the numbers that determines the result.
Thinking in the longer term (over 20-30 years), I am convinced that battery trolleybuses would be the best option – because of the weight savings over pure battery buses (and the enivronmental benefits of smaller batteries being used more intensively) whilst requiring the minimal amount of fixed infrastructure. Yes battery technology is improving, but nowhere near fast enough for trolleynuses to become redundant in the near future.
The problem is, that a trolleybus network requires a large up-front investment, whereas a battery bus can just be bought as and when the powers that be feel like it, with fixed infrastructure being limited to a charging station or two in a depot. In that sense it’s ‘cheaper’ even though in the long run (taking their shorter lifespan and worse efficiency into account) it turns out significantly more expensive.
The way I would see to get around that is to buy all new buses with the capability of having trolley poles fitted to them and electrify the busiest (and/or most polluted) sections first – “rolling electrification” a la railways – minimising costs while maximising the benefits. In time that would significantly simplify upgrading to light rail where that is deemed beneficial. I’m sure you could devise a way to fit trolley poles to a New Routemaster for example (and replace the diesel motor with a traction battery)
To do it properly, again, you would need an overview of the bus network and where you want it to be in the future and what role you want it to fulfil – something clearly lacking at the moment. Unfortunately unless someone with experience with 21st century trolleybuses somehow ends up somewhere senior in TfL I don’t see it happening – a real shame.
an all electric bus fleet for London is a wonderful goal, and something that, along with (unpopular as it may be) more road charging, could still offer a bright future for busses in London. wonder whether given the weight of batteries, we might need to consider longer, as opposed to taller buses to reduce road ware. Serious question, as I genuinely don’t think the shape of busses should be a culture war issue ; )
I think the London bus network needs to be sped up.
One way to do this would be to facilitate the wider introduction of limited-stop routes. There are currently only 3 genuine ones: 607, X26 and X140; along with a few peak journeys on the X68. More are badly needed.
Tying in with that, I think London must have the shortest distances between bus stops in the developed world. This makes journeys woefully slow, particularly if everyone has to present their ticket to the driver. Yes, I understand that I am a resonably fit male with no handicaps, and my view is therefore somewhat skewed. But somehow the good people of Poland (or Germany if you really need an example of a very rich, developed country) can live with bus stops more than 200m apart.
Lastly, a faster bus network needs higher subsidy. I’ve come to the conclusion that a bus system with high fares actually delivers worse quality of service. Here’s the reasoning: a high farebox recovery ratio (i.e. a high proportion of income comes from fares) puts pressure on operators to clamp down on ticketless travel in any way possible. As a result, fully privatised operators in the UK outside of London end up providing double-deckers with just one door – to make it 100% certain that people boarding must pass the driver. This makes dwell times abysmally slow (and limits the types of wheelchairs and pushchairs that you can bring on the bus!), especially if the bus is crowded. TfL at least has enough common sense to provide a separate door for alighting on most buses.
Trouble is: speed is the key quality aspect of any bus (or indeed – any transport) service. Speed drives demand – the only people that take a very slow bus are those without any alternatives whatsoever. Moreover, speed makes the service cheaper to operate – faster speeds mean you can transport the same number of people using fewer buses. And one of the key determinants of the speed of a bus service is how long it spends at stops. As mentioned above, if your main source of income is fares, you will tend to want to check everyone’s ticket. And however quick you make fare collection, there will still be people fumbling around for their cards in bags, schoolkids begging to go 2 stops down because they lost their Oysters, etc.
The key here is to allow people to board through all doors, and provide enough of them (bring back the bendies!). Leave checking fares to revenue inspectors, and leave the driving of the bus to drivers. This approach would, however, inevitably increase the rate of ticketless travel. The only realistic solution would therefore be to increase subsidy.
Been off this site for a couple of weeks, really sad to hear the news, RIP Paul.
I think the article is slightly generous to the current Mayor and TfL policies towards buses, as there have also been notable cutbacks in many areas. Routes running into Central London being curtailed, frequencies being cut on many other routes.
Indeed the hopper ticket has been used as an “excuse” for this – you don’t need a direct bus now, as you can use your hopper ticket to change to another bus
The “mood music” seems a bit different. When Ken was Mayor, buses were seen as the solution, whereas now diesel buses are seen as part of the problem…
@Christian Schmidt
“Something else that bothers me is the lack of noticeable structure in route numbering. I think a proper system would help orientation, and it would make TfL look more competent.”
The “Bassom” scheme of the 1920s attempted to introduce some order, but things have evolved a little bit from there. Also, in the 1970s the prefix letters introduced some geographical significance to some of the more locally-focussed routes. But a wholesale renumbering would, I am sure, lead to a lot of confusion in the short term for very little, if any, long term advantage. It is in the nature of bus routes to be long and wriggly, and different stretches of the same route can have very different significance to the various areas through which they pass.
However, there has been a long-standing practice of selecting for a new bus route a number which has some mnemonic relation to its predecessor. For example route 607 is an express version of the 207, whose number was, like many former trolleybus conversions, derived by subtracting 400 from the previous trolleybus route number. The 607 trolleybus was, in turn, converted from the No 7 tram route.
@TIMBEAU
” For example route 607 is an express version of the 207, whose number was, like many former trolleybus conversions, derived by subtracting 400 from the previous trolleybus route number. The 607 trolleybus was, in turn, converted from the No 7 tram route.”
I guess this is one of the big TfL questions that never really gets sorted out: Is the bus/train/tube service a thing for today’s traveller, or a history-soaked preserver of what hundreds of companies did in the past.
There is that – Google it – wonderful London Underground Station Design Idiom which shows how the Liz Line will look and how wonderful the idea of ticket-barrier less entry is. But it mainly has a 20-section explaining the preservation of colourways from long-dead designers.
Would it not be helpful, for the traveller of today, to find Central Line stations painted Pantone 485, rather than (picks the bit north of Stratford) Great Eastern Brunswick Green, New Works Zinc Grey? The somewhat unnecessary (to me) preservation of roofing valances and annoying stripes on ironwork does nothing whatsoever to guide the unknowing to their destination.
Yes, I’m clearly a transport history nerd, but I can’t help thinking that PRIMARY purpose of a public transit system should be to help the unwarey passenger, rather than set to actually confuse them. I’m clearly not suggesting that we bulldoze everything, but on the other hand it is useful for Edgeware Road Hammersmith and City and District and Circle Line station to be emblazoned with “Metropolitan Railway”?
So, it seems to me possible that the good intent of bus numbers preserving some historical detail may now simply provide unhelpful numbers for the majority of passengers: it may even lead to people not using them.
@ALL
Also, please accept my apologies for failing to refer to the passing of WW in my earlier comment.
@BB
The choice of bus numbers related to the number of the route from which the new one is derived is not, as I understand it, to preserve some historic aspect of the network but to act as a useful aide-memoire for passengers in the transitional period. (So passengers used to the 14 would find it easier to remember their new route is now the 414 than if some randomly chosen number had been used)
@TIMBEAU
I guess another way of looking at it is that there are two different bus routes with similar numbers, making it hard to remember. Perhaps they especially want to confuse the dyslexic community?
I accept that it is more-or-less impossible to sort out numerical problems like this (see also Stratford station platform numbers) without confusing people in the interim.
As much as, say, shorter numbers being more “important routes” with odd meaning north-south and even being east-west, the transition to better system would be very hard for someone like a Mayor to manage.
However, making better use of the number space (between 000 to 999) might make the services feel more unique. I’m sure someone must have researched this, it must happen everywhere.
@Straphan
Limited stop buses are not the answer. Most bus journeys in London are short and reliability, rather than speed, is the important factor. Better bus priority is the way to achieve this rather than trying to make the bus compete with rail and underground.
Re: variances and weird paint jobs being annoying
No. At least, not at platform level. Having distinctive platforms along the same route is very helpful in wayfinding for people on the train trying to tell stations apart. Even if people don’t know [i]why[/i] the poles are stripy or whatever.
(A local-to-me example: Basingstoke and Winchester are annoyingly similar at a glance out the window of a southbound train, to the point where I’ve confused them on multiple occasions. And that’s with lots of time to think.)
Comment to mods: attempts to quote other people to respond to them hit the Akismet filter or something.
@Excalibur
Indeed the early Yerkes Tube stations each had their own distinctive tiling patterns and colours at platform level, as an aid to passengers in identifying which was which. Illiteracy was more common in the Edwardian era than it is now.
Conversely, a common house style was developed for the surface buildings, to make the stations readily identifiable in the streetscape.
Quinlet
Except, although bus services in London have never been fast, some are now approaching ridiculous levels of snail-imitation.
Removal of bus lanes & roundabouts & to put in cycle lanes, thus slowing the buses does not help, any more than too many uber ( & similar) vehicles on the roads ( Should I include the various supermarket delivery vans in that count, too, I wonder? )
Timbeau
And, of course, the distinctive seat-back tilings on the Victoria Line come to mind.
A lot of Berlin’s U-Bahn stations do this, as well.
On almost all the bus routes I use (the X26 being the exception) nearly all stops are now treated as Request, even if white-flagged. This seems to have come about by a decision of the drivers rather than an instruction from on high. Quite a few lightly-used stops still have white flags, which causes confusion to some passengers. It would make better sense to flag all stops Red, except the main, busy ones. There again, many people ring the bell anyway, so perhaps there’s no justification in having two types of stop.
In Surrey the established practice seems to be that a bus always has to be hailed, or the bell rung, which must make for better time-keeping.
Wasn’t the distinction between “bus stops” and “request stops” phased out years ago?
As reported here
It isn’t mentioned in the Big Red Book of instructions to bus drivers (which does make it clear that drivers are expected to stop if people are waiting, whether they hail the bus or not).
The bus fare freeze and the congestion charge freeze were both manifesto commitments – the TfL fare freeze was explicitly stated as lasting four years. So it expires in May. What will the Mayor’s next manifesto say?
The swap between Peckham and Sutton for the Putney LEBZ was short-lived. Buses were swapped back after about 6 months, no idea why. Barring the introduction of a few hybrids the same old vehicles are still on the 93 today.
RIP Walthamstow Writer
Random question, arising from the picture heading this article.
How is the experiment with rechargeable-battery power going on the dreaded soixante-neuf route?
I see them at Walthamstow, but no sign of the close-but-not-contact induction charging in action.
Any accurate information?
TFL has a lot of issues with how it runs and that is why it has a huge deficit for the bus operations.
1. It insists on school buses being up to full TFL spec (Like half the kids are watching the Ibus for their next bus stop or like anyone cares about the color of the bus, it’s a school bus). This policy increases the cost because less companies put in for the tender. Less bids = higher prices.
2. TFL goes very overboard with new routes. Look at this new Kidbrooke to Greenwich route. Every 12 minutes using double deckers. It’s a brand new route. It has no proven demand, it’s a new route!
3. They insist on dual door buses even on routes which don’t need it (again I refer you to schools but also on little used routes). This decreases the amount of seats for passengers and on lesser used routes, you it actually delays the bus due to the rear door lock and alarms. The cost is also on the tenders as the operators find it hard to use the buses once their London running is over as well as additional maintenance costs.
4. They fund a lot of empty buses at nights and don’t allow operators to use smaller buses to match demand (A trip by trip analysis should be undertaken on all routes to see exactly where people are using the buses at night. Just cutting a few empty trips on every route would save a lot of money)
5. They give far too much time on routes meaning a lot of sitting around for some drivers (Take the new 497 for example which each hour has 36 minutes driving time, 24 minutes layover. What a waste of resources).
6. They pay for a hell of a lot of people to do nothing but sit around watching (A lot of the documentaries which you see on TV about TFL show most of these roles).
7. They don’t trust drivers to know diversions so instead pay thousands for diversion notices on the streets.
8. They bought the new routemasters which firstly aren’t very environmentally friendly and secondly allow a lot of fare dodging.
8 points there for why TFL are losing so much money. They could sort it if they wanted to and I have emailed multiple people in TFL with the ideas but they don’t care. So much TFL could do but they just refuse because it’s ran by clueless monkeys who are only there for the money.
Pete Jackson
Some of your points may be valid, others less so … but in one area you have really hit the nail fair & square.
TfL are amazingly resistant to outside advice, even when it’s glaringly obvious that “Sumfink ‘as gorn worng” …. “Not Invented Here” might almost be one of their catch-phrases.
@Peter Jackson
1. “School” services (6xx routes) are actually available to all-comers, and are usually run by vehicles drawn from a larger fleet. Living two stops upstream of a conglomeration of schools, the “school” service is often the only one in the morning that has any space – I can take it those two stops and then pick up one of the regular buses from there on, as they empty out at the schools.
4. Do you run a car? How big is it? Why not have a second, smaller, car for journeys when the large car is not necessary?
Right – you would need twice the garaging, twice the servicing costs, twice the tax and insurance. same for buses – given the extra garage space and maintenance costs of running two fleets, it is probably more economic to run the same bus all day than swap them over.
Moreover, although an evening bus may be almost empty when it passes you, it might be about to pick up a lot of passengers somewhere further along its route, or indeed on its return journey.
7. easier, cheaper, and more reliable than briefing all the drivers on all the routes affected. The signs are less likely to get lost than bits of paper issued to drivers, and they are there at exactly the time and place they are needed.
8. That was a mayoral diktat. As soon as that mayor was gone (whatever happened to him…..?), TfL stopped buying them. On the environmental point, hybrids were a lot less common when they were introduced in 2011, but have improved a lot since then. Studying online fleetlists, the working life of a London bus seems to be about 13 years (very few registrations earlier than 2007), so the oldest Borismasters are already well past halfway.
Traffic lights for buses only:
When Mitcham town centre was remodelled in 2018, one of the new features was a traffic light that applies to all traffic except buses/cycles. London Road northbound, just south of Raleigh Gardens, has a bus lane and a general traffic lane. There is a traffic light that stops the general traffic but does not apply to the bus lane alongside, allowing buses to cross from left lane to right in order to reach the next section of bus lane.
The traffic light is located between the bus lane and general lane and there is no sign to indicate that it does not apply to the bus lane, so there is potential for pedestrians to be confused, but I am not aware of any accidents or complaints as a result.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4045647,-0.1646674,3a,75y,275.96h,83.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sobhZav5rWdxFp3MHlDFkdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
@Quinlet: Yes. CURRENTLY bus journeys tend to be short, because buses are simply too slow over longer distances compared to the car. Speeding them up (so that they work more akin to the orbital railways London will never have…) will make them a viable alternative to cars for those commuting into peripheral town centres rather than Central London.
@Timbeau: If I recall, TfL’s policy is to keep buses around for a maximum of 14 years, which equates to two consecutive standard 7-year route contracts.
@Peter Jackson: All I will say is that the reason TfL hasn’t responded to your emails is that your ideas are – I’m afraid – not particularly sensible.
1: As someone mentioned before, school buses in London are common with the rest of the bus fleet, and rightly so. Why bother having a separate fleet for school runs when you can just order one extra red bus?
2. So you’re saying that providing turn-up-and-go frequencies on bus routes is a bad idea?
3. Buses with two doors allow for shorter dwell times (faster journey times, fewer buses needed per route), and allow pushchairs/wheelchairs to enter which would otherwise not fit over the front axle. But hey – let’s fixate TfL procurement policy around the resale value of buses, not their actual usefulness in London.
4. So you’re saying operators should have a separate off-peak fleet of single-deckers? No – but seriously – the difference in fuel cost between a single-decker and a double-decker is probably insufficient to cover the cost of the empty trips needed between depots and route termini in order to swap out bigger buses for smaller ones after the peak.
5. Then reduce timetabled times and watch complaints about unreliable and late buses pour in…
6. So you’re saying a good-quality bus service should just run itself without any controllers?
7. So you’re saying the cost of organising extra driver route learning runs would be cheaper than paying for the printing of a few signs?
8. As I stated above, all-door boarding equals shorter journey times. Secondly, all-door boarding on NBfLs is due to end soon. Thirdly, as someone pointed out, the moment BoJo was gone no more looney Borismasters were bought.
@HAYES CYCLIST
Weight of electric double deckers:
Another option is reducing the capacity of the batteries and using opportunity charging. For example, the electric double deckers in Wellington NZ have battery capacity of 161kW (compared to 320kW for ADL400ev) and are topped up with an overhead fast charger during the day. Opportunity charging is via a telescopic pole mounted on the back of the bus rather than more usual rooftop pantograph to reduce total height.
Jim Adlam
They exist in several places, actually
Here’s one near me
Re bus-only traffic lights: I used to use one everyday on Turnpike Lane heading eastwards at the junction with Wightman Road, near Hornsey station.
Re diversion signs: they’re very useful for alerting you that some diversion will happen soon in your local area. As an added bonus, for those of us nerdy enough, you can use them to work out yourself what the diversion is going to be!
@Strapham “Buses with two doors allow for shorter dwell times (faster journey times, fewer buses needed per route), and allow pushchairs/wheelchairs to enter which would otherwise not fit over the front axle”
I fully agree that the tfl system of separate entry and exit doors reduces dwell times. But it isn’t necessary to fit the second door for wheelchairs etc. I was on a double decker in Inverness yesterday (new vehicle, latest “69” registration). It was a single, front door only design, but had a ramp and a wide gangway through to the generous wheelchair / pushchair area.
@Islanddweller: I have yet to see a bus where you can fit a side-by-side twin stroller or mobility scooter above the front axle. Neither are a problem for a London bus where the space for push/wheelchairs is right opposite the middle door.
Many people (including posters on this forum or even bus company executives) will of course argue that such ‘monstrosities’ have no place on a bus in the first place. Which – of course – will only lead those people to seek alternative means to cater for their mobility needs – such as a car.
One would of course think that a bus network should be accessible to as many people with different needs as is practicable. However, only London seems to have managed to cater for those people – even if rather inadvertently.
@GK
Battery capacity is measured in Ah (amp-hours), or possibly kWh.
320kW is the power output of the electric motors according to BYD’s own literature
https://www.evbus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BYD-ADL-Enviro400EV.pdf
The maximum charging rate is 80kW = 80kJ/s.
For comparison, petrol has an energy density of 32MJ/litre so the charging rate is equivalent to pumping petrol at a rate of 9 litres per hour.
Jim Adlam
And here in the Chiswick High Road
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4931419,-0.2491477,3a,75y,230.7h,104.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbAaqSBYjulAljN29UdCrcA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
For bus-only traffic signals, many other European countries use the usual (perhaps simplified) tram signals. Is there something in our laws preventing their use for a bus?
A note about Countdown signs: I’ve seen one integrated into a bus stop flag on Clerkenwell Road. Perhaps it was a trial – they must be a lot cheaper than the rather ancient shelter designs. A similar design I saw demonstrated in Germany was said to run for more than a year on one battery or can be solar-powered.
I suspect that tram-style traffic signals aren’t used for buses in the UK as we have fewer tram systems than other European countries where they are, and so they’re less familiar
On the subject of bus only signals, this video (alongside some trolleybus discussion) demonstrates one example of tram signals being used for buses (and a two way bus lane for trolleybuses – good luck doing that without dedicated signals!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmtXLoe8jog
@Islandweller et al. Here in deepest darkest Devon, there’s a double-deck Stagecoach service that runs from Lyme Regis/Seaton along the coast to Exeter.
Impressively, the bus boarding points, even on the rural sections of the A3052 without pavements, have a raised platform allowing level access.
They are single-doored. With the pram/wheelchair area in the centre of the bus, it’s very noticeable how few seats there are on the lower deck compared with London buses. Well, either that or my memory of London buses is fading.
First visit here for some while. Sorry to hear the news about WW.
Continental cities without trams use tram signals for buses, even when there is no current intent to introduce trams. It’s a signalling system that integrates with normal traffic lights and is widespread, hence keeping costs down.
“The latest Business Plan also commits to only purchasing Euro6 compliant double deckers from 2020 forwards, with the entire London bus fleet to be zero emission at tailpipe by 2037.”
Um – no. TfL has been buying only Euro VI or better buses since 2015, when Euro VI was introduced. It is September 2020 by which all existing buses not to Euro VI ( ie bought before 2015) will be retrofitted to this standard.
@JC
Since I’ve been concerned with the affordability of decarbonisation, I tend to think the main issue with hydrogen as a vehicle fuel is that low-carbon hydrogen is expensive. Hydrogen buses have been trialled, but only trialled because it is not currently a cost competitive way of powering a vehicle. But, as you imply, the explosion/fire risk also needs to be brought in to an acceptable range, and it is evident that this is also a challenge. Looking first at the cost problem.
Currently something like 99% of available hydrogen is high carbon hydrogen, made by steam-methane reformation. There is no point using this as it has higher well-head to tail-pipe emissions than burning natural gas as primary fuel. There is only a point to using hydrogen as a fuel if you use low, ideally, zero carbon hydrogen. There is very little of this available yet as it is expensive to make, and the conundrum presented by making it at scale has not been solved yet.
Main known options for low carbon hydrogen manufacture are: (1) carbon capture and storage at a steam-methane reformation plant, and (2) making it by electrolysis with low carbon electricity. People often talk about (2) as if it was a no-brainer, often further saying you can do the electrolysis intermittently according to when there is surplus wind/solar energy. In a future with much more of these intermittent power sources and we would expect surpluses quite often. Indeed we might think of deliberately designing in really large surpluses and aim to store energy to get us over the troughs in supply. But the difficulty is the high cost of storing energy, and land requirements of doing it at scale. Conversion to hydrogen has been suggested as a general energy storage methodology, not just to fuel vehicles, heat houses and use in industrial processes. But the round-trip efficiency isn’t brilliant as a general storage technology, at least not with present knowledge. The other problem is if you only have a low load factor on your electrolysis plant, you need a lot more of it and it makes the unit cost of the output much more expensive – capital costs of electrolysis plant are material in the cost of the output, at least for known technologies. Worse, there is currently no practical concept for a large-scale electrolysis plant – it is a very difficult problem – and having very many small plants could be land intensive. Experts sources such as the CCC therefore often say (1) is the clearly better option. But this also suffers from the disadvantage of not being demonstrated yet, we are still at concept stage. CCaS demonstration projects were cancelled as they consumed a lot of money.
Then there is the explosion risk. Other fuels also present fire/explosion risks. So this isn’t a decisive disadvantage, but the risk will have to be controlled to an acceptable level, which may be harder with hydrogen. As examples of how bad our accepted fuels can be, the 2005 Buncefield oil depot fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire was Britain’s largest explosion since the 1974 Flixborough chemical plant disaster. It not only woke me up, 8 miles away, it woke my father up living 50 miles away. Amazingly no one was killed. There is a fairly continuous drip-drip of natural gas explosion incidents in properties with piped gas and from gas cylinders. Mostly damage is restricted to the property itself and properties sharing party walls. But the New Ferry gas explosion, a botched attempt at insurance fraud, caused rather more widespread damage and injury. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-50152304
What is generally said is that if hydrogen is escaping to the atmosphere in an unconfined space, it won’t explode as it escapes too fast to produce an explosive mixture. I had seen suggestions that it would in general escape too fast even to catch fire, though clearly hydrogen burning jets can be designed. But the recent car filling station fire at Baerum in Norway suggests maybe not so difficult. Gas escaped from a faulty valve and caught fire. https://qz.com/1641276/a-hydrogen-fueling-station-explodes-in-norways-baerum/ There must have been a small pop as minor injuries were caused by a couple of car airbags going off. Maybe there was a degree of confinement provided by a roof over the pump. The company operating these filling stations clearly now feels the fire risk is too large as it promptly shut down the small chain of filling stations leaving Norwegian early-adopter hydrogen car owners with no easy source of fuel. Some similar fuelling stations in other countries closed too.
When hydrogen escapes into a confined space, then it can build up to an explosive mixture. Because the explosive air mix range for hydrogen is 18-60%, in comparison to the explosive mix range of 5-15% for natural gas, then explosions can be much larger. Norway again provides the canonical example in a 1985 incident at the former Norsk Hydro ammonia plant at Herøya near Porsgrunn. It is estimated about 3 to 7 kg of hydrogen escaped in about 3 minutes, confined in a factory hall. It then exploded. 1.2 tonne concrete blocks, forming part of a wall, were displaced 16m. Windows were broken 700m away. The plant was in effect demolished. https://h2tools.org/bibliography/hydrogen-explosion-process-plant-case-history-paper
I assume that the risk of hydrogen in a confined space is a contributory reason to Siemens’ decision to put the fuel tank for its hydrogen powered train on the roof. We should also recall that although liquid hydrogen is a denser fuel source than batteries, it is only a third as energy dense, by volume, as petrol. To some degree that is mitigated by using a fuel cell which is markedly more efficient than an internal combustion engine. In general we can say that vehicle design would need to take careful account of the risk of fuel tank rupture in collisions, etc, although plainly vehicle fire is a risk also in conventionally fuelled vehicles.
We have just had two interesting & relevant announcements:
1: Khan has stated that fares will have to rise “After the next election” ( whenever that is… ) – but there appear to be differing opinions as to by how much & in what circumstances
2: Said elections have been postponed for 12 months, which is going to make things very interesting indeed.
And will a fares hike also be postponed for 12 months – or not?
In the meantime TfL are pressing on with introducing front-door only boarding on NBFLs on further routes just as buses in Zurich and elsewhere are taking the front doors out of use to protect drivers.