please empty your brain below
And the Council Tax bill has just gone up . . . . .
However, they do not run in service in Greenwich, as both the last eastbound and first westbound stops are the other side of the bridge, and therefore in LB Lewisham.
dg writes: Added, thanks. Map is unchanged.
It was just an ego project.
I was passing through Parliament Square last week, and the place is completely over-run with the things. Indeed, once the 211 is taken over in June, only two of the eleven routes passing the Houses of Parliament (53 and 87) will not have been Borissed
Some points to ponder:
- 1000 buses on 25 routes makes an "average" of 40 buses per route. Is this "typical"?
- From an a driver familiarity and a maintenance viewpoint, it would best practice to concentrate the fleet on as few garages as possible. Has this been done?
- I understand that the Borismasters are the only buses in London actually owned by TfL. Why?
dg writes: Detailed operational information here.
Because after the debacle with the bendy buses (some operators had bought theirs and thus got well and truly shafted by the early withdrawals), all the operators refused to buy any Borismasters.
So TfL had to.
I have on rare occasions been able to hop on or off a stationary NBf(I)L at the rear platform, away from an official stop. How often do they run what we used to call conductors (but are now effectively just rear platform wardens)?
Hopping on and off an old Routemaster is one of the delights of 15H.
Dangleway, Bikes, Cycle lanes, etc etc.
Bikes? Oh no we can't slate them that was Ken wasn't it.
Fortunately I live in West London and manage to avoid the Nbl.
New off the shelf double deckers were introduced on Route 285 recently. They are Hybrid and much nicer than the Boris bus. Windows open and roomy upstairs.
I am surprised how Boris gets away with spending our money on his various vanity projects.
Key to efficient and economical bus operation is to maintain a consistent running time for a route throughout the day, lurching from 35 to 83 minutes to cover the 11Km route of the No 10 means that to maintain the frequency when the journey times degrade, you need to put around an extra 12 buses out on the route, at over £100,000/year running and provisioning costs per bus and driver(s). (The astute will also note that a reasonably fit cyclist will cycle 11Km in around 30 minutes!).
Over the 2Km between Marble Arch and Centre Point, the timetable shows a near 50% increase in journey times between 07.00 and 09.00 on weekdays, and it makes an interesting analysis to look at how journey times can be so drastically impacted.
With a crew of 2 the RM and RT/ST et seq before could deliver far more consistent and faster journey speeds than the modern DOO bus. this is especially noticeable where, unlike London, operators, focussed on preventing revenue loss have just one door as well as no conductor. The dwell time at bus stops leaps up as no longer is this a quick and predictable process with the conductor collecting fares AND answering passengers' questions. Just notice the cumulative effect too, as the drive on the bus in front of the bus in front takes time to process passengers and then the bus in front and.... I'm told that the timetabling speed for an RM is roughly twice that for a DOO bus, meaning that whilst you need to pay for 2 crew, you only need half the number of buses for the Peak Vehicle Requirement(PVR).
This is noticeable when you compare the PVR for say the No 38 - just 37 Citaros but now 87 NBFL are required.
It should actually be an embarrassment that London seems to need so many more buses (8000 according to the contract-count but now 9000 according to TfL Press Office) than any other world city, and when you check-out the solid wall of buses in London (and Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow etc) you'll find that they are often barely 20% full. Other cities are using their buses more efficiently.
Many will even accept a % of non payment, and some even promote free rides at peak times, as it actually costs more to increase the PVR for a short period during the day than to accept passengers travelling without paying a fare. A UK example being the Manchester central area shuttle services, which originally checked the rail tickets and charged non-rail passengers, and now run as a free walk-on service. So despite the reputation of the Bendy bus as the free rides bus, a pragmatic accountant would see that a sensible level of revenue protection and accepting a % of freeloading would deliver a service with short journey times, and a lower cost in PVR.
Apologies to DG for this comment the size of a blog - perhaps we might develop the theme of the low efficiency of London's bus services. More is not always better.
But unless I'm mistaken, the only extra "yellow blob" (marking where the prototype bus visited on its roadshow) now served is Ealing, on the N11.
Bears/woods; Pope/Catholic. Jesus, even Bow bus-stop posts are more revelatory.
"some of the NBFL routes replace former Citaro articulated bus routes, as much as they [the Citaros, I assume] also replaced RM's directly"
In fact only three routes and part of another saw direct replacement of Routemasters by bendies - 12, 38, 73 and part of 53 (where the new 453 ran alongside Routemasters on the 53 for two years)
Five ex-artic routes are now run by NBfL's, (12,38,73,149,453) but all of them had an interregnum of at least three years. The last bendies were withdrawn from route 207 at the end of 2011. The prototype Boris bus didn't enter service (on Route 38) until two months later.
There was one instance of an (old) Routemaster replacing a Citaro, when the entire bendybus fleet was temporarily withdrawn after several fires, and emergency replacements were drafted in from all over the place. This included the only known example of crew operation on the 507!
dg writes: Missed that, thanks. Post (and maps) now updated.
Great from the outside, but not so for the passengers inside. It's claustrophobic, windows too small, too dark with it's ambient lighting and no back windows to check for connnecting buses.
BTW - I've heard that the bus design had to be compromised (to reduce the number of passengers) because if it went above a certain weight, it would require a triple axle. Is that true?
How about putting them on the X26? Mops up six more boroughs (although it doesn't actually call at any stops in Hounslow) and gives the tourists at Heathrow something to gawp at.
Yes, hence why the shorter version mentioned above by Kim will be able to carry more passengers!
*no NBfL's operate in open-platform mode south of the Thames. Witches are well-known for not being able to cross running water.
Of course, they might not be witches - they could be cabbies.
"How often do they run what we used to call conductors (but are now effectively just rear platform wardens)? "
Only five routes, and part of another, operate with conductors. These were six of the first seven routes on which the buses were introduced - 24, 11, 9, 390, 10 and part of the 38. The exception was the fifth route, the 148 (which was the first transpontine NBfL route).
No new crew-operated routes have been added since May 2014.
With the exception of Route 11, even these operate in OPO mode in evenings and at weekends.
Their length precludes their operation on some routes, especially at tight terminus locations.
By the way, they are all going to be retrofitted with opening windows.
The first of the five NBfL prototypes were introduced on the 38 in 2012, Hybrid HEV 1 was used by Arriva on the 141 back in 2007/8.
The pilot production hybrid buses were introduced in 2009 (?) and also used on the 141, HW 1-5 were withdrawn 2013/4, HV 1-5 are now at Tottenham and are mainly used on the 76.
The 16 had been using some hybrid buses since the end of 2008, before being fully converted, so the conversion to LT in 2015 merely replaced hybrid with hybrid.
The figures used by TfL to show how much better the LT is compared with a 'normal' hybrid have been questioned, not only that but many contract renewals in the suburbs have used 'normal' hybrids, either the Volvo B5LH or the Enviro400H.
So are at least half of today's comments.
(sigh)
Or was it one of the newer "look-a-likes"?
" 1000 buses on 25 routes makes an "average" of 40 buses per route. Is this "typical"
The total PVR (the number of buses that the operators have to have available) for the 25 routes (including the four yet to be converted) is 719. (average 29) Whether a 28% maintenance overhead is typical I wouldn't know.
I can find three routes with PVRs of over fifty - the 25, 38 and 73.
@John Simmons
Volvo Gemini 3's, introduced last year, are standard fare on the 119.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/680/22972544050_a3988608d9.jpg
"But however much voters in Romford, Bexley, Sutton and Kingston loved the new bus back then, they won't ever get to see it. Boris's legacy is a New Bus for Inner London, and looks like remaining so, whatever its outer suburban fans might hope."
This fundamentally rests upon the assumption, however, that voters only take buses in the areas where they live. This couldn't be further from the truth: stand at London Bridge, Waterloo or Victoria bus station, and one will witness thousands of (generally richer) outer-suburban commuters streaming off rail services, and onto buses. Likewise with the surprising number of (generally lower-income) customers who alight at the last tube station in Zone 2 and bus the final mile for a cheaper Travelcard or cap.
With the exception of perhaps the Waterloo & City line, and 507, 521 and RV1 buses, all other Central London buses are also Inner London buses. Let's not conflate a Central London transport scheme - which is designed for all Londoners and those from beyond - with that of an Inner London transport scheme.
I am also extremely sceptical about your stated running times in the AM peak in Oxford St. The street is pretty quiet then as few shops are open and there are few taxis. Therefore buses move fairly freely. It only becomes sluglike later in day when there are far more pedestrians around plus taxis and other vehicles illegally using the road.
@ Timbo - I am astonished to see you suggest that RMs ran on the 53 until the 453 started. The 53 had long since lost its RMs and had had several generations of OPO vehicles before the route was restructured in the early noughties along with many other Central London routes.
In terms of where NB4Ls run (oh hark DG has just fainted at the prospect of an on topic remark) then the other aspect is the way TfL have tended to put them on "corridors". This is true of Oxford St but also of Aldwych - Euston, KX to Oxford St, Westminster - Brixton, Victoria St. In terms of future prospects for conversion then I'd expect to see the 243 join the 149 through Dalston, 55 through Clerkenwell and then down to Waterloo like the 68/168, 59. Arriva run the 243 and seem keen on running NB4Ls so I think it's in prospect.
The other area likely to gain the short versions is Putney which has air quality issues but the constrained bus garage can't take long buses (that's the rumour). Several routes are out to retender so it's plausible the 14, 22 and 74 may well gain short NB4Ls. One other long standing rumbling rumour is the 205 although it has euro6 hybrids on it.
Already hinted at in the comments above is that the NB4L has a lower overall capacity than the double deckers it has replaced. Typically capacity on a route falls by about 6% upon conversion (assuming no frequency changes). I leave it to others to decide if this is a good idea. Still the spread of the NB4L has killed off my use of buses in Central London and vastly reduced my trips there. I hate the buses and won't use them so the more they spread the more constrained my travel options become. The prospect of that wretched body design being imposed on Volvo chassis is a step too far. Someone needs to stop this ridiculous nonsense.
So I don't buy that these routes in central London had to be run by the NBfL. Why they've been constrained to these routes I don't know - maybe it is a shorter length of journey (more hop on/hop offs) which three doors is more suited to.
But if Boris had really wanted to reduce the levels of pollution and not just have a vanity project then he could have bought off the shelf hybrids, or not cancelled the western extension to the congestion charging zone, or not delayed the LEZ etc etc.
My mistake - the 53 did revert to RMs in 1981, but lost them again in 1987.
@Planner
Of course many people living in the outer suburbs commute into the centre and see the NBfL every day. But the roadshow in 2011/12 visited most of the suburban high streets in the middle of the day, when the only people around would have been those who don't go to work in central London, and are therefore unlikely to travel on one.
It was the 36 and its offshoot the 436 which had parallel Routemaster and artic running between 2003 and 2005. Neither route has yet succumbed to Borismasters.
made here was this :
This is noticeable when you compare the PVR for say the No 38 - just 37 Citaros but now 87 NBFL are required.
It should actually be an embarrassment that London seems to need so many more buses (8000 according to the contract-count but now 9000 according to TfL Press Office) than any other world city, and when you check-out the solid wall of buses in London (and Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow etc) you'll find that they are often barely 20% full. Other cities are using their buses more efficiently.
The tram planning that Boris scrapped, no doubt because like the Artics, they are too continental for his liking, should be re-instated. London desperately needs more tram routes on the radials. Trams are the only way to stop traffic grinding to a halt behind solid walls of buses.
and going OT. A new tram route Battersea, Vauxhall, Victoria, Marble Arch, Oxford Street, Euston, King's Cross could be the basis for a new Inner London Tramway system. I guess it won't happen... I despair..
Anyway TfL have adopted a policy of hollowing out the Z1 bus network - it's been cut and cut for years and TfL have said more of this will happen as a result of Crossrail. When Oxford St is pedestrianised (all the Mayoral candidates support this so it's "when" not "if") then the bus network will be destroyed in Zone 1. The number of buses and routes will have to be reduced hugely because the remaining roads capable of taking buses can't take the volume of buses that would have to be displaced from Oxford St. There isn't anything like enough stand space either so you can't terminates routes at TCR or Marble Arch so they will have to terminated further away leaving people to crush onto a ludicrously overloaded tube network or to walk. How any of that resembles an accessible, easy to use transport network for all Londonders I simply do not understand. At least you have the luxury of being able to despair from a distance (assuming you haven't moved). Try living here ...
TfL will also ask the usual London bus companies to run extra vehicles on their contracted routes if they have vehicles spare. However these are usually only a few buses because there are not a lot of spare buses and many will be under mainteance or repair - that's why you have a small "spare" margin.
The regular operators may be able to reschedule maintenance to provide extra cover for foreseeable extra demand such as strikes - as unions have to give due notice of such things.
I cannot see why anyone imagines bus ridership in Oxford Street would be affected by Crossrail one way or the other. Even if you're going all the way from Marble Arch to Holborn, Crossrail is of little use, as it doesn't call very near either.
"There isn't anything like enough stand space either so you can't terminates routes at TCR or Marble Arch "
Well, several routes run along Oxford Street and then terminate at the end, e.g 159 at Marble Arch or 137 at Oxford Circus. So if they were each to terminate at each others' current terminus you've removed two routes from Oxford Street, with no increase in stand space required.
You could also do some swaps, so that, for example, the 6 runs to Hammersmith and the 10 runs to Aldwych, instead of vice versa as at present.
@IsarSteve
I think something rather more elaborate is already planned for that route - namely Crossrail 2.
and for the cost of about three to four times as many km of tram routes.
I have to say, I dislike such 'totschlag' arguments. Mainly because they are a receipe for doing nothing.
CR2 is such an overrated, not thought out scheme, decided on as the planners were still punchdrunk with success of the up and coming CR1.
""For me, the most important point
made here was this:
"This is noticeable when you compare the PVR for say the No 38 - just 37 Citaros but now 87 NBFL are required.
It should actually be an embarrassment that London seems to need so many more buses (8000 according to the contract-count but now 9000 according to TfL Press Office) than any other world city, and when you check-out the solid wall of buses in London (and Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow etc) you'll find that they are often barely 20% full. Other cities are using their buses more efficiently.""
Interesting maybe, but wrong. As PC has pointed out, the current PVR for the 38 is 59, not 87.
I'm not sure how your tram plans will avoid traffic grinding to a half behind buses. Where's the room for the trams? They'll have to use the roads just the same as everything else.
"With a crew of 2 the RM and RT/ST et seq before could deliver far more consistent and faster journey speeds than the modern DOO bus."
I really doubt this - the issue with variable journey times in London is due to the heavy traffic. With contactless/oyster payment, the difference in loading times between a driver only bus and a crew operated bus is minimal, and far dwarfed by being stuck in traffic.
"I'm told that the timetabling speed for an RM is roughly twice that for a DOO bus, meaning that whilst you need to pay for 2 crew, you only need half the number of buses for the Peak Vehicle Requirement(PVR)."
The first thing to note is that the 2016 timetabling for the Routemasters on the 15H is timed no faster than the NRMs on it.
Secondly, it fails to regognise that the largest cost in operating the bus is the labour cost, so the increased cost of having two members of staff is not offset by halving the PVR (and as per above, I very much doubt halving the PVR is anywhere near possible).
It should actually be an embarrassment that London seems to need so many more buses (8000 according to the contract-count but now 9000 according to TfL Press Office) than any other world city, and when you check-out the solid wall of buses in London (and Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow etc) you'll find that they are often barely 20% full. Other cities are using their buses more efficiently.
A double decker bus is not going to be 100% full on every part of its journey, all day. Maybe the emphasis is on providing a frequent service all day, so that's it's attractive to use rather than the car, rather than thinning the service to match capacity and demand off peak?
In fact, I was in Kingston when the NBfL was displayed there. It did attract a lot of interest - but there was certainly a fair amount of realism too, for example the London United drivers discussing it: "yeah it's nice, but like we'll ever see them round here" is an exact quote.
http://clondoner92.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/new-routemasters-for-east-london-transit.html
TridentScan | Privacy Policy