Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Just curious what is the logic in Go Ahead London continuing to operate three non TFL school routes in Surrey instead of putting them in the Metrobus Crawley division? Is there any reason why they have not transferred them to their Metrobus Crawley division?
Go Ahead London still run the 618 668 669 school services around the Ashtead / Banstead / Dorking / Epsom areas. Metrobus Crawley also operate other school routes to these same exact schools and to and from the same areas. It is an odd operation.
I can not see how this benefits Go Ahead London to continue operating these. It requires them to have separate ticket machines and cash handling and a separate fleet of buses etc so it seems so odd that a TFL operator would be interested in a couple of non TFL routes. You would think they would have transferred them to sister company Metrobus Crawley by now.
The only other Go Ahead London operation is Kent Fasttrack but that is only really Go Ahead London from a licencing perspective. The actual operational side of things are run by the Brighton & Hove and Metrobus Crawley division and it has very little to do with the other Go Ahead London operations. But these Surrey routes 618 668 669 are full Go Ahead London services run alongside the TFL side of things.
Also what happened to those 7XX routes? They used to run them in between the school routes. There was a daily 772 from Dorking and Capel to Brighton and a daily 773 from Sutton and Epsom to Brighton and then in the school holidays they had a bunch of other 7XX routes to Brighton / Chichester / Eastbourne / Hastings / Worthing etc. But these all disappeared with covid. At least these routes gave the buses and drivers some extra work and money in between the school runs. I presume these will probably never return?
It requires them to have separate ticket machines and cash handling and a separate fleet of buses etc so it seems so odd that a TFL operator would be interested in a couple of non TFL routes. You would think they would have transferred them to sister company Metrobus Crawley by now.
Sure they have a bunch of Ticketers anyway for when they do events or run their other commercial stuff within London? HereEast and previously Uni of Roehampton for example both have/had Ticketers fitted, I presume they are there fore tracking, logging passenger numbers (even if there is no cash) and punctuality checking.
Sure they have a bunch of Ticketers anyway for when they do events or run their other commercial stuff within London? HereEast and previously Uni of Roehampton for example both have/had Ticketers fitted, I presume they are there fore tracking, logging passenger numbers (even if there is no cash) and punctuality checking.
Oh i forgot they did that special event stuff. I think they do a Wimbledon Tennis shuttle and Epsom Racecourse shuttle. I suppose they do probably use the same ticket machines and vehicles on their school routes. But it does still seem a bit odd as the 618 668 669 go quite far outside their usual area and would fit much more in to the Metrobus Crawley operation.
Not entirely sure of where the boundary lies here, but is it to do with entering the TfL area, and the need for an LSP? It would make sense to keep the LSP services with one operator.
Notably, the previous 619 did transfer to Metrobus, so there is presumably good reason for keeping them apart.
Not entirely sure of where the boundary lies here, but is it to do with entering the TfL area, and the need for an LSP? It would make sense to keep the LSP services with one operator.
Notably, the previous 619 did transfer to Metrobus, so there is presumably good reason for keeping them apart.
The 618 and 669 stay entirely outside of the LSP area and within the Surrey County Council area so i doubt that is why. The 668 does cross in to the LSP area and Greater London for a small portion of three bus stops in the Cheam area. Metrobus Crawley also have plenty of routes (409 411 420 820 866) that cross in to the LSP area and Greater London so they so happy to run such routes too.
Epsom and Ashtead etc are much nearer to London garages than Crawley. So, whilst the drivers will be paid a higher hourly rate, there’s less cost (fuel and staff time) in dead running to and from the operating garage.
Epsom and Ashtead etc are much nearer to London garages than Crawley. So, whilst the drivers will be paid a higher hourly rate, there’s less cost (fuel and staff time) in dead running to and from the operating garage.
Go-Ahead London have a fair sized commercial fleet and there is nothing to stop them bidding for County Council contracts, if it makes commercial sense. Whether they clear these with their colleagues at Metrobus (in breach of anti-competitive rules?) is another matter. In the past they have run several SCC routes, including 516 (Dorking - Epsom via Boxhill, now ironically run by Metrobus as their route 21) and, if I remember right, evening journeys on 522 from Sutton right through to Crawley.
You could argue, in reverse, that Metrobus E9 (Epsom local) would be more logically operated from GAL Sutton than Crawley, but cash handling etc. might be a problem here.
Go-Ahead London have a fair sized commercial fleet and there is nothing to stop them bidding for County Council contracts, if it makes commercial sense. Whether they clear these with their colleagues at Metrobus (in breach of anti-competitive rules?) is another matter. In the past they have run several SCC routes, including 516 (Dorking - Epsom via Boxhill, now ironically run by Metrobus as their route 21) and, if I remember right, evening journeys on 522 from Sutton right through to Crawley.
You could argue, in reverse, that Metrobus E9 (Epsom local) would be more logically operated from GAL Sutton than Crawley, but cash handling etc. might be a problem here.
Is the commercial fleet as active as it used to be? I seem to recall that they have disposed of their long wheel-based single doored E400s, and have disposed of some of their older E400s. Also, they have stopped the Chelsea Flower Show shuttles for some reason - I thought that they were very lucrative.
Is the commercial fleet as active as it used to be? I seem to recall that they have disposed of their long wheel-based single doored E400s, and have disposed of some of their older E400s. Also, they have stopped the Chelsea Flower Show shuttles for some reason - I thought that they were very lucrative.
Don't know much about the fleet but I guess that, with the loss of the GTR rail replacement contract to Abellio/Transport UK the whole operation is downsizing.
This may be for another thread, but the Leicester Flexi area where day multi-operator tickets are valid includes sone areas just outside the City of Leicester, such as Fosse Park, Wigston and Oadby.
Interestingly Leicester City Council effectively want to expand their boundary to match the Flexi boundary as this is largely a logical local conurbation (not exactly but fairly close), the Flexi boundary is basically the combined Leicester zones of the two major operators (Arriva & First now) as the network strays widely (there is an inconsistency on the south of the city but otherwise it is pretty close).
But why should London taxpayers subsidise bus services in a neighbouring authority but on the other hand why should the taxpayers in neighbouring authorities pay the higher costs of TfL to provide local services in their area just because London has full control over services in their own authority area and prevent (or make very difficult) the provision of a cheaper alternative.
There will always be a boundary and so there will always be a point of friction where two organisations priorities may produce a different result to that which someone else may desire. In most parts of the country this friction is minimised because everyone is working under the same rules and structures and that structure allows and encourages commercial/neighbouring area operation without penalising a cross boundary service or unfairly increasing costs.
These discussions tend to arise out of those locations, like London (and soon many of the big city combined authorities), where a different system exists on either side of the boundary and one where one of those systems is not designed to encourage or support bus provision by someone not part of their system but instead to protect a higher cost style of operation (you do get something extra with the extra cost but that cost itself is not sustainable for a lower volume/income system like a shire county which is why the cross boundary runs struggle). There are plenty of cross boundary services, some with quite long sections in both authorities, from Hertfordshire into all their neighbouring authority areas, it is just the harder boundary with London where this issue arises due to the unique limits that London style control enforces on local bus services that limit the ability for someone but to TfL to provide those services.
But why should London taxpayers subsidise bus services in a neighbouring authority but on the other hand why should the taxpayers in neighbouring authorities pay the higher costs of TfL to provide local services in their area just because London has full control over services in their own authority area and prevent (or make very difficult) the provision of a cheaper alternative.
TfL run quite deep into Surrey and there the council pays TfL to operate cross-boundary services. This is better than what they had before when the cross-boundary services were operated by Arriva.
There will always be a boundary and so there will always be a point of friction where two organisations priorities may produce a different result to that which someone else may desire. In most parts of the country this friction is minimised because everyone is working under the same rules and structures and that structure allows and encourages commercial/neighbouring area operation without penalising a cross boundary service or unfairly increasing costs.
The particular issue with London is that the boundary is artificially drawn to exclude large areas of London's built up area. To go back to my earlier example of Dublin, the urban area includes places in neighbouring counties like Blanchardstown and Tallaght which are outside the Dublin city boundary (not to be confused with the traditional county of Dublin which does not currently have an administrative council). These places are served as if they are within the city of Dublin.
With most densely populated areas likely to be under franchising in the next few years, it is critical that the issue of cross-boundary services is dealt with without creating hard borders where they don't currently exist with the current deregulated system. It makes sense to look abroad to see how this issue is dealt with. Obviously there is always going to be a boundary of some kind. It is a particular challenge outside the UK because they not only have local government boundaries but also international boundaries. The Schengen Area means car traffic can usually travel across the border unhindered but different national governments either side of the border inevitably causes difficulty when providing local bus services, particularly with fares. Having said that, we can see examples where the effect of a boundary is smoothed out. For example, you can have zone systems which overlap, which minimises the number of people who need two tickets.
The point is that you're going to have anomalies. As I said before, your point isn't merely about control and planning. You want the same service provision as TfL, the same fare levels.... am I right? Franchising won't deliver that... It needs funding (see below). However, the extension of TfL's remit to include half the home counties... just isn't going to happen. Let's come back to this in five years' time and see how much change there has been.
Actually that is a bit of a simplification, I expect similar operating hours for buses in all urban areas. So in London, that is usually 5am to 1am. In Cheshunt as somewhere on the edge of the built up area, I think it's reasonable to have the last bus meet the last train and be there as the last of the businesses shut for the day. That is around Midnight to 12:30am. Not expecting night buses out here! Generally I'm fine with buses that run every 15 or 30 minutes but they need to be reliable and properly regulated. Hourly is a limiting frequency, while every 20 minutes is plain awkward and only works if the route is coordinated with other routes. The issue around here is the lack of connectivity which could be quite easily fixed with just 1 new route.
Fares I would expect hopper fares and caps, but could be set at a different rate.
Generally it just makes sense to tie bus frequency and number of routes to population size and be responsive to what exists around. Decades of deregulation has meant what exists now is very messy.
The fact is that most instances around the UK do see supported services go over the county boundary to the usual, natural terminus point. It would be stupid to see buses stopping at Saltash and not cross the Tamar, or from Wales into Chester. There are some border areas that have turned into bus netherworlds, not least between West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire - yes, two PTEs that you might think would have a certain remit. Services from Pontefract and Wakefield to Doncaster have disappeared. In the case of the former, we have a service from Pontefract to Kirk Smeaton, and one from Norton to Doncaster - can you guess where the boundary might be? So yes, I'd love to see it happen and the funds made available to improve cross border services, and with the White Rose Agreement, we might see it. Whether that then extends to routes into Lincolnshire or Derbyshire...
Conservative? Perhaps some of us are older and have been through this before?
The fact is that we can be as revolutionary as we want. The fact is that transport policy is political, as are the funding priorities of the chancellor, and you have to understand the way in which politics work. For instance, I'd imagine that you think that ULEZ is a good thing, dissuading people from using cars etc.
I say it as it is, thing is we are surrounded by a whole bunch of countries who do far better than us on transport, not perfect, certain things worse sometimes but as a world we can learn from each other on these things but instead us in Britain, it's 'we can't have this' or 'it'll never happen'. That sort of mentality where we seem to have given up, but we are in a rut as a country thanks to Tory neglect and policies like bus deregulation or water privatisation, without getting to housing!, actual wasteful ideological policies, that I hope other countries see what we've done and run a mile away to avoid the same mistakes. None of it is insurmountable, yes it's a not great time right now, but Britain has been through worse and got to the other side, historically we did bold policies or we built infrastructure or housing at a large scale and the country got better for it. If anything, we don't need to do anything new, just always learn from the past and from other countries. We can do a lot better than how things are now.
Thing is... people on this forum are going to be overwhelmingly pro-public transport. That isn't a representative picture of the electorate, and if you think that we're not radical enough, then you're really out of touch with what the general voter will go for. Ask the average voter what is important to them... public transport won't be the 1st, 2nd or 3rd thing on their mind. So yeah, take the fuel duty down if you dare but if you think that folks will buy that it'll be spent on the roads, I suspect you'll get a rude awakening. A five year incremental weaning off to pay for social care might be palatable but transport.... nope.
This country pushed people towards cars for decades though, now we are seeing some ugly consequences of that. It requires regulations and restrictions and yeah voters wouldn't specifically say about transport but the public services and infrastructure they will say about requires transport to be properly thought about. People may not say about buses, but they always say about traffic. We need people in power that link these kind of issues together, rather than pretend every issue and area is in isolation from one another.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
TfL run quite deep into Surrey and there the council pays TfL to operate cross-boundary services. This is better than what they had before when the cross-boundary services were operated by Arriva.
Agreed, it would be much more consistent if it was like this all the way round. I envy Potters Bar with its 2 TFL routes, one of which reaches the tube in 10 minutes!
The particular issue with London is that the boundary is artificially drawn to exclude large areas of London's built up area. To go back to my earlier example of Dublin, the urban area includes places in neighbouring counties like Blanchardstown and Tallaght which are outside the Dublin city boundary (not to be confused with the traditional county of Dublin which does not currently have an administrative council). These places are served as if they are within the city of Dublin.
Having recently been to Dublin and Ireland, I think they lack key infrastructure but the approach to buses is very good and very affordable. I knew Blanchardstown was technically outside but really not obviously with Tallaght and its Luas line. I wonder if the hard border thing inside a country is uniquely a British phenomenon as franchising and deregulation clearly don't mix and what we see now is because of long term austerity. Local government is hollowed out.
In bold, is really the only common sense approach to transport in continuously built up areas.
With most densely populated areas likely to be under franchising in the next few years, it is critical that the issue of cross-boundary services is dealt with without creating hard borders where they don't currently exist with the current deregulated system. It makes sense to look abroad to see how this issue is dealt with. Obviously there is always going to be a boundary of some kind. It is a particular challenge outside the UK because they not only have local government boundaries but also international boundaries. The Schengen Area means car traffic can usually travel across the border unhindered but different national governments either side of the border inevitably causes difficulty when providing local bus services, particularly with fares. Having said that, we can see examples where the effect of a boundary is smoothed out. For example, you can have zone systems which overlap, which minimises the number of people who need two tickets.
Well said and you'd expect some difficulties between countries but not within the same country. I do wonder if that is because of funding cuts more than anything. Ireland into Northern Ireland was a little awkward but the trains and buses still serve the journeys we'd reasonably expect. I hope each combined authority that franchises has a full review of the network they inherit, so its obvious where services are missing and cross-boundary is required. Manchester shows it will take some time and it'll be interesting to see how they and Liverpool work things out, very important with Warrington in the middle! The Bee Network actually has a route to Huddersfield, all but the late journeys run all the way through, while the last 2 journeys are split at Marsden, where the boundary with West Yorkshire is. Just requires some flexibility and common sense on both sides.
But why should London taxpayers subsidise bus services in a neighbouring authority but on the other hand why should the taxpayers in neighbouring authorities pay the higher costs of TfL to provide local services in their area just because London has full control over services in their own authority area and prevent (or make very difficult) the provision of a cheaper alternative.
This is a good point, London taxpayers shouldn’t fully fund it and neither should the neighbouring authority fully fund it, but this really shouldn’t be a barrier. Cross-boundary routes should be properly co-ordinated, and more effort made to make suitable arrangements. An example perhaps being the 465 which extends deep into Surrey. This isn’t fully funded by either London or Surrey, but is jointly funded as I understand it.
Various other cities appear to manage it fairly well, where city buses seem to cross borders into neighbouring authorities without much issue. Behind the scenes a lot probably goes on of course. An example being Berlin where numerous BVG routes often cross the border from Berlin into the state of Brandenburg.
Various other cities appear to manage it fairly well, where city buses seem to cross borders into neighbouring authorities without much issue. Behind the scenes a lot probably goes on of course. An example being Berlin where numerous BVG routes often cross the border from Berlin into the state of Brandenburg.
This is a good example because not only is Brandenburg a separate local authority, it is a separate state! Despite that, there is a transport authority covering both states:
I say it as it is, thing is we are surrounded by a whole bunch of countries who do far better than us on transport, not perfect, certain things worse sometimes but as a world we can learn from each other on these things but instead us in Britain, it's 'we can't have this' or 'it'll never happen'. That sort of mentality where we seem to have given up, but we are in a rut as a country thanks to Tory neglect and policies like bus deregulation or water privatisation, without getting to housing!, actual wasteful ideological policies, that I hope other countries see what we've done and run a mile away to avoid the same mistakes. None of it is insurmountable, yes it's a not great time right now, but Britain has been through worse and got to the other side, historically we did bold policies or we built infrastructure or housing at a large scale and the country got better for it. If anything, we don't need to do anything new, just always learn from the past and from other countries. We can do a lot better than how things are now.
That is a very pertinent point. Perhaps there is more importance is taking control of utilities, like water companies, that everyone uses and has no choice, than a public transport network.
As for looking back at history, we can go back to WW2 and Keynsian economic theory but take a look at what the world looks like now. We have a creaking NHS, a backlog of investment in hospitals and schools. We don't have the Marshall Plan to finance that post-war rebuilding (and we haven't got an empire to give away to get one either). Also, you're ignoring demographics - when we set up the NHS and welfare state, the average life expectancy was 68. It's now 82 so we have a greater burden on the healthcare, social care and pensions affordability. The world was frankly different then.
This country pushed people towards cars for decades though, now we are seeing some ugly consequences of that. It requires regulations and restrictions and yeah voters wouldn't specifically say about transport but the public services and infrastructure they will say about requires transport to be properly thought about. People may not say about buses, but they always say about traffic. We need people in power that link these kind of issues together, rather than pretend every issue and area is in isolation from one another.
The growth in car use has been happening for the last 70+ years.
Again, I don't think that you've actually spoken to people, or at least a varied and representative group of people.
People do hate traffic, they think there should be less of it but you try to curb their right to drive a car. Yeah, they want someone else not to drive. As I pointed out, we have very recent examples of people not voting for things that, to their mind, will disadvantage them. Ken Livingstone was able to introduce the congestion zone but that was in almost a bygone age where social media didn't exist. Greater Manchester put it to a referendum - it got knocked back even though the funds would be hypothecated to improving transport. It's not a vote winner and politicians know that. Instead, it means a more gradual, less revolutionary approach - more nuanced.
Actually that is a bit of a simplification, I expect similar operating hours for buses in all urban areas. So in London, that is usually 5am to 1am. In Cheshunt as somewhere on the edge of the built up area, I think it's reasonable to have the last bus meet the last train and be there as the last of the businesses shut for the day. That is around Midnight to 12:30am. Not expecting night buses out here! Generally I'm fine with buses that run every 15 or 30 minutes but they need to be reliable and properly regulated. Hourly is a limiting frequency, while every 20 minutes is plain awkward and only works if the route is coordinated with other routes. The issue around here is the lack of connectivity which could be quite easily fixed with just 1 new route.
Fares I would expect hopper fares and caps, but could be set at a different rate.
Generally it just makes sense to tie bus frequency and number of routes to population size and be responsive to what exists around. Decades of deregulation has meant what exists now is very messy.
I'm not certain why a 20 min frequency is awkward (40 mins I get). However, that aside, the cost of even those uplifts are going to be absolutely huge. It's not going to happen, and that's that.
The particular issue with London is that the boundary is artificially drawn to exclude large areas of London's built up area. To go back to my earlier example of Dublin, the urban area includes places in neighbouring counties like Blanchardstown and Tallaght which are outside the Dublin city boundary (not to be confused with the traditional county of Dublin which does not currently have an administrative council). These places are served as if they are within the city of Dublin.
I'm not certain why a 20 min frequency is awkward (40 mins I get). However, that aside, the cost of even those uplifts are going to be absolutely huge. It's not going to happen, and that's that.
Well, it might happen, in some cases. Things do change. There could become a time where TfL and neighbouring authorities are able to find better solutions. The border may become less obvious, such as in other urban areas, especially some on the continent.
And, somehow, TfL operate services not just to Dartford in Kent which would be the obvious place to terminate, but all three of them continue even further to Bluewater.
Well, it might happen, in some cases. Things do change. There could become a time where TfL and neighbouring authorities are able to find better solutions. The border may become less obvious, such as in other urban areas, especially some on the continent.
And, somehow, TfL operate services not just to Dartford in Kent which would be the obvious place to terminate, but all three of them continue even further to Bluewater.
TfL IS a regional transport organisation. It's just that you happen to live just the other side of the boundary.
However, if you then decided to expand that to TfSE and encompass not just London but Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Essex, Herts and Bucks...but can you imagine how much it would cost to have TfL style fares and service provision over an area such as that? And it would still have some boundary somewhere where "Aron of Luton" bemoans the fact that they are over the border from Harpenden and look at their service provision? Even if they expanded the area to encompass what I mapped out, with the consequent levels of fares support required and bus service provision (and I'm sure that is what you would expect or why else would you do it), the cost would be much higher than would be supported by HM Treasury. That and, as @Dwarfer1979 mentions, there are some determined people who really would not want the boundaries to be changed especially in SW London/Surrey, and this is not a new situation in that area.
FWIW, I am against the fuel duty freeze and would like to see the chancellor look to wean the country off it incrementally. It was done as a political expediency by the last government. However, getting rid of it will be mightily difficult and politically toxic - surely, you must understand the political optics of that, given what we saw with winter fuel payments to wealthy pensioners. It would also push inflation higher so it's a really difficult area to get out of, especially with the triple lock too. Moreover, the fact is that money saved from that is simply going to be used in other areas - the health service, servicing the national debt, social care, social security and pensions. So yeah, we'd love "proper funding" but there's many more, emotionally charged, demands on that money; dare I say it but the travails of HS2 has probably adversely impacted the appetite for major public transport investment.
I know we're public transport advocates on this forum but idealism must be tempered by realism.
Actually that is a bit of a simplification, I expect similar operating hours for buses in all urban areas. So in London, that is usually 5am to 1am. In Cheshunt as somewhere on the edge of the built up area, I think it's reasonable to have the last bus meet the last train and be there as the last of the businesses shut for the day. That is around Midnight to 12:30am. Not expecting night buses out here! Generally I'm fine with buses that run every 15 or 30 minutes but they need to be reliable and properly regulated. Hourly is a limiting frequency, while every 20 minutes is plain awkward and only works if the route is coordinated with other routes. The issue around here is the lack of connectivity which could be quite easily fixed with just 1 new route.
Fares I would expect hopper fares and caps, but could be set at a different rate.
Generally it just makes sense to tie bus frequency and number of routes to population size and be responsive to what exists around. Decades of deregulation has meant what exists now is very messy.
More fool all those authorities, but not surprising when they have no real say in their area's buses.
I say it as it is, thing is we are surrounded by a whole bunch of countries who do far better than us on transport, not perfect, certain things worse sometimes but as a world we can learn from each other on these things but instead us in Britain, it's 'we can't have this' or 'it'll never happen'. That sort of mentality where we seem to have given up, but we are in a rut as a country thanks to Tory neglect and policies like bus deregulation or water privatisation, without getting to housing!, actual wasteful ideological policies, that I hope other countries see what we've done and run a mile away to avoid the same mistakes. None of it is insurmountable, yes it's a not great time right now, but Britain has been through worse and got to the other side, historically we did bold policies or we built infrastructure or housing at a large scale and the country got better for it. If anything, we don't need to do anything new, just always learn from the past and from other countries. We can do a lot better than how things are now.
This country pushed people towards cars for decades though, now we are seeing some ugly consequences of that. It requires regulations and restrictions and yeah voters wouldn't specifically say about transport but the public services and infrastructure they will say about requires transport to be properly thought about. People may not say about buses, but they always say about traffic. We need people in power that link these kind of issues together, rather than pretend every issue and area is in isolation from one another.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Agreed, it would be much more consistent if it was like this all the way round. I envy Potters Bar with its 2 TFL routes, one of which reaches the tube in 10 minutes!
Having recently been to Dublin and Ireland, I think they lack key infrastructure but the approach to buses is very good and very affordable. I knew Blanchardstown was technically outside but really not obviously with Tallaght and its Luas line. I wonder if the hard border thing inside a country is uniquely a British phenomenon as franchising and deregulation clearly don't mix and what we see now is because of long term austerity. Local government is hollowed out.
In bold, is really the only common sense approach to transport in continuously built up areas.
Well said and you'd expect some difficulties between countries but not within the same country. I do wonder if that is because of funding cuts more than anything. Ireland into Northern Ireland was a little awkward but the trains and buses still serve the journeys we'd reasonably expect. I hope each combined authority that franchises has a full review of the network they inherit, so its obvious where services are missing and cross-boundary is required. Manchester shows it will take some time and it'll be interesting to see how they and Liverpool work things out, very important with Warrington in the middle! The Bee Network actually has a route to Huddersfield, all but the late journeys run all the way through, while the last 2 journeys are split at Marsden, where the boundary with West Yorkshire is. Just requires some flexibility and common sense on both sides.
Ah but before the Bee Network, awere curtailed due to arguments on who's paying certain section ie 378 Stockport to Grove Lane , used to run to Wilmslow (Cheshire, Cheshire East council)
I have just had a big shock at the ticket prices that Go Ahead London are charging. I had to get just the short distance from Buckland to Brockham about thirty minutes ago this morning and was waiting for the Compass Bus 32 but the Go Ahead London 669 turned up first so i stopped that.
They charge £6.00 Single or £10.00 Return to go on a four minute Buckland to Brockham bus ride. I was shocked when the driver quoted those prices but he showed me his screen and it seems that it is indeed the correct prices. They have not joined the fare cap (and i know that some other operators have not) but that is still utterly extortionate. Even without the fare cap (at the old higher prices that other operators used to charge) that still seems extremely high.
No wonder they do not publish their bus fares online with those kind of prices. How can you justify that kind of crazy price. That is more than one pound a minute. Probably up there as one of the most expensive bus rides in the country.
All of the buses with a blue "S" next to the fleet number and reg number appear to be their non TFL stuff.
So if that list is correct then this appears to be the list of vehicles that are fitted with LED destination screens and Ticketer machines for non TFL work:
So a total of 3x E200 buses and 24x E400 buses and 2x E400MMC buses for non TFL work.
Their 618 668 669 routes only require a PVR of 3 (one vehicle for each) so i guess the other stuff is just kept for special event shuttles like the Wimbledon Tennis and the Epsom Races and other stuff like that.
Another question i have is where are the 618 668 669 run out of? The only fleet list i can find online shows all of their non TFL stuff to be split up between eight different depots. If that is correct then that seems rather odd. Why do they not keep all of their non TFL stuff in the same depot?
I have just had a big shock at the ticket prices that Go Ahead London are charging. I had to get just the short distance from Buckland to Brockham about thirty minutes ago this morning and was waiting for the Compass Bus 32 but the Go Ahead London 669 turned up first so i stopped that.
They charge £6.00 Single or £10.00 Return to go on a four minute Buckland to Brockham bus ride. I was shocked when the driver quoted those prices but he showed me his screen and it seems that it is indeed the correct prices. They have not joined the fare cap (and i know that some other operators have not) but that is still utterly extortionate. Even without the fare cap (at the old higher prices that other operators used to charge) that still seems extremely high.
No wonder they do not publish their bus fares online with those kind of prices. How can you justify that kind of crazy price. That is more than one pound a minute. Probably up there as one of the most expensive bus rides in the country.
Based on the timetable (one journey in the morning, one in the afternoon, only runs school days), that looks to be a service aimed at school children. So presumably they're not particularly interested in serving the general public. And - arguably - are pricing the fares to put them off using the bus. As for the children, they'll no doubt prefer them to have season tickets.
They do have several school bus routes presumably running for Surrey council. Do they actually run any normal routes in the area? If not, presumably that's why they never bothered with the price cap.
Very true. Just an illustration of the difference... As we know, London subsidises its buses by about £1bn even though it is "good bus territory" and revenue should be good; simply the cost base is higher, service provision is higher, and the fares are also kept lower.
The further out of the centre of London you are, the easier it is to use a car. That's the simple truth. I drove everywhere locally when I lived in Hemel Hempstead. Bus usage in zone 6 isn't dramatically different to bus usage over the border.
Clearly TfL's heavily subsidised fares would be more attractive than commercial fares, but if people wanted to use the bus they would be using the bus.
TfL have published stats that show how car ownership and car usage has reduced, and for that we should be pleased. It would be interesting to see how that varies across the area e.g. between Southwark and Orpington.
All of the buses with a blue "S" next to the fleet number and reg number appear to be their non TFL stuff.
So if that list is correct then this appears to be the list of vehicles that are fitted with LED destination screens and Ticketer machines for non TFL work:
So a total of 3x E200 buses and 24x E400 buses and 2x E400MMC buses for non TFL work.
Their 618 668 669 routes only require a PVR of 3 (one vehicle for each) so i guess the other stuff is just kept for special event shuttles like the Wimbledon Tennis and the Epsom Races and other stuff like that.
Another question i have is where are the 618 668 669 run out of? The only fleet list i can find online shows all of their non TFL stuff to be split up between eight different depots. If that is correct then that seems rather odd. Why do they not keep all of their non TFL stuff in the same depot?
At least SN 06 BLV, LK 08 FLP, LX 09 EZU, LX 09 EZV, LX 09 EZW, LX 09 EZZ, LX 09 FAF, SN 66 WNE and SN 66 WNF have left the fleet - may well be more. Also shouldn't the Fasttrack I Trams be added?
At least SN 06 BLV, LK 08 FLP, LX 09 EZU, LX 09 EZV, LX 09 EZW, LX 09 EZZ, LX 09 FAF, SN 66 WNE and SN 66 WNF have left the fleet - may well be more. Also shouldn't the Fasttrack I Trams be added?
Ah i thought it may have been out of date. Probably a more accurate way to find current vehicles is looking at what has tracked on the 618 and 668 and 669 over recent weeks. Although i am sure they still have extra vehicles only used on special event services.
Fasttrack is a weird one. Legally it is part of Go Ahead London but operationally it is mostly run by their Brighton & Hove division. Brighton & Hove have far more involvement in running their Fasttrack operation than Go Ahead London do.
Another question i have is where are the 618 668 669 run out of? The only fleet list i can find online shows all of their non TFL stuff to be split up between eight different depots. If that is correct then that seems rather odd. Why do they not keep all of their non TFL stuff in the same depot?
Operationally, it would make sense for the three school routes to operate out of Sutton, but don't know if this is the case.
Some of the fleet was used on railway replacement services in Kent and Sussex and were outposted. I thought the Commercial Services fleet was kept at Stockwell - useful for central London services such as Wimbledon and Chelsea Flower Show, but I assume there is no reason why they could not be scattered depending on contracts or commercial services. By the way, the Chelsea Flower Show has not run for the last two years - anyone know why not? I thought that they were well used, but no-one else has taken over the service, so maybe it did not make much money?
Operationally, it would make sense for the three school routes to operate out of Sutton, but don't know if this is the case.
Some of the fleet was used on railway replacement services in Kent and Sussex and were outposted. I thought the Commercial Services fleet was kept at Stockwell - useful for central London services such as Wimbledon and Chelsea Flower Show, but I assume there is no reason why they could not be scattered depending on contracts or commercial services. By the way, the Chelsea Flower Show has not run for the last two years - anyone know why not? I thought that they were well used, but no-one else has taken over the service, so maybe it did not make much money?
I remember that Go Ahead London used to have a bunch of buses based out of Ringmer depot in the Lewes area. They also had a couple based out of Newhaven depot too. The buses at Ringmer and Newhaven were solely used for rail replacement. It always seemed so odd to base buses so far from their main London depots. Big Lemon (Seaford & District) based in Hailsham seem to have rapidly taken all the rail replacement work in the area so you never see Go Ahead London on rail replacement there much these days.
The school routes also have a route map on their website, but unusually, they also include notes for drivers, such as 'risk of grounding'. See attached for an example.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
