Things which cause bus boarding/alighting to be slower now than 40 years ago.

[NCT]

I’ve just spent 3 days in The Hague. The tram network has overwhelming light rail characteristics, has extensive reserved running and substantial ballasted sections. It’s a rapid transit system serving a dense and large multi-centric city, serving the equivalent function of Rotterdam’s metro. It’s completely different to a typical British provincial bus doing town - burb that’s never expected to carry more than 70 people.

It’s absolutely apples and apricots.

Stop trying to derail the thread (pun intended).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve just spent 3 days in The Hague. The tram network has overwhelming light rail characteristics, has extensive reserved running and substantial ballasted sections. It’s a rapid transit system serving a dense and large multi-centric city, serving the equivalent function of Rotterdam’s metro. It’s completely different to a typical British provincial bus doing town - burb that’s never expected to carry more than 70 people.

A lot of it is a street tramway doing what buses do here, and as a result there is very little bus service. Cycling is also relevant of course.

Don't forget that sometimes buses do stuff like trams - can I present the Cambridge busway? In essence a country branch line with rubber tyred, double deck Pacers. And bus style operation (driver fare collection), which makes it pointlessly slow!

It’s absolutely apples and apricots.

Both of which are sweet fruit and a good mid afternoon snack of course! And both bus and tram are different ways of doing the same thing in that sort of medium sized town. And there is parallel between the two - you can run trams like buses and you can run buses like trams. And the latter would be appropriate for high density urban bus routes with high amounts of boarding and alighting at the same stops such as Oxford Road.

Stop trying to derail the thread (pun intended).

 

[NCT]

You are obfuscating. It’s just word salad now. Stick the UK buses in their present operating contexts.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Depends what you mean by trams. A traditional tramway like Blackpool or Den Haag is comparable to buses - it does what buses do - lots of stops, slow on street running etc (but a degree of permanence - only a degree, though - when I was going to Den Haag frequently for work they seemed to love chopping and changing the tram routes every few months). A converted railway like Metrolink is more of a Stadtbahn and is a bit different.

Take a comparison of the NET from Beeston to Old Market Square in Nottingham and the NCT 36. NET has 11 stops, NCT has 26.

On a superficial level, they are both serving Nottingham to Beeston but the tram does so in 22 mins not 38 mins, and serves far fewer stops. Because of that, boarding/exiting is concentrated into fewer locations and because of the generally higher speeds achieved, journey times are far lower.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Don't forget that sometimes buses do stuff like trams - can I present the Cambridge busway? In essence a country branch line with rubber tyred, double deck Pacers. And bus style operation (driver fare collection), which makes it pointlessly slow!

I'd argue it's not the fare collection that makes the Busway pointlessly slow, but in fact the speed restrictions and constant having to slow down to cross junctions are much bigger time sucks unless a rather large group of people get on which in my experience only tends to happen around the city (where there is no busway so they're essentially a normal bus) and at the P&R sites.

I don't have figures when it was off bus ticketing which is how it was originally set up but were journeys much quicker?

Both of which are sweet fruit and a good mid afternoon snack of course! And both bus and tram are different ways of doing the same thing in that sort of medium sized town. And there is parallel between the two - you can run trams like buses and you can run buses like trams. And the latter would be appropriate for high density urban bus routes with high amounts of boarding and alighting at the same stops such as Oxford Road.

Oxford Road would require a hell of a lot of work to make it tram ready though. Anyone who has driven down there knows that you'd have to completely separate the tram tracks otherwise the tram would constantly be stuck behind Deliveroo riders' abandoned bikes. A bendy bus would probably be a much better bet for this road.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You are obfuscating. It’s just word salad now. Stick the UK buses in their present operating contexts.

No, I'm making a point that UK bus style operation is the thing that causes boarding/alighting to be slower than 40 years ago! (40 years ago presumably meaning conductor operation where the present situation did not apply).

The European examples are simply proof of how it can be done better, and the UK should replicate them. And indeed London does, with its well designed, fast (unlike Ticketer) tap on system* and dual and sometimes even triple doors, and despite the arguments people rarely fare dodge by boarding at the wrong door.

We could of course have a separate thread entitled "how do we fix the fact that bus boarding/alighting is slower..." if the mods prefer, though there would be a heck of a lot of crossover with this one, which does seem to be made up of both. Though of course that's up to the mods (which of course I am not and you are not either). Maybe it'd be better to suffix "and how can this be fixed?" to the end of the subject.

* Though it does need to remove the COVID era plastic covers on the tap pads. These are noticeably slowing things down and are no longer necessary (if they even were to start with).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2026 ==

Take a comparison of the NET from Beeston to Old Market Square in Nottingham and the NCT 36. NET has 11 stops, NCT has 26.

On a superficial level, they are both serving Nottingham to Beeston but the tram does so in 22 mins not 38 mins, and serves far fewer stops. Because of that, boarding/exiting is concentrated into fewer locations and because of the generally higher speeds achieved, journey times are far lower.

With that you can throw in the European comparison too, though - the UK has bus stops really quite close together in some cases. 500m spacing is the norm over on the mainland. This has two effects - more boarding/alighting at each stop (as you say) but also is another factor that results in significantly faster operation over there. Tram stops would typically be a bit further apart than that though it depends on what role the tram is fulfilling there.

The locations of the stops are of course thought through and well designed in most cases. In the UK they often seem to be plonked wherever with little actual thought.

 

[NCT]

Take a comparison of the NET from Beeston to Old Market Square in Nottingham and the NCT 36. NET has 11 stops, NCT has 26.

On a superficial level, they are both serving Nottingham to Beeston but the tram does so in 22 mins not 38 mins, and serves far fewer stops. Because of that, boarding/exiting is concentrated into fewer locations and because of the generally higher speeds achieved, journey times are far lower.

I think you meant 28 minutes not 38? Offpeak it’s 24 minutes Angel Row to Beeston Interchange.

So hardly anything in it.

If you you live north of Beeston High Road or Lenton Abbey and your destination is the Vicky Centre there’s no reason to walk to the NET.

So despite single door boarding the bus achieves a comparable journey time to the tram.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd argue it's not the fare collection that makes the Busway pointlessly slow, but in fact the speed restrictions and constant having to slow down to cross junctions are much bigger time sucks unless a rather large group of people get on which in my experience only tends to happen around the city (where there is no busway so they're essentially a normal bus) and at the P&R sites.

I don't have figures when it was off bus ticketing which is how it was originally set up but were journeys much quicker?

The 30mph restriction is/was an issue but it's temporary until the fences are all done (are they yet?)

Beyond that the Busway is seriously quick for bus movement and is pretty comparable to being a bus version of something like Metrolink, particularly the semi segregated Oldham Loop. It's absolutely boarding and alighting that is the constraint on this - there is no traffic and the speed limit (normally) is mostly 50mph which with urban buses basically means "as fast as you want".

Oxford Road would require a hell of a lot of work to make it tram ready though. Anyone who has driven down there knows that you'd have to completely separate the tram tracks otherwise the tram would constantly be stuck behind Deliveroo riders' abandoned bikes. A bendy bus would probably be a much better bet for this road.

High capacity dual or even triple door artics with tap on tap off (which most customers will use - students are young and tech savvy, and also won't mind standing) is the way, just as these worked really well in London and most of the moaning was just that, moaning, particularly given that they were replaced with 3 door long 11.5m wheelbase deckers that are actually less manoeuvrable in a way, not 8 metre Routemasters. I really do hope Bee sees sense over this and at least trials the concept.

(sorry, deleted the other bit, I misunderstood)

 

[johncrossley]

* Though it does need to remove the COVID era plastic covers on the tap pads. These are noticeably slowing things down and are no longer necessary (if they even were to start with).

If I recall, they are replacing their equipment so I would presume the reader will be completely outside the driver's cab like it is in other countries, and even in Birmingham.

 

[BuhSnarf]

The 30mph restriction is/was an issue but it's temporary until the fences are all done (are they yet?)

Beyond that the Busway is seriously quick for buse movement and is pretty comparable to being a bus version of something like Metrolink, particularly the semi segregated Oldham Loop. It's absolutely boarding and alighting that is the constraint on this - there is no traffic and the speed limit (normally) is mostly 50mph which with urban buses basically means "as fast as you want".

But again, to my question. When there was off-bus ticketing was it any quicker? I don't recall it being but then I used it very few times before they turned off all the machines. I assume when they removed that facility they will have weighed up the impact on dwell times and found that the cost just didn't achieve the benefit?

High capacity dual or even triple door artics with tap on tap off (which most customers will use - students are young and tech savvy, and also won't mind standing) is the way, just as these worked really well in London and most of the moaning was just that, moaning, particularly given that they were replaced with 3 door long 11.5m wheelbase deckers that are actually less manoeuvrable in a way, not 8 metre Routemasters. I really do hope Bee sees sense over this and at least trials the concept.

Agree, a bendy with TOTO would work well on Oxford Road.

 

[johncrossley]

I'd argue it's not the fare collection that makes the Busway pointlessly slow, but in fact the speed restrictions and constant having to slow down to cross junctions are much bigger time sucks unless a rather large group of people get on which in my experience only tends to happen around the city (where there is no busway so they're essentially a normal bus) and at the P&R sites.

I've been on buses spending several minutes at some stops on the main busway section on the way to St Ives, particularly at Longstanton Park & Ride, and of course boarding a full bus at Drummond Street takes as long to board as Stagecoach buses usually do, sometimes causing a late departure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But again, to my question. When there was off-bus ticketing was it any quicker? I don't recall it being but then I used it very few times before they turned off all the machines. I assume when they removed that facility they will have weighed up the impact on dwell times and found that the cost just didn't achieve the benefit?

It's a slightly complex issue. The machines were poorly designed and required you to choose your operator first (an utter nonsense of a way of doing things), and I don't think operators were prohibited from taking fares on board, so people chose to pay that way (as ever, people don't consider the consequences of their actions*) and drivers didn't refuse as that would just be unnecessary conflict in their view.

Roadside TVMs on buses are a bit of a thing of their era, though. TOTO is not slower and resolves the issue without needing to maintain them. Unfortunately Stagecoach's ancient ticket machines don't seem to support it so while all the Ticketer operators are progressively rolling it out (and it often works even where not promoted) they aren't. I seem to recall they're planning a replacement though?

* The classic is the person who only goes looking for their purse/wallet when told to pay at the supermarket. Why not have the cash or card ready loose in a pocket while queueing and consider others' time as more important than your own, as you should?

Agree, a bendy with TOTO would work well on Oxford Road.

And TOTO would largely solve that problem with the Busway. Most people use it where it's offered and well promoted, either just to tap on with their pass (rather than the clunky way of accepting one and issuing a ticket) or to pay by card/phone.

The larger (tri axle) deckers used on it are already dual door. As Stagecoach generally favours single door, there must be a reason for this...

 

[NCT]

High capacity dual or even triple door artics with tap on tap off (which most customers will use - students are young and tech savvy, and also won't mind standing) is the way, just as these worked really well in London and most of the moaning was just that, moaning, particularly given that they were replaced with 3 door long 11.5m wheelbase deckers that are actually less manoeuvrable in a way, not 8 metre Routemasters. I really do hope Bee sees sense over this and at least trials the concept.

(sorry, deleted the other bit, I misunderstood)

Factually incorrect. The New Routemaster has a wheelbase of 6 metres, same as the front wheelbase of a Citaro G. The Citaro G is less manoeuvrable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Factually incorrect. The New Routemaster has a wheelbase of 6 metres, same as the front wheelbase of a Citaro G. The Citaro G is less manoeuvrable.

Either way they were good at what they did and dealt with crowds really well, just like a tram.

Of course, the exact same method of operation was applied initially to the Borismasters. This was later changed, but it could also have been changed on the bendies.

London however isn't really the problem. It has dual door on all but the smallest buses and it has tap-on which is the only option bar waving a train ticket the driver barely looks at (cash fares not accepted) and is well designed and fast. As a result boarding and alighting is fast - to the point that even conductor operation would not improve anything. All people like me are asking for is for the other UK urban operations to copy that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So you would even have the same criticism for a tram?

It goes without saying that a bus is not a tram and a tram is not a bus.

Trams are very different vehicles which behave in very different ways. Because trams run on steel rails you don't get the kinetic movement through the suspension on a tram- you don't get the swaying and the jolting that you do on a bus. In very simple terms, if you're standing on a bendybus you need to hold on otherwise you'll go flying, whereas on a tram you wouldn't. I was recently on a 3-part bendy from Basel airport to the city centre and it was rammed solid but I was still getting thrown around every time we came to a roundabout. So yes, I'd rather have a double decker and a seat than a single decker bendy and no seat.

It has nothing to do with the traction type. Even trolleybuses are as bad as diesel bendybuses for the jolting and the bouncing.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think you meant 28 minutes not 38? Offpeak it’s 24 minutes Angel Row to Beeston Interchange.

So hardly anything in it.

If you you live north of Beeston High Road or Lenton Abbey and your destination is the Vicky Centre there’s no reason to walk to the NET.

So despite single door boarding the bus achieves a comparable journey time to the tram.

No - 38 mins??



EDIT: No, you are right. I was looking at Chilwell... apologies for my stupidity

In that case, the 36 is pretty competitive

No, I'm making a point that UK bus style operation is the thing that causes boarding/alighting to be slower than 40 years ago! (40 years ago presumably meaning conductor operation where the present situation did not apply).

That is simply not the case. If we're comparing UK bus operations to 40 years ago, I'd suggest that it is quicker. 40 years ago, there were relatively few places with dual door buses or conductors in any case. Granted, you had some operators that still insisted on exact fares (even in places like Ipswich and Darlington) but it was still drivers were ringing off tickets on Almex machines unless you were lucky enough to Timtronic or early Wayfarers.

Nowadays, you have many more off bus payments and, of course, ENCTS passes massively speed things up (rather than pensioners scrabbling around for NTA tokens). It isn't customer dwell times that has led to longer journey times!

With that you can throw in the European comparison too, though - the UK has bus stops really quite close together in some cases. 500m spacing is the norm over on the mainland. This has two effects - more boarding/alighting at each stop (as you say) but also is another factor that results in significantly faster operation over there. Tram stops would typically be a bit further apart than that though it depends on what role the tram is fulfilling there.

The locations of the stops are of course thought through and well designed in most cases. In the UK they often seem to be plonked wherever with little actual thought.

I guess that if you stop less often, then that makes journeys quicker. However, most bus stops have been historically located and often where passengers want to board.

I've been on buses spending several minutes at some stops on the main busway section on the way to St Ives, particularly at Longstanton Park & Ride, and of course boarding a full bus at Drummond Street takes as long to board as Stagecoach buses usually do, sometimes causing a late departure.

Much more likely to have a delay because of a driver change than passenger flows.

And TOTO would largely solve that problem with the Busway. Most people use it where it's offered and well promoted, either just to tap on with their pass (rather than the clunky way of accepting one and issuing a ticket) or to pay by card/phone.

The larger (tri axle) deckers used on it are already dual door. As Stagecoach generally favours single door, there must be a reason for this...

They took the decision with the triaxles is that with a much higher passenger loading and specialised vehicles, it made sense to have the extra door. However, they didn't have dual doors on the B7RLEs/B8RLEs so equally, there's a reason for that too.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And indeed London does, with its well designed, fast (unlike Ticketer) tap on system* and dual and sometimes even triple doors, and despite the arguments people rarely fare dodge by boarding at the wrong door.

London had multi-door boarding on the New Routemaster and on the Red Arrows routes, even on the rigid Citaro. TfL abolished it and the reason they gave was fare evasion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is simply not the case. If we're comparing UK bus operations to 40 years ago, I'd suggest that it is quicker. 40 years ago, there were relatively few places with dual door buses or conductors in any case. Granted, you had some operators that still insisted on exact fares (even in places like Ipswich and Darlington) but it was still drivers were ringing off tickets on Almex machines unless you were lucky enough to Timtronic or early Wayfarers.

Nowadays, you have many more off bus payments and, of course, ENCTS passes massively speed things up (rather than pensioners scrabbling around for NTA tokens). It isn't customer dwell times that has led to longer journey times!

TOTO is fixing this, but there is certainly a slowing, if only by a couple of seconds per passenger.

1990s on Oxford Road: say "40 please" while chucking the right change on the tray, driver just hits "issue" and ticket quickly taken, which itself was much quicker on the old ribbon printed tickets because you didn't have to wait for it to fully print and cut off. You could almost do it without breaking stride.

Now: state destination, driver mishears it, state it again, driver selects the right fare stage, you move your phone towards the machine, driver indicates to tap, you tap, slight pause, wait for ticket to fully print, take ticket.

You are probably talking maybe 2-3 seconds difference, but it all adds up on a full decker. It's worth looking at running times on Merseyrail now vs. in the 1970s to see how a load of very small losses of time add up to significant slowing - 11 extra minutes on Ormskirk to Liverpool, and probably more than that on a Southport or Chester. Even adding hustle alarms made enough of a difference to add a couple of minutes, and that's just 5-10 seconds per station stop.

But if you combine dual door and a well designed TOTO system (i.e. not Ticketer's, much as Ticketer has been good in getting card acceptance and TOTO into the mainstream) you will get those gains. It doesn't really need any more than that.

Of course there are other problems - but why should we not address all the problems, starting, naturally, with those within the operator's control?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

London had multi-door boarding on the New Routemaster and on the Red Arrows routes, even on the rigid Citaro. TfL abolished it and the reason they gave was fare evasion.

Fare evasion on those routes was estimated at 6-7% compared with a standard rate of about 2.5%

 

[Bletchleyite]

London had multi-door boarding on the New Routemaster and on the Red Arrows routes, even on the rigid Citaro. TfL abolished it and the reason they gave was fare evasion.

The benefit of multi door boarding on a shortish bus is questionable compared to the benefits of dual door with one door for boarding and one for alighting.

It's not just the boarding and alighting time where they run in parallel, it's also that people are happier to move down a crowded bus if it won't make it harder to get off, and you lose less alighting time with the "excuse me excuse me excuse me" all the way down from the back. It works best of all if the rear door is actually at the rear per the Borismaster - increasing EV use may allow this sort of "low floor throughout" bus to become the norm with this feature which was (in the UK) first pioneered in Runcorn on the Busway!

 

[johncrossley]

London had multi-door boarding on the New Routemaster and on the Red Arrows routes, even on the rigid Citaro. TfL abolished it and the reason they gave was fare evasion.

TfL were happy with it for years. TfL's officers were naturally unhappy at being forced to remove the bendy buses for political reasons, but they worked with the new Mayor to get something that satisfied both Johnson's ego and TfL's desire for multi-door boarding and alighting. TfL were only forced to end the open boarding procedure on the New Routemaster because of the requirement to satisfy the Johnson government that they were saving as much money as possible so they could qualify for the bailout.

It should be noted that the replacement of the Red Arrow bendies with rigid Citaros was worse all around, with hardly any seats on offer with the smaller buses and the need to operate at insane frequencies to avoid overcrowding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It should be noted that the replacement of the Red Arrow bendies with rigid Citaros was worse all around, with hardly any seats on offer with the smaller buses and the need to operate at insane frequencies to avoid overcrowding.

If there was one set of routes that was ideal for "tram style bus operation" it was the Red Arrows. These of course fell victim in the end to reduced commuting, given that they in part existed to reduce load on the Tube.

 

[NCT]

Either way they were good at what they did and dealt with crowds really well, just like a tram.

Of course, the exact same method of operation was applied initially to the Borismasters. This was later changed, but it could also have been changed on the bendies.

London however isn't really the problem. It has dual door on all but the smallest buses and it has tap-on which is the only option bar waving a train ticket the driver barely looks at (cash fares not accepted) and is well designed and fast. As a result boarding and alighting is fast - to the point that even conductor operation would not improve anything. All people like me are asking for is for the other UK urban operations to copy that.

Make a factually incorrect statement, draw the wrong conclusion, evade when pointed out, change the goalpost, and repeat.

As for the Oxford Road corridor, those who actually used and drove the routes have told you the complex interplay between different issues isn’t what you think from your keyboard.

No, I'm making a point that UK bus style operation is the thing that causes boarding/alighting to be slower than 40 years ago! (40 years ago presumably meaning conductor operation where the present situation did not apply).

The transaction / ticket machine speed is about the only valid argument. Everything else is elf n safety gawn mad or Europe good UK bad trope.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for the Oxford Road corridor, those who actually used and drove the routes have told you the complex interplay between different issues isn’t what you think from your keyboard.

I used the routes extensively from 1997 to 2001 when I was at university there. From 1999 to 2000 I spent a year living in Hamburg using the 102 which is directly comparable. I thus have direct experience of both the Oxford Road corridor (which I found incredibly frustrating to use because of the poor style of operation) and the German equivalent. I also spent 9 months weekly commuting to Den Haag so have direct experience of the tram (and a few buses) operation there.

I haven't ever driven it, no (other than in a car and the union minibus, neither of which was particularly fun) but I have plenty of direct experience of the route and comparable European routes to be able to observe the problems the UK's style of operation* causes on busy urban routes.

* To be fair it works fine on small town (<100Kish) suburb-to-bus-station routes, it's applying it to busy urban routes where it falls down badly.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

TOTO is fixing this, but there is certainly a slowing, if only by a couple of seconds per passenger.

1990s on Oxford Road: say "40 please" while chucking the right change on the tray, driver just hits "issue" and ticket quickly taken, which itself was much quicker on the old ribbon printed tickets because you didn't have to wait for it to fully print and cut off. You could almost do it without breaking stride.

Now: state destination, driver mishears it, state it again, driver selects the right fare stage, you move your phone towards the machine, driver indicates to tap, you tap, slight pause, wait for ticket to fully print, take ticket.

You are probably talking maybe 2-3 seconds difference, but it all adds up on a full decker. It's worth looking at running times on Merseyrail now vs. in the 1970s to see how a load of very small losses of time add up to significant slowing - 11 extra minutes on Ormskirk to Liverpool, and probably more than that on a Southport or Chester. Even adding hustle alarms made enough of a difference to add a couple of minutes, and that's just 5-10 seconds per station stop.

But if you combine dual door and a well designed TOTO system (i.e. not Ticketer's, much as Ticketer has been good in getting card acceptance and TOTO into the mainstream) you will get those gains. It doesn't really need any more than that.

Of course there are other problems - but why should we not address all the problems, starting, naturally, with those within the operator's control?

You said bus entrance/exit times were faster 40 years ago, and I don't think that's the case; it feels that you're quoting extremes and not ones that I recognise.

Week before last, service 9 Brislington P&R to Temple Meads...literally people getting on and saying "return" and offering their phone/card to the Vix machine. 3.5 seconds per passenger - I timed it for the benefit of Mr Crossley. A busy return journey where we waited for passengers to exit before we could board - 17 seconds delay. Last week, I travelled on two days on various vehicles - not one driver misheard (are drivers more deaf than in the past?). Ticket machines, whether Vix or Ticketer, behaved themselves except once on a Vix machine. Total delay in that instance - 1 or 2 seconds. It is minimal. It's not dwell times that are the problem.

Here's a little "like for like stat". In my youth, buses ran from Aycliffe Village to Darlington bus station and they took 15 minutes in 1986. In 2026, they take 19 minutes. The route is exactly the same except that in Darlington town centre, they now do a loop around Crown Street and Priestgate BUT that is offset by not running to the old bus station. The vehicles were always single doored - VRs, Nationals, Olympians etc. Fare collection was driver only (no conductors) using Almex or Setright machines and there was always a mix of fares, a few passes etc - now it's a higher proportion of ENCTS and mtickets with . Virtually nothing has changed except the traffic and that's why it takes 20% longer.

Here's North Road - it has an inbound bus lane (hurrah but only 0800-0930, 1600-1800) but as you see, cars parked in it whilst the other side has standard roadside FREE parking for those buying a pizza, a milkshake, going to a tyre depot or a charity superstore!



I know you keep saying that the onus is on bus companies to control the things that they can but it isn't the root cause of delays.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2026 ==

TfL were happy with it for years. TfL's officers were naturally unhappy at being forced to remove the bendy buses for political reasons, but they worked with the new Mayor to get something that satisfied both Johnson's ego and TfL's desire for multi-door boarding and alighting. TfL were only forced to end the open boarding procedure on the New Routemaster because of the requirement to satisfy the Johnson government that they were saving as much money as possible so they could qualify for the bailout.

If you have open boarding with two/three door vehicles, you are making a decision to sacrifice a level of additional fare revenue through evasion. That is fact.

Ending the two door operation on NBfL was simply because a) fare evasion and b) move to single crew operation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

TfL were only forced to end the open boarding procedure on the New Routemaster because of the requirement to satisfy the Johnson government that they were saving as much money as possible so they could qualify for the bailout.

Ending the two door operation on NBfL was simply because a) fare evasion and b) move to single crew operation.

The conductors guarding the open rear platform didn't technically have revenue duties and they went long before Covid anyway. Even after they started closing the door on the rear platform they still had multi-door boarding. TfL eventually got rid of it much later and they say it was specifically because of the fare evasion.

 

[johncrossley]

Even after they started closing the door on the rear platform they still had multi-door boarding. TfL eventually got rid of it much later and they say it was specifically because of the fare evasion.

The long time span is really the point. TfL was happy to tolerate increased fare evasion for years and we would probably still have open boarding if it wasn't for Covid and the associated bailout.

 

[BuhSnarf]

The long time span is really the point. TfL was happy to tolerate increased fare evasion for years and we would probably still have open boarding if it wasn't for Covid and the associated bailout.

It wasn't that they were happy to tolerate the increased fare evasion. The buses were introduced under the guise of having two people operation which mitigated the fare evasion issue, then they were removed meaning that they wanted to get rid of it as soon as they could.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wasn't that they were happy to tolerate the increased fare evasion. The buses were introduced under the guise of having two people operation which mitigated the fare evasion issue

It didn't really as they had no revenue role. Some might have reminded people to tap in if they boarded at the rear, but evaders would have just boarded at the middle away from both them and the driver.

 

[BuhSnarf]

It didn't really as they had no revenue role. Some might have reminded people to tap in if they boarded at the rear, but evaders would have just boarded at the middle away from both them and the driver.

Whether they had a revenue role or not it would have been a deterrent to the "might try it folks."

The hard core fare evaders like you say will get on no matter what, see them push past drivers on a single door bus enough as they don't care. But for those who might risk it if they know no one is going to catch them the guy on the back was a think twice moment.