London Buses set to return to public ownership

[Simon75]

TfL moves step closer to bringing London buses into public ownership

Officials are set to start engaging bus operators later this month as part of a move to ‘reimagine London’s bus network’

www.standard.co.uk

Transport for London (TfL) is moving a step closer to setting up its own publicly owned bus company for the capital, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) has learned.Officials are set to start engaging bus operators later this month to discuss the feasibility of bringing currently franchised services in house, according to sources familiar with the talks.

The proposals were first laid out earlier this year in TfL’s business plan, where officials said that as part of a move to “reimagine London’s bus network, we will develop detailed proposals for a new publicly owned bus company for London.”The study will “assess how this could further support innovation, efficiencies and accountability, and support the needs of customers and the workforce.”Under the current model, private firms submit bids to TfL to run franchised services, with contracts generally running for seven years and setting performance targets for bus operators with a set income. TfL is still able to set routes and control fare levels.


There are 16 privately-owned operators on the capital’s 675 bus routes, including Arriva, Go-Ahead London, First Bus London, and Stage Coach London. Should a publicly owned company be launched, when franchise contracts come to an end, TfL could bring them under the new public bus operator.Such a move would fulfil a promise made by the Mayor of London in his 2024 election manifesto. In August that year, Sir Sadiq Khan told the London Assembly that there were “lots of upsides in us having a publicly owned bus company”, including being able to reinvest any profit back into public transport infrastructure.TfL are now able to do so thanks to the Bus Services Act passed by the Labour government last year, which lifted the ban on local authorities setting up their own bus companies.

Trade Union Unite welcomed the progress, with regional officer Nadine Edwards saying: “Unite has been calling for London buses to be brought back into public ownership for a long time. This will stop money flowing from Londoners and Transport for London to private companies who preside over a race to the bottom culture that impacts drivers and services.”Elly Baker, Labour’s Transport spokesperson on the London Assembly, has questioned the Mayor on the issue several times in City Hall. She told the LDRS: “Bringing some bus operations directly into public ownership could give TfL greater control over how services are run, improve reliability and safety, and mean money made from operating services can be reinvested in London’s transport network. If TfL is now taking practical steps towards establishing a publicly owned bus operator, I very much welcome that progress. I’ve been making the case for TfL to explore this option for some time and I want to see it developed into a serious part of the plan for improving
London’s buses.

”Festus Akinbusoye, who is running to be Conservative Candidate for Mayor of London, suggested such a move was unnecessary, however. “Londoners want reliable, affordable buses; they don’t care who owns the company operating them. Sadiq Khan is trying to fix a problem that simply isn’t there. London’s bus franchising model works. Other cities in the UK and internationally aim to replicate the success of London. Rather than spending taxpayers’ money and years of effort setting up a publicly owned operator, we should be asking how that successful model can be replicated elsewhere in the country. All that bringing bus operations in-house achieves is higher costs and more bureaucracy, not better services. As Mayor, I would protect what works. TfL should focus its time and taxpayers’ money on improving services, tackling fare evasion and making journeys better for Londoners – not dismantling a successful model to win a round of applause from Labour activists.”

Last week, Reform Assembly Member Keith Prince told a fringe event at the party’s annual conference in Birmingham that the rest of the UK would do well to learn from London’s franchising system.A TfL spokesperson said: “As part of our work to reimagine London’s bus network, we are currently developing detailed proposals for a new publicly owned bus company for London. We are assessing how this could further support innovation, efficiencies and accountability, and support the needs of customers and the workforce.”

 

[DGP]

TfL have announced plans to start bringing London buses under direct ownership --> https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/p...n-as-the-capital-s-publicly-owned-bus-company

TfL unveils transformational 'Buses for London' as the capital's publicly owned bus company​

25 September 2026
TfL announces new publicly owned bus company

• Park Royal Depot confirmed as first operational base of Transport for London's new publicly owned bus company
• Route 6 will become the first service to operate as part of 'Buses for London' from late 2027 with depot leased until 2033
• The depot will support around 100 zero-emission buses as TfL continues to deliver a greener bus network

Transport for London (TfL) has today unveiled 'Buses for London', the capital's trailblazing publicly owned bus company, alongside plans for its first route and operational base at Park Royal Depot in west London.

This marks a major milestone in TfL's transformational plans to establish a publicly owned bus operator for the capital, helping to support innovation, affordability and sustainability in one of the world's largest bus networks, while improving services for drivers and passengers alike.

TfL has also confirmed that route 6, which runs between Willesden and Victoria station, will be the first service to operate under the new name when 'Buses for London' launches in late 2027. A further four routes will be announced over the coming year, to come into operation from 2028.

As part of the Mayor and TfL's wider work to reimagine the capital's bus network, 'Buses for London' will explore new ways to deliver high-quality, reliable and sustainable services for customers. Buses for London will help TfL test new approaches to innovation, operational efficiency, safety, decarbonisation, customer experience and driver welfare, while maintaining the high standards Londoners expect from the capital's bus network.

 

[MotCO]

TfL have announced plans to start bringing London buses under direct ownership --> https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/p...n-as-the-capital-s-publicly-owned-bus-company

It refers to setting up a temporary base at Park Royal with a lease until 2033, with I assume little chance of an extension due to redevelopment of the area. The site will be powered up to support a fleet of electric buses. One wonders about the financial viability of installing charging points and the cost of getting the mega power cables to the site for just seven years. Always assuming it doesn't take 2 years or so to get the power there in the first place.

 

[Goldfish62]

TfL have announced plans to start bringing London buses under direct ownership --> https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/p...n-as-the-capital-s-publicly-owned-bus-company

Yes, it's obviously major news, although we've been here before with East Thames Buses. To say that wasn't a success would be an understatement.

 

[Deerfold]

Yes, it's obviously major news, although we've been here before with East Thames Buses. To say that wasn't a success would be an understatement.

East Thames buses worked well for what it was for.
It was an operator of last resort, taking over routes from failed operators and stopping operators from being completely unreasonable when there was only one bid for a route.

 

[MotCO]

East Thames buses worked well for what it was for.
It was an operator of last resort, taking over routes from failed operators and stopping operators from being completely unreasonable when there was only one bid for a route.

But it doesn't seem to be taking over 'operator of last resort' function - it seems as though it is being awarded bus tenders with no competition. "TfL has also confirmed that route 6, which runs between Willesden and Victoria station, will be the first service to operate under the new name when 'Buses for London' launches in late 2027. A further four routes will be announced over the coming year, to come into operation from 2028." (per press release mentioned in post #4517)

Edit: Route 6 was to be subject to tendering in tranche #1018, with a start date of December 2027. It is currently run by Metroline. It seems as though a decision has been made not to include it for tendering, but to award it to its in-house operator. How will cost effectiveness be proved without competitive tendering?

 

[Goldfish62]

East Thames buses worked well for what it was for.
It was an operator of last resort, taking over routes from failed operators and stopping operators from being completely unreasonable when there was only one bid for a route.

I know full well what its function was, but I don't agree that it worked well given its regular slot at the bottom of the performance league tables.

At its very inception the then Ops Director of London Buses stated that it would "set the standards" and "would show the private operators how to run things". It did neither and to this day is still a running joke among the contracted bus operators.

I would like to think that things will be different this time. However, given that no one in any position of influence is left at TfL Buses who was around back in ETB days and political interference from City Hall is far worse now it doesn't bode well.

 

[Deerfold]

But it doesn't seem to be taking over 'operator of last resort' function - it seems as though it is being awarded bus tenders with no competition.

No, I was pointing out how it was different.

 

[Goldfish62]

Edit: Route 6 was to be subject to tendering in tranche #1018, with a start date of December 2027. It is currently run by Metroline. It seems as though a decision has been made not to include it for tendering, but to award it to its in-house operator. How will cost effectiveness be proved without competitive tendering?

I can only surmise that either there were no bidders (wouldn't be the first time recently an incumbent has decided not to bid) or only one bid was received and it was sky-high. The Mayor had a manifesto commitment to establish an in-house operator and either of the above reasons for not awarding a tender would appear to fit the bill. Having said all that it does seen rather early in the retendering process to have reached those conclusions!

Regarding cost effectiveness without competitive tendering TfL do have a detailed industry cost comparator which they run for budgeting purposes when routes are tendered. That of course does not in way mean that an in-house operator would be any better at controlling costs than a private operator of course.

 

[Mikey C]

A toe in the water, but a fairly pointless one, as if it's successful (and how do you judge this anyway?) what next? TfL doesn't have the money to buy back all the garages and routes from the private operators.

I'm sure TfL will make sure that the routes have all the resources thrown at them to make them seem better run than tendered routes, but one garage by itself isn't going to change much. And it's not as if the public will notice anyway, to them it's just another red bus, with the same interior features as all the other modern electric buses.

 

[johncrossley]

TfL doesn't have the money to buy back all the garages and routes from the private operators.

Surely they could afford to buy them back one at a time? The northern city regions have had no problem buying lots of depots at once.

I would personally like to see them try whole depot tendering, the way that the northern city regions are doing it.

 

[Leyland Bus]

I'm pretty sure TfL still have "London Buses Limited" as an active unit, surely they can just reactive this and use that rather setting up another entity??

 

[Goldfish62]

I'm pretty sure TfL still have "London Buses Limited" as an active unit, surely they can just reactive this and use that rather setting up another entity??

Yes, London Buses Limited still has an O licence and 20 discs. Quite possibly it'll be London Buses Limited t/a Buses for London, just as it was London Buses Limited t/a East Thames Buses.

 

[Leyland Bus]

Yes, London Buses Limited still has an O licence and 20 discs. Quite possibly it'll be London Buses Limited t/a Buses for London, just as it was London Buses Limited t/a East Thames Buses.

I thought so, that would make most sense.

Buses for London sounds abit cheap but hey ho! An interesting step change never-the-less...

 

[CyrusWuff]

I'm pretty sure TfL still have "London Buses Limited" as an active unit, surely they can just reactive this and use that rather setting up another entity??

At a guess, when/if they get bored and sell it off it's easier to do so if it's a separate legal entity.

 

[Leyland Bus]

At a guess, when/if they get bored and sell it off it's easier to do so if it's a separate legal entity.

A very good point...

 

[RJ]

In August that year, Sir Sadiq Khan told the London Assembly that there were “lots of upsides in us having a publicly owned bus company”, including being able to reinvest any profit back into public transport infrastructure.

Where is the profit in an operation that consumes a subsidy of well over £1bn a year?

Even the big groups seemed to be financed by hundreds of millions of pounds of debt rather than making a profit in the true sense of the word. This is why independents, who likely have to trade with real money, can’t sustain the environment. Operating expenses for the big groups are colossal, having to fund non-productive training departments just to maintain establishment, workshops at most of their premises and have layers upon layers of management to try and stem costs. This is before considering the skyrocketing costs of operation with fuel costs and troublesome hybrid and electric propulsion systems and supporting infrastructure that have been mandated. The annual subsidy was smaller to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds just a few years ago.

The private operators’ margins are tiny because of those expenses. There is certainly money being made from the buses, but TfL and the operators aren’t the beneficiaries!

 

[Goldfish62]

At a guess, when/if they get bored and sell it off it's easier to do so if it's a separate legal entity.

At the time of sale of ETB London Buses Limited comprised of ETB and Dial-a-Ride (and it still runs DaR today), but the ETB part of the business was easy enough back then to separate out from the DaR operation. However, it's quite possible the same view may not be taken now and another separate TfL subsidiary will be set up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 13:52 ==

Where is the profit in an operation that consumes a subsidy of well over £1bn a year?

Even the big groups seemed to be financed by hundreds of millions of pounds of debt rather than making a profit in the true sense of the word. This is why independents, who likely have to trade with real money, can’t sustain the environment. Operating expenses for the big groups are colossal, having to fund non-productive training departments just to maintain establishment, workshops at most of their premises and have layers upon layers of management to try and stem costs. This is before considering the skyrocketing costs of operation with fuel costs and troublesome hybrid and electric propulsion systems and supporting infrastructure that have been mandated. The annual subsidy was smaller to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds just a few years ago.

The private operators’ margins are tiny because of those expenses. There is certainly money being made from the buses, but TfL and the operators aren’t the beneficiaries!

Can't argue with any of that.

The big groups value London for its relative stability despite the small margins. However, if BfL were to expand beyond the initial handful of routes, but fails to demonstrate a level playing field then all that might change.

 

[MotCO]

Having said all that it does seen rather early in the retendering process to have reached those conclusions!

Indeed; tender announcements have only recently been made for contract starts for November 2026 and January 2027.

 

[cnjb8]

Surely they could afford to buy them back one at a time? The northern city regions have had no problem buying lots of depots at once.

I would personally like to see them try whole depot tendering, the way that the northern city regions are doing it.

TfGM only had to buy around ten (by my very quick calculation) depots, whereas GoAhead London operate from around eighteen sites and thats just one operator.
Of course TfL already own some garages but they would still have to buy the operators out of their leases (i’m assuming?)

 

[Deerfold]

I would personally like to see them try whole depot tendering, the way that the northern city regions are doing it.

Any particular reason?

It would stop any chance of any smaller companies entering the market.

 

[johncrossley]

Any particular reason?

It would stop any chance of any smaller companies entering the market.

To get more competition for tenders. They don't get many bidders for each tranche of routes at the moment. Small companies are more or less excluded as it is, and are usually worse, for example Sullivan.

 

[MotCO]

To get more competition for tenders. They don't get many bidders for each tranche of routes at the moment. Small companies are more or less excluded as it is, and are usually worse, for example Sullivan.

For your Sullivan, I give you Falcon. (I accept that they have only just taken over a TfL route, but they do have a good reputation for their Surrey routes.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 09:48 ==

I would personally like to see them try whole depot tendering, the way that the northern city regions are doing it.

But that must mean TfL would have to buy all the depots. Otherwise, if a whole garage went out to competitive tender, and the current operator was not successful, where would the new operator work out of if the current operator refused to sell? I'm sure an existing garage could be most attractive for housing redevelopment. Also, a new site would take a long time to be wired into the electric grid to recharge the electric buses.

 

[johncrossley]

But that must mean TfL would have to buy all the depots.

They could start off with one or a small number of depots to start with. They will be buying up depots anyway if they are going for full public ownership and operation.

 

[Goldfish62]

For your Sullivan, I give you Falcon. (I accept that they have only just taken over a TfL route, but they do have a good reputation for their Surrey routes.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 09:48 ==

Then there's the other SME running TfL tendered routes that everyone seems to forget about - Uno. Just don't look at their performance.