London Buses Discussion

[Robertj21a]

Replacing the 8.9m and 9m buses is a short term problem as there are currently no electric buses made in that size. However some more recent buses have become free such as those used on K1. But remains to be seen if the secondhand and lease market can get these to another London Operator.

Metroline might now have the oldest average fleet age, it has had negligible new buses in 2019-2021. It has a large number of buses that will need replacing in 2022-2024, including loads they inherited from First.

Bear in mind that these are all going to be TfL contracts for 5 years (with possible extension to 7 years). Any operator will only get new(er) buses if they win/retain routes.

 

[Surreyman]

Replacing the 8.9m and 9m buses is a short term problem as there are currently no electric buses made in that size. However some more recent buses have become free such as those used on K1. But remains to be seen if the secondhand and lease market can get these to another London Operator.

Metroline might now have the oldest average fleet age, it has had negligible new buses in 2019-2021. It has a large number of buses that will need replacing in 2022-2024, including loads they inherited from First.

Some speculation for any accountants on this forum, i would guess that the fitment of engine/exhaust 'apparatus' that makes the vehicle euro 6 compliant, increases the asset value of the vehicle?
Allowing that most/the majority of London buses are actually owned by leasing companies, would a 13 year old vehicle depreciated accordingly and with typical London 'wear & tear' increase in book value?
In the real world (Covid notwithstanding) it's secondhand value must have increased too?

Given 2 doors, wheelchair access through middle door, London Blinds, reduced seating capacity etc etc, would it be a practical policy to strip 13+ year old london buses of their Euro 6 exhaust retrofit 'gubbins' and refit it to more modern (6-10 year old) std spec buses?

 

[700007]

Aren't there 8.9m Optare Solo EVs available on the market? Although being blighted by so many problems I am not surprised that operators are reluctant to order Optare.

Metroline have a fairly modern double decker fleet especially after a huge cull that took place of any Euro 4 TEs last year. I'd say the average age of their double deckers is probably 7 years old.

It's the single deckers that are really old in London terms. Metroline is reluctant to purchase new single deckers in general. Many of their single deckers are well over 10 years old. Whilst I am a fan of being resourceful and not unnecessarily buying something new until the current assets reach their expiry date, TfL won't in the near future and as aforementioned up thread, they will need to buy lots of new buses soon.

I imagine the release of a large batch of 5 year old Enviro 200 MMCs from route 235 later this year might trigger a culling of older Enviro 200s. I don't know where they would go but I would probably Uxbridge or Cricklewood is a good shout.

 

[Snow1964]

Some speculation for any accountants on this forum, i would guess that the fitment of engine/exhaust 'apparatus' that makes the vehicle euro 6 compliant, increases the asset value of the vehicle?
Allowing that most/the majority of London buses are actually owned by leasing companies, would a 13 year old vehicle depreciated accordingly and with typical London 'wear & tear' increase in book value?
In the real world (Covid notwithstanding) it's secondhand value must have increased too?

Given 2 doors, wheelchair access through middle door, London Blinds, reduced seating capacity etc etc, would it be a practical policy to strip 13+ year old london buses of their Euro 6 exhaust retrofit 'gubbins' and refit it to more modern (6-10 year old) std spec buses?

I will try and answer this
I have read somewhere that the euroVI upgrades are about £12k per bus (might not be exact, and apparently varies by bus type), which is significant for a 13 year old vehicle.

TfL only agreed to pay for about 4000 upgrades of buses already on a contract that would end after LEZ start date (out of a fleet of nearer 9000). The others were either euroVI from new, or an Operator proposed using them for new contract so had to pick up cost of euroVI modifications to comply with new contract.

There is some evidence that the upgrade is a sunk cost, and only worth something on secondhand market where an Operator has routes in an LEZ. If an operator can use a euroIII bus they have no interest in paying more for equipment they don’t need. There is also evidence that low cost users want simplicity for cheap maintenance (the old theory, what isn’t fitted can’t go wrong) so might actually have a negative influence on secondhand value.

In theory could re-engine a bus using equipment from another, but not convinced many would go to the trouble. Apart from Bath there are no other LEZs starting this month. Probably going to be Autumn before any upgraded buses come free (the school bus extras meaning spare buses not currently being released), so is conditional on if a flurry of LEZs get introduced next year

I remember a few years ago, an Operator (might have been Abellio) lost a route using 9.3m dual door buses, were worth less than the 9m single door buses and took ages to shift as secondhand market didn’t want a dual door bus with fewer seats than 9m version, even if initial cost had been higher.

 

[TitanMike]

LBSL intends to enter into new contracts for the following routes with the operators listed below:

Route	Current Operator	New Operator	PVR​	Vehicles
308	Tower Transit	Tower Transit	13​	Existing hybrid double deck
413	Metrobus*	Metrobus	8​	Single deck (details TBC)
507	London General	London General	TBC​	Existing electric single deck
521	London General	London General	TBC​	Existing electric single deck
646	Blue Triangle	Blue Triangle	2​	Existing diesel single deck

* Contract to be novated from Quality Line on 3rd July 2021.



All diesel and hybrid vehicles detailed above will meet Euro VI emissions standards.



The above contracts will commence on the following dates:



28th August 2021: Routes 507 & 521.

4th September 2021: Route 646.

4th December 2021: Route 413.

5th March 2022: Route 308.

Taken from a official TFL e mail received to the company whom I work for.

 

[cnjb8]

To be fair, there is always a stream of Metroline, GAL, RATP and Tower Transit vehicles going to Ensign monthly. This wouldn't hamper the average age of Metroline vehicles

 

[MotCO]

To be fair, there is always a stream of Metroline, GAL, RATP and Tower Transit vehicles going to Ensign monthly. This wouldn't hamper the average age of Metroline vehicles

I noticed several GAL single deckers this morning in and around Morden which were 08 and 09 plated (SOEs and Enviro 200s). Surely there cannot be much more life left in them, and replacements will need to be sought.

 

[chopperman21]

I noticed several GAL single deckers this morning in and around Morden which were 08 and 09 plated (SOEs and Enviro 200s). Surely there cannot be much more life left in them, and replacements will need to be sought.

Under the 15 year rule, it could be up to 2-3 more years life in them.

 

[Robertj21a]

Under the 15 year rule, it could be up to 2-3 more years life in them.

What 15 year rule?

 

[chopperman21]

What 15 year rule?

Max age limit of buses on TfL contracts

 

[Robertj21a]

Max age limit of buses on TfL contracts

Are you sure?

Any idea where it states this?

 

[galwhv69]

Max age limit of buses on TfL contracts

As far as I know, this is just a myth made up by enthusiasts. If the vehicle is complaint and in good working order (potentially refurbished as well) then there shouldn't be a reason as to why it couldn't continue past the 15 year mark?

 

[Surreyman]

As far as I know, this is just a myth made up by enthusiasts. If the vehicle is complaint and in good working order (potentially refurbished as well) then there shouldn't be a reason as to why it couldn't continue past the 15 year mark?

Currently believed to be 13 years, again I cannot provide documentary proof but others may be able to?
The oldest buses in normal service are 07/57 reg so that's about right - yes there are just a handful of slightly older vehicles used on contracts (RATP did have some 56 reg Scanias).
I would imagine the fact that most buses are leased has a bearing on this, when I used to work in transport, vehicles needed to be returned to the leasing co by a certain date, so called peppercorn leases could be used to extend but maintenance and reliability issues discouraged this.

 

[Class465pacer]

Max age limit of buses on TfL contracts

Tell that to the 51 reg Go Ahead Pointer Dart that lasted until December 2019.

 

[Robertj21a]

Currently believed to be 13 years, again I cannot provide documentary proof but others may be able to?
The oldest buses in normal service are 07/57 reg so that's about right - yes there are just a handful of slightly older vehicles used on contracts (RATP did have some 56 reg Scanias).
I would imagine the fact that most buses are leased has a bearing on this, when I used to work in transport, vehicles needed to be returned to the leasing co by a certain date, so called peppercorn leases could be used to extend but maintenance and reliability issues discouraged this.

I can't recall anything about a specific age limit for buses on TfL work - not 15 years or 13 years. Surely someone can confirm where this is documented?

 

[MotCO]

Did the Route 15H Routemasters have special dispensation if there was a 13 or 15 year rule?

 

[Busaholic]

Did the Route 15H Routemasters have special dispensation if there was a 13 or 15 year rule?

Special dispensation at so many levels, non wheelchair accessibility being the major one at the start. Their age is what keeps them 'legal' to operate in passenger service, so applying a 13 or 15 year rule would be a case of hari kari.

 

[busesrusuk]

Maximum age limits are a moot point in London given that political will can and does determine vehicle policy. If there is no "new" technology to consider such as hybrids or electric then vehicles can usually fulfil two contract terms so roughly 14 years (2 x contracts if the 2 year extensions are taken up). Vehicle spec is determined in the contract award. If the vehicles are compliant (still) then the operator can bid for work for them beyond their existing contract.

Some of the messages imply that some London bus companies are somehow falling behind in vehicle replacement strategy. Vehicle replacement is entirely driven by contract wins and/or retention. Mentioned above are examples of routes operated by Metroline and Go Ahead where buses are now quite "old".

The contract system will sort those buses out at the next contract award. Most of the Sutton area GAL buses such as the DOE, SOE and a number of SE class buses are now approaching the end of their second contract term. The contracts were recently extended for two years so expect a flurry of new vehicle orders when routes such as 80, 93, 151, 154, 163 and 164 are awarded next time around. It may be possible that their could be cascaded compliant vehicles from elsewhere in the mix as well depending on contract losses. As a for instance, GAL have recently lost the 63 to abellio, that throws up a number of relatively new hybrids that need a home in due course. They could of course go to another contract that gets awarded to GAL in the next six months or so or, if they are leased and there is no new home for them, then they will go back to the leasing company

The same logic above will apply to the Metroline routes mentioned. Highly likely that the older buses will get replaced at the next tender award of those particular routes. No London bus company will buy or lease new vehicles unless they have a contract to allocate them to. Speculative punts on buying new vehicles with no guaranteed upcoming work for them is not going to happen.

 

[700007]

It's probably worth mentioning that the 15 year limit isn't a rule per se as I understand it but there is a fee of sorts that I think has to be paid to TfL on a regular basis particularly if the bus falls foul of certain requirements (such as emissions). Now if you had a whole fleet of 15 year old buses and tried to use them on a contract, the contract in theory could be accepted but the fee is too expensive to pay for each bus for 5 years that it would be cheaper to buy new. At the same time, an operator would obviously try to reasonably get the fee covered by the tender price they offer and at that rate a rival company would be cheaper. That's my understanding of it but more than happy to be corrected.

It is indeed why some buses stick around past the 15 year limit because it is sometimes cheaper to just pay for one or two buses to act as spares and it may also be the odd case that the bus is - despite its age - compliant with the requirements of the contract so no set fee is to be paid. That Dart at Bexleyheath is a great example to use.

 

[christopher]

Mainly down to emissions as to how long they last now, for example Spirit of London was retired because it couldn't meet the new standards anymore apparently.

 

[MotCO]

Maximum age limits are a moot point in London given that political will can and does determine vehicle policy. If there is no "new" technology to consider such as hybrids or electric then vehicles can usually fulfil two contract terms so roughly 14 years (2 x contracts if the 2 year extensions are taken up). Vehicle spec is determined in the contract award. If the vehicles are compliant (still) then the operator can bid for work for them beyond their existing contract.

Some of the messages imply that some London bus companies are somehow falling behind in vehicle replacement strategy. Vehicle replacement is entirely driven by contract wins and/or retention. Mentioned above are examples of routes operated by Metroline and Go Ahead where buses are now quite "old".

The contract system will sort those buses out at the next contract award. Most of the Sutton area GAL buses such as the DOE, SOE and a number of SE class buses are now approaching the end of their second contract term. The contracts were recently extended for two years so expect a flurry of new vehicle orders when routes such as 80, 93, 151, 154, 163 and 164 are awarded next time around. It may be possible that their could be cascaded compliant vehicles from elsewhere in the mix as well depending on contract losses. As a for instance, GAL have recently lost the 63 to abellio, that throws up a number of relatively new hybrids that need a home in due course. They could of course go to another contract that gets awarded to GAL in the next six months or so or, if they are leased and there is no new home for them, then they will go back to the leasing company

The same logic above will apply to the Metroline routes mentioned. Highly likely that the older buses will get replaced at the next tender award of those particular routes. No London bus company will buy or lease new vehicles unless they have a contract to allocate them to. Speculative punts on buying new vehicles with no guaranteed upcoming work for them is not going to happen.

I can't fault your logic. My angle is that there will be a time when all compliant buses are being used on contracts, and that there will not be a pool of spare compliant buses to furnish any new contracts (where the contract was previously operated by almost time-expired buses). Any new contract will have to be serviced by new buses, i.e. electric buses, but this will not be possible if the contract was won on the (cheaper) basis of existing buses. If a bidder won such a contract and then found there were no spare compliant existing buses, there will be a problem. You can't easily transfer in non-London buses because they won't have two doors, the ramp will be manual etc etc., and it will probably be too expensive to convert. So what's the answer?

 

[Robertj21a]

I can't fault your logic. My angle is that there will be a time when all compliant buses are being used on contracts, and that there will not be a pool of spare compliant buses to furnish any new contracts (where the contract was previously operated by almost time-expired buses). Any new contract will have to be serviced by new buses, i.e. electric buses, but this will not be possible if the contract was won on the (cheaper) basis of existing buses. If a bidder won such a contract and then found there were no spare compliant existing buses, there will be a problem. You can't easily transfer in non-London buses because they won't have two doors, the ramp will be manual etc etc., and it will probably be too expensive to convert. So what's the answer?

As others have tried to point out, there's no such thing as a time expired bus on TfL work. It will have been bought for a specific tender award and will often stay on that route for the whole 5/7 years. When the tender is up for a new award the new operator will supply new or existing buses as per the tender documents. An operator won't be tendering for a contract requiring existing vehicles if he can't readily source those vehicles.
I'm assured that there is no such thing as an overall 12/13/15 year time limit on the age of buses on TfL work.

 

[Snow1964]

It is highly probable that the age of an electric bus may be seen differently to a diesel as there is no rattling lump of cast iron shaking it to bits.

It is also rumoured that TfL are considering moving to 7 year awards for contracts starting April 2022 onwards.

I could easily forsee electric buses being used nearer 16-18 years, partly because of the higher capital cost, and partly because they won’t fall foul of changes in emissions rules. It could also be that some of the earlier ones need new batteries 7-10 years, and once done are suitable to carry on for similar period.

 

[M803UYA]

As others have tried to point out, there's no such thing as a time expired bus on TfL work. It will have been bought for a specific tender award and will often stay on that route for the whole 5/7 years. When the tender is up for a new award the new operator will supply new or existing buses as per the tender documents. An operator won't be tendering for a contract requiring existing vehicles if he can't readily source those vehicles.
I'm assured that there is no such thing as an overall 12/13/15 year time limit on the age of buses on TfL work.

I was going to say that. The thing is, what some posters on this thread claim as 'end of life' vehicles in fact have a resale value on the open market, and in some of the big 5 group companies, like Arriva and First, there are recent instances of 58/09 registered vehicles being transferred into provincial bus operations as fleet upgrades. In Somerset, 09 reg buses are regarded as very modern and an 'upgrade' to the fleet.

TfL would no doubt gain contract savings from going to 7 year contracts, that allows the operators to justify the business case for new vehicles, and operate them over two contract periods then dispose of them as fully depreciated.

 

[MotCO]

As others have tried to point out, there's no such thing as a time expired bus on TfL work. It will have been bought for a specific tender award and will often stay on that route for the whole 5/7 years. When the tender is up for a new award the new operator will supply new or existing buses as per the tender documents. An operator won't be tendering for a contract requiring existing vehicles if he can't readily source those vehicles.
I'm assured that there is no such thing as an overall 12/13/15 year time limit on the age of buses on TfL work.

I was going to say that. The thing is, what some posters on this thread claim as 'end of life' vehicles in fact have a resale value on the open market, and in some of the big 5 group companies, like Arriva and First, there are recent instances of 58/09 registered vehicles being transferred into provincial bus operations as fleet upgrades. In Somerset, 09 reg buses are regarded as very modern and an 'upgrade' to the fleet.

TfL would no doubt gain contract savings from going to 7 year contracts, that allows the operators to justify the business case for new vehicles, and operate them over two contract periods then dispose of them as fully depreciated.

To take your comments at face value, you are saying that buses bought for 2 x 7 year contracts could undertake a third 7 year contract and be the best part of 20 years' old. I have seen a mix of buses on various contracts - for example, the Roundabout routes in Orpington have a mix of 12 and 64 plate vehicles, for contracts started at the same time.

There will be a time when the buses are time-expired for London - too expensive to maintain, refurbish etc, and new buses will be required. To take the Roundabout example, when the contract is up for tender in 2 years' time, the current buses will be too old to service another 5 or 7 year contract (not due to any age restriction, but because they will be knackered.) If Go-Ahead do not have any other suitable existing vehicles in their stable, either they will not be able to bid on the basis of 'existing vehicles', or they may hope to pick up some second hand examples from other London operators, but the latter is far from certain. They can hardly buy these buses from Ensign when they submit their tenders; the have to wait to see if they have won the tender, then try to source these vehicles. My point is that there may not be any such vehicles available, and therein lies the problem.

Of course, the tender may require new vehicles, which will mean more expensive electric vehicles. Given the state of TfL's finances, this is unlikely to be an option for all tenders.

 

[Robertj21a]

To take your comments at face value, you are saying that buses bought for 2 x 7 year contracts could undertake a third 7 year contract and be the best part of 20 years' old. I have seen a mix of buses on various contracts - for example, the Roundabout routes in Orpington have a mix of 12 and 64 plate vehicles, for contracts started at the same time.

There will be a time when the buses are time-expired for London - too expensive to maintain, refurbish etc, and new buses will be required. To take the Roundabout example, when the contract is up for tender in 2 years' time, the current buses will be too old to service another 5 or 7 year contract (not due to any age restriction, but because they will be knackered.) If Go-Ahead do not have any other suitable existing vehicles in their stable, either they will not be able to bid on the basis of 'existing vehicles', or they may hope to pick up some second hand examples from other London operators, but the latter is far from certain. They can hardly buy these buses from Ensign when they submit their tenders; the have to wait to see if they have won the tender, then try to source these vehicles. My point is that there may not be any such vehicles available, and therein lies the problem.

Of course, the tender may require new vehicles, which will mean more expensive electric vehicles. Given the state of TfL's finances, this is unlikely to be an option for all tenders.

As I have tried to say before, an operator won't tender if it requires existing vehicles and they have nothing suitable.

 

[MotCO]

As I have tried to say before, an operator won't tender if it requires existing vehicles and they have nothing suitable.

Which could cause financial issues. An operator wants to fill the garage and have as many buses operating as possible to contribute to its overheads. To quote my previous example, I could not foresee Metrobus refusing to submit a bid for the Roundabout routes because it could not source the vehicles. Once you lose a bid, it is still fairly rare for a route to be regained in future years - just look at the 61 as an example. Metrobus would want to retain the network, but it may not be physically possible to acquire secondhand vehicles.

 

[Robertj21a]

Which could cause financial issues. An operator wants to fill the garage and have as many buses operating as possible to contribute to its overheads. To quote my previous example, I could not foresee Metrobus refusing to submit a bid for the Roundabout routes because it could not source the vehicles. Once you lose a bid, it is still fairly rare for a route to be regained in future years - just look at the 61 as an example. Metrobus would want to retain the network, but it may not be physically possible to acquire secondhand vehicles.

Operators don't tender for every award, they will only tender for what fits their business requirements at the time. The whole end game is swings and roundabouts over the longer term.

 

[Goldfish62]

Max age limit of buses on TfL contracts

There is no 15 year rule. It's purely guidance.

 

[Snow1964]

Which could cause financial issues. An operator wants to fill the garage and have as many buses operating as possible to contribute to its overheads. To quote my previous example, I could not foresee Metrobus refusing to submit a bid for the Roundabout routes because it could not source the vehicles. Once you lose a bid, it is still fairly rare for a route to be regained in future years - just look at the 61 as an example. Metrobus would want to retain the network, but it may not be physically possible to acquire secondhand vehicles.

It might cause loss of a bit of profit, but there is no business sense in bidding for something that you can’t deliver, or is so high risk that it might end up so expensive you make a loss.

Got to be a plan to get suitable vehicles at a cost you control (eg a quote for their supply), can’t bid and as afterthought if you win try and source the vehicles at any cost.

Where specialist size buses (and 9m TfL spec are, because they are used on limited number of routes), you cannot even assume someone else will release any, as they might hold onto them to bid for another route. Until an electric bus in that size becomes available those without any suitable existing ones are rather stuck.