London Buses Discussion

[Snow1964]

Is the issue that retenders are now on a route by route basis rather than a whole network, which means that a new entrant cannot easily set up a local base? Unless routes in the Havering are let as a job lot, we presumably will not be seeing any competitive tenders.

Unless someone wins with a short (say 3 years) bid with existing TfL compliant buses, they need a fleet of electric buses to latest TfL spec.

Not very easy anymore for any new bidders these days, although recently Falcon buses have managed to win a 2 bus route.

 

[Bedford OB]

MotCo it is effectively a mixture of everything you have said - plus more. Depends in the individual circumstances for each route but some routes it is down to lack of competition (depot geography plays a huge part here). Think Havering in the far East of London, which must be one of the most uncompetitive (is that a word?) areas in the London bus tendering system because only Stagecoach has depots in that borough. Between Romford and Rainham garages, they're effectively able to mop up most of the work probably on very steep prices because nobody else can feasibly bid. Go-Ahead bar the sheer volume of school work (that nobody else bids for I think) and the 5/N15 they have nothing else and probably would struggle to win anything else because bidding from a depot in Barking is not going to be anywhere near as cheap as one in Romford itself. Arriva can and does bid for small bits of work but their capacity is limited (in comparison to the competition) that they can only win so few routes.

Amongst many other things, it is definitely worth mentioning the fact we have lost quite a few companies over the last decade (Sullivan's, HCT Group, Transit Systems, Tellings Golden Miller, even First as a separate operator to RATP - ultimately means one less operator in the game) which would have definitely given the bigger operators a run for their money in some areas.

A few points about this post.

Firstly, with the consolidation that has happened, Havering is no more uncompetitive than anywhere much else in London these days. Over the last six months or so, contracts have been awarded for all of the following routes in various other parts of London where there was only a single bidder - 13, 207, SL1, 43, 134, 317, 112, 315, 136, 220, 43, 149, BL1, 240, 486, 162, 178, B11, 484, 633, 184, 122, 79, 456, B12, B15, 352, 354, R5/10, K2 - all of these are well away from Havering and in some cases are trunk routes where multiple operators have what might be feasible depots, but, often for the structural reasons discussed - capacity, electrification, etc, nobody else decided to bid.

Any inference that Stagecoach may have gained work in Havering at steep prices due to lack of competition is in my view nonsense. TfL have plenty of tools at their disposal to ensure the prices they agree when entering into contracts are realistic, and looking at the actual prices of various awards, those to Stagecoach in Havering earlier this year were certainly not at out of range prices.

It is not the case that nobody else can feasibly bid for work in the area, because Arriva already operate five significant routes in or into the borough, with a total pvr of 70 (66, 103, 175, 248, 370) plus the one bus 375. They are perfectly well placed to take on additional work from their underused Barking Garage, which in some cases would involve no more dead mileage than that currently operated by Stagecoach from Rainham. And Go Ahead could take on more work, again not always with too much dead mileage, God forbid.

I am no supporter of monopolies, but as somebody who lives only a short distance over the borough boundary, I am a very frequent user of some of the Havering services, and frankly I wish they were all operated by Stagecoach, because their standards are absolutely streets ahead of the opposition. The Arriva buses, notably from Grays, are generally in a shocking state. It is depressing to see that, having just moved more modern vehicles in there from north London that were in very good condition on arrival, the vehicles already show the early signs of deterioration. As for Go-Ahead at Barking, they are nothing short of a disgrace. Their neglect of the new Routemaster fleet has been appalling, with some vehicles not cleaned for what must be weeks, let alone days; driving standards are regularly dreadful; and it is just unacceptable to see what are effectively brand new BYD vehicles already showing all of the signs of ingrained dirt and a complete lack of care. But TfL just don't seem to be bothered to enforce their own much vaunted quality standards. They say, among other things, that "the entire visible body work should be free from dirt, ingrained grime, and graffiti" and that "joints, edges, wheel hubs and other dirt traps should be completely clean". That, in respect of Arriva and Go-Ahead, and after making due allowance for weather and road conditions at various times of the year, is frankly a sick joke. But the Stagecoach fleet at Barking, Romford and Rainham is generally immaculate. and I find their drivers generally excellent. I was observing the contrast between various buses of the different operators only this morning - and they are running in the same day to day conditions.

 

[Mark L]

Unless someone wins with a short (say 3 years) bid with existing TfL compliant buses, they need a fleet of electric buses to latest TfL spec.

Not very easy anymore for any new bidders these days, although recently Falcon buses have managed to win a 2 bus route.

An area based tendering regime wouldn’t reduce the barriers to entry. It could actually make it more difficult as a new operator would need to find a suitable site to accommodate dozens of vehicles in advance of submitting a bid - that’s not easy in Greater London. If successful they’d then need to source buses and drivers before go live.

A potential solution might be for TfL to own the garage sites, as happens in Manchester (and soon Merseyside).

 

[MotCO]

An area based tendering regime wouldn’t reduce the barriers to entry. It could actually make it more difficult as a new operator would need to find a suitable site to accommodate dozens of vehicles in advance of submitting a bid - that’s not easy in Greater London. If successful they’d then need to source buses and drivers before go live.

A potential solution might be for TfL to own the garage sites, as happens in Manchester (and soon Merseyside).

But as I said upthread, First managed to do that when they took over the Roundabout routes. Some staff may have TUPE'd across, so staffing may not be too big a problem. I think the biggest problem is getting chargers into a new site on time - the lead time for new contracts is probably around 9 months to a year; getting new chargers installed, and local electricity supply upgraded, takes considerably longer. Just look at how long it took to instal the opportunity chargers for roure 358 - at least 2 years.

 

[Goldfish62]

Unless someone wins with a short (say 3 years) bid with existing TfL compliant buses, they need a fleet of electric buses to latest TfL spec.

Not very easy anymore for any new bidders these days, although recently Falcon buses have managed to win a 2 bus route.

Which shows it can be done!

 

[Simon75]

An area based tendering regime wouldn’t reduce the barriers to entry. It could actually make it more difficult as a new operator would need to find a suitable site to accommodate dozens of vehicles in advance of submitting a bid - that’s not easy in Greater London. If successful they’d then need to source buses and drivers before go live.

A potential solution might be for TfL to own the garage sites, as happens in Manchester (and soon Merseyside).

Some London garages in belive maybe be owned by TFL

 

[Mark L]

Some London garages in belive maybe be owned by TFL

Not many - from memory Edgware (EW and BT), Uxbridge, Lea Interchange, West Ham, Walworth, Twickenham (the bit of Fulwell used by Transport UK), Brixton Tram Shed and Ash Grove.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2025 ==

But as I said upthread, First managed to do that when they took over the Roundabout routes. Some staff may have TUPE'd across, so staffing may not be too big a problem. I think the biggest problem is getting chargers into a new site on time - the lead time for new contracts is probably around 9 months to a year; getting new chargers installed, and local electricity supply upgraded, takes considerably longer. Just look at how long it took to instal the opportunity chargers for roure 358 - at least 2 years.

As Go Ahead London’s travails to get planning permission for its Lower Morden garage show, securing a new site and getting it ready for use as a bus garage is far from straightforward. First ended up losing some of its contracts in Orpington before selling the rump to Metrobus.

 

[MotCO]

First ended up losing some of its contracts in Orpington before selling the rump to Metrobus.

Indeed, but they did have their own premises - firstly they used Swanley Garage, then found some premises in Faraday Way, Orpington. So it is not impossible to find new premises - I see the problem being getting the electrical chargers in place in time.

 

[700007]

Havering was very competitive territory. The 248, for example, has been with all four major operators – Capital Citybus (First); Blue Triangle (Go Ahead); Stagecoach, and now Arriva from Grays garage. But the exit of First from the London market and Go Ahead’s relocation to a garage further up the A13 has, as you say, reduced the competitive pressure, especially for routes in the east of the borough.

I don’t know whether Arriva bid for everything that comes up, or whether they’re selective – I’m surprised they find the 66 economic, as Grays to Romford is lots of dead running, and Grays to Leytonstone is a nightmare, traffic wise.

I am of the understanding the 66 has the longest dead run on the entire London bus network, and ironically the dead run to Leytonstone can take you via the A13 traffic permitting and passes another (much closer) Arriva garage by Ripple Road (DX)!

When the Roundabout routes in Orpington were launched in 1986, all routes were operated by Orpington Buses, which became part of Stagecoach in 1994. In 1995, all the routes (plus route 61) were won on retender by First Buses who didn't have a base in the area so had to set one up.

Is the issue that retenders are now on a route by route basis rather than a whole network, which means that a new entrant cannot easily set up a local base? Unless routes in the Havering are let as a job lot, we presumably will not be seeing any competitive tenders.

In most parts of London I'd argue probably no, because one route (to put a foot in the door in a new area) can still be lucrative if it is reasonably sized and then you can build on that to fill up the new garage with multiple routes. Transport UK, or Abellio as it was at the time, proved this when setting up their then-new garage in Southall. Of course, it doesn't happen as much as it used to you're absolutely right.

In the case specifically of Orpington the issue there is the routes mostly have such a small PVR (most of the R routes require less than 6 buses to make full service) that there likely isn't much money in opening a new depot to win just one route. The economics of that particular area will always be favourable to win the whole group of routes (and to be fair, should be rendered as such). The only way I could see an 'isolated' win is an independent operator such as Go-Coach/Go-Bus choosing to bid for one or two routes from their existing Swanley or Sevenoaks base to supplement their own portfolio of work but given all the routes have pretty much just been retained I can't see this happening any time soon!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2025 ==

A few points about this post.

Firstly, with the consolidation that has happened, Havering is no more uncompetitive than anywhere much else in London these days. Over the last six months or so, contracts have been awarded for all of the following routes in various other parts of London where there was only a single bidder - 13, 207, SL1, 43, 134, 317, 112, 315, 136, 220, 43, 149, BL1, 240, 486, 162, 178, B11, 484, 633, 184, 122, 79, 456, B12, B15, 352, 354, R5/10, K2 - all of these are well away from Havering and in some cases are trunk routes where multiple operators have what might be feasible depots, but, often for the structural reasons discussed - capacity, electrification, etc, nobody else decided to bid.

Any inference that Stagecoach may have gained work in Havering at steep prices due to lack of competition is in my view nonsense. TfL have plenty of tools at their disposal to ensure the prices they agree when entering into contracts are realistic, and looking at the actual prices of various awards, those to Stagecoach in Havering earlier this year were certainly not at out of range prices.

It is not the case that nobody else can feasibly bid for work in the area, because Arriva already operate five significant routes in or into the borough, with a total pvr of 70 (66, 103, 175, 248, 370) plus the one bus 375. They are perfectly well placed to take on additional work from their underused Barking Garage, which in some cases would involve no more dead mileage than that currently operated by Stagecoach from Rainham. And Go Ahead could take on more work, again not always with too much dead mileage, God forbid.

I am no supporter of monopolies, but as somebody who lives only a short distance over the borough boundary, I am a very frequent user of some of the Havering services, and frankly I wish they were all operated by Stagecoach, because their standards are absolutely streets ahead of the opposition. The Arriva buses, notably from Grays, are generally in a shocking state. It is depressing to see that, having just moved more modern vehicles in there from north London that were in very good condition on arrival, the vehicles already show the early signs of deterioration. As for Go-Ahead at Barking, they are nothing short of a disgrace. Their neglect of the new Routemaster fleet has been appalling, with some vehicles not cleaned for what must be weeks, let alone days; driving standards are regularly dreadful; and it is just unacceptable to see what are effectively brand new BYD vehicles already showing all of the signs of ingrained dirt and a complete lack of care. But TfL just don't seem to be bothered to enforce their own much vaunted quality standards. They say, among other things, that "the entire visible body work should be free from dirt, ingrained grime, and graffiti" and that "joints, edges, wheel hubs and other dirt traps should be completely clean". That, in respect of Arriva and Go-Ahead, and after making due allowance for weather and road conditions at various times of the year, is frankly a sick joke. But the Stagecoach fleet at Barking, Romford and Rainham is generally immaculate. and I find their drivers generally excellent. I was observing the contrast between various buses of the different operators only this morning - and they are running in the same day to day conditions.

Absolutely agree that the uncompetitiveness of the London bus network is not just exclusive to Havering. I was just using an area like Havering to illustrate my point where the competition is much further away. If I take the 165 for example, in 2018 Stagecoach had retained the route with new diesel single deckers for £2.8m per annum. There were two bidders. This year the route was retained again with only one bidder and at double the price tag of over £5m per annum. I am absolutely not suggesting that Stagecoach, or anyone else for that matter, is exploiting TfL with their prices - I am merely stating that it is simple economics. If a market is virtually a monopoly and the person that owns that monopoly knows that with confidence, why wouldn't they try to make a little extra on top? It's economics 101, regarding demand and supply. TfL indeed will negotiate prices downwards if they feel they're not value for money (countless instances it has been done). Of course we have been through a pandemic since and have experienced eye watering levels of inflation which no doubt are also behind the price increase this time around but it can't be ignored that operators are massively putting up their prices every time a route has gone out for tender. Amongst many other reasons, it definitely can and in part does boil down to lack of competition in many areas.

In the instance of the routes you have suggested (a very interesting list because each route has unique circumstances as to why they were one bidders most likely - however I don't wish to bore the readers of this thread with that!!) many as you acknowledged will be down to the lack of available space or buses at competitor garages (I'd hazard a guess this was the case for the 149 you mentioned). Others will be to do with massive joint bids being achieved (see Bexleyheath routes you listed as an example) that any competitor could potentially presume that it isn't worth bidding for a route they believe they are unlikely to win. Bid teams are very small and heavily time constrained so will only go for the biggest fish to fry, so to speak.

A number of routes you mentioned - and Grays/Barking as a garage - would have had Arriva as the 'obvious' competition. I am unsure of their bidding strategy but they seem to be incredibly selective of the work they go for and are conscious of where they go for it from too. Perhaps it is a coincidence and I am reading too much into it but they seem to have deliberately not gone for several routes in the Barking area recently and have even deliberately lost two routes from the garage as well (325, which I understand they didn't go for and the SL2 which is being moved to Tottenham garage next year). The retention of the routes 150 and 175 with hybrids might imply that the garage is unable to go electric for whatever reason.

 

[Busoccultation]

A number of routes you mentioned - and Grays/Barking as a garage - would have had Arriva as the 'obvious' competition. I am unsure of their bidding strategy but they seem to be incredibly selective of the work they go for and are conscious of where they go for it from too. Perhaps it is a coincidence and I am reading too much into it but they seem to have deliberately not gone for several routes in the Barking area recently and have even deliberately lost two routes from the garage as well (325, which I understand they didn't go for and the SL2 which is being moved to Tottenham garage next year). The retention of the routes 150 and 175 with hybrids might imply that the garage is unable to go electric for whatever reason.

SL2 moving to Tottenham garage is nothing to do with Arriva Barking being unable to go electric and is largely because TfL have requested for end of route driver changeover point where running from Tottenham is more cost effective option as it isn't too far from the Walthamstow end of route.

 

[700007]

SL2 moving to Tottenham garage is nothing to do with Arriva Barking being unable to go electric and is largely because TfL have requested for end of route driver changeover point where running from Tottenham is more cost effective option as it isn't too far from the Walthamstow end of route.

I forgot this - yes you are right, that TfL has mandated that Superloops here on out remove their live changeovers where possible, is my understanding.

 

[Mark L]

I am of the understanding the 66 has the longest dead run on the entire London bus network, and ironically the dead run to Leytonstone can take you via the A13 traffic permitting and passes another (much closer) Arriva garage by Ripple Road (DX)!

There are dead runs on the SL7 from Croydon to Heathrow (and back).

 

[Snow1964]

Kingston University has awarded a tender to Falcon for its inter campus bus services from summer 2026 for 7 years (subject to standstill period)

Description​

The University is committed to supporting sustainable travel choices for staff, students and visitors across our campus locations. A key part of our offering is the inter site bus service network; connecting residences with our academic campuses at Kingston Hill, Roehampton Vale and Penrhyn Road. The current contract for the operation of this network comes to an end in August 2026 and the University is seeking tenders for operations commencing in September 2026.
The University wishes to appoint an operator to provide transport for a number of routes created to serve the student body that serves to move them between Halls and the Campus locations in the Kingston locale. Certain variations are included on the core route outlined in this tender specification which, subject to financial implications, would be considered to further enhance the current network.
The aim of the University Service will be to provide a free, low environmental impact and high-quality transport Service primarily for the students of the University but also used by Staff and the general public following Key objective s listed in the Specification document of the tender.
Please note the attached documentation and complete as required prior to the deadline.

---

​

Contract 1. Provision of a Bus Service to Kingston University​

Supplier​

• Falcon Coaches Limited

Contract value​

• £7,387,772 excluding VAT
• £8,865,326.40 including VAT

Above the relevant threshold

Award decision date​

25 November 2025

Provision of a Bus Service to Kingston University - Find a Tender

www.find-tender.service.gov.uk

The current Kingston Uni service was won by London United about 10 years ago, using long wheelbase Volvo hybrids in grey with light blue logos

 

[MotCO]

Kingston University has awarded a tender for its inter campus bus services from summer 2026 for 7 years (subject to standstill period)

Provision of a Bus Service to Kingston University - Find a Tender

www.find-tender.service.gov.uk

The current Kingston Uni service was won by London United about 10 years ago, using long wheelbase Volvo hybrids in grey with light blue logos

I think you forgot to mention that Falcon Coaches was the successful bidder; London General, London United and Hallmark were unsuccessful (all subject to standstill period).

 

[Jim James]

TfL and Boroughs plan bus improvements​

Transport for London (TfL) has confirmed what it says is the next major step in improving bus performance across the capital with the announcement of funding for Haringey, Lewisham and Southwark as part of its Better Bus Partnerships programme to invest in a range of infrastructure and operational interventions that will improve journey times, reliability and customer experience in partnership with London’s boroughs.

 

[Snow1964]

TfL and Boroughs plan bus improvements​

Transport for London (TfL) has confirmed what it says is the next major step in improving bus performance across the capital with the announcement of funding for Haringey, Lewisham and Southwark as part of its Better Bus Partnerships programme to invest in a range of infrastructure and operational interventions that will improve journey times, reliability and customer experience in partnership with London’s boroughs.

According to details (page 54 of Travel in London 2025 report) in TfL Board papers for next weeks (3rd December) TfL Board meeting.

Even though measures are being introduced to improve bus performance, bus speed has actually gone down 1%. So basically these style of improvements are not actually working in improving performance

Agenda for Board on Wednesday 3 December 2025, 10:00 - Modern Council

board.tfl.gov.uk

 

[bakerstreet]

TfL bus route 111 will run on Christmas Day 2025.

• part route only
• operated by Carousel
• funded by Heathrow
• TfL tickets not valid
• £2 flat fare, cash or contactless
• Hourly, from early morning to late night.

Source

 

[LUYMun]

Consultation has been launched by TFL into rerouting the 19 to Victoria in lieu of Battersea, curtailing the 38 to Holborn and introducing a new route between Battersea Bridge and Mildmay Park, provisionally numbered 10: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/bus-routes-19-38

Consultation runs until Friday 23 January 2026.

We are proposing to make changes to route 19 which runs between Battersea and Finsbury Park and route 38 which runs between Victoria station and Clapton. We also propose to introduce a new route to be provisionally numbered 10 to run between Mildmay Park and Battersea Bridge.

Please note routes N19 and N38 are not affected by these proposals.
[...]
For route 19 we propose to remove the section between Battersea and Hyde Park corner and extend it to serve Victoria station instead, we would also increase the frequency on Sunday early mornings from every 15 minutes to every 12 minutes.

Route 38 currently runs with two separate legs on weekdays in Clapton, so we are proposing to remove the section which currently runs to Clapton bus garage during Monday to Friday daytimes. Instead, we would run the service between Clapton Pond and Holborn. If these proposed changes are taken forward, we would also decrease frequencies on Saturdays from buses every 6 minutes to buses running every 10 minutes and on Sundays, early mornings and evenings from buses running every 7- 8 minutes to buses running every 12 minutes.

We also propose to introduce a new route (provisionally numbered route 10) between Mildmay Park, Dove Road and Battersea Bridge running every 10 minutes on Monday to Saturday daytimes and every 12 minutes on Sundays and all evenings.

The key changes to note are:

• Run route 19 between Finsbury Park and extend to Victoria via Hyde Park Corner and no longer serve Battersea Bridge
• Run route 38 from Clapton Pond to Holborn, New Oxford Street and no longer serve Victoria
• Withdraw the section of route 38 that runs between between Clapton Garage and Victoria station (currently Monday-Friday only)
• Introduce a new route (provisionally route 10) between Mildmay Park, Dove Road and Battersea Bridge

 

[Thirteen]

The 38 starting at Holborn would relieve congestion somewhat although I'm not sure I see the point of the Number 10 given it's just a hybrid of the old 19 and 38 routes.

 

[coach fan]

Great removing even more links from Hackney to Victoria and the west end. Well done.

 

[Deerfold]

Great removing even more links from Hackney to Victoria and the west end. Well done.

It's removing a link to Victoria, but adding a link to the West End.
Information on the frequency of the 10 is missing, so it's hard to tell if the overall frequency has improved or worsened.


There also a consultation on the 259, 279 and 349.

259, 279 and 349 bus routes - proposed changes in North London

The consultation has now closed, and we have published our consultation report. After reviewing all responses, we have decided to proceed with the proposed changes. This includes withdrawing route 349 and changing routes 259 and 279 to better match services to

haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk

The 349 would be withdrawn, the 279 is rerouted to cover the Southern part of the 349 it doesn't already and the 259 extended to cover the rest of the 349 and withdrawn between Holloway and Kings Cross.

There's no indication of any changes to frequencies.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The 349 would be withdrawn, the 279 is rerouted to cover the Southern part of the 349 it doesn't already and the 259 extended to cover the rest of the 349 and withdrawn between Holloway and Kings Cross.

Withdrawing the 259 between Holloway and Kings Cross is bonkers (not that that stops TfL nowadays!) The 17 starts from London Bridge and the 91 starts from Trafalgar Square, with both routes frequently being heavily loaded.

 

[coach fan]

Cos

It's removing a link to Victoria, but adding a link to the West End.
Information on the frequency of the 10 is missing, so it's hard to tell if the overall frequency has improved or worsened.


There also a consultation on the 259, 279 and 349.

259, 279 and 349 bus routes - proposed changes in North London

The consultation has now closed, and we have published our consultation report. After reviewing all responses, we have decided to proceed with the proposed changes. This includes withdrawing route 349 and changing routes 259 and 279 to better match services to

haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk

The 349 would be withdrawn, the 279 is rerouted to cover the Southern part of the 349 it doesn't already and the 259 extended to cover the rest of the 349 and withdrawn between Holloway and Kings Cross.

There's no indication of any changes to frequenciescn

It's removing a link to Victoria, but adding a link to the West End.
Information on the frequency of the 10 is missing, so it's hard to tell if the overall frequency has improved or worsened.


There also a consultation on the 259, 279 and 349.

259, 279 and 349 bus routes - proposed changes in North London

The consultation has now closed, and we have published our consultation report. After reviewing all responses, we have decided to proceed with the proposed changes. This includes withdrawing route 349 and changing routes 259 and 279 to better match services to

haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk

The 349 would be withdrawn, the 279 is rerouted to cover the Southern part of the 349 it doesn't already and the 259 extended to cover the rest of the 349 and withdrawn between Holloway and Kings Cross.

There's no indication of any changes to frequencies.

Considering Hackney has no tube stations and few links to that part of London as it is, this is a stupidly bad move. It’s bad enough when we lost the 73 to Victoria. Losing the 38 as well will be bad.

There is also no guarantee that any future mayor will keep the one hour bus ticket so this could cause a heap of issues in the future as once these routes are cut, they’re never ever reinstated.

 

[MotCO]

Did the consultation document say why they are proposing changes? Is it to match resources to demand?

 

[Jim James]

Did the consultation document say why they are proposing changes? Is it to match resources to demand?

That seems to be it. They don't mention frequencies but it sounds like a cost reduction

Current 279 about 8 an hour
259 about 6 as hour
349 about 6 an hour

My guess is they may increase the 259 to 8 an hour

 

[johncrossley]

There is also no guarantee that any future mayor will keep the one hour bus ticket so this could cause a heap of issues in the future as once these routes are cut, they’re never ever reinstated.

Looking back now it seems barking mad that we had to pay double just because we changed buses and I highly doubt that would ever be reversed. In large part because TfL would no longer have the flexibility to remove duplicate bus routes. There are still plenty of roads with multiple bus routes that could be rationalised. In outer London we wouldn't enjoy the huge growth of the Superloop network without the savings made cutting the excessive provision in central London.

The real question is why we had so many unnecessary routes in central London in the past. Just imagine what could have been done in outer London with the money that Ken Livingstone had if they weren't so scared to remove direct links. TfL and LT have wasted billions over many decades.

The elephant in the room is still the maintenance of separate bus and tube fare systems. Most other major cities don't do this, excluding the UK of course. If it cost no more to change from bus to tube, hardly anyone would sit on a bus for an hour from Hackney to Victoria. With a genuinely integrated fare system, we would then be able to see the genuine demand on central London bus routes.

 

[MotCO]

Looking back now it seems barking mad that we had to pay double just because we changed buses and I highly doubt that would ever be reversed. In large part because TfL would no longer have the flexibility to remove duplicate bus routes. There are still plenty of roads with multiple bus routes that could be rationalised. In outer London we wouldn't enjoy the huge growth of the Superloop network without the savings made cutting the excessive provision in central London.

The real question is why we had so many unnecessary routes in central London in the past. Just imagine what could have been done in outer London with the money that Ken Livingstone had if they weren't so scared to remove direct links. TfL and LT have wasted billions over many decades.

The elephant in the room is still the maintenance of separate bus and tube fare systems. Most other major cities don't do this, excluding the UK of course. If it cost no more to change from bus to tube, hardly anyone would sit on a bus for an hour from Hackney to Victoria. With a genuinely integrated fare system, we would then be able to see the genuine demand on central London bus routes.

But is there the capacity on the tubes to take more passengers? What happens when there is a signal failure or other disruption on the tubes? Where is the resilience in the transport network?

 

[johncrossley]

But is there the capacity on the tubes to take more passengers? What happens when there is a signal failure or other disruption on the tubes? Where is the resilience in the transport network?

We don't run buses as a backup for tube failures and they don't do that in other big cities. In the event of disruption, the usual response is to get people to use other tube lines. Consider the £billions spent on tube upgrades over the last 20 or so years, plus the Elizabeth Line and Thameslink Programme.

 

[aron2smith]

The elephant in the room is still the maintenance of separate bus and tube fare systems. Most other major cities don't do this, excluding the UK of course. If it cost no more to change from bus to tube, hardly anyone would sit on a bus for an hour from Hackney to Victoria. With a genuinely integrated fare system, we would then be able to see the genuine demand on central London bus routes.

A genuine hopper fare covering bus, tube and train has to be the next step. They could charge somewhere around half bus fares (75p) if changing from train to bus for example and discount that amount for vice versa. I'm very surprised Superloop wasn't used to bring in such a change to fares, given its emphasis on rail and tube links.

Dublin has a 2 euro hopper fare valid for 90 minutes on any combination of bus, Luas (tram) and train, admittedly the trains and Luas don't cover anywhere close to London or even Manchester's trams or Liverpool's rail but it was revolutionary and incredibly liberating! The day cap was just 6 euros, probably one of the very few affordable things in Dublin!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2025 ==

That seems to be it. They don't mention frequencies but it sounds like a cost reduction

Current 279 about 8 an hour
259 about 6 as hour
349 about 6 an hour

My guess is they may increase the 259 to 8 an hour

Given they didn't mention frequency at all, this could be quite a cut just from diverting the 279. Could quite easily cut the number of buses between Seven Sisters and Manor House in half! Whilst forcing many journeys to change bus by terminating the 259 at Holloway. I honestly can't believe this proposed cut came back, buses all along the Hertford Road and down to Seven Sisters Road are regularly packed. A cut like this could mean more times buses are too full to pick anyone up! Seen that a fair few times on the 29!

If the 349 is such a concern, why not make it run every 15 minutes and create a new connection like to Chingford for example?

They shouldn't be doing cuts to buses like this until level boarding in tube and rail stations are standard.

I personally wonder how much better the returns from the buses would be if TFL owned the garages and tendered garage by garage instead of route by route. Then the network could be designed around the garage locations and radius to reduce dead running and bring back garage runs. The 259 potentially starting at Ponders End made me think it was based at that garage, nope Tottenham instead! Obviously dead running is also an issue at Potters Bar with buses running out of service to Barnet, Finchley, Enfield and Waltham Cross, going through towns or sections that could really benefit from the bus connections. I was in Cuffley for about an hour the other day, saw 5 empty London buses go through in that time! A bit wasteful!

 

[coach fan]

Looking back now it seems barking mad that we had to pay double just because we changed buses and I highly doubt that would ever be reversed. In large part because TfL would no longer have the flexibility to remove duplicate bus routes. There are still plenty of roads with multiple bus routes that could be rationalised. In outer London we wouldn't enjoy the huge growth of the Superloop network without the savings made cutting the excessive provision in central London.

The real question is why we had so many unnecessary routes in central London in the past. Just imagine what could have been done in outer London with the money that Ken Livingstone had if they weren't so scared to remove direct links. TfL and LT have wasted billions over many decades.

The elephant in the room is still the maintenance of separate bus and tube fare systems. Most other major cities don't do this, excluding the UK of course. If it cost no more to change from bus to tube, hardly anyone would sit on a bus for an hour from Hackney to Victoria. With a genuinely integrated fare system, we would then be able to see the genuine demand on central London bus routes.

Ha. Don’t be so sure. It could easily be reversed by a new mayor. Especially if they say we will not raise fares this year, buy the one hour bus ticket will be scrapped to make up for it. Remember, it was said that the Blackwall tunnel would never ever be tolled. But here we are.