London Buses Discussion

[TrenHotel]

It’s good to point this out.
Though I do think Bluewater is an anomaly. I am surprised they are not curtailed at Dartford, instead all three TfL routes continue to Bluewater, with no contribution from Kent County Council I believe. It’s great they they do this (as well as linking areas of SE London to the Darent Valley Hospital), but I doubt this would be introduced if Bluewater was built in more recent times.

Three TfL buses run to Bluewater: the 96 and 428 run fast from Dartford town centre, stopping at Darent Valley Hospital only; the 492 is all-stops through Stone and Horns Cross. The hospital serves as an A&E for much of Bexley as well as Dartford/Gravesend, indeed the 96 running via DVH only came about eight years ago as part of a TfL plan to improve access to hospitals.

I had to use the Kent bits of the 96 and 428 daily for a couple of months last year: one thing that struck me was the number of people using the 96 to Bluewater and then taking the Arriva 700 towards the Medway Towns.

Bluewater's opening in 1999 pre-dated TfL by a year or so; the 96 was extended by Stagecoach as a commercial shopping-hours venture at first. It clearly worked as the entire service soon ran there, and TfL even extended the operating hours on Sunday mornings last month (the first bus leaves Bluewater at 0415 Mon-Sat and 0430 on Suns).

It's an incredibly important and very well-used link serving a unique combination of a a massive regional shopping centre and an important hospital. Dartford Station, Bluewater and Darent Valley are the first, second and fifth busiest stops on Woolwich-bound journeys: https://edjefferson.com/busiestbusstops/?route=96&out_in=outbound

 

[aron2smith]

We had a whole dedicated thread on all this

In short, the counties surrounding London don't have the funds to invest in public transport - Hertfordshire spends 71% of its entire budget on social care and SEND requirements, and Herts is one of the best at living within its means - only a £4.2m deficit in the last FY. Kent's financial situation is pretty awful. Stuff like Surrey's 465 support is very much the exception. So they can't afford it.

As I've already mentioned, TfL is also financially compromised. They've got sucked into a bad position where they are increasingly taking money from the tube (and that's being reflected in declining standards there) to support a bus network where the PVR has fallen (despite slower road speeds - it's been achieved by wholesale cuts and reductions) and passenger figures are also falling in contrast to the rest of the UK. Moreover, we are seeing substantial uplifts in prices for new contracts. TfL are having to pay much more for the same...so expect more cuts. In that light, they aren't going to expand the level of cross border services whilst cutting existing facilities.

We would all believe that public transport investment is laudable.... well, we would on this forum. However, we'd also like to see investment in the NHS, a removal of NHS dentistry deserts, increasing defence spending, the rebuilding of RAAC riddled schools and every other perfectly understandable and altruistically minded aspiration. Unfortunately, we have a demographic challenge - more NEETs, more pensioners (more pensions and greater strain on NHS) and a tax burden shouldered by fewer workers. Other than some sort of Logan's Run type society, or forced labour, it's a challenge to raise enough funds and not alienate much of the population.

The reality is that TfL's remit being expanded, significant money to local authorities. or a redrawing of boundaries isn't going to happen any time soon because the country's finances and politics won't allow.

I guess both problems, the cross-boundary thing and the economic situation are really stubborn problems. We already know belt tightening doesn't work. I think that brought out a lot of the flaws in the way things are structured and run. And I did look at the TFL business plan, I expect the inner areas to hollow out a lot in terms of the buses. In part the Overground improvements and cycle lanes led to a shift in how people travel there, but increasingly thinking any promises to improve buses in Outer London are hollow promises at best.

Will have to see how the future Superloop routes play out, but not impressed with the SL11 at all. To me the cross-boundary routes are a key part of improving Outer London's transport, it isn't really possible otherwise and the only way to reduce driving as too many residential areas both sides of the border are too far away from trains.

The only thing I can see as potential hope for TFL without a reorganisation or some major change to London's devolution is that potential public bus company but it needs to run at scale. If Go Ahead falls by the wayside in South London, the public company could be proof that it is the way to go. I don't think managed decline will be good for the city, they need to be bold and Westminster needs to enable the capital to do things by itself. Same with every other part of the country really.

I don't dispute all the other problems at all. A lot of it is down to mismanagement, poor planning and a lack of strategic and joined up thinking.

I just find it telling that TFL cross-boundary routes are amongst those with some of the biggest increases in ridership and yet they don't think others would be worth their time.

 

[Cesarcollie]

I guess both problems, the cross-boundary thing and the economic situation are really stubborn problems. We already know belt tightening doesn't work. I think that brought out a lot of the flaws in the way things are structured and run. And I did look at the TFL business plan, I expect the inner areas to hollow out a lot in terms of the buses. In part the Overground improvements and cycle lanes led to a shift in how people travel there, but increasingly thinking any promises to improve buses in Outer London are hollow promises at best.

Will have to see how the future Superloop routes play out, but not impressed with the SL11 at all. To me the cross-boundary routes are a key part of improving Outer London's transport, it isn't really possible otherwise and the only way to reduce driving as too many residential areas both sides of the border are too far away from trains.

The only thing I can see as potential hope for TFL without a reorganisation or some major change to London's devolution is that potential public bus company but it needs to run at scale. If Go Ahead falls by the wayside in South London, the public company could be proof that it is the way to go. I don't think managed decline will be good for the city, they need to be bold and Westminster needs to enable the capital to do things by itself. Same with every other part of the country really.

I don't dispute all the other problems at all. A lot of it is down to mismanagement, poor planning and a lack of strategic and joined up thinking.

I just find it telling that TFL cross-boundary routes are amongst those with some of the biggest increases in ridership and yet they don't think others would be worth their time.

How does a public bus company help matters? It will have costs that are probably greater than a private operator - just look at every other publicly owned institution-and be under far greater bureaucratic , political and union pressure to ‘tick boxes’, pay higher wages, have better pensions etc etc. You may say all those are good things - but they don’t help the financial position!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

How does a public bus company help matters? It will have costs that are probably greater than a private operator - just look at every other publicly owned institution-and be under far greater bureaucratic , political and union pressure to ‘tick boxes’, pay higher wages, have better pensions etc etc. You may say all those are good things - but they don’t help the financial position!

Exactly - we know that Aron will be enthusiastically for nationalisation but we've seen that government owned and controlled does not make for an efficient organisation, and will be subject to all manner of political (rather than practical) considerations. I assume it's simplistically that you're not paying the 6% profit... but the gap between farebox and cost is growing much faster than that.

The reality is, and our man from Cheshunt stubbornly refuses to acknowledge this, is that as you go farther out from central London, bus services are not as well patronised (lower density of people, higher car ownership) and if you add more services in the provinces, you're going to be making the problem worse.
Belt tightening doesn't work... I assume you are referring to the coalition austerity period? Don't be getting confused - I was against the depth of the austerity and it was done not purely for financial reasons but with political considerations, as a means of having a smaller state. However, just because that went too far, it doesn't justify throwing money about and adding to a growing debt.

The problem with TfL's bus network (compared to the Livingstone days) is.... Farebox revenue simply hasn't kept pace with costs, there's been a wholesale cutting and reduction of the inner London (the area within the A406/A205 - not central London) bus network which was the bit that was actually making money, and the introduction of more cycleways has reduced vehicle speeds so demanding frequency erosion (which depresses farebox revenue) and/or increasing resources and so increasing costs.

To be honest, we can go through all the evidence. However, we're not going to see Aron move from his "I want my TfL bus even though I live in Hertfordshire" line, despite all the evidence to the contrary as to how likely it is to happen.

 

[renegademaster]

Is there any kind of realistic non-costly way to improve cross border links, like tinkering with regulation or working with Ticketer to have oyster integration? It can't be too hard, ITSO works with it.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Is there any kind of realistic non-costly way to improve cross border links, like tinkering with regulation or working with Ticketer to have oyster integration? It can't be too hard, ITSO works with it.

I think it was @greenline712 who covered this off before. TfL mandate a number of contract conditions that relate to their operations - that increases the cost of operation but also in relation to fare levels too.

Also, we're talking about funding - who's going to pay. TfL don't generally pay for routes that stretch way across the boundary - those routes in SE London are a bit different but they are providing a service to Bluewater and DVH which are significant travel objectives to those people who live and vote in London. I'm not seeing much justification to suggest that there are significant travel pulls for London residents to Cheshunt or Harlow or Sevenoaks.

Therefore, look at operators running into London. They struggle commercially because of fare levels (which is why so many routes have disappeared). Local authorities are increasingly funding a financial burden of SEND and Social Care so they don't have the money.

So faffing around with Oyster acceptance is really not the critical issue here.

 

[Mikey C]

Three TfL buses run to Bluewater: the 96 and 428 run fast from Dartford town centre, stopping at Darent Valley Hospital only; the 492 is all-stops through Stone and Horns Cross. The hospital serves as an A&E for much of Bexley as well as Dartford/Gravesend, indeed the 96 running via DVH only came about eight years ago as part of a TfL plan to improve access to hospitals.

I had to use the Kent bits of the 96 and 428 daily for a couple of months last year: one thing that struck me was the number of people using the 96 to Bluewater and then taking the Arriva 700 towards the Medway Towns.

Bluewater's opening in 1999 pre-dated TfL by a year or so; the 96 was extended by Stagecoach as a commercial shopping-hours venture at first. It clearly worked as the entire service soon ran there, and TfL even extended the operating hours on Sunday mornings last month (the first bus leaves Bluewater at 0415 Mon-Sat and 0430 on Suns).

It's an incredibly important and very well-used link serving a unique combination of a a massive regional shopping centre and an important hospital. Dartford Station, Bluewater and Darent Valley are the first, second and fifth busiest stops on Woolwich-bound journeys: https://edjefferson.com/busiestbusstops/?route=96&out_in=outbound

The 492 missed Darent Valley, but instead between Dartford and Bluewater serves a smaller community hospital in East Dartford (Livingstone) and runs quite near to Littlebrook Hospital in Stone, which has a number of mental health units, both facilities which might be used by "Londoners".

 

[TrenHotel]

The 492 missed Darent Valley, but instead between Dartford and Bluewater serves a smaller community hospital in East Dartford (Livingstone) and runs quite near to Littlebrook Hospital in Stone, which has a number of mental health units, both facilities which might be used by "Londoners".

That's a good point - I know for certain that Bexley residents get referred to outpatient appointments at Livingstone Hospital.

 

[route101]

What are next Superloop routes to be introduced?

 

[PGAT]

What are next Superloop routes to be introduced?

SL12 (Gants Hill to Rainham, Ferry Lane South) in 2026
SL13, 14 and 15 in 2027 although the outcomes for the consultations have not yet been released

 

[Simon75]

Which routes get funded in addition to TFL funding?

 

[MotCO]

Which routes get funded in addition to TFL funding?

Probably limited to some cross-boundary routes and some routes to Heathrow, possibly.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Which routes get funded in addition to TFL funding?

Surrey support (from the earlier thread)

• Route 166 (West Croydon – Banstead – Epsom Hospital) . The 166 runs every 20 minutes between Croydon and Banstead but SCC fund one bus per hour Monday – Saturdays (except evenings) to be extended beyond Banstead to Epsom Hospital, wholly with Surrey
• Route 216 (Kingston – Ashford Hospital – Staines) SCC funds the section of route between Ashford Hospital and Staines in Surrey (which is also covered by TfL route 203).
• Route 465 (Kingston – Leatherhead – Dorking) SCC fund the lengthy section between Leatherhead and Dorking, again wholly in Surrey.

Think Herts pulled out of funding some routes because of budget constraints.

 

[aron2smith]

Also, we're talking about funding - who's going to pay. TfL don't generally pay for routes that stretch way across the boundary - those routes in SE London are a bit different but they are providing a service to Bluewater and DVH which are significant travel objectives to those people who live and vote in London. I'm not seeing much justification to suggest that there are significant travel pulls for London residents to Cheshunt or Harlow or Sevenoaks.

The reality is, and our man from Cheshunt stubbornly refuses to acknowledge this, is that as you go farther out from central London, bus services are not as well patronised (lower density of people, higher car ownership) and if you add more services in the provinces, you're going to be making the problem worse.
Belt tightening doesn't work... I assume you are referring to the coalition austerity period? Don't be getting confused - I was against the depth of the austerity and it was done not purely for financial reasons but with political considerations, as a means of having a smaller state. However, just because that went too far, it doesn't justify throwing money about and adding to a growing debt.

To be honest, we can go through all the evidence. However, we're not going to see Aron move from his "I want my TfL bus even though I live in Hertfordshire" line, despite all the evidence to the contrary as to how likely it is to happen.

Why are you acting like where I live is so far away, that a London bus to Cheshunt is somehow impossible? I have walked back from Waltham Cross after taking the night bus many times, it's 2 miles and built up the whole way, it's not comparable to Harlow or Sevenoaks and it's not a village. I want Cheshunt to get the same treatment as it's neighbours in Herts and Essex, that's it. In fact, Borehamwood's London bus provision hasn't changed in 40 years, so there should not be a difference.

London buses dead run within a 15 to 20 minute walk of where I live, to/ from Potters Bar Garage every day which suggests to me, a revision of the network in Enfield/ Waltham Cross is possible. As said before, the Crews Hill development will force that change and because it's on the very edge of Greater London, will have to include something to the likes of Cheshunt. Would be a lot easier if they tended garage by garage with a clear radius of routes, rather do each route separately. The likes of Potters Bar is going nowhere though.

Some of the cross-boundary gaps in provision are laughable.

Barnet Spires to Potters Bar (now covered by 243 despite Potters Bar Garage housing some suitable routes for this section like 263) - 2.8 miles
Lea Valley Campsite to Sun Street, Waltham Abbey (no service) - 2.3 miles - Another 1.5 miles to Waltham Cross
Waltham Cross to Brookfield Centre (242) - 3.3 miles as it goes via Bury Green

Waltham Cross Bus Station to Potters Bar Garage is about 8 miles and buses dead run this! They never use the M25 to go to the garage.

I've walked all these (except the last one) numerous times and know these distances are inconsequential to any organisation the size of TFL. It's something that bothers me as these sections (minus Brookfield as it didn't exist till the 80s) were served by London buses and for many decades. The way I see is TFL extending a bus or 2 is nothing to them but would be life changing to people on these sections and further afield and maybe even add capacity to the busiest routes on the network, as travel patterns adjust.

I would get your point if I was arguing for the 375 to be extended from Passingford Bridge to Ongar, where there really is nothing on the way.

It shouldn't be about politics or voters or whatever, it should be about adding 2 and 2 together with transport and development and ensuring the wider region succeeds together. Not sure they are doing this with Superloop either, some of the changes seem blind. The way London is governed seems unfit for purpose and a bit behind other city regions too.

A bit of flexibility on all sides but especially TFL's side is needed. Like why does every route have to run the full route or have the same terminus? In practice they don't follow this themselves, it's not just a handful of routes with different end points but all the times they chuck everyone off with no warning and sometimes at random to turn around. Even had that happen a few times when there was no traffic anywhere!

 

[MotCO]

Would be a lot easier if they tended garage by garage with a clear radius of routes, rather do each route separately.

Or looking at it from another angle, how much inefficiency is built into the system by tenders having to include contingencies in case a garage loses other tendered routes, meaning that the remaining routes have to cover a larger share of engineering and admin overheads? Or from having some garages not operating at their maximum capacity? TfL is making an increasing deficit on bus services, and every way of making efficiencies should be examined.

 

[aron2smith]

Or looking at it from another angle, how much inefficiency is built into the system by tenders having to include contingencies in case a garage loses other tendered routes, meaning that the remaining routes have to cover a larger share of engineering and admin overheads? Or from having some garages not operating at their maximum capacity? TfL is making an increasing deficit on bus services, and every way of making efficiencies should be examined.

I agree, that's why I think any way of maximising network coverage and reducing dead mileage is really important. To me, the current system for buses doesn't seem very efficient especially looking from the fringes. Also there seems to be misalignment in London's structures everywhere you look, resulting in a right mess. London's government seems very one sided towards the mayor.

Treating routes separately from the garage they run from really makes no sense. I wouldn't be surprised if there are garages not using all their capacity.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Why are you acting like where I live is so far away, that a London bus to Cheshunt is somehow impossible? I have walked back from Waltham Cross after taking the night bus many times, it's 2 miles and built up the whole way, it's not comparable to Harlow or Sevenoaks and it's not a village. I want Cheshunt to get the same treatment as it's neighbours in Herts and Essex, that's it. In fact, Borehamwood's London bus provision hasn't changed in 40 years, so there should not be a difference.

Do we have to keep going over this?

It's been explained countless times that you live in Hertfordshire, and whilst you may think of yourself as a Londoner, you aren't in the eyes of TfL. You're over the border, and they run to the first logical place over the border which in their judgment is Waltham Cross. In their eyes, your transport needs are the responsibility of Hertsfordshire County Council...and legally, it is their area.

London buses dead run within a 15 to 20 minute walk of where I live, to/ from Potters Bar Garage every day which suggests to me, a revision of the network in Enfield/ Waltham Cross is possible. As said before, the Crews Hill development will force that change and because it's on the very edge of Greater London, will have to include something to the likes of Cheshunt. Would be a lot easier if they tended garage by garage with a clear radius of routes, rather do each route separately. The likes of Potters Bar is going nowhere though.

Dead mileage is not the same as having a wholesale expansion of cross border routes. Again, this was very carefully explained by @greenline712

I've walked all these (except the last one) numerous times and know these distances are inconsequential to any organisation the size of TFL. It's something that bothers me as these sections (minus Brookfield as it didn't exist till the 80s) were served by London buses and for many decades. The way I see is TFL extending a bus or 2 is nothing to them but would be life changing to people on these sections and further afield and maybe even add capacity to the busiest routes on the network, as travel patterns adjust.

It's not inconsequential. It costs money. Money that TfL doesn't have enough of. It can't pay for what it has now so it's hardly likely to incur more expenditure. When you're in a hole, you stop digging!

It shouldn't be about politics or voters or whatever, it should be about adding 2 and 2 together with transport and development and ensuring the wider region succeeds together. Not sure they are doing this with Superloop either, some of the changes seem blind. The way London is governed seems unfit for purpose and a bit behind other city regions too.

It shouldn't be about politics but it is. Politics cuts across everything we do. You have a disabled pass - that was a political decision that benefits you. In fact, we all have political decisions that benefit us (universal health care) and that disadvantage us (like taxation).

 

[Simon75]

So would many garages be at at risk of closure then ?

 

[LUYMun]

While we were arguing over cross-border routes, Go Ahead announced at the end of January of their intention to terminate several contracted routes in South London owing to increased costs, though the only papers mentioning this news also attributed to congestion. These were the 80, 93, 151, 154, 155, 163, 164 and 470 from Sutton, Merton, Mitcham and Stockwell garages. Retenders will be issued in due course.

Labour tax hike has made some London bus routes unsustainable, says company boss

But TfL reassures passengers there is no threat to the future of bus routes 80, 93, 151, 154, 155, 163, 164 and 470

www.standard.co.uk

Labour tax hike has made some London bus routes unsustainable, says company boss
In remarks first reported by The Times, [Go Ahead MD Andy Edwards] said: “After a detailed review of our financial performance, it is clear that a number of routes are no longer sustainable under their current contract terms.

“These have been significantly impacted by factors including increased national insurance contributions and the continued pressure of higher inflation on our operating costs.

“As a result, these routes are under-performing financially and cannot be maintained at a loss without putting pressure on the wider business.”

Both Go-Ahead and TfL say there is no threat to any of the eight routes that were named by The Times. These are the 80, 93, 151, 154, 155, 163, 164 and 470.

All eight routes are in the process of being re-tendered by TfL, as part of its normal rolling process of offering new contracts for each of the capital’s 650 bus routes every five to seven years.

The eight routes were all won by London General, a subsidiary of Go-Ahead, in 2022.

Go-Ahead plans to bid to continue operating all the routes. But the remarks from Mr Edwards suggest a hope that the tenders will be more generous than those offered by TfL more than five years ago.

 

[Mattplans]

I think they also get a reasonable number of passengers from Dartford to Bluewater with Oyster cards, especially on the non-stop 96.

My thoughts as well. I have personally never been on a 96 bus and it's been quiet, it's always busy. I've seen at a local bus stop they're now extending the route to start earlier, even running through the Bluewater at early hours. I am not personally in favour of TFL funding services outside of the Greater London boundary, but this is quite the exception.

I imagine most people who travel from the Dartford Area to Bluewater would prefer to use the TfL buses since they're faster and cheaper. They might also benefit from capping if coming from the station as well. The misleadingly named Greenhithe for Bluewater has an infrequent connection at best. I have been there once and I ended up walking down to the nearest TfL bus stop (London buses do not serve the station directly) to catch a bus to Bluewater. There is a nice view of the Dartford Bridge however which looks very pretty during the evening sunset and you can see the miles of cars waiting to get across.

Sevenoaks is a good example of a heavy car centric town.

I'm not entirely convinced this is set to change any time soon. The public transport network is less extensive in areas like this. The area is also larger and everything is further apart. It is challenging to get around without a car. Even when supported by bus, long walks are probably involved to reach end destinations. In Orpington, things are the same. Orpington isn't 'walkable' in the same way inner London areas are. Is it realistic to attempt to reduce car usage in an area like this when neighbouring boroughs Bromley & Bexley which benefit from London's 'extensive' bus network have hardly been able to make a dent in car usage? How on earth do you expect that to happen in Sevenoaks, an area without such comprehensive bus coverage? And how do you expect to fund this without the demand? And there simply isn't the political appetite either

 

[Mark L]

While we were arguing over cross-border routes, Go Ahead announced at the end of January of their intention to terminate several contracted routes in South London owing to increased costs, though the only papers mentioning this news also attributed to congestion. These were the 80, 93, 151, 154, 155, 163, 164 and 470 from Sutton, Merton, Mitcham and Stockwell garages. Retenders will be issued in due course.

Labour tax hike has made some London bus routes unsustainable, says company boss

But TfL reassures passengers there is no threat to the future of bus routes 80, 93, 151, 154, 155, 163, 164 and 470

www.standard.co.uk

This “story” is all so much media hyperbole. What Go Ahead London has done is exercise mind- contract break clauses for the routes mentioned. This has become a regular feature of the London scene in recent years as costs have increased far more than in the wider economy and more than the contract price adjustment applied by TfL. The routes themselves are not being “terminated” by GAL (they are not their’s to terminate). All TfL operators (except UNO) have followed this route.

They have been added to the tendering programme and new contracts will be awarded in due course. These will almost certainly be more expensive than the current arrangements - the cost pressures of recent awards have been commented upon in recent TfL governance papers and are clearly causing some pain with the organisation.

Until 2022 it was unknown for break clauses to be invoked. Since then it's happend in respect of nearly 100 contracts. With apologies in advance for the length of the list they appear below, along with the operator that was running it. Most have been re-awarded to the incumbent.

23 London Transit

C3 London Transit

306 Metroline

283 London United

28 London Transit

328 Metroline

481 London United

655 London United

65 London United

71 London United

281 London United

371 London United

418 London United

639 London United

670 London United

E1 London United

K5 London United

49 London United

117 London United

398 London Sovereign

697 London Sovereign

H9 London Sovereign

H10 London Sovereign

148 London United

290 London United

160 Selkent

180 Selkent

660 Selkent

298 Sullivan

617 Sullivan

929 Sullivan

W9 Sullivan

125 London Sovereign

273 Selkent

55 East London

56 East London

304 East London

308 East London

335 Arriva London North

397 East London

415 Transport UK

432 Arrriva London South

488 East London

677 London General

U5 Transport UK

W16 East London

248 Arriva London North

149 Arriva London North

220 London United

159 TransportUK

13 London Transit

119 Metrobus

664 Metrobus

H32 TransportUK

678 East London

111 + 481D TransportUK

322 TransportUK

350 TransportUK

135 East London

433 TransportUK

70 London United

186 Metroline

613 London United

662 London United

665 London United

671 TransportUK

116 London United

198 Arriva London South

349 Arriva London North

664 Metrobus

21 London Central

353 Metrobus

177 Selkent

21 London Central

359 Metrobus

80 London General

92 Metroline

93 London General

190 Metroline

151 London General

154 London General

155 London General

163 London General

164 London General

295 London Transit

339 East London

470 London General

632 Metroline

W5 East London

265 London General

​

 

[Dwarfer1979]

London buses dead run within a 15 to 20 minute walk of where I live, to/ from Potters Bar Garage every day which suggests to me, a revision of the network in Enfield/ Waltham Cross is possible. As said before, the Crews Hill development will force that change and because it's on the very edge of Greater London, will have to include something to the likes of Cheshunt. Would be a lot easier if they tended garage by garage with a clear radius of routes, rather do each route separately. The likes of Potters Bar is going nowhere though.

Some of the cross-boundary gaps in provision are laughable.

Barnet Spires to Potters Bar (now covered by 243 despite Potters Bar Garage housing some suitable routes for this section like 263) - 2.8 miles
Lea Valley Campsite to Sun Street, Waltham Abbey (no service) - 2.3 miles - Another 1.5 miles to Waltham Cross
Waltham Cross to Brookfield Centre (242) - 3.3 miles as it goes via Bury Green

Waltham Cross Bus Station to Potters Bar Garage is about 8 miles and buses dead run this! They never use the M25 to go to the garage.

Dead runs aren't directly specified, and so paid for, by TfL. The cost may be rolled into the bid price but if the operator changes so does the dead run involved, so if Metroline lose the work to an operator with a depot elsewhere the dead runs won't be from Potters Bar. Operators used to register dead runs as service runs but registration deadlines outside London mean that the advantages of some income are undermined by the inflexibility in changing the schedules - it would be even more marked where the non-London service run was tied to a London contract as notice periods will be different between the two (I have never had to deal with London but using Manchester where I do have experience TfGM are very relaxed about how much notice they need to have to make changes to their own services and it is substantially less than the TC require operators to give outside Manchester - essentially Manchester don't need to consult with themselves so make decisions at little more than 4 weeks notice when outside it is 10 weeks). Also running dead runs in service don't give a lot of trips at times when people want to travel (lots of early & late runs, not much during the day) without artificially creating a new service and you are just back where this discussion began with you expecting TfL to fund a service that doesn't serve their own residents which is not a good use of their own money.

London tried area tendering (basically your depot based tendering) in the early days of London tendering and it went very badly with almost all of the schemes getting into financial problems by half way through the contract period and few getting close to running their full term. Whilst most of those failed contracts were London Transport subsidiaries who got the sums wrong the fact that TfL have seen operator failures and at the moment is seeing a lot of mid-contract break clause activations is hardly going to reassure TfL that the risks are worth it and that private operators are going to be any better at getting the long term cost estimates right. Having an entire towns bus network collapse or even just be handed back early is hardly a positive feature. If we see Manchester (& the other Combined Authorities who are all going for large area contracts) successfully get through a full term without any sort of crisis (either collapse or just major renegotiation of rates during the contract to prevent collapse) then it may change that calculation and the London view may change but it would require TfL to take a different attitude to Inflationary Cost increases (currently it is pretty much based on unrelated general inflationary rates rather than the industry specific cost changes which are currently running somewhat higher due to various pressures) as that has often been a problem in London - most contracts are profitable for the first couple of years but loss making for the back end and it is only profits from new contracts the cover the loses from the old contracts but recently cost inflation is running very high so that calculation is struggling to get to the end of the full contract and you can't do that as easily with the large area contracts.

It doesn't matter how close two points are, if it adds extra time it will probably add extra resources (an extra bus and a couple of extra driver shifts) so increasing the cost of the route by several hundreds (or possibly, though less likely, thousands) of pounds a day. For a medium sized operator of reasonable quality, so probably with much lower running costs than the average London operator, you are looking at something like £500 per day per bus for an average 10-12 hour day bus working. Longer days require more driving resource so costs and so income targets would be higher, my estimates come from a provincial operator so higher London pay rates could be a significant impact and big groups tend to have higher costs which is where it may sneak over the £1000 mark.

 

[Mark L]

In their eyes, your transport needs are the responsibility of Hertsfordshire County Council...and legally, it is their area.

It’s also worth noting that Hertfordshire County Council does not fund TfL services that cross the border. One reason is that it feels that the frequency is way above that which would ordinarily attract funding from the council. I can’t help thinking that the ghosts of 1970s Surrey - which felt that LT’s costs were too high - stalk the corridors of power within HCC.

London tried area tendering (basically your depot based tendering) in the early days of London tendering and it went very badly with almost all of the schemes getting into financial problems by half way through the contract period and few getting close to running their full term. Whilst most of those failed contracts were London Transport subsidiaries who got the sums wrong the fact that TfL have seen operator failures and at the moment is seeing a lot of mid-contract break clause activations is hardly going to reassure TfL that the risks are worth it and that private operators are going to be any better at getting the long term cost estimates right. Having an entire towns bus network collapse or even just be handed back early is hardly a positive feature. If we see Manchester (& the other Combined Authorities who are all going for large area contracts) successfully get through a full term without any sort of crisis (either collapse or just major renegotiation of rates during the contract to prevent collapse) then it may change that calculation

The area based schemes in Manchester (and soon Merseyside, Birmingham etc) are predicated on the contracting authority owning the garages and vehicles. In essence the operator is just providing the staff and know how. It makes the process of transitioning from one operator to another much more straightforward but clearly has up front costs if assets are to be purchased.

In the London context ownership of buses by TfL would fundamentally change the funding model from one that is (at least as far as TfL is concerned) largely resource expenditure to one with a significant capital element.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

The area based schemes in Manchester (and soon Merseyside, Birmingham etc) are predicated on the contracting authority owning the garages and vehicles. In essence the operator is just providing the staff and know how. It makes the process of transitioning from one operator to another much more straightforward but clearly has up front costs if assets are to be purchased.

In the London context ownership of buses by TfL would fundamentally change the funding model from one that is (at least as far as TfL is concerned) largely resource expenditure to one with a significant capital element.

True, though I assume the running costs (fuel, maintenance, wages etc) in Manchester are still in the hands of the operator and that is where the long term risk of contract failure comes from (contract payment inflationary increases not keeping up with actual industry inflationary cost increases) - less so the up front set-up costs which would be pretty well known and fixed at the time of bidding though the authority owning the assets smoothes & speeds the process of change and the risk of damage from failure is slightly less as most of the assets would not be seized by bankruptcy firms to pay creditors so would be immediately available for whoever replaces but there would still be major disruption as it happens as these sort of things can happen quickly if not managed.

 

[Thirteen]

I'm surprised the 93 is not considered sustainable by GAL.

 

[Mark L]

I'm surprised the 93 is not considered sustainable by GAL.

The current contract dates from 2022 and was bid for on the basis of costings at the time. Since then these have increased by far more than the payments made by TfL. It’s the same for all other operators hence the number of contracts where a break clause is being exercised.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Feb 2026 ==

Surrey support (from the earlier thread)

• Route 166 (West Croydon – Banstead – Epsom Hospital) . The 166 runs every 20 minutes between Croydon and Banstead but SCC fund one bus per hour Monday – Saturdays (except evenings) to be extended beyond Banstead to Epsom Hospital, wholly with Surrey
• Route 216 (Kingston – Ashford Hospital – Staines) SCC funds the section of route between Ashford Hospital and Staines in Surrey (which is also covered by TfL route 203).
• Route 465 (Kingston – Leatherhead – Dorking) SCC fund the lengthy section between Leatherhead and Dorking, again wholly in Surrey.

Think Herts pulled out of funding some routes because of budget constraints.

There is also some S.106 funding from developers, via local authorities. Those that I am aware of cover the BL1 and the 235. Heathrow, as far as I know, does not currently provide any financial support for TfL routes.

 

[Busoccultation]

There is also some S.106 funding from developers, via local authorities. Those that I am aware of cover the BL1 and the 235. Heathrow, as far as I know, does not currently provide any financial support for TfL routes.

335 was S106 funded at least when it started to cover the costs of running a direct Kidbrooke to North Greenwich bus which the developers at the time requested for. I believe some trips on the A10 mainly the early morning trips are funded by Heathrow, though I could be wrong.

 

[Mark L]

335 was S106 funded at least when it started to cover the costs of running a direct Kidbrooke to North Greenwich bus which the developers at the time requested for. I believe some trips on the A10 mainly the early morning trips are funded by Heathrow, though I could be wrong.

I’m not sure about financial support for the A10 - I have seen statements to the effect that it does not currently fund TfL bus services but can’t lay my mitts on it right now. There was financial support when the route was first introduced but that was 30 years ago! It did part fund the “wraps” that appeared on some buses on the X26 (immediately before the route was rebranded as the SL7!). It also paid TfL for journeys made in the Freeflow zone but that ended in 2021. Heathrow does not disclose how much money it provides for bus services let alone a breakdown. The nature of its support varies, either direct payments, or through marketing support or simply including details on the airport’s website and in the terminals.

 

[alex397]

They might also benefit from capping if coming from the station as well. The misleadingly named Greenhithe for Bluewater has an infrequent connection at best. I have been there once and I ended up walking down to the nearest TfL bus stop (London buses do not serve the station directly) to catch a bus to Bluewater. There is a nice view of the Dartford Bridge however which looks very pretty during the evening sunset and you can see the miles of cars waiting to get across.

There are about 10 buses an hour between Greenhithe Station and Bluewater on Kent Fastrack routes A and F and the hourly X80.

The nearest bus stop with a TfL service is Waterstone Park which has the half-hourly 492 TfL service.

 

[Mark L]

More on the TfL contract break saga here from today’s TfL board meeting - www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-bus-passenger-tfl-tube-journeys-b1269706.html

You have to read right to the end, through a whole lot of Evening Lebedev hyperbole, to get to the important bit which is that the passenger won’t see any changes.