We used to have Boxing Day only contracts, examples of First and Metrobus operating a route on Boxing Day usually operated by Stagecoach on most of the year.
We used to have night routes separate from day routes, hence examples like N137 operated by London Central. The last being N136 now tied to be 436/N136.
We used to have no school routes tied to day routes, no we have 631/H3 160/660 and in future the 412/685.
We used to have school day operations; e.g 150D operated by Go-Ahead whilst 150 operated by Arriva, or 405D operated by Arriva but 405 operated by Metrobus. Many have had their SDOs withdrawn, or combined into main routes [e.g 150], or renumbered as proper school routes [405D to 645].
Buses are meant to be fluid, with the possibility of changing quickly when the need arises, for positive (responding to increased demand) or negative (making cuts).
As a result of our contracts system, we've artificially made it slower.
A scale as large as Croydon changes of yesteryear before the tram, would've been done as quickly as 79/83's reroutes in 2023. Instead, it's normal even for a minor reroute like 309's in Aberfeldy Estate to take 4 years.
Perhaps if term lengths were fixed as it is now* back when we started, it'd be much easier with less kerfuffle to do network changes.
(*7 years for zero emission contracts, 5 years on diesel/hybrids, other lengths for other reasons unknown)
Think Croydon for example, many routes come up together similar to as they did 20 years ago, by luck of not many routes being separated by contract extensions. Makes improvements and restructures involving multiple routes a lot easier to do, unlike waiting on another contract to expire (470 meant to be restructured, yet waiting on 455 withdrawal - 439/S2 start)
Starting off, every possible route is on a standalone contract.
A total of 549 daily routes, yet only 5 pairs:
378 joint with 209
399 joint with 389
H9 joint with H10 (circular)
H19 joint with H18 (circular)
R10 joint with R5 (circularish)
Whereas the only N-prefix routes not joint with a day route are: N5 N20 N97 N550 N551.
Out of the 70 so school routes:
Then the only school routes joint with day routes are 142/642, 160/660 and H3/631 with 412 seemingly joining with 685 next tender.
School routes paired with other school routes: 628/688, 653/683, 692/699, 649/650/651, 624/658, 639/670.
Spreadsheet (not shared): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gCFV7Jso06OAfMmTvvrqepMsCgLx4oMaUlZH4VFEUQg/edit?usp=sharing
Spawned from a discussion where it wasn't fixated on school routes but I ended up making the research in a previous post.
This time the discussion came about in my circle and thus I set out what was already somewhat set out - multiple routes in one contract. The focus will be small routes.
Not combining double decker routes in the spreadsheet because that will easily make a 50+ bus spending in one contract which limits who can win it. Reducing flexibility, which is a bad thing usually. Even if I have played with the idea for 25/425 in literally my previous Bifurcated Buses post with a gimmick.
If the consensus is two small routes in one contract is a happy medium, three being the limit pushed, what can truly be past the limits?
I've already done a similar concept on school routes, Where I glorify my fantasy of 690 buses being used as extras on 322, and other school routes with other daily routes like 152/652.
For school extras, 143D is on it's own contract.
Normal school routes; 642 joint with 142, likewise 660 with 160
Then 628 tied to 688; 653 tied to 683; 692 tied to 699; 650/651 tied to 649; 658 tied to 624; 670 tied to 639
Starting off the drawback is reduced reliability, as by merging these contracts the goal is to crosslink buses. The benefit to crosslinking is to reduce wasted time, thus saving a bus in theory.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is practically no similarity between theory and practice. Amazing quotes.
An upside is that less administrative work is required, sorting through multiple routes and checking legality and the small print, whereas bunching a few routes together into one legal package.
Where the tender spec of every standalone route has a 17 page document or so. The 389-399 together are a 20-page document. Go see for yourself.
Take the U10, it had a 55 minute stand time at Uxbridge. You could find a multitude of ways to use an hour other than sit idle, like perform another route. Now it has an 18 minute stand time at Uxbridge with it's cut from every 60 to every 90.
The benefit that counters the reliability drawback is that, these routes are predominantly residential/local routes whereby they encounter little traffic. Thus impacts from a crosslink would be minor, compared to say merging 192 and 377 to a single contract somehow.
So with that, let's explore with more numbers and not exactly fact but reason, can Multiple routes - one contract function well? Answer: Yes, it happens outside London because there isn't rigid contracts like in here.
Routes 299 and 389/399 crosslink, of course both routes are on separate contracts, though if they're not, the likelihood of them being separated does arise, forcing 389/399 to be standalone, or perhaps if lucky, crosslink with another route. For now the 299 is best placed in terms of contract timing with the 389/399.
Of course, should there be a more efficient crosslink pair then the merging of say, 299 and 389/399 is a less convenient exercise. Though the likelihood of a more efficient pair arising will only come through route restructure.
Ideally if contracting out work was area-based like in the Netherlands then you'd have more flexibility in restructures of routes on a whim, or only having one contract to negotiate terms.
Even double deck routes crosslink, the 14/22 and 36/171 and night routes N63/N68 use the 45/196 instead of their day routes due to their day routes having longer buses than can fit on the longer night routes.
The 375 on contract was awarded with a double deck crosslinked from 370.
With that many examples to give, it truly is possible. Why should it be done? To save on costs in a way that doesn't negatively impact passenger experience such as route frequency reductions which has been the norm for TfL lately.
If you haven't taken a gander at my Spreadsheet then I implore you to do so, having found out that usual single deck contracts go between £200K to £300K a year for routes with more than 1 PVR. For routes with a single or no bus, it tends to, but not stick, to around £100K a year.
Orpington
Roundabout network routes 1-11.
R1+R11
Whilst confusing to some first-timers since both routes share some common points, there is two immediate problems. R1 is low frequency with 8.9m vehicles. R11 is high frequency with 9.6m vehicles. Granted, R11's recent contract dictated both frequency increase and vehicle size upgrade along with controversial withdrawing of Foots Cray Tesco double run which was of major use to local shoppers.
Individually the R1 and R11 are £227K and £231K per bus per annum on their current contracts which will expire in some years' time. Combining both theoretically reduces scale and scope. Conveniently there is a comparable route with similar sized vehicles with a high PVR: The 450.
Per bus per annum it is £204K on it's expiring 2016 contract.
From R1's £227K to 450's £204K is 10%, so benefit of the doubt and reduce R11's by 10% you still get £208K which is almost 91% of R1's.
Rudimentary maths: R11 being combined saves £207K, R1 being combined saves £114K. Total: £321K p.a.
R2+R9
A three thousand difference between R2's £226K per bus per annum and R9's £229K per bus per annum. Quick maths of R2's PVR (which is 3) and you get: Total: £9K p.a.
Neat.
Changing gears from per bus per annum costs into mileage. The numbers change.
The R9 (£4.95) and R2 (£4.29) lends us a different path, matching R9's per mile cost to the R2. Making R9 a £4.29 route. This gives a £-34,800
Doable but perhaps more faff than liked, since R2's already joint-bid with many other routes whilst R9 was standalone. So more than R2 and R9 would have to be evaluated in this case.
In this post we're already looking at every other Orpington route so it is worth it. I suppose.
R3 + R5/R10
Initially I thought R3+R4 but instead changed minds into R3+R5/R10.
Now this is an interesting pair since it's of three routes which have the same every 20 frequency, the third route being R1. Just like the R1/R11 the R3 and R4 share a common terminus; Locksbottom.
Just like R5/R10, there is a common terminus at Orpington between them and R3.
Either by mileage costs (R3 = £4.12. R5/R10 = £2.92)
or per bus per annum (R3 = £218,705. R5/R10 = £195,000).
There ain't savings to be made here.
Pivoting this back into an R3/R4 debate however, both have a PVR of 6.
R4 is £4.77 per mile. Saving of £202,462 p.a.
per bus per annum £208,474. Saving of £10,000 x 6 = £60,000 p.a.
Not bad consolidating the two into a PVR 12 route, with savings more apparent than a standalone contract with an existing bus used (instead of new, £200,000 p.a.).
R6 + R7 + R8
An interesting pair since R8 can only have one because of the narrow roads it goes through. R5/R10 also use narrow roads but not constraining size to minibuses for the better part of it's life.
R5/R10 currently have an every 150 frequency (down from every 120 pre-2013) whilst R8 has stooped to it's lowest of 80-90 (from every 70 pre-2016).
R6 is most frequent at every 30.
These routes operate as circulars, even if the R6 and R8 technically have end-points of St Mary Cray and Biggin Hill respectively. The R6 has a 2 minute layover at the station whilst R8 opts for 5 minutes.
The R5/10 don't have layovers at Halstead as the only true circular routes.
R7 is different, transforming from a route that goes end-to-end. Forsaking it's nice loop at Bickley for a route linking Chislehurst with Orpington, and Chelsfield with Chislehurst. It became a slight reliability issue, needing a cutback, deemed in Chelsfield Village to lose stops thus increasing stop distances above 400m.
It's not theoretical to operationally combine R7 with either R6 nor R8, but at least contractually pooling the resources together will reduce costs by way of bulk discounts in some areas and just in general bulk. If I haven't already explained or stressed this enough, albeit small, but Tesco's motto reigns supreme. Every little helps.
 |
| Self explanatory |
Routes 406+418
They crosslink but they don't have contract dates which line up, for the benefit of Quality Line and now RATP, since this means a competitor would have to have either 406 or 418 as a standalone route or come up with an ingenious solution similar to an interworking 406/418 to slim down the costs, of which only 406/418 go both Epsom and Kingston. The upside of effectively monopolising retaining 406/418 doesn't mean it can't be separated, though this is as close as to a combined route contract without it being the case.
I won't calculate the 406/418, but I will calculate adding 467 into the fray.
Saving of £99,440.
The above is a calculation for only 418/467 since it uses the 2020 tenders for 418 and 467, so perhaps not necessary for all three together...
In the end, all the paperwork contacting Surrey County Council will be reduced from three times to simply one! Genius!
A10+U7+U10
A few routes that terminate at Uxbridge
Route 327 and... 491
Funnily enough both routes were crosslinked when Go-Ahead won them, the 327 then being half hourly. However upon loss of 491 to Metroline, the 327 found itself alone and eventually itself lost to Sullivan with a frequency reduction to every 40 since it was worked only by one bus, one bus can't make the route around and provide the every 30 frequency.
Perhaps the opportunity to combine the contracts of the two Waltham Cross routes was in the past only in that glimmer of a post-First Go-Ahead, despite Arriva having both routes.
Route 379 + 385 / or 397 + 385 / or W11?
So 379 takes 15 minutes end-to-end, at an every 15 minute frequency with a PVR of 2.
The 385 has a PVR of 1 with a 70 minute frequency.
The 397 has a PVR of 5 plus a crosslink from W19. Should it not have been in the same depot with other single deck routes it's requirement would be 6 as it would have no route to steal off of.
That's something that could be made permanent.
In this case, HCT Group already had W19 and retained 397 with this, since 397 did have a PVR of 6 beforehand, since it has two additional journeys during schooldays per peak, one of which is the crosslink. Therefore, the 385 which only runs between 1000-1600 could be the perfect route to use that extra schoolday bus.
Before:
379: 2 385: 1 397: 5 (+crosslink ex-W19) Total: 9
After (379 + 385):
379: 2 385: crosslink 397: ? Total: ?
After (385 + 397):
379: 2 385: crosslink 397: 6 Total: 8
Alternative:
Routes 379 385 W16 and 357(Sunday)
Interesting selection whereby only W16 is high frequency, the 385 is a one-bus service, then 357 which only has it's Sunday exclusive extension to Whipps Cross Hospital, which whilst included in it's current contract as a legacy from the previous century, doesn't mandate new single deckers whenever new is required for the Monday-Saturday service, so it's a limbo status of conveniently being in a garage with single deckers could run out, it almost did recently.
Doing it this way does ensure that at least two buses (one from 379, one from 385) have resources freed for Sunday-357, then being a Sunday means W16 has less resources required.
In addition, the 379 and 385 can interwork schedule-wise. Whereas 357 and W16 also can in that sense.
To get into excruciating detail, 397's #35 finishes at Debden at 0935 only to come back at Crooked Billet for a 1419 departure towards Debden.
Therefore, if we're on a cost-cutting deal, the 385 would have to finish at 1359 at Chingford in order to make the #35 start, or reshuffle 397's duties around which is doable. Doing schedules is a lot of work and minor adjustments is a lot of change, so I'd leave the 385+397 debate at doable, since it's clear it is, just scheduling changes would need to happen and perhaps sacrifice 1430-1600 hours at most, making it similar to 389/399's hours of operation.
There is the issue of 379 being restricted to 8.9m sized vehicles due to tight spaces whereas route 397 already has 9.7m sized buses, thus meaning 397 would have to be demoted if interworked. The 385 however has seen 9.3m sized vehicles in the past so it can fare.
Route 288 and 303
Breaking my rule from the beginning of the post
Routes 72 and 283
Why not since I broke my rule earlier. Both routes share an equal every 10 frequency, when they had similar but different frequencies before both had cuts at different times. Both terminate at East Acton, both terminate in Hammersmith (one at Lower Bus Station, the other at Bridge North Side).
The 315 + 322
For laughs and giggles why not evaluate my two single-door local routes. Or if we're more serious the 201 and P13 but let's dial it back to joke territory instead.
It's not ideal dead running from West Norwood to the 322 at Crystal Palace since it entails a lengthy dead run for a meagre crosslink. Or worse off Clapham Common which is practically on the other side.
Conversely it is short to get from Balham to Clapham Common and vice versa.
6 mins to Crystal Palace dead run
Extending 315 in-service to Gipsy Hill via Gipsy Road then out-of-service to Crystal Palace to stand there and swap into a 322.
3 mins to Gipsy Hill, then 3 mins dead run to Crystal Palace
On Sundays the 315 has 13 minutes stand time at Balham and 13 mins stand time at West Norwood.
the 322 has a 13 min stand time at Crystal Palace and 12 min stand time at Clapham Common.
1 hour round trip on 315s
2 hour round trip on 322s
Combining both into a 3 hour round trip to save one bus goes a little like this:
33 (315) + 6 deadrun + 45 (322) + 13 (stand) + 45 (322) + 6 deadrun + 33 (315)
Convoluted, but possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about night routes into day routes?
It already exists, you think. Why yes, on routes like 68/N68. However, not 468 and N68.
Another example, 15/N15, but not 5 and N15, nor 115 and N15.
The logistics of having a night route split in two between operators might be weird, meaning every 60 in some routes operationally (like N68 above), though does guarantee should a set of routes split apart, that there won't be weird gaps in service from operator differences (also N68, but with 468).
Simultaneously, it would be an upside for the rare and only case of N15. Where the day route has almost half the PVR of the night route. N15's PVR is even higher than 115.
With the exception of N15 for the split-per-operator, let's focus on a blanket case.
Evening services.
The goal is evening services of, say 468, operating as N68s.
If you're aware of how evening services in the olden days were confusing
(137 no Sunday/evening service, 137A from Oxford Circus to Crystal Palace)
then it'd be much quicker, though the above should've explained plenty.
Instead of confusing passengers by having them learn what route they'd be taking, we'd be using our current route structures to make internal changes.
So N68s would start operating after 2000, under 468's contract. Then 468s wouldn't technically be running.
Sundays.
Finally, the bizarre one.
Following the same logic of turning evening services into two-contract bizarreness, the Sunday frequencies for most routes matches the evening one, particularly with more frequent routes.
So, same logic.
As far as the public are concerned, there is a Sunday 68 service.
Under the hood, there isn't a Sunday service.
This is a weirder contract-based workaround attempt of the simpler idea I had in Interworked routes post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-franchising
Slightly touched upon in a previous paragraph.
Remember my mention of Netherlands? Let me repeat the sentence.
Ideally if contracting out work was like in the Netherlands or as of 2022 Manchester (new kind on the block!) Then you'd have more flexibility in restructures of routes on a whim, or only having one contract to negotiate terms. I'm speaking of area-based franchising, though we could dial this franchising to a smaller scale. Mini-franchising? That could roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This would have been the last point I'd make, but it is outlandish
The Japanese Railway model
Whereby loosening the contract compliances to the point operators pretty much own operate for their own profit just like outside London, though with minor things they have to comply with to guarantee London quality.
The capitalist dream, reducing restrictions to make more money.
Think of it this way, the restrictions of trains and franchising in the UK has led to quite a lot of problems, I suggest you look up a video or read up on Wikipedia if you don't fully behind it.
In short though, there are restrictions where it makes it hard to turn profits in some lines, where some routes aren't profitable full stop. Then franchises having only some control, needing to call up daddy DfT for changes, goodness forbids it is every change needed they have to contact them.
The first relatively-probable thought was like this:
2300-0600 TfL pay by mileage for all journeys departed in this time (i.e, like currently)
0600-2300 Operator purely operates for their own profits with their own costs
Instead of paid per mile, paid patronage multiplied by fare (e.g 8 million x £1.65 = £13.2 m annually)
The times during the night would guarantee the first and last buses are still fixed, as well as night buses not being deserted.
The pay structure does need tweaking to make sure operators make more buck with less TfL involvement, but still make it fair and keeping fares in line with normal contracted services (universally same bus fares for all TfL services) which is a task doable, absurd as it may be.
Another by-product of loosening some of the contract compliances.
Loosening specifications.
What specifications? Glad you asked.
Recall how on tender specs, there is a maximum approved vehicle dimensions. Just take that back to "two-door buses" for anything longer than 9.6m single or double deck, with exceptions like X26 excluded. Health & safety means vehicle sizes do need to perform routes without issue for constant use, though shifting that responsibility from TfL onto the operator is just moving the problem. Less problem for you, more problem for them. Not a win-win, but a win-lose. Oh well.
Upside again, an operator can explore tri-axle buses on their own accord and freely use them. This happened with 123 (and other routes) by virtue of Capital Citybus with buses intended for Hong Kong being used on our streets.
TfL and Stagecoach did test gold Enviro500s along the 5's route, though nothing came of that. Of course the time of 2017 was an era where we were seven feet deep in hybrid technology, no hybrid tri-axle buses proved to be worthwhile at the time.
Now we're in the mid-early era of electric buses, with guaranteed existence of electric Enviro500s in North America as well as Berlin's original contract of Enviro500s having provision for electric versions of the model.
We can re-examine tri-axle buses on our streets, powered by electrics. Or should I say, the operator freely examine on their own accord, with any issues befalling them. High risk, high reward. Bigger buses, more people in them.
So a recap of what is current for us
Drivers - paid by operator
Controllers and engineers - paid by operator
Fuel/energy - paid by operator
Infrastructure of new charging ports is part of contract, unless operator sets them up beforehand
Vehicles - chosen by operator (TfL covers costs for their spec - displays, ticketing, iBus, etc). So paid by both operator and TfL
Our current system is sitting in an awkward halfway between profit-making (a la deregulation) and nationalised (basically London Buses before 1986), though it is a system that works well.
That's to say, the rest of the UK only started recently to push for copying our London tendering system to provide the same benefits as us.
Overall, more food for thought, however still striving for efficiency. We're not at the level of magically interconnected networks like in Netherlands or Switzerland, though we can use those as an example whilst also looking at other places, then looking inward. Cutting off fat where necessary to save on costs without causing detriment, then improving services using those same resources saved.
All in all, I enjoyed it and I hope you did too. Until the next one, stay safe!
Yes I did count all the routes, here:
no 10 48 82 84
no 305 310 311 334 338 342 348 351 361 369 373 374 387 391 392
no 402 408 409 416 420 421 426 431 435 437 438 439 441 442 443 445 446 447 448 449 451 454 457 458 459 461 471 475 477 478 479 480 489 494 495
500-55=445
507 521 533 549 607
99 prefix routes
You forgot 168, 239 and 271.
ReplyDelete