I'll just point out the fact routes 673 685 689 were almost four times cheaper using the same buses as their main route they were joint bid with, whilst also sharing a schedule. As opposed to not sharing a schedule, and having it's own new bus.
The 689 accepted bid in 2018 was under £20K. Lowest single bid was £100K.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among my first posts on this blog was regarding capacity on 3/322, back then the 3 didn't sport microwaves on wheels and 322 was low frequency and is currently high frequency.
Though the question still stands. The answer would've been something along the lines of 'if it's not overcrowded then it's fine' with finer wording to make it less daunting. The question would naturally have been 'should there be extra provision for school capacity?' For the 3 it could be argued, I'm still of the opinion Croxted Road shouldn't have one route but I'm thankful in the climate the 3 hadn't received a frequency cut yet.
Whilst the 322 has the issue of vehicle size constraint.
So what does this have to do with school routes?
 |
| DLA273 (Y473UGC), Tulse Hill |
Enter 690, the only school route close to me for several miles. It's a route which has it's origins from nearly 90 years ago as the 5, being restructured into a 189 which on it's last days of life died to the common public as it became a school route from the girls school in Earlsfield then terminating at Brixton.
It's section to Norwood spawned off the back of the atypical garage journeys which became permanent through the decades until the current day, however it previously had live garage journeys to Walworth (WL) for a short time prior to moving to Norwood (N). This route was 689, identical to current 690 in every road except using Tulse Hill instead of Dulwich Road and Norwood Road north of Tulse Hill Station. The 689 died in 2011 on contract renewal, as the less favoured routeing between 689/690, and thus 690 kept the #689 running number whose duty entailed a first afternoon trip terminating at Clapham Common before running back to the school to go full route, with another bus covering one full trip. Not long after the Clapham shorts died, making it a 2 trip morning and 2 trip afternoon route. To throw a curveball not mentioned earlier, 689 did get cut to Tulse Hill briefly as the sole 689 was run from Brixton (BN) but returned to going further to West Norwood.
Then the pandemic gave a list of routes extra buses for social distancing, the 690 was one of them, Arriva London South's suite of school routes had extras from Abellio.
Then the question was brought to the table, with empty V690s frequenting Acre Lane. I myself observing nothing different from the Norwood end though...
...traditionally it's been the quieter end. At most there'd be a dozen but as time went one, a handful became a few, then barely visible, then a few again.
-------------------------------------------------------
I've thus set out with an adventure on how to better optimise the inefficiencies of the network, baby step on a ladder at a time until a boulder comes crushing down. It's not difficult to see the cost per mile of some school routes which compared to daily routes is a fortune being brought in, since school routes entail vehicles dedicated to the job. Peak time only enhancements to routes may seem like a good expense though having them in bulk means a good amount of them would be sat dormant waiting for the next rush hour, pretty much school routes in a nutshell too.
So can there be anything done to make it more efficient? If not, can they be made to be less dedicated to the school role?
Expensive not?
A necessity where even if it's expensive it provides separation from the common public from said buses going to school, in some routes they enter the grounds.
About the expense part though. With exceptions like 160/660 where the latter isn't standalone, so does not come with the downside of having extravagant costs typical of school routes.
Examples: 612 (£30.04) and 685 (£44.08), compared to 412 (£6.45).
Add some math to calculate what it would total to in a day's work and voila: £480.64 and £88.16. This is only mileage so it doesn't paint the full picture. By the way 601's per day is roughly £3405.16.
Whilst 160/660 together are £6.35 per mile. Translates to a day's 660 work is £63.50.
 |
| A few past terms to look at |
The economy of scale for sourcing a small quantity of buses for two hours of work five days a week at best (not including half terms and holidays) compared to adding in a few buses to a route that has a high enough count of buses need anyway and would operate over a dozen hours a day for seven days a week with the exception of Christmas Day, is a no brainer. If it's not reflected in my examples above then now you know.
 |
| Julian Walker DML41430 (LN51DWP) on now-dead 648, Romford |
So what is the a solution to this problem?
TfL has already found solutions to this. Kill the routes. See 647 (Harold Hill-Romford), not long before the 648 (Noak Hill-Cranham) and more throughout the past. A number already used secondhand is 653, previously a Thamesmead-Woolwich Common route gone by July 2006.
Well, you can't kill every school route as they're not all useless. Stuff like 601 would be a nightmare to replace with a PVR on-par with the 401 that it parallels. What about alternatives to this TfL-blood-involved solution?
I'm glad you're etching for my totally-not-holy-grail-sounding solution to this not-world-ending-problem.
So firstly, one solution. Hinted earlier with the 160/660 gimmick.
The gimmick is the first revival of combining a daily route with a school route in one contract.
In the past it's been done with SDOs (School Day Operation) of daily routes, say 150D, being incorporated into the daily route, the 150D dying in the sense of no longer having it's own contract, in 2015. Commonly with single deck routes that had SDOs, e.g 212D, upon double deck conversion they'd lose the special journey.
More examples in the past; with 281/N281/681 but since then 681 has reverted to standalone. Meanwhile 631 (or H1 as it once was) would balloon to absurd prices to dedicate a tiny midibus to school role thus lumped in with H3. Hammersmith with 209/609.
There's plenty of examples of routes that are paralleled by daily routes. 39/639, 71/671, 152/655, 235/635.
Those examples have 1, 1, 1 and 3 PVRs respectively making incorporation into the day route possible. As these single decker routes (not 71) can take double decks, almost. Sunbury with resident issues and Southfield low trees seem a bit far fetched but if 274 proved desperation to avoid electric single deckers is that it's possible, even angering the residents in the process.
Downsides to combining routes together?
The con to this is the lack of flexibility. So changing one route, perhaps the school route in this case, wouldn't effect the main route. Therefore reimbursements are simpler if it comes to that.
Another point for flexibility is if a route could be better crosslinked from a different route. In the mileage example I gave the 685, which crosslinks from 412. Perhaps 685 could be crosslinked to, say the 64 and that could be more efficient? The answer is no since 412 has two extra journeys in the morning whilst 64 has no extra journeys. The 412 sacrifices one in the afternoon whilst the second is the 685.
Another lack of flexibility is possible pricing of tender, say there's only one bid for the main route but three for the school route, or perhaps vice versa. It does lower possible competition to solder the two together.
A more minor one would be the vehicles themselves would be incentivised to be used on the main route rather than being freed for other work. I say minor as consequently it's translation for "the inefficiency of this is perfectly fine" which, fair enough has been easy to overlook in prosperous times.
However the pro of that flexibility isn't much when considering routes tend to only have major changes at the end of their contracts which is simpler for all parties involved, as being involved in a consultation or massive change whilst mid-contract needs compensation.
Here's the next step...
Extending a daily route over a school route.
The thesis for this post is the 690.
It could do well as a daily route, though with the presence of 196 the likelihood is dimmer in a cost-cutting environment, leading it to a pipe dream. The next route it shares similarity to is none other than the 322, in being a Clapham Common via Brixton and Herne Hill route. As a local I've had the pleasure of studying the 690, a route that offloads the majority at Brixton with the far and few between going to Herne Hill or at the final stop. It's no stretch to say the 690 could be lopped off at Brixton and still function.
My improved mindset over a long time of thought since the pandemic has effectively forced normal passengers from using school routes out for all routes is, as far as the public are concerned this:
690: Earlsfield, Burntwood School - Brixton
322D: Brixton - Crystal Palace
 |
| What it would like if it were a real consultation PDF but it's a .png image |
Though operationally 690 would be Earlsfield-Crystal Palace and is rerouted via Atlantic Road meaning it has to loop Stockwell Park Walk (northbound the "322D" last stop would be 'Electric Lane' on Coldharbour Lane northbound, whilst southbound the "690" last stop would be 'Lambeth Town Hall'), then extended in West Norwood via Robson Road, Park Hall Road, South Croxted Road, Gipsy Hill, the one way system then Crystal Palace Parade. This does avoid the Hail & Ride section but is still in caption of them, as it's walking distance to the 3 on South Croxted Road, an avoidable one if you have 322 on your doorstep or close to doorstep, but nonetheless a valid option.
It would need one new stop on Park Hall Road by the junction of South Croxted Road, as intended for the 315 proposed extension to Tulse Hill's Peabody Estate.
This way, the capacity needed for 322 is present even if the handicap is it's poorer ability to provide the capacity where it's needed most, in the middle of the Hail & Ride section. The contract states Brixton Station and Norwood Road/Robson Road as the pinch points along the route and this is very much true in reality, though how much data can be harvested from the Hail & Ride section which is treated as one entity rather than a bunch of stops is a mystery to me. Though consequently as a result of this 322D/690 manoeuvre. this also pulls pressure of the 3 which feeds from the same area. In short, this isn't just a 322 exercise. This is a 3 and 322 capacity increase exercise.
 |
| A rendition of a fictional LBR.net page + an estimation of a combined 468/690 costs |
Now the 196 isn't bountiful with spare capacity but it practically only catering for South Norwood for the tube access and doubling as support for 468 doesn't put it at a desperation for capacity increase requirements, but would be welcomed with open hands nonetheless. Though first things first sorting out it's every 20 Sunday frequency.
Speaking of 468, it isn't strictly impossible to incorporate it, pretty much as Herne Hill to South Croydon short workings with 690 as the public are concerned being an Earlsfield-Herne Hill route. Though unlike a 322D, northbound extra 468s terminating short of Camberwell at Herne Hill would be very unideal.
Another option is to simply split it into a different school route which better suits timing in the southeastern side, let's call it 622, though instead of going along South Croxted Road it would use the full length of Gipsy Road which includes a park campus located right next to a primary school, both of which in walking distance from 432 but alas takes load off of the 432. There's more schools in the Gipsy Hill area which is why I insist it does some work in lifting pressure from a nearly-hopeless single deck route.
How about I present a non-690 idea, albeit this is over-stepping my boundaries but flavourful suggestion to drive the point home further. The every 20 min route 498 and 3-trips 608.
 |
| Left and Right Before with 498/608 and After murdering 608 |
Whilst not the best handiwork, it does open up a flaw in this plan. It's not exactly a universal solution, not in the same way a 10m double deck can fit on all routes which use double decks, the problem of one-size-fits-all can't be replicated. That is to say if we're concerned about potential resident complaints of a road suddenly having a regular service (Oh God, one that is double deck!) Since Alexander Lane doesn't look particularly heavy vehicle friendly whilst Oliver Road doesn't have that much of an issue but rather low-trees. That's the most an armchair expert like yours truly can deduce.
Then the fact that all this is in Essex which means that Essex would have to cough up a bit more £££ if they already support the route, which I forget if this is the case since TfL have graciously saved the route when it was called the 351.
As an aside, Shenfield High School doesn't have a daily route nearby, but does have a fair amount of school routes of which the 608 in question is the TfL one, catering for the outer London demand.
I've only realised after publishing that I've omitted an idea of what the PVR of an extended 498 would be, so it's roughly 10 mins from Brentwood to Shenfield, double that and you get 1 extra bus needed at 498's every 20 frequency, benefit of the doubt an extra one would be needed regardless since 608 does have 3 buses to it's name. Et voila a 498 with a PVR of 9 from it's current 6.
Crosslinks creativity
I have glossed over this point briefly in the combining-routes-in-one-contract in the 160/660 fashion, but I'll add more garnish here.
The fact school buses tend to not get used outside of the primary use.
Exceptions like crosslinks exist, with 250 using a 689 bus and 412 using a 685 bus, the 264 crosslinking with 612. Though for the most part where it is possible, it's not done, which is made worse by operator differences among routes. Take 152/655 for example, until now 655 was operated under the same umbrella as 152 in spite of 152 having a decent stay at Abellio's Beddington Cross (BC), but now 655 has joined the French at RATP. So a 152/655 corporation is not as neat as readily as one would desire.
Such a combination of contracts has been done in the past with 184/684 whereby the 684 number was banished to the shadow realm and 184 remained the route with both single and double decks, though unfortunately the double decks rerouted due to resident complaints.
One more time with the 685, which is 2 miles in nature and a relic of 612's past restructures but it's not entirely different to how 207 had a school journey starting from Twyford Abbey School, since both 207 (no longer since it's change to Abellio) and 685 are afternoon only oddities, therefore not out of question to instead have a 412 from Hamsey Green straight to Croydon in place of 685 dumping them at Selsdon.
It's not much but it's honest work, or however the saying goes.
Other ways to restructure routes?
Before I go even more radical, it's already been done recently. Remember 112's extension to North Finchley? The raison d'etre was to rid the 611, which coincidentally ties in with creating orbital links across London. A cost saving measure as well as a cost-making measure.
A simpler form of this was done two decades prior with Croydon's 612 which was one of the busiest school routes harbouring an insane 8 vehicles to it's name, this was easily solved by converting the 412 from single deck to double deck which gave it lots of capacity.
Now, to go radical.
One could extend 234 from Barnet to Potters Bar as a double deck route, thereby rendering 634 and 692/699 redundant though would need the school part to be sufficed, either in the form of keeping the 699 number or doing what 313 does which is a trip extending to the school from Potters Bar Station.
The huge route 601 could rather easily be replaced by an extension of 401, though Dartford Heath as a terminus hasn't worked in the past so a further extension to nearby Dartford would offset losses by terminating at a heath full-time. Since 601 handily avoids Bexleyheath town centre it could be kept but at a low requirement, dropping from a requirement of 7 to a requirement of at most 2.
If I were to go even more radical the word withdraw would come, however I'm rather sensible on not chucking the idea willy nilly because at the end of the day, I don't have the knowledge that would back up any claim, either through data or failing that, observation. With route statistics your daily route would have a yearly patronage number but that isn't the case for school routes as there isn't a need to tap in the Oyster as at the end of the day, it's just kids and it's free regardless. Whilst adults are allowed on such services, in practice that isn't the case.
Going back to the statistics and withdrawal part though, there is still some data of use that allows the determination that 648 can be withdrawn with it's low usage.
Now that I've bored you with more paragraphs, here's some eye candy plus the spreadsheet detailing my spree of routes that I have no connection to but should form a theory nonetheless that could be executed, and improved upon.
 |
| Cool tables and graphs |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All in all:
- Combining routes together in a single contract, a la 631/H3
May or may not make more use of resources but keeps costs low
- Making extra use of school bus resources, crosslinks and/or extras on other routes (wink wink 322 idea wink)
Doesn't amend contract status of school route but buses don't do just average 2 trips a day
- Withdrawing school route in question by extending a daily route over it, a la 112/611
Admittedly simple
I thought it would be interesting to look into it, even though I've taken an unhealthy amount of time on and off the post but alas I've written some semblance along with interesting compilation of data available and put forth some ideas worth asking questions. Without doubt for most routes I have little input, as I have said I could largely only speak for the 690. A route in which I've repeated too many times would be good as a daily route but the same could be said for many others. The 697/698 trumped the corridor that now has 278 running daily on it, a stretch of road served only in small portions by U2.
Thanks for reading, hope you stay safe, and until the next one!
No comments:
Post a Comment