Year 2023

Better than 2022 I'd still say.

Postscript: Noice.

Note: Usage of any photos on this blog isn't permitted where no name is present (meaning it's mine, ©Unorm), or an All Rights Reserved symbol © is present. If you desire to use a photo, you must contact the original author. In my case, you should contact my Flickr. 

Whereby a name is stated and no © is present, the photo is Some Rights Reserved and may be used in accordance to the license. 

______________________________________________________________________________

Past mistakes reversed

Spot the differences! (at least 4)
Do view the history of 223 on londonbuses.co.uk

I always wanted a post like this, going back in history and detailing every change that was reversed indirectly.

Then the Hillingdon consultation came about, as you can figure out above image.

This threw a minor spanner in the works as we have two almost literal reversals now, the N35 number coming back in 2024 as it returns to Old Street (perhaps Tottenham Court Road is a stretch now)

Quick estimates I calculated

U3 PVR 11 -> 17

U2 PVR 9 -> 11

U1 PVR 8 -> 0 withdrawn

Cost neutral basically

Reception among the knowledgeable locale is that U2's extension via Cowley to West Drayton is weak, with Cowley adequately served by 222 without needing help per se.

The U3 returning to Ruislip with a frequency increase is welcome (every 12 M-Sat 20 Sun/eve currently - every 10 M-Sat 12 Sun/eve proposed), though no mention of double deckers which is a little sad in this climate of routes converting recently, not to mention U3 is already allocated one on-paper in addition to temporary double decks to cover for 251 using diesels in the meantime.

   The section from Ruislip goes from a bus every 15 mins Mon-Sat and 30 mins Sun/eve into a massive uplift from U3's new frequency. True bonus.

To think 223(U3 predecessor) was every 20-22 on Mon-Fri peak hours and every 30 off-peak Mon-Fri. Overlaps on Saturday between Uxbridge and West Drayton giving the overlap an every 17-18 frequency whilst the outer ends had a bus every 34-35 minutes.

Another sad aspect is U3 not serving Uxbridge Station. Making travel more convenient should be done, rather than making it less convenient. That includes the mention of 13 minutes walk time to get to Brunel Uni as a result of U2's reroute. Also roads no longer being served by E7 by Ruislip. But hey, U2 no longer has off-peak only via Grosvenor Crescent, will serve from first bus to last bus every day.

Little blurb for Orpington scheme I won't make a full post about

B14 PVR (rerouted over R6 instead of via R11) +1 

R1 PVR (reroute via R2 to Biggin Hill) +3

R3 PVR (takes R1's Green St Green section) +2

R2 PVR -3 withdrawn

R6 PVR -2 withdrawn

estimate Orpington routes total PVR: Neutral?

The reception of the Orpington scheme is more than mellow, the Biggin Hill section receiving an increase in capacity by frequency (from every 30 to 20). Meanwhile B14 is still sadly indirect and be more indirect as the only link from Bexleyheath to Orpington.

   If anything R7 has taught us, or God forbid like P13 to Surrey Quays, a long low-frequency route, could cause problems for reliability. No one foresaw it with R7 but I'll have my tinfoil hat on.

Lest not forget R2 was a cross-Orpington route, and now with R2's death the R1 to Biggin Hill will again be a cross-Orpington route.

So 2023 TfL mergers maybe working...

With that, let's get cracking on more past mistakes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excess Journey Times

Performance graph

We know about Excess Wait Times

EWT = Actual Wait Time - Scheduled Wait Time

   e.g route 3 for an hour at 1600pm:

        wait 8 mins, then 12 mins, then 14, then 8, then 11, then 10, then 12 = 75 mins total

                8*4 + 12*6 + 14*7 + 8*4 + 11*5.5 + 10*5 + 12*6 = 416.5

                416.5 / 75 = 5.55

        AWT = 5.55

        SWT (half frequency of route [route 3 is every 10]) = 5 mins

        AWT - SWT =  0.5 mins = EWT

Here's an article for more detail.

The function of Excess Wait Times is simple: Make wait times consistent. 

In theory this should be fine for passengers. No one likes waiting longer than they should.

Though in reality, it's ended up becoming so important that the essence of a reasonable bus journey was sacrificed, for profits. Profitability is important in a capitalist society, but above all else, losing money is something even more important to avoid.

That's the oversimplification of matters, a lot of bus routes aren't profitable after all (think of all the small single deck routes).

When two buses are sharing the same headway (i.e bunched), it's calculated as one bus in the system. As a result, you have lost mileage for that duration.

By performing better than the minimum standard, the operator is given bonuses.

By performing worse than the standard, lose mileage - the operator is fined for it.

Regulation, which is helpful to keeping EWT to standard. You're not the customer, the company is the customer, and they deliver.

As of 2023 a lot of routes had running time reductions by reducing the Peak Vehicle Requirement by one bus, fine and dandy to wait less - if your bus isn't less reliable as a result. Thus waiting longer ironically. Back to square one.

Therefore, Excess Journey Time

my idea is to add a version of EWT but in journey time form. With the intention of making EWT/EJT one whole umbrella math mess, as opposed to two systems to be mindful of being fined/bonuses for.

Saturday services on weekday holidays, possible?

Can save around £65,700 every summer holiday (i.e every year)
Is it worth it? Is it doable? It gives 3 buses a holiday at least.
Better to trade rather than all-weekday cuts to service

As you probably know, there are school-holiday Monday-Friday timetables on select bus routes. Any schedule is hard to conjure up even with the aid of Excel on our computers, still taking time from someone's hours a company would pay for just for minor adjustments in the perspective of the timetable.

Minor adjustments in the perspective of the timetable: Major adjustments in travel time London-wide.

We should also already know travel speed in London is astonishingly low, among the lowest in it's capital city peers in Europe

Therefore, is it possible to make routes use Saturday timetables on holidays, if not, why?

If it were possible to split a day schedule into segments, perhaps that'd be easiest...

Or do a 241, 5 bph on M-F shopping hours but 6 bph M-F peaks and Saturday

Route Test fleet (Single Decks upgradeable v2)

I say this thinking about how routes 42 170 and 201 all had MECs tested by Go-Ahead as Red Arrow routes 507 and 521 were converting to electric Enviro200 EVs.
The 42 passed. The 170 passed. The 201 failed (due to Roupell Road), 646/648 failed for somewhere.

Stagecoach tried with 314 using Citaros freed from 227, the test failed by Elmstead Woods as the roads curve narrowly. Instead the Citaros got sold to Cyprus where a rival operator arsoned them. Bad end to great machines.

(Stagecoach should've tried with P4 too)

Another failed attempt includes Metroline with double deck TAs and route 251. Failed due to Totteridge area.

Since the previous 70-capacity 201 test failure, Lambeth council installed Low Traffic Neighbourhood, and didn't remove it like some other boroughs wisely did, in spite of increased traffic on main roads which hasn't dissipated to thin air as some would've liked. This made me think, following 201's tender announcement keeping it's YY64-reg Enviro200s I adore.

The 201 can realistically use 12m buses now.

Why?

Only buses are allowed to turn into Roupell Road [from A205]

I am under the belief a sizeable amount of single deck routes that use 10.8m vehicles can use 12m sized vehicles. The 108 has proved it, the 360 has proved it, the 444 has proved it. The 203 and H37 were 10.8m single deck routes until 2011-12.

The purpose of this is manyfold

- Reduce the amount of times TfL and operators need to verify a route test, making this one-party

- Insure the highest size vehicle can be used on buses, ensuring maximum capacity achieved

- Eliminate discrepancies

Just recently, new routes SL1 and SL2 were tested using an LT.

Just recently, the 289 was awarded as a double deck route (currently single deck), just like happened to 80 - making Sutton (A) almost fully electric, Thornton Heath (TH) will also be fully electric.

Realising it deeper as I publish this post
Electric range is more important but can't quantify it myself
Speadsheet: Single Decks upgradable (updated for 2023!)

M25 median railway

Why would one build a railway in the middle of a motorway? It's cheaper!

Why would you avoid grade-separating railways, either through tunnelling ground or having them elevated? In short: cost (acquiring land and compensating owners, etc)

Where the Elizabeth Line's construction costs surpassed $25 billion tunnelling through central London, there is only lane widening to consider for motorways (unless already had a convenient median).

A little while ago in Canada Montreal's newest metro on the block: REM automated light rail system along the freeway.

I increased my budget with my own animated GIF

It's not uncommon in America too, usually in cases the freeway came after the railway. 

Or see Roosevelt Boulevard, it already a median built into it in preparation for a subway that is 20-years in bickering over finances.

   If it's not obvious, America had the most railway track in any country in the 19th-20th centuries, well, I didn't try as it's not the main topic but alas, some things confined to the past.

So you have Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia but to name a few that have this... quirk of the transport world.

My budget ran out
Yes that is a bus station you see above the Joondalup line station

In Berlin the autobahn (highway in English) was built 50 years after the Ringbahn (S-bahn/U-bahn trains that form a ring in the city).

Osaka in Japan also has some section of this description, albeit 4-lane for cars rather than the monstrosities you see in America.

Perth also has a 10-lane freeway with a bus lane on the outsides, and a railway in the middle. They're gonna extend the line, costing only $441 million AUD projected as of writing.

There's an entire Wikipedia sub-page for this.

The consensus is highway median railways like these are bad, after all in those stations on the motorway - you're blasted with the sound of tyre friction that surpass 90 dB (think of being in a concert level of loudness), whilst every waking second feels longer than it actually is, as your perception is slightly warped by how uncomfortable it is to be there, even with some level of sound proofing.

Then, catchment.

Where are you placing stations to appeal to people that won't drive their car? A decent amount of catchment area is taken by the motorway itself. Therefore the areas the stations are in should be a destination despite these shortcomings, to be considered usable.

So I had a thought, is this doable with our M25?

Highway median railways, what could possibly go wrong!

Streatham High Road (and Norwood Road): 1912 to 2022

pre-Victoria Line
PDF link

A post in the making since 2021, sat on the project a few times. Took a total of many weeks of completely researching and putting into a cohesive script to then make the good eye-catchy maps of artwork. Enjoy, stay safe and well.

ULEZ done better

A Conservative initiative during the time Boris was Mayor, though since then Labour's Khan has been the face of it's execution on three occasions (in central 2019; inside North/South Circular Roads 2021; now London-wide 2023).

Now that the court ruling has meant Khan can push through with ULEZ, (and as of publishing this post, ULEZ a few days from enacting), let's review the gist of the process.


Minimum Euro4 petrol cars are allowed in ULEZ, 

Euro3 for motorbikes and the like.

Diesels however: Euro6.

So, not many would have to replace their personal vehicles as much as people have blown it out of proportion (clickbaits, misconceptions, God forbid any nefarious reasons), unless they're unfortunate to have gotten diesel. My condolences to van/minibus drivers minding their business.

Some would say only we would do this type of slap-on-the-wrist on road users, Congestion Charge and now Ultra Low Emission Zone.

What others do however would be more drastic. Roads banned to cars inside cities anyone? Bans on cars on certain days of the week based on your registration number?

What about Carbon Tax? Canada & Trudeau to London & Khan. Both upset people and hit middle-income people. 

All in all if you fail you have to pay £12.50 a day, contrast that with Congestion Charge which is currently a £15 daily fee... which itself was also a sticking point in the early mayoral career of Ken Livingstone at the turn of the century.

Though back when Congestion Charge was being brought in, three benefits were brought in directly visible by road users of all types.

Of course, we know it's not really to tackle pollution, but to have an extra income stream. Not really tackling traffic either. No extra transport links being done by the date of 29 August (even if some bus consultations were touting their addressing of ULEZ, likewise Superloop).

Now we not only have a £110 million scrappage scheme for Londoners, but some boroughs adding a £1000 grant per vehicle to those without good public transport.

For those without good public transport.

There's the issue.

Bus lanes 

Speeding up buses by a decent margin, with around 9% growth attributed to it

New bus routes 

(148 205 360 388, as well as splits like 363[63], 390[10], 430[74], 432[2], 436[36], 453[53] 460?[260] etcetera)

Tramlink 

though a few years in the making, it did reduce congestion in Croydon dramatically, allowing not just a reduction of car traffic but also an efficient upgrade from powerhouse bus route 130 - into trams. Also utilising a half-hourly railway between Wimbledon and Croydon into a frequent service.

You can support me by donating to me, buying from my store, or perhaps order from my Fiverr!

Super(not)Loops & the new Superloops

As you may have heard, or even seen the TV ad/YouTube video, the 607 (White City to Uxbridge), a number used for the past 30 years (as well as between 1939 and 1961 for Trolleybus 607) has ceased to exist.

It is now SL8, with no changes at all currently (besides stop renamings). Come 29 August it will have earlier and later journeys added. Why they couldn't have done both simultaneously and score a little more brownie points is beyond my armchair comprehension.

The X26 will join also in August with a frequency increase from every 30 to every 15, christened the number SL7.

   Buses start and finish at West Croydon Bus Station instead of Delta Point.

   East Croydon, Wallington Green and Teddington (northbound) stops to have new shelters.

   New Malden The Fountain stop renamed New Malden Fountain Roundabout.

   An extra last bus out of Heathrow.

   1 journey starts at Wallington Green to Heathrow

   (4 weekday, 2 Saturday, 1 Sunday) journeys starting from New Malden to Heathrow

The X68 will change earlier, next week 29 July. No changes at all (Disappointed as a local).

  Addendum edit: It's buses (EH213/214/215-224) to receive USB charging.

   Branding a little tacky with the advert frame still in situ, which can't be used as a revenue stream.

   ^ in addition to above, buses can't be used on other routes - another revenue stream gone (e.g Rail Replacement).

Best of all: 

- no route number (when it was 607, maybe will receive it as SL8)

- it's branding omits Acton and Southall, larger towns than Hayes is.

- Don't mention it's frequency (yet Hayes and Barkingside brandings did).

- Superloop mentioned in large twice (in text and the roundel)

- "express bus service" capitalised but relatively small underneath the large Superloop text

- Why have an asterisk "at the tailpipe" as if combustion vehicles spout emissions elsewhere

The idea of orbital bus routes isn't new, if you read the Superloop wikipedia article, but in short, the last time they flirted with the idea, the X26 went from hourly to half-hourly and Boris Johnson halted plans for new routes as apparently he was told there was no need. We know the kind of man he is, who also stopped plans of a new crossing from Thamesmead to Beckton on the grounds of cost.

Map link.

Now we have new routes, the X123, X269 and X119 respectively.

SL2 consultation, SL3 consultation, SL5 consultation.

Every 12 M-Sat, every 15 Sunday/evenings
for all three routes (and SL1/X34, SL10/X183, SL9/X140)

You can support me by donating to me, buying from my store, or perhaps order from my Fiverr!

Walthamstow12, Wanstead13, Woodford14

In short the 549 is to be withdrawn... or is it? Cue the V-sauce music.

I'll lay my opinion first before delving on to stuff, it is a mixed bag, as many in the enthusiast space have also said to varying degrees. Some users of the current W12 benefit whilst some users of W12 get the back hand treatment. In the end, the current 549 userbase also gets a benefit by going back to a frequency they once had.

The only no-strings-attached improvement is W13's weekend and evening frequency enhancements.

You can support me by donating to me, buying from my store, or perhaps order from my Fiverr!

Red Arrow replacements

Red Arrow: April 1966 - April 2023.

As you'd have known, the last two died on 29 April 2023; routes 507 and 521.

Red Arrow, an experiment; flat fare limited stop feeder services; that started in the 1960s with only route 500 (Victoria - Marble Arch - Oxford Circus [off-peak]).

With it's success, more services sprawled from 1968. Routes had frequencies of every 2-3 minutes during the peaks, though were mostly quiet during the off-peak, effectively wasted resources. 

Attempts tried in the 1980s to address this problem, by giving routes weekend services and the like, to some success one could optimistically say (looking at 507).

   Which partly explains how most died off before the end of the 20th century, with only three surviving in the 21st.

As the British economy changed, some workplaces moving elsewhere, we found ourselves in the mid 90s with only the 501 505 507 521.

The 507 and 521 were still very strong, right until 2020.

Covid.

More now than ever, a complete change of balance with working. Work from home is commonplace, though not an end-all-be-all. It has heavily impacted many. For our relevance, this resulted in heavy drops in frequency on our remaining 507 and 521.

All in all:

Routes 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 513 521 existed.

Now: none.

Their sections live on under daily routes.

Who killed them...?

You can support me by donating to me, buying from my store, or perhaps order from my Fiverr!

Unormtrepeneur

Firstly, Eid Mubarak, to Muslims brothers and sisters.

On to my main point, 

You may have noticed slight changes on the blog.

Additions of a link to donate and a link to a shop. 

Fiverr gig link too!

I have refrained from doing these out of pride, though as I've gotten sick a few times of the past few years, in addition with the Cost of Living Crisis those of us in Great Britain are going through, I've dropped my pride.

Even knowing that yes, with Cost of Living Crisis means there is less income to spend on non-necessities, I've still decided that if you could support me financially to reduce my burdens, it would be genuinely appreciated.

You don't have to donate, you don't have to buy from my shop.

I will continue to write sporadically, even reading them is support. Until the next one, peace upon you, stay safe!

ULEZ bus consultations

A face of things to come...

Includes four new consultations, touted as the solution to the increased regulation Ultra Low Emission Zone brings for your average Joe and Jenny car and van user who rely on them to get around London, since their areas have poor or no transport, in and around or across London borders.

- 315 extension to Springfield Hospital

- 79 extension to Stonebridge Park

- Brent Cross West

- 346 347 497 restructure

- Wembley Park

I'll write my overall thoughts now. It is disappointing.

With Congestion Charge in the early 2000s, you had many new bus routes (think 148 205 360 RV1) as well as splits of day routes (2 into 2/432, 36 into 36/436, etcetera) to increase capacity in the network.

In this round of four consultations, bearing in mind the early 2000-2005 era saw plethora of improvements, there's 2 semi-long extensions and 2 short extensions, with 2 routes withdrawn. Yes, routes are withdrawn.

Whilst not part of the Congestion Charge changes, cross-border London travel saw improvements, mainly as routes 405 and 498 saw the potential of withdrawal if TfL didn't step in to protect the London sections of those routes, which meant serving the counties. Same couldn't be said for the many lost cross-London routes such as 310 in Enfield and 402 in Bromley, with many more lost. The 505 lost from Chingford due to Low Emission Zone.

So without further ado, my first impressions on each consultation.

Lack of upload

Lately I've been sick so I haven't written anything for a February upload. I have stuff in the works but still in the Work in Progress stage. I've also had a waning interest in the enthusiast space, though lately there's been new tenders and developments to spice up my nearly nonexistent drive for writing bus content.

So I guess for now, February and March, perhaps even April, will be lull moments for this blog in the short term.

I apologise to you and myself, as I usually was enthusiastic writing posts at least monthly. I usually averaged 11-12 posts a year, with 2022 being my peak with 16 posts published.

Until the next one stay safe, and bless you.

Mulltiple routes - one contract

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