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.
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!) |
Discrepancies?
The 105 failed 10.7m SEL tests under Metroline, has seen 10.8m SPs under RATP
The 251 failed 10.9m DLE tests under RATP, is allocated 10.9m DELs under Metroline temporarily
It seems like if an operator deems it safe, TfL understands it as safe. Which should be odd considering multiple TfL staff are in a bus conducting official route tests, looking for nooks and crannies of any potential unsafe hazard.
I am trying to advocate larger sizes but, in saying the above, I might have shot my own foot as TfL are stricter as opposed to some operators, the way I understand it.
 |
| 49's issue preventing BCEs for some years |
Scenarios such as 49 224 324 taking years to change road furniture and/or double yellow lines, of which 324 isn't complete with the borough's infamous care of yellow paint on roads.
- The 151 where it very briefly enters Kingston Borough only at Worcester Park. The roads where a terminating 151 circles into it's stand is owned by the borough. The traffic light needs repositioning to allow safe operation of 10.9m E400EVs. It's taken pretty long now for it to reach resolution, with discussions between TfL, Kingston, the unions and of course Go-Ahead. As of this post being published, it is not yet resolved.
- The 170 low-bridge fiasco. Streetlites performed safely in-service under the bridges in Battersea, however the signs are measured lower than the real height of the 3.2m tall WSs. Upon a driver making notice, the 170 and 286 later swapped buses.
That's to say, if TfL took it upon themselves to test their routes independently of contractual-timing whilst minimising potential for vehicles needing to be swapped, among other things, would be beneficial for all parties theoretically and hopefully.
Pretty much instead of "let's do it later" I'm hinting to: "let's do it sooner and be done with it."
If TfL owned all the roads just like Greater London Council did, things would be smoother.
Having one less person to deal with who coincidentally would see 'minor' adjustments like this as low-priority. Which, for a borough dealing with all sorts of human related issues, metal boxes navigating tarmac is undeniably less valuable in their eyes.
Thanks Thatcher for devolving the GLC out of spite.
Maybe TfL owning the roads their routes run along isn't a hard ask.
 |
| Also also, you shouldn't have this out in the contracts anymore, for better or for worse |
Other cases of routes not capable of sizes but are capable now. The 19 failed an LT test. It has LTs now. The 17/45 failed an LT test, the 17 has LTs now.
Operators that retain single deck routes might increase sizes. The 300 and 376 went from 10.2m SEs to using 10.8m buses.
In rarer cases you have P5 which, allocated 9.7m buses, but kept seeing 10.8m electrics, wound up having new 10.7m electrics under a different operator. This is 201 with diesels back in 2014.
Another example, 184/W15 from 10.2m E200s to 10.8m E200EVs.
Likewise we have instances of routes using larger sizes multiple instances but not officially allocated them, some examples:
- 233/315/352/356 (allocated 8.9m, sees up to 10.8m)
- 95/152/487/499 (allocated 10.2m, sees Double Deckers)
- 163/164/316/355 (allocated 10.8m, sees Double Deckers)
- 318/322/367/464/E10/S4 (allocated 9.0m, seen 9.7m)
Then you have examples where routes downsized, obeying contract specification:
- 162/P13 (allocated 9.4m 1-door Darts, downsized to new 8.8m 1-door Darts)*
- 234 (allocated 10.2m Darts, downsized to 9.6m E200s)
- 350 (allocated Double Decks 2012-2017, downsized to new 10.9m single decks 2017-present)
- 352 (allocated 10.1m Darts, downsized to 8.8m Darts)
- 407 (allocated 10.7m ALX200s, downsized to new 10.2m E200s)
- 444 (allocated 12m hydrogens, downsized to new 10.8m electrics)
* Spec change by 2006 no longer allowed sizes above 9m to be single-door, explaining why they downgraded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So;
How can we do this? TfL to have their own buses? Lease the use of a bus from an operator?
Buy some secondhand (non-TfL spec)?
It's not strange for TfL to own buses. Early hybrids were TfL's buses. Think of EH1-5, ADH1-2, HDE1-5, HV1-6. These all bought by TfL and leased to operators. Same with early electric buses, EB1-2, EMC1-2 and OCE1-4. Again, TfL's buses. The likes of HV1-6 I believe were bought by Arriva as their own buses matching the rest of their HV fleet.
 |
| LT36 on 415 Earlier LTs used to be a lot more expensive than off-the-shelf hybrids |
The LTs are all owned by TfL too, all 1000 of them. Roughly £350K per bus, thanks to economy of scale. Initially was closer to £500K per bus when only 600 LTs were ordered. A deal made with Wright to procure more LTs in order to reduce the total cost, beneficial to both TfL's cost-saving and saving face from politics, whilst giving Wright definite work until the very last LT was built.
Vans as part of the Incident Response Unit, I believe, are TfL vehicles. So having a fleet dedicated to another part of bus operation isn't outlandish.
Therefore it is possible to go the route of TfL owning their own buses outright, one for each size.
Where would they be based?
Whilst TfL do have a base for Dial-a-Ride operations, it might be appropriate to use TfL's own depots. Think Fulwell (TF), think Ash Grove (AE), think about the many TfL do own across the operators.
Route 33 is allowed to stand inside Fulwell (TF) as a result of TfL owning the depot, otherwise Abellio most likely would not be keen on a different operator using the stand space inside the depot. Stagecoach have been keen with 171 as a result of a grandfather agreement that predates Go-Ahead's time in London.
Strikes, whilst they are rarer now, have happened in bus flavours and tube flavours. They'd serve as useful capacity in these events.
A stable side gig is: Rail Replacement
Operators do use their own spare buses to operate the rail replacement. In this case, the winning bid (for whatever contract, there's multiple in these cases) will be allowed to lease appropriate vehicles if needed.
This does mean one less bus to worry about, though at the moment it's drivers that the industry is lacking in.
Assuming route tests are done, what afterwards?
Keep them. Roads change layouts after all, whether by TfL or councils or both. New roads, etcetera.
Maybe use them to record route visuals, bus drivers make use of those looking up YouTube to learn, a sort of homework revision ahead of learning, or negating need to spend someone's time and bus to learn.
I already have a spreadsheet keeping track of Single Deck routes and their restrictions, as well as a separate spreadsheet keeping track of Hail & Ride sections.
I mention Hail & Ride as, for recent health and safety concerns, you would have it hard finding routes that have Hail & Ride increase in vehicle size. Perhaps the last being 384. Early converts in vehicle size are the likes of routes 364 and 366 which are very busy routes.
The likes of P13 lost it's Hail & Ride a long time ago (as early as 2001) but only received dual doors in 2015 after Abellio's loss of 100 (and Go-Ahead gave back the YX10-reg Enviro200s they leased as their own new E200s were late).
I alluded earlier in the post about 412/467 but I'd also like to allude to a possible improvement on the 164 and related routes.
Contractual allocation
For the likes of 412/467 they're allocated double deckers, full stop. Use single decks - you're fined.
For the likes of 164/286 they're allocated single deckers. Use double decks - nothing happens.
See the 357, it must operate with single decks as a result of the low-height clearance of Whipps Cross Hospital which it serves on Sundays, a bygone era where routes had extensions to hospitals but 357 survived those cuts, even surviving potential full withdrawal in 2020.
Therefore, for the sake of fuel efficiency (412/467), and the sake of extra capacity on the lower frequency on Sunday where they need it (164, Sutton [A] made sure their allocation was always double deck), a neat workaround could be implemented.
Something like:
412/467
Monday-Friday daytime - 87-capacity double deck mandatory
Evenings - 50-capacity single deck minimum
Saturday - 50-capacity single deck minimum
Sunday - 50-capacity single deck minimum
164/etc
Monday-Friday daytime - 60-capacity single deck (larger recommended)
Evenings - 60-capacity single deck minimum
Saturday - 60-capacity single deck minimum (larger recommended)
Sunday - 60-capacity single deck minimum (larger recommended)
Obviously change phrasing to make it sound more legal and lawyer-friendly.
Larger size vehicle used safely, a small bonus.
In an ideal world of course. Since it's easier to fine wrong decisions rather than use psychology and common sense to reward good decisions.
This means that if 412/467 are at depots where there is no single decks - no issue. We don't want to repeat 357 where it must have single decks potentially having it's own dedicated allocation if no other single deck routes exist in it's depot (until 357's restriction is lifted, as of typing, not yet). In addition, you don't get fined for it. See Dartford (DT) and Garston (GR)'s manias on their main routes, fined a lot yet TfL had to personally step in to have 160 173 229 and other routes stop seeing single deckers.
Likewise in 164's case, if it's at a depot where there is no double decks - no issue.
 |
| Obligatory data eye candy Speadsheet: Single Decks upgradable |
Now we're in the age of electric vehicles where electricity is absolutely cheaper than diesel. Therefore the efficiency of using single deckers on quieter hours as opposed to double deckers is even narrower than before. Sort of renders this argument useless. I intended to make a post on this before but failed to do so at a reasonable time, so at least I can sleep well not influencing bad decisions, maybe.
In addition, the advertised ranges of Single Decks and Double Decks is mostly similar.
So perhaps the issue isn't how much energy is lost, but rather, how quicker it is lost from the additional weight a packed Double Deck is compared to a packed Single Deck.
To find such routes, it'd be amazing to test them all. As it stands, not a walk in the park.
My final verdict: TfL being the owner of their routes, should conduct tests to maximise vehicle size. Or perhaps a little candy bonus for operators that safely use larger sizes.
A lot of things similar in this British bureaucracy that requires 20 back-and-forths rather than just getting on with it for the better of everyone.
Thanks for reading and stay safe until the next one!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As alluded to before, I did write up a post about using single decks on Double Deck routes during certain periods. Here is old post for my viewing, and to rid of it from my draft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Single Decking routes efficient for cutting fuel costs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple answer: Yes with asterisks and complications
Long answer: It's complicated. So you might as well continue reading instead of admiring the thumbnail above.
At time of writing I was actually inspired by DLE30013's stray on to the busy 183, a former single deck route convict.
As true of the past, many routes had single deck conversions, some with frequency increases (the Battersea-Clapham Junction corridor), some without. For the most part it's been a way to introduce low-floor vehicles to replace the step-floor buses. Problem. Low-floor double decks were taking a while to enter the market, as DAF and Optare build the DB250 Spectra from the ground up, Volvo modify the B7L to please the right-hand-drive market into the B7TL (the hybrid B5LH having the same layout as the B7L President prototype anyway), whilst Dennis and Alexander under the same owner also do the same as Volvo... modifying the Dennis Arrow into the Dennis Trident II.
Central routes, or routes that enter Zone 1, have been inflicted though the suburbs debatably had it worse. Putting aside the Battersea routes, the worst of them all were 28 and 31. With an overnight conversion from double decks at lower frequencies to minibuses with very high frequencies.
For context, 28's PVR then was 36, now it's 18 in spite of the reroute from Golders Green to Kensal Rise. From 1989 the PVR dwindled to just above what it is now, it had a small reduction in frequency upon reconversion to double deck.
As for the 31, it's requirement dwindled over the years to a mere 16, revitalised to 25, frequency boosted with Darts to 30 a year before 328's introduction. Just like 28, it doubled with a small freq cut.
It wasn't just passenger discomfort that brought problems to them, off the top of my head there was a documentary about this but to keep it short: The Mercedes vans bodied into bus format were designed for what vans do, which isn't constant running up and down with heavy humans jumping on and off for hours, daily, weekly, for years, quickly deteriorating the chassis from misuse. The problem of driver wages being different across vehicle types; minibus, single deck, double deck, if I'm correct. One more, capacity. That's self-explanatory.
So how about examples of routes that haven't reverted?
The 152, 163, 164, 195, E7,
For the city of red buses, double decks literally everywhere, well, almost everywhere as they can't please the likes of Dulwich Village and Elmstead Woods or fit under short bridges, Elmstead Wood capable of taking low-height double deckers which was something they were willing to do, Blackwall Tunnel's 108 or special tires on Rotherhithe's 82 to help avoid kerbs. So that is one explanation for the lower coverage in the past as opposed to now.
 |
| Guess which is 184 and which is 357 |
Our only route to contractually have both multiple single deckers and multiple double deckers allocated is 357. Whereas routes like 184/W13 have a single double deck allocated for one school journey in the morning and in the afternoon.
If for example with the 412.
As normal on Monday-Friday with 87-capacity dual door double deck.
Saturday and Sundays, (55 capacity, dual door, single deck vehicles are acceptable)
 |
| Using my spreadsheet where I advocated for double decks on single deck routes. |
The above is a clause to allow single decks on the 412 contractually.
Doesn't stop them doing it per se, as Dartford (DT) have abused their rights on many double deck routes some years ago. Though for the sake of matching capacity without reducing resources, this is a worthwhile move to take.
No reduction in frequency. Reduction in capacity. Though in reality 412s on off-peaks are virtually empty compared to the immense school traffic that it's had for decades.
Since I'm an advocate for converting to double deck as opposed to single, I'll pitch you the opposite.
164 on Sundays with double decks.
As normal on Monday-Saturday with 60-capacity dual door single deck.
Sundays with 87 capacity, dual door, double deck.
Other routes like 95 289 325 355 U1 and more will benefit.
The key here is, assuming the operator has a double deck fleet, to use spare buses on a Sunday for this route.
Since the example is 164, at Merton (AL) you have the 57 and 200 which both have electric double deckers, as for hybrids you have 44 and 280. Therefore it is of no extra cost. One downside from this trickery is the fact it guarantees no use of the buses they paid for. Six days out of seven used, sure 6/7 is a lot but you still have 1/7.
Another less costly issue is how you'd cater for the impossibility of spare double decks. For example, Uno gain a route which has a Sunday PVR of 8 or more. We had the above specified. There's a few double decks they lack outside of 643 and 692/699 (of which 692/699's BYDs have 3+2 seating for schoolkids so they're best exempt). Therefore, use of the single decks would have to be negotiated, (negotiations happen all the time) though outright including single decks as acceptable would open the pandora's box to having them legal, thus back to square one. Unless those are fined. I probably thought through too much.
In any case,
Even outside London you see double deck routes using single decks, obviously an issue on a high capacity route (imagine 142 with a single deck, thanks Garston [GR]).
You see double decks on single deck routes here, no fines because it is a larger size. For example, route 164.
Personally I'd have it encouraged for double decks to be used on routes like 164 or 355 which are contracted single decks.
On the other hand with routes that are definitely quiet, that capacity should be matched appropriately. You can fit people with size 14 shoes, but not all can walk well with them.
The benefits and downsides of complete standardisation.
We can never return to the 1950s with near standardisation of RTs (with some low-height RLHs and single deckers).
Though in the same vein it is costly upfront to have a near complete double deck fleet, though may be cheaper in the long run. Certainly better for passenger experience for everything to be higher capacity, with high frequencies where possible for best growth in numbers.
So for the short term, 357ising a few key routes whilst doing the opposite would do well.
--------------------------------------------------------
end of post
--------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment