On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:50:24 +0000, Joyce Whitchurch
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

As at 27/1/07 there were 7037 buses required to run the scheduled TfL
services on Mondays to Fridays when the schools are open. Note that this
figure does NOT include any spare buses that the operating companies own
to cover for repairs, damage, training or just to provide flexibility
for swapping buses over during the day. Typically there is a 13-15%
margin for spare buses so the 8,000 value is about spot on.

That would explain why I never see fewer than three vehicles standing
idle at TfL layover points. More, incidentally, than you're likely to
see simultaneously at Stalybridge bus station of an evening.

To be fair though the 13-15% are not out in service. They are to cover
for planned maintenance, fuel swapovers, repairs / crash damage etc.
Some small routes run with no allowance at all.

TfL routes do tend to have far more recovery / turnaround time than you
will see elsewhere in the UK. This results from a number of factors

a) Far worse congestion in Greater London than many places.
b) TfL requiring standard headways despite much extended running
times at the peak. Non of this moving from a bus every 30 minutes to one
every 42 minutes that you see in deregulated land.
c) the impact of quality incentive contracts that mean there is an
element of extra "padding" in the PVR to ensure a reliable service.
d) each route typically has its own standalone route allocation and
inter-working is very limited indeed. It only occurs with school
services and off peak "quiet" routes like the W10 in Enfield or the
389/399 in Barnet. This limits the risk of delays on one route knocking
on to another one - interworking still seems to be a prevalent practice
outside London and of course helps to reduce the overall fleet size.
e) Contractual penalties for non operation of journeys. While
private bus companies in theory have a direct hit on the bottom line
from non operation of journeys I wonder whether they really care if a
bus conks out and people have to wait. I suspect they don't care
because they don't have spare buses sitting around and they'd save on
the fuel costs which probably outweigh the cash revenue. In the longer
term unreliable operation obviously imperils the survival of the route
if people opt not to use it.

Personally I'd much rather have a properly resourced and reliable bus
service than the botched compromise that so many areas have because
private companies won't put in the resources. I also don't mind paying
for it via my taxes.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!