East Thames Buses
 

While looking at the bus reliability stats (from the TfL website) for
low frequency bus routes, I noticed that there's no 2004 figure for
East Thames Buses. Are they still going? If not, when did they stop?

East Thames Buses
 

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:18:15 +0000, Roy Stilling
wrote:

They're still going strong if their buses on the 185 at Victoria are
anything to go by. I noticed that their legal ownership panel says
they're owned by London Buses Ltd so they may be listed under that
moniker. In any case, they remain the wholly-owned subsidiary of TfL
so perhaps that exempts them from the figures.

Interesting - I thought TfL/LBL weren't allowed to operate buses. How
did this come about?

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

East Thames Buses
 

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:27:40 GMT, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:18:15 +0000, Roy Stilling
wrote:

They're still going strong if their buses on the 185 at Victoria are
anything to go by. I noticed that their legal ownership panel says
they're owned by London Buses Ltd so they may be listed under that
moniker. In any case, they remain the wholly-owned subsidiary of TfL
so perhaps that exempts them from the figures.

Interesting - I thought TfL/LBL weren't allowed to operate buses. How
did this come about?

Didn't the company that ran the 185 route go bust a couple of years ago?

East Thames Buses
 

Roy Stilling wrote:

(Aidan Stanger) wrote:

While looking at the bus reliability stats (from the TfL website) for
low frequency bus routes, I noticed that there's no 2004 figure for
East Thames Buses. Are they still going? If not, when did they stop?

They're still going strong if their buses on the 185 at Victoria are
anything to go by. I noticed that their legal ownership panel says
they're owned by London Buses Ltd so they may be listed under that
moniker. In any case, they remain the wholly-owned subsidiary of TfL
so perhaps that exempts them from the figures.

No, the file I was looking at:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/about/pe...s/quarterly-fr
equency-percent-early.pdf
shows them as 70.6% on time in the June to September quarter of 2003,
but it gives no figure for the corresponding 2004 quarter.

Also absent for 2004 is the abysmal figure for TGM Dartford, as it has
been absorbed into the main TGM figure (as has TGM Middlesex). So are
the figures for Arriva London NE (absorbed into Arriva N London) and
National Express.

East Thames Buses
 

James Farrar wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

They're still going strong if their buses on the 185 at Victoria are
anything to go by. I noticed that their legal ownership panel says
they're owned by London Buses Ltd so they may be listed under that
moniker. In any case, they remain the wholly-owned subsidiary of TfL
so perhaps that exempts them from the figures.

Interesting - I thought TfL/LBL weren't allowed to operate buses. How
did this come about?

Harris Bus went bankrupt. London Transport (this was before TfL) took
over their London routes and vehicles.

Didn't the company that ran the 185 route go bust a couple of years ago?

Yes, that was Easylink. IIRC one of the directors embezzled most of
their funds shortly after they took the route over from Connex. This was
far more of a problem because Easylink did not own its buses.

East Thames Buses
 

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:27:40 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:18:15 +0000, Roy Stilling
wrote:

They're still going strong if their buses on the 185 at Victoria are
anything to go by. I noticed that their legal ownership panel says
they're owned by London Buses Ltd so they may be listed under that
moniker. In any case, they remain the wholly-owned subsidiary of TfL
so perhaps that exempts them from the figures.

Interesting - I thought TfL/LBL weren't allowed to operate buses. How
did this come about?


The GLA Act says that TfL's duty is to "provide or procure" bus
services.

Rob.

--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

East Thames Buses
 

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:52:48 +0000, Robert Woolley
wrote:

The GLA Act says that TfL's duty is to "provide or procure" bus
services.

So, why don't they just take the whole lot in house? Surely that
would be cheaper, even if some new depots did have to be built, as
it'd remove the profit layer.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

East Thames Buses
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:52:48 +0000, Robert Woolley
wrote:


The GLA Act says that TfL's duty is to "provide or procure" bus
services.


So, why don't they just take the whole lot in house? Surely that
would be cheaper, even if some new depots did have to be built, as
it'd remove the profit layer.

A much longer procurement time? The big companies can easily source new
or additional buses from big factory orders or their other UK operations.

Presumably it also helps to prevent rampant unionism taking control (see
LU).


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

East Thames Buses
 

Neil Williams wrote:
wrote:

The GLA Act says that TfL's duty is to "provide or procure" bus
services.

So, why don't they just take the whole lot in house? Surely that
would be cheaper, even if some new depots did have to be built, as
it'd remove the profit layer.

Well no, it wouldn't. Private enterprise is (in general, with many
exceptions) faster to innovate. By giving them the opportunity to run
London bus routes under contract, TfL can benefit from their innovation.

However this does not mean that TfL wouldn't be better off running more
of the services themselves - it's just that you shouldn't just assume
that they would.

Another point to keep in mind is that not all the winning bidders do
have a profit layer - non profit organizations are also eligible.

East Thames Buses
 

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Aidan Stanger wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

wrote:

The GLA Act says that TfL's duty is to "provide or procure" bus
services.

So, why don't they just take the whole lot in house? Surely that
would be cheaper, even if some new depots did have to be built, as
it'd remove the profit layer.

Well no, it wouldn't. Private enterprise is (in general, with many
exceptions) faster to innovate. By giving them the opportunity to run
London bus routes under contract, TfL can benefit from their innovation.

True. So, what innovations has private enterprise introduced to London's
buses?

Another point to keep in mind is that not all the winning bidders do
have a profit layer - non profit organizations are also eligible.

Also true. Which non-profit organisations operate bus franchises in
London, then?

tom

--
Science which is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced