London Buses (not a debate) (2 Viewers)

Would it be a good idea for TFL to let buses be ran by one massive operator?


  • Total voters
    67

thegamer7893

Well-Known Member
419
280
Do you guys think that London's buses should stay how they are atm or should we adapt a Birmingham style network where there is one massive main operator in charge along with smaller companies.

This is NOT a debate! If this does turn into a debate, this thread WILL be locked
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

North London Buses

Bus Enthusiast based in North London.
296
179
No debate this time, just opinions. Do you think that London's buses should stay how they are atm or should we adapt a Birmingham style network where one massive operator is in charge.
That just removes the fun in london buses.I may be wrong but I bet if they did that they would standardise the whole fleet with either MMCs or Electric MMCs and a few routes get gemini 3s and any bus before 2013 gets withdrawn.The fun in different companies is that they can run unique fleets and theres different moquettes and all sorts compared to just one moquette,maybe 3 types of bus type (not including the routemaster) and it would just make london buses dull
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reeceplaster

thegamer7893

Well-Known Member
419
280
Birmingham doesn’t have a single operator, there’s still multiple operators there. Albeit one is much larger in size compared to the others there, there’s still multiple.

I actually forgot about the smaller operators (and Arriva and First). But I was talking about the main parts of the network

That just removes the fun in london buses.I may be wrong but I bet if they did that they would standardise the whole fleet with either MMCs or Electric MMCs and a few routes get gemini 3s and any bus before 2013 gets withdrawn.The fun in different companies is that they can run unique fleets and theres different moquettes and all sorts compared to just one moquette,maybe 3 types of bus type (not including the routemaster) and it would just make london buses dull

I would keep the buses which are Euro 6 compliant no matter what year they were built and withdraw the ones which aren't Euro 6 compliant. Also in Birmingham, buses from 2001/02 are still running even in the City Centre
 
Last edited:

Hullian111

EYMS Buses Really Mean Business
689
728
That just removes the fun in london buses.I may be wrong but I bet if they did that they would standardise the whole fleet with either MMCs or Electric MMCs and a few routes get gemini 3s and any bus before 2013 gets withdrawn.The fun in different companies is that they can run unique fleets and theres different moquettes and all sorts compared to just one moquette,maybe 3 types of bus type (not including the routemaster) and it would just make london buses dull
Commuters don't care about whether buses are 'fun' or not. They care about whether it gets them from point A to point B on time. Bus companies are, and I cannot stress this enough, not made for 'the veg' to enjoy.

A 'Birmingham-style' network is what London likely already has in Transport for London. Though it has not fully developed just yet, Transport for the West Midlands works with NXWM and Diamond to, for example, operate bus services jointly in a standard TfWM livery, and I'm sure that given the power, they'll start franchising individual bus routes out to different operators. Isn't that basically what TfL's job is? And Transport for Cornwall's and what Stagecoach has proposed for Transport for Greater Manchester?

Now to the question of running London's buses network under one operator with no corporate middleman such as, say, Stagecoach, Arriva or Tower Transit. Lothian proves that it can be done, but Lothian generally covers a city and countryside of over half a million people. Nearly nine million people live in Greater London's 32 boroughs (and The City). The Wikipedia article states that TfL have a budget of over £10 billion - and how much does that go into London Buses? Even with TfL nearly being bankrupt as a result of the pandemic, the finance of running every single bus route in London as it was before London Transport was torn apart on deregulation would certainly be in the high millions, if not the billions. And this doesn't even take into account the logistics of such an operation.

I don't think something council-owned like Lothian Buses could work in the GLA today. There would just be too much to operate, and therefore, too much to spend on. If the NRM project failed because the conductors proved too expensive to keep on board, then I can only imagine the problems TfL would have with keeping, say, West Ham, Stockwell and Sutton garages afloat under its full ownership with their own vehicles and drivers while also trying to operate the Underground with its own vehicles and drivers to its fullest extent. I'm no expert in the industry, but it's just not as simple as it was before 1986. And TfL would almost certainly have collapsed if they were running all of London's buses in the middle of a pandemic with all their own vehicles.
 

thegamer7893

Well-Known Member
419
280
Commuters don't care about whether buses are 'fun' or not. They care about whether it gets them from point A to point B on time. Bus companies are, and I cannot stress this enough, not made for 'the veg' to enjoy.

A 'Birmingham-style' network is what London likely already has in Transport for London. Though it has not fully developed just yet, Transport for the West Midlands works with NXWM and Diamond to, for example, operate bus services jointly in a standard TfWM livery, and I'm sure that given the power, they'll start franchising individual bus routes out to different operators. Isn't that basically what TfL's job is? And Transport for Cornwall's and what Stagecoach has proposed for Transport for Greater Manchester?

Now to the question of running London's buses network under one operator with no corporate middleman such as, say, Stagecoach, Arriva or Tower Transit. Lothian proves that it can be done, but Lothian generally covers a city and countryside of over half a million people. Nearly nine million people live in Greater London's 32 boroughs (and The City). The Wikipedia article states that TfL have a budget of over £10 billion - and how much does that go into London Buses? Even with TfL nearly being bankrupt as a result of the pandemic, the finance of running every single bus route in London as it was before London Transport was torn apart on deregulation would certainly be in the high millions, if not the billions. And this doesn't even take into account the logistics of such an operation.

I don't think something council-owned like Lothian Buses could work in the GLA today. There would just be too much to operate, and therefore, too much to spend on. If the NRM project failed because the conductors proved too expensive to keep on board, then I can only imagine the problems TfL would have with keeping, say, West Ham, Stockwell and Sutton garages afloat under its full ownership with their own vehicles and drivers while also trying to operate the Underground with its own vehicles and drivers to its fullest extent. I'm no expert in the industry, but it's just not as simple as it was before 1986. And TfL would almost certainly have collapsed if they were running all of London's buses in the middle of a pandemic with all their own vehicles.

This, I 100% agree with. As much as many people (me included) are interested in this topic are bus vegs, the non-bus vegs/commuters couldn't care less about what operator is operating their buses as long as they can get from A to B.

However the bid different between TFWM and TFL is that most bus services in Birmingham (and the surrounding towns) are ran by NXWM with a few services ran by smaller companies with even a few services operated by Arriva and First from Tamworth and Worcester respectively running along NXWM dominated corridors (i.e. the route 110 runs on the Sutton Lines corridor between the City Centre and Sutton Coldfield (via the Expressway) and the 144 runs on another NXWM dominated corridor towards the south of Birmingham to/from Worcester)
 
Last edited:

Stagecoachdriver

Active Member
48
57
London buses should simply be ran by TfL, not subleased to companies such as Stagecoach or Arriva. All public transport in the UK should be fully nationalised, subsidised by the tax payer and ran by the government on a not-for-profit basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegamer7893

LT586

Living in the editor
1,105
1,262
Having worked for various London Bus garages all I can say is this. The problem with TfL is that it’s not run by the people who knew what they were doing. The mayor calls the shots and when a contract is drawn up; an operator has 5 years to prove itself on a particular route. The business model is very good, as there’s a lot that is based around passenger feedback, they call it complaints but the general public have been complaining for years in London.

Operators are stretched, where I live which is close to E garage, has lost a lot of work lately, just because of performance; not their fault but TfL only see the data from iBus and make their decision, they don’t investigate thoroughly, they put garages under pressure with spot check style audits like what the police do, and this pressure isn’t helping controller or driver. Recent win of the 191 is because GAL gave up trying to run it with Enfield’s constant roadworks.

TfL is not the same entity it was before 2000 when it was London Transport. It’s trying to appease everyone and it’s not working; councils are doing what they like and making it difficult for the passengers; especially Enfield. Enfield has wasted the tax payers money on 6foot wide cycle lanes making the road smaller therefore harder for buses to get between top of Turkey Street down to Tottenham. 279 had help, 149 and 259, they cut them back to Edmonton Green due to traffic congestion.

Before Uber, buses ran a lot better; now they’re fighting with tons of private hire firms, Ola, Pipt and many others.

Sorry for those who aren’t local residents but these councils in London are making the tiny roads in London even smaller, Sadiq Khan isn’t helping, as he made the buses free during Lockdown, rear door boarding. TfL lost millions. Operators have the money, but TfL is a public body.

Simply they didn’t think it through, the reason for iBus is because TfL lost a hefty sum when the subsidiaries went fully private, and the reports from garages were so bad they decided to implement a monitoring system which gives the team of 4 that monitor all 800 or so of London’s bus routes. It’s a real mess, compared to the provinces
 

thegamer7893

Well-Known Member
419
280
Having worked for various London Bus garages all I can say is this. The problem with TfL is that it’s not run by the people who knew what they were doing. The mayor calls the shots and when a contract is drawn up; an operator has 5 years to prove itself on a particular route. The business model is very good, as there’s a lot that is based around passenger feedback, they call it complaints but the general public have been complaining for years in London.

Operators are stretched, where I live which is close to E garage, has lost a lot of work lately, just because of performance; not their fault but TfL only see the data from iBus and make their decision, they don’t investigate thoroughly, they put garages under pressure with spot check style audits like what the police do, and this pressure isn’t helping controller or driver. Recent win of the 191 is because GAL gave up trying to run it with Enfield’s constant roadworks.

TfL is not the same entity it was before 2000 when it was London Transport. It’s trying to appease everyone and it’s not working; councils are doing what they like and making it difficult for the passengers; especially Enfield. Enfield has wasted the tax payers money on 6foot wide cycle lanes making the road smaller therefore harder for buses to get between top of Turkey Street down to Tottenham. 279 had help, 149 and 259, they cut them back to Edmonton Green due to traffic congestion.

Before Uber, buses ran a lot better; now they’re fighting with tons of private hire firms, Ola, Pipt and many others.

Sorry for those who aren’t local residents but these councils in London are making the tiny roads in London even smaller, Sadiq Khan isn’t helping, as he made the buses free during Lockdown, rear door boarding. TfL lost millions. Operators have the money, but TfL is a public body.

Simply they didn’t think it through, the reason for iBus is because TfL lost a hefty sum when the subsidiaries went fully private.

Another thing also is that they are CONSTANTLY withdrawing routes and rerouting them as well.

For example - the route 48 which ran between Walthamstow and London Bridge was withdrawn and was only replaced between Bakers Arms and Walthamstow by extending the 55 (which use to terminate at Bakers Arms) and haven't introduced a replacement route between Shoreditch and London Bridge with people instead now assumingly have to now get on either the 149, 35 or 47 to get to London Bridge.

I still cant understand the need to withdraw the 48 because it was a straight forward bus route for people who didn't want to use the train and it served Hackney, Shoreditch, Liverpool Street, Bank and London Bridge. Was this necessary or is there something that TFL know about which we don't know about?

The bus network in London is imo trash and the management team need to be sacked as it seams like they are not transport people and are more business people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LT586

Advertisement

LT586

Living in the editor
1,105
1,262
Another thing also is that they are CONSTANTLY withdrawing routes and rerouting them as well.

For example - the route 48 which ran between Walthamstow and London Bridge was withdrawn and was only replaced between Bakers Arms and Walthamstow by extending the 55 (which use to terminate at Bakers Arms) and haven't introduced a replacement route between Shoreditch and London Bridge with people instead now assumingly have to now get on either the 149, 35 or 47 to get to London Bridge.

I still cant understand the need to withdraw the 48 because it was a straight forward bus route for people who didn't want to use the train and it served Hackney, Shoreditch, Liverpool Street, Bank and London Bridge. Was this necessary or is there something that TFL know about which we don't know about?

The bus network in London is imo trash and the management team need to be sacked as it seams like they are not transport people and are more business people.

The problem with TfL is they don’t want to pay for the mileage, but yet it’s the case with the A1010 corridor, since the days of trams it’s been 279 (Tram 79, then 679 trolley now 279 bus), likewise with Tram 49, 649 then 149 then tram 59, 659, 259. Issue is is that one was cancelling out the other so they cut both 149/259 from above Edmonton to Herts and now its left to the 279.

There’s a constant change of buses same with the 83 / 483, apparently just because Metroline couldn’t work out the timetable between Alperton and Ealing. They try to shorten the duty, so now the 483 runs above Alperton to Harrow but makes no sense at all because the 83 never went to Harrow?!!

The 140 apparently couldn’t be dealt with properly for curtailments as it’s a straight route... And it used to loose most mileage down to traffic so out of the PVR, maybe a handful got to each end.

Scrap the bloody headway, and bring back timetables, Nottingham can do it, Lothian can do it and so can BVG in Berlin, a bus was late by 5 minutes but never turned short because of it, it’s just late but the stand time is to allow for these late stops...Problem with TfL is that they have this deluded expectation of 100% service in a city with a traffic light at each junction, and a PVR on the 29 of about 20 buses, the N29 has a bus every 2 minutes and every other night bus is 30mins intervals. N279 to be an example.

TfL need a reality check, they’re wanting a turn up and go service but when you miss 4 buses you’ve missed that window and now have to wait for the next scheduled EWT
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegamer7893

thegamer7893

Well-Known Member
419
280
The problem with TfL is they don’t want to pay for the mileage, but yet it’s the case with the A1010 corridor, since the days of trams it’s been 279 (Tram 79, then 679 trolley now 279 bus), likewise with Tram 49, 649 then 149 then tram 59, 659, 259. Issue is is that one was cancelling out the other so they cut both 149/259 from above Edmonton to Herts and now its left to the 279.

There’s a constant change of buses same with the 83 / 483, apparently just because Metroline couldn’t work out the timetable between Alperton and Ealing. They try to shorten the duty, so now the 483 runs above Alperton to Harrow but makes no sense at all because the 83 never went to Harrow?!!

The 140 apparently couldn’t be dealt with properly for curtailments as it’s a straight route... And it used to loose most mileage down to traffic so out of the PVR, maybe a handful got to each end.

Scrap the bloody headway, and bring back timetables, Nottingham can do it, Lothian can do it and so can BVG in Berlin, a bus was late by 5 minutes but never turned short because of it, it’s just late but the stand time is to allow for these late stops...Problem with TfL is that they have this deluded expectation of 100% service in a city with a traffic light at each junction, and a PVR on the 29 of about 20 buses, the N29 has a bus every 2 minutes and every other night bus is 30mins intervals. N279 to be an example.

TfL need a reality check, they’re wanting a turn up and go service but when you miss 4 buses you’ve missed that window and now have to wait for the next scheduled EWT

I don't understand why you haven't broken into TFL offices yet because you need to knock some sense into their heads

Also, I really can't see the logic in having a single deck bus on a double deck capable route. For example - the 313 (as shown through evidence) can be run by double deckers, BUT for some reason TFL decide to have it allocated to f---ing single deckers! Where is the logic TFL? Where is it?

I'd give it 15 years and TFL will be on its knees or even cease to exist
 

GalWhv69

Veteran Member
404
564
I don't understand why you haven't broken into TFL offices yet because you need to knock some sense into their heads

Also, I really can't see the logic in having a single deck bus on a double deck capable route. For example - the 313 (as shown through evidence) can be run by double deckers, BUT for some reason TFL decide to have it allocated to f---ing single deckers! Where is the logic TFL? Where is it?

I'd give it 15 years and TFL will be on its knees or even cease to exist
Down to cost, TfL would have to pay more for double decker contracts and they may find the saving is better to use single deckers rather than upgrading contract to double deckers (such as 355 being retained with new WS's). Sometimes it's also down to resident objections (such as route P4)
 
  • Confused
Reactions: thegamer7893

Kyle C

Forum Moderator
Accounts Moderator
247
215
If TfL let companies run how they wanted, then I guess things like ticket machines and iBus would be changed or removed entirely, so I am not sure how this would work - you have to bear in mind that this is very deeply incorporated with the whole Oyster system.

I don't think the average person would care who runs what, as long as they can get to their destination - I don't really know much else about TfL though since I don't live in London.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Transit UK980

thegamer7893

Well-Known Member
419
280
If TfL let companies run how they wanted, then I guess things like ticket machines and iBus would be changed or removed entirely, so I am not sure how this would work - you have to bear in mind that this is very deeply incorporated with the whole Oyster system.

I don't think the average person would care who runs what, as long as they can get to their destination - I don't really know much else about TfL though since I don't live in London.

I don't think that TFL would let operators do their own thing without imposing certain conditions. Even before iBus was a thing, buses had to be 80% red
 

LT586

Living in the editor
1,105
1,262
Down to cost, TfL would have to pay more for double decker contracts and they may find the saving is better to use single deckers rather than upgrading contract to double deckers (such as 355 being retained with new WS's). Sometimes it's also down to resident objections (such as route P4)

It’s not cost, it’s patronage - before Covid the 313 was a quiet route, the most passengers it would see is relatively small. It has two double deckers or one for the school run, but only because of social distancing since TfL made the 491 every never minute; it’s a double decker, now with an LT due to surplus buses made free from the frequency reduction on the 38/ 73. Central London is more private hire now or personal transport because the bus is so unreliable and the tube is always met with delays and is unsanitary.

The buses in the provinces have features we all would like in London, I move away soon to Nottingham so I am glad to be leaving. As London, isn’t the same place I grew up and the situation on the roads here is not getting better. Too many want a slice of the big smoke but the long term residents are fed up.

Compared to Berlin’s transport network TfL is miles behind, Oyster is not linked to iBus it’s it’s own system and that has changed contractors too, every facet of TfLs operation is sub contracted out. BVG is national likewise with DB, both have their shortfalls too but when I was waiting for a bus it was actually 10 minutes; drivers are friendly to some degree; easy to use and understand despite not having an oyster system, buses and trains are timetabled to meet up at intervals; Rathaus Spandau being one such meet. So a bus will either be 5 minutes early, hold at a point to allow for interchange.

TfL need to really shape it up a bit and get with the times it’s still old fashioned
 
  • Sad
Reactions: thegamer7893

Advertisement

thegamer7893

Well-Known Member
419
280
It’s not cost, it’s patronage - before Covid the 313 was a quiet route, the most passengers it would see is relatively small. It has two double deckers or one for the school run, but only because of social distancing since TfL made the 491 every never minute; it’s a double decker, now with an LT due to surplus buses made free from the frequency reduction on the 38/ 73. Central London is more private hire now or personal transport because the bus is so unreliable and the tube is always met with delays and is unsanitary.

The buses in the provinces have features we all would like in London, I move away soon to Nottingham so I am glad to be leaving. As London, isn’t the same place I grew up and the situation on the roads here is not getting better. Too many want a slice of the big smoke but the long term residents are fed up.

Compared to Berlin’s transport network TfL is miles behind, Oyster is not linked to iBus it’s it’s own system and that has changed contractors too, every facet of TfLs operation is sub contracted out. BVG is national likewise with DB, both have their shortfalls too but when I was waiting for a bus it was actually 10 minutes; drivers are friendly to some degree; easy to use and understand despite not having an oyster system, buses and trains are timetabled to meet up at intervals; Rathaus Spandau being one such meet. So a bus will either be 5 minutes early, hold at a point to allow for interchange.

TfL need to really shape it up a bit and get with the times it’s still old fashioned

Give it 15 years and hopefully I'll be the person who runs TFL

But seriously though, how can the management team at TFL be able to happily go to work every day knowing that they have a malfunctioning transport system which needs fixing

Its like they cant be bothered to do anything about it or certain people want to do something about it but they can't for whatever reason

Another thing as well, how the f**k are they letting private transport get so popular. The worse thing about them is that the cars used by the private transport companies are causing traffic in the centre of the city which leads to pollution. The simple fact is that ONE bus removes 100 cars off the road and imagine every bus being full.... That's 100+ cars off the road and less traffic and pollution all because of ONE bus....

TBH, I'd rather have inexperienced people who know about transport managing TFL as opposed to businessmen/women who are in it for the p (money)
 

Kyle

The lazy dog that no one saw
321
231
It’s not cost, it’s patronage - before Covid the 313 was a quiet route, the most passengers it would see is relatively small. It has two double deckers or one for the school run, but only because of social distancing since TfL made the 491 every never minute; it’s a double decker, now with an LT due to surplus buses made free from the frequency reduction on the 38/ 73. Central London is more private hire now or personal transport because the bus is so unreliable and the tube is always met with delays and is unsanitary.

The buses in the provinces have features we all would like in London, I move away soon to Nottingham so I am glad to be leaving. As London, isn’t the same place I grew up and the situation on the roads here is not getting better. Too many want a slice of the big smoke but the long term residents are fed up.

Compared to Berlin’s transport network TfL is miles behind, Oyster is not linked to iBus it’s it’s own system and that has changed contractors too, every facet of TfLs operation is sub contracted out. BVG is national likewise with DB, both have their shortfalls too but when I was waiting for a bus it was actually 10 minutes; drivers are friendly to some degree; easy to use and understand despite not having an oyster system, buses and trains are timetabled to meet up at intervals; Rathaus Spandau being one such meet. So a bus will either be 5 minutes early, hold at a point to allow for interchange.

TfL need to really shape it up a bit and get with the times it’s still old fashioned
I dont really know much about TFL, but how is it still old fashioned?
 

BKG93

BKG Studios
67
367
I don't think that TFL would let operators do their own thing without imposing certain conditions. Even before iBus was a thing, buses had to be 80% red
iBus and the red tolerance are just some of the strict conditions TfL impose. There's loads of conditions, and has been for a long time.

Commuters don't care about whether buses are 'fun' or not. They care about whether it gets them from point A to point B on time. Bus companies are, and I cannot stress this enough, not made for 'the veg' to enjoy.

A 'Birmingham-style' network is what London likely already has in Transport for London. Though it has not fully developed just yet, Transport for the West Midlands works with NXWM and Diamond to, for example, operate bus services jointly in a standard TfWM livery, and I'm sure that given the power, they'll start franchising individual bus routes out to different operators. Isn't that basically what TfL's job is? And Transport for Cornwall's and what Stagecoach has proposed for Transport for Greater Manchester?

Now to the question of running London's buses network under one operator with no corporate middleman such as, say, Stagecoach, Arriva or Tower Transit. Lothian proves that it can be done, but Lothian generally covers a city and countryside of over half a million people. Nearly nine million people live in Greater London's 32 boroughs (and The City). The Wikipedia article states that TfL have a budget of over £10 billion - and how much does that go into London Buses? Even with TfL nearly being bankrupt as a result of the pandemic, the finance of running every single bus route in London as it was before London Transport was torn apart on deregulation would certainly be in the high millions, if not the billions. And this doesn't even take into account the logistics of such an operation.

I don't think something council-owned like Lothian Buses could work in the GLA today. There would just be too much to operate, and therefore, too much to spend on. If the NRM project failed because the conductors proved too expensive to keep on board, then I can only imagine the problems TfL would have with keeping, say, West Ham, Stockwell and Sutton garages afloat under its full ownership with their own vehicles and drivers while also trying to operate the Underground with its own vehicles and drivers to its fullest extent. I'm no expert in the industry, but it's just not as simple as it was before 1986. And TfL would almost certainly have collapsed if they were running all of London's buses in the middle of a pandemic with all their own vehicles.
This is the key point for me is cost. London's fleet compared to the rest of the country is mostly made up of new, environmentally friendly buses. This is in part down to investments by each company. If Transport for London were to run the buses, they wouldn't have the money available to fund the amount of new buses London has, so we would most likely still see full diesel buses in Central London. Its a similar question to the "should trains be renationalised?" and the short answer is no, the investment private companies put into both the railways and buses in London cannot be matched by government departments. Added onto that the way TfLs finances have been managed in recent years, the financial strain at this moment in time would most certainly be too much.

Its also not just about London, as a lot of London's vehicles make their way to other divisions of their companies. It allows withdrawal of older vehicles in other parts of the country for newer (if only slightly) vehicles from London to take their place. How would a change in London affect this? Transport for London certainly wouldn't give buses away for free at the end of their London life so where would the incentive be to regionalise ex-London vehicles?

It’s not cost, it’s patronage - before Covid the 313 was a quiet route, the most passengers it would see is relatively small. It has two double deckers or one for the school run, but only because of social distancing since TfL made the 491 every never minute; it’s a double decker, now with an LT due to surplus buses made free from the frequency reduction on the 38/ 73. Central London is more private hire now or personal transport because the bus is so unreliable and the tube is always met with delays and is unsanitary.

The buses in the provinces have features we all would like in London, I move away soon to Nottingham so I am glad to be leaving. As London, isn’t the same place I grew up and the situation on the roads here is not getting better. Too many want a slice of the big smoke but the long term residents are fed up.

Compared to Berlin’s transport network TfL is miles behind, Oyster is not linked to iBus it’s it’s own system and that has changed contractors too, every facet of TfLs operation is sub contracted out. BVG is national likewise with DB, both have their shortfalls too but when I was waiting for a bus it was actually 10 minutes; drivers are friendly to some degree; easy to use and understand despite not having an oyster system, buses and trains are timetabled to meet up at intervals; Rathaus Spandau being one such meet. So a bus will either be 5 minutes early, hold at a point to allow for interchange.

TfL need to really shape it up a bit and get with the times it’s still old fashioned
I don't see how the two would need to be linked (Oyster and iBus), what is it that Berlin does?

Give it 15 years and hopefully I'll be the person who runs TFL

But seriously though, how can the management team at TFL be able to happily go to work every day knowing that they have a malfunctioning transport system which needs fixing

Its like they cant be bothered to do anything about it or certain people want to do something about it but they can't for whatever reason

Another thing as well, how the f**k are they letting private transport get so popular. The worse thing about them is that the cars used by the private transport companies are causing traffic in the centre of the city which leads to pollution. The simple fact is that ONE bus removes 100 cars off the road and imagine every bus being full.... That's 100+ cars off the road and less traffic and pollution all because of ONE bus....

TBH, I'd rather have inexperienced people who know about transport managing TFL as opposed to businessmen/women who are in it for the p (money)
I'd love to know how 1 bus removes 100+ cars off the road, when a DD at full capacity takes between 70-90 people and thats not including anyone who came with someone else, as well as the fact that not every bus is crammed full xD Although having 90 on a bus is a thing of the past at present.
 
Last edited:

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • K