TfL’s Central London Bus Review
Part Three: Routes 11, 12 & 24 can be saved (with a 13/82 solution)
5 June 2022
ABOVE: Route under threat… Abellio LT 161 (LTZ 1161) making an unscheduled turn from New Oxford Street, back onto line of route at Tottenham Court Road, on Saturday 4th June 2022. The diversion is presumably connected to the police evacuation, at around this time, of Trafalgar Square over a ‘suspect vehicle’. Normally the 24 would have come out of Charing Cross Road (behind me).
All pictures in this article taken on Saturday 4th June 2022.
All pictures in this article taken on Saturday 4th June 2022.
A few years ago, Transport for London (TfL) drew up a plan to withdraw route 13 (then Golders Green – Marble Arch – Aldwych) and divert passengers onto route 82 (North Finchley – Golders Green – Marble Arch – Victoria). The two routes had a long common section after all.
But people complained about the withdrawal of route 13, so it was ‘restructured’ – extended from Golders Green to North Finchley, and diverted at Marble Arch to run to Victoria instead of Aldwych. The 82 got the chop instead. And everyone was happy that the 13 had been ‘saved’!
The plans unveiled by Transport for London (TfL) under its “Central London Bus Review“, which went out for ‘consultation’ last week, will result in the loss of several more key – some would say iconic – routes. And maybe some of them can be saved with a similar application of smoke and mirrors to the 13 / 82 solution…
The whole consultation is very poorly presented and seems to have been rushed out before it was fully ready (see my earlier article). To make sense of what is being proposed, I first had to create my own list of changes by going through 15 separate consultation documents.
I do recognise that things have changed since the pandemic hit. However, buses were already declining in London long before 2020. Bus services in many parts of the country turn a profit; those in London, often carrying more passengers, require a huge subsidy. Something isn’t right.
The London Bus Network has, at best, been in a kind of managed decline for a few years; some might argue that the decline isn’t being especially managed. Road priority has been taken away from buses and given to cyclists.
Bus information is poor, and often incorrect or out-of-date, and can be hard to find in the first place. Buses are clearly well down TfL’s priority list. And that reflects in the consultation materials, which many Londoners will struggle to comprehend.
The good news is that most roads that are covered now seem to be covered after the changes. As I worked through the list I spotted how sections were being lopped off one route and added to another to replace a withdrawn section. I can see how the duplication of services down some corridors is being reduced.
So most journeys will still be possible, although many current through trips will subsequently require a change. The consultation goes big on the availability of Countdown signs at bus stops, and also emphasises that many bus stops have seats. So it could be a long wait for the connection, then? Especially if a ‘high-frequency’ route is only running every 12 minutes (for me, high-frequency is 10 buses per hour minimum).
The headline, of course, is the loss of those big trunk routes that have been around for ever. For example, route 11 is a Tour of London for £1.65. Route 24 has been exactly the same (barring the odd one-way scheme) for as long as virtually anyone alive can remember. I can remember regular struggles to get onto route 12’s crowded buses at Shepherds Bush Green in the 1970s. Are these, and other, iconic routes really the ones that we want to let go?
One thing that jumps out when working through the changes is that no terminal space will be wasted. It’s easy to see how, where one route is cut, another one is being moved to take over its stand space. I can imagine the planners at work discussing this.
So route 77 takes over the 211 stand at Waterloo, route 88 takes the old 24 stand at Hampstead Heath, whilst its vacated Parliament Hill Fields stand goes to the 205, etc. Availability of stand space has clearly been a factor in deciding what goes where. I hope the tail hasn’t been wagging the dog too much.
But there do seem to be three routes (3, 26 & 98) planned to terminate at Victoria where there are only two now (16 & 507). The 3, 26 & 98 replace the 507, 11 & 16 respectively, but the 11 doesn’t currently terminate here. I may well have missed something, but there may be another subtle variation to resolve that; otherwise the limited stand space in Vauxhall Bridge Road is going to be even more precious…? But see my comments on routes 9, 23 (& 52 / 390) below.
So let’s consider some of the proposed changes, and I’ll set out how routes 11, 12 & 24 can be ‘saved’…
Routes 11 & 507
One of the more odd-ball changes proposed is the replacement for route 11, where the plan is to extend the 507 (currently Waterloo to Victoria via Horseferry Road) via route 11 to Fulham Broadway. The 507 would also be diverted away from Horseferry Road, to use Victoria Street instead.
To be honest, that doesn’t leave much of the existing 507 at all. It would effectively be a new route which could carry, and save, the number 11. The big difference is that the 507 is run with full-length single-deckers, with lots of rooms for people to stand, and very few seats. So presumably the intention is for this more-or-less new route 507 to retain its current fleet of ‘standee’ single-decker buses?
I can’t see any reason for trying to retain the 507, except to ensure a future home for at least some of the 12m electric buses (and the Waterloo base). Surely a double-decker service 11 with new electric buses could be based at Waterloo? I’m sure there’s somewhere suitable for the single-deckers but it’s certainly not here.
It currently takes up to 36 minutes for route 11 to get from Fulham to Victoria station. Buses with few seats and lots of standing space are not going to work on a route like this. That was tried in the 1960s, and it didn’t work then either. It’s no coincidence that the once-large network of Red Arrow services shrank to just two routes by the early 2000s.
To be honest, that doesn’t leave much of the existing 507 at all. It would effectively be a new route which could carry, and save, the number 11. The big difference is that the 507 is run with full-length single-deckers, with lots of rooms for people to stand, and very few seats. So presumably the intention is for this more-or-less new route 507 to retain its current fleet of ‘standee’ single-decker buses?
I can’t see any reason for trying to retain the 507, except to ensure a future home for at least some of the 12m electric buses (and the Waterloo base). Surely a double-decker service 11 with new electric buses could be based at Waterloo? I’m sure there’s somewhere suitable for the single-deckers but it’s certainly not here.
It currently takes up to 36 minutes for route 11 to get from Fulham to Victoria station. Buses with few seats and lots of standing space are not going to work on a route like this. That was tried in the 1960s, and it didn’t work then either. It’s no coincidence that the once-large network of Red Arrow services shrank to just two routes by the early 2000s.
Routes 24, 88, 205 & 214
Another oddity concerns the arrangements around the withdrawal of route 24 (Hampstead Heath – Pimlico). Route 88 (Clapham Common – Parliament Hill Fields) will be withdrawn between Trafalgar Square and Parliament Hill Fields, and diverted instead via route 24 to Hampstead Heath. That’s a major change which loses a substantial part of the current 88, and the revised route could just as easily be numbered 24. Another icon saved!
ABOVE: Go-Ahead WHV 96 (BD65 EWZ) is significantly off-course, heading east from Oxford Street into New Oxford Street, whilst working on route 88. The diversion is probably due to the temporary closure of Trafalgar Square, and the bus will presumably need to go via Holborn, Aldwych, Waterloo Bridge and Westminster Bridge to get back to line of route. The new-look 88 will replace route 24 over much of its length, and will therefore serve Tottenham Court Road – but north/south rather than east/west through this junction.
The lost section of the 88 is replaced by a mass restructuring of route 214 (currently Highgate to Moorgate). This is cut between Camden Town and Finsbury Square, and diverted instead via route 88 to Trafalgar Square, and then via route 24 to Pimlico.
Again, this is such a significant change that it doesn’t leave much of the 214 as we know it today. The number 88 would apply better here (then the 24 and the 88 are broadly just swapping their southern routings).
Again, the important thing here is that the 214 is a single-decker route. With small buses. Buses have to be no more than about 10.2m long. This is apparently to appease residents in Highgate Village. These buses struggle on the back street route they run now. How will they cope with a trunk route from Highgate to Pimlico?
ABOVE: A trio of Go-Ahead Enviro 200 EVs awaiting departure time on route 214 from Moorgate, Finsbury Square, led by SEe 83 (LA19 KBU), although SEe 80 (LA19 KBY), behind it, will actually be the first to leave.
The 205 (currently Paddington to Bow Church) is also involved in the shuffle here – presumably running to Parliament Hill Fields to give it somewhere to stand as I don’t quite see what other value this adds.
Routes 12 & 148
This is a curious change – basically an extension of the 148 (White City to Camberwell Green) on to Dulwich via route 12. The 12 has been progressively cut back since… well, forever, it feels to me. It once ran from Harlesden to South Croydon and was always incredibly busy. Now it’s just Oxford Circus to Dulwich. I felt it had hit a low when it was recently reduced to every 12 minutes. I didn’t realise how much further it could fall.
ABOVE: Go-Ahead LT 450 (LTZ 1450) on route 12 at Medlar Street, near Camberwell Green
The 148 is already a long route of up to 79 minutes one way, so it’s debatable whether it can cope with another 20 minutes-plus being added on to the journey. The loss of the short section from White City to Shepherds Bush – always operated a bit half-heartedly and the first to go when buses are late) won’t make much difference to that.
The route is currently operated from Shepherds Bush garage so any weaknesses will be felt at the Dulwich end.
Incidentally, the 148 will become something akin to the old 12, from the days when that ran between Shepherds Bush and Dulwich (and further afield); albeit with a big difference in routing midway.
You could say that the 12 was to be “withdrawn between Westminster station and Oxford Circus and diverted to Shepherds Bush via route 148”. Another one saved.
ABOVE: Going to Dulwich one day? RATP Group BCE 47098 (LG71 DWP), an Enviro 400EV, on route 148 at Shepherds Bush Green, mere seconds before a brief cloudburst hit! This route is officially operated by New Routemasters. This vehicle is superior to them in every way.
Routes 49, 72, 272 & 283
Route 72 (East Acton to Hammersmith Bridge, North Side) is another of those routes that is a shadow of what it was. It used to run to Roehampton, and was pencilled in for double-deckers once Hammersmith Bridge was repaired (the vehicles were actually ordered).
Instead, the bridge closed, and the entire southern section was lost.
But even the remainder seemingly needs three routes to replace it. The busiest section (East Acton to Shepherds Bush) will be handed over to the double-decker 49 (currently Shepherds Bush to Clapham Junction, but to become East Acton to South Kensington).
Then the 272 (currently Chiswick to Shepherds Bush) takes over as far as Hammersmith Bus Station. The 283 (East Acton to Hammersmith) then takes the last few hundred yards with an extension to the North Side of the Bridge. Not quite sure why the 272 can’t pick up that bit to leave the 283 as it is. Maybe there is an aspiration to restore the 283 to Barnes if the Bridge is ever reopened? Otherwise it seems a bit pointless.
Instead, the bridge closed, and the entire southern section was lost.
But even the remainder seemingly needs three routes to replace it. The busiest section (East Acton to Shepherds Bush) will be handed over to the double-decker 49 (currently Shepherds Bush to Clapham Junction, but to become East Acton to South Kensington).
Then the 272 (currently Chiswick to Shepherds Bush) takes over as far as Hammersmith Bus Station. The 283 (East Acton to Hammersmith) then takes the last few hundred yards with an extension to the North Side of the Bridge. Not quite sure why the 272 can’t pick up that bit to leave the 283 as it is. Maybe there is an aspiration to restore the 283 to Barnes if the Bridge is ever reopened? Otherwise it seems a bit pointless.
Routes 9 & 23 (& 52 & 390?)
Another oddity here; route 23 was dropped between Marble Arch and Liverpool Street in 2018, so that it could replace route 10 (Hammersmith to King’s Cross – axed at the same time) through to Hammersmith. Now it is being restored as far as Aldwych, albeit via a different routing. Route 9 will need to be enhanced to handle the Hyde Park Corner to Hammersmith demand by itself.
ABOVE: RATP Group OME 46035 (YJ21 EXT) is dwarfed by the ‘iconic’ former Great Western Hotel in Praed Street, Paddington (now the Hilton London Paddington). The Optare Metrodecker EV is on its way to Hammersmith on route 23, although it’s quicker to cross the road and take a number 27. Both services will be removed from Hammersmith by these changes.
Or… Remember my comment about an ‘extra’ route terminating at Victoria compared to now? And my comments about how no stand space being vacated is wasted? Well the 23’s stand at Hammersmith doesn’t seem to have been allocated to anything else (assuming that the 328 follows the 27 to Hammersmith Grove).
What if there’s meant to be another Victoria route diverted to Hammersmith to replace the 23? Both the 52 and the 390 could be candidates and one could see the logic of either. Neither of these routes get a mention in the plan (as far as I can see – I’ve not read all 56 documents). This point is pure speculation on my part, but what if TfL, in its haste to get the material out, has ‘forgotten’ to include one of the changes?
There is also a question of resilience. As I write this, yet another tube strike is scheduled for Monday, 6th June. People turn to buses when the tubes aren’t available. Now there are fewer buses (and given that there will be even fewer in the future), buses can help less when things go wrong elsewhere.
I fear these changes will all have to happen on the same day. They are all too much inter-linked to be phased in over a period.
But that is going to mean a major publicity drive, far beyond what TfL seems to be capable of. I’m thinking of a leaflet drop – explaining the changes rather more clearly than the consultation does – through every letter box across at least zones 1 to 4, plus lots of staff at key spots for the first few days to provide assistance, similar to the launch of the Elizabeth Line. Some hope.
When will the changes happen? Documents suggest ‘before the end of 2023’. Go North East‘s equivalent consultation, which closed at the end of May, will see changes implemented from July this year.
But TfL always works at a glacial pace. If axing all of these expensive wasteful routes can save so much, how much does it cost to keep them going for an extra year or more?
A number of contracts will have to be unpicked. Some of the proposals look like trying to keep things simple for the contracts team. Axing the 12 and extending the 148 means dropping a Go-Ahead contract and amending an RATP one, whilst my alternative scheme (drop the 148 and keep the 12) would be more complicated contractually.
But, again, I hope the tail isn’t wagging the dog. This feels like restructuring bus services with both hands tied behind one’s back. No wonder it’s going to take so long.
Where will all the New Routemasters go? I wrote about that problem a few months ago. Five of the routes proposed for withdrawal use, if I have my sums right, 76 of these vehicles. The 88 might be able to use them again, without its Parliament Hill Fields section, but where will the rest go?
And what if Journey Patterns Change in the Interim? We don’t yet know how the Elizabeth Line will affect travel patterns in the longer-term. My journey will change, but I won’t know for sure what I’m going to do until the outer sections start running into the central tunnels from the autumn. Route 24 was a part of my plan, but…
Will TfL be able to respond to changes in travel patterns, or will it just press ahead with these changes anyway, even if no longer ‘right’? Will we have to wait for the next contract change for anything to be corrected if it goes wrong? Sadly, we all know the answer to these questions.
And this, I suspect, is only the beginning.
But unless TfL wakes its ideas up, and starts trying to get more people onto buses, the decline will continue. These cuts will contribute further to the decline. People will find alternative ways to get around. More cuts will have to be implemented. The future of the London bus has never looked so gloomy.