Transport in London is shit

*maybe not if you use the northern line

And the Hammersmith&Shittyline.

It's surely more balanced to compare London with Tokyo, New York, Paris etc rather than Basildon, Letchworth, and Chorlton-cum-Hardy.

Transport in London is LOTS better than transport in New York.

Basically, transport in London is far from shit.

*maybe not if you use the northern line

That's been my primary line for about 4 years now and I'm not complaining, it's fine.

International competitiveness studies highlight the expense of transport, crumbling infrastructure, and historic lack of investment as a negative factor in London's economic position.

Not, of course, that it's the government's responsibility nowadays.

That said, anyone who lives in London who DOESN'T buy a monthly travel card is either an asylum seeker or mad.

Public public public money money money is what is needs.

but i only really use buses and not even daily -- i reckon so far i am up on the deal by some way though given the fierceness w.which they are policin the bendies now this will probbly have to change :(

I still have trouble understanding why/how Virgin charge £75 return to Manchester (with other return options reaching over £400) when you can fly several times the distance for half the price. And why does it take twice as long coming back? Can trains not tilt southbound?

we all know you arrived here just a few days ago from Kabul. the game's up, sonny chief.

I don't know about the tube, but the rail companies apparently make over £100m profit a year in London, and the cost for providing staff is estimated to be between £2m to £4m a year.

I don't find them comfortable in the slightest. They seem much harder than the seats on most other buses * and, into the bargain, the poor suspension on those vehicles gives a very bumpy ride in my experience.

* the notable exceptions to this that I've found are a few of the buses used on the 341 route which have purple seats with ridiculously thin upholstery; but these are not to be confused with some others on the same route which also have purple seats but which are wonderfully comfortable.

Very true. Resolving as I did about 4 years ago not to travel on it any more was one of the best decisions I have ever made, in a number of ways.

Is this actually true? I'd always thought received wisdom said the exact opposite.

Public transport in London is good, but wasn't really designed to serve a city that's growing this fast - seems to be where all the problems stem from.

Oak - are you the person I think you are? Something rings familiar here.

*maybe not if you use the northern line

kings cross - south wimbledon, last thursday, circa midnight = 100 minutes

but yeah, mostly its good. 24 hour tubes would be nice.

outside london you can, you know, walk or cycle places.

you can do those things inside london too, you know.

Eh? How many people do you reckon they employ?

i cant see train travel getting much cheaper as a result of competition from air travel. maybe we should read my friends dissertation about rail/air competition for business travel between leeds and london. isnt the problem partly that franchising to an extent creates kinda flabby uncompetitive practice, where profits can be made in relative safety from predatory activity, if there isnt strong enough contractual arrnagements or tight enough regulation on the performance of the franchisee?

eg "we award you this contract but will continue to allow you to increase fares/reduce penalties for poor performance, and you can do this for the next 10 years" as opposed to "you have a guaranteed revenue stream for the next 10 years but oyu must ensure to do X Y Z and not do P Q and S"?

i dont really know anything about this anyways.

i guess in a sense i dont really compare london to other cities in europe so that gives me a warped sense of how good transport is in comparison to other UK CITIES (dear sirz, outside of london there are population sizes larger than Basildon, Letchworth, and Chorlton-cum-Hardy). but then again what other european cities are comparable? how does paris do? it might be hyperbole but what euro cities are comparable in terms of geograpohic spread, density of developemnt, population etc etc?

moscow was pretty awesome but they run everything on vodka there, or something. actually it was sort of shit outside the metro, but it depends what your criteria for "good public transport" are

When it comes to the 'after midnight' bit, in London that usually means walking through the rain then freezing at a bus stop for half an hour then sitting on a very slow nightbus full of nutters, or paying twenty-five quid to a random ex-convict with a 'taxi' who'll drive you home (eventually, after getting lost) while spouting reactionary nonsense at you the whole way. In New York there seem to be five yellow taxis waiting for you immediately at any time, they don't cost much, and with the grid system they don't get lost.

again, its hard not to laugh when you are subject to the whims of a properly deregulated market outside of london. First Groups bus fares went up 4 times in a year in s yorks, now its 1.50 a single on first buses. still 1.20/30 in london?

as for tube fares, what is expensive about a 2.50 tube fare? in comparison to previous prices? or are you assessing the cost of labour, infrastructure, distance travelled etc etc and concluding that it is overpriced?

-- ambrose (ambrosewhit...), February 14th, 2006.

what's expensive is, it's expensive! let someone else do the math. but yes 'distance travelled' being about 2-3 miles, it does seem out of proportion.

still 1.20/30 in london?

It's now £1.50. Considering that, what 4 years ago(?), local journeys were 70p, I'd say that is somewhat above the rate of inflation.

another factor to consider might be the *vast fucking profits* made by the operator too?

Bendy Bus 38 on diversion Saturday. Confused the hell out of me. KEN OUT! etc.

But 80p on Oyster or Carnet.

*or sitting down on the floor where they get kicked
** for many people, they won't know their train isn't coming until several minutes after the fact since all the video terminals are fucked

OAPs get freedom passes and their are concessionary fares for Jobseekers/New Deal

Not having an oyster of some sort is foolish

I never heard of this when I was signing on, but that was a couple of years ago.

Now I just get the X68 both ways (long walk at the Zone 1 end, but I probably need it) and tend to spend around £30-35/month. (Z1-3 Travelcard is £100/mo, Z1-2 is £85/mo [would allow me to use buses outside Z2 but not rail], All Zone Bus Pass is £52/mo).

The capping of Oyster Pre-Pay so that you never pay more than an equivalent daily Travelcard or Bus Pass if you find yrself bus- and Tube-hopping is a nice feature. Now, if they'd just install Oystercard readers at SE London surburban rail stations...

The full horror of British Rail prices will soon hit me as my Young Persons Rail Card runs out in March. A peak time return from Glasgow to Edinburgh costs about £18. That's a 40 minute journey. Peak time Glasgow to Stirling, however, costs £8.30. And that's a 35 minute journey. WTF?

That said, having travelled on the geriatric, freezing and slow trains south of London in order to get to ATP, we've at least got half decent rolling stock in Scotland. At least, in those parts of the country unaffected by the Beeching Cuts.

London transport is pretty decent, but then I don't live there so don't have to face all the problems commuters do. The big problem with transport systems in British cities is the lack of integration. The best public transport I've come across is in Berlin. As soon as you work out the difference between the s-bahn and the u-bahn etc you're sorted.

dude, you're not.

when you're looking to move somewhere - in london or elsewhere - you check out the transport links (tube, buses, nightbuses, overground, tram, dlr, whatever) and if the provision is incompatible with your lifestyle, don't move to that part of london/wherever. i'm sure there are far-flung places on london's edges that are not served by nightbuses, but i've never found any and wtf would you be living there for? it's not meant for you, obviously.

but if you live in london, you can totally stay out as late as you want and get home on a bus/combination of buses. except possibly in aforementioned far-flung "zone b" places or whatever.

im questioning how much you value transport, and where you get your concept of cheap or expensive from. how much should transport cost us as a proportion of our overall outgoings?
should we be able to commute from hitchin to london every day? given the restraints on capacity on the train network in london, how possible is it to accomodate the numbers of commuters coming in every day?

why do planners in hertfordshire allow developers to build new blocks of luxury/executive apartments right next to rail stations with decent commuter train services, when there is no improvement to the service to accomodate the increased number of comuters that these developments are sure to bring?

im questioning the concepts that a) we should be able to travel where and when we want/need to, from where and to where, and b) that this travel should be "cheap" "affordable" or at the least "not expensive" c) the travel should be reliable, or high quality, or predictable, ro something. why are any of these givens that we "should" have access to them? becasue it costs 1.50 to get the bus? does that cover the full cost of providing that service? i appreciate that anger is mainly focussed on he fact that fares are set to cover increasing profits for the private involvement in providing transport services rather than covering the costs, but i find it strange that bus dergeulation for example took place a full 20 years ago, and yet an organisation like "We Want Our Buses Back" has only just been set up.
the fact that london is the most safeguarded against the worst effects of privatisation in public transport and that other areas are desperately trying to get round the impositions in place to achieving a similar set up means that its hard not to envy, rather than denigrate public transport in London from a provinicial persepctive

Is this actually true? I'd always thought received wisdom said the exact opposite.

Yeah, I found New York transpot to be awful. Admittedly it is a lot cheaper, which makes it sort of forgivable, but then when what ought to be a 40 minute journey regularly ended up taking 90 minutes, I tended to feel I'd have been happier to pay more and just get there.

Ok, I'm going to rant here. You know the handy electronic readouts you get on the tube telling you how long you have to wait for the next train? None of that on the NY subway, you just have to stand and wait and hope. On the A/C line (where I was staying) it seemed 4 out of 5 trains were express, and didn't stop at my stop, so even though a train might pass every five minutes, i'd only be able to get on one every 25 minutes. Each weekend at least one line will be closed completely, for engineering works or whatever, and there's no staff around to give out announcements to let you know about that. There's just A4 sheets stuck to some pillars, which are easily missed, so it's very easy to stand and wait 20 minutes for a train that isn't ever coming. Stations stay open all night, yeah, but quite often a station will close all but one entrance/exit, which can mean a ten minute walk in the wrong direction to even get inside there. and once you do get in, you find that trains after 11pm only run on certain routes, and become incredibly infrequent.

Really, Londoners don't know they're born.

when government decided to build a commuter belt on the basis that the people who lived there would many of them work in london, they kind of made a commitment, don't you think, to affordable transport?

as i say it's one of those social-contract-y things, along the lines of 'why should we expect' 'free' hospital care, schools, etc. you're own views on deregulation are opaque.

Another thing I liked is that you don't need your ticket to exit the station, only to enter it.

no, no, no! jim had a bad experience being stuck on the c line, but in general it's loads better in nyc. cheaper, faster, larger trains with better ventilation and 24 hr service, plus the lovely air conditioned buses. perhaps most importantly, lines don't go out of service with anything near the frequency that they do in london.

Maybe I just got unluck in NY, but I was consistently unlucky for a whole month. It was upsetting.

no, the 'burbs and the commuter towns were *designed* for commuters! one of the roles assigned to government has been strategic planning of this sort. there aren't that many jobs in bethnal green; but then there isn't much accommodation in the city.

why is 'the right not to get ill' fine anyway?

ambrose brought up this:

should we be able to commute from hitchin to london every day? given the restraints on capacity on the train network in london, how possible is it to accomodate the numbers of commuters coming in every day?

why do planners in hertfordshire allow developers to build new blocks of luxury/executive apartments right next to rail stations with decent commuter train services, when there is no improvement to the service to accomodate the increased number of comuters that these developments are sure to bring?

This is true. Letchworth, Stevenage and Hitchin were all built or have become commuter towns and are all currently subject to huge landscape changes on account of new, upperscale apartments being built. A lot of people protest this, citing that the community can't take this influx of people. I reckon the train's will be the first to suffer here as they're already buckling under the current pressure.

-- Vintage Latin (doglati...), February 14th, 2006.

yeah, we entrust this kind of thing to JOHN PRESCOTT so, well, there's your joined-up govt for ya.

It's the difference between the state being obliged to provide people with a reasonable wuality of life, and the state being obliged to provide people with the perfect ideal-world life they want.

the 'burbs and the commuter towns were *designed* for commuters!

I don't know if that's quite true - they became necessary due to inner-city overcrowding I guess, yeah. But being built through necessity, and being "designed" aren't really the same thing. Still, I guess that yeah, it's a bit naive to say "everyone who works in london should live here", so there wouldn't be room. In that sense, you're maybe right that the state has responsibility to make commuting viable.

But then London salaries are still weighted up. So I guess that extra money people make here either goes on rent/mortgage, if you're central, or else travel, if you're not. Swings and roundabouts though, it all sort of balances out in the end.

And yeh, it is a bit silly to say "if you want to work in London, you should live here too" because otherwise everyone would end up living in London in the end.

Thes things aren't a right! They're a luxury! 50-60 years ago, my grandparents lived outside oldham, and went to wakefield every year for their holidays. Blackpool if they were feeling flush. And that was that! They didn't feel they were being fucked over by the government cos they couldn't ever afford the fare to Brighton or Bath instead. Yeah, sure, some people can afford to travel round lots more nowadays, and they're lucky. If you can't, tough shit, that's not the government's fault. And all these people who *are* travelling round more are creating a lot more greenhouse gasses while they're doing it. The world would be better off if they'd stay put a bit more. A good way to encourage people to do this is to have it cost a realistic (rather than a subsidised, cheap) amount.

Oh get outta here, nobody ever went to Wakefield for their holidays! Where's the friggin' sea for a start?!??!?!

i think:

a) expectations of public transport are at the least hopeful, if unrealistic
b) public transport wholly in the hands of the public sector historically has not been overly successful in this country
c) private sector involvement in public transport by no means guarantees improved service and the objectives of private companies (ie $$$$) frequently and unacceptably conflicts with the aims of public transport provision (ahaha which are ______ ?)
d) comparisons to public transport in other countries frequently forget concrete factors eg population density, density of building, exisintg infrastructure, and more unprovable ones; political willpower, general incompetence in administration. and crucially "willingness to pay". this thread has established that there is a low willingness to pay for transport in the form of fares, but what about our willingness to fund transport through tax revenue? e) the british suspicion of public spending and the ability of the public sector to spend public money in an effective way, cf the intense scrutiny that public bodies are under when a tenner is mispent, completes a vicious circle with the inability of the public sector to "deliver" good services and not spend money well.

as with health, there is a certain extent (which in health is mostly very small) to which we can influence our own demand for that service. that makes up participants, not total victims, in the service that we get.

everyday i have to straighten out problems that are engendered by a deregulated environment in which transport finds itself. nevertheless, i cant see the current ethos being changed across government, and wholesale renationalisation coming in. nor am i convinced that it would solve the problem. as a result, i have to try and work within this to get the best out of the situation. control over fares, service quality, dirty buses etc is only going to happen with a degree of regulation. the effects of the market are warped when it comes to transport because there is a captive market for starters. thus first will continue to make profits even as patrongae declines as they squeeze higher fares out of those who have to use their services and can least afford it. the situation in london as regards the buses is pretty much the optimum i think, in terms of what we can aspire to. other countries are taking an interest in the situation in the UK and the situation where large amounts of public money are spent on public transport in Europe, and high levels of service are achieved, may well change over time.

in my own time spent living in london i found the service excellent and affordable. i lived next to a bus route, changed twice to get to work, it took me 40 minutes and cost me 2% of my weekly earnings to travel. This was in my estimation, a good service. i never got the tube as i got to wherever i wanted to on the bus, and if i couldnt get there by bus, most of the time i didnt go - i tailored my lifestyle to bus routes by and large. i got a pre pay oystercard for one off tube journeys but hardly ever used it.

i feel that we dont value transport enough as a nation. we are unwilling to accept how dominant it is in our lives, laugh at those who pursue an active interest in it, expect it to be much cheaper than maybe it can be, and dont accept that increasingly it needs to influence our choices in life in a much more dominant way. our demand for travel has skyrocketed as transport has become more available, faster and easier. but transport is a derived demand. it exists only because we create a scenario in which we need it. i welcome bad or good press about transport, eg recent far increases in sheffield, becasue it stimulates people to think about what they want from transport, and how they view it. should we able to journey from one end of a large metropolis to another to visit a friend, in under and hour and at a certain price? what costs are we imposing as a result of this desire? if we want cheap, high qwuality public transport, how will it be paid for? by the farebox, or through public spending from taxes? are we competent enough to spend money well enough to deliver that service? how do our desires for freedom, individualism and even eccentricity conflict with the ability to provide an efficient transport system?

These things aren't a right! They're a luxury! 150-160 years ago, my great-great-grandparents worked in factories at the age of nine. They certainly didn't expect a hand-out or "health-care". And that was that! They didn't feel they were being fucked over by the government because it refused to tax the factory-owners in order to give them a life over the age of 35. The world would be better off if people died younger. A good way to encourage people to do this is to have healthcare cost a realistic (rather than a subsidised, cheap) amount.

Jobs that require this type of relatively-underpaid (or even unpaid) initial experience invariably make up for it later with significantly higher salaries...the only reason they can get away with that system is that they're high-demand jobs, and they're high demand because they're ultimately lucrative. Yes, it's sucky in many ways, but you can get a loan and pay it off later. or you can choose to work in a diffeerent industry. What you can't do is expect taxpayers in general (many of whom DO work in other industries) to help you out by subsidising your travel.

move to holland LOL

This is a myth, or a hangover from the seventies or something. My central London salary is not weighted, and a quick look at job offers would suggest that not many are, at least not in the private sector.

Disagree. On a local level it works (and worked) well. Admittedly there were problems on a national level - but mountain/molehill time

Except that obviously they're not the same thing, the right to healthcare is NOT the same as the right to go somewhere nice for your holidays. It just isn't.

-- JimD (ji...), February 14th, 2006.

tbh i think dog latin was talking about jobs in the media/publishing, most of which are not all that lucrative. it's a small point, but the london bias of the media/publishing nexus which favours those yougnsters whose parents live in london, does tend to skew the media in a white, u-mid class fashion (ok maybe it'd be that way whatever...).

Can you imagine what BRB would have done with the amount of money poured into franchises?

Seriously, you don't need to tell me that.

im not sure what you are referring to in terms of public sector running public transport. where is this done at a local level? maybe the rail franchise that runs down in Sotuh London?

admittedly i barely remember BR in a way, but i remember it being the butt of jokes about service quality etc. i wonder if it isnt tempting to becoming dangerously nostalgic though. let me change that to:

"b) public transport wholly in the hands of the public sector historically has not been as completely successful as is often imagined in this country"

btw, this would be all a lot easier if we called it mass transit rather than public transport, like the americans. then we might stop expecting it to be a public service.

Tsk, they'll want the vote next!

I suspected that most of the people involved in this thread would barely remember BR. Ed's got it right, I think with the amount of money and subsidies lavished on the private companies, BR would have produced a far better service. And if you really want to talk about "dangerous nostalgia", how about dickheads who have barely started shaving are still going on about the Winter of Discontent a hundred years after it happened?

Yes there were failing, Cross country Intercity services and the WCML were in need of a refresh and managed decline out side of the London Inter-City and London Commuter was in the mindset (but has that really changed).

Scotland is the only place where privatisation has really improved matters but that is only because devolution gave the scottish executive control over funding and deliverables and there is a single operator for all bar cross border services. So it can be argued that devolution had more of an effect on Scottish Railways than privatisations did.

two possibilities spring to mind:
a) a belief that private sector involvement would bring about improved service

b) to reduce the burden on the public purse

maybe a) was misguided, and b) time will tell whether public spending on railways overall has increased or decreased overall since privatisation. but presumably there must have been sonme truth in the above, to bring about the desire change. were the tories going against the wishes of the electorate as a whole in 1994? these are questions not smart alec rhetoric, i think i might come over a bit know it all when writing on here, but the opposite is true, i know very little, but am interested in the sort of assumptions that transport debates throw up.

i dont love, "i'm colin, im your customer service manager for your journey today"

i hate britains replacement of 'the' with 'your', its an americanization i cant stand.

why should we lower our expectations?

indeed! i dont know, really. how do we exercise our demand for higher and higher quality in eg clothes shopping? generally by going to a different shop if one doesnt meet our expectations. as this sort of competition a) i dont think can really exist b) hasnt materialised (it seems to be easier to buy up small bus operators and create monopolies rather than trying to meet customers expectations) we are in a strange position when it comes to what we can expect from transport. the captive nature of the market skews things a great deal. i think high expectations are positive in a way but i think that unrealistic expectations can lead to a sort of detached hectoring (im thinking of groups other than ILX btw) that divorced from many of the facts or realities of the situation means that a solution isnt going to be reached.

the distinction between "passengers" and "customers" is quite interesting. what is a "passenger"? why is someone getting on a First bus., buying a ticket to the city centre on an unsubsidised route anything less than someone buying a pint of milk in Tescos?

You forgot by far the most important factor:

c) IDEOLOGY

Also, Thatcherite Liberal Ideaology.

-- Ed (dal...), February 14th, 2006 2:07 PM. (later) (link)

So privatisation of the railways has been on a par with other privatisations, really.

I don't remember if it was part of the 1992 manifesto, probably yes, it was deeply unpopular though, however everything the Tories did was deeply unpopular by about 1993, the tories could have given every voter solid gold bricks in 1997 and still not got re-elected.

If there was a way to open up rail franchises to proper competition I'd be interested - no one whinges about airlines being privately-owned and air travel is cheaper than it's ever been.

Is South East Trains currently in public hands? I know its got immeasurably better since they stripped Connex of the franchise.

The problem is is that privatisation has turned the railways into a political football, government meddling has increased by several orders of magnitude. We are on our 4 th regulatory regime since privatisation. Privatisation has made the railways something for which every government now must find a quick fix for rather than actually thinking long term, as they should do, the only way the railways can get better.

The problem with the railways is that they are and artificial and imperfect market and they never can be anything other than that. You need look only at the ORCATS systems of apportioning rail revenues to operators n the same route and observe how this has distorted the market. Incentives have to be manufactured, and they cost the taxpayer dear, when that money could be going into improtant infrastructure improvement.s There can only be a role for private sector firms as service delivery companies, doing a fixed job for a fixed contract. Nothing else will really work for the railways, except maybe open access operators filling in gaps that the state operator does not think will be viable.

JimD, being able to work is a necessity

Yep, or at least an income is. And if you're truly unable to find work, then the state will give you money. But you're not actually talking about not being able to work, you're talking about not being able to get a specific job which you want to get without first getting experience in a low-paid environment in a location which costs you money to get to. All I'm saying is, if you don't like that, you can get another job. But what, are you claiming there are either NO JOBS AT ALL close to where you live, or that you CAN'T POSSIBLY MOVE to a place where there are jobs nearby? If that's the case, fair enough, the state should maybe subsidise you. But I don't believe it is.

(And also, living within london and having a low salary is perfectly possible anyway, I lived in London on a retail salary (9.5-10.5k) for a good few years, and I know plenty of other people who've done the same...in fact a couple of them worked in bookshops and eventually made enough contacts that way to get jobs in publishing, so the low-paid internship isn't the only way in there either).

The murder by privatisation of the British transport network was one of the great crimes against humanity of the Thatcher years.

im talking about the theory of opening up railway networks to private sector involvement. there is a difference between whether one should private, or partially deregulate, and how one should do so.

the man who devised the scheme to privatise the railways in britain is possibly even angrier than you lot about the way in which it was done.

(this is from Understanding Systems Failures by Bignell and Fortune, which has a chapter on South Yorkshire's bus fares policy in the 1970s, and coincidentally sits on the bookcase next to my computer)

If you want to know much about the history of British Rail in the 70s and 80s, your best bet is to find a library that has a good set of back-issues of Modern Railways magazine - that's where *I* learned most of it from, at least.

In the 70s the primary BR policy was "management for decline" - the concept that rail traffic was declining continuously and would never recover, and therefore replacement and modernisation should be done on the basis that capacity could and should be decreased. Over the long term this has been shown to be completely wrong, but a large part of the network is running as redesigned during the "management for decline" period. In particular, a large number of main lines and major stations still are operated using signalling and track layouts designed during this period, and this is now causing serious capacity problems.

(off the top of my head: Kings Cross and the ECML as far as Doncaster; most of the Great Western main line, apart from Paddington and Didcot; most of the lines around Birmingham; the WCML north of Crewe; pretty much all of central Scotland; pretty much all of the South London suburban network)

It is very hard to judge privatisation. It cant be done over the ten years of privatisation as there have been at least 4 major re-organisations of the structure of the privatised railway system since privatisation. It is not a private enterprise either. Government money and interference are present at all levels of the industry (apart from, possibly, in the ROSCOs although HST2 will change that). Now, at least we are getting a structure that may work. The TOCs are now effectively service delivery companies running on the state owned infrastructure and Open Access operators are starting, in a small way, to be permitted to provide the innnovation needed to replace 80s service patterns. May be this will work. It's not so much the privatisation itself (although I am opposed to it in principle) it's the fact that it has been one long experiment to find a structure that works.

In Europe privatisations have happened in a very different way. Germany is a good contrasting example. There regional goverenments were given control of regional rail services and These were 'Franchised' (ineffect contracted) out to private operators or to the State run rail company. National services reamined in the public sector although the State owned operator was instructed to take a more commercial approach, to prepare itself for privatisation. It has done this, with mixed results; The frieght arm is now the biggest and most wide reaching railfreight business in Europe and after a number of losses it has started to win contracts to operate local rail services. It's ha s even bid, as part of consortia, for franchises in other european countries including britain. The state operato will be privatised in the next few years but as one large comapny, it may work it may not, we shall see.

It is at least acknowledged in Germany that the primary competetive pressure on rail are not from other Rail companies but from Road and Air and trying to stimulate Rail on Rail competition does not fit with the passenger mindset (freight is a different matter, there are significant open access operators in Germany).

this might be my favourite ever ilx post.

Assuming this were true, which it isn't, they wouldn't give you enough to live on.

if everybody in, say, ruislip or st albans looked for work within walking distance of their house... you'd have a lot of unemployed people.

well no they'd be employed but they'd have rubbish jobs.

unfair of you to single out these 7 people.

well there's the Acton Town-Hammersmith section and the Wembley Park-Finchley Road plus Metroland sections but not quite the same thing i know.

On underground trains, after passing a signal at danger, the brakes automatically come on, and the driver has to get out of the cab to reset them. This traditionally was not the case on overground trains, but I think it now is also necessary on a lot of overground stock.

(this also applies to all other trains running on LU lines, such as most of the trains in and out of Marylebone station; I'm not sure if it applies to LU trains running on non-LU routes, and I'm fairly sure it doesn't apply to the other services on those routes)

why is that a joke? i was just about to say the same. apart from the hellhole bit.

had a presentation today which set me thinking. theres a split in this country between buses as a service which is controlled by a public body and provided by service provision companies, simply fulfilling requirements of the contract, and a situation where buses are removed from their status as inherently political products, open to competition, with the hope that the market will improve the product- to drag buses away from the operations-heavy approach of the past - "we tell you when and where the buses run, and we make them run that way" towards a industry that responds to passenger demands and looks to increase business - ie improve patronage more actively. in fact, i think these aims are laudable, but unfortunately the majority of operators, and it would seem the bigger they are, the worse offenders they are, are stuck (quite happily) between the two - they do little more than operate buses below a desirable standard, pay seemingly little attention to customers needs/desires and communicate very poorly with them, and yet focus on profitting from other means eg acquisitions and monopolisation, cost cuttign etc rather than increasing patronage through better service provision.

these two directions diverge quite seriously, and whilst london is allowed to pursue the first model without the stringent competitive requirements imposed on othewr areas, DfT, OFT, bus operators and PTES/local authorities are going to have to do some serious thinking about the fundamental guiding philosophy behind the bus industry structural model that we need for this country.

I was under the impression that on a lot of stock the TPWS reset is outdoors, like the tripcock on LU stock.

in fact i've just looked on National Express website and you can go from Golders Green to Manchester in just over 4 hours, which is nearly twice the journey time of a Pendolino BUT coming back the train and coach would roughly take the same time (both around 4 hours, according to the timetables) which makes no sense to me at all. and the NE return is half the price of the train.

ridiculous. if it had worked out cheaper i would've just got the train up but the coach back.

I agree the coach time seems optimistic - maybe they should introduce a coach lane on some motorways ala bus lanes.

in this point, its again a question of expectations. why do we expect to get reasonable fares on walk-up for railways, but would neevr expect that for a plane? why are we happy to book in advance to get the plane and not the train?
on a wider note, to what extent can we demand public transport on a schedule overall - are we going to have to accept a new model of pre booked, pre determined trips rather than expecting to turn up at any "Public Transport Access Node" and get on some form of transport? how viable or important is it for PTEs to subsidise private companies to ferry around fresh air at a lunchtime round some suburbs of a city?

finally, what is it that makes public transport, "public"? if its mass transport, then why is air travel not considered one of the gang? you can fit many mroe people on a plane than a coach for instance. so if its not a question of sheer numbers, is it more a question of importance in peoples lives - as people move abroad and commute, more frequently go on holiday, or simply commute from one end of the ocuntry to another, is it time to reassess how "vital" air travel is to peoples lives, for example in comparison to train travel?

i think the treatment of air travel as a seperate component, distinct from other forms of maass transport, as one that has no impact other than a handy effect of developing local economy/growth blah blah blah is not a positive thing. it needs to be considered in the light of every other mode of inter city transport, and i get the feeling that there just isnt full strategic thinking devoted to what sort of air transport network the UK needs and how it is goign to be brought aboutm ratehr than just "you want to build an airport? awesome!!!!" type thing that i have a hunch predominates at the mo

(*so called because in order to endure the mind-numbing boredom of it, half the passengers were on Temazepam, which also had the happy side effect that they wouldn't:
a) Talk to you
b) Fight you)

Public transport means publicly-owned transport, not just mass transport.

Just out of interest, nd I don't mean this to sound rude, but how old are you? It's just that if you've never lived in a city with proper functioning affordable public transport...you might not be able to see its benefits, or at least have something to compare the present mess with.

surely plane journeys are bigger in every sense. more distance (disregarding duration), more things to worry about (security checks etc.), more energy consumption...i still treat plane journeys as a really big deal, more than a train journey, regardless of duration.

I think I believe that you should never be able to fly somewhere cheaper than to travel there by train, regardless of all the different factors that determine the price of a ticket (time of day, how far in advance you book, seat class).

2 of those i would consider to have excellent, fully functioning transport systems, one of them (BCN) is to my mind a model for fully integrated urban transport systems for a city of that size (approx 1 mill). london is pretty good, st petersburg is an example of a comprehensive but incoherent system where the holes are filled by the private/informal sector, leeds and sheffield are comparable in functioning but hardly excelling in public transport provision. im 25 so dont remember bus privatisation really but do remember rail privatisation.

what do you mean by publicly owned transport exactly? you mean infrastructure, or vehicles, or operations, or planning? as buses, coaches and trains have all been deregulated in various different ways in the past 26 years, the idea of a publicly owned transport system in the UK seems problematic. unless you are proposing full renationalisation of all these areas, then i believe mass-transit is the best way to describe the current set up. note that that is not what i aspire to - but at the moment "public transport" hints at "public service", which given that most buses for example in the UK with the objective (of those running them) of increasing profit rathetr than providing a public service, seems a poor description. unless the underlying ethos fundamentally changes and powers are brought in to re align the guiding principle of public transprot to be a public service (and yes 2000 saw those powers but by buggery its gonna be difficult to get there), we are kidding ourselves (and this is my main point) if we think that our transport system still exists along those lines.

as for rail vs bus, i was referring to the emphasis on this thread rather than stating a preference! i think rail and bus have different roles to play, not necessarily striaght competing, although coaches can provide interesting and perhaps useful competition to rail travel.

bus rapid transit refers to a sort of hybrid practised very successfully in curitiba, for example, in brazil (mainly cos they built the city round it, and the mayor was like an uber-ken) where high patronage corridors are given maximum road space and priority, flooded with vehicles running segregated, ghigh frequency running, high reliability and short journey times, running radially into city centres. feeder services connect suburbs to these radial routes. the effect is to create the effect of trams or trains but with buses - guess what? theyre a lot cheaper, which is why they are hot property in south america. NB this does not mean i endorse them over LRT like everyone else within that debate eg lightrailnow who seem to think that everyhitng is so fucking black and white. that site when ive looked at it has been set up to stop US cities plumping for BRT in place of LRT due to cost.

planes - these distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, are they not, steve? i can easily envisage a world where security checks are imposed on train travellers, or taken off domestic flights, flying between leds and london is no further on a plane than on a train, and when people commute 3 hrs, from wiltshire to london, i think its time we reviewed our conceptions of what role each mode of transport can or should or will fulfil in the overall picture.

for the record, i think air travel playing a similar role to intercity rail services is unsustainable and undesirable in an ideal world but thats what is happening! if its cheaper to get the plane, why not get it? if its qwuicker to get the plane, why not get it? if its more reliable to get he plane, why not get it? if air travel can compete with intercity travel, why are we still syaing things like "Surely the plane would be cheaper and quicker." instead of gettign the plane?

in the example i've given re London to Manchester. in hindsight i think i would've taken the train up but the coach back. in this case Virgin would only have lost about £10. i'm not sure i like the way single tickets are the price they are with returns being just a fraction more. even if it amounted to the same price i'd rather it was £37 (if it must be that much) for a single no matter when, and double that for a return.

The subsidy is less obvious than with Rail or Bus, but it is there, and it's huge. The primary way in which air travel is subsidised is by exempting aviation fuel from the fuel taxes that every other form of transport has to pay. Airlines are also to a certain extent allowed to form price fixing cartels. In the US they got bunged with soft loans and grants after 9/11. Airports are often paid for and run by governments and governements provide the Air traffic control infrastructure.

All of this goes to make air travel artificially cheap, expecially when compared to Rail. Removing the fuel duty exemption would go a long way to redressing the balance.

As far as rail vs Bus goes, Rail is more efficient per passenger kilometre once you get above a certain distance and way more attractive to the travelling public. What would make it more so would be a network of High Sped lines in the UK. Internal Air trqvel in France does not take place on nearly the same scale as it does in the UK because of the TGV network and every new line decimates the demand for air travel between the places served. Travel between london and Paris has sky rocketed in the last 10 years but the number of flights and the number of people taking them has plumeted to less than 30% of the market.

It is widely reported that 4hrs on the train is the limit at which the plane starts to become more attractive. Very soon most major cities in france will be within 4 hrs of each other (requires lGV Est, LGV atlatique Bordeaux extension and the Nimes-Perpignan LGV). Add to this that you can check in for Air France flight from Lyon St Expeury and Paris Charles de Gaulle at major French stations (and some Belgian ones), hey presto the need for short haul flights is vastly reduced.

And this is with France's much less concentrated population centres. We could have the same effect with 2 or 3 LGV. One up the East Coast to serve the Peterborough, Yorkshire, North East, Edinburgh corridor, one for London, West Midlands, Manchester/Liverpool (possibly extended to Glasgow, but that could be served vis the East coast, with a reopening of the Woodhead line to link the midlands with the Yorkshire HSL). The London-Bristol-Cardiff line could be added to although it is already quite straight and fast and could easily be upgraded to 140mph running. Add in connections to the airports and we can decimate internal air travel in the UK and short haul to near Europe.

PAYMENT DETAILS
*********0.04 GBP Adult
********36.70 GBP Taxes,Fees & Charges
********13.92 GBP Aviation / WCHR Levy
*********0.00 GBP Car Rental
********13.00 GBP Insurance
********63.66 GBP Total Paid

xpost haha that's like the firewire cable i bought from amazon. £0.01 cable, £4.50 delivery.

I would like to know more about how train ticket prices are calculated, weighted etc.

There has never really been a rational fares system in the UK. I sound like a stuck record but the fares systems in Italy is really good. You pay by kilometre and there are 6 fares, 3 first class, and three second. The three tiers of fare are based on the speed of the train top price for the Eurostars, next for the Intercities, and everything else on the bottom tier. There are all kinds of discount cards but essentially there is one fare structure whether you book a week in advance or 5 minutes before the train leaves. They have been experimenting with demand mangement type fares on certain trains but they are not proving very popular, it seems.

Ed, the problem with price-per-mile fares is that then the fares end up different for different routes. The good thing about the British system, ORCATS included, is that on an Open you do end up with the same ticket price whatever route you take.

(of course, this doesn't apply to the demand-managed tickets that make up most of the sales on long-distance routes)

Incidentally, "any reasonable route" was abandoned a few years ago. Valid routes now consist of:

a) a direct train
b) any combination of trains which take the physically shortest route
c) a "mapped route", as shown by the maps in the Fares Manual.

When these rules were first introduced, there were a few oddities and inconsistancies if you followed the route maps to the letter - for example, a London Terminals to Finsbury Park ticket was technically valid via Cambridge.

anyway, i agree, air travel is public transport, ubt even you will agree that it is not seen as such by members of the public nor much by public transport bodies. PTEs have no control over airports or anything to do with air travel as far as know, despite being "Passenger Transport Executives", which wouldnt seem to preclude air travel from their remits.

* for example, in South Yorkshire the PTE is responsible for Doncaster-Scunthorpe trains, but not Doncaster-Scunthorpe-Cleethorpes ones.

With the example I gave of Doncaster-Lincolnshire services, though: the local authorities in northern Lincolnshire couldn't give a toss about public transport. So, the SYPTE-funded trains on the Doncaster-Cleethorpes line turn back at the first sensible turnback point in Lincolnshire, which is Scunthorpe.

haha yes i know this (it was mentioned upthread) i thought the discussion at the time was what if it wasn't exempt from this and whether airport tax covers this cost (seems that it doesn't).

the leeds-sheffield "fast" service takes about an hour. virgin is 45 mins. the fast service does stop at barnsley and meadowhall etc. so its more of a regional link train, for the major towns in the area.

leeds to shefield travel, will, i predict, never ever be as good or quick or easy as it should.

Im very proud of our underground in Madrid, Actually, its got 12 lines now and its really modern (even though its old as well). It been refurbished from time to time. That's why i wonder why london underground bosses don't make it a little bit modern. The stations should be refurbished as the spanish ones does.

TOO EXPENSIVE. I don't know why you guys pay that money for a bloody travel card. In Madrid I pay 50 euros and I can go anywhere from anywhere. I guess that's because british don't speak up when its needed. Really, you should do a strike or something cause paying that money for the value you get its ridiculous.

I was so surpised to see slam doors trains in London. I said to myself 'wow, that's a classic'. Well, they are old but cute at the same time. Not a big deal though to complain about that, its been a shame they've been retired now.

How about the air cond?? Come on mates, speak up and tell them to fix air cond on the trains. YOU ARE PAYING TOO MUCH MONEY FOR THE BLODDY TRANSPORTATION!!! I read in Madrid this last summer that on the train it was up to 40C !!!!! THATS NOT A TRAIN BUT A SAUNA!!!

Tell them, do a strike or something. You english are very silly, you pay and pay and pay and you never complain!!

However, I still say that British transport is not shity but old. You must feel very proud of having one of the largest undergrounds in the world and the oldest one

Regards from Madrid

Technically very very difficult because of how deep the lines are and because it was never considered from the off. Air-conditioning the trains would make the stations a nice even 45?C or more, you'd have to air-condition the tunnels and stations as well and the cost, not to mention the amount of energy required would be astronomical.

I would not think the heat thrown off from the trains' A/C units would make all that much difference considering that they are constantly in motion. (Though NYC's subways are miserably hot in the summer, I admit.)

New York's subway is stifling hot and the only deep lines are the river tunnels and the washington heights lines. Most lines have regular street vents and the A/C trains still cook the tunnels and stations (don't forget the heat from people and traction motors etc.)

but the air con on the newer 6 trains is great tho.

wait isn't that like £35? seems a lot for a single ticket.

wait isn't that like £35? seems a lot for a single ticket.

It seems to have got him to London so I'd say it's a bit of a bargain.

Radiated, convected and conducted. Geothermal heat is minimal.

50 euros a month, innit.

I read yesterday that some tube lines are going to be closed for refurbishment. An olympian task.

That's about the third weekend in a row I've had really shit travel experiences in London.

It's a great city, but badly let down by its transport infrastructure.

"We suggest that you continue your journey at street level"

"Try the Northern Line"??????!?!?!
I'm going to Finsbury fucking Park!!!

LT appears to have this warped idea that no-one actually uses the tube at weekends, so it's alright to close half the system down in one go every Saturday and Sunday. As if this was some kind of 50s throwback where no shops were open, people wandered over to visit their family who lived round the corner and everyone piled into church on a Sunday.

which would be sort of okay if islington council wasn't intent on digging up every major road running through the borough...

no, i just think it knows (for sure) that LESS people use it at weekends.

i've started getting emails about weekend closures, somehow.

xpost

What really bugs me is that fairly outrageous, but fairly commonplace, situations - such as dog latin's above, or several hundred commuters being stuck underground for an hour before being led to safety - are just shrugged off.

i was running a bit late to work so cunningly thought it a great idea to go to work by tube cos it's quicker right? HELL NO i was stuck at a station for 20 minutes (time it takes for the bus to get to work), and what's the worst is the way the next train display thing LIES and tell me 6 mins when i get there and doesn't ever change.

everytime i use the tube it seems to let me down (but i am one of those lesser people who only really ever use the tube at weekends). Thameslink, on the other hand, is amazing.

i guess i'm better off by bike. (or i was better off by bike, until some fucker stole it)

Those things may as well just display the entire written works of L. Ron Hubbard, such is their relation to actual reality.

But my point was that enough people do use it at weekends to make a mockery of the skeleton service that seems to operate every single Saturday and Sunday on the tube. I can barely recall a time when there was a regular Circle/H & C service at weekends!

If I were in charge, I would do exactly what the fuckers say they are anxious to avoid doing: close entire sections of line for, say, three or four weeks and get the bloody job done. Those Metronet numpties will never get anything done while they're ambling about on overtime at weekends and having 'late finishes' on Monday morning. It would be a pain in the arse if you live in say, East Finchley, but at least you knew it'd be over soon and you could actually plan your life around it.

Jesus, simply trying to find out how much a travelcard to London costs becomes a lunatic gambit when trying to tackle the FCC website.

you're all spoiled

A ridiculous thread, this. Londoners!

how's that strike goin'?

Also the buses seem to be better every time I get back. But don't ever change, you total cunts.

xp

I love this thread.

On Friday night I bought a single from Finchley Road to Ruislip for £3. This price seemed OK really, especially as I could get the fast train and change at Harrow for the Uxbridge one behind it.

15 minute wait on the District line for a Richmond train this morning. Is this normal? Was at Earls Court so popped over to the Piccadilly and got a train instantly. Really I should bite the bullet and cycle no matter how tired or lazy I feel.

brixton to hackney central: 133 + 48 is faster than the tube! i felt like i had discovered a wormhole

Ruislip -> I find this to be an extremely funny name (when said in Dutch). Almost as funny as public transport in England.

i discovered the 272 bus on Saturday altho i didn't go on it (but i'd like to).

o to live in a place where 15 minutes waiting for a bus is a long time

but then u would be complaining like us. you would become the very thing you DESPISE.

The London Underground Victoria line will close early between Mondays and Thursdays from 4 February until late November 2008....

Passengers using the line after 21:45 will be asked to use alternative routes while overnight work takes place on a major upgrade of the line.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/7197.aspx

It's been like this for a lot of 2007 (from July through to November)- and no doubt this means it's going to be up the creek at weekends as well.

I missed out on Dr C's gig last night because the Hammersmith and City was out west on Kings Cross because clearly no one wants to do anything at the weekends.

"Full details of weekend closures will also be publicised nearer the time."

Seemed okay to me last month, although I chuckled every time the lovely voice announced that the Victoria line does not stop at Victoria station.

The "No smoking ANYWHERE on the underground" lady pisses me off. I wasn't gonna smoke, stop telling me off!

Ed there's more than one way out west!

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/CLU/C5117~Way-Out-West-Posters.jpg

as much as i'm down with the message, these horrible mascots really piss me off

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/together-for-london-RHbanner.gif

should've drafted in natalie dee

I want to hunt and kill the staff of TFL today. I got a £20 fine last night because the station I was going to didn't have a fucking Oyster reader, unlike every other station before it. I have zone 1-3 card but this was 1 bastard stop into zone 4. Just my fucking luck etc.

figure on the left is based on blueski, surely?

should've drafted in natalie dee

^^^xkcd dude could have spoke to the children with these drawings. And then said something funny about wireless routing.

something about the faces is really patronising. i guess the whole campaign is really.

The cinema advert is horrid, and lasts about four hours.

I got a £20 fine last night because the station I was going to didn't have a fucking Oyster reader

Can you get it back? That's really their fault surely.

They nabbed about 4 other people saying the same thing as me, and basically said tough shit it was your responsibility to check before you travelled, so probably not. I'm going to appeal though, cos it's bollocks really.

Which station, out of interest? I didn't think there were many without these days.

Wood Street. Apparently the Oyster readers stop at Walthamstow Central, where I usually get off, but I had to go to the doctors, so I went on 1 more stop. Honestly didn't know it was in zone 4, but I have prepay on my Oyster anyway so tend not to worry about such things normally.

Yeah that is absolute bullshit.

I think you're all cynical bastards and that the adverts are quite cute. I don't have to stare at them every day though, so I guess the annoyingness doesn't quite seep into me.

they remind me of Love Is... urgh

Useless revenue protection staff - it's not that there isn't an Oyster reader at that station, it's that Pre-pay on NR is far from prefect, and is only valid as far as Walthamstow Central.

It's a complete mess, I found this map the other day which is useful in seeing where Pre-Pay is and isn't valid on National Rail (almost used overground there, which leads to more confusion, ie the 'overground train' in colloquial use, and the London Overground which is the North London Line and other ex-Silverlink Metro services - this has its own set of Pre-Pay anomalies too!). They should either introduce total Z1-6 Pre-pay fares on NR, or none at all. Having bits of lines here and there is just stupid.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/tickets/oyster-PAYG-08-01-02.pdf

That's lousy, Colonel. Surely the point of penalty fares is to nab people who were trying to dodge the fare. What is wrong with just getting you to pay the extra station? (rhetorical question)

Thanks for the map, Bocken. I'm baffled as to why I'm not allowed to use PAYG at my station, Hornsey, on the line north of Finsbury Park, but can use it for stations south of FP on precisely the same line...

In truth CP probably ought to have swotted up on his zones beforehand but then we have to remember that the point of penalty fares is to raise revenue for the Olympics Transport for London.

Those fascists that march through the carriages in gangs of four with their big bastard coats on are worse than fucking muggers, bouncers and traffic wardens put together. They contribute nothing good to the world.

There were about 10 cops standing around at Walthamstow Central when I finally got home just doing fuck all, why weren't they out catching real criminals, eh, eh?

Everytime I go through there now I expect to be stop & searched.

Choob STRIKE

because of what madonna said?

"This dispute boils down to properly trained Tube staff wanting to post lolcats instead of working."

I blame Mackenzie Crook

"This dispute boils down to properly trained Tube staff wanting to post lolcats instead of working."

LOL this is me RIGHT NOW.

Okay this is way cool:

http://onabus.com/

That is cool. Acknowledges a big gap on the TfL site.

It'd be cooler if:

a)they had a cross-referenced index of all the buses and all the stops, so if I want to get to, say holloway road, I don't need to go to journey planner first.

b)I had an iphone or whatever; it's obviously aimed at mobile internet users "on a bus".

Or if you could compare more than one route at the same time.

what's it meant to do? nothing's happening...

One or two people at work have had the same problem. It displays a Google map plotting the bus route in question in a useful kind of way.

Except it doesn't work on two mobile phones I just tried it on. I'm calling useless.

wow that is awesome. i bet it definitely works on an iPhone..

hmm, it thought a 73 went from Upminster to Tilbury

it's obviously aimed at mobile internet users "on a bus".

i.e. "onabus.com"

Doesn't work on a Blackberry either, you just get a list of bus stops which can surely be of no real use to anyone.

I was hoping the photos would be view from the top deck

Yeah I checked the 73 route, that's a funny one! x-post

next step from that being videos of journeys end to end xp

It thought a C11 was some sort of coach service from Kent too, but there's a list of other routes below the stops list. Not ideal.

I was hoping the photos would be view from the top deck

I noticed google maps now has a thing where it shows locations of photos (presumably in picasa?) and wikipedia pages on the maps now.

No photos/Google maps coming up on my view either EPIC FAIL

Hmm obviously very Beta at the moment.

doesn't work on my PC either

ok works on firefox

should tell you where you can change to other buses

Basically onthebus.com reveals exactly why they invented spider maps.

and asks the question why they invented the W7 bus route
http://onabus.com/?route=w7

Yes, I never quite worked out the rationale behind that one.

The really inexplicable one is the bus which goes from the top of Barnet to the bottom of Barnet and back again but I can't remember its number.

W7 useful for getting to tube black hole Muswell Hill from that other tube black hole Stoke Newington.

Every time I'm in Stoke Newington every bus seems to go nowhere except Edmonton. What's the attraction?

http://www.onroutebus.com/wp-content/themes/onroute-theme/images/fp91.jpg

http://www.onroutebus.co.uk

transport in London the UK is shit

For example, in Britain long-distance turn-up-and-go fully flexible day-return fares to the principal city (London) were 87% more expensive than in the next most expensive country surveyed - Germany.

This type of British fare was also more than three times as expensive than in the cheapest country surveyed - the Netherlands.

British annual season tickets for journeys of no more than 25 miles were 88% more expensive than the next most expensive country - France - and more than four times pricier than the cheapest country - Italy.

We should be rioting in the street or burning mainline stations to a cinder in protest.

train fares in my part of the world have gone up by about 80% in the last, ooh, six, seven years. Dunno how that's justifiable in terms that aren't nonsense. Also, why is cross-country train travel so amazingly expensive when not purchased months in advance? For example, when Southern Rail (or someone) made me miss a bus from London to Glasgow with their 50 minute late train, they agreed to pay for us to get a train from London to Glasgow instead. Three single tickets: £318. Who actually buys tickets at that price?

OK, can I just complain about this a moment?

I had to go to a job interview this morning, so I hopped on a 159 expecting to get to Central London in about an hour. There was a road diversion so that it took over HALF AN HOUR to get to Brixton (normally a 15 minute busride) - so I hopped off at Brixton and decided to take the tube because I needed to be there by 11am.

It was FOUR POUNDS for a single. FOUR POUNDS to travel from zone 2 to zone 1.

That is just COMPLETELY out of order. And don't go on about Oyster cards because I STILL live in an area where they STILL don't take Oyster cards on my local train.

FOUR POUNDS. FOUR EARTH POUNDS. FOR A SINGLE. FROM ZONE 2 TO ZONE 1.

I can remember when I moved back to the UK, a bloody travelcard for the DAY was not quite four pounds. How can inflation have gone up that much?

And don't go on about Oyster cards

hey how about you get an oyster card for, like, the bus and the tube?

Can I please proffer the opinion that London transport is actually quite good.

OTM

Can I please proffer the opinion that London transport is actually quite good.

Oh good - not this again...How much research does there need to be to prove it?

To repeat something upthread: It's people not complaining, and not comparing it to more modern transport systems, that's partly responsible for London's transport remaining shit.

International competitiveness studies always highlight the expense of transport, crumbling infrastructure, and historic lack of investment as a negative factor in London's economic position.

There's such a wide range of factors which differ between cities: climate, sprawl, population density, geography, layout, that I don't see how I can one can ever conduct meaningful research. Maybe other cities have better transport, but I'm still amazed *every single day* that this jumbled sprawling metropolis, the largest in Europe, is held together by a transport system which has got me from A to B every day since I've lived here somehow or other.

[I can feel myself going a bit Marcello about this - probably the long-term built up frustration of all those poor journeys - so please adjust following for any hyperbole]

For that matter, there's such diversity between countries that you might as well say we can never compare economies fully, so can never carry out meaningful research and know that the Zimbabwean economic system is worse than - for example - Denmark... We might as well pack up all attempts at comparison....

Please raise your expectations over what a city transport system can provide - if not for yourself, for everyone else because (I suspect) a lot of improvements are demand-led.

If we just continue accept the clapped out inefficient expensive 'system' we've got in a well-intended but misguided, mustn't grumble/had worse/blitz spirit/forelock tugging manner, it'll never improve.

It was FOUR POUNDS for a single. FOUR POUNDS to travel from zone 2 to zone 1.

Tourist tax, innit.

Also, the fact that you've just discovered this (it's been £4 for a non-oyster single for at least 2-3 years now) is actually a good thing!

clapped out inefficient expensive

Are there two different Londons? Ok the only other major city transport network I can really remember using is Paris. A single there: eur1.60. A single here: ukp1.60 (with oyster card). That's parity at the current exchange rate! And I would say London easily wins in terms of train frequency, and definitely in station coverage.

And the coverage and frequency of buses in central london is pretty fucking amazing imo. Single: £1 (with oyster). Seems cheap enough to me.

Can I please proffer the opinion that London transport is actually quite good.

― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:07 AM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

otfm, and anyone who's tried to deal with one of these cunts or one of these cunts would have something real to complain about.

Last time I checked (and granted, it's been a long time since I checked) there was a £5 deposit to get an Oyster card. So I should pay £5 to lug around this extra piece of plastic that I can use once every 2 years?

But I know it's a losing battle trying to persuade people who live on Oyster lines that they're not god's gift to transport.

I just remember being in NYC earlier this year and being astonished by how much better the NYC subway was than the tube.

i.e. if you get to work without 12 of your actual services being cancelled EVERY WEEK you are doing well xp

obvs xp

how much better the NYC subway was than the tube.

in terms of what? (n.b. i don't tend to use transport at rush hour, i know the tube can get jammed. any other time i really don't know what people complain about.)

reliability mostly

Rush hour is rush hour (though it is true that LDN transport is more crowded), but it's delays and line closings that seem the real problem with the tube.

Closures, delays, trains actually turning up when they're supposed to... oh yeah, and if you compare cost - NYC is way cheaper, especially considering it's a one fare ride as far as you like system. Oh, and runs all night.

I mean, perhaps I'm just bitter because of my experience this morning - and also my experience yesterday of waiting 20 minutes for a connection to finally turn up, combined with the experience the previous day of being stranded for over an hour at East Croydon... this frustration just adds up. Especially considering that when I was commuting every day, 3 out of every 4 mornings I would experience some kind of delay.

Them's the breaks... I don't wanna downplay the experience of getting majorly delayed, or suggest that there isn't a problem at all, but called it 'clapped out' and 'inefficient' is wayyy over stating the case. Plus, they are working on this, right? What else are all the planned closures for.

Hang on, in what universe is three significant delays in THREE DAYS just "them's the breaks"?

That's a failure rate of 100%. I think that comes pretty clearly under the category of "shit".

Weren't two of them trains though? Not tfl. Trains are shit, well that's whole other story.

Also, failure rate of 100% for very small sample.

For various reasons, I've travelled in Europe a lot a while back - and I really resent denial over problems with London transport.

The first stage to recovery is acknowledging a problem.

The historical lack of investment is obvious and the problems it causes are obvious. Coverage is poor - e.g. large parts of South London aren't on the tube network.

Structural improvements/solutions such as Cross-Rail, and mooted tram schemes, are in an on/off stage for decades.

It shuts down early, it breaks down frequently, and it is expensive (try comparing monthly/yearly ticket costs with other world cities).

Plus have tried travelling at weekend recently?

It'd be such a relief if we could bring ourselves to acknowledge that it's shit.

Coverage is excellent in the middle of town - i.e. all the bits that most visitors think of as London. Cross rail is under development. Paris is cheaper for season tickets, yes, but not single journeys. Yes it would be nice if the tube opened later. I would argue that while there are problems, 'it' does not 'break down' 'frequently'. And yes there have been line closures at weekends, those are planned engineering works precisely to try and fix the problems with reliability.

The fact that for years every station has had a whiteboard at the turnstiles enumerating which lines have problems is kind of a red flag.

What about the fact that I get to where I want to go quickly and hassle free 99% of the time?

The historical lack of investment is obvious and the problems it causes are obvious

This is true. I'm not saying there are no problems. But the chicken little attitude does not chime with my experience at all.

I wonder if there's a complete mismatch in our expectations, or even what we're discussing?

You're talking about "the middle of town - i.e. all the bits that most visitors think of as London" - I'm talking about the wider London experience.

You're talking about cost of single journeys - I'm talking about the cost of using it as a day in, day out commuter.

I think visitors who stick to the centre of town have a very different experience from those who slog in to the centre day, in, day out.

Well I live at Waterloo so slogging in to the centre is not an issue, I'm already there. And I am kinda spoilt for choice with journey options, 4 lines and countless buses. I commuted on the tube for six months last year, and 9 months about uh 9 years ago, but I've never bought even a weekly travelcard. I do think it's crazy to say coverage is poor - in terms of stations it must be in the top five in the world?

yeah loads of stations for like theydon fucking bois

And the ten different stations in Ealing.

just partition london and be done with it

London transport is very idiosyncratic - generally fine, BUT subject to occasional and seemingly arbitrary fuck ups that will sabotage your entire day. Also there are certain seemingly straightforward routes that cannot be relied on at all if you have to be somewhere punctually, such as the number fucking 4.

Hey, Autumn Almanac, are the trams in Melbourne still basically free? Seemed to be when I was there for a bit four years ago...

Nah, they've stepped up patrols. So basically we have to pay for the broken service now.

i seriously cannot believe that anyone is defending the london public transport system omg! surely the best you can possibly say about it is that it exists and occasionally even works w/no delays or jams and gets you to places on time, but every other major city in the world that i've been to has a public transport system which puts london to shame.

that is insane, ldn transport is incredible...anyone complaining about it has never lived in another city

When I went to London it was shocking how much more efficient, effective, and functional (if not more expensive) than anywhere else I'd been (and what more in an enormous city that deals with enormous volumes of people).

As a little experiment, to see if opinions differ depending on where you live, I've made a collaborative Google map. Stick a red pin in if you think tfl is shit, or a green pin if you think it's great. If you are really unable to commit to either extreme I guess you could use a yellow pin.

Email me at tom dotttt ledger attt gmail dotttt com for an invite, once you're in you can invite other people too.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=106594618650848772292.0004636ab35215c6d1d70

Ledge, London is more than Zone 1.

It's a HELL of a lot more than Zone 1, and it's totally arrogant and elitist to judge the entire system on a tiny sliver of an experience that is totally unaffordable to the great majority of people that live in London.

The fact that we've been promised a tube for years, and STILL never got one (where are they sending our promised line? Oh yeah, to Clapham - because they're *so* short of train lines) - the fact that we STILL are not on the Oyster card system after how many years? And the fact that this is true of vast swathes of South London (sorry, we *are* London, even though lots of people would like to pretend otherwise) is indicative of MASSIVE FAIL.

The bus service in London is far better than that of any other city. The Tube has its problems, but is still pretty good IMO.

And problems with the rail service can be blamed on the ludicrous franchising schemes when the Tories broke up British Rail in the arly 90s.

It's true, the buses are pretty great.

In fact, rail in S London would do well to be given over to TFL- the former Silverlink line in N London has improved immeasurably since this happened last year.

And there is going to be a similar orbital rail link in S London, from Surrey Quays to Clapham, run by TFL:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7886008.stm

Whatever the problems with the Olympics, London travel will be significantly improved.

Do the buses in Birmingham still make you pay for your ticket by putting your coins into a dispenser that, in order to be more efficient, doesn't give change? That was always fun.

There's no lateral S London rail link extending into Lewisham, Bexley and beyond. Which has always irritated me a teeny bit. Everything, literally everything, passes through London Bridge/Charing Cross for us lot. Normally this isn't too much of a problem, to be fair.

lol Birmingham

I think the transport is fantastic, though shit if you live south of the river.
I also read an independent review a while ago that put our 'metro' system as the most cost effective/efficient considering its size and availability, and also considering the number of people that use it each day.

It's easy to complain but we actually have a very good underground network, consisting of one of the largest networks of stations, geographical coverage, number of lines and connections, speed, etc etc.

Ledge, London is more than Zone 1.

Noooo shiiiitttt

a tiny sliver of an experience that is totally unaffordable to the great majority of people that live in London.

I'm sorry I'll shut up and get back to stuffing my face with caviar in my five mill riverside penthouse suite.

don't live in south london guys

i can and i will

That south circular rail was supposed to go to Streatham - it's now not. We got sold this massive scheme whereby they are going to knock down our Leisure Centre and build a massive Tescos in its place, in preparation for putting the tube station in the complex - but now we're not getting the tube, and we're still getting the sodding Tesco. :-(

I swear, since the re-conglomeration of the trains, service is getting worse. I didn't think anything could be worse than Thameslink, but First Crapital Connect still manage to somehow be.

And as to what they're doing to "upgrade" the system - basically shutting down trains to South London at evenings and weekends - because why on earth would anyone need to leave South London at the weekend? And oh yeah, let's shut the Victoria line at the same time - and close Oval, which is the one station on the Northern Line where it's actually convenient to get Brixton bound busses? Yeah, someone didn't think that one through.

I admit, this is a lot of venting, but I have just so much built up anger about how TFL treats South London.

what about stockwell?

wtf they can't close the only cricket-specific tube station

they can't

By the sound of things getting in and out of Lewisham is absolutely fine compared to South London further west. I very rarely have problems tbh.

Kate, seriously, just get an Oyster card, you've been having this rant for two or three years now. I've had two PAYG Oysters that they've never charged me a deposit for, that may be their fuckup though. And even if you do have to pay a fiver, the deposit pays for itself in two journeys anyway. And it's fucking useful on buses, which really ARE overpriced for non-Oyster users.

Also this is worth reading.

Where did you buy your Oyster that you didn't have to pay a deposit for?

They don't even sell them at my rail station. :-(

also p.s.:

When you first get your Oyster card, you will need to pay a refundable £3 deposit if you are only adding cash to pay as you go.

xpost i think the deposit is three pounds rather than five?

The thing about transport in london is that ok the tubes are up the spout more often than not, and the rail system seriously needs to get joined up, but the buses are fantastic. On the other hand I am seriously pissed off that fares are set to go up like 6% this year, mostly cos boris johnson wants a budget that looks good?

that is insane, ldn transport is incredible...anyone complaining about it has never lived in another city

― Local Garda, Saturday, 21 February 2009 05:16 (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

qft

I mean, in Northampton, buses run between 7am and 6pm. Just as a comparison point.

xp Any newsagent who sells travel cards will sell Oyster cards too.

Even in a city as big as Bristol, there are no such things as night buses, and Manchester's will allow you to go down the Oxford Road, anywhere else you're screwed. It was a big deal when the bus system went down the other day due to snow- the first time this has ever happened apart from Xmas day.

Pretty much every major bus route in london will run every 15 mins throughout every night- amazing, IMO.

I have lived in other cities. I have lived in NYC, whose mass transit system is so much better than London's it's not even funny.

Pretty much every major bus route in london will run every 15 mins throughout every nigh

Just. Not. Fucking. True. The number of times I've waited half an hour to an hour in the freezing cold on London Bridge...

Well, compare the buses to the buses you get in the US, which are twice the size and hold half as many people.

Though I really liked last weekend when only three out of the 12 (?) Tube lines were running in full without any kind of closures.

I suppose timetabling might not match the reality, but even so.

lol if we have to compare to other UK cities to make london seem halfway decent...compare to tokyo or berlin, where the metro lines run to the minute.

the london bus system is good, yes, but in practical terms this is counterbalanced by the congestion on the roads.

I mean, in Northampton, buses run between 7am and 6pm. Just as a comparison point.

Northampton isn't exactly a global capital of 7 or 8 million people, though, is it? The best comparison is with other major Western European capitals, and frankly, I can't think of a single one that is as bad or as expensive as London. It took me an hour to get from Stoke Newington to Waterloo yesterday, hardly a huge distance.

and an hour from stoke newington to waterloo is REALLY GOOD for that route.

when i worked in soho i experimented with walking home to dalston a few times, and it took me 10 fewer minutes than my usual bus journey.

I grew up in London, then moved back here six months ago - I work to work, but take the tube to see friends/ go out etc, mostly on weekends.

I would say I get to where I want to go quickly and hassle free about 40% of the time, and am able to get to where I want to go, at all (without using an unexpected bus and being so late there's no point in going), another 35% of the time. I don't really think that's acceptable, maybe other people would? This is Zone 1 btw.

I live in Stoke Newington, and work in Waterloo, and my commute takes an hour. The problem with Stoke Newington is not the bus service, it's the lack of tube stations, but that's a choice I made when I moved here. When I lived in Maida Vale, I could get from home to work, door to door, in half an hour.

Anyway, I agree that public transport in London is not as good as it should be. Key reason, in my opinion, is the fact that London was without any cewntral government for about 15 years. I know it's a cliche to blame Mrs T, but her government bears responsibility for London's transport problems, I think.

when i worked in soho i experimented with walking home to dalston a few times, and it took me 10 fewer minutes than my usual bus journey.

The near-constant bottleneck of traffic on Kingsland Road is fucking soul-crushing. I really can't wait for the East London Line extension, it'll make my whole life so much easier. I did once manage to get from Blackheath to Dalston in half an hour, that must have been some kind of record.

The only major international city I've been to with a worse public transport system is New York, funnily enough. Although at least New York's seems to work most of the time but it's still annoying as hell.

compare to tokyo or berlin, where the metro lines run to the minute.

tokyo = no night buses, if you want to get home after about 1230 your options are expensive taxi, waiting until the trains start again at 6ish, or... walking! Plus, tokyo buses can have a pretty loose relationship with their timetables.

The best comparison is with other major Western European capitals, and frankly, I can't think of a single one that is as bad or as expensive as London.

Having experienced the overcrowded, overheated slog that is Lisbon's public transport system, I'm calling bullshit on this. Trams look lovely but good god I'd hate to have to use them every day.

The best comparison is with other major Western European capitals, and frankly, I can't think of a single one that is as bad or as expensive as London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Metro

Don't know Rome but I do know Lisbon, and I can imagine commuting might be tricky. Lisbon is small and poor with tricky geography. At least it's cheap though! But big wealthy cities like Paris, Madrid, Berlin etc... their public transport systems are so far ahead of London's it's not funny.

The near-constant bottleneck of traffic on Kingsland Road is fucking soul-crushing.

i find that kingsland rd is usually ok? unless you mean up by dalston junction itself, in which case otmfm.

other soul-crushing bottlenecks of london which kill me on a regular basis: liverpool street, angel, fucking HOLBORN, jesus christ i hate holborn circus so much. once on my way into work it took me 35 actual minutes to get around it. that day i arrived 1hr and 50 minutes late :(

The traffic going west on Holborn is the worst in the entire city I think. Going east it seems fine but as I work there, I actively try and avoid arranging any meetings west of my office.

Where does anyone live in London?
I am a Londoner born and bred (and proper London at that, none of this south of the river nonsense) and I love the place, but being there for more than a couple of days just wears me out. Getting around is very difficult. Except by foot which can be the greatest thing in the world. Except when it's raining.

TFL: I appreciate your concern for my transport needs but I can honestly do without an individual email for every sodding bus route that may be facing disruption.

Kindly stick your 521 up your 521.

first time with a new overground train this morning - no carriage walls so it's like a big long bendy bus! loads of aisle room as well, have to say i was pretty impressed.

gonna have to take the 242 from east into town later and i JUST FUCKING KNOW those lazy cunts will stop it after holborn viaduct LIKE THEY ALWAYS CUNTING DO.

too fucking hot to use the tube in the summer. esp when you have to wear a suit. hopefully the olympics will make TFL put in some AC.

Hey Londoners who have to get overground trains into work, are you all looking forward to the cut in the number of trains coming into effect on December 13th? Not to mention everyone else who's going to suffer from even more overcrowded tubes and buses as a result?

Having not cycled to work since I broke my leg two months ago I was looking for additional motivation to get back on my bike again. This'll be it, then. Thanks TFL!

I've just checked and there are now FOUR fewer trains going from my local station between 7 and 9am.

this is exactly the kind of thing that kicks my work ethic out of its default slumber - if i don't get on with this shit THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE

hang on WHAT

Think the way it worked was:

Govt: "Hey guess what, we're going to stop subsidising you as much and you'll have to pay back some of the money we gave you"

Rail companies: "Okay but you'll have to let us cut some services to make up the shortfall"

Govt: "Okay!"

(I think some companies have already implemented the cuts and others haven't yet, it's only South Eastern Trains cuts that come into force next month)

> cut in the number of trains coming into effect on December 13th?

saw a poster on tube yesterday trumpeting an increase in tube frequencies (circle line, hammersmith and city)

Which is of next to no use to most people who are likely to be affected by this.

remind me if the impending latest fare rises are lower than inflation or whut

not being funny here but aside from matt dc i am probably the most-affected ilxor by this because i live in the no-tube heaven that is SE London

also i am a miserable penniless student

everyone at connex south whatever they're called these days can frankly do one...i hate you

increasing numbers of circle and h&c trains? not evident by my shit journey today.

ah, this is what they meant (poster was circle line but also talked about hammersmith which isn't on the circle line. yet.)

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article6927561.ece

(and that's only from dec 13th)

I think there are commuter towns/villages in Kent that are seeing their number of trains into the City halved. Cannon Street services look like they're bearing the brunt of the cuts. Oh, and they've added more services through to Victoria meaning that people will have to pile on the Tube from there.

(Haha also way to piss off swing voters in middle class areas just before an election dudes)

i'm voting for the Civil Disobedience Party

Oh, and they've added more services through to Victoria meaning that people will have to pile on the Tube from there.

They really need to open a second down elevator and switch the entrance gates if they're going to be able to handle an influx of train passengers in that station, I think.

Until then I will continue to take the longer but relatively relaxed bus/tube journey.

london bridge tube station at rush hour is a vision of hades fwiw

Yeah that interchange is as horrific as virtually everywhere on the Jubilee/Northern lines is. And getting on the Northern Line there during peak hours is virtually impossible.

as i have had to do every weekday morning for nine weeks and they wonder why i've snapped

Have been hearing worrying reports of this from

http://twitter.com/ihatethameslink

I am so glad I have flexitime, so I can wait and bypass the helltimes.

As awful as both Victoria and London Bridge are to transfer, neither of them are as bad as ::shudders:: Elephant & Castle.

I read somewhere that the Northern Line is the busiest of all lines. If that's true I'm glad I rarely have to use it.

My morning tube journeys start either at Brixton or E&C, so at least I always get a seat. E&C is a total shithole (definite *shudders* -- I get a bus there on the way home and I rarely enjoy being there unless I can overhear grown men arguing about Jesus). I find the worst thing about interchanging at E&C for any service to be the way the station sprawls and the way it's so crowded all the time where the buses stop.

Hey, I actually quite love Elephant & Castle, as a place. But I recognise that it takes a certain kind of Sarf London grimness to appreciate it. (also, the Faraday Memorial! my ex was obsessed with that thing.) I admit that it's one of the Seven Hellmouths of London, but hey, I've got a soft spot for hellmouths.

I just hate having to transfer there, ESPECIALLY when they're only running one of the damn elevators like they were the other night.

I don't know how they manage to have so many different lines pass through there, pretend to transfer and actually be NOWHERE NEAR one another.

My morning tube journeys start either at Brixton or E&C, so at least I always get a seat.

Same, when I bother with it at all. The buses from Peckham/Dulwich have actually been fairly reliable recently and seem to (mostly) make it up the Walworth Road in relatively decent time so I've generally been able to avoid getting off at E&C to accelerate my journey. It still takes ages but at least it's relatively pleasant.

(Having said that, it's now guaranteed to be a fucker tomorrow and i'll still be a Camberwell at 8.30)

I could have sworn there was a thread about the Elephant and Castle on ILX, but I cannot seem to find it. :-(

hey, so you're in Peckham/Dulwich too!? I wonder if we've ever unknowingly shared a bus or a pub.

On the way home I sometimes take buses that go along Old Kent Road, which at the very least is a nice scenery change from Walworth, but I find the clog near Peckham is probably worse than Camberwell and cancels out any progress made on OKR compared to Walworth :(

I think It's pretty likely we've shared a pub or a 12 or a 176 or a 40 or a 37 at some point. Given up your seat to a bloke on crutches recently? was prob me.

On the other flip side to the upthread news yo: Overland trains to accept Oyster

Will a PAYG oyster still max out when you've hit the price of a day's travel card? Pretty great if that was the case tbh.

How much is "the price of a day's travel card" now, anyway? I'd guess about £8.50 or some stupid amount?

£5.60 for zones 1-2 without any railcard, I think. or maybe more now, I don't know, mine caps out at a lower rate.

xpost, haven't seen any dudes on crutches. I will be sure to get overly excited and post about it if I do, though.

I do Gipsy Hill-Victoria (then 38 bus)/London Bridge (then change for Char X) every day. The 17min gap between services at the time I'm most likely to get down to the station in the morning already sucks, so if it's about to get worse... (It goes 07:45, 07:51, 07:53, 07:57...08:14).

Today, you may be delighted to know, I passed out/threw up simultaneously on a 38. Just christening the new, shiny double deckers, y'understand. (Lovely woman from Charlton bought me a bottle of water and walked me to the station. Bloody child-borne stomach viruses).

I used to go through L Bridge, fucking horrible.

Now Bethnal Green to White City...fling myself onto a central line and it's 30 mins door to door. Changing jobs tho so I go to rush hour for first time starting tomorrow.

good luck with that, my memory of the central line at rush hour was of unmitigated hell, I used to get on a liverpool street and they would often close the platforms it was so crowded.

will be at 9 o clock so maybe not absolute worst. on way home is fine, always seats at white city.

Haha if there's one thing that consoles me about overground trains it's no longer having to go through the abject hell of getting on the Tube at rush hour. 9am will probably be alright though.

This may change when my comfortable always-get-a-seat train evaporates next month.

Central Line at Holborn is major hellmouth at rush hour - unless I'm disembarking, there's no way on Earth that I'll go there between 5 and 7 pm. The corner where the station sits - and there's only one way in -absolutely heaves with people. The only saving grace of having to use the station at that time is that I can usually insinuate myself into a seat because of the people changing trains.

The worst thing is there are two or three stalls plonked right outside the station making the bottleneck worse. The corner of Kingsway and Holborn could *really* do with an Oxford Circus style Japanese X-crossing.

no more tube/bus commute to work as of next week :) five minute walk bliss. (actually might still take the 29 up two stops)

^^^ Holy grail

many xposts, Those new 38s look like yachts on wheels. I saw about 4 drive by in a row at Angel the other day and marveled at their bright, clean insides. Hope all the bendies turn into swanky new buses like that..

i saw 5 38s in a row on friday night. clearly they sail in schools.

The new regime of the 38 double-decker doesn't seem like a total disaster and they are absurdly frequent now. Even though the bus station at Victoria now has the same endlessly-snaking queues you see at Waterloo opposite the Imax (due to the single point-of-entry thing), they're always moving and there's usually two or three buses stacked up ready to go. Spacious inside too - loads of legroom.

Sorry for barfing on you, new 38.

I don't think there was ever any question of the changeover being a total disaster, contrary to the predictions of some of the more pessimistic observers. True, they (38s) were Routemasters before, but there are large numbers of other routes in the areas the 38 passes through that use modern double-deckers (eg 19, 14, 341, 243 etc. etc.).

I've travelled twice on the new 38s now and was struck on both occasions by an unpleasant smell. The first time, I was convinced it was an unwashed passenger causing it, because the smell is very similar to that of chronically dirty clothes plus body odour, but it seems it's the upholstery of the seats that's to blame, because I noticed the smell again during my second journey.

Do you still smell it now, where you're sitting?

maybe dubmill was in the seat mike barfed on

I guess when he got on the second bus, he still had vomit on his butt.

Do you still smell it now, where you're sitting?

No, I'd considered the possibility you are implying, but on both oocasions I had showered and was wearing clean clothes. I also noted that the smell was absent when I transferred onto other buses after getting off the 38.

Heaven and Hell experience today - perhaps typical of London.

This morning - Hell - Roads snarled up and Vauxhall bus garage eventually completely shut and r because of an accident on the Albert Embankment. 70 minutes to travel by bus from Vauxhall to Westminster Abbey (approx 15 minutes walk/10 minute bus journey usuall). Do the police really need to delay hundreds of people over one accident?

This evening - Heaven - home in half an hour or less from stepping out of the Anoushka Shankar concert at Sadlers Wells via the Northern and Victoria lines.

Maybe there's a very smelly man who just rides the 38 all day every day.

i was riding the 38 the other day, and then a man came in and he said he wanted hackney. he was a smelly man. driver did not like him. driver said 'we didn't go to any hackney' .. and then the man just went!

omg omg I finally got to ride on a new Victoria Line train. it was clean! it was spacious! the Train Lady Voice told me which side of the train the doors were going to open at the next stop!

wait what

hang on wtf is going down out there

There's a file under the railway arches at Rotherhithe according to the TFL site, and it appears to have completely wrecked all the London Bridge services.

Wait hold on there aren't any railway arches in Rotherhithe. I suppose they must mean somewhere in Bermondsey. But I'm looking at the area right now and I can't see a fire. Maybe it's small, or extinguished. Or maybe something else is going on.

South Bermondsey, arch by Debnams Road.

apparently SE London has been cut off, which will really facilitate the journey in I was planning on taking now

I got in fine from Forest Hill this morning but I think I was lucky to get on the one non-cancelled train in the space of half an hour.

The DLR also appears to be closed at Lewisham now. Very strange.

Perhaps they should just give us an official South East London-only bank holiday every time there is a big fire in Bermondsey (ie about once every six months).

IT'S LOCKDOWN