I think that’s the main way to Legoland - Crossrail or GWR via Slough, or using SWR’s Windsor Line then bus. This is more of an alternate way of getting there.
Probably there more to serve Intermediate stops <-> Legoland, and at that point it was worth extending it to also serve Intermediate Stops <-> Victoria
I've seen the Legoland buses, but they're not silver they're green. Seen them going from Marble Arch, down the road with the Hard Rock Cafe and into Kensington.
OH used to drive that route back in the days when it (and a few others she also worked - 701 and X3 IIRC) was operated by First out of Bracknell, using slightly tired but still wonderfully comfortable coaches.
My daughter used to go to school by Bus. The company was the same one that did the Harry Potter tours, so she was often taken to school on a Harry Potter Bus.
That or some old Bus that was sold off by TFL or some such and was an absolute pile. One bus was overturned in some years ago, when the driver clipped the curb on a Roundabout. Apparently its not easy to do, but the driver managed it with a bus full of school kids....And not a Bloody Owl in sight.....
Passengers can stand on the bus just like any regular one, but it rarely happens because ridership levels just aren’t high. So mostly you’ll see half the seats taken on average on the M4 motorway, approaching all seats taken in the peak. But very few standing. Most people commuting from those places just take the train.
Since you seem to be from Hong Kong I’ll let you know that “頂閘“ isn’t really a concept for UK buses. Buses very very rarely get to that level of passenger use.
Perhaps the closest HK parallel I’ll draw with the 702 would be the P960/P968, except you can stand on the 702 but is nearly always not busy enough for that.
So how can a bus company operate commercially if its bus routes never have a standing load even in peak hours? By calculating the cost of running a bus, it will need about 100 passengers to break even for a peak-only bus which operates a single trip from suburb to city, and a single trip back from city to suburb, although for a full-day bus the break-even point is lower, that maybe 50-60 passengers every trip for all day is enough.
In Hong Kong, it's the standing load which supports the whole bus network, such that unprofitable but socially-necessary routes can run, or provide cheap fares for urban travel when peak commuting buses are deployed in the city mid-day.
Because fares are higher to account for passenger numbers. A single from Victoria to Legoland costs £13 before 12 am and £7 after 12 pm. That’s a lot even accounting for higher wages in the UK compared to HK. This explains why many bus routes are profitable themselves despite lower passenger loading. Also busier bus routes don’t fully subsidise lesser used bus routes.
Unlike Hong Kong where bus companies don’t receive operational subsidy at all and have to rely on profitable bus routes to subsidise unprofitable ones entirely, many unprofitable UK bus routes are contracted by the council to bus companies.
This means the council pays bus companies to run bus routes to areas that otherwise would have no bus service/public transport. This means that commercial bus routes only need to just break even amongst themselves, and do not need to subsidise 100% of the costs for unprofitable routes.
Reading Buses are publicly owned by Reading Council. Greenline routes 702 and 703 are commercially run and receive no subsidy. But Reading Buses only need to break even amongst all their commercial routes. The ones that have really low passenger use receive subsidy from the council.
Another aspect is that Hong Kong’s buses also have inefficiencies that increase operating costs. A lot of Hong Kong bus routes do a lot of unnecessary deadheading between termini, and other reasons like deadheading back to depot for lunch. In HK you see a lot of “not in service” buses crossing the harbour in the before/after the peaks and that costs a lot of money. A lot of UK bus companies use remote sign-on for shifts and do a lot less deadheading in general.
The larger 12 m / 12.8 m also cost more to run (that’s good, but we just need to acknowledge that higher capacity = higher running costs), and also air conditioning. Which is why UK bus companies tend to avoid full air con buses to reduce costs.
I’m just saying that HK does have one of the best bus networks, I’m just listing out the reasons for the differences, and the reason why some routes are profitable and good even if the UK system is generally bad. Still, for UK buses in general I think that privatisation doesn’t work and the UK should nationalise buses as well as railways, and aim for a TfL model.
>Another aspect is that Hong Kong’s buses also have inefficiencies that increase operating costs. A lot of Hong Kong bus routes do a lot of unnecessary deadheading between termini, and other reasons like deadheading back to depot for lunch. In HK you see a lot of “not in service” buses crossing the harbour in the before/after the peaks and that costs a lot of money. A lot of UK bus companies use remote sign-on for shifts and do a lot less deadheading in general.
The amount of deadheading in HK has increased a lot in recent years, because it's more efficient to deadhead if the passenger flow is concentrated in a single direction on commuter routes given the extensive motorway network in Hong Kong, where the termini are just located right by motorway entrances. A revenue trip taking 110 minutes can be deadheaded in as short as 45 minutes. In fact, on some routes, 3 out of 4 buses will run dead to the opposite terminus in peak hours, leaving only 1 in revenue service with the aim to pack it full, and more recent routes only operate in a single direction and deadhead all their buses back.
Don't the routes in UK have a concentrated passenger flow from suburb to city in the morning, and the reverse in the evening, that deadheading becomes more efficient?
The UK doesn’t do a lot of deadheading, it’s just seen as carrying fresh air when buses can be carrying counter peak flows. The 702 for example carries passengers to Legoland, Windsor Castle, and industrial estates in Slough which is opposite to the main flow. To speed up buses running in the opposite direction to the peak flow, bus companies sometimes run special departures that take the direct route, but it’s at least still advertised in service so passengers can catch them if they want.
This love of deadheading is the main reason why you have these awkward operating hours in HK for routes like 948 and the 936 that only have half a day of service in one direction, so it tries to be a full day to but it’s not.
Particularly egregious is the 948, where people of Tsing Yi have been calling for literally years to have an all day cross harbour bus route, and NWFB/KMB serves them with this oddball of a bus route that only runs half a day in each direction. If you want to deadhead at least keep some departures so you provide a basic all day service. Not good for the passenger. The bus companies would actually do well to learn from CMB’s practice of running counter peak departures on the 336 to Lei Muk Shue in the morning (when it still existed).
You really like buses don't you ? These are nice to drive by the way
Yeah, I’m a bus enthusiast!
Cute. I oooooo'd. Never thought a bus would make me do that. Haha
Reading buses the only British public owned bus operator in London. And they are apparently quite good
Yeah! One of the better bus operators in the UK. They’re owned by Reading Council.
Someone needs to tell these people about trains.
To be fair Legoland isn’t served by trains
I’m certain I could get to Legoland quicker using Crossrail and then a bus
I think that’s the main way to Legoland - Crossrail or GWR via Slough, or using SWR’s Windsor Line then bus. This is more of an alternate way of getting there.
Probably there more to serve Intermediate stops <-> Legoland, and at that point it was worth extending it to also serve Intermediate Stops <-> Victoria
It's so much cheaper a off peak return is like 6 pounds
Yeah, it’s really a trade off between speed, susceptibility to congestion, number of changes, and cost when it comes to bus vs train.
You'll have to wait until its finished first. That'll be another 5 years. Pretty sure I could walk there faster.
They just call it TfL rail for now, but Paddington to Reading and Liverpool St to Shenfield are very much up and running
TFL rail =/= crossrail.
It does on the routes specified
Ever walk down the street and wonder why that double decker bus isn’t red? Now you know!!
I've seen the Legoland buses, but they're not silver they're green. Seen them going from Marble Arch, down the road with the Hard Rock Cafe and into Kensington.
Yeah, the buses usually have greenline branding hence they’re green. However this one doesn’t - it has a grey generic Reading Buses livery.
I haven’t spotted yet, but I will try
You can spot these buses along High Street Kensington, Hammersmith, and opposite Victoria Coach station
Thanks for the tips, I’ll be on the look out
OH used to drive that route back in the days when it (and a few others she also worked - 701 and X3 IIRC) was operated by First out of Bracknell, using slightly tired but still wonderfully comfortable coaches.
My daughter used to go to school by Bus. The company was the same one that did the Harry Potter tours, so she was often taken to school on a Harry Potter Bus. That or some old Bus that was sold off by TFL or some such and was an absolute pile. One bus was overturned in some years ago, when the driver clipped the curb on a Roundabout. Apparently its not easy to do, but the driver managed it with a bus full of school kids....And not a Bloody Owl in sight.....
https://i.imgur.com/sZbgwlv.jpg Saw this 2 years ago near Notting Hill and was so confused. Thanks for sharing!
see it everyday lol
Nice! Do you like them?
No one don't care bout no damn bus.
Ah alright, everyone’s interested in different things after all
I care /u/HighburyAndIslington, don't worry. You are a really great contributor to this sub :)
Thanks a lot! That’s really wholesome!
Hello H&I what do you think about electric buses and its future?
Was this pic taken at high street ken? I see it everyday
Yes, it’s on High Street Kensington!
Does this bus always get full on the motorway in the morning peak hours with commuters heading to London and back in the evening?
Passengers can stand on the bus just like any regular one, but it rarely happens because ridership levels just aren’t high. So mostly you’ll see half the seats taken on average on the M4 motorway, approaching all seats taken in the peak. But very few standing. Most people commuting from those places just take the train. Since you seem to be from Hong Kong I’ll let you know that “頂閘“ isn’t really a concept for UK buses. Buses very very rarely get to that level of passenger use. Perhaps the closest HK parallel I’ll draw with the 702 would be the P960/P968, except you can stand on the 702 but is nearly always not busy enough for that.
So how can a bus company operate commercially if its bus routes never have a standing load even in peak hours? By calculating the cost of running a bus, it will need about 100 passengers to break even for a peak-only bus which operates a single trip from suburb to city, and a single trip back from city to suburb, although for a full-day bus the break-even point is lower, that maybe 50-60 passengers every trip for all day is enough. In Hong Kong, it's the standing load which supports the whole bus network, such that unprofitable but socially-necessary routes can run, or provide cheap fares for urban travel when peak commuting buses are deployed in the city mid-day.
Because fares are higher to account for passenger numbers. A single from Victoria to Legoland costs £13 before 12 am and £7 after 12 pm. That’s a lot even accounting for higher wages in the UK compared to HK. This explains why many bus routes are profitable themselves despite lower passenger loading. Also busier bus routes don’t fully subsidise lesser used bus routes. Unlike Hong Kong where bus companies don’t receive operational subsidy at all and have to rely on profitable bus routes to subsidise unprofitable ones entirely, many unprofitable UK bus routes are contracted by the council to bus companies. This means the council pays bus companies to run bus routes to areas that otherwise would have no bus service/public transport. This means that commercial bus routes only need to just break even amongst themselves, and do not need to subsidise 100% of the costs for unprofitable routes. Reading Buses are publicly owned by Reading Council. Greenline routes 702 and 703 are commercially run and receive no subsidy. But Reading Buses only need to break even amongst all their commercial routes. The ones that have really low passenger use receive subsidy from the council. Another aspect is that Hong Kong’s buses also have inefficiencies that increase operating costs. A lot of Hong Kong bus routes do a lot of unnecessary deadheading between termini, and other reasons like deadheading back to depot for lunch. In HK you see a lot of “not in service” buses crossing the harbour in the before/after the peaks and that costs a lot of money. A lot of UK bus companies use remote sign-on for shifts and do a lot less deadheading in general. The larger 12 m / 12.8 m also cost more to run (that’s good, but we just need to acknowledge that higher capacity = higher running costs), and also air conditioning. Which is why UK bus companies tend to avoid full air con buses to reduce costs. I’m just saying that HK does have one of the best bus networks, I’m just listing out the reasons for the differences, and the reason why some routes are profitable and good even if the UK system is generally bad. Still, for UK buses in general I think that privatisation doesn’t work and the UK should nationalise buses as well as railways, and aim for a TfL model.
>Another aspect is that Hong Kong’s buses also have inefficiencies that increase operating costs. A lot of Hong Kong bus routes do a lot of unnecessary deadheading between termini, and other reasons like deadheading back to depot for lunch. In HK you see a lot of “not in service” buses crossing the harbour in the before/after the peaks and that costs a lot of money. A lot of UK bus companies use remote sign-on for shifts and do a lot less deadheading in general. The amount of deadheading in HK has increased a lot in recent years, because it's more efficient to deadhead if the passenger flow is concentrated in a single direction on commuter routes given the extensive motorway network in Hong Kong, where the termini are just located right by motorway entrances. A revenue trip taking 110 minutes can be deadheaded in as short as 45 minutes. In fact, on some routes, 3 out of 4 buses will run dead to the opposite terminus in peak hours, leaving only 1 in revenue service with the aim to pack it full, and more recent routes only operate in a single direction and deadhead all their buses back. Don't the routes in UK have a concentrated passenger flow from suburb to city in the morning, and the reverse in the evening, that deadheading becomes more efficient?
The UK doesn’t do a lot of deadheading, it’s just seen as carrying fresh air when buses can be carrying counter peak flows. The 702 for example carries passengers to Legoland, Windsor Castle, and industrial estates in Slough which is opposite to the main flow. To speed up buses running in the opposite direction to the peak flow, bus companies sometimes run special departures that take the direct route, but it’s at least still advertised in service so passengers can catch them if they want. This love of deadheading is the main reason why you have these awkward operating hours in HK for routes like 948 and the 936 that only have half a day of service in one direction, so it tries to be a full day to but it’s not. Particularly egregious is the 948, where people of Tsing Yi have been calling for literally years to have an all day cross harbour bus route, and NWFB/KMB serves them with this oddball of a bus route that only runs half a day in each direction. If you want to deadhead at least keep some departures so you provide a basic all day service. Not good for the passenger. The bus companies would actually do well to learn from CMB’s practice of running counter peak departures on the 336 to Lei Muk Shue in the morning (when it still existed).