Tuesday 5th September 2023
That part of the famous 84 bus route between Potters Bar and Barnet, withdrawn in April 2022 when Metroline threw in the towel and Sullivan Buses was only prepared to replace the northern section between St Albans and Potters Bar, is back on the bus map again.
Yesterday saw a new player in the bus subsidy game when Hertsmere Borough Council began paying £600 a day to fund a twelve month trial of the restored section of route.
It should be noted Hertsmere went from no overall control but with Conservatives running the Council as the largest party to a Labour/LibDem coalition in this year’s local elections in May. Restoring route 84 to Barnet became a cause célèbre for the victors.
The new hourly link via Hadley Highstone has been given route number 84B and is operated by Galleon Travel, better known as Central Connect, and recently taken over by the ever entrepreneurial expanding Vectare.
The Borough Council was unable to persuade either Hertfordshire County Council or TfL to come up with funding so decided to use its own Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy, with a pot of £208,597.73 available, to cover the £183,600 cost of restoring the 84B for its twelve months trial.
Hertfordshire County Council has indicated it would chip in £60,000 to keep the service going for a further six months if usage proves encouraging and the London Borough of Barnet has said it too will consider the matter and “possibly contributing to the bus route for future periods, subject to the take up and financial viability of the route on a long-term basis” and while Barnet hasn’t been known for its spending in years past, nor support for buses, it’s also now Labour controlled so attitudes may well change.
Galleon Travel gave Hertsmere an option of a cost based tender at £136,553 (£725 a day) but the Council decided it didn’t want to take the revenue risk so opted for the more expensive, but more certain, subsidy based contract of £600 a day. The expectation therefore is revenue of £125 a day. Around 50-60 passenger journeys, perhaps.
The funding was agreed at an emergency meeting of the Council’s Cabinet a couple of weeks ago as the desire was to get the new service up and running for the start of the new school term. School and college attendance along with hospital outpatients/visiting and some commuting are the main journey purposes envisaged. It had been hoped to run a daily service but the only tender received – from Galleon Travel – was for a Mondays to Saturdays operation.
The first journey leaves Potters Bar at 06:05 with the last Barnet bound departure at 18:35. During the day a five minutes pause is allowed at Potters Bar station and a minute at Barnet Hospital with extended journey times in the peaks.
The route involves a clockwise circuit around Potters Bar – Mutton Lane – Station – Darkes Lane/Church Road – Hatfield Road – Bus Garage – High Street then down Barnet Road and Hadley Highstone to Barnet Church.
From Barnet Church the route becomes somewhat convoluted and confusing.
Councillor Nik Oakley who has been behind the scheme insisted both High Barnet Underground station and Barnet Hospital be served. Not only that but the former should be served such that Potters Bar passengers alighting at the station do so on the southbound (east) side of Barnet Hill and those heading back to Potters Bar board on the northbound (west) side of Barnet Hill and have a direct route home rather than endure a double run via Barnet Hospital.
This has meant buses from Potters Bar are routed down Barnet Hill to just before the railway bridge then right turn into Underhill, then via Barnet Lane/Westcombe Drive/Fairfield Way to effectively turn the bus round so it can go back up Barnet Hill to Barnet Church and then along Wood Street to Barnet Hospital.
But it doesn’t end there. The bus then heads back to Potters Bar but after reaching Barnet Church does the same circuit again … down Barnet Hill turning around via Underhill etc then heads back up Barnet Hill to Barnet Church and then finally heads back via Hadley Highstone to Potters Bar.
It means passengers making a return journey from Potters Bar to the Hospital pass by Barnet Church no less than four times which was causing mass confusion on the route’s first day yesterday, not helped either by severe late running.
Vectare, known for its excellent maps and timetable information, has uploaded a timetable and map for the 84B to the Central Connect website. It’s a shame Hertsmere didn’t include the map in the leaflet it has produced as this may have helped.
Before seeing the Vectare map I had a go at compiling my own very rough map to try and understand the route the bus takes as shown below. The bus appears from Potters Bar at Barnet Church on the red route going down Barnet Hill and coming back up as the blue route over to Barnet Hospital then back via Barnet Church and down Barnet Hill again as the purple route and then back to Potters Bar as the green route. Simple eh?
The loop around Potters Bar is somewhat simpler to understand and follows a clockwise circuit whereas buses arriving from St Albans on the 84 do the loop anti-clockwise (including a short double run from Mutton Lane to the station when inbound from St Albans).
I took a ride around the route yesterday joining a late running (30 minutes) well loaded bus heading south in Barnet High Street.
It turned out there’d been an official launch involving local dignitaries, speeches, photo line ups with cake, stickers and timetables as the bus left Potters Bar and many locals had turned out to show their support and were now all taking a ride.
One on board observed that this had been what made the bus running half an hour late but no-one on board seemed to mind, being only too pleased to have their bus to Barnet back.
But the mood morphed to one of exasperation as the loopy route arrangement began to unfold as we headed down Barnet Hill. The frustration boiled over when we eventually arrived after the first loop circuit at Barnet Hospital and the driver announced he was now heading back via the Church to go down Barnet Hill then back up again and instead of then heading to Potters Bar would be coming back to Barnet Hospital where he reckoned he’d be on the right timing for the next journey to Potters Bar – ie an hour late so missing a complete trip.
To soften the blow he said another bus was on its way so half the passengers got off at the Hospital to wait for that and the other half not fully convinced nor understanding what was happening stayed put.
We then did another circuit to Underhill and back to the Hospital only to arrive back again around 20 minutes later and the same crowd was still there. The relief bus not having yet arrived. It too was looping round the loopy loop.
So we loaded everyone back on and for my third time took a trip down Barnet Hill around Underhill etc etc and back up Barnet Hill again.
We did pass the relief bus (twice) at Barnet Church. It was driven by Peter, Vectare’s enterprising Commercial and Operations Director and it was impressive to see him taking a hands on interest but I suspect his good intentions were to no avail as he passed us heading back ‘not in service’ towards Potters Bar.
An enthusiastic officer from Hertsmere Borough Council had been riding around during all this trying to explain to bewildered passengers what the route was and its logic, which in a nutshell was the route Councillor Nic Oakley wanted.
But the trouble with this approach is the incomprehensible routing is matched by an unrealistic timetable. The first day surge in supportive passengers obviously wasn’t helping timekeeping as well as a myriad of questions to the driver asking where he was actually going at many stops in Barnet and the red coloured bus leading to passengers inevitably boarding expecting to use Oyster cards.
However, after we’d got ourselves back on time leaving Barnet Hospital at 11:55 (by dint of missing out the 10:55 to Potters Bar) by the time we’d done the loopy circuit and got back to Barnet High Street we were 15 minutes late. Nine minutes are allowed for that journey. It took us around 20 minutes.
The view expressed by the Hertmere officer was the route had to be tried and if changes are needed they can be implemented based on experience later on.
That might stand up as a strategy for minor issues in the light of experience but this is not exactly a brand new route over roads never having had buses before and introducing a timetable that’s going to collapse within hours each day is just asking for trouble as the goodwill of passengers will soon evaporate if hourly journeys are missed and others run half an hour late. Councillor’s Oakley inbox will soon attest to that. Those precious High Barnet commuters unable to discern what side of the road to wait will quickly lose patience.
I did suggest a much simplified routing in Barnet from Potters Bar is to turn right at Barnet Church and head straight to Barnet Hospital, turning round there, with passengers for High Barnet station walking the relatively short distance (approximately 600 yards) from the bus stop at Barnet Church to the station. That could easily be accomplished in an hour’s circuit to ensure reliability as well as allowing for contingencies (not least when the M25 is misbehaving on the Potters Bar to South Mimms stretch), but of course it would need TfL’s and Barnet Council’s cooperation for stand space at the Hospital.
Another option is to forget the Hospital (which is well served between Barnet Church along Wood Street with TfL buses) and head south to New Barnet station as the 84 used to do. Councillor Oakley was originally dead against the idea but it’s clear to me something will have to happen.
Many passengers on board were puzzled why the bus couldn’t use Mays Lane at the bottom of Barnet Hill to access the Hospital from the south and do one simple circuit – the original preferred option by Hertsmere…
… but there’s a width restriction preventing bus access … and it wouldn’t meet the stipulation of Potters Bar bound commuters catching the bus in the northbound direction opposite High Barnet.
On our eventual return to Potters Bar we were treated to the presence of the Mayor of Hertsmere, Councillor Chris Myers and Councillor Oakley herself along with others but I think they were largely oblivious to the chaos that had been playing out over the previous hour and a half.
Ironically when we got back to Potters Bar station, despite the bus now being 15 minutes late again more delays ensued for yet more photographs.
On the way back to Potters Bar it was good to see that timetables had been installed in timetable cases at bus stops along the route in Hertfordshire…
… but obviously it’ll take TfL time to follow suit with none of its bus stop flags or timetable cases yet containing any reference to the 84B.
Another positive from my travels yesterday was the sheer number of people travelling. I’ve never seen a first day like it. Hertsmere have certainly done an excellent job raising awareness and generating interest. If that support can be maintained the omens are good.
But it needs a reliable and realistic timetable. And a sensible route with an easy to understand map. Urgently.
Roger French
Blogging timetable: 06:00 TThS
Until WordPress can sort out the bug requiring those adding comments to register rather than just add their name/identifier and email address (which isn’t published) as used to happen, I’ve changed the settings to accept anonymised comments but the voluntary inclusion of a name/identifier with each comment either at the beginning or end would be appreciated.
BusAndTrainUser 
That routing at the southern end is clearly bonkers irrespective of the puntuality issue. If a loop can’t be organised then a better route seems to be Barnet Church – Station – Hospital and then directly back northwards skipping the second trip via the station. That has little effect on the average journey time (passengers back from the Hospital get a quicker journey and those from the station a longer one). Alternatively, as Roger suggests, they need to decide which of the hospital or station they actually want to serve directly.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I had been thinking all along that your suggestion would have been the far simpler solution, as it was obvious that the timings were never going to be possible. But from yesterday’s performance, I’m not sure that would be enough to get round in an hour. As well as the lack of use, the delays at the Barnet end were also a reason that Sullivans feared would destroy it’s reliability to St Albans.
LikeLike
A good reason why bus routes should be planned by bus professionals, and not politicians.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So long as the bus professionals are employed by the public and not deregulated bus firms.
LikeLike
This is a very commendable effort by Hertsmere Borough Council to solve a problem which is not of their making and which is really the responsibility of Hertfordshire County Council and TfL to jointly resolve. Hopefully a more practical solution to the routeing issues will emerge before too long.
However it is absurd that Hertsmere’s action has been necessary. The reality is that there is a daylong, 7-day, operation of empty buses between Potters Bar Garage and Barnet for several TfL routes to effect vehicle and crew changeovers. These include the 134 to North Finchley which passes High Barnet station, and the 263 to Barnet Hospital. In times past it was common practice for London buses to operate in passenger service when making garage journeys off their normal route, but it appears that when route tendering was introduced London Buses (now TfL) set their face against this. Whilst there may be good reasons for this (although I’m a little sceptical), the particular case of providing a service between Potters Bar and Barnet seems to cry out for a pragmatic exception to the normal rule which the grown-ups in TfL and Hertfordshire County Council ought to be able to sort out.
LikeLike
There are numerous reasons why this is not an ideal idea. Firstly, there are actually some very long gaps between garage runs, often at the most popular times of day. Only the 134 tends to run in and out often, partly because of the need to charge the batteries, other routes tend to use a ferry car. If the 134 journeys wete to run in service, apart from the extra time needed, the route would have to be registered. Keeping to the registered timetable would destroy all the flexability within London to adjust the schedule to run a regular headway, something that happens on a day to day basis all the time. Also it could not be done without TfL permission. Apart from anything else, the Oyster system machines are TfL property, and a second ticket machine would have to be carried, so that tickets could be issued.
LikeLike
I’m no fan of the ‘Oxford comma’ but the one after ‘via’ on the pictured front destination is an extreme example of one. What’s it doing there?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, that sort of thing just looks weird, and can’t be ignored once you’ve seen it. Also weird that within this report, Roger has posted a photo of the bus showing a blue route number, and of the same bus showing a white route number ! Personally don’t like all the different colours that Central Connect use for their blind displays. Just seems pointless, except if there was a particular need to draw attention to a route variation.
LikeLike
I think the different coloured numbers are a quirk of digital photography. To the naked eye, they display a consistent single colour.
LikeLike
It’s not really an Oxford comma, it’s just ungrammatical &/or illiterate. Take your pick!
LikeLike
The route is crazy and cannot sensible serve both the station and hospital. The number of passengers between Potters Bar an Barnet is likely to be low and much of the route is covered by other services, Not accepting Oyster cards is another problem for the route
It is very expensive for what amounts to an hourly daytime only route
If as in this blog the route gets into timekeeping problem there is nothing that can really be done the Central Connect depot being to far away.
If you look at the finances on the given figures commercially it can never work. If my maths has not gone wrong it would need at least 30 passengers an hour to break even which is very unlikely
If that section of route was that popular the 84 would have continued to operate over that section
Would trying to get say every other 84 journey extended to the hospital be a lower cost and more useful and viable option ?
Extending some 84’s directly to the hospital would take perhaps 15 minutes. This would of course not meet the aim of serving both the Hospital and station and making sure the bus stops on the right side of the road
I suspect the number of users to both the hospital and station will be low. Given the station is a relatively short walk from Barnet Church axing that arm of the route seems sensible. The extra walking time as well being pretty much cancelled out by the shorter bus journey time
LikeLike
Going to High Barnet Station, walking down from the church is not a problem, but walking back up to the bus is a problem for anyone with even slight mobility problems. Having said that I wonder how much demand there is to chamge onto the Northern Line. After all, Potters Bar already has a frequent bus connection to the tube at Cockfosters on the 298 for anyone wanting Central Lomdon
LikeLike
Good point about climbing Barnet Hill. So obvious answer: serve the hospital first, then the station, then straight back to Potters Bar. Pax who want to go to the station can either alight in the town centre and walk a few minutes down the hill, or suffer a short double-run to the hospital. Everyone else is no worse off than now, and you’ve shaved five minutes off the running time.
MW
LikeLike
There is something wrong with the maths. £725 a day is circa £217500 a year. £136553 is £455 a day, and they won’t be Vectareing for long if that is the price . £600 a day is just under £183600
LikeLike
It’s certainly a good principle – from the passenger perspective – for a bus route to serve the local hospital and the rail station, as well as the shopping centre. As you suggest, the Mays Lane route would seem the best way to achieve this, but I suppose for an hourly service they don’t want to rebuild the physical restriction, though making it a proper ‘bus gate’ would also allow emergency services better access.
In the meantime, probably one option has to go, as long as good, easy, frequent, well-signed changes to access the other are available, though – for the customer – changing from an hourly service into a frequent one is one thing: quite another to do the opposite! Maybe building a proper bus gate in Mays lane is actually less hassle all round. Or maybe, if the custom keeps up as you’ve described, they will decide that a half-hourly or better service is required/financially justified [i.e. can be done for the same or less outlay], in which case a Mays Lane bus gate becomes sensible anyway.
I do hope that commenters are not too much down on “councillors who know nothing about running buses”; I have never understood why elected councillors – if they do their job properly – would not understand local transport needs as well as bus managers. I have been asked my opinion about buses three times by councils – never by any commercial company. If councillors don’t understand the nuts and bolts of how bus services are provided, that can be sorted by a few constructive meetings, to the benefit of both sides and – hopefully – the passenger.
Rick Townend
LikeLike
Looking at this morning’s bustimes, the service looks pretty unreliable: much curtailment of the first few journeys and the bus currently running15 minutes late.
LikeLike
I’m glad I sampled another of Roger’s recent trips on 4 September, the 730 731 from Basingstoke to Heathrow rather than take part in the 84B first day farce.
The terminal working at Barnet to serve both the LU station and the hospital is obviously crazy and needs a rethink quickly. To suggest that the LU station doesn’t need serving is a no no. I used to use the 84 in Mertoline days and many passengers transferred from bus to tube. As for somebody mobility challenged, such as me, I can assure readers that the 600 yards UP Barnet Hill from the station is a long and painful limp.
Finally, to have an “ego trip” further photo shoot when the bus is already 25% late on its hourly circuit is mind-blowing incompetence on the part of the local councillors who are funding the service and, presumably, want it to be a success and become self funding in time.
LikeLike
I am sure a few passengers will use the bus from Barnet station. Just not very many to justify the very high cost
LikeLike
Would it make more sense for the bus to serve the High Barnet Underground Station in the morning and evening peaks (for commuters), and the hospital between the peaks (hospital Appointments)?
LikeLike
Yes I agree – or maybe alternate trips (each every 2 hours) from PB to the station and the hospital. (Maybe a distinguishing 84H for the hospital?) There is no need for an 84 derivative connecting the two, as the 263 and 307 already provide that.
LikeLike
The route is bonkers, but also badly explained. On the map Chipping Barnet is marked as a terminus, but it isn’t: it’s an intermediate stop on the PB-Chipping Barnet-Barnet Hospital route. The inconsistent timetable heading “Buses towards High Barnet” just complicates it further, since High Barnet isn’t a terminus either, but the route description at the top of the timetable gets it right.
Consistency is a virtue!
LikeLike
There is already public transport from Potters Bar to Barnet Hospital it does involve using a train and a bus though
Train Potters Bar to New Barnet
Bus New Barnet to Hospital (307)
LikeLike
Oh dear . . . but maybe first-day blues, coupled with a free travel offer??
I’ll declare an interest here . . . prior to my retirement in 2020 I was the planner / scheduler at Metroline who took the “commercial” routes at PB Garage under my wing for 20 years or so.
Frankly, all I wanted to say about 84B has already been covered prreviously . . . but here is some pre-history . . .
1. Let’s dispel the “empty buses in service” first . . . it’s a great idea, but TfL won’t pay for any extra costs (why should they), and Herts CC don’t support bus routes in London. Also . . . TfL routes have schedule alterations to meet London needs, and frequently, this will mean altering the times of the “garage” journeys. In any case, buses on any London route will have few or no buses on a garage journey between 0800 and 1000 or between 1600 and 1800, so the service on the 84B section would be patchy at best or non-existant at worst. Not insurmountable, but definitely in the “too difficult” pile.
2. Metroline tried very hard in 2015-2020 period to improve the 84 timetable, increasing it to 4 BPH for some years; extending to Luton Airport (following the abortive 714 route) . . . the 242 route was similarly improved for a time. Both initiatives ultimately failed, and in Summer 2019 a “last-ditch” timetable was devised for both routes. That for 242 received financial support from Herts CC; that for 84 was slashed to 2 BPH throughout as being the timetable that would have the best chance of balancing revenue against costs.
3. The support for 242 meant that it was able to continue throughout Covid and continues today . . . but is on a knife-edge financially. Covid means that we’ll never know whether my 2 BPH timetable on 84 would have worked . . . I think it would have, but then I would say that, wouldn’t I !!!
4. With passenger numbers seeingly stalled at 75% of pre-Covid, and no prospect of financial assistance, Metroline took the decision to withdraw completely from April 2022, and give Sullivan Buses the chance to make it work. Their timetable ignored Barnet for several reasons . . . the need for Euro6 buses; the terrible congestion that afflicts Barnet almost all day long; the cheap Oyster fares inside London, which only work if you have lots of passengers (the “pile it high – sell it cheap” philosophy). In addition, the section from London Colney to St Albans is by far the busiest section of the route.
more to follow / greenline727
LikeLiked by 2 people
Part the Second . . .
5. My understanding is that both Sullivan Buses and Metroline declined to bid for Route 84B . . . partly the timetable, which looked even then to be unworkable, and partly the need for Euro6 buses. Both operators have had difficulties in staff retention (and yes, I know that there has been a transfer of school routes between them this week, but that’s not necessarily helpful, as school buses often use part-time drivers). I dare say that Route 626 will be partly scheduled using buses running to/from London routes, so drivers will possibly work the school route as part of their duty on Route 134 . . . and a p-t driver won’t look eagerly on three Tottenham Court Road rounders as their duty!!
6. There is also the danger of too many resources being used in trying to operate a simpe 1 PVR route, especially with a dodgy timetable . . . a spare bus and driver to drop in at a moment’s notice costs money, and wipes out any profit. It’s simply not worth it.
7. The 84B timetable is aimworthy in what it tries to do, but (I’m sorry to say) looks like the work of a crayonista . . . was the running time devised by Google Maps, or maybe by driving a car over the route and saying “add a bit for luck and that’ll do”?? It looks like it. I get the idea of trying to cover both High Barnet tube station and Barnet Hospital in the same trip, but a double run up and down Barnet Hill twice?? Nah . . . not in a million years would that work every hour, every day!!
8. Either serve High Barnet in the peaks, and the Hospital in the off-peak . . . or run Potters Bar – High Barnet – Hospital – Potters Bar in the morning, and Potters Bar – Hospital – High Barnet – Potters Bar in the afternoon. Either of those might have a chance in running to time. In any case . . . suss out the shift change times at the Hospital . . . probably 7am / 8am and 7pm / 8pm . . . and time trips perfectly for those times, to attract as many staff as possible.
My prediction for the future?? The route won’t survive beyond 12 months without proper financial support from Herts CC and / or TfL. The Hertsmere money won’t last out any longer, and passenger numbers will settle below the 25/30 passengers per service hour necessary for full cost-recovery. Unless reliability improves drastically, regular passengers won’t travel, and the route will survive on occasional passengers, which won’t be enough.
greenline727
LikeLiked by 2 people
Having recently been in Barnet Hospital for several days, the evening shift changes are at 2200, although often the night person gets there early, so day shift people go home from about 2115 onwards. I understand the plan was to run the 84B later to acommodate this, but no bus operator could be persuaded to bid for an evening service. In any respect it would cost an extra duty (present service is possible with 2 very long duties and long meal reliefs, so might well be 3 duties already).
LikeLike
Have they been given temporary permission to start? The LSP application is still open and says service commencement is the 18th but with Falcon Coaches? There isn’t one listed earlier for Galleon at https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/london-service-permit-consultations
LikeLike
Let’s have a few facts here. Firstly, the route was extended to include Church Road at the request of the residents. That was not in my planning. Secondly, the incorrect turning point at Barnet had been registered which caused confusion. Thirdly, both Intalank and TfL failed to get the information out prior to the service started. Fourly, an RTC prevented a driver arriving for duty and with all the residents eager to use the bus it was impossible to catch up. I think your review of the service was hugely unfair. Not only do you not both to talk to me – and if you did you failed to identify yourself – but you can’t even spell my name correctly. This service is for the people of Potters Bar, who are generally thrilled that I moved speedily to restore the link.
LikeLike
I am sure people of Potters Bar are grateful for your service but I find your assessment of Rogers blog, which is based on his actual experience, bizarre. How is he being unfair for not only pointing out what was not quite right but also how to make it better?
And I’m sorry but I didn’t realise he could be unfair for assessing a new bus route because he did not specifically identified himself and speak to you.
As a public transport enthusiastic I cannot agree more with many people here that you got to make it punctual, on time, and practical for the route to survive. It might not directly be your job but wouldn’t be wrong for someone to suggest that in a blog I presume.
LikeLike
I think the Church Road and Station loop is needed, otherwise much of the residential parts of Potters Bar are omitted. Plus it provides a service the opposite way round the loop to the 84, allowing easier return trips for residents. Whilst I understand that TfL did not see the 84 as their problem (only the one rarely used stop at Hadley Highstone within London lost it’s service), it is a mystery why Hertfordshire were not prepared to get more involved. Especially as they have been happy to spend government grants on the new 907 Stevenage to Hoddesdon route, that whilst creating some more direct links, does not actuslly restore any lost services that people wanted, like the 84B does. Of course, diverting the 610 at Potters Bar to serve Barnet, instead of duplicating the 298 to Cockfosters would have been a simple cheaper idea, but Uno were not keen.
LikeLike
No mystery. You do know that at the time BSIP funding couldn’t be used to replaced lost services?
LikeLike
It wasn’t ‘one rarely used stop’, you need to stop misleading people: it was six stops and the entire community of Monken Hadley and Hadley Highstone, which are all in London (not that they get any benefit out of being so). So yes it is TfL’s problem as much as it is Hertfordshire’s – how about they act like grown-ups and work together like people have repeatedly asked them, rather than seeking to deflect blame onto each other?
As for Councillor Oakley, she is just trying to cover herself by saying people only asked for Church Road, Hatfield Road and Potters Bar High Street to be served later. The truth is this was always part of the old 84 route and it was a key point in the letter everyone signed that they needed that part of the route. Unfortunately Hertsmere forgot about it until the last minute because Cllr Oakley only listened to feedback from certain selected people. There are also many comments on the about the poor timekeeping (on the Facebook group renamed ‘We Saved the 84 Bus’) but Councillor Oakley bans any user and deletes any comment that offers constructive feedback and doesn’t repeatedly say how grateful they are to her, even though she only got involved some three months before the route came back and is largely taking credit for the work of residents and non-politicians who she seems to feel are incoveniences to her own ideas of how things should be. I don’t doubt that the councillors were ‘oblivious’ while the chaos of the first day timings ensued. Too busy basking in their unearned glory.
LikeLike
Oh, and the bus used in the photo shoot was there specifically for that purpose, but we did send out on one journey.
LikeLike
I was at the launch yesterday and there was certainly a carnival atmosphere – let’s hope this translates into future usage!
I think the timetable does need a tweak. Maybe only have one station ‘loop’? I’m sure this will be looked at. I think it will be worthwhile seeing how things operate once things settle down as the sheer number of people yesterday would have made the operation something of an outlier.
The other bus was there just for the launch and is not part of the costed service provision.
In response to Greenline727; I couldn’t help but overhear comments from bus users yesterday about Metroline’s operation of the 84 in its final delays. It’s all anecdotal, but much comment was made of bus drivers just waving on Oyster and travelcard holders, even though this resulted in no revenue being generated for the company. What is not in question from my observations was the appalling number of cancelled journeys in the final days. I recall at the time thinking whether the withdrawal of the 84 was to avoid interest from the TC! I agree that a 2x PVR 84 would have worked, though.
I think it’s worth mentioning that Hertfordshire tendered the service as well as applying for the CIL funding on Hertsmere’s behalf so very much a joint effort.
Dan Tancock. Views are my own etc etc.
LikeLike
No one can disagree that the service operated by Metroline at the end was apalling, but inability to recruit drivers was a factor in the decision to get rid of the service. Unfortunately, in order to come near to breaking even, the pay and conditions were worse than for drivers on TfL services at the same garage. However drivers who were on the 84, were generally happier to earn less, as it meant avoiding the hassle and grief that you get on most TfL services. So when the route was announced for withdrawal, many of them found jobs with other companies, rather than go onto TfL work, and left before the route ended. Only a few TfL drivers even knew the 84 route, let alone how to use the ticket machines, so it proved impossible to cover all the duties. Not a good enough excuse, but the reason.
LikeLike
If they decide to change it to only doing the High Barnet loop once like some are suggesting then I think it should be on the way FROM Potters Bar because people want to get to the tube quickly in the mornings. Also the destination blind would need to make it clear that people coming back from the tube need to get on the one to Barnet Hospital, by saying something like “Barnet Hospital and Potters Bar” from the start.
Hilarious someone from Metroline commenting when you drove the previous 84 into the ground. Drivers simply waving through passengers on ancient buses with the machines not working so reported numbers were severely underestimated (no wonder TfL didn’t want to take it over). That is if a bus turned up at all. You clearly wanted it to fail and made sure it did. And the reason TfL needs to support is is because it is of benefit to Londoners in Barnet and Hadley Highstone, who otherwise have a ridiculouly difficult journey on multiple buses to Oakwood to get to Potters Bar. But then Metroline and TfL ended the LLSA agreement on the 84 in 2012, which meant you could actually use Oyster cards from Barnet to Potters Bar, so again, clearly success of the route was not your priority.
LikeLike
Whilst I have my doubts that this will always allow the bus to achieve the 60 min round trip needed, I feel this has to be worth trying. After all, passengers from Barnet Hill & Tube Station would prefer that to having no bus at all, and coming back from the hospital the bus can miss out the traffic delays in Wood St by cutting across Stapylton Rd like the 614 and reaching the High St via Salisbury Road. Of course maybe a wider headway needs to be operated all day, like in the peaks. Reliability is really going to be the key to whether the route can survive or not.
LikeLike
Apparently a return routing via Stapylton Road was suggested but the leader of Barnet council (who is supposed to be Labour) thought some NIMBYs woud complain, which doesn’t make sense as the 614 and lots of out-of-service buses use that route all day.
LikeLike
OK . . . let’s set the record straight here . . . the usual buses were 2008 buses, so 14 years old . . . elderly but not old. One of the reasons for Metroline closing the route was the need to fund new buses . . . the financials didn’t allow for that, and using ex-TfL fleet buses would have not actually improved the age profile. . . Route 84 had been provided with buses at the end of their lives for around 20 years before the 2008 restocking.
The ticket machines were supplied by INIT . . . they were failing every day, and INIT provided no support to get them fixed . . . the Ticketer machines arrived one week before Covid hit. Better a bus without a fare than no bus at all . . .
The reasons for the poor service in the weeks before closure have been explained above . . . how would YOU have resourced drivers then? There wasn’t (and isn’t) a bottomless pit of drivers . . . what drivers were available were allocated to continuing operations.
TfL obviously believed (and continue to believe) that the route is NOT of use to Londoners, otherwise they would have made arrangements to replace it. There are actually just 3 bus stops in London that were unserved . . .
TfL ended the LLSA in 2012, along with all other LLSAs, because they were replaced by London Service Permits, which require 12 weeks notice, when only 10 weeks notice is required for registrations. An LLSA included an element of financial support (for accepting Oyster and charging London fares) . . . an LSP is basically a route registration under a different name.
Oyster is a TfL product . . . as such Metroline wasn’t permitted to use it after 2012. In practice, the Metroline on-bus single fares matched TfL on-bus single fares . . . that was the best that could be done, even though that fare was seriously under what needed to be charged.
Cllr Oakley comments about a lack of publicity . . . Intalink mentioned the 84B route on their website at least three weeks before commencement; I don’t know about local bus stop timetables. TfL have form in not bothering with bus-stop timetables . . . back in around 2018, and again in 2020 it was necessary for Metroline to post its own timetables, as TfL did nothing, and were going to do nothing despite continual appeals.
And “moving speedily” took 17 months . . . !!
I will entirely accept that the end of Metroline’s operation of Route 84 (almost 30 years) was a desperately sad way to end . . . if it had been possible to end on a better note, do you not think they would have done so??
I think I’ll leave it there . . . there isn’t much more to be said . . .
greenline727
LikeLike
No I don’t think Metroline would have ‘ended on a better note’. You only care about your profits, not proving any decent service in the YEARS before the 84 ended. Unfortunately TfL think exactly the same as you, and you depend on them for your business, which is why you suck up to them and mislead people by saying ‘only three stops in London weren’t served’ because you’re including the skeleton 399 that only runs four times a day Mon-Sat. Meanwhile TfL is staffed by inner north London elites who hate Barnet (the town not the borough) because it isn’t ‘diverse’ enough for them, let alone thinking about people in Hadley Highstone, or even less those in Potters Bar, and that buses actually need to cross artificial political boundaries. TfL and Geoff Hobbs see London as an island that stops at North Finchley, hence NF gets enhancement after enhancement on the 221, 125, 112, 383, N271, now two extra superloop buses! What do Barnet and Hadley get? 384, 84, 307 (N) all taken away, now reduced 34, no proper accesible bus stop at the tube station despite years of pleading…everyone notices now. You are all cut from the same cloth, which is why there was even a nightbus to PB in the 80s and you made sure there was NOTHING in 2022. The audacity to think it’s ok for you and TfL to be running your empty polluting buses down the Great North Road all day long and serving no stops en-route. The audacity of a ‘London Assembly Member’ to turn up to the first day like they, Metroline and Herts CC didn’t simply ignore a letter signed by 904 people asking why you couldn’t bang your heads together and make it work instead of acting like man-children defending your ‘patch’ and the passengers can go to hell. You’re all contemptible.
LikeLike
Sadly you are blaming the wrong people. Bus companies exist to make a profit. There is no purpose them existing otherwise. They are not there as a charity. If any route is not profitable, then the bus will not run unless a subsidy is provided from someone else. The TfL verses Hertfordshire problem is sadly far from unusual. Around the country, very many useful cross border links have disappeared because counties will not fund services outside their boundaries. An obvious answer to the Potters Bar to Barnet link would have bern to establish a community bus service. This works well in many places around the country, but does rely on finding volunteer drivers, domething I feer might have not been as easy in Potters Bar than many rural areas.
LikeLike
Lots to unpick in that 1534 comment, some of which has already been done by others. I’ll throw in a couple of my own points though.
Counting the 399 is a quite proper method. It may be infrequent and not go directly where you want to go, but it goes somewhere with shops and interchange facilities. No one near those stops is cut off without the 84B.
The empty buses will be infuriating, but as already explained the times they need to operate can and do alter at relatively short notice. In order to pick passengers up the service must be registered with long notice periods to an exact timetable – you can’t just say “when we need to”. Even if that were possible, no-one could be confident how long they would need to wait, it could be hours for one bus or minutes for several.
The cross border issue is also repeated across the country and has been for decades. If such things as maps of bus routes still existed, you would be able to pick out lots of random places where buses terminate that happen to be at a county boundary. In current times, any excuse for it to be somebody else’s problem (and therefore cost) is seized on by cash strapped bodies such as TfL. Their legendary slowness in responding to anything also doesn’t help.
The cross border affect also plays a part in your criticism of the operator not caring about the service. In an ideal world, once a service had been identified as socially useful but unprofitable the Council would step in and at least underpin it financially. A private company is not going to (metaphorically) use an hour of time to scrape a 2p coin off the floor – you wouldn’t either with competing demands on your time that would likely yield more than 2p.
Finally, TfL’s protectiveness over Oyster will always tie at least one arm behind the back of any cross border service that they are not contracting.
I get that the situation is immensely frustrating, but within the current legislation and public sector financial position this will be but one example.
LikeLike
TfL being ‘cash-strapped’, don’t make me laugh. They have all the money to extend all the routes in North Finchley that I mentioned while taking away/reduced ones in Barnet (the 384 withdrawal was opposed by thousands of people in the consultation and petitions), plus giving those NF people two new totally superfluous ‘superloop’ buses out of panic because Khant wanted to try to claw back some (barely) outer London votes with his incredibly unpopular ULEZ – see how the superloop carefully avoids Zone 5/6 in the north of London, while covering those zones in the south. They spend money where they want to and screw over areas that they don’t see as worthy: I see they’re now spending £6 million giving the overground lines new ‘woke’ names – that could have supported a route from Barnet to Potters Bar for a good number of years.
The quality and frequency of the bus network in North Finchley is totally out of proportion to its density when comparing to how poor the one in (actual) Barnet has become. Just look at a map on services 30 years ago to see how unbalanced it now is vs then. This is to do with prejudice and tribal mentality (as I said, man-children/pen-pushers who don’t use buses themselves caring only about what they see as their ‘patch: areas they identify with and think have a captive vote/punishing those who vote against them or they see as identifying with surrounding counties). The whole UK bus network needs to be renationalised so we can do away with the leeches like our commenter from Metroline. It’s not about actual need or usage. EVERYONE is noticing now.
By they way, most of the new North Finchley buses are carrying fresh air, especially outside the daytime, so don’t tell me those people somehow magically use buses and people in Barnet don’t. Turns out one of the TfL directors lives in NF and that’s why it gets all the attention. Again, all parties need to grow up, stop their urinating contests and actually work together on ‘cross-boundary’ routes. TfL are so childish and spiteful they even withdrew the LLSA so that commercial operators can’t even use Oyster if they wanted to. The justification? Because TfL said they should be running those services themselves. Look how that turned out.
LikeLike
Oh and how many people in North Finchley have to put up with a bus route four times a day that doesn’t even get them to their local hospital or tube station, or else pay £12.50 to do so by car? No, they have four night buses to choose from including the empty N271 and 134. The 399 isn’t even in walking distance of most of Hadley Highstone anyway. And of course no one in Barnet could possibly want to get to Potters Bar (why would anyone in their right mind want to go the opposite way to Khan’s stabby London), even though they’ve been interdependent communities for centuries and PB Hospital (that was totally cut off from public transport) is where all the eye patients from Moorfields are now getting referred to. They’re just old, probably white people with cataracts: make them travel for hours via Cat Hill roundabout with no pedestrian crossing onto a 298 that doesn’t even serve the hospital and you’re lucky if it turns up within an hour, let alone 20 minutes. Go on Khan, make them suffer like you made them have to walk for miles uphill without the 384! They’re not ‘real Londoners’ anyway, are they?
LikeLike
Would you like your whine red or white? Just a glass or… oh, clearly not, I see you’re already halfway through the bottle.
Good rants, pity you’ve utterly ignored anything which doesn’t suit your position. You’re not a councillor, are you?
LikeLike
Oh welcome ‘Nony’ – we have our first TfL spy! Geoff, Bob, is that you? Don’t be a shy mouse. Yes, obviously to you, people who are so gauche as to live in the outer suburbs and dare to expect even a semblance of a bus service are ‘whining’ to you. They should get on their bikes, right? Put up or shut up, be grateful. While you go around in your 4x4s on your six-figure salaries.
No, I’m not a councillor or any kind of politician; they’re all the same and only care about their political egos and advancement.
LikeLike
For the benefit of the anonymous whinger, I do not and never have worked for TfL, its predecessors or its contractors, nor do I in any way have any links with TfL. I’ve never worked in the bus industry at all.
You can take your tinfoil hat off, as I very much doubt TfL know or care who you are.
LikeLike
For the benefit of the anonymous whinger, I do not and never have worked for TfL, its predecessors or its contractors, nor do I in any way have any links with TfL. I’ve never worked in the bus industry at all.
I very much doubt TfL know or care who you are when you’re not venting your spleen on random blogs; I certainly don’t. You can take your tinfoil hat off.
[For some reason WordPress decided that it wouldn’t let me log in and posted it as anonymous. I’m not anonymous, I’m A Nony Mouse and proud of my mousehood.]
LikeLike
You have some valid points but your posts on this topic are so full of vitriol, ranting, hatred, venting your own preferences, and almost certainly wrong wild assumptions about other posters that most readers are just thinking “what the hell is this!”.
LikeLike
What no one has mentioned (Roger ?) is what the fare is. I am assuming that it was too late to include it in the government’s £2 maximum fare cap.??
LikeLike
Sadly you are labouring under the impression that essential public services should be profit-making, or in TfL’s case should behave as if they are. They are so greedy they can’t even have one year on one route without profit before taking it away.
LikeLike
Welcome to public transport as the rest of the country has had to live with it for more than 35 years.
Buses haven’t been “essential public services” since the industry was privatised (and outside London also deregulated) back in the late-1980s.
They’re businesses, and businesses have to be profitable to survive.
Doesn’t matter what you think they should be, that’s what they are.
No profit, no bus. End of. The way it is in the rest of the country.
LikeLike
Yes, let’s level everyone down instead of up, except those inside the London Postal District who are obviously far too precious. You’ve solved the problem: congratulations.
LikeLike
I’ve been “levelled down” for more than 35 years and repeatedly told to like it or lump it by people like you who’ve had no idea what public transport is actually like outside the M25, who think that everyone’s entitled to a big red bus every few minutes paid for by the national taxpayer.
Now it’s your turn.
Welcome to *starting* to be part of the rest of the country instead of being one of those “precious” Londoners. Crap, isn’t it?
But wait! You’re still nowhere near the state of the rest of the country yet, so you can cut the sneering about being levelled down. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
When a good third of your county has absolutely *zero* public transport other than school buses and a weekday-daytime-only, if-you-can-get-it DRT scheme that’s almost as expensive to use as taxis, then you can whine that you’re hard done by.
Until then? I have no sympathy for your elitist metropolitan “but we’re London too, we deserve better” whining.
LikeLike
Potters Bar is outside the M25. Thanks for confirming you hate buses and want everyone to suffer.
LikeLike
Except that in the preparations for the establishment of the Greater London Council in the 1960s people in the ‘home counties’ were consulted on whether they wanted to be in London or not. ‘Oh no’ you said ‘we are Bucks/Herts/Surrey etc’. (One of the reasons for the ragged boundary especially in Surrey). Well that’s why you haven’t got cheap fares, plentiful public transport and decades of Oyster.
LikeLike
Shall we solve this by making the entire United Kingdom a part of London, then there won’t be any need for ‘cross-boundary’ routes and we can all live under the dictatorship of Khan, holding hands and grateful for our Oyster cards? How does that sound?
LikeLike
Your response says it all
LikeLike
As a (until recently) Barnet local, heres my two pence. Firstly, any bus not on the Oyster system is going to get extremely few potential passengers within Barnet as the TfL routes are so much superior competition. Hell, many people would still prefer to go via Cockfosters on the 298(?) despite the chaos on Cfosters Road. I understand the politics and beurocracy behind being non-Oyster, but that does suck. The 326 does a similar routing doubling along May’s Lane to Dollis Valley, but doing so on the Hill is a….bold idea. The Hill is steep for a presumably elderly ridership on the 84b. To be honest, other than running down a side road between May’s Lane and High Stret Barnet, or via Meadway with the 184, if you want to serve both the hospital and the station, and no further, I don’t see what your alternatives are. A u-turn in the Station car park? Good luck. Better signage should do the trick, and maybe no via Underhill on southbound runs (walking down the hill and then buses up)
LikeLiked by 1 person
They wanted to use the petrol station/Everyman Cinema service roads to turn round back up the hill, but TfL of course wouldn’t let them (they take an interest to say no to stuff, obviously). Also some people wanted to get closer to the Ark school and the isolated Western Way area.
LikeLike
I mean….those service roads around the Greenhill are very narrow! You’re not turning a bus there, and the right turn opposite Potter’s Lane to do a U-Turn by the petrol station wouldn’t be fun. A service to whatever stupid branding they’ve given the new Underhill Secondary school (old Barnet FC grounds) from Potter’s Bar would be great, but from what I can tell most pupils are from down Mill Hill way. Presumably there’s at least some that would benefit from a Potter’s Bar connection. I feel like a smarter variation could be done, via the School and station in the peaks, starting and ending at the hospital. To be honest, Potter’s Bar has its own train station with half-hourly trains into Moorgate via Finsbury Park: that’s a better frequency than the 84b. I don’t see that much demand for the tube, except maybe attraction to the cheap(er) fares of LU vs GN.
As for the via 389 routing through Western Way, it again runs into the Oyster issue. In the world of crayon-ing, a footbridge/-tunnel under the tube tracks to give access to the bountiful Gt N Rd buses would be fantastic. Another commenter talked about shift changes at the Hospital: it’s one of those things that’s so close to being fantastic it just needs a bit of clever thinking, cross-county co-operation, and a bit more cash to splash.
I’ll definitely have a ride on it at some point, I hope the 84b can be a good community-connecting device, and many thanks to Hertsmere District for actually spending cash on it
LikeLike
I found copy of the old 84 timetable that typically took 22 minutes from Potters Bar railway station to Barnet Church
LikeLike
This is good news for Potters Bar but still means a change of bus for residents of St Albans and London Colney. From St Peters Street I wonder if it is quicker to go via The Galleria and Uno 614, or go via Sullivan 84 and the 84B?
I guess the route around Barnet that Hertsmere were insisting on is the reason Sullivan’s didn’t want to extend the route to their current 84 operation which would’ve been cheaper (normally) or why the other nearby operators of Uno and Metroline didn’t seem interested or put high prices into their bids because of the route and reliability.
LikeLike
UNO might be nervy about needing more drivers. They’ve got a big ramp to the Hatfield to Luton route and a bunch of new TfL school services coming up.
LikeLike
During the University term time, quicker to go to The Galleria as the 614 offers an half-hourly service in about 18 minutes to Barnet the Spires, not likely to work as well in non term time as the 614 becomes hourly, so not as much leeway if delayed travelling from St Albans. Sullivan`s current 84 vehicles are not Euro 6 compliant so cannot travel in to the TFL area and like Uno, they remain concerned about having sufficient drivers to provide the service.
Dean Gibson
LikeLike
Wow! Never have I seen such passion (and vitriol at times!) over the restoration of a one bus route. Quite entertaining.
Of course this section should have never been withdrawn in the first place, and the silo mentality of TfL and most County Councils are responsible for that and in many other parts of the UK.
But we are where we are, and at least there are good folk who have worked hard in attempting to restore the link between the two towns, not to mention serving both Barnet and Potters Bar hospitals. So let us be grateful for that whatever the political motivation may have been.
Only solution to current dilemma before outright war gets declared? Either the route has to be changed or, sadly, an 80-90 minute headway imposed.
Terence Uden
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think a 90 minute headway looks likely to imposed as some councillors remain adamant both the tube and the hospital must be served, sadly its just not possible, there is no real recovery time on this route and since its introduction the service continues run 20-25 minutes late and will not be allowed to continue. Nothing wrong with the councillors original intentions, however, they should have sought advice from people within the bus industry as watching the council meeting where the final decision was taken on this service, it was clear many councillors had thought the costs for this service would never be in the £100k plus bracket. Silo mentality is spot on, there`s been far too much politics involved in the provision of bus services, rather putting the needs of the passengers first.
Dean Gibson
LikeLike
The 84b is a very similar route to the tfl 389 route within Barnet
LikeLike
If the section of road between Barnet and Potter Bar was covered by a traditional red Tfl bus route then it would have survived regardless of passenger numbers, but back in the 1930’s or earlier Barnet to St Albans was the full route and Metroline ran it commercially.
If Hertfordshire had a proper value for money criteria such as subsidy per passenger then the half hourly 84 would have presumably qualified for subsidy on an hourly basis, and if funds were short something with a higher subsidy per passenger would have been withdrawn.
It’s so sad that good intentions are let down by amateur planning, this is the sort of mess you would expect if a consultant had devised the timetable, not one devised by a well respected local authority.
This is the kind of thing that’s avoidable and gets the industry a bad name.
It would make a perfect paper for the Bus Centre of Excellence, which is supposed to educate local authority officers, entitled ‘ How not to introduce a new bus service’
Things to do
Do a route timing check,particularly at peak periods
Keep elected councillors as far away as possible
Have a value for money criteria for your subsidised network
Have agreements with neighbouring local authorities on how to deal with cross boundary services.
LikeLike
Looking at the 84 timetable it would be easy to extend every other bus to Barnet and that timetable would be robust
A through service from St Albans would also be more attractive to passengers
Looking at the costs it would probably come in at a similar cost to the 84b probably a bit lower
Maybe as well it only serves the station at Peak times for the rest of the day it just serves the hospital. This would avoid the grand tour of Barnet. I doubt that outside of peak that there would be any significant traffic from Barnet station and there are alternative routes from London to Potters Bar such as Rail and the 298
LikeLike
I think such a scheme may well be introduced within the next six months, the stumbling block for many operators is Politics with a small “p” coupled with the fact buses entering the TFL area need to be Euro 6 compliant and the current vehicles used on the 84 are not, its also a reason many operators did not bid for the 84B, to invest in a new vehicle, you need to have some confidence the contract will run long enough to recoup your initial outlay. Some have commented Uno appeared not interested, well as Philip commented they remain a little nervy as having sufficient drivers(a problem facing most companies) to cope with the services they will be running as the students return, many thousands of students studying at Uni with be living in Luton and getting them to and from will be real uphill task. They had considered routing the 610 from Cockfosters to Barnet instead, but decided against such a move, the vehicles on that service are all Euro 6 compliant so no problems on that count, but they are long wheel based vehicles which may have presented problems with some junctions on 84B route.
LikeLike
In the 1930s the 84 was an LPTB route between St Albans and Golders Green (Metroline didn’t exist then). Later it was diverted at Whetstone to Arnos Grove/Walthamstow). And until 1989 it used the A6/A1081 via South Mimms so it didn’t touch Potters Bar.
LikeLike
Looking at the tracking the route is total unworkable. A bus is running up and down at random times and intervals. It appears to be currently 20 minutes late
The pointless double loop around Barnet station could go. The only benefit of that I can see is if you want to travel from the hospital to Barnet station but other routes cover that
Even with that loop cut out the timetable is not workable. That leaves two options. The bus either serves the station or the hospital or you reduce the frequency
Reducing the frequency in my view would make the route even less attractive. So I would go with the hospital only service
LikeLike
If you want to travel from Hadley Highstone and Monkey Hadley to High Barnet station, which is your local station, what do you do then? Just walk uphill for 30 minutes?
LikeLike
I took a ide on the 84B today. The 09.25 from Potters Bar ran about 10 minutes late for the complete circuit. We had 8 passengers making various journeys towards Barnet and an impressive 16 back towards Potters Bar. The end to end fare is £3 single and £6 return. There appear to be no timetables to pick up. Our driver was amazing at P R and enthusiastically welcomed every passenger who boarded. He received the previous driver who was then going on to Stevenage. It is unfortunate that a width restriction has been imposed in May’s Lane as this would be the logical way to serve both the LU station and the hospital.
LikeLike
Intetesting, implies my simple expectation of 2 drivers looping around each other to cover breaks is not actually the case. Wonder why they are complicating it ?
LikeLike
Although there is an alternative via Cockfosters, this adds a time penalty – not just in the longer journey, but also waiting for two buses instead of one, imagine doing this twice a day on top of a 12 hour shift (the typical arrangement for care staff) and when the frequencies are lower (early morning and late evening).
Hertsmere is funding the provision of 2 journeys per hour between Barnet Church and Underhill and one journey per hour between Potters Bar and Barnet.
Back in 1986 when the 84 was rerouted via Potters Bar (operating under contract to Hertfordshire County Council) it was almost a good deal all round, LRT got the Barnet – Potters Bar link for ‘free’, and Hertfordshire got a Sunday service along Church Road and Darkes Lane plus a full restoration of the Potters Bar – St Albans link lost in 1982.
In my view the 84 was damaged by the general decline in recent years of shopping as a leisure activity (plus Enfield adding retail capacity from around 2006 would have made it more of an alternative to St Albans), Barnet Football Club leaving (thanks to Barnet Council) Underhill and the regulars who regarded St Albans as a special destination no longer being with us.
Incidentally, High Barnet Stn. is used as a turn for the 107 from Edgware, so the turn is done without passengers.
From the Stands sections of Londonbuses.co.uk for the 107.
Barnet, Odeon (from Edgware Station)
Buses proceed from Barnet Hill, Great North Road departing to Barnet Hill.
Set down in Barnet Hill, at stop R (9923 – High Barnet Station) and pick up in Barnet
Hill, at stop W (9922 – Underhill).
AVAILABILITY: At any time.
OPERATING RESTRICTIONS: Turning Point Only – Buses must not stand
BLIND DISPLAY: Barnet Hill, Great North Road.
LikeLike
I had a ride on the 84B yesterday (it’s 3rd day) and found the 1455 from Barnet Hospital not running (having only left on the 1355 at 1420). As what I think must be the last trip on the early driver’s duty, no doubt this trip will rarely ever run. The bus had tracked as leaving Potters Bar on time at 1525, but was already 15 mins late for the 1555 departure from the hospital. The driver did not seem to be taking fares, I got waved past, so maybe it is free for the first week, or he was trying to save time. It was a very busy trip with 29 people including a few school children. Was very surprised to see two people boarding in Underhill to go to Hadley Highstone. Although we were very lucky with the traffic on this trip, we still lost 10 mins on the round trip (inc loosing the 5 mins layover at Potters Bar. The return trip to Barnet was only 7 people, plus those boarding on Barnet Hill for the next Potters Bar trip, not realising they were going to have to go back via Barnet Hill again before heaging to Potters Bar.
LikeLike
Did try to board the service yesterday afternoon at Potters Bar station 14.25 but you are right that is the 13.55 from Barnet and the end of the drivers shift, that bus never run, the replacement driver had arrived to find to bus had not arrived by 14.47, so was instructed to skip the 14.25 departure, and go out on time at 15.25, thus no departure from Barnet at 14.55, we decided not to wait and will try the service later in the week. Only free for first day, good to see the bus busy and people using the service within Barnet, it appears even with light traffic, the bus struggles to keep to the timings.
Dean Gibson
LikeLike
The best option would be an hourly extension of the TfL 383. Not going to happen as TfL are not interested, but would only cost the same one bus, and be much more robust. True it won’t serve the hospital, but there are 15 other buses each hour linking Barnet Church to the Hospital.
LikeLike
While the big issues remain- “cross-border” services (whatever happened to the idea of through ticketing/revenue sharing and notional cost sharing, we did it in the1930s and 60s why not now with modern computing power ?) – and more so when a hospital is in one authority area covering adjacent authority’s populations.
There always was the problem of Potters Bar garage, going back to the LGOC and its “franchise” to National to the east and north of LGOC’s “Red Bus” operating area. This gave rise to all kinds of quirks even when brought back as core red bus London Transport.
And so to today, IF the roads are the ones that have to be traversed, AND the stops have to be served and cannot be modified as such, perhaps the risk (and more cost) of increasing the service to half hourly, with alternate journeys running Barnet-Hospital – Chipping Barnet – Potters Bar, and the other Barnet-High Barnet – Chipping Barnet – Hospital-Potters Bar. This gets each Origin (Hospital/High Barnet/Chipping Barnet) a suitable destination and more frequent service to Potters Bar
LikeLike
Maybe it’s a ‘work from home Friday’ and the weather is nice but the 384B seems to be running reasonably well today. Currently the 08.50 from Barnet is tracking as running two minutes late. The 06.35 from Barnet actually arrived back in Potters Bar two minutes early.
Clearly some running time issues to sort out on busier days, but maybe not the disaster of a service some of the commentators on here are claiming.
Dan Tancock
LikeLike
A few journeys may run to time but most do not and every day complete journeys do not run
given the data to date it is clear the current timetable is unworkable and wither the route needs to change or the frequency reduced
LikeLike
That may be, Bob, but you complain about everything.
LikeLike
There is a particular problem with cross border services going into London in that TfL refuses to allow these service to accept Oyster cards. It costs TFL nothing as it is just a prepayment card. The only loss to TfL is a few passengers
Probably it operates almost the same distance in London as it does in Herts which makes it very difficult to get passengers in London
The 84b within London is almost the same route as TfL route operated by Sullivans
sensibly the TfL could be absorbed into modified TfL route it would be complex though as the TfL route is interworked with another TfL route
LikeLike
We finally got to travel on this service on Saturday arrived at Potters Bar station in plenty of time for the 10.25 to Barnet, the bus was coming towards us from Church Road direction having come in the same route as the outward journey, the driver was at the end of his first half and we waited for the relief driver to arrive, he eventually made it at 10.56, driving another bus which he passed over to the first driver, we got away within two minutes despite the new driver having problems regarding trip numbers and his duty card and the times printed on it. He was unable to issue any tickets or accept passes all the way to Barnet as the machine would not accept the trip numbers given to him, his office took 35 minutes to supply him with the right information. 6 concessionary pass holders going to Barnet, one cash adult fare and two child returns from PB Garage to Barnet could not be either recorded or charge for. Traffic light going in to Barnet, congestion from Church coming out, loadings on the return leg 6 concessionary passes all entered on to ticket machine, one cash fare Tesco Mutton Lane to Darkes Lights. The driver very pleasant and it was necessary to give him directions in places, his first day on the service, he made a very important point saying on Saturday`s relief drivers would all be coming from Harlow driving a bus having come off another CC service meaning they could be late when leaving that service and the M25 can be very slow going, the bus is restricted to 50mph max, during the week they use ferry cars which can do 70 on the M25, he lost one rounder overall.
He lost 4 minutes at Barnet Hospital as there was a TFL bus loading in front of him, whilst another TFL driver erratic parking meant he could get round the bus in front. The bus in front took 8 minutes to load a few people, yet they do not issue tickets or collect fares, it makes you wonder what the driver intentions were, as in TFL we do not want the service, yet why should some bus other company be on our patch.
Dean Gibson
LikeLike
Another though on this is would it make sense to extend the 242 service to Barnet?
I think Barnet General serves Cheshunt)It used to be Chase Farm was the main hospital for Cheshunt)
It would mean quite a change to the current 243 which currently does short journey Waltham Cross to Brookfield Centre and a few long journeys to Potters Bar
Would it be lower cost? Would it attract more passengers
It would provide a direct service to Barnet General from Cheshunt and Waltham cross. Getting here at present by public transport would be difficult
LikeLike