On 11 Feb 2007 12:52:13 -0800, wrote:

On 9 Feb, 23:45, Paul Corfield wrote:
As at 27/1/07 there were 7037 buses required to run the scheduled TfL
services on Mondays to Fridays when the schools are open. Note that this
figure does NOT include any spare buses that the operating companies own
to cover for repairs, damage, training or just to provide flexibility
for swapping buses over during the day. Typically there is a 13-15%
margin for spare buses so the 8,000 value is about spot on.

Thanks, Dave & Paul C. The 13-15% to get from Peak Vehicle Requirement
to actual number of buses is very useful, because it's the bus garages
I'm interested in, and I wanted to find out how many buses they are
housing. Thanks very much for your efforts.

You might wish to get hold of two key LOTS supplements then. Numbers 36V
and 37T show the fleet quantities and allocations and also the peak
vehicle requirements per route plus interworkings.

Available from LOTS - www.lots.org.uk and click on publications from the
side menu.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:

As at 27/1/07 there were 7037 buses required to run the scheduled TfL
services on Mondays to Fridays when the schools are open. Note that this
figure does NOT include any spare buses that the operating companies own
to cover for repairs, damage, training or just to provide flexibility
for swapping buses over during the day. Typically there is a 13-15%
margin for spare buses so the 8,000 value is about spot on.

That would explain why I never see fewer than three vehicles standing
idle at TfL layover points. More, incidentally, than you're likely to
see simultaneously at Stalybridge bus station of an evening.
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:50:24 +0000, Joyce Whitchurch
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

As at 27/1/07 there were 7037 buses required to run the scheduled TfL
services on Mondays to Fridays when the schools are open. Note that this
figure does NOT include any spare buses that the operating companies own
to cover for repairs, damage, training or just to provide flexibility
for swapping buses over during the day. Typically there is a 13-15%
margin for spare buses so the 8,000 value is about spot on.

That would explain why I never see fewer than three vehicles standing
idle at TfL layover points. More, incidentally, than you're likely to
see simultaneously at Stalybridge bus station of an evening.

To be fair though the 13-15% are not out in service. They are to cover
for planned maintenance, fuel swapovers, repairs / crash damage etc.
Some small routes run with no allowance at all.

TfL routes do tend to have far more recovery / turnaround time than you
will see elsewhere in the UK. This results from a number of factors

a) Far worse congestion in Greater London than many places.
b) TfL requiring standard headways despite much extended running
times at the peak. Non of this moving from a bus every 30 minutes to one
every 42 minutes that you see in deregulated land.
c) the impact of quality incentive contracts that mean there is an
element of extra "padding" in the PVR to ensure a reliable service.
d) each route typically has its own standalone route allocation and
inter-working is very limited indeed. It only occurs with school
services and off peak "quiet" routes like the W10 in Enfield or the
389/399 in Barnet. This limits the risk of delays on one route knocking
on to another one - interworking still seems to be a prevalent practice
outside London and of course helps to reduce the overall fleet size.
e) Contractual penalties for non operation of journeys. While
private bus companies in theory have a direct hit on the bottom line
from non operation of journeys I wonder whether they really care if a
bus conks out and people have to wait. I suspect they don't care
because they don't have spare buses sitting around and they'd save on
the fuel costs which probably outweigh the cash revenue. In the longer
term unreliable operation obviously imperils the survival of the route
if people opt not to use it.

Personally I'd much rather have a properly resourced and reliable bus
service than the botched compromise that so many areas have because
private companies won't put in the resources. I also don't mind paying
for it via my taxes.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Personally I'd much rather have a properly resourced and reliable
bus service than the botched compromise that so many areas have because
private companies won't put in the resources. I also don't mind
paying for it via my taxes.

And pay you (all Londoners) do! The bus growth areas outside London have
been achieved with minimal tax money by comparison.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Personally I'd much rather have a properly resourced and reliable
bus service than the botched compromise that so many areas have because
private companies won't put in the resources. I also don't mind
paying for it via my taxes.

And pay you (all Londoners) do! The bus growth areas outside London have
been achieved with minimal tax money by comparison.

Actually the precept only funds a small part of Tfl. Most of it comes
from all taxpayers! To be honest I wouldn't want what most of the bus
growth areas have as the service is not comprehensive enough.

Sure there is the very odd exception that gets close to London's level
of provision but I like the fact we have these daft things called early
morning and late night services that are still reasonably frequent and
convenient. Oddly they are actually used by people as well!
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:

[much useful stuff snipped]

Thanks for that.

b) TfL requiring standard headways despite much extended running
times at the peak. Non of this moving from a bus every 30 minutes to one
every 42 minutes that you see in deregulated land.

Intriguing - that's not apparent to the passenger. The timetables at
stops just say cheerfully "every 10/12 minutes" or whatever, as though
the headways do in fact vary at peak times.

Hang on though -
LOGICAL FALLACY
- the headways can't be constant throughout the route if the running
times vary. They might be constant at one point but not at every timing
point.
DOES NOT COMPUTE
WHIRR
CRASH
BANG
REPLACE USER AND REBOOT
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:06:21 +0000, Joyce Whitchurch
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

[much useful stuff snipped]

Thanks for that.

b) TfL requiring standard headways despite much extended running
times at the peak. Non of this moving from a bus every 30 minutes to one
every 42 minutes that you see in deregulated land.

Intriguing - that's not apparent to the passenger. The timetables at
stops just say cheerfully "every 10/12 minutes" or whatever, as though
the headways do in fact vary at peak times.

Hang on though -
LOGICAL FALLACY
- the headways can't be constant throughout the route if the running
times vary. They might be constant at one point but not at every timing
point.
DOES NOT COMPUTE
WHIRR
CRASH
BANG
REPLACE USER AND REBOOT

OK fair comment. Yes you get minor variations as running times build up
and down on the shoulders of the peak. My local route is x10 for most of
the day but varies between 7 and 12 minute intervals *at my stop* in the
shoulders. At the end of the route buses are arriving every 10 minutes.

TfL put in the extra resources for the longer running times *and*
maintain a 10 min headway on my route. I'd imagine in deregulated land
that it might be x10 off peak but x12 or so in the peaks. This, of
course, is bonkers because at peak times you want the capacity to be at
least as good as off peak and yet it isn't because they won't put the
extra buses on. And people wonder why buses are not used by a proportion
of the population?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Sure there is the very odd exception that gets close to London's
level of provision but I like the fact we have these daft things called

early morning and late night services that are still reasonably
frequent and convenient. Oddly they are actually used by people as
well!

I'm with you there. We didn't call Stagecoach the "Teddy Bears' Picnic
Bus Company" for nothing.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

I'm sure someone will come along with a better answer, but have you
tried writing to TfL to ask them? Even quote the freedom of
information act... if its relevant to this, don't ask me i just work
here.

Although in the current political climate they may be suspicious as to
why you would wanna know such things...


I once asked a 270 bus driver at Putney Bridge how often the 270 departed.
He got all defensive and asked why I wanted to know. (I said "to plan my
journey" - and then he told me "every 20 minutes.") That sticks in my mind
as an example of the mentality of many of the people you meet these days.

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:06:21 +0000, Joyce Whitchurch
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

[much useful stuff snipped]

Thanks for that.

b) TfL requiring standard headways despite much extended running
times at the peak. Non of this moving from a bus every 30 minutes to one
every 42 minutes that you see in deregulated land.
Intriguing - that's not apparent to the passenger. The timetables at
stops just say cheerfully "every 10/12 minutes" or whatever, as though
the headways do in fact vary at peak times.

Hang on though -
LOGICAL FALLACY
- the headways can't be constant throughout the route if the running
times vary. They might be constant at one point but not at every timing
point.
DOES NOT COMPUTE
WHIRR
CRASH
BANG
REPLACE USER AND REBOOT

OK fair comment. Yes you get minor variations as running times build up
and down on the shoulders of the peak. My local route is x10 for most of
the day but varies between 7 and 12 minute intervals *at my stop* in the
shoulders. At the end of the route buses are arriving every 10 minutes.

TfL put in the extra resources for the longer running times *and*
maintain a 10 min headway on my route. I'd imagine in deregulated land
that it might be x10 off peak but x12 or so in the peaks. This, of
course, is bonkers because at peak times you want the capacity to be at
least as good as off peak and yet it isn't because they won't put the
extra buses on. And people wonder why buses are not used by a proportion
of the population?

The point about extra buses in the peaks is an interesting issue for
deregulated operators; as you say, extra vehicles are required to
maintain headways in the peaks, but this would then require purchasing
and maintaining extra vehicles solely for the peak service.

The result is that the marginal cost of operations to the deregulated
bus company (i.e. the cost for each additional passenger) in the peaks
is much higher than for the off-peak (where extra services can be run
without buying any extra buses, because there will always be some
"peak-only" vehicles sitting around) - which in turn means that
deregulated bus companies have a big incentive to increase off-peak
travel, but much less incentive to increase peak travel.

It perhaps seems odd then that evening services are so poor in
deregulated areas compared to London.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London