|
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
Does anyone how many buses operate on behalf of London Buses (or know
how I can find out)? And how many of these are double deckers, single deckers and articulated buses respectively? Thanks, Dominic |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
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... |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
wrote:
Does anyone how many buses operate on behalf of London Buses (or know how I can find out)? And how many of these are double deckers, single deckers and articulated buses respectively? If you mean the number of vehicles, AIUI it's approximately 8000 - unfortunately I don't know any details beyond that. -- Dave Arquati www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:54:21 +0000, Dave A wrote:
wrote: Does anyone how many buses operate on behalf of London Buses (or know how I can find out)? And how many of these are double deckers, single deckers and articulated buses respectively? If you mean the number of vehicles, AIUI it's approximately 8000 - unfortunately I don't know any details beyond that. Just to add to Dave's reply. 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. The 7037 figure is the highest total for London since 1958 which was the previous peak value. It is also worth noting that the total has already increased further and will continue to do so as further route and frequency improvements are introduced. A quick check in my database shows 346 bendy buses run in service Mondays to Fridays. There are 10 Routemasters on the Heritage Routes daily. I'm afraid I don't have a quick way of working out the split into single or double deckers - sorry. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
In message . com, Cyril
Sneer writes 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. That feels to me to be a terribly lazy method (and selfish! - think of the work that would generate for a TfL employee). Just doing a google will bring up the information. Oooh. Look. I managed to coordinate my fingers and typed "London Buses" in. The third/fourth link down says London Bus Routes www.londonbusroutes.net [leading to "Operational Details" www.londonbusroutes.net/details.htm] Unofficial site includes details of routes, operators and garages, service changes and photos. which gives you as much info as you could probably want. Ok I've been reading this group too long; I'm sure there's even more information you could want :) The other advantage of the method above is you get to stumble across other sites you didn't know existed :) -- Paul G Typing from Barking |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:45:36 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote: On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:54:21 +0000, Dave A wrote: wrote: Does anyone how many buses operate on behalf of London Buses (or know how I can find out)? And how many of these are double deckers, single deckers and articulated buses respectively? If you mean the number of vehicles, AIUI it's approximately 8000 - unfortunately I don't know any details beyond that. Just to add to Dave's reply. 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. The 7037 figure is the highest total for London since 1958 which was the previous peak value. It is also worth noting that the total has already increased further and will continue to do so as further route and frequency improvements are introduced. Did the 1958 figure include the Country area, do you know? |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:25:02 +0000, Ken Wheatley
wrote: On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:45:36 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote: The 7037 figure is the highest total for London since 1958 which was the previous peak value. It is also worth noting that the total has already increased further and will continue to do so as further route and frequency improvements are introduced. Did the 1958 figure include the Country area, do you know? I've just checked the relevant LOTS [1] supplement. The figures was for Central Buses and Trolleybuses which is just about the same network area as TfL today barring a few differences in cross boundary provision. [1] www.lots.org.uk -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
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. No thanks to Paul G for his rudeness. I'm surprised his Googling skills did not reveal to him that I've previously recommended www.londonbusroutes.net/details myself, in a post called "Bus route statistics" on 17th January 2005. Hey, Paul G, why don't you Google this: define: "humble pie" Dominic |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
In message .com,
writes 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. No thanks to Paul G for his rudeness. I'm surprised his Googling skills did not reveal to him that I've previously recommended www.londonbusroutes.net/details myself, in a post called "Bus route statistics" on 17th January 2005. Hey, Paul G, why don't you Google this: define: "humble pie" Erm. Let's think (or not, I let the choice be yours). You asked a question, I gave you an answer. You appear to have got the information you wanted, by chance (due to the ever helpful and knowledgeable people on this newsgroup), but if you had made your information request clearer perhaps I wouldn't have posted what I did? Sure, sometimes I post short retorts, especially when people ask lazy questions; it's about considering other people's time too - not just your own. Dare I suggest you do a google for a definition of humble pie as I can't see any definition that fits? Preferably (from my perspective) you ought to do course on how to ask a meaningful question? :) I notice you didn't follow up on the suggestion that someone made of doing a Freedom of Information request, which was the main cause of my anger at keyboard. Lazy questioners I can deal with (I ignore them). People who create work for others because they haven't done it themselves annoy me intensely. Luckily the freedom of information act recognises it and requests can be denied for various reasons, including if the information is already available in the public domain. I did notice that the responder said "if nothing else better comes along", that's why my original post wasn't personal and was in the third person. If you took it to mean yourself I can only suggest trying to avoid the pitfalls I've outlined above and making reference to any research you have done to avoid misunderstandings and potentially wasting other people's time (like my own!). |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
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! |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
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 ================================= |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
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! |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
|
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
|
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
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 ================================= |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
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! |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
|
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
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. |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
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 |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:04:07 +0000, Dave A wrote:
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. Not odd at all really. Many companies try to get away with a one shift operation if they can - typically rural areas. When there is enough business they will stretch to two shifts - this is very typical of many medium sized or even some large towns. Only in exceptional circumstances do you get anything like a proper service funded on a fully commercial basis - bits of the big cities in the Met Counties and the standard list of "deregulation success cities" fall in here. Any remaining evening or late night operations in quieter areas have to be funded by local authorities. It is all about minimising the basic cost of operation and then minimising any risk to the core network and revenue base. Why would an operator take a punt on running evening services if they need to employ depot staff for longer and later and have another shift of drivers and control staff for next to no money *in the short term*? They aren't interested in taking some short term risk to try to grow the overall market - why would a prospective passenger get a bus at 18.00 to go to town if there is no bus to get them home at 23.00 after a night out with friends? In London there's little reason to even consider that scenario unless you happen to live on the W10! I was pondering today that the deregulated approach to service provision in the evenings just seems so at odds with what the public want. Shops are open late a lot of the time, people want to eat out and drink and enjoy entertainment facilities more and more and yet there are scant ways for them to get around. It's interesting to contrast that with London (and yes we've got huge budgets to support our network) where peak service levels run through to about 20.00 and there is broadly a good service on almost all routes right through to close of traffic. It's no wonder that London is booming and the place is busy all the time - the transport system is working to support all that economic activity which in turn results in higher tax revenues to pay for the subsidy to the network. It just struck me that seems such a virtuous circle to be in. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:04:07 +0000, Dave A wrote: 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. Not odd at all really. Many companies try to get away with a one shift operation if they can - typically rural areas. When there is enough business they will stretch to two shifts - this is very typical of many medium sized or even some large towns. Only in exceptional circumstances do you get anything like a proper service funded on a fully commercial basis - bits of the big cities in the Met Counties and the standard list of "deregulation success cities" fall in here. Any remaining evening or late night operations in quieter areas have to be funded by local authorities. It is all about minimising the basic cost of operation and then minimising any risk to the core network and revenue base. Why would an operator take a punt on running evening services if they need to employ depot staff for longer and later and have another shift of drivers and control staff for next to no money *in the short term*? They aren't interested in taking some short term risk to try to grow the overall market - why would a prospective passenger get a bus at 18.00 to go to town if there is no bus to get them home at 23.00 after a night out with friends? In London there's little reason to even consider that scenario unless you happen to live on the W10! ....which is one of the reasons I love living here - the *minimum* bus frequency on the way home is about every ten minutes (364 days a year!). I was pondering today that the deregulated approach to service provision in the evenings just seems so at odds with what the public want. Shops are open late a lot of the time, people want to eat out and drink and enjoy entertainment facilities more and more and yet there are scant ways for them to get around. It's interesting to contrast that with London (and yes we've got huge budgets to support our network) where peak service levels run through to about 20.00 and there is broadly a good service on almost all routes right through to close of traffic. It's no wonder that London is booming and the place is busy all the time - the transport system is working to support all that economic activity which in turn results in higher tax revenues to pay for the subsidy to the network. It just struck me that seems such a virtuous circle to be in. Even the smaller picture - just the bus system - gets stuck into a virtuous circle, as increased bus frequencies result in more passengers, which in turn justifies a more frequent service and so on. I have heard people moan about lots of empty buses running around, but that's not my experience, and across the network, per-bus occupancy levels have been rising over the last decade in London, whereas other met areas have seen them fall. The various indicators comparing buses in met areas, in London, and in the countryside are interesting to follow. Obviously in London patronage has been rising quickly, the buses are getting fuller, and despite the expense, both the National Audit Office and the London Assembly noted that good value for money had been achieved. In rural areas, patronage has inevitably been falling, but given that rural public transport is unlikely to ever compete with the car except for particular segments of the market, costs have been reined in reasonably well, with some quite useful and even innovative services being provided in places. On the other hand, most met areas just seem to be a bus disaster zone. Only select smaller places seem to manage bus services well. I wonder if network effects are relevant - in small cities (and large towns), individual routes serve people quite well (i.e. taking them to and from the centre), whereas in larger places where people are more in need of a network rather than a particular route, the attractiveness of the service falls apart thanks to poor information, poor ticketing arrangements and the like. -- Dave Arquati www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
On 9 Feb, 16:56, wrote:
Does anyone how many buses operate on behalf of London Buses (or know how I can find out)? And how many of these are double deckers, single deckers and articulated buses respectively? Thanks, Dominic The most recent breakdown I have for TfL contracted buses was given in Buses Focus 42 (July/Aug 2006) Artics (1 type) 387 buses Double Deck (13 Types) 4920 (of which 20 are Routemasters) Larger Single Deck (4 Types) 61 Small Single Deck (11 Types) 2674 This gives a total fleet of 8042 of which 8022 are low floor. |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:19:37 +0000, Dave A wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote: [snip] I was pondering today that the deregulated approach to service provision in the evenings just seems so at odds with what the public want. Shops are open late a lot of the time, people want to eat out and drink and enjoy entertainment facilities more and more and yet there are scant ways for them to get around. It's interesting to contrast that with London (and yes we've got huge budgets to support our network) where peak service levels run through to about 20.00 and there is broadly a good service on almost all routes right through to close of traffic. It's no wonder that London is booming and the place is busy all the time - the transport system is working to support all that economic activity which in turn results in higher tax revenues to pay for the subsidy to the network. It just struck me that seems such a virtuous circle to be in. Even the smaller picture - just the bus system - gets stuck into a virtuous circle, as increased bus frequencies result in more passengers, which in turn justifies a more frequent service and so on. I have heard people moan about lots of empty buses running around, but that's not my experience, and across the network, per-bus occupancy levels have been rising over the last decade in London, whereas other met areas have seen them fall. There are plenty of people who moan about "empty" buses but in reality it is very rare for a bus to be completely empty and to be running on time. As you say average occupancy has been rising for years which helps broadly improve the viability of each route (I know it's more complex than that in reality). The various indicators comparing buses in met areas, in London, and in the countryside are interesting to follow. Obviously in London patronage has been rising quickly, the buses are getting fuller, and despite the expense, both the National Audit Office and the London Assembly noted that good value for money had been achieved. In rural areas, patronage has inevitably been falling, but given that rural public transport is unlikely to ever compete with the car except for particular segments of the market, costs have been reined in reasonably well, with some quite useful and even innovative services being provided in places. I'd forgotten about the NAO, London Assembly and IIRC Transport Select Committee have all commented favourably on London's approach. That's probably a world record given the range of political opinion. I saw this article today http://www.busandcoach.com/featureStory.aspx?id=1230 about Blazefield Holdings. I found it very interesting - particularly comments about passengers liking more leg room (yes I do!) and also the fact they try hard to keep ahead of demand so that buses are not overly full as passengers dislike them (also correct IMO). If only most bus companies would adopt the stance of Blazefield and actually get on and do a decent job and take some risks. Much of the criticism would probably go and London's special status would be much harder to defend. On the other hand, most met areas just seem to be a bus disaster zone. Only select smaller places seem to manage bus services well. I wonder if network effects are relevant - in small cities (and large towns), individual routes serve people quite well (i.e. taking them to and from the centre), whereas in larger places where people are more in need of a network rather than a particular route, the attractiveness of the service falls apart thanks to poor information, poor ticketing arrangements and the like. Except in the very simplest of places, where one or two routes might suffice, then I believe a network is required and it services should demonstrably function as a network. It is not beyond the wit of professional bus companies to create timetables and ticketing that would support an easy to use local network. Technology such as GPS can help ensure the actual service performance matches the theory of the timetables. Non of this is hugely expensive when put against the potential gain for the company's profitability and for passengers. I particularly despair about the Met Counties as they are all in the stranglehold grip of big groups who will just bully local authorities if they attempt to regulate their networks. Worse they have no apparent interest in running decent networks - they just want basic corridors where they can make the most money and keep the competition away. Coming from Tyne and Wear I know what integrated transport can be like - we have nothing in this country (including London) that even gets close to what that system had. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
London Buses - number of double deckers, single deckers & artics
On 17 Feb, 16:19, "Stephen Allcroft"
wrote: The most recent breakdown I have for TfL contracted buses was given in Buses Focus 42 (July/Aug 2006) Artics (1 type) 387 buses Double Deck (13 Types) 4920 (of which 20 are Routemasters) Larger Single Deck (4 Types) 61 Small Single Deck (11 Types) 2674 This gives a total fleet of 8042 of which 8022 are low floor. Thanks very much. Dominic |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk