 |
| yo dawg I heard you liked speed lines |
All of a sudden the thought was raised; instead of wholesale frequency cuts, shorten the offending Central sections on part-frequency. So my thought process from that became: "how would it look like?" Through maths and numbers, trying to deliver similar PVR cuts through the technique of short workings.
The frequency cuts we had in the end of August on the 28th and continuing on with September for 59/253/254 and 13 yet to come along with other potential victims. How would these sometimes drastic but reversible frequency cuts could've looked, had the capacity in outer London and apparently irrelevant inner London not be sacrificed for the woes of hard-hit Central London?
I'll forget boring you by having an image below for a spreadsheet (clicky linky) you could skim through
 |
| Numbers and buses, my favourites. |
It'd be quite an undertaking but nevertheless Inner and Outer London don't receive a decrease in service to an important destination in Central London, that's what I aimed for. With the likes of the 27 I have no clue so I've made a pact with the devil instead. As for the 2, there's something I've discovered.
If you cut routes enough, you could increase the frequency on the outer sections. My testbed for it was the 2. Since personally Marble Arch is a necessary place and would rather stab my hand than allow any less than that, that is unless there's an increase in frequency to justify that. I still have vengeance from 2017 when both 2 and 19 were to get frequency increases to every 6-7 but were both reversed, HV280/1 being redundant from 19's order (now allocated to 249 for it's frequency increase in 2019) whilst 2 had it's order reduced. Hatred aside, an every 6-7 service from Norwood to Victoria against an every 8-9 service full route does seem more appetising given 2's solo corridor following the Victoria Line with, well, only the Victoria Line for genuine support.
I've tried to replicate this where I could but it was hard, in fact, nearly impossible when routes go from 8 bph down to 6 bph. Unless you cut nearly an hour's journey time from the route like with the 344. In the case of 253 and 254, there's little that could be saved from shorts by comparison to a full frequency cut. That's to say if the short workings don't end in a random place somewhere.
Though if the question was instead what would be the extent to introduce short workings on routes in place of frequency cuts, then you'd require more routes to short-work unless the short workings were drastic enough like in 344's case, or both go hand-in-hand.
On the outset, this is better than the absolute madness only two decades ago.
 |
| There was more madness at night but here's a day glimpse |
It makes sense how TfL have come to see short workings as the pentagram of all transport evil. Express routes for the most part, an archaic thing dragged by the past (607, 726 and X68) or additions to please a group of people whilst simultaneously saving a lot of costs and holy Crossrail all intertwined (X140). Even fast trains haven't escaped that on TfL Rail.
As you've seen from the 2002 spreadsheet, that was confusion paradise. Not to the levels of the 20th century where every route has short workings or operated in sections in some shape or form.
No doubt that confusion was enough justice to deal the final blow to basically every route that wasn't 166, 221 and night routes. The last daily route to run in sections being 208 until 2010.
Standardisation is nice and all, for you me and every Joe and Jenny out there. No confusion, so what is the fuss?
Much less even withdrawing express routes X53 and X72(472). I've already done Expressa and Expressa 2 absolutely milking express buses so go read those if you haven't.
The 38 and 166 only have them out of obligation, hyper frequent for Clapton Pond's stands to handle and the latter providing the hourly service to Epsom stemmed from Epsom Buses's commercial 498 fused into 166 a long time ago, resulting in simultaneous operation by them and Arriva, something you'd have to leave a few shires to see an example of, in the past, or in different countries entirely, barring rare special day exceptions, school operations and the likes of the disasters known as the 60 and 185.
The 25 and 221 were recent examples too.
Holborn Circus (cut to City Thameslink, 25's current terminus, then cut to Bank, then cut to Mile End until absorbed into 425).
North Finchley to Turnpike Lane Station for route 221.
The short workings in this case was providing capacity where it was needed, anything more than 8 buses an hour to Oxford Circus didn't sit well with TfL's view of the street having too many buses as well used as it was, but equally the 25 had far more than 60 buses to it's name so was a hard act to balance for operational costs' sake.
The 221 with it's very busy North Finchley to Wood Green section only fell threw as Millbrook Park's developments meant an increase in service was needed, but TfL didn't exactly have the leisure to fork out extra buses, being cash strapped. So the service was standardised to every 8 full route, leaving the unreliable shorts which typically bunched behind Edgware buses to all be Edgware buses, in theory. It would've been ideal if 460 took over the shorts but that leaves Mill Hill with an every 12 service that is clearly unfit for it's service levels, that Edgware stretch also a little crowded.
One bizarre one which stayed in the history books but made sense historically was 137's. From Archway (or Oxford Circus) to Clapham Common then the Crystal Palace section now known as 417. It was bizarre when it came back in 2001 only to die in 2004, at which point Brixton (BN) is fully operating the route rather than a split operation north and south of the river. Then in 2004 the 137 had a ridiculous boost in frequency, peak frequency of every 2-5. Let that sink in. Every 2-5. T'was reduced after 452's introduction but other times increased to compensate.
If short workings were to become a solution to reducing buses in the emptier Central section but not to reduce any in the Outer regions, what more besides the routes that received frequency cuts could one do?
Central routes? Frequent suburb routes? If you were to make cuts in Central, claiming to use some of the resources to the suburbs, then perhaps this is one area to look at.
However it's easier said than practical. For that it is necessary to know the route's usage in many of the sections to have a clearer idea. Coming from the guy who has made a pact with the devil regarding the 27.
For example, the 36.
Which had a peak frequency increase to compensate for loss of 436 which lost it's peak frequency (boost to every 5-6). How about reinstating that somewhat by creating shorts for 36? It has been debated quite a bit to cut the 36 back to Paddington though I feel, not that it's much value from someone who hasn't been to Queen's Park or Maida Hill on a 36, a nice cross-Central link or at least a link straight to Victoria from thereabouts.
So rather than completely cutting it, instead truncating every other bus to Paddington would be the middle ground. The 36 has an exuberant peak frequency ranging from every 4 to 6 depending on direction, with it's off-peak frequency of every 6 which it had since it's 2008 renewal increased from a ranging every 6-8.
Fun fact: Prior to it's 24-hour conversion, 36 had scheduled Victoria runs to & from New Cross, four northbound in the morning and two southbound in the evening. Two journeys scheduled from Queens Park to Peckham at 0704 & 0734 returning from Peckham to West Kilburn between circa 0820 and 0900.
How about the 29?
That is another hyperfrequent route, ex-bendy just like the 25, and damn busy just like it. Unlike it, it didn't get cuts (until September 2021) because of all-holy Crossrail praise be to it for being delayed for years upon years. Though perhaps this could've used shorts to it's advantage.
With the 24 as it's support which has been the victim of protests and traffic, and hasn't been changed in over 80 years and contrary to popular belief, was different exactly 109 years ago in 1912. It took 2 (and a different 53)'s Ebury Bridge section, better known as Pimlico. So there is credence to reducing the amount of through buses to Trafalgar Square on the 29, but between Warren Street and Tottenham Court Road you're looking at saving (7-8 buses peaks/6 off-peak or 3 buses peaks/1 off-peak).
Pick your poison.
Preferably I'd avoid routes on the lower spectrum of the high frequency specification, like with the 205 which is every 9 minutes and totally not a clockface frequency but as a result of traffic related issues forcing it to either need an extra bus or reduce frequency to lengthen journey time as required and the latter is obviously cheaper.
So introduce shorts on that to Baker Street and you'll be looking at shaving 1 bus off in trade for an every 18 frequency. London Transport had a fetish for non-clockface frequencies on random routes.
A wild double-edged-sword idea is to instead increase the peak frequency in the busier direction, 'with-the-flow' so to speak and reduce the opposite direction's frequency. It sort of exists in more frequent routes where they're busier in one direction, say 453 being every 4-5 AM peak towards Marylebone but every 5 otherwise. Heck even the 36 from earlier which is only every 4 one way then every 6 the other in the peaks. Say for reference's sake, reducing 3's morning frequency southbound to every 9 whilst increasing it's northbound frequency to every 7.
It is possible and already used but in terms of widescale usage, it's better than losing a link altogether whilst bringing more to some users at the detriment of others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garage workings.
The thing that only Metroline kinda keep alive through the 43 and 237 (+186 226 282, Abellio R70) by having journeys start/end at Archway and Brentford respectively from their inner London termini.
This is another thing that made life absolutely confusing as one moment you would have 49s running to Crystal Palace then you get 49s to Merton via Tooting Broadway since Merton (AL) partially operated it on Sundays.
Obviously if this was all under one umbrella like in those days where buses were littered with garage journeys as it was back then, it'd be easier to manage and make efficient usage of them as routes would only be operated from the same garage. Not the contractual system of retains or awards/losses.
So how does one work around that?
You have options,
a) Don't work around them, having them run in service from terminus until entering depot or from depot to terminus.
b) Have 'garage journeys' terminate at the closest convenience to the garage in question, working as extras schedule-wise but curtailed to the passenger. Likewise starting from closest convenience to depot.
c) It thinks it's one route but it's not
In today's world of standardisation a) would bring back PTSDs of the past to say the least, so:
b) it is.
I'd take two examples here, the 2 and 302. A bad one and a decent case.
The last Marylebone bus (obviously route 2) dead run back to Norwood and is the one out of three that do so after 2000 hours. In theory the last Marylebone-bound 2 that finishing at 00:46 could run in service to the closest convenience to Norwood (N) which is it's terminus funnily enough, who would have thought. In the possible case Go-Ahead were to win it, the closest convenience is Stockwell, whom they turn 88s there when Central London acts up anyway.
In short: the 2 has a robust schedule and N2 also runs from Marylebone so it's not worth it
The 302's case however... interesting. Having already a trip at 1526 that starts from Willesden (AC) northbound but it's last bus leaving Mill Hill at 0010, yet the last three buses from Kensal Rise all finish later than the last southbound bus. The case can be made that since 302 has both 52 (24 hour) and N98 that it has night service coverage. Though you could also argue that those three buses are already dead running southbound anyway so it might as well be in service. Conversely the last ones from Kensal Rise could run in service to Willesden, though that is a stretch and offers little benefit.
One route I intentionally didn't mention is 154 whose last trips end at Sutton Green. Which is conveniently for Sutton (A).
Or a route with no 1-to-1 night coverage. Continuing the trend, the 202.
Looking at the timetable it's an east-orientated schedule, with first bus starting from Blackheath and you guessed it, last bus ending at Blackheath. This wouldn't be as much of a glaring opportunity when Stagecoach operated it from Catford (TL) which is central to it. It's been operated way west in Croydon (C) and now Norwood (N) albeit much closer is still west of the starting/end times. Granted with Croydon (C) dead runs they'd still use the A205 which the 202 runs a decent majority on, likewise Norwood (N) would too due to easy access to the South Circular.
In short; Dead running 202s could be used to even more effect since it's garage isn't nearer to a mid-point of it's route.
How about my beloved hated 322. It's last two southbound buses dead run back to Stockwell (SW) and I imagine won't change under Abellio at Battersea (QB), so having them in service might be a waste, they're already going through West Norwood and Brixton to get their depot albeit not on side roads. In the case of Beddington Cross (BC), dead runs from Crystal Palace are off route anyway but from Clapham Common they'd more likely be off route too, as much as in this case extra southbound 322s is theoretically possible but that's in the past. Questionable for me to use 322 but that logic could be used for routes, whilst implementing it is a different case.
c) This
Once upon a time a young me would look at 133s running across Streatham Common North whilst on 249s, then read an article about ghost 133s where in short, the article pleads that the sheer quantity of empty 133s could be put to use. During the day you could have genuinely counted a lot as they went for meal reliefs and changeovers and whatnot under Norwood (N). Should such a garage working operation have happened the frequency would eclipse 249's at the times 249 is emptier.
It's not an epic tier suggestion but one nonetheless that's food for thought.
For example, the 137s that run out of Norwood (N) operate as 417s until Streatham Hill Telford Avenue whereby changing displays to 137. Barely 20 years ago 137s leaving Norwood (N) did run in service from Norwood Crown Point and terminating at the garage in-service upon return from Crystal Palace. Or just display N137 but that goes Oxford Circus and not Marble Arch unlike 137 so curtailed N137 on-paper.
Another example, 196s running dead from Walworth (WL) to Elephant & Castle could run as, given the sheer amount of routes on Walworth Road, the 45. As theoretically possible the other way is, using N68 to Upper Norwood and changing displays at Herne Hill into 196 to Norwood Junction is, whether the 25 minutes of dead run time ballooning into a 21 minutes of N68 time plus roughly 4 minutes of South Norwood Hill. Hmm.
That oddly matches up, though in other routes' cases it wouldn't be that convenient. Especially for routes operated by different operators. Beddington Cross (BC) in an industrial estate where to get to Croydon Town Centre, you could follow the 455 not that it's a direct representative. Though Beddington Plough is close by which is a 407/410 timing point. Whilst Croydon (C) operate X26 it doesn't stop for a long distance either direction so is useless for garage workings, that are meant to provide a service as buses dead run to start service, so a Go-Ahead 407 would be one way, though that would take more hurdles to go through than a dead running 109 pretending to be 407 until Croydon Town Centre.
In a weird sense it's like covering extra mileage, where buses appear on iBus as in service but clearly not in service in reality. Though how mileage should be counted is another thing to figure out that is outside my league.
So the two ingredients we've included in our recipe, short workings and garage workings. How that would that look combined is a little something like this:
43: London Bridge - Moorgate - Archway - Friern Barnet.
As we've discovered 43 has some dead runs actually in service, hence in timetable you'd see 43s arbitrarily start from Archway whereas there's only one in the evening that ends at Archway. Then lopping half the service south of Moorgate et voila, cutting buses in apparently empty Central London whilst saving face from Outer London, all the while providing a service that could sweep up patronage whilst on it's way to it's garage.
In some cases like in mornings where dead runs allow the start of a service heading into London, it's much less time consuming to be in service. Personally the way I'd trial it is a maximum of 3 buses in the morning and likewise the last 3, depending on the route it is heading inbound to London or outbound of London.
Another thing would be the matter of iBus and displays. Presently the last trips can't have curtailments programmed in for whatever aloof reason (I assume to discourage last bus curtailments since it's silent taboo), then blinds and iBus being separate functions. Meaning you'd have to set the blinds whilst iBus could be set for you or it's left to your discretion.
Meanwhile you'd get trains that say they're going one place but actually lied to you last minute and dump you off, with all the displays being the very station you're dumped at. The bus really is an inferior existence to tubes here isn't it?
Eh, visit Europe. Or buy OMSI and fiddle around with the IBIS in your cab.
Pretty much, it's something that should be looked into if we'd want a more efficient network, where money is made when possible and money not wasted where possible. The capitalistic definition of efficiency, would you look at that?
Just like with the Overground's few trips to Battersea Park not being on any maps (for the most part), it's probably in best taste to not advertise the garage workings as when inevitably a route is lost or transfers to a different garage, dead runs would without doubt be different, unless conveniently it's between C/BC in Beddington or TF/FW in Fulwell, or others.
Furthermore an ideal blind display would include 'Special Service' to separate with the normal morning runouts and normal evening runs though that's only easily adaptable with LEDs/LCDs as opposed to the archaic blinds requiring inserts or a new set entirely.
If we really want to be baby about it, if a garage is on the other side of a route's last bus ending then it should be encouraged to add an extra trip to it's contractual last bus. Likewise for morning starts. At least the one morning and one evening. Advertisement-friendly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, school holiday timetables. Hear me out, this isn't short workings but hear me out.
It's not much but it's honest work, filters out the huge demand you'd typically see on work days where people go to work albeit it's a debatably less amount of people with online meetings, and likewise online schools through the pandemic but assuming a semblance of pre-covid world where we're at give or take 80%, it is a small cost saving measure. A cost saving all the more.
Passengers benefit too on routes where they're padded well for the rush hour period but on a holiday, there isn't going to be traffic. So they're just sat there regulating. From a monetary perspective one or two buses saved from sheer running time.
Obviously the downside to it is creating schedules is very time consuming so the effort to creating new school holiday timetables for practically a few terms a week and summer compared to the rest of the year is a hard-work little-earned. Using Saturday times isn't exactly clear cut, more times than not it isn't suitable for a reliable (per graphs at least) service, though that is one work around available worst case scenario. But again, every little helps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All in all, where there's little demand for supply, reductions are the business practice. It's not going to sustain itself, but rather be in a negative feedback loop. Until it's barebones.
The better, but not a gamble monetarily, is to invest in making it better, obviously researching the potential causes for it's reduction in demand and adapting that knowledge into reality.
Whether it's peak frequency enhancements, short workings, or frequency reductions, or route shortenings, or route withdrawals. Actually not that one, that's bad.
I've forgot I had this scripted out and left it barren but now I've found a new will to press forward and write something I thought was worthwhile, at least short but concise and hopefully to the point. As much as I've thrown a curveball in some paragraphs, spewing out idea after idea like I've ran out of ideas in the first place.
With that said and done, have a good week and stay safe!
No comments:
Post a Comment