As usual I watch transport videos on YouTube, I watch Not Just Bikes regularly and watched his video on Switzerland's trains. Which cites an article on The integrated timetables of Switzerland, an article by Jokteur.
So I've decided to see how much of the bus network is integrated timetable-wise, between bus routes and bus routes with train connections, if London has any. No doubt outside London there are cases, especially with low-frequency routes, though the easily changed train timetables does make keeping on track of connection guarantee a work and a half, though that's a work the Netherlands and Switzerland are proud to do, in order to achieve over 90% train punctuality and especially over 90% connection guarantee nationwide.
Connections between buses and trains also accounted for.
So what can the creator of the trains, United Kingdom, offer for it's capital London?
Spoiler alert: I overfocussed on buses.
----------------
 |
| Also, a non-mandatory part 1: Interworked iBus-display-ETM |
Starting off hot with a list.
A totally not hand picked list of bus routes that are interworked, mostly technically (stated in the contract) and/or in reality.
2 with 432
3 with 159
128 with 150
133 and 109, 133 and 415
158 with 58
191 with 121, 191 with 307
216 with 111
229 and 469, 229 with 177
245 with 332, 245 and 260/460
256 with 294
301 with 244
301 with 401
307 with 121
319 and 49
328 with 31
333 and 133 & 250
349 and N279
359 and 64
379 with 313 (Sundays/evenings)
104 with 238 and 104 with 101/474 (Sundays/evenings) when it went Manor Park
Many more high-frequency examples, etcetera etcetera.
The wording with 49/319 and 349/N279 is more Separated as opposed to Interworked though the same logic applies. The 359's wording is more elaborate "best separated" which is cuter.
Essentially, "interworked" would be more actively trying to perform a seamless service. Whereas "separation" is passively (but not trying to) not lump bus route A and bus route B together constantly, despite the different frequencies bus route A and bus route B have.
All day routes with night route versions (e.g 109 and N109, the 159 and N109, the 23 and night 23, etc)
Though weirdly not mandatory for night routes with secondary day route parallels (e.g 468 with N68), the particular example whereby 68/468/X68/N68 being split apart in 2018 meant an hour gap was created from the last 468 northbound to the first northbound N68. This wouldn't be a problem from the previous contracts where as stated, 68 and 468 (and 468/N68) should interwork seamlessly, and they have.
Examples which go against the above include: 218/N266, due to 266 being cut back from Hammersmith meaning the southern portion covered by... 218.
Notably I did list the 349/N279 above, though as of writing in October 2022 the 349 has a death sentence, being replaced by 259 with N279 meant to be renumbered N259. That should speak for itself.
Many a time I would wait for a southbound bus at Brixton to head to West Norwood. Of course, my options are 2 196 and 432. Can't have 322 or 690 (why?) unless I go to a different stop.
Most often, all three (2 415 432) would arrive either together in a congo line, or within a minute. By the time one bus is fully loaded, another would stroll right behind comically. At least a hundred people crammed in those three buses is all well and dandy, I suppose.
In practice, the 2 and 432 should be interworking, though as both were at different operators which meant different control strategies were at play, they weren't necessarily harmonised during the day. Of course there's more possibility for 432 and N2 to be interworking properly but I have very little experience there as I valued my life.
Though nowadays as 432 returned to home at Norwood (N), I have been noticing 2s and 432s operate more as an interworked route. So there is some praise there, with both under the same umbrella again.
As long as route A and route B are at different operators, is there an incentive to interwork them? Put it this way, is there a penalty for not having to interwork with a route operated by someone else?
No, from what I understand.
So we've glossed over routes that say they interwork (such as 2/432), couldn't evaluate more of the past (128/150).
Now we come to the possibilities of routes (or sections of routes, parallels in this instance) where it would significantly improve passenger experience yet it is not done.
I have tried to search for low frequency routes with contractually stated interworkings, though I've given up in the end.
No, the 201 and P13 don't say they do. Neither could I find proof some other prefix routes that could be capable of doing so.
The 201 and P13 share a section from Streatham to West Dulwich, yes they have different routeings (201 via Tulse Hill estate, P13 via Downton Avenue) but they share a lot of common stops before they diverge at Streatham Hill in the west and Tulse Hill in the east.
For a more high-frequency route example, the 128 and 150... used to.
Obviously Stagecoach operate the former as they won it, which means it's up to them to operate it to standard. Arriva still have 150 and likewise, operate it to contractual obligations.
Neither have any incentive to actively interwork 128 and 150.
Arriva when they had 128 and 150 from the same garage of Barking (DX) also didn't have to, as much as the tender spec said 128 and 150 should interwork where possible at all times, but it's doubly better for the controller whose responsible for managing the service, since many a times routes are lumped onto one screen, the 128/150 no doubt were together in one screen.
In short, it's operator convenience that doubled as passenger convenience.
(Again, nowadays 2 and 432 pretty much do what 128/150 used to)
So we came to the conclusion that it's theory for tender spec to say X route to be interworked with Y route.
In reality, the story is different. It does work in convenient scenarios both routes are at the same operator (say 121/191), though even then it could still not be true, mostly down to timetable changes with frequency reductions that create less cohesion with the route it's paired with.
The 245/332 seem to consistently arrive together, the 245 had frequency reductions over the years of it's previous contract spec. Likewise the 260/460 do mostly arrive together too, despite being advised to be "interworked" in mornings/evenings/Sundays and separated at all other periods. I guess the keyword is, best separated after all.
I've started this post on train connections with buses, though with the density of the rail network, picking out one example out of the countless routes that serve stations is far too easy. Picking out a fair sample of routes could turn laborious quickly, for my perfectionist self.
Most parts of the tube have amazing frequencies, so connections to/from are swiftly in the single digit minutes realm.
So that leaves us with Tramlink, Cable Car and DLR.
We can eliminate Cable Car immediately. The only low frequency routes the DLR interacts with should be 309 and 323. Which interact with two branches of the DLR (not to mention Jubilee Line), so a hyper-frequent rail service again.
Tramlink. It interacts with the 353 359 and 464.
I've already touched up on 464 in a screenshot, it is likely to miss a Tatsfield-bound 464 by a minute, and likewise an Orpington-bound 353 at Addington Village.
Conversely getting from either 353/464 to Tram should be seamless within 2 minutes, not accounting for traffic or delays.
One thing I omitted was: Overground.
Most of it's lines are pretty frequent,
Though the Upminster line is half hourly, arriving at xx21 and xx50, leaving at xx25 and xx55.
For bus routes I'll only focus on the 346 (every 15). It arrives at Upminster at xx07 xx22 so on. Meaning you get 3 mins wait at the minimum, which is pretty good. Considering in the 353/464 example you can miss the other mode by a minute.
Say you were on an Overground and getting off at Upminster. Your next 346 would be in 7-8 minutes. That's within the average wait people allow for transport, so it's good, not allowing for perfection, whilst allowing padding for delays on either mode (bus or train).
Forget Elizabeth Line and fairly critiquing conveniences for two reasons.
1) It's not in it's final form yet (with timetable changes upcoming)
2) The 497 is in a comatose state.
Also, if timetables (from May 2022 as of October) go to plan, you should always miss a 497 by the time you exit the gate at Harold Wood station.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've covered Interworking routes through timetabling, how about stepping it up a notch?
You should be familiar parent routes and child routes (or whatever you call them), such as 63/363; 137/417; 149/349; 159/250; 260/460; so on so forth; provide extra capacity on the overlaps where there is a busier flow. During the evenings and some cases Sundays, that extra capacity from the overlap creates abundance.
Routes with some differences in route won't be included, examples such as 36/436 (Battersea Park); 133/333 (via Stockwell), etcetera.
Extra abundance means inefficiency, at the quieter times.
Inefficiency should be cut down on if you're, you know, in a cost crisis in a world of rising costs of living as well as increasing inflation, not to mention already constantly begging the government for more funds. Or your bank bailed your government out on their rubbish policy.
I'm trying to rant on how cutting routes completely is a wrong move in more cases than not.
The smarter way to do it would be to fuse some routes where possible.
Obviously you can't just send 137 to Crystal Palace all day everyday, that will cause reliability issues from the influx of traffic and school traffic the 417 deals with and can already manage with relative leeway. Same with other parent-child routes I've listed and not listed. Throw in the many hotspots 137 goes through, this hypothetical 137 to Crystal Palace will end up with many long service gaps.
Pretty much that's the reason we have these pairs in the first place. Rising traffic levels forced that. Other cities either didn't manage (most of America basically) or to varying degrees tried to curb the ballooning of car ownership. London would sit somewhere slightly to the left, if the scale was America to the left and Japan to the right.
 |
| Using 2 and 432 northbound |
But then, if you send 137 to Crystal Palace only on Sundays/evenings... won't that cause passenger confusion?
(Which is why you don't see overlaps on routes nowadays, the last being 208 in 2010)
Yes if you do exactly that, sending 137 to Crystal Palace.
What you should instead do is this: Change the destination/route of the bus mid-route.
This is already done on routes with hesitation points, i.e 291 at Woodlands Estate and R5/R10 at Halstead.
Where should 137s change their route/destination displays then?
The answer to that is simple, where 137 meets 417's first stop, and where 417 meets 137's first stop.
e.g a "417" from Crystal Palace changes into a [137 to Marble Arch] at Telford Avenue
a 137 from Marble Arch changes into a [417 to Crystal Palace] at Clapham Common, Old Town.
Rinse and repeat for every family route, and you've gotten the same formula as if you've just sent 137 to Crystal Palace on Sundays/evenings only.
In short, you're shifting the burden from the passenger (who may not notice the bus they're on changed route all of a sudden) to the driver/operator who would have to contend and be aware of the route.
----------
There is room for interworking routes even better.
Interworking more routes to reduce wait times where possible, especially on lower frequency routes, not just the high frequency routes. To create the most seamless (where possible) and best passenger experience, as best as can be done.
Should there be an incentive or penalty?
An incentive would be nice, as the kinder approach.
The penalty approach could be unnecessarily punishing, with all sorts of chaos that occurs from externalities such as accidents and whatnot. Enough as it is for late buses to incur fines, or lost mileage happening.
Regardless, a better passenger experience should be strived for.
Pretty easy to say "if it's done in X place in Europe, we can too!"
I do not have the answer to solve some of what I brought up, though I have thrown some papers in the wind, for something to happen out of it.
At the start of the post, I alluded to the amazing networks of Switzerland and Netherlands.
I experienced first-hand the more countryside of Oslo in Zone 2S (in London language it's Zone 4).
To get into town, the quickest way is to use a ferry.
All bus services to Nesoddtangen are timetabled to always connect with the ferry. Allowing people from the bus to the ferry, and for people from the boat to enter their bus of choice.
In the span of a few minutes time, Nesoddtangen goes from a crowd of people into a desolate pier.
If you believe ferries are more worthy of timetabling for, then another example.
Göteborg, Sweden.
As much as buses in Angered are mostly every 15, you'd have to be loitering around to miss connecting from Tram to Bus there.
Essentially connecting from Tramlink to 464 but mastered.
Of course they can, as it's more of an integrated network. As opposed to First operating Tramlink and Abellio operating 464, where the central authority doesn't have a grip but can have a say in how timetables are formed. In fairness, creating schedules are long, but passenger experience can be improved with little changes.
As Tesco's motto says: every little helps.
So yeah. If Japan can do a thing. We can too. (Insert laugh track)
Hope you enjoyed this post, until the next one, stay safe, as always!
No comments:
Post a Comment