|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 18, 2018 22:57:48 GMT
The worst scenario is on a route like the 18. On a 3-4min headway you could have up to three or four all on relief together; or one on relief and the next five overtaking. Live changeovers at Harlesden/Willesden junction killed the route's headway. Interesting, the 18 at the Central end operates very well from my observations, although could quite well be a different story on the other end. For a big route RATP seem to be doing quite well on it. The graphs don't seem to look very bad either,
|
|
|
Post by Pilot on Dec 19, 2018 14:27:06 GMT
The worst scenario is on a route like the 18. On a 3-4min headway you could have up to three or four all on relief together; or one on relief and the next five overtaking. Live changeovers at Harlesden/Willesden junction killed the route's headway. Interesting, the 18 at the Central end operates very well from my observations, although could quite well be a different story on the other end. For a big route RATP seem to be doing quite well on it. The graphs don't seem to look very bad either, I'll probably hijack this topic a bit, but speaking of headway, what's more important for good performance...headway or buses just being out there?
I mean as in, what if there are 2-3 buses running together, is it better for company to turn these buses adjusting for better headway or rather keep 2-3 buses running together but at least they're not losing mileage?
If I had to guess, performance is based on headway because that way you get more people on the buses thus more money for TFL? But then company doesn't wanna lose miles? So what's more important.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 19, 2018 14:53:29 GMT
Interesting, the 18 at the Central end operates very well from my observations, although could quite well be a different story on the other end. For a big route RATP seem to be doing quite well on it. The graphs don't seem to look very bad either, I'll probably hijack this topic a bit, but speaking of headway, what's more important for good performance...headway or buses just being out there?
I mean as in, what if there are 2-3 buses running together, is it better for company to turn these buses adjusting for better headway or rather keep 2-3 buses running together but at least they're not losing mileage?
If I had to guess, performance is based on headway because that way you get more people on the buses thus more money for TFL? But then company doesn't wanna lose miles? So what's more important.
I haven't checked the contractual performance regime but I suspect the weighting (importance) varies by service type. On high frequency routes I suspect (i.e. am guessing) headway outweighs mileage so the emphasis is on maintaining the former. On low frequency / night routes I suspect that mileage outweighs "on time" departures as it's more important that low frequency routes avoid curtailments as otherwise wait times can become extreme. Nonetheless TfL clearly also want low frequency routes to run as close to time as possible. Happy to be corrected given we have several people on the forum who live and breathe this stuff at work. To be honest a little bit of bunching on really high frequency routes (every 3-6 mins) probably doesn't matter too much as any gaps are likely to be about 10 mins or so which is not horrendous. Where I struggle is when routes that run every 8-10-12 mins are still considered "high" frequency but gaps and bunching there can result in 20-30 minute waits which are pretty unacceptable. More needs to be done, IMO, to get those medium headway routes to run properly but the TfL regime doesn't differentiate. Having more service categories for performance measurement would be more complex and time consuming for both TfL and operators to administer. AIUI the commercial world outside doesn't have such nuances - it is all about on time departures within a "window" regardless of whether the route runs every nanosecond or once a week.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Dec 19, 2018 21:36:33 GMT
I'll probably hijack this topic a bit, but speaking of headway, what's more important for good performance...headway or buses just being out there?
I mean as in, what if there are 2-3 buses running together, is it better for company to turn these buses adjusting for better headway or rather keep 2-3 buses running together but at least they're not losing mileage?
If I had to guess, performance is based on headway because that way you get more people on the buses thus more money for TFL? But then company doesn't wanna lose miles? So what's more important.
I haven't checked the contractual performance regime but I suspect the weighting (importance) varies by service type. On high frequency routes I suspect (i.e. am guessing) headway outweighs mileage so the emphasis is on maintaining the former. On low frequency / night routes I suspect that mileage outweighs "on time" departures as it's more important that low frequency routes avoid curtailments as otherwise wait times can become extreme. Nonetheless TfL clearly also want low frequency routes to run as close to time as possible. Happy to be corrected given we have several people on the forum who live and breathe this stuff at work. To be honest a little bit of bunching on really high frequency routes (every 3-6 mins) probably doesn't matter too much as any gaps are likely to be about 10 mins or so which is not horrendous. Where I struggle is when routes that run every 8-10-12 mins are still considered "high" frequency but gaps and bunching there can result in 20-30 minute waits which are pretty unacceptable. More needs to be done, IMO, to get those medium headway routes to run properly but the TfL regime doesn't differentiate. Having more service categories for performance measurement would be more complex and time consuming for both TfL and operators to administer. AIUI the commercial world outside doesn't have such nuances - it is all about on time departures within a "window" regardless of whether the route runs every nanosecond or once a week. I'm guessing much more than you are, but your appraisal sounds very likely to me too. I know a little about how things were in the days before privatised bus companies and contracts, which were also days before tracking of buses from a central point was possible (excepting a minority of routes in central London.) Then, there was a great deal of reliance on roadside staff, mostly static (with limited means of communication by internal phone at major points), but a certain number of roving inspectors. The attitude of inspectors varied greatly, as it does with all groups of people, with some being Blakey from 'On the Buses' (''I'll get you, Butler!'') and suspecting all bus crews of being lazy whatsits coming up with all manner of excuses for being late, with others adopting a more pragmatic approach, the latter more likely to try to work with crews to adjust the service and, probably imo, achieving a better result for the travelling public. Most, however, I'd say were more concerned about keeping the buses moving as much as possible (there were big staff shortages and thus bus cuts for much of the period, particularly near Heathrow and Dagenham) and, if that meant bunching, that couldn't be avoided. The point about sections of route not getting a service was very real (I lived on the Blackwall Tunnel 108A for a long while, at one end, and you'd get 90 minute peak gaps in a 12 minute service!) This was partly ameliorated on some longer routes by having two or more garages operating it so there was no 'favouritism' in choosing an end to cut buses back from: no such luck on the 108A.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 20, 2018 17:46:00 GMT
I'm guessing much more than you are, but your appraisal sounds very likely to me too. I know a little about how things were in the days before privatised bus companies and contracts, which were also days before tracking of buses from a central point was possible (excepting a minority of routes in central London.) Then, there was a great deal of reliance on roadside staff, mostly static (with limited means of communication by internal phone at major points), but a certain number of roving inspectors. The attitude of inspectors varied greatly, as it does with all groups of people, with some being Blakey from 'On the Buses' (''I'll get you, Butler!'') and suspecting all bus crews of being lazy whatsits coming up with all manner of excuses for being late, with others adopting a more pragmatic approach, the latter more likely to try to work with crews to adjust the service and, probably imo, achieving a better result for the travelling public. Most, however, I'd say were more concerned about keeping the buses moving as much as possible (there were big staff shortages and thus bus cuts for much of the period, particularly near Heathrow and Dagenham) and, if that meant bunching, that couldn't be avoided. The point about sections of route not getting a service was very real (I lived on the Blackwall Tunnel 108A for a long while, at one end, and you'd get 90 minute peak gaps in a 12 minute service!) This was partly ameliorated on some longer routes by having two or more garages operating it so there was no 'favouritism' in choosing an end to cut buses back from: no such luck on the 108A. Obviously rather different times back then. One thing I've never heard of is what targets or performance levels were expected back then. As you say it was a very difficult time in terms of staffing levels and vehicle reliability so "targets" may have been rather academic in the face of those issues. I assume it was a case of trying to run as much of the schedule as circumstances allowed but whether management ever really knew what was run and wasn't I have to wonder. Back to modern times I had a very quick scan of the copy of a TfL bus operating contract that's on the TfL website. It seems the basic process is as follows. - operators are required to run the route schedule and meet the minimum performance standards that TfL have set. That covers both kilometrage to be operated and timekeeping (headway or on time) - Each 4 week period TfL agree to pay 1/13th of the annual contract fee to the operator. - Operators bill TfL for 75% of the fee halfway through the period. The remaining 25% is billed at the end of the period but has to be adjusted for any lost mileage. - Mileage losses are split into "deductible" and "non deductible". The former relates to those things wholly in the operators control - vehicle reliability, driver coverage, timely dispatch from depots etc. The latter covers severe traffic conditions / diversions / events outside of the operator's control. Clearly there is / will be debate about what is "valid" for inclusion in the latter category given that TfL still expect operators to manage the consequences of traffic congestion / delays. - TfL can deem the "reasonable" level of non deductible mileage in any period but operators can challenge TfL's view and provide evidence. The "quality incentive" aspect of the contract in terms of compliance with headway / on time performance levels is calculated from I-Bus information. The payment adjustment is made on an annual basis and is subject to a cap of a maximum bonus of 15% of the annual contract free and a floor of a maximum deduction of 10% of the annual contract fee. I hadn't appreciated that the financial aspect of this was only done annually. It is also interesting that during the first quarter of a new contract that TfL waive the QIC deduction element - I assume this is to allow for the "learning curve" aspect of taking on new work. If I-Bus falls over or there is a schedules glitch then operators are required to manually record lost mileage and also any incidents that would affect headway / ontime running. There are also other complexities around the measurement process that are too involved for here. There is also, as Eggmeister and Capital Omnibus have described before, the performance assessment period when the performance levels are used to determine if a contract extension is due. The calculated performance is then compared to the pre-set qualifying level. If met or exceeded then TfL will offer the operator an extension. Operators have a short period of time in which to decide to accept or decline the offer. We often get questions about clock changes and what happens to night routes. When the clocks go back operators are required to run extra journeys to fill in the extra hour. Similarly when clocks go forward they reduce the number of trips as appropriate. This is all priced into the contract for 24 hour / night / weekend night routes and TfL refuse to countenance any claims in respect of extra costs. These are the main elements of the regime and there are all sorts of nuances as you'd expect in a regime that covers a complex and variable operating environment. There are a load of other obligations related to mystery shopper scored elements of customer service plus safety, ticketing equipment, I-Bus equipment, compliance with audit rights etc. The contract that is online is now nearly 8 years old and I suspect some parts of it have been varied away (such as paying in cash taken on bus) and others changed (night bus performance is now measured using I-Bus and the QI extension process takes place over a longer period). Obviously there are people on the forum who know a lot more than I do about all this from a 60 min skim read of the contract. On that basis happy to be corrected if anyone wishes to do so.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Dec 20, 2018 20:53:32 GMT
I'm guessing much more than you are, but your appraisal sounds very likely to me too. I know a little about how things were in the days before privatised bus companies and contracts, which were also days before tracking of buses from a central point was possible (excepting a minority of routes in central London.) Then, there was a great deal of reliance on roadside staff, mostly static (with limited means of communication by internal phone at major points), but a certain number of roving inspectors. The attitude of inspectors varied greatly, as it does with all groups of people, with some being Blakey from 'On the Buses' (''I'll get you, Butler!'') and suspecting all bus crews of being lazy whatsits coming up with all manner of excuses for being late, with others adopting a more pragmatic approach, the latter more likely to try to work with crews to adjust the service and, probably imo, achieving a better result for the travelling public. Most, however, I'd say were more concerned about keeping the buses moving as much as possible (there were big staff shortages and thus bus cuts for much of the period, particularly near Heathrow and Dagenham) and, if that meant bunching, that couldn't be avoided. The point about sections of route not getting a service was very real (I lived on the Blackwall Tunnel 108A for a long while, at one end, and you'd get 90 minute peak gaps in a 12 minute service!) This was partly ameliorated on some longer routes by having two or more garages operating it so there was no 'favouritism' in choosing an end to cut buses back from: no such luck on the 108A. Obviously rather different times back then. One thing I've never heard of is what targets or performance levels were expected back then. As you say it was a very difficult time in terms of staffing levels and vehicle reliability so "targets" may have been rather academic in the face of those issues. I assume it was a case of trying to run as much of the schedule as circumstances allowed but whether management ever really knew what was run and wasn't I have to wonder. Back to modern times I had a very quick scan of the copy of a TfL bus operating contract that's on the TfL website. It seems the basic process is as follows. - operators are required to run the route schedule and meet the minimum performance standards that TfL have set. That covers both kilometrage to be operated and timekeeping (headway or on time) - Each 4 week period TfL agree to pay 1/13th of the annual contract fee to the operator. - Operators bill TfL for 75% of the fee halfway through the period. The remaining 25% is billed at the end of the period but has to be adjusted for any lost mileage. - Mileage losses are split into "deductible" and "non deductible". The former relates to those things wholly in the operators control - vehicle reliability, driver coverage, timely dispatch from depots etc. The latter covers severe traffic conditions / diversions / events outside of the operator's control. Clearly there is / will be debate about what is "valid" for inclusion in the latter category given that TfL still expect operators to manage the consequences of traffic congestion / delays. - TfL can deem the "reasonable" level of non deductible mileage in any period but operators can challenge TfL's view and provide evidence. The "quality incentive" aspect of the contract in terms of compliance with headway / on time performance levels is calculated from I-Bus information. The payment adjustment is made on an annual basis and is subject to a cap of a maximum bonus of 15% of the annual contract free and a floor of a maximum deduction of 10% of the annual contract fee. I hadn't appreciated that the financial aspect of this was only done annually. It is also interesting that during the first quarter of a new contract that TfL waive the QIC deduction element - I assume this is to allow for the "learning curve" aspect of taking on new work. If I-Bus falls over or there is a schedules glitch then operators are required to manually record lost mileage and also any incidents that would affect headway / ontime running. There are also other complexities around the measurement process that are too involved for here. There is also, as Eggmeister and Capital Omnibus have described before, the performance assessment period when the performance levels are used to determine if a contract extension is due. The calculated performance is then compared to the pre-set qualifying level. If met or exceeded then TfL will offer the operator an extension. Operators have a short period of time in which to decide to accept or decline the offer. We often get questions about clock changes and what happens to night routes. When the clocks go back operators are required to run extra journeys to fill in the extra hour. Similarly when clocks go forward they reduce the number of trips as appropriate. This is all priced into the contract for 24 hour / night / weekend night routes and TfL refuse to countenance any claims in respect of extra costs. These are the main elements of the regime and there are all sorts of nuances as you'd expect in a regime that covers a complex and variable operating environment. There are a load of other obligations related to mystery shopper scored elements of customer service plus safety, ticketing equipment, I-Bus equipment, compliance with audit rights etc. The contract that is online is now nearly 8 years old and I suspect some parts of it have been varied away (such as paying in cash taken on bus) and others changed (night bus performance is now measured using I-Bus and the QI extension process takes place over a longer period). Obviously there are people on the forum who know a lot more than I do about all this from a 60 min skim read of the contract. On that basis happy to be corrected if anyone wishes to do so. Very interesting, thanks for this snoggle
In terms of the quality incentive part, is each year separate and independent? So If you lose the bonus in year 1, can you still receive it in year 2 if performance warrants it? Do you have to give great performance in each year to be offered the two year contract extension?
Going back in time of course LT, TfLs predecessor operated all the buses, so they couldn't award themselves performance bonuses like today. Moreover there were huge staff shortages, lack of resources which made operating the service challenging. It is also true that some areas and garages had greater staff resource issues than others. It was very much a damage limitation exercise. It was case of always try and run first and particularly last buses, and then as much of the service as possible. I remember in the mid 1970s that a lot of routes had service frequency reductions of circa 15% simply to align the number of buses with the available staff, to enable a full service to be provided. There were also 'supplementary buses' which LT used to run whenever they had the staff to do so.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 20, 2018 23:30:01 GMT
Very interesting, thanks for this snoggle
In terms of the quality incentive part, is each year separate and independent? So If you lose the bonus in year 1, can you still receive it in year 2 if performance warrants it? Do you have to give great performance in each year to be offered the two year contract extension?
Going back in time of course LT, TfLs predecessor operated all the buses, so they couldn't award themselves performance bonuses like today. Moreover there were huge staff shortages, lack of resources which made operating the service challenging. It is also true that some areas and garages had greater staff resource issues than others. It was very much a damage limitation exercise. It was case of always try and run first and particularly last buses, and then as much of the service as possible. I remember in the mid 1970s that a lot of routes had service frequency reductions of circa 15% simply to align the number of buses with the available staff, to enable a full service to be provided. There were also 'supplementary buses' which LT used to run whenever they had the staff to do so. From a quick reading the QI element is measured in each year. An operator that exceeds / fails to meet the target level is only bonussed / abated for each full 0.10 second increment better or worse than target. For example if the target is 1.30 minutes Excess wait time and the operator achives 1.38 then no deduction. If they achieve 1.40 then they will be abated (higher excess wait time being bad). If they achieve 1.21 then no bonus but if the achieved 1.19 then they would benefit from that first full 0.10 increment between than target. Operators get a bonus of 1.5% of the contract fee, deductions are 1% of the contract fee (both subject to the max / minima I described in the earlier post). For low frequency routes then the performance increment has to be +/- 2 whole % better or worse than the "on time departures" performance standard (so 84% would bring a bonus if the target was 82% on time but 80.2 would not bring an abatement). The bonus / abatement percentages of the contract fee are the same as for high frequency services. Clearly doing well on high fee contracts has the potential to bring in decent money while the upside on lower cost / lower fee contracts is not so great. As the QI performance is measured and renumerated by contract year then yes you can do well in one year and not so well in another and the payments will vary. For an extension the operator has to exceed the threshold that TfL set throughout the Performance Assessment Period. Without knowing the specifics of what level this is set at (I've never seen the threshold value published for any QIC route) it's hard to know how hard / easy it is to meet. From what Eggmeister has said the period is now much longer than it used to be which clearly makes it harder to meet without really sustained effort. Given how unpredictable external factors are and how they can affect performance it's perhaps no wonder that so few operators are gaining QI extensions.
|
|