|
Post by snoggle on Nov 7, 2013 11:19:40 GMT
FOI request to TfL? (FreeBBC's probably already on it! ;-) ) No seriously, I am trying to do this myself but the usual method I use gets it in a table but the figures are jumbled so any suggestions would be appreciated :-) I used a web based conversion site - Nitro Cloud - to get a free conversion of the entire document. I've then collated all the relevant pages into one spreadsheet and then fiddled about with the numbers to get rid of the spaces so Excel can treat them as numbers!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 7, 2013 11:25:14 GMT
So let me get this right - TfL provide data to elected representatives for a well publicised offical investigation into bus services and you think TfL's data is somehow wrong? Can you set out the basis on which you think the data "needs to be taken with a pinch of salt"? Quoting the H37 as being "wrong" is NOT an acceptable answer. In all seriousness do you think TfL would be so stupid as to send a load of incorrect data to London politicians? Do you really need me to answer that? It's up to you but if you opt not to then I'll have to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about. What advantage is there for TfL to risk its reputation by providing "bad" data that it knows will be published? One anecdotal observation does not prove any sort of rule. Surely you can see that?
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Nov 7, 2013 13:18:19 GMT
FOI request to TfL? (FreeBBC's probably already on it! ;-) ) No seriously, I am trying to do this myself but the usual method I use gets it in a table but the figures are jumbled so any suggestions would be appreciated :-) I used a web based conversion site - Nitro Cloud - to get a free conversion of the entire document. I've then collated all the relevant pages into one spreadsheet and then fiddled about with the numbers to get rid of the spaces so Excel can treat them as numbers! Thanks snoggle that worked great.. Can anyone fill me in on the TFL coding? I imagine 2U is for route 2 underground extras, but what is with 152D, 159S and 84 having a figure for 2008/9 etc etc?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 7, 2013 15:29:43 GMT
I used a web based conversion site - Nitro Cloud - to get a free conversion of the entire document. I've then collated all the relevant pages into one spreadsheet and then fiddled about with the numbers to get rid of the spaces so Excel can treat them as numbers! Thanks snoggle that worked great.. Can anyone fill me in on the TFL coding? I imagine 2U is for route 2 underground extras, but what is with 152D, 159S and 84 having a figure for 2008/9 etc etc? 152D should be for a school journey as that's the letter currently used for the 150 & 405's school journey which are operated separately & run by different operators to the normal 150 & 405.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 15:53:45 GMT
Do you really need me to answer that? It's up to you but if you opt not to then I'll have to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about. What advantage is there for TfL to risk its reputation by providing "bad" data that it knows will be published? One anecdotal observation does not prove any sort of rule. Surely you can see that? Well to pick a couple of other routes, the 172 is very rarely busy outside peak hours and as for the 176 it can be busy at the Central London end, but not excessively so from what I've seen, but south of Dulwich/Forest Hill (where it duplicates the 197) loadings are generally very light.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 7, 2013 15:53:54 GMT
I used a web based conversion site - Nitro Cloud - to get a free conversion of the entire document. I've then collated all the relevant pages into one spreadsheet and then fiddled about with the numbers to get rid of the spaces so Excel can treat them as numbers! Thanks snoggle that worked great.. Can anyone fill me in on the TFL coding? I imagine 2U is for route 2 underground extras, but what is with 152D, 159S and 84 having a figure for 2008/9 etc etc? NP The coding will be a mix of supplementary services like the NB4Ls on the 38 (38X), Underground extras at weekends or engineering works. "D" usually refers to extra school schedules on a daytime route which are tendered separately. Some of these are won by the same operator as the daytime routes, others not. TfL seem to be reducing the number of these over time. "R" suffix is for the Rugby schedules on Twickenham routes. "G" suffix were extra services for the Olympics / Paralympics. I think the 370 and 373 "E" were the evening service tenders which TfL let when Arriva withdrew the commercial journeys. The M1 and M2 were the Millennium Dome services run with the DAF gas buses. SL1 and SL2 were the Stationlink services T123 and T4 were the Feltham station to Heathrow terminals routes. There are some issues with duplicated route numbers (87, 395) which really should have been separated out or at least annotated. There are also quite a number of withdrawn routes like N58 or C4. I am working my way through the sheet to try calculated the growth (or reduction) in patronage on each route over the 12 year period (or less where the route is newer than that). There are some quite startling numbers but you do you have to be careful about starting from a low base in some cases. Where routes have been split out into two (e.g. 207 and 427) then you have to be attentive to what the combined data shows.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 7, 2013 16:10:14 GMT
It's up to you but if you opt not to then I'll have to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about. What advantage is there for TfL to risk its reputation by providing "bad" data that it knows will be published? One anecdotal observation does not prove any sort of rule. Surely you can see that? Well to pick a couple of other routes, the 172 is very rarely busy outside peak hours and as for the 176 it can be busy at the Central London end, but not excessively so from what I've seen, but south of Dulwich/Forest Hill (where it duplicates the 197) loadings are generally very light. So what? The data is the *annual* estimated ridership. It is does not attempt to illustrate variations by time of day, day of the week or route section. You would need a much richer dataset for that which is clearly not what the Committee asked for. The data also does not try to explain why patronage has moved. If you have some awareness of route changes, bendy bus conversions, renumberings then you can understand, to some extent, why there are dips, peaks or interruptions to the data. You can't know much more than that unless you are very familiar with a route and even then you're unlikely to know for certain whether a supermarket opening, school closing, houses being built or whatever has affected the patronage numbers given they are aggregated to an annual level. You can sit and peck at the data all day long based on random personal observations but unless you can provide your alternative *annual* patronage data it will be a pointless exercise. If you can't see my point then please give up trying to nitpick now. This data is not going to be 100% perfect for a load of reasons but it gives a decent sense of scale at a route level and a pattern of growth or decline over time. Given it has never been published before I'm quite happy with that for now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 16:22:25 GMT
Well to pick a couple of other routes, the 172 is very rarely busy outside peak hours and as for the 176 it can be busy at the Central London end, but not excessively so from what I've seen, but south of Dulwich/Forest Hill (where it duplicates the 197) loadings are generally very light. So what? The data is the *annual* estimated ridership. It is does not attempt to illustrate variations by time of day, day of the week or route section. You would need a much richer dataset for that which is clearly not what the Committee asked for. The data also does not try to explain why patronage has moved. If you have some awareness of route changes, bendy bus conversions, renumberings then you can understand, to some extent, why there are dips, peaks or interruptions to the data. You can't know much more than that unless you are very familiar with a route and even then you're unlikely to know for certain whether a supermarket opening, school closing, houses being built or whatever has affected the patronage numbers given they are aggregated to an annual level. You can sit and peck at the data all day long based on random personal observations but unless you can provide your alternative *annual* patronage data it will be a pointless exercise. If you can't see my point then please give up trying to nitpick now. This data is not going to be 100% perfect for a load of reasons but it gives a decent sense of scale at a route level and a pattern of growth or decline over time. Given it has never been published before I'm quite happy with that for now. No I can't really see your point................but I do know the 172 is rarely busy outside peak hours
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Nov 7, 2013 16:37:49 GMT
Got some time on my hands In numerical order, here are... 20 busiest single deck routes... W5, 235, 170, 316, C11, 276, 214, 236, 72, 507, 285, D6, 200, H98, 521, 355, 358, 33, 202, C10 10 busiest low frequency routes... 407, 127, 258, 107, 289, 117, 314, 444, 469, 292 10 busiest night routes... N29, N25, N15, N38, N207, N8, N18, N155, N73, N279 Abellio 10 busiest routes 35, 188, 343, 3, 211, 344, 40, 414, 156, 235 Any more stats are welcome, and please feel free to correct. I'm stunned the H37 doesn'take it onto the busiest single deck routes. Needs 12m buses and has the highest frequency if I remember correctly of any LU route at 6 min intervals at times. Doesn't the H37 already use 12m buses? Those Optare Tempos?
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Nov 7, 2013 16:41:38 GMT
Got some time on my hands In numerical order, here are... 20 busiest single deck routes... W15, 235, 170, 316, C11, 276, 214, 236, 72, 507, 285, D6, 200, H98, 521, 355, 358, 33, H37, 202 10 busiest low frequency routes... 407, 127, 258, 107, 289, 117, 314, 444, 469, 292 10 busiest night routes... N29, N25, N15, N38, N207, N8, N18, N155, N73, N279 Abellio 10 busiest routes 35, 188, 343, 3, 211, 344, 40, 414, 156, 235 Any more stats are welcome, and please feel free to correct. I'm stunned the H37 doesn'take it onto the busiest single deck routes. Needs 12m buses and has the highest frequency if I remember correctly of any LU route at 6 min intervals at times. Yes, the H37 is just below the 33 so I will amend the list. It would be great if someone can put these into a spreadsheet for all of us to share. I noticed snoggle post about nitrocloud but will have a better look at it when I come back from work
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 7, 2013 16:50:41 GMT
It's up to you but if you opt not to then I'll have to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about. What advantage is there for TfL to risk its reputation by providing "bad" data that it knows will be published? One anecdotal observation does not prove any sort of rule. Surely you can see that? Well to pick a couple of other routes, the 172 is very rarely busy outside peak hours and as for the 176 it can be busy at the Central London end, but not excessively so from what I've seen, but south of Dulwich/Forest Hill (where it duplicates the 197) loadings are generally very light. That depends, evening peaks normally see the 176 go light after Forest Hill, while I've boarded a busy 176 towards TCR at Sydenham Cobbs Corner. The Sydenham to Penge section is always quiet. The trunk journeys appear to be between Central London and East Dulwich, Dulwich and Forest Hill. The latter is surprising considering the improved frequency of trains from Forest Hill and Sydenham when the ELL was extended in 2010.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 16:59:00 GMT
Got some time on my hands In numerical order, here are... 20 busiest single deck routes... W5, 235, 170, 316, C11, 276, 214, 236, 72, 507, 285, D6, 200, H98, 521, 355, 358, 33, H37, 202 10 busiest low frequency routes... 407, 127, 258, 107, 289, 117, 314, 444, 469, 292 10 busiest night routes... N29, N25, N15, N38, N207, N8, N18, N155, N73, N279 Abellio 10 busiest routes 35, 188, 343, 3, 211, 344, 40, 414, 156, 235 Any more stats are welcome, and please feel free to correct. Id like to know how many of those single deck routes could be double decked? The D6 is one of my locals its crying out for double deckers. In my view every route should be DD unless there are low bridges or roads that need a very short little bus like the 386 route
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Nov 7, 2013 17:05:54 GMT
Got some time on my hands In numerical order, here are... 20 busiest single deck routes... W5, 235, 170, 316, C11, 276, 214, 236, 72, 507, 285, D6, 200, H98, 521, 355, 358, 33, H37, 202 10 busiest low frequency routes... 407, 127, 258, 107, 289, 117, 314, 444, 469, 292 10 busiest night routes... N29, N25, N15, N38, N207, N8, N18, N155, N73, N279 Abellio 10 busiest routes 35, 188, 343, 3, 211, 344, 40, 414, 156, 235 Any more stats are welcome, and please feel free to correct. Id like to know how many of those single deck routes could be double decked? The D6 is one of my locals its crying out for double deckers. In my view every route should be DD unless there are low bridges or roads that need a very short little bus like the 386 route Out of those routes, only the 200, 202, 235, 285, 289, 316 (if Residental Restriction is approved), 355, 407, D6 and H98 can take double deckers.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 7, 2013 17:23:37 GMT
Id like to know how many of those single deck routes could be double decked? The D6 is one of my locals its crying out for double deckers. In my view every route should be DD unless there are low bridges or roads that need a very short little bus like the 386 route Out of those routes, only the 200, 202, 235, 285, 289, 316 (if Residental Restriction is approved), 355, 407, D6 and H98 can take double deckers. Double decking is only one way of increasing capacity. As an example Lothian's Volvo 7900 hybrids have a capacity of 89 and next years batch with euro6 apparently will carry 93. I know they are single door but compared to TfLs requirement of 87 capacity proves don't have to have a second deck
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 7, 2013 18:30:24 GMT
Id like to know how many of those single deck routes could be double decked? The D6 is one of my locals its crying out for double deckers. In my view every route should be DD unless there are low bridges or roads that need a very short little bus like the 386 route I don't think many of those routes can actually take deckers, funnily enough. W15 - low bridge Grove Green Road, Leytonstone 235 - ? 170 - low bridge Battersea 316 - resident issues North Kensington(?) C11 - ? 276 - low bridge Fairfield Road, Bow *and* West Ham 214 - low trees Highgate Village 236 - ? 72 - weak bridge (Hammersmith) 507 - deliberately has single-deckers because of the short-term nature of journeys on the route 285 - not sure about the Feltham - Teddington section, but the Feltham - Heathrow and Teddington - Kingston sections have deckers over them in the 90 and 281 respectively D6 - can take deckers (regular odd workings under First) 200 - can take deckers (and has 2 scheduled deckers) H98 - can take deckers (regular odd workings) 521 - deliberately has single-deckers because of the short-term nature of journeys on the route 355 - can take deckers (regular odd workings at AL) 358 - low bridge Shortlands 33 - weak bridge (Hammersmith) H37 - low bridge Isleworth 202 - can take deckers (regular odd workings, scheduled type during late arrival of new buses) Any help filling in the gaps with the 235/236/285/316/C11 would be appreciated. 235 doesn't have any restrictions as far as I know 285 can take deckers, extremely rare workings have happened as recently as a few months ago 316 apparently has a resident issue with an MP living on a section of the route in North Kensington
|
|