|
Post by lonmark on Oct 21, 2013 16:46:45 GMT
Route R5/R10Routes R5 and R10 Overview The London bus network is kept under regular review. As part of this, we develop proposals for changes to services. Why We Are Consulting We have developed proposals for routes R5 and R10 and would like to hear your views. Route R5 and R10 Routes R5 and R10 run from Orpington Station via Green St Green and then serve the communities of Pratts Bottom, Halstead, Knockholt, Knockholt Pound and Cudham before returning to Green St Green and Orpington. They use a single bus, with journeys operating clockwise around the loop using the R5 number, and those running anticlockwise numbered R10. The bus is scheduled to depart from Orpington approximately once an hour although there are longer intervals at peak periods. Hence it is scheduled to run every two hours in each of the directions around the loop. The services run on Mondays to Saturdays (except evenings). However, routes R5 and R10 are not running as reliably as we would like meaning that at times customers are waiting longer for the bus to arrive. Proposal We are proposing to adjust the timings of routes R5 and R10 to ensure that the bus has sufficient time to complete its journey. It will now run every 75 minutes from Orpington Station (meaning a bus every 2½ hours in each of the directions around the loop). Although this is less frequent than the current service it should result in a significant improvement in reliability. Subject to the outcome of consultation we would introduce this change on 7 December 2013. We are proposing to distribute timetables to all local residents served by routes R5 and R10 should this proposal go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Oct 21, 2013 17:34:47 GMT
I really dont understand why TfL dont merge the R5/R10 and R7 together, then an hourly service can be done reliably with 2 buses. There may even be time to get the route extended to Chislehurst Station, giving Aquila Estate residents a link to their local station.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 21, 2013 18:52:47 GMT
I really dont understand why TfL dont merge the R5/R10 and R7 together, then an hourly service can be done reliably with 2 buses. There may even be time to get the route extended to Chislehurst Station, giving Aquila Estate residents a link to their local station. You have your ideal opportunity to tell TfL via the consultation process. I agree that on the basis of the running times that merging both routes is a sensible idea although it's not entirely clear how much extra running time, rather than recovery, is being added to the R5/R10. A move to a bus every 75 mins rather suggests the actual running time is seriously adrift from the timetable. If the R5 really needs 75 mins then adding just over 50 mins for the R7 doesn't get you back to an hourly headway as you're over 120 mins combined run times. You certainly wouldn't get to Chislehurst station!
|
|
|
Post by londonbusboy on Oct 21, 2013 20:05:42 GMT
Some how i cant see the proposed 75 minute service being approved. I've used the R5/10 and its mostly foot to the floor!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 21, 2013 20:51:52 GMT
Some how i cant see the proposed 75 minute service being approved. I've used the R5/10 and its mostly foot to the floor! Out of curiosity why wouldn't it be approved? TfL have proposed it, presumably because of the way Stagecoach have priced their bid and performance level, and there is precedent with the 359, R8 and 395 for TfL not adding vehicles to PVRs and simply widening the headway to save money. This is just a continuation of that trend. I expect there will be plenty more such instances of the "TfL rule book" being flexed in the future.
|
|
|
R5 / R10
Oct 21, 2013 20:56:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by 6HP502C on Oct 21, 2013 20:56:29 GMT
Some how i cant see the proposed 75 minute service being approved. I've used the R5/10 and its mostly foot to the floor! If "foot to the floor" driving is required routinely and the buses still struggle to recover from anything that impedes of the running time, what is your logic in suggesting that the headway won't be widened?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 12:18:56 GMT
I really dont understand why TfL dont merge the R5/R10 and R7 together, then an hourly service can be done reliably with 2 buses. There may even be time to get the route extended to Chislehurst Station, giving Aquila Estate residents a link to their local station. No no no...........we can't have that, it all makes far too much sense
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 22, 2013 14:06:56 GMT
I really dont understand why TfL dont merge the R5/R10 and R7 together, then an hourly service can be done reliably with 2 buses. There may even be time to get the route extended to Chislehurst Station, giving Aquila Estate residents a link to their local station. No no no...........we can't have that, it all makes far too much sense You can't have it within the existing level of resource - even if you combine the R5/10 and R7 resources. A step up from a x60 to x75 min headway indicates there are some serious running time issues. The performance stats show ongoing problems with on time running although mileage numbers look ok. The R7 looks fine. Stagecoach would seem to have done their homework and have undoubtedly put TfL on the spot about how long it really takes to do the Halstead loop and have presumably refused to run an hourly service without a big performance risk premium in their bid. The compromise is to allow more running time and then the risk premium in the bid disappears. TfL clearly don't have the money to pay for the risk so they're going to reduce the headway. Here are some choices - what do you do? Do you cut some other Orpington area service to provide 3 buses to run a combined service which will probably have buses sitting around doing nothing for 30 minutes every round trip? Do you carry on as now with an unreliable timetable with drivers chasing their tail all day? Do you merge the services with no extra resource and thus make the R7 unreliable as well as keeping the R5/10 unreliable? The R7's passengers would love you for that! Based on your previous remarks on this forum you support cuts in public expenditure and especially TfL. This sort of change and the inability to "to the right thing" is what happens when there is no money. Still you can respond to the consultation and set out in detail how you can run the service in such a way that the headway does not need to change! I hope you will share your submission with the group so we can all be enlightened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 15:08:12 GMT
There was a similar problem with the R8 which now runs at an awkward 70 minute interval.
There are all sorts of possible solutions by interworking these routes with other R routes such as the R7 suggestion or maybe the Chelsfield section of the R3. They could then be tendered as one batch rather than individual routes.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 22, 2013 17:20:30 GMT
There was a similar problem with the R8 which now runs at an awkward 70 minute interval. There are all sorts of possible solutions by interworking these routes with other R routes such as the R7 suggestion or maybe the Chelsfield section of the R3. They could then be tendered as one batch rather than individual routes. It is pretty rare for London routes to interwork as you know. TfL mandate performance measurement at a route level rather than a group or network level. This means operators have to be attentive to every route rather than being able to "trade" good performance on routes against shambolic performance on others and yet appearing to meet some sort of network or group measure. I know all about this having run a contract with aggregated performance measurement within it and having to cope with a contractor going "we are compliant" and customers complaining bitterly about some aspects of the service being useless. That sort of situation is not really acceptable when TfL already has the ability to exercise leverage on a route by route basis. I can see no merit in moving to a position which reduces leverage. You have not answered my questions as to what you would do to solve the R5/10 problem while maintaining an hourly headway. What would you do?
|
|
|
Post by londonbusboy on Oct 22, 2013 19:30:37 GMT
Some how i cant see the proposed 75 minute service being approved. I've used the R5/10 and its mostly foot to the floor! If "foot to the floor" driving is required routinely and the buses still struggle to recover from anything that impedes of the running time, what is your logic in suggesting that the headway won't be widened? The first part i merely said because i am sure the public won't agree with a 75 minute service. The 2nd part was admitting there was a problem with the service as it was mostly foot to the floor.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Oct 22, 2013 19:35:52 GMT
I really dont understand why TfL dont merge the R5/R10 and R7 together, then an hourly service can be done reliably with 2 buses. There may even be time to get the route extended to Chislehurst Station, giving Aquila Estate residents a link to their local station. No no no...........we can't have that, it all makes far too much sense It doesn't make sense. It is impossible to interwork the R5/R10 and R7 with the current headways and current level of resource. The R7 has a cycle time of 46-59 minutes. The R5/R10 have a cycle time of up to 124 minutes - with the R5 achieving on time scores of less than 60%. The current timetable contains a marginal amount of resilience, which is nowhere near what it needs to be.
|
|
|
R5 / R10
Oct 23, 2013 2:12:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Oct 23, 2013 2:12:26 GMT
Some how i cant see the proposed 75 minute service being approved. I've used the R5/10 and its mostly foot to the floor! If "foot to the floor" driving is required routinely and the buses still struggle to recover from anything that impedes of the running time, what is your logic in suggesting that the headway won't be widened? Foot to the floor is most certainly required on the R5/R10, well it was the time I used it lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 11:35:30 GMT
No no no...........we can't have that, it all makes far too much sense It doesn't make sense. It is impossible to interwork the R5/R10 and R7 with the current headways and current level of resource. The R7 has a cycle time of 46-59 minutes. The R5/R10 have a cycle time of up to 124 minutes - with the R5 achieving on time scores of less than 60%. The current timetable contains a marginal amount of resilience, which is nowhere near what it needs to be. Well ok I hadn't checked the running times I was just going along with Jay38's idea. Another idea, withdrawn the Orpington Station to Chelsfield section of the R3. Introduce a new route (R12?) from Orpington Station to Chelsfield via the High Street (as per the 358) which takes about 30mins there and back. One bus an hour could be interworked with the R5/R10 (say running time on that goes aup to 60mins) it gives 90mins running time and 2x15min recovery periods in every 2 hour cycle. The other bus on the new R12 could be interworked with the R8 giving similar running times thus allowing a x60mins headway on the R5/8/10. Is there any particular reason why more running time is needed on the R5/10? There are no obvious traffic problems in normal circumstances and like the R8 the only likely cause of delay will be meeting other traffic on narrow sections or slowing down for horses.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Oct 23, 2013 23:04:58 GMT
It doesn't make sense. It is impossible to interwork the R5/R10 and R7 with the current headways and current level of resource. The R7 has a cycle time of 46-59 minutes. The R5/R10 have a cycle time of up to 124 minutes - with the R5 achieving on time scores of less than 60%. The current timetable contains a marginal amount of resilience, which is nowhere near what it needs to be. Well ok I hadn't checked the running times I was just going along with Jay38's idea. Another idea, withdrawn the Orpington Station to Chelsfield section of the R3. Introduce a new route (R12?) from Orpington Station to Chelsfield via the High Street (as per the 358) which takes about 30mins there and back. One bus an hour could be interworked with the R5/R10 (say running time on that goes aup to 60mins) it gives 90mins running time and 2x15min recovery periods in every 2 hour cycle. The other bus on the new R12 could be interworked with the R8 giving similar running times thus allowing a x60mins headway on the R5/8/10. Is there any particular reason why more running time is needed on the R5/10? There are no obvious traffic problems in normal circumstances and like the R8 the only likely cause of delay will be meeting other traffic on narrow sections or slowing down for horses. You've answered your own question in part. The R5/R10's loop section comprises significant lengths of narrow country lane where there is insufficient room for any vehicle and the bus to pass. I travelled on the 20:33 R5 tonight and on half a dozen occasions, we were either reduced to dead slow running or had to wait while the oncoming car reversed back to a point where either vehicle could go into a refuge to let the other past. Fine at that time of the evening where there is hardly any traffic, but when you get larger numbers of cars having to reverse, it causes more significant delays. Other factors involve the loss of wing mirrors or repositioning of mirrors required after going into the bushes at high speed to avoid oncoming traffic, getting stuck behind tractors or in front of an oncoming tractor (especially fun if they have no reverse gear ,) cyclists and obstructions on the roads. The trip I was on, the bus managed to get by without coming into contact with any vegetation, but I know that bus went into quite a few bushes earlier in the day because as usual for that route, the floor had a fine layer of dirt and several leaves adorning it. The R5/R10 cannot run reliably and efficiently to a combined 60 minute headway with one bus. They do that now and reliability (% of on time reports at survey bus stops) dips down into the 40s and 50s. Any sensible crosslinking suggestion would need to factor in that you can't fit a run taking up to 65 minutes into a 60 minute cycle. You might be able to crosslink it with another hourly serivce with a (generous) 40 minute cycle and use only two buses, but there isn't such a route as it stands. The R7 is not a suitable candidate. As for the R7 to Chislehurst comment, it takes all of 9 minutes to get from Aquila to Petts Wood, which offers the same service and more than Chislehurst station. There were still no R5/R10 timetables in either bus stop on Orpington High Street - someone remind me to report that one in the morning .
|
|