|
Post by 6HP502C on Oct 23, 2013 23:17:58 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. Plus the R8 would be difficult to interwork with anything owing to the vehicle type used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
R5 / R10
Oct 24, 2013 8:03:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 8:03:12 GMT
It was Jay that suggested extending the R7 to Chislehurst Station, it is obviously one stop nearer to London than Petts Wood.
It was because of the Optare Solo's that I suggested interwoking the R8 with a Orpington to Chelsfield local service which would be lightly trafficed.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 24, 2013 9:26:39 GMT
It was Jay that suggested extending the R7 to Chislehurst Station, it is obviously one stop nearer to London than Petts Wood. It was because of the Optare Solo's that I suggested interwoking the R8 with a Orpington to Chelsfield local service which would be lightly trafficed. Yes and the idea of extending to Chislehurst Station is good although I'm not sure how a bus would turn round there given how tight the station approach is. I also don't think an hourly headway is sufficient for a service linking residential areas to frequent commuter services. Half hourly is the minimum IMO even for a well off area like Orpington / Chislehurst. The difficulty with chopping the R3 into two and relinking the Chelsfield stump to something else is that you reduce frequency on the Chelsfield rump and break the direct link to the Princess Royal Hospital. I doubt that would be a very popular move especially as *direct* links to NHS facilities are a matter of great concern to several lobby groups including those representing the elderly. The simple issue is that if you want reliable services and even clockface headways then you need adequate resources - both vehicles and the money to pay for the service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
R5 / R10
Oct 24, 2013 10:42:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 10:42:48 GMT
There may well be a case for increasing the R7 to half hourly.
You seem to have misuderstood my idea, there would still be 2bph to Chelsfield, one interworked with the R5/10 and the other with the R8.
The link from Chelsfield to PRU Hospital is so indirect that most passengers will surely change buses anyway?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 24, 2013 10:54:40 GMT
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! Not done the sums myself, but there might be a bit of double counting there - adding the R7 on may be less than 50 minutes as the R5, R7 and R10 all cover the station - Walnuts Centre section. Personally, I think the Orpington network is long overdue a wider tweak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 13:09:58 GMT
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! Not done the sums myself, but there might be a bit of double counting there - adding the R7 on may be less than 50 minutes as the R5, R7 and R10 all cover the station - Walnuts Centre section. Personally, I think the Orpington network is long overdue a wider tweak. I've looked at the R7 running times and its 22 minutes between Orpington Station and Aquilla, so say if the R5/10 running time is increased to an hour under Jay's proposal they could be run with two buses with a 16 minute recovery time as Aquilla, so what is the problem? The R8 could perhaps also be extended to Aquilla giving a x30min headway and a nice even hourly headway on the Biggin Hill section? I agree that the whole network could do with some tweaking, ideally the R1/R11 should be combined into a circular route at the GSG end.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Oct 24, 2013 15:25:59 GMT
one problem is... Aquilla area won't allowed bus to stand more than mins coz land is the private and not public road!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 24, 2013 16:07:30 GMT
There may well be a case for increasing the R7 to half hourly. You seem to have misuderstood my idea, there would still be 2bph to Chelsfield, one interworked with the R5/10 and the other with the R8. The link from Chelsfield to PRU Hospital is so indirect that most passengers will surely change buses anyway? Yes the R3 takes a long way round to the Hospital but I was very careful to indicate that the elderly like to have buses that go door to do. There were many agitated comments to the London Assembly Transport Committee from pensioners groups about the lack of direct buses to NHS facilities and how difficult they find having to take several buses to reach hospitals and clinics. I rather suspect older people would be perfectly happy to trundle round the back roads of Orpington than change buses and then have to walk from a main road stop than have a bus that goes into the hospital. And yes I did misunderstand your amended R3 - sorry. Still not really convinced about lots of interworking on low frequency routes as there would inevitably be pressure on recovery times to squash into a x60 headway. If combining the R7 and R5/10 into one service or even an interworked one was feasible with existing running times I'm pretty sure Stagecoach would have offered it as a variant bid. Somewhere along the line in looking at the R5/10 someone has decided that the running time needs a significant change. And just to cover danorak's point - yes that's a fair comment about the station to Walnuts Centre section. There probably is some duplication but whether it's enough to restore equilibrium to stressed running times is open to debate. The R5/10 timetable only gives a few minutes to do the full stretch from the station to Sainsburys and back to the War Memorial. Given the road layout in Orpington High St I suspect this is one element of the timetable where running times are woefully underestimated. Even off peak buses crawl up and down the High St as I saw only a couple of weeks ago when I travelled on several R routes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 17:20:36 GMT
one problem is... Aquilla area won't allowed bus to stand more than mins coz land is the private and not public road! I'm sure something could be sorted out
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 17:23:43 GMT
There may well be a case for increasing the R7 to half hourly. You seem to have misuderstood my idea, there would still be 2bph to Chelsfield, one interworked with the R5/10 and the other with the R8. The link from Chelsfield to PRU Hospital is so indirect that most passengers will surely change buses anyway? Yes the R3 takes a long way round to the Hospital but I was very careful to indicate that the elderly like to have buses that go door to do. There were many agitated comments to the London Assembly Transport Committee from pensioners groups about the lack of direct buses to NHS facilities and how difficult they find having to take several buses to reach hospitals and clinics. I rather suspect older people would be perfectly happy to trundle round the back roads of Orpington than change buses and then have to walk from a main road stop than have a bus that goes into the hospital. And yes I did misunderstand your amended R3 - sorry. Still not really convinced about lots of interworking on low frequency routes as there would inevitably be pressure on recovery times to squash into a x60 headway. If combining the R7 and R5/10 into one service or even an interworked one was feasible with existing running times I'm pretty sure Stagecoach would have offered it as a variant bid. Somewhere along the line in looking at the R5/10 someone has decided that the running time needs a significant change. And just to cover danorak's point - yes that's a fair comment about the station to Walnuts Centre section. There probably is some duplication but whether it's enough to restore equilibrium to stressed running times is open to debate. The R5/10 timetable only gives a few minutes to do the full stretch from the station to Sainsburys and back to the War Memorial. Given the road layout in Orpington High St I suspect this is one element of the timetable where running times are woefully underestimated. Even off peak buses crawl up and down the High St as I saw only a couple of weeks ago when I travelled on several R routes. We'll scrub that idea now and leave the R3 as it is, the original idea from Jay of extending in to Aquilla (or somewhere near there) in place of the R7 solves the problem. I do realise links to hospitals are important though and perhaps the R3 should do a double run to serve Orpington Hospital?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 25, 2013 19:27:14 GMT
After reading a lot of the above. Merging the R7 & R5/R10 would be quite difficult to run. I've taken the R5/R10 before and the bus can get delayed along Cudham Lane, the road is quite a tight one.
Decreasing the frequency is probably the only thing that will improve the service, but will the locals like it that is the question. Means a bus every 75 minutes instead of every hour, an extra 15 minute wait should not be much of a problem, but for some it could be!
I do suggest though that the PVR can be increased to 2 and have both routes running at the same time with running every 1HR 30 Mins giving the users a 45 minute waiting time for either route, Knockholt Pound being the meeting point, but this will probably make the overall service even worse, which could mean buses waiting on each other delaying the whole service. I certainly cannot see two buses serving Cudham Lane at the same time it is too narrow, which is why the buses would have to meet at Knockholt Pound before proceeding ahead.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 26, 2013 10:19:33 GMT
one problem is... Aquilla area won't allowed bus to stand more than mins coz land is the private and not public road! I'm sure something could be sorted out Nope, I very much doubt anything could be sorted out - the residents of the Aquilla estate will see to that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2013 11:02:16 GMT
I'm sure something could be sorted out Nope, I very much doubt anything could be sorted out - the residents of the Aquilla estate will see to that! Forgive me stating the blindingly obvious but buses could stand elsewhere.........Bickley Stn perhaps or possibly the previously suggested extension to Chislehurst Stn
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2013 11:03:46 GMT
After reading a lot of the above. Merging the R7 & R5/R10 would be quite difficult to run. I've taken the R5/R10 before and the bus can get delayed along Cudham Lane, the road is quite a tight one. Decreasing the frequency is probably the only thing that will improve the service, but will the locals like it that is the question. Means a bus every 75 minutes instead of every hour, an extra 15 minute wait should not be much of a problem, but for some it could be! I do suggest though that the PVR can be increased to 2 and have both routes running at the same time with running every 1HR 30 Mins giving the users a 45 minute waiting time for either route, Knockholt Pound being the meeting point, but this will probably make the overall service even worse, which could mean buses waiting on each other delaying the whole service. I certainly cannot see two buses serving Cudham Lane at the same time it is too narrow, which is why the buses would have to meet at Knockholt Pound before proceeding ahead. The current running time is around 50mins..........are you seriously suggesting it needs to be increased to 90mins?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 26, 2013 18:02:50 GMT
This debate about recovery time on the R5 reminds me of when it was extended to Petts Wood for a few years. I believe it was done at fairly short notice to replace part of an earlier R7 which would otherwise have lost its service. The irony is that the resulting stand time was very generous indeed and I think this was part of the reason for spinning the St Johns Road section off to the new R7!
From a perusal of the archives of the Orpington Bus Group, I believe the issue with private roads at Aquila is on the Sanderson Square turn, rather than the Golf Road stand. In fact, it seems that that is why the stand was placed where it is so that buses were not standing on a private road. This is all second-hand info of course so I may be wrong.
One factor that may also be relevant is that a large chunk of the Knockholt loop is outside the GLA area, so it may be harder to justify increased resources on such a route. It's a few years since I've travelled the R5 but I'd be interested to know the flow of passengers on the route (ie is it all into Orpington or are there many journeys from say, Cudham to Halstead?). I wonder whether it might be a solution to leave Halstead passengers entirely to the 402.
On a wider note, I wonder whether it's time for Roundabout mkII. From what's being reported here, the buses on the country bits of the R3, R7 and R10 have grown too big for the job. We're back to the days of Nationals trundling about. Perhaps we need to find a smaller bus again, like the Dial-a-ride vehicles, to run these.
|
|