|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 22, 2014 22:13:44 GMT
*lights blue touch paper* I've never had a problem with the 160. Always turns up within a couple of minutes of scheduled time if I go to get it at Catford. It's the preponderance of rogue single deckers and the less than good condition of many of DT's buses that seem to be the 160's main woes. TfL's figures don't show when a horrid slow rough running dirty tired E200 or DAF turn up. Not a good advert for Arriva, however good the QSI figures are.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Apr 22, 2014 22:52:49 GMT
*lights blue touch paper* I've never had a problem with the 160. Always turns up within a couple of minutes of scheduled time if I go to get it at Catford. It's the preponderance of rogue single deckers and the less than good condition of many of DT's buses that seem to be the 160's main woes. TfL's figures don't show when a horrid slow rough running dirty tired E200 or DAF turn up. Not a good advert for Arriva, however good the QSI figures are. I suppose when push comes to shove, any bus (i.e a single-deck) is better than no bus at all.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 22, 2014 23:00:59 GMT
It's the preponderance of rogue single deckers and the less than good condition of many of DT's buses that seem to be the 160's main woes. TfL's figures don't show when a horrid slow rough running dirty tired E200 or DAF turn up. Not a good advert for Arriva, however good the QSI figures are. I suppose when push comes to shove, any bus (i.e a single-deck) is better than no bus at all. I agree with the single deck aspect, yes - any port in a storm and all that. But there really is no excuse for the often poor condition of DT's fleet of buses. Were they looked after better, I suspect there would be less need for the rogue single decks.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 22, 2014 23:03:33 GMT
So much for the comments on here that Arriva run the 289 well! Looking at how the results are weighted and the best and worst performance tables ... It seems it is easy for the lightest used low frequency routes to produce the best results and the heaviest the worst. As the 289 is the 2nd heaviest used route (in the tables), then the fact that it is top is no surprise ... and if you have ever driven along the Purley Way, you will know sometimes it will take 10 minutes ...other times 90 ... so not the easiest environment for a heavily used low frequncy route. Oh and the 162 which has done so well since moving to MB is amongst the worst performing routes (whilst the 160 is not) I'll add one tiny caveat to the above and that is "for the quarter in question". The stats being are referring to are for the most recent published quarter (sept 2013 to Jan 2014). Most of the comment on route 160 (and others) has been generalised and not timeframe specific. Therefore no one is really comparing like with like as it's all personal experience rather than an attempt at objective measurement. One other observation is that looking at the weights for the low frequency routes most align with the most recent annual patronage numbers. However a few are either over or understanted. I wonder how often TfL update the weights?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 22, 2014 23:13:48 GMT
*lights blue touch paper* I've never had a problem with the 160. Always turns up within a couple of minutes of scheduled time if I go to get it at Catford. The majority of people on here who have stated they have used the 160 have probably used it off peak, the service is generally ok at these times. Whenever I use the 160 it is always late over 10 minutes late and a lot of the time curtailed, I read the iBus screen timer in the driver cab and stop timetable, very few occasions I have used it and it is running near on time, only once have I ever been on a 160 running early. The worst experience I've ever had on the 160 was 4 curtails to Hither Green in a row, meaning no 160 in Catford for an hour, even though services outside of London are more infrequent, I still think that is appalling to turn 4 160 in a row to the same place leaving people waiting. During the peaks it is just long gaps and annoying curtailments to the most notorious destination Hither Green, it's the period of time the most lost Milage trips happen and I have noticed during the holidays pointless turns to Hither Green at lunchtime when they at clearly not needed, then standing on St Mildred's road for up to ten minutes. I personally do not agree with low frequency routes which get curtailed very frequently, they should all have a good amount of running time so curtailments are kept to a minimum. When a 160 is on a curtailment madness theres always either a long wait or another curtailment following. I personally couldn't care less about the single decker workings, as a bus is better than no bus, but it has again become a daily thing when this shouldn't be happening, so I do not agree with this. I shouldn't be seeing a single decker on my local double decker route on a daily basis. I'm very sure if TL was still running the 160 this single decker madness would not be happening. If DT are having maintenance issues then maybe the parent company need to investigate what is going on and fix it. The week DT allocate a full allocation of double deckers on the 160 & 492 from the 1st bus out on a Monday from the last on Sunday with not one single decker in service on either route. I'll write them a letter stating Congratulations. One day isn't enough imo because it happens on a daily basis now, imo it is no longer standard practice to have a full allocation of deckers, but now actually an achievement imo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 0:48:29 GMT
*lights blue touch paper* I've never had a problem with the 160. Always turns up within a couple of minutes of scheduled time if I go to get it at Catford. It's the preponderance of rogue single deckers and the less than good condition of many of DT's buses that seem to be the 160's main woes. TfL's figures don't show when a horrid slow rough running dirty tired E200 or DAF turn up. Not a good advert for Arriva, however good the QSI figures are. I don't disagree with that, the quality of the vehicles does seem to be generally poor (as demonstrated on here), and even the native vehicles are often quite dirty. I'm simply in disagreement with the suggestion that it's constantly unreliable, and it doesn't seem to be any less reliable when I've used it than any other route of its nature. Whether I'm just lucky or not, I don't know but the figures appear to agree to a certain extent. In response to "Metrobus" I have used it at various times of day including the evening peak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 0:57:32 GMT
No surprise there at all, and still people on this forum say Arriva run the route well I stand by what I said before - the traffic causes all the 289's problems and I've no problem with Arriva's performance of the route - they do the best they can. When you've a road like Purley Way that attracts traffic to it in the same way as dung attracts flies, any route will suffer. Add in the fact that London Road suffers badly from traffic along with Lower Addiscombe Road right down to Ashburton Park and it makes life difficult for any operator. The route is also in need of DD's - both the PDL's & ENX's were & are rammed solid constantly. Looking at the figures the patronage and mileage lost to traffic are fairly high (2m pax, 4.2% of mileage lost to traffic) but nonetheless I don't see what evidence there is of whether Arriva are doing a good job or not - if it's (on a weighted system) the worst performing low frequency route in London I don't see what evidence there is of Arriva doing a good or bad job. Who is to say another operator would be better or worse with the conditions the 289 encounters? As a side note the (unweighted) poorest performing route appears to be the 339 with 10+% of mileage lost to traffic. Presumably the section along the A12 near the Blackwall Tunnel is particularly problematic, as can be the Bow Roundabout and Stratford High St. I'm not sure how the routes are weighted (is it deviance from the standard proportional to mileage lost to traffic?)
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Apr 23, 2014 5:00:36 GMT
Quite amusing that for all the comments about a poor service, on the London's Transport Yahoo group a list of the top 20worst High and Low frequency routes has been published for the period September-January 2014....the 160 made neither list. So those moaning about it....you're obviously better off than those using the 289 (which is the worst low frequency route, followed by the 201 and 203 for the top 3) Any chance we could get a full list of all the bad performing high and low frequency routes? Not sure what to make of the 289. The route has many traffic hotspots such as Purley Way but the timetable does look dodgy. I'm surprised about the 201 (even though I don't use the route) but the frequency seems too small imo.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 23, 2014 6:48:53 GMT
Week 2 Day 8: 3984 on Route 160 Day 9: 3989, 4029 on Route 160 Day 10: 3991, 4000, 4004 on Route 160
|
|
|
Route 160
Apr 23, 2014 8:04:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by ThinLizzy on Apr 23, 2014 8:04:51 GMT
Quite amusing that for all the comments about a poor service, on the London's Transport Yahoo group a list of the top 20worst High and Low frequency routes has been published for the period September-January 2014....the 160 made neither list. So those moaning about it....you're obviously better off than those using the 289 (which is the worst low frequency route, followed by the 201 and 203 for the top 3) Any chance we could get a full list of all the bad performing high and low frequency routes? Not sure what to make of the 289. The route has many traffic hotspots such as Purley Way but the timetable does look dodgy. I'm surprised about the 201 (even though I don't use the route) but the frequency seems too small imo. There is a full list of all TfL routes in the QSI part of the website. However, the routes are listed in numerical order rather than reliability order
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 23, 2014 8:37:17 GMT
Any chance we could get a full list of all the bad performing high and low frequency routes? Not sure what to make of the 289. The route has many traffic hotspots such as Purley Way but the timetable does look dodgy. I'm surprised about the 201 (even though I don't use the route) but the frequency seems too small imo. There is a full list of all TfL routes in the QSI part of the website. However, the routes are listed in numerical order rather than reliability order The problem, though, is that the public reports do not show the variance from the contractual standard nor do they apply a weighting by annual patronage to give some sense of impact on passengers. Further there is no ranking order either. The reports on another group are usually only internal to TfL and, I assume, shared with operators. Further the new TfL website is a right old mess when it comes to Bus Performance Data. Nearly all the reports which do rank operators or explain performance issues refer to Quarter 2 when Q3's data is available. If you don't look closely you'd think you had the latest stuff but it's old and out of date. The individual route graphs are OK. The parallel old TfL website (origin.tfl.gov.uk) does have the up to date info in all the reports.
|
|
|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Apr 23, 2014 15:18:45 GMT
Day 9: 3989, 4029 on Route 160 Day 10: 3991, 4004 on Route 160 now joined by 4000
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 24, 2014 7:58:57 GMT
Day 9: 3989, 4029 on Route 160 Day 10: 3991, 4000, 4004 on Route 160 Day 11: 4001, 4004 on Route 160
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 25, 2014 6:58:31 GMT
Day 10: 3991, 4000, 4004 on Route 160 Day 11: 4001, 4004 on Route 160 Day 12: 4004, 4032 on Route 160
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Apr 25, 2014 20:41:31 GMT
Day 11: 4001, 4004 on Route 160 Day 12: 4004, 4032 on Route 160 On my way home I saw 4025 on the 492 suggesting the decker shortage is beginning to bite
|
|