|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Apr 29, 2019 22:52:07 GMT
I wonder what has been the most successful bus route launched since 1975 and also one that was thriving in 1975 but maybe not so now or was made redundant like the 48 for eg. In addition to those mentioned, the 205 must surely be a candidate with its multiple extensions and popular night service which saw load factors similar to the N35 as Shoreditch's night economy flourished. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 30, 2019 11:13:23 GMT
I wonder what has been the most successful bus route launched since 1975 and also one that was thriving in 1975 but maybe not so now or was made redundant like the 48 for eg. In addition to those mentioned, the 205 must surely be a candidate with its multiple extensions and popular night service which saw load factors similar to the N35 as Shoreditch's night economy flourished. Looking at my magic spreadsheet the 148 and 205 are remarkably close in terms of patronage since the introduction. The day 205 just edges the day 148 by about 1m pass jnys. If you add the "N" night route numbers then the 205 just wins by a tiny margin even though the N148 is a bit more popular than the N205. The margin is around 555,000 pass jnys measured over the 16 years for which we have numbers. 2018/19 data hasn't been released yet. The RV1 comes in around 25m pass jnys and the 388 at 38.8m pass jnys over the same time period. The 493, as the main suburban addition in the 2002/3 changes, comes in at nearly 50m pass jnys which is pretty impressive for a single deck route. |
|
|
|
Post by george on Apr 30, 2019 11:15:40 GMT
In addition to those mentioned, the 205 must surely be a candidate with its multiple extensions and popular night service which saw load factors similar to the N35 as Shoreditch's night economy flourished. Looking at my magic spreadsheet the 148 and 205 are remarkably close in terms of patronage since the introduction. The day 205 just edges the day 148 by about 1m pass jnys. If you add the "N" night route numbers then the 205 just wins by a tiny margin even though the N148 is a bit more popular than the N205. The margin is around 555,000 pass jnys measured over the 16 years for which we have numbers. 2018/19 data hasn't been released yet. The RV1 comes in around 25m pass jnys and the 388 at 38.8m pass jnys over the same time period. The 493, as the main suburban addition in the 2002/3 changes, comes in at nearly 50m pass jnys which is pretty impressive for a single deck route. 493 is a very busy route as are all routes that serve roehampton due no train or tube connection there. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 30, 2019 13:25:49 GMT
In addition to those mentioned, the 205 must surely be a candidate with its multiple extensions and popular night service which saw load factors similar to the N35 as Shoreditch's night economy flourished. Looking at my magic spreadsheet the 148 and 205 are remarkably close in terms of patronage since the introduction. The day 205 just edges the day 148 by about 1m pass jnys. If you add the "N" night route numbers then the 205 just wins by a tiny margin even though the N148 is a bit more popular than the N205. The margin is around 555,000 pass jnys measured over the 16 years for which we have numbers. 2018/19 data hasn't been released yet. The RV1 comes in around 25m pass jnys and the 388 at 38.8m pass jnys over the same time period. The 493, as the main suburban addition in the 2002/3 changes, comes in at nearly 50m pass jnys which is pretty impressive for a single deck route. Awaits the inevitable “statistics are meaningless” comment. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 30, 2019 14:00:02 GMT
Looking at my magic spreadsheet the 148 and 205 are remarkably close in terms of patronage since the introduction. The day 205 just edges the day 148 by about 1m pass jnys. If you add the "N" night route numbers then the 205 just wins by a tiny margin even though the N148 is a bit more popular than the N205. The margin is around 555,000 pass jnys measured over the 16 years for which we have numbers. 2018/19 data hasn't been released yet. The RV1 comes in around 25m pass jnys and the 388 at 38.8m pass jnys over the same time period. The 493, as the main suburban addition in the 2002/3 changes, comes in at nearly 50m pass jnys which is pretty impressive for a single deck route. Awaits the inevitable “statistics are meaningless” comment. Has anybody on here ever said that? More likely that statistics rarely tell the full story. The 493 for example, it's generally well used between Wimbledon and Roehampton/Barnes but less so at the Richmond end where three routes in addition to the parallel train service are probably a bit excessive. However statistics won't show that. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 30, 2019 15:10:53 GMT
In addition to those mentioned, the 205 must surely be a candidate with its multiple extensions and popular night service which saw load factors similar to the N35 as Shoreditch's night economy flourished. Looking at my magic spreadsheet the 148 and 205 are remarkably close in terms of patronage since the introduction. The day 205 just edges the day 148 by about 1m pass jnys. If you add the "N" night route numbers then the 205 just wins by a tiny margin even though the N148 is a bit more popular than the N205. The margin is around 555,000 pass jnys measured over the 16 years for which we have numbers. 2018/19 data hasn't been released yet. The RV1 comes in around 25m pass jnys and the 388 at 38.8m pass jnys over the same time period. The 493, as the main suburban addition in the 2002/3 changes, comes in at nearly 50m pass jnys which is pretty impressive for a single deck route. Which makes perfect sense as last year the 205 frequency was cut, and it is proposed to cut it again as part of the central London changes!!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 30, 2019 17:01:32 GMT
Awaits the inevitable “statistics are meaningless” comment. Has anybody on here ever said that? More likely that statistics rarely tell the full story. The 493 for example, it's generally well used between Wimbledon and Roehampton/Barnes but less so at the Richmond end where three routes in addition to the parallel train service are probably a bit excessive. However statistics won't show that. As it was me quoting statistics I'll comment here. Firstly I have never ever said that they are the only source of truth. Secondly I have always said when the annual spreadsheet comes out that my work on that has very distinct limits because TfL only release very limited statistics - aggregated at route level. Thirdly everyone understands that ridership stats at route level will never be 100% accurate given not every ticket is recorded on an ETM and there are inevitable data losses due to machine failure. TfL do possess a massive amount of data for every single trip operated including boardings at every stop. If they were ever to publish that then I am sure some clever people could analyse the data and I am sure it would demonstrate the point you make about loadings being a bit thinner where the 493 is not the sole route on a stretch of road. Sadly TfL do NOT publish that sort of stuff and you'd be very unlikely to get it via a FOI request because of concerns about cost or data volumes. What I find tiresome on here is the repeated dismissal of statistics and the apparent desire to assert that personal observations carry more weight. The only way in which personal observations would carry more weight would be if an individual could observe the entire route simultaneously and record every departure from every stop. Clearly that is never possible with human beings and would have its own levels of uncertainty about observations. What statistics do, while recognising their limits, is to allow comparison over time and between routes. At least we do have access to some statistics these days compared to knowing absolutely nothing about usage levels which was the case about 7 years ago as TfL refused to release the info. I would dearly love to have sight of statistics pre year 2000 to see how TfL / LT viewed the bus network and its usage. Sadly I am not aware that such info, even with its inevitable weaknesses, exists or is accessible via the TfL Archives. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 30, 2019 17:09:34 GMT
Has anybody on here ever said that? More likely that statistics rarely tell the full story. The 493 for example, it's generally well used between Wimbledon and Roehampton/Barnes but less so at the Richmond end where three routes mo in addition to the parallel train service are probably a bit excessive. However statistics won't show that. As it was me quoting statistics I'll comment here. Firstly I have never ever said that they are the only source of truth. Secondly I have always said when the annual spreadsheet comes out that my work on that has very distinct limits because TfL only release very limited statistics - aggregated at route level. Thirdly everyone understands that ridership stats at route level will never be 100% accurate given not every ticket is recorded on an ETM and there are inevitable data losses due to machine failure. TfL do possess a massive amount of data for every single trip operated including boardings at every stop. If there were ever to publish that then I am sure some clever people could analyse the data and I am sure it would demonstrate the point you make about loadings being a bit thinner where the 493 is not the sole route on a stretch of road. Sadly TfL do NOT publish that sort of stuff and you'd be very unlikely to get it via a FOI request because of concerns about cost or data volumes. What I find tiresome on here is the repeated dismissal of statistics and the apparent desire to assert that personal observations carry more weight. The only way in which personal observations would carry more weight would be if an individual could observe the entire route simultaneously and record every departure from every stop. Clearly that is never possible with human beings and would have its own levels of uncertainty about observations. What statistics do, while recognising their limits, is to allow comparison over time and between routes. At least we do have access to some statistics these days compared to knowing absolutely nothing about usage levels which was the case about 7 years ago as TfL refused to release the info. I would dearly love to have sight of statistics pre year 2000 to see how TfL / LT viewed the bus network and its usage. Sadly I am not aware that such info, even with its inevitable weaknesses, exists or is accessible via the TfL Archives. Yes that's fair comment, I don't think I have been dismissive of statistics but as I'm sure you're aware there is the old adage about statistics meaning pretty much whatever somebody wants them to mean, is the glass half full/empty etc. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 30, 2019 20:12:17 GMT
Yes that's fair comment, I don't think I have been dismissive of statistics but as I'm sure you're aware there is the old adage about statistics meaning pretty much whatever somebody wants them to mean, is the glass half full/empty etc. I am aware of old adages. Doesn't make them true.  The point is that published statistics from a body like TfL are going to be far more reliable and trustworthy than random anecdotes from anyone on here. We all have our personal observations of routes but none of them are ever the full picture. Neither are TfL's published stats - they are part of the truth. The truth is much more complex and we simply don't have access to the multiple layers of information covering planning, use, operation, incidents affecting service etc. All of that (and more) affects how a service is used and how we perceive the operation. This is why I am very cautious about what routes I comment on. I only really remark on those I use or see with a reasonable frequency. There's no point me commenting on the 194 or the 203 or the U5 because I may have used them once or twice in a decade. There's no way that my thoughts / remarks have any real relevance to the debate. Few if any people on this forum have huge levels of regular and consistent usage on a lot of services to be able to make extensive comments. People comment on their local route(s) and areas. We also thankfully have some people with good memories / operational insight to give us some historical insight on what went before. And just to be clear I'm not trying to shut anyone up. I just prefer things to have some rationality to them or else for it to be recognised there are always limits to what we may see of bus service usage and operation on a network as large and complex as London's. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 30, 2019 21:12:41 GMT
Has anybody on here ever said that? More likely that statistics rarely tell the full story. The 493 for example, it's generally well used between Wimbledon and Roehampton/Barnes but less so at the Richmond end where three routes in addition to the parallel train service are probably a bit excessive. However statistics won't show that. I would dearly love to have sight of statistics pre year 2000 to see how TfL / LT viewed the bus network and its usage. Sadly I am not aware that such info, even with its inevitable weaknesses, exists or is accessible via the TfL Archives. I've no idea if any meaningful statistics were produced over the quarter century prior to the Millennium relating to bus usage, but over the first few years of LT becoming the responsibility of the GLC i.e. the early 1970s I'd be prepared to say they were only collected in the form of income per route, sub-divided into Monday to Friday, Saturday and Sunday, scheduled mileage for each route on the same basis, then subtracting lost mileage due to staff shortage or no bus available: I'm not convinced curtailments were collated in such a way that you could use the information in a meaningful way, either. It all seemed very hit and miss to me, with a lot depending on the quality of on-the-road staff and the Garage Managers, some of whom ruled the roost but others were mere timeservers, and may have had little idea of the routes they operated beyond the route numbers. The official way that you established usage of routes was to request the deployment of Loadings Inspectors to observe individual buses or running numbers on a particular route. Their way of doing this was that two, sometimes three, ex drivers and conductors of a certain age would stand on a pavement on the nearside of the route in question and as each bus passed an estimate of the number on board would be judged, with one concentrating on the lower deck and another on the upper deck. I always wondered how an accurate estimate of the number sittlng topdeck offside could be gleaned, but judgments were made in seconds.It would be against all protocol established with the Union (TGWU) to board a bus for loadings purposes, so make of that what you will.  The info obtained would be sent back to the Loadings Section at Bus Operating HQ and then on to whoever had requested it. Filing cards with the info would be created and put into the filing cabinet, there to languish until the end of time... Not only do I believe the info would not be archived, as I was around when the move from 55 Broadway to Grosvenor Place occurred I can say categorically that a mound of information was disposed of quite deliberately, because I chose to 'rehome' a small amount myself, though what happened to it later I don't know. I suspect my executors will curse me when my attic gets emptied! In all this, you'd only get a 'snapshot' of a route, even if you collected loadings from many stops at different times of the day (i never heard of any from evenings or Sundays!) because you didn't know how far any individual passenger had travelled.Information from ticket sales would only show so many 10p tickets etc with no attempt at analysing tho info to establish travel patterns. I have my doubts as to how much woukd have changed in the next few years, but it's probable that resources would have started to be devoted once the GLC realised that LT couldn't be allowed to carry on in the same way as they had since the late 1950s i.e. just accepting and managing decline. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 30, 2019 22:24:49 GMT
I would dearly love to have sight of statistics pre year 2000 to see how TfL / LT viewed the bus network and its usage. Sadly I am not aware that such info, even with its inevitable weaknesses, exists or is accessible via the TfL Archives. I've no idea if any meaningful statistics were produced over the quarter century prior to the Millennium relating to bus usage, but over the first few years of LT becoming the responsibility of the GLC i.e. the early 1970s I'd be prepared to say they were only collected in the form of income per route, sub-divided into Monday to Friday, Saturday and Sunday, scheduled mileage for each route on the same basis, then subtracting lost mileage due to staff shortage or no bus available: I'm not convinced curtailments were collated in such a way that you could use the information in a meaningful way, either. It all seemed very hit and miss to me, with a lot depending on the quality of on-the-road staff and the Garage Managers, some of whom ruled the roost but others were mere timeservers, and may have had little idea of the routes they operated beyond the route numbers. The official way that you established usage of routes was to request the deployment of Loadings Inspectors to observe individual buses or running numbers on a particular route. Their way of doing this was that two, sometimes three, ex drivers and conductors of a certain age would stand on a pavement on the nearside of the route in question and as each bus passed an estimate of the number on board would be judged, with one concentrating on the lower deck and another on the upper deck. I always wondered how an accurate estimate of the number sittlng topdeck offside could be gleaned, but judgments were made in seconds.It would be against all protocol established with the Union (TGWU) to board a bus for loadings purposes, so make of that what you will. The info obtained would be sent back to the Loadings Section at Bus Operating HQ and then on to whoever had requested it. Filing cards with the info would be created and put into the filing cabinet, there to languish until the end of time... Not only do I believe the info would not be archived, as I was around when the move from 55 Broadway to Grosvenor Place occurred I can say categorically that a mound of information was disposed of quite deliberately, because I chose to 'rehome' a small amount myself, though what happened to it later I don't know. I suspect my executors will curse me when my attic gets emptied! In all this, you'd only get a 'snapshot' of a route, even if you collected loadings from many stops at different times of the day (i never heard of any from evenings or Sundays!) because you didn't know how far any individual passenger had travelled.Information from ticket sales would only show so many 10p tickets etc with no attempt at analysing tho info to establish travel patterns. I have my doubts as to how much woukd have changed in the next few years, but it's probable that resources would have started to be devoted once the GLC realised that LT couldn't be allowed to carry on in the same way as they had since the late 1950s i.e. just accepting and managing decline. Thanks for that. I agree that source info almost certainly no longer exists in any coherent way. What is curious is that the DfT have statistics stretching back a long way about bus ridership volumes. I have the London numbers dating back to 1970 on a spreadsheet. Now I am not saying that the accuracy will be wonderful but I expect the info did come from LT so someone, somewhere was doing something. It is almost certainly subject to all the issues you cite about uneven practices by garage, random sampling techniques (random in both senses) etc but someone calculated a total. I assume that total was published in the annual reports although sadly no one has taken on the task of uploading copies of the old LT reports. It's the sort of thing that really should be accessible online. One thing that LT and TfL have developed and kept going is the collation and analysis of statistics and then the development of models to help justify future developments. That's more important for the tube network given the huge investment costs but obviously relevant to buses as well for the reason you cite - the cost of covering loss making services. A view of route level revenue and usage would also have been needed for route tendering especially when some routes were done on a net cost basis where the operators bid a minimum subsidy value or a revenue premium to be paid to LT. Obtaining route level disaggregation of Travelcard and Freedom Pass usage (and implied revenue) was a key justification for smartcards on buses. I also expect that the LT owned bus company subsidiaries (prior to privatisation) kept a pretty close eye on how well each of their routes was used especially where they were experimenting with minibuses / small Darts and higher frequencies as a way of getting "bums on seats". Perhaps you should bequeath your old LT info to the LT Museum or the LT Archive?  |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 30, 2019 22:52:35 GMT
I've no idea if any meaningful statistics were produced over the quarter century prior to the Millennium relating to bus usage, but over the first few years of LT becoming the responsibility of the GLC i.e. the early 1970s I'd be prepared to say they were only collected in the form of income per route, sub-divided into Monday to Friday, Saturday and Sunday, scheduled mileage for each route on the same basis, then subtracting lost mileage due to staff shortage or no bus available: I'm not convinced curtailments were collated in such a way that you could use the information in a meaningful way, either. It all seemed very hit and miss to me, with a lot depending on the quality of on-the-road staff and the Garage Managers, some of whom ruled the roost but others were mere timeservers, and may have had little idea of the routes they operated beyond the route numbers. The official way that you established usage of routes was to request the deployment of Loadings Inspectors to observe individual buses or running numbers on a particular route. Their way of doing this was that two, sometimes three, ex drivers and conductors of a certain age would stand on a pavement on the nearside of the route in question and as each bus passed an estimate of the number on board would be judged, with one concentrating on the lower deck and another on the upper deck. I always wondered how an accurate estimate of the number sittlng topdeck offside could be gleaned, but judgments were made in seconds.It would be against all protocol established with the Union (TGWU) to board a bus for loadings purposes, so make of that what you will. The info obtained would be sent back to the Loadings Section at Bus Operating HQ and then on to whoever had requested it. Filing cards with the info would be created and put into the filing cabinet, there to languish until the end of time... Not only do I believe the info would not be archived, as I was around when the move from 55 Broadway to Grosvenor Place occurred I can say categorically that a mound of information was disposed of quite deliberately, because I chose to 'rehome' a small amount myself, though what happened to it later I don't know. I suspect my executors will curse me when my attic gets emptied! In all this, you'd only get a 'snapshot' of a route, even if you collected loadings from many stops at different times of the day (i never heard of any from evenings or Sundays!) because you didn't know how far any individual passenger had travelled.Information from ticket sales would only show so many 10p tickets etc with no attempt at analysing tho info to establish travel patterns. I have my doubts as to how much woukd have changed in the next few years, but it's probable that resources would have started to be devoted once the GLC realised that LT couldn't be allowed to carry on in the same way as they had since the late 1950s i.e. just accepting and managing decline. Thanks for that. I agree that source info almost certainly no longer exists in any coherent way. What is curious is that the DfT have statistics stretching back a long way about bus ridership volumes. I have the London numbers dating back to 1970 on a spreadsheet. Now I am not saying that the accuracy will be wonderful but I expect the info did come from LT so someone, somewhere was doing something. It is almost certainly subject to all the issues you cite about uneven practices by garage, random sampling techniques (random in both senses) etc but someone calculated a total. I assume that total was published in the annual reports although sadly no one has taken on the task of uploading copies of the old LT reports. It's the sort of thing that really should be accessible online. One thing that LT and TfL have developed and kept going is the collation and analysis of statistics and then the development of models to help justify future developments. That's more important for the tube network given the huge investment costs but obviously relevant to buses as well for the reason you cite - the cost of covering loss making services. A view of route level revenue and usage would also have been needed for route tendering especially when some routes were done on a net cost basis where the operators bid a minimum subsidy value or a revenue premium to be paid to LT. Obtaining route level disaggregation of Travelcard and Freedom Pass usage (and implied revenue) was a key justification for smartcards on buses. I also expect that the LT owned bus company subsidiaries (prior to privatisation) kept a pretty close eye on how well each of their routes was used especially where they were experimenting with minibuses / small Darts and higher frequencies as a way of getting "bums on seats". Perhaps you should bequeath your old LT info to the LT Museum or the LT Archive? I hadn't realised that bus ridership figures were published, but, yes, I can see how that would have been achieved in the sense that the total number of tickets issued per duty could be mutiplied by the number of duties operated (whether the latter would have been the theoretical or actual, I've no idea, but probably a mixture) to come up with a figure to satisfy someone somewhere, but how meaningful in the scheme of things these really were I don't know: actually, when I did my stint in the Northern/Victoria line Coburg Street bunker quite a lot of my time was spent analysing ticket sales in those pre-Travelcard/Oyster days (thank God for season tickets!) and that did all get sent somewhere higher up, but I'd vouch that data was a lot less hit and miss than the bus stuff. Actually, if my attic got cleared I think it's the old music mags and fanzines from psychedelic era to punk that might bring a lot more interest. Trouble is, I can no longer get up there and I wouldn't trust anyone else to handle it properly. I've also got 'Buses Illustrated/Buses' back to the first issue plus timetables etc etc. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 30, 2019 22:54:05 GMT
I've no idea if any meaningful statistics were produced over the quarter century prior to the Millennium relating to bus usage, but over the first few years of LT becoming the responsibility of the GLC i.e. the early 1970s I'd be prepared to say they were only collected in the form of income per route, sub-divided into Monday to Friday, Saturday and Sunday, scheduled mileage for each route on the same basis, then subtracting lost mileage due to staff shortage or no bus available: I'm not convinced curtailments were collated in such a way that you could use the information in a meaningful way, either. It all seemed very hit and miss to me, with a lot depending on the quality of on-the-road staff and the Garage Managers, some of whom ruled the roost but others were mere timeservers, and may have had little idea of the routes they operated beyond the route numbers. The official way that you established usage of routes was to request the deployment of Loadings Inspectors to observe individual buses or running numbers on a particular route. Their way of doing this was that two, sometimes three, ex drivers and conductors of a certain age would stand on a pavement on the nearside of the route in question and as each bus passed an estimate of the number on board would be judged, with one concentrating on the lower deck and another on the upper deck. I always wondered how an accurate estimate of the number sittlng topdeck offside could be gleaned, but judgments were made in seconds.It would be against all protocol established with the Union (TGWU) to board a bus for loadings purposes, so make of that what you will. The info obtained would be sent back to the Loadings Section at Bus Operating HQ and then on to whoever had requested it. Filing cards with the info would be created and put into the filing cabinet, there to languish until the end of time... Not only do I believe the info would not be archived, as I was around when the move from 55 Broadway to Grosvenor Place occurred I can say categorically that a mound of information was disposed of quite deliberately, because I chose to 'rehome' a small amount myself, though what happened to it later I don't know. I suspect my executors will curse me when my attic gets emptied! In all this, you'd only get a 'snapshot' of a route, even if you collected loadings from many stops at different times of the day (i never heard of any from evenings or Sundays!) because you didn't know how far any individual passenger had travelled.Information from ticket sales would only show so many 10p tickets etc with no attempt at analysing tho info to establish travel patterns. I have my doubts as to how much woukd have changed in the next few years, but it's probable that resources would have started to be devoted once the GLC realised that LT couldn't be allowed to carry on in the same way as they had since the late 1950s i.e. just accepting and managing decline. Thanks for that. I agree that source info almost certainly no longer exists in any coherent way. What is curious is that the DfT have statistics stretching back a long way about bus ridership volumes. I have the London numbers dating back to 1970 on a spreadsheet. Now I am not saying that the accuracy will be wonderful but I expect the info did come from LT so someone, somewhere was doing something. It is almost certainly subject to all the issues you cite about uneven practices by garage, random sampling techniques (random in both senses) etc but someone calculated a total. I assume that total was published in the annual reports although sadly no one has taken on the task of uploading copies of the old LT reports. It's the sort of thing that really should be accessible online. One thing that LT and TfL have developed and kept going is the collation and analysis of statistics and then the development of models to help justify future developments. That's more important for the tube network given the huge investment costs but obviously relevant to buses as well for the reason you cite - the cost of covering loss making services. A view of route level revenue and usage would also have been needed for route tendering especially when some routes were done on a net cost basis where the operators bid a minimum subsidy value or a revenue premium to be paid to LT. Obtaining route level disaggregation of Travelcard and Freedom Pass usage (and implied revenue) was a key justification for smartcards on buses. I also expect that the LT owned bus company subsidiaries (prior to privatisation) kept a pretty close eye on how well each of their routes was used especially where they were experimenting with minibuses / small Darts and higher frequencies as a way of getting "bums on seats". Perhaps you should bequeath your old LT info to the LT Museum or the LT Archive? All us enthusiasts need to make sensible plans for our collections when we shuffle off - I know if I predecease my brother, he'll have it all in a skip before rigor mortis has set in! Slightly more seriously, I went to a terrific presentation late last year by someone from the TfL archive. The archive effectively started when someone looked at the piles of material that had just been abandoned in the basement of 55 Broadway and realised something needed to be done with it. I suspect they'd be the right home for the sort of material under discussion. Most of it's kept in a salt mine in Cheshire. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 30, 2019 23:19:07 GMT
Thanks for that. I agree that source info almost certainly no longer exists in any coherent way. What is curious is that the DfT have statistics stretching back a long way about bus ridership volumes. I have the London numbers dating back to 1970 on a spreadsheet. Now I am not saying that the accuracy will be wonderful but I expect the info did come from LT so someone, somewhere was doing something. It is almost certainly subject to all the issues you cite about uneven practices by garage, random sampling techniques (random in both senses) etc but someone calculated a total. I assume that total was published in the annual reports although sadly no one has taken on the task of uploading copies of the old LT reports. It's the sort of thing that really should be accessible online. One thing that LT and TfL have developed and kept going is the collation and analysis of statistics and then the development of models to help justify future developments. That's more important for the tube network given the huge investment costs but obviously relevant to buses as well for the reason you cite - the cost of covering loss making services. A view of route level revenue and usage would also have been needed for route tendering especially when some routes were done on a net cost basis where the operators bid a minimum subsidy value or a revenue premium to be paid to LT. Obtaining route level disaggregation of Travelcard and Freedom Pass usage (and implied revenue) was a key justification for smartcards on buses. I also expect that the LT owned bus company subsidiaries (prior to privatisation) kept a pretty close eye on how well each of their routes was used especially where they were experimenting with minibuses / small Darts and higher frequencies as a way of getting "bums on seats". Perhaps you should bequeath your old LT info to the LT Museum or the LT Archive? All us enthusiasts need to make sensible plans for our collections when we shuffle off - I know if I predecease my brother, he'll have it all in a skip before rigor mortis has set in! Slightly more seriously, I went to a terrific presentation late last year by someone from the TfL archive. The archive effectively started when someone looked at the piles of material that had just been abandoned in the basement of 55 Broadway and realised something needed to be done with it. I suspect they'd be the right home for the sort of material under discussion. Most of it's kept in a salt mine in Cheshire. Yes, I've a brother like that, unless he saw money in it then he'd be in contact with Sotheby's! I doubt much of what I've got would be of much interest and, over the years and a few house moves, it's in no sort of order. However, there could be the odd item - I believe I have a child ticket somewhere from the last day of London trams, issued to me, also one from the special services in connection with the Festival of Britain in 1951. Also, a mangled tape I made of the last broadcast of Radio Caroline in 1967, recorded by me in Somerset as it was then located off the Isle of Man. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 30, 2019 23:45:09 GMT
All us enthusiasts need to make sensible plans for our collections when we shuffle off - I know if I predecease my brother, he'll have it all in a skip before rigor mortis has set in! Slightly more seriously, I went to a terrific presentation late last year by someone from the TfL archive. The archive effectively started when someone looked at the piles of material that had just been abandoned in the basement of 55 Broadway and realised something needed to be done with it. I suspect they'd be the right home for the sort of material under discussion. Most of it's kept in a salt mine in Cheshire. Without being unduly morbid I agree. While I don't have much in terms of "borrowed" paperwork from LT there are things like your digital footprint and especially photographs. Whether people want their online witterings preserved or not is for them but it does need consideration. I haven't formalised anything but one thing I'd like to do is to ensure my Flickr photo collection doesn't die with me. The other issue is scanning all the physical photos / slides that aren't there for people to enjoy. It may seem insignificant but there can be lots of memories and history for people as time moves on. It may help future generations with their research. This all needs a financial provision to be made and for someone to have responsibility for making any future payments to keep online photo accounts alive. There's also all the humdrum stuff like online accounts, E Mail circulation etc. With so little paper these days and so much conducted online any executor is going to struggle unless some careful preparations are made to allow a smooth "switch off" of utility / shop / tax / council tax etc etc payments plus all the other attendant rubbish that pours into an inbox on the average day. The other "nightmares" for me are my record / CD collection and also books. I would not want any of that thrown on a skip. I keep meaning to use the local library service if they would want all / part of my book collection. It's not all transport, there's a fair slice of cookery stuff that would be a good resource. The music stuff is more difficult but that might just be donated to a local record store for them to sell on as they see fit. They can get back any discounts they've given me in the past.   I have some awareness of the TFL archive service. I understand they run a volunteer scheme where people can offer a few hours a week / month to help record / catalogue all the material they have. As you might imagine stuff will be added on a regular basis and there are vast quantities of older material. |
|
The point is that published statistics from a body like TfL are going to be far more reliable and trustworthy than random anecdotes from anyone on here. We all have our personal observations of routes but none of them are ever the full picture. Neither are TfL's published stats - they are part of the truth. The truth is much more complex and we simply don't have access to the multiple layers of information covering planning, use, operation, incidents affecting service etc. All of that (and more) affects how a service is used and how we perceive the operation. 
The info obtained would be sent back to the Loadings Section at Bus Operating HQ and then on to whoever had requested it. Filing cards with the info would be created and put into the filing cabinet, there to languish until the end of time... Not only do I believe the info would not be archived, as I was around when the move from 55 Broadway to Grosvenor Place occurred I can say categorically that a mound of information was disposed of quite deliberately, because I chose to 'rehome' a small amount myself, though what happened to it later I don't know. I suspect my executors will curse me when my attic gets emptied! In all this, you'd only get a 'snapshot' of a route, even if you collected loadings from many stops at different times of the day (i never heard of any from evenings or Sundays!) because you didn't know how far any individual passenger had travelled.Information from ticket sales would only show so many 10p tickets etc with no attempt at analysing tho info to establish travel patterns. I have my doubts as to how much woukd have changed in the next few years, but it's probable that resources would have started to be devoted once the GLC realised that LT couldn't be allowed to carry on in the same way as they had since the late 1950s i.e. just accepting and managing decline.
