|
Post by ronnie on Jun 25, 2024 20:56:43 GMT
Not sure what’s happening (although I can guess) but multiple tube lines have been down everyday for the past 10 days or so. When you have severe delays simultaneously on jubilee, Elizabeth, central, h&c, district, metropolitan etc makes for a nightmarish commute
Last week took me 25+ min on the jubilee from Stratford to North Greenwich in the evening peak
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jun 26, 2024 4:01:01 GMT
Out and about recently in my local area has shown examples of Bexleyheath and Plumstead drivers doing little for customer service.
The 89 and 486 share the same roads between Bexleyheath and Shooters Hill. Instead of running at least a few minutes apart they are often together.
The 161, 177, 180 and 472 are the same between Woolwich and Charlton. Longer waits result.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jun 26, 2024 5:53:28 GMT
Out and about recently in my local area has shown examples of Bexleyheath and Plumstead drivers doing little for customer service. The 89 and 486 share the same roads between Bexleyheath and Shooters Hill. Instead of running at least a few minutes apart they are often together. The 161, 177, 180 and 472 are the same between Woolwich and Charlton. Longer waits result. If drivers are just following a timetable on their duty cards, why would they want to delay themselves just to even out a service along a part of a route? It’s not the driver’s fault if the timetables between routes on common sections are not co-ordinated
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jun 26, 2024 8:26:15 GMT
Out and about recently in my local area has shown examples of Bexleyheath and Plumstead drivers doing little for customer service. The 89 and 486 share the same roads between Bexleyheath and Shooters Hill. Instead of running at least a few minutes apart they are often together. The 161, 177, 180 and 472 are the same between Woolwich and Charlton. Longer waits result. If drivers are just following a timetable on their duty cards, why would they want to delay themselves just to even out a service along a part of a route? It’s not the driver’s fault if the timetables between routes on common sections are not co-ordinated Not a problem if that is the case but it often seems that the second bus is doing it to avoid having to pick up passengers. The schedules are produced by the operator so even spacing can be achieved. They used to be.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 26, 2024 8:31:02 GMT
Out and about recently in my local area has shown examples of Bexleyheath and Plumstead drivers doing little for customer service. The 89 and 486 share the same roads between Bexleyheath and Shooters Hill. Instead of running at least a few minutes apart they are often together. The 161, 177, 180 and 472 are the same between Woolwich and Charlton. Longer waits result. If drivers are just following a timetable on their duty cards, why would they want to delay themselves just to even out a service along a part of a route? It’s not the driver’s fault if the timetables between routes on common sections are not co-ordinated TfL does need to look at coordinating timetables / ask operators to do this as part of the tender. In my area three routes all depart within 2 minutes of each other and are often caught at the same stop bunched together. Passengers seem an after thought when it comes to running buses.
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Jun 26, 2024 8:44:48 GMT
Anyone else's LVF keep resetting to sort by vehicle as opposed to running sequence?
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 26, 2024 8:52:38 GMT
If drivers are just following a timetable on their duty cards, why would they want to delay themselves just to even out a service along a part of a route? It’s not the driver’s fault if the timetables between routes on common sections are not co-ordinated TfL will does need to look at coordinating timetables / ask operators to do this as part of the tender. In my area three routes all depart within 2 minutes of each other and are often caught at the same stop bunched together. Passengers seem an after thought when it comes to running buses. Whilst I think TfL could do more to improve timetable co-ordination (and the 406/418 shows it can be done), in reality there are so many different overlaps between routes that it will be impossible to please everybody.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 26, 2024 8:55:58 GMT
TfL will does need to look at coordinating timetables / ask operators to do this as part of the tender. In my area three routes all depart within 2 minutes of each other and are often caught at the same stop bunched together. Passengers seem an after thought when it comes to running buses. Whilst I think TfL could do more to improve timetable co-ordination (and the 406/418 shows it can be done), in reality there are so many different overlaps between routes that it will be impossible to please everybody. The 406/418 only works because they are treated as one contract again rather than two. I think TfL would have to invest heavily in AI tech to run traffic management and that could ultimately see some buses held on a different route whilst others speed on. It would be chaotic and couldn’t really account for traffic before and after the common section.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 26, 2024 9:05:16 GMT
Whilst I think TfL could do more to improve timetable co-ordination (and the 406/418 shows it can be done), in reality there are so many different overlaps between routes that it will be impossible to please everybody. The 406/418 only works because they are treated as one contract again rather than two. I think TfL would have to invest heavily in AI tech to run traffic management and that could ultimately see some buses held on a different route whilst others speed on. It would be chaotic and couldn’t really account for traffic before and after the common section. I don’t think it needs a huge investment! It just needs better communication and coordination between operators. I don’t believe it’s about further along the route when I can list 5 local routes that all depart within minutes and share larger corridors when the routes are duplicated. Passengers are an after thought and almost an inconvenience to operators. I better things would be different if companies were keeping the revenue.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 26, 2024 9:08:09 GMT
The 406/418 only works because they are treated as one contract again rather than two. I think TfL would have to invest heavily in AI tech to run traffic management and that could ultimately see some buses held on a different route whilst others speed on. It would be chaotic and couldn’t really account for traffic before and after the common section. I don’t think it needs a huge investment! It just needs better communication and coordination between operators. I don’t believe it’s about further along the route when I can list 5 local routes that all depart within minutes and share larger corridors when the routes are duplicated. Passengers are an after thought and almost an inconvenience to operators. I better things would be different if companies were keeping the revenue. How would you account for traffic conditions on the rest of the route? It’s not just as simple as saying hold back as that inevitably inconveniences more passengers.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 26, 2024 9:16:43 GMT
The 406/418 only works because they are treated as one contract again rather than two. I think TfL would have to invest heavily in AI tech to run traffic management and that could ultimately see some buses held on a different route whilst others speed on. It would be chaotic and couldn’t really account for traffic before and after the common section. I don’t think it needs a huge investment! It just needs better communication and coordination between operators. I don’t believe it’s about further along the route when I can list 5 local routes that all depart within minutes and share larger corridors when the routes are duplicated. Passengers are an after thought and almost an inconvenience to operators. I better things would be different if companies were keeping the revenue. But how will that work? A 304 for example has a 304 10min ahead, it's departure time for that route from Custom House but a 147 has just turned up too, but that 147 has another 147 9 minutes ahead and has had so since Canning Town so what would you do? You can't hold back either route as you'd then create a gap on the 304 or 147. Not to mention that's an example from the same operator, it gets even more complicated when multiple operators get involved.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jun 26, 2024 15:01:07 GMT
If drivers are just following a timetable on their duty cards, why would they want to delay themselves just to even out a service along a part of a route? It’s not the driver’s fault if the timetables between routes on common sections are not co-ordinated TfL will does need to look at coordinating timetables / ask operators to do this as part of the tender. In my area three routes all depart within 2 minutes of each other and are often caught at the same stop bunched together. Passengers seem an after thought when it comes to running buses. Quite frankly, timetable coordination already exists to some extent, however TfL only does this by bunching services. The 43/134 are coordinated between Friern Barnet and Archway as well the 217/231, but again only to bunch eachother rather than spaced out. To those who argue it's from 'traffic conditions', why is it the case timetables are bunched instead whenever parallel?
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jun 26, 2024 15:14:13 GMT
Anyone else's LVF keep resetting to sort by vehicle as opposed to running sequence? Isn't always sorted by vehicle?
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Jun 26, 2024 18:02:39 GMT
Anyone else's LVF keep resetting to sort by vehicle as opposed to running sequence? Isn't always sorted by vehicle? Yes, but you can input ZZ in and it will change to running sequence. It keeps resetting every time I close and open LVF again on my laptop, however there is no issue on my phone.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jun 27, 2024 13:40:17 GMT
Park Lane I have to say has got a lot worse since the introduction of Cycle Lanes. Once a wide road is now so small down to a bus lane and a normal traffic lane heading Northbound. Westminster Council should change it to Car Park Lane…
|
|