|
|
Post by Steve80 on Jul 23, 2014 4:31:46 GMT
For those commenting on specific routes that are in the league tables I'd just be a tad wary about one quarter's worth of data especially one that covers Winter as this data does. There may be all sorts of issues like the severe flooding in and around Purley, that lasted for weeks, that could have destroyed the performance of the 289 and affected the 60. I looked at the 432's individual chart and its performance has been going down for months so perhaps there is more of a trend there but as to the cause? The various routes in Waltham Forest may have been affected by protracted works, in Hoe St and at the Bakers Arms, that overran by weeks. Some Stagecoach routes did have emergency schedules. The 179 and 275 have been poor for months and months (based on my anecdotal observations) and it's noteworthy that several routes on the "worst" list are those with new contracts and possibly won on tight schedules with little recovery / resilience built in. Other of the "worst" routes are those that were being retendered so perhaps the operators have taken their eyes of the ball (e.g. 34 and 212)? It is virtually impossible to *know* what is causing the poor performance just from looking at the stats. I can only say for certain that there have been roadworks in Waltham Forest and I know there were floods in South London but whether they are the root cause of the performance issues I can't say for certain, only speculate. TfL have the concept of an "recovery programme" for the very worst performing routes. They don't publish this externally but it does demonstrate that they do keep an eye on routes with persistently poor performance and try to get revised schedules or route structures in place to try to recover performance. Obviously there is something of a reluctance on the part of TfL to fund extra resources and we know they won't do so on recently won contracts where the operator may have been overly optimistic about the PVR / running times. Some routes, though, have persistent problems - I can recall that the W12 under First operation was forever in the "recovery room" but TfL wouldn't fund the required extra bus. The schedule was simply too tight and the slightest delay meant curtailments and 40 minute gaps. CT Plus now have a PVR of 6 whereas I believe First only had 5. I suspect all bidders for the W12 put in bids with 6 buses so TfL had no scope to reject all the bids! The flooding in Purley could of been a major factor for the 60 and 289 as I did see traffic regularly build up from Brighton Road just after Purley Oaks Station. Its a shame I never did the 455 when the flooding was on so I didn't get to see the how bad the traffic really was. The 407 was affected as well but on the diversion routes there were many occasions when I would get to Whyteleafe 5 minutes early even with all the traffic in Limpsfield Road which was the diversion route. Also, you wasn't carrying as many passengers as you would normally take them to and from the Purley area. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 23, 2014 7:53:05 GMT
For those commenting on specific routes that are in the league tables I'd just be a tad wary about one quarter's worth of data especially one that covers Winter as this data does. There may be all sorts of issues like the severe flooding in and around Purley, that lasted for weeks, that could have destroyed the performance of the 289 and affected the 60. I looked at the 432's individual chart and its performance has been going down for months so perhaps there is more of a trend there but as to the cause? The various routes in Waltham Forest may have been affected by protracted works, in Hoe St and at the Bakers Arms, that overran by weeks. Some Stagecoach routes did have emergency schedules. The 179 and 275 have been poor for months and months (based on my anecdotal observations) and it's noteworthy that several routes on the "worst" list are those with new contracts and possibly won on tight schedules with little recovery / resilience built in. Other of the "worst" routes are those that were being retendered so perhaps the operators have taken their eyes of the ball (e.g. 34 and 212)? It is virtually impossible to *know* what is causing the poor performance just from looking at the stats. I can only say for certain that there have been roadworks in Waltham Forest and I know there were floods in South London but whether they are the root cause of the performance issues I can't say for certain, only speculate. TfL have the concept of an "recovery programme" for the very worst performing routes. They don't publish this externally but it does demonstrate that they do keep an eye on routes with persistently poor performance and try to get revised schedules or route structures in place to try to recover performance. Obviously there is something of a reluctance on the part of TfL to fund extra resources and we know they won't do so on recently won contracts where the operator may have been overly optimistic about the PVR / running times. Some routes, though, have persistent problems - I can recall that the W12 under First operation was forever in the "recovery room" but TfL wouldn't fund the required extra bus. The schedule was simply too tight and the slightest delay meant curtailments and 40 minute gaps. CT Plus now have a PVR of 6 whereas I believe First only had 5. I suspect all bidders for the W12 put in bids with 6 buses so TfL had no scope to reject all the bids! The flooding in Purley could of been a major factor for the 60 and 289 as I did see traffic regularly build up from Brighton Road just after Purley Oaks Station. Its a shame I never did the 455 when the flooding was on so I didn't get to see the how bad the traffic really was. The 407 was affected as well but on the diversion routes there were many occasions when I would get to Whyteleafe 5 minutes early even with all the traffic in Limpsfield Road which was the diversion route. Also, you wasn't carrying as many passengers as you would normally take them to and from the Purley area. I imagine Wallington station may have had it bad, where the road would quickly flood up under the bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2014 11:00:40 GMT
As much as there is traffic in Brixton & West Norwood, the 2 & 196 don't have any problems and yes, Crystal Palace can be annoying to get through but it was much worse when the roundabout was there and Westow Hill was two way - it took an age just to reach Central Hill. As well as Anerley Hill, you've also got the traffic lights at Gypsy Hill Police Station on Central Hill where traffic easily backs up but all these issues have been present for years and the 432 was running fine before. Yes, I would like to think the traffic in Crystal Palace is a lot better than before when the roundabout was there. The traffic in Anerley Hill is unpredictable however and I can't figure out why although there seems to be an issue somewhere near Anerley Station with the traffic there. Tbh, I was surprised to see the 432 in this list of shame but the 322, 417 and 450 are also in this list and they all run in the Crystal Palace area. The 249 is not in that list so maybe GAL are running their routes better or maybe Arriva's standards are slipping hence why they lost so many routes  The 417 & 450 were no surprise as the 417 has been dreadful for years as it hits too many schools whilst the 450 gets ridiculously busy during the peaks to the point where it becomes incredibly difficult to board & alight the bus. |
|
